And this practice is essentially the new McCarthyism. "I hear what you're saying, and you're trying to sound rational but it all sounds like commie talk to me". Refusing to acknowledge that people are saying what they're saying, because what they're secretly doing is harbouring some sort of bigotry, is not engaging in any sort of rational thought process or dealing honestly with the issues.
And throwing the term 'new McCarthyism' around is dismissive of legitimate comment.
While it's true that not all anti-refugee, 'Islam is dangerous' proponents are bigoted xenophobes, it doesn't change the fact that a significant number of people hiding behind 'security' concerns and questioning 'what's it going to cost' are intolerant. You see it on your Facebook feed. You see the same thing when the topic is First Nations issues as well. You see it Comments posted on the internet. You see it in the news!
And occasionally you see it in the posting history of people on internet forums. At the end of the day, the truth comes out and people show their true colours. I see it on this Board - and to be clear I'm not referring to Corsi or Buster. If you're active in the Off Topic forum you learn peoples politics and see where they land on hot button issues and you recognize a pattern amongst a handful of posters.
The Following User Says Thank You to longsuffering For This Useful Post:
And throwing the term 'new McCarthyism' around is dismissive of legitimate comment.
But saying someone you disagree with doesn't really mean what they say they mean, but instead according to your suspicion are actually motivated by some secret hate-based agenda, isn't a legitimate comment. It couldn't be more similar to McCarthyism. Engaging with the ideas as expressed, head on, without searching for some nefarious underlying purpose so that you don't have to have that discussion is an awful practice. Stop doing it.
Quote:
While it's true that not all anti-refugee, 'Islam is dangerous' proponents are bigoted xenophobes, it doesn't change the fact that a significant number of people hiding behind 'security' concerns and questioning 'what's it going to cost' are intolerant. You see it on your Facebook feed. You see the same thing when the topic is First Nations issues as well. You see it Comments posted on the internet. You see it in the news!
First, you have to acknowledge that some people who make these points are actually motivated by security concerns. They're actually concerned about safety. They might be WRONG to be concerned, but that's a discussion worth having. Don't just write off the opinion. This is the exact problem I'm trying to get across to you with this style of discussion.
There are, of course, anti-Muslim bigots and anti-Arab bigots out there. This may be so, but accusing people of effectively being witches (which is really what you're doing) is not productive. I'm a liberal, and my philosophical world view is consistent with my position on these issues. Where it's pointed out to me that it's not consistent, I'm compelled, as a liberal, to address that and figure out if there is inconsistency and if so, where it's sourced, so that I can stop being wrong. There's simply no racial motivation to it.
Criticism of Islam, as a set of doctrines, has nothing to do with bigotry. Criticism of an idea, as I said earlier, applies whether the idea is held by no people or a million people, and whether those million people are black, white, purple or green. It applies equally to a white guy from California who decides that ISIS is the place for him as it does to anyone else.
In other words, I agree that some people are secretly or unconsciously motivated by bigotry in expressing certain ideas, but if their ideas flow from flawed premises you can usually point out the problem with the idea itself without attacking the source. Attempting to ad-hominem people in this way is making it extremely difficult to have discussions on certain topics these days, and not just this one - police action / brutality is another good example.
If you think someone's wrong, explain why, don't attack their character. It's really that simple.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 11-19-2015 at 12:10 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It is concerning that higher-ups in the USA believe heavily in the Bible and end of times. But to the best of my knowledge there is no group rapidly attracting members and founding a society based entirely on the strictest interpretation of the Bible. If that did happen that society would be monstrous as well.
The US also spent a portion of the 70's and 80's bombing and destabalizing poor Christian countries in Latin America and we haven't seen radical Christian based groups spring up there and inflict violence in the name of religion.
Everyone should read the article in the Atlantic that CHL posted. It goes into clear detail on how ISIS is building a Caliphate based on the strictest possible Quranic interepretation. Following any of the three major monotheistic religions to the tee is a terrible idea, it's just that it seems to happen with Islam more than the other two. Thankfully the default setting for most of humanity is to ignore parts of their respective Holy books and fill it in with their natural morality.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
Well that's kinda putting the cart before the horse or whatever that farmyard analogy is.
Nobody "gave" ISIS billions of dollars and land. They had an ideology of violence that attracted a lot of people first, and then they violently took over swaths of land that happen to have oil below it to make thier money.
Saudi Arabia.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
... If you're active in the Off Topic forum you learn peoples politics and see where they land on hot button issues and you recognize a pattern amongst a handful of posters.
I feel your pain, sweety. It's awfully hard when those mean handful of posters just refuse to understand how right you are.
From my own experience reading the Off-Topic forum, it's usually the same 10-12 posters that always feel that they must make any discussion on politics ideological instead of rational. In essence, they put their ideological views as firm and non-challengeable; thus, dismissing any rational inquiry as morally wrong, because it would go against their ideological stance.
The above is true for supporters of both extreme right and extreme left of political centre; but the extreme right supporters are rarely participating anyway, so it's the extreme lefties here that consistently poison and subvert a potentially interesting discussion.
Yes, it is absolutely normal to ask how much it costs to settle one refugee and is it the right time to do it. But as a result of all of the garbage mounted by you and those alike, the thread is now about who's "with us" and who's not. Just so you know, both Stalin (l) and Hitler (r) were very firm, diligent and successful on finding the correct answer to that question. It looks like so will be ISIS.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
I feel your pain, sweety. It's awfully hard when those mean handful of posters just refuse to understand how right you are.
From my own experience reading the Off-Topic forum, it's usually the same 10-12 posters that always feel that they must make any discussion on politics ideological instead of rational. In essence, they put their ideological views as firm and non-challengeable; thus, dismissing any rational inquiry as morally wrong, because it would go against their ideological stance.
The above is true for supporters of both extreme right and extreme left of political centre; but the extreme right supporters are rarely participating anyway, so it's the extreme lefties here that consistently poison and subvert a potentially interesting discussion.
Yes, it is absolutely normal to ask how much it costs to settle one refugee and is it the right time to do it. But as a result of all of the garbage mounted by you and those alike, the thread is now about who's "with us" and who's not. Just so you know, both Stalin (l) and Hitler (r) were very firm, diligent and successful on finding the correct answer to that question. It looks like so will be ISIS.
I don't mean to alarm everyone, but Rick Bell agrees with Nenshi on this. Says the act of bringing in Syrian refugees, while it won't be perfect, is the right thing to do.
I don't mean to alarm everyone, but Rick Bell agrees with Nenshi on this. Says the act of bringing in Syrian refugees, while it won't be perfect, is the right thing to do.
I don't mean to alarm everyone, but Rick Bell agrees with Nenshi on this. Says the act of bringing in Syrian refugees, while it won't be perfect, is the right thing to do.
It's a matter of life and death for some of them and it is morally the right thing to do.
A lot of the refugees will have the resources, knowledge, and determination to hit the ground running and can contribute right away.
It undermines ISIS and basically gives them the middle finger.
It helps relieve the stress on our European and NATO allies who are having trouble dealing with the migration of refugees.
It removes children from squalor and as we all know, poverty is one of the root causes that leads young people to extremism.
Cons:
People are scary when you don't know anything about them. There might be super secret ISIS infiltrators in the camps even if the chance is extremely low.
It will cost money (although so does bombing so it is a moot point).
They gonna steal our jerbs!!
After weighing everything, I say not only are the refugees welcome here, but I want them here.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
It's a matter of life and death for some of them and it is morally the right thing to do.
A lot of the refugees will have the resources, knowledge, and determination to hit the ground running and can contribute right away.
It undermines ISIS and basically gives them the middle finger.
It helps relieve the stress on our European and NATO allies who are having trouble dealing with the migration of refugees.
It removes children from squalor and as we all know, poverty is one of the root causes that leads young people to extremism.
Cons:
People are scary when you don't know anything about them. There might be super secret ISIS infiltrators in the camps even if the chance is extremely low.
It will cost money (although so does bombing so it is a moot point).
They gonna steal our jerbs!!
After weighing everything, I say not only are the refugees welcome here, but I want them here.
You know what, I had a discussion with my daughter about the refugees and Paris attacks.
Her take (remember is 12 yrs old) is that if we take in the refugees and they see how wonderful and peaceful Canada is that will filter back to the areas of conflict (my term). It is her belief that people over there might not understand what it is to live in peace because they have never had the chance.
I like her mind.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Just curious about the numbers. I'm assuming that since Calgary is taking in so many relative to its population, that the country tells refugees what city to live in? If so, are they allowed to move locations after a specific time?
You know what, I had a discussion with my daughter about the refugees and Paris attacks.
Her take (remember is 12 yrs old) is that if we take in the refugees and they see how wonderful and peaceful Canada is that will filter back to the areas of conflict (my term). It is her belief that people over there might not understand what it is to live in peace because they have never had the chance.
I like her mind.
Probably a repost but oh well.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Just curious about the numbers. I'm assuming that since Calgary is taking in so many relative to its population, that the country tells refugees what city to live in? If so, are they allowed to move locations after a specific time?
When my folks came over as refugees, my father was indentured for some time by the forestry company that has sponsored them. They lived in a forestry camp and didn't have the right of mobility until they later became citizens (plus they had to pay back the government for the expenses).
I am not sure if that has changed now. That was in the late 1970s.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
You know what, I had a discussion with my daughter about the refugees and Paris attacks.
Her take (remember is 12 yrs old) is that if we take in the refugees and they see how wonderful and peaceful Canada is that will filter back to the areas of conflict (my term). It is her belief that people over there might not understand what it is to live in peace because they have never had the chance.
I like her mind.
And she is 100% correct. The refugees aren't coming over because they want to create and live in another war. They want peace. They want freedom to worship and work as they please.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
