The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

I am a troll.

Crumpy-Gunt, since you said you have more respect for my views than most others, I'm going to say this again. Time to tone it down or leave the conversation.

You've made your point, you've taken your stance, you've voiced your displeasure. There is nothing more to be achieved with that behavior anymore. You'll just eventually get banned, and I think it would be a shame.

I, like you it seems, believe there are times when it's perfectly okay and sometimes even the only possible reaction to go on a rant, be non-constructive and just make it absolutely crystal clear how completely some things disgust you and how totally not okay (from your perspective) some discussions are. But you can't just keep doing it over and over again. It just loses its effect and eventually just removes you and all your views completely from the equation, and it will be as if you were never here.


You seem to have the kind of unique personal experience to these issues that I think would be valuable in these discussions. You don't have to try and bring it here and now. I get it that sometimes some discussions are just too far removed from where you're standing that you just can't join them.

But I would prefer it if you were still around when this conversation continues at some other time and from some other angle. Because we all know it will not get solved this summer

[Itse]

And damn it Crumpy, you have some very good points that people are just not going to read now!

It's damned frustrating from where I'm standing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

This is just one more reason why so many researchers talk of the importance of strengthening the civil societies in Arab countries, to create those other safe spaces outside of religious surroundings.

It's also unfortunately obvious that no foreign governments are seriously interested in supporting such initiatives.

I know Turkey isn't an Arab country, but it had all of those civil institutions. A free and independent press. An independent judiciary. Good schools with academic freedom. Free and open elections.

And now the party in power, with the strong support of rural and religious majority in the country, is tearing it all down. That's what's so disheartening about what we're seeing in Turkey. It was the example of how Islam and modern secularism can co-exist. And now Turks are saying they don't want those things to co-exist.

Originally Posted by Itse

Pretty much without fail, the political movements that are born from non-religious starting points have started to demand both of these two things (among many, many other): 1) That foreign governments do not interfere with their countries politics 2) That their countries should stop exporting natural resources as raw materials, but instead should seek more economic independence by developing their own refineries and selling refined products.

None of those factors apply to Turkey. And yet here we are.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by jayswin

trolling aside, his over the top point that we have different standards for what is acceptable when speaking of various ethnic/religious groups as westerners is definitely fascinating. We often don't see it that way because well....we're westerners, but it's very apparent when looked upon from 10000 feet.

The only interesting thing here is this shining a light on how some people will gladly accept an awful poster using the same tactics as one they can't stand if their views align more closely with them.

Nage Waza gets rightfully derided by some of the very people who are all aboard that other guy's bandwagon. They both utilize the exact same methods.

This is basically a microcosm of sports team politics displayed here.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Maybe we should make another thread to prove this point, that we are far more tolerant of generalizing certain groups than we are of being generalized. People are so quick to jump up and say 'I'm an individual, I had nothing to do with that event across the globe or in history' - but they love holding all people acountable for the actions of their race/religion. How about if someone was combining and collecting all of the doings of the western/christian world from colonialism to genocide to slavery to the largest scale and bloodiest wars this planet has ever seen leaving probably near a billion people dead cumulatively. Not to mention dropping a nuclear weapon on a few hundred thousand civilians - and relating it back to the fact they are christians or white. People wouldnt accept that.

Maybe we will call the thread the failure of the world to deal with white males.

See how the proud white christian males feel about being generalized as rapists, theives, enslavers and general assorted scum who gained their wealth through the poverty and demise of hundreds of millions of 'lower' people.

I have a feeling nobody would stand for it because it wouldnt be fair to define such a large group of people by the decisions and actions of relatively few individuals. Yet more christians and whites were implicitly involved in those events then muslims are involved in terrorism by percentage - but we love generalizing them.

We are fine with making fun of native americans on this board and making claims like moderate muslims dont exist, ie they are by and large all extremists and that a western military clash with the RELIGION of Islam is inevitable. On top of that people are sitting around crying about their illusion that "Islam is not open for criticism" when in fact it has been open season on Muslims and Arabs since 9/11. How much more open for criticism can people be when we're depicting their religious leaders with bombs on their heads, banning their religious attire and publicly shaming them to the point many are changing their names.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Itse

Crumpy-Gunt, since you said you have more respect for my views than most others, I'm going to say this again. Time to tone it down or leave the conversation.

You've made your point, you've taken your stance, you've voiced your displeasure. There is nothing more to be achieved with that behavior anymore. You'll just eventually get banned, and I think it would be a shame.

I, like you it seems, believe there are times when it's perfectly okay and sometimes even the only possible reaction to go on a rant, be non-constructive and just make it absolutely crystal clear how completely some things disgust you and how totally not okay (from your perspective) some discussions are. But you can't just keep doing it over and over again. It just loses its effect and eventually just removes you and all your views completely from the equation, and it will be as if you were never here.


You seem to have the kind of unique personal experience to these issues that I think would be valuable in these discussions. You don't have to try and bring it here and now. I get it that sometimes some discussions are just too far removed from where you're standing that you just can't join them.

But I would prefer it if you were still around when this conversation continues at some other time and from some other angle. Because we all know it will not get solved this summer

To be honest I'm fine with my 'good points' being skimmed over or ignored. I truly dont think these people can be reasoned with and they are just bigots trying to explain and sugarcoat their Breivik like beliefs. Just as I've sabotaged their thread, they sabotage threads where people are having good discussion about serious issues like gender equality and racism by jumping in and calling everyone a PC SJW with white guilt. I felt like getting them back in their thread.

I truly look forward to an actual discussion where people arent expressing their thinly veiled hate and disdain for other religions and are willing to discuss the causes at the heart of the issue instead of regurgitating something they heard Pamela Geller say about 'sharia islam' (doesnt exist) or some other ridiculous term that shows their piss poor understanding of a complex religion they claim to be experts on..

Fair enough Itse. Well put and I have to agree that I'm pounding on a few dead horses. I will tone it down or leave the conversation as I can see how disruptive its been not only for the people (idiots) I disagree with but also others trying to make valid points and have a rational discussion are being sidetracked by my sideshow.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I know Turkey isn't an Arab country, but it had all of those civil institutions. A free and independent press. An independent judiciary. Good schools with academic freedom. Free and open elections.

True, but you have to keep in mind the order in which those started to crumble.

Civil institutions, such schools, the army leadership, the judiciary, the press, the democratic elections were under pressure from the theocratic forces for a long time until they finally started to crumble. It's only after those things started to be seriously weakened that the theocratic forces could really start take over the country.

This is also not some accident, the theocratics did all this on purpose and quite openly spoke about their need to do this in order to bring about the kind of Turkey they wanted. (In their own terminology of course, as they didn't see it as "weakening the civil society" of course.) Especially the Turkish far left have been trying to raise awareness of this for a long time, demanding that the west put pressure on Erdogan. They never did that in the fear that it would push Erdogan towards Putin, and in the end they're now seemingly losing both the democracy in Turkey and it's alliance.

Turkey is an important reminder that the civil society needs to be upheld and protected forever if you want to keep it. There will always be forces that want to limit civil liberties and civil rights, push their propaganda into schools, affect the judiciary system and weaken the democratic electorial system, and they will always want to do this for the purpose of bringing about the kind of society they want. And you can tell from what they are doing that the kind of society they want is not a free, liberal and democratic. If it was, a strong and healthy civil society would not be a problem for it.

There is no permanent win state. History does not end.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And now Turks are saying they don't want those things to co-exist.

I've said this before and I've said it again. Erdogan could not get the things he wanted through elections. He just could not get the majority of the Turks on his side. So no, "the Turks" are not saying those things. I seriously doubt even most of Erdogans supporters would support his actions if they were presented in those terms in a hypothetical situation.

None of those factors apply to Turkey. And yet here we are.

There is no ultimate theory that explains everything. Every country ultimately has it's own unique story.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

And damn it Crumpy, you have some very good points that people are just not going to read now!

It's damned frustrating from where I'm standing.

Illuminating. As I said previously, playing the bigot card to derail is "good points" if you agree with the overall sentiment. I wish I could get back that time I took responding to your posts earlier. It was obviously wasted.

That's frustrating.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by nik-

Illuminating. As I said previously, playing the bigot card to derail is "good points" if you agree with the overall sentiment. I wish I could get back that time I took responding to your posts earlier. It was obviously wasted.

That's frustrating.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

The only interesting thing here is this shining a light on how some people will gladly accept an awful poster using the same tactics as one they can't stand if their views align more closely with them.

Nage Waza gets rightfully derided by some of the very people who are all aboard that other guy's bandwagon. They both utilize the exact same methods.

This is basically a microcosm of sports team politics displayed here.

Nik- you and I certainly don't agree on everything, but I certainly have never said anything super crazy here. Please don't smear me unless you can quote what I said that was so awful.

It seems that people smearing a person's reputation is more valuable than actually debating what they said.

[nik-]

no, you're pretty quick to play the anti-semite card, and you've done it a lot in the past in Israel threads. Just as there's a difference between criticizing ideas in Islam and hating muslims, there's a difference between criticizing Israeli policy and hating Jews.

If you consider that smearing, then I'm ok with that. I'm not going to get into it further.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

He hinted at me being an anti-Semite because I used the word Zionist in a critical manner. I am a Semite. You think I am self hating? I actually LOVE Jews.

Just leave already.

Zionism is a movement that advocates the RE-establishment of Israel, a cause that came about due to rampant HATE/murder against Jews in many countries. It is not inherently evil, and is certainly used by MANY as a slur. More so on the 'left' than the 'right'. So step aside, you showed your hand.

Israel exists, and is a beacon of freedom across the entire middle east. There are certainly topics to debate, but that is not your goal.

How about we discuss freedoms in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria or pretty much any other nation on the planet? EXACTLY what this thread is focused on.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

no, you're pretty quick to play the anti-semite card, and you've done it a lot in the past in Israel threads. Just as there's a difference between criticizing ideas in Islam and hating muslims, there's a difference between criticizing Israeli policy and hating Jews.

If you consider that smearing, then I'm ok with that. I'm not going to get into it further.

Can you demonstrate a single time I said anything that was not warranted? The word Zionist is often thrown around like a swear word (which it is not), I call people out for it.

Have a read - this random guy is a better writer than I am:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...i-Semites.html

I say the same thing in each thread: If you want to discuss something, discuss it. If you want to throw out lies/rhetoric/smears, I will call you out for it.

I have remained true to that. If you want to call me out for something, show exactly why, otherwise it is nonsense.

[nik-]

I'm just a monster I suppose

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm just a monster I suppose

I should also add, as I have done earlier in this very thread, that hatred of Jews is rampant across the planet, and in particular the Arab world.

Instead of people seeing that any hatred of anyone is probably pretty bad for the success of a nation, hatred of Jews is written off? Instead I get singled out. Stats show Canada has 14% that dislike Jews. But where are immigrants coming from and what is their point of view?

Picking Tunisia randomly - 86% don't like Jews. I don't know if that is a problem with religion, government, education, or what, but the fact the same problem exists in many other countries that are very similar to Tunisia is very indicative of a larger problem with Islam.

I call it the way it should be called.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Illuminating. As I said previously, playing the bigot card to derail is "good points" if you agree with the overall sentiment. I wish I could get back that time I took responding to your posts earlier. It was obviously wasted.

That is the opposite of what I meant. (I think if you were less infuriated with Crumpy it would be obvious to you too).

What I meant was that the emotionally charged accusations of bigotry distracted from the good points.

Such as

are the western nations truly 100% secular? Are leaders not elected on their religious suitability

Which I think is relevant in understanding that many things we balk at when the name of religion is Islam and the country is somewhere in Midde-East is considered perfectly normal when the name of the religion is Christianity and the place is a western country. These gut reactions badly distort the conversations.

It's especially weird since I think many in this discussion seem to be more or less atheistic or agnostic, or at least far to the secular side on their religions. People talk about the things that are going on in the Middle East as if religious nutcases never try to set up their own kingdoms of heaven in the west, as if we didn't have Christians literally preaching death to gay people without repercussions, as if we never have our own versions of honour killings, and as if there are no significant political movements in the west who get some of their most central goals straight from religious writings.

And just in general I agree with his view that people are giving way too much significance on Islam here, and are waayy too eager to dismiss the significance of sociopolitical and historical backgrounds. When really I think absolutely every expert on any even remotely connected field would agree that religion is in all this at best one contributing factor among many.

It seems to me that people have a desire for simple answers, and the sociopolitical and historical reasons are just never going to give those, especially since it would take an enormous amount of learning to even get started.

Thus it's just much easier to talk about things that are close and understandable, even if they're only extremely tangentially related. Such as the infighting of a few western liberals.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Illuminating. As I said previously, playing the bigot card to derail is "good points" if you agree with the overall sentiment. I wish I could get back that time I took responding to your posts earlier. It was obviously wasted.



That's frustrating.

As Itse just said, you gotta relax.

Crumpy did have some really good points worth discussing. Will anyone? No, because he called you all idiots and bigots, but he also stated pretty firmly that he didn't care about the discussion.

You can agree with some of the points Crumpy was making without resigning yourself to thinking "playing the bigot card to derail is 'good points'."

You really have to stop writing people off based on posts they thank or the posters they give even minor credit to.

Like Nage: I can comfortably say he's right about the anti-semitism in the Arab world. Doesn't mean "hey, this guy is 100%!"

Broken clocks man, they're right twice a day.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Can you demonstrate a single time I said anything that was not warranted? The word Zionist is often thrown around like a swear word (which it is not), I call people out for it.

Have a read - this random guy is a better writer than I am:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...i-Semites.html

I say the same thing in each thread: If you want to discuss something, discuss it. If you want to throw out lies/rhetoric/smears, I will call you out for it.

I have remained true to that. If you want to call me out for something, show exactly why, otherwise it is nonsense.

Filthy Zionist.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Filthy Zionist.

I was 100% correct. This same scenario repeats itself over and over.

Nik, Cecil, Itse, etc.please at least support me on this.

[nik-]

haha well yeah, I mean there's no real grey area in that. The guy is an idiot.