Ben Affleck is kind of like that first year uni student who took one poli-sci class and starts talking about methods and doctrines of a book he read the synopsis of on the second day of class.
His mind was blown, but he just can't verbalize his thoughts. He thinks he knows so much from so little experience, because he thinks he's smarter than he actually is.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Wastedyouth For This Useful Post:
I think Maher especially is completely clueless on why "liberals" make claims of Islamaphobia against him, and he's made a huge strawman out of the situation. I don't think anyone on the left, other than extreme cultural relativists, are okay with the treatment of women, homosexuals, etc., in Islamic countries. You can still criticize these aspects of Islam without devolving into Islamaphobia. It's when you make sweeping generalizations that all of Islam is one violent, radical doctrine, that threatens Western life, that many on the left start to role their eyes.
I also take issue with them singling out Islam for it's "violent doctrine" as being anymore violent than other religious and secular doctrines. The Old Testament advocates for some of the most heinous things one can think of. You might argue that Islam is more organized in its violence, but I think that's just moving the goalposts. Look at the unofficially state-sanctioned violence committed on an individual level against homosexuals in Russia and tell me that Christianity is playing no part in that.
But let's also look at secular doctrine, if we're going to really be honest with ourselves here. Has the violence that's been perpetuated by Islam even a fraction of the violence that's been perpetuated by adherents to classic state doctrines, whether it be Hobbes, Rousseau, Machiavelli, etc.? What about state and ethnic nationalism? What immeasurable amount of suffering inflicted upon the developing world by Western capitalism?
fatso, the reason Harris is still upset is not because of Affleck, its the attacks he's receiving from all over the left media, blogosphere where he has been taken about as out of context as you can imagine.
I pretty much loathe Maher, so I have little interest in defending him, even if he was worthy of it
You're certainly right. What I had in mind was this lengthy post on Harris's blog which details how he felt Affleck was attacking him and disrespecting the production program set for the show:
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
I think Maher especially is completely clueless on why "liberals" make claims of Islamaphobia against him, and he's made a huge strawman out of the situation. I don't think anyone on the left, other than extreme cultural relativists, are okay with the treatment of women, homosexuals, etc., in Islamic countries. You can still criticize these aspects of Islam without devolving into Islamaphobia. It's when you make sweeping generalizations that all of Islam is one violent, radical doctrine, that threatens Western life, that many on the left start to role their eyes.
I also take issue with them singling out Islam for it's "violent doctrine" as being anymore violent than other religious and secular doctrines. The Old Testament advocates for some of the most heinous things one can think of. You might argue that Islam is more organized in its violence, but I think that's just moving the goalposts. Look at the unofficially state-sanctioned violence committed on an individual level against homosexuals in Russia and tell me that Christianity is playing no part in that.
But let's also look at secular doctrine, if we're going to really be honest with ourselves here. Has the violence that's been perpetuated by Islam even a fraction of the violence that's been perpetuated by adherents to classic state doctrines, whether it be Hobbes, Rousseau, Machiavelli, etc.? What about state and ethnic nationalism? What immeasurable amount of suffering inflicted upon the developing world by Western capitalism?
I think Maher does have a point in that liberals often do not criticize the poor treatment of gays/women/minority etc.. when muslims are the perpetrators. It's also true that islam is being treated differently than other religions. A great example is South Park pulling their picture of Mohammed.
Where Maher goes wrong is with his definition of all muslims as one gigantic block. His guest speakers metaphor or rings of intolerance is absurd. Each individuals beliefs are unique. Yes, some of islams scriptures are violent and archaic, but so are many scripture of all regligions. Judaism and Christianity both have sections devouted to executing gays.
I do think Maher makes a point that we need to be openly talking about what's going on in muslim countries more often, and we need to be defending the muslims who do speak out. He, however, crosses a serious line when he starts generalizing and putting people into groups. And Rubecube, you point about any doctrine being manipulated to create violence is 100% accurate.
I don't think anyone on the left, other than extreme cultural relativists, are okay with the treatment of women, homosexuals, etc., in Islamic countries.
There seems to be quite a bit of extreme cultural relativism out there though, often under the guise of "freedom of religion".
I think Maher does have a point in that liberals often do not criticize the poor treatment of gays/women/minority etc.. when muslims are the perpetrators. It's also true that islam is being treated differently than other religions. A great example is South Park pulling their picture of Mohammed.
Sure, that's one example, but I don't think you need to look very hard to find an example of secular doctrine causing similar restrictions of free speech. Take American nationalism and the devoutness with which many adhere to and deify the constitution, specifically the second amendment, and then tell me it doesn't have a similar effect on things like this:
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the email to the university threatened "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if Sarkeesian were allowed to speak on campus.
"Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event," she tweeted. "Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
There seems to be quite a bit of extreme cultural relativism out there though, often under the guise of "freedom of religion".
Well again though, "freedom of religion" is one of the basic tenets of modern liberalism, and it could easily be argued that this creates violence. Many core values of liberalism, which are based around various doctrines and myths, are pursued as if they were objective truths (i.e. that democracy is the best form of government), often resulting in the perpetuation of violence. And the devoutness to these core beliefs is as real and unreasonable as their religious counterparts. How many times have you seen people parrot some liberal platitude whenever free speech is limited?
I think the problem for the left has been confusing the faith with its adherents, Islam, like Christianity is a barbarous unpleasant set of rules to keep the faithfull under the priests and imans thumbs. They are both primitive violent and illogical.
The difference between the two is only that most Christians ignore their own faith, even the fundys and hardcore Catholics. Unfortunately vast numbers of Muslims still believe the crap they are taught in the mosque.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Sure, that's one example, but I don't think you need to look very hard to find an example of secular doctrine causing similar restrictions of free speech. Take American nationalism and the devoutness with which many adhere to and deify the constitution, specifically the second amendment, and then tell me it doesn't have a similar effect on things like this:
What's your point? Wouldn't the correct solution be to pan all violations of human rights. Criticize this Utah thing and then also criticize a Muslim nation the next time they hang a homosexual. Instead we have nations like Saudi Arabia and Libya being appointed to human rights commissions. Motions are being passed in the UN that criminilize criticising Islam, and nobody says anything.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Sam Harris' interview with Tim Ferris' podcast is very good. I consider myself very liberal and had my thinking evolve as a result of the discussion.
It's not ok to give religions (of any stripe) a free pass if their doctrine affects basic human rights...the real problem is the society wide angst about confronting bad behaviour that results from (insert religion here) doctrine.
Islam is not alone in having anti-human right doctrines...but the point is, just because you believe in 'whatever' you can't encroach on someone else's basic human rights.
religiously justified misogyny, bigotry and murder is offside...and being nervous about talking about it is also wayy offside too. We can't be bullied into letting it slide just because a group who consider themselves holy will go batsh*t
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
I think the problem for the left has been confusing the faith with its adherents, Islam, like Christianity is a barbarous unpleasant set of rules to keep the faithfull under the priests and imans thumbs. They are both primitive violent and illogical.
The difference between the two is only that most Christians ignore their own faith, even the fundys and hardcore Catholics. Unfortunately vast numbers of Muslims still believe the crap they are taught in the mosque.
They don't ignore their faith as much as they have let it evolve.
This is a pretty good write-up on liberal Christians:
Unless you can actually read minds, you can't say whether they are ignoring their faith, or if maybe they just interpret their faith differently than you would assume. Most Christians tend to have different levels of agnosticism interwoven into their faith and are open to change and discussion.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Ben Affleck is kind of like that first year uni student who took one poli-sci class and starts talking about methods and doctrines of a book he read the synopsis of on the second day of class.
His mind was blown, but he just can't verbalize his thoughts. He thinks he knows so much from so little experience, because he thinks he's smarter than he actually is.
So true! Our celebrities pumped by all the attention and social media publicity are so full of their own grandeur they really start believing in their own superior understanding of how the world really works. It's one thing to profess their deep thoughts about life and parenthood on Ellen's show, but when they start getting into political and economic analysis it makes me cringe. Directing "Argo" did not make Ben Affleck an expert on theology and ideology. Yet, he feels completely righteous arguing with an educated professional writer and researcher. Plus, he's doing it like a spoiled high school brat kid that throws temper tantrums whenever the other team scores a goal...
__________________
"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
I wonder if this whole scene was a set up. Bill Maher is losing ratings to John Oliver and because of this they tried to get people talking about the Maher show. Putting someone like Ben (totally first name basis) on a show with Harris and see where it takes them. If so, it worked.
Bill Maher is not losing ratings to John Oliver as they do not compete in the same time slot (Friday 10PM vs. Sunday 11PM). John Oliver is out-rating Bill Maher which is different, but they are both amongst the highest rated programs HBO so I'm sure HBO is wholly indifferent, especially since HBO doesn't reallty care about ratings to begin with (subscribers, not viewers, are the key). If you've ever watched Real Time this hardly rates as controversial or anything, and it's only big here because of Affleck's over the top reaction.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I wonder if this whole scene was a set up. Bill Maher is losing ratings to John Oliver and because of this they tried to get people talking about the Maher show. Putting someone like Ben (totally first name basis) on a show with Harris and see where it takes them. If so, it worked.
Maher does most things to get people talking. The guy is a walking troll attempt
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Bill Maher is not losing ratings to John Oliver as they do not compete in the same time slot (Friday 10PM vs. Sunday 11PM). John Oliver is out-rating Bill Maher which is different, but they are both amongst the highest rated programs HBO so I'm sure HBO is wholly indifferent, especially since HBO doesn't reallty care about ratings to begin with (subscribers, not viewers, are the key). If you've ever watched Real Time this hardly rates as controversial or anything, and it's only big here because of Affleck's over the top reaction.
No matter what, the TV shows compete even in the same network on different nights. TWD competed with Breaking Bad for top dog points and dollars. What I am suggesting isn't outrageous, it happens all the time. And Bill Maher has slipped because of John Oliver. http://ca.complex.com/pop-culture/20...her-in-ratings
I'm not saying "Stop talking about it". This has been a good read and for whatever Real Time was trying to do it has certainly brought discussion. Celebrities are always brought in to get people to talk about subjects, and this isn't any different. Ben Affleck is a big catch to get on Real Time and he has appeared 7 times since 2005. Almost every time he is on he says outlandish things.
In 2007 he called Democrats weak cowards.
2008 on Obama.
2012 Ann Coulter launches into a tirade about post-9/11 security measures.
How much time did Affleck spend in Turkey filming Argo? Does he have a lot of experience on the Muslim Faith.
Anytime anyone tries to do harm under their belief structure, spiritual or atheist, they are doing a disservice to humanity and in the USA Muslims are being thrown under the bus as a whole. I, for a short time, befriended an American Navy solider and everytime he spoke about Muslims he brought out the worst hate in him. Dudes ancestors were from the middle east as well.
Last edited by To Be Quite Honest; 10-17-2014 at 12:23 PM.
Unless you can actually read minds, you can't say whether they are ignoring their faith, or if maybe they just interpret their faith differently than you would assume. Most Christians tend to have different levels of agnosticism interwoven into their faith and are open to change and discussion.
Rubbish, the bible is clear, apostates should be killed, adulterers stoned, no tattoos. Christians haven't evolved, they have just chosen to not believe in vast parts of the bible, they have, in many cases without really any self awareness, lost faith in the bible, you cannot evolve around a belief that 'thou shalt not' is the word of god, either you believe or you don't, most Christians don't actually think that anymore in practise, even though they may delude themselves that they do, at best the fundys and Catholics like to cherry pick sins out of the bible they don't do and beat others over the head with them.
How many dumb ***** that go on about gays and quote Leviticus think that it's a sin to wear linen and wool together! a sin punishable by death as I recall.
That's the word of god, non negotiable.
Rubbish, the bible is clear, apostates should be killed, adulterers stoned, no tattoos. Christians haven't evolved, they have just chosen to not believe in vast parts of the bible, they have, in many cases without really any self awareness, lost faith in the bible, you cannot evolve around a belief that 'thou shalt not' is the word of god, either you believe or you don't, most Christians don't actually think that anymore in practise, even though they may delude themselves that they do, at best the fundys and Catholics like to cherry pick sins out of the bible they don't do and beat others over the head with them.
How many dumb ***** that go on about gays and quote Leviticus think that it's a sin to wear linen and wool together! a sin punishable by death as I recall.
That's the word of god, non negotiable.
I wonder how those rules come into place? Or other silly rules. Textcritic where are you!
It's easy to think that if we just get rid of religion we wouldn't have these issues, but this isn't true at all. People will pick whatever bothers them and make a crusade about it. Some people need religion in their lives or they need the explanation, and that's okay. There is nothing wrong with that. It's when people push there beliefs on others, or force people into beliefs, that start the problems. There are great messages for life in the bible, much like what you are saying afc, people pick and choose... I'd love to see a re-edit to the King James bible as it re-edited the scripture way back in 1611.
Thou shall not tweet 6 times in a row in one hour.
Anyway, it would help people figure out who the fanatics are! lol
