|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Also some Arabic countries like Qatar and the UAE do enforce a sorta 'modesty' approach to clothing restriction. This is the major cities though, in more rural areas not wearing coverings is putting yourself at serious risk for beatings/rape/murder as "punishment", the amount of covering which is "acceptable" varies from region to region (sometimes even community to community). The much greater problem then dress codes is the fact wives are pretty much still treated as chattel property outside of the more modern urban areas, and while central governments make varying amounts of effort to stop it beating/raping your wife or even honor killings are considered family matters and perfectly acceptable. Also in many regions marriage is still an arranged business transactions. Nessus posted:Can you actually give an example of this? "We should not bomb or invade them" is not the same as "we wholeheartedly support their local institutions." I'm speaking more about the push-back against criticism of Islamic institutions rather then explicit endorsement of those institutions, though I'm hesitant to mention it because I don't want to derail the thread, the reaction to the Charlie Hedbo incident is the best example of this I can think of.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Secular political groups generally weren't able to withstand the political suppression, but the religiously-centered groups proved to be stronger and better able to weather the storm for a variety of reasons, and thus ended up being major forces by virtue of being the only real organized opposition left. Which leads me to: quote:People who sign up for ISIS don't do so because they're inhumane monsters who love brutality, they do it because they feel that the goal is important enough to be worth any brutality that might be needed to successfully carry it out - and considering how successful ISIS has been, it's not surprising that people who might agree with their ultimate goals are signing up despite the brutality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm speaking more about the push-back against criticism of Islamic institutions rather then explicit endorsement of those institutions, though I'm hesitant to mention it because I don't want to derail the thread, the reaction to the Charlie Hedbo incident is the best example of this I can think of. This thus takes a greater priority than arguing over the fine details of the complex dynamics of a reaction between an ancient mandate and the modern world in a subsection of society they don't belong to. (Even here, I don't think we have many American/European Muslims. al-Saqr I believe lives in the ME, as opposed to an American or European Islamic community.) Other than this it just seems like people getting offended (probably mendaciously) that OTHER people aren't making the exact same reactions they are, to the general end of implying (in my opinion) that those other people really are The Other, as opposed to Us Good Folk, who had the proper form of outrage emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I imagine a lot of people leaning left perceive a high risk of a literal god-drat pogrom (aimed at Muslims) breaking out whenever poo poo like this happens, so that is their first rhetorical reflex: "Simmer down; those guys were maniacs, the local Islamic Center does not need to be burned down or shot up." Fair enough, though it should be noted that even American Muslims are right there with the far evangelical right when it comes to supporting horrible regressive social policy. For example Islamic is the only religious affiliation besides Evangelical Christian to poll majority opposition to gay marriage rights. I guess my point is the left is so used to reacting to bigotry against Muslims from the right that they forget that Islamic institutions are part of the right and there are actually lots of valid non-bigoted criticism to be made for the same reason we slam the Christian-right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Fair enough, though it should be noted that even American Muslims are right there with the far evangelical right when it comes to supporting horrible regressive social policy. For example Islamic is the only religious affiliation besides Evangelical Christian to poll majority opposition to gay marriage rights. This isn't true. American Muslims are about dead even which considering their immigration demographics is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
That and American Muslims were virtually absent from the political fight over gay marriage because the groups that fought against gay marriage hate Muslims just as much if not more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That and American Muslims were virtually absent from the political fight over gay marriage because the groups that fought against gay marriage hate Muslims just as much if not more. Also religious minorities, even if they're socially conservative, tend to recognize the benefits of a secular state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, yes, you don't need to remind us that you're an entitled white American who is incapable of empathy. Brutality, by itself, does not render a movement monstrous, or else most of the revolutionary movements and fights against (or for) oppression in history would be monstrous. People who sign up for ISIS don't do so because they're inhumane monsters who love brutality, they do it because they feel that the goal is important enough to be worth any brutality that might be needed to successfully carry it out - and considering how successful ISIS has been, it's not surprising that people who might agree with their ultimate goals are signing up despite the brutality. It's not a matter of assigning guilt or weighing morality. No one deserves all that much blame or credit for what ideology they end up in because of all the ways circumstance shapes worldview, even when the position one winds up in is an irredeemable one. But that doesn't change the fact of their existence or the danger they represent to everyone who shares a political culture with them. The fact that they are "monsters who love brutality" and that they feel the goal is important enough are synonymous, because their ideal is brutality by any modern definition of the word. It isn't about weighing the proverbial hearts of those who support ISIS, but rather about recognizing that they are beyond reaching. That doesn't mean they should all be killed or anything, but it does mean that trying to include them in a political process is futile. Main Paineframe posted:Aaaand there we go! Would you also say it was worth the cost for the Weimar government's "free and open democracy" to collaborate with fascists to abrogate the god-given democratic rights of idealistic idiot socialists? The moment you decide fascist brutality is justifiable to suppress the democratic rights of some group you don't like, democracy is dead and brutality is the order of the day...especially if you're doing it because you're a racist who thinks that a particular minority is too uncivilized and stupid to be allowed to have a say in government. As soon as the fascists of the Union chose to suppress the democratic rights of people from the southern states during Reconstruction after the civil war, democracy in the U.S. was dead forever and brutality was the order of the day. What a racist that Lincoln was. I mean, wasn't it their democratic right to vote for a local government that recognized their wishes and enforced their cultural laws? Main Paineframe posted:The reason that Islamist movements didn't significantly oppose Western economic exploitation in the first half of the 20th century was because they were weak and insignificant then, both in terms of membership and in armament. Nobody* was selling arms to anti-government groups back then, and many of the iconic insurgent arms today didn't even exist back then. Also, much more importantly, most of those countries were heavily secularizing at the time, and Islamist groups were political nobodies until various Western-supported dictators started brutally oppressing any opposition to Western Those religiously centered groups are not "the opposition" to western exploitation or policies in any meaningful sense. The Israel/Palestine issue is the only matter of social justice that Islamist groups are even remotely involved in, and in that issue their collective efforts have been so incredibly counterproductive that they don't (or shouldn't) get any credit on that account. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:01
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Those religiously centered groups are not "the opposition" to western exploitation or policies in any meaningful sense. The Israel/Palestine issue is the only matter of social justice that Islamist groups are even remotely involved in, and in that issue their collective efforts have been so incredibly counterproductive that they don't (or shouldn't) get any credit on that account. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever, being both factually untrue in several respects, and also irrelevant.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Your statement makes no sense whatsoever, being both factually untrue in several respects, and also irrelevant. Counterpoint: You're Effectronica Edit: And also - "irrelevant"? The other points are debatable but how the gently caress do you figure that? And when I said that Islamist movements had no involvement in issues of social justice aside from I/P, maybe I should have specified "Except to take a stand against them and prevent any progress from being made" for the sake of accuracy. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:04
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Counterpoint: You're Effectronica That's what we call an "ad hominem" argument, which rather weakens your positions. It's irrelevant because it claims to argue that Islamist groups are not opposed to Western imperialism, but then talks about social justice for some reason.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This isn't true. American Muslims are about dead even which considering their immigration demographics is pretty good. 42-51 is hardly dead even. He did forget Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Black Protestants though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is the major cities though, in more rural areas not wearing coverings is putting yourself at serious risk for beatings/rape/murder as "punishment", the amount of covering which is "acceptable" varies from region to region (sometimes even community to community). The much greater problem then dress codes is the fact wives are pretty much still treated as chattel property outside of the more modern urban areas, and while central governments make varying amounts of effort to stop it beating/raping your wife or even honor killings are considered family matters and perfectly acceptable. Also in many regions marriage is still an arranged business transactions. What country are you talking about? Yes, there are numerous cases of beatings and domestic abuse in the UAE, but growing up there (and having relatives spread out in Sharjah and Ras Al Kaimah (sp? Never really wrote it out in English before)) my family never really talked about that kind of stuff, and most of my family is pretty awesome get-out-of-my-way women. I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to catch up on reading about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's what we call an "ad hominem" argument, which rather weakens your positions. That's because we're arguing with different criteria. Being notionally opposed to western imperialism does a movement or ideology no credit whatsoever on its own. Mao and Pol Pot were opposed to western imperialism - does that mean you think they and their ideology were good for Asia or had any particular redeeming qualities?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That particular poster was advocating a de-facto global law against a form of free expression, which is only slightly different from ISIS's putative goal of a de-jure law to the same effect. I don't feel particularly guilty for jokingly comparing him to ISIS in the aftermath of an anti-free speech terrorist attack which a vocal minority of Muslims applauded afterwards. oh im sorry you were jokingly engaging in paranoiac accusations of collaboration with brutal mass-murderers, based largely on nothing but the poster ascribing to a religion you treat with nothing but worrisome contempt and suspicion. which is distinct from your usual posting manner in the following ways: and for the second charge you were using the occasion of an execution-style murder of several innocent people to engage in the exact same behavior you criticize others for in the wake of the CH massacre. its terrible that people died, BUT
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:10
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That's because we're arguing with different criteria. Being notionally opposed to western imperialism does a movement or ideology no credit whatsoever on its own. Mao and Pol Pot were opposed to western imperialism - does that mean you think they and their ideology were good for Asia or had any particular redeeming qualities? We weren't until you decided to wriggle your way out yet again. Clearly, I need to tighten my hands around your throat if I get a good grasp on you in the future. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This is the question that really interests me. Why is this the case? It's not as if the US hasn't attempted, with some fervor, to to take on islamism. Sure, bring up Mossadegh, but it's not as if the west hasn't tried to undermine the islamic republic. Most likely because these religion-focused groups grow from a nonpolitical core that can be organized around, can be recruited from, and is difficult to completely ban because of its strong nonpolitical role in society. If all opposition political parties are banned, political speech and gatherings are banned, and prominent political opposition figures and groups are brutally persecuted and jailed or murdered, most political groups will wither and die as their leadership is shattered or driven into hiding and their recruiting abilities are heavily curtailed, and the populace can usually be convinced to tolerate that. On the other hand, public gatherings are a major part of many religious observances, often at private buildings owned by religious figures, and while modern religious observance is pretty decentralized, the various religious organizations and community worship groups still keep in touch with each other and feel a common kinship. Unless religious observance is completely banned - an unpopular policy, and a very difficult one to enforce - political religious groups are able to evade the worst of the oppression by integrating into innocent-looking religious congregations, and this allows them to more easily maintain communication, cohesion, and give them a large and easy-to-access recruiting base. Groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood can recruit from Muslim gathering places and Muslim community leaders, a convenience that socialists and democrats can't hope for in a fascist society. Even in the most powerful dictatorships, it's proven to be very difficult to completely extinguish a religion from a country, and too much repression will only encourage more of the faithful to arms. Also, the religious political position is typically pretty simplistic and intuitive: "bad things like Western exploitation, corruption, a bad economy, oppression by a secular dictatorship, and every other bad thing ever all happen because society/people/the government aren't religious and virtuous enough. If we throw out those evil corrupt secularists and collaborators and replace them with a sufficiently religious government, everything will get better! There won't be any corruption because only virtuous religious people will be in government, and we'll follow our religion's original precepts in every aspect of law and government, so everything will work better and unfamiliar foreign influences will be gone and we'll be divinely blessed and everything will be better!" quote:Which leads me to: Even fascism is usually pitched as a "reform" ideology. They're not a post-apocalyptic anarchic biker gang, raping and murdering and slaughtering Brutality is a hallmark of amateur or poorly disciplined armed forces, and they usually brag about it and show off because they think they're the good guys punishing the enemies of the people, particuparpy when the conflict is of a revolutionary or ethnic-war character. They display it to show everyone how heroic and devoted they are to punishing and slaughtering the people they've decided are responsible for or associated with practically everything wrong with the world. Liberal_L33t posted:As soon as the fascists of the Union chose to suppress the democratic rights of people from the southern states during Reconstruction after the civil war, democracy in the U.S. was dead forever and brutality was the order of the day. What a racist that Lincoln was. I mean, wasn't it their democratic right to vote for a local government that recognized their wishes and enforced their cultural laws? Yeah, what a fascist jerk Lincoln was, preventing white supremacist militias from depriving blacks of the right to vote. Truly, democracy was not restored in the South until White League armies were free to invade government buildings by force, throw out the democratically-elected governments, effectively block minorities' right to vote, and rig as many elections as they could get their hands on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That and American Muslims were virtually absent from the political fight over gay marriage because the groups that fought against gay marriage hate Muslims just as much if not more. A lot of it has to do with the feeling that America is hostile to minorities in general, and that if they are able to stop other minorities from practicing their civil rights, it's only a matter of time before they turn their attention on us. Another aspect is that a lot of Muslims acknowledge that the lgbt community has been one of the biggest groups to stand up for the rights of Muslims, even though, yeah, a lot of Muslims are super conservative, so there's a sense of obligation. It's one of the reasons that ISNA supported ENDA. American Muslim leaders do get a lot of pushback for it, but a lot of it seems to come from British Muslims. There's quite a bit of beefing going on there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This isn't true. American Muslims are about dead even which considering their immigration demographics is pretty good. Maybe they do math differently where you're from but 51>42 and 33% is only not the second highest strongly opposed on that list (behind evangelicals, like I said) because you found two new ultra-regressive groups that I hadn't seen polling on until this one, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Unless you're arguing that Muslims and Evangelicals aren't the only opposed, which I guess I stand corrected on but only because you found a more granular poll then I've seen before which breaks down by denomination and race. Shageletic posted:What country are you talking about? Yes, there are numerous cases of beatings and domestic abuse in the UAE, but growing up there (and having relatives spread out in Sharjah and Ras Al Kaimah (sp? Never really wrote it out in English before)) my family never really talked about that kind of stuff, and most of my family is pretty awesome get-out-of-my-way women. I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to catch up on reading about it. Saudi, Rural Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Northern Africa. I'll admit my opinions are biased by lack of knowledge on the wealthy and more progressive gulf states like UAE (and Jordan?) and my direct personal experience with Islamic countries being from the very worst of the worst areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Also some Arabic countries like Qatar and the UAE do enforce a sorta 'modesty' approach to clothing restriction. Certainly not in emirates like Dubai or Abu Dhabi, where bikinis on the beach are common, and miniskirts in Mall of the Emirates are completely ordinary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Most likely because these religion-focused groups grow from a nonpolitical core that can be organized around, can be recruited from, and is difficult to completely ban because of its strong nonpolitical role in society. If all opposition political parties are banned, political speech and gatherings are banned, and prominent political opposition figures and groups are brutally persecuted and jailed or murdered, most political groups will wither and die as their leadership is shattered or driven into hiding and their recruiting abilities are heavily curtailed, and the populace can usually be convinced to tolerate that. The fact that Islamic movements have such a lovely, ineffectual track record of opposing elites of any kind on behalf of the working class might have something to do with that little bit of calculation on the part of the dictators. Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, what a fascist jerk Lincoln was, preventing white supremacist militias from depriving blacks of the right to vote. Truly, democracy was not restored in the South until White League armies were free to invade government buildings by force, throw out the democratically-elected governments, effectively block minorities' right to vote, and rig as many elections as they could get their hands on. Alright enough with the sarcastic bullcrap: the point I was trying to make is that the democratic rights of white southerners were temporarily (and briefly, unfortunately) compromised during military reconstruction. The Confederacy was organized around the right to hold slaves. Nazi Germany was organized around ethnic cleansing. Groups like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood are organized around causes which are (or should be) equally unacceptable to the global community in the 21st century. Modern democracies are not obliged to offer power or legitimacy to organizations whose entire purpose of existence is violating the individual human rights of others. Weren't you fuckers the first to jump on the "don't tolerate intolerance" bandwagon after the Charleston shooting? The same principle applies here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Alright enough with the sarcastic bullcrap: the point I was trying to make is that the democratic rights of white southerners were temporarily (and briefly, unfortunately) compromised during military reconstruction. The Confederacy was organized around the right to hold slaves. Nazi Germany was organized around ethnic cleansing. Groups like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood are organized around causes which are (or should be) equally unacceptable to the global community in the 21st century. Modern democracies are not obliged to offer power or legitimacy to organizations whose entire purpose of existence is violating the individual human rights of others. Weren't you fuckers the first to jump on the "don't tolerate intolerance" bandwagon after the Charleston shooting? The same principle applies here. How many Muslims/residents of Muslim nations do you kill, and how grateful are the survivors expected to be? Like in my view, the 'leftist' perspective, leaving aside the love affair with Palestinian groups, is basically "Help where we can, but we can't force change, and when we try we often hurt them and our own interests at the same time."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Maybe they do math differently where you're from but 51>42 and 33% is only not the second highest strongly opposed on that list (behind evangelicals, like I said) because you found two new ultra-regressive groups that I hadn't seen polling on until this one, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Now it's strongly opposed specifically? Are you going to credit them for having a higher strongly supported demographic than Hindus and all non-white Protestants too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:What country are you talking about? Yes, there are numerous cases of beatings and domestic abuse in the UAE, but growing up there (and having relatives spread out in Sharjah and Ras Al Kaimah (sp? Never really wrote it out in English before)) my family never really talked about that kind of stuff, and most of my family is pretty awesome get-out-of-my-way women. I'm not doubting you, but I'd like to catch up on reading about it. I'm from the UAE, yeah the rural areas have conservative types, they generally try their best to keep women away from working and just groom them for arranged marriages, but they are an outlier though as most people are settled in and around cities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
I guess I just don't understand how this is even a serious topic? I live on a continent that was ethnically cleansed by Christians in the name of Christ, in a country who's last recognized act of violent genocide occurred barely 100 years ago (the Last Massacre, 1911). In the last year one of the most popular movies, one that was also celebrated by one of our highest institutions (the Academy Awards), was about a Christian soldier, whose fame and authority is directly derived from his brutality (kill count), who saw himself as an instrument of God. The title of this movie applies these ideals to all citizens of this nation (American Sniper). I can easily in the course of my day find a stranger in this country who desires genocide (turn the middle east into glass/a parking lot). The conversation about how religion is a particularly effect means for resistance/social reform was pretty interesting though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:in a country who's last recognized act of violent genocide occurred barely 100 years ago (the Last Massacre, 1911). Boy, that sounds bad. I wonder what happened there. quote:Mike Daggett, or Shoshone Mike, was the chief of the small band and in the spring of 1910, he led his group of eleven off the Fort Hall Reservation at Rock Creek, Idaho. All but two men of the group were members of Mike's family, which included three women and four or five children. They first headed south into northern Nevada and then wandered west to Oroville, California, before heading back into Nevada to spend the winter at Little High Rock Canyon in northern Washoe County. In January 1911 the Daggett party was running low on food, so they abducted and butchered some cattle belonging to a local rancher. A sheepherder named Bert Indiano witnessed the event and alerted the people of Surprise Valley, California, who sent a posse of three men to investigate the incident and protect the ranch. The three men, Harry Cambron, Peter Errammouspe and John Laxague, were to go to the ranch and join up with the sheepherder so the four could investigate the scene. Upon arrival the posse of three instead ran into Mike Daggett and two of his sons, who were reported to be waiting for them.[2][3] Oh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I guess I just don't understand how this is even a serious topic? The US is a secular nation, and it does not go to war in the name of Christ. Christianity is a spent force in the West, and it's ridiculous to relativize it with contemporary Islam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Now it's strongly opposed specifically? Are you going to credit them for having a higher strongly supported demographic than Hindus and all non-white Protestants too? No, its not, like seriously are you struggling with numbers over there? 51% total opposed is more then 42% total support, why is this hard?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The US is a secular nation, and it does not go to war in the name of Christ. Christianity is a spent force in the West, and it's ridiculous to relativize it with contemporary Islam. Except for how a solid third of the country refuses to believe we're secular and define themselves entirely by their particular form of Christianity. But yeah, spent force, no impact, nothing to see here. Definitely not a factor in Manifest Destiny in the least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Except for how a solid third of the country refuses to believe we're secular and define themselves entirely by their particular form of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, its not, like seriously are you struggling with numbers over there? 51% total opposed is more then 42% total support, why is this hard? I'm not talking about that part. I'm talking about quote:33% is only not the second highest strongly opposed on that list (behind evangelicals, like I said) because you found two new ultra-regressive groups that I hadn't seen polling on until this one, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. What you fail to mention is that they also have a higher Strongly Support than Hindus and all non-white Protestants (and Hispanic Catholics too!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
Yeah, I'd say that there is a huge gulf (pun totally on purpose) between the GCC countries and the rest of the Middle East. But there's also a huge difference between them and ANY other country. Fizzil posted:I'm from the UAE, yeah the rural areas have conservative types, they generally try their best to keep women away from working and just groom them for arranged marriages, but they are an outlier though as most people are settled in and around cities. Yeah, this is true. You never really see anyone driving between Abu Dhabi and say Dubai other than the odd goat and really depressed looking immigrant oil workers. EDIT: Oh yeah forgot to mention, honor killings is a problem that spans religions, and is more a sign of endimic poverty and oppressive patriachy than anything else. EDIT 2: Hahaha, good to see The Immigrant posting here again (of course). He's had such fantastic things to impart about the ME before. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Except for how a solid third of the country refuses to believe we're secular and define themselves entirely by their particular form of Christianity. Right, therefore the US is exactly like a Christian Da'esh except worse, and it's probably racist to distinguish the two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
So back on page 1 I linked articles relevant to a discussion on Muslims, Islam and Daesh. Does anyone want to actually engage with that material?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Right, therefore the US is exactly like a Christian Da'esh except worse, and it's probably racist to distinguish the two. I was responding to your total dismissal of Christianity's cultural influence, not saying it's equivalent to anything? You're really bad at picking a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not talking about that part. I'm talking about I didn't "fail" to mention it, the fact they aren't literally piss last at strongly support isn't a very remarkable stat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I didn't "fail" to mention it, the fact they aren't literally piss last at strongly support isn't a very remarkable stat. Actually it's very remarkable since they're better than every other non-white category. This indicates a strong (perhaps generational) divide within the community. Which makes sense if the older folks weren't born in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I was responding to your total dismissal of Christianity's cultural influence, not saying it's equivalent to anything? I was discussing its legal influence, and how the US is a secular nation. The wall between church and state is not impermeable in the US, but it's ridiculous to compare Christianity's influence on US policy with Islam and Da'esh. More broadly, it's ridiculous to compare contemporary Christianity's political influence with that of political Islam. Christianity has been in decline for decades, while Islam is ascendant in all areas of life where Muslims constitute a majority. quote:You're really bad at picking a fight. Don't flatter yourself. I don't know you from Adam, but from what I've seen you're not worth it. Self-loathing, hand-wringer Westerners are a dime a dozen here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually it's very remarkable since they're better than every other non-white category. You mean better then the Hispanic and black population in the only two religions polled that are broken down by race? Because they're worse then non-hispanic catholic and every other religion other then Hindu (which both have massive "support" rather then "strongly support pluralities) that isn't broken down along racial lines. Also I'm not sure how you're calling results consisting of a pretty even split between "strongly support, support, and oppose" with a definitive plurality in "strongly oppose" indicative of a major divide, thats not remotely polarized
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:You mean better then the Hispanic and black population in the only two religions polled that are broken down by race? Because they're worse then non-hispanic catholic and every other religion other then Hindu (which both have massive "support" rather then "strongly support pluralities) that isn't broken down along racial lines. Hmm, it's almost as though non-HIspanic catholics are overwhelmingly white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 01:12
|
|