|
Smoothrich posted:Where were these so-called "moderate" Nazis? Fleeing to places like Brazil and America after they got their poo poo kicked in by the Allies.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Where were these so-called "moderate" Nazis? I'm not surprised that the man that thinks that bragging about shooting black people in New Orleans is morally praiseworthy also thinks that all Muslims are Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Where were these so-called "moderate" Nazis? Though I'm a little disappointed Wez buggered off, because I suspect he was in the later rather than the former. More generally I say there are actually plenty of people who believe that islamism has some sort of emancipatory potential and that 'those drat ISIS guys are ruining it'. Except Daesh aren't ruining it, they're the pure expression of it, any political ideology that prioritizes the viewpoint or value of any one imagined-community (ie - any 'nationalism' for a fairly broad definition of nation {which religions count}) will inevitably generate imagined-community-supremacists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:lol Yeah I think comparing ISIS to the nazis doesn't work because ISIS just doesn't have the ability to do much in the long term, now the Khmer Rouge would work because like them ISIS is the small insignificant power wit some strange visions of how it wants to reconstitute society and a drive to exterminate its own population of the impure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Nazi Germany was going to implode spectacularly no matter what though. Their plans had no reach at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Nazi Germany was going to implode spectacularly no matter what though. Their plans had no reach at all. If the Soviets didn't push them back, hundreds of millions more people would've been genocided in occupied Eastern Europe within a couple more years. Whether or not we nuked Berlin by 1945, the Nazis would've had enough time to properly starve the slavs. There is such a lack of urgency in dealing with ISIS I find it a bit bewildering. Cities can and will fall all over North Africa and the Middle East to independently operating ISIS cells, and we are already seeing Next Gen suicide bombs and domestic shootings all over the world. People debating the merits of Islamocracy when religion is very obviously just being used as an excuse to get rich and kill poo poo. ISIS is rapidly evolving into a formidable military with swelling ranks of fanatical noob recruits for bonzai attacks and a professional officer corps. They have routed the Iraqi army repeatedly for chrissakes and it wouldn't surprise me if Damascus is in their sights within a year. The fact that most of these crazy fucker murderous expansionist regimes in history end up getting defeated or imploding doesn't take away from the horrible humanitarian crisis and suffering that, at this stage in history, we have no excuse to allow to continue. ISIS must be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:They have routed the Iraqi army repeatedly for chrissakes A particularly angry bee could probably rout the Iraqi army repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Here is a pretty decent video by the BBC of some undercover investigation of the discourse within some of Britain's mosques. Interesting watch: Dispatches - Undercover Mosque https://vimeo.com/19598947 The whole 'lets ignore the hegemonic nature of Islam because they'll become moderate eventually' is pretty wishful thinking. Sethex fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Here is a pretty decent video by the BBC of some undercover investigation of the discourse within some of Britain's mosques. Yeah, that illustrates it pretty well. Not sure what to add to that. Or yeah, I am. The Chattanooga shooter. I guess I'm supposed to reserve judgment on this one until a motive is established. So far I've heard speculation on some of the more obvious ones, such as the easy availability of guns. And he was depressed. And taking drugs. Then I heard it was "suicide by cop." What the gently caress? A mass murderer who doesn't even shoot at cops is trying to commit suicide by cop? I'm so loving tired of being a liberal. I'd like to believe in free will, in the ability to assign agency to people who commit violent crimes. All these mitigations are driving me nuts. Crazy! Crazy enough to kill! Naw, just kidding. I'd need guns AND a hosed-up ideology to be crazy enough to kill. I like Obama generally, but I'm disappointed by some of the, uh, optics, of dealings with international terrorism. Lowering flags half-mast several days after the incident, as if it weren't important, looks bad; but I think it makes sense, sort of. The bigger issue (arguably) is all the goddamn guns. But do we really need to persist in this delusion that daesh-inspired actions have nothing to do, whatsoever, at all, with attacks on two quasi-military installations? Not arguing with anybody in the thread; just ranting, here. bitey fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
I prefer the consequence that now many of the same people who were panicking over Jade Helm and the spectre of Martial Law in the US are now calling for the mandatory arming of military personnel stationed among the civilian populace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Here is a pretty decent video by the BBC of some undercover investigation of the discourse within some of Britain's mosques. That's a very interesting documentary, and I'm as eager to criticize fundamentalists of any stripe as anyone, but I don't agree with your last sentence. If you look at Catholicism, they went from torturing and burning supposed heretics to Pope "Help the Poor and Be Cool" Francis all in a few centuries, and the Catholic Church was always much more hierarchical and controlling than Islam can be. Secondly, this focused on mosques and institutions that are supported by noted horrible bastards Saudi Arabia. They're certainly trying to influence more and more of the Muslim community, as described, but to me this is less about "this is what really goes on in mosques!" and more of an argument why Saudi Arabia should be treated like the medieval cocksuckers they are and completely, forcibly isolated from the rest of the world until they can be dragged into at least the 17th (or higher) century. I certainly haven't seen this attitude among the Syrian, Lebanese, Pakistani, etc. communities here in Canada -- again, most of the radicals in my city (for example) were coming from one specific institution that was probably like those shown in the video. I don't think that represents the larger Muslim community in any way, even as I have some very, very serious issues with Islam as a religion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
I think it is a big assumption that Catholicism an Islam will share a similar evolutionary continuum. Religions are different sets of ideologies an given that, assuming they will all follow a trend toward liberal tolerance an moderation is very wishful thinking. Considering something like a 3rd of Muslims may think you should die for apostasy according to a pew poll, an the recent religious revival within the Islamic community I would say liberalization is definitely NOT what the Muslim world is doing. All that said, I feel the approach taken by insecure liberals is to simply tolerate intolerance; condemning the women of these minorities to their cultural ghettos while holding lower expectations for these groups than for ourselves, this to me seems racist. All the while condemning similar groups we don't feel scared to criticize I.e. fundie christians. I don't for a moment hold the position that all muslims are X, but I do hold the position that the 'conservative' manifestation of the religion is a net harm in its current state, and structurally/culturally rejects reformation by severely punishing deviants. A short video of preachers hostile to modernity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1le8KiPqt5I Sethex fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Jul 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I think it is a big assumption that Catholicism an Islam will share a similar evolutionary continuum. I don't think that's what PT6A is saying. Just that, if there's an issue with islam, it's not its supposed Hegemonic Nature because if a Hegemonic Nature keeps a religion from modernizing then Catholics would still be torturing and burning supposed heretics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Can someone give me a few good sources on this "Islamic Revival". My parents tell me that 70s Pakistan was a lot more liberal than it is now (I've also heard similar things from people in Egypt, Iran, etc). As in there were bars and nightclubs and a socialism was actually a popular ideology among the the middle classes. but by the 80s all of that was gone. Was there genuinely an Islamic revival or was it actually urbanization bringing in the more devout people from the rural areas into the cities?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah, things were definitely more liberal in the 70s. And then in 1979 you had the Iranian Islamic revolution, the Grand Mosque seizure in Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Things have largely gone to poo poo after that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yeah, things were definitely more liberal in the 70s. I'm not sure how the travel habits of Westerners are indicative or causative of religiosity in the Islamic world. quote:And then in 1979 you had the Iranian Islamic revolution, the Grand Mosque seizure in Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Things have largely gone to poo poo after that. In all of these cases, Islamism was a reaction against secular regimes imposed by or propped up by non-Muslim powers. In the broader Middle East, Islamism has risen to replace the void left by Nasserism and Pan-Arabism [edit], or the fall of internationalist socialism. TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Sethex posted:
Yes, bingo! The blanket virtue of "tolerance" seems to bracket off the entire issue of what someone can and cannot tolerate. Human rights should trump liberalism, always.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm not sure how the travel habits of Westerners are indicative or causative of religiosity in the Islamic world. You mean Pan-Arabism, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You mean Pan-Arabism, right? Yes, of course. Good catch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I think it is a big assumption that Catholicism an Islam will share a similar evolutionary continuum. Question: what do you think are the odds of success of changing the internal opinions of a small and discriminated-against religious group via the mechanism of pompous generalized denunciations by white atheists who clearly and openly despise them beyond all reason and who openly call for their discrimination and mass killing? In sincerity, do you think that your victims will be as ready to dehumanize themselves and accept that they deserve your righteous punishment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:If the Soviets didn't push them back, hundreds of millions more people would've been genocided in occupied Eastern Europe within a couple more years. Whether or not we nuked Berlin by 1945, the Nazis would've had enough time to properly starve the slavs. You know at least when I read the Kony 2012 stuff, which was about as robust as this, I never got the feeling that the author was writing it with gritted teeth and a boner
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I don't think that's what PT6A is saying. Just that, if there's an issue with islam, it's not its supposed Hegemonic Nature because if a Hegemonic Nature keeps a religion from modernizing then Catholics would still be torturing and burning supposed heretics. You can't compare Islam to Catholicism. You can compare Islam to Christianity, or Catholicism to, say, Ibadism or Alevism or whatever. Point is, Islam is broad and diverse and they don't have a single living authority figure recognized by all Muslims to have the power to adapt and change the faith's dogmas. The Pope has that authority for Roman Catholicism, but whatever the Pope says will not really change the minds of Christians who aren't Roman Catholics. (I precise Roman Catholics because there's also these guys, in addition to all the myriad Orthodox and Protestant flavors.) (Also as far as burning supposed heretics goes, the Church didn't do that (directly). They pronounced someone guilty or innocent, but the sentence was left to the local secular power; the Church itself couldn't sentence people to more than a fine or a pilgrimage.) TheImmigrant posted:I'm not sure how the travel habits of Westerners are indicative or causative of religiosity in the Islamic world. You don't think that having a lot of hippies -- enough to affect the local economy -- traveling through certain countries isn't indicative that the religiosity in these countries was at a level compatible with the presence of traveling hippies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
This is a distinction without a difference. The 'secular' authorities claimed authority through religion, the church knew that the sentences would be carried out. In addition, you can compare Islam to Catholicism, for the time periods where Catholicism was hegemonic, which was a very long period of time--though the authority of the pope used to be quite different than it is today, and the Orthodox have never regarded the pope as supreme, merely quite important. It's wrong to say that what the pope says will not change the minds of Christians who aren't Roman Catholic--what the pope says is important to the Orthodox as well, and of course the Eastern Catholic Churches, who are not Roman Catholic, are in communion with the Catholic church. The Catholic Church has been more hegemonic, during its history, than Islam, which immediately schismed hardcare after Muhammed's death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
No. I think you're overestimating the presence, influence, and impact of shoestring travelers. These people stuck to a very tight trail, like the Banana Pancake Trail or the Gringo Trail today. They very rarely learn any local language, and tend to interact only with locals who cater to them (E.g., innkeepers, savvy restauranteurs, drug dealers) who are already predisposed to deal with people of other cultures. That VW Kombi full of hippies in 1972? They weren't experiencing Peace Corps-style immersion in Paktia, living among conservative Pashtun families. They were smoking hash in Kabul, bought from the type of Afghan who still exists today in Kabul. The hippies stopped going when the Soviets invaded. They stayed away because of top-down intolerance imposed by the Taliban. They were never a big presence off the narrow trail, or had any broad economic or cultural influence. Iran is a different story. At first, war curtailed tourism. Nowadays, it's bureaucratic hurdles that thwart independent shoestring travel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The Catholic Church has been more hegemonic, during its history, than Islam, which immediately schismed hardcare after Muhammed's death. That was my point. The Catholic Church has a centralized hierarchy, Islam as a whole doesn't. Get a reformer Pope, and the Catholic church evolves. How do you get Islam as a whole to evolve? Closest approximation you could find to the Pope would be the Grand Ayatollahs but even then there are several of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I think it is a big assumption that Catholicism an Islam will share a similar evolutionary continuum. I have never seen anyone on these forums defend mistreatment of women, gender inequality, fundamentalist religion of any kind or any of the other things you talk about. Maybe you can point me to it. I don't know who's "liberal" or not either. A lot of people come here just to piss on Islam, the third-world defect á la mode, and I think it rubs people the wrong way when the incredibly spoiled members of Western culture, with its whopping 12 year record of not committing enormous crimes and mass murder, invest so much holy moral energy into condemning the practices and beliefs of people from some of the most miserable places on earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Nah it's cool , I prayed like four times today and refilled my holy moral energy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That was my point. The Catholic Church has a centralized hierarchy, Islam as a whole doesn't. Get a reformer Pope, and the Catholic church evolves. How do you get Islam as a whole to evolve? Closest approximation you could find to the Pope would be the Grand Ayatollahs but even then there are several of them. Thats a shia thing mostly, but the Ayatollah is more of a figurehead judging by how there are other Shia sects around. Not even a Caliph has central authority either. The only way for Islam to evolve is through debate and consensus among popular scholars, and this is what it looks like on the ground. Getting a bunch of people to agree is pretty hard though, Sunnis don't agree with each other, let alone Shia and then they too have a plethora of sects and their own differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches#/media/File:Islam_branches_and_schools.svg Just look at all these sects 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:I have never seen anyone on these forums defend mistreatment of women, gender inequality, fundamentalist religion of any kind or any of the other things you talk about. Maybe you can point me to it. I don't know who's "liberal" or not either. A lot of people come here just to piss on Islam, the third-world defect á la mode, and I think it rubs people the wrong way when the incredibly spoiled members of Western culture, with its whopping 12 year record of not committing enormous crimes and mass murder, invest so much holy moral energy into condemning the practices and beliefs of people from some of the most miserable places on earth. When people, often liberals, complain that liberals won't criticize Islam, what they usually mean is that although most liberals especially those on the internet are generally on board with hateful belligerence towards Muslims and the practical effects of this in more discrimination and killing which may or may not be the explicit intended result, unbelievably enough some small subset has a problem with it for incomprehensible reasons Tezzor fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Question: what do you think are the odds of success of changing the internal opinions of a small and discriminated-against religious group via the mechanism of pompous generalized denunciations by white atheists who clearly and openly despise them beyond all reason and who openly call for their discrimination and mass killing? In sincerity, do you think that your victims will be as ready to dehumanize themselves and accept that they deserve your righteous punishment? So I guess expressing criticism toward a religion is equivocal to advocating genocide, got it. Being free to call overtly sexist beliefs harmful without idiots conflating those statements with advocating genocide is mostly what I advocate. You beautifully demonstrated part of the problem, by being part of that problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
I took a History of Terrorism class offered by my university after 9/11. The main book we used to talk about religious terrorism was Terror in the Mind of God. Unfortunately, I do not think he has updated it for ISIS or any of the major groups that have formed in the last decade. It talks about the conservative viewpoints of all of these religions and how those viewpoints promote violence to gain and maintain power. http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Mind-God-Religious-Comparative/dp/0520240111 Edit: I did not know if this book was brought up before so I thought I would post it. Also, something that has always stuck out with me is the time difference between Christianity forming and Islam forming. Maybe there is a timely evolution of religion that eventually leads to a violent period. But we must also look at socioeconomic factors that lead to "disenfranchised" groups to turn to violence. Bizarro Kanyon fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jul 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 19:55
|
|
Tezzor posted:When people, often liberals, complain that liberals won't criticize Islam, what they usually mean is that although most liberals especially those on the internet are generally on board with hateful belligerence towards Muslims and the practical effects of this in more discrimination and killing which may or may not be the explicit intended result, unbelievably enough some small subset has a problem with it for incomprehensible reasons I love when people post dumb poo poo but try to say it in the most "smart" way possible so that nobody tries to parse the ideas underneath. You are an idiot, good day.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:
I'd be very, very hesitant to make some sort of argument for a chronological 'evolution' of religions. Judaism has had violent periods (the Zealot revolts and other Jewish Wars against Rome, the Zionist movement) that have always been the result of very specific socio-economic reasons. Likewise Christianity started out as a pacificistic, apocalyptic religion that rejected material goods or concerns as the Day of Judgement was just round the corner and changed as the realities of being the pre-eminent (and then sole) religion of a major world power forced it to. Religions are far more likely to reflect the general views and needs of the people who follow them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Religions are far more likely to reflect the general views and needs of the people who follow them. If this were actually to be believed it'd say some very nasty things indeed about large groups of people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
There's a reason I'm not a fan of anarchism in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:I have never seen anyone on these forums defend mistreatment of women, gender inequality, fundamentalist religion of any kind or any of the other things you talk about. Maybe you can point me to it. Reflexively attacking those who raise the issue of misogyny and homophobia in the Muslim world is defending those things no matter how desperately you try to avoid that conclusion. There's a lot less functional difference between being openly misogynist and being anti-anti-misogynist than you want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:I have never seen anyone on these forums defend mistreatment of women, gender inequality, fundamentalist religion of any kind or any of the other things you talk about. Maybe you can point me to it. I don't know who's "liberal" or not either. A lot of people come here just to piss on Islam, the third-world defect á la mode, and I think it rubs people the wrong way when the incredibly spoiled members of Western culture, with its whopping 12 year record of not committing enormous crimes and mass murder, invest so much holy moral energy into condemning the practices and beliefs of people from some of the most miserable places on earth. The key is to be consistent and reframe it in such a way that it serves progressive forces rather than reactionary forces, which is what an honest assessment will do. Part of that is a deconstruction of the monolithic other of 'muslims' into distinct power blocks and ideological superstructures, which you can compare and contrast with similar power-structures/ideologies both historical and contemporary, then react appropriately (which is what the post you are quoting is doing). Islamism is far-right, you undermine it the same way you do any other far-right groups. MrNemo posted:There's a reason I'm not a fan of anarchism in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Sethex posted:So I guess expressing criticism toward a religion is equivocal to advocating genocide, got it. "Mass killing," which is what I noted that the average real life Muslim-hater is in favor of both in theory and in practice, is not in fact synonymous with "genocide." You're merely in favor of really existing wars that killed and continue to kill Muslims by at least the hundreds of thousands and just about every hypothetical new one that floats across the table, not anything so gauche and immoral as genocide. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:"Mass killing," which is what I noted that the average real life Muslim-hater is in favor of both in theory and in practice, is not in fact synonymous with "genocide." You're merely in favor of really existing wars that killed and continue to kill Muslims by at least the hundreds of thousands and just about every hypothetical new one that floats across the table, not anything so gauche and immoral as genocide. Criticizing a religion is not the same as calling for mass killings, holy poo poo what is wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Criticizing a religion is not the same as calling for mass killings, holy poo poo what is wrong with you. As his extensive rap sheet attests, many, many things are wrong with forums poster Tezzor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:53
|
|