|
Cat Mattress posted:"Either you're racist, or you have to admit the terrorists are right." Do you believe that the west is in an ideological war with Islam and it's followers?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Do you believe that the west is in an ideological war with Islam and it's followers? No. I believe that some elements of Islam are at war with the West though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:No. I believe that some elements of Islam are at war with the West though. so are some elements of the west. thankfully these elements are most likely to have 'hunting accidents'
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so are some elements of the west. thankfully these elements are most likely to have 'hunting accidents' Both this and the post you quoted are very true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What would it take to start an Islamic Enlightening? The Peace of Westphalia and the horror of religious wars, as well as the state taking power from the church started the European one, could similar circumstances exist in the Middle-East after ISIS? Finally, I don't know how you can take power from a thing that is not nearly as centralized as the Catholic church was in Europe. Someone takes power away from Khameini? I shrug because I'm not in Iran, he's not a scholar I particularly follow, I'm not particularly Shi'a. It has absolutely no bearing on my spiritual well-being, and he has no spiritual authority over me. How do you start an enlightenment or reformation of a faith that is almost entirely un-unified except for people who choose to follow this or that scholar, but who can change their mind for whatever reason at any time and that's not a big deal? Frosted Flake posted:No. I believe that some elements of Islam are at war with the West though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Tendai posted:What do you mean by "elements of Islam" exactly? Elements of the faith itself? Like a concept is at war with the West? Or some people who practice it? The people. As you said explaining why the conditions are not 1-to-1 with the Enlightenment, people can choose whatever interpretation they want, so I don't think it is a fundamental issue of the faith. Albania and Turkey certainly aren't at war with the West, and arguably are themselves part of the Western world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The people. As you said explaining why the conditions are not 1-to-1 with the Enlightenment, people can choose whatever interpretation they want, so I don't think it is a fundamental issue of the faith. Albania and Turkey certainly aren't at war with the West, and arguably are themselves part of the Western world. Because people do say and mean the other part and then I get to be sarcastic about my ongoing war with the west based out of New Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:31
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:"Either you're racist, or you have to admit the terrorists are right." Please source your quotes.  An Enormous Boner posted:We're talking about allusions made within a sub-section of a single sentence in ISIS's statement. It's very important, yes, but there's other stuff there and it's also significant. I mean there's stuff in the same sentence, even, that isn't just about France in Syria. The vast majority of it is cruft. It's like emphasizing the use of articles and prepositions and poo poo. They're also not "allusions", it's outright statements that this is in response to/revenge for French interventions in Syria. The other clause, meanwhile, is plainly about contextualizing French interventions as being a new Crusade against all Muslims. This is entirely in keeping with ISIS's particular worldview, but it's also not some kind of "they hate us for being sexual libertines" or whatever culture-war poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Manic X posted:Why is it when you question the compatability of certain cultures together, the automatic response by SJWs is the race card. Because people don't seem to threat culture as the nebulos concept it is, in scope, effect not even deffinition. If we identify a Muslim culture we will have a heck of a time explaining away discrepancies between Bosniaks in Balkans and the Saudi Royal family. And people who have embraced the idea of monocultures have had the tendency to be the least likely candidate for "human first" values....ironicly towards people of their own "culture" Also what the gently caress in an SJW again? Can people who unironicly uses the term give me a headsup?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
54.4 crowns posted:
"Politically correct", more or less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
54.4 crowns posted:Also what the gently caress in an SJW again? Can people who unironicly uses the term give me a headsup? People who enjoy outrage to the point of sexual gratification.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
This is a fun watch on this subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:People who enjoy outrage to the point of sexual gratification. Essentially that is everyone I've met that bitched about SJW
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Politically correct", more or less. I always thought that was a much more effective slur anyway. It ties it closely to politics, which everyone hates, and the notion that there is one "correct" thing is bound to generate resistance as well. Whereas those people fighting for social justice? Sound pretty cool to me. A bit like the "human rights brigade". Where do I sign up for that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Isn't modern Japan extremely secular? It's sexist and xenophobic as hell. Well, I'm convinced by the staggering amount of evidence you've brought to bear for your "the japanese are gross, for realz" thesis. Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Or is it also somehow under the "secretly religious" umbrella because blah blah Shinto blah? Are you aware that within living memory Japan's emperor was considered a living god and was an object of cult adoration during fascist rule? Because if you did not then you should probably not be accusing the dreaded "new atheists" of theological ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
An Enormous Boner is correct, it's wrong to look at what ISIS says about themselves, and then turn around and go "well clearly they don't believe any of that, the real reasons are the more limited goals of retaliation/whatever". The answer is Yes and No. If it were purely a tit-for-tat affair, then none of their other actions make sense (artifact destruction, brutal & broadcasted beheadings, ethnic cleansing, taunting of western leaders etc). Wouldn't they be trying to keep a lower profile? That and just pure terror attacks are usually not the way to go. You want a good contrast, think of the Moscow Theater Crisis. The people perpetrating that acted very differently; their procedure, the way they treated hostages, their bargaining positions, totally different. Their mistake was their enemy was Putin, who could not give two shits about being either moral or about the welfare of his own citizens, so he gassed them. But the terrorist's goals were limited, clearly explained, and their actions matched those goals - withdrawal from Chechnya, these hostages are our bargaining chips. That isn't how ISIS operates. Would a mass-slaughter terror attack in the tourist hot spots of France reduce or increase the motivation of France to intervene? It's a really obvious question, with a just as obvious answer. Are we supposed to believe that they didn't ask themselves that? Are we to believe that they're that stupid? No, they can't be - so the assumptions we have about their motivations must be wrong. This doesn't mean that ISIS is what Islam is really about, or any trash like that. But if you want to understand these kinds of groups, you have to think about them on their own terms. You can't project your own, modern understanding of the role of warfare (the Clausewitzian 'achievement of limited political goals that cannot be obtained by other means') onto them, because that's not how everyone else throughout history actually thought about war. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
54.4 crowns posted:Also what the gently caress in an SJW again? Can people who unironicly uses the term give me a headsup? I think it's short for Sinister Jew, since a significant number of people who use it also complain about cultural marxism poisoning west civ. edit to be productive: This is an excellent book about ISIS, published earlier this year (before the Paris attacks, but obviously it predicts them) http://jessicasternbooks.com/books/isis-the-state-of-terror/ Get thee to thine book depository Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's almost as if Islamophobia is a particular strain of reactionary political thought. I don't agree that it's inherently reactionary, though a lot of things involved under the umbrella term 'Islamaphobia' would be such. Things such as racism and flailings about "Sharia law" or other such nonsense are pretty typical of reactionaries. But the "phobia" itself, as in the fear of Islam and more specifically radical Islam, is a response to decades of news stories on Hijackings, murders, suicide bombings, beheadings and other such barbarism, without themselves knowing much about the religion itself or the people here in western nations who follow it. When someone hears nothing but that sort of violence in regard to Islam, and especially as we have international terror groups specifically threatening to commit horrible acts in the west, it's not irrational to be afraid of such a thing (people do not take statistics into account when fear comes into play). Stories of seemingly quiet and nice individuals "sponteneously" radicalizing and attacking public places only cement that fear. "It could be anyone with a beard and a funny name..." one might think. It then becomes a problem, when the usual suspects prey on that fear and whip people into a frenzy over it. Racism and persecution follow shortly behind. What's the solution though? Because clearly denying people's fears hasn't been helpful in the least. It's actually emboldened the right further, as they'll be the ones to tell people just what they want to hear. Who they should be afraid of and how much. Fighting Islamaphobia with facts is a good start, so long as it's put in a way the average, scared person can understand and isn't inherently combative. There seems to be a tendency to belittle the frightened for having that fear, and citing statistics. Sometimes even alluding that the individual is racist or a bigot in the process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
http://gawker.com/donald-trumps-new-policy-no-more-muslims-1746717703 On Monday afternoon, Donald Trump announced a new policy platform: No more Muslims. The ensuing nonsensical statement is, incredibly, not a joke. In the statement, which was apparently emailed to reporters, Trump proudly tosses aside “various polling data,” explaining that instinct is telling him what this country needs is a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” (That shutdown applies to Muslim immigrants and tourists alike, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski tells the AP.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
This makes nearly as much sense (and is as possible) as Qatar's promise to detect gay people and bar them from the country. Which is to say it makes no sense, and is also not possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
What would be the proof that someone is a Muslim to bar them entry into the US?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:What would be the proof that someone is a Muslim to bar them entry into the US? They will place korans on the floor and force people to walk over them
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:What would be the proof that someone is a Muslim to bar them entry into the US? Something to do with whether they float or sink in water, I forget which.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Something to do with whether they float or sink in water, I forget which. No, we will outfit every border crossing with a duck and a set of scales.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Aren't most Muslims in the USA African-Americans citizens anyways, as opposed to Middle Eastern visitors? I don't know, something I heard somewhere.Talmonis posted:I don't agree that it's inherently reactionary, though a lot of things involved under the umbrella term 'Islamaphobia' would be such. Things such as racism and flailings about "Sharia law" or other such nonsense are pretty typical of reactionaries. But the "phobia" itself, as in the fear of Islam and more specifically radical Islam, is a response to decades of news stories on Hijackings, murders, suicide bombings, beheadings and other such barbarism, without themselves knowing much about the religion itself or the people here in western nations who follow it. When someone hears nothing but that sort of violence in regard to Islam, and especially as we have international terror groups specifically threatening to commit horrible acts in the west, it's not irrational to be afraid of such a thing (people do not take statistics into account when fear comes into play). Stories of seemingly quiet and nice individuals "sponteneously" radicalizing and attacking public places only cement that fear. "It could be anyone with a beard and a funny name..." one might think. It then becomes a problem, when the usual suspects prey on that fear and whip people into a frenzy over it. Racism and persecution follow shortly behind. Fear is an emotion, which is irrational. You cannot rationally fear something, any more than you can rationally love or hate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This makes nearly as much sense (and is as possible) as Qatar's promise to detect gay people and bar them from the country. Which is to say it makes no sense, and is also not possible. Trump will be the Republican nominee and his policy will then become a plank of the RNC. The only news source that matters Breitbart, will promote his policies and the soundness behind them every day, conservatives in the media call the president a pussy, and there is literally nothing between now and November 2016 to counter their narrative, because the media doesn't question Trump beyond insulting him, which doesn't work. We only have a vague sense that there will be more Democratic voters in the general next year, but Trump continues to stump all analytical intellectuals. I can only hope there is something to counter the islamophobia in Trump's campaign, but it seems he found something really hot with the conservative voter. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Aren't most Muslims in the USA African-Americans citizens anyways, as opposed to Middle Eastern visitors? I don't know, something I heard somewhere. Most converts are, but what I'm seeing is about 30% each of Arab, Black, and South Asian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Fear is an emotion, which is irrational. You cannot rationally fear something, any more than you can rationally love or hate it. This is a curious assumption for a whole slew of reasons, not the least of which being that it renders the entire concept of a phobia meaningless. Emotions are not inherently irrational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:What would it take to start an Islamic Enlightening? The Peace of Westphalia and the horror of religious wars, as well as the state taking power from the church started the European one, could similar circumstances exist in the Middle-East after ISIS? Honest answer? Heavy sanctions against Saudi Arabia, in lieu of a full scale military intervention. If we can't do that, then at the very least stop sucking their cock constantly seeing as how they're the single biggest funder and exporter of "Radical Islam" in the entire world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Honest answer? Heavy sanctions against Saudi Arabia, in lieu of a full scale military intervention. As long as they sit on that sea of oil, they're bulletproof. If we put sanctions on them we'll be going back to the gas shortages of the 70s, until we get off of fossil fuels we are stuck with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on Ddraig posted:Honest answer? Heavy sanctions against Saudi Arabia, in lieu of a full scale military intervention. Mulva posted:As long as they sit on that sea of oil, they're bulletproof. If we put sanctions on them we'll be going back to the gas shortages of the 70s, until we get off of fossil fuels we are stuck with them. Tendai fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Tendai posted:Is it this at this point or just a desire to not totally destabilize the region? For all that the Saudi government is horrible, they're somewhat more stable than others at this point in the area, not to mention what I've said before about things going properly shitshow if Mecca and Medina go up for grabs. I'm sure it's part of it, but I personally think we only care about that stability as far as it keeps the oil flowing. That said, in point to you we have invaded stable oil producing countries before, so who knows at this point. EDIT: Not to mention that while the Saudi regime is stable they are literally destabilizing the rest of the region.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This makes nearly as much sense (and is as possible) as Qatar's promise to detect gay people and bar them from the country. Which is to say it makes no sense, and is also not possible. They could use those "golf ball finders" that guy was selling as bomb detectors as gay detectors. (This isn't a "The Onion" article. I just wish it was.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 This whole situation sucks. I'd love to visit the Middle East someday...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Trump will be the Republican nominee and his policy will then become a plank of the RNC. The only news source that matters Breitbart, will promote his policies and the soundness behind them every day, conservatives in the media call the president a pussy, and there is literally nothing between now and November 2016 to counter their narrative, because the media doesn't question Trump beyond insulting him, which doesn't work. We only have a vague sense that there will be more Democratic voters in the general next year, but Trump continues to stump all analytical intellectuals. Getting non-whites to vote republican on the back of Islamophobia is probably a winning strategy to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I'm sure it's part of it, but I personally think we only care about that stability as far as it keeps the oil flowing. That said, in point to you we have invaded stable oil producing countries before, so who knows at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Tendai posted:I was more wondering just because I thought our oil consumption from Saudi Arabia had dropped pretty far; from what I'm reading it's less than 2% of the oil we import. I wasn't sure how much effect that small a percentage would have (or if that's really that small a percentage, it seems like it to me but I'm not an oil baron) We don't purchase Saudi oil, but other countries do. And if THEY are blocked from Saudi oil, they'll be competing with us for the same non-Saudi reserves. Just because we don't buy from them doesn't mean their presence or absence in the world market doesn't affect the prices we pay. Hooray for globalization!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
It's cool that the thread about Islamophobia is largely dominated by people arguing that maybe Muslims really are subhuman monsters and all, but back in the real world the political hysteria being whipped up over Islamophobia is driving some really frightening political developments. quote:Trump Calls For Total Ban On Muslims Entering The U.S. quote:Group Trump Cites Has Been Whipping Up Extreme Anti-Muslim Fervor For Years
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's cool that the thread about Islamophobia is largely dominated by people arguing that maybe Muslims really are subhuman monsters and all, but back in the real world the political hysteria being whipped up over Islamophobia is driving some really frightening political developments. If he wins, we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:We don't purchase Saudi oil, but other countries do. And if THEY are blocked from Saudi oil, they'll be competing with us for the same non-Saudi reserves. Just because we don't buy from them doesn't mean their presence or absence in the world market doesn't affect the prices we pay. ~ Something interesting that relates to the Trump nonsense above -- well, more sad than interesting: A lot of fellow Muslims I know have said point blank that they feel that the attitude towards Muslims in the US at this point is as or more hostile than it was after 9/11. This ranges from both "Muslim-looking" people to white stealth agents like myself. I'm almost to that point, though somewhat more insulated where I am geographically since it's a tiny place and everyone knows either me or my family. The level of vitriol that I see online and in articles, the specific calls I see getting actual press and positive attention demanding that Muslims be essentially turned into non-citizens even in their own country is kind of horrifying me. Tendai fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If he wins, we're hosed. Define "we", a Trump presidency would be the greatest thing to happen to the left in the US in decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 03:50
|
|