|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Yeah the idea that you can simplify things until you can break them up and make theories isn't necessarily a bad idea. The problem is people take the oversimplified, not very predictive theories and try and act like they're the word of god himself. This is the issue. There's a disconnect where a Physics 101 professor can tell his class "we're going to completely disregard air resistance for the purposes of this class" and have the class understand that air resistance still exists, or a Chem 101 professor can tell her class that bonds are lines of paired electrons between protons to make drawing and understanding bonds a lot easier, while an Econ 101 professor's models aren't understood to be equally simplified for the purposes of teaching the basics.
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Necc0 posted:No- I'm serious. Is this how deep this guy's Dunning-Kruger runs? This guy has gone his entire life never really paying attention to a single presidential campaign and realizing how loving dirty it can get? This motherfucker really saw a cabal of the world's most influential and powerful people taking out their daggers to fight for the throne, squinted his eyes, rubbed his chin and said, 'hey well I've operated on a brain how hard could it be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ " "I was born into a poor black family and became the world's greatest neurosurgeon, I think that means that anything George W. Bush can do, I can do in my sleep. Hell, I'll do just that: I'll become president, while sleeping."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
IllIllIll posted:Serious question, have any of you seen any genuinely funny media with a explicit right wing bias? Yes Minister obviously isn't "Republican" because it's english but it's fair to call it conservative and Margaret Thatcher really liked it. This thread tends to say that conservative humor is impossible because of punching-up vs. punching-down but you can absolutely punch-up at government dysfunction, bureaucracy and perverse incentives
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I don't want to be bitchy but this ayn rand derail has being going on for 12+ pages at this point. Is there a possibility it could, I dunno, move somewhere relevant? Ayn Rand's books are media constantly used and drawn upon and cited by the right wing, so it's pretty relevant here imo
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:My problem with it is less the connection to where the relevancy began and more the fact that it's been dominating pages for close to 15 of them at this point. But if I'm the only person who's over it I'll shut up I don't really care about Ayn Rand either but I can't complain that it's irrelevant. Maybe someone could start a new thread for it? It can be the Paul Ryan 2016 thread
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I didn't catch most of it but there was some guest on Fox saying brexit would make the stock markets go up He meant the stock markets in Hell
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
It's kind of weird that condom brands don't already go heavy on product placement in porn
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Imagine your own mother comparing your vagina to a ham sandwich on Twitter. For the purposes of telling everyone how infrequently you get laid
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Pretty much but the expectations for her at that point were so low that as long as she didn't literally pee herself it would be seen as "holding her own." So everyone get ready for this in a few months with Trump v. Clinton
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:I've never been a fan of Adam Sandler, though I still think Happy Gilmore is a perfectly good and enjoyable comedy, but watching Red Letter Media's blistering takedown of Jack and Jill, and by extension every post-Happy Maddison Sandler film, made utterly detest him as a human being. Seeing the leaked emails that came out of the Sony hack where Sony Pictures' then-president straight up says "what kind of hold does this guy have on us that we keep giving him $100M per film to make sitcom-quality poo poo" basically confirmed it in my mind. I don't know why you would detest a guy for tricking huge corporations into giving him and his friends money to party in exotic locales and then see themselves in movies
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Laura Ingram did this today, so yeah, this bit of internet insanity is mainstream now. I think we should debate whether waves of political violence against American liberals would technically qualify as "genocide."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Brrrmph posted:https://twitter.com/pjayevans/status/1539451812981264384?s=21&t=KsLO_MAAqZuW0ECOy4f_0g You've fallen for parody. To me it's obvious from the tweet alone but you can also see it from his feed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
ErIog posted:"while relying on a popular social media account run by a Jewish woman," is doing a lot of heavy lifting here when they could have just said outright that Chaya Raichik is fueling literal nazis via LibsofTikTok. It's actually a lot more gross to just refer to her as, "a Jewish woman." One of these descriptions is who she is (her name) and the other calls attention to her race/religion for no reason. In any story involving Nazis, whether someone involved is Jewish or not is relevant, because a key part of Nazi ideology is venomous hatred of Jews. Here we can see these particular Nazis, who say they do not like Jews and don't want to engage with media made by Jews, still do it as much as anyone else when the content of the media is to their satisfaction. It's interesting and even a little amusing. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jan 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
ErIog posted:To take it back to Right Wing Media here after this derail, the thing about people like Chaya Raichik is that they don't actually flinch when they hear people like Kanye. People who have a kind of a zealotry in their Zionism literally hate most Jewish people that currently exist on Earth for not supporting the Zionist movement. I think it's very weird to start insisting that this right-wing Chabadnik actually hates Jews just because she hates trans people. She's just got ordinary right-wing Chabadnik politics, which are philosemitic and transphobic. I'm Jewish - more importantly I'm pedantic - and I wouldn't call someone a Nazi if they don't hate Jewish people because that's a pretty core element of Nazism. I also wouldn't call Nathan Bedford Forrest or Benito Mussolini Nazis, or call HItler a Klansman. For me it's enough to say someone's a reactionary contributing to violence, that's actually bad whether you do it German-style or White American-style or Chabad-style. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Nah, a lot of those Zionists in Israel hate the diaspora Jews and see them as not being supportive enough of the Zionist project even if they say they nominally agree with it. You see it every time anyone Jewish says that maybe Israel should try to lay off murdering children in the West Bank. Raichik isn't an Israeli Zionist, she's an American Chabadnik. quote:I will also reiterate that the thing that marked Nazism was not the targeting of any specific group. The criteria was not being "Aryan," and not being of use to the Nazi state. The Nazis exterminated 10-12 million people: Jews, Slavs, Roma, disabled people, leftists, gay people, trans people, socialists, and others. It's offensive for you to say it only becomes Nazism when it's about elimination of Jews and not when it's the elimination of all the other people Nazis exterminated. It's pretty much exactly the thing the First They Came For.. poem was decrying. There's plenty of awful ideology and violence in this world that isn't Nazism. If you don't hate Jews and love Hitler, you're not a Nazi, you're some other kind of fascist sicko. "Nazi/not Nazi" has no moral weight to it when we're already dealing with fascist sickos
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:Wow, that's clever of them to make it only affect property taxes. So if you rent and have 10 kids, you don't get the tax cut? Just a few decades ago, the caricature of a woman having as many children as possible in return for cash/benefits from the government was used as the archetype of evil to rail against. The effect is to privilege homeowners over renters but they couldn't structure it differently if they tried - Texas has no income or estate tax, the only tax relief they can give is property, or let families incorporate themselves as sales tax-exempt organizations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:Wait, so they think that a marketing decision to partner with a particular spokesperson and briefly relabel some cans was so bad that... the marketing guy got promoted? what makes you think someone got promoted?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
ContinuityNewTimes posted:The marketing guy is taking over for the VP You read it backward.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Adherents of those religions which disagree with the problematic expressions of that religion should stop getting offended by guilt-by-association and bitching about it, and keep saying "yeah, we hate that poo poo too!" Would you extend this to race as well, that Black Americans shouldn't be offended by guilt-by-association for what other Black Americans do, that Chinese Americans shouldn't be offended by guilt-by-association for what the Chinese government does etc? Of course it's offensive to me that someone assumes I support war crimes because I'm Jewish, how in the world could that not be offensive? "Guilt by association" is generally bullshit, particularly in the case of religion which is basically an involuntary-from-birth cultural affiliation no different from race or nationality. PT6A posted:...that doesn't mean that the good Christians, the good Muslims, the good Jews, are doing something wrong or somehow agreeing with the lovely people who use the name of their religion to do bad things. "They're not doing bad things, but they shouldn't be offended at the idea that they are doing bad things, because they come from the same background as people who do bad things." This is the precise logic by which cops stop and search Black, Hispanic, and Native American drivers more than White drivers. People who remind you of bad people are not responsible for your faulty associations and inaccurate cognitive biases, they don't have to go above and beyond to prove they're the good type of person from their culture while still accepting your "guilt by association" libel. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:The difference is that every group you mentioned is a minority, and not one of the largest, most powerful, and most overrepresented power blocs in the United States PT6A specifically called out Jews and Muslims in their post, I'm responding to that. Part of what PT6A said in the post that I'm responding to is that Jews and Muslims shouldn't be offended by the assumption that they support whatever violence is conducted in the name of their religion. I disagree, I think it is offensive to say American Muslims are in any way guilty for 9/11, and that the idea of such guilt has resulted in mass suffering across the country. I also think it was wrong to throw Japanese Americans in concentration camps or for the cops to treat every Black American like a probable criminal. It is very bad to say that people bear "guilt by association" for the worst things done by the worst people in their cultures/ancestral backgrounds. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You're mixing up a lot of things. Should or should not American Jews feel responsible/annoyed at organizations that purport to represent us in the US for what they do? This has nothing to do with you making it about Israeli or Chinese policy or 9/11 or other things done by forces outside the country. I'm responding to a post that doesn't make that distinction at all, it talks about Jewish guilt for "Israeli war crimes" and Muslim guilt for "hardline poo poo like you see in Saudi." Guilt-by-association on the basis of religion is wrong in theory and heinous in practice, whether the crime takes place in the US or elsewhere, just like with race or culture or anything else which indicates a person's family background but not their character. I thought this was a pretty basic ethical idea to be honest. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What I'm saying isn't that people should put up with guilt by association, You just said this: PT6A posted:Adherents of those religions which disagree with the problematic expressions of that religion should stop getting offended by guilt-by-association and bitching about it On the same page. Come on. PT6A posted:When big chunks of your religious community are up to some bullshit, you gotta accept that maybe people are going to use a shorthand to refer to the people causing the problems, and it's not meant as a personal slight. This is pretty familiar logic. I often see it in the form of "When I talk about how the Blacks/Mexicans/Arabs are ruining this neighborhood with all their crime, it's not meant as a slight against the good ones, of whom there are plenty, I'm just using it as a shorthand to refer to the ones causing the problems." The fact that it's convenient to talk about religious/ethnic/cultural groups as if they're monolithically responsible for whichever of them act badly, simply by dint of sharing a common background, doesn't mean it's acceptable. It's bigotry and it gets people killed. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jul 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Agreed, we should be more precise whenever we speak about such groups. Earlier you weren't just talking about Christians, you were talking about Jews and Muslims. I only engaged you about the Jews and Muslims part. I don't much care about the Christian part because people in this country aren't assaulted or killed for being Christians, but this happens to Jews and Muslims, often directly because of the "guilt by association" thing that you're saying we gotta chill out about. Should Jews and Muslims be chill too, or is it appropriate for them to be offended and alarmed when they start getting tagged with "guilt by association" for the overseas atrocities you were talking about earlier?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't think someone who says, in good faith, "Jewish support for Israel is a problem" is necessarily an anti-Semite, so much as imprecise speaker. It doesn't matter what they believe in their heart. What matters is that language like this increases the probability of another synagogue or cemetery vandalized, another Chossid assaulted in the streets, or another Crown Heights riot. The fact that some Jews are politically powerful does nothing to change the fact that when innocent people are blamed for violent atrocities, they're more likely to face unwarranted, even violent "retribution." And they have every right to be upset about that and to demand it stop. PT6A posted:The Jewish community, though, I do think it's a closer parallel because while they're obviously been historical discrimination, I think this is the real issue - you conceive of violence against Jews as a crime of the past, and nowadays they're a basically secure group not too much different in social status from Christians, while the reality is that the Tree of Life synagogue was attacked during the Trump administration and during the Biden administration we've seen American Nazis menace synagogues. In this context blaming "the Jews" for problems isn't just inartful speech, it is throwing gasoline on a deadly fire. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
PortobelloPirate posted:However, all of the major religions have precepts about how to live life here on earth that are just flat out incorrect. I don't know how a precept can be "flat out incorrect." There's no truth or falsifiability to a religious rule like "fast and give to charity on certain calendar days" or "pray 3 times a day" or "build a fence around your roof." It's just something you can do or not do, it's not a claim. VitalSigns posted:Idk I think it was good that northern states realized segregation made America look bad and voted for federal laws to ban Jim Crow instead of saying what they do in Mississippi isn't anyone else's problem Paraphrasing Abraham Joshua Heschel, they weren't guilty but they were responsible. Their responsibility came not from the fact that they shared some nebulous identity with the guilty party, it came from the fact that they had the power to intervene on behalf of justice. PortobelloPirate posted:If all religion were purely spiritual in nature and solely focused on the afterlife, I’d get it. Bluntly, just speaking from my experience as someone who grew up with some religion and now goes to services every weekend, this sounds dreadful. A religion ignoring the material realities of our lives is like a driver ignoring the road. And we don't know jack about any afterlife so it doesn't make sense to focus on it, certainly not "solely." In my view, which is obviously biased by my own religious background, a good religion is a machine that leverages our social networks, cultural traditions, and individual creativity to trigger feelings of transcendence, and then manipulates those feelings to make it easier to cope with misfortune and harder to tolerate injustice. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There's also the issue of benefiting indirectly from the dominance of certain religions. All practicing Christians benefit from Sunday being the bank holiday (except for the ones who keep the Sabbath on Saturday). All practicing Jews (and the Christians who keep the Sabbath on Saturday) benefit to a lesser extent from Saturday also being an office and factory holiday (and it's not unrelated - Saturday off was originally pushed by certain Jewish organizations). The whole annual calendar is keyed around mostly Christian holidays, that really works for you if you're Christian, and against you if you're of a different religion. I was hoping that our first Muslim president Barack Hussein Obama would implement Sharia law and give us half-days on Fridays (which is great for the winter shabbosim when sundown is at like 3pm). Just another failed promise - libs will say it's because the Republicans were so inflexible but there were four months he had a supermajority and didn't make any effort on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
I reject the idea that religion is a voluntary association any more than the country where you live, or the culture with which you affiliate, or who your family is, or what your name is, or the language/accent in which you speak, is a voluntary association. Yes it is theoretically possible to change all of those things about yourself - sometimes it's even possible to change your race or gender assignment within society - but that doesn't mean we consider those things to actually be voluntary. The human reality is that there are enormous obstacles - psychological, social, and material - to abandoning the culture in which you were raised. This idea that religion is just a voluntary club for people with a shared ideology/politics might be a good description of some strands of Protestant Christianity in the US but it fails to describe how religion actually functions for most people in most of the world, where it's inseparable from cultural and communal lif. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Maybe worldwide, I don't know, but I don't think this is true for most of the US. You think it's easy for an American Jew to stop being Jewish or for an American Muslim to stop being Muslim or for an American Hindu to stop being Hindu? These identities are inseparable from broader cultural and communal affiliations, and deeply ingrained the person's own psychology from birth. It's not voluntary any more than our names or the languages we speak or where we live is voluntary. You can change any of these things, but it means overhauling your lifestyle or personal identity or both. It is scary and expensive and difficult. I stand by what I said - "this idea that religion is just a voluntary club for people with a shared ideology/politics" is really just talking about much of American Protestant Christianity and maybe certain Protestantism-influenced Catholic communities. Many of the posters in this conversation are saying things about American Protestant Christianity, things that look basically true to me, but then talking about "religion" as if the whole of religion is or ought to be American Protestant Christianity. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:At some point maybe he will realize that he only had any 'fame' because of his dad He absolutely realizes it, that's why he's the most enthusiastically/desperately integrated into the Trump media circus while the other kids are either quiet or working on more independent brands. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:If you were raised a lifelong racist in a family of Klan members, I think we'd all agree you still have a moral obligation to not be a bigoted piece of poo poo, I think under any circumstances you have a moral obligation not to be a bigoted piece of poo poo. Would you be obligated to change your name, so that you're no longer identifying yourself in a way that's similar to bad people? If we change the analogy from family to culture - and culture here is a better analogy for religion - we have the actual situation of many American southerners, that their culture is disproportionately afflicted with racist assholes who are racist in the name of the culture. Does this mean southerners are obligated to stop being southerners, to stop cooking collard greens and chicken fried steak and to start pronouncing words like they're from Ohio? I think the obligation is to not be a bigoted piece of poo poo or friendly to bigoted pieces of poo poo. You're not obligated to change your culture or religion because it's somehow been tainted by bad actors. All cultural expression is reproduced in a variation that serves the ruling class. quote:But either way, the question is moot because, again, we recognize men have a responsibility to call out toxic masculinity I have that obligation because with power comes responsibility, so when I have the power to speak up I have the responsibility to do so. The reason I have that obligation isn't that there exists such a thing as gender-level guilt or gender-level responsibility quote:just as men do in patriarchal societies (read: pretty much all of them, ever). The idea that societies have always been patriarchal is both historically inaccurate and politically counterproductive because it implies that societies are necessarily patriarchal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Jews are 2.4% of the US population according to my quick googling. The percentage of Muslims is 1.1 Yeah sure, I'm just pissy about goons saying "religion is [x]" and they mean "mainline protestant Christianity and white-people Catholicism is [x]." Which is really just pedantry but yesterday this stuff led to someone saying that Muslims and Jews shouldn't be upset when they're considered responsible for war crimes, which really leads to harassment and violence. I wonder what percent of people in this thread don't consider themselves Christians yet still celebrate Easter or Christmas. It is easy to say you're no longer X, it is the work of a lifetime to stop actually being X, and if we're going to say that guilt is metaphysically stapled to X then clearly it's the second one that matters. Seems easier to say "individuals are morally responsible for the injustices that they have the power to stop, regardless of what they do or don't have in common with the perpetrators or victims." Is there a reason not to go with that? Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I never once said that people have an obligation to change their religion. My point, which I stand by, is that if other members of your religion - or any other voluntary association group to which you belong Yeah I disagree that religion is voluntary because for many of us it's unspeakable from our culture and psychology which are involuntary. For some it's voluntary, but to say as a rule that religion is voluntary is ignorant of the reality of how humans work and live. To say "religion is voluntary" is like saying "your accent is voluntary" or "the language you speak is voluntary" - yes that's technically true, and for some people it might be practically true, but for a lot of people the human reality is that it's an involuntary part of who they are. I think your thinking has two issues: first you seem to think that responsibility isn't just a function of individual power or lack thereof, it's also a function of whether you share some cultural identity with the perpetrators of injustice. To me this is silly metaphysical idealism. Men are usually obligated to speak out against toxic masculinity because we usually have the power to do something about it by speaking our, and that's the only reason, it's not some Man Job that men are called to do to wipe the stain off our gender. And the other is a belief that religion is voluntary in a way that I'm sure you wouldn't consider other deeply ingrained cultural or social expressions, like language or accent or place of residence, to be voluntary. quote:Most != all. But what you said was "pretty much all." Denying the existence of matriarchal societies, or acting like they're some weird fluke and not a formerly common form of life, is a patriarchal project, just like denying the existence of societies without debt is a capitalist project. It limits what people can imagine or consider realistic, in service of the status quo. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jul 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Yes. Take a wild hypothetical: you're talking to a klan member. That individual leaving the klan wouldn't stop them from existing, the injustice wouldn't change, but leaving is still the moral act. I think leaving is the moral act because this hypothetical of someone where it literally doesn't make any material difference whether they're in the klan or not is absurd. I don't agree with the idea that people can be morally obligated to do things that don't have consequences. Consequences are what give weight to our actions. Leaving the Klan might reflect well on someone depending on their reason for doing it - assuming they're not leaving because they're mad they don't get to be the grand wizard or whatever, that they're leaving because they're disgusted by violent racism, that shows the person has a good heart, but if you're telling me that nothing changes as a result of the decision then to me that means the decision morally null. Any other way of thinking about it, where actions have moral weight beyond their actual material consequences, feels, well, religious. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:What if dad and dear old grandpa, and all the cousins and uncles were also in the klan and it was a tightknit family that looks after each other? Is someone who is just a Klan member but doesn't participate in the cross burnings or whatever morally okay for being a member of the organization? They are if I follow your logic. I don't really know how the KKK works well enough to follow you down the road of this analogy - by my understanding it's a terrorist outfit where doing terrorism is a necessary part of it, not a country club or Third Place where you can get together to schmooze, but I really wouldn't know too well. If you're saying that you believe no injustice is affected by this guy's choices then the intuition is they don't matter morally, although leaving makes him more likable than staying. If it sounds crazy to say that exiting the KKK isn't a moral obligation, that's because you imagined a crazy or impossible situation, a KKK member who isn't involved in injustice. I think our moral obligation to do something is explained entirely by the consequence of doing it. And our responsibilities are determined by what choices are available for us to make, not from some collective Male/Christian/Jewish/Muslim identity that redistributes accountability collectively. If our identities empower us to do more about injustice, that gives us more responsibility - because of the material consequences of our choices, not the spiritual stain of our affiliations. To me it seems like all that stuff simplifies and essentializes messy cultural constructions, obscures the relationship between power and moral duty, and, in the case of ethnic/religious/cultural minorities, justifies dangerous bigotry. On the last page we were told Muslims should "stop bitching" about "guilt-by-association" for what the Saudi government does, and now we've reached a point where being a member of the wrong religion is implicitly analogized to being part of a violent terror cell. If someone says "ugh this He Gets Us stuff is really getting on my nerves, I hate Christians" that's not an actual social problem. But in the logical contortions to say that it's actually in all seriousness a great and important way for grown adults to approach moral responsibility, we end up validating really ugly stuff. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Honestly, it just sounds like you are trying to absolve your conscience for remaining a member of a group that has caused/is causing others harm by saying that your actions alone aren't causing that harm so it doesn't matter. Uh, I'm not Catholic. I just grew up being told it's bad to blame Muslims for 9/11 and never grew out of it, I guess. You said you'd show me why it's bad to hold people responsible for the consequences of their own choices and nothing else, I still don't see it. I'm arguing with you because you said something wrong on the internet and I have that kind of weirdo syndrome where I can't let it stand, I figured that's what all of us are doing here. Dubar posted:You can still have dinner with your family on a Sunday after you have made the choice to no longer believe in God. Is this a choice people can make voluntarily? Dubar posted:You can dress however you like, for whatever reason you like. But if you dress like a Muslim and you're seen as a Muslim by others, you'll still be tagged with "guilt by association" for overseas atrocities, whether I'm super religious or not. According to this thread you should just "stop bitching" about it, it's no big deal, it's only like one or two dozen Muslims sho were killed because they looked like they belonged to an "implicated" religion. Again, maybe this is all true of Christianity, but in the case of Judaism and especially Islam this logic is validating an ugly form of bigotry which has incited and will continue to incite terror campaigns, angry mobs, lynchings, and mass shootings, because it blames vulnerable people for horrible violence. I remember when the biggest problem with Right Wing Media was that it made people believe that Muslims should be held in suspicion and disgust because of Al-Qaeda. Now I'm being told here that, no, being Muslim is comparable to being in the KKK. The end-point of this reasoning is that we should bring back Trump's Muslim ban, after all if these people want to come to our country they should just give up their religion which is no big deal who cares. Dubar posted:Religion and culture influence each other, but they are different things, and if you can't see where one ends and the other begins, then you are absolutely participating in the weaponization of religion in society. If you are a Hasidic Jew it is completely impossible to disentangle your culture and your religion. That doesn't by itself mean you are doing something evil to society, forming a weapon against it, by belonging to that culture. You also did not deserve the Crown Height Riots to happen, to hide in your home while a mob rages for you to die, because they hold you "guilty by association" for a crime committed by someone else in your religion. You shouldn't be told to "stop bitching" about it Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I recall seeing some poll that the vast majority of Evangelicals essentially subscribe to Arianism, despite evangelicalism being Trinitarian. It's really all about cultural vibes. I don't think someone's religion is insincere because they're heretical according to traditional dogma. That's how new religious movements get started in the first place. The preacher who delivered the invocation at Trump's inauguration, Paula White, has been dogged by accusations of Arianism for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Yeah I'm not knocking how anyone gives Godhead It's a fantastic pun but then what do you mean by "it's really all about cultural vibes"? Pookah posted:A bit of UK rightwing cruelty for a change: I wish they had the text of the actual memo or whatever, I'd love to see how exactly they worded "we are not scaring the kids enough."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Dubar posted:What you are describing is racism against Arabs and has nothing to do with religion. Do you believe there is Islamophobic violence in the US or does it never happen? Dubar posted:a non-arab muslim would likely escape scorn. This is a bizarre fantasy. Here in the United States, non-Arab Muslims face enormous discrimination and regular threats of violence. Somali Muslims have been talking about this for a long time, that they are targeted for both their ethnic background and for being Muslim. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/how-somali-muslims-are-raising-10000-person-anti-hate-army/ Dubar posted:You are equating culture and religion in the same way a bigot would. It is not bigoted to say that religion is a cultural expression which people should be allowed to practice freely without being held in suspicion or contempt for crimes by people who look, talk, or pray like them. Dubar posted:However the fact that they are Muslim is still their own choice. Do you believe it was bigoted for Trump try to ban all the Muslims from entering the country, or was he just holding adults responsible for their choices? Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
I think the problem is that you thing of a religion as an organization and not a broad web of cultural traditions and identity labels which often become integral to our lifestyles and psychologies. Which is why you think "being a Muslim" and "being in the literal KKK" are comparable."The actual comparison would be "being a Muslim vs. being a Southerner" or "being in Al Qaeda vs bring in the KKK." The first are cultural identities and webs of traditions that you're just born into and for which you shouldn't face discrimination. The second two are terrorists. If you can't tell the difference between being a Muslim and being a terrorist, you shouldn't be lecturing others about excusing bigotry. I am not excusing bigotry because I believe we are responsible for the consequences of our actions and nothing else, or because struggle to follow your idea of "a KKK member who I say isn't doing anything bad but is also doing bad stuff and who doesn't have control over any harm done but is also doing harm." I stand by what I said that we are responsible only for the consequences of our actions, and I don't think people should be in the KKK. If you think someone can be in the KKK without their actions harming people, that's such a bizarre idea that you shouldn't be surprised it produces bizarre conclusions. I've been posting here too much but in the last 3 pages I've been told Muslims should accept that they'll be blamed for overseas atrocities and stop being concerned about it, that being a Muslim is like being in the KKK, that Muslims are harming other people just by existing as Muslims, and that Muslims don't actually face violence or discrimination for being Muslim, but if they do they should just stop being Muslim. These ideas aren't just bullshit, they are dangerous and get people killed. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jul 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
At this point Musk is basically paying Carlson not to grow corn.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2023 20:48
|
|