|
blowfish posted:This is relevant because Do I have a sincere belief or am I mentally ill?
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:We are always living in the Kali Yuga. If the left declared that Muslims must die, it would be allowing Christians. If they abandoned all support for trans folks, it would be gays and lesbians that are dragging things down. You have to understand that the rank and file deliverers of these accusations are almost always people who believe they are being maltreated because they aren't priority one. As a bisexual mixed raced person I personify the
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 13:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Ddraig posted:I'm curious as to when the old, mythical left passed on the baton to the modern left, because as far as I'm aware criticisms have been levelled against the "modern left" and how they've done hosed it up now at least my entire lifetime, and even before then. Partially its because if the old left achieves things these things become part of the status quo and therefore palatable to conservatives. Partially its because every political movement has a loony wing which happens to be very prominent but hopefully continues to be ineffectual due to being widely recognised as completely nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
blowfish posted:This is relevant because It's McDowell. He's been off his meds for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I'm curious as to when the old, mythical left passed on the baton to the modern left, because as far as I'm aware criticisms have been levelled against the "modern left" and how they've done hosed it up now at least my entire lifetime, and even before then. In the 19th century there were many leftist philosophies each trying to attract converts. Much of Marx's and Engel's writings, for instance, are critiques of other socialist or anarchist or libertarian thinkers. After the Russian Revolution however the particular kind of Marxism advocated by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia became a sort of a model for revolutionaries and radicals around the world. Even socialists who didn't support the USSR or who weren't very fond of Lenin or Stalin were influenced by what appeared to be an actually successful roadmap to seizing power (also, the USSR was pretty aggressive in trying to take control of the communist movement worldwide). But by the 1950s the USSR was no longer quite as inspirational as it had been: news started to get out about the scope of Stalin's crimes, and the postwar economic boom made it look like capitalism might not be inevitably doomed after all. Most importantly, though, a huge new wave of young people living in the most affluent society in history started attending universities in much greater numbers and became caught up in the political struggles related to desegregation and opposition to the war in Vietnam (or various wars of decolonization in Europe). This reoriented the focus of the left away from workers and the working class and more toward students and university campuses. Workers had once been seen as the only class that could exercise sufficient economic clout to actually take power. But the new generation of students often found blue collar workers to be the most reactionary, racist and pro-war members of the population. Things really came to a head during the worldwide protests that errupted in 1968. Students and workers briefly joined forces to seize control of the streets of Paris. But the two sides soon had a falling out, the state reasserted its power, and the 1968 moment passed. With it passed much of the remaining idealism not only in the working class but even in the idea of the left itself. Important young thinkers who had been involved in the 68 uprising, guys like Foucault and Derrida, went on to develop the various postmodern and poststructuralist philosophies which, to a large degree, severed any remaining intellectual connection to the old 19th century socialism of Marx and Engels. When the USSR finally collapsed in 1991, and with China seemingly pivoting to free markets, it was the final nail in the coffin of the old left. Shortly thereafter the remaining left leaning parties in the western world all became boosters of the free market (think Clinton, Blair, etc.). That shift of focus from workers to students that occured in the 1960s lead to what is often called "the New Left". The New Left was a lot more focused on the university campus, its sociological profile tended to be more middle class, its concerns were often more eclectic, more libertarian, more inclined toward counter culture stuff like drugs. This New Left's rise also coincided with the rising power of identity politics, getting tied up in black power, woman's lib, gay rights, etc. A lot of people are unhappy with this shift for various reasons. Some orthodox leftists don't like the sociological shift toward the university campus (though often the people making this complaint are themselves based in a university as a student or prof). Right wingers see these campus radicals as spoiled brats or clueless idiots. The fringe right thinks they are "cultural Marxists" who are secretly poisoning the cultural heritage of western civilization to sabotage the white race. To a lot of clueless teenagers and 20-somethings their experience of the New Left is that obnoxious white girl with dreadlocks who keeps trying to argue with the Econ professor in class when I just want to know what's on the loving exam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
OP I don't think you'll find a single person condoning radical religious action. The difference between the right and the left is that the former believe this radicalism comes from religion, while the latter believe it comes from current socioeconomic structures. What's your measurement for tolerance? Is it when the left try to say #NotAllMuslims after terrorist attacks, for instance? Or are there people on the left who believe that the laws within holy books should be implemented as they are, no matter how backwards and oppressive they are, as a show of tolerance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:OP I don't think you'll find a single person condoning radical religious action. The difference between the right and the left is that the former believe this radicalism comes from religion, while the latter believe it comes from current socioeconomic structures. No but you do find people who refuse to believe radical religious action has anything to do with religion and is solely (and not just partially) the fault of the western oppressor, because only by singing the praises of anyone who claims to be vaguely associated with your favourite group can you possibly prevent the mob from lynching them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Are they, in broad strokes, wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Are they, in broad strokes, wrong? Yes, because even people who look sufficiently brown to be oppressed still have agency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:No but you do find people who refuse to believe radical religious action has anything to do with religion and is solely (and not just partially) the fault of the western oppressor, because only by singing the praises of anyone who claims to be vaguely associated with your favourite group can you possibly prevent the mob from lynching them. Nobody is 'singing the praises of' ISIS or the Taliban.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Nobody is 'singing the praises of' ISIS or the Taliban. Other than edgelords and the deeply crazy. Going "why does this happen" isn't giving in to anyones agenda, neither is trying to understand it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
I found an interesting video of an interview/debate concerning the so called "threat of Islamization" of Europe, and I think it's one of the most compelling debates because of how concisely each side argues their points. I think it's appropriate for this thread and I think it would be a good addition but there is one person in the video with unashamed right-wing views and I don't want to get banned or anything for posting it. How do I go about getting approval?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Post it. Nobody cares and it sounds sufficiently on-topic, even though Islamization is an awful buzzword regardless of context and I wish people would stop using it.blowfish posted:Yes, because even people who look sufficiently brown to be oppressed still have agency. Agency to do what? If they are oppressed, what are their options?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qBkpZ809MM don't report me i'm just sharing a video i don't endorse any of the views 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
When I saidSSNeoman posted:Islamization is an awful buzzword regardless of context and I wish people would stop using it. Tommy Robinson is exactly who I had in mind. The man was responsible for the creation of the hate group called The English Defence League. Him moving from EDL to Quilliam to PEGIDA apparently didn't change his views, which is a shame. And that's not to say that PEGIDA is squicky clean either. I don't want to dismiss his point outright, but dude, he is basically the source of right-wing FB memes. Most of the points he brings up are pop-readings of Quran passages taken at face value or the sort of things Snopes made their mission to debunk. It's be like arguing with a FWD:FWD:FWD chain letter. His argument is typical of right-wingers: The Quran encourages violence against women, sharia, what have you -> Muslims follow the Quran -> Muslims will enter the country -> Muslims will not integrate or accept their new country's culture -> The country will accept Sharia to please Muslims -> All hail our new Muslim overlords. EDL and PEGIDA, whether intentionally or otherwise, paint all Muslims under this brush. And because of this they rally against the refugees (or at least that's the reason they claim). Of course you can poke a hole through any of the mentioned points, but that's a well-traveled road at this point. And like, I get it. Islam, like every single religion in the 21st century, has problems. And there are problems well worth discussing: how literally should the Quran be followed? How can Islam come to tolerate homosexuality? What should be done to prevent radicalization but at the same time preventing more terrorist attacks? I'm guessing this is the direction the OP wanted to go too. Tommy's points are not completely without merit, I agree that there is no reason why people cannot mock Mohammed nor do I disagree that they need free entry and exit from their religion. And yet that's not what we're talking about is it? What he's asking for is for us to conflate an entire group of people under one label and deny them access. Now why does he do it? No, why does he really do it? I will admit that it's unfair to say that religion is not totally responsible for Islamic radicalism, but understand that if it wasn't for Islam, the terrorists would rally under another banner. Their socioeconomic situation is the same after all, religion is just a means to an end. But Robinson's approach is not the answer either. His approach just increases the distrust and hostility towards people. And nobody really wins in that situation. The fellas with the stutter had the right idea. And I appreciate that he called Tommy out, though Tommy has more experience being the popinjay in these situations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Agency to do what? If they are oppressed, what are their options? For the people living in the west: agency to do nothing, complain, peacefully protest, riot and randomly set cars on fire, what have you For the people living in muslim-majority countries where the ~western imperialist oppressor~ isn't denying them jobs or drunkenly beating them up after a far right rally, the argument should not be relevant in the first place. SSNeoman posted:Tommy Robinson is exactly who I had in mind. The man was responsible for the creation of the hate group called The English Defence League. Him moving from EDL to Quilliam to PEGIDA apparently didn't change his views, which is a shame. And that's not to say that PEGIDA is squicky clean either. That's, uh, a very charitable view of PEGIDA. They popped up in Germany as the "we're totally not racist, but gently caress the browns and deport all foreigners" movement for people in denial about wanting to vote neonazi and spilled over the border in some cases. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Why won't liberals say they oppose Shakira Law
Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Keep Autism Wired posted:I found an interesting video of an interview/debate concerning the so called "threat of Islamization" of Europe, and I think it's one of the most compelling debates because of how concisely each side argues their points. I think it's appropriate for this thread and I think it would be a good addition but there is one person in the video with unashamed right-wing views and I don't want to get banned or anything for posting it. How do I go about getting approval? I'm new to D&D so honest question: is posting opinions from far-right sources enough to get you probated/banned?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Irom posted:I'm new to D&D so honest question: is posting opinions from far-right sources enough to get you probated/banned? No, check out the freeper thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Irom posted:I'm new to D&D so honest question: is posting opinions from far-right sources enough to get you probated/banned? no, but vacantly advocating far right positions in a trollish or aggressively hateful way might people who tiptoe this line tend to be people who get all mad because they get probated for posting stuff like "islam is a death cult and they should all be murdered" etc. and then whine about censorship. just don't advocate race war and you'll be fine
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
One might say that young armchair leftists are projecting their own desires to shut down offensive or unpleasant topic onto everyone else 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Their socioeconomic situation is the same after all, religion is just a means to an end. Setting aside UBL and Atta as potential outliers, do the scholarly studies on this topic tend to correlate terrorism positively with higher levels of wealth and education, or negatively? Do they, in the main, support your view?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:no, but vacantly advocating far right positions in a trollish or aggressively hateful way might Even then you won't, check Europol or any of the "are minorities humans?" threads for proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Even then you won't, check Europol or any of the "are minorities humans?" threads for proof. Do you have anything specific in mind for that latter category, or is it just more "accuse the entire subforum of racism & run" threadshitting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Do you have anything specific in mind for that latter category, or is it just more "accuse the entire subforum of racism & run" threadshitting? You know it's the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Sheikh Djibouti posted:Setting aside UBL and Atta as potential outliers, do the scholarly studies on this topic tend to correlate terrorism positively with higher levels of wealth and education, or negatively? Do they, in the main, support your view? Sorta kinda. Wealth is a big factor, as is racism, societal disenfranchisement and the feelings of justice for standing up to oppressors. Education, eh, not so much. The main issue with your question is twofold: scholars have very little data to work with (even after all this time) and most of the time they seem to be writing about how to prevent radicalization rather than what causes it. I feel that the question we all have here is "Is Islam a religion responsible for radicalization and violence?" and from what I gather the answer to that is very much a work in progress. Still, lemme throw out some links. http://www.academia.edu/2158177/Preventing_Religious_Radicalisation_and_Violent_Extremism_A_systematic_Review_of_the_Research This dude essentially states that Islamic terrorists come from all walks of life. But all of them have common issues: they were facing disenfranchisement, they felt like society was treating them unjustly, they were lonely and needed company (indeed many ISIS fighters mention that their commanders were charismatic father figures) and so on. In return for commiting these acts, they thought they would receive prestige, awards or at the very least bring justice to the downtrodden. That last one is a very common theme, but it's not a religious motive. The problem demonstrated isn't "Islam causes terrorists" it's "societies create terrorists through disenfranchisement." Now obviously this is easier to achieve in the middle east. The middle east has a lot of bad blood with the west, and using history is a powerful motivator. Combine that with the living standards of the region, and you got a recruitment machine that governments have wet dreams about. The internet has also sped up radicalization, especially since it used to instantly share information. More on that later. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268011000723 I like this one since I'm an econ guy. This article states that there is a correlation between socioeconomic status and terrorism. Probably the best explanation is this quote: quote:we thus find that a country’s level of socio-economic development matters to the calculus of terrorists, presumably due to its effect on the opportunity costs of terrorism. In line with our theoretical reminder presented in Section 2, low opportunity costs of terrorism make terrorism more likely. That is, the mental rewards from terrorism (e.g., solidarity or status that accompanies the success of terrorists’ ideology) become more attractive. Conversely, with the improvement of socio-economic conditions (e.g., economic participation, employment and material goods consumption) non-violence becomes more attractive, so that terrorism decreases. Which makes sense. Happy people have less incentives to blow themselves up. You have a lot to lose if you do. But if you don't have a lot of capital (social or economic) then it doesn't matter to you. You feel screwed either way, so rolling the dice and throwing your lot with an extremely accepting group makes a lot of sense. You might say "no it doesn't..." but you are not in the vulnerable position that these people are in (or at least I hope you're not )I could prob find some more but let's switch tracks a bit. First, have an article, it's long but the dude makes it for an easy read: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/03/mehdi-hasan-how-islamic-islamic-state quote:“Religion has a role but it is a role of justification,” he tells me. “It’s not why they do this [or] why young people go there.” This guy basically summarizes the point in a nutshell. You have people who identify with victims, and who integrate themselves with said victims and who fight the oppressors. --- Now I wanna bring up another point. This is outside the scope of your question, but I figure since you're here... quote:Sageman’s viewpoint should not really surprise us. Writing in his 2011 book The Black Banners: the Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda, the Lebanese-American former FBI agent Ali H Soufan, who led the bureau’s pre-9/11 investigation into al-Qaeda, observed: “When I first began interrogating al-Qaeda members, I found that while they could quote Bin Laden’s sayings by heart, I knew far more of the Quran than they did – and in fact some barely knew classical Arabic, the language of both the hadith and the Quran. An understanding of their thought process and the limits of their knowledge enabled me and my colleagues to use their claimed piousness against them.” So here is why I am always bemused whenever people talk about extremist Islamic groups committing violent acts because of Islam. How can you tell me that a man who barely knows a drat thing about the Quran is motivated to die because of its words? Even better; none of these people follow teachings which are inconvenient to them. They do drugs (drugs are in fact a huge problem for the Daesh. Their magazine, Dabiq, features articles about their fight against drug runners and drug use), collect porn, have sex with women (at various degrees of consent). You know the Twin Tower terrorists? The day before they hit the local strip club! Where they boozed, had a lap dance and refused to pay what they owed. Osama Bin Ladin? He had an "extensive" collection of porn (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-binladen-porn-idUSTRE74C4RK20110513 click it you know you want to). And remember all those photos of him living an ascetic lifestyle in a cave? That was what he fed to his underlings. Where did he actually live and ultimately die in? A large fortress compound in an urban area. That compound is basically a mansion by that country's standards. So I have a hard time reconciling this hypocrisy with claims of them doing these attacks out of religious fervor. --- And gently caress it this post is not long enough yet. You remember what I said about the internet being a radicalization machine? Well let's get back to that. You remember the photos of Abu-graihb? All those tortured prisoners? Islamic extremists basically struck gold with those photos. Jack Cloonan, ex-FBI agent and interrogator, worked on an anti-terrorism task force. He had fantastic results in building a rapport with terrorists and getting useful information. When Abu-graihb came into the spotlight, he was less than enthusiastic. Here was the western government confirming and exceeding every single piece of propaganda created by the terrorists. They didn't even need a special campaign or slogan. "Here are the guys from the US. Here are pictures of what their ilk do to your countrymen. What are you gonna do about it?" You know how I hammer home that terrorists are all about "fighting the oppressors" and "standing up for the little guy"? This was manna from heaven for them. Cloonan's biggest fear is that the US will face reprisal for all the tortures that the US has done. Combine that with the little to no intelligence obtained from torture, one has to wonder why the hell the US still considers practicing it. Other than I guess getting violent vengeance under the guise of extracting information, thus proving we're just as bad as the other guys. I say this last part in response to the OP. Wanna know why the left isn't too thrilled with "calling a spade a spade"? It's because we're helping the bad guys when we do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
On a chemical level most people today were made in a factory. This is a bloom of human plants - like bacteria reaching a critical optical density in a medium. Why should individuals be enabled in their desire to live forever? Why should we debase ourselves by loading our memories into machines? Who really wants this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
specific parts of the US left are against science for specific eloquent reasons so those interests overlap with religion
wiregrind fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
But there's a categorical difference between 'They do these attacks because Islam' and 'They do these attacks because of political currents within Islamic communities', yet both of those arguments are treated as exactly the same. The main focus of the effort after these bombings is on trying to minimize the effects of 1, without offering an alternate explanation that's frankly believable. Like we're not just looking at an unemployment crisis as a cause of bombings, yet that's the only explanation ever put forward. The problem is geopolitical, it is political, ti's foreign affairs, it's ideological. It's not any one of those things alone, and it's not something it's fair to say it's the fault of the countries they happen in, or that it necessarily results from a failure in domestic or foreign policy - Belgium was not a member of the coalition of the willing, yet it was still targeted. So if you don't want to help the bad guys, fine, don't help them, work against them. While you're doing that, don't give them ammunition. That's what you're doing when you say the problem is just unemployment, because it's not, and everyone can see it's not. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
McDowell posted:On a chemical level most people today were made in a factory. This is a bloom of human plants - like bacteria reaching a critical optical density in a medium. Why should individuals be enabled in their desire to live forever? Why should we debase ourselves by loading our memories into machines? Who really wants this? Why does it matter in any way whether your nitrogen was fixed by Rhizobium sitting in bean roots or by Thyssen Krupp Industrial Solutions in Germany?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But there's a categorical difference between 'They do these attacks because Islam' and 'They do these attacks because of political currents within Islamic communities', yet both of those arguments are treated as exactly the same. The main focus of the effort after these bombings is on trying to minimize the effects of 1, without offering an alternate explanation that's frankly believable. Like we're not just looking at an unemployment crisis as a cause of bombings, yet that's the only explanation ever put forward. The problem is geopolitical, it is political, ti's foreign affairs, it's ideological. It's not any one of those things alone, and it's not something it's fair to say it's the fault of the countries they happen in, or that it necessarily results from a failure in domestic or foreign policy - Belgium was not a member of the coalition of the willing, yet it was still targeted. At the risk of appearing to be cheerleading, this is a really good post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Why does it matter in any way whether your nitrogen was fixed by Rhizobium sitting in bean roots or by Thyssen Krupp Industrial Solutions in Germany? It is something interesting to think about. If you were observing Earth across large gulfs of time you would see a biosphere with a very strict nitrogen budget suddenly being flooded with more and more people who want more and more things. This coincides with concentrated gunk from past ages being dug up, burned, and vented into the air. The Anthropocene is an event of Biblical proportions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But there's a categorical difference between 'They do these attacks because Islam' and 'They do these attacks because of political currents within Islamic communities', yet both of those arguments are treated as exactly the same. The main focus of the effort after these bombings is on trying to minimize the effects of 1, without offering an alternate explanation that's frankly believable. This is a bad argument dude. Just because it's "unbelievable" to you does not make it wrong. rudatron posted:Like we're not just looking at an unemployment crisis as a cause of bombings, yet that's the only explanation ever put forward. The problem is geopolitical, it is political, ti's foreign affairs, it's ideological. It's not any one of those things alone, and it's not something it's fair to say it's the fault of the countries they happen in, or that it necessarily results from a failure in domestic or foreign policy - Belgium was not a member of the coalition of the willing, yet it was still targeted. I never said it was. I stated the opposite; it's a combination of factors which include unemployment, disenfranchisement, foreign policy and racism. It also included the belief that terrorists were "standing up for the little guy" which becomes more and more palatable as hatred against Muslims increases in society. Belgium in fact does have all these issues, which supports my argument and not yours: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/belgium-radical-islam-jihad-molenbeek-isis/416235/ quote:Belgian jihadism seems to mimic French Islamist militancy, only more concentrated—as befits the smaller country. Both have large numbers of immigrants who are poorer and isolated from the dominant culture. Both countries have also seen far-right, anti-immigrant parties rise by loudly declaring a Muslim menace. Experts also say it is comparatively easy to acquire illegal guns in Belgium, making it an attractive base for operations. The Washington Post notes that Belgium’s unusual bilingualism—Flemish and French—makes it hard for immigrants who only speak French to find work and assimilate. And deep distrust between French- and Flemish-speaking government officials has created an elaborate and sclerotic security apparatus that doesn’t always deal with threats efficiently and promptly. rudatron posted:So if you don't want to help the bad guys, fine, don't help them, work against them. While you're doing that, don't give them ammunition. That's what you're doing when you say the problem is just unemployment, because it's not, and everyone can see it's not. I'm glad you say this because that last sentence is the crux of the problem. What the nebulous "everyone" believes is super reactionary and rarely correct. But okay since we're here, what is the problem(s)? And how am I giving the bad guys ammunition* by stating "the left is trying to separate Islam from the crimes its members commit, which is an effort that should be lauded and not demonized"? Could you summarize what the point you're trying to make actually is? *I'm not btw, even ISIL agrees. One of their issues of Dabiq focused on the loss of recruits to refugee migration and they spend a lot of time and effort making the west seem lovely to flee too. That's the answer from the horse's mouth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
SSneoman, good effortpost. And I am not just saying that for economist solidarity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Are people seriously denying that belief in Islam plays some role? I know the left doesn't want it to be true, but the absence of similar attacks in other lovely parts of the world where America's hosed around in never gets addressed properly. You can cite fundamental flaws in Islamic faith/scripture without hating the people who believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Why won't liberals say they oppose Shakira Law Hips don't lie-berals
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
In this end of the age of course one branch of the truth has been perverted so far as to inspire suicide bombings. It is no coincidence that an act of 'holy' war is the milestone of the new millennium -the truth is perverted to enslave you to material concerns. Do talks about this in session 9, discussing how vehicular destruction like that is not meant to be a 'free pass'. My sense (which can be quite flawed) is that Do and his class, by placing so much energy into video, were then ordered to abandon their vehicles and let the message speak for itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
ComradeKane posted:Are people seriously denying that belief in Islam plays some role? What are these fundamental flaws? Why do they exist in Islam and not in any other religion or philosophy? Generally, the answers to these questions are never provided, or they're facile ones that are unconvincing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
ComradeKane posted:Are people seriously denying that belief in Islam plays some role? I think the actual religion is a lot less important than the geopolitical and cultural aspects, and I'm saying this as someone who doesn't exactly shy away from criticizing Islam (look earlier in the thread). You could just as easily point to the fact that the middle east and parts of Africa are full of illegitimate governments and power vacuums, which I believe is the root cause of this problem. Singling out Islam as a uniquely violent religion makes sense if you look only at recent history, the geopolitical interpretation makes more sense IMO. It's important to note just how much the actual religious texts don't matter. Jesus spent his entire life talking about selflessness yet his biggest followers here in the US are FYGM libertarians who want the poor to die in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
If you want to talk 'fundamental flaws' here is one for you - no man, no caesar can create the kingdom of heaven on earth. There will always be bloodshed and misery in this world unless everyone is of one mind - but which mind?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 02:30
|
|