Or for that matter, I don’t recall the staunchly atheist Soviets being all that tolerant either.
More food for thought: - YouTube
Watching that video, it sounds like ISIS are so frustrated with the PC left’s denials of any link between terror and scripture that they’re planning to ramp up attacks just to hammer the point home. It reminds me of a post I made after the France attacks (The Eagles of Death Metal in Paris one, not the Charlie Hebdo one, or the Lyon beheading one, or the machete-wielding nutcase on the train one, or the rampaging truck driver one, or the murdered priest one, or any of the others I’ve forgotten) responding to some idiocy in Salon blaming it on US foreign policy.
I wrote it as a joke, but it seems oddly prescient now.
Tithonus, that is truly awesome. Do you mind if I borrow it to post on Facebook? I have a Glenn Greenwald-loving friend it would be perfect for.
By all means 
Two personal attacks. I’m not even Muslim.
For one thing, of course you’re completely wrong in your claim that the so-called “left” denies any link “between terror and scripture”. We’ve been saying all along that Islamist terrorists are using their radical-fundamentalist interpretation of scripture to justify their attacks.
What we deny, and what the Islamophobic anti-left falls all over itself to endorse, is the terrorists’ claim that their terror-supporting interpretation is the right way and/or the only way to read Muslim scripture.
Paradoxically, it’s the Islamophobic hawks who are actually enthusiastically kissing Islamist-terrorist ass when it comes to spreading the radical-Islamist view of Islam. The radical-Islamist terrorists want Muslims and everybody else to believe that Islam and the West are fundamentally and necessarily locked in irreconcilable enmity for mutual eradication, and that no other view of Islam is possible or legitimate.
And you useful idiots are lining up to sing from their hymnbook, so to speak. If you really hate Islamist terrorism as much as you claim, wouldn’t you want to “frustrate” them by refusing to go along with their militant fundamentalist propaganda about Islam’s inability to compromise with the modern world?
You people evidently hate liberals so much that you’re actually willing to join the propaganda campaign of genuine radical-fundamentalist terrorist murderers just so you can (mistakenly) feel smug about liberals being wrong. :dubious:
Five bucks says you’d never have the guts to post my immediately preceding rebuttal along with it.
Kimstu, you may not believe that jihadists’ motives actually stem not from religion at all, but from “true geopolitical and economic motives” (primarily the eeeevil of Western imperialism), but many prominent lefties do. Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, and the whole gang at Salon for starters.
Aww… I think we’ve got a love connection!
Riiight, my taking on all of you here shows my lack of guts. :rolleyes: Notice too how I passed on my second Christian friend’s thoughts in full, even though they didn’t necessarily support my argument that well.
If that’s what qualifies, then I think we have a whole bunch of them, based on the amen choruses I’ve seen all over the other side. :rolleyes:
Nonsense. Chomsky, Greenwald et al. have never attempted to deny that Islamist terrorists use religion-based rhetoric to justify their violence.
Their point is just that it’s simplistic and naive to take Islamist terrorists’ word for it that religion alone is the explanation of their violence. Obviously, since most Muslims worldwide are neither Islamist terrorists nor supporters of Islamist terrorists, the mere fact of being a Muslim isn’t what causes Islamist terrorism.
What the Islamist terrorists want us to believe—and what credulous Islamophobes like you and Sam Harris have swallowed hook, line and sinker—is that being a “real Muslim” requires you to be an Islamist terrorist, and that Islam intrinsically and inevitably demands terrorism and oppression on the part of its adherents. It’s that kind of naive essentialism that better-informed people like Chomsky and Greenwald are combating with their broader view of the historical, political and cultural context of Islamist terrorism.
:dubious: As I noted previously, arguing anonymously with nonviolent liberals on an internet messageboard doesn’t require jack shit in the way of actual courage. You personally may be so insecure and thin-skinned that it actually seems brave to you to engage in an online discussion where a lot of people may disagree with you, but AFAICT most people are a bit tougher than that.
Insecure and thin-skinned. Yeah, that’s me, all right. :rolleyes:
BTW, my non-anonymous stance on FB has led to angst and ire among my RL friends, and my peacenik Bernhead mother as well. It would be much less hassle to just stay silent (Harris says the same, although obviously his fans and critics are both many orders of magnitude greater). But I think this issue is just too important–in its own right, but even moreso because of the power it needlessly cedes to right wing, proto-fascist demagogues.
Fwiw, I see it more as confused and fearful. Trump plays into exactly that realm.
It’s really a shame, and quite boring, that so many of you just retreat to your stereotypes rather than engage. You’re talking to someone who was born in Africa, has travelled the world (and backpacking-style, not luxuriously–I often didn’t even have money for a youth hostel, so I slept in parks, outside train stations, and with people I met along the way), who is the furthest thing from a fearful, low information, no passport, CBS procedural-watching Trump voter.
But that’s not such an easy target, and you don’t have preloaded subroutines to deal with that…so you just lazily insist that a Trumptard is what I must be, regardless. Hell, leave aside all the particulars I listed upthread and just consider the fact that my mother is a sociology professor who would agree with you on all of this stuff. How can you imagine that her son would fit neatly (or even messily) into that box you’re trying to put me in?
Sam Harris had a physics professor and think tank fellow on his most recent podcast who lamented this insistence on dividing people binarily into sophisticates and rubes, and how you are automatically labelled a rube if you don’t sign on to the Glenn Greenwald view of Islam and immigration. I will have to transcribe some of what he said when I get a chance, because it was so on point for this thread.
Kimstu, you don’t speak for the Left. There are shitloads of people who genuinely believe that Islamic terrorists are exclusively or primarily motivated by Western Imperialism. I’ve met them. I work with a couple of them[sup]*[/sup]. They really are out there, and they’d probably consider you an Islamophobe.
On top of them, there are also shitloads of people (and, frankly, I consider you to be one of them) who believe that the radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is somehow “fringe”, or a dishonest distortion of the texts. The truth is that the radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is pretty plausible, given what the books actually say.
Well, I don’t claim to speak for…whatever group you think I belong to, but I can speak for myself, and you’re flatly misrepresenting me here. My argument is that the radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is actually not all that radical, given the near constant ‘fire and brimstone’ condemnations of unbelievers that run the length of the Koran. The radical fundamentalist interpretation not the only interpretation, it’s not even the only defensible interpretation, but it is a defensible interpretation, given the actual content of the books. We need to face up to that, and we need to cut this bullshit about radical fundamentalists “hijacking” Islam, or that terrorists are motivated primarily by Imperialism rather than their interpretation of the faith. That’s the basic gist of my position. It’s also the position of Sam Harris, whose work you’ve clearly never bothered to read in any detail.
And the point you need to grasp is that they want everybody to believe this because they themselves genuinely believe it, and this belief is steeped in scripture. Again “not the only interpretation yadda yadda yadda”, but a defensible interpretation.
Pretending their interpretation of Islam is bereft of scriptural foundation is intellectually dishonest, and dishonesty is never helpful. The left’s failure to speak honestly about this has left a gap in the conversation which genuine Islamophobes like Trump are all too happy to fill.
Love connection? We swiped right you old fart!
[sup]*[/sup][sub]Sidebar: I also work with an ex-muslim who is far more honest and realistic about the actual causes of Islamic fundamentalist violence. He talks about it at work, and on twitter. He doesn’t talk about it on Facebook, though. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why?[/sub]
Thee people are voters, as most of them were 4 years ago and 8 - they didn’t just become retarded. Their concerns and aspirations are legitimate.
Trump is a symptom of a horribly dysfunctional political system and these ‘Trumpards’ are crying out for representation.
You’re pretty sweeping with your dismissal of pretty much everyone who isn’t like you.
It’s touching, how you stick up for them…oh wait, no it’s not. No one who would vote for that cretinous, treasonous buffoon deserves anyone’s sympathy or consideration. His manifest unfitness for office is far too obvious for that.
That’s it isn’t it; its all about “they/them” whether they’re Muslims, or “peaceniks” or “Trumptards”.
You don’t have to think too much you can just hate on simplistic stereotypes - important thing is to get that hatred out of you.