And what would be “easy” or “laxy” would be to just go along with your version of reality. Or to swallow whole the right wing narrative, if I could actually stomach that. Either way you’ve got a nice big club to join. Or you could just be apolitical—that’s easy too.
Inhabiting this “Dark Web” ideological space, OTOH, is never easy, because almost everyone hates you. There’s a little Jiminy Cricket conscience figure sitting on my shoulder insisting on intellectual honesty, but it’s exhausting sometimes, TBH.
Bullshit. I’ve had plenty of disagreements on this board that had nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice. But you appear to be incapable of looking within and considering that maybe you’re casting aspersions much too broadly. It’s not “intellectually honest” to refuse to use nuance when describing a group of people as huge and diverse as “Muslims” – it’s just lazy. And bigoted when you’re characterizing them negatively en masse.
And it’s rightfully seen as a shocking and bizarre aberration, rather than part of everyday life and an acceptable part of the legal code and social mores. This is a silly counterexample.
It’s really not hard at all to criticize the toxic, violent, and barbaric aspects of a particular culture or religious sect. The only reasons to avoid specifics and attack massive groups of hundreds of millions, most of whom are entirely peaceful and decent, are ignorance or bigotry.
:dubious: It’s the worst anti-Semitic killing in American history. Even back when black people were getting lynched by the thousands, and European Jews were being rounded up and sent to death camps, there was never anything like that here.
ETA: But your comment is very revealing, about the completely different yardsticks you use to judge Anglo-Americans vs. other demographic groups around the world.
The degree to which religious violence is widely accepted in Pakistan (and some other places) is greatly overstated. Yes, those deemed apostates face considerable risk, but in my understanding this is not due to majority beliefs that they should be put to death, but rather the considerable influence wielded by extremists, with a large fringe. Thus, the proper and reasonable criticism should be directed to these extremist elements within certain sects of Muslims, not Muslims as a group.
It depends what you mean by “something like this”. If you mean, where could people be legally punished for violating laws against blasphemy, the answer is “a whole lot of places”.
Including, for example, the 2015 conviction with two-year prison sentence in majority-Buddhist Myanmar of a New Zealander and two Burmese, for the crime of displaying an advertising image of the Buddha wearing headphones.
And the 2014 conviction and sentencing (later overturned) under anti-blasphemy laws of a Greek blogger who made fun of a revered Greek Orthodox monk.
If you don’t think such examples count as “something like this”, then you’ll have to tell us exactly where you’re putting those goalposts, and leave them in the same place.
This is a little ambiguous, so I’m not sure if you’re claiming there were never racially motivated mass murders here during the end of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, or if you’re only claiming that there were never racially motivated mass murders of Jews here during that period.
Just in case you’re making the former claim, it is worth noting that whole *towns *have been massacred and ethnically cleansed by white supremacists in the US in that period *with state approval. *
And if you go to Colfax, Lousiana or Rosewood, Florida or any number of other massacre locations what you will find is people there still justifying the massacres. Here’s what the official marker in Colfax says: "“On this site occurred the Colfax Riot, in which three white men and 150 negroes were slain. This event on April 13, 1873, marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South.”
Notably, even in 1873, the federal government often tried to prosecute these folks. But local extremists usually stymied these efforts.
As in history, so today. It is often the case that the wider society does not countenance this kind of violence but that majorities in specific places, even neighborhoods, do. And almost always that fact is better explained by nuanced history than some kind of appeal to superficial factors about the society. Christianity surely played a role in the actions of the Klan. But it wouldn’t tell you why Louisiana permitted mass murder while the federal government sought to prevent it.
How could you possibly interpret it as the former, when I stated (it’s right there in what you quoted) it as “even back when black people were being lynched by the thousands”?
You could be saying that even though there were many lynchings there were no mass murders. Which might make more sense, given that surprise at racial mass murder isn’t really about which racial minority is the victim.
Anti-Semitic violence is a special category. I wouldn’t really call it “racial mass murder”.
Anyway, I still think it was unreasonable for andy to act like the synagogue mass murder was some routine event no one should have found shocking if they were paying attention.
I would. It’s part and parcel of American white supremacism. KKK and neo-Nazis are very closely aligned.
Why would anyone be surprised? Dismayed, sure – but surprised? White supremacist violence is on the uptick. So is anti-semitic violence in particular. And mass shootings.
No. It also is ecologically disastrous. In addition, it will do nothing to actually stop border crossings. (And when did conservatives become the defenders of wasted money?)
In addition , liberals originally just dismissed the wall as one more example of Trumpian stupidity, but Trump continues to threaten to veto legislation and shut down the government if Congress does not give in and build his nonsense.
Correlation may not prove causation, but that stated, I have a rule of thumb: anyone who hates anyone, also hates Jews. Hates blacks? Anti-Semite. Hates immigrants? Anti-Semite. Hates gays? Anti-Semite. Hates Muslims? Also probably anti-Semite. It’s not true in 100% of the time, but it’s close enough.
So the 1/3 of the wall already built has destroyed a third of the environment? I find it doubtful this would hurt as much as all the subdivisions and parking lots built in your average week.
That too seems unlikely. Do you really think the U.S. in 2018 cannot build a border wall as well as East Germany nearly 60 years ago? Theirs was quite effective, even if the direction of movement was the opposite.
Seriously? This is not new. Dubya wasted money like crazy. Reagan blew a giant hole in the budget with profligate military spending, including $800 hammers.