That’s true, but there are other considerations as well. We cannot have a Cologne situation here. If we ever do, we won’t just have a Muslim ban, we’ll have a Muslim expulsion, citizens included.
Came across this poll on Clinton vs. Trump: issue by issue:
http://pollingreport.com/wh16.htm
Trump leads on jobs, ISIS, honesty(!), inspiring, and leadership
Clinton leads on everything else, most importantly handling international crises, being better prepared, nukes, immigration, moral standards, and intelligence
Tell ya what though, leading on jobs, ISIS, and leadership, that’s top issues and characteristics there.
Only if the party that represents the inner demons of our nature, the GOP, isn’t stopped this November.
Sam Harris also has a very pointed response to this very commonly advanced argument. If it’s true that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not now supporters of violent extremism, but whose are so fragile, or so close to the fence, that insulting or offending them will push them over to support mass murder…what does *that *say about them as a people? :dubious: I guess that has to be a taken as a serious possibility, though, given that cartoons and obscure YouTube videos have led to deadly riots and arson in dozens of countries.
I think you’re missing, or sidestepping, the point. I’m not sure about expulsion of citizens, but if we have a Cologne here then there will indeed be masses of people demanding some kind of crackdown on Muslims. If the GOP is in power, then as you say: it will happen immediately. If they are not in power, and Democrats refuse to cater to this rising tide of public opinion, then Democrats will get voted out in the next election, and *then *the GOP will cater to the angry mob.
Personally, as I say, I see no need to make this the hill to die on.
So you’re cool if they come after Muslims because you aren’t one. But who will defend you when they come after you?
Slacker nor I are for “coming after anyone.” We’re for addressing the problem so no one actually has to come after anyone AND we keep ourselves safe.
It says that people are complicated and flawed, but nonetheless if there’s a chance that these people might be swayed to have less animus towards the West, and perhaps a larger willingness to consider helping in the fight against extremism (or even just less willingness to hinder it), then that chance should be taken.
I’m not saying that these fence-sitters are wonderful people. I’m saying that there’s a chance that they might not be supporters of violence and terrorism, and we shouldn’t say bigoted things that might tip them over the fence when doing so doesn’t help this struggle in any way.
So do you do something that pushes them over the line or do you do something that pulls them back.
Which do you think has the better outcome?
As I said in the other thread, how would you feel if people were telling you not to mock Donald Drumpf, to treat him and his following very gingerly, because otherwise his masses of followers might start going around shooting every Democrat they can find?
I was wondering when Niemoller would be referenced (is this a corollary to Godwin’s Law?). :rolleyes: But here’s what I would say:
“They came for the Muslims, and I did not object, because Muslims are, by and large, the most bigoted, hateful, scary group of people on the planet. When they came for me, I said ‘this is bullshit, not the same at all: I support women’s rights, gay rights, the right to be a freethinker, the right to drink and do drugs, to get abortions, to have sex in or out of marriage…’”.
ETA: “…and why the fuck would I expect that if the Muslims were still around, they would have defended an atheistic, hedonistic, libertine feminist like me anyway?”
So you think there should be a litmus test for which political viewpoints should be respected and which ones are justified grounds for persecution? I’m pro-choice as well, but I respect those who disagree and we can fight things out in the voting booth and the courtroom. I’m for gay rights and SSM, but I’m not in favor of drumming those who disagree out of the country.
Why is it always Americans and Westerners asking “why do they hate us?” When are Muslims gonna think “why does the West not like us?” Where’s their self-reflection?
Also, how much trying to get Muslim society to like us should we do before its a lost cause?
If there are mass rapes and the Democrats don’t take action, they won’t be a political party anymore except in the history books.
The obvious solution is to do a better job of vetting refugees than the Europeans are doing so this problem doesn’t come up in the first place.
Opinion of America and Americans among Muslims around the world has gone up and down and fluctuated over time. Right now, most Muslim Americans have pretty damn great feelings for America, Americans, and American values. I want to make sure those feelings stay high. The feelings are all over the map in other countries – in Iraq, from the numbers I’ve seen they’re pretty low, but in Indonesia, they’re much higher.
So plenty of Muslims like us. I want them to continue to like us, and I want more Muslims to like us. I don’t believe it’s a lost cause at all.
Golly, with all this scary foreigner talk you’d almost think the latest American slaughter wasn’t committed by an American with weapons bought and sold in the U.S. of A. But lest we face ourselves, we can have: Islam, It’s Scary, Huh?
What **adaher **said.
I guess this is where it is easy for me, because I make no bones about being a political hack. I have said many times that I understand why the GOP wants a wall on the Mexican border: for pretty much the same reason I *don’t *want one. Latino immigrants have kids here, those kids are citizens, and they grow up to mostly vote Democratic. If they mostly voted Republican, like Cuban immigrants traditionally did, I’d definitely be out for tighter controls! 
But let’s try to take race out of it and unpack your position. In the 19th century, Dutch emigrés settled in the U.S. and particularly congregated in a couple locations in the Midwest, as you can see on this map. If you compare it to this map of red and blue counties, you’ll find some glowing red embers in those same spots. (The one in northwest Iowa is the home of U.S. Rep. Steve King, a particularly atrocious human being even for a House Republican.)
This is not a coincidence.
These Dutch settlers left their homeland because the people there were getting sick of their hardcore Calvinist bigotry. These people believe that poor people, black people, etc. were created by God predestined to go to hell–that there is no salvation for them. So unlike others in the Christian Right, they don’t even bother with much in the way of charity, because why share any of their loot with sinners who are bound for hell?
So let’s say you were living in one of these counties when the Dutch settlers started moving in. You going to tell me once you started figuring out what a poisonous ideology they espoused, you wouldn’t want to come up with any possible legal and nonviolent way to keep them out before it’s too late?
Would be nice, but it’s not really of much strategic value. We could maximize our popularity among Muslims by never retaliating for terrorist attacks at all. Plus, this contradicts the “tiny minority” argument. If your popularity among Muslims is 90%, then your terrorist problem hasn’t gotten better at all. Think about Presidents and assassinations. Are popular Presidents less likely to have assassination attempts against them than unpopular Presidents? No, popularity has nothing to do with how likely people are to plan violence against you. Barack Obama’s approval rating could be 99% and it wouldn’t change the number of people out to kill him. Same goes for America and terrorism. Popularity in Muslim countries is only important if you accept the “clash of civilizations” argument.
Mass rapes only ever happen in a war zone, and not in every war zone.
"If it’s true that there are millions of subjects of the Crown who are not now disloyal, but whose are so fragile, so close to the fence, that taxing their tea will push them over to support treason… what does *that *say about them as a people? :dubious: "
I was being very general, but the strategic value is in persuading fence-sitters not to support extremists, whether or not they continue to dislike or even hate us, and the next level “up” (say, those who don’t like America but aren’t sitting on the fence about terrorism) to be more likely to choose to cooperate with investigations of terrorism rather then feign ignorance, and so on. It doesn’t mean popularity is everything, but when there’s no value in using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” vs “radical terrorism”, then why not use the phrase that’s less likely, if even by only a little bit, to nudge the Muslims in the middle away from us and/or towards the enemy?