Holy ********* Crazy

[Dill]

(06-06-2017, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whoever they are I'm sure you'll label them racists.  If we're talking about "scapegoating" though I suppose we'll have to include just about the entire human race.

I'm not much for diluting accountability that way.

Some think racism no longer exists.; there are no more racists. But all scapegoating isn't racist, though the exclusionary logic and its effects are similar.

[Dill]

(06-06-2017, 06:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I knew it. Obama probably put that up with his secret Sharia law takeover.

A stealth attack on the Supreme Court, preparing the way.

Wake up America--They are here!!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2017, 11:16 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not much for diluting accountability that way.

Could have fooled me.  You are the person who labels criticism of the tenants of islam as "racist".  Seems like a statement designed to "dilute" to me.
 

Quote:Some think racism no longer exists.; there are no more racists.

I don't know of a single person who thinks this.  Hyperbole maybe?

Quote:But all scapegoating isn't racist, though the exclusionary logic and its effects are  similar.

In the sense that killing a person for fun and killing a person in self defense are similar, sure.  After all, both involve you killing someone.  Motivation matters maybe?

[Rotobeast]

(06-06-2017, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting statement considering the etymology of that term.

For Azazael !



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(06-07-2017, 12:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Could have fooled me.  You are the person who labels criticism of the tenants of islam as "racist".  Seems like a statement designed to "dilute" to me.
 
I don't know of a single person who thinks this.  Hyperbole maybe?

In the sense that killing a person for fun and killing a person in self defense are similar, sure.  After all, both involve you killing someone.  Motivation matters maybe?

I think it certainly true that many racists criticize tenets of Islam.
But if you say I label people who criticize the tenets of Islam as "racist" then you must have an example. Do you?

LOL limited sample size maybe?

All groups who scapegoat claim "self defense." None say "We just like to persecute innocent people who are no threat to the purity/security of our religion, culture, nation and/or race.  And it's not clear scapegoaters understand their motives. Prejudice is more a structure of feeling, its emotional ground inarticulable, a confused projection of displaced anger.

[GMDino]

(06-07-2017, 12:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Could have fooled me.  You are the person who labels criticism of the tenants of islam as "racist".  Seems like a statement designed to "dilute" to me.
 

(06-07-2017, 03:59 AM)Dill Wrote: I think it certainly true that many racists criticize tenets of Islam.
But if you say I label people who criticize the tenets of Islam as "racist" then you must have an example. Do you?

LOL limited sample size maybe?

Sure!

(06-06-2017, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whoever they are I'm sure you'll label them racists.  

(06-07-2017, 03:59 AM)Dill Wrote: All groups who scapegoat claim "self defense." None say "We just like to persecute innocent people who are no threat to the purity/security of our religion, culture, nation and/or race.  And it's not clear scapegoaters understand their motives. Prejudice is more a structure of feeling, its emotional ground inarticulable, a confused projection of displaced anger.

This last quote falls into a discussion I was having last night: I have rational, sane friends who cannot accept that their side can do ANY wrong. While I have been accused here of being purely a librul and will defend my god and father Obama until my end days they make me look good. But the connecting factor is that if they are shown to be wrong their first instinct is turn it into them be "attacked". My redneck ex-BIL can use the N word up one side and down the other, but if you call him racist he says he only hats "N---ers" not black people. And to accuse him of being racist is not only wrong but also an attack on him as a person.

[Dill]

(06-07-2017, 08:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: This last quote falls into a discussion I was having last night:  I have rational, sane friends who cannot accept that their side can do ANY wrong.  While I have been accused here of being purely a librul and will defend my god and father Obama until my end days they make me look good.  But the connecting factor is that if they are shown to be wrong their first instinct is turn it into them be "attacked".  My redneck ex-BIL can use the N word up one side and down the other, but if you call him racist he says he only hats "N---ers" not black people.  And to accuse him of being racist is not only wrong but also an attack on him as a person.

Since WWII, there have been a number of studies of the AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY that explain the behavior you describe.  The attackers cast themselves as victims fighting back. Often people are under "attack" by something--e.g. feeling the pressure of wage or job losses which diminish their status. Because they think in black and white terms, with no emotional distance from what they are analyzing, their anger and (sometimes real) pain can be redirected away from the real cause to other objects. This does not require an eloquent leader, but that certainly helps.

In the segregated South, recessions often triggered an outbreak of lynchings; Nazi literature is rife with stories of Aryans under economic control of "the Jew"; North Korean leaders regularly blame the US for their bad policy choices, making the US directly responsible for their starvation and low standing in the world.

Note that in every one of the aforementioned examples, there is an issue of racial or cultural purity at stake as well as security.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-07-2017, 12:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Since WWII, there have been a number of studies of the AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY that explain the behavior you describe.  The attackers cast themselves as victims fighting back. Often people are under "attack" by something--e.g. feeling the pressure of wage or job losses which diminish their status. Because they think in black and white terms, with no emotional distance from what they are analyzing, their anger and (sometimes real) pain can be redirected away from the real cause to other objects. This does not require an eloquent leader, but that certainly helps.

You mean like the students at Evergreen college or the antifa guy who hits people with a bike lock? 

Quote:In the segregated South, recessions often triggered an outbreak of lynchings; Nazi literature is rife with stories of Aryans under economic control of "the Jew"; North Korean leaders regularly blame the US for their bad policy choices, making the US directly responsible for their starvation and low standing in the world.

Very true.  What section of the planet can we find similar behavior occurring right now?

Quote:Note that in every one of the aforementioned examples, there is an issue of racial or cultural purity at stake as well as security.

I can think of a current and ongoing example in which religion is the motivation.  However, some people they don't see that as a problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Since some people are dodging the question I'll ask the room, why would someone be reluctant to publicly depict Mohammed?

[GMDino]

[/quote]

(06-07-2017, 12:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since some people are dodging the question I'll ask the room, why would someone be reluctant to publicly depict Mohammed?

(06-06-2017, 01:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Muslim's forbid depictions of Mohammed. Although from what I have gathered that is a man made law not in the Quran.

But really there is no reason for anyone else to not do it.  

Respect?

Or do are implying something rather than just saying it.

We all know what you are implying.  That Muslims will kill you for doing it.  Clearly I don't think all Muslims will go that far.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Respect?

Or do are implying something rather than just saying it.

We all know what you are implying.  That Muslims will kill you for doing it.  Clearly I don't think all Muslims will go that far.
[/quote]

I have to wonder if you realize how much your tap dancing with this question damages your professed position on this issue.  I should send you some flowers though, for helping bolster mine.

[Benton]

(06-06-2017, 05:59 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here is Jesus:

Stick Jesus looks angry.

I prefer baby Jesus. Or Jesus in a t-shirt tuxedo.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2017, 05:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Stick Jesus looks angry.

I prefer baby Jesus. Or Jesus in a t-shirt tuxedo.

Uhhh yeah he's got three nails stuck in him along with a crown of thorns

[Bengalzona]

(06-07-2017, 05:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Stick Jesus looks angry.

I prefer baby Jesus. Or Jesus in a t-shirt tuxedo.

We live in America, so you can choose your own Jesus... as well as whatever quotes you want to attribute to him.

[Dill]

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Dill: Wrote: In the segregated South, recessions often triggered an outbreak of lynchings; Nazi literature is rife with stories of Aryans under economic control of "the Jew"; North Korean leaders regularly blame the US for their bad policy choices, making the US directly responsible for their starvation and low standing in the world.  Note that in every one of the aforementioned examples, there is an issue of racial or cultural purity at stake as well as security.

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true.  What section of the planet can we find similar behavior occurring right now?

This section?

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A phobia is an unreasonable fear.  As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable.

[xxlt]

(06-06-2017, 11:21 PM)Dill Wrote: A stealth attack on the Supreme Court, preparing the way.

Wake up America--They are here!!

Gorsuch implicated as Trojan Horse! And here all this time we thought he was a (scape) goat.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2017, 04:33 PM)Dill Wrote: This section?

Outright laughable.  Comparing chopping peoples heads off, mass rape, horrific executions, genital mutilation, attempted elimination of entire cultures, (I could go on for days) to someone on the internet pointing out the teachings that are directly contributing to these acts is banality that even the internets would vomit at.  I get it though, you need to discount the logic of people by labeling them something that you hope will prevent others from paying attention.  It's cool, we all have our peccadillos.  

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 12:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Outright laughable.  Comparing chopping peoples heads off, mass rape, horrific executions, genital mutilation, attempted elimination of entire cultures, (I could go on for days) to someone on the internet pointing out the teachings that are directly contributing to these acts is banality that even the internets would vomit at.  I get it though, you need to discount the logic of people by labeling them something that you hope will prevent others from paying attention.  It's cool, we all have our peccadillos.  

Your selective outrage certainly could go on for days. And that is part of my point.

I am not "discounting" your logic; I am pointing out the structural features it shares with all ideologies which target ethnic, religious and racial groups for hate. Because your target is different from some Islamists does not make your denigration of a world religion structurally different from theirs.

We are all "labeling" one another. The question is whether and/or how the labels are constructed and applied selectively.

"Chopping peoples heads off, mass rape, horrific executions, genital mutilation, attempted elimination of entire cultures"--all these practices hardly distinguish Western or "christian" culture from Islamic in any definitive way, even if your favorite qualifier "today" is added. Only in the selective reading of groupthink do these practices always become what "They" do and never what we do.

And as I write this there are other forums around the world where some Muslims attempt to dissuade other Muslims from denigrating all Christians because of mass rape, executions etc,--unfortunately with about the same rate of success I have in this forum.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2017, 11:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Your selective outrage certainly could go on for days. And that is part of my point.

I am not "discounting" your logic; I am pointing out the structural features it shares with all ideologies which target ethnic, religious and racial groups for hate. Because your target is different from some Islamists does not make your denigration of a world religion structurally different from theirs.
We are all "labeling" one another. The question is only about how the labels are constructed and applied selectively.

"Chopping peoples heads off, mass rape, horrific executions, genital mutilation, attempted elimination of entire cultures"--all these practices hardly distinguish Western or "christian" culture from Islamic in any definitive way, even if your favorite qualifier "today" is added. Only in the selective reading of groupthink do these practices always become what "They" do and never what we do.

And as I write this there are other forums around the world where some Muslims attempt to dissuade other Muslims from denigrating all Christians because of mass rape, executions etc,--unfortunately with about the same rate of success I have in this forum.

Why do you think he selects Muslims?  Remember he doesn't like any mono-theistic religion, but he is really going after one right now.  There are only a couple of reasons he would do this.  What do you believe his reasons to be?

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Why do you think he selects Muslims?  Remember he doesn't like any mono-theistic religion, but he is really going after one right now.  There are only a couple of reasons he would do this.  What do you believe his reasons to be?

The US is in conflict with a number of Muslim groups at the moment, not Buddhist or Hindu. One consequence of this is attacks on Americans and American interests at home and abroad. Hence SSF targets Islam, not other religions.

This conflict does not produce the same reaction in all Americans, though. Only some have a predisposition to render it in black and white, Us vs Them terms. Only some use the actions of a few to negatively characterize the whole, just as Americans in the past targeted Jews or Indians or blacks or socialists.

Those Americans then select fragments of news and history and religious tradition to construct a monolithic enemy which threatens "who we are" as a people. Hate sites and hate books hoping to explain the conflict in ways that further intensify it then produce the kind of groupthink we see on the internet today regarding Islam. SSF participates in this. He can refer you to books and websites which "explain" Islam in this manner. And he has not been trying to examine this conflict from any other standpoint. Until very recently, he was wholly unaware of efforts by Muslims to mitigate and bridge the conflict he seeks to exacerbate. He has not sought familiarity with scholarship on the Middle East to balance his views and get a better understanding of the conflict as a whole. That why his views on Islam are so limited and partisan.

How would you account for SSF's behavior? What reasons for it have you identified?