Holy ********* Crazy

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2017, 12:30 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?

Your first paragraph.  Nothing else is needed. He didn't just randomly pick Islam over Christianity or Judaism.   Nobody is attacking other people based on religion.  

If for example or maybe when Christians try to force prayer where SSF doesn't believe it belongs, then he will comment on Christians. Not Muslims and not Jews.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

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

It's not selective at all, as michaelsean points out and I'll go into more detail in a bit.

Quote: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.

This point is inane, you are not equating me with anything, you are labeling me a racist.  Your comparison is as absurd as comparing someone who wants a strong national defense to the nazis because they wanted the same thing.

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

No, the question is whether the "labels" are accurate.

Quote:"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.

I can only imagine the pretzel you had to twist yourself into to make this "point".  The kind of behavior I described occurs in only one "section" of the world.  Deny all you want, but attitudes and behaviors in muslim majority countries are often times completely at odds with western values and basic human rights.

  

Quote: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.

Good, they should be.  At the same time they should be pointing out the behaviors that underlie the extreme ones.

(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?

He's going to give you a non-answer but we both know the truth.  One monotheism is an especially egregious defender at this point in time.  If we lived in the 1850's and had an internet I'd surely be railing against the Catholic church, as I will demonstrate below.

(06-12-2017, 12:30 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Nope, not even close. 

Quote: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.

Again, nope.  I don't labor under a cloud of liberal white guilt, hence I am able to call things out as they exist.  I don't have to bend over backwards to prove just how "woke" I am, or sensitive to the plight of others, because I have facts on my side.  No outrages committed by people in the past who share similar genetics to me is going to change that.

Quote: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?

Easily summed up, I am an educated adult familiar with logic and common sense.  I am also not burdened by the need to atone for the actions of people before me.  Actions that I took no part in and would have opposed if I had existed then.  Your friend GMDino is so paralyzed by this fear he can't even provide an honest answer as to why people won't publicly display a depiction of Mohammed.


I'll show you how the logic and common sense, coupled with education, works while debating this topic.

You accuse me of having a special fixation on islam, which would be partially correct, however the reason you give, and try and label me with, racism, could not be less true.  Putting aside for a moment that the term racism is improperly used in this context as islam is a religion and not an ethnicity I will now demonstrate how, as michaelsean pointed out, my issue is with religion in general.  Islam is merely the most egregious offender, by far, at the present time.

Here are a list of horrific actions(crimes) committed either directly by the catholic church or enabled by the teachings of chrisitanity in general.

-The Crusades, the most horrific one being the "Children's Crusade" a crime so cynical and callous that I strongly recommend to anyone not familiar with it to read up on it.

- The subjugation of women

- The African slave trade

- The subjugation, enslavement and in some cases genocide of the native population of the American continents

-  By collectively accusing the jewish people of the crime of deicide they promoted and enabled the persecution of jews, leading up to and enabling the Holocaust.

- The persecution, torture and murder of homosexuals

- The rape of children under the care of the catholic church

- Currently, aiding the spread of HIV throughout the African continent by not only forbidding the use of condoms, but spreading the deliberate lie that using condoms actually increases the spread of AIDS

You'll notice that the list, while hardly exhaustive, only lists two points that are ongoing.  The question then becomes why the other behaviors listed no longer occur? Was it because catholicism and christianity mellowed out and acknowledged their historical errors?  The answer is absolutely not, at least not in that way.  Christianity "mellowed out" because Western society forced them to.  Education and enlightenment led to a secular society, (secular being key here) in which the excesses of monotheism, in this case christianity, were both no longer tolerated but forceably curbed.  This was no mean struggle, christianity bitterly fought to hold on to every ounce of temporal power they once held.  It was also not a quick victory, it took over a thousand years.  All that being fact, when I say islam is incompatible with Western values I draw a direct parallel to islam of today (as you keep harping on my stressing the present) to chrisitianity of the Dark Ages.

Given this hard fought and dearly purchased victory over the forces of religious autocracy and theocratic dogma we would be fools, all of us, if we didn't actively point out and resist any attempt to move us back in that direction.  This should be done no matter what the religion or the melanin content of the majority of that religion's adherents (since you seem to like to make this a racial issue).  Secularism has made possible all the recent (in human history terms) advancements that the west has achieved.  I am not prepared to surrender a single inch of ground to any force who would take that away no matter whose feelings get hurt in the process.


I hope I've made my stance on this issue clear.  If not please feel free to simply call me a racist again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2017, 01:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Your first paragraph.  Nothing else is needed. He didn't just randomly pick Islam over Christianity or Judaism.   Nobody is attacking other people based on religion.  

If for example or maybe when Christians try to force prayer where SSF doesn't believe it belongs, then he will comment on Christians.  Not Muslims and not Jews.

I've done specifically that, especially on the old board during the W years.  I had several, rather heated, disagreements with Philhos and Bfine on this issue.  You as well iirc.  Maybe it's just that mass rape, murder, torture, enslavement and terrorism seem to attract more attention than prayer in school?  I dunno.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2017, 02:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've done specifically that, especially on the old board during the W years.  I had several, rather heated, disagreements with Philhos and Bfine on this issue.  You as well iirc.  Maybe it's just that mass rape, murder, torture, enslavement and terrorism seem to attract more attention than prayer in school?  I dunno.

Maybe.  I've never been that big in prayer in school, but I may have argued an aspect.  I'm guessing you at least didn't call me a racist though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2017, 03:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe.  I've never been that big in prayer in school, but I may have argued an aspect.  I'm guessing you at least didn't call me a racist though.

I didn't specifically mean prayer in school, just issues with religious influence on secular governance in general.  The only person I've ever called out as racist on this or the old board was SLS, who got caught quoting a klan member when he was making an argument on how primitive African culture was.  I completely get your point btw.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Here's some more Trump assassination/murder fantasy...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/arts/delta-airline-trump-public-theater-julius-caesar.html

Quote:New York’s Public Theater lost financial support from two high-profile corporate donors, Delta Air Lines and Bank of America, on Sunday amid intense criticism of its production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” which depicts the assassination of a Trump-like Roman ruler.

The companies’ decisions came after days of criticism online and in right-leaning media outlets that was amplified by Donald Trump Jr., a son of the president, who appeared to call into question the theater’s funding sources on Twitter on Sunday morning.

“No matter what your political stance may be, the graphic staging of ‘Julius Caesar’ at this summer’s free Shakespeare in the Park does not reflect Delta Air Lines’ values,” Delta said in a statement on Sunday night.

“Their artistic and creative direction crossed the line on the standards of good taste,” the company said. “We have notified them of our decision to end our sponsorship as the official airline of the Public Theater effective immediately.”

Bank of America followed hours later, saying it would withdraw financial support from the production of “Julius Caesar” but would not end its financial relationship with the theater, which a bank spokeswoman, Susan Atran, said had lasted for 11 years.

“The Public Theater chose to present ‘Julius Caesar’ in a way that was intended to provoke and offend,” Ms. Atran said. “Had this intention been made known to us, we would have decided not to sponsor it. We are withdrawing our funding for this production.” The statement came hours after the airline revealed its decision in replies to complaints on Twitter.

The play, which has been in previews since May 23, is scheduled to open Monday at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park as part of the Public Theater’s free Shakespeare in the Park festival.

“Its depiction of a petulant, blondish Caesar in a blue suit, complete with gold bathtub and a pouty Slavic wife, takes onstage Trump-trolling to a startling new level,” Jesse Green of The New York Times wrote in his review.

The “vividly staged” production hews to the traditional interpretation of Shakespeare’s work, he wrote. “Even a cursory reading of the play, the kind that many American teenagers give it in high school, is enough to show that it does not advocate assassination. Shakespeare portrays the killing of Caesar by seven of his fellow senators as an unmitigated disaster for Rome, no matter how patriotic the intentions.”

But in conservative media outlets, criticism of the theater and its financial supporters erupted last week. The website Breitbart compared the play to the controversial online photo that showed the comedian Kathy Griffin holding a severed head resembling the president. (Ms. Griffin was fired as co-host of CNN’s New Year’s Eve program over the incident.)

Criticism of the play reached a fever pitch on Sunday when Fox News reported that it “appears to depict President Trump being brutally stabbed to death by women and minorities.” Donald Trump Jr., a son of President Trump, joined in shortly after that report, seeming to question the theater’s funding sources.

The play nods frequently to Mr. Trump and 21st-century America. The set design includes a blowup of the preamble to the United States Constitution. Some of the costumes are accented by Anonymous masks and the ***** hats favored by some Trump protesters.

Candi Adams, a spokeswoman for the Public, declined to comment on Sunday night on the uproar or the loss of sponsorships.

In a note published online, Oskar Eustis, who is the director of the play and the artistic director of the Public, makes clear that the play does not endorse the assassination of Julius Caesar or any other political leader in a democracy.

“Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means,” Mr. Eustis wrote. “To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him.”

Other corporate sponsors of the Public Theater, including The Times, have also faced calls on social media to denounce the play or end their relationship with the Public.

A spokeswoman for The Times said the company, which has sponsored Shakespeare in the Park for 20 years, would not change course. In a statement, the company said: ”As an institution that believes in free speech for the arts as well as the media, we support the right of the Public Theater to stage the production as they chose.”

Last month, Gregg Henry, who stars in the play as the Trump-like Julius Caesar, told the website Backstage that he believed the comparison was apt because the Roman ruler “became drunk with ego, drunk with power, drunk with ambition and the belief that he and he alone must rule the world.”

[*michaelsean*]

(06-12-2017, 04:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't specifically mean prayer in school, just issues with religious influence on secular governance in general.  The only person I've ever called out as racist on this or the old board was SLS, who got caught quoting a klan member when he was making an argument on how primitive African culture was.  I completely get your point btw.

Oh sure plenty of things.  Probably less now because I am much less socially conservative.

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You accuse me of having a special fixation on islam, which would be partially correct, however the reason you give, and try and label me with, racism, could not be less true. Putting aside for a moment that the term racism is improperly used in this context as islam is a religion and not an ethnicity. . . .

I hope I've made my stance on this
issue clear.  If not please feel free to simply call me a racist again.

 
Before we worry about that "again" . . .

For the second time on this thread I ask, can you cite where I called you a racist?

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 04:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't specifically mean prayer in school, just issues with religious influence on secular governance in general.  The only person I've ever called out as racist on this or the old board was SLS, who got caught quoting a klan member when he was making an argument on how primitive African culture was.  I completely get your point btw.

How did Sloppy's argument go? Can you remember the general outline?

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 01:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote:
Your first paragraph.  Nothing else is needed. He didn't just randomly pick Islam over Christianity or Judaism.   Nobody is attacking other people based on religion.  

If for example or maybe when Christians try to force prayer where SSF doesn't believe it belongs, then he will comment on Christians.  Not Muslims and not Jews.

Yet SSF says my first paragraph is "not even close."

Something else is needed, because while the vast majority of Americans recognize that terrorism is a problem in the world today, and that much of that directed towards the US from the outside is perpetrated by some Islamists, many, perhaps even a majority, still do not, with SSF, claim Islam itself is an "ideology" which threatens Western values. They do not work overtime selectively attaching atrocities to one religion, describing it as the cause of terrorism which "Westerners" need to understand to protect Western values.

Why do you say "nobody is attacking other people based upon religion"? Remember SSF does not distinguish one group of religious bad actors to attack, separate from the majority of believers; rather, he uses that group to characterize the whole--"mass rape, murder, torture, enslavement and terrorism." If that is not attacking people on the basis of religion, then what would count as such? That he might attack other religions in the right context that hardly means he is not attacking people based upon religion in this case.

And I repeat--my quarrel with SSF is not about whether he "attacks religion." Nothing wrong with that in principle. The issue is how (using a part to tar the whole) and why.

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 04:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Here's some more Trump assassination/murder fantasy...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/arts/delta-airline-trump-public-theater-julius-caesar.html

Sounds like some like to stifle free speech. What's your view on that, Leonard?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2017, 12:55 AM)Dill Wrote:  
Before we worry about that "again" . . .

For the second time on this thread I ask, can you cite where I called you a racist?

Out of the whole huge post, this is what you chose to respond to?  Obviously this means you have no answer for the 99% you ignored.  As you are clearly uninterested in actually addressing the points being made I will kindly bid you good day, sir.

[Dill]

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Easily summed up, I am an educated adult familiar with logic and common sense.  I am also not burdened by the need to atone for the actions of people before me.  Actions that I took no part in and would have opposed if I had existed then.  Your friend GMDino is so paralyzed by this fear he can't even provide an honest answer as to why people won't publicly display a depiction of Mohammed.

I'll show you how the logic and common sense, coupled with education, works while debating this topic.

Words aren't magic. You can't make arguments logical and "educated" simply by claiming they are. And a report on your needs is not a good start either. Save that for your personal diary. (Dear Diary, Today I paralyzed dishonest Dino with fear. You should have seen me, unburdened by the need to atone, as I deployed the prevalent right-wing caricature of liberal guilt to . . . etc. etc.)

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote: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.

This point is inane, you are not equating me with anything, you are labeling me a racist.  Your comparison is as absurd as comparing someone who wants a strong national defense to the nazis because they wanted the same thing.

If I point out a pattern of faulty generalization common to all ideologies which target people for persecution based upon ethnicity, religion and/or race, and specifically state that you are doing this with regard to a world religion--quoting your own words to support my point--then I have not "labeled you a racist"; but I have pointed out the structural features of your argument--your words--which place it in the assigned group as an attack on religion, not race.

If you want to dispute that assignation with "logic" then you must explain why your condemnation of Islam based on the actions of some Islamists should not not be classified with the other types of faulty generalization abovementioned, or why those groups do not really exhibit that structural feature. Those are your choices.

You have not refuted my point by positing an innocuous, general analogy to Nazi concern for national defense which elides the very structural feature I identified. Return it to your analogy and then listen to how "inane" your Nazi comparison sounds. Are you wholly unaware of how Nazis framed the issue of national defense?

You do not fix the problem by positioning yourself as victim of an unfair accusation of racism, nor by demonstrating that you can caricature other religions as well.

(06-12-2017, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here are a list of horrific actions(crimes) committed either directly by the catholic church or enabled by the teachings of chrisitanity in general.
-The Crusades, the most horrific one being the "Children's Crusade" a crime so cynical and callous that I strongly recommend to anyone not familiar with it to read up on it.
- The subjugation of women
- The African slave trade
- The subjugation, enslavement and in some cases genocide of the native population of the American continents
-  By collectively accusing the jewish people of the crime of deicide they promoted and enabled the persecution of jews, leading up to and enabling the Holocaust.
- The persecution, torture and murder of homosexuals
- The rape of children under the care of the catholic church
- Currently, aiding the spread of HIV throughout the African continent by not only forbidding the use of condoms, but spreading the deliberate lie that using condoms actually increases the spread of AIDS

You'll notice that the list, while hardly exhaustive, only lists two points that are ongoing. 

One cannot start out with bad logic and end up with good history, and good history does not embrace an easy equivocation of Catholicism with "the teachings of Christianity" to produce a one-sided narrative in which the latter stands forth only as singular and ultimate origin of your list of "horrific crimes" and the monolithic opponent of education and "enlightenment."

Somehow "Western society" (No Christians among them?) "forced" Christianity to "mellow out." No hint here of how or to what degree the definition of "good" you deploy to define "crimes" derives from Christianity in what you call Western society.

Analogizing versions of salafism which have only emerged in the modern era to Medieval Christianity (or the "Dark Ages" as you call them, following the custom of some 19th century historians) is ahistorical. It excludes or oversimplifies the shaping forces which make that salafisim a distinctly modern response to modern conditions. It is also ethnocentric. If you are curious I can explain more.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2017, 11:08 AM)Dill Wrote: You do not fix the problem by positioning yourself as victim of an unfair accusation of racism, nor by demonstrating that you can caricature other religions as well.

[Dill]

(06-13-2017, 11:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Out of the whole huge post, this is what you chose to respond to?  Obviously this means you have no answer for the 99% you ignored.  As you are clearly uninterested in actually addressing the points being made I will kindly bid you good day, sir.

LOL looks like you posted that while I was addressing your 99%.

And obviously, it didn't mean I had "no answer." 

And just for the record, If I had left that one question, it would not have meant I was "ignoring" anything or "uninterested in actually addressing the points being made." 

Sometimes I think you do not understand how arguments hang together, so that one need not address "every point" as you sometimes put it.  Refuting one linchpin premise can be enough to bring down the whole.

Right now I think you do understand at some level, or you would not have been to so ready to dodge that one question, as if it were not "addressing the points you actually made."

[GMDino]

(06-13-2017, 11:22 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL looks like you posted that while I was addressing your 99%.

And obviously, it didn't mean I had "no answer." 

And just for the record, If I had left that one question, it would not have meant I was "ignoring" anything or "uninterested in actually addressing the points being made." 

Sometimes I think you do not understand how arguments hang together, so that one need not address "every point" as you sometimes put it.  Refuting one linchpin premise can be enough to bring down the whole.

Right now I think you do understand at some level, or you would not have been to so ready to dodge that one question, as if it were not "addressing the points you actually made."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2017, 11:22 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL looks like you posted that while I was addressing your 99%.

And obviously, it didn't mean I had "no answer." 

And just for the record, If I had left that one question, it would not have meant I was "ignoring" anything or "uninterested in actually addressing the points being made." 

Sometimes I think you do not understand how arguments hang together, so that one need not address "every point" as you sometimes put it.  Refuting one linchpin premise can be enough to bring down the whole.

Right now I think you do understand at some level, or you would not have been to so ready to dodge that one question, as if it were not "addressing the points you actually made."

You keep trying to change the debate.  Sadly, for you, I'm not allowing you to.  The point, which is clearly and abundantly made, is that religious extremism can only be combated by confronting it and forcing it to conform to the values of a secular society.  Now, if it refuses to do so, then its place in a society that values this, like pretty much every "western" nation, will be disruptive and will require a response.  The fact that people like you want to mitigate the extremism by coddling its perpetrators as victims of imperialism or western subjugation merely enables the problem.  The issue is really not that complex, some behavior is acceptable and some is not.  I'm not going to excuse unacceptable behavior by anyone because they think they have divine permission to act in an unacceptable manner.  You keep looking for root causes while ignoring the teachings of the religion used to validate that behavior.  Essentially you're looking at the branches and wondering how they hold the tree up.

[GMDino]

It amazes me that people still believe you can fight a religion with bombs and guns.

Maybe it's a holdover to when the Christians wiped out as many religions as they could in the 1400-1500's?

The simple fact that we have to argue about getting rid of a religion, or making it conform with us says more about what is wrong with us and the need for religion.

[xxlt]

(06-13-2017, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: It amazes me that people still believe you can fight a religion with bombs and guns.

Maybe it's a holdover to when the Christians wiped out as many religions as they could in the 1400-1500's?

The simple fact that we have to argue about getting rid of a religion, or making it conform with us says more about what is wrong with us and the need for religion.

Wow, that might be the worst excuse for religion from the most unexpected source of all time. Historians, take a memo...

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-13-2017, 03:39 AM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like some like to stifle free speech. What's your view on that, Leonard?

That...

#1. Refusing to fund someone's play isn't stifling free speech. Unless you believe that they are required to donate their money to fund people's plays.

#2. Promoting the assassination of your country's president isn't free speech.