The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2021, 04:21 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Burning someone alive is haram ( a sin ) because it's Allah's punishment. Isis did it one time but I don't remember talibans doing that.

You come off as parsing hairs here.  You're focusing on one horrific act, which btw definitely happened more than once, and ignoring the other.  Also it's haram to "make war on women and children" according to the Quran, but it happens all the damn time.

Quote:For the rest, it's just religious shit. You have the same punishments in the ancient testament. The Coran is basically a traduction of the ancient testament which is a really violent book.

To be sure.  The difference is one religion continues to be frequently used in this regard and the other is not.  But we're getting off topic.

[Dill]

(08-31-2021, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Arturo Bandini Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-Unvaxinated-the-Taliban?pid=1053636#pid1053636][/url]Apart of their traditions and way of living.
That's the thing about talibans, people view them with western eyes and they can't understand.
In Western civilization, we identify ourselves with career, in middle east they identify themselves with their religion.
For these people their religion and traditions are the things they want to conserve. They don't give a damn to the consumering way of life. 

Well stated.  However, your own post refutes your previous post.  The Taliban have absolutely nothing of substance in common with conservatives in Western countries.  I am pleased we can agree on this.

"Conservatives" in Western countries aren't preserving what they take to be their traditions, which they see as threatened by social change?

Seems like you are putting words in someone else's mouth again. 

[Arturo Bandini]

Politics are often used to exagerate things.

I don't remember anyone complaining when Bernie or AOC are being called commies or marxists time after time.

This is not true too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2021, 04:57 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Politics are often used to exagerate things.

I don't remember anyone complaining when Bernie or AOC are being called commies or marxists time after time.

This is not true too.

AOC is a Democratic Socialist.  Their own website advocates for public ownership of the means of production.  I don't think it's unfair to compare someone who supports this to a communist.  Sanders, well he's just grifting.  He may believe a lot of what he says, but no real socialist drives an Audi R10, owns multiple houses and is worth millions.  Now, if they compared either of them to Stalin, pol Pot or Mao Zedong I'd have a problem with that, because those are extreme examples.

Just curious, do you have the same issues with people calling GOP members "fascists"?  I don't recall seeing it but I could certainly have missed it.

[Arturo Bandini]

(08-31-2021, 05:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: AOC is a Democratic Socialist.  Their own website advocates for public ownership of the means of production.  I don't think it's unfair to compare someone who supports this to a communist.  Sanders, well he's just grifting.  He may believe a lot of what he says, but no real socialist drives an Audi R10, owns multiple houses and is worth millions.  Now, if they compared either of them to Stalin, pol Pot or Mao Zedong I'd have a problem with that, because those are extreme examples.

Just curious, do you have the same issues with people calling GOP members "fascists"?  I don't recall seeing it but I could certainly have missed it.

I don't know if all GOP people are fascists but they all have something in common : Peremptory beliefs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2021, 06:21 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I don't know if all GOP people are fascists but they all have something in common : Peremptory beliefs.

If you think they're unique in that fashion you clearly haven't been paying attention the last few years.

[Dill]

(08-31-2021, 09:53 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The danger is to everyone in this country. Inflammatory speech like this only furthers the divide and emboldens some to demonize fellow Americans.  We've seen over and over (and over, and over, and over) again what this is doing to this country.

It's even worse with statements like this which are rather ambigious.  Is he talking about anti-vaxers, or people who remain unvvacinated?  Is he talking about MAGA people?  Is he talking about the Proud Boys?  Is he talking about Republicans?  While there may be an answer to this in his own mind, to the people reading it it's up for interpretation.

There are consequences for labeling people as Nazi's, or facsists, or now the Taliban, just as there are consequences for the low IQ people who believed the DNC is filled with pedophiles.  Whether you look to January 6th, or the Antifa/Protesters meeting Kyle Rittenhouse and Co., or any number of confrontations that play out on our streets almost daily, this type of language helps no one.

Forgetting all of the above, and the danger in using descriptions and language like this, this is just downright offensive and inaccurate.  One only needs to read about what the Taliban did to that folk singer a few days ago to know there is no comparison to be made to anything that is occuring here.  And that's just a singular example. 

Thanks for these discussion points, Wes.  

1. The connotations of "Taliban" don't send my attention to anti-vaxxers. It is likely that Moore is refering to our politicized religious right.  When "leftists" compare the Taliban to American conservatives, the point of comparison is not cutting of fingers or beheading people, but the inclination to restrict women's and gays civil rights, the promotion of which they find "inflammatory." "The left," on the other hand, finds this inclination itself inflammatory. It is a common "leftist" theme that American conservatives like to reference the challenge to women's and gay rights in places like Afghanistan, but not the challenges to them here in the US. Is it your argument that, if Taliban behead people, these common "conservative" tendencies between Taliban and American conservatives should not be acknowledged, let alone examined--because that would be "offensive," "inacurrate," and "divisive"?  If I say that both are responses to globalization, am I "demonizing fellow Americans"? 

2. More importantly, you've referenced "consequences for labeling people as Nazi's or fascists." So, a question: Are you familiar with the recent work of Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder? Both have studied authoritarian regimes for many years. Concerned by the internal collapse of democracies around the world into authoritarianism, and immensely disturbed by the number of authoritarian red flags suddenly appearing in U.S. politics, they have drawn on their knowledge to write warning books about the state of our current politics. https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=snyder&qid=1630450580&s=books&sr=1-1&asin=0804190119&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

They seem to think there are consequences for ignoring the history of authoritarian politics, namely history repeats itself. That doesn't mean "nazism," specifically, will rise again, rather that new forms of authoritarian or even fascist style politics could come to dominate our political processes under other names, driven by economic and social crises of the sort we are experiencing now. One thing is clear though--the goal of such books is not to compare Americans to "scum." It is rather to make us aware of "system failure": The kind of political behaviors and tendencies which break down the "firewalls" protecting democracy from authoritarian rule--like the concentration of party allegiances in a single leader, and creating legal mechanisms for exploiting chaos--then creating the chaos.  

How does this sort of scholarship fit into you your view of "danger" to our country. Is it part of the problem, mere "labeling" and the equivalent of a Trump tweet demonizing other Americans, or is it actually addressing the problem, helping us understand what is going wrong and how to fix it? 

If you think the latter, then oughtn't we be able to distinguish between scholarship and tweets intended to inflame and knowledge intended for our guidance? If you think the former, would you go so far as to maintain that such scholarship be suppressed, for fear it would only "inflame" our politics and demonize Americans? 

3. Regarding the "demonization of fellow Americans": the premise of this thread seems to be that I, dill, advocate comparing people I disagree with to "scum" in order to "polarize people and stir up hatred." I defend any old Nazi comparison. That, itself" seems rather an instance of "demonization," doesn't it, since I don't do any of those things?  

E.g., I have refused to call any human beings "scum" or "animals." SSF and I disagree on this. Before you joined our exhalted company, Wes, he didn't shy from calling me a supporter of ISIS and MS-13 precisely because I wouldn't follow him in calling them "animals."  But after lumping me with ISIS, he now he insists it's a very bad thing to compare one's political opponents to "the worst human scum you can," like ISIS. Something he now insists he has ALWAYS opposed. Has the leopard changed his spots?  

I don't think so. He claims I'm the demonizer now, and wants to generate a group response to contain my "hatred." But I don't think he is out to stop verbal abuse, "division," and demonization of other posters; he just wants comparison of right wing US politics to authoritarian regimes, especially those based in scholarship on such, to stop.

[Dill]

(08-31-2021, 03:47 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You don't think - in your heart of hearts - that if western extremists had the kind of control the Taliban had, they wouldn't be doing a lot of the same shit?

I do agree that the comparisons do more harm than good, fwiw - I'm not saying this to try and do so. I just believe - given religion's part in a lot of the most horrible things in human history - the only things separating western extremists and groups like the Taliban are the Pacific Ocean and the amount of influence they have on their given regions.

(08-31-2021, 04:13 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Can you define "western extemists?"  I'm just curious what groups of people you have living in the western world that would behave similarly given the opportunity.  And given your answer, it would be interesting to explore how many of these people you think exist.  Is it dozens?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Millions?  I would assume it's gotta be a large number if we're using hypothetical where they've taken control.

Keep in mind, "a lot of the same shit" includes beheading people, burning people alive, throwing gay people off of buildings, taking child sex slaves, cutting women's fingers off for wearing nail polish, beating and then shooting a mother in front of her children, etc.  (Note: I can find links to examples of each of these occuring all within the last 90 days.  I also could provide dozens of more equally heinous descriptions.)

I have some thoughts on this. I'm guessing BigP means "religious extremists" of the most illiberal variety who, like the Taliban, would work to turn back civil rights for women and gays. So two points: 

1. Most important--in the US our liberal institutions and laws limit the degree to which "extremists" can convert their beliefs to law. So that makes it hard to directly count them or assess what they would "really" do. Some of their leaders also dissemble their positions, so as not to embarrass the politicians they support with money and sermons. Best, then, to look at what happens when they can affect laws in other countries. First example which comes to my mind is Scott Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries in the US,* and Watchmen on the Walls in Latvia. At one time he was director of the CA branch of The American Family Association which, according to Wikipedia, owns some 200 radio stations in 33 states. All these organizations are dedicated to rolling back gay rights. 

Anyway, Lively appears to have been instrumental in pushing for the death penalty for gays in Uganda. Liberal pushback reduced the penalty to life in prison. "Ugandan MPs Press for Death Penalty for Homosexual Acts."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/15/ugandan-mps-press-for-death-penalty-for-homosexual-acts
"Uganda's New Anti-homosexuality Law Was Inspired by American Activists"
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/uganda-passes-law-punishes-homosexuality-life-imprisonment/356365/

You'd never guess it from their website (https://thefellowshipfoundation.org/), which simply encourages modeling Christian behavior, but the Fellowship Foundation also had a hand in Uganda. So yes, hard to determine what such groups "really" want, just based on what they can do in this country.
"Aid Agencies: Make Sure You Are Not Funding Gay Conversion Therapy."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/africa-us-christian-right-50m/

American organizations also link with "Family first" style groups in Eastern Europe and Russia to oppose gay rights and encourage women to return to "traditional" roles. Difficult to count how many millions of Americans support these groups, but they certainly outnumber the Taliban. https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/us-christian-right-wing-groups-financed-anti-rights-campaigns-in-europe/

I cannot stress enough, we ought to recognize that hostility to women's and gay's rights is a general feature of right wing authoritarianism, not simply limited to Taliban or "Muslims."  In Hungary, soon after Orban came to power, they snuffed all women's studies programs in their universities. I have argued elsewhere that fascism can be understood, in part, as a kind of masculine identity movement.

2. I have a problem making "cutting off fingers" a useful term of comparison or decisive means of differentiation, as opposed to a group's stated beliefs and organizational structure and goals. In 1968, Afghans were very religious, but no one was cutting off women's fingers. The country was safer than many in Europe for tourist travel. 

So I ask--why are they NOW cutting off fingers and beheading women. Telling us they are "religious extremists" or "human scum" has no explanatory value. If I understand you BigP, you are asking what  Americans might behave like were they raked over the coals of war for three generations now as the Afghans have been, forced several times to reconsitute civil authority via religious leadership, all preaching that the calamities befalling them are caused by straying from God's literal word. Hard to say for sure, but we do know that a lot of Americans have now gone to war in developing countries, and in each war, and some of those have been accused of "atrocities," which they presumably would not have committed had they never been to war. And there would likely be more were they not subject to the Law of War and military discipline. So how would a mass of American civilians fare after a decade of war, left without central government, and forced to turn to "strong" religious leaders to reconstitute order? Or three decades--long enough for an entire generation to miss secular, democratic schooling?  I do know we can't get answers to questions like this by forbidding comparisons, because the other side is "scum." 

*Not the Black Church in Philly.

[Dill]

(08-31-2021, 04:23 AM)jmccracky Wrote: Hey, Jmccracky here. Been a member since September 2005. Yall need to relax. I don't have a problem with any of you guys. I think you guys need a reset, lol. I am the one who helped start this baby 16 years ago, don't go f'ing it up now. Be best.  

Seriously, I don't post much at all these days, but you guys can be pretty damn insightful sometimes. I rather enjoy reading this forum every day. I have no idea who is right or wrong with this particular situation. I've seen members be sarcastic and smartasses to each other. Which is fine by me. Don't let it get to ya. Spit some chewin' tobacco on it, rub it in, and get on with it. It's just a forum.  

Nice to hear from you Jim.  I won't let it get to me.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2021, 09:12 PM)Dill Wrote: But I don't think he is out to stop verbal abuse. "division," and demonization of other posters; he just wants comparison of right wing US politics to authoritarian regimes, especially those based in scholarship on such, to stop.

If you can't criticize conservatives, liberals, or any other such group without resorting to Nazi, Taliban or ISIS comparisons then you're not 1/10th the intellectual academic you try so hard to convince everyone you are.

[Dill]

(09-01-2021, 12:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you can't criticize conservatives, liberals, or any other such group without resorting to Nazi, Taliban or ISIS comparisons then you're not 1/10th the intellectual academic you try so hard to convince everyone you are.

One can “criticize” anything or anyone without reference to “Nazis, Taliban or ISIS,” sure. And in some cases such reference has no purpose beyond insult—e.g. if I called you an “ISIS supporter,” because I think them the worst “human scum.” But that’s precisely the kind of uncivil behavior I argue against.

If one is concerned to understand how democracies die, especially via legal and social processes normally unremarked, then study of illiberal precedents is indispensable, and not just from one country.

When we do that from an “intellectual academic” perspective, we are studying people like ourselves, not scum.

Like ourselves in the sense that placed in similar circumstances, some, many, or even most of us might exhibit the same illiberal behavior we critique. So what are those circumstances, and are we experiencing them now? If so, to what degree, and what ought we to be doing about it? The goal is understanding, not “division” and “demonization.”

[Arturo Bandini]

(08-31-2021, 07:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you think they're unique in that fashion you clearly haven't been paying attention the last few years.

Liberals are usually more inclined to 'greater good for all' not 'all for myself'

They are projecting a little less too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 02:30 AM)Dill Wrote: One can “criticize” anything or anyone without reference to “Nazis, Taliban or ISIS,” sure.

Outstanding!  Then doing so should be no problem going forward.

Quote:The goal is understanding, not “division” and “demonization.”

You're not saying anything new here.  I don't think there was anyone who didn't understand what your stated objective was.  The problem is you don't understand how your stated goal and reality do not intersect, at all.  You say you may make such comparisons with good intentions, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the case.  However, the real world ramifications of such comparisons are radically different then your stated goal.  They do not increase understanding and they absolutely increase division and demonization.  When one's actions cause a polar opposite results to that intended it would behoove said person to reexamine said practice and analyze why such unintended results were achieved.


I'm saying this with the intent of being non-confrontational, because I think you're on the cusp of realizing why these comparisons are such a poor idea.  I work, especially within the past few years, with a lot of academics and advocates interested in criminal justice reform.  They largely, with some notable exceptions, have good intentions and genuinely want to make things better.  The problem, and it always, always comes up, is that they have zero real world experience of how their proposed ideas will actually impact society in the real world.  When they get the opposite result or their stated goal they always react with bewilderment, despite our informing them that exactly what happened would happen and why.  To state it in one sentence, they understand theory, they do not understand people.


How does this tie into you and your Nazi/Taliban comparisons?  You state you make them to draw attention to what you believe are alarming trends in our country/democracy.  You attempt to highlight behavior you believe to be analogous to that exhibited by these awful groups with the intention of ensuring we never go down the same road.  The problem is, and will always be with such comparisons, is that the average person doesn't get the nuance, they see "X" group they don't like is comparable to Nazis/Taliban.  Most people don't want to engage in deep thought about ideological differences, they're in group "A" and the people they disagree with are in group "B".  When someone makes an argument comparing group "B" with Nazis or Taliban the only thing they internalize is group "B" are Nazis or Taliban.  I've provided two very obvious examples from major public figures in this thread, and digging up numerous other examples would be childishly simple.


So, seeing as your stated goal is rarely, if ever, achieved in large numbers and your exact opposite intention is much more like the default interpretation than an aberration one must conclude that such comparisons, well intentioned on your part though they may be, are inherently destructive, polarizing and inflammatory.  I could end with a statement about the road to hell and all, but I trust you, and anyone else reading, get the point.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 03:55 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Liberals are usually more inclined to 'greater good for all' not 'all for myself'

Depending on what you believe to be the "greater good".  Is it better to make a person dependent on the state for their livelihood or to encourage them to be responsible for that on their own?  Of course there's a lot of grey area in between those options but for the purposes of this question I think you understand the point.  One cannot automatically dismiss the latter position as it has essentially been the default position of the United States for most of its history and one cannot find a more successful and powerful nation in human history.

Quote:They are projecting a little less too.

Again, the last few years would contradict this.  For many left leaning types you're either on board with their ideology or you're an awful person.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-01-2021, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Depending on what you believe to be the "greater good".  Is it better to make a person dependent on the state for their livelihood or to encourage them to be responsible for that on their own?  Of course there's a lot of grey area in between those options but for the purposes of this question I think you understand the point.  One cannot automatically dismiss the latter position as it has essentially been the default position of the United States for most of its history and one cannot find a more successful and powerful nation in human history.


Again, the last few years would contradict this.  For many left leaning types you're either on board with their ideology or you're an awful person.

We are not born with the same chances in life and that's a fact. I've absolutely no problem with social programs, if it can help people it's money well spent. 



I do agree. There are a lot of political ultra conservatives who are just horrible human beings. The worst of the worst of what one self can be. But some people like that. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 01:35 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: We are not born with the same chances in life and that's a fact. I've absolutely no problem with social programs, if it can help people it's money well spent.

I completely agree.  I also think there's a line between giving someone a helping hand and making them dependent on the government in perpetuity.

Quote:I do agree. There are a lot of political ultra conservatives who are just horrible human beings. The worst of the worst of what one self can be. But some people like that. 

There are a lot of ultra liberals that are just horrible human beings as well.  I encounter them on a rather frequent basis.  I think we both agree that extreme ideologies are a problem.

[Mickeypoo]

(08-30-2021, 10:37 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Depends on if you're sick or not. Because getting into a hospital in America right now is a lot like trying to get into a Taliban infested city - you'll probably die before you get in.

Not all of America.  I live in a beautiful, very low crime, rural area.  Our Hospital is open and has open beds.  Local providers usually get you in same day or next.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-01-2021, 02:18 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Not all of America.  I live in a beautiful, very low crime, rural area.  Our Hospital is open and has open beds.  Local providers usually get you in same day or next.

Cool - and I'm sure a lot of people can make that claim. Doesn't change the fact that the medical system in the country is struggling.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-01-2021, 02:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  I also think there's a line between giving someone a helping hand and making them dependent on the government in perpetuity.



There are a lot of ultra liberals that are just horrible human beings as well.  I encounter them on a rather frequent basis.  I think we both agree that extreme ideologies are a problem.

Like who ? 

Give some names of Ultra liberal goons ? 

I would like to know them because they don't seem to see on the international spectrum at the contrary of Cruz, Abbott, Kozar, Mc Carthy, Taylor Green, Gaetz, Bohbert ...

[Dill]

(09-01-2021, 02:18 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Not all of America.  I live in a beautiful, very low crime, rural area.  Our Hospital is open and has open beds.  Local providers usually get you in same day or next.

Lucky you. 

I live in Indiana County PA, with a vaccination rate of barely 30%. Hospital beds in intensive care are now full and doctors are sending patients to other hospitals out of county.

I just arrived home after a month in Montana where, in cities like Great Falls and on Indian reservations like the Crow, bed space has once again risen to crisis levels.