Attack in Istambul

[Ghostpanther]

It's a night club celebrating new year. No one would let you go in with a firearm, even if it was easy to get them.

Thanks. This is a common reason why they seem to pick their targets like they do. Soft, easy to kill ones with a good chance of inflicting high casualties.

[nextormento]

I don't think most posters here are capable (due to lack of ability or willingness) of a sufficiently nuanced view to avoid the "treating all Muslims" outcome, and we see that outcome occur very quickly time and time again. In particular, the claim that one simply "cannot talk about it" has always struck me as a strong indicator of the people who best exemplify that, as these things can most certainly be talked about if one is willing to do so intelligently. Endus seems to have been leaning towards the same interpretation of that complaint, rather than simply equating the idea of discussing problems relating to Muslims in some fashion with hate.

if people disagree with [the rules], we cast suspicion of [hatred and prejudice] on them. Neat (context: Castle doctrine)
Not to rail on hypocrisy, but to show how we have this type of exchange all the time.
It's an exercise on pitting the benefit of the doubt (or lack thereof) against plausible deniability. It's a pretty nifty and devilish stalemate that, I suspect, many people exploit unconsciously. It has a few outs, among them persuading the other to bite into the paradox of tolerance, or having one party uncouthly utilize some kind of projection. But I digress...

It is a strong indicator, but extrapolating outcomes other than through likeliness and statistics is methodologically unsafe. I'll note that this is what profiling is about. It is amusing that we're estimating prejudice in an effort to avoid profiling. Be my guest to raise an eyebrow. I do too. In fact, I preemptively agreed on that likeliness: opening that line of discussion invites hatred.
When Endus argues, repeatedly, that it is the only outcome, he is explicitly and unambiguously equating the discussion with hatred. Which he then justifies with his incapacity to see any value to the exchange. He is wrong about the former and incompetent about the later, and I suggest he cut this affected line of response, spare us from this nonsense.

[Kuntantee]

@nextormento
Problems with Islam is being discussed in Academia, but not in the way you suggested that the problem is inherent with Islam as a religion or "Islamic culture" (whatever it is).

[nextormento]

in the way you suggested that the problem is inherent with Islam

I didn't; that would be asinine on my end, and I'm quick to call it out when I see it. I'm really sorry that your unsubstantiated fantasy of prejudice doesn't reflect to me, or the things I say.
Should you drop the character assassination, I might be inclined to elaborate further. Though, I must say, I'm not even interested in debating religion myself: only the possibility of its debate in a constructive manner. If you insist on this dull approach, I'll contemplate throwing you into ignore. Something that I really don't like, but my patience does know bounds.

[JohnBrown1917]

Its a bit weird that such a thing like religion needs to be "protected" from ridicule. I get it if you mock a person for his religion, but mocking such huge and powerful
ideologies should be wanted and not shunned.

I don't care if its pedophile Catholics or snackbar Muslims, you should be able to ridicule things that drive people to do extremes like we have seen.

I have a feeling that people who defend "moderate Islam" here would have been attacking Christianity if the lived 30-40 years ago.

I would say their is a huge difference between making fun of religion and wanting to ban/bar people from a certain religion.
I have no big problem with banning all religions, but no religion should be favoured over another.

[Deleted]

I would say their is a huge difference between making fun of religion and wanting to ban/bar people from a certain religion.
I have no big problem with banning all religions, but no religion should be favoured over another.

I would ban Islam, not because it's a religion, but because it's a fucking fascist political ideology PRETENDING to be a religion.
Islam is not registered in Slovakia, never will be. We won't even allow mosques to be built. If the rest of Europe want to be cucked, more power to them.


[Infracted]

[JohnBrown1917]

I would ban Islam, not because it's a religion, but because it's a fucking fascist political ideology PRETENDING to be a religion.

Marking any religion you do not like as 'fascist' is just a slippery slope.
Maybe we should just go back and all ban Protestants, revive the Spanish inquisition, you know?

[Deleted]

Marking any religion you do not like as 'fascist' is just a slippery slope.

No, I don't mark any religion as fascist. Only political ideologies.

[JohnBrown1917]

No, I don't mark any religion as fascist. Only political ideologies.

Which is what is not something I consider islam to be, unless Christianity is also one.

Well, no worries for that here anyway, would need 75% of the MPs to agree with it.

[Deleted]

Which is what is not something I consider islam to be, unless Christianity is also one.

Well, no worries for that here anyway, would need 75% of the MPs to agree with it.

Great. Islam is a totalitarian, fascist fuckfest political ideology. No matter what's your opinion.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/secu...ture_of_islam/

It's so nice, living in the country where even lefties are against Islam.

[JohnBrown1917]

Great. Islam is a totalitarian, fascist fuckfest political ideology. No matter what's your opinion.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/secu...ture_of_islam/

It's so nice, living in the country where even lefties are against Islam.

And no matter what your opinion, Islam is still a religion. Either all religions are free to believe in or none are, and I take no comprise with that. And our constitution agrees with me, it seems.

[Deleted]

And no matter what your opinion, Islam is still a religion. Either all religions are free to believe in or none are, and I take no comprise with that. And our constitution agrees with me, it seems.

Islam: social, judicial and political systems are all totally controlled.

If someone said that National Socialism is a religion and it should be protected/respected, he would be fucking dumb. And there is barely any difference between Islam and National Socialism. I'd say that National Socialism is even more acceptable.

[Kuntantee]

I didn't; that would be asinine on my end, and I'm quick to call it out when I see it. I'm really sorry that your unsubstantiated fantasy of prejudice doesn't reflect to me, or the things I say.
Should you drop the character assassination, I might be inclined to elaborate further. Though, I must say, I'm not even interested in debating religion myself: only the possibility of its debate in a constructive manner. If you insist on this dull approach, I'll contemplate throwing you into ignore. Something that I really don't like, but my patience does know bounds.

read your own posts:

Nobody "happens" to believe stuff. The belief and the culture inform their actions. For better or worse, but it's a group experience.

We're talking about terrorists, not refugees, or Muslims. And they share a specific culture. One that, in this case, intersects with Islam at large. One that also intersects with nationalism, supremacy, and several others. If someone wants to explore how Islam interacts with terrorism, how it informs their views, they should be able to. So, if they say Islam is the problem... well... partly, and not necessarily: it's just an aspect of their world view. If go down the granularity line, they'll find more specific commonalities. If they end up at each individual terrorist, well, they may find confused people, or imbeciles, or a sad sob story. But at that point, understanding terrorism lost all meaning, because barring lone wolfs terrorism is a group endeavor generally justified on some culture or mix of ideas.

Your mambo jumbo is so thick that you can't see what you are implying in your own posts. This is evident considering I am not the only one who thought you are generalizing here.

You literally prove his point ; He is indirectly saying that you are overgeneralizing - Then you create a overgeneralization and say "But it's totally important, yo".

I am not sure if my usage of "mambo jumbo" is upsetting/annoying you, but that's what I think. My intention is not to be rude. The only other projection I made about you, as far as I remember, was about you "probably" lacking a specific kind of experience. Fine, it was bit passive-aggressive but hardly a character assassination. You are free to put me on your ignore list, tho that would be overreaction.

[nextormento]

you can't see what you are implying in your own posts. This is evident considering I am not the only one who thought you are generalizing here.

I know what I am implying. What convoluted distortion you produce is non my business.
On the topic of generalizations, yes. I'm requesting generalizations be made. I explicitly endorse that type of inference, as any person with gluttony for knowledge does. Here: It is a generalization, of course. Generalizations are ok. It's a pretty common way to explore the world. Requesting granularity down to the individual isn't a way to explore societal issues, like terrorism.

In fact, what brings us here is a generalization: that discussing culture leads only to hatred.
You're contesting the generalization doesn't extend to every instance, to every individual, and I agree: disusing culture doesn't necessarily lead to hatred.

[Endus]

In fact, what brings us here is a generalization: that discussing culture leads only to hatred.

That's just false.

The point that was made is that discussing "culture" as if it were some homogenous and controlling influence is prejudicial and wrong on the facts. Culture is an expression by the individual. People break with or change or modify their cultural expressions regularly, because they as individuals can't accept certain components, or want to bring new ones in.

It's a pointlessly vague generalization; you can't draw anything but the most blunt and pointless of assertions from it. Trying to talk about "Islamic culture" is like trying to talk about "Christian culture". The expressions of that culture by Amish Christians are going to be wildly different from those of Unitarians, the views of American Christians wildly different from those of Orthodox Russians, Mormons are completely different from the terrorists of the IRA, and so forth. You've cast the net so wide that about the only assertions you can draw are very basic religious theology ones, and that only because otherwise you're moving beyond the definition of "Christian". And by "very basic", there's something like 2 or 3.

[nextormento]

about you "probably" lacking a specific kind of experience.

I'm not a fan of doxing myself.
If you're curious, and I've said this before, I chose my professional career after extensively seeing first person how specific minorities suffer discrimination. I often work with and for several such communities. Muslims, of diverse backgrounds, included.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a pointlessly vague generalization; you can't draw anything but the most blunt and pointless of assertions from it. Trying to talk about "Islamic culture"

I've challenged this bogus interpretation by way of granularity. We're not talking about Islam, Endus. Or Muslims. We're talking about terrorism. Jihadist terrorism. We can easily discuss Islamist militancy, jihadism, Salafi movements, Wahhabism, puritanism, fundamentalism, supremacy, orthodoxy. We can explore a million subdivisions and categories, and figure which of them or what combo terrorist are thinking about, without it being an indictment on the larger group.
#Notalljihadists notwithstanding, because that generalization is also problematic. Nevertheless, as has been shown (with the report on right wing extremism I liked yesterday), we can fairly explore behaviour and culture without it indicting on every or each individual.

You've cast the net so wide

No. You are pretending I have. We haven't even started to debate it. Because we can't. And because you insist on projecting hatred where there's none.
That I play along your pretension of me wanting to explore Islam is a simple extension of the same principle. We can discuss any division, and we also can discuss Islam without hatred or prejudice for every or each individual.

I'm explicitly requesting analysis be done granularly. You insist any analysis at any level deviating from exploring individuals indicts on Islam as a whole.

[Kuntantee]

It's a pointlessly vague generalization; you can't draw anything but the most blunt and pointless of assertions from it. Trying to talk about "Islamic culture" is like trying to talk about "Christian culture". The expressions of that culture by Amish Christians are going to be wildly different from those of Unitarians, the views of American Christians wildly different from those of Orthodox Russians, Mormons are completely different from the terrorists of the IRA, and so forth. You've cast the net so wide that about the only assertions you can draw are very basic religious theology ones, and that only because otherwise you're moving beyond the definition of "Christian". And by "very basic", there's something like 2 or 3.

This is what I think as well. Looking at Islam when trying to analyze "Islamic terrorism" won't give you much.

[Endus]

No. You are pretending I have. We haven't even started to debate it. Because we can't. And because you insist on projecting hatred where there's none.

And this is just trying to rewrite recent posting history.

I was clearly speaking about hateful speech about entire faiths. You responded, here, complaining that you couldn't address "specific cultures -in this case religion-". If you're speaking about the religion, you're speaking about 1.6 billion individuals. That's going to involve prejudice, if you claim anything but the very broadest of strokes.

Now you're trying to backtrack that and claim you want to talk about "jihadist terrorism", but there's nothing preventing you talking about that at all. As long as you're not prejudicially attacking well over a billion innocents who have nothing whatsoever to do with it and don't share those views whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what I think as well. Looking at Islam when trying to analyze "Islamic terrorism" won't give you much.

It'll give you exactly as much as examining "Christianity" when trying to understand Christian terrorism, like the IRA, or looking at right-wing ideological views to understand far-right terrorism.

In other words, yeah, not a whole heck of a lot, in any of those cases. Because the immense majority of those who hold those views don't support that terrorism or its ideological underpinnings. And in many cases, are the primary targets of such.

[Daedius]

Terrorists doing what they do best, attacking civilians... because they're pussies when it comes to attacking armed people.

[Maximus Testiculos]

And no matter what your opinion, Islam is still a religion. Either all religions are free to believe in or none are, and I take no comprise with that. And our constitution agrees with me, it seems.

Religions should not get a free pass for everything they do. This is the nonsense that destroys liberalism. Tolerating the intolerant. You give inches to people who would want to destroy you.