SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Small town Republican thoughts on refuting the alt-right. In The Republican Journal:
I want to make one thing very clear: The Waldo County Republican Committee absolutely, unequivocally condemns Nazi and KKK ideologies and actions, as well as any other kind of bigotry, and we encourage all of our voters and the community at large to do the same.
For fellow Republicans out there, worry not, we don't like Antifa's ideology and actions either, but we need to clean our own house; we need to worry about our own responsibilities.
Such honesty, and clarity of thought!
The most dangerous part of politics today is identity politics, trolling, pathos and a severe lack of critical thinking. You cannot defeat the insidious hatred of bigoted politics with more hate. By doing so, you morph the conversation away from policy and ideology to silly label syntax, eventually devolving completely into back and forth verbal gymnastics. Make no mistake, these trolls are ready for you as you stoop to their level, and they beat you up with mountains of experience.
So what do we do? Very simple. Stay neighborly by controlling your reaction. Seek out those with whom you disagree, try to understand them first, and politely offer your counter argument.
And it looks like the Republicans in Maine, if not in Illinois, are rejecting the alt-right.
The way to defeat Mr. Kawczynski is not by attacking him, but by attacking his ideas. Here are some flaws in his thinking: His immigration ideas are antithetical to the Maine Republican party platform, a section of which states, "We support the assimilation of legal immigrants into Maine society."
Kawczynski's ideas stand in contrast to Maine history and culture; in fact, it is white folks with racist ideologies who pose the greatest threat to Maine's foundation, not other races of people.
Another brilliant tidbit:
Ultimately, all you have to do is walk outside with your eyes open in this state to see that Kawczynski's fearmongering about "white genocide" is completely laughable.
Entire guest column is well worth a read.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by KiloByte on Friday February 09 2018, @01:02PM (50 children)
This is all fine and dandy, but these guys are making a crucial mistake: they assume the bigots are thinking rationally. They are not: stuff like 53 genders, wage gap myths, considering Islamists allies (despite this love being pretty obviously unrequited), etc are not the hallmarks of thinking.
Also, no matter how many times you denounce alt-right, the bigots keep saying you've not denounced them and that you're a Nazi yourself.
Thus, I'm afraid trying to reason with SJWs is a lost cause — all you can do is to treat all racists equally, ridicule them. Even pointing facts doesn't work — quoting government statistics is considered "hate speech". So is quoting statistics gathered by your own company, or from any other reliable source. To SJWs, a fact that disproves their religion is "fake".
Heck, even alt-right "the joos are orchestrating white genocide" vs SJW "the Israelis are genociding poor innocent muslims" sounds so alike.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @01:16PM (1 child)
The only thing that will solve this is a bullet to the head.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday February 09 2018, @01:41PM
I mean, if it's coming from the alt right, I think we'll be having Free helicopter rides [knowyourmeme.com] instead!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 09 2018, @01:50PM (14 children)
Taking a risk? Maaaybe, except that I can't understand what you'd risk.
Crucial mistake? Come on, mate! Really? What's the worst that can happen?
Are you "of the brave with brown pants"? Can't you see what the "be affraid, be very afraid" politics brought you since 9/11?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by KiloByte on Friday February 09 2018, @02:22PM (13 children)
What risk, what fear? I don't get what you're talking about.
What I meant is that discussing with a true believer is futile — ie, a waste of your time. No matter how well you'd research your arguments, such a person will dismiss whatever you say, then pelt you with whatever insults their group has for their assumed enemies (whether you belong to those or not).
It doesn't matter which dogma, they're pretty much interchangeable. Let's take Antifa for example: an angry mob with black red and white flags, raised fists — does this evoke any similarities?
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday February 09 2018, @02:55PM
Then neither do I get what so "crucial" and what is the mistake?
What do they stand to so crucially lose?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday February 09 2018, @04:30PM (9 children)
> No matter how well you'd research your arguments, such a person will dismiss whatever you say
I learned that years ago when I tried to reason with a creationist. The whole debate was a red herring. The guy was really rejecting science and rationality, not just evolution. He was happy to profess acceptance of science that said things he liked, but when it was conclusions he didn't like then it was all "there's no proof", and how do we know anything is real or know anything at all, it was impossible to discover anything about conditions over a million years ago because time and entropy destroy all evidence, etc.
If you care to learn more about it, I found The Authoritarians ( http://theauthoritarians.org [theauthoritarians.org] ) illuminating. It's tempting to believe all our problems would be solved if only we could send all those kinds of people away, like with the B-ark, but even if that was possible, I wonder if another two generations would replenish their numbers, putting us all right back at square one on that problem. Further, such a move is the very diversity reducing kind of thing they are eager to employ in the mistaken belief it would solve their problems. Reducing diversity is usually a bad idea, makes groups more susceptible to groupthink, even if those kicked out are the ones most prone to groupthink.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 09 2018, @04:49PM (8 children)
I learned that years ago when I tried to reason with a creationist. The whole debate was a red herring. The guy was really rejecting science and rationality, not just evolution.
Yep. Remember when Bill Nye the Science Guy tried debating Ken Ham? Who "won"? It depended on which news source you read: if you read something religiously biased, then Ham won, if you read something biased towards secularism, then Nye won. For fundamentalists, Ham "obviously" won simply by rejecting Nye's arguments by just pointing to the Bible as "proof", case closed. For secularists, Nye "obviously" won by ignoring the Bible as some kind of scientific authority and looking at real evidence, but for religious people that approach is useless, because they don't believe in evidence, only their holy book. The debate was a waste of time and didn't convince anyone. Debating a Creationist is a useless endeavor; it's better to just dismiss them out-of-hand as loons. Remember, these are the same people who really believe that there's angels and demons among us, that the world is going to end any day now with the "Rapture", etc. You can't reason with them, so it's useless to try.
It's tempting to believe all our problems would be solved if only we could send all those kinds of people away, like with the B-ark, but even if that was possible, I wonder if another two generations would replenish their numbers,
No, that wouldn't happen. If you sent all those kinds of people away, the US would have a fraction of its present population, and that fraction isn't reproducing much, so the population would simply go down from that point, not up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday February 09 2018, @05:16PM (3 children)
Why do people feel the need to declare a "winner" of a debate? You're supposed to be listening to both sides so that you learn something. Not everything is a damn competition where we need to crown a victor.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 09 2018, @05:34PM
I've never heard of a debate where there wasn't a declared winner. That's precisely the way collegiate debates work: two teams debate according to a specific format, and one is declared the winner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @09:11PM
You win this thread!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @10:30PM
Why do people feel the need to declare a "winner" of a debate?
Without that, you just have an argument.
You can do that without leaving your own neighborhood.
The Oxford Union (a noted debate venue) does this by having the audience exit through 1 of 2 labeled doors. [google.com]
In doing so, they cast a vote for the most convincing side in the debate.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:37PM
Just so. As Peter Medawar pointed out:
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Friday February 09 2018, @09:13PM (2 children)
And who will ask the better question about Bill Nye debating science or philosophy? Why is he considered an authority on either subject? It is about as sensible as listening to Captain Kangaroo pontificate on the details of modern seamanship. Which points to the core flaw here, the left itself is anti-science and anti-reason, but as usual, projecting their sins onto their political opponents. Nye played a character on a children's TV show long ago, a show scripted by other people. He is not a philosopher by training, profession or otherwise. He is not a scientist by training or profession. He holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering but apparently didn't like the work and went into comedy and then children's TV.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 10 2018, @06:34AM
Yeah? And compared to Ken Ham he's Willard V. O. Quine. Cry harder, you disingenuous sack of shit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:05AM
Here we see an alt-righter religious nut triggered by a douchey scientist. If you just didn't like Nye then fine, but anti-science and reason? Either you are starting to lose it in the face of your hero falling further and further, or you truly are just a shill and you took your roll a little too far into troll territory.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Friday February 09 2018, @04:53PM
I agree with you, when you're describing a stereotypical true believer.
However, when you speak to a Real Person(TM), you can't always know beforehand if they are capable of listening to you, or not. And then it would be a pity if you just don't bother because "they're probably just another true believer".
( Personally I have very little patience with people whom I suspect I couldn't reason with, so this is a case of "do as I say" not "do as I do" :-/ )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:29AM
That part is obvious. It should be a hint for you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday February 09 2018, @02:23PM (10 children)
While I'm not in the least surprised to see this thread degenerate into frothing alt-right gibberish, I have to say didn't expect it to happen this quickly. You really hit the ground running there KB.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday February 09 2018, @05:14PM (9 children)
This whole article post is a troll. Aristarchus stirring up more shit with his gleeful, sarcastic wankery.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday February 09 2018, @06:47PM (1 child)
Perhaps Aristarchus is trolling.
However, the idea that we have much more in common than we have differences is obvious to anyone who actually interacts with other humans.
We may disagree on the mechanisms for making our world a better place, but the vast majority of us believe in tolerance and liberty.
Calling those who don't share your particular policy prescriptions "enemies who want to destroy our country" isn't helpful. There's a reason that politics used to be referred to as "the art of the possible," in that discussion, compromise and good faith efforts to make the world a better place used to trump (no pun intended) vilification and division.
No. We don't always agree. But we have (and can, once again) all worked together, often contentiously, to do positive things. As the old saw goes, you know a compromise is a good one when *no one* is happy.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @10:42PM
that we have much more in common than we have differences is obvious
Ralph Nader wrote a book about that.[1] [google.com]
N.B. He sponsored an event where he (a long-time Progressive) shared the dais with Grover Norquist (a Reactionary Libertarian).
[1] I don't agree with his use of the terms "Left" and "Right" but, once you get past that, he has a point.
(The same one you made.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday February 09 2018, @07:36PM (6 children)
Pointing out that some conservatives do not want to follow the GOP when it gets captured by the extreme right is important.
When you only have two parties, and one is going nuts (following a giant economic crisis), it's a threat to the system. Having people who traditionally associated with that party who dare to voice the reality of the extremist slide in their own conservative words is critical.
The top guys call anyone opposing their words/actions a crazy leftist loony commie traitor Dem. When enough indisputably conservative voters start going "Dude, not in my name" is when the extremists can start losing, and all of us can try to get back the system as it was designed to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @10:53PM
USA has only 1 party: The Corporate Party.
The claim of 2 parties is actually 2 factions of the same party: The Neoliberal wing and the Reactionary wing.
Both have sold their souls to the highest bidder.
One wing advocates for "intellectual property" maximalists and the other advocates for Dirty Energy.
USA needs a constitutional amendment that will make all election campaigns publicly funded.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:00AM (4 children)
Yeah - what the cowardly owner says. If we have two parties, and you only believe that ONE of them has gone off the deep end - you are most likely part of the problem. Have you not noticed that Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have worked equally hard to impoverish the American people, to put them under 24/7 surveillance, divide and conquer? Divisiveness is the order of the day, and it has been longer than many voters have been alive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @03:49AM
Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have worked equally hard to [keep the usual bunch in complete control]
The brilliant take-no-prisoners comedian Bill Hicks[1] had a routine where he postulated that the 1st thing that happens with a new president is that the CIA gives him a private screening of a video of the JFK assassination, taken from a different vantage point than the Zapruder film.
[1] Bill was so edgy that one of his appearances on Letterman was completely edited out. [google.com]
Bill died of pancreatic cancer at age 32, after which Letterman apologized to Bill's mom and aired the censored act.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:40AM (2 children)
Yes, and still people think they have a choice when election time comes.
"Let's see: i vote for 'fuck me up the arse' or 'kick me in the head'... hmmm.... i..pick.........ummmm......"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @04:49AM (1 child)
The trick with those choices is, after four years of being butt-fucked, we tend to forget how bad it was being kicked in the head. So, we vote to be kicked in the head for four or eight years, during which we forget how bad it was being anally raped, so we then elect a rapist.
This election cycle, we opted for the head kicker, and put the rapist on the back burner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @10:47AM
I think you might have those metaphors backwards... Much more fitting to the personalities.
Oh right, I forgot, Hillary groped you. Jackass.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 09 2018, @04:37PM (2 children)
Last I heard it was 87 (or 89?) genders. Try to keep up.
Because you are not the only one confused; because this will require federal forms, and therefore software vendors to keep up with all of the new federally recognized gender codes, I propose the following.
Create a new Federal Department of Gender with an adequate budget. It will maintain and publish the updated list of federally recognized genders. Other federal agencies, and the public then have an official source for what the latest federally recognized gender codes will be, and when those updates will take effect. Software vendors will be able to update their software. Federal agencies, for example the IRS, will be able to update their forms. It will prevent chaos. An excellent use of your tax dollars.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 09 2018, @04:55PM (1 child)
I urge you to write your congressman/woman/${gender-code-here} to support this proposal.
As a practical example of the benefit that the federal department of gender would provide, the department would be able to classify which groups of genders can be consolidated into a single restroom. In addition to the publication of the frequently updated gender codes, the department would also publish a list of restroom names into each of which various groupings of genders can use. Such consolidation of restrooms would result fewer restrooms being built. The savings from not over-building restrooms would be enormous.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Friday February 09 2018, @05:01PM
Given such a modest proposal, how can one say that SJWs can't be reasoned with?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday February 09 2018, @04:41PM (9 children)
The many genders thing is a bit exaggerated, but rooted in truth: There are more than 2 genders. There are even more than 2 biological sexes, and that bit is proven science - all you need is an extra chromosome or two to get some odd combinations.
As far as the wage gap myths, what exactly is the myth? In most professions, women get paid less then men, black people get paid less than white people, and those kinds of things are well-documented. What's even more well-documented is that a profession that is on the whole done by women and/or non-white people tends to be lower-paid and less respected than professions done by white men, even at similar skill levels: For instance, welders tend to earn more than child care workers, even though a typical person in both of those professions has a high school diploma and a year or two of post-high school training. Engineers earn more than social workers, even though both of those generally require a masters' degree. Even within the same profession, there are substantial pay gaps: For instance, the heavily female medical specialty of pediatrics gets about half the pay of the heavily male medical specialty of radiology, even though they have similar levels of qualifications.
As for Islamists, are you referring to all Muslims as "Islamists", or are you referring to people who want Islam to be the source of the law of their various countries? Those are very different things. For instance, ISIS is absolutely trying to impose what they see as religious law on the (rapidly shrinking) territory it controls. However, most of the people who've been fighting and dying to take out ISIS are Muslims. So yeah, I'd see those folks trying to take out ISIS as at least temporary friends, even if they aren't allies.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 09 2018, @04:53PM
But that's not what we're talking about. The fact that certain forms of chromosomal trouble aren't always lethal, doesn't tell us much about how we should think about gender in society.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 09 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)
The many genders thing is a bit exaggerated, but rooted in truth: There are more than 2 genders. There are even more than 2 biological sexes, and that bit is proven science - all you need is an extra chromosome or two to get some odd combinations.
It seems this could very easily be dealt with on government forms and the like, by having 3 options: male, female, and other. Maybe we should try to get to a state where someone's gender just isn't that important.
As far as the wage gap myths, what exactly is the myth? In most professions, women get paid less then men, black people get paid less than white people, and those kinds of things are well-documented.
I don't think it's well-documented at all that women or blacks get paid less than white men *for the exact same job*. It's absolutely true that these groups get paid less, on average, but these groups also do different jobs. There aren't many female (or black) software engineers, and there aren't many male day-care workers or preschool teachers. You can debate the reasons for these discrepancies and what should be done to address them, but let's compare apples to apples.
For instance, welders tend to earn more than child care workers, even though a typical person in both of those professions has a high school diploma and a year or two of post-high school training.
Yes, but welding is a much, much, much more dangerous job (underwater welding in particular), and it's a dirty, nasty job in many places. Working with children can be a PITA, but it doesn't involve inhaling noxious fumes and having hot welding slag spray in your face, nor does it involve having to enter dangerous confined spaces where it's quite possible to pass out and die from lack of oxygen. Welding is also very skill- and talen-based: some people can do it much better than others, and welders doing particularly difficult types of welding make a lot of money because only a few people can do it, and it can't be done easily by robot. Finally, the pay difference is a function of the market: the market can only support so much pay for child care workers; if you raise their pay a lot, then the price of child care will be much higher, and very few parents will be able to afford it; already, many parents choose to simply have one parent quit their job, rather than pay for child care, because they make about as much with their job as the child care would cost. Double that cost and now there won't be many parents making use of child care services.
Engineers earn more than social workers, even though both of those generally require a masters' degree.
First, most engineers I've met do not have a master's degree, and I certainly haven't seen that many engineering jobs that require one. It's a bonus early in your career and gets you more pay at first, but after some point work experience counts more. Engineers with MSs tend to be more specialized as well.
But aside from that, again, this is a function of the market. Engineers work in companies where products are created and revenue generated. An engineer working for Apple helps them create the iPhone, which sells for a small fortune making Apple the wealthiest company in the world, so that engineer is able to command a high salary. How much money do social workers generate? None; they're actually a cost on society. You can argue that they help society save money by not sending so many people to prison, or helping kids grow up to be more productive, but that stuff is really hard to quantify, and as government workers, they generally aren't paid well just like all government workers (including engineers).
Even within the same profession, there are substantial pay gaps: For instance, the heavily female medical specialty of pediatrics gets about half the pay of the heavily male medical specialty of radiology, even though they have similar levels of qualifications.
Two things: why don't more women go into radiology then, if it pays more? And second, from what I'm hearing and seeing, this is changing, because a lot of radiology is being outsourced offshore (you don't have to be on-site to read an X-ray), , the pay is falling. But back to the first point: a lot of this looks simply like women are voluntarily choosing lower-paying professions, knowing full well that they pay less. Whose fault is that? There's a bunch of jobs I'd probably rather do than engineering, where I would have less stress and more fun, but I don't do that because they don't pay much and I don't want to live in a small apartment with roommates for the rest of my life. Obviously, women overall are choosing to de-prioritize salary, in favor of job satisfaction. You can't do that and then rightfully complain about being paid less.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 09 2018, @10:51PM
One reason NOT to become a welder, is eyesight. Many welders begin losing their vision early in their careers, many more later in their careers. The care that they put into maintaining their eye sight is important, but welding damages your eyes no matter how careful you are. Over time, even a careful welder can be blinded by the work he does. The worst welding job to have, is inside of a fabrication shop, where you are surrounded by other welders. There is no angle at which you can escape being arc-blinded by your coworkers. Yours truly had the opportunity to go into welding, but since he was starting out with poor vision, he decided that such a career choice would be pretty stupid.
That doesn't even begin to consider more immediate risks, like electrocution, or a failed weld endangering your life, or the cranes and other equipment routinely operating around you, all while you're closed off from the world under your welding hood.
When day care workers have to deal with going blind from looking at all the funny looking kids they care for, then we can compare day care workers to welders.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday February 09 2018, @05:50PM (2 children)
I am all for acknowledging that gender is a cultural artifact, but do me the same kindness and don't try to slip in Klinefelter as a way of trying to make gender politics appear scientific.
H.Sapiens has exactly two sexes, and as many genders as we decide we have. That decision on genders is entirely cultural, perhaps in some groups there are 53 genders, and there are trivial examples available of cultures with more than two. But don't insult science by conflating gender politics with biological sex.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)
Anyone who has studied human genealogy even a little bit disagrees. [wikipedia.org]
You remind me of the old saying "His mind is so narrow that he can look through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time."
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:07AM
Ho-hum. Your reference is pretty meaningless, in reply to GP's post. We still have only two sexes. The normies are normal, and the little rounding errors are abnormal. Failed genetics - it happens. Speaking of old sayings - your mind is so open, it all fell out!
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 09 2018, @05:53PM (1 child)
As you noted the worst that can be said of the "SJWs" is they're interpreting reality in a way the GP disagrees with.
Meanwhile, the Alt-Right is out murdering people in the streets. [splcenter.org]
But yeah....totally the same...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:08AM
Killing people in the streets? They should have started inside the SPLC.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 09 2018, @06:15PM
It's a myth that women are paid less than men for the same work. Not in any western society at least. It's contrary to both facts and reason but it's an article of faith for many nonetheless.
The reality is in aggregate, women tend to choose to work in fields where pay is lower, they take more time off, work less overtime, and consequently earn less money. Men, again in aggregate, tend to choose fields with higher pay and correspondingly greater demands, work longer hours, take less time off, and earn more money. They are also much more likely to die shortly before or after retirement, of course. A reasonable case can be made that the women are getting the better end of that stick, but even that is really missing the point.
If you could really hire women to do the same job for significantly less than men, no one would ever hire a man for that job. Think!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday February 09 2018, @05:05PM (8 children)
These kind of comments seem to be increasingly common around here, and while most Soylentils at least seem to be intelligent enough to ignore the straw man, there is one deeply concerning idea here that I believe meeds to be addressed before it infects the baseline of our discussion.
Muslims in America are some of the most moderate Muslims in the entire world. There are entire communities of people that have been living here peacefully for decades, slowly reconciling the origins of their faith with American secularism. As a result, the American brand of Islam is not just moderate and peaceful; it is coherent, consistent, and most of all, ready to be exported to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, Muslims in the middle east are still fighting serious ideological battles. Sometimes through violence, sometimes through political oppression. Amid this conflict, extremist groups have devised interpretations of Islam that justify increasing violence and political oppression.
These violent and oppressive interpretations are beginning to leak into America, sure. But their #1 opponent is the family members and faith leaders who can provide community and identity within the American theology that is more compatible with secularism. And not only do these faith leaders seek to spread their moderate and peaceful theology to Americans at risk of falling for more violent and oppressive interpretations, but they seek to spread their secular American theology to the rest of the world. If they were empowered rather than marginalized, their moderate and peaceful interpretations could leak back into the middle east, directly combating extremism at its source.
Unfortunately, kneejerk reactions to Islam like yours seriously threaten this opposition to extremism. When we lump American Muslim institutions together with the extremists that threaten us and them, we seriously impede their ability to oppose extremism among their children. When we make going to mosque dangerous, we make it less likely that Muslims will get their information from other Americans and more likely that they get their information from ISIS recruiters on social media.
So please cut it out. Stop trying to destroy American Islam, because it is our best hope of combating extremism.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday February 09 2018, @05:12PM (1 child)
He clearly used the term Islamists and now you're whining he's anti-Muslim. Who's the real strawman here?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @06:37PM
Sure bud, cause the average conservative around here bothers with that distinction /s
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 09 2018, @05:21PM (1 child)
So we need to work to support one delusion over another delusion, because it's not as bad? How about not supporting and coddling any delusional beliefs? We have enough delusional people in this country with the wacky Christians of all stripes, and various other religious nuts. How about this idea: let's push rationality instead of religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @08:15PM
No one is pushing religion here.
What IS being pushed is tolerance and understanding, not conversion. I would love it if religions went away and we got rationality and philosophy instead, but don't kid yourself.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:13AM (3 children)
Muslims in America are no different from Muslims anywhere. When they are less than 1% of the population, they keep a low profile, and conform. When they make up more than 5% of the population, they start getting noisy, and demanding special rights and considerations. At 10%, they get noisier still. Have you bothered to look at Europe? The denser the Muslim population, the more trouble they cause.
Islam doesn't play well with other socio-economic-political forms.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:32AM (1 child)
Runaway's channeling Pam Geller again! Can someone bring his meds? Or at least turn off the Faux Noise!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 10 2018, @12:51AM
Where did Pam Geller grow up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @07:08PM
That's because denser Muslim population means a denser immigrant population as well. Europe does not have a long tradition of assimilating immigrant groups - look at the Romani people for one huge example of Europe perpetuating huge problems due to cultural differences.