White Americans may view diversity and multiculturalism more negatively as the U.S. moves toward becoming a minority-majority nation, UCLA psychologists report.
As part of their study, the researchers divided 98 white Americans from all regions of the country — half male, half female, with an average age of 37 — randomly into two groups. One group was told that whites will no longer be the majority in the U.S. by 2050; in fact, this is likely to be true as soon as 2043, according to some projections. The second group was told that whites would retain their majority status in the U.S. through at least 2050. All participants were then asked a series of questions about their views on diversity.
“Whites feel lukewarm about diversity when they are told that they are about to lose their majority status in the United States for the first time,” said Yuen Huo, UCLA professor of psychology and the study’s senior author.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/soon-to-become-a-minority-in-the-u-s-whites-express-declining-support-for-diversity-ucla-psychology-study-finds
[PAPER]: No Longer “All-American”? Whites’ Defensive Reactions to Their Numerical Decline:
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/13/1948550614546355
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @01:44AM
yay for democracy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:42AM
If whites are so "horrible", then why do we see so many people with darker skin continually trying to move into white-majority communities?
We see it happening at the town and city level, especially in the United States. Many blacks do whatever they can to move into white suburbs, for example.
We see it happening between bordering nations. Just look at all of the Mexicans who try to illegally enter the United States each year.
We see it happening between nations separated by comparatively small bodies of water or moderate distances. Look at all of the North Africans who try to escape into Europe.
We see it happening between nations separated by oceans or thousands upon thousands of miles of land. All of the Indians, Pakistanis, and Africans who move to Australia, the United States, Canada and the UK are prime examples.
What it appears to come down to, even on a global scale, is that whites and east Asians consistently manage to build the best communities and societies. These are the ones where crime is lowest, where freedom is the greatest, where the economy is the strongest, where the health care system is the best, where education is widespread and accessible, where housing is the best, and where life in general is quite pleasant.
Yet for all of the accusations that are leveled at whites, their communities prove time and time again to be the most desirable places to live, and often the most accepting of non-whites.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:15AM
Is it perhaps because those communities have attributes that people of all races would like? Lower crime, more affluent, better schools, etc.. It has little to do with the racial makeup of the existing residents?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @12:23PM
Obviously those are attributes that people prefer. But like the GP asked later on in the comment, why is it that only whites have been able to create such communities?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @02:00PM
Because they steal them from the others, in the most non-discriminatory fashion for their victims. For example: think of Gold ManSacks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @11:57PM
America's superficially stable communities are fuelled by inequality, not white skin. It's pretty damn hard to establish stable communities with a foreign empire siphoning off your resources and destabilising your governments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:11AM
If whites are so "horrible", then why do we see so many people with darker skin continually trying to move into white-majority communities?
You see black people trying to move into poor white neighborhoods?
Really?
I don't see them doing that at all.
Which neighborhoods are these?
Because the people how have actually researched it found that equally poor white and black neighborhoods have essentially equally high rates of crime. [washington.edu] They also found that mixed neighborhoods had lower crime rates than all white neighborhoods of similar economic means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:48PM
Yes, blacks move into poor white neighborhoods constantly.
Typical American neighborhoods, both urban and suburban, have followed a pretty consistent trend for many decades now. Relatively wealthy or middle class whites have initially built these communities. As the structures age, the wealthier of the whites move on to build new homes and buildings in other areas. The middle class Americans tend to follow shortly after. Poorer whites move in next. Due to the age of the structures, property values tend to drop over time. Eventually it becomes affordable enough for blacks to move into these white communities. This often involves an influx of gang activity, violence, substance abuse, and all of the other horrible stuff that we find in so-called "ghettos". The poor white people leave, because they don't want to put up with this. Now what was once a long-time white community has become a black community.
It doesn't matter what region of the US you're in, this pattern has held true in New York, Washington D.C., L.A., Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and even places like Seattle and Minneapolis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:10PM
And its not like there's any correlation between poverty and crime; its because of their skin color that they're criminals! You can tell everything about a man by looking at the color of his skin, right? And its up to us, the honorable white man, to enslave the negros for their own good, to force them to be civilized, though we must still be on constant watch, for the negro man has the tendency to fly into a rage and rape white women.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 05 2014, @01:47AM
That's hilarious.
What it all comes down to is pissing off your neighbors to the point where they gang up against you. You blast loud music because your car stereo is a measure of your manhood? Your neighbors get you thrown the fuck out or they beat your ass themselves.
Crying "racist" doesn't stop you from getting you thrown the fuck out of my hood. Being loud does. How well did your parents raise you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:11AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @02:02AM
pretty much the way it was when they were in college, or early twenties and making their way into the world. That's when they were most able to adopt and had the least to lose in terms of family, careers, homes, savings, etc.
That's why certain things take a generation to happen. When Bill Clinton ordered the "don't ask, don't tell" policy soon after his election as President in the early 1990's, it brought such an outcry that it helped lead to Republican landslide in Congress in 1994, with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House (who incidentally, later presided over Clinton's impeachment).
I remember strangers I was talking to would spontaneously bring up the subject in anger, wringing their hands at what Bill Clinton and his gay friends were doing to the country.
Fast forward a generation. Now, "don't ask don't tell" was considered the outmoded *conservative* position that had to be superseded by more enlightened policies.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:30PM
It hasn't gotten any better in a lot of places; there's still wacko conservatives running around talking about the "gay agenda", how [insert person/organization/government] is trying to "turn people gay", etc. If anything, the conservatives are even nuttier about gay stuff now than they were 20 years ago, however the number of conservatives that are wacky about gayness this way is smaller than before and likely shrinking. I imagine one thing that's changed things a lot is that gay people are part of us: with homosexuality coming out more and more, more and more gay people have gotten the courage to "come out" to their relatives, meaning these conservatives have had to deal with their kids or siblings or other relatives coming out as gay, instead of continuing to hide in the closet or try to live as a hetero. It's different than an issue which is a different group of people, such as immigrants; immigrants are not "us", they're not part of your group (well, they're human, but ISIL is composed of humans too but I don't feel any kinship with those bastards), not the same way your own child or other relative or long-time friend you grew up with is. Heck, look at Dick Cheney; he became gay-tolerant because his own daughter came out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:57PM
I think the Dick Cheney situation was a factor; almost everyone noticed that Cheney was hard right on every issue in both foreign and domestic policy but one, and he just happened to have a gay daughter who was outspoken about her sexuality.
Also, a lot of famous people have come out in the last 20 years, and for the most part it didn't hurt their careers.
Many people have at least one gay relative. To blame that on moral deficiency seems to be an outmoded way of thinking.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 06 2014, @08:54AM
> If anything, the conservatives are even nuttier about gay stuff now than they were 20 years ago, however the number ... is smaller than before and likely shrinking.
Clearly there is some kind of natural law at work here - like the Conservation of Ninjitsu [tvtropes.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @02:06AM
I don't have much more to say than the title of this post.
It's kind of like how it is easy to be for freedom of religion when its your religion, but when those weirdos show up with their weirdo religion people come up with all kinds of rationalizations to justify sanctioning them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:19AM
But can it be said that in each and every case those "rationalizations" are wrong?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:30AM
But can it be said that in each and every case those "rationalizations" are wrong?
They are nearly always of the variety that is about making mountains out of molehills.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:47AM
They are nearly always of the variety that is about making mountains out of molehills.
You cannot just say "nearly always." Specifics are needed. I, personally, know of only one modern religious conflict in the USA: between all religions but Islam, and Islam. The "molehill" that is the cause of the conflict is simply a text in Islam's Holy Book that orders believers to conquer unbelievers and kill them if they fail to convert. Furthermore: nobody would pay any attention to this ancient phrase, which The Bible is also full of, except that believers actually do what they are commanded to do by their Book. I am not sure that unwillingness to be slaughtered by your neighbor is an entirely irrelevant feeling.
Perhaps you know of other religious conflicts? If so, they should be also reviewed. People don't hate other people for no cause whatsoever. There is always some reason for hate, even when it is not rational. That reason should be discussed, and if it is not rational then you can convince the people that they are wrong. If you have no reason in hand then you have nothing to speak of, and the situation will not be corrected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:54AM
What the fuck are you talking about? "Religious conflict?"
Who said anything about that?
You seem to be on an anti-islam snit and if I cared I'd actually use your personal irrationality as an example of the following:
> That reason should be discussed, and if it is not rational then you can convince the people that they are wrong.
Yeah because people who hold irrational beliefs are totally going to change them when presented with a rational argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:00AM
See the original comment in the very thread you just replied to: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4222&cid=101863 [soylentnews.org]
Let me quote from it for you, with the relevant parts emphasized:
That's why we're talking about religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:05AM
And why are we talking about some unnamed conflict?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:10AM
Because you brought up such conflicts, but haven't yet given concrete examples. See your own comment in this thread of discussion: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4222&cid=101881 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:18AM
> Because you brought up such conflicts, but haven't yet given concrete examples.
Perhaps you could show me your thesaurus, because none of mine have "conflict" as a synonym for rationalization.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:45AM
Perhaps you want to check your thesaurus for the word "sanctioning":
people come up with all kinds of rationalizations to justify sanctioning them.
Unless you are talking about a sado-masochistic relationship, to sanction == to penalize, therefore it's a conflict.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:47AM
> Unless you are talking about a sado-masochistic relationship, to sanction == to penalize, therefore it's a conflict.
Man you are really out there.
From Merriam Webster - sanction "a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards"
Turns out we didn't even have to talk about islam for you to demonstrate your own brand of irrationality.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:02AM
From Merriam Webster - sanction "a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards"
There are eight to ten meanings of the word. But even if we look at this one... don't you think that ENFORCING something is not going to cause a conflict? You seem to be losing this discussion if you have to resort to a debate about the meaning of the word "is." Hell, there is a trade war going on in Europe over some sanctions; millions of dollars in trade deals and relations are destroyed overnight. It's not a laughing matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:15AM
> There are eight to ten meanings of the word.
So now you are telling me that the meaning I intended when I wrote the sentence is not the meaning I intended?
And you think you are "winning this discussion?"
Winning!
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:53AM
All common uses of the word "sanction" translate into some form of punishment, enforcement, ordering around. But... if you had something else [reference.com] in mind, please clarify what exactly it was. Here is the original statement for your convenience. Note that the word is used as an adverb from the verb "to sanction."
verb (used with object)
6. to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by educated usage.
7. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law.
8. to impose a sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline.
(6) and (7) are approvals, so they don't really fit until you meant to say that "when weirdos show up people come up with all kinds of ideas to justify PERMITTING their actions." But freedom of religion does that by default, and your choice of words ("weirdos") does not spell approval. So we are left with (8), which means to penalize, to discipline, to punish. Probably that's not the best word for exercising an oppressive force either, but it will do. So please let me know what exactly was intended to be said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:00AM
> All common uses of the word "sanction" translate into some form of punishment, enforcement, ordering around.
You got it bub. Enjoy your dictionary pedancy, I hope it keeps the voices at bay because apparently your meds aren't enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @12:25PM
Tork, why do you always argue about well-understood definitions? Every discussion with you starts out with people using words as they're commonly defined. Then you try to redefine them mid-discussion. Then you try to repeatedly argue that your redefinition is the correct one, when it clearly isn't. You could just admit that you're wrong, you know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:42PM
It must be really weird for you, reading this site or /., since you think every AC is Tork, even though Tork doesn't even post AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:49PM
It is easier for him to think that only one person disagrees with him.
It is an internal appeal to the fallacy that if majority agrees with him, he's right.
The irony here is that since he posts as AC, he is also Tork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:56PM
Tork does post AC. He admitted it himself recently! You do remember when you admitted that, don't you, Tork?
Here's the proof, in case you forgot already:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4079&cid=100663 [soylentnews.org]
To quote you, Tork, with the relevant emphasis added:
So, Tork, you are a self-admitted anonymous shitposter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:19PM
Tork, why are you fighting with yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:16PM
I've figured it out! You are Tork, but you don't want anybody to know, so you're trying to throw everybody off by accusing everyone else of being you! Pretty sneaky, but I've seen through it. Give it up buddy, you've been found out; stop with all the logical fallacies and dumb shit, and stop trolling with that brainwashing technique, proof by repeated assertion, because nobody's dumb enough to fall for it no matter how many times you repeat it.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:20AM
the only religious conflict i know of in the US is small groups of fundamentalist christian extremists trying to force their views on everyone and turn the US into a theocracy. this "muslims vs everyone else" you speak of is nothing but bigoted, xenophobic FUD, spread by those same fundie extremists i mentioned above and others who share their bigotry and/or xenophobia.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:17AM
the only religious conflict i know of in the US is small groups of fundamentalist christian extremists trying to force their views on everyone and turn the US into a theocracy.
You are too late with that warning. In US elections candidates who declare themselves atheists have far fewer chances to win. Even Obama, who, I suspect, doesn't care about religion, had to declare himself a believer. It would be far more honest to say that he can't care less about the invisible man in the sky. In schools, reportedly, students are required to say words (allegiance pledge) that contain references to a deity. (Which one? There are many to choose from.)
You can say that religious people are exerting some pressure onto the society. But outside of those examples their pressure is largely harmless. It causes no conflicts, as long as you don't confront people in the hall and don't try to dispute their beliefs. People are free to believe, after all. What they ought not be free to do is to force others into their belief. There is only one religion in the world that gives conquered people the choice between converting or dying. Is that FUD as well? Quite a few Syrians could say that it is not; but they are dead now. Don't you think that any civilized person, of any religion or of no religion, should have some reservations about embracing the religion that approves mass murder of unbelievers? Note that these atrocities have not resulted in any rebuke from Islamic leaders, nor the killers have been ejected from the ranks of believers. Those are facts, not feelings. I don't believe in gods of any sort; however no honest person should "tolerate" a group that professes mass murder and proceeds to do just that. Tolerance of evil == evil.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:43AM
yes. despots are despots no matter what religion they claim to follow. your FUD claim that islam is a violent, oppressive religion is easily countered by countries such as turkey. there will always be people using whatever convenient excuse they can find to seize power and oppress people; the people are to blame, not the bullshit lies and excuses they use to justify their actions.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:54AM
your FUD claim that islam is a violent, oppressive religion is easily countered by countries such as turkey
I worked with Turks for several years in mid-1990s (in construction business; did drawings for them.) You'd be amazed that most Turks are deeply secular. Nearly 100% of educated Turks are atheists. (Education is known to strip religion pretty quick.) The company imported a thousand workers (Kurds) to work on the site, and their Mullah (who was also imported) complained loudly that none of them want to come and listen to him :-)
If I were a construction worker, I'd certainly skip on Muslim religious duties, as the work day at an active construction site is often longer than 12 hours, and the last thing you want to do after the shift is to go and pray for an hour, to no benefit whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:18AM
> You'd be amazed that most Turks are deeply secular.
Man you only see what you want to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:48PM
christian extremists[...]fundie extremists
There is a history to that bunch. It's not pretty:
"Kill them all, God will know his own." [google.com]
In Vietnam, (again, Christian) USA soldiers had a similar mantra:
"Kill them all; God will sort them out."
Religion is simply 1 more form of tribalism.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:45AM
The "molehill" that is the cause of the conflict is simply a text in Islam's Holy Book that orders believers to conquer unbelievers and kill them if they fail to convert.
This is just plain wrong, according to Islam itself. You must be one of those idiot infidel muslims who base your theology on the fundamentalist Christians.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:15AM
The road humanity is on has a ditch on both sides. There's an admirable quality, hard won and painstakingly nurtured these last few hundred years, to avoid the vileness and depravity of racism and xenophobia. Yet in our efforts to guide the vehicle of civilization, we should be wise to the danger of overcorrection; of jerking the wheel hard to one side to avoid disaster, only to find ourselves in an equally miserable state just in a ditch with a different flavor of mud.
Tolerance and pluralism are admirable qualities among groups willing to reciprocate to each other the same courtesies. It's suicidal and masochistic to pretend that all groups, cultures, religions, are the same. Some don't play nice with others. And this is a human fault. We all have it. Accidents of history and geography have dialed it up in certain places, times, and among certain people. You have the Jains [wikipedia.org] on one side, who refuse to even kill insects, and you have Indonesian tribes who (until recently) lived in a state of perpetual war of all against all and practiced ritual executions as a passage into manhood (for the executioner, that is).
And extremism isn't the problem either. An extremist Jain walks around barefoot with his eyes on the ground, avoiding stepping on ants. He would let himself be murdered rather than fight back in self defense. If your fundamentals are truly non-violent, I don't have to worry about your groups' fundamentalists. I'm just never going to have to worry about being harmed by a Jain. It'll never happen. If it did, you'd cease to be able to make sense of their actions based on their religion, and this is the crucial part, they wouldn't be able to make sense of them either. There are plenty of other religions that mandate I be killed simply for criticizing the faith, and promise reward if someone dies in the act of killing me.
This is my main problem, and departure, from modern liberalism. I can't get on board with this project of flattening the real differences between every group and pretending no one wishes anyone ill will. It just doesn't track with what I see around me. As Philip K. Dick said, "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:29AM
Christ taught pacifism and love, yet there are plenty of violent, hateful christians, now and throughout history. saying they aren't christians when its what they self-proclaim to be would be a "no true scotsman" (even though they aren't Christians, as in "follows of the teachings of Jesus"); what do we call them?
most religious fundie extremists are simply using religion as an excuse and are about as far off from being actual followers of it as you can get. if you need some proof, look at literally any religious fundie/extremist group.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:49AM
Christ taught pacifism and love
He also said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Let's not play this game. There's enough in the bible to interpret it any way you want. It's a diverse document. The Quran is more coherent (toward violence). The doctrines of Jainism are even more coherent (toward non-violence). So, again, if your fundamentals are non-violent and unalloyed, then I don't need to worry about the fundamentalists that your community produces. If your fundamentals are violent, or send mixed-messages, I will need to worry about at least some of them.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:07AM
> The Quran is more coherent (toward violence).
Pretend you just heard a deprecating snort.
Its good to know that you, someone who has never been a muslim is qualified to tell muslims about their religion.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:28AM
I'm afraid I can't form an argument against nasal grunts so I'll tell a parable instead. An obese man came to his physician, short of breath and clutching at the pain behind his sternum. The man in white began to speak but was interrupted, "It's good to know that you, doctor, someone who has never had a heart attack, is qualified to tell a patient about this condition." The doctor didn't have an argument against that either. Some ideas are so stupid that merely repeating them back suffices.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:51AM
So you are an expert on islam. You've got a PhD in middle eastern religion.
That's kind of funny you should hold such opinions then because literally no one else with such a degree agrees with you.
Not a single fucking one of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @11:43AM
Different AC.
People who devote the time and effort required to become an expert on something generally don't think that something is bullshit, bad for society, etc. -- even if it is. So if you base your opinion on Islam from people who have devoted their lives to it ... you might come away with a slanted view.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:56PM
And all those scholars of nazi germany are pining for der fuher to return.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:58AM
Different AC here. Your comparison of a heart attack to being a Muslim is very telling, but it is a false equivalency.
Please provide quotes from the Quran supporting this just as you quoted from the bible. That should be argument enough.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:20AM
I can do better than giving a few examples. There's an absolutely fantastic resource that catalogs all of these things in the Bible and the Quran. Here's the relevant link to violence and cruelty section.
The Skeptic's Annotated Quran - Cruelty in the Quran [skepticsannotatedbible.com]
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:31AM
Hey, you surprised me!
I haven't seen that one before.
A cruel god is the same thing as promoting violence.
eyeroll
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:43AM
Cruelty and violence are practically synonyms, yes. There's plenty of both in this context. I'm not sure what you're even trying to defend at this point. Your incredulity is approaching self-parody, so this will have to be my last comment in this thread because you're not actually contributing anything of substance.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:57AM
> Cruelty and violence are practically synonyms, yes.
Cruelty by God is not even close to advocating that his adherents practice violence.
> Your incredulity is approaching self-parody,
And your credulity in the kind of spittle-spraying lunacy of sites like thereligionofpeace.com while implying that you have a doctorate level understanding of the religion is a parody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:25AM
That's a rabbit hole that is pointless to go down. I've done it too many times.
The guy will quote the "sword verse" and a couple of others.
You can point out the context was limited to a specific conflict, he'll deny that it is limited.
You can point out all the other verses that do not have a limited context and preach peace, he'll cite some obscure verse that says you can ignore all of the parts about peace.
You can point out that no serious scholar of islam agrees with his interpretation of that obscure verse, he'll insist that he's still right.
You'll come away convinced that all the stuff about islam being a religion of violence really is just crazytown paranoia, he'll think you are a libtard.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:40AM
Well, as a "libtard" (Social Democrat, usually vote Green Party USA), I probably wouldn't automatically reach for that sort of attack--or an attack at all for that matter. I'll just point out that these are some very poorly formed ideas you've mentioned that don't map onto reality with much accuracy.
It's worth pointing out that most of the calls for violence in the Quran are both open-ended and aggressive [thereligionofpeace.com]. That means to say that they are not limited in time or to a specific historical grievance. Calls to violence are usually directed to go on for as long as non-Muslims and criminals exist, and are not meant to be strictly defensive in nature. Apostates (Muslims who become atheists or convert to a different religion) are also explicitly targeted for violence. Please, just read the Quran yourself.
no serious scholar of islam
Most serious scholars of Islam are Muslims themselves, so not the best source of unbiased analysis. I'd never look to a devout Christian for an accurate account of the Bible, especially not when these materials are so readily available for any literate person to make their own judgements.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:51AM
Dude, you are citing the thereligionofpeace.com -- its game over right there.
If looking at the front page of that website doesn't convince you that they are a bunch of bigots with zero academic qualifications, then hope is lost for you.
> Most serious scholars of Islam are Muslims themselves
While the idea that the people who practice a religion can't have an informed opinion of their own religion is circular reasoning on the level of drowning a witch to prove she isn't a witch, all of the non-muslims with PhD's in middle eastern religion also disagree with you.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:09AM
It's mostly just a collection of links to other sites. But stay off the front page as the commentary is rather tactless and unfiltered by any restraint of decency. I'm very critical of Islam, as I am with all religions, but I do not hate anyone. I also am very explicit that one should not fall into the trap of conflating Islam (the religion) with any ethnic group. Anyway, It's a decent compilation of actual quotes from the Quran on the page to which I linked. So there's not a criticism of any substance there.
It's really illustrative of how tuned up political correctness is about this subject. You simply can't speak ill of Islam on the left. It's frustrating, as a liberal, when the only people willing to speak candidly with me about this topic also have some rather frightening political baggage that I of which I want no part. Then I turn around and say there's a disturbing amount of depravity and violence in the Christian Bible too, and I'm left standing alone. Well I'm not going to pull punches from either side just to gain friends.
the people who practice a religion can't have an informed opinion of their own religion is circular reasoning
What do you call someone so open-minded and critical of their own religion that they are willing to leave it? Can you find me one? I'm sorry, but you're appealing to authority and it just doesn't work for me. It's white noise. If you're a true believe, you are too biased to participate in this specific conversation. There are other topics they'd be value contributors to, but a critical analysis of religion's struggle with secularism isn't one.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:18AM
> It's a decent compilation of actual quotes from the Quran on the page to which I linked. So there's not a criticism of any substance there.
Yeah, like the sword verse. Been down that rabbit hole before. You with your doctorate level understanding of islam should know the context of those quotes and the interpretations put on them by non-crazy people. But you don't, you take TROP's bullshit at face value because you have precisely zero cultural literacy in islam.
> What do you call someone so open-minded and critical of their own religion that they are willing to leave it?
Yeah, the only good muslim is a former muslim. Heard that line of bullshit all the time on sites like TROP.
> I'm sorry, but you're appealing to authority and it just doesn't work for me.
So if the people who are experts on the topic are out, what does that leave?
> Then I turn around and say there's a disturbing amount of depravity and violence in the Christian Bible too, and I'm left standing alone.
So what? No one is attacking Christians here, that's just cover for you to attack muslims. Don't give me that "I hate all religions equally" bullshit.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:21AM
I guess we have to stop talking then, if you simply refuse to believe me when I plainly state what I actually believe and just assume I'm acting in bad faith. That's usually how this sort of thing ends and it is very disappointing to me.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:37AM
> I guess we have to stop talking then, if you simply refuse to believe me when I plainly state what I actually believe and just assume I'm acting in bad faith.
Words and actions man.
You take TROP at face value, what am I supposed to think?
You deny that anyone with a PhD in islamic studies whether they are muslim or not, could know better than you, what am I supposed to think?
How about this. You do what I've done. Run through each one of those citations from TROP. Google the verse number and the word "quran" and read the interpretations from people who aren't bigots. Yes, I have done that. Once upon a time, about a decade ago, I thought maybe there was something to all this hate for muslims. You know, where there is smoke there is fire. But in every single case, every ... single ... case, the interpretation from those assholes was that of extremists, not the mainstream.
The quran is like any other popular religion - when you read the quran, it reads you. If you want to find advocacy for hate and violence in it, that is what you will find. Not because it is there, but because it is in you and that's what you chose to see, it is the lens you wear.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:30AM
Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett, religious scholarship is like stamp collecting: very few people do it, and they have little influence. A sophisticated and liberal scholar might have a nuanced and tempered understanding of their religion compatible with contemporary secular society, but he doesn't have any authority or influence on the vast majority of believers who are more than willing to take on board the unsophisticated version of the faith. Those are the people I'm concerned with. What the PhDs say is essentially irrelevant, because it just hasn't gained much currency. If all Muslims were like that, accepted those interpretations, then we could call it a day.
I don't know what your background is, but you sound like you've done at least as much reading as I have so share with me what you've found. Let's start with a simple topic. Apostasy. Educate me on what Islam's position is on that. Give me the most charitable interpretation. From what I've read, the Quran specifies that it is a serious crime (16:106) that must be punished, it doesn't specify how or to what extent. The Hadith reaffirms that it is a crime, and adds that the proper punishment is death (Sahih al Bukhari 4:52:260). There are over 20 Muslim countries that actively punish apostates in some way, including with death. You just don't see this sort of thing with other religions today. So what am I missing about apostasy?
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:11PM
or influence on the vast majority of believers who are more than willing to take on board the unsophisticated version of the faith. Those are the people I'm concerned with. What the PhDs say is essentially irrelevant, because it just hasn't gained much currency.
I will hold you to that. What the vast unwashed masses of muslims actually do is what matters. Not what a small minority of extremists do. Not what their books say. Not what their scholars say. Not what other scholars say about their books.
With respect to apostasy then, all the verses in the quran that say there is no compulsion in religion don't really count. [themodernreligion.com] Nor does it count when the quranic scholars says that it isn't apostasy that uniquely requires punishment in this life, [blogspot.co.uk] but apostasy combined with their version of treason against the state. [fiqhcouncil.org]
What matters to you is how it is actually practised. So to that I say the actual number of people executed for apostasy by any recognized government is vanishingly small and it only happens in the most extremist of theocracies like Iran and Saudi where they execute people for things like drug trafficking at a rate at that are couple of orders of magnitude higher. Sure, a lot of people are casually in favor of the concept, but they don't care so much about it that they are willing to actually make it happen. Same thing with treason laws in the USA, technically a capital offence, but no one has been executed for it in generations.
That's not to say all is good and fine with how these conservative societies handle basic human rights that we take for granted, only that the western definition of apostasy isn't their definition of apostasy. There are a lot bigger problems that those countries have with respect to free speech in general, just like basically every 3rd world country and some 1st world countries. [volokh.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:34AM
This thread is not about whether all Abrahamic faiths are intrinsically violent, nor about whether all religions are toxic to secular society. This thread is about the claim that there is only one religion, Islam, that specifically and unequivocally demands that non-believers be converted or killed. That claim is not true.
There surely are Islamic cults that latch on to particular verses of the Quran and follow them manically, but that same phenomenon gives the Christians Jonestown and the 1996 Olympics bomber. Christians, as a group, seem to have worked themselves around to disclaiming their more radical and extremist factions over the past 50 or so years, but it's been much easier for them to see and communicate the abuses in the name of their faith than relatively isolated Muslims. Maybe that's something the Christians should thank Martin Luther for: the notion that there can be many disparate forms of Christianity, so each sect can distance itself from offensive practices of Christianity, where we still seem to think all Muslims are either Sunni or Shia and "all the same."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:49PM
I wouldn't put it on Martin Luther - Islam has more religious diversity than christianity, its just the western eye that barely even notices shia and sunni much less alawites, qutbists, whabbis, sufis, and thousands of others that I can't think of off the top of my head. I'd give much more credit to the magna carta for its part in reducing dictatorship. Religion is a favorite tool of despots, the saudi royal family just love to promote the salafis because it simultaneously gives them cover to be casually brutal to their own subjects and to distract from their own failings -- that political rabble rouser is blaspheming, kill them! (and ignore what they had to say about government).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:14AM
Different AC here. Your comparison of a heart attack to being a Muslim is very telling, but it is a false equivalency.
"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
and
The Quran is more coherent (toward violence).
Please provide quotes from the Quran supporting this just as you quoted from the bible. That should be argument enough.
A different different AC here, just saying that while the Pope is supposedly infallible, only the Ummah in Islam is authoritative, and this can take some time to settle, especially when certain monarchies are funding Wahabis to corrupt the very nature of the one true religion, the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, but mostly I just want to say, one AC to another who is not the same AC, but quite possibly gweg, that AC debates over the fundamentals of religion are about as good as virgins discussing investment options.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:20PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:34AM
The problem you have, as it always is with people who can only see what's right in front of them, is confusing the uniform with the person.
You see the uniform of a particular group and think it means that the people who wear that uniform aren't actually people, that they are something less human than yourself. You cite jainism's non-violence as proof that extremism isn't a problem without realizing that people prone to violence simply self-select out of jainism. Unless you believe that every person is capable of living as a jain, your example is simply yet another case of confusing the uniform for the person.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by keplr on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:59AM
people prone to violence simply self-select out of jainism
The biggest predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents. It's passed on the same way language is. There's some conversion, but in general, religion grows from childhood indoctrination. We are highly social animals. If you grow up in a culture or under a religion that promotes violence and hatred of others, you are likely to exhibit those traits more often than someone in a different culture.
And again, a violent Jain simply couldn't justify their violence using their religion. He'd either admit he was acting inconsistent with his religion, or he'd be too delusional to notice--which is to say, too delusional to be considered sane.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:04AM
> The biggest predictor of someone's religion is the religion of their parents.
You seem to be arguing that it is entirely possible for all people to be jains.
I have no response to that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:31AM
You seem to be arguing that it is entirely possible for all people to be jains. I have no response to that.
I will not intentionally step on a spider unless I have a problem with it. At the same time I do some varmint hunting to help ranchers keep their pastures relatively safe for cattle. Does it break the template?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:54AM
No it does not.
I'm sure that inside your head it is incredibly meaningful.
But for the rest of us who don't live in paranoid town it literally means nothing at all.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:30PM
This is my main problem, and departure, from modern liberalism.
Yep, modern liberalism is going down the tubes. They've turned their backs on important issues like equal rights for women and homosexuals because they think it's more important that we be friendly with, and import as many ultra-conservative Muslims into our society as possible, even though Islam is utterly opposed to these issues. Basically, modern liberalism has turned into a hate platform, hating Christianity and western culture, and in turn being friendly with everything that's opposed to those things, namely ultra-conservative, ultra-religious middle eastern culture. It's really a shame, because we were making great progress in getting away from loony religious ideas (Christian or otherwise), and making society equal for and tolerant of women and homosexuals, but now the liberals want to destroy it all in their quest to ally themselves with conservative Muslims.
Hint: when a Muslim rapes a woman and a western judge lets him off saying "he couldn't help himself because our culture is too different", that's modern liberalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:09PM
Holy shit dude, you're the victim of some pretty serious brainwashing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:46PM
Hint: when a Muslim rapes a woman and a western judge lets him off saying "he couldn't help himself because our culture is too different", that's modern liberalism.
Wow. That you think that has actually happened suggests mental illness on your part.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:00PM
No, he's right. That totally happened. [guardianlv.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:29PM
There's nothing in that link that even suggests a Muslim raped a woman and got off scot-free due to a liberal judge saying,
Victim blaming does happen, but its primarily, if not exclusively, a conservative thing. To suggest that the actions of conservatives are due to liberals is just lies and propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:30PM
Woooosh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:38PM
Double Whooosh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:53PM
Hhhm. I guess my ability to detect obviously contradictory statements in a post is not up to the task.
Could you help me with that by pointing out where the post is internally inconsistent?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:26AM
Be honest, have you ever lived in a black-majority area in the United States, especially one within one of the major cities? Have you lived with the constant threat of deadly violence? Have you lived with used needles scattered all over the place? Have you ever lived in a place where your vehicle is vandalized on a weekly basis, and your home is broken into monthly?
It's easy to cry "Racism!" or "Intolerance!" when living in the rather peaceful and safe white suburban America. It's different when you're actually subjected to the sorts of places where whites are the minority.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:35AM
I'm the OP.
I'm white.
I grew up in a white-minority neighborhood, in a white-minority city.
I went to a white-minority school.
So I know a thing or two about what it means to be a minority.
And the non-white guys who had the same attitude as you were the worst kind of pricks I had to deal with.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:44AM
Have you lived with the constant threat of deadly violence? Have you lived with used needles scattered all over the place? Have you ever lived in a place where your vehicle is vandalized on a weekly basis, and your home is broken into monthly?
Hey! I had all that living in a majority caucasian place! Wow, the fights, the assaults, the litter, the vandalism, the entire economy based on illegal substances and crime! Ah, good times! Of course it could have been because of race. Or the fact that they were almost all rednecks. Or that fact that they _were_ (confessedly) all Christians. But probably it is because the majority was poor. Hey! Guess what! The Majority of America is already poor! Yeah! We win! Go, 99%!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:06AM
I lived in southern Collinsville, IL, for about a year a long time ago before I had a big boy job. I was in the only building not Section 8 housing within walking distance of that road. I think my roommate and I were the only white guys there, but the rent was enough to make payments and still afford to buy relatively good food/booze on minimum wage. I can't say what the crime rate was, but as the only white guys in a part of a neighborhood that was virtually all black, I was never hassled, even on late night walks up to the gas station to get more to drink.
It's not a major city, but it was a heavily destitute black majority neighborhood. I don't know what point I'm trying to prove by typing this, only offering my anecdote as being at least hopefully interesting.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:47AM
I don't know what point I'm trying to prove by typing this, only offering my anecdote as being at least hopefully interesting.
You are proving that skin color does not make a man criminal. There are many monoethnic countries on this Earth, and they all have criminals. What makes a difference here is culture, or lack of it. Culture varies among social groups. If those groups have a visible marker, then don't be surprised that people are wary of them. Ten blonde Swedes, carrying photo cameras in Times Square, send a completely different message than ten dark-skinned teenagers with pants half-way down, milling around 7-11 in bad part of the town. But if you see ten dark-skinned teenagers in expensive, stylish clothing, with cameras, in Times Square, you will not think that they are gang members. You'd think they are tourists from Africa. Humans are pretty good at making such determination - it directly affects the lifespan.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:57AM
Its always good when someone comes out as endorsing racism.
Removes all doubt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @12:28PM
I don't think he's "endorsing racism". I think he's just pointing out the realities that many people here like to pretend don't exist, when they very well do. And then these people, such as yourself, who are perhaps too damn scared to admit the existence of these realities, start on with your "racism" this and "racist" that labeling instead of facing reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:23PM
> I think he's just pointing out the realities that many people here like to pretend don't exist
Cherry-picking so-called realities is racism.
You'll note that his examples did not include ten blonde white-trash teenagers milling around 7-11 in a bad part of town.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:17PM
And then these people, such as yourself, who are perhaps too damn scared to admit the existence of these realities, start on with your "racism" this and "racist" that labeling instead of facing reality.
Scared? Boo! No, this is not reality, it is your reality, which happens to be racist. This is really the problem with racists, they are too unaware of their own prejudice that it seems like reality to them, when in fact it is just racism. So while it may seem to you that people are unfairly labeling you as "racist this" and "racist that", be assured that this is only because you are in fact a racist. Denying it any further will not help you, it will just be further proof you are in fact a racist, and more importantly, a not too bright racist since you can't see the wisdom in hiding the fact that you are a racist. You racist, you!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:48PM
Yes. I've lived in a nearly 100% black area in a major us city. I've also spent a lot of time in a majority immigrant (muslim) area in a major European city as well (and I dont just mean by day - I usually lived there over the weekend.) And in addition, I live in an area that is almost 100% white (and poor) right now.
And you know what I learned? People are people. Poor people are poor people. Color of your skin has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Character of the household you were raised in has a lot more to do with it. Hopelessness leads to people doing bad stuff, no matter what color their skin.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:13PM
as whites approach minority, how much promotion do minorities need? it's a self-correcting feedback loop. if a species of animal is nearing extinction, we declare it 'endangered' and create laws that protect it. if the species rebounds and thrives, it would be stupid if we didn't relax those protection laws.
from another angle, once whites become a minority, how much minority protection will they receive? none.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:59PM
I don't think it will matter at that point. American society will have fallen completely apart by then. It'll be like Africa everywhere, rather than in relatively isolated "ghettos" like it is today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:21PM
Thank Jesus we have our rich friends building up all the police forces under the pretenses of "terrorism" and "drugs"; soon we'll be able to put all those filthy niggers back to doing productive work. Hallelujah!