How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

  On 4/8/2013 at 2:54 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

whether Greenwald is calling out Harris as a racist or not is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that Harris is blatantly bigoted in the most classic red neck way possible but cloaking it under the guise of intellectual thought, basic tale as old as time: fear of the unknown, the unknown being a scary culture he pretends to know a lot of about from afar.

 

First off, thank alco and awe for putting the gloves of discussion back on. I still see plenty room to have some meaningful and possibly constructive criticism to each other.

 

For instance, I'd argue that Islamophobia is a poor generalization of what could be valid concerns about Islam, or in my case nations where the sharia is the rule of law. I'm not here to defend Harris' points of view, because honestly, I don't know them and I'm not interested to read up on them in the short run. But when I do have concerns like this, and the generalized view is that this might be because of bigotry and a classic fear of the unknown, I'm pretty much offended ( to the extent that that is even possible on the internet - which it mostly isnt).

 

So, could you do me a favor and draw a line of where you think is the distinction between having valid concerns about Islam and being a bigoted Islamophobic?

 

Because the sad thing is, that those claimed bigoted generalizations go both ways. Calling Harris a bigot is one thing, but generalizing this to anyone having concerns is another. And is just another kind of bigotry of itself. The underlying reasoning has probably much to do with "an eye for an eye" kind of approach, but imo, this approach is just as much part of classic red neck as anything what one would put in there. Cloaked or not.

 

And if that line is drawn, where do you put Mahers rant, I posted earlier? Where he tells us we need to stand by our core values of freedom of speech, for instance. Is that bigotry in your eyes?

 

And Ayaan's point of view? You couldn't label her views as " fear of the unknown" , do you? Or is she another kind of bigot in your eyes? Something with fear of the (uniquely) known, but generalizing those well founded fears unjustly to a broader context? And what would make you argue that those fears would be unrealistic (if that was your argument)?

 

  Quote

 

Fortunately Greenwald has written almost consistently on the right side of history and has bullet proof references in his articles, making him extremely hard to ignore and i think in time most critical thinkers who don't have faith in the state will see that focusing in or jumping on the 'islam is the greatest threat' train is on the very very wrong side of history.

 

 

Are we talking about right and wrong sides of history? You do realize you're using a similar approach to dealing with issues like Bush was when he talked about the axis of evil? Right and wrong, and all that. You're not giving me a hard time to label that as classic red neck! So please stop the tomfoolery...

 

  Quote

And in response to what you said Godel, what you find pretty fucking sad i find pretty awesome and necessary weaponary to get these 'rational atheists' to face their own twisted logic.

and I will agree that it's a challenging discussion to have if the only thing being discussed is 'Is Islam worse than other religions'. Especially against the backdrop of loads and loads of anti arab and muslim agitprop being shoved down our throats for the past 12 years in the United States. It's an interesting discussion to have because it's really hard to know a) how young people were when 9/11 happened, did they have an opinion about muslims before Bush taught them to hate them? b) would it be a topic of discussion at all in the United States if the middle east wasn't filled to the brim with oil or the 9/11 attacks had not happened? My guess is probably not at all.

edit: the more i hear about Dawkin's opinions on the middle east the more I'm embarrassed to ever have been a supporter of any of his works. *shudders in disgust*

This is an international forum and we are discussing an international issue here. The anti- us retoric is tiresome, even for non us- ians. Please approach it without the anti-us bigotry.

I should really just let you do some of the talking for a bit GoDel, nice laser like focus.

 

btw what country do you reside in?

  On 4/8/2013 at 2:54 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

whether Greenwald is calling out Harris as a racist or not is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that Harris is blatantly bigoted in the most classic red neck way possible but cloaking it under the guise of intellectual thought, basic tale as old as time: fear of the unknown, the unknown being a scary culture he pretends to know a lot of about from afar.

 

why is it ok for you to be bigoted towards rednecks, but not ok for someone to be bigoted towards islam?

Netherlands. And yes, that's the country of Van Gogh the painter and the killed director, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Geert Wilders ( who i'd kinda label as a bigot, btw - even though i share some of his concerns to some extent).

  On 4/8/2013 at 8:28 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 4/8/2013 at 2:54 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

whether Greenwald is calling out Harris as a racist or not is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that Harris is blatantly bigoted in the most classic red neck way possible but cloaking it under the guise of intellectual thought, basic tale as old as time: fear of the unknown, the unknown being a scary culture he pretends to know a lot of about from afar.

 

why is it ok for you to be bigoted towards rednecks, but not ok for someone to be bigoted towards islam?

 

If people start using arguments like that to justify drone strikes over Appalachia, it becomes more of a problem.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

is it the rednecks pushing the buttons on those drone strikes?

 

bigotry is bigotry. if you or anyone in the thread or anywhere wants to talk about the drone strikes themselves that obama has ramped up just like all the other things liberals supposedly hated about bush which he has also pumped up on steroids, NOT just continued, fine. fair enough. talk about US foreign policy. if you want to try to act like somehow obama and HIS military efforts are somehow appealing to rednecks to blow up a bunch of muslims, that's going to be a tougher sell. if you want to talk about bigotry as a bad thing that can lead to bad things, then my question about why it's ok to be a bigot towards some groups but not others is 100% valid.

How about not responding bigoted at all? Killing people is bad, right? There's no need to respond to (perceived) bigotry with some form of anti-bigotry. It's pretty useless on both accounts, anyways. I understand the need to have people actually listening, but actual bigots wouldn't listen anyways and other people would be offended, so it's lose-lose.

  On 4/7/2013 at 9:39 PM, Alcofribas said:

i'm not aware of anyone making the claim that being pro-military, or criticizing islam is racist.

maybe you need to re-read this thread

  On 4/7/2013 at 9:39 PM, Alcofribas said:

i'm not sure why this thread keeps getting bogged down by this straw man of "critizing islam = racist."

maybe it's because it's been said by someone in this thread. it's not a strawman. it's actually been said. what it is is an attempt at playing race cards to shut down conversation one doesn't like.

 

  On 4/8/2013 at 8:48 AM, goDel said:

How about not responding bigoted at all?

what does that even mean?

 

  On 4/8/2013 at 8:48 AM, goDel said:

There's no need to respond to (perceived) bigotry with some form of anti-bigotry.

and what does this mean?

That was a response to Iain's post.

 

Edit: posting from a mobile device so ima bit internet-forum challanged atm

Edited April 8, 2013 by goDel

Edit: no..

Edited April 8, 2013 by Friendly Foil

  On 4/8/2013 at 8:52 AM, MisterE said:

 

  On 4/7/2013 at 9:39 PM, Alcofribas said:

i'm not aware of anyone making the claim that being pro-military, or criticizing islam is racist.

maybe you need to re-read this thread

  On 4/7/2013 at 9:39 PM, Alcofribas said:

>>i'm not sure why this thread keeps getting bogged down by this straw man of "critizing islam = racist."

maybe it's because it's been said by someone in this thread. it's not a strawman. it's actually been said. what it is is an attempt at playing race cards to shut down conversation one doesn't like.

 

  On 4/8/2013 at 8:48 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/8/2013 at 8:46 AM, MisterE said:

is it the rednecks pushing the buttons on those drone strikes?

 

bigotry is bigotry. if you or anyone in the thread or anywhere wants to talk about the drone strikes themselves that obama has ramped up just like all the other things liberals supposedly hated about bush which he has also pumped up on steroids, NOT just continued, fine. fair enough. talk about US foreign policy. if you want to try to act like somehow obama and HIS military efforts are somehow appealing to rednecks to blow up a bunch of muslims, that's going to be a tougher sell. if you want to talk about bigotry as a bad thing that can lead to bad things, then my question about why it's ok to be a bigot towards some groups but not others is 100% valid.

 

 

 

For the record, I actually wouldn't use words like "redneck" and I agree with you that it is pretty ignorant - at worst it's extremely anti-working-class language. But actually, all forms of prejudice are NOT equal. Only somebody in an exceptionally privileged position would see it that way. Bigotry and prejudice are generally bad in an abstract sense, sure, but it goes beyond that - it's about how widespread those attitudes are, to what extent they're fostered and encouraged by the state and media, what acts and policies those attitudes are used to justify...

 

There's a lot, lot more to bigotry, racism etc. than the attitudes at their core. Like I say - it's what those attitudes are used for and how they're enacted in society.

 

So actually, I'm pretty comfortable saying that all bigotry is not equal. I don't feel at all threatened by so-called "anti white racism" for example.

 

Also, on Islamophobia. I generally agree, it's not a useful term. Bigotry works just fine, or "anti-Islamic bigotry" if you need to get specific.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Iain C

ok well, the whole redneck thing is funny to me though because i've actually met plenty of rednecks, actual rednecks. you have people claiming that you can't say anything about muslims or islam without knowing a muslim, which is pretty dumb, but i have to wonder how many rednecks these people know or have met and talked to. i know of plenty of people that a typical 'big city liberal' would instantly classify as a redneck just by looking at them, and they even hunt and do those typical redneck things, but who vote democrat every time. i think people would be surprised if they knew how many of those types exist in this country. it kind of baffles me though, because as they say, it would be like a gay person voting republican. i would almost guess that it may be close to half of all 'rednecks' though. thats totally just a guess and it's something that'd be impossible to tally. a lot of the rednecks i've met are racist as hell, but i've met several who don't seem to be at all. sometimes i think that a lot of the liberals out there are just as racist, but just hide it better. anyone ever glanced at 4chan? i'm sure people of all walks of life go there, but i think it'd be easy to suggest that it's mostly more liberal types there, and yet racism seems pretty rampant. i wonder how many other communities would have those threads pop up if the posters could post anonymously?

 

so i think it's 100% fair of me to ask why all rednecks are instantly condemned. and by people who cry about bigotry. they can even cry about bigotry and slander rednecks in the same sentence. i guess it's ok because rednecks are white people?

Putting different labels on a perceived pig doesn't change anything about the pig. Don't hide in semantics. Nobody was arguing that all forms of prejudice are equal. My point was more about the way this discussion is taking place. There's a lot of anti-bigotry involved when there is no need to, imo. The idea that there's so much bigotry is imo a form of bigotry of itself. And I'm not interested in a discussion about whether one form of bigotry is better than another. It's all bad.

 

Edit: again at Iain

Edited April 8, 2013 by goDel

Oh, and finally MisterE - it's you, compson et al who are focusing on being called "racist". Is anti-Islamic biogtry often racist? Yes, it is IMHO. Sure you can smugly say "AH, BUT IT'S NOT A RACE!" but just look at how Muslims are represented in the West. Just google image search Muslim and look what you see - brown people. So at the very least, you can't just dismiss the idea that Islam is racialised in the public mind with some neat logical twist.

 

But that's beside the point, because while yes, I've rightly pointed out the dangers of this dogmatic and uncritical way of thinking - that it leads to and justifies racism and worse - it's in no sense the main content of the arguments that I, SR4, Alco or anyone else are making. By focusing on some largely nebulous accusation of racism as if we're just screeching "YOU'RE A RACIST! INVALID OPINION!" you do our arguments a disservice and "shut down discussion" yourself.

 

I'm off to work

Islamophobia

 

History of the term

 

One early use cited as the term's first use is by the painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad.^[33][34] Writing in French, they used the term islamophobie. Robin Richardson writes that in the English version of the book the word was not translated as "islamophobia", but rather as "feelings inimical to Islam". Dahou Ezzerhouni has cited several other uses in French as early as 1910, and from 1912 to 1918.^[35] These early uses of the term did not, according to Christopher Allen, have the same meaning as in contemporary usage, as they described a fear of Islam by liberal Muslims and Muslim feminists, rather than a fear or dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Origins_and_causes

Edited April 8, 2013 by compson

And why do I have the feeling that there's a bit of selectivity about which arguments to address and which not?

 

*whistles*

Perhaps because almost all of your posts are either begin "I'M NOT READING THAT, BUT...." or end "...BUT I DON'T WANT A DISCUSSION ON THAT."

Have you actually read all my posts? And thanks for the caps, btw.

I just read your penultimate post and it was thick as shit, mate. "Anti-bigotry is a form of bigotry" is just, I believe they say in California, HELLA-DUMB.

  On 4/8/2013 at 9:05 AM, Iain C said:

 

For the record, I actually wouldn't use words like "redneck" and I agree with you that it is pretty ignorant - at worst it's extremely anti-working-class language. But actually, all forms of prejudice are NOT equal. Only somebody in an exceptionally privileged position would see it that way. Bigotry and prejudice are generally bad in an abstract sense, sure, but it goes beyond that - it's about how widespread those attitudes are, to what extent they're fostered and encouraged by the state and media, what acts and policies those attitudes are used to justify...

 

There's a lot, lot more to bigotry, racism etc. than the attitudes at their core. Like I say - it's what those attitudes are used for and how they're enacted in society.

 

So actually, I'm pretty comfortable saying that all bigotry is not equal. I don't feel at all threatened by so-called "anti white racism" for example.

 

Also, on Islamophobia. I generally agree, it's not a useful term. Bigotry works just fine, or "anti-Islamic bigotry" if you need to get specific.

i sort of kind of agree with what you are saying here, but there are separate aspects that get muddled. a lot of times when people throw out words like 'racism' or 'bigot' the emphasis is on the mentality itself. and the accuser is taking a moral stance, and supposing their own moral high ground, based on that issue of it being wrong to look down on others merely because of their skin color or whatever other factor defines that group.

 

i agree that some groups are treated worse/discriminated against more than others, and i would agree that that makes it 'more of a problem'. but usually when people throw out racism or phobia accusations, they don't specify that side of it so much. they just use those labels which emphasize that the mentality of judging other groups is morally wrong. then those same people will judge other groups and think it's ok for THEM to do that. if people want to talk about a group being oppressed or treated wrong on a big scale they should be able to do that without bringing isms into it as if they are squeeky clean themselves. sometimes it seems to me that some of the people throwing out isms are just as ist.

 

how about hate crime laws for an example? the emphasis there is on whether the motivating factor was some kind of blind hate. if so the punishment is harsher. so this is legislation saying that the hate itself is a crime and adds to the sentencing. but it only seems to be used if the victim is non-white. several cases have happened where there was more than enough evidence that a white victim was attacked in a hate driven crime, but hate-crime was never attached to it. so why call it 'hate' crime, which is suggesting that hate itself is bad? why not call it 'black victim crime'? it's a perfect example of what you are saying. the idea is to equalize out rampant white on black crime (although statistics seem to indicate it happens more the other way around...(but that's a whole other topic)), but they put the word hate in there as if to emphasize the hate itself as being THE bad thing. it's a lie. it's not about the hate, it's about who the victim is. if you have a problem with military acts against islam, say that, don't muddle the issue by calling it islamophobia.

 

if someone really truly thinks that hate itself is bad, then they should apply that standard universally. even to themselves.

Wow, you just love to hate me, don't you?

 

Again at Iain.

 

And thanks misterE for that post.

 

All this hating.... *expects Iain to explode again LOL*

Edited April 8, 2013 by goDel

why is it wrong that google shows "brown people" when you search muslim ...? most muslims are "brown people"... its scientifically accurate?

 

If my understanding is that Muslim, is someone who believes in Islam (regardless if he/she is Arab). But I'm fairly certain the vast majority of the Muslims are Arab?

Edited April 8, 2013 by compson

Please don't go there. Lets try to get out of the racism discussion.

* wonders if Iain is actually able to agree with me on this one point*

Can't find any numerical break-downs. I know its a side topic, but I did find this map that shows the Muslim population densities.

 

 

color breakdown by sects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_by_country.png

 

I should clarify, as there are many african muslims.

 

Interesting to note the red part.

Edited April 8, 2013 by compson

If anything, it tells a lot about Iran's relative position within the Muslim world.