|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 05 2016 07:12 Plansix wrote:
SJW is a fictional avatar of a hyper aggressive progressive person. They are not real, but a compost of every meme, youtube video any other contextless media on the internet that shows unreasonable progressives talking about social issues. Its like “red neck” or “foot ball jock”. Its just a stereotype that is powered by the tiniest grain of truth.
Yes. This is my suspicion as well. Which is why I am also so suspicious of anti-SJW posts.
|
On March 05 2016 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 07:42 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 07:38 Plansix wrote:On March 05 2016 07:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 07:12 Plansix wrote:
SJW is a fictional avatar of a hyper aggressive progressive person. They are not real, but a compost of every meme, youtube video any other contextless media on the internet that shows unreasonable progressives talking about social issues. Its like “red neck” or “foot ball jock”. Its just a stereotype that is powered by the tiniest grain of truth. I had a TA for my ethnic studies class claim that she couldn't get a job in the private sector because of institutional racism in the private sector. She was a dance major, and her current PhD thesis was about interpretating dance as a form of changing political tension. yeah.... i mean.... What college was this and where was she obtaining this mythical PHD? It a was an University of California. tbf she was probably an acolyte of Reza Aslan. Reza Aslan is very well respected. I have read several of his pieces and they are very well researched. What type of dance did she specialize in?
Reza Aslan
Well respected.
Well, that's about as much as I needed to hear.
and it was modern dance, ain't nothing wrong with dance. I took a dance class during college for my visual arts, aced that shit. But, don't blame the private sector for not finding a job when you spend 4 years in college to major in it
On March 05 2016 07:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Reza Aslan is an absolute nightmare, giving an intelligent voice to a despicable and self defeating movement of crazy, reactionary liberals.
edit: And yes, before anyone comes back at me, i'm fully with Sam Harris on this, and I will continue to be.
Reza and his cronies want to ban any discussion of islamic extremism have no qualms about playing extremely dirty in their quest to do so.
the problem with Reza Aslan is he is too smart to argue from a point of ignorance. He's literally the poster boy of intellectual dishonesty.
|
The atheist vs all religion on the planet for reasons beyond my understanding is why Adam Savage stopped calling himself an atheist. To quote him "I just don't want to be associated with that group of assholes."
|
yeah I really have no idea what you guys are talking about. I'm in the Bay Area and have not received any SJW treatment of the sort. I didn't even know this was a thing...
Obviously in college you meet a lot of characters due to proximity. For every left wingnut I've met a right wingnut. I really don't see a point in extrapolating that any further.
|
On March 05 2016 07:57 Plansix wrote:
The atheist vs all religion on the planet for reasons beyond my understanding is why Adam Savage stopped calling himself an atheist. To quote him "I just don't want to be associated with that group of assholes."
That's besides the point, and its not a point where Harris and Aslan clash. They clash on the idea that there is a problem in parts of the muslim world with a backward looking, extreme, brutal version of the religion. Aslan denies it and tries to rationalize the current trend (see Ben Affleck) of branding anyone who tries to discuss it as a racist.
This is self defeating because it is essentially a death sentence for the real liberal muslims who are suffering for their beliefs in those parts of the world, but Aslan is too busy shouting racist to care about those people.
This is all off topic anyway, but i would point you to Harris' blog for an in depth essay on how utterly fucking redundant Aslan's arguments are.
|
I got through part of it some time ago when I was making up my mind on the subject and was not impressed. I found it all to be overly broad, lazy and lacking context.
Aslan is correct that some people cover up their xenophobia by claiming its just discussion of religion from a "rational perspective". Any attempt to discussion such a huge religion without the context of the culture, local politics and region, will fail, if only because it will be such a shallow discussion. Its 1.5 billion people. Its like trying to lump Russian orthodox Christianity in the 1200's with Catholicism at the same time, and then cumming to some grand conclusion about Christianity. It can be done, but little is going to be gleaned from it.
People need to stop talking about "Islam" and start talking about nations, regions and tribes. Maybe limit the discussions to areas smaller than Texas when making sweeping proclamations.
|
On March 05 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:
I got through part of it some time ago when I was making up my mind on the subject and was not impressed. I found it all to be overly broad, lazy and lacking context.
Aslan is correct that some people cover up their xenophobia by claiming its just discussion of religion from a "rational perspective". Any attempt to discussion such a huge religion without the context of the culture, local politics and region, will fail, if only because it will be such a shallow discussion. Its 1.5 billion people. Its like trying to lump Russian orthodox Christianity in the 1200's with Catholicism at the same time, and then cumming to some grand conclusion about Christianity. It can be done, but little is going to be gleaned from it.
People need to stop talking about "Islam" and start talking about nations, regions and tribes. Maybe limit the discussions to areas smaller than Texas when making sweeping proclamations.
I don't know if discussing this kind of thing is really correct on here but i'll bite.
The problem, as Harris and Maajid Hawaz explain in their latest book, is that as soon as you invoke Islam you become a racist, which
a) Makes no sense. If I was simply to blame Afghani problems on Afghanis being the way they are, that would be racist. To suggest that there is some overarching religious theme in various areas suffering the same problems has nothing to do with race or xenophobia
b) Simply limits debate by making people scared to discuss the issues honestly for fear of being publicly branded in this way.
Maajid Hawaz calls this the voldemort problem.
If you can't say the name, the terror grows, and its impossible to fight something nameless. Aslan would have you believe that there's no such thing as Islamic extremism, like you say, its simply a product of social and regional circumstances.
But the people responsible for the brutal terror suffered by huge parts of the world are doing so in the name of Islam.
Are we just to ignore that and pretend that it doesn't exist, for fear of saying the words?
|
On March 05 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I got through part of it some time ago when I was making up my mind on the subject and was not impressed. I found it all to be overly broad, lazy and lacking context.
Aslan is correct that some people cover up their xenophobia by claiming its just discussion of religion from a "rational perspective". Any attempt to discussion such a huge religion without the context of the culture, local politics and region, will fail, if only because it will be such a shallow discussion. Its 1.5 billion people. Its like trying to lump Russian orthodox Christianity in the 1200's with Catholicism at the same time, and then cumming to some grand conclusion about Christianity. It can be done, but little is going to be gleaned from it.
People need to stop talking about "Islam" and start talking about nations, regions and tribes. Maybe limit the discussions to areas smaller than Texas when making sweeping proclamations.
Then you ought to be equally as critical of people who name poverty, famine, and disease as problems afflicting Africa because they're lumping Johannesburg and Cairo in with their broad generalizations
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
young people turning up extremely tone deaf is just ignorance due to insufficient humanities education.
general rule is that people who throw around terms like sjw are not from a good college
|
On March 05 2016 08:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:
I got through part of it some time ago when I was making up my mind on the subject and was not impressed. I found it all to be overly broad, lazy and lacking context.
Aslan is correct that some people cover up their xenophobia by claiming its just discussion of religion from a "rational perspective". Any attempt to discussion such a huge religion without the context of the culture, local politics and region, will fail, if only because it will be such a shallow discussion. Its 1.5 billion people. Its like trying to lump Russian orthodox Christianity in the 1200's with Catholicism at the same time, and then cumming to some grand conclusion about Christianity. It can be done, but little is going to be gleaned from it.
People need to stop talking about "Islam" and start talking about nations, regions and tribes. Maybe limit the discussions to areas smaller than Texas when making sweeping proclamations. I don't know if discussing this kind of thing is really correct on here but i'll bite. The problem, as Harris and Maajid Hawaz explain in their latest book, is that as soon as you invoke Islam you become a racist, which a) Makes no sense. If I was simply to blame Afghani problems on Afghanis being the way they are, that would be racist. To suggest that there is some overarching religious theme in various areas suffering the same problems has nothing to do with race or xenophobia b) Simply limits debate by making people scared to discuss the issues honestly for fear of being publicly branded in this way. Maajid Hawaz calls this the voldemort problem. If you can't say the name, the terror grows, and its impossible to fight something nameless. Aslan would have you believe that there's no such thing as Islamic extremism, like you say, its simply a product of social and regional circumstances. But the people responsible for the brutal terror suffered by huge parts of the world are doing so in the name of Islam. Are we just to ignore that and pretend that it doesn't exist, for fear of saying the words?
That argument is so disingenuous I don't even have time to address it point by point. No, talking about Islam will not get you labeled a racist. I do it all the time. I am Christian and white as the driven snow, but I have managed to dodge the bullet of being called a racist most of my life. Talking about it like an asshole with over generalizations and from a place of ignorance gets you called names like "racist" or "xenophobic". This is the root cause of these problem. We have a guy who claims he wants to "End Faith" and for some reason people who religious think he is sort of a dick. That is sort of the problem, this New Atheism are really just populist assholes who's fame is mostly based on antagonized people of religion.
|
On March 05 2016 08:27 oneofthem wrote:
young people turning up extremely tone deaf is just ignorance due to insufficient humanities education.
general rule is that people who throw around terms like sjw are not from a good college
I love these short absolutist sentences.
|
On March 05 2016 08:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 08:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 05 2016 08:15 Plansix wrote:
I got through part of it some time ago when I was making up my mind on the subject and was not impressed. I found it all to be overly broad, lazy and lacking context.
Aslan is correct that some people cover up their xenophobia by claiming its just discussion of religion from a "rational perspective". Any attempt to discussion such a huge religion without the context of the culture, local politics and region, will fail, if only because it will be such a shallow discussion. Its 1.5 billion people. Its like trying to lump Russian orthodox Christianity in the 1200's with Catholicism at the same time, and then cumming to some grand conclusion about Christianity. It can be done, but little is going to be gleaned from it.
People need to stop talking about "Islam" and start talking about nations, regions and tribes. Maybe limit the discussions to areas smaller than Texas when making sweeping proclamations. I don't know if discussing this kind of thing is really correct on here but i'll bite. The problem, as Harris and Maajid Hawaz explain in their latest book, is that as soon as you invoke Islam you become a racist, which a) Makes no sense. If I was simply to blame Afghani problems on Afghanis being the way they are, that would be racist. To suggest that there is some overarching religious theme in various areas suffering the same problems has nothing to do with race or xenophobia b) Simply limits debate by making people scared to discuss the issues honestly for fear of being publicly branded in this way. Maajid Hawaz calls this the voldemort problem. If you can't say the name, the terror grows, and its impossible to fight something nameless. Aslan would have you believe that there's no such thing as Islamic extremism, like you say, its simply a product of social and regional circumstances. But the people responsible for the brutal terror suffered by huge parts of the world are doing so in the name of Islam. Are we just to ignore that and pretend that it doesn't exist, for fear of saying the words? That argument is so disingenuous I don't even have time to address it. No, talking about Islam will not get you labeled a racist. I do it all the time. Talking about it like an asshole with over generalizations and from a place of ignorance gets you called names. This is the root cause of these problem. We have a guy who claims he wants to "End Faith" and for some reason people who religious think he is sort of a dick. That is sort of the problem, this New Atheism are really just populist assholes who's fame is mostly based on antagonized people of religion.
This is just a stream of insults and that's what you get when you try to discuss this like an adult.
Its exactly the reason I was hesitant, and its exactly the reason i'm ending this now.
Neither of us are even close to as intelligent as Aslan or Harris, we're just picking sides.
I'm calling the end of this now.
|
On March 05 2016 08:36 wei2coolman wrote:
I love these short absolutist sentences.
only a sith deals in absolutes!
On March 05 2016 08:27 oneofthem wrote:
young people turning up extremely tone deaf is just ignorance due to insufficient humanities education.
general rule is that people who throw around terms like sjw are not from a good college
+ Show Spoiler [academic epeen] +unless you went to HYPS or something like that, i probably went to a "better college"
I think it's fine to deride the extreme fringe left which takes social justice and other good causes too far. They do exist and aren't an internet myth. Extremism in all forms is wrong.
|
People should be able to criticize religion as their are plenty of faults about it, that doesn't make them assholes.
|
Yes but Sam Harris pretty much is the Deepak Chopra of atheism, he really isn't a good role model
|
On March 05 2016 08:45 Reaps wrote:
People should be able to criticize religion as their are plenty of faults about it, that doesn't make them assholes.
I never said that. But the way one does it factors into if they are an asshole or not. There are plenty of people in the world who criticize Islam. But for some reason Sam Harris is special and has to right books about how it can't be done and they label everyone who does it racist.
Scientifically, if other people can criticize Islam, but he gets called racist all the time, he might be the root of that phenomenon.
|
On March 05 2016 08:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 08:45 Reaps wrote:
People should be able to criticize religion as their are plenty of faults about it, that doesn't make them assholes. I never said that. But the way one does it factors into if they are an asshole or not. There are plenty of people in the world who criticize Islam. But for some reason Sam Harris is special and has to right books about how it can't be done and they label everyone who does it racist. Scientifically, if other people can criticize Islam, but he gets called racist all the time, he might be the root of that phenomenon.
Sam Harris is hardly the first critic of Islam to be called racist... is the principle you're proposing that if enough people call someone racist, it becomes a claim that holds water? Or more generally, you believe in the appeal to the masses?
|
On March 05 2016 09:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 08:52 Plansix wrote:On March 05 2016 08:45 Reaps wrote:
People should be able to criticize religion as their are plenty of faults about it, that doesn't make them assholes. I never said that. But the way one does it factors into if they are an asshole or not. There are plenty of people in the world who criticize Islam. But for some reason Sam Harris is special and has to right books about how it can't be done and they label everyone who does it racist. Scientifically, if other people can criticize Islam, but he gets called racist all the time, he might be the root of that phenomenon. Sam Harris is hardly the first critic of Islam to be called racist... is the principle you're proposing that if enough people call someone racist, it becomes a claim that holds water? Or more generally, you believe in the appeal to the masses?
So what he's saying, if enough of us calls him a 'racist', it becomes true because enough people said it.
|
The material difference is between talking about how you think the idea of predestination saps human will and saying that Presbyterians are lazy. One of the key differences between how religion is seen in the West and how philosophies are seen is that people are sorted into broad blocks based on religion in a way that isn't true of philosophy. Due to this communal/societal nature, you also have a kind of ideological elasticity. I happen to think that Christianity as practiced by Ted Cruz is very different from the teachings of Jesus, to which I try to adhere. But I'm not going to try to redefine him as "non-Christian" because in some very real sociological sense, he is a "Christian." Mechanisms of textual interpretation etc. vary dramatically.
This is not to say, as some flippantly argue, that there is no real meaning to any religious text. Most of what is seen is such texts as contradictions are, properly understood, indications of different times or philosophical strands. In Christianity, this is classically understood as God gradually teaching humanity to get closer and closer to real spiritual truth. Fundamentalism is a Christian heresy that attempts to deny this idea, and posit that Abraham understood Yahweh as well as John the Baptist did. I happen to think this robs both figures of their actual importance in the story (Abraham as an earnest, often confused seeker, John as the greatest interpreter of the Law). But that judgement is beyond the scope of sociology, and properly belongs to theology or hermeneutics (and the latter is questionable; while in my religious sect, the founding text is everything, in Catholicism, many Islamic branches, and practically all of Buddhism, it is traditional stories and classical scholars who define large parts of doctrine).
So we cannot be making judgements, from a sociological point of view, about what constitutes “true” Islam, or Christianity, or anything else. It is bizarre for one such as Sam Harris to argue that Al-Baghdadi is the “true” version of Islam, given that his atheism obviously disqualifies him from saying who is and is not truly doing the will of a god he doesn’t believe in… never mind his obvious lack of scholarly chops in doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
