|
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 11 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:
Trump wasn't wrong to say that Islam hates US.
They certainly do. Who is this islam, where does he live and why does he hate the US again?
Not just Islam, dude.
ALL of the Islams.
|
On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything?
Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted.
And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry.
|
On March 11 2016 07:29 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote:On March 11 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:
Trump wasn't wrong to say that Islam hates US.
They certainly do. Who is this islam, where does he live and why does he hate the US again? Not just Islam, dude. ALL of the Islams.
Clearly we need to ship all the Islams back to ISIS were they came from. And then build a wall so they can't come back to America.
|
On March 11 2016 07:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 11 2016 07:26 Nyxisto wrote:On March 11 2016 07:19 ErectedZenith wrote:
Trump wasn't wrong to say that Islam hates US.
They certainly do. Who is this islam, where does he live and why does he hate the US again? Not just Islam, dude. ALL of the Islams. Clearly we need to ship all the Islams back to ISIS were they came from. And then build a wall so they can't come back to America.
Let me guess, the warhawks will pay for the wall right?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
trump is just a guy who judges the worth of anything by how much money is involved. he gives no fuck about ethics
|
On March 11 2016 07:47 oneofthem wrote:
trump is just a guy who judges the worth of anything by how much money is involved. he gives no fuck about ethics
He would if money was involved.
|
Kasich overcame rubio with bookies :O
talk about slow and steady
|
Gotta love when a Trump supporter punches a protester and the cops tackle the protester...
At least twitter was able to pressure the PD to at least press charges against the assaulter.
|
On March 11 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything? Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted. And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry.
I'm seeing that you're hesitant about considering any examples... Is the statement "France hates the US" bigoted? Do you think it's synonymous with the statement "All French people hate the US," or do you think maybe the terms "Islam" and "France" are abstractions? Do you think if I say I hate country music that it means I have a personal loathing for Bob Dylan?
You are doing exactly what Joe Scarborough would have done if Rick Scott had been stupid enough to go down that road. The point I am plainly trying to lead you to is that "All Muslims hate us" (the antecedent of "us" was the West, not the USA) is not synonymous with "Islam hates us."
I don't care about the truth of what Trump said for this point.* I care very deeply that people don't have the keenness to spot their simple logical mistake. If you make a claim about X, it's not a claim about all the parts or members of X, nor is it a generalization about the parts or members of X. If I say the 787 is a smart aeroplane, nobody would be up in arms saying "what do you mean, aeroplanes can't be smart that doesn't even make sense, so what's so smart about a tire and landing gear and bathroom mirror an-" because you know exactly what the meaning is. I know that bigotry is a touchy subject, but that's not an excuse for conflating statements that aren't the same just to throw Rick Scott under the bus for sport.
*There are a thousand reasons to criticize Trump. How about torture and the fact that he doesn't understand the internet? He may even be a bigot. But no, his use of simple language (as usual) to talk about the geopolitical divide between Islam and the West is supposed to be the smoking gun.
|
On March 11 2016 07:03 Nyxisto wrote:
There needs to be a new word for this. Trump isn't even lying, which is actively subverting truth I guess, he's just making random stuff up to the point where nobody including him even knows what he said anymore. I don't know why people even use this as an excuse as in "yeah he's actually reasonable he's just acting", how is someone like this fit for being the president?
I mean, confusing people is a legit strategy, and in fact it often works, because you're often unable to respond when confused. It should draw anyone with a decent sense of reason away from him as a potential president, but shit happens.
|
On March 11 2016 08:23 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:03 Nyxisto wrote:
There needs to be a new word for this. Trump isn't even lying, which is actively subverting truth I guess, he's just making random stuff up to the point where nobody including him even knows what he said anymore. I don't know why people even use this as an excuse as in "yeah he's actually reasonable he's just acting", how is someone like this fit for being the president? I mean, confusing people is a legit strategy, and in fact it often works, because you're often unable to respond when confused. It should draw anyone with a decent sense of reason away from him as a potential president, but shit happens.
Gish Gallopping all the way to the Republican nomination.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
|
On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything? Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted. And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry. I'm seeing that you're hesitant about considering any examples... Is the statement "France hates the US" bigoted? Do you think it's synonymous with the statement "All French people hate the US," or do you think maybe the terms "Islam" and "France" are abstractions? Do you think if I say I hate country music that it means I have a personal loathing for Bob Dylan? You are doing exactly what Joe Scarborough would have done if Rick Scott had been stupid enough to go down that road. The point I am plainly trying to lead you to is that "All Muslims hate us" (the antecedent of "us" was the West, not the USA) is not synonymous with "Islam hates us." I don't care about the truth of what Trump said for this point.* I care very deeply that people don't have the keenness to spot their simple logical mistake. If you make a claim about X, it's not a claim about all the parts or members of X, nor is it a generalization about the parts or members of X. If I say the 787 is a smart aeroplane, nobody would be up in arms saying "what do you mean, aeroplanes can't be smart that doesn't even make sense, so what's so smart about a tire and landing gear and bathroom mirror an-" because you know exactly what the meaning is. I know that bigotry is a touchy subject, but that's not an excuse for conflating statements that aren't the same just to throw Rick Scott under the bus for sport. *There are a thousand reasons to criticize Trump. How about torture and the fact that he doesn't understand the internet? He may even be a bigot. But no, his use of simple language (as usual) to talk about the geopolitical divide between Islam is supposed to be the smoking gun.
"France hates X" can be understood both as "(All) French people hate X" or "The French government (that is, the entity "France") hates X". The former is necessarily stupid because you cannot put millions of people sharing a single, insignificant feature (here nationality) into the same bad, the latter is acceptable because official entities have official positions.
Now, Islam is one of these religion which you cannot consider as a single, clearly drawn out entity. There is no "Pope", there are multiple ways to think Islam and to practice it. Thus the only meaning you can apply to "Islam hates X" is "All Muslim people hate X", which is necessarily stupid.
|
On March 11 2016 08:29 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything? Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted. And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry. I'm seeing that you're hesitant about considering any examples... Is the statement "France hates the US" bigoted? Do you think it's synonymous with the statement "All French people hate the US," or do you think maybe the terms "Islam" and "France" are abstractions? Do you think if I say I hate country music that it means I have a personal loathing for Bob Dylan? You are doing exactly what Joe Scarborough would have done if Rick Scott had been stupid enough to go down that road. The point I am plainly trying to lead you to is that "All Muslims hate us" (the antecedent of "us" was the West, not the USA) is not synonymous with "Islam hates us." I don't care about the truth of what Trump said for this point.* I care very deeply that people don't have the keenness to spot their simple logical mistake. If you make a claim about X, it's not a claim about all the parts or members of X, nor is it a generalization about the parts or members of X. If I say the 787 is a smart aeroplane, nobody would be up in arms saying "what do you mean, aeroplanes can't be smart that doesn't even make sense, so what's so smart about a tire and landing gear and bathroom mirror an-" because you know exactly what the meaning is. I know that bigotry is a touchy subject, but that's not an excuse for conflating statements that aren't the same just to throw Rick Scott under the bus for sport. *There are a thousand reasons to criticize Trump. How about torture and the fact that he doesn't understand the internet? He may even be a bigot. But no, his use of simple language (as usual) to talk about the geopolitical divide between Islam is supposed to be the smoking gun. "France hates X" can be understood both as "(All) French people hate X" or "The French government (that is, the entity "France") hates X". The former is necessarily stupid because you cannot put millions of people sharing a single, insignificant feature (here nationality) into the same bad, the latter is acceptable because official entities have official positions. Now, Islam is one of these religion which you cannot consider as a single, clearly drawn out entity. There is no "Pope", there are multiple ways to think Islam and to practice it. Thus the only meaning you can apply to "Islam hates X" is "All Muslim people hate X", which is necessarily stupid.
And this is what happens when you have conclusions come before the analysis.
|
Having a government isn't the only way you become a geopolitical force in the world.
What point are you trying to make about the pope? Christianity doesn't have a pope either, it's no different than Islam. The Catholic pope? The Greek Orthodox pope? The Coptic pope? Are you trying to say a requirement to be a geopolitical force is having a a single leader at the top? Even though France's leader changes every few years? Does this mean when the American Civil War broke out, the Union and Confederacy weren't official entities? Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both thought they were president of the south... no?
You are right to note that these statements are different:
-France (whatever France is) hates X
-French people (as a group, in general) hate X
-(some) French people hate X
-All French people hate X
but the first is not in any way synonymous with the fourth - if you were trying to convey the meaning of the fourth, you would just say it that way. What most people do when it comes to bigotry is assume someone is guilty of it and then try to twist otherwise plain words to somehow fit that charge.
|
On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 05:58 kwizach wrote:
But they're not asking him to endorse anyone, they're asking him his position on the specific idea that Islam hates America. Any decent person should immediately respond with "I completely disagree, Joe", and probably add "it's a frankly insulting and bigoted position to hold". The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything? Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted. And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry. I'm seeing that you're hesitant about considering any examples... Is the statement "France hates the US" bigoted? Do you think it's synonymous with the statement "All French people hate the US," or do you think maybe the terms "Islam" and "France" are abstractions? Do you think if I say I hate country music that it means I have a personal loathing for Bob Dylan? You are doing exactly what Joe Scarborough would have done if Rick Scott had been stupid enough to go down that road. The point I am plainly trying to lead you to is that "All Muslims hate us" (the antecedent of "us" was the West, not the USA) is not synonymous with "Islam hates us." I don't care about the truth of what Trump said for this point.* I care very deeply that people don't have the keenness to spot their simple logical mistake. If you make a claim about X, it's not a claim about all the parts or members of X, nor is it a generalization about the parts or members of X. If I say the 787 is a smart aeroplane, nobody would be up in arms saying "what do you mean, aeroplanes can't be smart that doesn't even make sense, so what's so smart about a tire and landing gear and bathroom mirror an-" because you know exactly what the meaning is. I know that bigotry is a touchy subject, but that's not an excuse for conflating statements that aren't the same just to throw Rick Scott under the bus for sport.
I don't think you realize that you inadvertently agreed with me there. When you say that "you know exactly what the meaning is" when you say "the 787 is a smart aeroplane" -- that's the point: you should know exactly what the meaning is when Trump says "Islams hates America", and that meaning is that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. There is no logical mistake whatsoever; it's simply a matter of not being completely oblivious to what is actually being said.
With regards to your fallacious analogies, I know very well that Islam and Muslims are different -- one is a faith, the other is a group of people. One can very well honestly criticize Islam as a faith and social institution, or any other religion for that matter, without targeting believers per se. The point is that Trump is not doing that -- he's explicitly using Islam as a proxy to make a statement about Muslims, which is a tactic employed by the far-right everywhere. It would make zero sense to argue that Islam itself hates America (do tell me if you've discovered a mention of America somewhere in the Quran), and it's easily understandable that he's talking about the people who believe in Islam, who are the ones with agency and the knowledge of America's existence. In short, you're being deliberately obtuse, while Trump's bigotry in targeting Muslims through Islam could not be more obvious.
You didn't respond to my other point, by the way: "even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry."
On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:
*There are a thousand reasons to criticize Trump. How about torture and the fact that he doesn't understand the internet? He may even be a bigot. But no, his use of simple language (as usual) to talk about the geopolitical divide between Islam and the West is supposed to be the smoking gun.
There is no such thing as a "geopolitical divide between Islam and the West". It's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation, on par with Huntington's repeatedly debunked Clash of civilizations.
|
"on par with Huntington's repeatedly debunked Clash of civilizations."
Debunked, lolz.
I debunked Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction because Obama became a president. Or how a fetishised interpretative hypothesis on irrefutable matters is rejected on ideological grounds.
|
On March 11 2016 08:58 WhiteDog wrote:
"on par with Huntington's repeatedly debunked Clash of civilizations."
Debunked, lolz.
I debunked Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction because Obama became a president.
The flaws and falsehoods in Huntington's analysis have been pointed out at length in the IR literature (and beyond). Didier Bigo rightly denounced Clash of civilizations as unscientific in the first place and as the product of political/security interests ("Grands débats dans un petit monde").
|
On March 11 2016 08:46 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:04 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
The question is bait for basically the reasons you just listed. Is it really a complex answer? “That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.” That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything? Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted. And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry. I'm seeing that you're hesitant about considering any examples... Is the statement "France hates the US" bigoted? Do you think it's synonymous with the statement "All French people hate the US," or do you think maybe the terms "Islam" and "France" are abstractions? Do you think if I say I hate country music that it means I have a personal loathing for Bob Dylan? You are doing exactly what Joe Scarborough would have done if Rick Scott had been stupid enough to go down that road. The point I am plainly trying to lead you to is that "All Muslims hate us" (the antecedent of "us" was the West, not the USA) is not synonymous with "Islam hates us." I don't care about the truth of what Trump said for this point.* I care very deeply that people don't have the keenness to spot their simple logical mistake. If you make a claim about X, it's not a claim about all the parts or members of X, nor is it a generalization about the parts or members of X. If I say the 787 is a smart aeroplane, nobody would be up in arms saying "what do you mean, aeroplanes can't be smart that doesn't even make sense, so what's so smart about a tire and landing gear and bathroom mirror an-" because you know exactly what the meaning is. I know that bigotry is a touchy subject, but that's not an excuse for conflating statements that aren't the same just to throw Rick Scott under the bus for sport. I don't think you realize that you inadvertently agreed with me there. When you say that "you know exactly what the meaning is" when you say "the 787 is a smart aeroplane" -- that's the point: you should know exactly what the meaning is when Trump says "Islams hates America", and that meaning is that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. There is no logical mistake whatsoever; it's simply a matter of not being completely oblivious to what is actually being said. With regards to your fallacious analogies, I know very well that Islam and Muslims are different -- one is a faith, the other is a group of people. One can very well honestly criticize Islam as a faith and social institution, or any other religion for that matter, without targeting believers per se. The point is that Trump is not doing that -- he's explicitly using Islam as a proxy to make a statement about Muslims, which is a tactic employed by the far-right everywhere. It would make zero sense to argue that Islam itself hates America (do tell me if you've discovered a mention of America somewhere in the Quran), and it's easily understandable that he's talking about the people who believe in Islam, who are the ones with agency and the knowledge of America's existence. In short, you're being deliberately obtuse, while Trump's bigotry in targeting Muslims through Islam could not be more obvious. You didn't respond to my other point, by the way: "even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry." Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:
*There are a thousand reasons to criticize Trump. How about torture and the fact that he doesn't understand the internet? He may even be a bigot. But no, his use of simple language (as usual) to talk about the geopolitical divide between Islam and the West is supposed to be the smoking gun. There is no such thing as a "geopolitical divide between Islam and the West". It's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation, on par with Huntington's repeatedly debunked Clash of civilizations.
You're speaking like a true fundamentalist.
You know that there is nuance in speech, you're just pretty certain that the group of people you disagree with (conservatives) don't have that nuance.
That habit you have of making assumptions on what people mean because that is how you believe those people think is the exact reason why we have bigots in society.
|
On March 11 2016 09:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 08:46 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 07:30 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 07:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:53 kwizach wrote:On March 11 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2016 06:18 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2016 06:09 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Is it really a complex answer?
“That is incorrect and overly broad. There are problems with violence in the middle east and at some level they are related to the predominant religion in that area. But it is not the sole cause of the violence, as economics and political turmoil also are large factors. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” is completely false.”
That's not a claim that Trump has made, although that's apparently where the question is coming from in the context of endorsing a candidate. The fact that they have a governor on TV and spring a question like that (about an issue you clearly think is more nuanced), a question that's about a step away from asking someone "Are you a bigot?" and it's no surprise he didn't want to indulge their bait. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/Washington (CNN)Donald Trump said Wednesday that he thinks "Islam hates us," drawing little distinction between the religion and radical Islamic terrorism.
"I think Islam hates us," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper, deploring the "tremendous hatred" that he said partly defined the religion. He maintained the war was against radical Islam, but said, "it's very hard to define. It's very hard to separate. Because you don't know who's who." Yeah, it is a statement Trump made. But the claim that all 1.5 billion people who identify as members of Islam “hate the US” This interpretation by you (and MSNBC) aren't what the candidate said. If I were in Rick Scott's position, and I honestly have no knowledge of him or his views, I would not want to dignify someone baiting me with a strawman instead of honestly soliciting my view; nor, if I were in the position of a Democratic candidate two debates ago and a moderator was asking me to explain in what ways I was racist, would I care to bite. You can't give an honest answer to a dishonest question; that just invites more badgering. Trump said "I think Islam hates us". That's not an interpretation. That's what he said. It is a profoundly stupid and bigoted statement, and Scott was asked to give his position on that statement. Again, any decent person would instantly condemn that statement as ridiculous false and xenophobic. Why is that bigoted? How about if Rick Scott sincerely said "Islam loves the US," how would your response change in that case? Anyway, you're ignoring the actual MSNBC interview. Joe Scarsborough made the same mistake Plansix did (or rather, Plansix repeated it), which is that he asked whether Scott believed "all Muslims" hate the US and suggested that's what Trump said/meant (which he didn't if you actually listen to the source). That is a misinterpretation of the statement and the context where it originated. And it's probably deliberate. Once an interviewer says something like that, you can't erase it from memory. It poisons the rest of the discussion. There'd be no room for Rick Scott, whatever his views (again I have no idea), to represent an otherwise reasonable position - like taking a stance on the extent religion is a factor in radical Islam - because he'd just get pressed with more bait. There's nothing wrong with not answering a question like that, as we can see folks have already judged him guilty of some kind of bigotry-by-association as they love to do. If someone said "Pakistan hates India" or "Turkey hates Kurdistan" or "Christianity hates paganism" or "There is a tremendous poverty in the black community," do you believe these are bigoted statements? Or can you at least see they're not synonymous with "All Pakistanis hate India" or "All Turks hate Kurdistan" or "All Christians hate paganism" or "All blacks in the US are poor" respectively, which is good, because those would all clearly not be true statements - am I missing anything? Please, it's painfully obvious that you're jumping through hoops to try to justify the statement and Rick Scott's response. Islam isn't a thinking entity, so when Trump says that it "hates America", he is unambiguously saying that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. He is clearly qualifying the followers of Islam as a hateful group, which is by definition bigoted. And even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry. I'm seeing that you're hesitant about considering any examples... Is the statement "France hates the US" bigoted? Do you think it's synonymous with the statement "All French people hate the US," or do you think maybe the terms "Islam" and "France" are abstractions? Do you think if I say I hate country music that it means I have a personal loathing for Bob Dylan? You are doing exactly what Joe Scarborough would have done if Rick Scott had been stupid enough to go down that road. The point I am plainly trying to lead you to is that "All Muslims hate us" (the antecedent of "us" was the West, not the USA) is not synonymous with "Islam hates us." I don't care about the truth of what Trump said for this point.* I care very deeply that people don't have the keenness to spot their simple logical mistake. If you make a claim about X, it's not a claim about all the parts or members of X, nor is it a generalization about the parts or members of X. If I say the 787 is a smart aeroplane, nobody would be up in arms saying "what do you mean, aeroplanes can't be smart that doesn't even make sense, so what's so smart about a tire and landing gear and bathroom mirror an-" because you know exactly what the meaning is. I know that bigotry is a touchy subject, but that's not an excuse for conflating statements that aren't the same just to throw Rick Scott under the bus for sport. I don't think you realize that you inadvertently agreed with me there. When you say that "you know exactly what the meaning is" when you say "the 787 is a smart aeroplane" -- that's the point: you should know exactly what the meaning is when Trump says "Islams hates America", and that meaning is that the people who believe in Islam, namely Muslims, hate America. There is no logical mistake whatsoever; it's simply a matter of not being completely oblivious to what is actually being said. With regards to your fallacious analogies, I know very well that Islam and Muslims are different -- one is a faith, the other is a group of people. One can very well honestly criticize Islam as a faith and social institution, or any other religion for that matter, without targeting believers per se. The point is that Trump is not doing that -- he's explicitly using Islam as a proxy to make a statement about Muslims, which is a tactic employed by the far-right everywhere. It would make zero sense to argue that Islam itself hates America (do tell me if you've discovered a mention of America somewhere in the Quran), and it's easily understandable that he's talking about the people who believe in Islam, who are the ones with agency and the knowledge of America's existence. In short, you're being deliberately obtuse, while Trump's bigotry in targeting Muslims through Islam could not be more obvious. You didn't respond to my other point, by the way: "even if you were right that Trump meant something completely different by "Islam hates America" (which he didn't, so you're wrong), Rick Scott could have easily said so, and responded with "I disagree that Muslims hate America, but I agree that Islam hates America" (which would be a nonsensical statement, but that's where your logic leads). He didn't, because he either agrees with Trump and is bigoted as well, or he disagrees with Trump and he's a coward who doesn't want to stand up against bigotry." On March 11 2016 08:23 oBlade wrote:
*There are a thousand reasons to criticize Trump. How about torture and the fact that he doesn't understand the internet? He may even be a bigot. But no, his use of simple language (as usual) to talk about the geopolitical divide between Islam and the West is supposed to be the smoking gun. There is no such thing as a "geopolitical divide between Islam and the West". It's a ridiculously simplistic and ignorant depiction of the situation, on par with Huntington's repeatedly debunked Clash of civilizations. You're speaking like a true fundamentalist. You know that there is nuance in speech, you're just pretty certain that the group of people you disagree with (conservatives) don't have that nuance. That habit you have of making assumptions on what people mean because that is how you believe those people think is the exact reason why we have bigots in society.
Nowhere am I talking about conservatives in general. I am specifically talking about Trump, who is using a tactic widely employed by the far-right in Europe to target Muslims: use Islam as a proxy target instead, to avoid mentioning Muslims directly. But go ahead, do tell me what else Trump really meant when he said "Islam hates us" (not "radical Islam" but "Islam"), if he wasn't talking about Muslims. He even specifically mentioned the hatred of those "people".
|
When anderson cooper asked Trump : is it Islam vs the US or is it Radical Islam vs the US, trump said radical but it's tough to seperate who's who. I think that's exactly the problem, no one knows where normal islam ends and radical islam begins. There are so many subtle ideological stepping stones that lead to ISIS but who's to say that it isn't toxic well before that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
