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 17 2016 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think it's funny how people manage to think 'Trump is honest and trustworthy and he speaks his mind' while also thinking 'whenever he said something that wasn't totally gay friendly or when he spoke about what a christian he is, he was just lying because he has to pander to the republican base'.
I had a debate with my coworker where when presented with stuff Trump said, he would brush off the Trump-sayings as merely stuff he needs to say to get elected. That perhaps Trump was some sort of inner moderate, but outer inconsistent madman. Then I showed him the "torture them because they deserve it" and "20-30k troops in Iraq". I stopped laying into him then.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
It's a funny world we live in. The figures with the biggest reach have a point talking about nuance in Muslim immigration/Syrian immigration. They're also the ones plainly seen denying the danger and distancing the ideology from the acts. Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed.
On March 17 2016 04:27 oneofthem wrote: let's start this discussion on islam by exploring the illustrative example of the sorites paradox.
now, when it comes to group identity, vagueness is ...................zzz
one of my favorite talks about political Islam.
dont have time for this but the critical problem is really a political one.
i'll just use christianity as an example. there are various strands of ideology woven into the complex history of who wrote what. the thought leaders of christiandom like paul do create 'new' doctrine that change what the religion is. the works of these influencers may indeed be analyzed from a qualitative methodology, looking at the content of texts and whatnot like this guy probably does. but the popularity of their ideas, and in turn the profile of what practicing christianity is, is a political result of western history. if we understand islam as a dynamic and evolving group that has an open future. the qualitative assessment of what muslims believe is reallya question of this latter sort.
is it possible for a critical, humanist sort of enlightenment in islamic society? very eminently. the western enlightenment already happened. they don't need to reinvent the wheel, just be in contact with the west. this requires more openness and acceptance by muslims of the west. all these 'reformist' muslims are people with western views and cultural ties. it's basically cultural osmosis and the time frame is really quite long. this very crude stuff trump is irresponsibly pushing out there is just dumb.
i don't know enough about islam to really say whether a rationalist doctrine can be advanced in religious terms. but if this 'party' is created, it will surely be popular with western muslims.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
Just so you know, the link you cited actually goes against your definition of radical/extreme views. In fact, there's a giant headline that says "Extremism Widely Rejected" with the next line saying "Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam." So uh, go ahead and disregard the rest of the text.
Also, the "vast majority who want sharia law" you talk about is much less prevalent in secular societies like South East Europe and Central Asia. This also does not contain the views of Muslims in Western Europe or the United States.
So, how do American Muslims feel? Well, based on this study, it seems most are heavily against extremism. A "vast majority" say violence is never okay, and most are "religious but not dogmatic." In other words, they value other people's approaches to religion.
On March 17 2016 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think it's funny how people manage to think 'Trump is honest and trustworthy and he speaks his mind' while also thinking 'whenever he said something that wasn't totally gay friendly or when he spoke about what a christian he is, he was just lying because he has to pander to the republican base'.
It's under the assumption that none of them are honest or trustworthy. That's literally it. There's a mutual understanding that, "all these people are lying to get elected". All of them. So they parse through and decide what is best.
How I currently see it. Very tl;dr lazy version. Ted Cruz - Evil Incarnate. Sociopath who actually jizzes his pants a little every time he lies. Never seen a man who likes to lie more and who looks so happy with himself after he finishes lying. Has said he would glass the middle east. LYIN' TED.
Trump - Businessman playing politics, promising walls and jobs and some nationalist pride. Will call the media out on false narratives. His campaign is capitalism in a nutshell. Looking to protect America from subversion and give it simple unified goals the country can get behind. Attempting to call out a lot of bullshit he sees in America that is being widely accepted. Has liberal leaning views, and promises that he won't allow the weaker members of society to just die in the street.
Hillary - Status Quo, more Obama. Career politician whose changed her views over the years. Probably way more war hawkish than Trump. More warhawk than Obama. Will still allow the media to push completely false narratives. We have a long history of knowing that she's not trustworthy. However, watching her destroy that Benghazi committee hit club the republicans formed for her was hilarious. Just utter destruction of them. She's experienced, intelligent, and can play the game.
Bernie - Great ideals, but delusional and not based in reality. Remember, Scandinavia does not have the population America has. This is very, very important. Socialism won't work in America. It's unrealistic and goes against human nature. And there's a lot of competing factions within America that try to subvert and undermine the other. America is constantly at war, and is at war with itself as well. Bernies base is such a shitshow. You have literal anarchists, communists, socialists, capitalists, SJW identity politics all over the place, and the evil boogeyman of the rich man. Lotta evil boogeyman to go around on rich and poor. This is not a unified group. It's a group that pretends at unity when most of them are attempting to elect someone they don't understand. They're young, immature, and it's shown time and time again when they are threatening violence in every direction while calling other people out for hatred. You're under the impression that America hasn't tried it in many pockets of it's own communities. But there's a lot of studies of them giving massive funding for schools and still failing in communities for instance. There's some things that genuinely help as well. Like when a Republican mayor? Governor? I forget what he was but it was on TDS and he basically gave homes to the homeless and tried to help them out. I'm not sure about the long term effects of it were, but the short term seemed to look good.
Trump wins voters when he tells people that when they ship factories overseas, he will call the head of those factories and say "I hope you're ready for some new taxes". People want jobs and manufacturing to stay in America.
It's going to be very strange to see how it all plays out with the robotics industry touting self driving cars, factories that don't need humans, among other things.
On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote: Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed.
Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now?
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
wow i just watched the clip with full context of "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" he said if you want respect for your religion start respecting others and also clean up the mess that is holocaust denial....
he combined 3 criticisms of some muslim societies, with a peace offer and you say he ignores those problems
your comprehension of diplomatic speech seems to be nonexistent
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
Just so you know, the link you cited actually goes against your definition of radical/extreme views. In fact, there's a giant headline that says "Extremism Widely Rejected" with the next line saying "Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam." So uh, go ahead and disregard the rest of the text.
Also, the "vast majority who want sharia law" you talk about is much less prevalent in secular societies like South East Europe and Central Asia. This also does not contain the views of Muslims in Western Europe or the United States.
So, how do American Muslims feel? Well, based on this study, it seems most are heavily against extremism. A "vast majority" say violence is never okay, and most are "religious but not dogmatic." In other words, they value other people's approaches to religion.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
Just so you know, the link you cited actually goes against your definition of radical/extreme views. In fact, there's a giant headline that says "Extremism Widely Rejected" with the next line saying "Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam." So uh, go ahead and disregard the rest of the text.
Also, the "vast majority who want sharia law" you talk about is much less prevalent in secular societies like South East Europe and Central Asia. This also does not contain the views of Muslims in Western Europe or the United States.
So, how do American Muslims feel? Well, based on this study, it seems most are heavily against extremism. A "vast majority" say violence is never okay, and most are "religious but not dogmatic." In other words, they value other people's approaches to religion.
That's because the definition of extremist Islam is essentially, 'do you plan on blowing something up?' Without doing a context analysis of the populus belief.
Meanwhile a significant portion would be more than happy to live under Sharia Law. There is absolutely nothing moderate about Sharia Law. Even with the drop in wanting Sharia Law in secular state, we're still talking about significant portion of the population.
The problem comes from the west where we have conmen parading as apologists, like Reza Aslan, telling the publics lies about the current state of modern day Islam.
On March 17 2016 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think it's funny how people manage to think 'Trump is honest and trustworthy and he speaks his mind' while also thinking 'whenever he said something that wasn't totally gay friendly or when he spoke about what a christian he is, he was just lying because he has to pander to the republican base'.
It's under the assumption that none of them are honest or trustworthy. That's literally it. There's a mutual understanding that, "all these people are lying to get elected". All of them. So they parse through and decide what is best.
How I currently see it. Very tl;dr lazy version. Ted Cruz - Evil Incarnate. Sociopath who actually jizzes his pants a little every time he lies. Never seen a man who likes to lie more and who looks so happy with himself after he finishes lying. Has said he would glass the middle east. LYIN' TED.
Trump - Businessman playing politics, promising walls and jobs and some nationalist pride. Will call the media out on false narratives. His campaign is capitalism in a nutshell. Looking to protect America from subversion and give it simple unified goals the country can get behind. Attempting to call out a lot of bullshit he sees in America that is being widely accepted. Has liberal leaning views, and promises that he won't allow the weaker members of society to just die in the street.
Hillary - Status Quo, more Obama. Career politician whose changed her views over the years. Probably way more war hawkish than Trump. More warhawk than Obama. Will still allow the media to push completely false narratives. We have a long history of knowing that she's not trustworthy. However, watching her destroy that Benghazi committee hit club the republicans formed for her was hilarious. Just utter destruction of them. She's experienced, intelligent, and can play the game.
Bernie - Great ideals, but delusional and not based in reality. Remember, Scandinavia does not have the population America has. This is very, very important. Socialism won't work in America. It's unrealistic and goes against human nature. And there's a lot of competing factions within America that try to subvert and undermine the other. America is constantly at war, and is at war with itself as well. Bernies base is such a shitshow. You have literal anarchists, communists, socialists, capitalists, SJW identity politics all over the place, and the evil boogeyman of the rich man. Lotta evil boogeyman to go around on rich and poor. This is not a unified group. It's a group that pretends at unity when most of them are attempting to elect someone they don't understand. They're young, immature, and it's shown time and time again when they are threatening violence in every direction while calling other people out for hatred. You're under the impression that America hasn't tried it in many pockets of it's own communities. But there's a lot of studies of them giving massive funding for schools and still failing in communities for instance. There's some things that genuinely help as well. Like when a Republican mayor? Governor? I forget what he was but it was on TDS and he basically gave homes to the homeless and tried to help them out. I'm not sure about the long term effects of it were, but the short term seemed to look good.
Trump wins voters when he tells people that when they ship factories overseas, he will call the head of those factories and say "I hope you're ready for some new taxes". People want jobs and manufacturing to stay in America.
It's going to be very strange to see how it all plays out with the robotics industry touting self driving cars, factories that don't need humans, among other things.
I disagree with Trump's campaign being capitalism in a nutshell. Free market capitalism supports free trade agreements and lowering barriers to the global economy rather than supporting them. I'd also think more open immigration would be a great thing for capitalists considering that allows for better allocation of human capital. That aside, I agree with most of the rest of your assessment.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
Just so you know, the link you cited actually goes against your definition of radical/extreme views. In fact, there's a giant headline that says "Extremism Widely Rejected" with the next line saying "Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam." So uh, go ahead and disregard the rest of the text.
Also, the "vast majority who want sharia law" you talk about is much less prevalent in secular societies like South East Europe and Central Asia. This also does not contain the views of Muslims in Western Europe or the United States.
So, how do American Muslims feel? Well, based on this study, it seems most are heavily against extremism. A "vast majority" say violence is never okay, and most are "religious but not dogmatic." In other words, they value other people's approaches to religion.
That's because the definition of extremist Islam is essentially, 'do you plan on blowing something up?' Without doing a context analysis of the populus belief.
Meanwhile a significant portion would be more than happy to live under Sharia Law. There is absolutely nothing moderate about Sharia Law. Even with the drop in wanting Sharia Law in secular state, we're still talking about significant portion of the population.
The problem comes from the west where we have conmen parading as apologists, like Reza Aslan, telling the publics lies about the current state of modern day Islam.
The amusing part is that you keep citing sharia law without knowing what sharia law is. It is similar to “common law” or the founding for many of the EU and US legal systems. And yes, common law had some really regressive stuff in it back in the day, including laws dictating how people could have sex and when a wife could be beaten.
And if I remember correctly, the data you keep citing asked Muslims if they wanted to see sharia law reflected in the legal system of their country. Which isn’t at all the same thing and not something absolute.
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
Just so you know, the link you cited actually goes against your definition of radical/extreme views. In fact, there's a giant headline that says "Extremism Widely Rejected" with the next line saying "Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam." So uh, go ahead and disregard the rest of the text.
Also, the "vast majority who want sharia law" you talk about is much less prevalent in secular societies like South East Europe and Central Asia. This also does not contain the views of Muslims in Western Europe or the United States.
So, how do American Muslims feel? Well, based on this study, it seems most are heavily against extremism. A "vast majority" say violence is never okay, and most are "religious but not dogmatic." In other words, they value other people's approaches to religion.
That's because the definition of extremist Islam is essentially, 'do you plan on blowing something up?' Without doing a context analysis of the populus belief.
Meanwhile a significant portion would be more than happy to live under Sharia Law. There is absolutely nothing moderate about Sharia Law. Even with the drop in wanting Sharia Law in secular state, we're still talking about significant portion of the population.
The problem comes from the west where we have conmen parading as apologists, like Reza Aslan, telling the publics lies about the current state of modern day Islam.
Pretty much this, and to think Reza Aslan was called "very well respected" by people in this thread, i had to stop reading this thread for a while.
On March 17 2016 04:56 SK.Testie wrote: Trump wins voters when he tells people that when they ship factories overseas, he will call the head of those factories and say "I hope you're ready for some new taxes". People want jobs and manufacturing to stay in America.
It's going to be very strange to see how it all plays out with the robotics industry touting self driving cars, factories that don't need humans, among other things.
that first one was debunked in this thread already: manufacturing output in the us is doing fine and growing at decent rate after recovering from the recession, there are just no more jobs in it:
On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for?
You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example.
The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol.
The liberal media has largely tried to address the problem of radical Islam by pretending it doesn't even exist. Thus we see (even in this thread) repeated claims that radicalism is a small minority despite studies indicating otherwise (see the Pew study in 2013), misleading analogies to Christianity despite the fact that fundamentalism in Islam is not the fringe, and accusations of racism and Islamophobia to virtually any criticism of the religion despite the fact that Islam isn't a race. President Obama has made statements like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" and "terrorism has no religion".
When you have one party trying to ignore the issue completely, that leaves the floor free for the other to say whatever they want. The GOP has been responding to the issue of radical Islam with varying degrees of hyperbole and accuracy, but at least they are trying to address the problem. Nowhere have I said that I agree with all the rhetoric of the GOP. For example, Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims is ridiculous for reasons discussed ad infinitum. It is, however, worrying to me when a religious maniac like Ted Cruz can correctly call out Obama for not being even able to say the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
Anyone who can look at Obama's tenure and conclude that his party has "ignore[d] the issue [of radical Islam] completely" is delusional.
The problem is defining radial Islam. Liberals define radical Islam as terrorism and define moderate Islam as non-terrorism Islam.
When, the vast majority of Islam, and it's believers are radical in belief in the context to the western world. Where majority of Islamic believers actually want Sharia law implemented.
It'd be like saying oh most KKK members are moderate, after all only a minority of KKK members have actually committed hate crimes. Which would be fucking BONKERS to say.
Just so you know, the link you cited actually goes against your definition of radical/extreme views. In fact, there's a giant headline that says "Extremism Widely Rejected" with the next line saying "Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam." So uh, go ahead and disregard the rest of the text.
Also, the "vast majority who want sharia law" you talk about is much less prevalent in secular societies like South East Europe and Central Asia. This also does not contain the views of Muslims in Western Europe or the United States.
So, how do American Muslims feel? Well, based on this study, it seems most are heavily against extremism. A "vast majority" say violence is never okay, and most are "religious but not dogmatic." In other words, they value other people's approaches to religion.
That's because the definition of extremist Islam is essentially, 'do you plan on blowing something up?' Without doing a context analysis of the populus belief.
Meanwhile a significant portion would be more than happy to live under Sharia Law. There is absolutely nothing moderate about Sharia Law. Even with the drop in wanting Sharia Law in secular state, we're still talking about significant portion of the population.
The problem comes from the west where we have conmen parading as apologists, like Reza Aslan, telling the publics lies about the current state of modern day Islam.
Even if we use the survey with the worst outlook on American Muslims done by an organization that has systematically made them look worse than any organization (the one Trump cited in his policy), 47% view Sharia as a guide to the personal practice of Islam and 25% view it as a comprehensive program governing all aspects of the faithful Muslims' life. Only 11% view it as something anyone would impose on others.
I don't really have a problem with people believing in following a guide to the personal practice of their religion or even an Orthodox-style comprehensive program, especially when 45% also believe the individual is responsible for defining Sharia. At least in the U.S. it seems pretty moderate to me; I'm pretty sure you could find 11% of Christians polled believing the same thing in one way or another if you wanted to stretch things.
Trump never discussed these numbers because he didn't actually read the survey of course.
On March 17 2016 04:56 SK.Testie wrote: Trump wins voters when he tells people that when they ship factories overseas, he will call the head of those factories and say "I hope you're ready for some new taxes". People want jobs and manufacturing to stay in America.
It's going to be very strange to see how it all plays out with the robotics industry touting self driving cars, factories that don't need humans, among other things.
that first one was debunked in this thread already: manufacturing output in the us is doing fine and growing at decent rate after recovering from the recession, there are just no more jobs in it:
It's still how he wins voters. When that air conditioning company said they were moving to Mexico, he uses it in his platform speeches now. 1400 jobs shipped to Mexico. Those people at least got a warning and some time to shuffle for a new job.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=103496)
