|
|
On October 18 2012 10:45 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 10:37 BluePanther wrote:On October 18 2012 10:08 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 10:03 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive. Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism. no, but the terrorism that is relevant to our generation IS religious in nature. I remember the OKC bombing, lockerbie, the DC sniper, and various domestic shooting sprees. That pales in comparison to religious terrorism. It's not 'religious in nature.' It has a relationship with religion but it's not fundamentally caused by religion. Religion is the tool that organizes the masses. Even without religion, as long as there is some kind of ideology or belief that can pull people together, they would merely use that. If the Middle East were not Islamists but rather democracies buzzing with freedoms, they'd fight to protect those freedoms.
Except the terrorism is not about freedom. They are not revolutionaries. They are zealots. There is a difference. It's a small sect that has a Crusade mentality. There is a line in the quran where the prophet says something along the line about using force against sinners until they repent in their ways. This line is the subject of a very limited number of controversial fatwas that certain individuals exploit to wage a holy war. It's very much a religious issue. Islam in general does not support the use of suicide terrorism -- this religious fatwa opens that door. The way Islam works is that many different interpretations of the text are all considered equally right. If there is a fatwa, another individual can't condemn you for it as it's a possible interpretation of Sharia. Without the fatwa, it could be condemned. The issue is very much couched in religious discussions.
|
On October 18 2012 12:37 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 12:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 11:15 sam!zdat wrote:
this hermeneutics of sexism stuff is why I dislike identity politics. can't ever talk about anything constructive because people just wanna argue about who is and isn't a 'real' feminist, and usually trying to say you aren't sexist is taken as sure proof that you are.
That being said, structural inequality is a real problem. I just wish all this litmus BS wouldn't get in the way of dealing with actual problems Pfff, I revel in my quasi-misogynist tendencies. All men who have dated women have earned a right to such tendencies. yeah, I mean that's partly my point. there's battle of the sexes, and there's sexism, and they sometimes overlap but are not coterminous. Both sexes display characteristic forms of stupidity and there's nothing sexist tout court about discussing this (and life would suck if you couldn't). (In my case, it's a theoretical dispute - I'm more of a camille paglia feminist than a judith butler feminist... pretty hostile to relativism, constructivism, poststructuralism etc and so forth so most feminists dislike me for all kinds of reasons. At any rate it's usually not even worth talking about because the atmosphere is so vitriolic and Stalinist basically.)
Paglia is my favorite liberal. I love reading her stuff.
Edit: Paglia is my favorite liberal because she is ruthlessly intellectually honest.
|
On October 18 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox before I launch into a rant about how politically correct society has been neutering generations of men.
Must. Not. Open. Can. Of. Worms ....
|
On October 18 2012 12:42 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox before I launch into a rant about how politically correct society has been neutering generations of men. Must. Not. Open. Can. Of. Worms ....
he's got a point, but what he doesn't realize is that some men deserve to be neutered
edit: the negative valence that we're starting to attach to masculinity is a totally self-defeating thing. You wanna promote healthy masculinity, not attack masculinity as such. That's stupid.
On October 18 2012 12:41 xDaunt wrote:
Paglia is my favorite liberal. I love reading her stuff.
I'll admit I haven't really read her but I've read some things about her and she seems like my kinda theorist. I have Sexual Personae in my amazon cart
|
On October 18 2012 12:45 sam!zdat wrote:
he's got a point, but what he doesn't realize is that some men deserve to be neutered
Only the child molesters.
|
On October 18 2012 12:42 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox before I launch into a rant about how politically correct society has been neutering generations of men. Must. Not. Open. Can. Of. Worms ....
To listen to a conservative's take on the contemporary status of manhood is to hear the history of mankind read aloud in hopeless nostalgia.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
barbaric nostalgia at that.
|
never dismiss the nostalgia of your opponents. Nostalgia is key for the analysis of ideology. it shows where the contradictions are. (and it helps you understand your own ideological blind spot. nostalgia very productive. I love nostalgia)
edit: reactionaries always have a point, it's just not the point they think they have
|
Poll: Predict November!I want Obama to win and I think he will (10) 63% I want Romney to win and I think Romney will win (4) 25% I want Romney to win but I think Obama will (2) 13% I want Obama to win but I think Romeny will win (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: Predict November! (Vote): I want Obama to win and I think he will
(Vote): I want Obama to win but I think Romeny will win
(Vote): I want Romney to win but I think Obama will
(Vote): I want Romney to win and I think Romney will win
sorry if this is been done but there's so many pages in this thread!!!
edit to say this should have said done again recently since the op was long ago and we're now two weeks away from the election
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh. having read those NR articles on the decline of men i'll have to say it's not a worthwhile nostalgia. patriarchial fantasy at best really.
|
On October 18 2012 13:07 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
sorry if this is been done but there's so many pages in this thread!!!
I know you mean well but don't do this again. welcome to teamliquid
|
On October 18 2012 13:02 sam!zdat wrote:
never dismiss the nostalgia of your opponents. Nostalgia is key for the analysis of ideology. it shows where the contradictions are. (and it helps you understand your own ideological blind spot. nostalgia very productive. I love nostalgia)
I could never truly dismiss what xDaunt would likely offer forth, in that I would no doubt agree with a fair bit of it on at some level. This does not mean I can't be critical of gender essentialism. The blind spot we all have can be fought.
|
On October 18 2012 13:09 oneofthem wrote:
meh. having read those NR articles on the decline of men i'll have to say it's not a worthwhile nostalgia. patriarchial fantasy at best really.
I'm not saying you take it at its face value. Reactionaries are just reactionaries, yeah, but I think there's always a kernel in there somewhere
On October 18 2012 13:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:02 sam!zdat wrote:
never dismiss the nostalgia of your opponents. Nostalgia is key for the analysis of ideology. it shows where the contradictions are. (and it helps you understand your own ideological blind spot. nostalgia very productive. I love nostalgia) I could never truly dismiss what xDaunt would likely offer forth, in that I would no doubt agree with a fair bit of it on at some level. This does not mean I can't be critical of gender essentialism.
Ah, but see I am something of an essentialist. (edit: but the question as it is usually put is something of a false one, as these sorts of things so often are. "the truth is seen in the unasking of the question")
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 12:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 10:45 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 10:37 BluePanther wrote:On October 18 2012 10:08 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 10:03 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive. Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism. no, but the terrorism that is relevant to our generation IS religious in nature. I remember the OKC bombing, lockerbie, the DC sniper, and various domestic shooting sprees. That pales in comparison to religious terrorism. It's not 'religious in nature.' It has a relationship with religion but it's not fundamentally caused by religion. Religion is the tool that organizes the masses. Even without religion, as long as there is some kind of ideology or belief that can pull people together, they would merely use that. If the Middle East were not Islamists but rather democracies buzzing with freedoms, they'd fight to protect those freedoms. Except the terrorism is not about freedom. They are not revolutionaries. They are zealots. There is a difference. It's a small sect that has a Crusade mentality. There is a line in the quran where the prophet says something along the line about using force against sinners until they repent in their ways. This line is the subject of a very limited number of controversial fatwas that certain individuals exploit to wage a holy war. It's very much a religious issue. Islam in general does not support the use of suicide terrorism -- this religious fatwa opens that door. The way Islam works is that many different interpretations of the text are all considered equally right. If there is a fatwa, another individual can't condemn you for it as it's a possible interpretation of Sharia. Without the fatwa, it could be condemned. The issue is very much couched in religious discussions.
Nobody's denying that religion plays a part in Islamic terrorism. I'm telling you that that is not the end-all-be-all. Even if they weren't Islamists a bunch of them would be grasping onto other ideologies/beliefs to "wage war" given their circumstances.
This leads us back ONCE AGAIN to my analogy:
Let's put it this way: A foreign aggressor invades Wisconsin, deposes your Governor, and installs a tyrant that is against everything you stand for (in this case, let's say he's against freedom of speech) who slaughters your friends, family, and neighbors. Do you honestly think the people of Wisconsin are just gonna sit back and take it up the ass because they're Christian? Hell no! Some people may also cling to God as a means to get them through the rough times. Others will cling to democracy and our freedomz as we treat that stuff like a religion as well. Anyway, it's all just a distraction to the more devastating underlying problem.
|
On October 18 2012 13:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:09 oneofthem wrote:
meh. having read those NR articles on the decline of men i'll have to say it's not a worthwhile nostalgia. patriarchial fantasy at best really.
I'm not saying you take it at its face value. Reactionaries are just reactionaries, yeah, but I think there's always a kernel in there somewhere Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:11 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 13:02 sam!zdat wrote:
never dismiss the nostalgia of your opponents. Nostalgia is key for the analysis of ideology. it shows where the contradictions are. (and it helps you understand your own ideological blind spot. nostalgia very productive. I love nostalgia) I could never truly dismiss what xDaunt would likely offer forth, in that I would no doubt agree with a fair bit of it on at some level. This does not mean I can't be critical of gender essentialism. Ah, but see I am something of an essentialist.
Well, given your philosophical predilections in past posts, this only makes sense. Though in the case of human personality I'd rather question essence in terms of what rather than why. There certainly is a "thing" to share, but describing it can be oh so difficult.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I seriously have no idea what samz and farv talk about a lot of the times.
|
On October 18 2012 13:20 farvacola wrote:
There certainly is a "thing" to share, but describing it can be oh so difficult.
oh, how right you are!
the dao that can be dao-ed is not the eternal dao
the name that can be named is not the true name
(edit: sorry, you wanna privilege what and deconstruct why, or the other way around? Not sure I follow your drift) (edit: anyway, I think we should let the politicos have their thread for politico stuff, not that everything isn't politics amirite)
On October 18 2012 13:22 Souma wrote:
I seriously have no idea what samz and farv talk about a lot of the times.
us neither. we're just trying to sound smart
|
On October 18 2012 13:22 sam!zdat wrote:
(edit: sorry, you wanna privilege what and deconstruct why, or the other way around? Not sure I follow your drift)
Just assume that essential human characteristics exist, and make your criteria for successful description appropriately exhaustive.
we're just trying to sound smart
And failing most of the time. But the effort is what counts!
Edit: Lit Crit ought to hijack politics every so often. Or, in my case, the other way around.
|
On October 18 2012 13:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:22 sam!zdat wrote:
(edit: sorry, you wanna privilege what and deconstruct why, or the other way around? Not sure I follow your drift)
Just assume that essential human characteristics exist, and make your criteria for successful description appropriately exhaustive. And failing most of the time. But the effort is what counts! Edit: Lit Crit ought to hijack politics every so often. Or, in my case, the other way around.
LOL, lit crit. Does it surprise you at all that my favorite South Park episode is "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs?"I
|
Binders of Women was bad, but I think Romney won the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
