On June 13 2016 21:09 Laserist wrote: My condolences.
Islam definitely has a disgusting way of looking at the "non-orthodox" ways of life. You might not share the same view and it is understandable to defend it but it doesn't mean a vast majority of the believers against modern ways of life. Eventually statistically someone with enough "courage" or "zeal" would commit such subhuman act.
I live in a country with a very strong Islamic belief and personally rejected it at some point so I exposed similar stuff more than most of the others here. So moral high ground defense like "religion of peace" etc.. imo is bullshit.
The problem is not some maniac doing a mad case. There is a systematic behind it which is the religion in that case. Holy scripts also encourage jihad and enforce "the way of Islam" very different than modern life we understand. Denying this can be only a sign of personal enlightenment that has nothing to do with the religion itself.
Funnily enough, in muslims countries they are way more open about this topic than in europe and the US. I had familly in Algeria and they were pretty clear on radical islam : it is a plague. 200 000 people died due to radical islam in Algeria, people don't have the luxury to find excuses, play on words, just to argue that no it's not radical islam but "an homophobe" or something else. People have a hard time understanding that freedom is "saying that two and two equal four".
I know this is a bit pedantic but what on Earth does the phrase "two and two equal four" have to do with freedom. Freedom in this case is a buzzword. If you want to make sense, then you should imply that freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals five if that's what you want to say.
"Freedom is saying two and two equal four" is a quote from Orwell's 1984 : basically mean that freedom is being able to say the truth. To explain a little more, in 1984 the language has been deprived of its logic, it's a "newspeak" that, through various grammatical change and the idea of "doublethink" (twisting rhetoric like "freedom is slavery"), has lost its capacity to simply express the most basic feelings, argument or assertion. Radical islam is a problem, it's a truth, you don't need to suggarcoat it and argue to death around it : but in modern language, anybody who argue that radical islam is a problem is instantly attacked from both part, from the part of the society that just hate all muslims, and from the liberal/progressive stupidity that does not want to aknowledge simple truth out of some distorted vision of integration and tolerance.
That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
I don't understand your point. There are clear and obvious topic that should be adressed and that makes a distinction between radical and not radical islam : the relationship between politics and religion (sharia law), the question of apostates, the question of homosexuality, women, minorities, etc.
On June 14 2016 02:38 Plansix wrote: The problem with talking about radical Islam in the US is that our news media is terrible at it. The way it is addressed on the news is like terrorists are going to come leaping out the local mosque. I am all about a nuanced discussion about it, but not the one that happens on CNN.
Totally true : the best solution is not to talk about muslim, but about islam. People are people, their religion is but one part of their identity. Discuss the actually doctrine of islam, and not the people.
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
It's a challenge to make that divide, but it is one we must rise to. The only way that we can address radical Islam is through the channels of moderate Islam - otherwise the West will always be a foreign force.
And I wouldn't say the same approach couldn't be taken with other destructive intolerant stances expressed through Christianity for example.
I hardly distinguish majority of the Islam followers from the ones commit jihad actions. Religion clearly encourages violence against the "others" by all means. There is no clear distinction between "Radicals" and "Happies"
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
It's a challenge to make that divide, but it is one we must rise to. The only way that we can address radical Islam is through the channels of moderate Islam - otherwise the West will always be a foreign force.
And I wouldn't say the same approach couldn't be taken with other destructive intolerant stances expressed through Christianity for example.
I don't think the divide exists.
There is too large of a population that don't openly act on Islamic principles, but push their agenda in subtle ways or just stay out of politics, but their philosophy doesn't change.
In the same way that the people of the US have "lost" their power to vote, because of increasing populations of Mexican (34.6mil) and Black (45.7mil). By no means am I saying that the USA is a White country, but what I am saying, is that originally the US had a very clear identity and belief structure, based on European values. Yet somehow, now every election is decided by the Mexican and Black vote, because they make up 25% of the population, and thus it pushes the agenda of the groups that originally had no power in the country.
Same thing how the European countries are being taken by the muslim population, with countries like France being at 10% already. It really boggles my mind how people in Europe are so open to accept this (being from Slovakia, the views towards immigration are a lot harsher)... Do they not realize that literally over two thousand years of rich history will be completely wiped out by these changes?
Finding this divide between good and bad Islam is in my opinion to a smart idea, because it is next to impossible to distinguish, and what I'd call a half-assed attempt. I am fixated on the idea, that at least in the short term (50-100 years or less), Muslims will not be compatible with western culture, and we're best off not accepting Muslim refugees.
Here are some websites that show how this dislike for Muslims is widespread across Europe, and when around 50% of the population in Western countries thinks that Muslims don't mesh with their culture, maybe we should not try to push it so hard? It's not like a few people are saying this, and we're deciding whether to accommodate them or not. The US can be tolerant to its Islamic allies, but there's no need for them to live inside the country, it's no hard feeling.
Try moving to a country like Russia, and all I can say is... Good luck. It's extremely difficult, because they like keeping their sense of society. The US has just become this broken little thing with 320 million people sharing 320 million different views. No unity or agreement in anything.
edit: Either way, a sad event in US history - though after mourning, people should think about solutions instead of thinking about it for 10 seconds and posting the first thing they think of.
On June 14 2016 02:45 Slayer91 wrote: That's just making a nice easy divide of "radical islam" and "happy islam". A bit naive don't you think? Where do we draw the line at "radical christians" the tea party or crusades or..?
It's a challenge to make that divide, but it is one we must rise to. The only way that we can address radical Islam is through the channels of moderate Islam - otherwise the West will always be a foreign force.
And I wouldn't say the same approach couldn't be taken with other destructive intolerant stances expressed through Christianity for example.
Same thing how the European countries are being taken by the muslim population, with countries like France being at 10% already. It really boggles my mind how people in Europe are so open to accept this (being from Slovakia, the views towards immigration are a lot harsher)... Do they not realize that literally over two thousand years of rich history will be completely wiped out by these changes?
There's nothing we can do about it. We're politically disenfranchised, to almost 100%. When our politicians decided they would accept increased rapes, murders and the death of our culture to help those in need, we weren't asked. And if we had been asked, we likely would have agreed to it.
The EU was faced with a humanitarian crisis, caused by the US, and our leaders decided it would be the best course of action.
Even band-aid solutions like Brexit won't really help, that's like quarantining a patient who's already riddled with cancer.
I'm just glad I don't have any children. I couldn't face the prospect of my daughter growing up in a society in which she would be kettle, or my son in a society that turns him into a brainwashed homophobe, antisemite and science denier.
The white guys only have 75% of the vote and what 99% of the wealth lol, tell me more about how the blacks and mexicans have all the power.
What's the black and mexican agenda? To make better lives for themselves? Do you think the muslims are really much different? The difference is a lot of them come from fucked up places with fucked up people in power and maybe their religion contributed to their fuckupedness but you're roping everyone into the actions of a (relative) few.
Ever stopped and wondered how curious it was that all of your measures against and discussions about "radical islam" just happened to target islam and/or muslims as a whole? It's almost as if you dishonestly hijacked the very obvious position that radical religion is a bad thing and were using it to further points and policies that aren't actually connected to radicalism, but to your opinion of the entire religion. And while you do it, I'm sure it'll be okay pretending that other people are protecting radicalism because they refuse to follow you into those specific opinions that aren't connected to it.
It's a very clever strategy. You're fooling all of us.
On June 14 2016 06:31 Laserist wrote: I hardly distinguish majority of the Islam followers from the ones commit jihad actions. Religion clearly encourages violence against the "others" by all means. There is no clear distinction between "Radicals" and "Happies"
There's not a single line to draw, but people who loosely believe in god no matter what it is are not the same as the ones taking everything literally and blowing themselves up for it.
There's millions upon millions of muslims who are peaceful, violence condoning folk that stand against shootings like this one
On June 14 2016 07:46 Slayer91 wrote: The white guys only have 75% of the vote and what 99% of the wealth lol, tell me more about how the blacks and mexicans have all the power.
What's the black and mexican agenda? To make better lives for themselves? Do you think the muslims are really much different? The difference is a lot of them come from fucked up places with fucked up people in power and maybe their religion contributed to their fuckupedness but you're roping everyone into the actions of a (relative) few.
Firstly, the 75% figure is very misinformed (it's around 63%), what did you do, subtract my 25% number from 100% and exclude every other minority? Okay, that should be the end of the discussion, but I'll rather continue.
Secondly, in the long term, when everyone has the power to vote, current wealth doesn't matter, as long term that will equalize (I could rant about feminism, and how everything is equal here already, only reason CEO's are still mostly male is because it's a lag variable). And yes, when 60% of the white population swings one way, and 40% the other way, and 85% of the minorities swings that way, it does make big impacts on decisions. We see the exact same thing in the US, for better or worse, in almost every poll Donald Trump wins with whites, but he loses 90-10 with Black and 80-20 with Hispanics. So yes, what matters for power is that number of the population of a certain culture (which is often distinguished by race or religion, for better or worse, because other metrics are difficult to extract).
Thirdly, no. I'm not blaming our Muslim issue on a relative few, I'm putting in on the 20-80% of the population who believe in Sharia Law, discrimination of everyone non-Muslim (however subtle), and mostly their entire traditional way of life that I think is compatible only on some very superficial level with our values. I hear this silly argument, everyone just wants a better life for themselves, so we will all get along together. Correct me if I'm wrong, throughout the entire history of the human race, everyone just wanted a better life for themselves, but please look at what that brought up.
If your only goal is tolerance, then sure, possible. If you want community, uh uh, that level of integration doesn't happen in the next 50-100 years unless we put more propaganda into schools, and keep restricting stuff taught in mosques, etc.
On June 14 2016 07:53 Nebuchad wrote: Ever stopped and wondered how curious it was that all of your measures against and discussions about "radical islam" just happened to target islam and/or muslims as a whole? It's almost as if you dishonestly hijacked the very obvious position that radical religion is a bad thing and were using it to further points and policies that aren't actually connected to radicalism, but to your opinion of the entire religion. And while you do it, I'm sure it'll be okay pretending that other people are protecting radicalism because they refuse to follow you into those specific opinions that aren't connected to it.
It's a very clever strategy. You're fooling all of us.
Yes, I'm under the opinion that no modern society can have religion as one of its main pillars (unless it's the one and only religion). And hence, all my policy positions around this issue have that implicit assumption built into them. If you'd like to discuss that position, we'd probably need several 3000-5000 word responses I'm not willing to commit right now.
Anyway, here back home, I'd say were very tolerant towards others, but its easy to see how people fall into groups and choose their friends. While it's easy to have small talk with my Islamic colleagues, and be friends on a wings once in a while kind of friend, even talk about religion... But being able to be true, close, friends, it's really difficult. It's very difficult for me to build that family level of trust with someone like that. I'm White (originally from Slovakia, moved to Canada 12~ years ago), and I have a Chinese girlfriend, I've dated several Christians, a black lady, even went on a few dates with a lady who was half First Nations. I enjoy being surrounded by different ideas and cultures, there is a lot to learn from them, but I've found it extremely difficult to get really close to someone emotionally who has different pillars they base their lives on.
As long as people cannot get to that family level together, which a religion (followed pretty seriously) or no religion, mixed with another one will not be able to do... Then we will never really integrate past the tolerance level.
Don't know if it was posted before, but I've read a report saying Mateen attended the Pulse club around a dozen times before and according to friends, was probably in the closet. He also had accounts on gay dating apps. People who talked to him said he was very awkward and and didn't fit in with groups.
On June 14 2016 12:47 PhoenixVoid wrote: Don't know if it was posted before, but I've read a report saying Mateen attended the Pulse club around a dozen times before and according to friends, was probably in the closet. He also had accounts on gay dating apps. People who talked to him said he was very awkward and and didn't fit in with groups.
Yeah, just a loon. With another background he would probably have "sworn" allegiance to some right wing fringe group, some anarchist syndicate or both... Whatever would make him feel important.
In the same way that the people of the US have "lost" their power to vote, because of increasing populations of Mexican (34.6mil) and Black (45.7mil). By no means am I saying that the USA is a White country, but what I am saying, is that originally the US had a very clear identity and belief structure, based on European values. Yet somehow, now every election is decided by the Mexican and Black vote, because they make up 25% of the population, and thus it pushes the agenda of the groups that originally had no power in the country.
Uhm, you konw... "Hispanics" (which are white) have also a very clear identity and belief structure based on European values (you remember, "we" slaughtered our way thru all the Americas not just NA). So do Blacks because... Slavery forced them to abolish just about everything they had before and take "european" values. In the end it comes down to racial bias and thats about it. Blacks and Hispanics are deciding the vote in the US because one party decided to be not interested in them (and that harbouring racist bigots is fine).
Hope there will be heavy repercussions all around the world after this news.
What do you mean by this?
LGBT discrimination and hate speeches should be a criminal offense in every respected country. No bullshit like religion, customs or social concern should apply. Those who spread biggotry are nothing more than animals, essentially, and should be dealt accordingly.
based off your tone i think you should be dealt with accordingly and required mandatory background checks along with a mental examination. You sound exactly like the bigots you describe. you basically want immunity for those who disagree with the lifestyle of LGBT which just shows how extreme your ideology is. that others who disagree with you maybe "reprimanded" you're just foolish to be honest. how are you any different from the shooter? you wish to enact something that punishes people for free speech and belief, INNOCENT people who have no involvement in the shooting. to be honest i'd rather have security check you out, you're the type if left alone would establish a cult and end up like the shooter for a different opinion.
I can say the exact same thing about you and all those who support lGBT that their belief perspective should be disregarded and handled if they spoke against religion. do you see how this gets no one anywhere? you're looking for blood in the wrong places. What you should be talking about is how you can help prevent tragedies like this without putting the blame on innocent groups of people. But clearly you are an extremist yourself and can't be reasoned with. Isis has killed christians, i don't go and attack my muslim friends, blame them, or go after people who aren't religious. it's beyond stupid and you sir, should educate yourself more. it's often times kids like you who are the loudest on the internet do relatively nothing for anyone in reality. i've met tons of kids like you in business, all talk no action.
This is at the core a heartbreaking and extremely sad story. To have your freedom taken from you, while enjoying yourself and celebrating about being LGBT and hanging out with friends and family, and even more so on a recognized holiday - makes no logic, it's so inhumane, it's senseless. I feel horribly for the families and friends a loved ones of those effective. Things like this shouldn't happen and when they do, I hope the only good that may come from them is greater awareness to the issues so we might, just might have the chance to take more preventative measures to reduce it from happening again (the list of ways goes on...). Very sad TL fan here.
Firstly, the 75% figure is very misinformed (it's around 63%), what did you do, subtract my 25% number from 100% and exclude every other minority? Okay, that should be the end of the discussion, but I'll rather continue.
Yes that's what I did. I didn't bother googling the exact figures because 75:25 and 63:25 are similar things for the poitn I was making.
On June 14 2016 08:48 FiWiFaKi wrote: Secondly, in the long term, when everyone has the power to vote, current wealth doesn't matter, as long term that will equalize (I could rant about feminism, and how everything is equal here already, only reason CEO's are still mostly male is because it's a lag variable). And yes, when 60% of the white population swings one way, and 40% the other way, and 85% of the minorities swings that way, it does make big impacts on decisions. We see the exact same thing in the US, for better or worse, in almost every poll Donald Trump wins with whites, but he loses 90-10 with Black and 80-20 with Hispanics. So yes, what matters for power is that number of the population of a certain culture (which is often distinguished by race or religion, for better or worse, because other metrics are difficult to extract).
Current wealth doesn't matter? It does because we are living in the present. You need so much money to be a serious candidate, lobbyists push a lot of politicians into power. Yes 25% is a lot of power but it's not as much power as 63%. That's why donald trump is the republican nominee when no sane person takes him seriously. The fact that whites swing just means that there is no side of the political spectrum that is blanket best for all of them like what minorities experience. That's pretty much because of wealth too.
On June 14 2016 08:48 FiWiFaKi wrote: Thirdly, no. I'm not blaming our Muslim issue on a relative few, I'm putting in on the 20-80% of the population who believe in Sharia Law, discrimination of everyone non-Muslim (however subtle), and mostly their entire traditional way of life that I think is compatible only on some very superficial level with our values. I hear this silly argument, everyone just wants a better life for themselves, so we will all get along together. Correct me if I'm wrong, throughout the entire history of the human race, everyone just wanted a better life for themselves, but please look at what that brought up.
If your only goal is tolerance, then sure, possible. If you want community, uh uh, that level of integration doesn't happen in the next 50-100 years unless we put more propaganda into schools, and keep restricting stuff taught in mosques, etc.
The thing is most of the people who believe in sharia law aren't causing lots of murders. Unless you think you need a 100 sharia law muslism to charge up one terrorist or something (which I suppose from a statistical point of view probably isn't that crazy). I said people want a better life for themselves, not that we all want to get along together. Selfishness only results mutually beneficial cooperation and that's why we have war. That said, there's barely any war compared to how it used to be, so it's hardly an important factor.
50-100 years? It's pretty much 1 generation (foreign family has kids, those kids have american family) most integration to occur unless they are really segregating themselves inside their own groups.
We didn't have fucking paper cups 100 years ago and now we have the internet and spaceships you think it's going to take 100 years for people to renounce sharia law?
Also the Muslims who believe in sharia law are similar to the Christians to believe in Christian values. They would like that laws and their religion not be in conflict with each other. That does not mean 80% of them are all about stoning people to death. That question about sharia law is misleading because it does not delve into specifics about religious rules that are in conflict with current laws.
You can also poll all Americans about taxes and prove we really don’t like them. And we think murders should be locked away for life or executed. We could take a pool about ejecting every congress member from off and holding special elections and I bet it would get a lot of support.
A poll is not a discussion. Its just a question and one question all alone does not give you a very clear picture.
EPT
