SCANDAL: progressive left hurts prominent atheist’s feelings
Your cancellation of Dawkins’s talk was unconscionable. His speech has not been abusive towards Islam, but has involved criticism of religious dogma–and of all faiths. That is free speech, not “abusive” speech. All meaningful speech hurts some people’s feelings, but in this case there was no “abuse.” (whyevolutionistrue)
Famed atheist Richard Dawkins has had an interview with a radio station cancelled. I personally don’t know much about his work, but I hear on the grapevine that he is a well-known and influential figure who provides facts that help people detangled themselves from the grip of religions. If only I’d known about his work as a teenager, I might have saved myself several years of agonising confusion.
But it’s fair to say that a person can make a great contribution to science, and still be less than intelligent and forward thinking in how they express key parts of their message.
At a time when Muslim minority communities are under attack and suspicion because of the acts of a handful of adherents in their midst, it seems pertinent to question the notion of giving airtime to someone who calls Islam “the most evil religion in the world”. I understand that Dawkins himself would be quick to clarify that he doesn’t mean any offence to individual Muslims, and he intends to fight for their rights, but does he really think his supposed good intentions are appreciated? Of course not! Muslims only feel further marginalised and under attack, and ignorant casual listeners have extra fuel for hate.
You can abhor the religion, or you can abhor the base human motivations that lead people to act in harmful ways on behalf of the religion. Religion is certainly an all-too-common vehicle for harmful behaviour but it’s also a common vehicle for attempts to improve people’s lives, for attempts to bring peace to the world.
Think about something like football (or ‘soccer’ to some of you). It’s a great uniting force of seemingly healthy fun and camaraderie. It’s also an embarrassing waste of time kicking a ball, which provides a glorious backdrop for tribalistic violence and racism on a regular basis. Is football the most evil sport in the world? It simply satisfies a competitive, grouping, tribal identity need, which can express itself in violence when events escalate. Just like religion.
Humans are the problem, not religion specifically. Human behaviour is the problem, not Islam specifically. If Richard Dawkins want to intelligently redirect his scientific enquiry into why men get into illogical groupings based on X, Y or Z and want to kick the shit out of each other, rule each other, or spend generations in mindless revenge cycles, he might have something more intelligent to say about Islam. Or football for that matter.
In the meantime, when any organisation on receiving complaints from the general public wants to cancel a speaking engagement, he needs to bear in mind that although his feelings are probably hurt (he’s an important man, after all), it offers him a valuable opportunity to reflect on his message and how it impacts on people’s lives right now. If he still thinks he’s completely right, he’s free to speak anywhere on his soapbox, and for any less-progressive-left organisation he chooses – the ‘stagnant left’ loves to make a martyr of this kind of rejection, so I’m sure he’ll be overflowing with offers.
I don’t agree with your football analogy. I get what you’re saying, in that there are violent people in all walks and when you get a mass of emotionally charged folks together, a fight will probably happen.
However, football itself does not sanction violence, violent football fans, don’t quote the rules of football at you to justify their violence. Opposing football fans who look down on each other do so because of human tribalism, not because the rules of football say they should.
But this is exactly what you do find in religion. The Koran and The Bible contain violent instruction. Muslims will follow the command to kill the infidel. Thankfully Christians appear to have moved beyond that level of violence, but have you ever had “the fool says in his heart there is no god” quoted at you as a way of justifying the declaration that you are not mentally capable of accepting Jesus?
Religions texts do sanction the dismissal of those who disagree, sometimes fatally so and when these instructions are followed, it is the fault of the religion as well as those fail to condemn it. In my view, Dawkins is right to call Islam evil and it deserve the label.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Did Christians move away from violence before or after the Bosnian genocide? And how about the Christian followers of Jesus Malverde?
LikeLike
Hey pink-
Why don’t you stop blaming current Christian for the acts of misfits, and I’ll stop blaming you for your current atheistic mind compliments of the atheistic misfits who lived years ago…
There. Fair. Oh wait, you are aware of believers who frequent this site who lop people’s heads off….
I suppose it would be difficult for you to see beyond your imaginations of fabrication.
LikeLike
Where did I blame anyone for anything? My point is that standards should be applied evenhandedly, genius. All Abrahamic religions justify violence, oppression, misogyny and the like – not just Islam.
LikeLike
@pink
Christianity is the quintessence of the ‘Abrahamic religion……..’ and as such, I’m here to tell you, wisp, and anybody else, that as a believer, I have not one word to lift a finger of opposition to maim, I have not one order to harm, I have not one command to commit violence of any stripe.
The beheading of John baptiste and the stoning of Stephen proves my point completely.
I believe every word of scripture, and people who comment acts of atrocity are running unsent. Period.
Doesn’t take a genius to recognize this. Christianity stands alone and has no equal.
LikeLike
You obviously missed the class where everyone was taught how to formulate an argument. It goes like this:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/partsofanargumentlesson-160713184339/95/parts-of-an-argument-2-638.jpg?cb=1468435517
LikeLike
Claim- Christianity stands alone
Reason- Uh, hello? Do you know how to read and comprehend what you read?
Evidence- the word of God in context,m specifically the New Christianity, where believers are told to ‘love thy enemies…………’
I have cruched your premise pink with the truth of scripture. If you do not like it, fine. But do not say there is a flaw in my point.
Christianity is not the bastard religion of fools. Wisdom’s children do not have evil fathers to direct them to lop off heads. Wake up.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice jz. You may argue like that, I do not.
I have the testimony of nature, logic, science, and of course scripture on my side, which all speak with a singular voice of clarity, power, and of course truth.
The true God has no competitors, and wins all arguments without even showing up. His word is that good.
LikeLike
Not my argument, but the apologist on the left. And he actually said that in that debate. Quite persuasive.
LikeLike
Sorry, I think you’ve mistaken me for someone who thinks the things you say are worthy of discussion. I don’t.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Okey dokey.
Sorry I mistook you for someone else…………
LikeLike
Sorry typo’s-
1. Should read: the New Testament’ not the new Christianity
2. crushed not cruched.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a shame. I quite liked the idea of you cruching Pink with New Christianity. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Vi-
Maybe a new word is in order then? As in croosh? Ha. or the French: cruch’e.
Cruching: to set straight with unmistakable power and force; done simply by facts, logic, and of course truth. 😉
LikeLike
You could change your name from ColorStorm to the The Crucher! We’d have to slightly amend the definition though:
Cruching: to set straight with many impressive words and analogies; done simply by imagination. 🙂
LikeLike
Eh, nice comeback on your part but I’ll pass. Truth be told, it is you who has the imagination.
Imagining God out of existence! Phfft, well I never…………! John Lennon made the same suggestion, and he is dead, and God is still God.
Quite the feat you got going on there Vi- 😉
LikeLike
“I don’t agree with your football analogy. I get what you’re saying, in that there are violent people in all walks and when you get a mass of emotionally charged folks together, a fight will probably happen.”
It’s not the best analogy, I agree. But that’s not exactly my point. I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue of ‘violent people’, but that all people have the capacity for violence, and tribalism in whatever form has a tendency to bring that out. Blood ties, regional boundaries, common language or traditions, football and religion. Things that tie us together in groups – and if something challenges that group identity, even just by existing and being ‘wrong’, we can start having problems with the Other. Isolated acts of violence become acts worth vengeance and the cycles start. Generations later people still hate the Other, or are at the very least wary, and another isolated incident can spark of the tribal violence again.
I get your point that not all these tribal identities have written rules that encourage violent behaviour, but as we’ve seen with all religions, they evolve to fit the social norms of the time – most Muslims see nothing of Islam in acts of violence we see.
“In my view, Dawkins is right to call Islam evil and it deserve the label.”
I can see how calling Islam ‘evil’ can seem perfectly benign to some of us in many ways. We have no affiliation, we’ve probably read bits of the Koran and been thoroughly disturbed by it, and we see the products of violence and mysogyny that some parts can inspire. But that’s not the whole story. It’s a religion and essentially an identity that many people are born into, many decent and peace-loving people. Such sweeping statements using blanket value judgements do nothing of use.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t that first line read, Famed biologist Richard Dawkins ?
Tildeb’s going to have a lot to say on this subject.
LikeLike
I’ve had to trash Tildeb’s comments. I got fed up with being called a dishonest fascist. If only he knew how to argue, rather than make baseless assertions and rants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like I missed an entertaining post or two. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, Darling! How could you miss my posts? As well as being called a dishonest fascist, I had this comment recently:
Once again you astonish me with your ability to deep dive into writings on gender and biology which I have only wished I could find the time to explore, and come up to surface with the most precious of gems.
Thank you for putting them right here at arm’s reach.
Thank you, too, for your beautifully articulated and thoughtful commentary, further illuminating the subject. It will take me a while to unpack all of this, but I greatly look forward to it.
LikeLike
Was that from SOM or ColorStorm?
LikeLike
No, someone I respect! Her blogs are excellent.
LikeLike
I don’t know Clare, I find him pretty much always on mark. He also shows remarkable patience in his comments, and it takes a lot for him to finally lose it when that effort gets dismissed with a handwave.
I know he has strong views on this subject, and given his steadfast intellectual approach to things, those views are worth considering. .. even if delivered abrasively.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patience and pig-headedness are often confused. You show him reason and he continues on his trodden path. 🙂
He is right about some things though, won’t take that away from him.
LikeLike
Patience and pig-headedness are often confused… Yes, they are, Violet 😉
LikeLike
Hey, are you interested in getting into a Charlie Gard thread? I don’t know much about it.
LikeLike
Would definitely have a look. That was one of the situations I was referring to in the other post – lots of people offering support to the parents in their confrontation with doctors, all religious as far I could see. Tragic situation but made worse by the interference I’m sure.
LikeLike
Jump in if I’m missing something.
https://thinkingclearly.co/2017/07/24/charlie-gard-suffering-fights-autonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-1856
LikeLike
Desperate parents, the media circus makes it all the more painful. I don’t think I’ll get involved in any discussions about it, especially right now. But I did groan when Vatican doctors were giving an opinion, and it seems ridiculous that US doctors were chipping in without having actually seen the baby.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He had lost it in his first comment, where he accused me of “hand fluttering”, fascist came later. He called me a “man”. English and Scots law disagree with him. It’s my life, and his hobby-horse. He’s not telling me anything I haven’t heard before. I allowed seventeen comments on one post before I started trashing him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d re-phrase that to “often” on the mark. His position on certain things, namely this persecution issue and transgender matters, is completely divorced from evidence. In fact I’d go further and say he’s cited evidence that’s at the very least misleading, as was the case of the imaginary trains where people are segregated by gender.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haven’t been involved in any gender threads, so I can’t really comment.
LikeLike
He participated in one here where the concerns he cited as the reason to deny equal rights for transgender people were entirely based in fiction. Fiction promoted by The Arbourist. Even after that was demonstrated, he chose to hold on to his discriminatory beliefs. That’s the definition of prejudice.
LikeLike
It’s the comedy gold moment, to be honest. The atheist male feminist brainwashing the atheist crusader against an oppressed group who don’t follow the Biblical Gender Rules. Doesn’t get more surreal than those two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just don’t get how Tildeb falls for that garbage. There’s a RationalWiki page ridiculing TERF’s like the Abourist: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great link, especially like this, ‘The obvious conflict between the notion that “gender is entirely a social construct” and the slogan “women born women” seems to escape them.’ It is a truly bizarre position they are fighting for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Faulty or not, it must be based on something. Gender politics doesn’t really interest me. Beautiful man, beautiful woman, it’s all good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Religion is also “based on something”, that doesn’t mean the something has any merit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t know he’s a biologist, so I assume for most people he’s more famous as an atheist or specifically anti-religion campaigner.
Tildeb must be all our of puff today. I’m sure he’s bored of discussing this topic with me. But I’ll treat his silence as tacit agreement in the meantime. 😀
I had a short lurk on your Twitter feed today after your comment on another post about it being your favourite place these days, and you don’t tweet at all! What do you get out of it?
LikeLike
A very good biologist, zoologist actually, and Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 to 2008.
I don’t tweet, but I do read 🙂 Are you on? FOLLOW ME!!!
BTW, can you put your songs back up. I quite liked one of them and would like to hear it again.
LikeLike
I just use Twitter for local stuff, don’t tweet either so there’s no point in either of us following the other. Don’t see how you can find it as entertaining as blogging – if only I had more time!
My songs are in the long-term filing cabinet. Got a really cool loop pedal to satisfy my creative musical itch, works a treat in the rare 20 minutes of freedom.
LikeLike
Good for you, but that doesn’t help me hearing that song again.
LikeLike
It’s a whole new victim class. Not unlike the alt-right “freedom of speech” crowd. Poor things, banned to the margins of debate! The persecution of Dawkins has been such that he’s never written for a newspaper. He’s never seen on the BBC or in any documentary anywhere – blacklisted, I hear 🤔
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed! I did a post in the honour of this new class of victims almost two years ago. Their plight is growing.
https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/introducing-the-victims-of-pc/
Dawkins is almost bound and gagged – he got no coverage from this at all and no-one lets him speak. He should up his popularity by shouting louder that 2 billion Muslims are following an evil religion – they’ll understand eventually he has their best interests at heart. Actually, the use of the word ‘evil’ in itself seems entirely ill-advised. A publicity stunt gone wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. I go out of town for a day…!
Clare is quite upset that I insisted on her blog there really is something called ‘sex-based differences’ in physiological development. Very Bad, I know.. How could I possibly disagree with her?
Now, she claimed to be female. That’s a sex-based term. She is not. She was born male. That too is a sex-based term. Not a gender term. A sex-based, factual term. Now, she identifies as a woman and I have no problem with people identifying with whatever gender suits them. I do have a problem, however, being told by this ‘expert’ that their factual sex is actually just as arbitrary as the gender identity they claim.
It’s not. And there two really important considerations at play here.
The first is that in almost every case, one’s sex is either male or female at birth (of course there are a few outliers, but we’re not talking about these). This matters because one simply cannot avoid or alter the developmental processes determined by one’s sex. These processes are profound, and involve the body’s chemistry, neurocircuitry, and body skeleto-muscular throughout development. That is a fact. I am stating a fact. I am not stating an opinion.
Clare – and later in thread, Pink – think this is bigotry in action and for me to hold fast to this fact – to respect what’s true – is an indication of some nefarious agenda.
The ‘discussion’ then moved on to Professor Jordan here in Canada and his popularity exposing a recent change to Canada’s version of a Bill of Rights with Bill C-16’s idiotic attempt to make appropriate gender expression a human right subject to hate crime protection. Utter idiocy over legally sanctioned pronouns… sanctioned moment by moment by the whim of the transgendered. Oh, and business can be held financially liable for the ‘hate speech’ uttered with the incorrect pronoun by an employee even if unintentional! Clare thinks all of this is quite ‘reasonable’…. another aspect we (surprisingly?) disagree on.
Oh well. Clare seems more willing to shut me up than actually consider what I have to say because she’s already ruled anything I write to be bigoted and arrogant and facile and so on.
To paraphrase something Galileo probably never said, “And yet it moves.” Facts are such irritating things. There should be a law against them, I guess.
Yes, I think there is a significant threat to JS Mills version of liberalism that holds the individual to be both the source of consent for government and law and the holder of shared rights and freedoms. The threat I see is this new push for ‘liberals’ to don the cloak of Lord Protector of Disadvantaged Groups by awarding rights and freedoms to groups and demanding the State become the Enforcer. This is what I call Doppelganger Liberalism, which is actually the replacement of liberal values with illiberal values, values antithetical to individual rights and freedoms, values that reduce the individual to be a member of a group… one the one side the bully group in need of restraint by law (usually some undefined ‘majority’) and on the other the victimized group (usually some undefined ‘minority’) in need of State coddling and privilege.
Replace Dawkins with, say, Linda Sarsour who (unlike Dawkins) has said very specific and odious personal insults at her detractors. Now use the same reasoning to deplatform her. What do you think would happen? I think history is quite indicative: the GroupThink supporters would l rally to her cause and claim bigotry and discrimination and probably get quite violent if she didn’t head up the Women’s March in Washington!
But notice how VW doesn’t highlight the special category Dawkins and every other de-platformed (and vilified as bigots, it goes without saying) atheist speaker who wishes to point out the danger Islam poses to Western liberal secular democracies occupies by the GroupThink liberal doppelgangers busy protecting those poor and victimized brown-skinned Muslims (the fallacy of lower expectations quite apparent to those with eyes that see and ears that hear). What she does is assume that Dawkins’ hurt feelings are the cause of complaint. Seriously. She trivializes this insidious fascist tactic of shutting up those you don’t want to hear –
people like Dawkins, people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has to live with 24 hour bodyguards, to be the victim’s fault. But because he ‘belongs’ to the vilified majority group (it’s okay to treat him differently, you see. After all, those poor victimized brown-skinned Muslims need all the help they can get from the kind and caring people on the Left) And that’s why the bigot and Islamist Linda Sarsour can be elevated by the very people she tries to disempower! The lunacy is pernicious and yet here it is… right here, right now, in action…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your “nefarious” agenda (your choice of word, I presume for dramatic effect), as is the case of the Christian right, is the self-styled right to brand another free citizen. And to do so against their will. It’s actually interesting to watch all of this transpire, because we see people like you, who are otherwise sceptics, taking on all of the characteristics of tribalist sectarians.
The defence of Hirsi Ali, for example, whitewashes over her entire history (and writing). She’s portrayed as some sort of hero for no reason other than being the victim of a crime. A crime she knowingly blames on the wrong motive – knowing, as most from her milieu do, that they get bucket loads of free publicity by playing the controversy card.
As for being “born gay”, I, and many other activists, have always set that aside as a moot debate. Whether I was born gay, or environmental factors contributed to my sexuality, it is *my* sexuality. It’s not another citizen’s right to tell me who I should or shouldn’t be attracted to or have a sexual relationship with; Because if sexual orientation is a choice, it’s a choice for the individual. It’s my choice. Not your choice for me.
LikeLike
I’m ‘branding’ someone born male to be a male, am I? Interesting term, Pink. And by will and choice alone, they can change such biological facts! Yup, that’s what I must go along with and respect that will… respect the will to change facts more than facts themselves. If I don’t, then that makes me a terrible person, a bigot busy disempowering the downtrodden, a person willingly taking on the same characteristics of a tribal sectarian, donchaknow!
And imagine the nerve not to go along with vilifying Ali, a woman who has lived the inherent bigotry in Islam, someone who is really just publicity hound (her real motivation so sayeth the Pink… because it cannot be true by fiat that she raises any legitimate criticisms about the religion of Islam that isn’t EXACTLY THE SAME for any other, which makers her a Islamophobe bigot, you see) and all the other moderate Muslims who call for liberalizing Islam. Yup, not vilifying those who seek to alter an 8th Century barbaric religion into something a little more compatible with a 21st century world is really a mark of bigotry, you see… whereas a Linda Sarsour gets championed as Freedom Fighter and The Pink never utters a peep of equivalent protest.
Up means down in this Brave New World and those who don’t go along with the New And Improved terminology of the GroupThink Gang of liberal doppelgangers – those who believe you can alter facts by will alone – are the real problem because they’re such bigots, donchaknow.
And seriously, you expect me to go along with the notion that it really doesn’t matter whether or not you decided to will your sexual attraction or the biological/environmental determined it for you?
That’s a good one, Pink. Rationalizing is a marvel to behold when done so well and with such straight-faced panache! Well done, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you able to wilfully change your maleness? I don’t mean your physical attributes? I mean the way are mentally and emotionally male, they way you think, behave are attracted? Can you imagine any way in which you can change, at will, those facets of your being?
LikeLike
First let me quickly address the issue of Hirsi Ali because it illustrates in no uncertain terms that your ability to process information is highly compromised, to say the least. It takes religious levels of bias for a person to be incapable of seeing (as there is ample, undisputed evidence) that Hirsi Ali’s entire career and media persona has been based on fabricating controversy. She had to resign from the Dutch parliament on just one of the many occasions when one of her deceptions was made public.
Your *she is a saint* approach, lacks all rigour.
As does the “reform Islam” imbecility that she uses as an excuse (and you unwittingly repeat) even though it’s a wholly idiotic notion that an Atheist woman living in Boston is going to reform Islam by writing op-eds for newspapers read by white people in the developed world. What, the Imams of Iran and Saudi Arabia aren’t listening to Hirsi Ali? Really? What a surprise.
As for gender, go along with? I had no idea you were an expert in human sexuality, much less in the specific field of study of transgender people.
You can do your sideshow, with the donchaknows and whatever other technique of debate manipulation you’d like to use. And that may even be successful in deceiving some people. But that doesn’t change the facts. It doesn’t change the fact that gender is a much wider concept than just genitalia at birth. And there’s no mistaking here how you’ve departed from all seriousness by not even setting parameters for the discussion. That’s why you jump around from the word woman to the word female- I presume in full knowledge you need to resort to this technique to deceive the reader.
As for your last line: “you expect me to go along with the notion that it really doesn’t matter whether or not you decided to will your sexual attraction or the biological/environmental determined it for you?”
It’s once again laughable. Thus far it’s believed that there are a combination of biological and environmental factors in the development of sexuality. So I don’t need you to “go along” with anything. You’re labouring under a delusion of self-importance (not unlike the Canadian professor) whereby you mistakenly feel you somehow own not only the concept of gender/sexuality, but people have to accept your vision and if they don’t go along with you, *they’re the fascists.*
Talk about rationalising. You’re trying to move the goalposts in the exact way the religious liberty people are trying to do. You want to take away from the individual the right to decide for themselves how to live their gender identity. They have to fit into the boxes you determine, because, to borrow your “word”, donchaknow, you get to decide which pronouns apply to which people no matter how they feel about it.
LikeLike
Pink, you say, ” But that doesn’t change the facts. It doesn’t change the fact that gender is a much wider concept than just genitalia at birth.” (‘That’ being “debate manipulation”… whatever that might be!)
Why do you consistently gloss over the fact that I’ve said many times that gender is up to the individual, to choose freely?
This means I have to respond once again with a lengthy comment because you seem determined to pretend I have not addressed this repeated criticism.
You consistently try to misrepresent me as saying GENDER is determined at birth. I have said no such thing and have gone out of my way to explain why I have not. You obviously don’t wish to recognize this fact that I do differentiate between gender and sex. Although there is a very high correlation between sex and gender – something that implies contrasts like transgendered people to be outliers – and a very high correlation between gender identity and sex that remains stable from birth, that is not my argument here (but of interest when determining who is the one carrying out deceptive ‘debate manipulation).
My argument was, is, and remains that facts cannot be altered by whim, by will, by fiat, by choice. And I think we lose our ability to respect what’s true when we discard facts (and intentionally ignore them or vilify those who raise them) in favour of some feel-good political correctness. In this case, the fact is that Clare was born male. That was her sex at birth and remains her sex today no matter what else she does. Her sex is a fact. A biologically determined fact. Not an ideological fact. Not a bigoted fact. Just a fact. Shoot me now, but I try to respect facts.
Clare’s gender identity is feminine and as I’ve said repeatedly, that’s fine. She can identify with whatever gender she wishes and she is free to express her gender choices in her private domain as she chooses. That. too, is fine. I have no issue with her right to do so and I do not hold her in any less respect for choosing so.
But she is not a sex-based female.
That’s just a fact… a fact based on her biology over which she has no choice. She cannot wish it away. Her biological development has been incontrovertibly affected and chemically and physio logically guided by her birth sex in ways that a female is not. And she cannot alter this fact.
That’s the argument.
It is upon this basis that I further that she cannot don the mantle of being a sex-based female through selecting a feminine gender and claim sex-based equivalency. These are not synonyms. Gender and sex are two very different constructs. Claiming to be female because one claims feminine identity to suffice is simply not true. Clare has not developed as a female. Her body has not developed based on the female sex but on the male’s. That’s a fact.
Now, it may be a heartfelt desire of Clare’s and it may be surgically pursued to take on the appearance of being a female but these later actions and decisions and desires doesn’t alter the fact that she is a male. And the term I prefer to avoid so much confusion is for this outlier status to referred as transgendered. And I have a reason for this.
Because the transgendered are unique in that they have to live the discrepancy between sex and gender, they face unique problems. And a really good example for this is bathrooms. I think there should be transgendered bathrooms and change rooms. And I think this is a good idea because this is what I have lived. My community high school had three transgendered students and the third bathroom deflated the concerns of all parties. That such a highly conservative, blue collar mill town could have become such a welcoming and inclusive social setting for heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and transgendered students (not to mention all the sub groups of Goths and Punks, and Jocks and Nerds, and so on) demonstrated to me that gender identity should not be, need not be, and is not any kind of basis for discrimination when concerns about privacy and safety so often raised can be so easily addressed. And it all starts by being honest, by being respectful of what are the facts, what is true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent. That being your position, then you have no problem with pronouns, as is the case of the professor, right?
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with pronouns, Pink. You’ll notice I always refer to Clare with the feminine pronouns she prefers. But I do have a very serious problem and deep concern with a government willing to legislate what pronouns I must use or risk being charged with a ‘hate’ crime and I take exception from those who think this reasonable, that this kind irrational legislation strikes a good ‘balance’.
In the same way that I wish to be treated by others with respect, I will treat others as they wish to be treated. This is not a matter for punitive legislation and enforced social engineering that makes an unintentional but incorrect pronoun reference by a one person – based on what pronoun another person may wish to be referred to – as justification for leveling a fining not just on the person making the unintentional utterance but also on the business for which the individual works. This is Bill C-16. This is the reality in Canada now.
And these are the kinds of problems we invite to invade the Canadian population by having people think they champion the downtrodden, the victimized ‘identifiable’ minorities, by reducing the rights and freedoms of all and in order to mandate ‘correct’ behaviour. It’s lunacy. And it directly undermines freedom of speech… the cornerstone of Western secular liberal democracies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does the bill in question simply open the possibility of prosecution in cases where a prosecutor might find it necessary or relevant – or does it go as far as to force prosecutions in the case of mistakes?
I ask because it’s not unusual for certain types of laws to be sufficiently vague as to give officers of the court leeway.
LikeLike
See my reply to Tildeb on this one, with a link to the legislation. You’ll choke.
LikeLike
It’s not a court. It’s simply a Tribunal. That means anyone – anyone – can lodge a complaint and that alone is almost always enough for a fine to be leveled and costs incurred to the person and/or business who/that has been accused. The conviction rate remains 100% because the ‘appeal’ process goes right back to the same Tribunal! Only if a big enough noise is made before a hearing is held and governments understand they will be held accountable and so order the Tribunal to refuse to hear the complaint, that’s the only way around a conviction. That’s why I’m not being facetious to say that when most people are faced with a $250,000.00 fine/costs versus their principles of free speech, they’ll just shut their mouths and go along with any bully who wishes to use this travesty of justice… in the name of the ‘downtrodden’ and ‘victimized’ it goes without saying. That’s why university campuses here are not places of debate and challenge but fast becoming little fiefdoms of the most outspoken, violent, bullying regressives who tell the various administrations and faculties what to teach, what to say, and how to respond to their demands appropriately. Get rid of statues, rename buildings, invite terrorist Imams to speak but throw a protest march at an invited Jew, disrupt the presentation, threaten violence to get it cancelled, use air horns and drums to drown out any opposition and then demand no accountability. It’s getting beyond absurd. I would be less surprised to see real students turning into Kafkaesque bugs than see an Administration or politician instigate a reversal of this fascist incursion by the Regressive Left.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enlighten us. Explain the process, because that process isn’t in line with any developed country I know of. In general discrimination complaints have to be proven with evidence.
LikeLike
Here’s a sample of how such a provincial tribunal works.
LikeLike
What exactly is your problem with this? Every tribunal dismissed the complaint. The final one took the opportunity to give advice, ADVICE:
While it dismissed the complaint by the CIC against Maclean’s, the OHRC also issued a statement saying the article in question “portray[ed] Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West’,” and thus promoted prejudice towards Muslims and others.[14] In an interview, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall stated that “When the media writes, it should exercise great caution that it’s not promoting stereotypes that will adversely impact on identifiable groups. I think one needs to be very careful when one speaks in generalities, that in fact one is speaking factually about all the people in a particular group.”
Advice about being considerate and careful with word choice when describing groups of people, instead of individuals with shared characteristics within a particular group. And how could you possibly object to ADVICE? How can you possibly object to a system that allows marginalised groups to raise their concerns and have them taken seriously?
LikeLike
That’s a very interesting case, and it seems the tribunal(s) worked to perfection, no?
LikeLike
Oh yes, perfection! In fact, the national outrage against the BC Tribunal’s ruling helped elect the next federal Government that promised and delivered to remove the section of the Code that allowed this travesty to occur. It turns out being offended does not give one the legal right to punitive damages from the offender in spite of what so many SJWs think is such a jolly good idea. Except… this notion that it should be illegal to offend continues to avoid an actual Supreme Court ruling by working around the law and utilizing these kangaroo tribunals as their stick. I seem to recall that the magazine Macleans ended up paying around a million dollars in legal fees to defend its right to print articles as its editorial board saw fit to print rather than have to screen its articles first by some government department to avoid printing anything that someone somewhere might find offensive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“anything that someone somewhere might find offensive”
If you look at the history of atrocities committed against groups of people with common traits who aren’t part of the majority power group (often referred to as ‘minority groups’, which you seem to suggest don’t exist in any meaningful way), you might detect the slippery slope in standards of public acceptability that lead to increasing hate crimes followed by the election of people who stand for the legalisation of hate crimes. I believe, based on historical evidence, that people who are ostracised or marginalised or otherwise discriminated against in our societies need specified protections – not ‘special protection’ because the majority groups benefit from being routinely called by the correct pronouns, or routinely given jobs they are qualified to do, or routinely respected for their appearance.
If I call you ‘stupid’ or ‘evil’ for failing to understand how these movements work, I’m unlikely to be referring to a minority characteristic that you share with other people I consider to be stupid or evil. If you find it offensive, I’ll try and find a more intelligent way of expressing my analysis of your harmful actions. If I only know you and Arb as Canadians and I now decide that the international reputation of Canadians as stupid and evil is correct, and based on my experience of you two, and the confirmation bias I indulge in by trawling the internet for more stupid and evil Canadians, then my offensive words move in a more sinister and potentially harmful direction.
I’m confused how you can with clear conscience continually attempt to undermine the struggle for minority groups to be treated with dignity and respect.
Oh, and nice job ignoring my comments!
LikeLike
“Oh, and nice job ignoring my comments!”
Thank you. I like doing a nice job.
Although I would like to clear up your confusion about what I say and correct your gross misrepresentations of me and the arguments/criticisms I put forth for discussion, and have repeatedly tried this approach, anything I produce other than what you demand is ‘correct’ and ‘acceptable’ will invariably be labeled by you as just another rant from me… even before you read the first word. You seem to approach my comments already armed by an unassailable ideology that I cannot brook with reason, evidence, merit, or facts. So, I hereby pronounce you full and accept this reality… and no additional commentary by me to you will alter your beliefs in any way. C’est la vie. Therefore, my efforts to do so are simply a waste of my time and effort and this too I accept. Reality is a harsh teacher but I do learn.
Now, back to my job.
LikeLike
What? That’s not what the case you linked to says. Your link says the complaints were dismissed.
LikeLike
Oh, the outrage was front page news for many weeks… months in some cases like Macleans (the largest and oldest publication in Canada with about 20% subscription of the entire population) … while the Tribunal tried to duck and cover and so stretch it out in ther hopes that the media would lose interest because the ‘conviction’ was a foregone conclusion, you see. Someone was offended; therefore discrimination occurred. The provincial Tribunals and the federal Commission is not judicial; it’s just some political appointees who try to control what the New Left wants imposed on everyone! But all the papers and television networks kept this issue front and center for months as the legal team for Macleans went to work trying very hard to get the kind of decision in print in order to get into a real court of law and have the Tribunal, its political masters, and its members criminally liable.
Well, that wasn’t going to happen so they stretched it, and stretched it, and stretched it until the next federal election occurred. Then the Tribunal went on an extended vacation while they prevaricated and tried to do nothing. What happened was in government that ran on a platform to discard the legislation. Well, it wasn’t discarded but the offending clause was removed. Once that change was made, then the Tribunal was forced to dismiss the complaint because the pertinent section about causing offense was deleted.
Yet here it is again informing how C-16 will interpret when discrimination occurs, and this is where the pronoun issue was raised: it is based on someone being OFFENDED. That’s the justification for discrimination. And it’s illegal. That’s why it became such an issue again… an issue absolutely smothered this time by those who derided any criticism of ‘protecting’ this nebulous group called the transgendered this way with layers and layers and layers of ongoing vilification including a social media campaign to deplatform and disinvite anyone who dared speak out against this subjective basis for discrimination…. including Jordan Peterson.
But the Canadian population knows this game and I suspect the Tribunal will be very careful according to political direction to never accept hearing such a case because the last time this happened it exposed the idiocy of this illegal justification (that’s what the courts have determined but, as I said, the Tribunals are not courts based on law but ideology) and toppled a government. The government wants kudos from the urban SJWs on the one hand while daring not to actually implement it for fear of nationwide backlash on the other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a more recent case of a tribunal altering and redefining biological terms to suit the transgendered.
LikeLike
Again, think of the similar number of human births in intersex people where a sex (and gender with it) is assumed, and is wrong based either on that person’s experience of life of their actual biological composition (refer to the links I sent yesterday). Nothing is black and white. Gender, and indeed sex, are actually not as important as you Biblical Gender Roles/ Creationists seem to think. Why do you feel the need to classify people? If you lived in India you’d have a field day with the caste system – and probably imagine it’s science-based due to genetics. Step back and examine your motivations, I’d love to hear them.
LikeLike
Who or what does that ruling actually harm? I see it as doing nothing but facilitating the life of a citizen who has gender dysphoria.
LikeLike
“This decision leaves it to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services to determine an appropriate alternative process for sex designation changes.”
Because we can change sex by words, donchaknow. Not gender. Not gender expression. Not gender identity. Sex.
In this wonderful new world, you can become a black female heterosexual person of unusually short stature today, Pink. Don’t let reality get in the way. It’s your “sense of self” that determines such facts. And the Tribunal stands ready to help you achieve this. Click your heels three times together and… POOF!.
The government stands ready to help you facilitate this ‘process’ and will coddle you from those who fail to demonstrate the appropriate level of acceptance you think you are owned. Yup, that’s what consent of the governed now means: the Lord Protector of the Sense of the Self. Who needs courts?
I’m thinking about becoming a chipmunk. Very exciting time ahead. Who doesn’t love to dig up the neighbour’s property? My sense of self demands respect and acceptance for my decision to alter reality by ruling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m thinking about becoming a chipmunk.”
If your argument is identical to Christian fundamentalists, be afraid, be very afraid …
Apart from this very obvious alarm bell, it should it be obvious to anyone following this discussion that you started out sounding as factual and reasonable as you could, and, like all people in the midst of cognitive dissonance, have deteriorated into exaggeration, ridicule and fury. Keep calm, stick to what is actually happening in reality and you might give yourself a chance a see the many, many flaws in your belief system on this one.
LikeLike
Here is the legislation: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent
It simply adds gender identity and expression to a standard list, in line with many other countries that care about human rights and discrimination.
“without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.”
Doesn’t mention pronouns anywhere, it’s simply general protection for traditionally marginalised groups. This is shocking Tildeb, it seems you are spreading lies based on rumour and fear-mongering – like Insanitybytes and the Uganda Bill. Please send me a link that tells me otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m shocked, but not surprised.
LikeLike
I’m waiting for him to provide some kind of reasonable source. He surely doesn’t rely on rumours via Arb. He’s a FACT dude.
LikeLike
“Simply”? You don’t know what you’re talking about. (Not that that ever slows you down for even a nanosecond before shooting from the lip and denigrating anyone who disagrees with your pronouncements).
Bill C-16 relies on proper interpretation, which is recognized to be the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s definitions. That’s where you find the pronoun issue, which is listed as part of what constitutes discrimination and harassment and hate. That’s where you find it it is based solely on offense of the complainant. That’s where you find out the hate crime can be unintentional. That’s where you find out the business can be held equally liable for costs and damages even if they know nothing about anything.
You see, VW, what you doing is rationalizing real victims of this kangaroo court, rationalizing the inclusion of ‘gender expression’ as if an equivalent right to legal autonomy, rationalizing this fascist ‘institution’ to be the defender of victimized people you pretend you represent in your haste to strip others of their legal rights. That’s why this movement is so dangerous not just to people like I am who see growing in perniciousness but to people like you who are oblivious to it. You applaud the making of real victims by thinking well of yourself as a proxy defender of those hypothetical victims of pronoun discrimination who can’t possibly speak for themselves. Well, are you the People’s Champion… just like all those other Red Guards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Give me a link.
LikeLike
I did and outlined how incorrect, unintentional pronouns can lead to a hate crime accusation and fine. Where that comment went is anybody’s guess but here’s the link again.
LikeLike
If you read that and your overwhelming concern is that an unintentional pronoun will lead to prosecutions, you have a serious problem.
Do you not read that and think, ‘phew, trans people are being legally recognised as people who deserve to be treated like … people!’
Honestly and seriously Tildeb, you are the equivalent of the men going on rages about women getting a vote. Where will it lead?? Ah doom, the fall of civilisation …
LikeLike
Let’s reverse the equation. My 1st professor of logic was a stickler for universality.
What protections should transgender people have? Any? Is your problem with the bill or with some local regulation based on the bill?
LikeLike
The law is creating a Big Brother to tell you what is and is not acceptable terminology – based entirely on the whim of a person who justifies the creation of an offence by being offended.
This is as absurd as it is imbecilic.
This legislation makes it a crime to cause offense by say the ‘wrong’ thing… even if unintentional. Furthermore, it holds businesses to an unreasonable account for what its employees may unintentionally say that causes offense. The law is arbitrary and the result is for people to shut up out of fear of saying the ‘wrong’ thing.
It tries to make being offended the basis for this kind of law. Think about that. What could possibly go wrong?
LikeLike
I think you know this is not the intention of the law. Much like any other kind of discrimination, many people feel their instinctive reaction is unintentional or it may be subconscious e.g. women getting more positions in orchestras if the panel can’t see them. Majority power roles are an easy option, and bad press about people within minority groups is often linked to the group as a whole therefore leading to wider discrimination e.g. trans people and the confirmation bias story trolling of fringe radical feminists.
Many people using ‘facts’ about assigned gender at birth will continue to use incorrect pronouns in a manner that belittles, descriminates against and ridicules trans people – they aren’t being hateful, they just can’t see the problem, it’s unintentional. It’s not just a case of “that person hurt my feelings” but a symptom of the wider problem of large-scale and harmful discrimination.
What could possibly go wrong? Not much. The general public who haven’t until this point given gender and sex issues a second thought, and have bulldozed through life discriminating against people who don’t conform to the current gender binary will have to modify their behaviour. Trans people will have greater opportunities to live normal lives accepted and protected by standard structures in society.
But I see you prefer to create an imaginary drama out of it, like your right-wing Christian friends. What could possibly happen if women get the vote?? What could possibly happen if we sanction same sex relationships?? What could possibly happen if we decriminalise marijuana?? There’s always something for the conservative majority to be terrified about, to create disaster scenarios. Enjoy yours 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Megan Murphy on Bill C-16
LikeLike
“The idea that incorrect pronoun usage would become illegal seems to have originated from Jordan Peterson, who is not an expert in law, but a professor of psychology. This idea was then spread by the religious right. They likely chose this line of attack, as openly stating that they want to keep discrimination of and incitement of hatred or genocide against transgender people legal is not popular enough.”
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038/why-is-canadas-bill-c-16-believed-to-be-legislating-pronoun-use
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Tildeb
“The first is that in almost every case, one’s sex is either male or female at birth (of course there are a few outliers, but we’re not talking about these).”
No. At birth, a health professional identifies a child as either male or female usually based on looking at their genitalia. Subtle difference – can you see it? The ‘outliers’ are described as intersex and account for somewhere between 0.05% and 1.7% of human births. Trans people (‘outliers’ in terms of perceived sexual and/or gender identity) seem to be somewhere between 0.3% and 0.5%.
It’s your ‘opinion’, therefore, and not a ‘fact’, that people are either male or female at birth. It’s only a fact that we give them one of two labels, and make assumptions about them based on those two labels. It may also be a fact that around 99% of the human population happily accept the label they are assigned, but it doesn’t mean that the remain 1% don’t exist, just because they are inconvenient to your Biblical Gender Roles and Creation Story.
The rest of your rant is verging on foul, but only to be expected from the Stagnant Left, fighting for their right to halt human progression in the 1960s. Every generation of progressive liberals stop in their tracks on some issue or another and grind their heels in the ground in a fit of fury about the next steps everyone else is taking. I’m surprised you can’t see the pattern, and can’t see yourself more clearly.
LikeLike
Sorry. I said there were two factors why the Clare-is-not-a-female claim matters… but I never included the second.
The second reason is that much of the impetus for homosexuality gaining social acceptance was the argument that such sexual attraction was not a choice but a BIOLOGICALLY-BASED attraction. People are born gay. We have been told for quite some time that gays and lesbians did not choose to be gay and lesbian.
Ringing any bells?
Now – and all of a sudden – gender identity and gender expression are being presented by people like Clare as a personal right to choose. It’s not biological you see… it’s a <i.choice. A legitimate choice that should be the basis for any kind of discrimination. Well, okay. Choose what you want. Oh, but wait. There’s more.
Now people like Clare insist that biological sex is irrelevant, you see. Born male? Doesn’t matter. She a female… by choice. That choice may change. Deal with it.
So which is it?
Does biology matter? Does it matter if gays choose to be gay rather than be born this way?
Well, smear me with honey and plant me next to an ant hill, but I think you can’t have it both ways; either sex-based biology is real and fixed or it is not. And that’s why my insistence to respect what’s true – either way – matters more than the petulant feelings of a hypocrite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, love it! My insistence to respect what’s true he says- he is a martyr!
“Deal with it”. I do, I assure you.
LikeLike
Are you really going to continue playing games? You can’t even say Transgender-Woman, because doing that alone pulls the rug from under your entire exhaustive commentary. Problematic, huh?
LikeLike
Yes, I really am, Pink. I know you’ll be disappointed in me that I will continue to insist that you can’t make up your own facts and you shouldn’t respect the opinion of people who think they have that right to do so and then vilify as bigots those who disagree with them.
I’m obstinate that way. I’m almost sure it’s a character flaw.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re not talking about facts. If you were genuinely interested in facts we’d be having a discussion on brain differences amongst people based on gender/sexuality, or what the real meaning of gender actually is. Instead you’ve come to the table with a pre-fabricated argument which has been widely debunked.
LikeLike
“People are born gay. We have been told for quite some time that gays and lesbians did not choose to be gay and lesbian.”
1. Why are you confusing romantic preference with sexual identity? What would they need to have in common for you to find both acceptable?
2. Trans people didn’t choose to be born into a body that doesn’t fit their natural expression.
3. Your body only matters if you need something from it – it’s not an identity in itself. It may be useful for a doctor to know what biological sex you assume you have in order to treat you, but even then, it’s only an indication with high probability. Not so obvious for these people:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11397560/Man-born-with-a-womb-prepares-for-hysterectomy.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/25/man-admitted-to-hospital-for-kidney-stone-discovers-hes-a-woman/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/04/27/girl-rare-condition-gets-ok-testicles-removed.html
Tildeb, people are taking a different approach to identity these days. It’s not all black and white, on and off, male and female – in any sense. Why does it matter so much to you what a minority of humans experience? You can gender role play all you want and be happy with your biological sex – no-one wants to change that for you.
LikeLike
There is a good piece on exploring the Dawkins’ deplatforming issue here and worth a read, I think.
LikeLike
Does it really? It just reads like an angry rant against an article expressing one person’s point of view on Islam. Doesn’t mention Dawkins, doesn’t mention ‘deplatforming’ (yikes! offer of speaking engagement retracted, the world is ending!)
LikeLike
There is also this piece by Jeff Taylor in Quillette. The second portion rudely exposes the same fatuous argument Pink puts forward about the publicity motivation he liberally applies to Ayaan Hirsi Ali while conveniently ignoring the facts that underpins her sound criticism of Islam. and why this religion in particular is richly deserving of more of it from those who profess to support liberal values.
LikeLike
Sorry for my poor linking abilities.
The link to the Taylor piece is here and the Dawkins piece is here.
LikeLike
And my atrocious lack of attention to proper spelling. Of course, the author’s name is Jeff Tayler and not Taylor.
LikeLike
…. and duly headed over to correct link. I can’t find anything worth a read in there – it’s just an explosive rant making no points. Let me give you a few simplistic lessons in life:
1. It’s a good idea to extra protect minorities from verbal attack because history shows us they get ganged up on by majorities. Take Jews in Europe last century (and the centuries before that) as an example. Trump is two steps away from giving Muslims in the USA a special stamp on their head.
2. You and all your ranty buddies may have good intentions but a lot of the majority are fearful of minorities (‘weirdos and their weird practices’) and when messages from critical sources who are a bit sloppy with their message are given platforms, it can make ugly situations even uglier.
3. Not all Muslims are Islamists – I know you and your buddies claim to know and understand this, but it really doesn’t come across in communications, like this blog you link to.
4. Telling 2 billion people that the biggest part of their cultural identity is the most evil religion in the world, doesn’t foster good relations. It’s sloppy communication, it creates harmful situations and it only serves to make people more defensive of the harmful traditions that come with the religion.
5. I understand the frustration but it doesn’t deserve fury. You all need to step back and think of the wider polarising effect this kind of rhetoric has. Be angry at the crimes, not the religion that serves as a conduit. Think of it as a natural product of evolution that over time is modified, like Christianity, and is likely to be eventually neutralised – but all of this takes time.
LikeLike
Evidently you feel the need to misrepresent my position. I guess that’s necessary because if you admit I’m against all religion, then your accusation loses any semblance of merit. So let me repeat, in case it was unclear, I am against all religion.
I’m also against the presentation of bad mathematics. It creates an environment where people can’t differentiate fact from fiction. The importance of categorisation in this context is of primordial importance. We need to know the precise value of a variable, or the entire equation becomes garbage worthy. That’s why Islam shouldn’t be separated out as unique. Whenever talking about Islam (let’s call it A) a parallel can be formed referring to either one of the other 2 Abrahamic religions (B)(C), making them all, fr example, = to X. If you separate one out, there’s the *implication* of A = X but (B)(C) ≠ X. Highly problematic as it creates a protective shield for B and C.
LikeLike
I think you’re adhering to a false equivalency… not to protect B and C as you claim but one that in fact protects A from exactly the same kind of criticisms both B and C have had to endure. And I think reality strongly supports me in this opinion to the extent that Richard Dawkins can be deplatformed supposedly on behalf of protecting the hurt feelings of Muslims to your applause but never deplatformed for hurting the feelings of Catholics and Anglicans and Baptists and Presbyterians, and so on, without a peep of complaint from you!
The double standard used for ‘protecting’ Islam this way that you and far too many people seem to want to defend seems rather obvious to me. I’m quite curious why it isn’t to you.
LikeLike
It seems you don’t understand the math. There’s no false equivalency.
A, B & C all have the exact same characteristics. That means A, B and C = X. That means we can (and should) represent A, B and C as, for example, Y.
So Y=X
To break something back down to A, B, C, there should be circumstances where something is unique to a specific religion, rather than to religion as a whole. The Burka, for example, only applies to one, but head-coverings apply to all three. Taking something that applies to all three and attributing it to one is, at best, misleading. At worse designed to incite hatred.
Excellent, well founded, intelligent criticism can and should be made of Islam and other religions. I’ve read a whole lot, including by Dawkins himself. The same cannot be said of Hirsi Ali or Nawaz.
LikeLike
How did you ever encounter what Ali or Nawaz said?
Shocking.
There should be a law against your ability to access anything they said, don’t you agree? These people should have been deplatformed long before you had access.
Someone needs to be fined for spreading such hate. You need protecting, Pink. I’ll do it for you because I’m a Social Justice Warrior!
LikeLike
I encountered Ali and Nawaz because they haven’t been “de-platformed”. They write for some of the biggest publications in the world.
The idea that readers of any medium should be open to all speakers is nonsensical. If a natural history museum invited a creationist to speak, we’d all be ready to protest. When Oxford rented space to crazy American anti-gay Evangelicals, I protested, and the event was not held at Oxford. Why should anyone get a free pass from (non-violent) protest?
LikeLike
They’ve both been dis-invited to many speaking engagements. My point is that you have no problem with this tactic. I do. Taken to its logical conclusion, this principle of intervention justified on behalf of protecting imagined potential victims, why do you not see that what you read is going to become someone else’s choice on your behalf… poor widdle victim that you must be in the mind of someone else, someone utterly self-convinced they do so in your best interests?
LikeLike
That’s always been the case. The NYT selects. Fox selects. The Guardian selects. How many gay speakers do you think have been barred from speaking to religious audiences?
A free market of ideas means people are free to ask for what they want.
LikeLike
I select for the NYT’s here, and I’m as biased a hell! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a silly point, Pink. How many religious audiences go ahead and book a talk by a gay person only to pull that invitation because a non religious person complains that they are offended?
Come on. Compare apples with apples.
LikeLike
It’s not “silly”, it’s reality. Especially regarding controversial people or topics. Do you think when a controversial speaker is invited the usual audience is always consulted? Do you think university students would vote to listen to Milo Yiannopolous? I very much doubt it.
Free speech is about no more and no less than government not curtailing expression. What you propose isn’t free speech; no one is entitled to a platform. Why do I or anyone else have to listen to a religious extremist – or extremist of any variety?
LikeLike
You don’t Pink. You have that choice. And have the right to exercise that choice for yourself is a value that I think is worth protecting on behalf of everyone. A shared value common to all.
This is same argument put forth by those who assume censorship ‘protects’ the ‘vulnerable’. Under this umbrella ideology we see the same thing happening by way of empowering these tribunals: vilifying those who think censorship itself is a very thorny problem that should not be left in the hands of the political gatekeepers but ourselves, a problem imposed on everyone by those ho assume the right to decide on your behalf what you may and may not view (for your protection as a member of some ‘vulnerable’ minority, of course), the problem with those who feel they are better positioned to determine on your behalf what you may or may not hear, what you may or may not say. By assuming this supposed need to ‘protect’ the ‘vulnerable’ is of paramount concern – as do the SJW of the Regressive Left – the issue has already been framed in such a way that any disagreement about particulars of some censored event now becomes a polarizing ideological position. This is what Steve Pinker calls the Polar Left, meaning that any position other than what is deemed ‘correct’, what is deemed to be tolerant, is seen as Right Wing (in the same way that from the North Pole, everything else is south from it).
Just look at how VW falls into this description effortlessly, by assuming from a Polar Left ideology that I must be Right Wing with my Christian fundamentalist Friends because I disagree that a Tribunal should have the means to determine on behalf of the transgendered what constitutes a person’s sex, determine on behalf of this ideological position to how to ‘protect’ transgendered people from being offended.
This ideology is pernicious and nefarious in practice because it directly undermines a value that should be common to all before any ideology is even considered, namely, everyone’s right to free speech, to be heard, to be seen, to be able to see and listen to divergent opinions and arguments, without self-censuring ‘incorrect’ material out of fear that someone might be offended. This is how fundamental values shared by all are undermined incrementally to the point of creating a police state, a state of fascism (from the Italian meaning of the term which is enlightening to what this social engineering ideology is based on). And it starts by creating a fascist state of the mind.
And this is exactly what is happening at universities where student self-censor their opinions and stay quiet while the SJWs run rampant, riot, interrupt and disrupt speaking events, demand the ‘incorrect’ speakers be disinvited and de-platformed, to justify on everyone’s behalf what ‘correct’ speech will be tolerated and which speakers you will be allowed to listen to. It’s not based on content, on what’s true, on facts, on merit, but on ‘correct’ ideology. And it’s insidious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Chicken Little,
The sky is not falling. In the 21st century we finally see a more general sense of sensitivity and social consciousness. Sometimes people get it right, sometimes they’re misguided, but the hope and intent is to make life better for our fellow human beings. Surely that’s a good thing, even if there are bumps along the way. If Dawkins isn’t welcomed in one place that’s okay, I’m confident there are others which will welcome him with arms wide open.
The gender on someone’s id card doesn’t really affect anyone else, but can help them affirm their identity. So it’s no big deal.
Opposition to these things sounds petty. I can imagine the speech now:
First they came for the ni–er, and I did not speak out—
Then they came for the word queer and I did not speak out—
Then they allowed the transgender to be respected and I did not speak out—
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see how installing new bumps (while claiming this is a leveling procedure) paves the smooth way forward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then it might be time to grow up and take a good hard look at reality. The reality where transgender people get beaten up, raped with metal pipes and then thrown to the bottom of wells – to die. The reality where Donald Trump feels it’s okay to dismiss people’s entire careers, because they’re transgender. Now tell me again what the “real bumps” are all about?
LikeLike
Then it’s a Very Good Thing that this law will put a stop to all of this. Thank goodness for the social justice warriors.
LikeLike
If it stops you calling a trans-woman a man, for no reason other than pointless pedantry, then it’s doing something of value.
LikeLike
I didn’t call her a man, Pink. I called her sex male. And I did so because it’s a fact. You believe a law will take care of this inconvenient fact by pretending it isn’t so, by pretending a person can will his or her sex-based biology to be this or that and anyone who disagrees is a bigot and subject to fines and penalties for exercising bigotry… in this case, of course.
But not in the case of sexuality. In that case there should be law recognizing the fact that sexual preference is innate. And we should respect this fact. And those who don’t recognize that fact but insist it’s a choice that can be altered by will are bigots because it’s not true. And we should respect what’s true… right up until the time you decide we shouldn’t and who ever disagrees with YOU is a bigot. Yeah, your hypocrisy is a good basis to determine other people’s bigotry. Sure it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb,
Whatever is the case of Clare’s gender, it’s not really any of your concern. She, and no other citizen, need your permission to live their lives as they please and expect to be treated with a modicum of respect.
I believe it is a provable fact that you sometimes behave like an absolute c*nt – and yet I don’t go around insisting that everyone call you that because it’s a Fact.
LikeLike
Now you’re just making shit up and pretending that I think Clare needs my permission or that I don’t respect her rights and freedoms to claim whatever gender identity she wants. I am simply respecting what’s true, that Clare was born male and arguing with her that she doesn’t have the right to pretend she can alter this biological fact by political ideology, by legislation, by law. Just like me, you can’t make up your own facts, Pink, or alter reality by belief. And saying so – respecting what’s true over and above respecting contrary beliefs – is not bigotry. Not now. Not ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What? Get over yourself, idiot. The very way you stated that implies people need to bow down to your perception. Ah yes, the world must accept Tildeb’s definition of woman, of female. Your simplistic, narrow reading, designed to discriminate. You get to define gender, to define sex, and anything other is not allowed. Talk about fascism.
LikeLike
And please do s all a favour and cut out the BS. Clare, and most transgender people I know, have NEVER objected to the idea they were born with one or another type of genitalia. That’s a shameless falsehood you’re throwing into the discussion. Clare wants to be referred to as the gender she identifies with. Period.
It is YOU who’s playing word games to deny that to transgender people. You. And there is no good reason to be found anywhere to justify that petty, small minded behaviour.
LikeLike
Now stating facts is “small-minded behaviour.” Oh my. I can almost hear your foot stomping from here, Pink.
Sex is far more profound a biological influence that just genitalia. I don;t mean to shock you, but there are species wide physiological differences, too. I know. Noticing the size and weight difference, metabolic differences, chemical differences, neurological differences, these facts too are all very idiotic. I mean, seriously, expecting the medical profession to take such real and causal factors into consideration is bigotry personified, I know. Terrible people, one and all. And the brain! Well, there are significant developmental differences even as banal as weight all the way to significantly different regions of brain development. It’s all a right wing conspiracy, I’m almost sure but thankfully humanity has people like you who can see through these facts for the biases they really are.
Good grief, Pink. The track of reason is getting farther behind you on this one. Time to retrace your steps and get back on it before you blow a gasket.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My foot stomping?
I’m not the person who thinks an elderly professor not promoting his book on a radio program is somehow comparable to an lgbt person being raped, tortured and thrown to the bottom of a well to die.
Your ego-centrism really doesn’t cease to amaze me.
LikeLike
I like your football analogy simply because I don’t like football.
LikeLike
Yes, well, it probably is the most evil sport in the world. But I’ll deplatform anyone who says that out loud! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not telling you where my platform is, I’ve hidden it so you can’t take it away from me 😛
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Examples only from this thread of Tildeb’s disdain for groups of people who suffer discrimination, and therefore indications of his privileged position in society. Invitation to Tildeb to seriously consider what discrimination he has experienced or witnessed in his life and how this kind of attitude affects individuals:
Trans people aren’t to be taken seriously, their self-identity is nothing more than a ‘whim’. The impact of people ignoring your wishes about how you are treated and referred to are inconsequential.
Victimised groups don’t really exist and it’s laughable to suggest that minority groups often face victimisation on a regular basis. Haha, what is a minority group, undefined nonsense.
Racism is okay as long as it’s sarcastically directed at white people. Being considerate to the wishes of minority groups is a joking matter.
One again, racism is okay as long as it’s sarcastically directed at white people.
Anyone changing the identity they are assigned at birth doesn’t need to be taken seriously, it’s just a choice, a whim, who cares? Even evidence of intersex people having no choice of the sex and gender they are assigned at birth is inconsequential. We ignore evidence because we understand FACTS.
People who are routinely subject to discrimination don’t deserve protection because innocent ignorant people who want to continue living as they have always lived might be fined (no-one has been fined).
The status quo works perfectly for me! All people who committed atrocities in the past should continue to be honoured, all buildings should remain in white male names. Any isolated incidents of disruption and violence aimed at change in the status quo should be exaggerated and ascribed to the whole movement, to characterise change as a threat to the EVERYONE (not just to the status quo) much like we did with the Suffragettes, much like we did with the Civil Rights Movement.
Present lies and exaggeration at every step of the argument, question the motives of anyone who supports these so-called ‘victimised’ groups. Suggest it’s the end of freedom (works for the gun lobby). Anything to stop anti-discrimination legislation.
False binaries are your friend to hammer home the status quo. Sex-based biology is a scientific explanation – it is not a binary. Biological sex can be easily (mainly for children and religious people) be broken down into a binary based on the majority human experience, but scientists understand the real picture is much more complex. The only thing that is a FACT is that we assign sex (and with it gender) at birth based on casual observation of external organs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting paper here (from last year) on the (scientific) complexities of gender: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
The comments are also very interesting because we see people commenting there for no reason other than to promote discrimination. Similarly the other day I was looking for reviews before watching a film about a gay character and the first review I read was about “Hollywood rubbing their gay agenda in everyone’s face.” This was odd as it was a French independent film. The commentator went on to say he hadn’t seen the film but was giving it the lowest rating because it was about a gay character. Now put that into perspective. Let’s say this is an average person who wakes up, has breakfast, goes to work. Maybe has lunch with colleagues – and somewhere in that schedule he finds the time to google gay films, for the sole purpose of leaving a low rating and voicing his distaste for the lives of the characters. It’s surreal; as is the opposition to transgender rights.
LikeLike
Nice link, thanks. I think we have to contextualise it in the wider human pattern of behaviour – people find it really difficult to have their assumptions about the world turned upside down. Rather than analysing and exploring exactly what they’ve been wrong about in their understanding, there’s always backlash. I think veganism is going to explode in the next generation, and the middle aged meat eating conservatives will be furious! I think it’s an odd place for people like Tildeb to be in, they classify themselves as progressive and foreward thinking liberals in many ways, compared to the traditional right-wing conservatives, so it’s hard to come to terms with the issues where they are suddenly and staunchly in the conservative camp. I wonder what our downfall will be? We seem so … perfectly in touch with everything. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like this comment:
LikeLike
Violet,
Our trans brethren comprise a whopping 0.3% of the population, our gay brethren, 3%.
People with a brain of their own realize that restructuring our language, culture and consciousness for mental and sexual disorders is just plain stupid.
LikeLike
You should take it up with Tildeb, he’s half way there and I’m sure you can talk him over to being homophobic too within a few short exchanges.
Human society and language evolves SOM, as we learn more about the intricacies of humans and as our species develops. It’s not ‘restructuring’, it’s a natural process that has been going on for millenia.
LikeLike
Violet,
Human nature does not change.
Men are men and women are women.
All sexually reproducing creatures depend on male-female complementarity to survive.
If everyone were gay the human race would go extinct. Thus it is obvious that homosexuality a sexual disorder.
Notice that when you look out upon a crowd of human beings, you will see male and female.
Even gay people are male or female. So are trans.
LikeLike
Oh well, at least Tildeb agree with you. Always comforting to know you’re on SOM’s side and logic is with you. 😉
LikeLike
Violet,
Why aren’t you able to defend your position?
Your response is always personal insult or a complete change of subject.
Why is that?
LikeLike
Sorry SOM, missed this. Human nature does change, it has evolved quite significantly. I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to the conversation though.
Most people have internal organs with matching external appearance that allow us to classify them as one of two sexes. Some people don’t – 1 in 2000 births. Most people find romantic satisfacation in life with another human being – some people don’t. Most people who want romantic satisfaction with other human beings are attracted to the other sex – some people are attracted to the same sex. Some mixed sex partnerships can lead to breeding new human beings – some don’t.
LikeLike
Violet,
Your stat, 1 in 2000 comes out to 0.05% which is truly minuscule.
Why on God’s green earth would any sensible person blow their own culture to smithereens on account of 0.05% of the population.
Compassion dictates that the needs of other 99.95% form the basis for social values and mores.
Lefties are truly cruel, allowing 0.05% of the population bully the other 99.95% into submission.
LikeLike
0.05% is miniscule in 100, but we are a population of 7.5 billion, that’s over 3.5 million people. My ‘culture’ isn’t dependent on the experiences of the majority. I have many minority traits myself, and I don’t think I’m worth ignoring. Who’s bullying you into submission about anything? Am I forcing you to be a redhead mother? Is Clare forcing you to be a trans woman? You seem mildly confused by ‘live and let live’ ….
LikeLike
Violet,
0.05% is minuscule in comparison to the other 99.95%.
I recommend that you engage in a math review.
Supposedly we are educated in mathematics precisely so we can understand the difference between leftist craziness and justice based on rational thinking.
LikeLike
What are the 0.05% intersex population forcing you to do SOM? I’m rather confused by this line of argumentation.
LikeLike
And Violet,
Like I said before, if you believe in evolution which is the origin and survival of the species, you must believe in the truth of sexual reproduction.
That means whatever our LGBT brethren do to each other trying to get their jollies, isn’t sex.
It is something else.
That means it isn’t ordered to human nature which is male and female (according to the theory of evolution and the Bible).
LikeLike
There is no order, there is existence, and individual experiences within that existence.
When we get hot and sweaty consensually rubbing our erogenous zones with another adult human, we call it ‘sex’. You’re confusing it with ‘breeding’.
LikeLike
That escalated quickly.
I agree with you, that people should be rather seen as victims of religions, than as evil for promoting a particular religion. I do not know enough about Richard Dawkins nor these comments of his to comment him in any special way. I have heard that he is a prominent researcher of the genes and that he has made waves by bringing forth his reasons for his atheism. Both are good efforts in my book.
Even intelligent people fall trap to a number of silly mistakes. To call Islam the most evil religion is in my view what the famous childrensbook writer C.S. Lewis called “snobbery of chronology”. I have my doubts wether Richard Dawkins really is this stupid, but I can see that wether he is, or not, a lot of really stupid people are going to hang on to what he has said about it and use it to confirm their particular fear of Islam and often xenophobia as well.
The extremist Islamists do violent stuff at present, but even though many here within the western culture today percieve Christianity as a mere message of love and compassion, that has certainly not been the case for most of Christendom’s history. It too is a religion, that has motivated many a firm and sincere believer to horrendous acts against other humans on superstitious reasons, not unlike Islam, and provided grounds for colonization, destruction of entire cultures, nations, and robbery of resources around the globe. It could even be argued, that such behaviour has not ended on part of Christianity. Why did president W.Bush go to war? We were told, that it was because of the weapons of mass destruction, but we now all know it was a lie, so what was the real reason? Was it something that slipped to the public when W. called the French president Chirac and told him something of his “Biblical” reasons to attack Iraq? W. had told Chirac about his assumptions about Gog and Magog, or as professor Thomas Römer, an Old Testament expert at the university of Lausanne put it, theological jargon, crazy talk.
The most important question that arises, is why did no god appear to tell these people, be they extremist Islamists, Roman Catholic inquisition, protestant witchfinders, or the modern day leader of the first secular nation on the planet George W. Bush, that what they are engaging in is not the will of this god? Has all of this been indeed the will of some bloodthirsty mad god? Why would anyone want to call such a god loving or even “benevolent”? Because they hope the schoolyard bully will leave them alone, if they rather praise “Him”, than oppose what is truly wrong? Is there somewhere beyond time-space, an impotent god, that has no options but to watch while all this suffering transpired? Why would anyone even care what such a god wants? That sort of god is just as irrelevant as a god that never even existed, is it not? Or is it more likely, that no gods even exist?
LikeLiked by 3 people
“To call Islam the most evil religion is in my view what the famous childrensbook writer C.S. Lewis called “snobbery of chronology”. I have my doubts wether Richard Dawkins really is this stupid, but I can see that wether he is, or not, a lot of really stupid people are going to hang on to what he has said about it and use it to confirm their particular fear of Islam and often xenophobia as well.”
Absolutely Raut! It’s the kind of sloppy way of expressing ourselves that isn’t helpful for someone in the public domain. It’s about evaluating how we express ourselves and how those words can be used if we are in a position of influence. If he had said, “Certain interpretations of the Islamic faith are doing great harm in the world today, possibly more so than any other religion at this point in history” he might find that many Muslims agree with him – and he’s essentially saying same thing. It just can’t be used to harm a currently vulnerable group, and doesn’t carry such a weight of condemnation against Islam as a whole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. Only yesterday a car plunged into a crowd here in Finland. One person died and four were injured. The driver was a middle-aged drunk Finnish guy and the car was a red Jaguar. If it had been an extremist Muslim terrorist there would have been a number of right-wing politicians who would have used this to call out how Islam is a terrorist religion, how mulitculturalism makes Finland an unsafe place to live and how immigrants from Muslim countries should be banned. Since it was a drunk Finnish guy, there was nothing extra special about it. As if the deaths of people been killed intentionally with a political or religious (or both) agenda were somehow more tragic than the lives killed by a drunkard who had no respect for the lives of others. The amount of people terrorists (Muslims or others, with a car or otherwise) manage to kill in western countries is insignificant in comparrison to drunk drivers. But since drunk drivers are most often white priviledged meat eating middle aged dudes, it is just something we have to cope with. We are not allowed to point our finger at this group of people and demand that all white middle aged men who own cars and occasionally drink alcohol, should be sent to the Antarctica, or something. For some reason most people can see how absurd this notion is, but some are totally unable to see how sending people who have escaped from countries, that are in total chaos, back to that chaos is exactly the same.
We have had our number of terrorist attacks here in Finland. In some of them the terrorist has used a gun, or a self made bomb. So far none of them have been made by extremist Muslims, but rather by other sort of disturbed people. Our army is involved in the operation in Afghanishtan and advising the Kurdish forces fighting against ISIS, so I guess we could easily be targeted. But I am not affraid. The chance of such an attack on my life is so much less, than that I die in a car crash with a moose – wich in itself is a rather remote possibility. The best way we can stop Muslims in the west from becoming terrorists is to make them feel they are part of the society they live in.
Some of our most recent terror attacks have been by white nationalist right wing extremists, who have thrown Molotov cocktails at the doors and windows of refugee centers – with families of refugees inside. They have not been even prosecuted for political violence, let alone for terrorism. Though what else is their motivation other than political and their goal to cause terror? One of the Finnish parliamentary representative has even claimed, that only Muslims do terrorist attacks. At least he got a sentence for slander, and he is not even the only one of the parlimentiary representatives of the True Finns party who has had a sentence for the same line of “reasoning”.
As you say, when we atheists make comments about Muslims, we do need to take into consideration the political climate in wich the comment is made. This does not mean some sort of self sensorship, but it means, that we need to be extra precise about what are we talking about, so that we do not participate in exclusivist act, that supports unrealistic nationalistic nonsense for monoculturism. Because if people get to ban cultural phenomenons on base of what they fear, here in the west atheism is next in line after Islam and could be banned with just as bad reasons as Islam could. Exactly like extremist right-wing conservative governments in Islamic countries have already done.
I am so sad, that an intelligent person, such as Tildeb is unable to see the reality of the matter. On the other hand that makes me raise my hat all the more to Arkenaten, who apparently got the point and revised his view, when The Pink Agendist put it in eloquent words.
Islam is not a particularly evil religion, it is just a religion that weilds more political power at this moment in history in many countries that are poised against western armies, many of wich are occupying Islamic countries. At the moment there are no Islamic armies occupying western countries. Terrorism with suitcase bombs and cars is not only an expression of hate. It is also an expression of weakness. A desperate attempt to do anything at all to overcome the sense of weakness. The economic exploitation across the globe is mostly done by western companies. The West is not more prosperous or peacefull, than the Middle-East because of Christianity being any more peacefull than Islam. Rather the difference is a result of secularism in the West. There are other factors than just religion, that create social unrest. South-America has been Christian just as long as North America, but many South American countries are in civil war and riddled with all forms of terrorism. In the course of history the most horrid attacks on human rights have not been done by people from Islamic culture, but from the Western culture. How much Christianity directly caused those may be worth a discussion, but for example inquisition in wich people tortured and burned people alive could arguably be claimed only on Christian religious motivation. There are other explaining factors, to why a culture is violent, like poor education to wich appears as a direct result relgiousness, that does not help one bit, regardless what particular religon are we talking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, the cool breeze of calm facts, distilled with intelligence and empathy. So much in there, thanks for placing it all here!
LikeLike
Rautakyy, I am surprised at you. My mouth was starting to hang open while I read you first few paragraphs because this doesn’t reflect your usual high standard of comment. But then it became clear when you said, “I am so sad, that an intelligent person, such as Tildeb is unable to see the reality of the matter.”
Well, buck up. Your sadness is of your own creation.
If we took your analogy with the drunk driver, made him stone cold sober, showed that he pre-planned the route to kill as many as possible, and made a prior video explaining how he would be held in the highest regard by the Big Cheese Drunk Driver Himself and was willing to sacrifice his life on behalf of the Big Cheese, then we’d be approaching equivalency.
If you Rautakyy commented that criticizing the very idea of socially acceptable drunk driving was bigotry in action, then you’d start to glean why this thread is so revealing. And I think your sadness would evaporate when you realize to what equivalently bizarre and disturbing extremes apologetic PoMo ideologues go to protect their drunk driving Big Cheese.
LikeLike
Ah, the rancid stench of bitter bigotry, spiked with patronising mediocrity. 😉
LikeLike
You drunk?
LikeLike
Aw come on, I did a wink. It just made me laugh because I left I a fawning comment after Raut’s quite frankly perfect comment, and then Tildeb rolled up and sullied the whole thing. It needed a mirror comment. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we took your analogy with the drunk driver, made him stone cold sober, showed that he pre-planned the route to kill as many as possible, and made a prior video explaining how he would be held in the highest regard by the Big Cheese Drunk Driver Himself and was willing to sacrifice his life on behalf of the Big Cheese, then we’d be approaching equivalency.
A vital distinction.
LikeLike
Was Raut looking for exact equivalency with that comment? Or was he drawing a comparison of the reactions society has to different types of crime with similar death tolls? It’s about discrimination.
Take the Rotherham case Tildeb mentions (for a different reason) as an example – this is held up by xenophobes as proof that multiculturalism doesn’t work, it’s confirmation for them that immigrant communities are a threat. And yet, as we all know, the Catholic Church has been responsible for abuse on much higher levels.
Bad stuff happens from all angles and probably at similar rates, and yet if someone has a minority trait within a community, it becomes latched to that trait. Not so with the white male drunk driver – we don’t talk about his demographics and their prevalence as a ‘particular’ problem. Much like my comment about men in general.
You hold that it’s a bigger problem in Islam because they believe certain rules that can’t be fathomed by non-believers – but is it really? The overwhelming majority behave in normal peaceful ways – like most humans. And they get dragged into wars of revenge cycles and barbarism at particular points in time – like all humans, atheists included.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know the subject isn’t black and white, but Tildeb’s point about motive (and willingness) can’t be ignored. I can criticise Islam without crtiticing all Muslims. Not a fan of Gervis, but there is a soundness in his “Suggesting I hate people with religion because I hate religion is like suggesting I hate people with cancer because I hate cancer.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is a good point in there, but the problem is, that we are talking about a group of people who are, at least here in the west, put to walk a very narrow line and pointed a finger at and that many of the people with their fingers in the air are infact xenophobic or even down right racist. Many of the Muslims here in the west have narrowly escaped the problems their religion and western capitalist & corporative politics has caused in their homecountries. They need to see all of it themselves. I think the only way that can be eventually achieved is if do not make it our case to protect our liberal culture from them, rather that we show how our liberal culture can protect them from their religious culture. Does that make sense?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That does make sense. But then you have 4 people arrested in Sydney this weekend wanting to blow up an areoplane as an act of jihad.
LikeLike
Ha, yes. That is how it goes. Then we also have almost all the armies of the western countries occupying Afghanishtan. And they are there why? When the Soviets occupied Afghanishtan, we called it wrong, did we not? What ever for they were there, they excused by removing the religiously motivated guerilllas, poor treatment of women and trying to build roads and schools. Who supported the religiously motivated guerillas then? And the cycle goes on. To many people in the west, especially in the Americas, the war on terror only began on 2001, but in reality the attacks on US soil, were a reaction from extremely right wing conservative Islamist factions to the pressure, west has put on the Middle-East for generations – not in the least because of some natural resources there and geopolitical situation.
The war the extreme conservative right wing Islamists are engaged in, is not just about bublegum and jeans, but such are a big part of it and them desperately hanging on their conservative values, and eventually going in even deeper to their cultural heritage. The everyday ordinary Muslims (the great big majority of them) who would just like to live their lives in peace – as they think their Prophet teaches them to do are in bit of a pickle, are they not? How should we appriciate their position? Would calling their cultural heritage “most evil” ever turn their heads our way, or the way of the Islamist Jihadist?
I think I can get the point Tildeb is making. And I appriciate the point about free speech. I can even appriciate the point about “self-appointed” defenders of the Muslim faith though throwing out the concept of “social justice warrior” as it was a bad thing still escapes me. I can even see a further risk, that the intent to stop discussions about Islam as hurtfull may be used to defend any questionable political act on behalf of any religious motivation.
However, I do think a democracy, that becomes the violence of the majority over minorities is a failed democracy. I agree with Tildeb and you, that ideas do not deserve the same respect as humans do. Yet, I do think, that we need to remember how those ideas are often a part of the identity of religious people. No matter what religion is in question, but there are differences between the power and privilige positions of different religions in different countries and what sort of threats they really face. I also think, that prominent speakers such as Richard Dawkins needs to bear his responsibility, when we are talking about a very voulnerable group of people, like the Muslims in western countries are today. Especially since he is seen as a high profiled representative of even a smaller minority in the field of world views on religion – us the atheists.
To me, the very good point, that our gracious hostess Violetwisp has all along been making, is that when one is in a porcelean shop one tries to tread lightly.
LikeLike
US/Western meddling in the Mid East is, of course, a huge source of discord. Middle East meddling in the Middle East is also a source of huge discord. Let’s not forget that. The 1979 Grand Mosque seizure (a wholly Mid East event) is the reason why the Saudi’s are, today, so terribly backwards on so many social fronts, not to mention their (violent) machiavellian activities across the region. Islamic factions drive jihad more than Western meddling, and at the heart of that is a politcal motivation. They want theocracies, and this is what Tildeb, i think, has been at pains to express: this ideology is wholly antithetical to secular values. It is, inherently, intolerant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I guess we have all been talking a bit past each other. There is no question wether radical Islam is a foul and dangerous form of culture. There is no question wether or not more moderate forms of Islam are at least enabling such to exist. The point Violetwisp (to mu understanding) and myself have been making is, that painting with such a broad brush as to call Islam the worst religion on the planet may and most propably is going to have negative effects and possibly not helping the case against such at all.
If someone says, all Islam is the worst religion ever, what does that achieve? They have already said it, and perhaps they should reconsider what they said in order to evaluate what their goal in saying so was and to whose benefit such comments ultimately fall. Such comments have a tendency not only to be used by our own right-wing extremists, but also by those of the Islamist right-wing extremists. What was gained by such? More segragation, right? That is why banning them from a particular public platform is most likely done. As a slap on the wrist to remind of the responsibility for being accurate in expression, rather than as a way to silence them alltogether.
Saudi Arabia has been for decades protected by the US, regardless of the fact, that Saudis economically support a good number of movements, that could be called terrorists, and regardless of the fact that the Saudi Arabia is one of the most regressive governments in the world. The US have even made the claim, that they are protecting “democracy” when they have protected the princes of Saudi Arabia. The US is not the sole culprit of this, but it is the major one. Heck, even Finland has sold weaponsystems to Saudi Arabia.
People have multiple reasons as to why they turn to extremist movements. Fear is the key. We should not feed the fear. Should we?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Believe me, I’m not criticising your appeal to tolerance and education. Such is essential. I was, however, drawing your attention to the point that it’s not quite as black and white as, say, defending gays right to marriage. There is a political (theocratic) ideology at play, and it is central to a religion that is at war with itself first before outside influences. Secularism is not even (presently, at least) on Islam’s radar, and we should not ignore that. Case in point, the Turkish experiment, which is now crumbling.
LikeLike
If I may interject, it’s not your observations of factual occurances that are under scrutiny here. There are two main areas of concern:
1. Projection of worst case scenarios (sometimes called ‘fear-mongering’)
2. The impact of summarising these worst-case scenarios into soundbits (the most of communication for this age)
This impact is DEMONSTRATED to:
a. make people go to further extremes in a typical threatened/defensive human response.
b. lead to discrimination and hate crimes in areas where Muslims are generally peaceful minority groups.
What is an example of the positive impact of someone like this Dawkins/Hitchins bloke getting more airtime? I would venture to suggest a big fat nothing. It’s fear-mondering pure and simple. It’s labelling, it’s othering, it’s ridiculing and it’s counter-productive.
Campaign for human rights and point to international agreements and logical arguments to back this up. Much more sensible.
LikeLike
Why are you ignoring that Islam has, at its core, a political (theocratic) ideology?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why are you ignoring the impact of words?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Words as a response to bloody actions?
Praise Neptune they are just ‘words.’
LikeLike
John Zande, I am talking about words that lead to more terrorism, more oppression and more fundamentalism. Words like ‘Islam is evil’. I’m baffled you can’t follow the simple train of events. Too many cocktails again this morning.
Words – impact – more religion
OR
Words – impact – less religion
We need to do an analysis to see what words lead to what impact. I’m suggesting friendly words that appeal to reason and common human experience will work better than insulting words that demean and attempt to shame.
LikeLike
Sunnis killing Shias leads to terrorism. Shias killing Sunnis leads to terrorism. The free propogation of theocratic ideologies leads to terrorism. The promotion of martydom leads to terrorism. The excution of blasphemy laws leads to terrorism. Radical opposition to secular ideals (like women being able to drive and vote) leads to terrorism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And look at that! It even has a name that an Australian could truly appreciate – the boomerang effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_effect_(psychology)
LikeLike
What you say here, VW, is exactly right… but only if you ignore reality, ignore the more than 150 pages of convert stories at Dawkins’ site, ignore the letters of support to Professor Peterson from almost 2 dozen transexuals here in Canada, only if you ignore the more than 100 confessions of those priests and clergy who admit in the Clergy Project that the challenges raised by New Atheists led them to no longer believe.
The evidence for challenging deeply held beliefs to positive effect is there; there is no such equivalent evidence for producing positive change by not challenging deeply held beliefs that are pernicious. Why should there be? And this evidence for impact should be surprising only to those who assume they already know and who fell they don’t need to bother checking in with reality to arbitrate their beliefs about it.
LikeLike
No, it depends what evidence your confirmation bias decides is most important. You think 150 people (who already had doubts and therefore even picked up his books) leaving a religion is an achievement in a world where tens of thousands of people have felt furiously desperate and powerless enough to head off to jihad, or strap bombs to themselves or drive lorries into crowds of people. Your atheist heros shouting ‘Islam is evil!’ from the rooftops is much more fuel to that fire than any kind of deconversion success story.
You can challenge deeply held beliefs and harmful practices without insulting people – this is the point completely lost on you.
Can you even acknowledge that extremism breeds when people feel threatened and powerless? Or do you think they’ve not been told loud enough how evil their core identity is? It’s simplistic stupidity in the extreme. And watch how my insults push you to an even more extreme view – evidence before your very eyes! 🙂
As for the massive 24 trans people who supported the man who doesn’t want to change words he uses to help others be comfortable in society, send me a link, I can’t find it.
LikeLike
Good grief, VW, slow down.
You skipped the 150 PAGES I referred to, not 150 stories. It’s about some 3000 stories submitted. I have also heard from Harris and Hitchens and Dennett about all the private messages they are sent. I hear the same from Grayling, from Coyne, from Shermer and Penn and Stenger, from Singer and Hauser and Namazie. I read the same from other blogs, including Arch and MAL, stories of appreciation from former believers who turned away from their belief and found support and sustenance and acceptance throughout the New Atheist community.
You PRESUME criticism is somehow bad, PRESUME it somehow impels worse outcomes, and in some sense this is true in the hardening of beliefs that cannot withstand reasonable criticism. But the important effect this has is to show the next generation of malleable believers that such brittle beliefs that cannot face hard arguments and legitimate challenges on equivalent merit are not worth holding. Again, the data seems to back this proposition up.
You confuse the tree (that is me: a Very Bigoted Person) with the forest (that is the issue I am presenting) and don’t even reflect long enough when challenged to question whether or not it is your bias that preempts attaining a deeper understanding about any other counterpoint… a moment lost as soon as you resupply and refuel yourself with the gleeful rush of self-righteousness to start hurling more insults… but always outwards.
LikeLike
Thanks for the continuing the conversation Tildeb, it’s pushing me to check your facts, and more reading on a subject is always useful. I’ve just come across a great article from someone with more explicit knowledge of Dawkins, which gives loads more examples of his tweets and comments, and sums up a lot of my argument more coherently. It would be great if you can find the time to read it: Not in our name: Dawkins dresses up bigotry as non-belief – he cannot be left to represent atheists
Some key parts:
The attitude that Dawkins takes is never going to achieve large-scale deconversion that could calm down the violence in many Muslim countries at this point in time, for at least two main reasons: the violence (aimed both externally and interally) is not simply rooted in religion – it’s bigger power struggles, cycles of tribalistic hatred and revenge, and cultural fear and mistrust; and deconversation isn’t a ‘choice’ people make by seeing facts or being challenged, as we well know from our endless discussions online. His wider body of work may indeed assist relatively small numbers of already-doubtful to abandon religion, but his sweeping statements on Islam are a wedge driver that can only contribute to divisions in human society.
As I’ve stated several times, this is not about avoiding condemning violence or harmful behaviour by any means, it’s about finding a sensible approach that doesn’t greet fear, hatred and bigotry with more fear, hatred and bigotry.
LikeLike
You know the article (yet another “I’m and atheist but… article”) you quote is crap from the get go because the subtitle misrepresents Dawkins’ position right off the bat: by claiming Dawkins sends out “anti-Muslim tweets”. Yet the fact is that Dawkins goes out of his way to remind people of the difference between criticizing a belief (Islam) with criticizing people (Muslims). Dawkins calls Islam today’s worst religion in the world and one the first and primary reasons is because of how harmful it is to real people who are – you guessed it – Muslims. This kind of tripe article is the typical Ben Afflick idiocy in action: first misrepresenting what someone says or thinks to paint them as a bigot FIRST, and then not just thinking ill of the person for advocating the misrepresentation but demonizing them for this imposed ThoughtCrime.
So the point that remains central to my criticism is that SJW have no problem deplatforming, disinviting, demonizing, and drowning out people like Dawkins when it comes to criticizing Islam but are not consistent in that they do not do the same to those who criticize, say, Christianity. And they certainly don’t do it to any Islamist speaker who really does advocate for ideas as well as actions antithetical to Western secular values.
But the real problem isn’t the hypocrisy by those who go along with the fascist methods used by SJWs but the willingness to then endorse and excuse and rationalize the shutting down of other people’s voices by pretending their equality rights do not matter and anything they have to say is bigoted…. in the name of ‘defending’ some perceived group of ‘victims’. This is the insidious and toxic virus that is infecting the body politic on the Left. It is absolutely typical PoMo thinking. It is vile, and it is championed by Social Justice Warriors who then try to impose it as the only ‘correct’ way to think on everyone.
LikeLike
Nonsense Tildeb, see my response to John. I’ve been advocating for people to be polite on this blog well before you came along to tell me that politeness is wrong. I have several posts on the theme of questioning this attitude from some atheists that religion is evil.
Tweets? Are you serious? Here’s some:
And I’ve just watching the YouTube video he recommended comparing feminists to islamists. He’s a base stereotyper, slopping thinker (in some respects) and ignorant white male (in many respects). He should definitely be uninvited to speaking engagements in my opinion – there are lots of other people who can present the case for a secular society much more effectively.
What’s PoMo? You’re immersed in a confirmation bias culture of attacking something that doesn’t exist and giving it labels. Humans learning to be nicer to each other, to interact and influence each other more effectively, doesn’t need to be called SJW or PoMo or whatever label you’ve invented in an attempt to smear progress.
LikeLike
Rautakyy, you say, “Islam is a foul and dangerous form of culture.”
To be clear and factual, Islam is not a culture. It is not a form of culture. It is unequivocally a religion. That’s a brute fact. Why would anyone have trouble with admitting this fact… unless something else, something other than respecting what is true, were at play?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rautakky is correct. It IS a culture. It is a culture cloaked as religion. This is the grand deception tildeb.
Blowing a complete stranger up with a bomb is hardly a benevolent act. It is pure evil, and to associate it with religion because someone screams allahooey-abracadabra-akabarmaids- is not too smart.
Islam is a way of life. It is a way of life that promotes death.
You want religion? Go to a nursing home where the staff tend to life. See them care for the old and downtrodden, and hopelessly infirm. You will not find the staff bombing the elderly into oblivion in the name of allahuachoo.
And don’t even try to make the association with Christianity and Islamamania. They are not even in the same universe of reality.
‘The greatest of these is charity, ‘ is a truth foreign to the culture of islam, where a two year kid is taught that Jews must be exterminated, that it is an honor to kill the infidel……….cough cough, and where alahooy rewards the deeds of devils.
Plain and simple. You may want to use a dictionary.
LikeLike
Indeed Tildeb. I was once again sloppy with my expression. Now, do you see how important it is to be factual and precise, when addressing a complex issue? I have a responsibility about my words. Thank you for correcting me, to be more precise. Even though I still think that religions are forms of culture. They are cultural constructs, not divine revelations, as we propably can agree?
I have no hidden agenda, rather I was just looking for an alternative way to express the same thing, as I have referred to Islam as a religion so many times before. I admit thought, that I also tried to remind us all about where such phenomenons, as religions come from. It was a silly tangent and I apologize for it. In future, please, if I fail to express myself, grant me the benefit of the doubt, that most likely it is the result of the fact, that English is my second, or perhaps third language, or that I am under the influence of alcohol, before putting on the foil hat of suspicion and question my motives. 😉
LikeLike
It should have come with a trigger warning, Rautakyy!!! I just don’t feel safe when you express yourself this way. Maybe there should be a new law to protect me.
Seriously, though, I hear this obfuscation about Islam constantly… this pathological need to refer to just about any other cause no matter how oblique but Islam, even when Islam itself is the quoted reason by adherents for certain actions they undertake. Even Obama consistently corrected these ‘poor misguided not-real-Muslims’ at every opportunity and absolutely refused to recognize Islam as the motivation for any acts done specifically in its name over and over and over and over…. so let’s hear from the Horse’s Mouth and just listen for yourself to the ISIS social media branch of its Caliphate. Islam IS the reason, the whole reason, and nothinhg but the reason, so help me God!
LikeLike
To be fair on Obama, his advisors cautioned him (and his admin in general) to not use such words/terms as they served to increase enrollment in the bad boys clubs. How he actually felt on the matter we really don’t know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JZ, he may have been advised this way, but I suspect this failure to speak truth to power in the name of political gain also played an important role in motivating many liberals and undecided voters to give the Orange Sphincter a whirl at bat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know what cottonwool world you live in Tildeb, but I’m seriously saddened you think ridiculing trigger warnings and anti-discrimination legislation is clever.
Yes, and SOM speaks for all Christians too.
LikeLike
I am not going to enjoy this, but let us look at the facts. If we were to actually put religions in some hierarchical order of evil, what would be the measurements to achieve such a comparrison?
What the holy books say seems to be totally irrelevant, because every religious person seems to find what ever message from those they want. Wich is exactly why only a tiny fraction of Muslims become Jihadists and why Christians eat pork and do not keep slaves. The fact that there are thousands of denominations of Christianity alone is a testament to that reality. There may be a little less denominations to Islam, but that is not so much the result of what the religion is, nor what their holy books tell us, as it is because Islamic nations are less secular. That in turn seems to be a direct result of them being developing countries or ex-colonies (to Christian empires, no less) as the same pretty much applies to Christian developing countries. I think we could put almost any religion to this test, but the ones that are in the minority today concern us less. Exept, of course, if one of them happens to be true. If any religion could be shown to actually be true, we would face completely different set of questions.
There is precious little room here to include even every major religion in the world, so I will leave out Shintoism, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others out of the comparrison, and concentrate to the aforementioned Islam and the surrounding cultural heritage of Richard Dawkins, Christianity.
So, the question becomes, what has been done by sincere believers in this or that religion, that they thought was informed by the religion in question?
Here are some evil religiously informed behaviour in no particular order to compare the two. Let me tell me if I have left out a major problem.
1. Violence towards minority sexual groups: Christianity – yes. Islam – yes.
2. Severe restriction of women in society: C – yes. I – yes.
3. Owning slaves: C – yes. I – yes.
5. Igniting and conquest by holy war: C – yes. I – yes.
6. Executions of heretics, infidels, or non-believers: C – yes. I – yes.
7. Terrorism: C – yes. I – yes.
8. Suicide attacks: C – yes. I – yes.
9. Torture: C – yes. I – yes.
10. Ridiculous dresscodes: C – yes. I – yes.
11. Restrictions on scientific discovery: C – yes. I – yes.
12. Severe emotional violence: C – yes. I – yes.
13. Authoritarianism: C – yes. I – yes.
Do you want examples?
Now, if we were to find one more evil, than the other by comparing the severity of these crimes, we could argue, that Islamist suicide attacks are in comparrison worse, than Christian martyrs, but that would be a bit silly would it not? We could just as well argue, that Christian burning of the heretics alive is by far more vile, than Islamic beheadings. Could we not? Should we then compare wich religion has managed to destroy more other cultures, crab more countries, nations and surface of the planet? If one has done more evil does that make it more evil so far?
There could be an alternative and a secondary question, wich is what the sincere believers in this or that religon might end up doing or expect to be a good thing to achieve and how realistic is their goal?
If the goal of Islam is to make the world Islamic and by some interpretations through violence, then what is the goal of Chrisitianity? Not to make the world Christian? Wich is the method by wich either of those has spread most rapidly, if at all? Let me tell you – it is conquest. Why? Because people do not sit around in their houses waiting for someone to convert them to the real religion, or even to the least evil religion.
Now, the idea of Jihad may be more clearly expressed in the Qur’an, than the Crusades are sanctioned in the Bible, but make no mistake, the people who found excuses for the Crusades were as sincere believers in their holy books, as the Jihadists are.
There are Christians today who think the end of the world would be a good thing, and are a lot closer to the human made technology to bring it about, if they should get the chance, than any Islamists are to killing all the infidels. In my calculation, that makes Christianity look a lot worse than Islam. Am I wrong about this?
I would not want to live in a Islamic theocratic country, but I would not want to live in a Christian theocratic country either. Secularism is the only thing that keeps the religious nutjobs at bay, regardless what imaginary entities they happen to think justify their ill deeds.
Does this demonstrate how calling Islam the worst religion is actually factually wrong and a bit irrelevant. The relevant question about the evil religions have caused is that regardless of wich religion caused the evil, why did none of the alledged gods intervene to stop such vile events? Is it not? I think Richad Dawkins has made this question, and it would be better for him to stick to it, rather than go evaluating the colour of unicorn droppings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raut, as you know, I’m no fan of any religion. Like you, I wouldn’t wanty to live in any theocratic state. So, why is that I can criticise the present-day blights of Christianity pretty much every day, but not the present-day blights of Islam?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll jump in again. 🙂
You will have noticed that the tone of my blog changed a couple of years ago and I’ve been attempting to discuss things with Christians, rather than call them stupid, evil, deluded etc. This is part of the same realisation – that it’s patronising, counter-productive, blinkered and short-sighted to do so. We’ve had lots of discussions about this. There isn’t one rule for Christianity and one rule for Islam – it’s starts at a basis of common respect for other people – not tarring everyone with the same brush, and the logic of properly realising that everyone has their own view on life.
The other thing to consider is that if any of us lived in areas with Christian minorities who were experiencing hate crimes, we’d probably be a lot more precise in our language when describing the humanitarian crimes of other Christians in other countries, or a tiny proportion within our own countries. Again, common sense. Considering the impact of our words, particularly at politically sensitive time.
I understand the impulse to take it too far, I’m sure I’ve made many sweeping statements that are inaccurate and pointless. Just like you. 😉 The point here is that Dawkins, having made really, really inaccurate and unhelpful statements on a bigger stage, should totally expect that not everyone will want to give him a megaphone to keep talking. I certainly wouldn’t. I know the atmosphere that Muslims living here face, and I don’t think his voice adds anything useful to the debate at this point – just fuel to an angry fire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But again, is he criticising Muslims, or Islam?
Look, ultimately, we’re not in disagreement. Religion is silly, and it’s a great disappointment that people in 2017 still cling to this nonsense. Presently, though, Islam is inspiring some dreadful behaviour, behaviour that is promoted by the religion itself. Evangelical Christians aren’t any better, but let’s be honest, their body count isn’t as high as Islam’s in this present day.
LikeLike
I’m disappointed. I’m also disappointed that I’ve only just given up all animal products after knowing for the last 20 years that it’s harmful to contribute to the torture of animals. Change takes time, even when we know better. And it’s really very difficult to go against prevailing cultural norms, more so when your family might shun you or a death penalty might be involved. Point is, people will be more likely to examine these things if we discuss the implications of actions, show examples of harm, rather than preaching at them their culture, their religion or their identity is instrinsically evil. I have no idea how either of you think that is productive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the whole, I’m not disagreeing with you. It does seem, though, that you are promoting one rule for lambasting Christianity, and another for lambasting Islam.
LikeLike
Maybe nearer the start of my blogging days, but I’ve evolved in thinking. I’ll point you to just a few of my posts from March this year:
RELIGION IS HARMLESS
NONSENSE, HARM AND GREAT EVIL
IS RELIGION A POISON AND ATHEISM THE ANTIDOTE?
The only differences in my approach are:
– I understand Christianity a lot more than I understand Islam.
– I’m more immediately affected by religion encroaching on secular life in terms of Christianity because of where I live.
– I am genuinely concerned about the hostile attitude towards the Muslim minority in the UK – it’s uninformed, it’s based mainly on xenophobia, and it fuels isolation and therefore extremism in kids in this country.
I know Tildeb would it like to be for other reasons and therefore will continue projecting his ‘regressive left’ caricature, but that’s just what bigots do when a mirror is held up to their prejudice. 😀
LikeLike
Yes, we lambast Christianity because it is what mostly affects our lives. Islam is trying to, so why shouldn’t we criticise that, too?
LikeLike
Em, did you read my last comment??
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 Might have
LikeLike
John, you wrote: “So, why is that I can criticise the present-day blights of Christianity pretty much every day, but not the present-day blights of Islam?” Of course you can as much as I just did. 🙂 You also wrote: “Evangelical Christians aren’t any better, but let’s be honest, their body count isn’t as high as Islam’s in this present day.” Where do you start to count the “present day” and do you include the victims of W. Bush, or for example Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, and so forth? I think the achievements of Islamist terrorists are actually rather pitifull in comparrison. One may argue, that nazism for example was a secular cause, but I know for a fact , that the the Finnish volunteers who joined the SS, were certain they were fighting for the Christian faith against the Heathan Communists. I bet they were not the only ones.
If we are going to fight Islam, or at very least Islamism, we should use factual arguments and not paint the thing with too broad a brush. Especially since you and I live within the western culture, where we atheists are just as much a minority as the Muslims. And even if we were not (and hopefully in the future shall not be), as long as they are, they deserve a little protection from the mad inflated claims of the racists and xenophobes. If we make the mistake of blaming Islam and/or the Muslims for something factually false, there is a great danger, that the ones who collect on our mistake are the right wing Islamists, racists, nationalists, xenophobes, nazies, fascists and their ilk. That is why we need to tread carefully in this bog.
I think with a positive impact on the Muslim community we can change their minds, as we have changed the minds of the majority of Christians about atheism and human rights. I may be wrong, but if I am wrong, then what is there to do?
You also wrote to Violetwisp, that: “On the whole, I’m not disagreeing with you.” Same applies to me about her, you and Tildeb. I agree with you and Tildeb, that freedom of speech is an essential value, that we as a society need to defend, even when people are wrong about what they say, and rather than ban them, we (especially us skeptics) should face them and show them where they went wrong. If we possibly can. I also agree with Violetwisp, that we as a society and a liberal open culture need to take responsibility of our liberty to freedom of speech and protect the minorities from broad generalizations and wild fear mongering accusations, that only create fear and hatred. It is a delicate balance, but in my view it is possible, even though we – all of us humans – sometimes fail to keep it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Suggesting I hate people with religion because I hate religion is like suggesting I hate people with cancer because I hate cancer”
I’m sure you know that’s absurd. Nobody views cancer as a positive part of their identity – it’s a tragic, horrible disease. Religion is a core of part of identity for many people, it’s a core part of cultural identity, and they feel good about what they think it brings to their existence. What is religion without the people who pratice it? Absolutely nothing – just a bunch of words on the page. If you say you hate a religion, the message is unavoidably aimed at the people who practice that religion.
LikeLike
I, personally, wouldn’t use the word, hate. Disappointed fits better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb, well it could be, that my sadness is my own creation. You, however, seem to be confusing two separate things. Driving and drunk-driving. Most people who own cars, or drink alcohol, or both do not do those things at the same time. Some because it is illegal, but most because it is idiotic and dangerous to both self and others, wich in turn makes it wrong. There are no holy scriptures that tell us drunk driving is wrong or right. But even if there were, would that mean we would have many more or less drunk driving? Maybe. Yet, as with cars and alcohol, most Muslims by far are not extremists eager to kill the infidell. Are they? Therefore, it is not so much their religion, nor are they deserving to be attacked, as they are a minority here in the west, just because what it may do, when a small group of people abuses their religion to justify their own desperate political acts. Or is it I who has confused something?
All religions are used as excuses for violence. Historically Islam does not even strike out from that crowd. Of course there are religions that are and have been used more to that purpose. Like for example all of the Abrahamic religions. Look at the examples about Christianity, that I and others here have presented. How do you like it when the Israelis abuse the Palestinians? Do you not think, that in principle a Jewish state is just as wrong as an Islamic state? Is your particular dread of Islam because you feel you might be more likely target to their violence, than that of the Christians or the Jews? Even Buddhist monks have been known to act violently against relgious minority groups when they have had the chance. The best way to stop a particular religon from violence, is not to name it evil, but to damp it with secular culture.
I condemn violence in the name of any religion. Now, it could be, that if Dawkins had his say, and was not stopped to speak, he could persuade a good number of Muslims to see how absurd their religion is, and that could be a good thing in stopping religious violence. On the other hand, there is a danger, that his words could only end up causing more and more Muslims feel themselves as neglected, disliked or even hated in the west, and that in turn might lead to more segragation and as a result violence. There certainly is the danger, that our own religious, or otherwise conservatively motivated right-wing nutters would run amock on his words and use any picking out the “worst” religion as a weapon for nationalism.
We should not forget what the Islamist terrorists are fighting against. It is the inclusive secular western culture, that they fear. Not the individual desperate suicide bomber so much as the forces that sent them, but him too. The Taliban fear the western influence to their society in wich religion does not get to define right and wrong, or much of any social values. In that they are not different from Christian dominionists. Their methods are different.
I think, that here in the west our history teaches us, that the inclusiveness, equality and education are the roads to peace and prosperity and I think the only way we can offer these fruits to our Muslim sisters and brothers is the same, as we have learned them ourselves. If we tell them they are evil, because of their core cultural heritage we shall loose their ear. They shall no longer listen to us telling them they are wrong.
Banning any particular religions does not really help. As you propably know, it did not work in Communist Russia, even though it gave them a breather from the political influence of the Church, that had been for centuries used as a method to justify slavery, oppression and feudalism. Now look at what is happening. The Russian Orthodox Church is gaining more and more political influence through nationalism, and in doing so, eagerly limiting any other religious freedom in Russia, but also building up the nationalism.
Educating people how to come to the conclusion, that no gods are likely to exist, as you have so often done, is by far the better option than telling them they or their religion are exeptionally evil. A mistake I have done few enough times…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rautakyy, the point I’m raising about Islam is that I think it is a very bad idea worth criticizing in the public domain. I think that’s how one disempowers Really Bad Ideas over time: on merit. Now, Islam I think is a Very Bad Idea for many very compelling reasons. Christopher Hitchens does an excellent job here explaining why, and explains why Islam in comparison to other religions is particularly troublesome to Western secular liberal values but it seems that many people call this kind of talk ‘hate speech’ and would go along with shutting down and shutting up anyone who dares to speak such vile and bigoted words as Christopher Hitchens… bigoted by this New and Improved definition BECAUSE it criticizes Islam, you see. This is what I’m criticizing here, this assumption that someone else – a Social Justice Warrior – should be in charge of what you may or may not listen to, who is and is not a bigot, what you may or may not say. That’s my criticism here, that too many people are going along with this movement, going along with disinviting controversial speakers, going along with deplatforming authors, going along with this idea that we cannot criticize Really Bad Ideas because to do so, to point out the compelling reasons and the facts that support them, going along with the insidious idea that disagreeing with SJWs is itself always an act of bigotry. That’s what I’m criticizing. And look at how much criticism I get for even daring to do so… even from people like you who know better. It’s a very powerful movement, isn’t it?
LikeLike
“explains why Islam in comparison to other religions is particularly troublesome to Western secular liberal values”
Can you hear yourself and the amazingly sloppy, downright patronising and offensive style of expression? What you mean to say is: “Some interpretations of Islam go against the fundamental and universally agreed principles of human rights.” Its that easy – you isolate the specific area that causes concern and explain in unbiased terms why they are harmful. What you state above is the very cause of the continual friction between cultures – you sounds like you own a religion and they’re ALL doing it wrong.
LikeLike
On the one hand, sure, every individual interprets a written work. And so every religion can be categorized this way and thus you can create the facsimile of equivalency. This is what you’ve bought into for ideological reasons.
But the real world does not back you up. These are the facts I think you are rationalizing into meaninglessness.
The Hitch raises the issue of the Danish cartoons representing a very real clash of values between Western liberal secular democracies and those who have been or are undergoing Islamification. If what you say were true, then the Islamic Council representing Muslim majority countries would not have organized to burn every Danish embassy in Muslim majority countries and organize a boycott of Danish products. There is a cohesiveness you are waving away. There really is a difference, you see, between Islam as it is practiced by over a billion people and, say, Catholicism. Would you tolerate if the Roman Pope issued the call for murdering its critics and then claim that’s just the view of one Catholic? I doubt it very much) But such fatwas are common and they do have power because there are enough followers to believe through their personal interpretation of scripture that murdering apostates is good value to espouse. In fact, over one in three British born Muslims university educated and of middle class economic status or above agree that using violence in defense of the faith is justified. Sure, that’s millions of ‘personal interpretations’ but it should be enough to demonstrate that there really is a difference when no Catholics of equivalent birth and economic and education status were found to agree. There really is a difference.
Islam is a totalitarian doctrine, meaning it tells you how to live in total – from birth to death, from sex to banking, from diet to prayer. It is the perfect word of God. It is the final and perfect word and if you do not believe this, then just ask a Muslim. Unlike any version of Christianity that I am aware of, this total submission to both scripture and its messenger is the measurement of how good or how poor a Muslim you are. That’s why it’s different. That’s why your interpretation doesn’t matter. It simply doesn’t matter. Your interpretation either agrees with scripture or it does not… and woe to anyone who tries to ‘correct’ scripture, to make fun of it, to cast doubt upon it. The penalty for doing so is prescribed. What’s there to interpret?
You are fooling yourself that supporting public debate and criticism about this totalitarian religion – what I call a Very Bad Idea – is worthy of total censorship in the name of fighting bigotry but the same debate about the same issues held in various degrees by other religions is just peachy keen, fine and dandy, look-how-open-minded-I-am, and look-how-bigoted-you-are-to-want-to-hear-these-critics-of-Islam.
Of course, you will dismiss reality as quickly as you dismiss anything I might write contrary to ideology and claim that all that I write is therefore ” amazingly sloppy, downright patronising and (is delivered with an) offensive style of expression.” What you say here must be the case because that’s how you have already defined any criticism of your ideology no matter its truth value or factual content. And that’s a problem you have and not a reflection of bigotry on my part. Your belief does not define or accurately describe reality no matter how bigoted you may attribute to either my manner of speech or its content. Your willingness to endorse your ideology has a cost not just to me whom you so glibly insult with lies and then repeat as if true but to yourself and the fundamental values I endorse for your right to be a fool.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb, anyone may be guilty of sloppy, or even patronizing speech. I for example abowe claimed that Communist Russia banned religion. They did not. They removed it from political power. But they never opened any discussions with it. They simply decided to tell the people, what they had believed was evil rubbish. It was, but did the people believe the communists?
Now, I condemn Roman Catholic doctrine for the attitude of the church and their interpretation of scripture about abortion, contraception, position of women in society, their hiding of the pedhophile priests among other things. Equally, I condemn the interpretation of Islam, that demands fatwas, jihad, suicide bombers and/or the position of women in society. I also condemn the Roman Catholic church for having organized the Crusades and the Inquisition. The fact that two of the latter ones no longer are a threat to us, or anybody really, is the result of those western liberal values. Those are the values that the Islamists fear. They are also the values that our own fascists, be they religious or not, fear. The liberal values do demand freedom of speech, but they also demand responsibility for what you say. Because what you say may cause more harm than it does good.
Islam is not this one big thing, any more than Christianity is, or even Roman Catholicism. The French city dwelling educated Roman Catholic has a very different view on the issues I mentioned abowe, from a poor uneducated American Roman Catholic has. Same applies to Muslims. Most victims of Islamist terrorist acts are Muslims killed by other muslims. Just as most victims of Christians when they terrorize people have always been other Christians.
As I already said perhaps, such prominent thinkers and speakers as Christopher Hitchens (even from beyond the grave in his film and written words) or Richard Dawkins can speak to the Muslims and alarm them of the problems of their religion. I certainly hope so. Even more so I hope, that some of the ex-Muslims who are open about their position, even though it is a dangerous position, can move Muslims to come to think about this. Calling their religion especially evil, at a moment in history when they are engaged in both politically and religiously motivated violence, may do the trick. Yet doing it from outside their cultural experience is not necessarily the best thing Especially if you go listing their cultural heritage the worst ever.
Meanwhile in reality, many Muslims, especially here in the west already feel their identity is being questioned and they are labelled evil, all the while the western corporations exploit their home countries, both people and natural resources. Western armies are occupying many of their lands and western governments have supported regressive regimes, that have stood for the benefit and interrests of western countries and corporations. Should we promote segragation between them and us, the westerners further? Would that bring about more safety or more violence? I think history teaches the latter is the most likely result of segragation.
Most Muslims however, are not running around to bring forth Jihad, fatwas, or making suicide attacks. Are they? Wether your, or some Mullahs, or even Ajatollahs interpretation of Islam demands them to do so or not does not make them do it. Does it? Just as most Roman Catholics use contraception, if they can possibly afford it and are educated enough to know what it is for totally irrespective of what the pope or the cardinals and priests say. Especially most Muslims in western countries are not eager to go on a rampage of jihad. Are they? The so called Islamization of western culture is a myth among other myths, most fondly reiterated by the most extreme nationalist right wing racists. It is their excuse for racism. But like Dr. Goebbels used to say, a lie repeated often enough becomes true to many people. I hope you have not fallen into this trap, because I refuse to think you are a racist yourself. Do not be deluded by them.
Do not get me wrong. I think all forms of religiosity are inherently evil as they are ultimately based on nonsense and authoritarianism and even the most mildest form of Islam or Christianity are at best enablers for the more viler forms of religious behaviour. Yet, I can understand why a minority group, such as Muslims, or atheists for that matter, deserve a bit of protection from the hatred of those who percieve themselves as the majority and are protecting their traditional priviledges. A prominent speaker such as Richard Dawkins can hardly be quieted about what he has to say – and in my book that is a good thing. On the other hand, it may be good thing for him to be reminded, that there is responsibility in such a position of power and that a responsible person does not fuel the fires of hatred and fear our own idiots, racists and monoculturists in the west are already engaged in. Are they not?
Putting religions in some sort of hierarchical order according to wich is worst, is like trying to evaluate wich tastes fouler pis or shite. Not very interresting to me.
LikeLike
Rautakyy, I am a staunch supporter of individual rights and freedoms that constitute autonomy in law. But these must be shared. Equally. Without discrimination. This cannot happen when we start to legislate by groups. I can’t parcel out these rights here, and those freedoms there, according to some overarching ideology of ‘fixing’ group victimhood. The very idea not just incoherent (because groups can always be subdivided as well as cross pollinated) but antithetical to the fundamental shared value that justifies the consent of the individuals governed. The idea is an attack on individual liberty, and this liberty is predicated on the shared right to speak freely.
You say, ” Even more so I hope, that some of the ex-Muslims who are open about their position, even though it is a dangerous position, can move Muslims to come to think about this.”
We agree. And wouldn’t that be great? But social justice warriors do not agree. Vehemently do not agree. They not only try to shut down, disinvite, deplatform, and drown out those who dare speak up about why their apostate position is so personally dangerous in reality (a concern I have never encountered when, say, an Anglican dares criticize some wider Anglican policy) but insist almost without exception that they as the Self-Appointed Defenders of Muslim Victims have the right to determine before the first words are potentially uttered that anything coming from such a source is by definition critical of Islam and so is by definition already labeled as intolerant hate speech. And whosoever still speaks up will help us to identify the bigots among us… namely, those who are willing to listen.
So I think your statement is a pipe dream – one that i wish were possible – and yet from where I sit it appears obvious to me that you are actually supporting its opposite sentiment by going along and sharing with the disappointment and vilification of someone willing to have an open debate about such controversial topics.
I think it’s very clear that it has not been I who has quickly turned this opportunity to criticize deplatforming into a rancid debate to hurl terrible personal insults. This fact alone should make you pause and reconsider why you feel sad as you do when you consider the scope of my writing and the attitudes and reasoned opinions (and explanations that make them so long-winded) I put on display. After all, I have not advocated any discrimination against anyone; what I have done is stood firmly by my principles of respecting individual autonomy, respecting facts that inform controversial issues, principles that I honestly think people share but many submerge in the attempt to avoid exactly the kind of charges used so liberally against me.
And that should be revealing and worth some serious reconsideration.
LikeLike
Yes, Tildeb, I have always taken you as one of the good guys. None of us can see into the future, but it seems the two of us have a bit of a difference of opinion on what the end results of a particular choise of conduct may be. This difference reflects the differences within the western culture as that is not just some one big thing either. Just like Islam is not.
Europe is a continent of dozens of nations made up from small local minorities. Hence, it is today one of the European traditions to see people as members of several different groups and to protect the interrests of the minority groups as almost everyone can identify themselves as a member of this or that minority. The Americas are the melting pot of cultures from all over the planet, where people have for generations strived to become part of the one culture that is incommon to all. Hence, freedom, including the freedom of speech is seen as a virtue in itself.
I can not say wich is really better, because I can not see one without the other functioning to the benefit of all people. For example, I do not look at people and group them according to their skin colour, I do not group people by guessing what their religious backround is, but as I have my own individual identity and my group identity, I can appriciate it that other people do have those identities themselves.
I count myself as a Finn, but my paternal family is also Carelian. When the Carelians, many of whom were Russian Orthox, escaped their homes to Finland during WWII and Finland lost a big part of Carelia to the Soviets, my father was a kid, who was told by some other adult Finns, that he is a damn “Ruskie”, and that he and his people should go back to Russia. Those Finns could know nothing worse than a “ruskie”, a member of the Ruskie church, or a communist, not to mention an atheist and in certain respect they had the right to think those were the worst things they could imagine. In that war the Finnish Muslims fought, bled and died for Finland just like the rest of Finns and nobody thought they or their religion was particularly evil. My grandad was an atheist and had been with the reds during the Finnish civil war, so as a Carelian he and my dad represented the worst nightmares of many Finns, as Finland was at war with the Soviet Union. But the Finnish society would not tolerate hate and hatefull speech against the Carelians, or Russian Orthodox believers, and eventually not even against actual Russians, communists, nor atheists. Now I am a fully fledged member of the Finnish society and even though I am a member of several formerly hated minorities, I have never been even asked about those. The inclusive nature of the quite liberal Finnish society has done more good on my part, than freedom of speech as such. I am in debt to the Finnish liberals and socialists who together for generations have strived to build the Finnish society into an egalitarian direction, with equal right to quality education, equal right to medical care and social networks for those who become voulnerable, be the reason of their voulnerability what ever and who fought against all manner of hatefull speech. But they have had their opposition, from all manner of right wing extremists and they still do. Guess who those right wing extremists see as their major enemies today.
Sometimes the identities people have make people voulnerable. To remove such voulnerability, the best way is an open discussion about the ideas about their identities. But people who engage in such discussions should remember, that the people may be voulnerable and that the voulnerable people should be protected from open hatred. Do we agree about this?
The religious movements that go out to convert people do not really expect normal everyday people to just sit in their houses and wait for someone to come to tell them about Jesus or Hare Kristna or what ever. They already know, that the people likely to convert are the ones who are in one way or a nother voulnerable. The most likely convert to any religion is the sick, the lonely and those who have failed to have any controll over their own lives. I think we atheists should consider not to engage in the same form of convincing as it is at best dubious (though it seems to help some addicts) and at worst down right immoral preying on the weaknesses of poeple. Telling people that Islam is the worst ever religion may appeal to the most voulnerable individuals, who have already experienced how evil it is, but it may also turn them into violence to protect what little they have left of their identity.
I agree with you, that the world would be a better place, if we could have open discussions about everything. But I also see the world as a bit more complicated place than just that. Factually erroneus claims, like that Islam is the worst religion ever, should be stated, and then refuted by facts. But in reality the multitude of human minds seems to be able to produce more and more fancy claims, than we have time to check the facts. I mean look at the internet. And then you have the people who do not appriciate facts, because they have tied their identities to their subjective world view so tightly, that facts run over them like water from the back of a goose. I mean, look at Donald Trump and his success.
I, for my part, am ready to fight for the freedom of speech, even though I think there is a responsibility attached to it, as much as for the right of Muslims or any religious people to practice their religion as long as that practice does not contradict human rights. I may also be ready to defend minorities from violence of any extremist groups, be they Muslim, Christian, or atheist for that matter. Does that make me a “social justice warrior”?
LikeLike
I must have misunderstood. I got the impression that some Muslims aren’t violent. Glad you’re here to demonstrate that they are all a huge threat to my freedoms in this great Western Civilisation built by fine Christians on the Word of the True God. Yes, indeed, evil, the message has finally sunk in and I shall take up arms with you to spread the news to ensure people like Hitchins are shouting it constantly from the rooftops. Because that will help make the world a better place. I understand that spreading fear and imagining worst case scenarios always ends pleasantly when cycles of mistrust and murder have commenced between groups of people.
I’ll have to contact the owners of my ‘ideology’ and let them know.
Your ideology (because you are following the teachings of other people – note: I’m not) is defined by predictable conservatism that doesn’t like change and fears The Other. You always see the end of the world round the corner, and in your desperation to avoid impending doom, act in ways that could only encourage the end you fear. In this case, your attitude, by dismissing Muslims along with Islam (because it’s impossible to separate them) contributes to the growth of extremism, an increase in hate crimes, and the deepening of revenge and violence cycles fuelled by fear.
LikeLike
I cannot understand why Dawkins was not allowed to speak.
If what he says is true then let’s hear it.
Is Islam the most “the most evil religion in the world?” At the moment? Probably?From a personal perspective a victim of abuse by the Catholic Religion might say otherwise.
Religious people in the 21st century are either unfortunate victims of indoctrination or bloody idiots who refuse to acknowledge that people who blow shit up in the name of religion should
be … well, what do we think should happen? Smack their wrists?
I would side with Dawkins any day of the week against any religious complaint.
Call a spade a spade.
They don’t like it … hitch a Ride with Mohammed on his farking horse and f…f… fly away.
LikeLike
A university radio station cancelled his appearance to promote his new book based on some of his tweets which they perceived as Islamophobic. It’s his right to tweet whatever he likes, and their right to decide they don’t want their Muslim students to feel insulted by him. Freedom is a two way street.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So it’s basically interpretation of what is perceived as hate speech, am I understanding this correctly, more or less?
LikeLike
It becomes hate speech as soon as someone is offended… but only because it involves Islam. Islam is special. Islam deserves special protection. That’s what Social Justice Warriors do: they protect victims and empower them with special legal privileges. The same criticisms raised against any other religion is not hate speech because it doesn’t involve Islam, you see. It doesn’t involve those poor brown-skinned victims. At this radio station, the antisemitic rants of Muslims is given no equivalent disinviting. The Social Justice Warriors are too busy protecting Islam from the terrible people… people like Dawkins.
LikeLike
Yeah …
Mohammed was nice guy, really.
Just as Genghis Khan had a few tiny , ”I merely wanted to extend my back garden” issues … ”honest!”
LikeLike
It’s a different standard, and indicates what is known as the soft bigotry of lower expectations… something Dawkins talks about and worth thinking about… if only social justice warriors would put down their megaphones long enough to actually listen and think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb, this is the third time on this post you’ve felt the need to refer to skin colour. I’m sure you think you’re massively clever and ironic and not in the least bit racist. Islam is a religion, and its adherents are not determined by skin colour. You can embarass yourself with such small-minded jabs at political correctness (or ‘respect’) on other posts if you wish, but if you do it again here, I will edit it out of your comment.
LikeLike
I’d don’t think they went that far. Their statement simply says they feel some of his tweets were disrespectful, or abusive or something like that. In the end they have the right to not promote any author they don’t want to promote.
LikeLike
Indeed they do have that right.
I question their motivation, of course, and it might be naive to hand-wave away the potential they may become targets themselves al la Charlie Hedbo …. but if they deem this freedom of choice then so be it.
LikeLike
No one is entitled to any particular platform. Christians have long complained they’re not given a platform by The Guardian or El Pais, to which I say *get over yourselves*. The same has to apply to atheists as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not saying he is ”entitled”, Pink. It is like blog moderation. The ultimate decision lies woith the host. However, one is entitled to see if there are ulterior motives for denying such a platform.
On the pretext of ”offence”, real or imagined, it is far easier than saying: ”Hey, look, we love Dawkins but we are really a bit worried by any fallout. It’s Islam after all. I mean, it isn’t as if Dawkins wants to talk about Creationism or a nob like Trump, now is it?”
There is a teeny bit of context to consider as well, I feel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you suggesting it’s a fear thing? I don’t think it is. It’s respect for the Muslim communities in the area who are dealing with suspicion and hatred on a daily basis. It’s concern for the many families devastated by the Trumps immigration nonsense based on religion. Religion has become politicised in the USA at the moment, and if you agree to bash it in public it can have tremendously devastating consequences for individuals.
There are intelligent ways and helpful ways to discuss the harm caused by extremist interpretations of the Islamic faith – Dawkins isn’t selecting them because he lives in Celebrated Bubble Land, where people similar to Tildeb who spit ‘factual’ disdain for minority groups and are paranoid about Free Speech surround him and no doubt they all help steer each other into the mudbank.
LikeLike
Sam Harris has made a pertinent point about Islam in that it is not
like Judaism in that there is no Reformed Islam.
I care more about the backlash to people who criticize Islam rather than the supposed moderates.
And even moderates come under fire from the fanatics in their own religion.~
I cannot honestly see a middle ground.
If public criticism is wont to spark a violent backlash then where does this leave us?
Whispering in back rooms?
If the supposed ordinary Muslims do not come together and root this shit out then there is going to be serious, serious problems down the line.
We’ve had 9/ll.
We’ve had aircraft blown up,
Want to bet your house or your kids that there is not the real risk of one of the maniacs setting off a nuclear device?
He who waits for the axe to fall will surely lose his head.
Dawkins,Sam Harris and such like are not saying anything that is not absolutely true.
It’s like the tobacco companies still trying to deny cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
A pew survey Harris quotes showed that 70% of Muslims across several non- Muslim and strictly Muslim countries agree with Jihad under certain circumstances.
Nuff said….
LikeLike
“I care more about the backlash to people who criticize Islam rather than the supposed moderates.”
Well, I care more about the effect that poorly constructed criticism has on Muslims themselves and the rest of the world:
1. It creates more defensive and embittered extremists.
2. It alienates moderates within Islamic communities.
3. It leads to divisions/resentment/fear within communities with Muslim minority populations.
4. And most importantly, it convinces NO-ONE apart from people already predisposed to disliking Islam. It’s for bandwagon jumpers.
Don’t criticise Islam. Criticise harmful actions wherever they happen to be – religious or non-religious settings (history shows us just as likely to happen either way). Use evidence to cast doubt on the veracity of religious stories and traditions. These are separate activities are too often being conflated, and to no useful end.
LikeLike
Yep. So there is no reason not to continue to criticize Islam as well. It stinks from top to bottom, as does all religion.
Call a spade a spade.
It is a disgusting, violent homophobic misogynistic religion that signs death warrants for apostates and if it had free reign would Islamify the entire world.
Sure there are loads of perfectly decent Muslims. But they are corrupted by their religion. That is a fact.
LikeLike
How can you say ‘yep’ and then give a comment that completely disregards what I said? Either you understand the impact of words or you don’t.
LikeLike
How can you say ‘yep’ and then give a comment that completely disregards what I said? Either you understand the impact of words or you don’t.
I am agreeing with you regarding your statement about poorly constructed criticism.
I do not think Sam Harris or Dawkins are guilty of either.
LikeLike
In that case, tell me what effects you see from someone saying ‘Islam is the most evil religion on the world’? Obviously the already converted like you and Tildeb applaud – but what effects to you generally envisage those kind of words could have on the listeners deprived of his interview:
1. Muslim Californians
2. Non-Muslim Californians
LikeLike
So you to use a comparison, would you regard the things Hitchens said about Catholicism and in particular Mother Theresa were not justified?
LikeLike
How can you not criticise Islam when Islam is the motivatation for the action?
LikeLiked by 3 people
One interpretation of Islam is the motivation at any given point. Why do you have to reference the religion to discuss evidence for more productive human behaviour that benefits everyone?
We all agree that religions naturally evolve with human knowledge – the interpretation moves to suit what we know. By attacking the religion specifically, you make people defensive. By attacking harmful practices with evidence, you give them room to consider how they can behave more sensibly.
LikeLike
I reference the religion because it is the reference for the action. There is no separating the two when the religion demands the action. How many bloggers and uni professors have been killed in Pakistan these last 12 months because Muslims believed they’d broken Islamic blasphemy laws?
LikeLike
Is that commonplace across Islam? Do Muslim communities in the UK, in the USA, in Brazil support those actions?
There’s a growing problem with people who follow certain interpretations of Islam not adhering to generally accepted humanitarian norms. It’s not helpful to simplify that to ‘Islam is most the evil religion in the world’ – even as part of a longer explanation.
LikeLike
Yes, it appears to be commonplace, and you know why, because it’s part of the religion, and the religion has laws that affect (and dictate) adherents actions/behaviours.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m concerned by atrocities committed anywhere in the world, and will never defend them. Men are the most evil humans on earth and we don’t talk about it enough. There are interpretations of Islam, growing in popularity, which go against current humanitarian norms. Given that not all Muslims agree with these actions, and there are many official condemnations of terrorist actions and murders by wider Muslim communities, I think it’s counterproductive and illogical to concentrate criticism on Islam as a whole:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/news/2017/03/british-muslims-condemn-london-attack-170325082924607.html
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/not-in-our-name-muslims-respond-in-revulsion-to-charlie-hebdo-shooting/
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
Last link is to demonstrate how dangerous Islam is, given high levels of support. But still demonstrates that the majority in most places don’t.
We’re essentially on the same side. It may seem like semantics to you, but impact is the most important function of words. We’re being sloppy when we condemn a whole religion based on the actions of a minority.
LikeLike
V, you’re ignoring the fact that Islam isn’t just a belief system, but a political system as well, with laws, like against blasphemy. It is, presently, entirely incompatitable with a secular society.
Can it change? Sure, Christians were (on the whole) forced to change, but we have to see that change first. Presently, I don’t see it. Anywhere.
And you’re right about men.
LikeLike
Your ‘poorly constructed criticism’ is any criticism of Islam. That’s why you advocate for no criticism and fall into accomplishing exactly what you say you don’t want (the justification you use for your position): the encroachment of Islamic values into society, into law, into politics, that are contrary to and in conflict with all the rights you have to voice this opinion. You act contrary to your own justification. This is the insidiousness of PoMo thinking and you do the job of religious Islamic extremists by vilifying those who speak up while helping to shut down necessary public criticism demonstrating the incompatibility of Islamism with enlightenment values.
LikeLike
I’ll stand for our humanitarian norms to remain humanitarian norms – respecting the rights of others. It doesn’t matter if the challenge comes from people of a religious faith or people of a fringe feminist ideology.
LikeLike
Respecting the rights of others is a really easy thing to say… right up until this respect bumps up against your ‘progressive’ ideology.
For example, I have been very clear in my support for respecting the rights of the transgendered to live whatever gender expression they desire. I share that right of gender expression. But you do not respect my right to select what I think are appropriate pronouns for individual transgendered people (assuming incorrectly as you do that I am not respectful) and that the law should make a special case for them… in the name of reducing discrimination and ‘protecting’ them from harassment.
Sounds good. Very progressive.
The problem is that you are doing that which is opposite to what you state: you are NOT respecting the same supposed right of protection free from harassment for the non-transgendered. You want to make a special case, a case that my right to equivalent civility – say to defend me from those who wish to call me an asshole – by arguing that the transgendered deserve special legal privilege to determine, say, pronouns.
Fortunately, most transgendered people with whom I have had contact do not take you up on this ‘protection’ but almost always simply wish to be identified as the opposite gender to the sex they were born with. I respect their wish. It’s a right we share. So why the demand to make my civility to the transgendered subject to law but your civility to me exempt?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds reasonable. Yet the radio station – and universities across North America – seem to listen only to the offended and disinvite people when it comes to any criticism of Islam. Or haven’t you noticed?
LikeLike
“Yet the radio station – and universities across North America – seem to listen only to the offended and disinvite people when it comes to any criticism of Islam.”
Sensible action in these times. As I’ve said to Ark above (in case you miss it):
I care more about the effect that poorly constructed criticism has on Muslims themselves and the rest of the world:
1. It creates more defensive and embittered extremists.
2. It alienates moderates within Islamic communities.
3. It leads to divisions/resentment/fear within communities with Muslim minority populations.
4. And most importantly, it convinces NO-ONE apart from people already predisposed to disliking Islam. It’s for bandwagon jumpers.
Don’t criticise Islam. Criticise harmful actions wherever they happen to be – religious or non-religious settings (history shows us just as likely to happen either way). Use evidence to cast doubt on the veracity of religious stories and traditions. These are separate activities are too often being conflated, and to no useful end.
LikeLike
Dawkins said,
“It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not.
If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world its quite apparent at the present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.
They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness that is preached by extreme Islam and the Iranian regime.
So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don;t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane, and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.”
Note how the SJWs rush in to call this ‘Islamophobia’ and grounds to disinvite because, hey, who wants to listen to an Islamophobe (it must be full of bigoted ranting against Muslims, am I right?). Meanwhile these SAME Social Justice Warriors do not hold anti-Jewish sentiment and actual antisemitic bigotry directed at Jews espoused by Muslims to the same standard because they do not call for the same station to disinvite these poor brown-skinned victims.
The hypocrisy is astounding and the term ‘Islamophobe’ is a clear indication that Social Justice Warriors are busy at work trying to legalize their hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Well if they want to be dicks about it then I am sure Dawkins can find another platform and sod them.
There is a line in a fantasy novel by Stephen Donaldson that reads:
”He who waits for the axe to fall will surely lose his head.”
There was a stage where I would have paid no mind to religion at all. But after time spent on the internet reading these farking nutters … like Mel … one becomes painfully aware just how insidious this crap truly is. And now with the refugee crisis and major cultural clashes this has brought about , the Midden is beginning to hit the Windmill in a big way.
Christianity is benign in some aspects but at its core it is still filth, it has just managed to shrug off much of its overt violent image after a thousand years plus of forced cultural indoctrination.
But it is still there when troops invade places like Afghanistan or Iraq
There really is no meaningful place for religion in any society any more and less so for Islam.
It’s time they grew up and did away with all this superstitious garbage.
And Islam is simply way smellier garbage top to bottom.
There is no reasonable defence of it any more than there is for a Dickhead like Ken Ham.
LikeLike
I knew you must be a person of exquisite cultural taste and your reference to Donaldson proves it! (I’m just now reading the final four books in the Thomas Covenant series… a series I read before LOTR as a young ‘un.)
And this issue is not about some people being dicks: it’s movement that is insidious and which keeps on raising that axe to dangerous levels. It will fall and we will all lose our collective head –
our individual autonomy in law – to this PoMo idiocy. It really is a very ugly form of GroupThink and what’s even uglier is the willingness of so many people to become supporters of the Thought Police, thinking themselves righteous to reduce personal autonomy in the name of the ‘victims’ they honestly assume to protect with their fascist beliefs.
What seems to elude so many otherwise intelligent people is that the justifications used to promote PoMo ideology and linguistic trickery (where white is another kind of black and up another kind of down) is transparently false. For example, disinviting Dawkins uses the justification of disinviting hate speech, disinviting discrimination and so on. Yet if we hold hate speech up and compare it to all speakers this same radio station has interviewed on the same program, we find the Kool-Aide drinkers don’t really care about the speech if it comes from a ‘correct’ source like a Linda Sarsour. Then, the hate speech is just fine and perfectly acceptible to hear. So they’re not becoming activists and supporters of disinviting hate speech. They care about disinviting people who might criticize their chauvinistic selection of who is ‘correct’ and who should be exempted from the level playing field. They don’t care about discrimination against real people or they wouldn’t tolerate the blatant discrimination against, say, Jews espoused by many interviewed on the same radio program. They don’t call for disinviting Muslim speakers. Ever. They only care about disinviting people who say stuff they don;t want to hear, people who dare to point out this selective favouring of a ‘correct’ speaker over an ‘incorrect’. one. They don’t care about free speech if that speech indicts their selection of who is ‘correct’. They don’t even care about the ‘victims’ they purport to ‘protect’ vilifying the ‘incorrect’ speakers; they are even quite willing to overlook atrocities done against real people as long as the perpetrators are ‘correct’ people who align with the correct PoMo ideology. That’s why you don;t have demonstrations and violence against invited imams and Islamic totalitarians who come to speak on the same radio program.
The entire movement is corrupt because it relegates important and relevant facts to be just another kind of incorrect belief, incorrect interpretation. Look at how Dawkins’ ‘offensive’ speech is cherry picked to ignore the very real concern he has for the welfare of Muslims that motivates his criticism of Islam, the way VW and Pink and Clare simply ignore my acceptance and respect for Clare’s individual autonomy to identify with whatever gender she chooses as if this is of trivial concern when they must get busy self-righteously vilifying me for respecting the fact of her sex. This fact doesn’t fit with their ideology and so I cannot be a ‘correct’ person because I am unwilling to drink the Kool-Aide of such PoMo rationalizations that demands that everyone must place Clare’s ‘truth’ above impersonal facts.
I have been pointing out the danger and very real threat of this movement to undermine with the best of intentions the fundamental values that support Western liberal secular democracies, that support their right to express their opinions about this PoMo ideology. The same respect is not offered in return and this is why speakers like a Jordan Peterson are simply a spark to the tinder dry conditions the PoMo supporters have tried to make of our society. Trump’s electoral success is an example of the kind of backlash that simmers just below then surface of going along with PoMo idiocy out of fear of exactly this vilifying retribution they use to such effect… too many good people not doing what they need to do, not standing up, not arguing, not taking a principled stand on behalf of all but fearfully going along with this PoMo charade.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I knew you must be a person of exquisite cultural taste and your reference to Donaldson proves it!”
Like blowing wind up Ark’s arse much? 😀 At least it gained you a ‘like’ for the seriously awful comment.
We have different scenarios for the potential outcomes of different situations. So, let’s look at the facts, what do we know about the effect of damning speech on religious groups? Does everyone within the religious groups take a good, hard look at themselves and say, ‘Wow, we must change our ways, this stuff is all nonsense!’ – or do people become defensive and more extreme? Tell me Tildeb, what does history tell you?
Similarly, what does history tell you about the history of groups of people who are excluded from leadership positions within society or outwith the majority in terms of key characteristics, like women, minority races, homosexuals or trans people? When the movement comes to fight for change to accept them as equals who deserve equal treatment, does everyone come to together and apologise for the past?
Or at every stage of equality movements do stalwarts of tradition insist that the ‘facts’ tell us that we, the majority, must not alter our behaviour because it is based on ‘science’ – the ‘science’ that shows women are weaker of the mind, the ‘science’ that shows certains races to be incapable of intellectual thought, the ‘science’ that show homosexuality to be a psychiatric illness, and your ‘science’ that shows people are one of two options, what a penis or vagina suggests at the moment of their birth.
What side of history are you on Tildeb? Honestly, can you ever wake up from this and see where you are sitting?
LikeLike
Let me put it this way, VW: where did Christendom go? Once upon a time, it was part of the lexicon. Today, gone. Why?
The answer to that will show you where your current thinking about Islam goes off the rails, goes to place of rationalized compartmental thinking that has you on the one hand feeling like a liberal champion of the dispossessed while on the other telling people they must shut up about criticizing totalitarian ideas. What you fail to see is how your ideology tries to justify opposite extremes while doing your part to vilifying the middle.
LikeLike
We have evolved, moved on to different times. Did we lose it (not quite lost yet) because in the midst of Christian minorities being attack and discriminated against there was a tide of voices calling it EVIL? No, it was just a natural movement. I think Islam will more naturally moderate if we stop attacking IT and concentrate on humanitarian concerns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dawkins statement is factually and historically incorrect. The vast majority of the Western world suffers from The stupidities of Christian ideology. And that’s 300 years after the Enlightenment. Poverty, a lack of women’s rights, homophobia, aristocratic social orders, all linked to Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did I mention stolen babies in Ireland and Spain? Murdered babies too. And child abuse and its cover-up in megalithic numbers, worldwide. And partnerships with dictatorships; Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet. The opposition to the use of condoms on a continent plagued by Aids. The opposition to birth control in 3rd world countries where people are literally dying of hunger. The refusal all through the 20th century to condemn terrorism by Catholics in Northern Ireland. The support of mafia bosses in southern Italy. The investment of massive amounts of money to oppose LGBT rights. Direct responsibility for the prohibition of abortion in Ireland and most of Latin America.
The problem is not *a* religion. It’s religion as a whole. And the idiots drawing attention to themselves by pretending the brown people are the problem are insulting the intelligence and dignity of everyone who’s suffered because of the idiocies of Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There we go! Religion across the board. Correct. Agree 100%.
”Hey!Teacher! Leave them kids alone.”
Fortunately for us, the ”Ken Hams” of the world and those of a similar style of kidney do not have a Suicide Militia that will come blow up your place of employment if you say: ”T.Rex was never vegetarian, you lying sonofabitch and Noah was an incestuous bastard and a goat-shagger, to boot. ” on public radio or any other similar platform.
LikeLike
I imagine a good number of people who died in the Serbian genocide might disagree with you. As is also probably the case for murdered abortion doctors and nurses; or all those dead Norwegians victims of Anders Breivik. Or that woman who died in the exorcism last month in central America. Or that woman who died in Ireland because no doctor would perform an abortion.
Violence comes in many forms.
LikeLike
Fair enough. I stand corrected. You are spot on.
Though I would venture that because of the global spotlighting of Islamic terror attacks and heightened awareness since the 9/11 and the current Syrian conflict , all its fall-out people are more paranoid of Islam.
Would this be more accurate/ fair?
LikeLike
Depends. Are you an Irish woman who might die because you can’t get an abortion?
LikeLike
I am not disputing the violence aspect, Pink or the forms that are out there, merely the shock value and the far reaching fear that Jihad induces.
It has shown it is random as well as selective.
My wife once asked if ever I wrote about Islam when I wrote about religion, as she was genuinely concerned someone might react to it.
I think this is going overboard, but based on what has happened in certain other countries it is not that far fetched.
And there are plenty of people standing up and lambasting the church over its policies … as they should.
LikeLike
Just guessing, but your wife was, like me, born to Catholic dictatorship, right? Have you asked her what that meant?
LikeLike
Yep. We were married in a Catholic Cathedral in Johannesburg.
No, she would not have a clue. And she really is only a Catholic by name these days. She does not have a very high opinion of any religion these days.
LikeLike
JW’s found me here after a thread on Professor Braterman’s blog. Kid you not, turned up outside my house, speaking English and everything. They hounded him, too.
LikeLike
WTF! … Did you shoot ’em? lol …
LikeLike
Yep, wanting to talk about “Jesus and Science.” They’d been loitering out on the street for ages, which isn’t that strange in and by itself because we gets hoards of evangelicals trolling in slow moving herds around here. It took me longer than it probably should have to realise they were asking in English. Cheeky bastards.
LikeLike
Chuck a bucket of water on ’em and say ”oops… my eyes are so bad these days… ”
then say sweetly … ”Can help you?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, stop using my blog for private chats! 😀
Has someone seriously turned up at your house?? The internet is a scary thing.
LikeLike
…there’s a great restaurant on rua dumont, it’s inside a nursery and even has turtles walking around. fucking turtles, yeah, crazy cool. they’ll handle everything. easier that way… oh wait up, look away, quick. i think that Pict is trying to catch our eye…
🙂
LikeLike
Is that comment inspired by ColorStorm?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neptune no. That would start something like, Stars? Do you see stars move? Do you see water flying off the Earth? The majestic hand of…
LikeLiked by 1 person
But yes, they did. JW’s, of all people. They were having a war with Braterman, whose a Scot and outspoken on science/religion/education matters.
LikeLike
“The problem is not *a* religion. It’s religion as a whole.”
You’re all still wrong. We can’t blame violence and injustice on a ‘thing’. It’s humans. The only way we can tackle ALL this is from a psychological point view using history to inform what motivates humans to commit atrocities and continue to be so tribalistic. It’s ridiculous to blame religion in a century of years that has endured the crimes of Stalin and Mao. Religion is simply only one vehicle that makes us behave in irrational ways – without it, we continue to find more. And this kind of anti-religious atheistic rhetoric continues the cycles. (She says, pround owner of a blog of anti-religious posts. 😀 )
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s partly true. I categorise religion as problematic as a whole because it’s based on arbitrary rules which are completely divorced from reason. That being the case rational discussion is impossible.
LikeLike
I don’t think that’s true. People will use religion as an excuse to behave in irrational ways (e.g. my god told me to do this) but without it, people find other excuses (e.g. Tildeb’s ‘facts’ that fly in the face of evidence, or his quite disturbing fear of losing his freedom because people are disinvited from speaking engagements).
Tildeb is an atheist, yet I don’t feel like we’re having a rational discussion with him, do you? You’ve made some conversation-ending points (I’d like to think I have too), and he still comes back with the same nonsense, even more enraged and fearful.
I find his ‘rules of life’ to be just as arbritray as any Christian’s. He can’t even acknowledge that biological sex is a label we give based on external appearance, that evidence shows us can be wrong in around 1 in 2000 births. It’s handy label that accounts for majority experience, nothing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True. You’re right.
LikeLike
Again, note how you rationalize your position by appealing to the extreme (sexual dysphoria for about 1 in 4500 are genetically intersexed) and then discount and disregard the 99.7% who are not, who really do have either XX and XY chromosomes and who really do have all the developmental effects that relate to this fact.
What you’re trying to do is pretend abnormal variants are normal, that abnormal variants are a matter of perception rather than fact. But the genetic evidence is unimpeachable: genes are not a matter of perception. Disgareeing with this fact means one is using ideology rather than knowledge. One is either born with the Y chromosome or one is not. This is not ideologically based. One either has testes or one does not. This is not ideologically based. And these biological factors are both known and have a profound biological impact on physiological and neurological development. You can’t get around this fact by pretending it doesn’t matter, that those who say it does are bigots, that those who understand why these facts matter are ideologues of a different flavour.
You cannot normalize what is abnormal by linguistic trickery nor change these facts by vilifying those who accept the fact of sex-based development as bigots. Doing so demonstrates the depth of your ideological commitment even when reality stands in the way. My argument with Clare is solely focused on her claiming to have altered her sex by will when she has not. Agreeing that she can do so for ideological reasons by ignoring fact based biology is the kind of rationalizing relegates facts to be so trivialized that you feel justified discarding them by fiat and then demand that everyone else go along with this deceit or be vilified a s bigot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I understand another reason you’re struggling to understand this. You seem to think that our language is some kind of law – almost like a religious person. We invented/developed the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ to describe the two broad groups we observe, therefore that is the law!
In this dicussion, I’ve introduced figures on people who are born with intersex conditions (1 in 1500 to 2000 births) because this is a FACT you can’t dispute, but this FACT is also a clear indication that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ aren’t catch-alls, but linguistic labels we use a guide.
“One either has testes or one does not. This is not ideologically based.”
And again, one can have testes and a womb – an admitedly rare condition that is a clear indication of the complexity of biological sex, and therefore the lack of precision in the binary labelling.
“And these biological factors are both known and have a profound biological impact on physiological and neurological development.”
Yes, and all these vary from person to person, irrespective of the sex and gender they are assigned at birth. You are sounding disturbingly like a fundamentalist Christian again, someone who refuses to acknowledge the breadth of human experience, in favour of distinct binaries and a preconceived, almost childish outlook. Don’t let limited concepts brought to us in the tool of language fool you. Understanding, concepts and language all evolve to describe what we see before us – and mean different things to different people.
Nobody is ignoring facts based on biology. We can easily describe what external features someone is born without assigning a sex and gender binary. Trans people don’t deny reality – they accept they were assigned whatever sex (and gender with it) at birth.
“Agreeing that she can do so for ideological reasons by ignoring fact based biology is the kind of rationalizing relegates facts to be so trivialized that you feel justified discarding them by fiat” [hit post in error at this point – edit from here]
How are our reasons ideological? Speaking for myself, they are based on science, history, logic and empathy – and I belong to no groupthink on this. Science tells me that biological sex more complex than the ‘woman’ and ‘man’ labels we use; history tells me that changes to the status quo terrify the conservative majority and scare stories are always circulated; logic tells me that there is nothing to fear about trans people; and empathy tells me how I would like to be treated in their position. You, on the other hand, ignore all these factors and allow yourself to convinced by fringe feminist dogma and propaganda against trans people. So it’s a bit rich to accuse me of ideological reasons.
Last time: biology doesn’t ‘create’ two distinct species of human – it attempts to describe two broad experiences with infinite variation and overlap within one species.
LikeLike
(I hit reply too early by mistake and added to this reply)
LikeLike
Yes, Pink, the West is so bad that you would prefer to live where the same stupidities are just as prevalent… say, Iran.
Come on. Show a little appreciation of a difference. After all, it’s only the truth you dismiss in favour of maintaining this false equivalency you push to protect Islam. There really is a significant difference and you know it. There is a difference between arguing over gender pronouns being mandated as either ‘correct’ or ‘hate speech’ and arguing over high buildings or cliffs being mandated as either tall enough or not tall enough homosexuals should be thrown from. In spite of your insistence, these conditions are not equivalent. You especially should note this difference is not trivial but deserving of some measure of greater or lesser respect and appreciation.
LikeLike
The difference is your bias. I’m not “protecting” Islam. Until 5 minutes ago gays were being prosecuted and imprisoned in the “Enlightened” west. It takes an idiot or a profoundly ignorant person to pretend Christianity hasn’t been an absolute horror in the lives of people around the world. Including in my lifetime.
Unfortunately people like you, who evidently don’t have the most basic understanding of numbers, or even the ability to differentiate incidence, coincidence and causality, muddy the waters with idiotic claims which serve no purpose other than to promote discrimination.
LikeLike
Now facts are “idiotic claims”!
Is there no end to your temper tantrum that you can’t get what you want and turn facts –Presto! – into bigotry? Time now to stop emoting and start thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re so fixated on your alleged persecution, the concept of empathy seems to surpass you.
LikeLike
“There is a difference between arguing over gender pronouns being mandated as either ‘correct’ or ‘hate speech’ and arguing over high buildings or cliffs being mandated as either tall enough or not tall enough homosexuals should be thrown from.”
You don’t have your intelligent head on today Tildeb. In fact, it appears you completely misplaced it.
What about if we discuss the acceptability of calling gay people ‘poofs’ (because that’s the word we use) in common conversation, just like we call trans people by the pronoun that a health professional or parent chose based on a casual glance at their naked body on their day of birth (because that’s the word we use). That’s apples and apples. Words we use. Why change? Because it’s the attitude behind that, and it’s the attitude of general society towards individuals with shared traits that leads to hate crimes.
If you live in a society where everyone calls gay people ‘poofs’, we demean them and give them low status, and it can lead to or contribute to the acceptability of hate crimes. If you live in a society where everyone calls trans people by the wrong pronoun, we demean them and give them low status, and it can lead to or contribute to the acceptability of hate crimes.
Surely, surely, in spite of your massive blind spots you can see this.
LikeLike
Have you ever watched the Panti Bliss speech at the Abbey Theatre? It cuts through all of the BS put forward by people like Tildeb.
Every single day LGBT people, and trans people in particular, deal with prejudice. Even now in the 21st century in the developed world, before I choose a place to stop for a drink, I have to carefully consider if it’s a safe environment. Will someone feel that me wearing red trousers is gay? Too gay? Gay enough to merit an insult? Maybe even gay enough to be asked to leave. Whenever I’m leaving the bank, the manager sends her regards to Mike; she says “send my regards to your husband”, and I know that like clockwork everyone around turns their head to look at me. Mostly out of curiosity, but there’s always a face or two that don’t look that friendly afterwards.
Muslims – well, let me correct myself, Browns, whether they’re Indian or Mexicans with beards, endure similar experiences. I know because whenever I’m at an airport, usually just picking people up, I keep glancing around looking for the brown people. You know, just in case. I don’t say anything, I try to control myself, but it’s just too easy. Interestingly enough I didn’t glance around looking for people with Irish accents wearing crucifixes in the days of the IRA bombings. That would’ve been too much work.
Taking all that into consideration – when someone like Tildeb has conniptions because someone from his tribe was “de-platformed”, I feel the need to LOL. And then LOL some more. What is the world coming to when a wealthy white Englishman can’t promote his book on the radio station of his choosing? How dare the world treat him with such contempt. What next? Will he be barred entering the US? Will he watch the way he speaks so he doesn’t get beaten up in a bar? How will he possibly survive his de-platforming?
And I leave you with Panti:
LikeLike
“What is the world coming to when a wealthy white Englishman can’t promote his book on the radio station of his choosing? How dare the world treat him with such contempt. What next? Will he be barred entering the US? Will he watch the way he speaks so he doesn’t get beaten up in a bar? How will he possibly survive his de-platforming?”
Classic! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great video, thanks for putting the link in here. Will be interesting to see what other people make of it. Tildeb?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’ll go completely over his head because he’s not interested in the evidence or in the logic; rather, he’s married to a tribal position, and he cannot deviate from that. The day anyone believes their right to refer to someone in a certain way is more important than the effect that has on the person they’re referring to – well, we’ve entered a world of absolute ego-centrism and entitlement.
It’s the War on Christmas state of mind where calling an LGBT person a pervert who’s going to hell is perfectly acceptable, but not saying Merry Christmas amounts to a declaration of war.
LikeLike
This is the very ideology necessary to ‘protect’ those who allowed Rotherham to develop into such a scandal. Your thinking here is broken, Pink, and I’m starting to get annoyed at the extreme to which are willing to vilify me in the name of protecting your ideology from necessary criticism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah yes, Rotherham. What an intelligent example. What in the world does it remind me of? Could it possibly be the tens of thousands of children who were victims of members of the Catholic church. The ones who had their abuse covered up by the church and authorities?
I don’t need to vilify anyone. You’re doing an excellent job of promoting prejudice and discrimination on your own.
LikeLike
Like the sexual abuse atrocity by aided and abetted by the lack of criticism of the Catholic Church’s practices, so too is it an atrocity that any legitimate criticism of Islam – and its political wing Islamism – is defined to be Islamophobia and bigotry because it is critical of Islam – and then appeased by ideologues from the Regressive Left. This is how addressing the very real problems of sexual abuse in Rotherham became an issue to be ignored and pushed aside out of fear of exactly the kind of vilification you and VW and Clare spew towards anyone who dares raise any ‘incorrect’ facts versus the ideology you espouse.
And the radio issue was never about poor old Richard; it was about deplatforming and disinviting yet another person on the basis of wanting to avoid offending the Islam-apologizing snowflakes. Yes, we musn’t do that. But sure, go along with portraying Jews as apes and swine on state TV and you’ll get not a peep of criticism from the SJWs. It’s all about ‘protecting’ the poor ‘victims’ – you know, the ones actively teaching children lies and group victimhood identities – which and has nothing to do with fighting discrimination and intolerance. SJWs save their malicious brand of discrimination and intolerance for those who dare to criticize their sacred cows – [edit: racist comment removed]
LikeLike
I’d like to wait for the results of the independent enquiry before preaching about Rotherham. Sexism, classism and lack of resources were big factors there too. In an area with a history of racism and growing divisions within the community, there was certainly a hestitancy that was inexcusable – and mainly down to the fact that no-one really cared about those young girls. The worst thing? It’s still going on in huge numbers, and it’s more invisible girls that no-one cares about – they are the common factor – sexism, classism and lack of resources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39047787
If you’re right, and there was an element of protectionism against ethnic minorities because they are more often the subject of accusation and hatred, then that’s something society can learn from – how do we balance acknowledge widespread discrimination while confronting harmful behaviour in a standardised manner? You’re making a complex situation sound so simple.
“And the radio issue was never about poor old Richard; it was about deplatforming and disinviting yet another person on the basis of wanting to avoid offending the Islam-apologizing snowflakes.”
Sloppy, inaccurate and verging on hateful. He was deplatformed in a country where Muslims are suffering from severe discrimination at all levels. It’s not simply about offence, it’s about impact in a time of hatred, and it’s about how to frame a humanitarian argument.
And about the bit I edited out – I’m really beginning to wonder if you’re an out and out closet racist too. Does that kind of comment really seem acceptable to you, even if your tongue firmly in your cheek, even just to get a reaction?
LikeLike
Snowflakes? Do you mean like you who after a short discussion feels you’re being vilified? Or like Dawkins who has one of the most sold books in its category of all time but can’t handle being dis-invited from a radio program?
The regressive left story is a whole lot of self-serving ego-centric imbecility coupled with propaganda. The most listened to radio program in North America is Rush Limbaugh’s. He’s closely followed by Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. The American president is the man who equates being Muslim to terrorism and being Mexican to being a rapist. People like you point to Rotherham as evidence of the *magical* pro-Muslim bias when Christian abuses have not just occurred but been covered up for hundreds of years. That’s first hand evidence of your inability to understand basic mathematical evidence. It’s proof your standards of judgement aren’t just poor, they’re profoundly inaccurate. The fact here is snowflaky white privileged men can’t stand to be questioned. Can’t stand not to be the ones dictating the rules to everyone else. How dare anyone tell Tildeb it’s not up to him to dictate other people’s understanding of gender. The oppression of it all. I wonder where you stand in these Oppression Olympics. Do you feel Brandon Teena oppressed or Matthew Shepard oppressed? Does being asked to call Clare a woman make you feel raped and beaten? How painful is using that hellish *she* pronoun? Does it make you feel unclean? Poor oppressed Tildeb, I can’t imagine what you’re going through.
LikeLike
If you identify me as an asshole for what you think are good reasons, then it seems obvious to me that mandating that you call me only what I wish – say, Ms. Chipmunk or you’re committing a hate crime – is very silly. In your mind I remain an asshole. That’s the identity I have in your mind. You can say this without fear of state punishment and having a criminal record, can’t you?
My social identity is not up to me; you have every right to identify me as an asshole and no amount of legislation or me whining about victimhood not being called Ms Chipmunk is going to change that fact. This kind of legal mandating based on what amounts to whim is irrational.
And not once have you accepted the fact, VW, that the biology of sex has significant physiological, chemical, and neurological impact on the developing infant… an impact that directly affects development… and substituted this fact as if it only amounts to the sociological positioning based solely on some passing glance of which gonads a baby has. Why is this, VW? Why do you automatically trivialize what is biologically true as if it is unimportant when it this fact that central to my position? So let’s be candid: do you deny – because you sure write opinions like you do – that sex-based physiology and neurology matters in biological development?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your pedantry continues to be ridiculous. I see trans-women as women, and trans-men as men. It’s as simple as that. That’s the reality I see. I and many other people.
The internal organs, the shape of the genitalia or the individual’s brain size and shape are neither my business nor my concern. I also don’t go around pointing at women with fuzz over their lips and screaming out that their levels of testosterone are higher than other women so they’re more “manly”.
LikeLike
“My social identity is not up to me”
I can’t believe you would even start to compare my attitude to you with how trans people or gay people are treated by the WHOLE of society of the WHOLE of their life. If you grow up with me and everyone else calling you Ms Chipmunk and questioning your right to decide basic freedoms in your life, then we start to have a comparison. It really shows how far, far removed you are from getting any of this.
“biology of sex has significant physiological, chemical, and neurological impact on the developing infant”
Where do I deny this? And what relevance does it have to the discussion? Your whole argument seems to be that because someone is born with a vagina they are X – when science tells us only what we can expect by indicating what the majority experience is. Do you understand this?
LikeLike
You deny it constantly and consistently because THIS IS MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT WITH CLARE!!!!!!!!!!!!! She claims to be able to change the fact of her biological sex. This is not true. That’s my argument. That is what is being contra-argued not with contra-facts but with this ideology that I cannot say this or I’m a bigot!
All the rest is a massive straw man created by you and Pink and Clare as if it somehow alters this fact, that I’m some kind of bigot for respecting this fact, for enunciating this fact. And you just keep rolling along thinking yourself oh-so-justified that I’m a bigger and bigger bigot because I continue to stand firm and disagree with your illiberal ideology that insists that such facts are irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Playing games again? Clare says she is a woman. On occasion she specifies trans-woman. On her blog completely openly. It was from that point that you decided to interject that she’s not a woman. First refusing to even use the term trans-woman. So you can make as many excuses for yourself as you like, but that’s the chain of events.
LikeLike
You are a bigot, Tildeb: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance” (Mirriam Webster). I don’t think it’s hatred in your case by any means, but there is an ignorance and intolerance in your attitude, in your blatant disregard for Clare’s experiences, and presumably the experiences of every other trans person.
What we’re not seeing in your comments on this post is the reason it would possibly be of any consequence to you. Because in reality I don’t think it’s really about this freedom of speech red herring when it comes to trans people – that’s where you find your mouthpiece to explode publicly about it – but because you have been submerged in the anti-trans rhetoric of the trans critical/gender critical movement within feminism. And that’s why your comments don’t make any sense, that’s why you can’t actually discuss this rationally – because, like Arb, you’re constantly having to put to the back of the discussion (out of sight) your real opinion on trans people. It’s disturbing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nor Miriam Webster 😛 Merriam is Webster, and Miriam is Margolyes (and she’s a lesbian!)
LikeLike
Correction: Not nor, but not 😀
LikeLike
Oh the irony of the typo 😛
LikeLike
I know not, nor do I not no 😀
LikeLike
For your consideration: a recent overturning by an appeals court ruling here in Canada of a original lenient sentence based on cultural considerations…
“Cultural differences do not excuse or mitigate criminal conduct. To hold otherwise undermines the equality of all individuals before and under the law, a crucial Charter value. (emphasis mine) It would also create a second class of person in our society — those who fall victim to offenders who import such practices.”
I raise this point because this affirmation of individual autonomy and responsibility is at the heart of why the transgender inclusion that offended feelings determines discrimination will be found to have no basis in law. It’s a feel-good inclusion to be wielded only by human rights tribunals because it cannot withstand a Charter challenge. It assaults – as I have said here – individual autonomy of equality rights by assigning to the transgendered the means to impose their beliefs in place of facts and creates an expectation that everyone must go along with it or be branded a bigot. That’s what is happening here.
None of the transgendered I know quite well here in Canada would even dream of trying to use it for privilege or pettiness because this Bill C-16 amending the Charter goes against our deeply held shared values of equality in law. And yes, I have weekly contact with transgendered people and have for many years without any hint of the utter fiction of bigotry believed by some here. Taking on the false accusations of bigotry is unfortunately part and parcel of what it means to defend enlightenment values of equality law when they are attacked by those who think they are protecting a vulnerable minority. But that doesn’t change the danger these champions of the oppressed create by making such legislation nor diminish the applause gained from them – from the PoMo ideologues who confuse maintaining equality rights with creating a very intentional power imbalance in law based on group affiliation rather than individual autonomy.
For those deeply confused folk, some remedial civic lessons need to be taken rather than continuing to hurl more and more virulent accusations of bigotry that are empty of truth value at anyone who dares to question this New And Improved ideology, an ideology aptly named the Polar Left that undermines the shared value of individual autonomy in law and replaces it with GroupThink… that groups of ‘victims’ should have different legal status, different legal means, different legal rights… hell, the ability to alter facts if they are not ‘correct’ enough to align with the ideology. This threat and poor treatment of those who understand the danger has to be faced with at minimum a greater respect for facts than either a respect for contrary beliefs deemed socially ‘correct’ or cowed by fear of being labeled a bigot.
I think this movement is rotting Western civilization and its founding principles from within and presents us with a difficult and divisive challenge far too few seem willing to take up.
LikeLike
I know it’s Sunday, Tildeb, but your latent preaching vocation needn’t be quite so dramatic. After the thousands of words typed here, I have no idea how you can continue to Chicken Little your way through this. Rotting Western civilisation? Could you sound any more like an evangelical?
I maintain that treating people how they ask to be treated (assuming this treatment brings no harm to others) is key to our civilisation. Even if you can’t wrap your head around the reality of life for trans people, you appear considerate enough to do that in the meantime. And maybe that’s all we can ask of conservatives.
Enjoy your sandwich board! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tildeb
Wow, nice discussion you’re having with the local genderists. 🙂 Funny how sticking to material biological fact gets one called all sorts of things. Kinda like arguing with the religiously addled – you heathen sinner you.
But, it is much easier to avoid constructive argumentation if you’re just a hateful bigot. I do admire your patience though.
Par for the course. The arguments being made here against you are in the anti-enlightenment, anti-intellectual vein.
Necessarily so. One cannot dispute biological reality, strong deeply personal subjective feelings just don’t cut the mustard. Not to say that isn’t being attempted here.
More people are waking up and seeing the inconsistencies and shortfalls of trans ideology and queer theory, especially radical feminists who have been criticizing the genderist crew from the very start.
Acknowledging that social construction of gender/gender roles should not be conserved and reinforced is a notion that is, thankfully, gaining more traction in the public sphere.
LikeLike
“Acknowledging that social construction of gender/gender roles should not be conserved and reinforced is a notion that is, thankfully, gaining more traction in the public sphere.”
I think most people agree would agree with that statement, with perhaps the exception of some wayward religious folks who think roles are eternal and carved in stone.
The difference in opinion is what we force on people. I suggest we don’t force any roles on anyone, and that gender roles, or lack thereof can evolve naturally based on each individual’s comfort. You suggest that some expressions of gender are ‘wrong’. You are the wannabe gender pollice: we’re the gender freedom fighters. 🙂
LikeLike
@VW
Humans, like most mammals are sexually dimorphic. The fact we are born mostly male and female isn’t an ‘opinion’ being forced on anyone. It just is.
Gender does not equal Sex.
It really depends on what you mean by gender expression. A man expressing typically feminine traits is still a man. Nothing wrong with that.
A man claiming to be female because he is expressing the gender stereotypes we assign to females is still male. He isn’t wrong from a moralistic standpoint, but from a biological standpoint, indeed he is as the evidence is quite clear on the immutability of biological sex in the human species.
There is no freedom to be found in gender. It is a hierarchical system designed to keep males in power and females oppressed. Disbanding the gender hierarchy, and acknowledging material reality leads to society where, yes there are males and females – but it is just a biological description – everything else under the sun is fair game for both sexes. From clothing, to personality, to preferences.
That is what freedom looks like. 🙂
LikeLike
“Humans, like most mammals are sexually dimorphic.”
This is a discriptive label we use in an attempt to best explain what represents the majority or general experience. That’s not my opinion – it’s a fact. Sexual dimorphism in humans is not a law, and it’s not even true for every individual, is it?
” A man expressing typically feminine traits is still a man. ”
Yes, of course. And a man who feels they were assigned the wrong sex and therefore gender at birth, based on nothing more than casual observation of their external genitalia, now has the freedom within many of our societies to become a woman.That doesn’t mean they necessarily had the opportuniy to spend their entire lives being treated like a women, it probably doesn’t mean they have periods or will give birth, but the female experience is broad. Indeed many women assigned female at birth scarcely have periods, don’t have children and aren’t treated like a typical woman throughout their lives.
” from a biological standpoint, indeed he is as the evidence is quite clear on the immutability of biological sex in the human species”
Really? Even if outliers like these didn’t exist…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11397560/Man-born-with-a-womb-prepares-for-hysterectomy.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/05/25/man-admitted-to-hospital-for-kidney-stone-discovers-hes-a-woman/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/04/27/girl-rare-condition-gets-ok-testicles-removed.html
… I’m not sure why you would think that the human species can be split evenly down the middle. I’m genuinely shocked. We’re a splodge of human with broadly shared experiences and characteristics that can put us into certain groups. We label most of them, but reality and the intricacies of existence are much more nuanced than our labels, or our understanding at one point in time.
“It is a hierarchical system designed to keep males in power and females oppressed.”
There you go again sounding like an evangelical. It’s not designed. It naturally evolved because of trends related to things like childbirth, testosterone, periods and body fat. Many of us have evolved sufficiently to question assumptions and confront subconcious (and conscious) bias.
” yes there are males and females – but it is just a biological description”
And some of us have evolved sufficiently to question assumptions and confront bias on this matter too.
Look, I get where all this is coming from, but in order to protect people, your arguments have got way out of hand. There have been some difficult situations for vulnerable women who feel uncomfortable or threatened using vital services shared by women assigned male at birth. But it’s not an all or nothing situation. Most women couldn’t care less who is having a pee in the toilet stall next to them or who is at their yoga class.
If you look at a document like this:
Click to access Making-the-case-for-women-only-July-2011.pdf
All we need is sensible analysis like we find suggested:
In much the same way, particular women with other characteristics might be asked not to attend something. It’s that simple. I doesn’t have to be jump-on-a-soapbox claiming science says no, when it clearly says nothing beyond ‘genitals’ or ‘chromosomes’ along with ‘variation’. It’s just about being sensible in sensitive situations, and you’d make a lot more sense sticking to campaigning simply for that.
LikeLike
@VW
How do humans reproduce VW? Sexual dimorphism is a key feature of our species, unless there has been a trend toward continuing the species via mitosis.
Sex and gender are not equivalent and should not be conflated. One can observe sex via external genitalia, cranial and facial differences, skeletal/muscular differences et cetera.
The sex of mammals and by extension humans requires no human interpretation or social construction. Thus, dividing the human beings via sex is not only a reality, it is a reasonable way to differentiate between women and men.
By that same measure, people exist today that have been born with only one leg. Would you argue that we are not a bipedal species? That we, as a species cannot perceive colour, because colour-blindness exists?
Minor deviations from the norm do not disprove the norm. If there is compelling evidence that we are not a sexually dimorphic species, please share the evidence for it being so.
Because we are? The majority of the species is either male or female. Being intersexed or possessing ambiguous genitalia does not ‘disprove’ the male/female sex binary.
Yes I agree. The group that identifies as women is almost always oppressed by the group known as men. You can fit as many experiences you would like within your characterizations of people, but the division of power in society almost always follows the categorization of people into those who are male and thus have power in society, and those who do not have power and are female.
Gender is the system built on this fundamental sex based oppression and thus gives societal justification for this imbalance.
Personality is wonderful in all of its variance, but on the level of societal interactions plays less of a role. How society sees you, and what society expects of you, plays informs our actions and level of comfort in society.
I’m not sure on what basis you judge the statement of fact as evangelical? I mean, if you disagree that’s fine, but what use is obscuring the issue by conflating a feminist position (the existence of patriarchy) with a religious one (believe our ooga-booga or burn! Sinner!).
More to the point, if you believe that patriarchy isn’t a part of our society/history it would be good to share the evidence that supports this point of view.
Our societies are patriarchal constructs, acknowledging that fact makes it possible to try and change it.
Gender isn’t designed? It isn’t a social construct, but rather an observable instance that we can see in nature that would happen without humans adding any meaning to it?
Is the colour pink and its gendered use in our society a ‘naturally occurring’ feature?
Could you explain this colour preference as a natural occurrence? Maybe? But most sociologists and anthropologists would probably go with the idea that gendered expectations, like which sex should wear pink, is a product of the preferences of society and thus a social construct.
Umm… one shouldn’t evolve past facts unless better evidence exists that invalidate the old set of facts. The evidence that biological sex exists and that keeping these distinctions is good, in terms of clarity and accuracy, seems like a pretty convincing case to me.
What other terms would you use to describe our generally dimorphic species that don’t eventually come back to the male/female designation? And would such terms provide equal definitional clarity in accurately describing the human species?
Acknowledging sex based oppression lies at the heart of feminist theory and praxis. I’m not sure how that is ‘arguing out of hand’.
I cannot speak for most women. Or any woman really, but I do know about the epidemic of male violence in our societies and the patriarchal backing it has. I’m glad that you don’t feel the pressure of the male gaze and the objectification that goes along with it, or the second class status that you, being female in society, have.
Other women do; and thus appreciate spaces and delineate their boundaries not to include men, as is their right in a society that claims to respect the idea freedom of association.
The document does possess some merit. What is missing now, is operational definitions of what makes someone transgender and how we should classify individuals who make this claim.
Gender Dysphoria is in the DSM-V. Should it be treated as other body-dysmorphic disorders? If so, the approaches favoured presently seem to be at odds with treatment for other such disorders, like anorexia – we do not prescribe liposuction to people with anorexia because we realize that they are operating under a set of fundamentally flawed assumptions about the perception of their body.
If not a disorder, but a deep subjective feeling, then how does one quantify that? And how are women expected to be able to distinguish between the ‘true’ trans people and those men with autogynephilia?
What is even more simple is males should respect the boundaries of females, and not put their feelings first when it comes to the issues involving female only spaces and events.
The items you list are objective facts. Facts don’t care about our feelings and perceptions. You argue, like a christian who opposes evolutionary theory, in the face of what is currently insurmountable evidence that points to your position being unsound and in need of revision.
Biological sex is a fact. Biological sex is immutable. XY = male and XX = female. Our feelings on the topic don’t change the existence these facts.
Can we change the system that makes those born with XY the oppressor class and those with XX the oppressed? Absolutely, and I vigorously campaign for change in that system, because it is unjust and unfair for everyone involved.
LikeLike
Sorry Arb, life is hectic!
That’s certainly the way many children and some extreme religions see the world. Most adults, including most feminists, grow to see the diverse spectrum in both human biological construction and in expression.
I didn’t say they didn’t exist, did I? I’m suggesting we don’t construct one simplistic understanding of the human experience around the majority, it leads to discriminatory measures such as excluding people with one leg from certain buildings (we legislate for disabled access).
The ‘patriarchy’ is not designed by anyone, it naturally evolved. The label is an attempt to describe our experience of current power imbalances in society. You sound religious because you see ‘design’ in the place of natural ‘evolution’ – and this feeds the anger, and the irrational aspects to your argument.
Here comes one of those irrational arguments I was referring to. Ignorant people with minds akin to the box-making children see patterns and assume patterns are ‘correct’. It’s simplistic thinking, dividing the world into easy sections and promoting these observations to the next generation. It’s shortcut thinking and a subset of tribalism/grouping people – key characteristics in our evolution. It’s not sinister, it’s just archaic – we are now in a position to see beyond it. It’s important to patiently highlight why these assumptions are harmful to society, but not demonise people for continuing what they see see as ‘natural traditions’.
Sex based oppression is beyond doubt. It’s how we contextualise it and how we attempt to change it that we disagree.
Why should we? Take people at face value. It’s a new period in time when lots of people are experimenting with gender and expression, and there is more freedom in society to see where that goes. I’ve met several people in the last year that I would be unable to classify either male or female – I’m not going to report them for needing to use a toilet in public, am I? How do we work to change these gender roles we agree are unacceptable if we don’t give people space to change the or lose them? Your vision is entirely irrational and assumes you understand what a gender-free utopia looks like.
Every person in this world has an individual experience of life, let people find their own way, and concentrate your efforts of getting equality of treatment for all instead of focusing on lambasting the tiniest minority of people born with penises, who ironically would be most likely to be allies. If an individual trans person, or an individual person of any description, behaves in unacceptable ways, discuss it with them – maybe if you listen to their story you’ll see more than a dent in 1960s feminist theory ….
LikeLike
Well I am quite late to the show, but Victoria told me this is where all the action was. In regards to Islam, I tend to side intellectually with John and Tildeb here. I think though, as Violet and others are saying, that being right about something isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. I have certainly butted heads with tildeb before and got into a similar type of argument with him. Perhaps a better football analogy would be that though you might see the end zone straight ahead, you often have to do a lot of zigging and zagging to get there because the easiest path is usually met with the most resistant. Such is the nature of humans unfortunately.
I hope that there is no argument that our beliefs influence our behaviors. If this is the case, then what we believe matters the most. Now let’s I’m feeling a great deal of stress and fear and I want to find a religion to help me deal with my worries. I have with me a Koran and I have the teachings of Buddha. I want to believe wholeheartedly that one of these books is the answer and I plan to live my life according to what these books say. I am going to use my own intellect and not depend on the interpretation of others. Which one of these books is most likely to have me committing acts of violence based on a plausible reading of the text? Given the amount of violence condoned in the Koran and that in the teaching of Buddha the answer seems clear.
Now you may say, but hey not all Muslims do such things! It’s true. But when increased stress and fear come into that persons life and they turn to their holy book for guidance from a probabilistic standpoint the odds are much higher for a book that condones violence. And this is true for the bible as well. The environmental (political, societal) conditions matter a great deal, but it’s like nature and nurture…the two things are intertwined and difficult to entangle, when the ingredients are right I think Islam and Christianity lead to a higher probability of violence than Buddhism. Now you may say, hey what about the situation in Sri Lanka!? And it’s true, even Buddhists might turn to violence, but note they are not following any teachings of Buddha, the ideology is part of the buddhist religion there as an institution, but not in the book. With Christianity and Islam I can easily find passages to support my acts of violence. Sure I might be ignoring a lot of other passages that contradict, or I may have to use some creative interpretation to make it seem like there aren’t any contradictions, but I can certainly make my case. I do think there is ample evidence that at this moment in history there is a larger proportion of acts of terrorism, suppression of free speech, oppression (and violence) of women, oppression of homosexuals in Islam than any other religion right now. To argue that the tenets of Islam do not play a role here to me is not defensible unless you don’t feel that what we believe to be true doesn’t influence our behavior. And I guess if that’s the case I’d like to hear alternatives.
Now of course even is Islam is the biggest “problem” right now, the next question becomes, how do we make it less of a problem? Given that most victims of Islamic terror are other Muslims what tactic is best to reducing the overall harmful consequences of fundamentalism within a religion? Is it to go around and give talks about how many harmful ideas are in the religion of Islam? I would say no. This is a case where, yes you might be right, but since in the end we actually have to change people’s minds, directly attacking Islam as harmful and full of bad ideas isn’t going to calm the waters.
As you said Violet we are better off criticizing bad ideas over a religion which is umbrella for many people. Islam doesn’t treat women equally, well maybe it’s better to talk about why it’s valuable to have gender equality, why it makes a society richer, and respects everyone’s human rights. And sure some Islamist may argue…”But the Koran says…” Who cares, your message is a universal one, and it’s the right one, and doesn’t attack religion in promotes feminism. I believe that is the better choice.
But what also shouldn’t be the case is that somebody who criticizes Islam for it’s harmful ideas is considered an Islamophobe. At worst they are just unhelpful…but there is some value in having the intellectual discussion. As to how we change culture, that’s a different discussion. It also shouldn’t be the case that we start promoting things like the hijab as some symbol of female empowerment, we must honest about what things are. While the hijab is not as restrictive as the niqab or burqa it is nevertheless a command of modesty by the religion. Where women are considered the cause of men lusting and must cover their bodies accordingly. This is not feminism and the apologists for Islam are also being dishonest in my opinion. The fact that woman sees no problem wearing her hijab does not mean that this is true for all women in Islam. It does not mean she hasn’t been indoctrinated into believing her gender is responsible for being modest, it doesn’t mean that she has the freedom to take it off without excommunication or worse from her community. And if she does, it is most likely because she enjoys a privilege many other Muslim women do not.
So maybe the Sam Harris’ and Richard Dawkins’ aren’t helping, but there are lot of other people who are also being dishonest on the other side. We do need to always be opposed to bad ideas. Illiberal ideas. Islam does have a lot of them, but we have to find a way to thread the needle, and oppose the bad ideas that is productive in changing minds. Demonizing an entire religion doesn’t seem like it will work if history is any guide. At the same time I think that it’s a dishonest criticism to say that someone who says the ideas of a religion is bad, is implying that all people who identify with that religion are bad too.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Religion should be criticised. As all ideas which are wholly arbitrary. But intelligent analysis has to look beyond the surface.
Pinpointing the hijab as oppressive is fantastically easy. How about the fact that is was only in the last 24 months women in France and the UK won the right (having gone to high courts) to finally not be obliged to wear high heals or “important” cleavage at work? Tildeb’s readings are narrow – he restricts not only his definitions, but everyone else’s. And this is done, frankly, in bad faith.
What concerns me even more in the case of Harris and Dawkins is the development of the formatting of their “arguments”. Let’s take this newly invented term: de-platforming. Not listed in my super duper many volumes black Oxford Dictionary. It’s the intentional loading of terminology, designed to convey an idea that’s not entirely true. The de in and of itself presumes entitlement. This is not unlike the fabrication of the term SJW. Quite a gift to right wing extremists who have always found the concept of social justice superfluous. With that term they manage to brush aside anything and everything that doesn’t fit with their narrative, including arguments aimed at nothing more than promoting equality in society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you Pink. But if I say the hijab is oppressive, does that imply that I don’t think a requirement to wear high heels aren’t? If I say Islam has bad ideas, does that imply that I think Christianity doesn’t? I mean I see this type of argument a lot. “You are only complaining about A, why don’t you complain about B which is similar?” The fact is that I may also complain about B, but for some reason I think A is more salient at the time. I may simply have just devoted more intellectual energy into A and thus it’s where my passion lies. I may have suffered because of A, and not B and thus A is my cause. We have a finite amount of energy and can’t devote a great deal of time to every cause. It could also be that I literally didn’t know about B and now that I do I may also take up that mantle. Pointing out that the hijab is oppressive may be fantastically easy, but in my mind there is nothing less important about stopping obvious injustices than the less obvious injustices.
When it comes to religion there is also a difference between a criticism of the doctrine and the people. Of course people identify with doctrines so an attack on one is seen as an attack on the other. It’s the same problem with identity politics isn’t it? If I criticize privately run health care, it’s like people get personally offended here in the U.S. So this of course means we must be careful how we approach subjects, but neither should it mean that we hate an entire group of people or condone their mistreatment. Challenging ideas in a religious doctrine shouldn’t warrant the charge of bigot in my opinion, even though people are going to take it personally. As I said I just don’t think it’s all that productive or helpful in the long run.
And I am completely with you on the SJW term.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well said. I suppose my question is – my underlying concern is – is it really that difficult to formulate a valid mathematical argument?
Take the case of hijab, heals and cleavage. Shouldn’t the formulation be a rather basic: Citizens (including females!) should not be forced to wear attire against their will.
Or to go back a little bit to your first comment on the Koran; the correct formulation is:
(religious text) (literalism) (orthodoxy) = _________ ;
rather than: religion = __________
That’s the mistake Dawkins makes, and this is verifiably true, for example, with the case of homosexuality. It was tolerated in Muslim North Africa in much of the 19th and first 60 years of the 20th century (when it was illegal in Europe.) So we have to be very careful on which variable we place the most weight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also well said. I really like this:
Or to go back a little bit to your first comment on the Koran; the correct formulation is:
(religious text) (literalism) (orthodoxy) = _________ ;
rather than: religion = __________
I think there are lot of practices that if we look across geography and time we will see cycles of them going in and going out. Certainly the geopolitical context plays a role and analyzing the problem at depth does matter, but from a purely philosophical point of view I do understand the criticisms of Dawkins and the like.
I often quote from Mark Twain about witches. I won’t do the whole thing here, but basically he said that for a millennia Christians went after witches…and then all of a sudden they decided there was no thing as witches, the text however remains unchanged. It’s still in there. It’s at least in theory possible that we may see a return of such a practice. Because the book that authorized the practice remains and thus a plausible interpretation of the bible might lead to such a practice. I find it completely frustrating that we have to preserve these holy books but somehow get people to ignore certain passages while focusing on others. It makes you want to say, well down with the whole thing if there is a chance that someone could take some of those passages more seriously than others.
While I think Dawkins and the likes are mistaken to think their tack can be successful and they benefit from the privilege they hold to even take such a tack, I do understand their frustration and why they find the problem intellectually interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
P. totally unrelated S.
Have a look at this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Enigma-Reason-Natural-History-Understanding/dp/1846145570/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HW54GVQVQAJHMKGVG97H
LikeLiked by 1 person
It looks like it has a very similar central thesis to Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain in regards to how reason works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hadn’t read that, but just added it to my list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I, too, share your wish that there could be an evolution within Islam to separate it from its totalitarian purpose (a purpose meaning the scripture explains how to live in total accordance with through total submission to God’s wishes). Wouldn’t it be swell if, like Christianity, enough people would parse the essential spiritual and compatible-with-secular-values bits from its inherent barbarism and totalitarian commands? Wouldn’t it be great if we could watch it undergo a liberalization from within over time and perhaps even help these liberal proponents along the way? After all, like you, I think people have the right to believe what they want even when I disagree with those beliefs… and I expect the same treatment in reply.
Is that happening?
Perhaps in some isolated cases it is but overall the nations that have majority Muslim populations are not liberalizing Islam to the extent of compatibility with the West. They may liberalize some aspects of the civil law that are not in contradiction to the Koran and they may mitigate some of the punishments and/or processes mandated for certain actions to some small extent, but these minor variances have always been a part of Islam and do not address the fundamental precepts of submitting to the will of God – precepts that are incompatible with Western liberal secular values of individual autonomy – themselves. I would argue there is no liberalizing movement… but there are liberalizing Muslims. I think there are lots of them. I know several. It is these folk that I think deserve to be invited to speak up and speak out with our support, with ears eager to hear. There folk are those courageous enough who are willing to undergo all the death threats and threat of physical violence to stand on a public platform and deliver their liberalizing opinions.
These are the folk who are both most at risk and the most vilified not just by Islamicists but by those deeply misguided individuals here in the West who presume they can speak on behalf of ‘victimized Muslims’ and that they know that any criticism of Islam is by definition bigoted, by definition Islamophobic, by definition worthy of vilification. Our very own VW has espoused this very viewpoint.
It’s not unusual.
I honestly don’t see how compromise and consensus with such people on this issue can be found… except through direct confrontation and argument to change. Yet I don’t think this change is possible when the very idea of change is faced by an intolerant ideology… an ideology that is so intractable, so demanding, so antithetical to the very wishes we share, so patently anti-enlightenment in its assumptions about the right to represent groups of people to the extent that they feel they should stop others from being able to even listen to such ‘alternate’ aka ‘incorrect’ views. The rationalization to drown out and disrupt any liberal Muslim demonstrates just how antithetical the ideology is to the root of social justice.
And we see these folk on campuses all the time now. They are a minority prone to tantrums but they are doing almost everything the Brown Shirts were willing to do and use the same reasons the Red Guard used to justify their actions. And they claim to be from the Left. They claim to be liberal. Thery claim to be democratic. Well, they are in name but there is a very clear hint of what is really going on when we encounter the PoMo tell: when ‘up’ is another kind of ‘down’, when ‘white’ is another kind of ‘black, when banning/disinviting/deplatforming/ demonizing/disrupting free speech is another kind of free speech, when thuggery is another kind of social justice.
Rationalizing all of this behaviour to be somehow acceptable and defensible is itself part of the problem that just as effectively stops liberal Muslims from speaking up and speaking out… which is the opposite effect of so much good intention.
LikeLiked by 2 people
TIldeb, what sort of “thuggery” in practice are you referring to? Something actually comparable to the Brown Shirts, as you claim, like burning shops, books, breaking strikes, and mugging representatives of a particular ethnic group just because the person being mugged looked like he/she belonged to that ethnic group? I am interrested in examples, to be able to evaluate your claim.
The change in Muslim majority countries may be slow, but it happens. Much of the turmoil we now wittness is the reaction of the fundamentalists and the conservatives of their societies backlashing at the change. Is it not? It was slow and painfull with Christians, was it not? It still is. The fastest change is happening in Muslim immigrants within western culture as long as they can rely on our protection of them as fully fledged members of the society. Calling their religion inherently evil has the tendency to turn some of them to fundamentalism and relying on their own cultural base. Does it not? Some of them have a tendency to do that anyway, but the same applies to any religion, wether it is in the majority or the minority. Never think that the Christian faith did not or does not present “fundamental precepts of submitting to the will of God”. It does and always has. I can not help it, but when we are talking about the various scriptures of different religions we are invariably talking about the colour of the unicorn droppings. 😉
LikeLike
“Calling their religion inherently evil has the tendency to turn some of them to fundamentalism and relying on their own cultural base. Does it not?”
Does it? Not according to many Muslims trying to liberalize their religion to the extent that it CAN coexist with and within the West. But these folk – if not being demonized as Islamophobes and bigots for ‘criticizing’ Islam – need bodyguards from other already staunch supporters of this less-than-evil religion. You know, just like the those Anglicans who support gays in the priesthood… the ones constantly under threat of death, donchaknow, and who also have an equivalent need for armed protection… oh, wait…
Let’s look again at what Dawkins actually said:
““It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not.
If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world its quite apparent at the present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.
They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness that is preached by extreme Islam and the Iranian regime.
So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane, and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.”
He’s making a comparison, a comparison that just so happens and oh-by-the-way is actually true: the greater negative impact of Islam versus other religions today is apparent.
Well apparently not because the rule is we cannot criticize Islam unless we’re bigots and so we should not look at what is, we should not even consider it true that many adherents of Islam do atrocious things to other people because it is required of them according to scripture, according to sharia, according to the Prophet, according to the essential metric of what makes a Muslim a Good Muslim.
By all means argue Dawkins’ point. That would be great. But notice how Dawkins is widely vilified for stating what he thinks is true, what compelling evidence seems to indicate is at least well founded, a reasonable position. None of that matters. The argument is no longer about supporting Muslims who are made into victims, who really do suffer, by the imposing of Islamic submission to the Perfect Word of God on real people in real life. We can’t make any such suggestion or offer any real real care and compassion for Muslims who suffer from this Islamic totalitarianism. No, no, no. Remember, we can’t criticize Islam…. that’s a given, according to so many appeasement crazed citizens of the West. We must only pay lip service to the idea of liberalizing Islam and never, ever, try to change the tenets of Islam and the Godly perfection of the Koran that are used to justify such suffering. That’s really bad, very ‘colonial’, highly disrespectful of culture, yada, yada, yada. Right. Attempting to liberalizing Islam in any meaningful way is always an act of bigotry, donchaknow.
This issue isn’t about calling Islam ‘evil’. I’s about vilifying anyone who criticizes Islam. It’s all about criticizing Dawkins in this particular case for daring to criticize Islam because it regularly and consistently produces these actual impact conditions more apparently than any other religion today.
But we must never, ever, ever say that out loud. We must never, ever, criticize Islam. What we must do to avoid being called a bigot is go along with the charade and continue pretending that we really, really, really do support this already-disallowed-or-you-are-a-bigot liberalizing movement and go along with vilifying anyone who tries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Go back over your comment and check how many misleading statements you’ve made. Then ask yourself why so much deception is necessary to “make” your point. And how much wilful ignorance it takes to maintain these positions.
Not too long ago I heard Sam Harris say Christianity hadn’t been as harmful as Islam for hundreds of years. The implication is either he’s an absolute cretin who doesn’t know the history of Spain, Italy, Portugal and much of Latin America – or he’s intentionally misleading his listeners. What’s your excuse?
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5649a3efe4b0460e19c4f2cf/5694d7815a5668523b7f6380/589de4efbf629a9c5e6e56b1/1486973374231/CURAS+HACIENDO+INSTRUCCIO%CC%81N+620.jpg?format=1000w
LikeLike
You obviously missed the ‘today’ bit. You are doing this selective reading more and more these days, which is why you constantly drag up Christian atrocities and call those who don’t some demeaning name as if this history now grants permission for atrocities done in the name of Islam to be left alone to be horrific, as if this in any way justifies vilifying those who try to criticize it. It’s a tactic you use, Pink, and it’s as tedious and repetitive as it is disturbing that you go out of your way to osculate the rump of Islamism and assure everyone that it’s a religion just like any other.
Except it’s not used like any other and you’re turning a blind eye to this fact, pretending that seeing this fact, recognizing this fact, criticizing this fact, is a form of bigotry. Yup, better to just pretend some imaginary fundamental wing of radical Presbyterians are attempting to blow up more civilians because, hey, we wouldn’t want to suggest anything less than equivalency could be at play here, and that wondering why this is could be anything other than bigotry and stupidity and ignorance. Can’t single out Islam. It’s one of Pink’s Rules.
LikeLike
Digging up things from the past? That sounds suspiciously like Harris’ canard. And goes hand in hand with the misleading idea that if we’re used to it, *if it’s ours*, then it’s okay.
Your point also depends on a total dismissal of all recent history. Of the partnerships between dictatorships worldwide and the Catholic church. Of the support Evangelicals gave to the Apartheid government. Of the tens of millions invested (still TODAY!) by religious groups against lgbt rights and women’s rights.
Yes, according to your argument those are all moot issues, and what really matters is that a minority within another religion commits atrocities. Another religion which by no means affects life in the Western world to anywhere near the same degree.
Sure. When a gay man gets beaten to death in a Christian/Catholic country, religion is incidental. If it’s in a Muslim country, then religion is causal.
LikeLike
I’m not dismissing anything, Pink, nor am I waving away any harm caused to real people in the name of any religion. You consistently and reliably keep misrepresenting me as if I do. You demonstrate over and over that your intention is to discredit by falsehood what you cannot discredit by merit. You thrive only by creating false equivalencies and then sling smears against anyone who disagrees with you.
Yes, I think the Catholic Church is an international criminal organization. Yes, I think Catholic supported policies outside of its own religion and extended into the public domain as if justified by being Catholic doctrine is an affront to human dignity and personhood. Yes, I believe this creates real victims in the real world and it is reprehensible. And you know I think this. Yes, I think all religion is a Bad Idea. Yes, the history of Christianity is blood soaked and continues to be a thorn in all kinds of areas including liberal progressive social policies because of inherent misogyny and discrimination built into its central tenets… not least of which is expecting obedience. But the Church doesn’t sanction equivalent penalties as we find occurring in every Muslim majority Islamic country. And you know this, too. The equivalency TODAY you argue for doesn’t exist in reality. At best you can search for and promote individual incidents but then inflate these as if there are as typical. This is not true and you know it. This equivalency you keep pushing is a fabrication, a fiction, a creation of your own mind.
But that’s not the point.
All that being said, we return to my point: Islam needs criticism. It needs liberalizing… if this is even possible beyond isolated and (I think) relatively trivial cases. And I think this is the case because to liberalize Islam to the point of compatibility with Western liberal secular values requires a movement like a Reformation and I I don;t see that anywhere on the horizon. It could become a movement… if people didn’t have to face the tremendous vilification by both religious purists and badly misguided SJWs like you. Vilifying those who try to do this liberalizing is hypocritical and that’s my accusation against you: you don’t call people who criticize the Catholic church bigots, idiots, morons, and so on, do you, Pink? You like to reserve those slurs for other liberals who are actually trying to uphold liberal principles over and above your social justice warrior beliefs. But you do it all the time against anyone who criticizes Islam and, more to the point, against those very people who are TRYING to liberalize Islam. That’s your modus operandi and it stinks of hypocrisy when you present it as if it represents real social justice fighting against religious intolerance and religious bigotry. It doesn’t. It protects the worst kind of intolerant, totalitarian, religious belief… that everyone should submit to the Perfect Word of God and incorporate the teachings of its Perfect Prophet and its total perfect prescription on how to live… in state law. That’s what you’re protecting.
For shame, Pink,. For shame.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, the first part of your comment is progress. We agree there’s a general problem which regards religion as a whole. Not a specific one.
The second part of your comment, however, isolates a specific religion in the equation and blames it (Islam = x) for the problems experienced in countries where there’s a majority Muslim population. The problem with that is, as I’ve explained to you before, that there are enough other factors/variables that have to be taken into account (authoritarianism, political manipulation, no separation of church and state.) So the religion in and of itself is not causal, although it can certainly be treated as a contributing factor. Not because it’s a specific religion, but because as a religion it functions as a useful tool. In the exact same way as Catholicism functioned as a tool for dictators *during my lifetime*, and as I’m not yet 40, I consider that part of *Today*. Modern times. This current Pope now, the nice one aided and abetted the Argentine dictatorship which lasted into the 1980’s. Apartheid was law until 1991. I’m not talking about Roman times.
And just to wrap it up – the only solution that has worked thus far with any religion has been kicking it out of government. No “reform” has ever been successful because there’s always the next coup, the next leader who’s waiting in the wings to take power through whatever means. All countries with majority Mulsim populations which have separated church and state have become functional.
LikeLike
But you explanation here neither explains nor explores the huge discrepancy between people born, raised, and educated to university graduation in Western liberal secular countries when broken into religious affiliations and their affinity to using violence to obtain religious ends. Muslims accept violence in defense of the faith more than 30 to 1 compared with any other religious identity. In other words, we remove all the kind of factors used to explain violence within an Islamist state and then compare apples with apples outside of that state: versus and in stark difference to any other religious identity, there is a robust correlation between Muslims and Islam with a willingness to commit violence in its name that is not present in any other religious group. And I think this correlation matters a very great deal today when we continue to encounter acts of social violence done in the name of defending Islam. We have to start listening to this explanation and investigate it rather than presume it cannot possibly be as widespread and endemic to Islam as it appears. We need to wake up not just from our self-imposed delusion that this cannot be true but stop going along with those who insist that no one should be able to say as much in the public domain.
LikeLike
Correlation? Fascinating. How does your argument look when put to Hume’s standards of causality?
If a majority Muslim country can offer rights based on secular values while a majority Christian country can be the home of religious massacres and abuses, what does that tell you of the weight of the variable that is religion, from a mathematical standpoint?
LikeLike
Why is there a robust correlation?
Notice that I’m using the term correlation? I think there is causation but my opinion still requires the full price of money to get a cup of coffee. Yet to study it (to see if there is causation), what do you think are the chances that the funding proposal to study this remarkable discrepancy will not attract vilification and abuse and accusations of Islamophobia?
I predict zero. How about you, Pink?
LikeLike
Correlation is a misleading term, especially if you’re using it to imply causation – as is the case here.
There was and I believe still is a correlation between being gay and having Aids; Or being black and going to prison. Yet it’s reasonably obvious more factors are at play in arriving at those things.
The NYT reported late last year that approximately 1200 people had been killed by ISIS. That’s compared to over half a million Iraqis killed in the war launched by President (God spoke to me) Bush. Or does that not count because it didn’t happen in the past 12 months?
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. Islam encompasses much more than one idea. You speak of it almost as if it were a person, the devil.
They don’t have an office somewhere where Nawaz and Hirsi Ali can visit, give it a lick of paint, and presto, reformed Islam.
When people use this childish reductionism, it makes them sound incredibly ignorant. When Dawkins uses a general term like Islam to describe the specific actions of a minority he’s joined the ranks of the ignorant. It’s falling back into the trap of Blacks are, the Japanese are, and so forth.
LikeLike
Show me a Muslim who disagrees that the Koran is the Perfect Word of God, disagrees that Mohammed was the Perfect Prophet, disagrees that the Koran offers in perfect detail what constitutes how to live the perfect life. Show me this Muslim who will stand up on a stage and announce this. And I will show you a Muslim vilified by you.
The religion of Islam in all its branches does have certain basic tenets that are incompatible with Western secular liberal values.But don’t take my idiotic, bigoted word for it: look at the PEW data and see how widespread are the antithetical values held by Muslims in Muslim majority countries that codify these different branches of Islam into law. And these antithetical values are held by significant minorities in Western Muslim populations. These shared beliefs are a very real problem that is not addressed by pretending it is an equivalent problem to any other major religion. This difference is real. But you do your level best so that we never can address it. After all, only idiots and bigots think it’s a problem… a problem we call ‘radical’ and extreme’ and ‘not real Islam’ when it is anything but in reality.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting version of The True Scotsman. I’ve known Arabic and Iranian people my entire life who live just like everyone else. Drink, eat pork, listen to music- and still consider themselves Muslim. Just like the Catholics who use birth control and still go to church. Or have abortions even though that means automatic excommunication. Or get divorced.
LikeLike
Yeah, me too. Lovely people. Ask them if they consider themselves good Muslims. I did. You might want to listen to their answers.
LikeLike
You mean Catholics who have abortions do?
LikeLike
Tildeb, again, do you have examples about the sort of thuggery you mentioned? You made the comparrison to the Brown Shirts. Did you not? You are aware, that this is a rather extreme comparrison?
There are even today neo-nazies at least here in Finland who are very much anti-Islamic, anti-immigration, openly racist, alternative facts fans and they are indeed violent right-wing nationalists whose behaviour resembles that of the Brown Shirts. They would just love any authority – any at all – to make the claim, that Islam is the “most evil religion”. On many level they are the Brown Shirts. After all, the great majority of the Brown Shirts thought they were justified in their violence, because they were – in addition to notions like race and fatherland – defending their base of morality – Christianity. The neo-nazies like the Brown Shirts have certainly never fought for social justice. Why? Because social justice is an anathema and the complete opposite to their fascistic values be those traditional values derived from Christianity, or not.
LikeLike
Episodes of violence and rioting are rising in relation to how protesting speakers is devolving and has been for nearly two decades. The examples are too many to try to list in any comprehensive way. But here’s a quick video describing what I think is the problem (regarding Islam specifically, go to about the 6 minute mark): a very targeted and ideologically driven attack on free speech. Even here in peaceful Canada, we have people being attacked for wanting to listen to the ‘wrong kind’ of speakers.
LikeLike
Tildeb, so infact, you have no examples of thuggery comparable to the Brown Shirts, or do you? Did you just say so to make a point? The example was so far off from any evidence and facts, that I propably managed to miss the point. Were you exaggerating quite a bit? Why? Did you honestly think the comparrison was fair and if so, do you have actual examples? I am getting a bit tired at asking again and again. Saying they are too many for you to list, does not actually serve as an example of anything. It is like saying that there were 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus having been resurrected. Is it not?
All you have done is provided a video where someone blames political correctness to be the source of self sensorship. Self sensorship was never on the agenda of the Brown Shirts. Was it? Infact, political correctness is a barrier put up to stop fascist movements like the Brown Shirts, or their continuation the neo-nazies to gain momentum, is it not?
LikeLike
I used the term Brown Shirts to indicate the eagerness and willingness to not just to protest speaking events by peaceful means but use violence and physical intimidation to shut down and shut people up. That doesn’t mean there is a direct correlation with the original Brown Shirts but it does indicate a shared value with the Brown Shirts… that threatening and committing violence and engaging in highly disruptive behaviour is okay. That’s the same ideology used by today’s Social Justice Warriors who behave this way, who paint the world as Us against Them when it comes to enforcing their ideology not by reason, nor by convincing on merit, but by throwing a violent and disruptive tantrum to impose political correctness on those who dare disagree with whatever version of it might be.
And yes, there are lots of examples of this willingness to use the Brown Shirt value towards violence, to shut down through disruption speaking engagements, to vilify those who want to talk about ‘incorrect’ ideas, who want to listen to the speakers and intimidate them using violence. Yes, there are real victims, real people who have been assaulted, real property damaged, real jobs lost, real careers ended, real family members threatened and assaulted, real people subject to ongoing intimidation.
Just look at the Peterson video already posted. This is now just a typical everyday event that greets on campus speakers identified by this local unit of the Brown Shirt Brethren as ‘incorrect’. Look at Evergreen College. Look at the Berkeley riots. Look at Vermont College. Look at Middlebury. Look at how Black Lives Matter stopped Toronto’s Gay Pride parade. These are the tactics of the self-appointed defenders from controversial ideas, demanding acquiescence to their ideology. Or else. It is anti-free speech and it is predicated on the idea that you can and should shut people up by using the threat of violence and disruptive behaviour. Or do you honestly think I’m simply imagining these common events?
LikeLike
Rautakyy, put another way, if this same behaviour, the same kind of disruptions and violence and intimidation were done by some unknown element of society, I suspect you would have little difficulty attributing it to some ‘typical’ extreme right wing behaviour and extreme right wing motivation. I think if someone were to call this behaviour ‘Brown Shirt’ behaviour in that circumstance, you would not be holding the person to similar doubt and similar need for verification. You would get the reference to over-the-top bullying behaviour in public. But you do change your tune when it comes to the same befaviour exhibited by what is referred to as toady’s ‘social activists’ busy imposing their ideology of supposedly protecting victims by attacking fundamental principles of secular values now rampant on university campuses here in Canada and the US and used without shame or reticence against speakers all over many Western countries who are saying things that these ideologues disagree with.
So my question to you is to ask yourself if you are using a double standard here or if you honestly think we promote free speech and tolerance by shutting down and shutting up people with whom we disagree?
LikeLike
Tildeb, I write under a pseudonym, because I do not want to loose my job because of my views on religion. I do not expect to work for a Muslim, rather far more likely a Christian. However a Christian boss of mine might get upset about my opinions. If I ever worked for a Muslim boss, I do not expect that they would kill me because of my opinions here in a fairly secular western country. The threat level from a potential Muslim boss is exactly the same to me as it is from a Christian boss.
I do not know where you got the idea that I “would not be holding the person to similar doubt and similar need for verification” when anyone made a claim like you did. I think I have a tendency to hold people – all people – in a high need for verification for any claims they make and more so if their claims are more extraordinary. It did take you a long time and several times of me asking before you even chose to answer. Why?
When you finally came up with some events, that you thought justified your comparrison to the Brown Shirts, you listed events like how “Black Lives Matter stopped Toronto’s Gay Pride parade” wich has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the Brown Shirts did. Does it? Either you have an extremely false idea about how the Brown Shirts operated, or what happened at the Toronto Gay Pride. Or is it, that you wanted these two to be similar for some other reason, that caused you to think they were somehow close enough? Is it because you yourself do not really find enough similarities, to make these comparable to each other, that it took you such a long time to answer my question, or did you have some other reason to awoid answering my rather simple question? Did the BLM people beat up the Pride people? No they did not. Was there any actual violence? No there was not. It was just the BLM using their own freedom of speech in a demonstration. Was it not?
In Finlad few years back a group of right-wing extremists pepper-sprayed a Gay Pride parade. Several people needed to be treated, some of those were children. That was a lot closer to what the Brown Shirts were up to and represents an actual “shared value”, with the Brown Shirts wich was not so much anti-free speech, as it was anti gay and anti-minority social justice. Not stopping a demonstration for a while what the BLM did, wich does not really demonstrate any shared value with the Brown Shirts. Does it? By the way, if in Finland some group stopped a demonstration march, regardless of wich demonstration or wich group stopped it, the police would remove them outright, so that the march could continue. Why did they not do this in Canada? I am guessing, that the police had a good reason not to interfere, as they would have, if actual violence was involved in the event, like if a group of Brown Shirts would have wanted to stop the parade…
You asked: “Or do you honestly think I’m simply imagining these common events?” Well, I am not so sure. As I pointed out, you listed at least one event, that had absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim. Otherwise such events that you refer to are not common events at all where I live. Here in Finland the lately again increased violence has been one sided, and the purpetrators have been exclusively the right wing extremists, who oppose immigration, because they are both affraid of Islam and because they just happen to be racists. They have already killed people and made several more attempts to do that. They share respect and badges for each other for killing, or maiming someone who disagrees with them. They share almost all the values with the Brown Shirts and in many cases Christianity is one of those values. Many of them even openly admire such organizations as the Brown Shirts, KKK, and even SS. You see, we Finns have a dark history with the Nazi Germany, that has not been dealt with in some of our more conservative right wing circles. It is a history of political violence. It is because of that history, why such speakers as Milo Yiannopoulos, could never here in Finland (and I suspect in most European countries) even be invited to speak in a university campus wich ignited the Berkley protests. We Europeans have already heard what the Fascists and Stalinist Communist, for that matter) wanted to say, and the Finnish society, much like most European societies, have had bad enough experiences from what happens, if such people get to spread their lies, not to let that mistake happen again. They still hold their freedom of speech, they just need to create their own platforms, wich seems not to be too difficult in this time and age of the internet, instead of using something like a university, wich is beholden to the search of truth.
In general I condemn violence by anyone, exept when it is done in self defence and with equal strength to the attack. Besides, I think violence often reveals, that you have nothing better to say and that you are affraid. That does not mean there were no good arguments for the cause, it only means that the person resorting to violence did not have them.
So, my answer to you is, that no I do not hold a double standard for the freedom of speech, but I do think that such a thing as hate speech exists and that it has consequenses. Sometimes very serious consequenses, wich is why it may be restricted from having all the possible support to authoritariate it. Do you not agree?
LikeLike
Rautakyy, you have missed the point entirely.
My claim is that there is a strong and growing element in the Left that is regressive, that operates by actions and sentiments that a anti-liberal in principle and demonstrate actions that are anti-Enlightenment in value… not least of which is saying that they do so on behalf of liberal principles and Enlightenment values but then actually committing the opposite. Furthermore, I claim the tactics used are fascist, that bullying and intimidation and violence and disruption and demonization are gaining wider and broader social acceptance… especially by people who should know better. In addition, from these sideline observers who should know better than appease and apologize for these hypocritical illiberals comes a kind of Fifth Column, people who go along, who do not soundly condemn, who rationalize excuses on behalf of others, who partake in the illusion of supporting ‘correctness’ by incorrect means and use a form of apologetics for Really Bad Ideas championed by the more militant advocates who presume they are defending victimized groups by these fascist methods.
I use terminology to reflect both my disgust at this growing appeasement as well as the the essential element of what is true: this movement is dangerous to us all because it undermines the principles and values that form the foundation of democratic secular liberal democracies.
I used the term ‘Brownshirts’ to reveal the same strain of intolerance demonstrated by these social activists for what they perceive to be a form of imposed corrective justice on behalf of victimized groups. You argue that the lack of equivalent violence renders the comparison highly doubtful and use the lack of violence in one of my examples – Black Lives Matter disrupting Toronto’s Gay Pride parade – as if to contrast my ‘Brownshirt’ claim and reduce it to mere hyperbole. This focus by you is what I mean when I say you have missed the point entirely.
The point I keep raising is about the use of anti-liberal methods done in the name of liberal principles and then excused by those claiming to support liberal principles. Also, I keep raising the point but face significant reticence. from those I accuse of hypocrisy, of using a double standard, of going along with a very Post Modern framework and language not just about groups and power but this idea that everyone owns their own facts, their own truths, that any action illiberal intolerant action undertaken in defense of the victimized groups is somehow justified as well as exempt from legitimate criticism.
So my criticism has been wide ranging as each form of this regressive movement, this anti-liberal, anti-Enlightenment appeasement presents itself again and again here in this thread. You’ve selected the Gay Pride example I used so take a moment, sit back, don’t jump to conclusions but see if my example fits with my overall claim.
In 1981, the Toronto police raided bath houses – well known for being safe meet places for gay men – and then paraded those arrested in front of media. The outcry against this kind of bullying tactic by police upholding the law came not just from the gay community of Toronto but many other social leaders. There was also a lot of support for the police actions by various groups like the Catholic archdiocese and many right AND left wing politicians. The response by many gays in the community working with other supportive community leaders organized a protest parade. To demonstrate support this parade, more than 600,000 people including me came out to line the route, to show police and city officials and the rest of the country that ongoing intolerance using outdated laws targeting gays had to change. Since that time, the parade has only grown as a venue for other groups to send representatives and provide floats to celebrate the kind of remarkable diversity that constitutes a strong and vital inclusive community like Toronto.
I don’t know if you noticed, by the central theme of the Gay Pride parade was for inclusion, for tolerance, for mutual respect, to demonstrate that we can and should celebrate differences and that we can do so sharing the same liberal principles and Enlightenment values. Not specialized laws. Not group laws. Laws of equality based on individual rights and freedoms shared by all.
Black Lives Matter intentionally used this very popular culminating event (there are also all kinds of smaller events, entertainment venues, workshops, conferences and so on for about 10 days leading up to the parade now estimated to bring in over $120 million dollars to the City) to hijack and hold hostage in order to enforce the removal of the police contingent.
Think about that, Rautakyy. Think about that tactic. Think about the method. Think about what ‘progressive’ means, bringing about positive change to law, to enforcement, to policies of inclusion and tolerance and respect for diversity. Compare and contrast the first Gay Pride parade with the tactics, the methods, the justifications, used by Black Lives Matter to disrupt, to bully, to intimidate, to demand ‘correction’, all done in the name of tolerance and inclusion and respect for others. Well, you tell me: which one is liberal, progressive, tolerant, and inclusive bringing about positive social change and which one is the opposite, the one represented by my term ‘Brownshirt’? Is my use of the term really dependent only on a high level of violence committed when I have previously explained that it represents a form of intolerance and exclusion by intentional action?
I think we need to be reminded of what liberal principles are, what shared Enlightenment values are, when we begin to believe that these are best supported by supporting opposite actions, opposite tactics, giving in to opposite demands and see these for what they really are: going along with a New and Improved version of fascism. We can be better than this. We have to be better than this. But first we have to wake up and start insisting that we must all get our language and actions back into alignment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh by the way, Tildeb and everyone else, I will be away from the internet for a week or so, so if I do not answer it is not meant to be impolite, or neglecting anyone, I am simply busy otherwise.
LikeLike
I am sorry for not having replied earlier, but I was very busy in Sweden for a number of days. I hope my reply still reaches you Tildeb.
If you want to demonstrate a point, do not make false comparrisons. You can not possibly claim, that all people who resort to violence share values. When the Allied invaded Normandy in WWII they did not do it because they shared a particular value of might making right with the extreme right-wing nationalists of Europe. Did they? Comparing the BLM to the Brown Shirts makes even less sense, than comparing the Allied to the nazies.
You may have every right to be appalled by the actions of the BLM, but do not claim, there are any actual similarities to how and why the Brown Shirts operated and how their present day version the right wing neo-nazies operate. The comparrison does not work in order for you to be able to convince anyone who knows the facts about these. At least it did not convince me, rather it made your claims look very suspicious. As did the fact, that you seemed unwiling at first to find any examples to support your original claim, that the “left” is comparable to the Brown Shirts.
I salute your willingness to protect the freedom of speech and other liberal values. However, I think you are a bit mistaken, or perhaps mislead. In your other example in the Berkley protests the speaker whose invitation caused the protests, was Milo Yiannopoulos who has been given the “No Platform” policy by the UK National Union of Students. Why? Because he is not a person who supports the liberal values you and I share. Should he and everybody who has an opinion be given platform in universities?
Do you not agree, that with any liberties also comes responsibility? Freedom of speech also bears the responsibility for what follows from one’s words. Does it not? If I lie to you, is it not my responsibility, if you act based on the false information I gave to you and you believed as you trusted me? If no such responsibility is shared by the person who lied, with the person who acted based on the lies, how can there ever be any trust?
We may have the right to freedom of speech, but it hardly means we have a right to have a platform to our opinions. Not all opinons are equal. Not by far. Any person who lies, or spreads hatred does not deserve to have any platform, especially not in institutions committed to the search of truth, like universities. I hope we can agree, that while Ben Carson is a famous brain surgeon and his opinion in that field is important, however as he also hands out opinions about archaeology and Egyptology, as if he knew what the pyramids were built for, better than the people who have actually researched the pyramids and the contemporary Egyptian culture, he is not really qualified to do so. Can we?
Should universities give Ben Carson a platform to present his opinions on the pyramids?
Richard Dawkins for a nother example can present far more coherent opinion about biology, or genetics than either of us. Yes? But how qualified is he in comparing wich is the worst religion? He is not a cultural historian, or a sociologist. Nor is he a religion studies expert. He is a prominent atheist and I respect his efforts to protect the scientific world view and study against any religious intrusions.
Richard Dawkins propably sincerely hold the notion, that Islam is the worst religion at present, when he made the comment. But was he actually right and by what means could such a claim be evaluated. Even more importantly, what can be achieved through calling it that? Honestly? What do you expect are the implications and in effect result of a prominent European atheist with Christian cultural heritage making this claim? One rather obvious result I see is that it alienates the liberal Muslims from us atheists and makes the wall from their side even harder to climb over. A nother that comes to mind is, that it validates the false subjective opinions of racists, fascists and especially Christians about Islam and about all Muslims and of people who have or even simply look like they have Muslim heritage.
The important question about religions is not whose religion can be validated by appealing to positive effects, or judged by appealing to negative effects it may have on the society. How can these be even compared? Could Islam be called better than Christianity, because it has restricted alcohol abuse better? Alcohol use is not a human rights issue. Is it? All major religions have been used to make human rights null and void and all of them have been used to validate some human rights. The question wether a religion supports or suppresses a human right is not found in the scriptures, because obviously people are able to rationalize those through interpretation, but in the current and historical sociopolitical situation. Christianity is not any better than Islam, it is only currently more tied down by secularism.
The real question about religions is wether they are true or not, not wether they are beneficial or harmfull to the society. Do we agree on this?
I agree with you, that people should not be seen as mere members of this or that group. Yet, most of us have group identities, do we not? Do you not identify into any groups? I do. I am a Humanist and an atheist, but I am also a Finn, a Carelian, a member of my kin, an army reservist, and a white-meat-eating-middle-aged-male. I also identify according to some of my hobbies, education and profession and even to a degree according to my taste in art. Some of the groups people identify to are really small and some of those group identities wether small or large are harmfull to the people holding the identity. The real question is how to affect such people, not to identify to anything actually harmfull? By telling them, their identity is the worst possible, even if it were so?
I too think we need to be reminded of what liberal principles are, what shared Enlightenment values are, as we sometimes do need to defend them. Do we not? How to go about defending the liberty to speak? By letting all sorts of people, who demand you and I should not have this right, to have a platform in our universities? I agree with you, that the first line of defence should always be non-violent and I am not trying to downplay the fact, that sometimes people who try to defend the liberal principles retort to violence quite too soon. I do not see this as systematic, as you seem to do, and I think the fact, that you included the BLM at the Toronto Pride reveals, there is no such systematic violence, as that did not include any actual violence – at least anything even remotely comparable to the actions of such right wing extremists as the Brown Shirts.
One of the principles of a liberal open society is multiculturalism. Is it not? The fact, that there needs to be tolerance for other cultures, and the culutural behaviour of others, but not when they are intolerant, themselves. Islam is a dogmatic intolerant religion, but most adherents of Islam are not. Especially not in the west, where they are in the minority. One of the principles of an open liberal society is an ongoing debate. A discussion between different viewpoints. Such a discussion is almost impossible without a certain level of political correctness. Right? The person who brakes this correctness, has willingly set themselves outside of the discussion, by claiming, that the other side has no right to discuss the issue.
A nother important principle of a liberal open society is protection of minorities. Is it not? Islam may be a big religion, but it is in the minority in the western countries and further divided into even smaller minorities. We as the secular society should protect those minorities from any majorities, violence or even from them each other. On the other hand right-wing extremists, nationalists, racists, Brown Shirts, neo-nazies and alike, do not respect any of the principles of liberal open societies. Do they? They never have. They may abuse them to reach their own authoritarian causes, and appeal to us to accept their ideals as equal to those of our own, but it is a deception as they never really respect ours. In that they are not unlike the Taliban, or the ISIS, who share more values with our own western right-wing conservatives, than they do with the rest of us, or with the rest of Muslims.
There is a reason why Richard Dawkins (for example) does not debate with apologists. He does not want to give the people who are interrested in discussing about the colour of unicorn shite any more platform, by his own authority. I respect him for this. Also there is a great chance, that it might seem like he lost a debate about the colour of unicorn droppings, since he is not an expert on such nonsense any more than he is an expert on wich religion is more harmfull than the other. Or is he?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rautakyy, I think you demonstrate the validity of my central argument: that far, far too many people who think they are liberal and who should know better than to succumb to GroupThink, who think they are protectors of individual autonomy by way of supporting liberal values like tolerance and respect and free speech of the individual by supporting group ideology, who think well of themselves and their moral standing by supporting what they think of as minority issues, find it far, far more offensive to engage in criticism of how that is done – and for pointing out the very poor reasoning that is used to rationalize anti-liberal tactics – than any anything, any activity, any contrary-to-liberal-ideals activities, being criticized.
That is the Regressive Left in action.
You are far, far more concerned about me describing the bully tactics by those from the Left of the political spectrum as fascists, as using ‘Brownshirt tactics’, than you are about the anti-liberal bullying tactics themselves.
That is the Regressive Left in action.
You personify the problem being forced on all of us by these illiberal liberals demanding only ‘correct’ words, ‘correct’ ideology, ‘correct’ unity define tolerance and respect for demonstrations… by supporting intolerance and disrespect if this ideology is challenged.
This is the Regressive Left in action.
You offer permission and even endorsement of those who share this unity ideology with you when they use illiberal tactics, and you spend time and effort defending them from legitimate criticism by criticizing anyone who would dare to criticize!
This is the Regressive Left in action.
I note that nowhere in your comments do find any cause for self-reflection when challenged with multiple examples of anti-liberal tactics intentionally used to bully others; rather, you go on a rationalizing adventure to justify your absolute failure to adhere to liberal principles on behalf of all individuals by blaming the individuals subject to this bullying in every case to be deserving of illiberal tactics that are not tolerant, not respectful, not willing to engage with reason and words and facts.
This is the Regressive Left in action.
You are a member of the Regressive Left and you promote and defend this illiberal ideology by claiming to be a person supportive of liberal ideals. You fool yourself.
You should think on that if you still want to claim to be a liberal rather than a social fascist, should you not? If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…
LikeLike
You are like a preacher driving a fake message home through mindless and meaningless repetition. The regressive left in action? Raut’s comment was comprehensive, engaging and factual – I suspect you didn’t even read it. Try going over this post in detail and learn something from Swarn Gill, who can hold an opposing point of view while actually responding to key points in an argument – serious discussion, no patronising, empty sermons required.
LikeLike
Tildeb, you would have me not put people into groups, yet you assign me to a group, you propably know I do not identify to, as hardly anyone ever identifies to “Regressive left”. Why? Why is it, that you use this sort of terminology, that obviosly is not constructive, but precisely meant to bring out an emotional response? To make me loose my cool, and through that “validate” your point of view? I do not understand you. I hope I could. Would you ever consider to have been treated fairly if anyone described you as the “Regressive” Right, or “Regressive” what ever? This is just as stupid as calling some bloke, to describe their religion as the worst ever. It does not work. Does it? It is not to the benefit of the other person, to convice them they are wrong, nor to confront them with their problems, as much it is for one to use such terminology to validate their own opinions and feel somehow emotionally superior for a brief moment to the other person. Right?
Yes, I am very concerned in you describing something as Brown Shirt tactics, when it obviously is not. It is a serious accusation, and before anyone, you included, throws such around, they should be prepared to prove it right. Should they not? As far as I am concerned, you have utterly failed to show any actual resemblance, nor connection between the two. When I pushed you, you presented a series of examples, from wich I chose two because those examples of yours referred to specific events more than just some random locations, neither of wich served as an example of similar modus operandi, as that of the Brown Shirts – that was racistically motivated extreme violence and breaking of strikes, made possible by the police looking the other way. Why? In fact, the other protest on your list was specifically directed against an extremist right-wing speaker who holds a good number of the very same key values as the Brown Shirts did. Was it not?
Do you agree, that with every liberty, such as the freedom of speech, also comes responsibility? I really hope you answer this, because I am growing a bit weary at asking over and over again. I hope this is not because you are evading the question, but rather because I ask so many things and write too long comments. 😉 If you do agree, how should we hold people responsible for what they say or claim?
Who deserves a platform for their opinions in a university and on wich issues? Everyone, or are there any methods to evaluate the agendas, or how disruptive to the society the claims may be, or how accurate and based on actual research their claims are, more than the personal cultural experience of the individual? Or should we provide universities as platforms for all the people who have an opinion and are willing to express it? Or what?
I share your concern, on any violence used by any side, as I have already expressed a number of times, but it seems you do not listen, or care, or is it because me sharing your concern does not fit your pre-assumptions (of the “Regressive Left”), since I have not come to the same conclusions as you have, despite our shared concern? Or is it because of some other reason? But I never said I was an extreme pacifist. I do think violence may sometimes be called for, in order to stop violence. Do we agree on that?
If we agree, that violence should be sometimes stopped by violence, then the question is, at what stage and what level of violence is ethically permissable. Is it not? Rather, than that all violence is unjustified and without exeption reveals an attack on the liberal values of the western society. The western society has been – on several occasion, I might add – defended by the use of violence. Has it not? Also concerning the topic post, it is a question of what do we count as violence? Do we think not providing a platform for every opinion is violence? Do we think that inciting hatred is violence? If we think, that only physical violence is actual violence, then we could just as well claim, that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco never acted violently. Could we not? That would not make any sense, would it? They simply used their freedom of speech to incite a terrible thirst for violence in others. Were they not responsible for what followed? Could such disasters have been prevented? How?
The Christians of the western world sometimes demand that they are being bullied, when their priviledges to limit the lives of other people are challenged by the secular society and laws. Do they not? Are they actually being bullied by the surrounding society, when their means to attack the rest of us – often the minorities, such as Muslims, or atheists, gays, and what have you – are being removed? By what measures should it be estimated, that one behaviour is harmfull to others and a nother is not? Is not the demand for political correctness then also a demand for human rights? Do the human rights include a right to spread out hatefull messages? If it is a human rights issue, that a right-wing extremist, or anyone for that matter, should be allowed to spread lies and hatred from every possible platform, against one minority group, then for equal measure should we not also demand freedom of speech for Islamists who spread their hatred against the “infidels”? You see, these two messages are not so different at all. They are induced by the same sort of fear of the other as the topic post suggests. Are they not?
Now, it has not been a hundred years since the nazi-Germany decided to murder all the Jews they could get their hands on. Wether what the convictions of the leading nazies were is very much irrelevant, because what they did was possible only through the fact, that the German people had a history of religious segragation and hatred towards the Jews. Even what the Bible has to say, is irrelevant, because they were fully capable of finding excuses for their actions from the book in all sincerety. Were they not? In other words, the Germans were not inspired by Islam, or atheism, to make the holocaust real. They were inspired by what they thought proper patriotism and Christianity. Even so, I would not call patriotism or Christianity the worst value, nor the worst religion in the world. Not even when it all took place. Would you? My reason is, that because at the same time there were plenty of good people with good intentions inspired by patriotism and Christianity. Were there not? Same applies to Muslims, Islam, Christianity and indeed patriotism even today. Does it not?
If I am a victim to GroupThink, then help me, and suggest a solution to the problem presented in the topic post. If Richard Dawkins is right and Islam is the worst religion in the world, then what? What would be the “outside the box” solution to that problem? The right-wing extremists of the nazi-Germany had an outside the box solution to what they genuinely thought was the greatest problem of their society and the worst religion of their time. First they thought deportation of all the Jews to Palestine would solve their “problem”, but later as the door for seeing a particular religion and it’s adherents as the problem was validated, they came to a nother kind of solution. I assume neither of us would see anything similar as an actual solution, even if we could agree on what the worst religion of our time was.
Can we agree, that religious claims about the supernatural are not validated by wether they are beneficial or harmfull to the society? Could we also agree, that the important question about any religion is wether it is actually true?
LikeLike
This comment, Rautakyy, is yet another Gish Gallop of rationalizations presented as if under reasonable questioning, is it not? You really don’t wish to consider the central criticisms I raise, is that not so? Examples of the kind of excused and rationalized illiberal bullying and violence I raise are not sufficient evidence of using and excusing bullying tactics for you, are they, and perfectly acceptable tactics to those on the Left who think they defend and promote liberal social justice by turning a blind eye of the hypocrisy needed to defend these illiberal tactics, aren’t they? In fact, anything short of a racial genocide I might raise indicating fascist tactics by those who claim to do so based on liberal principles are always insufficient to ruffle your intellectual feathers, am I not right?
Answering each of your latest list of 43 questions in your comment indicates a desire for answers, do they not? Yet any answers I do provide are then immediately filtered and discarded by an ideological language you import and you apply that presumes the conclusions you already assume are unquestionable, is this not so? You assume hate speech is equivalent to violence, do you not? Because you assume criticism of, say, Islam by someone like a Dawkins is already hate speech by fiat, and you already presume hate speech is a kind of violence, then golly gee whiz how difficult is it for you to then justify disinviting such a speaker and think well of yourself for upholding the liberal principle of showing individual respect on behalf of what you assume must be a great number offended Muslims, Muslims who you already presume would be subject to violence through hateful speech if the person were allowed to speak?
The ideological framework you use is incoherent and irrational circularly reinforcing at best, isn’t it?
Do you not see what you’re doing? Are you really so enamored with your lengthy defense of bully tactics on behalf on not bullying identifiable minorities that you truly do not grasp the extent of your absurd and hypocritical rationalizations?
Do you not realize how pervasive is this growing illiberal idiocy you defend and give tacit support and cover for a rising social fascism inured from necessary criticism? Do you not grasp why more people need to point out that using illiberal rationalizations on behalf of excusing and endorsing illiberal actions is not liberal? Really? This needs to be spelled out in such excruciating detail? Do you not grasp that using the patina of liberalism by expropriating liberal language and making antonyms synonyms is just a means to disguise fascism?
Apparently not, am I right? In fact, you go out of your way to pretend I need to review what classical liberal principles are because you think I might assume rights and freedoms do not come with equivalent responsibilities, is this not so? You pretend that my answering these ridiculous questions you’ve raised by their dozens and dozens is somehow a way forward to establish more clarity between us, is this not true?
You already have your ideology firmly fixed and nothing I can say or evidence I produce can broach your faith-based position, can it? My only real question here is how long and to what extent can you continue to fool yourself that supporting fascism will not lead to protecting liberal values?
LikeLike
My short criticism is that you and all the people with laudable sensibilities of trying to protect vulnerable people have make a significant mistake and have identified the wrong oppressors. It’s not people like a Dawkins or a Ayaan Ali Hirsi or a Harris. It is those who support fascist tactics to achieve a fascist goals. And in Western society today, the oppressors are this rising tide of social justice warriors who claim liberal values but act contrary to them.
LikeLike
Tildeb, I am truly sorry, that I have not been able to put my sentenses together in a manner, that you could have understood wich of my questionmarks refer to rethoric questions, and wich are actual questions, that I had hoped you would answer. I fully admit, that sometimes I ask things for the benefit of the person whith whom I am discussing, so that they would ask those questions from themselves, more than that I expect a direct answer.
On the other hand, many of my several questions are the same from comment to comment. In that light it seems you have not answered my key questions, even after I have made the question several times and specifically asked an answer from you. By no means are you in any way obligated to answer any of my questions. Yet, not answering may also seem like you were evading my points. I hope this impression is not true.
Now, let us go through some of your questions. You asked: “Yet any answers I do provide are then immediately filtered and discarded by an ideological language you import and you apply that presumes the conclusions you already assume are unquestionable, is this not so?” No, I do not assume anything to be unquestionable? But I hold a right to not accept any premises, or claims, if they seem contradictionary, or if they do not hold true with facts I have. Like how much does the BLM resemble the Brown Shirts, wich is actually absolutely zilch. The connection you try to create between these two groups is totally artificial and for such a rational person I have taken you for, it seems incredible to me, that you even made the comparrison.
You asked: ” You assume hate speech is equivalent to violence, do you not? Because you assume criticism of, say, Islam by someone like a Dawkins is already hate speech by fiat, and you already presume hate speech is a kind of violence, then golly gee whiz how difficult is it for you to then justify disinviting such a speaker and think well of yourself for upholding the liberal principle of showing individual respect on behalf of what you assume must be a great number offended Muslims, Muslims who you already presume would be subject to violence through hateful speech if the person were allowed to speak?”
No, I do not assume hate speech is absolutely equivalent to violence. Sometimes it is not, and sometimes it is even worse, as I tried to show you with my example about Hitler and the dictators. Yes, I assumed you would agree with me, that hate speech may be extremely harmfull. It seems you do not agree with me on that, and I do not know where that leaves us. No I did not ever assume that Richard Dawkins was guilty of actual hate speech, but I do think he is not an expert on Islam, nor is he right in his comment. I have also already explained, that I think such comments as his, may be very dangerous in inciting more hatred on an already hated minority in the west, and breach a gap between western secular culture and Muslims in general – most of whom are not terrorists, nor Islamists. I do think, that I abide to the liberal principle of showing the individual respect for each and every Muslim. I think we all should. But the though I do not think such respect has to be directly earned, I think that it has to be held in direct reference to how responsibly people act. Richard Dawkins is walking a fine line in some of his comments of being irresponsible about his facts and the consequenses of his opinions may have on people. I have never claimed that Richard Dawkins should not be let to speak, but I do think, that he needs to get his act together. I think that his irresponsibility on this one issue has cost him, the one platform on that one incident. It is not like he was gagged, silenced and sent for the concentration camp by a group of Brown Shirts. He still holds his freedom of speech, but he has been reminded of the high responsibility his position as a prominent character and a high profile scientist to not use language, that may be turned against a voulnerable minority group and used to create a cultural segragation wich as history shows has a tendency to escalate to actual violence. As you very well know, I hope.
You also asked: “The ideological framework you use is incoherent and irrational circularly reinforcing at best, isn’t it?” Though, I assume this was actually a rethorical question, I will answer it anyway. No, of course I do not think my ideological framework is any more incoherent nor irrational. It would hardly be my ideological framework, if I thought so. You have failed to show where my ideological framework would be circular, though you tried. It seems this failure of yours is due to a lot of assumptions you make about me assuming something, that I do not.
Then you asked: “Are you really so enamored with your lengthy defense of bully tactics on behalf on not bullying identifiable minorities that you truly do not grasp the extent of your absurd and hypocritical rationalizations?” I am not defending any bullying tactics. The person who defends a victim of a bully, is not a bully. Minorities do exist. They are the victims of bullying, although they may become the bullies themselves. Even when that actually happens, they still may need protection from even bigger bullies. That is the only way they may ever learn not be bullies.
You asked: “Do you not realize how pervasive is this growing illiberal idiocy you defend and give tacit support and cover for a rising social fascism inured from necessary criticism? Do you not grasp why more people need to point out that using illiberal rationalizations on behalf of excusing and endorsing illiberal actions is not liberal? Really? This needs to be spelled out in such excruciating detail? Do you not grasp that using the patina of liberalism by expropriating liberal language and making antonyms synonyms is just a means to disguise fascism?” Again, I think you are mistaken. You use the word Fascism a lot, but I do not think it means what you think it means. It is in the dictionary. Look how the actual Fascists of our history used it to paint the Jews with a broad brush. They called Judaism the worst religion of their time and they had a solution to the problem they percieved. The Jews were a minority in Europe, and had been targeted. Undoubtedly Judaism has some very negative effects, at least it promotes segragation and many educated Jews were members of social justice movements, some even through violence, but calling it the worst religion in the world was just what the right-wing extremists, like nazies and the Fascists needed to be accepted and said by the contemporary scientific elite to go on a rampage against this voulnerable minority. This, my friend, is the comparrison to the position of the modern day Muslims in the west.
Then you asked: “In fact, you go out of your way to pretend I need to review what classical liberal principles are because you think I might assume rights and freedoms do not come with equivalent responsibilities, is this not so? You pretend that my answering these ridiculous questions you’ve raised by their dozens and dozens is somehow a way forward to establish more clarity between us, is this not true?” Yes, indeed. I had hoped so. I really hoped, that by answering my questions you could come to the logical conclusion by yourself. Apparently it was too much to hope for, as obviously you saw all of my questions as ridiculous. If that really is the case, I do not see what common ground we could achieven in this issue, though in many ways we share similar values. But if you are willing to try again, then so am I.
Finally you asked: “You already have your ideology firmly fixed and nothing I can say or evidence I produce can broach your faith-based position, can it? My only real question here is how long and to what extent can you continue to fool yourself that supporting fascism will not lead to protecting liberal values?” Well, I think it was uncalled for you to make the assertion, that I have some fixed faith-based position. I do not even have a faith based position, that the values of liberalism are some fixed system, as you seem to do and in addition to that it seems those you controll what those values are. You are not even willing to have an actual discussion about them. You simply seem to want to dictate what they are and how they should be employed in complex situations as the one in the topic post. This now seems just like you were not only trying to avoid and evade my questions, but that you are not so sure of your own position, wich has led you to do a lot of hand vawing and flaingin about, such as succumbing into name calling, like telling me I am part of some “Regressive Left” or that I am here only defending my “faith-based beliefs” wich you do not even care to name, because that might reveal I do not hold any.
I do not support the ideology of far right-wing political ideology called Fascism, wich is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerceascism. Quote frankly I am offended you making the claim that I do, or even would. Now, I assume you only refer to the forcible supression of opposition (wich would be a bit silly, since fascism obviously is so many other things), but not providing someone a platform from wich to spread a questionable, or harmfull message, is not really comparable even to that one fascet of fascism any more than the BLM is comparable to the Brown Shirts. Is it?
LikeLike
For example, Rautakyy, you take my use of the term ‘Brown Shirts’ and declare, ” Like how much does the BLM resemble the Brown Shirts, wich is actually absolutely zilch. The connection you try to create between these two groups is totally artificial and for such a rational person I have taken you for, it seems incredible to me, that you even made the comparrison.”
So, you discard the example.
What I have said several times to absolutely no effect is similar to my first use of the term and explanation for it:
“I used the term Brown Shirts to indicate the eagerness and willingness to not just protest speaking events by peaceful means but use violence and physical intimidation to shut down and shut people up. That doesn’t mean there is a direct correlation with the original Brown Shirts but it does indicate a shared value with the Brown Shirts… that threatening and committing violence and engaging in highly disruptive behaviour is okay.”
I then used several examples of exactly this from which you selected the example of the disruption of the Gay Pride parade by BLM to be completely inappropriate for the term. You absolutely refused to accept the shared VALUE I was referring to and concentrated your efforts to rationalize the lack of one-to-one equivalency of the historical Brown Shirts with the BLM. What you did not do is address the shared VALUE for which I had used the term, for which I had provided at your insistence several examples, but waved it all away as if this dealt appropriately with my criticism that justified my use of the term: a shared VALUE of illiberal behaviour.
So you do and continue to refuse to accept the criticism I have raised about why behaving illiberally, supporting this kind of illiberal behaviour, rationalizing away the violence and bullying tactics and intentional disruptions, is not supporting liberal values but their antithesis. And it is regressive, going backwards and away from achieving lasting social justice results. Because you support this kind of behaviour and excuse it and rationalize why it’s okay, you are a part of the problem of social regression. That you don’t see it this way – the way it really is – is why I continue to respond to you; I have high hopes you will come to understand that supporting regressive policies and illiberal actions is not progress but its opposite. It is not liberal but its opposite. It is not respectful but its opposite. It is not fair but its opposite. It is not kind but its opposite. It is not enlightened but its opposite. It requires good people to stand on principles of enlightened liberalism to combat and it requires standing up against people who assume your rights and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of some imaginary victimized group.Because we share the same rights and freedoms, it your JOB to protect mine as it is my job to protect YOURS and no number of grossly misguided social justice warriors using execrable post modern framing and linguistic torture will budge me from my principled stand for individual autonomy through equality legal rights that are the foundation for a liberal secular democracy. And just because you can’t see why your position is an attack against this doesn’t mean I won’t continue to try to convince you or VW or Pink or whomever thinks illiberal actions are the means to obtaining social progress. You need to wake up.
LikeLike
Tildeb, please. I have not called out people like Dawkins, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, nor Harris as some sort of oppressors. Have I? I wonder where you got that impression. I only think, that such prominent and intelligent people should be carefull in what they say, and how they express themselves and get their facts straight, because of their high profile, so that they could not be used by the rising tide of xenophobic populism, and outright racist, more or less violent right-wing extremists. Who are the social justice warriors, you refer to, really oppressing and how? Is this oppression you refer to really even remotely comparable to Fascism as you would claim? I think not. The examples you provided fall far behind of what the history tells us how the right-wing extremists, be they the Islamist terrorists, neo-nazies, the KKK, or the Brown Shirts, not to mention the SS have done and some of them are engaged in even today.
LikeLike
Nice diversion. You haven’t thrown rocks yet, have you? You just go along with and support the idea that a Dawkins or Ali should be ‘more careful’. According to whom? To what degree? Well, today it’s based on presuming ‘hurt feelings’ on the part of Muslims that then is the justification behind disinviting and deplatforming speakers who criticize Islam. Not the speakers who advocate sharia law to relegate women into chattel, who advocate against shared human rights, not against those who excuse capital punishment for apostasy against real people in real life. No, we can’t deplatform and disinvite these good folk because, hey, they’re from a ‘disadvantaged’ group. You will go along with a Linda Sarsour leading the women’s march on Washington even though she’s a really terrible person who supports sharia law. Oh, that’s all fine and dandy. But criticize Islam? Well, that’s just going too damn far, right?
Someone has to be a complete and utter hypocrite to pretend a Dawkins is deserving of deplatforming but anti-liberal bigots and misogynists are welcome.
Think about that fact.
You know Germany was the first country after WWI to pass legislation against hate speech, right? But you seem to think the Nazi regime in Germany and the fascist one in Italy somehow arose from the Right. I mean, wow. Just… wow. You conveniently ignore the fact that both arose from the Left… by simply ignoring what should be an obvious indisputable historical clue: the prominent idea of a bundle of sticks (the root of the term ‘fascism’ of many together), the very prominent idea by using the term ‘socialism’… as in the National SOCIALIST Party. Did you miss these clues the first time around, or do you just presume such atrocious and noxious political philosophies that utilize illiberal tactics of bullying, of violence and disruptions only come from the Right?
Again, you need to wake up.
LikeLike
Tildeb, indeed, I do not see the shared VALUE you keep referring to. The comparrison is so lame, because the VALUE on wich the Brown Shirts acted was to force people into submission with extreme violence, while the BLM has made protests. You have every right to critizise their methods, but you are simply wrong when you claim they are no different from the Brown Shirts, and even when you downplay that comparrison to having a shared VALUE. The Brown Shirts thought they represented the majority, and that their numbers and might made their actions right, while the BLM is representing a minority with a long history of oppression and abuse and a confound sense of being treated unfairly because of their percieved group. Like I said, the examples from your list I chose only by taking two, that were actual events, not just geographical place names. Both of those examples failed to fit the description of anything really comparable to the extreme political violence of the Brown Shirts. Such exaggeration on your part did not benefit your point.
I then used several examples of exactly this from which you selected the example of the disruption of the Gay Pride parade by BLM to be completely inappropriate for the term. You absolutely refused to accept the shared VALUE I was referring to and concentrated your efforts to rationalize the lack of one-to-one equivalency of the historical Brown Shirts with the BLM. What you did not do is address the shared VALUE for which I had used the term, for which I had provided at your insistence several examples, but waved it all away as if this dealt appropriately with my criticism that justified my use of the term: a shared VALUE of illiberal behaviour.
You wrote: “So you do and continue to refuse to accept the criticism I have raised about why behaving illiberally, supporting this kind of illiberal behaviour, rationalizing away the violence and bullying tactics and intentional disruptions, is not supporting liberal values but their antithesis.” In my opinion in the western liberal world, we need to take action against any hatred be it direct violence, or advocation of Sharia law, or simply a stupid and baseless claim, that Islam is the worst religion in the world. I think you and I can agree, that the same rules should apply to everyone. Both Imams, who advocate hatred towards non-muslims, as televangelists advocating hatred towards atheists, as atheists advocating hatred towards the members of any single religion. Now, Richard Dawkins may have not really advocated direct hatred, but what he said about Islam being the worst religion, was both harmfull and stupid. So, we are discussing an issue, that is in the grey area, and that is propably why this has raised so much debate between so many of us. “Deplatforming” is not a restriction of the freedom of speech, especially when we are talking about a university and a person who is not the expert on the issue, he/she has made comments about. And especially not in this modern day and age of the internet and a person who has high profile where ever they go, or choose to appear.
You wrote: “And just because you can’t see why your position is an attack against this doesn’t mean I won’t continue to try to convince you or VW or Pink or whomever thinks illiberal actions are the means to obtaining social progress.” I do appriciate your efforts to make us see your side of the story. Perhaps you are right and perhaps you can convince us, but it really does not seem that way at the moment. I am sorry. To me it even seems like I was not talking with the same rationally thinking Tildeb I have come to know from your previous comments in other discussions. Naturally we all have our own blind spots, and to me it seems, like with this issue about Muslims, we have poked yours. I do appriciate your firm stand for the freedom of speech, but in my view it is ill placed. As if you did not see, that the Muslim minorities within the western society are under constant and actual hatred and attack? Maybe that is not so, where you live, but here in Europe it is indeed the reality in wich we live in.
I never said anything about the hurt feelings of Muslims. Did I? What I have kept referring to is the danger of populism, racism and the extreme violence from the conservative right-wing extremists, cultural bigots and racists, such as the Brown Shirts before and Islamist terrorists, KKK, neo-nazies and their ilk today. Most dangerous of these is the fear mongering populism, that gets the masses of people behind hatred of people according to real and imagined groups. Educated people like Richard Dawkins should not utter nonsense like claiming that Islam is the most harmfull religion in the world, when clearly this is not true. It is a terrible and regressive religion, wich causes much harm, no doubt about it, and that is exactly why it is easy pray for such nonsensical attacks. It should be critizised, for what it really is, not for being the most terrible bogeyman. I have several times asked you according to what metrics should we measure wich is the most harmfull religion even if we could use that information for anything positive. I doubt there are any such metrics at all. Trying to tell how big something is when we have no means to measure it, is nonsensical. Is it not? If we start a body count from some arbitrary date and come to the conclusion, that one religion is in responsiblity for the most murders, or violence done in it’s name, how should we determine what date to choose?
I had never even heard of Linda Sarsour before you mentioned her, so it is rather unfair of you to claim that I would go along with her. It seems like you are leaping to a lot of conclusions about my position, and indeed about any imaginary similarities between the BLM and the Brown Shirts. I do not know enough about her really to comment about her. However, after a quick search, it seems it is her opponents, not herself, who claim she supports the sharia law. If she is not an open advocate for it, then what can we really assume about her position based on something her opponents said? Do you know for a fact, that she supports the sharia law? Her public appearances have also come under criticism after this debacle of her alledgedly supporting the sharia. Do you think she should be let speak freely and have a platform in universities for her message? What if she did openly advocate for the sharia law? Should she be “deplatformed”, or not? I think, if she openly promoted the sharia law, universities should not provide her with a platform. Is my opinion in conflict with liberal values, such as freedom of speech? Would that make me comparable to a fascist? Even if she was “deplatformed” by universities, would she not still hold her freedom of speech?
It is obvious, that hate speech had very negative effects on the German society between the world wars. Did it not? So, no wonder if they wanted to restrict it, when it was on the rise. To me it seems they did too little too late.
Are you infact saying, that the modern day Social Justice movements are in danger of being hijacked by extreme right-wing racists, like what happened to the DAP? Is that what you are affraid of? That seems like a bit of a leap, or even a rather extreme conspiracy theory, even in the light of what happened to the German Worker’s Party, that became the NSAPD. Maybe you think history will repeat itself, like by an army agent set there among the BLM and such movemets by the regressive conservative general staff of the armies of western nations? Because, you know, that is how Hitler became the leader of his “socialist” party. In reality, the Nazi-party can not be “blamed” for being very socialistic at all even though they began by supporting a land reform. Many European monarchs have done land reforms and nationalized industry, yet nobody really thinks any monarchs as socialistic at all. You do know, that both the NSADP and the Fascisti of Italy and similar political movements all over Europe, were by no means leftist. Their world view was very much nationalistic, conservative, right-wing and capitalistic. Henry Ford and the Grupps were the main monetary support for the rise of the nazies. When the Nazies rose to power, they did not confiscate any private property exept that wich belonged to the Jews, whom they saw as the representatives of the “worst religion” and somehow an inferior race and ofcourse of the socialists they were in a hurry to throw into concentration camps. The nazies leaned heavily on the scared middle-class for political support and that is where their ranks swelled, through populistic fear mongering and blaming a minority for all that was and might be wrong in the lives of ordinary Christian Germans. You can just guess who are the minority, that the modern day right-wing extremists fear and blame for similar reasons. Are they not Muslims?
History should not be interpreted through some clues, like the name of the nazi-party and then jumped to conclusions. Look at the facts. Of course not all authoritarian tactics come from the right-wing politics. That much is obvious when you look at Stalin. However, it is an unlikely and nigh impossible line to draw from socialist ideals (of from atheism) to the authoritarinism of Stalin, just as it may be a difficult connection to bind together what Jesus said to how the Holy Inquisition behaved. Or in reverse, from what the Qur’an says about infidels to how by far most Muslims behave towards non-Muslims. Hitler and his racism, intolerance of the Jews and all of his politics were thoroughly conservative, capitalistic, populistic, right-wing authoritarianism. He never assigned to any socialist ideals and infact he saw actual socialists as his worst enemies and sought to destroy them outright. If you doubt wether nazies percieved or percieve today themselves as right- or left-wing political movement, go look up the modern day nazies and ask them, or read what the contemporary nazies of Hitler said about themselves.
Look, I do appriciate your will to protect the liberal values, and once again, I share your concern about violence, but I just do not see the comparrisons you make. What would be your practical solution to the problem you see in “deplatforming” and in SJW resorting to as you say “illiberal” tactics?
LikeLike
“As if you did not see, that the Muslim minorities within the western society are under constant and actual hatred and attack?”
Fact: According to the FBI, Jews are 3 times more likely than blacks and 1.5 time more likely than Muslims to be the victims of a hate crime.
Where all the deplatformed and disinvited people who criticize Judaism?
Can’t think of any.
Where’s the outcry from the Social Justice Warriors against national broadcasters and TV stations throughout the Middle East portraying Jews as pigs and monkeys… during children’s shows? Where’s the deplatforming and calls for a hate crime against the organizers of Dykes on Bikes who banned Jews from participating, or the Women’s March on Washington for giving Linda Sarsour a national stage to sell Islam as benign when Muslim girls are married at age 6 and pedophiles can have sex with them at age 9?
Where’s the outrage and outcry from these Brave New World social ‘justice’ warriors?
Look, if social justice were the motivation, we wouldn’t see this careful selection of targets to be deplatformed, disinvited, engagements disrupted by those who equate criticizing Islam as a hate crime but against anyone – including Muslims – who advocates for social injustice… like actually addressing the greater rates of hate crimes targeting Jews by going after speakers in equivalent numbers who promote this!
But, no.
Doing so would remove the stark hypocrisy behind which today’s doppelganger liberals get busy doing their apologetics work for Really Bad Ideas. And we wouldn’t want real justice to be a known motivation because then, my oh my, Islam would be in for a very rough ride indeed. But that’s taboo!
LikeLike
Tildeb and others, who possibly still bother to read our conversation, I am sorry for not answering right away, I was rather busy with a work assignment for a few days.
Tildeb, you wrote: “Fact: According to the FBI, Jews are 3 times more likely than blacks and 1.5 time more likely than Muslims to be the victims of a hate crime.”
This may be as it is, yet it is indeed often the same right-wing extremists who share their anti-semitistic feelings about both Jews and Muslims who are guilty of such attacks. Arabic as you know, is a Semic language. The hatred is not motivated by this similarity, rather it is motivated by the similar VALUES of conservatism and xenophobia.
Then you wrote: “Where all the deplatformed and disinvited people who criticize Judaism? Can’t think of any.”
Well, I do not know what views people like Milo Yiannopoulos hold on about Jews, but he shares VALUES about Muslims and Women with the Brown Shirts, neo-nazies, Islamists and other right-wing extremists who do hate the Jews. He does not share values about homosexuals (being gay himself) with the rest of the right-wing extremists and that seems to be why he is “deplatformed” by Breitbart. Would he had a platform in a university, or a college or any place of learning, if his message would have been anti-semitic? Could someone who claimed that Judaism is the worst religion in the world get a platform in a university? I do doubt that. Yet, that was not at all so, in the right-wing controlled authoritarian Nazi-Germany, Vichy-France, or Fascisti Italy.
The tragedy of the Jews is not only that they have been the target of several conservatively motivated attacks (most often from the right-wing conservatives), such as the pogroms and the holocaust, but that now that they have their own country as a refuge, they have adopted the VALUES and tactics of their former oppressors. In 2012 the minister of Internal Affairs in the right-wing government of Israel Eli Yishal is reported to have said, that the Muslim refugees coming to Israel do not seem to understand, that Israel belongs to the “white man”. Do you see the sad, sad irony? The Jews have every right to use violence to defend themselves against violence, but they do not have any right to use torture, collective punishment and apartheid politics. Do they? You do not call them out for shared VALUES with the Brown Shirts, for using violence as their protection, though that violence is motivated by a similar sentiment of protection of their deeply held core VALUES and percepted defence of their very existance, do you? But you should call them out for human rights violations, such as torturing and imprisoning people, both Jews and Muslims for prolonged periods on suspicion alone, or for tearing down houses of the families of suspected terrorists.
Critique of Judaism has much been tempered down of lately, and indeed possibly one major influence has been a prominent role of Social Justice Warriors and movements like the Simon Weisenthal institute. In the Americas at least and in some amount in our European right-wing religious sircles Zionism has become a taboo subject. Often enough, it is difficult to even critizise the apartheid policies of the state of Israel without being accused of anti-semitism. Judaism and anti-semitism is still a tender subject in many European countries who have a history of right-wing dictatorships or coercing with such to eliminate the Jews. It is understandable, and the Jews are just a nother voulnerable minority in need of protection from the liberal democratic societies in wich they live as minorities. Are they not?
Then you wrote: “Where’s the outcry from the Social Justice Warriors against national broadcasters and TV stations throughout the Middle East portraying Jews as pigs and monkeys… during children’s shows? Where’s the deplatforming and calls for a hate crime against the organizers of Dykes on Bikes who banned Jews from participating, or the Women’s March on Washington for giving Linda Sarsour a national stage to sell Islam as benign when Muslim girls are married at age 6 and pedophiles can have sex with them at age 9? Where’s the outrage and outcry from these Brave New World social ‘justice’ warriors?”
Well, obviously you are now crying out against Linda Sarsour here. Are you not a Social Justice Warrior as you have seen a wrong and tried to act against it? Has she, herself, actually advocated for such? Or is it mere slander against her? Remember, I had never even heard of her before you brought her up. Obviously she has aroused your will to fight for social justice, or is she just some sort of strawman for you to use?
The Middle-Eastern countries in wich such television shows you refer to are led by authoritarian right-wing conservative governments. But obvously, you are crying out the social injustice of it, so there are Social Justice Warriors like yourself fighting even here in the west against such wrong. Has some Social Justice Warrior tried to ban you from speaking your mind about it and why?
Then you wrote: “Look, if social justice were the motivation, we wouldn’t see this careful selection of targets to be deplatformed, disinvited, engagements disrupted by those who equate criticizing Islam as a hate crime but against anyone – including Muslims – who advocates for social injustice… like actually addressing the greater rates of hate crimes targeting Jews by going after speakers in equivalent numbers who promote this!”
Are you suggesting some form of a conspiracy controlling behind what you call “Social Justice Warriors”, by some Islamist religious and political entities? Conspiracies do happen, but before you claim one to be real, you actually – as with gods – require some hard evidence to back it up, not wild inference or gut-feelings. Otherwise you shall only seem like you decided to wear a tin foil hat. Any such conspiracy would require rather much more organization, than what the Islamists seem to be able to achieve. Besides, it is rather difficult to use people who do not actually share your VALUES to act in your best interrests. The right-wing extremist violence, be it an Islamist terror attack, or a neo-nazi do not share only the VALUES of conservatism and might-makes-right, but it seems the methods too, such as driving a car into a crowd. Right? To me, it seems there is no elaborate conspiracy behind people who strive and demand Social Justice, any more than there is a conspiracy between the right-wing conservative extremists of the neo-nazies and Islamists. Rather there are those shared VALUES, of misogynism, or at very least the position of women in society, xenophobia, fear of actual liberalism and indeed populism. It is just, that their shared VALUE of xenophobia leads them to similar acts of violence, because they do share the VALUE of justification for the defence of their way of life by violence.
Finally you said: “But, no. Doing so would remove the stark hypocrisy behind which today’s doppelganger liberals get busy doing their apologetics work for Really Bad Ideas. And we wouldn’t want real justice to be a known motivation because then, my oh my, Islam would be in for a very rough ride indeed. But that’s taboo!”
I do not see the hypocricy. In my experience within the western society people who demand that Muslims are treated with the same respect as the rest of us, and that as a minority they deserve a level of tolerance and protection from the rest of us, are the very same people who demand that Muslims should not act against human rights no matter what their religion says. I also see a group of people who do not want to engage in this debate, because they are affraid that they get mixed up in some extremist groups or actions, wich is understandable, though it gives room to the evil of the third group. The people who do not really support liberal VALUES, but use them as an excuse to spread an actually anti-liberal message of seggragation, xenophobia, fear and hatred towards minorities (be they Muslims, Jews, Blacks, or what ever). Those are the major players I see on the line. I do hope you and I can join in the first group or some VALUE base nearer it, than those others.
Islam is in for a rough ride. But so are Muslims and not always for the same reasons. Islam is going to have to face the same most crucial question, that some other religions are going to have to face and some have been facing it for a bit longer than others. The question is not wether the religion is beneficial or harmfull to the society. Rather wether it is true at all. For me at least that is the one question atheism deals with. Attacking Islam as the worst religion at the moment in history is irrelevant, untrue and counterproductive.
It is counterproductive, because it only plays to the hand of the right-wing extremists, such as the Islamists and the neo-nazies and their ilk. These are people who want there to be segragation and a war of cultures. They strive for it and every act of violence they engage in is directed to that one goal. It is counterproductive, because other religious people think an atheist putting the unicorn droppings into colour order is validating their own faith-based beliefs. It is counterproductive, because it sets the atheists and any expressions of doubt within Islamic culture into an even more difficult spot than they already are. You might say, there is no tolerance for such within the Islamic tenets or culture, but there were no such thing for atheists in the west either, not so long ago. And even with Christianity we are on the razor’s edge still ever more. A culture war between Islam and the liberal west would only achieve what the right-wing extremist Islamists desire, a total block of western culture, including liberalism and finally atheism. It would also achieve what the right-wing extremists of the religious right and the neo-nazies want, a move towards a more conservative, authoritarian and less liberal and tolerating society in the west.
It is untrue, because there are no measurements for calling one religion clearly worse than the other. Are there? If we start comparing what the books say, we end up in a ridiculous comparrisons run of the interpretations. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Bible about killing infidels outright, but for centuries of religious political power of Christianity I would have been tortured and killed for claiming anything to that account. Vice versa, there is indeed something to that effect in the Qur’an, but most Muslims in the world have not for centuries followed that ideology. The reason why neither Christians, nor Muslims in general kill people on those grounds is the secularization of the societies surrounding them, not their theological debates about what their holy books say. The amount of evil connected to any religion is not so much about the holy scriptures or tenets of the particular religion as it is about how powerfull force the religion is within a culture and how authoritarian the culture in general is in practice. the Jews have not stoned homosexuals to death for generations, though it clearly is stated in the Mosaic law, that one should do this. Do they no longer hold their scriptures sacred? There is nothing about the so called Holy Trinity in the holy scriptures of Christianity, yet it is the most central tenet of Christianity, over wich Christians have killed and tortured each other in the most cincere faith, that they are doing the right thing. You have not bothered to comment in any way, what harm can we count on Christianity today. Do you not agree, that George W. Bush was very much if not mainly influenced by his Biblical beliefs, when he launched his war on Irak? The thing about the hidden weapons of mass destruction was just a ruse and a lie as we know today. He had to appeal to secular reasons to get his war, and indeed same applies to any country. Even Iran and Israel, though they are nations built around the idea of being an Islamic and a Jewish state. How many people have died and had to flee their homes because of what followed of the war by W. Bush? Can we not say, that the birht of such movements as Isis is actually a direct result of that war? What about the popes continually forbidding contraception and the Roman Catholic Church spreading such lies around the developing countries, that are already in trouble with overpopulation, that condoms cause AIDS? You do not see Imams spreading this particularly harmfull lie around, do you? Are there no harsh authoritarian and conservative demands for women to be subject to men in Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoan, Jewish, Christian as well as Muslim religious cultures today? Wich is worse and by what measure? In India a woman not abiding to that cultural norm may get to be raped by a band of men. Does that mean, that Hinduism is the worst religion in that particular sense? Is it worse for a woman to be raped and killed or been thrown acid at and then killed for not following a conservative set of VALUES?
It is irrelevant, because if it is true, then suddenly though it may still be the most harmfull religion, it is then the only religion that deals with the reality. This may be a ridiculous line of reasoning for you and I coming from the western cultural heritage where neither of us has ever had to even consider, what if Islam were true. But for the Muslims it is the obvious question, they need to face. It is they who need to think about it. Not us. I do not have the experience of deconverting from any religions, but by looking at people who have done so, from a variety of religions and based on what they themselves have said, the moral of a god is not what they started to doubt based on how much harm the religion caused. Do you have experience on this matter? It seems far more important to question the evidence for any religion to be true, because from that point of view, the person is more likely to feel free to question the morals of the religious system. Religions are authoritarian systems that feed us the idea, that there is an ultimate authority that sets what is wrong and right, and we do not have the right to even question it. But to base such authority on a slim sliver of silly arguments and claims of miracles is to make the system questionable. That is precisely why I think people like Richard Dawkins should not engage in discussions about the colour of unicorn droppings, rather stick to the question wether there is any reliable evidence to show any gods, or indeed anything at all supernatural exists. That is where he is good at. In discussions about the unicorn droppings he is not the expert, and ultimately him losing such a discussion, or disorienting himself to fields he does not know much about is a blow to his cause. Our common cause.
What would be your practical solutions to the problems you think exist and keep putting forward here?
LikeLike
Rautakyy, again your method is to rationalize hypocritical behaviour in order to try to keep anit-liberal actions to be seen as liberal when they are not.
What I do is point out a double standard and then you respond by selecting an example of hypocritical behaviour from the SJW side and then point out that the negative attributes of their most recent target is justified. What you consistently fail to do is address my criticism of SJWs using a double standard, for continuing to excuse the hypocritical treatment as if legit.
It’s not. It is reprehensible.
What I keep saying is that if people kept to the liberal values in their behaviour, we wouldn’t see this selective and hypocritical double standard in action. We would see this selective outrage, this selective deplatforming, selective disinviting, selective disruptions that constantly and consistently gives privilege to Islam and its most reprehensible representatives. THAT is what I keep pointing out: the anti-liberal hypocrisy that identifies today’s idiotic and dangerous social justice warriors.
I point out that the even the rationalizations used to justify this one-sided targeting and apologetics by SJW supporters illiberal behaviour and anti-liberal tactics are not fair and equitably critical of anything and anyone and any idea that is clearly anti-liberal in principle; rather it is so obvious it is absurd that anyone can go along with the charade that these SJWs are, in fact, liberals!
For example, Dawkins – who is clearly and self-admittedly a real liberal because he practices and supports liberal values – speaks for years and years about the perniciousness of religion in general and Christianity in particular and the SJWs have no problem attending his speaking engagements, buying his books, participating in forum discussions, and no one is calling them bigots and xenophobes for doing so.
Why is that, Rautakyy?
Yet when anyone speaks negatively of totalitarian values promoted in Islam, out comes the over-reaction of the doppelganger liberals right on schedule vilifying the person no matter how liberal they might be!
If the pope himself were asked to lead a march on Washington in support of women’s reproductive rights by a few die-hard Catholic women, one would REASONABLY expect some measure of criticism for this obvious discrepancy. And if that criticism was entirely absent, one might REASONABLY think there was something rather odd going on, wouldn’t one? Yet that’s exactly what has happened in all kinds of demonstrations and marches protesting various anti-liberal ideas: what is shocking is the intentional exclusion by event organizers and university presidents at the first request of a Muslim of anyone who criticizes Islam from participating at these events… because one must by definition – according to this New and Improved Language Policing by SJWs – be racist and xenophobic and a Terrible Person to do so no matter how extensive or deep is their liberal pedigree.
That’s the hypocrisy I am criticizing. And I criticize those who exercise this hypocrisy and try to call it ‘liberal’, try to call it ‘justice’, try to call it ‘progressive’, try to call it ‘tolerant’, try to call it ‘respectful’, try to call it ‘inclusive’. It’s none of these. It is the opposite to all of these. It’s fascist.
For example, if one is going to criticize Israel, then that’s fine. There is lots to criticize. But hold the surrounding countries to the same standard being used for Israel! Be as critical of Islamic countries using the same metric as one is willing to be used for Israel. Be as critical towards hate crimes directed towards Jews as Muslims. Be consistent. Use the same liberal standard and stop using this idiotic method of rationalizing anti-liberal sentiment to be liberal sentiment. But mostly, stop giving Islam a free pass. It’s is richly deserving of at least as much criticism as any other Really Terrible Idea and recognize the bravery of those liberals willing to to do so in the face of such overwhelming bullying directed at them for speaking truth to power. Stop empowering the bullies and start supporting liberals.
LikeLike
I think John Cleese is exactly rightin this short video that ends with his conclusion that this kind of ‘political correctness’ on behalf of the weak is way for us to slide into a 1984 kind of world. And we see it happening right before our eyes and right here on this blog.
LikeLike
Tildeb. What if Dawkins had said:
It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Judaism.
I doubt there would be many universities, that would have provided him with a platform after that. Do you?
What if he would then later said that: It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Jews are evil, very far from it. Individual Jews suffer more from Judaism than anyone else. They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Orthodox Judaism and the Israeli regime. So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Hitler did and say all Jews should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Judaism not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Jews.
Would that have made it less bad? I think it would, but like Dawkins himself has said, saying that something is worse does not change the less bad thing into good. By making the claim, that Islam is the worst religion at present, he actually was feeding the fear and hatred of the types like Trump and his extremist, racist, right-wing supporters. He was unnecessarily attacking a voulnerable minority, while trying to distance himself from doing so. In effect, he was trying to both eat the cake and hold on to it. I am not saying he was being hypocritical, but rather that his appoach was stupid, counterproductive and based on limited data with no metrics for comparrison between the harm different religions cause, in wich frame of time and why. Him being a scientist, this was an exeptionally poor approach, as he should have the understanding, that he is making absolute claims about the size of something not measured. Both Islam and Judaism have some reprehenseble doctrines, especially if we go into the fundamentalist right-wing interpretation department, but that does not mean most Jews or Muslims would abide to those or deserve to be persecuted because of those. Yes, when these religious right-wing extremists do evil things they are motivated by their religious ideology just like when a left-wing stalinist atheist communist did terrible things motivated by their socialist political ideology. But you can not blame most socialists for what an extremist did any more than you can not blame most Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoans or what have you for what an extremist does. You can blame them for what they do as a society, but the idea should not be to segragate them into their own block where they become led by the extremists, rather to co-operate with them towards a more secular and as a result a better society for all of us, where such extremism is not produced by the society.
One can citizise Islam as one does. It is absolute nonsense, that you can not. You yourself have proven that here and so have I. If you have been critizised for what you have said about it, then that is just because other people have the same freedom of speech you have, that you so eagerly defend, not because you have entered some dystopian nightmare from the “1984”. You bringing that up, is just as silly comparrison as the one you made between the Brown Shirts and the BLM. You either deliberately, or possibly because you are somehow in panic, or for some other reason, exaggerate something totally out of proportion. Why? I agree with John Cleese on the video you posted. He himself says, that political correctness is a good idea, even though it can be streched to silly defence of people who are infact able to defend themselves. I assume you agree with him, that political correctness is a good idea since you posted the video. However, that does not mean I would think making extreme claims like that Islam is the worst religion in the world are going to help. I very much doubt if John Cleese would think it helps at all. A completely different approach is needed. One that is inclusive and not exclusive and that is based on factual harms Islam causes and not on ridiculous broad statements such as the one Dawkins made. As there are problems in Islam, we need to move to resolve those problems through secularist solutions together with Muslims, or we will never see the end of those problems.
In my opinion, the terrorists are doing the best possible job, for the common everyday Muslim to come to suspect the validity of their religion. Much like the neo-nazies are doing a good job for the average western right-wing conservative to come to suspect the validity of their own nationalism and conservatism. By making their cultural heritage be it Islam, Christianity or some other conservative cultural phenomenon or ideology seem both agressive, violent and led by powerhungry madmen, but also feeble and making the lives of common adherents very difficult the terrorists (be they Islamists or other sort of right-wing extremists) are actually causing doubt.That is one way how secularism and secular morals take hold on people, by presenting the better option, rather than by trying to build fences and segragation between cultures. Inclusivity has been the strength of secularism not segregation.
The real threat to the western liberal values are not the lurking Sharia law behind the corner as there simply are not enough extremist conservative right-wing Muslims to pull that stunt off in any secular country. For sure the real threat is not the Social Justice Warrior or movement, demanding that minorities, like the Jews and the Muslims, or the atheists should recieve protection from the hatred of angry mobs of violent right-wing extremists, or even from hatespeech, that is used to direct the fear people have for the new global world towards the minorities, be the values of those minorities however questionable by the standards of the majority.
The real threat, the one we have once already experienced in Europe and wich is manifesting in a number of western secular countries is right-wing extremism of a far more local type – the one in wich people actually do sign to Fascism as an ideal and do not simply go about throwing the word as an insult or a oneliner to stop the discussion. Look at the Swastica flags flying once again in the US and all over Europe. Look at the rise of nationalism, xenophobia and conservatism in Poland and Hungary. Look at the right-wing political violence in the US, and a number of other western countries. The conservatively motivated violence of the Jihadist and that of the actual heritage of shared VALUES of the Brown Shirts with the neo-nazies, the KKK, and the rest of those “defence leagues”, and how they are boosting each other. There are demagogues who openly advocate for such segragation and they have gained momentum in the liberal western society since we have tolerated them and their illiberal ideals for so long. Look at Marine le Penn, look at the xenophobic reasons many people admitted to vote for Brexit.
You seem to see some major conspiracy to select Muslims and Islam as special cases for protection, but all I see is just a nother minority group, that is under attack, not unlike the one that the Jews faced several times in Europe before the WWII. The protection a minority needs is in direct relationship to the attack they are under and as the Islamists have fancied, the Muslims are under a lot of pressure from outside within the western socieiy. I do not even understand what motives do you think could be behind such a conspiracy. I do not see any leeway given to any really reprehensible Muslim preachers openly advocating for the Sharia law or for Jihad, nor have you provided any examples of such. Instead you have pointed out to the alledged similarity of VALUES between the students who protested against Milo Yiannopoulos and BLM and those of the Brown Shirts. As if you were clueless to the fact that the actual people who do share the VALUES (and often enough methods) of the Brown Shirts do still exist and that in his sad and pitifull way Milo Yiannopoulos is one of them. What sort of platform does he deserve to be given? Can he practice his freedom of speech if he is banned from universities? Who should get to speak their opinions in the universities?
Now, as for Richard Dawkins, he has said a lot of good things about how to approach Islam as well. Like for example when he said: “Islam needs a feminist revolution. It will be hard. What can we do to help?” Now, that is a good and inclusive approach to the problems Islam presents. I think the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Chruch, a lot of fundamentalist Christian denominations and western civilization in general still need a feminist revolution as does the rest of the world. Or that it is an ongoing project in many cultural spheres, not just Islam, though it particularly drags behind most. Not so much because of some special nature of Islam as much as because of inherent religisiosity in Islamic countries. One has to remember, that for example for a woman to get a divorce was possible according to the Islamic religious interpretation long before Christians reached that stage. By building a fence of segregation between us and Islam – in effect Muslims in conjunction – through stupid and harmfull statements like that Islam is the worst religion, we are not doing anything to help. (Same applies to our approach to Christianity or any other religion.) On the contrary. By such notions we would only end up helping the Islamist right-wing extremist and the neo-nazi right-wing extremist to deepen the segragation.
I am sorry, that I have had not time to spend on this discussion. I think it is an important discussion, because it is about where the limits of our freedoms are. In my opinion, the rights of one person end where the rights of a nother begin. In practice, there is such a thing as hate speech, and it has a direct impact on the society. In effect it may and is used to impede the rights of others. I think, it is good to remember, that the worst things mankind has engaged in have been made possible by few people spreading fear, hatered and segregation between masses of humans – Often in overt and exaggerated sweeps painting some other group of people as evil, or as representatives of “worst” possible culture. I also think that the liberty to speak requires, that there is also the responsibility of what you say. Words may lead to positive or negative outcomes and they may cause harm or benefit. Usually they are less likely to cause harm if they are based on facts, even though conforting lies and misunderstandings seem to be popular too. The main problem I see about calling Islam the worst religion, is that it is factually unfalsifiable as long as we are not able to verify wether it is or not. Somebody having the gut-feeling or appeals to everyone-knows type of arguments simply will not do. Instead it is a harmfull claim as it only helps to create segragation between Muslims and the rest of us.
What is your practical solution to the problems you think you have presented?
LikeLike
Whatever happened to, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”
Just this past weekend, there was a rally in Boston for free speech. It’s stated purpose?
” We are witnessing an unprecedented move towards sweeping censorship that undermines our democratic system. We are witnessing increasingly regular incidents of political violence being used to silence political opponents. We are witnessing our social media and online communities purging both progressive and conservative content from their networks. We oppose all instances of censorship. We believe that the way to defeat and disarm toxic ideas and ideologies is through dialogue and reason, and that attempting to silence any voice by force of mob or force of law only empowers the radical elements of society and divides us.”
Somewhere between 15 and 25 thousand people came out to ‘counter-protest’ it and shout down any and all speakers. They THOUGHT they were protesting Nazis and White Supremacists because that’s what they had heard from mainstream and online media. And what good little social justice warriors they are! What wonderful motivation they have! How brave and principled are their actions! What tolerant values they implement!
The only thing being self-censored is the truth. It doesn’t matter or is of some secondary or even trivial concern. What matters is joining the movement of supporting tolerance and respect and freedoms and rights and that then demonstrates the opposite.
Welcome to the new Red Guard.
Oh, and sports broadcaster Robert Lee – racially an Asian – was pulled from doing the play-by-play of Virginia’s home opener football game because of his name. Sports broadcaster ESPN didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and make them feel uncomfortable being exposed to such a name. Lee was sent to do a game in Pittsburgh and an ESPN spokesperson said “wasn’t it a shame this was even a topic of conversation?” It’s a topic of conversation because invertebrates like ESPN self-censor this way to avoid causing offense and then create real victims. This is the insidious way such intolerant movements gain power, one step at a time.
Welcome to the New Red Guard. I’ll bet ESPN didn’t even know they had joined!
LikeLike
Hahaha Tildeb. Hilarious. These two examples of yours are not the western civilization crumbling to the feet of the monster of Sharia law, or any other conservatively motivated arbitrary social system like Fascism. It is not the Red Guards either. It is just stupid people making hasty and stupid choises to awoid confrontation, or failed attempts to fight the nazies in a society where neo-nazies openly come to the streets to spout their message of racism and hatered (and some of them weilding guns, mind you). This is what happens in a society poisoned by generations of oppression, economical and social segragation and a tradition of violence. But it is also something that happens when those who do not appriciate liberal values try to hide behind them, in order to spout out hatred. Be those the neo-nazies who demand freedom of speech or the Islamists Sharia law pushers who demand the freedom of speech. That is why the freedom of speech may at times become the target of the liberal minded, be they atheists, like you and me, Muslims, Christians, or what ever. We may laugh at these mistakes, because that is what they are, not some grand conspiracy.
Sooo. You changed the boogey man from Brown Shirts into the Red Guard. I assume, it is because you finally accepted how poorly the Brown Shirts fit the description of BLM or any other Social Justice movement. I guess the Red Guards fit the bill better. By the way, my grandad was a Red Guard. He and the men from his village took up arms when people started to starve during the WWI and the police and the White Guards thought it was more important to protect property of the wealthy, than the lives of the poor. Again, however, your analogy does not match reality. As far as I know, the Social Justice Warriors have not taken up arms in desperation. Wich is not, what you can say about the neo-nazies and other right-wing gun toting paramilitaries. Is it?
I may still disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That does not however mean I or anyone else, has to provide you with a platform to do so. Especially it does not mean that the places of learning and search for truth, such as universities, need to provide a platform for anyone spouting out nonsense (like Dawkins with his “comparative religion study”, or possibly even the message of hatred (like Milo Yiannopoulous).
Again. What if Dawkins had said:
It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Judaism.
I doubt there would be many universities, that would have provided him with a platform after that. Do you?
Do you think we as a society have a right to restrict the illiberal messages of Sharia law advocates? Do we need to provide them a platform? What about anti-semitists or neo-nazies? You know, all of those messages are coming from the extreme right-wing ideologies and are motivated by overt conservatism.
LikeLike
Brown shirt tactics (antifa) using Red Guard principles (Chinese, defenders of the revolution). And yes, all the Horsemen have gone up against Judaism and all have had very public debates with its defenders. Nobody disinvited anybody.
My example was to demonstrate that people aren’t thinking or listening; they’re joining a movement that demonstrates intolerance by claiming tolerance, demonstrates censorship by claiming free speech, demonstrate violence and claim non violence, yada, yada, yada. And so many lemmings on the Left just follow along thinking they are upholding and defending liberal values by supporting anti-liberal practices and thinking well of themselves.
LikeLike
Rationalizing all of this behaviour to be somehow acceptable and defensible is itself part of the problem that just as effectively stops liberal Muslims from speaking up and speaking out… which is the opposite effect of so much good intention.
Agreed tildeb, and I agree with your other points here. I don’t always agree with Sam Harris 100% but on this topic, but I in no way think that he is Islamophobic. And I do not agree that he and Dawkins are being populists are opportunists. There is a real risk to challenging tenets of Islam in addition to the social alienation it causes that I find it hard to believe that people like Harris and Dawkins are doing it for fame or money. I’m prepared to go so far as to say that people like Harris and Dawkins are not helpful, but I do think they earnestly feel like presenting opposition to harmful ideas is important and useful. Given their long history of criticizing Christianity in the same way, I do not see them as only picking on Islam, but rather reacting to what is currently going on in the world. And right now, today, it should be a concern that another Abrahamic religion is causing a lot of problems, and the fact that Christianity also has a violent history is somehow supposed to make us less concerned? They are cut from the same cloth, but there are differences, and I think those differences do matter in the balance.
As I said before, I get why people are concerned in that they see the minority persecution in the U.S. and other European countries, they see Muslims suffering in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq and they worry that being critical of the Islamic faith will make it harder to help those that are suffering under extremism. Nobody on the left criticizes people like Dawkins and Harris when they criticize Christian ideas (which they have done at length). I mean sure there would still be some that would say “Hey not all Christians”, but I think a lot more liberals and secularists would at the very least not consider them as bigots. And yet if you criticize Islam in the same way there are many on the left building a wall around you because now your message is harmful. So while I understand their concern, like you said, I don’t think they are necessarily helping either by reacting so strongly even if I think many are well-meaning.
As an atheist I see it as important to be able to openly challenge religious ideas, a freedom non-believers have rarely had and one that many Muslims do not have either, and I think that right there makes it rather concerning. As Harris says, we have conversation and violence, when words become ineffectual people show up with guns. If expressing direct challenge to harmful ideas is seen as hate speech I don’t think that’s what liberalism is about.
LikeLike
A distinction should be made between the positions of Harris, Dawkins, Nawaz or Hirsi Ali. Each of their positions is somewhat different. Harris, for example, is a defender of racial profiling, and Dawkins is not.
Nawaz and Hirsi Ali have made entire careers on polemics; and the embrace and promotion of them by Harris is troubling to say the least. Also troubling is the “end of times” discourse by Harris and Dawkins (the latter has even voiced support for Geert Wilders, Holland’s answer to Trump.) I’d like to believe they’re making good faith arguments; but when Dawkins talks about the “menacing rise of Islam” in Europe, he simply doesn’t have numbers to base that on. Should we presume he doesn’t understand statistics or that he can’t read the evidence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pink I’m not sure we are going to necessarily come to an agreement on Harris. About 5 years ago I had read his short book on free will and found in compelling. In between that time I had read and heard a lot of things about Sam Harris that made him sound like a pretty horrible person and given how logically and excellently he argued the case against free will I was surprised. A friend and colleague of mine, who’s intellect I respect, and who is gay by chance recommended his podcast. I said “really?” Sam Harris? But I gave it a try and I have to say that listening to his views at length, fully explained, and not out of context I don’t find him to be the monster he is made out to be. I have read numerous articles now chastising him based on podcast interviews and since I have listened to the whole thing I know he is being quoted out of context.
That being said it’s not that he says things that aren’t wrong, but he is someone who simply is willing to explore topics, has thoughts, and waits for intelligent refutation. When he gets it, he pastes includes it in his blog. For instance in his blog piece talking about profiling Muslims at airports where he talks about behavior and dress, not skin color, he posted a response response from an expert on airport security about why his idea wouldn’t make us safer, and he posted that response and accepted it. So in my mind we have someone who upon hearing a reasoned response to his own thoughts on security at airports, changed his mind. Sam Harris’ style of discourse is unusual. He tends to look at things from all sides and brings up controversial topics and then looks for debate on those topics to sort out something conclusive. The only thing that really surprises me about Sam Harris is that he would get so surprised that he would be attacked. I don’t think he’s 100% right on the topic of Islam, but neither do I think those who claim it is all geopolitical are either, thus I feel like people like Sam Harris are important to the conversation because sometimes you need someone to say uncomfortable things to at least make sure we have reasoned arguments against it before going forward.
In regards to the rise of Islamic violence, perhaps I am not familiar with the numbers either. I know Islamic violence is still smaller than domestic terror incidents, at least in the U.S., but to my knowledge the number of incidents has increased since 9/11. Now it could be our very own attitudes in the west and a history of meddling and being hungry for oil is the cause of all this, but I don’t think it is controversial to say the situation is worse than it was prior to 9/11 in western countries. I would agree that to say that it is a “menacing” rise is hyperbolic and incorrect. I would also say that it is also unhelpful to say in the west. It’s on the rise everywhere, and other Muslims are the primary target. The amount of terror incidents in the west, compared to other Muslim countries is miniscule in comparison. So I agree that tweets and soundbytes such as those from Dawkins are irresponsible of them if they are going to say it. They should stick to their longer arguments. They are terrible at saying anything in 140 characters or less.
I am not familiar enough with Nawaz or Ali’s body of work to argue with your assertions. I have only heard them a few times on youtube and on Sam Harris’ podcast and haven’t heard anything alarming, but that is a small sample. I do know that Nawaz used to disagree with Harris and Ali on numerous issues.
Anyway, maybe I’m a racist monster too, but I just don’t feel the same level of alarm that others do listening to Harris. It’s intellectual meat to me and nothing more, I don’t think Harris or Dawkins are necessarily good examples of how to behave, but I do find their ability to break down arguments to be exceptional and that is what I like about them.
LikeLike
I’ll answer in detail later today, but meanwhile here’s Datagraver, they’ve got the numbers: http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Pink, I stand corrected somewhat. I would say there is a rise in Islamic terrorism in western Europe post-9/11. However compared to terrorism in the 70’s it looks quite miniscule I would agree. I would be interested to see worldwide statistics. As I said that is what concerns me more.
I truly believe that is western values have any moral superiority than compassion must be our number one defining quality. So when it comes to the refugee crisis, I only regret that so many other countries didn’t take more, or any. I don’t think we have as much to fear as many make it out to be. But then all trends begin small and grow…so who knows in the future. Right now I think we create more terrorists by abandoning people who need help and letting children grow up in refugee camps without being educated. Not necessarily because uneducated people become terrorists themselves, but uneducated people remain in poverty and can easily be exploited.
LikeLike
You’re partly right. Where the entire world is concerned, there are indeed recent spikes. The biggest being part of the Syrian conflict which is evidently about more than religion. But as a reference point, the NYT reports ISIS has killed 1200 people total. That’s in comparison to half a million killed in the Iraq war when god allegedly spoke to both George Bush and Tony Blair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed Pink. It is important to have a sense of scale on these matters, and it would be nice to have more people talk about the damage the west has caused in the middle east and admit our responsibility in that mess. After 9/11 a professor at the university of Colorado was fired for writing an essay criticizing the U.S. for it’s role in the rise of violence in the middle east because a bunch of parents complained to the university.
What’s also interesting about the stats you provided is how peaceful things had been for about 20 years and thus any rise seems like an unusual threat. Human memories are far shorter than they need to be.
I can agree with someone like Harris and Dawkins, their schtick is religion, and they spend a lot of time talking about it. I think beliefs do impact behavior and there is value in looking at those beliefs and how people come to them. But we might also ask similar questions about American Exceptionalism which is far more dangerous to the world in my opinion in terms of death toll.
There are a lot of difficult moral dilemmas out there in my opinion. If I say I am going to kill terrorists but in doing so kill innocent civilians how does this compare morally against the terrorist who was just going to blow himself in a crowd of people who are shopping? I am not sure I know the answer to the question. I am not sure body count alone is the only thing that matters either. Important discussions need to be had about these issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My process with Harris was the opposite. I have his books and was a subscriber to his website for the longest time.
Then, not too long ago he started to use language and phrasing which I found odd. Then he decided to present some arguments which were (uncharacteristically) badly formulated. Did he really propose racial profiling without checking any of the available evidence? Does that make sense for someone in his position?
When Dawkins says Islam is taking over Europe, is it reasonable to presume he hasn’t checked any numbers? That he didn’t even check that in France which has the biggest population of Muslim origin in Europe only 1/3rd of those people are religious? How would having checked that have affected his conclusion?
LikeLike
Always with you it is the painted version of being disagreeable in some way by these speakers that you then assume justifies treating them differently than a speaker who in some way supports your ideology about or promotes ever harsher versions of forcing your view of what constitutes social justice on others in opposition to their equality rights. You have no problem vilifying a pope whose organization represents a historical impediment to gay marriage over peopl