Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Paris on the front lines (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Paris on the front lines
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not an Arab. In fact, I have my issues with Arabs. Yes, I do come from an Islamic background, but there's something like 1.6 billion muslims in the world, and they're of wildly varying ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Since I'm not an ethnic Arab, and the Palestinian population is also Christian in part, how can my sentiment be "ethnocentric"?
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ethnicity isn't synonymous with "race."
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Well, at least you aren't lying about it.

You are, however, part of the problem of stigmatization that your in-group faces...

Terrorism against an occupying military and colonizers is justified.
This should probably have its own thread (which you are welcome to start), but I can tell you that I think this perspective is morally repugnant and indefensible for the simple reason that it greets a non-violent horrible thing (occupation) with a violent horrible thing (terrorism). Even as someone who opposes Israeli settlements as I do, the issue of terrorism supercedes that one and causes me to immediately oppose you fiercely. What a shame, too, to make an opponent out of someone who agrees that settlements are a problem. If I am essentially your ideological enemy, you may not have many friends.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's unreasonable, in response to an event like this, to worry about how innocent people will be affect by the reaction. Particularly since since there's evidence a reaction against innocent people is part of the motivation for the attack.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Well, at least you aren't lying about it.

You are, however, part of the problem of stigmatization that your in-group faces...

Terrorism against an occupying military and colonizers is justified.
This should probably have its own thread (which you are welcome to start), but I can tell you that I think this perspective is morally repugnant and indefensible for the simple reason that it greets a non-violent horrible thing (occupation) with a violent horrible thing (terrorism). Even as someone who opposes Israeli settlements as I do, the issue of terrorism supercedes that one and causes me to immediately oppose you fiercely. What a shame, too, to make an opponent out of someone who agrees that settlements are a problem. If I am essentially your ideological enemy, you may not have many friends.
Just lol @ you calling occupation "non-violent." Occupation is violence, especially when there is desire on the part of the occupier for the land its occupying. You can't compare Israeli occupation/colonization with, say, the U.S occupying Japan!
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But I agree that all belongs in another thread.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
how can my sentiment be "ethnocentric"?
Your ethnocentrism is on display when you acknowledge that your concern is not for the victims of terrorism, but for "we of Muslim origin" when people of Muslim origin commit terrorist acts.

You aren't willing to condemn the action per se, you only bemoan its impact on the group of people you see as your own.

[ November 14, 2015, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have more concern than mere condemnation. I have to also be concerned about the fact that some on the right-wing consider would consider such condemnation false and not honest because of my religious connection with the attackers.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
Just lol @ you calling occupation "non-violent." Occupation is violence, especially when there is desire on the part of the occupier for the land its occupying. You can't compare Israeli occupation/colonization with, say, the U.S occupying Japan!

Yes, I understand it is awful (including certainly the economic "violence") but consider that an occupying force essentially wants the status quo to be maintained, which basically means "if you do nothing, we are happy with that". It puts one in the position of reacting (to opposition) rather than acting. Israel did not wake up on day and decide to start cleansing Palestinians - rather, they didn't give a damn about them, and every violent confrontation followed.

Israel wants an unjust "status quo" and Palestinians want "change" in their situation. It defines their positions and explains why even people like yourself want violent actions to address the situation.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think it's unreasonable, in response to an event like this, to worry about how innocent people will be affect by the reaction.
I don't think such a response is unreasonable either.

But to react by effectively suggesting that your concern is only for one group of innocent people is a bit different. To suggest that you worry is not for the actual victims in a group with whom you don't identify, but primarily for the potential future victims of a group with whom you do is...well, not necessarily "unreasonable," given the rationale of us vs them identity politics, but certainly "reprehensible" within a pluralistic ethical framework.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Pete

He did say "toward the Israeli military." He just appended it after an "and" which was preceded by his advocacy of terrorism first toward the "colonizers."

It's not a wording problem, though I don't doubt he'll claim it was (out of fear for the stigma to his in-group), I suspect his view is exactly what it sounds like...

You may be right, but I am not so sure.

S' (please forgive the abbreviation but my cell phone makes mincemeat of your name)

Do you believe that it is OK to blow up a bus full of schoolchildren in the West Bank? Because to me, that is terrorism. To attack settler work places in occupied lands, I don't see as Terrorism, since adult settlers on West Bank land are at least arguably beligerents.

"Not terrorism" does not necessarily mean the right thing to do. Even if an act is justifiable under civilized laws of war (many of these laws were first articulated by Muhammad, BTW!) that does not mean that the act is intelligent or will end well. For example, Desert Shield and even Bush Junior's renewal of the gulf wars were entirely "justifiable" under international law and yet strategically idiotic as I think we both agree. The fact that Palestine has a right to resist Israel by violence against West Bank settlers does not mean that it is strategically the best course of action.

Here's a tough question. If the Palestinian people have a right to surrender some of the west bank land or do you and the Muslim world feel they have an obligation to fight and bleed for every inch. Is compromise also a right?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I don't believe it's right to murder Israeli school children in the West Bank. I believe that the Palesinians can use terrorism as a form of protest but not really as a legitimate way to end the occupation, and blowing up school children works against their own image more than it hurts the Israelis.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think it's unreasonable, in response to an event like this, to worry about how innocent people will be affect by the reaction"

I agree. My prayers for the safety of you and yours, and for all honest peaceful Muslims in Christian lands./

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
No, I don't believe it's right to murder Israeli school children in the West Bank. I believe that the Palesinians can use terrorism as a form of protest but not really as a legitimate way to end the occupation, and blowing up school children works against their own image more than it hurts the Israelis.

It sounds like you and I agree in moral substance but differ in terminology. We agree on what is OK and not OK, but what you call "justifiable terrorism",I call legitimate guerilla warfare
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are there still "Christian lands?"

I was under the impression that Christendom was overthrown in the west, as the superior ethical paradigm of humanism superseded the barbaric medieval tribalism of the old bloodthirsty God of Abraham.

I get that nonsensical superstition and the appurtenant atrocities of all this arrogant us vs them blasphemy still hold institutional sway amongst the rabble in benighted bastions of the west, but surely the forbearance of humanism toward this backwardness in "human lands" has merited dropping the nomenclature of the terrible crusading narrative?

...and is NobleHunter even Muslim?

[ November 14, 2015, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
have more concern than mere condemnation. I have to also be concerned about the fact that some on the right-wing consider would consider such condemnation false and not honest because of my religious connection with the attackers.
Yeah...like I said, you're not willing to express compassion or concern for what you perceive as the out-group, and you blame the evilness of the "others" for your failure of basic human empathy to boot...
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
I was under the impression that Christendom was overthrown in the west"

The word Christian pre dates "Christendom."

Since Jesus was the origin of the separation of church and state, secular humanism makes a land more Christian than it ever was under forceful Christendom, where the form of Christianity was coerced in a most unchristian way.

I think you confuse the government with the land, by which I mean the culture, the people. Note even renown atheist Richard Dawkins self identifies as culturally Christian.

Who said nh was Muslim??

Christian ethics as idealized in the Christian gospels dominate the majority's sense of what is right and what is wrong, more than any source I can think of.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
have more concern than mere condemnation. I have to also be concerned about the fact that some on the right-wing consider would consider such condemnation false and not honest because of my religious connection with the attackers.
Yeah...like I said, you're not willing to express compassion or concern for what you perceive as the out-group, and you blame the evilness of the "others" for your failure of basic human empathy to boot...
SP's point is significant, S', because the right wing that you fear, is fueled by the image of Muslim's "standing by their own." Best thing to fight the right wing is for ordinary French seeing their Muslim neighbors engaged against ISIS.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who said nh was Muslim??
Nobody.

You implied it, by citing NH's reasonable construction, apparently misattributing it to our somewhat less-reasonable justified-terrorism-supporter as something you could agree with him on, and offering your prayers for the author (who was NH) and all other Muslims in "Christian lands."

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, you like to throw thunderbolts. If Sa'eed starts to insert gratuitous sexual allusions into thread after thread I might mention something to him. You'll note that others also commented on your pattern of those kinds of metaphors.

I also agree that the article Greg cited was meaningful. The problem is translating that kind of pacifist idealism into practice. It can only happen if all sides are willing to find a solution giving everyone enough to live on. I have no idea how to negotiate with ideologies that condone this kind of terror.

This thread has already gotten way too emotional, so I'll stay out of it for a while.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I also agree that the article Greg cited was meaningful. The problem is translating that kind of pacifist idealism into practice. It can only happen if all sides are willing to find a solution giving everyone enough to live on. I have no idea how to negotiate with ideologies that condone this kind of terror.
Well said.

There really is a problem with the practicality of the idealism in this situation.

As frustrating as I find it when consistent champions the stopped clock of intolerance are actually less wrong than progressive idealists, it's far more infuriating to see it when, twice a day, the people who know a broke clock is broken won't acknowledge that it's still right at those times when it happens to be right.

Tolerance is a fine virtue to uphold, but tolerating abuse is not OK, nor is ignoring the telltale markers of a cycle of abuse, even if it exists on a cultural level.

There is a point at which turning the other cheek is just enabling.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the by, in the rush to tolerate and find agreement, people seem to be missing some pretty horrific implications here:
quote:
I believe that the Palesinians can use terrorism as a form of protest but not really as a legitimate way to end the occupation, and blowing up school children works against their own image more than it hurts the Israelis.
Please note that his point about the problem with blowing up children is not that blowing up children is wrong, full stop, it's that doing so hurts his in-group more than it hurts his out-group.

It's similar to this:
quote:
I don't understand what possible goal ISIS hopes to accomplish by killing a minuscule number of Frenchmen and arousing the anger of Europe, the West and the entire world all the more.
...where his problem isn't with the murder of innocent humans, it's with the fact that the "minuscule number of Frenchmen" who are killed doesn't justify the potential damage to his own in-group.

It's straight-up reprehensible bile on display, where the dude can't even spit out any sense of basic human compassion for the victims in what he perceives as an out-group, even after being explicitly called out on it multiple times, and the see-no-evil idealism on display here seems to be on board with doing nothing and letting triumph whatever may rather than reexamining their idealistic prepossessions...

[Frown]

[ November 14, 2015, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not sure that the article was talking about pacifist idealism. It's more about not letting our emotional desire for inflicting retaliatory pain cloud our judgement as to the degree to which those retaliatory actions will reduce/increase future risks. And whether the moral good of potential actions will outweigh the moral evil that may come as collateral damage associated with those actions.

That's not pacifism, that's morality and wisdom. Now, it is quite possible to come to different conclusions after considering both of those questions, so the I am not arguing that morality allows only one possible set of responses. But t he discussion of actions should center around whether it reduces future risk, and whether the action is a net moral good.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's a fine article, Greg.

What I'm not OK with is the stifled criticism of straight up violence-condoning bigotry.

Y'all take up arms and chase down every little nuance of bigotry in any post made by GX, but what Sa'eed is saying here is heinous on a level that dwarfs the most atrocious hate-bait ever proffered by the worst of our resident trolls, and the only sound other than people stumbling over their ideals to find some way to agree and empathize with whatever might not be completely execrable about his posts is...the chirping of crickets.

Seriously, imagine for a second that Rafi were spouting off the exact arguments Sa'eed has been making here--just imagine that we could substitute Rafi's in-group for Sa-eed's, and re-read what Sa'eed is saying while imagining that it's coming out of Rafi's pen, and then try to tell me that the thunderous silence here when it comes to parsing bigotry isn't the silence of straight-up hypocrisy.

[ November 14, 2015, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:

I don't understand what possible goal ISIS hopes to accomplish by killing a minuscule number of Frenchmen and arousing the anger of Europe, the West and the entire world all the more.

Very easy. They want France and other sympathetic western countries to retaliate. They want that anger so that we act in anger, attach them, and thus help really more people around them to their cause in the name of defending them from the war and death that we'd be bringing with us.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pete, you like to throw thunderbolts. "

Al, it was hypocritical for you to whine at me for use of that word, in a far less sensitive context. Own up, grow up, and move on.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Ethnicity isn't synonymous with "race."

I'm beginning to think you don't know what either of those words mean.

quote:
Your ethnocentrism is on display when you acknowledge that your concern is not for the victims of terrorism, but for "we of Muslim origin" when people of Muslim origin commit terrorist acts.
Your perspective is simplistic either/or. Saying that how the incident will affect Muslims in the West weights on my mind is not to say that I don't hold sympathy for the victims. In any case, you really don't know what ethnocentric means so I'd suggest you stop using that word.

quote:
You aren't willing to condemn the action per se, you only bemoan its impact on the group of people you see as your own.
It shouldn't be necessary to, and asking Muslims to endlessly condemn this or that terrorist attack has been a trolling tactic of Zionists and anti-muslim bigots to stigmitize Muslims in the West.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP is many things, good and bad, but he's not a Zionist.

I on the other hand am something of a Zionist but I try to be fair and consistent in how I use words and refuse to demonize opponents even or deny their right to legitimately fight for lands on which I recognize they have valid claim.

Nevertheless, back to the matter at hand, if the Palestinians have a "right to terrorism," to protect their land from occupation and oppression, how about the Serbs in Kosovo, or say the French in Paris? Not sure how one could say Marine Le Pen, horrid as she may be, is worse or more "far Right" than Hamas.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm beginning to think you don't know what either of those words mean.
Thanks for sharing the state of your learning process. Do let me know when you begin to realize that it's actually apparent that you don't understand the semantic difference in the terminology at hand.

(Consulting a dictionary might help expedite the process--and if that is too much work, a google search on the term you're misusing should suffice to clarify your error.)
quote:
Your perspective is simplistic either/or.
Odd. This is rarely the case when it comes to my perspective. In my experience, my perspective is generally criticized as being overly-complexly "either-and-or" with an ironic twist of "neither"...
quote:
Saying that how the incident will affect Muslims in the West weights on my mind is not to say that I don't hold sympathy for the victims.
This is true: failing to express sympathy for the actual victims doesn't mean you don't have it...and yet you still haven't expressed any sympathy for the victims, and you did actually explicitly contrast your concern for potential harm to the Muslim group with which you identify with your indifference toward the morally outrageous action of terrorist Islamicists toward their actual, real, non-muslim victims in this case.

It'd be easy to prove me wrong here without having to appeal to a lexicon you're beginning to try to understand, btw--here's an easy way that comes to mind: just acknowledge that the muslims who murdered the Charlie Hebdo staff were wrong to do so, and that the reason it was wrong isn't because of a negative indirect impact on muslims, but simply because it's ethically wrong to respond to freedom of expression with violence, and I'll take back everything I said about your apparently reprehensibly ethnocentric moral compass, and admit that I was wrong.

[ November 15, 2015, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
I'm beginning to think you don't know what either of those words mean.
Thanks for sharing the state of your learning process. Do let me know when you begin to realize that it's actually apparent that you don't understand the semantic difference in the terminology at hand.

You're entirely welcome, you seemed quite confused there as to the meaning of some rather simple words. I've never come across the term "ethnocentrric" in the rather strange and incorrect way you used it.

quote:
Odd. This is rarely the case when it comes to my perspective. In my experience, my perspective is generally criticized as being overly-complexly "either-and-or" with an ironic twist of "neither"...
I'm unfamiliar with your posting history but I'll take your self-aggrandizing claim that you habitually make complex arguments at your word.

quote:
This is true: failing to express sympathy for the actual victims doesn't mean you don't have it...and yet you still haven't expressed any sympathy for the victims, and you did actually explicitly contrast your concern for potential harm to the Muslim group with which you identify with your indifference toward the morally outrageous action of terrorist Islamicists toward their actual, real, non-muslim victims in this case.
Yes, it's true -- more so than immediate sympathy and sadness for the 150 people who died, I posted about right-wing racist rhetoric and how these events will be used to stigmatize Muslims in the West as has already happened. I left my sympathy for the victims unstated.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
By the by, in the rush to tolerate and find agreement, people seem to be missing some pretty horrific implications here:
quote:
I believe that the Palesinians can use terrorism as a form of protest but not really as a legitimate way to end the occupation, and blowing up school children works against their own image more than it hurts the Israelis.
Please note that his point about the problem with blowing up children is not that blowing up children is wrong, full stop, it's that doing so hurts his in-group more than it hurts his out-group.

It's similar to this:
quote:
I don't understand what possible goal ISIS hopes to accomplish by killing a minuscule number of Frenchmen and arousing the anger of Europe, the West and the entire world all the more.
...where his problem isn't with the murder of innocent humans, it's with the fact that the "minuscule number of Frenchmen" who are killed doesn't justify the potential damage to his own in-group.

It's straight-up reprehensible bile on display, where the dude can't even spit out any sense of basic human compassion for the victims in what he perceives as an out-group, even after being explicitly called out on it multiple times, and the see-no-evil idealism on display here seems to be on board with doing nothing and letting triumph whatever may rather than reexamining their idealistic prepossessions...

[Frown]

That wasn't my implication at all. Terrorism of the sort that AL Qaida, ISIS, etc commit against the West are almost always like annoying little paper cuts in the body of the West, hardly effectual in achieving any real purpose except to arouse the West's anger at Muslims. Stop being so eager to interpret my posts as nastily as possible.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're entirely welcome, you seemed quite confused there as to the meaning of some rather simple words.
Oops.

You seem to have misunderstood again. I'm not confused as to the meaning of the terminology I use, just appreciative of you letting me know what you're "beginning to think."
quote:
I've never come across the term "ethnocentrric" in the rather strange and incorrect way you used it.
Like I said, consulting a dictionary might help.

Here. Let me help you. Here's the dictionary on "ethnocentrism," since you claim you've never come across my correct usage in your apparently lexically-averse, haphazard exploration of the English language.
quote:
noun
1.
Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2.
a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

Notice that it doesn't mention the term "race" but it does explicitly mention "culture."

Here's dictionary.com on "ethnicity," just to help you follow the breadcrumbs back through the terminology you misunderstand:
quote:
an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like
Note, again, that "race" isn't actually mentioned (although it is sometimes implicitly connected to the term, as is suggested by the dictionary's inclusion of "the like"), but "culture" and even "religion" are explicitly supplied as characteristics in the denotation of the term.

The more you know... [Smile]
quote:
I left my sympathy for the victims unstated.
Yes. Again, it still remains unstated--you seem to be having trouble choking the actual words out--though you didn't have any trouble completely disavowing any experience of anger against the victimizers on behalf of the experience of the victims.

By the way, since we're doing the whole "you don't understand English" bit, it might bear mentioning that the term I used (empathy) and the term with which you responded (sympathy), are also not synonymous, and the semantic difference between the terms actually has some bearing on issues such as ethnocentrism and bigotry.

But never mind all that for now--I'm interested in what you really think about the Charlie Hebdo murders. Is it ethically wrong to kill cartoonists for mocking Muhammed because the action itself is ethically wrong, or is it just wrong because it causes a backlash against Muslims?

[ November 15, 2015, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That wasn't my implication at all. Terrorism of the sort that AL Qaida, ISIS, etc commit against the West are almost always like annoying little paper cuts in the body of the West, hardly effectual in achieving any real purpose except to arouse the West's anger at Muslims. Stop being so eager to interpret my posts as nastily as possible.
[LOL]

Totally proving my point, and too ethnocentric to even get it...

That's exactly what I was suggesting your narrow-minded, self-absorbed position was. You're dismissive of (read: completely lacking empathy for) the real impact of the terrorist actions on the victims, and you suggest that the only consequence that is of any real concern is the potential ramifications to the group with which you identify.

Stop posting such nastily self-absorbed posts.

[ November 15, 2015, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
You're entirely welcome, you seemed quite confused there as to the meaning of some rather simple words.
Oops.

You seem to have misunderstood again. I'm not confused as to the meaning of the terminology I use, just appreciative of you letting me know what you're "beginning to think."

It's been my experience that the people most eager to be pedantic are the ones most in need of more education in the subject they're being pedantic about.


quote:
noun
1.
Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2.
a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

I take it you're not claiming definition 1 for me, so that only leaves 2, and I'm really dumbfounded that you can say this with a straight face. To be ethocentric is like finding French culture weird and inferior because it isn't my own -- it has nothing to do with showing concern for how the terrorist action of ISIS will impact Muslims in the West. It's as if you just discovered this word and are too eager too use it.

quote:
an ethnic group; a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like
I share some things with the Muslims all over the world, namely, a religious background -- but that's it. We differ wildly in culture, language, race, ethnicity, food, all sort of things that make a people a "people." Muslims in the West are not an "ethnic" group, and the only interest they share is political concern with the effects of the West/Militant Islam conflict, the same concern you're labeling me as "ethnocentric" for having.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
That wasn't my implication at all. Terrorism of the sort that AL Qaida, ISIS, etc commit against the West are almost always like annoying little paper cuts in the body of the West, hardly effectual in achieving any real purpose except to arouse the West's anger at Muslims. Stop being so eager to interpret my posts as nastily as possible.
[LOL]

Totally proving my point, and too ethnocentric to even get it...

If you say so. [Razz]

quote:
That's exactly what I was suggesting your narrow-minded, self-absorbed position was. You're dismissive of (read: completely lacking empathy for) the real impact of the terrorist actions on the victims, and you suggest that the only consequence that is of any real concern is the potential ramifications to the group with which you identify.

It's not that I'm lacking empathy, it's just that I know bad **** happens all the time in the world, and we frequently hear of these sort of atrocities happening in Iraq/Africa etc. I don't make a show of feeling sorrow about those events, why should I for Frenchmen?
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
[QUOTE]But never mind all that for now--I'm interested in what you really think about the Charlie Hebdo murders. Is it ethically wrong to kill cartoonists for mocking Muhammed because the action itself is ethically wrong, or is it just wrong because it causes a backlash against Muslims?

There is no effectual difference. I would prefer to live in the world where some offended Muslims don't resort to violence to take revenge for their emotional injury, but if I can't have that then I wouldn't mind living in the world where those type of Muslims withhold their desire for violent revenge because it would reflect badly on all Muslims.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm really dumbfounded you can say this with a straight face
Rest easy, then, there's no need to find yourself dumb in this regard: I rarely say anything with an entirely straight face--that would be too rigid a line to take to allow for the inflationary curve of my self-aggrandizing grin... [Wink]

This issue is actually pretty simple--race and ethnicity are not synonymous, and ethnocentrism can definitively be based in shared religious heritage.

Not sure it requires further belaboring...
quote:
I don't make a show of feeling sorrow about those events, why should I for Frenchmen?
I don't know...if a genuine sensation of compassion is too much of a stretch for you, then coldly calculating machiavellian political expediency comes to mind as a reason that might suffice...

You are suggesting that you care about how Muslims are perceived by the west, after all...

Don't over-exert yourself on my account, though.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just throwing this out there, but I'm not a religious person, I consider myself "Muslim" only insofar as people I'm close to are believers and also because I get fuzzy feelings when I'm around middle eastern food. I'd say I was an atheist if that term hasn't been ruined by militant childish atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

[ November 15, 2015, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]

Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 6889

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
This issue is actually pretty simple--race and ethnicity are not synonymous, and ethnocentrism can definitively be based in shared religious heritage.

It can, but I fail to see how what I was doing amounted to "viewing alien groups or cultures from one's own perspective," as if that's entirely uncalled for in this occasion where there's a very real liklihood of this event bolstering bigots, Zionists, and immigration restrictionists.


quote:
I don't know...if a genuine sensation of compassion is too much of a stretch for you, then coldly calculating machiavellian political expediency comes to mind as a reason that might suffice...

I feel bad about what happened and it emotionally ruined my weekend. That I rhetorically focus on the consequences of that event for Muslims doesn't mean I have no feelings of compassion for the victims. It's just that excessive show of compassion for victims and tone policing are often a way to set the stage for propaganda and revenge and I am wary of that.

[ November 15, 2015, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]

Posts: 52 | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I feel bad about what happened and it emotionally ruined my weekend. That I rhetorically focus on the consequences of that event for Muslims doesn't mean I have no feelings of compassion for the victims.
There we go! Color me wrong!--you's got basic human compassion deep down in there after all...

[Smile]

(I'm not sure you actually went so far as to positively affirm empathy for the plight of the victims in suggesting that the event ruined your weekend, but I'll take what I can get here... [Smile] )
quote:
It's just that excessive show of compassion for victims and tone policing are often a way to set the stage for propaganda and revenge and I am wary of that.
I think you have this exactly backwards in this context.

The western world is all about compassion for and identification with victims these days--the best way to work against fear-based anti-muslim policies and actions is for "people of muslim origin" to loudly disavow the terrorists (who are, by definition, trying to instill terror in westerners with their violent actions), and to even more loudly identify and empathize with the victims of the terror campaign. (This shouldn't be too hard, incidentally--non-ignorant westerners are actually already aware that the vast majority of the extremist Islamicist violence is actually directed against Muslims...)
quote:
There is no effectual difference. I would prefer to live in the world where some offended Muslims don't resort to violence to take revenge for their emotional injury, but if I can't have that then I wouldn't mind living in the world where those type of Muslims withhold their desire for violent revenge because it would reflect badly on all Muslims.
There actually is an effectual difference--the disparate ethical paradigms will necessarily result in different effects when applied to less narrow situations than the specific case under discussion.

This was why I asked you about your perception of the ethics of the case in the first place...

[ November 15, 2015, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1