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 3)

 - 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
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP,

I am seeing a lot I disagree with being said by multiple posters here. But what makes Rafi special is not the degree to which he makes points that I disagree with, it is the degree to which he is unwilling to argue with integrity and/or acknowledge when he asserts something which is later shown to be wrong.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel like there is a shameful amount of bigotry being levied against the only self-identified Muslim poster here. If I were to employ the intersectionality schema for a moment, I would say that a minority group member here (Muslim, compared to a majority of Christians or atheists) is being obliged to speak in terms comfortable to the majority and to spout literal phrases that comply with the demands of the majority; actually it's just the demands of one member of the majority, but the lack of objection creates a sense of tacit approval or toleration for this demand.

If a person opts to express a concern for his fellow people prior to mentioning another concern I don't see how this can reasonably be taken to imply the absence of another concern. Should every Ornery member have to post a perfunctory "we feel empathy for Paris" after such an event? Is there now a mandatory (i.e. ritualistic) statement of concern for every bad event in the world by every person to verify whether they do, in fact, feel empathy? It seems to be in especially poor taste to hold a Muslin poster to a different standard than the rest just because he's Muslim. One might almost think he's being blamed for what happened, or otherwise must prove that he's not responsible.

I do agree with Sa'eed about one thing: it seems trollish and uncharitable to require of a Muslim person to denounce any bad acts by Muslims around the world every time they do it. Even worse is the likelihood that these so-called Muslims are not actually Muslims at all but that real Muslims have to answer for it for some reason. From what I can tell ISIS has nothing to do with the Muslim religion and are not even a remotely religious organization.

Speaking of which, I don't see why every event much be evaluated purely on its moral character. There is also its strategic character, which is entirely orthogonal and unrelated to morality. We can discuss WWII, for instance, from the point of view of Hitler's strategy and how he could have done better or worse, and then we can do the same from the perspective of how evil his actions were and the moral implications of having the beliefs the Nazi Party had. The two have nothing to do with each other as any military historian knows. Can you imagine what would happen if a professor of military history was subjected to criticism for not having the core of his course material be how evil everyone in history was? It would be ridiculous.

And by the way, SP, Sa'eed is right about the word "ethnocentrism". Despite your desire to show that "Muslim" can be said to semantically be an ethnicity, even if that were so Sa'eed's position would still not be ethnocentric because his comment wasn't an evaluation of another ethnicity based on the standards of his own. The word you were looking for was "tribalistic", if anything, which means placing value on the outcome for his tribe/ethnicity above others. Perhaps you could find fault with this too, but it's not ethnocentric.

[ November 15, 2015, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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:
actually it's just the demands of one member of the majority
[LOL]

One person rarely constitutes a majority, as I understand the term...are you certain you aren't conflating the meaning of such an idea with some sense that's mostly minding the multiplicity of words?

Because, so it's clear, Fenring, it's not actually me who is into these majority-worshiping team sports you guys like to play around here. You wanna know what I think is shameful? Spending months claiming you can't see any Islamophobia in arresting a kid for bringing a clock to school, then hopping the fence to shore up the credit you lost with the in-crowd by denouncing a non-existent majority of one for Islamophobia.

But don't let me stop you from stumping your anti-bigotry bona fides...

[Roll Eyes]
quote:
If a person opts to express a concern for his fellow people prior to mentioning another concern I don't see how this can reasonably be taken to imply the absence of another concern.
Neither do I. But whimsical instances of idiosyncratic prioritization of concern don't have much to do with clear contrasting statements where a person opts to express that his primary concern is X, not Y, and then follows up on the contrasting statement with: Sorry, but "I can only focus on this event's effect on people like me."

I think it's great that Sa'eed kind of, sort of walked his statements back a teeny bit over the course of 2 pages, but let's get really reasonable here: the dude's first post in this thread was: "I don't get the point of this specific act of terrorism--this other instance of terrorism is OK in my book--but this latest one is really only good for westerners who are actually really glad it happened so that they have an excuse to slaughter muslims."

And he followed that up with "Honestly, I'm not even mad that this happened, I just care about how it might adversely impact me and mine. Sorry if you don't like the tone, but seriously--I only care about me and mine--and so you know, the way I see it, all of this is your team's fault anyways."

And the majority didn't actually stand up and say: "Whoa! Terrorism is never cool. And we think all humans are like all other humans, and are all on the same team!" Nah. Like you observed, it was really just one guy--maybe two. Everyone else appears to have been too busy translating the statements through those PC manuals they seem to hand out at those majority-obsessed popularity conventions you guys like so much...
quote:
It seems to be in especially poor taste to hold a Muslin poster to a different standard than the rest just because he's Muslim.
Ain't nobody here getting held to a special standard. I'm an equal opportunity critic. You're just as welcome to a tongue-lashing for your inept misrepresentation and blatant political posturing as Sa'eed is for his ethnocentrism...people don't get criticized in my book for who they are--they get criticized for the stupid sh*t they say.

[ November 15, 2015, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
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.

Even better.

Pete:
quote:
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.
I score Sa'eed one gratuitous graphic sexual reference, which means you're ahead by many dozens. You almost owned up to that yourself in the other thread, but you have a long memory and are petulant about perceived slights.

[ November 15, 2015, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
During the debate last night, Hillary made it clear that the root cause for these attacks was a movie made in the late 1980's but was only recently posted online.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
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
I am in 100% agreement with you on this point. I wouldn't demand you to condemn every Muslim terrorist attack, any more than I would feel it necessary to defend everything Israel does just because I'm Jewish. You are NOT morally responsible for what other Muslims do.

However, facts are facts. The Muslim community is dangerous. In Europe, the high Muslim populations have made terrorism endemic. They may not be responsible for the disease, but they are its natural reservoir and through them it will continue to spread. I predict these types of attacks in Europe will become commonplace, the new normal in the next 10 years. The war in Syria may have been the catalyst for the next wave, but it was coming no matter what.

I am not stating this in order to place blame. I am simply asserting what I consider to be facts at this point. Even mainstream Liberal politicians at this point have stated that preventing radicalization is basically impossible, and stopping these attacks is also impossible.

While I don't think you are morally obligated to denounce radical Islam, I do think it is in your best interests to do whatever is in your power to do as a Muslim. Because if my prediction is true, things are going to get very ugly in Europe, for everyone.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sa'eed, I'll make another observation, which you probably won't agree with, but here it is. You don't seem to consider individual Israelis deserving of violence. You don't condone, say, blowing up a supermarket in Tel Aviv. Yet, facts are facts, and the occupation is a fact. Palestinian terrorism is a natural response to an untenable situation, and lecturing the Palestinians to be peaceful isn't going to change that reality.

In much the same way, the backlash against Muslims in the West is also a natural response owing to an unavoidable fact. There is no denying that large Muslim populations in the west are incubating a plague of terrorism and that there do not exist any solutions to this problem at present.

So getting back to Israel, if I come to agree with your view of the occupation (and more and more, I have if not agreement, then at least sympathy for it) lecturing Palestinians about the evils of terrorism becomes almost a pointless exercise, like arguing with a fever caused by a disease. The situation developing in Europe is much the same. Your calls for the western peoples to resist bigotry and hatred of their Muslim populations is as futile as our calls for Palestinians to eschew violence and terrorism in response to the occupation of their lands.

[ November 15, 2015, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
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...

Somehow this feels like it got lost in the thread and it's a very interesting and, I think, instructive pice of information.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 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 
Tribalism is the better word for what SP was describing. Now that we have successfully split that hair, if seems to me that Sa'eed already acknowledged my point that it was tacky to hop on a fresh news thread about 160 French horribly murdered and complain about the right wing without taking the trouble, as Al did, to at least pretend one gives a floundering duck about 160 innocent murdered French civilians. It was when Sa'eed offered his religion as part as defense for that initial boorishness (to my knowledge there is nothing in the tenets of Islam prohibiting offering of condolences) that SP leaped down his throat. So far from chasing Sa'eed down because he is Muslim, SP only focused on tribalism (misidentified as "ethnocentrism") when Sa'eed used his religious id as a defense for lack of express sympathy.

[ November 15, 2015, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 ScottF:
quote:
Originally posted by Sa'eed:
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...

Somehow this feels like it got lost in the thread and it's a very interesting and, I think, instructive pice of information.
It's interesting but not supportive to the charge of tribalism.

Nevertheless I must admit that my own beef here with Al and Sa'eed's early post stem from my own tribalism. I am close to France and to the French having been raised in Paris.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
Tribalism is the emotional root of a lot of the condemnation and/or support of groups not tied to this horrific event. A giant step up from ethnocentrism and tribalism is panhumanism. How many more generations of horrors committed by man against man will it take for that kind of movement to become a rallying point? Waving a flashlight of democracy is not the same thing as a lighting a beacon.

Rafi:
quote:
During the debate last night, Hillary made it clear that the root cause for these attacks was a movie made in the late 1980's but was only recently posted online.
It took less than 48 hours for Rafi G to reveal his innate uber-tribalistic emotional urges, which aren't ethnic or religious, but merely political. I'm tempted to start calling him Magua.

[ November 15, 2015, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  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 
"Everyone else appears to have been too busy translating the statements through those PC manuals they seem to hand out at those majority-obsessed popularity conventions you guys like so much."

attacking me unfairly won't stop me from defending you on this thread where I think you are misunderstood.

SP isn't any more of an islamophobe than he is a JudeoChristophobe. He will take pot shots at Abraham, but SP is not the one who brought Sa'eed's sympathies in for discussion. He addressed what Sa'eed said.

Sa'eed, I agree we should not single you out for your views associations or background to demand you denounce ISIS. But neither does your background exempt you from what we would expect from anyone.

I grew up as a stranger in strange lands and it seems like a singularly American bit of coddling to cry oppression at the idea of the French scrutinizing their Muslim neighbors for ISIS sympathy. That's not bigotry, it's self preservation. I defy you to show me a country in history that would not have done the same or worse during circumstances like these.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 Fenring:
Even worse is the likelihood that these so-called Muslims are not actually Muslims at all but that real Muslims have to answer for it for some reason. From what I can tell ISIS has nothing to do with the Muslim religion and are not even a remotely religious organization.

"Likely"? In order to believe this, you would have to essentially ignore everything ISIS says about themselves, including their recruitment propaganda (which has been pretty successful), while simultaneously ignoring how they are governing the territory they conquer, opting instead to simply tell them who they are based on... uhh... I guess you must have some kind of evidence in mind that trumps what they say and do, but those are pretty big things to toss aside in favor of some kind of academic reading of it.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
President Barack Obama said that ISIS was 'contained' just a day before the terrorist group claimed responsibility for a horrific attack in Paris that killed 128 people on Friday.

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that aired on Friday's broadcast of Good Morning America, Obama declared that he didn't believe ISIS (also known as ISIL) was gaining strength.

'What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them,' Obama said in the interview.

From the JV comments to just before the Paris attacks, this frigging guy has been disconnected from the reality of the threat. I'd like to think nobody is possibly this stupid but it's getting pretty hard to make the case otherwise.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Even worse is the likelihood that these so-called Muslims are not actually Muslims at all but that real Muslims have to answer for it for some reason. From what I can tell ISIS has nothing to do with the Muslim religion and are not even a remotely religious organization.

"Likely"? In order to believe this, you would have to essentially ignore everything ISIS says about themselves, including their recruitment propaganda (which has been pretty successful), while simultaneously ignoring how they are governing the territory they conquer, opting instead to simply tell them who they are based on... uhh... I guess you must have some kind of evidence in mind that trumps what they say and do, but those are pretty big things to toss aside in favor of some kind of academic reading of it.
We do have direct evidence that their claims are nothing but PR for recruiting. One example of this is that journalist who was their prisoner for a good while and got out. He had regular contact with their high-ups and described in detail how none of them prayed, didn't read the Koran or quote from it, and he could scarcely even find a copy anywhere. From what he said they were simply not religious fanatics except in name only. It was a much overlooked story and predictably forgotten in the morass of information that flows every day.
There are other pieces of evidence leading me to believe this as well (the fact that I think they are in reality a mercenary group is one, and I have reasons for believing this too), but this one was right out there in the open and fairly convincing to me.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
You wanna know what I think is shameful? Spending months claiming you can't see any Islamophobia in arresting a kid for bringing a clock to school, then hopping the fence to shore up the credit you lost with the in-crowd by denouncing a non-existent majority of one for Islamophobia.

The fact that you frame it like this shows you misunderstood my comment. As you may have noticed intersectionality isn't my thing, but I brought it up by way of saying that some here will use such a power schema to condemn abusive uses of 'majority power' (I don't like that concept but it's part of the parlance) in far-off places involving strangers, but won't bother when something similar is happening here. I saw you as judging Se'eed, someone not part of 'your culture', and condemning him for not expressing things as you want him to, or in the right order, or whatever. I know your position is to denounce what you see as ugly statements, but honestly it looked like bullying to me.

Incidentally regarding the Irving thing, if you think I was upset about 'losing credit' over that then you're really imagining things. Also you appear to have misread or misunderstood my entire position there. I was not condemning people for calling Islamophobia. I was, in fact, saying that Islamophobia was an entirely plausible interpretation but that there was insufficient data to outright say it was the case. I was looking at various possibilities. What I was calling out was the idea that someone could simply leap right to Islamophobia without having the evidence to back it up. Even the red herring of the mayor's views was eventually more or less retracted as possibly being related to what happened in the school.

quote:
let's get really reasonable here: the dude's first post in this thread was: "I don't get the point of this specific act of terrorism--this other instance of terrorism is OK in my book--but this latest one is really only good for westerners who are actually really glad it happened so that they have an excuse to slaughter muslims."
I see no problem with an analytical approach that examines what the terrorists could hope to gain or lose. Not everyone has to express sympathy verbally as their response to an event. You might consider whether your sensibility of how he must express his reaction to the event isn't colored by your culture and whether you're being ethnocentrist here.

quote:
And he followed that up with "Honestly, I'm not even mad that this happened, I just care about how it might adversely impact me and mine. Sorry if you don't like the tone, but seriously--I only care about me and mine--and so you know, the way I see it, all of this is your team's fault anyways."
This is a mischaracterization. He didn't say he only cared about his group, he simply said he cared about it. He also never categorically blamed some 'team' (who is that, Westerners?) for it either, he expressed concern over certain people in the West who blame Muslims as a whole for what's happening. And he's right, they do.

quote:
Everyone else appears to have been too busy translating the statements through those PC manuals they seem to hand out at those majority-obsessed popularity conventions you guys like so much...
I don't like it at all; my comment was meant to show that it's easier to use some system of analysis to talk broadly about strangers but when it's something right here and now people remain silent. It isn't my system.

Regarding the general point of Sa'eed suggesting that not all terrorism is created equal, I think Pete made a good point that terrorism against an occupying force is not quite the same thing as terrorism in a foreign nation to achieve political ends. I don't know if you ever watched Star Trek DS9, but if you have the show does a great job of showing sympathy for a people (the Bajorans) who lived under occupation for 60 years and did what they had to to try to end it. It doesn't celebrate terrorism, but generated a lot of understanding in me, at least. That's definitely a different kettle of fish than Al Qaeda, for instance. It is certainly contentious to say that the Palestinians are ok doing what they do, but it's hardly such an outrageous position that one must effectively apologize for it.

[ November 15, 2015, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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 
What about all the evidence that suggests otherwise? Just ignore it?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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 Fenring:
I don't know if you ever watched Star Trek DS9, but if you have the show does a great job of showing sympathy for a people (the Bajorans) who lived under occupation for 60 years and did what they had to to try to end it.

I would point out that there are some rather notably different degrees of "occupation", just as there are different degrees of responses to it.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
What about all the evidence that suggests otherwise? Just ignore it?

No, it must all be considered. On the balance my assessment is that they are not a religious group, but as with all things that's just a running theory. I do not suggest that this is an irrefutable fact, which is why I expressed it as a possibility, albeit an alarming one.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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 
Love ds9, and watched it faithfully. Thought the 1at season ed "duet" was the most moving thing I have ever seen on TV. But their moral view on terrorism and failure to distinguish terrorism from guerilla war (Marquis as well as Britannia) I find annoying and disappointing. And some jackass writer needs to be seriously spanked for that led Miserables episode.
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 
I note that Sa'eed has notcreplied to this question I posed above. May have missed it. So here it is again:

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
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
What about all the evidence that suggests otherwise? Just ignore it?

No, it must all be considered. On the balance my assessment is that they are not a religious group, but as with all things that's just a running theory. I do not suggest that this is an irrefutable fact, which is why I expressed it as a possibility, albeit an alarming one.
You may want to consider the actual amount of evidence that points to the contrary. Dismiss it at your own risk to your credibility as an expert investigator.
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 
It's very odd watching DS9 after 9/11 with Kira blithely admitting she was a terrorist. I think the Bajoran Occupation arc provides a useful commentary on the difficulty in drawing a clear line between guerilla resistance and terrorism; collaboration and acceptance. Not to mention dealing with the aftermath of oppression and building new relationships with benefactors and conquerors both.

I'm also surprised at how strong season 1 was with a lot of signature episodes like "Duet."

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Love ds9, and watched it faithfully. Thought the 1at season ed "duet" was the most moving thing I have ever seen on TV. But their moral view on terrorism and failure to distinguish terrorism from guerilla war (Marquis as well as Britannia) I find annoying and disappointing. And some jackass writer needs to be seriously spanked for that led Miserables episode.

There may be something to that distinction although it might boil down to perspective. If there is some grey area where we sympathize with guerilla tactics (even though not endorsing them, necessarily) but not random terrorism like bombing school buses then if anything Sa'eed's comment is guilty of a lack of specificity rather than of being dastardly. He said the Palestinians are 100% justified to make attacks, which isn't the same as saying that 100% of their actual acts are ok. They may well be considered to be justified in using guerilla tactics while still condemned for some of the things they do. I think Sa'eed said that much anyhow.

PS I also hated the Les Miz episode.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
JoshCrow, the rules applied don't necessarily indicate the nature of the people enforcing them. It's suggestive but not definitive. I think the counter-evidence is that Daesh maintains a facade of Islamic piety but the core is just ambition and brutality. Vicious, totalitarian rules don't contradict that evidence.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 NobleHunter:
JoshCrow, the rules applied don't necessarily indicate the nature of the people enforcing them. It's suggestive but not definitive. I think the counter-evidence is that Daesh maintains a facade of Islamic piety but the core is just ambition and brutality.

That's an assertion, not "counter-evidence", and is akin to saying that a lack of strict piety at the very top makes a movement non-religious.

Fenring is allowing a slim piece of "interesting" evidence to the contrary (a captured journalist caught them being unreligious!) to excite his imagination while devaluing ludicrous volumes of "banal" evidence from OTHER captured people that support the mundane idea that in fact they are religiously motivated.

Sometimes it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and talks like a duck because it's a duck. If you want me to believe it's a goat pretending to be a duck for PR purposes, you'd better have a lot of evidence. I would also note that ambition/power pursuit is not mutually exclusive from religiosity.

[ November 15, 2015, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshCrow you may well be right. At the moment my hunch is that there is something about them other than what we're being told, but I'll certainly read the things you linked and take everything into account. I definitely can't convince you I'm right since I'm not even convinced! But I feel that this particular point is a bit of an off-topic tangent and I only mentioned it here to highlight the likelihood that some Muslims are so far removed from or different from ISIS that having to even comment on what ISIS does as if they're some relation between them is silly. I see as much in common between ISIS and a regular Muslim as between an atheist and Stalin. That's my real point, although this ISIS issue is interesting and maybe can be pursued in another thread.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 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 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
You wanna know what I think is shameful? Spending months claiming you can't see any Islamophobia in arresting a kid for bringing a clock to school

Intentionally obtuse, or is that your honest assessment of that issue?

Busting kids over stuff like that happened before 9-11. Started at Columbine. Yes it's traumatic to be taken as a false positive. But this crap happens every week since Columbine.

I defended you on an unfair charge of I-phobia and found that random clock charge an embarrassment.

Yes I tried to find common ground w Sa'eed and to his credit he honestly distinguished his position from mine.

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 
Fenring, you are overlooking some facts and explicit Islamist theology. Read up on the 9-11 hijackers. Like some of the fanatic crusaders of yore, there is nothing incongruous once you actually read their theology, when they shift from whiting and boning young boys, to wading in blood up to the elbows, to writing pious prayers about how they wanna be buried away from any menstruating female etc.

More later.

[ November 15, 2015, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

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 
". I see as much in common between ISIS and a regular Muslim as between an atheist and Stalin"

That analogy fails insofar as there are ours no foundational documents of atheism, (although these days there seem to be no shortage of nimrods trying to provide such a foundation)

While burning alive and some other ISIS features are all their own, a shocking number of horrors such as systematic rape and selling of war captives is actually spelled out in the Koran as instructions on how a Califf is to establish an Islamic State.

If I am wrong on this, please provide links and specifics. If I am right, just insult me and try to silence me the way brainwashes do.

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 
Fenring
quote:
I know your position is to denounce what you see as ugly statements, but honestly it looked like bullying to me.
Would you find it odd if I took less issue with being called a bully than I did with be called a "majority?"

Sticks and stones may break bones, but words can...only hurt as much as words can: they pique at pride, and just might pick a fight, but unless someone pushes past prolixity to throw a punch, I rarely suppose an important point of propriety has been surpassed. Only egos end up bruised...

People can say what they want. Someone else can say something ugly, I can call it reprehensible, you can call me a bully, I can point out that you're piss-poor at parsing, and nary a one of us is bleeding to death in the street, if you catch my drift.

And you are piss-poor at parsing, by the way.
quote:
I saw you as judging Se'eed, someone not part of 'your culture'
You saw wrong. Sa'eed may have taken a position that he only cares about people of Muslim origin like him, but I didn't. I may belong to various subcultures, but the cultural position I took here was global (just like the nature of the ethereal locale indicated by the term "here," here), the cultural position I adopted was one of human culture, as indicated by my criticizing Sa'eed for his narrow-minded care only for "people like me," or my criticism of Pete's "Christian lands," or my comment to you that "we think all humans are like all other humans, and are all on the same team." From my perspective, Sa'eed is part of my culture--as indicated by my criticisms, by my references to humanism, by the nature of the global internet medium in which this conversation exists, and by the fact that the very topic of this thread is clearly brought to you by phenomenon of globalism.

So...shame on you for your tribalistic mentality too, I guess, and allow me I suggest you too stop thinking in such an us vs them paradigm, and join us all in approaching problems like the one at hand as if they are "human" problems, rather than problems of "other" cultures that you can't identify with, or accept personal cultural responsibility for solving. At the very least, it should help you with some of your parsing problems. [Wink]
quote:
and condemning him for not expressing things as you want him to, or in the right order, or whatever.
Yeah, this is, again, just you failing to parse correctly and misrepresenting my criticism. Go back and read my second post in the thread, I wasn't responding to a failure to say something I felt he needed to say, or merely something I felt he mis-prioritized, I was responding to the actual substance of something he said, a contrasting construction he used to indicate that he (and people like him) didn't feel moral outrage over the terrorist attack, that his only concern was regarding the potential impact on "people like me."

Now, you may not read his contrasting statement the same way I do, but frankly, I don't give a damn--he can speak for himself to clarify my extrapolation of his construction if he so chooses, and how he chooses. As it happened, he wasn't willing to make any actual simple positive affirmation that would have easily sufficed to show that my initial interpretation of the meaning of his construction was incorrect, and I pursued the issue by repeatedly pointing out how easy it would be to clarify the issue if it was simply his miswording or my misinterpretation--but none of this changes the fact that the pursuit of the tangent was responsive to an initial negative affirmation I noticed in his text. (By the way, this is the point in our conversation where I feel like I have to yet again mention how obnoxious I find your tendency to insist on arguing with me about what some other interlocutor meant--when they are clearly perfectly capable of speaking for themselves). In any case, you are simply wrong. My criticism was of the substance of something he said--not something he didn't say, or didn't say in the right order, or whatever.

And, so it's clear, for all ye hair-splitters and quibblers, "tribalism" is a fine word for a lot of the context of my allegations, because there is a fair degree of overlap between "tribalism" and "ethnocentrism," and I'll even acknowledge that in some segments of the fairly long, dynamically shifting tangent, "tribalism" is actually the more precise term--but overall I'm perfectly happy with my entirely correct usage of "ethnocentrism," as it was correctly used in the initial context.

Here's dictionary.com on both terms:
quote:
tribalism:

strong loyalty to one's own tribe, party, or group.

ethnocentrism

a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

And here's what Sa'eed said immediately before my initial use of the term "ethnocentrism":
quote:
Terrorism against an occupying military and colonizers is justified
"Tribalism" works, but the more correct term for what this sentiment represents is "ethnocentrism," folks.

[ November 16, 2015, 01:17 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 
Pete:
quote:
Intentionally obtuse, or is that your honest assessment of that issue?
I don't think I provided any assessment of the issue, per se.

I was assessing the motives in Fenring's posturing, quite contrarily to forum rules...

So, "intentionally obtuse," I suppose?

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:
Sa'eed may have taken a position that he only cares about people of Muslim origin like him, but I didn't. [/QB]

Except that I didn't and you're ascribing positions to me and playing out this narrative in your head about what you thought I said and meant, as if you recently conceived of this argument about ethnocentrism being a problem in the world and lo-and behold, here is someone who you can explain away with your newly arrived at thesis about the human condition.
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:
SP: Sa'eed may have taken a position that he only cares about people of Muslim origin like him
quote:
Sa'eed:

Except that I didn't

quote:
Sa'eed:

I can only focus on this event's effect on people like me

quote:
Sa'eed:

I must be self-absorbed about news of this nature given hwo 9/11 negatively affected Muslims in America.


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 
None of these things you're quoting in that triumphant "gotcha!" fashion mean that I only care about people of Muslim origin like me. Give this thesis a rest.

[ November 16, 2015, 01:35 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 
seekingprometheus -- the way you're using the word "ethnocentric" is dumb because it means it would also be fair to call Jews during the era of the the Holocaust "ethnocentric" for worrying about the fate of their people first and foremost.
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 
Most Jew's of that era, like other targeted people, were a step below ethnocentrism ... They were focused on their personal survival and that of family and friends. And some Jews do take an ethnocentric view of the holocaust, as if never again meant no more than never again to Jews.

The semantic argument against your statement being ethnocentric seems like hair splitting to me. A better defense is that it's unfair to single you out, since tribalism is a fairly universal human trait.

" I must be self-absorbed about news of this nature given hwo 9/11 negatively affected Muslims in America"

I think if you list those effects against the actual impacts of 911 in Americans, you may see that tribalism or ethnocentrism are not exaggerated claims. I defy you to show me an example of a group better treated during an equivalent crisis where fellow believers or fellow nationals were the enemy.

How would you distinguish what you said from SP's construction?

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 
y criticism of Pete's "Christian lands,

Objection which was as useless hair splitting as ethnocentrism tribalism, because I was merely offering my hope that Christians where they are in majority would deal fairly with Muslim neighbors. And trust me, in Georgia there's a strong sense of Christians being in majority. I have gotten seriously chewed out for dating a non Christian, for example.

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 
The wikipedia article on "ethnocentrism" is pretty instructive about why seekingprometheus's usage of the term is rather warped:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

"Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.[1][page needed] Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.[2] Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation.[3]"

One should be wary about being eager to use words one just recently learned.

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 
I wasn't aware there was a 'triumphant "gotcha!"' styling to the quotation functionality. I'd like that font.

So it's clear, I've already noted that your constructions don't necessarily mean what I've inferred from them. That's why I utilized the conditional construction in the text you cited above ("may") and observed that my misinterpretation or your poor choice of wording might be at play. But I'm nonetheless comfortable enough with the warrant for my inference, given what I've quoted above, and given the rest of the context of what you've said here (as well as won't you so carefully won't say to clarify that your apparent meaning isn't what it seems to be--because I tend to read between the lines as much as or more than I read the lines themselves).

I'll also note, in passing, that I agree with the other posters here who have said that Muslims shouldn't feel obliged to disavow the acts of radical Islamicists, or to express empathy for their victims, simply because they are Muslim.

So it's entirely clear, you shouldn't feel obligated to express empathy for the victims of Islamicists simply because you identify as Muslim. But if you go out of your way to say stuff that sure as sh*t makes it sound like you don't care about anybody except people like you, like you have here, I suggest you get used to hearing that the stuff you say sounds self-absorbed and ethnocentric.

It's not that big of a deal, bro. Truth be told, you might not even hear it that much--the politically correct police around here are liable to enforce your privilege as a perceived minority to not be held to the same standard to which they hold individuals in the perceived majority. But you should get used to hearing some of it, and learn not to feel so butthurt over it. Free speech is a double-edged sword: you get to say whatever reprehensible-sounding sh*t you feel like saying, but you will also get criticized for what you say...
quote:
the way you're using the word "ethnocentric" is dumb because it means it would also be fair to call Jews during the era of the the Holocaust "ethnocentric" for worrying about the fate of their people first and foremost.
[LOL]

Godwin's law holds true.

So you know, I've pointed out the historical ethnocentrism of the Jews more times than I can count, and I've even made the argument that said historical ethnocentrism was probably a causal factor in the persecutions and pogroms they've historically suffered.

But I have to point out that your analogy here is slightly flawed. In the incident at hand, the people with whom you identify aren't analogous the people who have just been shoved into the oven in the Holocaust. If I read you correctly, your sole concern is for the potential retaliatory impact against people who are wrongly lumped-in with the terrorists who committed mass murder in the current event. So, a better way to fit this analogy to the current topic would be to refer to the fear of retaliation that Germans who didn't support--but knew about and wouldn't condemn--Nazi policies would have felt: they must have rightly feared the retaliation that would eventually come down on them because of the Holocaust in the event of an Allied victory. Observe that you can't blame such a segment of German citizenry for their anticipatory fear of retaliation in such a case--after all, these are folks who had suffered massively due to the astringent policies imposed in the wake of World War 1, and indeed, Germanophobia had been around long before the events of the 20th century. Still, if we stipulate that these folks were aware that the Nazis were massacring Jews, and they could only focus on the potential detriment to themselves and people of their own culture, I don't think it would be dumb to observe that such an attitude at least smacks of ethnocentrism.

Note that this isn't an analogy I would have picked, but if you insist on going to the Nazi analogy, let's apply the analogy aptly. [Wink]

[ November 16, 2015, 03:47 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