Apparently anyone hostile to religion is copying Richard Dawkins now.

Quote :

"His beliefs are based on pure and simple anti-scientific stubbornness. Besides, as an atheist he holds nothing holy, so I'm not treading on any deep sensibilities here by calling him out for parroting another notable prick."

Now you're making shit up. What have I said that's anti-scientific?

9/17/2010 2:20:01 PM

Quote :

"Bahaha now the legality is all that matters? And suddenly shitting on an entire culture intentionally is making a "legitimate" criticism of "certain aspects of Islamic culture"? READ. PLEASE. READ. "

you're quick to point out when someone hasn't read or doesn't understand a topic - but you don't seem to take the time to do the same

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

Quote :

"The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, has long been a concern in Islam's history. Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.[1][2] The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[3] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.[1] Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Most Shi'a scholars accept respectful depictions and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past.[4] However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims "

Interesting that it's only certain segments of the religion that are opposed to something that is not even explicitly forbidden in the main text of the Qur'an.

But hey - we might as well round up to "the entire culture"

9/17/2010 2:27:30 PM

islam more like is lame

9/17/2010 2:28:02 PM

Quote :

"Assume there wouldn't be. What's your point?"

The point being that one religion's fanatics will riot and raise hell, while its moderates say nothing. Another religion's fanatics might want to do something crazy, but their moderates are outspoken about said things.

9/17/2010 2:49:04 PM

Quote :

"The issue here is an issue of respect. People are intentionally insulting a culture that's entirely different in terms of what responses are appropriate, and then holding up the differences between their reactions and ours (usually apathy) and crowing about how silly it is. The only thing that's silly here is that two cultures have met; one has a wealth of information and the luxury to sit around developing critical and abstract reasoning, and the other is too hungry and destitute and oppressed to do anything of the sort. Many Muslim countries are pre-Enlightenment in their outlook, because nothing similar occurred there. Yet you're expecting these people to react just like the MTV generation to a bunch of disrespectful bullshit? Fuck how THEY respond, WE should know better."

I think this perfectly demonstrates the differences in the way you and I see the world. You are apparently under the impression that the brown people of the hinterland, because they're poor, are somehow incapable of understanding far-flung concepts like not freaking the fuck out when someone insults their religion. Only people who grew up watching Real World Las Vegas could possibly understand and embrace such a post-modern idea. (Never mind, I guess, that this radical fundamentalism was imported by wealthy Arabs into a land that spent half a century interacting with Marxism.)

Nevertheless, we should refrain using satire and ridicule - which are, of course, perfectly acceptable tools for critiquing Western ideologies and religions, like Christianity - out of fear, or, as you would put it, "respect" for this extremely retrograde culture. Your problem, in other words, is that the West simply isn't reverent enough of Islamic fundamentalism, even while you accurately describe that ideology as being a relic of the seventh century.

I think your wrong on both points. You're wrong to assume that poor people need be religious fanatics, and you're certainly wrong to suggest that respecting backward cultures is somehow beneficial to anyone.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2010 3:37:47 PM

Let's go ahead and get this out of the way.
Using the definition of ad hominem cited by McDanger:

Quote :

"an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

Responding to an argument with what McDanger himself describes as "simply insulting you" is absolutely an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. You quote an argument, and then instead of addressing that argument, you simply insult the character of the person making that argument.

This is definitely argumentum ad hominem. Please stop A) doing it and B)trying to claim intellectual superiority when people call you out on it.

V, Point taken, but man it irks me when he comes back from calling him out on it with, You're so stupid you don't even know what an ad hom is!

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM. Reason : grrr]

9/17/2010 3:44:42 PM

Oy. Could we not turn this into another thread about McDanger's penchant for personal attacks? I agree with you, but seriously, I think he's established that this is how he wants to argue on this board. My advice would be to just get over it.

9/17/2010 3:47:30 PM

signed. I didn't necessarily agree with the personal attacks, etc. The way I'm seeing it, this is more of a debate.

9/17/2010 3:51:28 PM

Quote :

"Now you're making shit up. What have I said that's anti-scientific?"

I may be wrong about things but I never "make shit up" -- I leave that to the rest of the yokels on this board who honestly fabricate things rather than look them up.

You seem to think the world would be "better off" without religion, ignoring the plausible scenario that many peoples' brains are wired for it.

Quote :

"Interesting that it's only certain segments of the religion that are opposed to something that is not even explicitly forbidden in the main text of the Qur'an. But hey - we might as well round up to "the entire culture""

Where in the Qur'an does it say "relax when people burn copies of the Qur'an"? Also, who here is claiming that a religion equals the doctrines in a holy book? I mean really? There are plenty of traditions that have been carried down in various veins of a religion that have nothing to do with the holy text itself, but have become parts of the religion. See: everything Christians do in the name of their religion (including praying in public).

Quote :

"The point being that one religion's fanatics will riot and raise hell, while its moderates say nothing. Another religion's fanatics might want to do something crazy, but their moderates are outspoken about said things."

What do you imagine this illustrates?

Quote :

"I think this perfectly demonstrates the differences in the way you and I see the world. You are apparently under the impression that the brown people of the hinterland, because they're poor, are somehow incapable of understanding far-flung concepts like not freaking the fuck out when someone insults their religion. Only people who grew up watching Real World Las Vegas could possibly understand and embrace such a post-modern idea. (Never mind, I guess, that this radical fundamentalism was imported by wealthy Arabs into a land that spent half a century interacting with Marxism.)"

I'm sorry, what? This has to do with a post-Enlightenment culture not understanding that a pre-Enlightenment culture doesn't sit down, sip some tea, and think shit over in a measured, abstract, rational way (in between the hunger pains). Many people even in this country aren't touch by Enlightenment ideals (such as epistemic modesty), so why would you imagine people in the Arab world are touched by them? This is absolutely a difference in culture that, given our superior positions in terms of material well-being, we should identify honestly.

Quote :

"Nevertheless, we should refrain using satire and ridicule - which are, of course, perfectly acceptable tools for critiquing Western ideologies and religions, like Christianity - out of fear, or, as you would put it, "respect" for this extremely retrograde culture."

Ask me what my opinion of "Piss Christ" is.

Quote :

"Your problem, in other words, is that the West simply isn't reverent enough of Islamic fundamentalism, even while you accurately describe that ideology as being a relic of the seventh century. "

Way to pigeonhole me unfairly into a position I would never accept. The Soap Box: where we use flawed logic to attribute positions to people daily

It's not a matter of being reverent of Islamic fundamentalism. It's a matter of not stirring the shit pot for no reason other than stirring the shit pot. How fucking hard is this to understand?

Quote :

" I think your wrong on both points. You're wrong to assume that poor people need be religious fanatics, and you're certainly wrong to suggest that respecting backward cultures is somehow beneficial to anyone."

(1) I don't assume poor people need to be religious fanatics. I just accept that poor people are more concerned with immediate, material needs than with sitting back and doing some critical reasoning (which they haven't been educated to value or even to do).
(2) I am suggesting we respect people in general in the sense of not going completely out of our way to shit on them. It's not like people burning Korans accidentally dropping them into a fire, they intentionally threw them there to piss Muslims off. Get a fucking grip.

Quote :

"Responding to an argument with what McDanger himself describes as "simply insulting you" is absolutely an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. You quote an argument, and then instead of addressing that argument, you simply insult the character of the person making that argument."

I've never called somebody an idiot to counter their argument. I've done it to dismiss somebody, which is completely different. Calling you a moronic fucking twat is not an "ad hom" it's an insult. You fucked up again, dummy.

Quote :

"Please stop A) doing it and B)trying to claim intellectual superiority when people call you out on it."

(A) I'm not doing "ad homs". I will not, however, stop insulting people, as nobody here wants the insults to stop. I refer you to Optimum's thread if you care to disagree with me.
(B) If you don't know how to identify a logical fallacy properly, then I'm going to refer you to the definition. If you continue to fail I'll continue to refer you.

Quote :

"Oy. Could we not turn this into another thread about McDanger's penchant for personal attacks? I agree with you, but seriously, I think he's established that this is how he wants to argue on this board. My advice would be to just get over it."

That's the only strategy with this section as practically nobody here is interested in civility. That much has been stated in advance with utmost clarity.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2010 4:14:52 PM

Quote :

"You seem to think the world would be "better off" without religion, ignoring the plausible scenario that many peoples' brains are wired for it. "

this is something i cant accept. i can understand maybe certain core parts of morality (like do unto others) being genetic, but the need for a specific religious mythology is learned. if not then we're probably fucked forever.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 4:27 PM. Reason : a]

9/17/2010 4:26:42 PM

Quote :

"What do you imagine this illustrates?"

Illustrates the point that the moderates within Islam need to have a louder voice in condeming the fundamentalists within Islam. This has been my central point since the start of this debate.

Quote :

"That's the only strategy with this section as practically nobody here is interested in civility. That much has been stated in advance with utmost clarity."

How so?

9/17/2010 4:28:11 PM

^^ the need for structure that religion provides is something humankind can't seem to do without.. for better and worse

9/17/2010 4:29:56 PM

Quote :

"this is something i cant accept. i can understand maybe certain core parts of morality (like do unto others) being genetic, but the need for a specific religious mythology is learned. if not then we're probably fucked forever. "

I said nothing about specific mythologies.

Quote :

"Illustrates the point that the moderates within Islam need to have a louder voice in condeming the fundamentalists within Islam. This has been my central point since the start of this debate."

(1) With what army?
(2) There's a huge difference between condemning extremists from a position of comfort where everybody involved has something to lose if it escalates to violence and condemning extremists in a third world shit hole where you can and will get killed (along with your family! ).

Quote :

" How so?"

I refer you to the last thread Optimum made in this section.

9/17/2010 4:32:35 PM

Quote :

"I don't assume poor people need to be religious fanatics. I just accept that poor people are more concerned with immediate, material needs than with sitting back and doing some critical reasoning (which they haven't been educated to value)."

Well, you clearly do do that. How else would you arrive at the theory that an impoverished people half way around the world, whose only concern is their next meal, would nevertheless decide to devote massive amounts of time and energy rioting over blasphemy in northern Florida?

Quote :

"I am suggesting we respect people in general in the sense of not going completely out of our way to shit on them. It's not like people burning Korans accidentally dropping them into a fire, they intentionally threw them there to piss Muslims off. Get a fucking grip."

I would argue that drawing some cartoons, or even organizing a small bonfire, is not going particularly out of anyone's way. And I just disagree that provocative speech is an illegitimate form of criticism. And I would suspect you agree with me, except in the case of speech targeted at Muslims, who you think of as being too stupid and emotionally fragile to cope with it.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2010 4:33:58 PM

Quote :

"Well, you clearly do do that. How else would you arrive at the theory that a impoverished people half way around the world, whose only concern is their next meal, would nevertheless decide to devote massive amounts of time and energy rioting over blasphemy in northern Florida?"

Are you really wondering whether or not poor people are easy to stir up, especially due to what's easily spun as external pressure/encroachment?

Quote :

"I would argue that drawing some cartoons, or even organizing a small bonfire, is not going particularly out of anyone's way."

Fuck that, fuck you. Burning somebody's holy book serves one purpose. It's not a "small bonfire".

Quote :

"And I just disagree that provocative speech is an illegitimate form of criticism. And I would suspect you agree with me, except in the case of speech targeted at Muslims, who you think of as being too stupid and emotionally fragile to cope with it. "

(1) Not too stupid
(2) Not too emotionally fragile

It's almost like you're not reading or understanding anything I've been saying, resorting instead to projecting your own foolishness onto me. I already identified some reasons why poor Muslims react the way they do, and they aren't any of the Duplo versions you concocted above.

Burning a holy book is not a "legitimate form of criticism". It's a "fuck you". How is this not patently obvious?

Again: ask me how I feel about "Piss Christ". While you're at it, ask me if I think Bibles should be burned in a public event (they shouldn't).

9/17/2010 4:38:47 PM

Quote :

"(1) With what army? (2) There's a huge difference between condemning extremists from a position of comfort where everybody involved has something to lose if it escalates to violence and condemning extremists in a third world shit hole where you can and will get killed (along with your family! )."

Dude, I guess you don't read. I already addressed that.

Quote :

" I refer you to the last thread Optimum made in this section. "

That really doesn't answer the question. Were you or were you not the one to initiate personal attacks on either me or disco_stu?

NOTE: I'm not sticking up for or defending anyone. It was your comment that I saw in this thread was written in a very attacking manner, so I decided to question that since you were calling people out on it.

9/17/2010 4:41:25 PM

Quote :

"Dude, I guess you don't read. I already addressed that. "

No, you pitifully failed to address it. There's a difference.

Quote :

"That really doesn't answer the question. Were you or were you not the one to initiate personal attacks on either me or disco_stu? "

Want a tissue?

9/17/2010 4:42:48 PM

Quote :

"Burning a holy book is not a "legitimate form of criticism". It's a "fuck you"."

This of which I do agree, but does burning a holy book justify rioting in the streets, murder in the name of the offended deity/religion, and general lawlessness? My opinion is that it does not.

9/17/2010 4:43:31 PM

Quote :

"This of which I do agree, but does burning a holy book justify rioting in the streets, murder in the name of the offended deity/religion, and general lawlessness? My opinion is that it does not."

Obviously it doesn't and I never suggested it did. I just suggested we stop sticking our dicks in the beehive out of sheer and pure childishness.

9/17/2010 4:44:40 PM

Quote :

"Well, you clearly do do that. How else would you arrive at the theory that an impoverished people half way around the world, whose only concern is their next meal, would nevertheless decide to devote massive amounts of time and energy rioting over blasphemy in northern Florida?"

Uh, outside the fact that they're islamic and think its their divine duty?

9/17/2010 4:44:55 PM

Suddenly rushing into the street to cause a bit of mayhem == massive amounts of energy. Truly these are expectations calibrated to a western lifestyle of gluing your ass to a chair

9/17/2010 4:46:18 PM

But they do take legitimate criticism(s) and react disproportionately.

9/17/2010 4:53:32 PM

Quote :

"But they do take legitimate criticism(s) and react disproportionately."

Yes, they do. How does that relate to what I just said?

9/17/2010 5:02:01 PM

Quote :

"Are you really wondering whether or not poor people are easy to stir up, especially due to what's easily spun as external pressure/encroachment?"

I'm stating, as a point of fact, that poverty does not, as you suggest, necessarily lead to religious fanaticism.

Quote :

"Burning somebody's holy book serves one purpose."

There can be, and indeed are, a variety of reasons to burn a Koran. Some of those reasons are deplorable; some of them aren't (although I would agree that is distasteful in either case).

Quote :

"I already identified some reasons why poor Muslims react the way they do"

Right, you think it's because they're hungry, despite the fact that rioting does absolutely nothing to resolve hunger. And you think it's because they haven't embraced enlightenment values, although I'm not sure whether you think this is because they haven't been exposed to enlightenment philosophy (which would be wrong), or because poverty necessarily precludes the acceptance of basic enlightenment values (which is nonsensical), or because they've simply decided to reject it (in which case the fault would have to lie with them, no?). And at any rate, it's simply not true to say that Muslims, even in extremely poor countries like Afghanistan, haven't embraced at least some enlightenment values. The Taliban is extremely unpopular in Afghanistan, outside of entrenched Pashtun communities, for this very reason.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2010 5:12:34 PM

Quote :

"I'm stating, as a point of fact, that poverty does not, as you suggest, necessarily lead to religious fanaticism."

No of course it doesn't NECESSARILY lead to it, I would not argue that. It often does, however, and in many cases, these people are easily controlled by that religious drive. You can see it in rural America, where you can stir up the entire countryside if you swing the right religious rhetoric (Falwell anybody?).

Quote :

"Right, you think it's because they're hungry, despite the fact that rioting does absolutely nothing to resolve hunger."

Neither is voting Republican. Since when do the lower classes only act in a collectively rational way? Since when does any group only act in a collectively rational way?

Besides it has a lot more to do with education. Only being able to speak Arabic really limits your choices, for one.

Quote :

"And you think it's because they haven't embraced enlightenment values, although I'm not sure whether you think this is because they haven't been exposed to enlightenment philosophy (which would be wrong), or because poverty necessarily precludes the acceptance of basic enlightenment values (which is nonsensical), or because they've simply decided to reject it (in which case the fault would have to lie with them, no?). And at any rate, it's simply not true to say that Muslims, even in extremely poor countries like Afghanistan, haven't embraced at least some enlightenment values. The Taliban is extremely unpopular in Afghanistan, outside of entrenched Pashtun communities, for this very reason."

The Taliban is extremely unpopular because they're extremely large assholes. If you define the Taliban as being "real Islam" like you're obviously doing in your head, then perhaps that's evidence that Afghanis are "embracing Enlightenment values" but fucking LOL, on the basis of what? Is opposing extreme assholishness suddenly evidence everybody's become a Locke scholar? haha

You act like the education over there is spot on, and that these people have had the same values permeate their culture in the way it has with ours. Do you really think I believe even over half of Americans have read a decent philosopher, much less a post-Enlightenment one in depth and seriously enough to build appreciation? Get real. The point is that a lot of cultural values that we take to be obvious are the result of a battle of ideas, fought out over the history of our people, that have implanted themselves in the social fabric, so to speak A lot of Locke's sensibilities we take to be common sense. You think that these people are getting educated in the philosophical classics of the West and then coming to their own conclusions to discard it? lol Or do you think that their cultures have taken those ideas, weighed them seriously, let them ferment in an equivalent way, and then said "you know what? fuck this we're going to be utter savages and barbarian-sympathizers"?

Also, if you think Muslim extremists cannot be reasoned with then you're exactly right. It's exactly the same as with Christian ones.

9/18/2010 9:42:58 AM

Can we please not do this on November 10th, I don't want it to fuck up my birthday.

9/18/2010 9:52:57 AM

Every day is make fun of Islam day.

9/18/2010 10:35:51 AM

Quote :

"Is opposing extreme assholishness suddenly evidence everybody's become a Locke scholar?"

You don't have to have a degree in philosophy to be opposed to religious fanaticism. The problem with your argument is this: It assumes poor people will inevitably become attracted to religious fundamentalism. And since it's inevitable, that means it's not really their fault; it's the just the logical result of their condition. And since it's not their fault, we must not be too critical of them, because that would just be mean.

And so we go on addressing everything else - political stability, economic growth - while essentially pretending that this insidious ideology either doesn't exist or is inconsequential, and in any case will be moderated once we get everything else under control.

This is a delusion. It grossly underestimates the potency of political Islam. It makes the absurd assumption that a society can make meaningful progress without changing its underlying system of values. It makes the fantastic assumption that economic and political progress can be made while, in the meantime, there's a significant minority of people - the ones you would have us pander to - dedicated to stop this progress at any cost.

The ideological problem has to be addressed. And while it may seem mean, or even counter-intuitive, there is considerable evidence that things like ridicule and non-violent provocation can help combat religious extremism. It turns the moderates against the fanatics.

Now, is having our redneck pastors burn Korans while harping about the true path to salvation the best way to go about this? Of course not, but only because redneck pastors lack the credibility to deliver the message. The actual act of ridicule is not the problem. The crackpot preacher is the problem.

9/18/2010 10:52:49 AM

I'm having a really hard time arguing with you, because you keep shifting your assumptions and blatantly mischaracterizing (or misunderstanding) me.

I never claimed that somebody had to read works of philosophy to be influenced by their ideas. They just have to live in a culture in which those ideas have taken root, so as to be influenced by them in an indirect way instead. This really is the case in western states that have been influenced heavily by the ideas of philosophers in the modern era. Not so much so in other places, for obvious reasons.

You act as if I don't think cultures can progress or are wrong in any way. You want to paint me as a cultural relativist because you have a slew of cookie-cutter arguments that you can trot out. I am not a cultural relativist nor have I said anything that would even suggest so; I simply advocate understanding people as honestly as we can, such as to make wise choices about how we interact with them. Also I have advocated treating people with respect insofar as, as a country, we have neighbors. It's always wise to respect your neighbors. I though a conservative would appreciate that, what with my stereotypes and all.

You seem to think that ridicule is the way to change their beliefs as a people, and that's certainly not true. When I ridicule people here such as yourself, I don't do it with the expectation you're going to change your beliefs on the basis of that ridicule. I'd be smarter if I could keep my temper and remain calmer, but honestly I get so astounded at the level of ignorance and the shallow nature of the reasoning here that, as a person who practically dedicates himself to learning and thinking, I get disgusted. This disgust outpaces my patience, but at least I realize that I'm not going to get through to many of you.

If you want to change a culture or help it progress in ways in which it's lacking (like many Muslim cultures clearly are with respect to women, gays, etc) then you have to understand how to interface with that culture properly. Ridicule serves a quite different social function over there, especially with respect to religion. When it's aspects of a culture that are justified religiously that you'd like to change, then you need to measure whether or not ridicule is going to be a good tool for that task. You can't measure this accurately if you're probing your very own culture norms to do the investigation. This requires knowing things about the history and development of the people you're dealing with. Using ridicule is precisely the wrong thing to do here and could only be thought of as appropriate (from any angle, ethically or pragmatically) by somebody who hasn't thought about the situation very deeply. Somebody who just wants to be argumentative and offensive. You.

This error is really a classic one: "My social conventions are the RIGHT ones, so I don't need to consider what other people think when achieving practical ends with them."

Like if you stepped out of a time machine into medieval Catholic Europe that you'd immediately start "ridiculing" the inquisition. LOL to that.

Quote :

"You don't have to have a degree in philosophy to be opposed to religious fanaticism. The problem with your argument is this: It assumes poor people will inevitably become attracted to religious fundamentalism. And since it's inevitable, that means it's not really their fault; it's the just the logical result of their condition. And since it's not their fault, we must not be too critical of them, because that would just be mean."

Excellent job derailing something I never argued, a conclusion I have not drawn.

It's amazing how people here ignore what you really say and instead reconstruct what they want you to say in a desperate attempt to say something relevant. Let me lump McDanger into this pigeonhole, then I don't have to think outside of the confines of a few narrow lines of thought (which I have never strayed from). LOL. Not buying it. Some yokels on this board are undoubtedly cheering that you said a large block of text that appeared relevant and will cash it as a victory without thinking twice. Double LOL. This proves nothing other than the well-known fact that this board is the intellectual equivalent of a high-school cafeteria argument.

I have a fucking ridiculous amount of beef with traditional Islam, as you might call it, just as I have beef with Christianity. Did you somehow expect me to give Islam a free pass on everything that matters to me just because I can't possibly criticize a brown person due to my patronizing liberal racism? LOL. I mean you're going to have to try harder here if you even want to scratch the surface of the truth, holmes.

9/18/2010 11:27:25 AM

9/18/2010 11:43:37 AM

Quote :

"This error is really a classic one: "My social conventions are the RIGHT ones, so I don't need to consider what other people think when achieving practical ends with them.""

I'm sorry, but you're just way off here. I do consider what Muslims think, a bit more than you I'm afraid. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are actually a great number of serious, scholarly Muslims who generally agree with me. Even on the streets of Kabul there are a good number of Muslims who are far more put off by the maniacal protesters than they are by any Danish cartoonist or Floridian pastor. Quite unlike the Catholics in Medieval Spain, 21st century Muslims are not a monolithic bunch of religious fanatics who react the exact same way when confronted by provocative ideas.

And I'm definitely not a conservative, for the record.

[Edited on September 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2010 12:55:40 PM

Quote :

"Even on the streets of Kabul there are a good number of Muslims who are far more put off by the maniacal protesters than they are by any Danish cartoonist or Floridian pastor."

Okay and this means what exactly with respect to our argument? If you want to reach out to those people, you don't marginalize them with "ridicule" as you put it, especially not shotgun ridicule that includes them. Stop shifting the argument. It doesn't matter if Muslims are "monolithic" in culture or otherwise (clearly they're not; there's no caliph like there is a pope). What matters is knowing who you're addressing and addressing them in a way that gets results. Marginalizing even moderates is ridiculous.

Clearly there are dissenters over there, on the basis of religion and otherwise. I never claimed they all react exactly the same way to things, only that ridicule is the wrong mode of criticism here. You WILL find moderates in protest marches against this shit, because they react differently to ridicule than a suburbanite white Christian. Is that really so surprising?

Quote :

"Quite unlike the Catholics in Medieval Spain, 21st century Muslims are not a monolithic bunch of religious fanatics who react the exact same way when confronted by provocative ideas."

I doubt Catholics were ever, as a group of people, a monolithic hive mind. Although they have an overarching structure that Islam lacks. That's neither here nor there.

It's like I'm waiting for you to say something relevant but instead you want to wander off into something you know which is barely relevant. It's cool you worked with people directly, but dissent in their community has nothing to do with you failing to generalize properly here. You want to use methods that will not work, for the sake of sheer offensiveness apparently (otherwise why do it?). I mean you're the one referring to a Koran burning as a "small bonfire" here IIRC.

What's the point? Are you really that willing to bend over backwards for a bunch of xenophobic pricks? Or do you really see it as a situation where one is forced to "side with" and justify either insane rednecks or insane Muslims?

Quote :

"I do consider what Muslims think, a bit more than you I'm afraid."

Then why would you imagine ridiculing all of them will accomplish anything? It's like you want to persist in disagreement here. My position hasn't changed since we started and I'm really left curious just what it is you think. What do you imagine as appropriate here?

[Edited on September 18, 2010 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2010 3:24:57 PM

I thought about this some since I made my last post.

I need to clarify what exactly our disagreement is over, because it's no longer clear to me. You seem to want to use your experiences on the ground over there as evidence for your views, but you're going to have to explain to me how your experiences dealing with moderate Muslims over there support your view that ridicule is the correct way to approach the goal of "legitimate criticism".

Again: somebody is going to have to convince me that ridicule is the right way to approach serious criticism, either from pragmatic or an ethical standpoint. I can't see either if you're really interested in improving things

[Edited on September 18, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2010 5:14:13 PM

Quote :

"You want to use methods that will not work, for the sake of sheer offensiveness apparently (otherwise why do it?)."

No, I don't. As I've said, I think ridicule can help marginalize extremism. It can de-romanticize the concept of violent jihad in the minds of impressionable Muslims. It can also generate a positive counter-response to the initial reactionary madness that ensues from something like a caricature of Mohammad.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of Muslims are more concerned with the radical elements within their own communities than they are with obscure cartoonists or preachers. Whatever negative feelings toward the West these sometimes-crude critiques of Islam may engender in Muslim communities, they are outweighed, I'm proposing, by the negative feelings they engender toward the maniacs out in the street burning down embassies and gunning down Scandinavians.

Of course, this theory requires the assumption that Muslims are capable of complex thought.

I've been pretty clear that I think the pastor in Florida is a redneck and a crackpot who lacks the legitimacy to make these kind of provocative criticisms, and that I find even symbolic book burning to be distasteful. What I reject is the idea that any criticism that may be deemed insulting by some radical Muslims is necessarily bigoted or counter-productive.

And a disclaimer: This argument does not result from having worked with Muslims on the streets of Kabul. It comes from having spent the last ten years reading the relevant literature and from talking to moderate Muslims in this country.

[Edited on September 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

9/19/2010 11:15:12 AM

^ Yeah, and you burn the Qur'an and every single Muslim, extremist or moderate or nominal Muslim, will hate and despise you and justify any violence perpetrated on the burner.

And that comes from a lifetime of knowing Muslims growing up and currently living in a Muslim country.

Some other forms of 'ridicule' might elicit different emotional responses from extremists and moderates, but Qur'an burning (and making insulting drawings of Mohammed) is not one of them.

9/19/2010 3:53:03 PM

Quote :

"you burn the Qur'an and every single Muslim, extremist or moderate or nominal Muslim, will hate and despise you and justify any violence perpetrated on the burner."

No, they won't. And even if they did, that would say more about them than it did about me. Moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims do not respond the same way to criticism, even of the controversial and provocative sort. If the Muslims you know are justifying violence, then they aren't moderates.

9/19/2010 4:02:32 PM

Quote :

"If the Muslims you know are justifying violence, then they aren't moderates."

Quote :

"And a disclaimer: This argument does not result from having worked with Muslims on the streets of Kabul. It comes from having spent the last ten years reading the relevant literature and from talking to moderate Muslims in this country."

So is this obliviousness or a weird semantic game?

It's interesting you think this given that even moderates will turn out to the streets over this shit. I want to defer to your authority here but what you're saying is not reflected by planet Earth. On what planet do Muslims in general respond positively to ridicule or a Koran burning, even if it causes extremists to go wild? On what planet do moderates not protest in the middle east? lol

9/19/2010 11:52:42 PM

I'm actually curious why you think ridicule marginalizes only extremists. Is this your own argument or did you find this elsewhere? If so can I get a citation so I can go read the original formulation of the argument?

I find it strange that the strategy would be to provoke violence in order to "demonstrate the barbarity" of the extremists, when it seems to me that quite likely moderates will be marginalized along with them (especially if they get swept into the protests as well).

9/20/2010 8:50:00 AM

It's certainly possible for provocative criticism to backfire and do more harm than good. One has to consider the context, obviously. A "Burn the Koran for Women's Rights" rally is probably not going to gain much traction for reform in Riyadh, for example. However, there are other ways to satirize and mock the Medieval treatment of women supported and implemented by Islamic fundamentalists in a way that appeals to and emboldens moderate Muslims, particularly, in this case, Muslim women.

Quote :

"It's interesting you think this given that even moderates will turn out to the streets over this shit."

I don't concede that they do, at least in any large number. These protests are almost completely comprised of conspiracy-minded fundamentalists howling about American crusaders and "Zionist think tanks." To the extent that some of these rallies are quite large is only evidence that radical Islam is more pervasive than OopsPowSrprs would have us believe.

Quote :

"On what planet do Muslims in general respond positively to ridicule or a Koran burning, even if it causes extremists to go wild?"

It's not about evoking a positive response to the criticism; it's about forcing a clearer delineation between radicals and moderates.

Why do I think this is a necessary? Well, there are studies, like Demos' "Edge of Violence," which determined that violent radicalization can be combated through de-romanticizing forms of criticism, like satire. But it's more so just based on a reading of 20th century political movements and a realization that insidious ideologies don't just go away if you're nice to them, or if the local politics stabilize, or if the economy improves. That kind of "realist" approach is part of the reason we have these problems today.

http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Edge_of_Violence_-_web.pdf?1271346195

I mean, you've cited the Enlightenment. If you were to apply your reasoning to 18th century France, would you not have written off someone like a Voltaire as some kind of naive, petulant asshole who really ought to have shown more "understanding" for the Church and it's fanatical followers?

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM. Reason : ]

9/20/2010 9:57:56 AM

Quote :

"I don't concede that they do, at least in any large number. These protests are almost completely comprised of conspiracy-minded fundamentalists howling about American crusaders and "Zionist think tanks." To the extent that some of these rallies are quite large is only evidence that radical Islam is more pervasive than OopsPowSrprs would have us believe."

I disagree. I believe it's evidence that there is not much reliable information available to Arabic-speakers. It doesn't have as much to do with "Extreme Islam" as it does with not knowing much about the West or the US other than what you're told (in Arabic) or what you've seen. Is it all that surprising? There's only a few hundred books on the US written in Arabic. Once you subtract out the books on security/military issues and pure propaganda, this dwindles drastically.

Many Muslims are scared that the US is anti-Muslim. To an extent they're right. Is it really that hard to imagine that these fears can be played off of, especially when it's so easy to control what information your target population is looking at?

Quote :

"It's not about evoking a positive response to the criticism; it's about forcing a clearer delineation between radicals and moderates. "

And when you fail, lumping moderates with the extremists?

Quote :

"But it's more so just based on a reading of 20th century political movements and a realization that insidious ideologies don't just go away if you're nice to them, or if the local politics stabilize, or if the economy improves. That kind of "realist" approach is part of the reason we have these problems today."

Nobody's suggesting we be nice to insane extremists. There's a difference between criticism and spitting in somebody's face, however.

Quote :

"If you were to apply your reasoning to 18th century France, would you not have written off someone like a Voltaire as some kind of naive, petulant asshole who really ought to have shown more "understanding" for the Church and it's fanatical followers?"

No, and this statement really gets to the heart of your misunderstandings about what I've been saying. Voltaire wasn't making "Piss Christ" he was making points.

Edit: I have to say it again and again and again. I am not for shielding extremists from criticism. I'm not for shielding ANYBODY from criticism. Stop pretending I am.

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2010 11:57:56 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't have as much to do with "Extreme Islam" as it does with not knowing much about the West or the US other than what you're told (in Arabic) or what you've seen."

As I've tried to say, I don't think it's necessary for the West to win the hearts and minds of all Muslims. I don't even think that's possible, at least in the foreseeable future. We will sure as hell never win over political Islam's true believers.

The much bigger issue, indeed the fundamental one, for both Muslim and non-Muslim societies, is whether the more moderate, more secular groups prevail over the extremists within their own communities. And yes, exposing the extremists for the raving lunatics that they are is going to be a critical component of this, even if it doesn't make us any friends in the short term.

Quote :

"And when you fail, lumping moderates with the extremists?"

Again, I just don't think satire or ridicule necessarily does that. A moderate may find a parody of Mohammad distasteful, but what they will find more troubling is the mayhem being wreaked by the fanatics. Of course, this conclusion requires the assumption that there are indeed moderate Muslims who think for themselves.

Quote :

"Nobody's suggesting we be nice to insane extremists. There's a difference between criticism and spitting in somebody's face, however."

Well, perhaps this is another difference between us. I have absolutely no problem spitting in the face of these extremists. Some ideas are so stupid and disgusting that they deserve derision and not an ounce more. I would think you of all people would agree with me on that point at least.

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2010 1:02:25 PM

We're talking past each other and this is a waste of time

9/20/2010 1:18:57 PM

Ha. Well, I was going to add that you're mostly right about the nature and scope of information available to Muslims living in Arabic speaking countries. But that is changing. Certainly most people in those countries that want to find other sources of information are able to these days (some countries being obvious exceptions).

[Edited on September 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2010 1:22:39 PM

Quote :

"Better would be a "Make fun of superstition" day. Every religion and mystical belief deserves our ridicule. Every day should be "Make fun of superstition" day."

11/10/2010 3:16:58 PM