On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

Continued from this thread.
Ziggy Stardust wrote:My goodness, people, do we really need to hyperventilate over this? You do know there is a world of difference between saying, "This terrorist attack was probably done by an Islamist terrorist" on one hand and being a frothing xenophobe on the other. The former is a symptom of a much broader suite of cultural, political, historical and social factors that isn't going to be fixed by wildly attacking someone for the high crime of idle speculation on a message board.

I mean, what's the point of even posting a breaking news story at all? We all know it takes days or even weeks for all of the facts of an attack like this to come to light, should we just not discuss or speculate at all until all the facts are in?
The difference is I've seen enough anti-Muslim rhetoric on fora becoming turned into circlejerks that it becomes tiresome. Literally any thread about a terrorist act on any message board or discussion on any chat medium or comment section on any news article or YouTube video has an 80% chance of devolving into "THE MUSLIMS ARE BAD U GUYZ!!", and having witnessed two decades of this becoming so bad that we are seriously having politicians discuss deporting all Muslims in sight--into war-torn countries that we "helped" to turn war-torn--has left a disgusting taste in my mouth. And then we act as if all this rhetoric does nothing when it adds up in the end to global hatred of an entire religious body of 1.6 billion people.

There is a world of difference in context behind speculating on terrorist attacks versus almost any other subject, because of this Islamophobic atmosphere. You can't just rip this context out of the discussion and expect it to be honest. This does not mean people can't post breaking news stories, my god, who is the one actually hyperventilating here? We could do without threads of terrorist acts almost always being turned into wet dreams of Muslims being the Evil Empire.

I'm not Muslim, but I don't have to be Muslim to know when Muslims see this happening, it's a constant wear on the skin. It's rubbed Muslims who have done nothing wrong and who do not in any way support these radicals raw to the bone. And in some cases, unfortunately, this rhetoric compounds the effect and causes those who feel like their entire society is oppressing them to desperately fire back, in deadly ways.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 23148
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by LadyTevar »

Thank you Angel.
Image
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
User avatar
Zwinmar
Jedi Master
Posts: 1085
Joined: 2005-03-24 11:55am
Location: nunyadamnbusiness

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Zwinmar »

I saw first hand the results of what happens when Christians slaughter Muslims in Kosovo so yeah, I refuse to believe all, most or even many are evil. Rather it is the loud minority. It's been so polarized by the unjustifiably scared that I find it ridiculous.
User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Joun_Lord »

Zwinmar wrote:I saw first hand the results of what happens when Christians slaughter Muslims in Kosovo so yeah, I refuse to believe all, most or even many are evil. Rather it is the loud minority. It's been so polarized by the unjustifiably scared that I find it ridiculous.
I don't disagree with you and don't think your opinion is incorrect or wrong but isn't that a similar mindset in how some people become unjustifiably scared and islamophobic? People see the actions of a group of people, sometimes personally, and label the entire group based upon that with only emotional and personal justifications rather then facts.

I mean the facts back up that most Muslims aren't "evil", that extremists are at most high thousands (if you count all the confirmed Islamic terrorists attacks and every member of ISIS, Al Quesadilla, and the Taliban without taking into account the overlap those groups especially ISIS and AQ are bound to have) in a population of over a billion. Not a majority anyway you look at it unless you are using bizarro math. But thats based on facts, not emotions or personal experience.

Also apologies for poking at what has to be a hard to speak about thing.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Dragon Angel wrote: The difference is I've seen enough anti-Muslim rhetoric on fora becoming turned into circlejerks that it becomes tiresome. Literally any thread about a terrorist act on any message board or discussion on any chat medium or comment section on any news article or YouTube video has an 80% chance of devolving into "THE MUSLIMS ARE BAD U GUYZ!!", and having witnessed two decades of this becoming so bad that we are seriously having politicians discuss deporting all Muslims in sight--into war-torn countries that we "helped" to turn war-torn--has left a disgusting taste in my mouth.

And then we act as if all this rhetoric does nothing when it adds up in the end to global hatred of an entire religious body of 1.6 billion people.
The behavior of people on other forums/venues has very little bearing on what people on THIS forum say. If you see someone on this forum spreading rabid ant-Muslim rhetoric, feel free to jump all over them. But in the thread that spawned that debate, there was no such rhetoric. There was speculation that the attack was done by radical Islamic extremists, and it is just burying your head in the sand to pretend that radical Islamic terrorism isn't a safe, educated guess in that context. There is a world of difference between saying "THE MUSLIMS ARE BAD U GUYZ" and "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists". It is idiotic to conflate the two, and accusing people of the former when they say the latter is doing NOTHING but creating an entirely different circle-jerk, and doesn't address the roots of the problem as you seem to think.

What you are doing is trying to cultivate an environment where it becomes literally impossible to discuss current events out of a nebulous fear. It is an unfortunate fact in the world that radical Islamic terrorism is a major problem; and yes, this problem is largely caused by Western meddling in the Middle East, and this problem does not reflect on any inherent tendency of Muslims to commit these acts. But that doesn't change the fact that Islamic terrorism is widespread and high-profile, and will continue to be. Trying to stifle discussion because somehow simply admitting radical Islamic terrorism is a thing is tantamount to saying "ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD" is ridiculous and dishonest.

Dragon Angel wrote: There is a world of difference in context behind speculating on terrorist attacks versus almost any other subject, because of this Islamophobic atmosphere. You can't just rip this context out of the discussion and expect it to be honest. This does not mean people can't post breaking news stories, my god, who is the one actually hyperventilating here? We could do without threads of terrorist acts almost always being turned into wet dreams of Muslims being the Evil Empire.
Where has this happened on these forums? Where has anybody talked about Muslims being the Evil Empire, or all Muslims being evil? And you accuse ME of hyperventilating, when you are pulling out of your ass comments that never popped up in the context of the discussion we are talking about!

If you actually see this happen, CALL IT OUT. But don't pretend that ANY speculation that an attack was committed by radical Islamic terrorists is in any way equivalent to this strawman you've constructed. You're the one that seems incapable of taking the comments in their proper context, here.


Here, let's do a little thought experiment. Would you jump all over someone and accuse them of being homophobic if they make the comment that HIV prevalence is significantly higher among gay people than among straight people? It is a demonstrably true, and unfortunate fact that HIV prevalence IS higher, but saying so is also contributing to long-held and harmful societal stereotypes about HIV as the "gay disease" (with implicit links to other harmful stereotypes about gay people). Where do you draw the line between someone being able to talk about a problem that actually exists and someone using that problem to further an anti-gay agenda? Because it's the same problem we are talking about, here. If you hear someone talk about HIV being God's revenge on gay people, by all means call that person an evil asshole, because anyone who thinks that IS an evil asshole. But if you hear someone state the fact that the HIV epidemic DOES disproportionately impact the gay community, don't start accusing them of being that evil asshole (because that makes YOU the asshole).
AniThyng
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2760
Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
Contact:

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by AniThyng »

One thing is certain - merely living around and among Muslims is not necessarily sufficient to moderate islamophobia. One need look no further than the unesase to outright hysteria over a bill to enhance existing provisions for Sharia law and Hudud making its way through the Malaysian Parliament to give lie to the notion that all it takes is neighborliness and familarity with ordinary Islam and its practitioners. And I'm sure we'll all agree that Malaysia for all its faults is a moderate, multicultural muslim country. (and even Indonesia has Aceh.)
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character :P
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Tribble »

As I stated on the other thread, part of the problem is who is defining high profile attacks as "terrorism". While I agree there are certainly Muslim extremist groups like Daesh and Al-Qaida which qualify, this particularly becomes an issue with lone-wolf incidents. If you are a white Christian male, go on a rampage and kill a whole bunch of people to gain publicity, you're a "mass-murderer / mass shooter." Muslim does the same thing? "Terrorist attack!" and Islam and all Muslims are to blame.

Hell these days you might as well redefine terrorism as "whenever a Muslim commits violence". Word choice matters here and I don't think this is coincidence, as it helps promote the "us vs them" narrative. This is exactly what actual organised terrorists want, and we are playing right into their hands.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Tribble »

Here is an interesting clip from Simon Jester on BBC Newsnight:




For those too lazy to watch in a nutshell he states that news media like the BBC is aiding and abetting terrorism by constantly keeping incidents like this on the front page and constantly discussing the political and religious implications, which is exactly what terrorists want. And he notes that the media's treatment towards Muslim terrorist attacks is completely different compared to their treatment towards IRA attacks, which were always downplayed by the media as treated as nothing more than "crimes," precisely because that reduces their impact.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:The behavior of people on other forums/venues has very little bearing on what people on THIS forum say. If you see someone on this forum spreading rabid ant-Muslim rhetoric, feel free to jump all over them. But in the thread that spawned that debate, there was no such rhetoric.
Ziggy Stardust wrote:Where has this happened on these forums? Where has anybody talked about Muslims being the Evil Empire, or all Muslims being evil? And you accuse ME of hyperventilating, when you are pulling out of your ass comments that never popped up in the context of the discussion we are talking about!

If you actually see this happen, CALL IT OUT. But don't pretend that ANY speculation that an attack was committed by radical Islamic terrorists is in any way equivalent to this strawman you've constructed. You're the one that seems incapable of taking the comments in their proper context, here.
Oh, the "I haven't seen it so it must not exist" argument. You obviously don't remember cosmicalstorm, or Crown, or ... many other rightists here. I'd seen wautd talking about Islam in similar ways, if muted by comparison to others, which is why I made the association. The dog whistle of "religion of peace am i rite" kind of sealed that deal too.

The most recent one--in which cosmicalstorm was the culprit--really pissed me off because even though it was properly called out there, I realized we would soon have another terrorist attack, and in the inevitable thread that was to come, we'd have either him or someone else intimating Muslims in record time. And guess what? I felt I needed to nip that shit in the bud. Given what I'd seen wautd post about Islam before, and given he basically confirmed my suspicion afterward, I was proven right. And for god's sake I have no interest in yet another round of witnessing an entire religion having to defend itself from a circlejerk of right wing conspiratorial talking points.

If you're going to argue "but wautd didn't mention anything about Islam in his post waaahh", spare me. I have no interest in talking about something someone posted while conveniently forgetting their post history. After all, you DID bring up TRR's pushing of the Russian issue, so it's not like you object to that method of debate is that so?

I'm done with cowardly arguments and with dog whistles, and I'll call that shit out as much as possible.
Ziggy Stardust wrote:There was speculation that the attack was done by radical Islamic extremists, and it is just burying your head in the sand to pretend that radical Islamic terrorism isn't a safe, educated guess in that context. There is a world of difference between saying "THE MUSLIMS ARE BAD U GUYZ" and "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists". It is idiotic to conflate the two, and accusing people of the former when they say the latter is doing NOTHING but creating an entirely different circle-jerk, and doesn't address the roots of the problem as you seem to think.
"Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists." "Hey, this high profile terrorist attack was probably committed by radical Islamic extremists."

Annoying enough yet?

Imagine seeing that every time a news report comes out about terrorism or a mass shooting. Every. Time. Without any facts to back them up. And no, unlike what your pie in the sky fantasyland tells you, this forum is NOT immune to that effect. This forum is ostensibly slanted toward the liberal end, but I've found that liberals are definitely not immune to this baseless speculation.

Also, holy shit[/i], fighting against pointing to Muslims all the fucking time isn't the same as the Islamophobic circlejerk you spineless jackass. What is it with weak-kneed liberals wanting to give ever more room for the Right to spread their bullshit around without argumentation? If wautd didn't want to go into this argument, he could have simply kept his mouth shut, but instead he decided to start digging his own grave with RELIGION OF PEACE MOTHERFUCKERS as his shovel. Maybe instead of wanking about the fantasy religion of war in his mind and pointing to anti-Semitic conspiracies as the other alternative, he could have cleared himself up with a little "Whoops! I should be more careful--" oh wait that requires acknowledging this rabid speculation is even a problem and wait he didn't even cite a non-Wiki article oops.

And Jesus F. Christ, the comparison you give me later in your post is atrocious. :wanker:

Ziggy Stardust wrote:What you are doing is trying to cultivate an environment where it becomes literally impossible to discuss current events out of a nebulous fear. It is an unfortunate fact in the world that radical Islamic terrorism is a major problem; and yes, this problem is largely caused by Western meddling in the Middle East, and this problem does not reflect on any inherent tendency of Muslims to commit these acts. But that doesn't change the fact that Islamic terrorism is widespread and high-profile, and will continue to be. Trying to stifle discussion because somehow simply admitting radical Islamic terrorism is a thing is tantamount to saying "ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD" is ridiculous and dishonest.

As Tribble has stated, how we define "terrorism" has become ridiculously warped in recent years. Acts that would have also been considered terrorism even in the Bush to early Obama years barely enter people's notice as terrorism. In the meanwhile, we have almost every incident that involves a Muslim perpetrator being labeled as a terrorist act. We have ISIS claiming responsibility for acts by people whose only connections to them was reading their propaganda. We have everyone taking those at face value which is why we have lone wolves marked as attacks by the Islamic State Organization itself. If you looked at reports and the media without any further context, you'd think that ISIS was successfully running a global conspiracy network, when in reality, they just have extraordinarily good marketing.

Also this fear isn't "nebulous" you privileged shithead. If you knew any Muslims you'd know this is extremely real. The environment is already impossible to discuss in, which is why I advocate handling it carefully, not your hyperbolic chant of "You're going to stifle all discussion!!!" You don't need me to cultivate this environment when it already exists. I'm the one with her head in the sand? Jesus, you have no idea of anything, you sparkling example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

People can discuss radical Islam, but without discussions devolving into shitfests about Islam. If wautd hadn't chimed in with a one-liner "educated guess" to the quoted line "Still no confirmation as to the identity or motive of the attacker" then this would not have even blipped. As I'm not a mod I'll just say on its own, it looks like a shitpost to me. Free of content. But no, instant one-liner shitposts yet again within 2 hours 17 minutes of the original post don't count to you, nothing to see here folks.

If people can't handle sensitive topics with care, then they shouldn't get to play with those topics, just as topics of social justice are handled.

Ziggy Stardust wrote:Here, let's do a little thought experiment. Would you jump all over someone and accuse them of being homophobic if they make the comment that HIV prevalence is significantly higher among gay people than among straight people? It is a demonstrably true, and unfortunate fact that HIV prevalence IS higher, but saying so is also contributing to long-held and harmful societal stereotypes about HIV as the "gay disease" (with implicit links to other harmful stereotypes about gay people). Where do you draw the line between someone being able to talk about a problem that actually exists and someone using that problem to further an anti-gay agenda? Because it's the same problem we are talking about, here. If you hear someone talk about HIV being God's revenge on gay people, by all means call that person an evil asshole, because anyone who thinks that IS an evil asshole. But if you hear someone state the fact that the HIV epidemic DOES disproportionately impact the gay community, don't start accusing them of being that evil asshole (because that makes YOU the asshole).

...What the fuck? :finger:

No, I'm not letting you go on this. Back this shit up with better reasoning, now, or retract it you smarmy asshole. HIV is a mindless retrovirus that is prevalent among homosexual males but is not accused of being intrinsic to homosexuality in the media, not even on Faux News. You don't see the media constantly blaring crackpot theories stating AIDS is caused by homosexuality. Perhaps during the 90's and/or before, but most certainly NOT today. NOT outside of the conservative homophobic underground.

Meanwhile, in today's media, you have talking heads and politicians constantly making radical Islam out to be intrinsic to Islam. This is a context as different as the sky is to the core of the Earth. Yes, there are people who use AIDS statistics to still bash gay men--you can look at the controversies in Florida following the Orlando massacre--but AIDS is no longer considered to be an unavoidable part of being homosexual by pop culture. Random fundie preachers or hard Right speakers who probably also preach women should stay in the kitchen aside. When some rando conservative who has any amount of widespread influence comes out with that shit, it's mocked like Steve King and his ramblings about culture.

You do not have that happening with Islam. You have trouble getting even liberal media personalities and self-proclaimed "Smart, Rational Men" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, et. al. to admit radical Islam is not intrinsic to Islam. In fact, those three keep throwing fuel onto the fire, while other personalities just let the issue sweep under the rug, perpetuating it ever more.

Until the fact that fundamentalist Muslims are not the entirety of Islam or intrinsic to Islam is accepted by a wide supermajority, this will never be an appropriate comparison. If it so upsets you that I won't let an innocuous line from a poster whom I know has a bias against Muslims let go, then tough shit chap. This isn't me starting my own circlejerk, this is me making sure that shit does not stay unchallenged, just as I'd not let someone with a bent against feminism go unchallenged.
Last edited by Dragon Angel on 2017-03-25 12:40am, edited 1 time in total.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

[Screwed up and clicked "Quote" instead of "Edit" by accident, sorry. I just happen to be extraordinarily mad right now.]
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

Going to just put out there that if Alyrium or anyone else who has more knowledge on the "AIDS == intrinsic to homosexuality" thing wants to own my ass, go ahead. I admit I probably live in a relative paradise compared to other places; I've just stated a summation of what I know and what others I am associated with or have heard of otherwise have experienced.

I'm just incredibly frustrated at a. feeble-minded attempts to allow untruths to be considered on a similar level as facts b. seeing dog whistles go unnoticed and even defended and c. being accused of wanting to censor discussion. The latter comes from witnessing "debates" from Islamophobes and having to "debate" some myself, used as a canned argument, and I've seen liberals repeat it as if to find a ridiculous Golden Mean. And I especially don't like that used against me in a self-righteous hysterical tone.

Unless a mod rules otherwise, I have no objection to using wautd's history against him, just as Ziggy referenced TRR's pushing of Russia.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
wautd
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7570
Joined: 2004-02-11 10:11am
Location: Intensive care

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by wautd »

Dragon Angel wrote:
Unless a mod rules otherwise, I have no objection to using wautd's history against him, just as Ziggy referenced TRR's pushing of Russia.
I commend Ziggy for his patience against your hysterical banter but I'm not going to bother with you anymore. But go ahead if it makes you feel better. It's not that I ever hidden my dislike against fundamentalism.
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

wautd wrote:I commend Ziggy for his patience against your hysterical banter but I'm not going to bother with you anymore. But go ahead if it makes you feel better. It's not that I ever hidden my dislike against fundamentalism.
Fair enough. Just let it be known that I don't take your views as merely "dislike against fundamentalism".
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

DragonAngel, you make it very hard to want to respond to your post, because of your unbelievable inability to actually address what my point, instead of continuing to hyperventilate and attack my character. It really is quite remarkable.

I'm responding selectively to your post; I don't want to misrepresent your arguments, but I also don't feel the need to do a line-by-line when you seem to be spectacularly missing the point. For example, I feel no need to respond to you calling me a "spineless" and "week-kneed liberal", because those insults are both utterly irrelevant to the argument and serve no purpose other than for you to feel more smug about how righteous your self-appointed crusade is. I've also rearranged your quotes a little bit. Again, I'm not doing this to be dishonest, but because your post was a rambling mess so in order to respond to the meat of your arguments I'm concatenating similar thoughts together so I don't have to keep repeating myself. If you feel I've misrepresented you somehow, please point out how and where and know that it was entirely unintentional.
Oh, the "I haven't seen it so it must not exist" argument.

Given what I'd seen wautd post about Islam before, and given he basically confirmed my suspicion afterward, I was proven right.

If you're going to argue "but wautd didn't mention anything about Islam in his post waaahh", spare me. I have no interest in talking about something someone posted while conveniently forgetting their post history. After all, you DID bring up TRR's pushing of the Russian issue, so it's not like you object to that method of debate is that so?

And no, unlike what your pie in the sky fantasyland tells you, this forum is NOT immune to that effect.
I never said it didn't exist. I asked you to tell me where it has happened, because it didn't happen in the thread that you were hyperventilating over. Instead, you somehow pretend that because I don't maintain an encyclopedic knowledge of every single poster's posting history on every subject, I'm somehow a "coward". So ... seriously, go fuck yourself, you holier-than-thou weasel. I'm so sorry that I committed the horrible sin of not remembering wautd's posting history, because that's so cowardly of me.

Now, if you are done with your bizarre fantasies and ad hominems, feel free to actually show me the posts in question. Because that's what you do when someone requests evidence, you actually SHOW them that evidence, you don't go around bloviating about how stupid and spineless I am for not reading every single thread in the history of these forums.
Imagine seeing that every time a news report comes out about terrorism or a mass shooting. Every. Time. Without any facts to back them up.
... So? I don't see what this has to do with my argument. Or do you not understand what my argument is? You do realize I never denied that there was a massive cultural problem? And did you miss the part where I am saying that flipping out at people for even daring to mention radical Islamic terrorism IS NOT THE WAY TO ADDRESS THE ROOTS OF THAT PROBLEM?
As Tribble has stated, how we define "terrorism" has become ridiculously warped in recent years. Acts that would have also been considered terrorism even in the Bush to early Obama years barely enter people's notice as terrorism. In the meanwhile, we have almost every incident that involves a Muslim perpetrator being labeled as a terrorist act. We have ISIS claiming responsibility for acts by people whose only connections to them was reading their propaganda. We have everyone taking those at face value which is why we have lone wolves marked as attacks by the Islamic State Organization itself. If you looked at reports and the media without any further context, you'd think that ISIS was successfully running a global conspiracy network, when in reality, they just have extraordinarily good marketing.
I am well aware of all this. But I am struggling to understand how it invalidates my point. My point stands even if you don't use the word "terrorism" at all; I only use the word terrorism because it is a convenient and widely understood phrase. Of course we can do down a rabbit hole argument of how you define it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. At all. We can also talk about what constitutes "radical Islam" because that, too, is a nebulous concept. But it's also utterly not the point. So ... what does all of this have to do with my point?
Also this fear isn't "nebulous" you privileged shithead. If you knew any Muslims you'd know this is extremely real. The environment is already impossible to discuss in, which is why I advocate handling it carefully, not your hyperbolic chant of "You're going to stifle all discussion!!!" You don't need me to cultivate this environment when it already exists. I'm the one with her head in the sand? Jesus, you have no idea of anything, you sparkling example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Oh look! More ad hominems that don't actually address my argument at all.

But, hey, feel free to make wild assumptions about my character that aren't even remotely true, because it must make you feel so much better about yourself. I would ask you to talk to the Muslim girl I am currently dating, but I'm sure you will just then find another way to incorrectly invoke a psychological concept because you think it somehow impresses anybody or makes you sound less like a hyperventilating blowhard. (Seriously, do you even know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is?).
People can discuss radical Islam, but without discussions devolving into shitfests about Islam.
WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT. THIS IS LITERALLY EXACTLY WHAT MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS. I'd be inclined to treat this as a concession, but I'm not entirely sure you even know what my argument is, because you are so focused on attacking the illusory week-kneed privileged liberal coward you seem to think you are talking to.
If people can't handle sensitive topics with care, then they shouldn't get to play with those topics, just as topics of social justice are handled.
And it's becoming increasingly apparent that YOU are the one that shouldn't get to play with this topic, here. Which, again, is the entire argument I've been making, which you have thus far been spectacularly incapable of understanding.
No, I'm not letting you go on this. Back this shit up with better reasoning, now, or retract it you smarmy asshole. HIV is a mindless retrovirus that is prevalent among homosexual males but is not accused of being intrinsic to homosexuality in the media, not even on Faux News. You don't see the media constantly blaring crackpot theories stating AIDS is caused by homosexuality. Perhaps during the 90's and/or before, but most certainly NOT today. NOT outside of the conservative homophobic underground.
I KNOW HIV IS A MINDLESS RETROVIRUS. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE HYPOTHETICAL. Which, by the way, you failed to answer. Instead of actually answering my hypothetical scenario, you actually inexplicably managed to get offended by it, and started hyperventilating about that! Jesus, man. Do you have any self-awareness whatsoever? Or any reading comprehension?

And, yes, the hey-day of "HIV as the homosexual disease" was the 1990s, but that mindset has not completely gone away. It is somewhat moderated these days, but the perception that is more intrinsically associated with homosexuality is still very prevalent (in fact, a rather massive public health problem now is the difficulty in arresting the HIV epidemic among African-Americans and other minority groups, especially in under-privileged areas where they don't have as much exposure to proper education on the subject ... these are communities where "HIV=gay" is still an incredibly prevalent belief). Take it from someone who works in global health and actually does research on HIV and public perception/knowledge of the disease. Oh, but surely I'm just a coward and don't know what I'm talking about.

Now, will you actually address the point? Or is it difficult for you to climb down off of your high horse?
I'm just incredibly frustrated at a. feeble-minded attempts to allow untruths to be considered on a similar level as facts
I'm frustrated with this, as well. But where have I done this? Or is the notion that "radical Islamic terrorism" is a major political issue somehow an "untruth"?
b. seeing dog whistles go unnoticed and even defended
The problem is you seem to think EVERYTHING is a dog whistle. You're the boy who cried dog whistle. You do realize that relentlessly attacking every possible thing as a dog whistle can actually be worse than ignoring them? All you are serving to do is obfuscate what actually is problematic by forcing everyone to wade through waves of false positives, because (in your words) you are unable to handle a sensitive topic with care.
and c. being accused of wanting to censor discussion.
It's less that you want to censor discussion, but you certainly have a bizarre desire to obfuscate it. I mean, just look back at this last post, and how little of it actually has to do with the argument at hand, as opposed to finding increasingly wild ways to insult me based on whatever weird perceptions you have about me as a person. You couldn't even honesty respond to a hypothetical, because you somehow managed to find a way to be offended by it, and bizarrely demand that I retract it.
And I especially don't like that used against me in a self-righteous hysterical tone.
Get a fucking (metaphorical) mirror, man. You're the one with the self-righteous hysterical tone, here. You're the one that keeps throwing around bizarre strawmen and ad hominems, and going on rants about how I shouldn't talk about this issue because I'm "privileged" and "don't know any Muslims" and other personal things (which you can't possibly know about me, and which are patently false) instead of just calmly addressing my arguments on their own merits.
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

I'm getting out of this because this is in no way healthy for me at the moment. HOS this thread or whatever.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by K. A. Pital »

What if I'm not "Islamophobic" as such, but overall religiophobic (and see religion and blind faith in particular as dangers to society), without singling out Islam from the other religions, but having little to no problem with, say, Salafism being singled out as a devastating and dangerous death-cult branch, and only discussed as such?

Should I speak out and state the above opinion in a thread where a terrorist act is commited by a person with Salafist or other radical islamic leanings, or should I not speak out, because it contributes to a climate of islamophobia?

At which point can I comment on this: once it has been established that the attacker was a radical islamist? Once a radical islamist organization has taken responsibility? Once it is established that the attacker has been influenced by said organization?

No offense to Dragon Angel, but I'd like to see some sensible proposals on how to go with such debates. Cosmicalstorm etc. may very well oppose islam in general for their own racist reasons, which have nothing to do with mine (I believe that religion is detrimental in general, and this very much regardless of race/gender/nation).

However, because I am against religion and especially fundamentalist religion, I may find myself commenting acts of terror by islamists in a similar fashion - with disapproval, disgust, mockery of religion and its dogma as it is. At this point, it is already fair game to lump me together with cosmicalstorm?

Sorry for this interruption. Just think that this is going too far.

Also this can be HOSed, but not necessarily needs to be - so far the debate here has been rather civil.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Dragon Angel »

K. A. Pital wrote:What if I'm not "Islamophobic" as such, but overall religiophobic (and see religion and blind faith in particular as dangers to society), without singling out Islam from the other religions, but having little to no problem with, say, Salafism being singled out as a devastating and dangerous death-cult branch, and only discussed as such?
I have no love for Salafism or Wahhabism, and I completely advocate for them being singled out. I just grew tired of seeing "religion of peace" et. al. plastered across the Internet everywhere. When people normally mention "religion of peace" it is as a snide insult to all practitioners of the Islamic faith, not just the Salafists or Wahhabists, hence why I called it a dog whistle. It's like "SJW" but for Muslims.
K. A. Pital wrote:Should I speak out and state the above opinion in a thread where a terrorist act is commited by a person with Salafist or other radical islamic leanings, or should I not speak out, because it contributes to a climate of islamophobia?
As long as it's, like, clear you're talking about the Salafist, and not all 1.6 billion Muslims. The one-liner nature of the thing that set me off was what honestly killed it for me. It read like any other rando YouTube troll.
K. A. Pital wrote:At which point can I comment on this: once it has been established that the attacker was a radical islamist? Once a radical islamist organization has taken responsibility? Once it is established that the attacker has been influenced by said organization?
All of the above. As said, the whole exercise began before facts were in. I guess it could've been "reasonably assumed" to be an Islamic attacker based on the available details at hand, but then again, people could have ended up with feet deeply planted into their mouths if it turned out to be someone else entirely. Which is why I referenced cosmicalstorm, as he assumed an Islamist who attacked the Quebec mosque.
K. A. Pital wrote:No offense to Dragon Angel, but I'd like to see some sensible proposals on how to go with such debates. Cosmicalstorm etc. may very well oppose islam in general for their own racist reasons, which have nothing to do with mine (I believe that religion is detrimental in general, and this very much regardless of race/gender/nation).
None taken.

I do believe debates on religious contents are valid. I don't mind critical analysis, really, at all. I have personal mixed views on religion--similar to you in that I think there has been a lot of harm done, but dissimilar in that there are many who have taken from it, and made something good from it. In spite of anything, though, I live and let live. Leave me alone with my own views of the metaphysical universe, and I'll leave you alone as well.

However, where I see this changes is when Islam is discussed in a context of terrorism. Since 9/11, Muslims have been slowly portrayed as villains kind of akin to how we viewed Native Americans in the days of the American Frontier. In recent years, this has been upgraded to become a neo-conspiracy of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other such radicals. Criticizing Islam as a religion, in this case, becomes a hairy mess because any comment could be easily construed in support of this building inertia. Which, well, I ended up seeing in wautd because of what I'd read from him previously.

So, how does one avoid these messes? I guess for one, clarify that you're talking about the fundamentalists and not the whole religion. The "religion of peace" meme comes from clerics declaring that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the radicals have no basis in the Quran. Which ... is probably not the case, depending on how one interprets the Quran, so I don't exactly buy it either. However, I don't buy that Islam is an ideology dedicated to holy war even moreso, just as Christianity has its own sections proclaiming peace and love, and others proclaiming war and hatred. This conflict is where "religion of peace" as a meme originated, and is now said so sardonically across the Internet by people with an axe to grind against Islam. It's been said that way so many times as to be a dog whistle now.
K. A. Pital wrote:However, because I am against religion and especially fundamentalist religion, I may find myself commenting acts of terror by islamists in a similar fashion - with disapproval, disgust, mockery of religion and its dogma as it is. At this point, it is already fair game to lump me together with cosmicalstorm?
No, as long as it doesn't come off as shooting your two cents with an agenda against 1.6 billion Muslims behind it. With you honestly, I haven't seen you at all be anti-Muslim in the sense that I'm thinking of, so the chances of me seeing that in you in a similar one-liner are astronomically lower. My reading of wautd though, much different.
K. A. Pital wrote:Sorry for this interruption. Just think that this is going too far.
Eh, I don't really know if my original, original reply that quoted TRR was an overreaction or not. I'll let everyone else be the judge of that. I do feel more at ease discussing this with you, since I'm still looking at Ziggy's posts with blood red vision. What probably got me there was the initial downplaying and condescension, which I don't take well as it is and recent events in real life have only served to make my responses, especially on this forum, to become more and more aggressive.
K. A. Pital wrote:Also this can be HOSed, but not necessarily needs to be - so far the debate here has been rather civil.
This was frankly a misbegotten exercise from the outset. The initial reply from wautd didn't directly mention Islam, and could only be known if you knew what he'd posted previously about Islamist Islamofascism etc. in many threads with terrorism as the subject. I still stand by my assessment of wautd, but Ziggy will have to wait until it is more possible for me to read his posts, which may be never because I just have no energy for this, man. I'm much better at discussing these things over a line-by-line chat and not a forum, because forums often entail reams of ginormous quote spaghetti that can often lose their meanings as arguments rage on.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: On the effects of mass speculating terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims

Post by Tribble »

Ziggy Stardust wrote:I am well aware of all this. But I am struggling to understand how it invalidates my point. My point stands even if you don't use the word "terrorism" at all; I only use the word terrorism because it is a convenient and widely understood phrase. Of course we can do down a rabbit hole argument of how you define it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. At all. We can also talk about what constitutes "radical Islam" because that, too, is a nebulous concept. But it's also utterly not the point. So ... what does all of this have to do with my point?
My point, (which may nor may not be related to yours) was this; in Western countries when a white person commits violence that is treated as an individual crime, even when the violence was clearly ideologically / religiously motivated. When a non-white person commits violence their entire race / religion is blamed.

Hell it's so bad that people will change the definition of the act of violence even well after the fact once they identify the attacker. A good example of this was the attack on a Quebec mosque earlier this year. Initially the media reported it as a terrorist attack, especially once they found out that a Muslim may have been involved. The moment they found out it was just a white guy all along they stopped calling it a terrorist attack and started calling it a mass shooting. And their first real discussion was whether or not he had converted to Islam as an explanation for his attack, and whether or not he had support from Muslim terrorists. When it turns out that no, he was just a white extremist... that's when the discussion focused solely on him and his individual motivations. No discussion on whether or not all white men are suspect and liable to commit "mass shootings", of course. Because you see, he's white - apparently white people don't normally do these things so he must be an exception! Only non-white people do things that is reflective of their entire race / religion, right? It's actually kind of scary how much bias there really is, even here in Canada.


This reflects on the statistics too. Had this attack been committed by a Muslim, it would have certainly gone under the "terrorist attack" list. Because he is a white guy, it's now under the "mass shooting" list. This is why I have major problems with these kinds of statistics because there is an obvious bias against non-white people, and particularly Muslims, so these lists can be very misleading.

This is also why immediately jumping to conclusions and starting the blame game can be very harmful for everyone. The Quebec attack is a perfect example - people got worked up into a frenzy and started blaming Muslims / Islam then it turns out they were completely wrong. We played right into the extremists' hands (both the white extremists and the Islamic extremists).

I agree that debate on radical Islam, like all forms of radicalism, is important. However, if our goal is to reduce mass attacks / terrorism and reduce the likelihood of people wanting to become extremists we need a major shift in policy - and not the "Ban all Muslims" kind of shift, which is precisely the kind of rhetoric that directly inspires people to become extremists. Fortunately this was caught fairly quickly, but still, damage was done.

When it comes to the media, a big start would be exactly what Simon Jenkins suggested - report attacks because people need to know, but downplay their prominence and treat them as nothing more than a crime. Because publicity is the #1 reason why these attacks are carried out in the first place, and giving them 24/7 news coverage is exactly what they want.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
Post Reply