The News Thread

[Dak]

Devoutness isn't an empirical or concretely verifiable quality. You can't point to a Middle-Eastern cleric and say "That's devout" and point to a Muslim American family and say "That's not." They could both be devout in ways that satisfy the Quran. It comes down to interpretation. Devoutness doesn't mean a literalist interpretation of what's written in holy texts.

There's a difference between literalism in things like (to use Christian references) "the universe/earth was created in six days" and "thou shalt not kill." The former is not prescriptive. Devoutness is in behaviors. Where one is on the earth has little bearing on devoutness.....unless there's a behavior prescribed involving being in a certain place (hence Zionism, the Hajj, etc).

Until that point, sure... maybe. I won't debate that. But the Muslims he targeted were acting in accordance post-Enlightenment values (which I guess I take to be synonymous with your "modern western values," although we haven't bothered to define either) and exhibited no "key points of departure."

This is a bit of a non-starter for me, since I don't see how "key points of departure" applies to Muslim families living peacefully in either Western or non-Western countries.

We can't make any statements about those specific Muslims in NZ. Neither you nor I know anything about them. But I will refer back to the Pew survey data and point out that in nearly every Muslim majority countries, there's a clear supermajority of preference for Sharia law. Inferring from this trend, we could expect that, like the NZ shooter, there's a breaking or tipping point once there is a majority. Your argument is that this is the "wests" fault because of imperialism. I've seen these arguments and they are tenuous to say the least.

What exactly is our "long western tradition"? Does it go back to the Diaspora, when courts executed people for behaviors that today are considered perfectly acceptable? Or does it go back to the mid-1000s and the Spanish Inquisition? Does it go back to the 1950s, when Alan Turing committed suicide to avoid being imprisoned for homosexuality in a predominantly Christian country?

It may be true that Judeo-Christian religious codes of conduct were generally compatible with corresponding legal codes, but those legal codes don't really reflect the tolerance that we're attributing to the West today. So in that sense, "post-Enlightenment" doesn't work for us either. It sounds like you're taking a snapshot of the West as it exists today and projecting it back onto a centuries-old "western tradition."

Again, my point is that when religion evolves alongside democratic institutions you don't see the same support for Sharia, as is the case in Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.

It strengthens my point because the data shows that Muslim-majority countries are compatible with values of tolerance and nonviolence if they've developed a functioning governmental apparatus that cultivates these ideals. It just so happens that such apparatuses have been prevented from functioning in many of those Muslim-majority countries by Western nations.

I'm not sure how else to say it.

You are trying to use former Soviet bloc hinterland countries as examples of countries with evolved democratic and "functioning government apparatus"? I don't even know what your criteria for this is. Does Jordan have a functioning government apparatus? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Turkey isn't a great counter example either:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cular-turkey-sharia-is-gradually-taking-over/

The long western tradition I'm referring to is a secular legal code going back at least to, even if only symbolically, the Magna Carta. That this code has evolved is immaterial to the fact that it's a secular rather than a religious legal code, and that Sharia law is not compatible with this code, demonstrable by attempts by Muslims in various places to try and implement Sharia law alongside with (unofficially) or instead of the national secular legal code.

 

[rms]

I say that liberalism allowed for slavery because it made no effort to define what "man" meant.

land owning and tax paying?

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a difference between literalism in things like (to use Christian references) "the universe/earth was created in six days" and "thou shalt not kill." The former is not prescriptive. Devoutness is in behaviors. Where one is on the earth has little bearing on devoutness.....unless there's a behavior prescribed involving being in a certain place (hence Zionism, the Hajj, etc).

Why should one take "Thou shalt not kill" literally, and not "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"?

My point is that someone who takes both of these literally might be considered devout, as would someone who takes only the former literally.

We can't make any statements about those specific Muslims in NZ. Neither you nor I know anything about them. But I will refer back to the Pew survey data and point out that in nearly every Muslim majority countries, there's a clear supermajority of preference for Sharia law. Inferring from this trend, we could expect that, like the NZ shooter, there's a breaking or tipping point once there is a majority. Your argument is that this is the "wests" fault because of imperialism. I've seen these arguments and they are tenuous to say the least.

Your argument is that the Christchurch shooting is Islam's fault because of immigration. I've seen these arguments and they are tenuous to say the least.

You are trying to use former Soviet bloc hinterland countries as examples of countries with evolved democratic and "functioning government apparatus"? I don't even know what your criteria for this is. Does Jordan have a functioning government apparatus? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Turkey isn't a great counter example either:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cular-turkey-sharia-is-gradually-taking-over/

The long western tradition I'm referring to is a secular legal code going back at least to, even if only symbolically, the Magna Carta. That this code has evolved is immaterial to the fact that it's a secular rather than a religious legal code, and that Sharia law is not compatible with this code, demonstrable by attempts by Muslims in various places to try and implement Sharia law alongside with (unofficially) or instead of the national secular legal code.

The secular legal code(s) you refer to were implemented alongside religious codes for centuries after the Magna Carta. That these two things were seen as compatible isn't a good sign for Christianity.

If secularism is the standard we're going by, we can look at the Ottoman Empire again, which instituted its own secular legal code alongside a sacred one. In many cases, the secular codes overlapped with Western secular codes.

land owning and tax paying?

I'd say that this is how liberalism allowed those in power to control what "man" meant. In other words, if you prohibit a group of people from owning land, then they're not men (humans).

Philosophical definitions of human have tended to focus on intrinsic qualities, e.g. that which has a soul, that which thinks rationally, that which uses language, etc. Owning land and paying taxes aren't intrinsic, although I believe that they've certainly been used to rationalize variations on humanism throughout history.

 

[CiG]

I do get what you mean. This assumes there's only one way to define "man."

No it doesn't assume that, I'm just referring to the historical view that black people are subhuman, and therefore not man in the sense that whites are; human.

The founding documents aren't transparent in their terminology or in their phrasing. They require interpretation, and people interpret them according to their predilections. I say that liberalism allowed for slavery because it made no effort to define what "man" meant.

If it had made an effort to define what man is, it could have turned out disastrously. That it left the definition of man vague it baked into the documents the perfect opportunity for eventual equality, once society progressed enough to see all men as equal, and all races as human.

 

[Einherjar86]

No it doesn't assume that, I'm just referring to the historical view that black people are subhuman, and therefore not man in the sense that whites are; human.

Correct, but you implied that society just needed to "catch up" with liberalism, which I took to mean that "human" is a transparent term--it's just a matter of society reorganizing itself in a manner that corresponds to its correct definition. The underlying assumption is that "man" means something specific and unchanging.

If it had made an effort to define what man is, it could have turned out disastrously. That it left the definition of man vague it baked into the documents the perfect opportunity for eventual equality, once society progressed enough to see all men as equal, and all races as human.

It could have turned out disastrously, for sure. It could also have specified a definition that defined slaves as human and freed them when the colonies broke away from England, but it didn't. It could also be argued that the vagueness permitted an already disastrous situation (for certain groups of people) to continue indefinitely.

 

[CiG]

Correct, but you implied that society just needed to "catch up" with liberalism, which I took to mean that "human" is a transparent term--it's just a matter of society reorganizing itself in a manner that corresponds to its correct definition. The underlying assumption is that "man" means something specific and unchanging.

I don't think I implied that society needed to catch up to liberalism specifically, and if I did that was a mistake. What I meant was that unlike most other ideologies, the bill of rights contained no justification for racism and its terms were defined in a way that it could eventually benefit all people once society had moved beyond wanting to treat some people as subhuman.

It could have turned out disastrously, for sure. It could also have specified a definition that defined slaves as human and freed them when the colonies broke away from England, but it didn't. It could also be argued that the vagueness permitted an already disastrous situation (for certain groups of people) to continue indefinitely.

Sure, in a perfect world. No political ideology is perfect obviously.

 

[Einherjar86]

Kinda feel like this is whittling down to a point, and I don't have any real objections to either of those comments. At this point, my position is that the founding documents of liberalism having no justification for racism doesn't mean they also include prohibitions on it, or injunctions against it. This is more a matter of perspective than anything else. As far as I'm concerned, this means that liberalism allowed for the existence of slavery; it just depends on how those who implement it choose to define the terms.

 

[Dak]

It is whittling down. I don't know how to respond to someone living in such a bubble. You're treating matters of observation as matters of absurd thought experiments. I don't know what can help you there.

 

[CiG]

Demented tranny responsible for 7-Eleven axe attack in Sydney where a man's head was nearly chopped in half, has been found guilty.

Amati pleaded not guilty on mental health grounds and said she was not sound of mind due to a toxic mix of hormone medication, cannabis, amphetamines and alcohol.

On the day of the attack, Amati matched with Mickila Jansen on the dating app Tinder and met with her and her housemates later in the evening where they consumed drugs and alcohol.

Amati said she became "incredibly anxious" and went into a depressive episode after she realised the group had identified her as transgender.

She said she had put her leg against Ms Jansen to "test the waters", but Ms Jansen recoiled "not as ... a natural kind of readjustment as if she was burned [but] as if she'd touched a leper or someone that was infected".

Ms Jansen messaged Amati later, who expressed feelings of anger and rejection.

The conversation ended at 1:31am and at 2:00am Amati armed herself with an axe and an 18-centimetre knife before making her way to the 7-Eleven.

Amati said she did not have memory of the attack but recalled feelings of homicidal rage and expressed remorse throughout the trial.

Judge Williams considered Amati's underlying mental health problems, including a history of suicidal thoughts and gender dysphoria, in his sentencing.

 

[Einherjar86]

It is whittling down. I don't know how to respond to someone living in such a bubble. You're treating matters of observation as matters of absurd thought experiments. I don't know what can help you there.

I'll be fine, rest your condescending little head.

 

[Dak]

I'll be fine, rest your condescending little head.

Why would I think you wouldn't be fine? You're smart, successful, married well, and live in the "corridor." But that's also partially the problem. You don't seem to understand that, just like many people who live in the corridor, or other similar urban hubs.

It seemingly does no good to talk about facts when every uncomfortable concrete example is intellectualized away and pleasant intellectual games are confused with concrete fact.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why would I think you wouldn't be fine? You're smart, successful, married well, and live in the "corridor."

But that's also partially the problem.

You don't seem to understand that, just like many people who live in the corridor, or other similar urban hubs.

To the extent that every person is inhibited by the limits of their perception (historically and environmentally), I'm not sure how I can convincingly respond to your accusations. You've foreclosed the possibility of conversation, because now anything except acquiescence to your points will look like "pleasant intellectual games." You assume that you occupy the role as arbiter of "concrete fact," and you've implicitly established a set of criteria for judgment.

The only way I can think to respond is to object to being in a bubble, at least to the extent that it compromises my intellectual abilities. I come from a family that, while we weren't hurting financially, was highly conservative, somewhat religious, and non-college educated. I'm the first of my nuclear and extended (except for one cousin) family to graduate from college. Growing up, I worked summers in a warehouse in a small, Western NY town of about 2500 people. I grew up around guns, racist jokes, and confederate flags. I have family members in upstate NY who post Sid Roth videos on Facebook, and I know it's because they have basically nothing else in their lives--and that's a problem (that they have nothing else in their lives, I mean).

I also understand that many Westerners feel uncomfortable around Muslims. I've witnessed this firsthand in Buffalo (with members of my family, in a situation that was very uncomfortable for me). And while I personally feel that I mostly understand the impressions and statistics that inform their discomfort, I feel that I completely understand how that discomfort reifies those impressions and statistics in ways that are reductive, selective, and ultimately fuel suspicions if not dislike toward Muslims. I also understand that one response is to admit incompatibility in favor of Western comfort and, arguably, less violence (the argument being that promoting increased interaction between Western liberals and Muslims will only lead to more violence in the future). I understand the merit to avoiding violence. I also like to hope that people's attitudes can change over time, and that Muslims who wish to flee the oppression of some Middle Eastern countries can come to North American or European countries, and live peaceably as citizens of those countries.

 

[CiG]

I agree with the sentiments of people like Ein, who hope that we can coexist and that more violence can be avoided, regressive views can be moderated and so on, but nobody on your side of topics like these ever seems to consider the people who are non-Muslims living in areas where they're slowly being swallowed up by a huge influx of immigrants from Islamic nations and all the issues that brings with it.

This is how we create the Tommy Robinsons of the west, who are then snickered at and smeared by the same people who feel uncomfortable because their family isn't as progressive as them on Islam. I'd rather heavily slow down Muslim immigration so that we might avoid acid attacks, child brides, violence in retaliation to criticism of Islam, drawings of Muhammad (ie freedom of speech) and rape gangs, and risk hurting some feelings, so we can better achieve integration.

Poorer people are the main people hurt by this idealistic view on immigration and it's always the better-to-do people telling them to just deal with it, and they think they have that right because they know a few middle class Muslims themselves.

 

[Einherjar86]

but nobody on your side of topics like these ever seems to consider the people who are non-Muslims living in areas where they're slowly being swallowed up by a huge influx of immigrants from Islamic nations and all the issues that brings with it.

In America, a lot of people who are against immigration and suspicious of Muslims are impacted minimally, if at all, by either. They're not being "swallowed up by a huge influx of immigrants from Islamic nations." The majority of Muslim immigrants settle in metropolitan areas.

I think one reason why people on my "side" tend to treat such opinions critically is because those people often claim, as you suggested, that they're being invaded or infiltrated by Muslim immigrants; but that's simply not the reality.

 

[Dak]

To the extent that every person is inhibited by the limits of their perception (historically and environmentally), I'm not sure how I can convincingly respond to your accusations. You've foreclosed the possibility of conversation, because now anything except acquiescence to your points will look like "pleasant intellectual games." You assume that you occupy the role as arbiter of "concrete fact," and you've implicitly established a set of criteria for judgment.

The only way I can think to respond is to object to being in a bubble, at least to the extent that it compromises my intellectual abilities. I come from a family that, while we weren't hurting financially, was highly conservative, somewhat religious, and non-college educated. I'm the first of my nuclear and extended (except for one cousin) family to graduate from college. Growing up, I worked summers in a warehouse in a small, Western NY town of about 2500 people. I grew up around guns, racist jokes, and confederate flags. I have family members in upstate NY who post Sid Roth videos on Facebook, and I know it's because they have basically nothing else in their lives--and that's a problem (that they have nothing else in their lives, I mean).

I'm not saying you grew up in a bubble, or don't have some contact with "people who tell racist jokes and own guns." Certainly more contact with the outside world than some I've met. But bubbles are perceptive as well as in contact. Framing the rural, non-college educated as "racist gun clingers" etc is a frame created by living in a bubble of accepted opinion. I live in it too to some degree, I just don't accept it. Is it true that these people are racist? Well, if we mean thinking poorly of other races in general, probably. If we start trotting out other tortured definitions, probably not. But that's an aside. It's conceiving of them through these narrow issues which are arbitrarily magnified. I remember being taught similar frames growing up in an evangelical bubble about "sinners" who "didn't go to church." It's true that they lack other things in their lives, but 1. They may enjoy their life like that and 2. Immigrants aren't the thing they are lacking.

There was a time in America where people across the country had some pride in the major US urban hubs outclassing other major cities in the world. Now there is some real mutual animosity. What changed? So far, the resounding message issuing from academics and the media is "U mad because U suck." No introspection from the side supposedly more capable of doing so.

I also understand that many Westerners feel uncomfortable around Muslims. I've witnessed this firsthand in Buffalo (with members of my family, in a situation that was very uncomfortable for me). And while I personally feel that I mostly understand the impressions and statistics that inform their discomfort, I feel that I completely understand how that discomfort reifies those impressions and statistics in ways that are reductive, selective, and ultimately fuel suspicions if not dislike toward Muslims. I also understand that one response is to admit incompatibility in favor of Western comfort and, arguably, less violence (the argument being that promoting increased interaction between Western liberals and Muslims will only lead to more violence in the future). I understand the merit to avoiding violence. I also like to hope that people's attitudes can change over time, and that Muslims who wish to flee the oppression of some Middle Eastern countries can come to North American or European countries, and live peaceably as citizens of those countries.

People of all walks feel uncomfortable around people very different from themselves without any "education" on the matter. Muslims are at the extremely different end from westerners, and it's a mutual discomfort. There's no objective upside to try and force an override of this natural predisposition among people, and many objective possible downsides (assuming at least death as something reasonably defined as objectively bad). It's certainly possible that integration could peacefully and prosperously occur, but it's an experiment with significant risk being pursued with religious fervor rather than scientific caution.

You're right that generally speaking, rural people are in less contact with non-farming immigrants than urban persons, if by in contact you mean see them. But 1. People in tighter communities are going to be more sensitive to outside threat and 2. Urban people don't really "come in contact" with each other in any meaningful sense anyway. There's also the issue of meeting only the extremes when you do come in contact. The average IQ in Yemen is 85. That's a 1SD behind the developed world. People generally need at least 115 to succeed in graduate school. So if you meet a successful PhD student refugee from Yemen, that's not indicative of the benefit of bringing in swarms of Yemenese refugees, he's literally 1 out of 100. 50% of the swarm would be functionally intellectually disabled and the rest minimally contributory. Furthermore, we deprive Yemen of the handful of people who could actually help their people sort things out. The "Invade the world/Invite the world" strategy is cruel to all parties involved, except maybe that 1%er and the US liberals who get a little pious buzz out of it (while they make sure to live as far as possible within the same city from the "areas with bad schools" and "crime"). Of course I'm pretty sure this whole paragraph is compiled of many things said before at one time or another, but these issues and perceptions are those held by many across the country, and a continued ignoring of them or furtherance of counter-agendas isn't going to magically make them go away. None of this is to say or suggest that you're in a position to do anything about any of it one way or the other. But it's a lot more complicated than "them stupid racists," which is the summation of the responses to these concerns. When liberals realize that calling people racist as a response to any criticism is becoming as ineffective of an argument as telling an atheist they are going to hell, we might start getting somewhere.

 

[Onder]

In America, a lot of people who are against immigration and suspicious of Muslims are impacted minimally, if at all, by either. They're not being "swallowed up by a huge influx of immigrants from Islamic nations." The majority of Muslim immigrants settle in metropolitan areas.

I think one reason why people on my "side" tend to treat such opinions critically is because those people often claim, as you suggested, that they're being invaded or infiltrated by Muslim immigrants; but that's simply not the reality.

Exactly.

Same here. People who are most vocal about anti-immigration have never fucking seen a muslim. The situation here is even more comical as there are just no muslim migrants at all. During the biggest crisis in 2016, twelve immigrants arrived in the country and they left shortly after. I honestly don't understand how it's still such a big topic for some people years after.

 

[Dak]

Exactly.

Same here. People who are most vocal about anti-immigration have never fucking seen a muslim. The situation here is even more comical as there are just no muslim migrants at all. During the biggest crisis in 2016, twelve immigrants arrived in the country and they left shortly after. I honestly don't understand how it's still such a big topic for some people years after.

So what you are saying is that they were/are successful in maintaining the desired homogeneity?

 

[CiG]

In America, a lot of people who are against immigration and suspicious of Muslims are impacted minimally, if at all, by either. They're not being "swallowed up by a huge influx of immigrants from Islamic nations." The majority of Muslim immigrants settle in metropolitan areas.

I think one reason why people on my "side" tend to treat such opinions critically is because those people often claim, as you suggested, that they're being invaded or infiltrated by Muslim immigrants; but that's simply not the reality.

Indeed, this is why Americans should probably simmer down when talking about what's going in countries with mass immigration issues. Instead, poorer Americans face threats from illegal immigration from the Mexican border and people on your side sneer and tell them to get over it in similar ways.

It's easy to be virtuous with the lives of other people, when none of it will actually impact you.

Exactly.

Same here. People who are most vocal about anti-immigration have never fucking seen a muslim. The situation here is even more comical as there are just no muslim migrants at all. During the biggest crisis in 2016, twelve immigrants arrived in the country and they left shortly after. I honestly don't understand how it's still such a big topic for some people years after.

Probably because they look at areas across Europe that are dealing with mass immigration and think "I don't want that here."

Not rocket science.

 

[Onder]

So what you are saying is that they were/are successful in maintaining the desired homogeneity?

Hahaha, I suppose so. Good for them.

Only thing I notice when it comes to immigration is the amount of Russians in the capital. There are times when I go out and I only hear Russian.

None of them would move to the countryside obviously.

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html

These new IV Gen reactors being touted are a big deal not enough people are talking about. Maybe this piece will help all the wokefolks start talking about it.