zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
Oops, didn't read back far enough to know he was referring to you and not politicians or something.
The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
CiG
Room with a View
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Well there's plenty of video of Trump calling for a Muslim ban. I can post it, but I don't see what the point is when we both know that he said it repeatedly. Guiliani is a total dip shit, but his comments here correspond to what Trump said throughout the campaign.
Does evidence matter to you at all?
Justify your claim that it is "much more important and realistic" without ignoring the evidence.
I'll give Trump credit where credit is due. Trump does not seem to be a normal politician who campaigns on one platform and then in office realizes a different platform. So far, he has come through on his campaign promises. Where there are disparities, I think we should look at why. Guliani gives a plausible explanation for why he excluded those nations.
An alternative theory is that he avoided the countries he has business ties to.
Either way, pretending like he isn't targeting Muslims is sticking your head in the sand.
I gave you the most amount of sources possible because there is no single source that polls the entire Muslim world on it's opinion of the west, you dummy.
Therefore, you don't have support for your claim. You threw out an unedited data dump in a desperate attempt to support an unsubstantiated bigoted claim.
CiG
Room with a View
I'm having some trouble finding the actual source of Salon's citation. But while I'm looking, I think it's important to point out that even if right-wing extremist terrorism is a greater threat, the difference is our countries are not bringing in people from countries with high rates of white right-wing radicalisation, it's the illegal immigrant criminals vs homegrown criminals argument all over again.
Yes, the native populace may be more criminal or violent, but that's not a justification to add more to the criminal element.
If you know exactly where Salon's citation comes from, please link me if you could.
Also, one of the biggest ironies I see on all sides with this right-wing terrorism vs Islamic terrorism discussion is that, Islamic terrorism IS right-wing terrorism, in majority of cases.
Perhaps. Does he have business in Pakistan? I don't know.
Nobody is saying Trump isn't targeting Muslims, after all, Islamic terrorists are Muslims by definition. People like myself just reject the hysterical claim that he's targeting all Muslims.
No, I gave you a series of polls which, when grouped together, begin to paint a picture of the global Muslim community's views on things like attacks on the west. If you support attacks on the west, you can't exactly be conceived to like the west, can you?
White people telling me I'm bigoted just rolls off my back, ironically like water off a duck's back.
I don't have any white guilt, so give it a rest. Also, you and most leftists wouldn't give a shit about Muslims if it were a majority white religion.
Though you won't admit it. But I'm sure you support "Nazis" being punched in the street because muh anti-fascism/racism gaiz.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
The "right-wing terrorist" thing *was* true for a brief period, if you set the early cutoff for 9/12/2001, and is no longer true after the Orlando nightclub shooting. It also fails to factor in the number of Muslims per capita within the USA vs whites/Christians/conservatives/whatever.
How come 'identity politics' is only identity politics when it's someone on the left saying or doing something?
The right is just as bad. The biggest difference is that those on the left seem okay with accepting that they're all caught up in it, whereas any suggestion to many on the right that they are seems to lead to inane babbling.
The right is just as bad. The biggest difference is that those on the left seem okay with accepting that they're all caught up in it, whereas any suggestion to many on the right that they are seems to lead to inane babbling.
CiG
Room with a View
I wouldn't say the right is just as bad, but they certainly do it, though many probably don't realise it. It's probably hard to see yourself doing it when you're surrounded by blatant carving up of the populace by the left though.
The Republicans have always been in a funny spot between being too scared to blatantly talk to their voter base (whites) and too high and mighty to play the Democrat game of pandering to blacks and Hispanics.
They deserve to lose elections in my opinion just on that example alone.
The Republicans have always been in a funny spot between being too scared to blatantly talk to their voter base (whites) and too high and mighty to play the Democrat game of pandering to blacks and Hispanics.
They deserve to lose elections in my opinion just on that example alone.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 549
- 113
Metalheads don't think about politics or philosophy or well, anything but booze and guitar riffs. Go brandish your thick-rimmed glasses and, um, stupidity, elsewhere. \m/
CiG
Room with a View
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/...ent_of_the_Violent_Extremist_Threat_final.pdf
And it's actually not an illegal vs. homegrown issue, since most Islamic extremism in the US is done by US citizens. So it's usually homegrown vs. homegrown. Personally, I want protection agencies to address all forms of terrorism, as any reasonable citizen should. When you start dismissing some forms of terrorism, it makes me question. When you have Steve Banon in your cabinet, it makes really start to question.
Again, this would be a good point if terrorists and extremists were regularly making it through our present vetting system. There's no evidence to suggest that.
Strictly speaking, most definitely. However, much of the literature makes a distinction, so sometimes its helpful to maintain it for clarity.
Indeed he does.
I don't believe I ever said that he has passed laws targeting all Muslims, as he obviously hasn't. However, the claim isn't hysterical since he's clearly called for a ban on all Muslims in the past. The difference is you think we should ignore what he said during the campaign. I disagree.
I'm gonna go a slightly deeper on explaining why this is just lazy pseudo-intellectualism by you. By relying on a data dump from a website with a clear agenda, you are essentially letting them cherry pick from dozens of surveys to create the narrative they want to create. Then, it appears, you uncritically consumed it. Obviously, it would take hours to go through all the surveys and analyze them, and I doubt you did so. However, in letting someone else do the work for you, you're letting someone manipulate a narrative for you.
For example, the first survey link I clicked on was for the following statement.
TheReligionOfPeace.com said:
However, when you read the actual article you clearly see:
1. Most of the surveyed Muslims are concerned and have a negative view of Islamic extremism
2. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all perceived negatively, though to varying degrees (with Al Qaeda scoring the lowest)
3. As for 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims who say suicide bombings are justified, only 14% say that it is often justified
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/
That obviously creates a more nuanced picture and certainly one that is less alarmist than the splicing that The Religion of Peace created. So again, it's intellectually lazy to rely on data dumps, especially when you let a super biased source do the cherry picking for you.
Then, when we add it that the website didn't even offer data on some of the biggest Muslim countries (for example, I saw no links to articles on India, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world), and your theory about the general Muslim populous hating America is utterly unsubstantiated.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,749
- 1,439
- 113
Even if they were 100% vetted to be innocent, if they're gonna be dependent on the government for years or even decades, there is no logical reason to take them.
"They're not terrorists" is not a reason to take them.
That's like buying a lawnmower while you live in a 10th floor apartment with no grass, and your justification is "it's not a bomb".
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
the left is amazing at switching between rates and flat numbers
Dak
mentat
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
And shockingly, Trump responds like a little kid who lost a videogame.
The fact that he is actually willing to attack the credentials of judge for ruling against him, especially when the law Is evidently consitutionally questionable, is absolutely alarming. This guy would "clense" are courts in a heartbeat if he could.
Emperor Trump said:
The fact that he is actually willing to attack the credentials of judge for ruling against him, especially when the law Is evidently consitutionally questionable, is absolutely alarming. This guy would "clense" are courts in a heartbeat if he could.
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Progressive idol FDR was also at odds with the courts and just hung around until many died. Speaking of emperors....
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
That would be a good point if I were arguing "Right Wing Extremists are worse than Muslim extremists". I'm not. I'm saying that federal programs, such as the CVE, should continue to monitor both groups. It's a false dilemma to act as if you can just track one. We HAVE been tracking both, but now Trump wants to focus on only one. Obviously, that decision isn't about making people safer. And if your black, Muslim, or a member of any other group that may be targeted by right-wing extremists, then this is a clear message from the president that "your life and safety isn't important to me."
As far as which group has committed more per capita, that's also not a very important point, since the vast majority of both groups are not a threat to anybody. Focus on the groups, organizations, and individuals who provide reason for concern.
Einherjar86
Active Member
http://www.businessinsider.com/samantha-bee-donald-trump-immigration-muslim-ban-2017-2
So much for idol worship.
