We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Maher and Harris said all religions are nonsense. The sole unique thing they said about Islam is that it is the religion causing the most violence of all religions today. They have repeatedly said that, if they were writing 200 years ago, they would say the same thing about Christianity.

Christianity was the most violent religion of the period from 1400 to the 20th century. Do you have a problem with me saying that? Does that make me bigoted toward Christians?

Islam has been the religion responsible for the most violence of any religion from 1980 to present. That is simply a fact.

If you wish to debate how US foreign policy was involved in that, we can have that discussion. But that's a different issue.

It's not a waste of time at all. You are generalizing, and it is dangerous. And yes, Trumpian.

So here are a few generalizations for you to think about among all those others. The two largest groups of immigrants from the MENA region are Lebanese and Iranians.

Both groups are generally among the most peaceful, well educated, and wealthy immigrant groups to the US. With one exception, no Lebanese, Iranian or Lebanese-American or Iranian-American has ever been involved in a deadly terrorist attack in the United States. The one and important exception is a single Lebanese participant in the 9/11 attacks. So Lebanese must be more threatening than Iranians, right, even though most Lebanese in the US are Christian, right?

It is not hard to make a case that many other immigrant communities commit more violence in the US, are less educated, and came in with less wealth. Certainly, based on the statistics, the case could be made (and in the past has been made, by the bigots of different ages) for Russians, Sicilians (hi Hank!), Cubans, Irish, Vietnamese...

But why is Iran the only one of these countries today whose people are barred from the US? What animosity drives that and who drives that animosity (Hi Maher and Harris!)? What leads people screaming about Muslims and Arabs to be so frightened of Iranians? Looked at objectively, Iranian immigrants mostly want to come to the US and provide us healthcare - what is it that leads them instead to be cast as a bunch of violent religious fanatics who want to kill us?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So here are a few generalizations for you to think about among all those others. The two largest groups of immigrants from the MENA region are Lebanese and Iranians.

Both groups are generally among the most peaceful, well educated, and wealthy immigrant groups to the US. With one exception, no Lebanese, Iranian or Lebanese-American or Iranian-American has ever been involved in a deadly terrorist attack in the United States. The one and important exception is a single Lebanese participant in the 9/11 attacks. So Lebanese must be more threatening than Iranians, right, even though most Lebanese in the US are Christian, right?

It is not hard to make a case that many other immigrant communities commit more violence in the US, are less educated, and came in with less wealth. Certainly, based on the statistics, the case could be made (and in the past has been made, by the bigots of different ages) for Russians, Sicilians (hi Hank!), Cubans, Irish, Vietnamese...

But why is Iran the only one of these countries today whose people are barred from the US? What animosity drives that and who drives that animosity (Hi Maher and Harris!)? What leads people screaming about Muslims and Arabs to be so frightened of Iranians? Looked at objectively, Iranian immigrants mostly want to come to the US and provide us healthcare - what is it that leads them instead to be cast as a bunch of violent religious fanatics who want to kill us?

You'll find zero daylight between us on criticism of US policy toward Iran. It's ludicrous, and we should be doing everything we can to foster better relationships with the Iranian people, who are not our enemies and are exactly the types of immigrants we should be encouraging to come here.

But our policy is not the fault of people like Maher or Harris. Hatred of Iran goes back to the days of the Shah's overthrow and the hostage crisis. It's also borne of Trump's coziness with the Saudis and Israelis. I don't need to explain that stuff. You know it as well if not better than I do.

I actually agree with your criticism of anyone citing Muslims generally, as if they behave monolithically. I also don't like the criticism that peaceful Muslims have a duty to police radicals. Maher loses me there. (Harris does not offer that criticism.) But I think in an assessment of which religions are causing the most problems today, it's not unfair to say Islam is being hijacked as a justification for some awful behavior more than other religions at the moment. And I certainly don't think saying so should invite the charge of racism. (Not only because it's not a bigoted comment, but also because its not regarding any "race.")

If anyone says all Muslims are violent, or that the religion is uniquely violent as opposed to others, I think calling such a person a religious bigot or xenophobe would be reasonable. But citing an uncomfortable fact - that Islam has had a problem with violence in its name far greater than any other religion in the last 30 or so years - is just noting a sad fact. Prominent Muslims have said as much themselves.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But citing an uncomfortable fact - that Islam has had a problem with violence in its name far greater than any other religion in the last 30 or so years - is just noting a sad fact. Prominent Muslims have said as much themselves.

This is the "fact" used to tar a whole lot of Iranians (Muslim and non-Muslim) who have had nothing to do with that violence. That's the point.

And, ah, yes, cue the cite to the "Prominent Muslims". Sheesh.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is the "fact" used to tar a whole lot of Iranians (Muslim and non-Muslim) who have had nothing to do with that violence. That's the point.

And, ah, yes, cue the cite to the "Prominent Muslims". Sheesh.

I don’t agree with that. I think bad policy toward Iran has multiple causes, most of them strategic and political (Saudis and Israelis drive a lot of it).

But for sake of debate, I’ll agree with you. Suppose criticism of Islam as being abused by violent radicals is the entire cause of our bad Iran policy. What are you suggesting? That we ban discussions of facts? That we shame people for comparing religions in a way that brings negative light on Islam?

There are numerous Muslims, many lapsed I assume (as most sane people give up religion of all kinds) who acknowledge there’s a crisis ongoing in which Islam is being co-opted, uniquely, by lunatics as cover for violent ends.

You’re getting very close to policing what facts are and aren’t appropriate for discussion. You can do that with opinion, but with facts, you cannot. Facts simply are, and they don’t go away because someone doesn’t like them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t agree with that. I think bad policy toward Iran has multiple causes, most of them strategic and political (Saudis and Israelis drive a lot of it).

But for sake of debate, I’ll agree with you. Suppose criticism of Islam as being abused by violent radicals is the entire cause of our bad Iran policy. What are you suggesting? That we ban discussions of facts? That we shame people for comparing religions in a way that brings negative light on Islam?

There are numerous Muslims, many lapsed I assume (as most sane people give up religion of all kinds) who acknowledge there’s a crisis ongoing in which Islam is being co-opted, uniquely, by lunatics as cover for violent ends.

You’re getting very close to policing what facts are and aren’t appropriate for discussion. You can do that with opinion, but with facts, you cannot. Facts simply are, and they don’t go away because someone doesn’t like them.

I like to talk to people with more knowledge than is on a cue card about facts. It's time to leave you and your buddies on the reddit threads to talk about the islamaphobic bros.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A racist hates people of a certain race, not of a certain religion.

You seem to think you are doing God's work in policing a distinction between racial and not-purely-racial forms of bigotry. Why is that? Pedantry in the defense of _________ is no vice? What is _________?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I like to talk to people with more knowledge than is on a cue card about facts. It's time to leave you and your buddies on the reddit threads to talk about the islamaphobic bros.

I like to talk to people who don’t smash issues together because emotion and bias cloud their reasoning and then regress to insult when it’s pointed out to them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You seem to think you are doing God's work in policing a distinction between racial and not-purely-racial forms of bigotry. Why is that? Pedantry in the defense of _________ is no vice? What is _________?

You seem to be quite a stickler for adherence to black letter definition when it comes to “censorship” (or any other word, really, when it suits your position), and yet this misapplication of a word gets a pass? You’ll pardon my snickering.

And yes — it’s quite important here to observe the strict definition. Stealing that word and overusing it: (a) insults the concept of actual racism and those who suffer it; (b) cheapens its value as a criticism/charge; and, (c) desensitizes people to its use.

(And you know he was using it to hyperbolize, which is bad faith.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You seem to think you are doing God's work in policing a distinction between racial and not-purely-racial forms of bigotry. Why is that? Pedantry in the defense of _________ is no vice? What is _________?

The fact is that defining "white" for racial purposes usually ties into other bigotries. Here's a good snapshot of some of the racial issues implicated: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...is-complicated

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

First, you cannot call someone racist because he's an alleged Islamaphobe. A racist hates people of a certain race, not of a certain religion.

You need to stop reading so much alt right and libertarian crap, where this is a distinction worth stating.

[Second, Harris is not an Islamaphobe. Nor is Maher.

I don't know crap about Harris, but Bill Maher most definitely is.

The only reason they're labeled Islamaphobes is because they have stated that Islam is the most violent religion currently, the "problem child" of religions of the moment. That's fact. You cannot dispute that. Citing a fact does not make one a religious bigot.

We've had this conversation before, but it still remains that just because you are completely ignorant of what happens outside the U.S. does not make the scope of your personal knowledge a fact.

Nor does generalizing about a billion people based on conduct of a small few.

Trump has nothing to do with Harris or Maher (both of whom detest Trump, by the way).

Trump sells the same Islamophobic crap they do. How is that unrelated?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And yes — it’s quite important here to observe the strict definition. Stealing that word and overusing it: (a) insults the concept of actual racism and those who suffer it; (b) cheapens its value as a criticism/charge; and, (c) desensitizes people to its use.

2. The more reasoned of Holocaust survivors I have met were quick to point out: "Sure Hitler hated our religion, but say what you will, the man was not a racist."

But I may have been the only one to actually listen to the interview with the Columbia student, so let me just drop a reminder here- Harris starts with "liberals want to act like no blacks commit crime." Okay, get that, I think the "all blacks good, all whites bad" posts here are the dumbest.

Then Harris starts summarizing crime stats and gets to "young black men are way more likely to commit crimes." I don't know, to me stats are sort of silly- if someone in my fam is the victim of a violent crime I don't think where we fit in on the "likelihood/stat" spectrum will make me feel much.

But then he takes the stats and says they justify mistreating/suspecting the next young black man that walks into your store. The Columbia student seems supportive of the thought, so maybe it's just me. BUT implying ALL black men are likely criminals, and in particular, the one you are now encountering, feeds the fear that leads to men with their hands in the air being shot, doesn't it?

And just as bad, treating a random black kid default as a criminal leads to the kid maybe deciding "might as well be," doesn't it?

Maybe this Harris guy was just adrift that day, maybe he walked it back the next interview, but I do think that sort thought is dangerously racist. IMHO.

Point is, so not sure of the need for arguing out this distinction?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The fact is that defining "white" for racial purposes usually ties into other bigotries. Here's a good snapshot of some of the racial issues implicated: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...is-complicated

Webster's:

Definition of racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Show me the authority stating religions are races. Otherwise, the term is misapplied. You are using "bigotry" now, I see, which is the correct term to describe people who discriminate based on religious background.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2. The more reasoned of Holocaust survivors I have met were quick to point out: "Sure Hitler hated our religion, but say what you will, the man was not a racist."

But I may have been the only one to actually listen to the interview with the Columbia student, so let me just drop a reminder here- Harris starts with "liberals want to act like no blacks commit crime." Okay, get that, I think the "all blacks good, all whites bad" posts here are the dumbest.

Then Harris starts summarizing crime stats and gets to "young black men are way more likely to commit crimes." I don't know, to me stats are sort of silly- if someone in my fam is the victim of a violent crime I don't think where we fit in on the "likelihood/stat" spectrum will make me feel much.

But then he takes the stats and says they justify mistreating/suspecting the next young black man that walks into your store. The Columbia student seems supportive of the thought, so maybe it's just me. BUT implying ALL black men are likely criminals, and in particular, the one you are now encountering, feeds the fear that leads to men with their hands in the air being shot, doesn't it?

And just as bad, treating a random black kid default as a criminal leads to the kid maybe deciding "might as well be," doesn't it?

Maybe this Harris guy was just adrift that day, maybe he walked it back the next interview, but I do think that sort thought is dangerously racist. IMHO.

Point is, so not sure of the need for arguing out this distinction?

I was all ready to get excited about the idea of Hitler not being a racist - I mean, he had a detailed racial analysis, even if his notion of an "Aryan" race might conflict with notions of a "white" race.

But then you give a really nice explication of exactly how a generalization (Sebby's "fact") becomes a stereotype becomes bigotry. So let's focus on that. This is exactly right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2. The more reasoned of Holocaust survivors I have met were quick to point out: "Sure Hitler hated our religion, but say what you will, the man was not a racist."

But I may have been the only one to actually listen to the interview with the Columbia student, so let me just drop a reminder here- Harris starts with "liberals want to act like no blacks commit crime." Okay, get that, I think the "all blacks good, all whites bad" posts here are the dumbest.

Then Harris starts summarizing crime stats and gets to "young black men are way more likely to commit crimes." I don't know, to me stats are sort of silly- if someone in my fam is the victim of a violent crime I don't think where we fit in on the "likelihood/stat" spectrum will make me feel much.

But then he takes the stats and says they justify mistreating/suspecting the next young black man that walks into your store. The Columbia student seems supportive of the thought, so maybe it's just me. BUT implying ALL black men are likely criminals, and in particular, the one you are now encountering, feeds the fear that leads to men with their hands in the air being shot, doesn't it?

And just as bad, treating a random black kid default as a criminal leads to the kid maybe deciding "might as well be," doesn't it?

Maybe this Harris guy was just adrift that day, maybe he walked it back the next interview, but I do think that sort thought is dangerously racist. IMHO.

Point is, so not sure of the need for arguing out this distinction?

I won't defend everything Harris says, but I am comfortable stating that his work taken in aggregate does not demonstrate a racist bent. And certainly his comment on Maher regarding Islam does not (even if one allows for the inaccurate characterization of Islam as a race).

The distinction is huge and important. If I say I hate Asians, I'm a racist. If I say I hate Catholics, I'm a religious bigot. And I'd say the former is far worse than the latter as the Asian has no choice but to be what he is. The Catholic has taken some step which can be undone. Both are odious forms of hatred, but one is more cruel and arbitrary than the other.

And in the US, with our legacy of slavery, and jailing of Japanese in internment camps, racism is a word with very unique meaning. I don't think it should be casually expanded to grant unwarranted heft to arguments of the more reckless advocates on the Left.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I was all ready to get excited about the idea of Hitler not being a racist - I mean, he had a detailed racial analysis, even if his notion of an "Aryan" race might conflict with notions of a "white" race.

But then you give a really nice explication of exactly how a generalization (Sebby's "fact") becomes a stereotype becomes bigotry. So let's focus on that. This is exactly right.

So the rules should be:

We must shun discussions which lead to certain religions being seen in a negative light.

I believe a number of Catholic Bishops have been arguing that same point for the last 15 or so years. They've even had lawyers argue it against the Boston Globe and NYTimes. You should look up their work... probably filled with great cites.