Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

SophistiKat

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Otter

...'deluded fully grown babies' hardly adds to the conversation, Euty. My point, if you'd read it in context, was that science was being used to bolster what you just said was non-scientific arguments from an individual who (again, your words) wasn't qualified to make scientific claims. I'm arguing that using scientific facts to lend authority to a non-scientific theory that advances an agenda certainly smacks of facist behavior. And not even arguing it strongly, I might add! Just underlining that these silly protestors weren't entirely idiotic.

 

If you borrow bits of science to prop up an agenda or otherwise unprovable 'embodied knowledge,' well, I'm sure there's other terms you'd prefer but 'pseudo science' fits the bill. It's one tinfoil hat away the healing power of crystal pyramids.

 

But on that note, let's try not to take the dismiss-all-contrary-arguments-as-delusions road for a while?I guess I just find it frustrating when I'm having a conversation with another member and you pop in, cherry pick terminology I'm using to somehow dismiss the entire gist of what I'm saying, and then suggesting the entire exercise is pointless because you already told sivi the truth of the situation somewhere earlier in the thread. Please stop.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

what you just said was non-scientific arguments

They are scientific arguments. His document is full of scientific references.

 

from an individual who (again, your words) wasn't qualified to make scientific claims.

He isn't qualified to make scientific claims. But he didn't intend to make a scientific publication. He made a memo to critique policies making use of scientific references.

 

I'm arguing that using scientific facts to lend authority to a non-scientific theory that advances an agenda certainly smacks of facist behavior.

This sentence is so truly silly and ridiculous that I'm just going to leave it, to move on to what else you are going to say.

 

If you borrow bits of science to prop up an agenda or otherwise unprovable 'embodied knowledge,' well, I'm sure there's other terms you'd prefer but 'pseudo science' fits the bill.

Maybe you just read some mainstream media pieces, in which case it explains how far off the mark you are. Damore never intended to use his memo as the basis of a political agenda. It was intended to internally critique Google's hiring policies. It was leaked by other people in Google.

 

let's try not to take the dismiss-all-contrary-arguments-as-delusions road for a while?

Well to be fair, fully grown tantrum throwing SJW babies are very delusional people. It's the appropriate term.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Re: my ‘too ridiculous to respond to’ pullquote, Yeah, my bad, without the broader context that this was in a university setting with zero counterpoint arguements allowed to be made, as per Tchuck’s description, then it’s a pretty vague and silly statement. Forgive me for not being clear, even if you still think it’s a bunk argument.

 

Damore aside, we were in the middle of a conversation about the social demerits of divorce, if G’s is going to respond...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

with zero counterpoint arguements allowed to be made

What is more often the case is that academic leftists systematically refuse to talk to people such as Peterson, or that lady citing biological fact on the panel with Damore, because they are intellectual cowards with a very fragile sense of moral superiority. Leftists don't debate but yell 'racist' 'fascist' or 'sexist' from the sidelines. They have found that more effective.

 

Edit: on the topic of speeches being interrupted, I know many here throw a hissy fit the moment they hear 'Ben Shapiro', but this video groups together three instances of speeches being interrupted in the last few days, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, and Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad:

 

 

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xARMEDx

A country of pansies would stand no chance against a country like Russia or China, for example. Political Correctness is weakness. It may make said country seem more intelligent and developed/progressive, but to other super powers, its viewed 100% as a weakness.

 

Politically Correct America would sh*t its pants right now if it had to deal with WWII Germany and the Nazi's. Seriously.

 

You think our forefathers who beat back the Nazi Regime were pc? lmao. NO. I bet if they were, we would have lost that war and be speaking German right now.

 

Some of you lefties don't think at all, ever, because you're always making arguments based on your emotions, rather than actual hard to accept facts.

Edited by xARMEDx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Some of you lefties don't think at all, ever, because you're always making arguments based on your emotions, rather than actual hard to accept facts.

 

He said, making arguments based on his own emotions.

 

 

Political Correctness is weakness

 

Appeal to emotion. How is political correctness objectively a weakness? Cause I'm sure it empowers people who have always been at the other end. By empowering them, it gives them strength to overcome their odds and find their place in this world. How is that a weakness?

 

 

It may make said country seem more intelligent and developed/progressive, but to other super powers, its viewed 100% as a weakness.

 

Appeal to emotion. What part of International Relations school says that being PC is bad and makes you look weak? You do know strength and political correctness aren't mutually exclusive, right? You can be PC, and be strong and firm in how you deal with other nations. A respectable president is seen much stronger than a lewd/anti-PC one. Look at Trump. He's the prime example of anti-PC, and is the laughing stock of the developed world. No other nation respects America anymore, thanks to him.

 

 

Politically Correct America would sh*t its pants right now if it had to deal with WWII Germany and the Nazi's. Seriously.

 

Appeal to emotion. Politically correct America would have entered the war sooner, by not tolerating the hate spread by Germany. So would the European nations ally together to curtail Hitler before the final solution/invasion of Poland based on his hate speech. But because we all tolerated the Nazi bullsh*t, because boys will be boys, sh*t hit the fan. Seriously.

 

 

You think our forefathers who beat back the Nazi Regime were pc? lmao. NO. I bet if they were, we would have lost that war and be speaking German right now.

 

Appeal to emotion. What relevance does being PC or not have to the combat prowess of a military unity/strategic ability of generals?

 

Now can you put some actual hard to accept facts onto the table? Because you look like a physician who needs to heal yourself:

 

 

Some of you lefties don't think at all, ever, because you're always making arguments based on your emotions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

A country of pansies would stand no chance against a country like Russia or China, for example. Political Correctness is weakness. It may make said country seem more intelligent and developed/progressive, but to other super powers, its viewed 100% as a weakness.

 

Politically Correct America would sh*t its pants right now if it had to deal with WWII Germany and the Nazi's. Seriously.

 

You think our forefathers who beat back the Nazi Regime were pc? lmao. NO. I bet if they were, we would have lost that war and be speaking German right now.

 

Some of you lefties don't think at all, ever, because you're always making arguments based on your emotions, rather than actual hard to accept facts.

 

This ridiculous non sequitur aside, political correctness isn't fundamentally left or right. It's like calling a bread knife leftist. PC culture cuts both ways. The right wing panic over the NFL national anthem protest perfectly demonstrates that.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

The pendulum has fully swung toward right-wing political correctness. I've been places where if you say 'African-American,' they'll make a point to say ni**er when it's their turn to speak, as if to correct you. They actually get mad if you put thought into the words you use. Then there's the idea of being 'triggered' which can be seen whenever you someone brings up an un-GOP-PC topic like universal healthcare or accepting transgender folks. They fly off the handle and start hurling insults ('nice person'[EDIT: lol] 'commie' 'libtard' 'degenerate') at anyone who isn't sufficiently taken aback by progressive ideas. And believe me, there are a lot of ideas that we've long considered to be pretty moderate that are now seen as 'extremely progressive' by a certain cadre on the right.

 

Even putting social justice aside, the original meaning of political correctness is a Stalinist concept which refers to adhering to party line for fear of being purged. It's getting less prevalent, but when the GOP were convinced that Trump was their future, they were often seen voting against their own interest for fear of alienating their party. I saw some clown try to say Trump's 'take guns now, due process later' remark as some sort of political ploy to 'draw out RINOs.' Draw them out for what? Getting primaried, which would be the democratic equivalent of a purging.

 

This goes back further, too. It was Newt Gingrich who invented the 'patriotically correct' dictionary for Republicans. From 'job creators' to 'enhanced interrogation,' Republicans are no stranger to carefully selecting words and eschewing those that don't reflect well on them.

 

The most nefarious example is how right wing types try to associate 'political incorrectness' with free speech. IMO, these folks have completely bastardized the concept of free speech and they're more of a threat to it than any trigger warnings. They even tried to develop their own brand of comedy which has fallen flat on its face. Good comedians tell jokes that are funny, even if they're a bit offensive. Bad comedians tell offensive jokes to be funny. The only people who find the latter group funny are people who already agree with them. You aren't going to change minds that way. The art of comedy has always been to bring people together, not to divide. That's the difference between these alt-right schmucks and literally any other kind of comedian.

 

To me, 'political correctness' (in the sense that this thread is talking about) is all about taking a look at the words in our lexicon that came about through organic, uninformed (for lack of a better word) means, and retooling them to be more concise and useful. Adjusting them to suit modern needs. It's a scientific pursuit, and so new information brings new definition. There are cases where maybe it gets out of hand, and I reserve the right to reject those if I see fit, but I refuse to discard the entire endeavor because some folks feel inconvenienced by having to rub a few extra brain cells together before they run their mouth and say some stupid sh*t.

Edited by Twang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

The reactionary right is seizing upon this idea that Westerners have gone soft. Generally, we have indeed gone soft in many ways. Oblivious to the fact that we've only gone soft because we're relatively richer and more civilized than we once were, many Conservative folks have been manipulated into thinking that this is somehow the result of political correctness.


These reactionaries think we can someday become the richest most sophisticated folks in the world while also having the grit and toughness of a Liberian immigrant. Talk about a utopian delusion.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

I genuinely can't tell if ^this guy is serious or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

I genuinely can't tell if ^this guy is serious or not.

Are you ever not confused? The West has gone soft only insofar as it's gotten rich and comfortable. Let's not over think this sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pinkerton

Bumping this topic as I a conversation I had on the discord has been bugging me all week and it got me thinking. 

So, being critical of certain religions is really being conflated with "racism." More specifically being critical of Islam and/or the views of conservative religious Muslims #disclaimer: not all Muslims is "racist" or probably more accurately in their eyes, "bigoted."

I have an idea to why this may be. Firstly when a criticism is conveyed, the offended party usually doesn't give the benefit of doubt that the person criticizing the religion isn't in fact criticizing every single member of that religion. They seem to willfully ignore that, and assume that the criticism of the institution/religion and it's close links to a large following of that religion doesn't mean every individual person. In short, they can't separate the person from the religion. It might be that collectivist/identity politics mentality. "Criticize their religion and you are criticizing them as people" or something to that effect. 

Another idea is that perhaps the offended party thinks it's "racist" because Islam is associated with brown-skinned people and they think attacking the religion is some sort of front or just not liking "bloody foreigners."  

I also think that maybe it's just political correctness gone a bit mad. I can perfectly criticize Catholics, Christian-conservatives, Scientologists and Mormons without fear of being labeled racist, however, my principles for disliking religion and in my opinion, it's poisonous, regressive values that aren't consistent with modern day science remain the same.

They all share the same thing. The value systems; politically, educationally and from a legal standpoint, particularly Sharia and Creationism, in my opinion, are not compatible with my values and progressive western values. Ironically, In my discord conversation, I took up the difficult task of "defending" a difficult person to defend, Tommy Robinson.  I suppose I was defending his right to be offended by Islam or his right to be critical of it as we share that in common. I suspect that's why Majid Nawaz, a Muslim and a former Islamist extremist, worked with him as although Nawaz says he disagreed with Robinson on my points they both can agree that there is huge reformation needed in Islam if it's going to be compatible in western/modern society. 

It was suggested that I was racist not directly but in a "that sounds like something a racist would say" roundabout way. The irony is that it be suggested one is racist for being critical of an ideology that is oppressive to women, gay people and death is the answer to apostasy is laughable at best. #notallmuslims

Is this political correctness gone mad? Can we criticize Islam respectfully or just not do it?  We must have the right to offend. Where do you draw the line? How can we criticize religions and organizations if we're met with labels used to shut down discourse?  Is political correctness stifling discourse on real concerns?

I'm genuinely curious and would love to hear from anyone, especially those that will defend Islam, will try discredit polls on Muslims even though they're answered by Muslims themselves etc. What is it that drives them to be so defensive of another ideology or value-system/religion and then be so critical of anyone that wishes to challenge that system?

Personally, I think anyone should be able to practice whatever religion they like. But when the values of their religion affect people that do or don't willfully subscribe to that system, then I think it's an issue. For example, one gay Muslim being told by other Muslims you are either gay or Muslim, you can't be both. Having said that, I know that those views are held by the individuals spouting them but they can always lean back on the good book to verify their values. Or creationists are teaching alternative "science." That's why I think there needs to be reform. And I pick on Islam because I think it's in most need of reform. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JaberDoe

I'd say why people jump to conclusions and often take criticism personally on certain subjects, even when it's not directly addressing them, is because that subject is, well, personal. If someone is criticizing something you hold so close to your heart, people often have a knee-jerk reaction and blow.  Like how a close family member or friend immediately jumps to your defense if you're attacked.  Even without taking a step back, they'd just go to the subject's defense.  Stuff like religion, sexual orientation, etc, are normally held dearly by people so I think the same effect is happening. The PlayStation v. XBOX feud is another example, lol.

I wouldn't say people willfully do that, but more like they just get very emotional, which almost always clouds a person's judgement (as we all know!).

25 minutes ago, Mister Pink said:

I'm genuinely curious and would love to hear from anyone, especially those that will defend Islam, will try discredit polls on Muslims even though they're answered by Muslims themselves etc. What is it that drives them to be so defensive of another ideology or value-system/religion and then be so critical of anyone that wishes to challenge that system?

Even within the Muslim Community, immediately rushing to defending something you believe is very common.  Relatively small things like "what to do with your hands during prayer?" or "which Islamic book should I study?" cause heated arguments and break people apart. Especially, family. It's ridiculous. 

Islamically, Muslims are obligated to keep ties with family and maintain that sense of brotherhood with not just other Muslims, but everyone.  This is clear from the main religious sources Muslims are supposed to refer to. This is a known and very, very basic aspect of Islam.  Sadly, that immediate emotional reaction takes over people and it goes downhill from there.

Maybe that's just the natural result of a certain type of upbringing or whether some people are simply idiots, I have no idea.

When it comes to taking criticism, Muslims are supposed to have proper and civil discussions with others on their religion. Of course, if someone is just ranting on and blasting obscenities that's hardly a discussion.  If the party criticizing Islam is the one not being civil, a Muslim is supposed to take a step back.  Leaving an argument even when you believe you're right is considered commendable and a "good deed" per the sources, which, again, is widely known.

In my opinion, during an argument, attacking that person personally and calling them names (like in your case, a racist) is hardly ever productive. Regardless of the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pinkerton
26 minutes ago, JaberDoe said:

I'd say why people jump to conclusions and often take criticism personally on certain subjects, even when it's not directly addressing them, is because that subject is, well, personal. If someone is criticizing something you hold so close to your heart, people often have a knee-jerk reaction and blow.  Like how a close family member or friend immediately jumps to your defense if you're attacked.  Even without taking a step back, they'd just go to the subject's defense.  Stuff like religion, sexual orientation, etc, are normally held dearly by people so I think the same effect is happening. The PlayStation v. XBOX feud is another example, lol.

I wouldn't say people willfully do that, but more like they just get very emotional, which almost always clouds a person's judgement (as we all know!).

Even within the Muslim Community, immediately rushing to defending something you believe is very common.  Relatively small things like "what to do with your hands during prayer?" or "which Islamic book should I study?" cause heated arguments and break people apart. Especially, family. It's ridiculous. 

Islamically, Muslims are obligated to keep ties with family and maintain that sense of brotherhood with not just other Muslims, but everyone.  This is clear from the main religious sources Muslims are supposed to refer to. This is a known and very, very basic aspect of Islam.  Sadly, that immediate emotional reaction takes over people and it goes downhill from there.

Maybe that's just the natural result of a certain type of upbringing or whether some people are simply idiots, I have no idea.

When it comes to taking criticism, Muslims are supposed to have proper and civil discussions with others on their religion. Of course, if someone is just ranting on and blasting obscenities that's hardly a discussion.  If the party criticizing Islam is the one not being civil, a Muslim is supposed to take a step back.  Leaving an argument even when you believe you're right is considered commendable and a "good deed" per the sources, which, again, is widely known.

In my opinion, during an argument, attacking that person personally and calling them names (like in your case, a racist) is hardly ever productive. Regardless of the topic at hand.

Thanks for your response. 

I agree with you mostly and  I think maybe I need to learn to be more sensitive to other people's feelings when criticizing their religion and I think I usually am. I find it's some people that aren't actually Muslim rushing to defend Islamic views that I find most frustrating. I get that maybe they feel they're being just and looking after fellow humans from what they think is hate when oftentimes it's not hate directed towards individuals but more of a value system that largely goes unchallenged or if it is challenged then they use the "that's Islamophobic" like that means anything. That term is so annoying because it's mostly used to shut down conversation. It's coined and almost used like "homophobic" but a homosexual doesn't choose their sexual preferences. However, an Islamist chooses to be Islamic. Islamophobia, doesn't have the weight and stigma attached to it like say homophobia. To me it's a vein PC buzzword.

I get what you are saying and with respect, what are you basing your views on members of Islam from, may I ask? Are you Muslim yourself? I'm just curious if they're observations you are making yourself from friends/family or.. ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JaberDoe

Agreed for the most part.  People do slap a word on something/someone and then that's that. Especially with regards to something sensitive 'cause no one wants to defend something/someone that was labeled "islamaphobic" or whatever.  Whether it actually was or not!

I am a Muslim and I have been living in a Muslim majority country for the better part of 20 years.  I observed some of what I mentioned first hand and heard of other cases from friends/family. It's widespread.  Lots of division due to minor issues blown out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
2 hours ago, JaberDoe said:

When it comes to taking criticism, Muslims are supposed to have proper and civil discussions with others on their religion.

An issue concerning debating Islam with Muslims is the fact that they can lie in order to further their religion. There's a doctrine within Islam known as 'taqiya' which allows you to do so. Recently there has been a prominent example of a female muslim pretending Islam is 'feminist', and the Sharia is 'feminist', which to me seems an example of taqiya, because it's not credible to me she genuinely believes this. I generally have a moderate opinion of Islam, but I do often sense myself doubting the sincerity of statements Muslims make about their religion in the context of non Muslims. Recently media in the Netherlands has uncovered a case where a prominent mosque was being financed by fundamentalists, and was propagating sex slavery and female genital mutilation. I was not surprised that there was hidden fundamentalism in the Islamic community, but the gravity of it even surprised me, considering these positions are so radical that they aren't even common in the Islamic world.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JaberDoe
1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

An issue concerning debating Islam with Muslims is the fact that they can lie in order to further their religion. There's a doctrine within Islam known as 'taqiya' which allows you to do so. Recently there has been a prominent example of a female muslim pretending Islam is 'feminist', and the Sharia is 'feminist', which to me seems an example of taqiya, because it's not credible to me she genuinely believes this. I generally have a moderate opinion of Islam, but I do often sense myself doubting the sincerity of statements Muslims make about their religion in the context of non Muslims. Recently media in the Netherlands has uncovered a case where a prominent mosque was being financed by fundamentalists, and was propagating sex slavery and female genital mutilation. I was not surprised that there was hidden fundamentalism in the Islamic community, but the gravity of it even surprised me, considering these positions are so radical that they aren't even common in the Islamic world.

Ah, yes, the infamous "taqiyyah", lol.  Basically, growing up, I never heard of the word nor learned of it till recently.  Some Muslims use it as an excuse to do the things considered wrong in Islam, such as drinking, gambling, eating pork, etc, to avoid "harm" from others.  As I recently just learned about it I'm certainly no expert, but as I understand: It is used for when a situation arises where a Muslim has to announce that he/she foregoes their religion for fear of their life, with the intention to simply save his/her life so their utter whatever words necessary to do so without believing it.  A reference is this verse where God says people are allowed to eat pork or drink in case of necessity. 

You cannot lie about what Islam is.  You cannot say Islam says this, when it doesn't.  That's considered a damnable offence.  

However, it seems the concept itself is used in such a way where lying is permitted so this entire post could be redundant!  My suggestion is that others research this thing for themselves.  Google isn't the ideal source, but it's a start. Even if a Muslim says something about Islam, they could certainly still be wrong, and so could I.

Might've steered out of topic there, but in akin to what @Mister Pink was talking about, civil discussion is important.  Immediately denouncing someone for the reason that they're labeled whatever-phobic isn't a reason to shut the whole conversation down. That just closes doors when we don't know what's behind them.

Edited by JaberDoe
Missed a link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

It's almost impossible for the debate on political correctness to not steer off topic I have found. I still think taqiyah is on topic though, because it is one of the many instances of partisan dishonesty that relates to Mister Pinks more general point, that people in current political debates often try to score points and pander to their allies by assuming the worst intentions and branding their opponent a bigot. Assuming the worst possible intentions and trying to score points by then calling your opponent a bigot is a quite general problem on the left. Many leftists seem to get a virtue induced orgasm if they can call someone racist. An interesting case is one where recently someone posted an article on the forum about how Maajid Nawaz was bigoted/racist against muslims. Maajid Nawaz, who is of Pakistani origin and a former fundamentalist muslim, who is now an anti Islamic fundamentalist activist.The lefts opposition to him might be the peak of their degeneration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

One of the biggest problem with political correctness in my home country of Brazil has been regarding transactivism completely silencing women, not allowing any sort of debate to happen whatsoever.

Most recently, a black female grad student was going to present her thesis on "trans children", showing studies talking about the effects of shoving hormones down their throats, and the "gay cure"-like method that has been advocated by more and more transactivists. The effects of all these things on the future of the homosexual movement and whatnot.

Well transactivists got word of what she was going to present and, without even so much as challenging her thesis or engaging in dialog, sent her several threats, denounced her on the media, and had the university cancel her presentation. It's insane. It's come to the point where you can't even raise any sort of criticism or point to challenge the notions of transactivism, that you're immediately deemed a TERF and deserves death, rape, jail. And the media is going with it too.

Even a transwoman friend of mine has been threatened. Some of her circle asked her why she didn't condemn that grad student's "transphobic" presentation, told her she was betraying the movement and becoming TERFy for not defending it and whatnot. Her response was just "Defend? From what? We've 'won', what else do you want? To arrest them, murder them, condemn them, divest them of their rights? (them being women or people who don't actively support the transactivist movement in general) I want to make activism for better conditions for us, better healthcare for us, not this."

Of course, she was promptly denounced and excluded from certain circles for her opinions. It's insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday
3 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Assuming the worst possible intentions and trying to score points by then calling your opponent a bigot is a quite general problem on the left. Many leftists seem to get a virtue induced orgasm if they can call someone racist. An interesting case is one where recently someone posted an article on the forum about how Maajid Nawaz was bigoted/racist against muslims. Maajid Nawaz, who is of Pakistani origin and a former fundamentalist muslim, who is now an anti Islamic fundamentalist activist.The lefts opposition to him might be the peak of their degeneration.

For what it's worth I consider myself pretty liberal and none of the things you've illustrated above would describe me at all, especially in regards to Mr. Nawaz, who I've always enjoyed when he speaks with people like Sam Harris or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or even Joe Rogan. I would like to know; who and/or what exactly constitutes "the left" in your opinion? Because that's a pretty large umbrella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

I think the people whining that they absolutely cannot criticize Islam--while actively criticizing Islam without any actual repercussions--are completely ignoring social and historical context, and are just straight up deliberately missing the point. You can criticize Islam all you want, the issue is when you project your criticisms onto 1.3 billion practicing Muslims, as though all of them believe the same exact things, as though there aren't different sects with different interpretations of faith, and as though there aren't external forces that influence these beliefs in many different ways. We can talk about issues that are pervasive in some Muslim-majority countries, but we shouldn't pretend these issues are exclusive to those particular places, nor to Islam in general. By doing so, you are only further adding to an atmosphere of paranoia, fear and outright hatred, and are playing right into the hands of Islamist extremists. You are effectively aiding their project. Talking about how there's 'good' and 'bad' Muslims should not be mistaken for a nuanced position, either. Any discussion about people living in a society is an exercise in futility if we refuse to analyze the social and material conditions that influence beliefs of people living in that society. It should go without saying that this doesn't seek to absolve or excuse, but to help us adequately understand social phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

@Doctor Holliday: I'm actually rather centrist myself. On a political compass I actually consistently score left of centre. I wasn't deriding the entire left. I was just pointing out a consistent issue with leftists is that they often unfairly plant suspicions of racism without a coherent argument backing up this suspicion, and without evidence. An article that did this to Maajid was just the height of absurdity considering he is Middle-Eastern.. I'm looking for the article but because the GTAF search engine isn't indexed yet I can't find it.

Quote

I think the people whining that they absolutely cannot criticize Islam--while actively criticizing Islam without any actual repercussions

Being accused of racism is a repercussion. The most significant repercussion of criticizing Islam, or drawing Muhammad, is death threats/attempts at murder.

Quote

You can criticize Islam all you want, the issue is when you project your criticisms onto 1.3 billion practicing Muslims, as though all of them believe the same exact things

They all believe in the Quran. They all see the prophet Muhammad as an example and a prophet. They have common beliefs.

Quote

By doing so, you are only further adding to an atmosphere of paranoia, fear and outright hatred, and are playing right into the hands of Islamist extremists.

So if you criticize the Quran you "play into the hands of Islamists"? I think that's kind of a silly thing to say really. There is a lot in the Quran that would by many be considered hatred. Criticizing it is not hatred. Criticizing the Old Testament isn't hatred either. Most people would consider it common sense and reasonable to be critical of pre medieval ideas on morality.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
17 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

@Doctor Holliday: I'm actually rather centrist myself. On a political compass I actually consistently score left of centre.

So do most people. This is largely because of the wording of some of the questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
31 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Being accused of racism is a repercussion.

I think that, at least generally, it's a fair accusation. It's usually racists that are preoccupied with Islam.

40 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

The most significant repercussion of criticizing Islam, or drawing Muhammad, is death threats/attempts at murder.

any be considered hatred. Criticizing it is not hatred. Criticizing the Old Testament isn't hatred either. Most people would consider it common sense and reasonable to be critical of pre medieval ideas on morality.

In extreme circumstances, yes. I can assure you no one will be killed over a post on GTAF, or a conversation on Discord.

42 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

They all believe in the Quran. They all see the prophet Muhammad as an example and a prophet. They have common beliefs.

 

And clearly, it's a lot more nuanced than that.

58 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

So if you criticize the Quran you "play into the hands of Islamists"?

I wouldn't say that, but we're not talking about some principled, scholarly critique of the Quaran here. What sparked this current discussion was Mister Pink's defense of former drunken-hooligan-herder and English Defense League leader, Tommy Robbinson. He kind of left that bit out.

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Criticizing the Old Testament isn't hatred either.

Why single out the Quaran, then? What purpose does it serve?

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Most people would consider it common sense and reasonable to be critical of pre medieval ideas on morality.

It's entirely reasonable. Whether or not most people consider that 'common sense' is another story. Billions of people adhere to all sorts of archaic views on morality.

 

Can you believe there are still people who believe in the institution of marriage?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I did pen a response to this yesterday, but appears to have been lost in the ether.

It's perfectly possible to critique the actions of certain subsets of Islam, or even to critique core tenets of the religion, and still take issue with polling that either specifically weights the lines of questioning used to produce a predefined outcome, or ignores other social, cultural and political factors that might influence views or behaviours and try and cast the results as solely about religious belief. Nominally, many of the surveys of "Muslim opinion" fall into one or both of these traps to a greater or lesser degree. Which isn't to say that the results of them are completely worthless; just that they shouldn't be viewed in isolation as a litmus test for the views of Muslims as a whole. Perhaps the biggest issues with polling done by the likes of Pew is that there's no baseline to draw comparison with; they produce statistics on the percentage of Muslims in certain countries that hold particular views but don't offer a point of comparison with socially/economically equivalent non-Muslims from which to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

They do point in the direction that at least some of these Muslim majority countries are backwards (obviously you can't separate religion from culture, but that's not really the point). How many people in the US or UK would agree that honor killings for cheating or promiscuity are OK? I'm pretty sure we'd see much lower numbers out here in the west.

Also, the same polls show that they are much less tolerant of homosexuals and other topics that have been polled here. There's no use in arguing too much about the accuracy of the polls unless you're a Muslim apologist.

Edited by Dealux
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
46 minutes ago, Dealux said:

They do point in the direction that at least some of these Muslim majority countries are backwards

How many people in the US or UK would agree that honor killings for cheating or promiscuity are OK? I'm pretty sure we'd see much lower numbers out here in the west.

Also, the same polls show that they are much less tolerant of homosexuals and other topics that have been polled here.

Which tells you very little to nothing about Islam. I don't think anyone is queuing up to disagree with this assertion, but it rather misses the point- in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's just a rewording of the very point I was making. 

Some of the most lawless, violent and oppressive places in the world are Muslim majority. However many are not. I've yet to hear a remotely convincing argument that the reason for this backwardness is a product solely of religious belief rather than other factors.

Pretending honour killings manifest solely in Islam is ridiculous to the point of hilariousness. Fundamentalists of all other religious persuasion- Hindus and Sikhs mostly, but also Christians and even Buddhists, have been known to commit violence of this nature for actions like relationships outside of caste, or interfaith relationships. I'm not drawing comparisons between the West and the Islamic world and I'm not really why you're arguing as if I am. There's a wealth of other societies out there which offer better scope for comparison in terms of social, economic and political factors.

"Much less tolerant" than whom, exactly? Than Christian nations of similar economic, political or social structure? Than religious fundamentalists of other persuasion elsewhere in the West? What's your baseline of comparison here? Here in the UK there might be a higher proportion of Muslims who have a negative views towards homosexuals, but in terms of actively perpetrating violence pretty much every act in the last two decades directed at the gay community has come from neo-Nazis. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
9 hours ago, make total destroy said:

So do most people. This is largely because of the wording of some of the questions.

Yeah, I'm almost completely the average of people taking such tests. But people taking political foundation tests aren't a random sample, so how truly average it is I'm not sure. People taking political foundations tests are probably above averagely interested in ideas, which would correlate with a progressive/left bias. But then again people taking political tests on the internet are probably disproportionately male, which can also skew the sample. Interesting stuff.

Quote

I think that, at least generally, it's a fair accusation. It's usually racists that are preoccupied with Islam.

"I'm an anarchist which is an Enlightenment tradition" "religious criticism is racist" spot the contradiction

Quote

In extreme circumstances, yes. I can assure you no one will be killed over a post on GTAF, or a conversation on Discord .

As it turns out conversations on Discord or GTAF barely matters in the realm of public opinion, but the vast intimidation of Islam critics in the real world does. "I'm MTD. I support the Enlightenment. But when religious critics or apostates get death threats I say 'probably racist' because I don't really believe in the Enlightenment but in regressive leftist identity politics"

Quote

I wouldn't say that, but we're not talking about some principled, scholarly critique of the Quaran here. What sparked this current discussion was Mister Pink's defense of former drunken-hooligan-herder and English Defense League leader, Tommy Robbinson.  He kind of left that bit out .

EDL are a bunch of utter hooligan mongs, but they're not completely wrong in worrying about the types of values Muslims have regarding women, gays, apostates, atheists etcetera. They're also not wrong being outraged by grooming gangs.

Quote

Why single out the Quaran, then? What purpose does it serve?

Because in a free modern society it is important to criticize holy books? Because the atmosphere of fear related to criticism of Islam makes it very brave and important to do so?

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
Just now, Eutyphro said:

 

"I'm an anarchist which is an Enlightenment tradition" "religious criticism is racist" spot the contradiction

 

I didn't say that religious criticism is racist, just that those who are preoccupied with Islam in particular generally are racists, in much the same way that people who spend all of their time 'criticizing' Judaism are generally antisemites.

Please don't strawman my positions.

2 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

As it turns out conversations on Discord or GTAF barely matter in the realm of public opinion, and the vast intimidation of Islam critics in the real world do.

There are a few notable examples of public figures being killed or threatened for publishing cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammad, yes. However, some of the most vocal critics of Islam, like Tommy Robbinson, can spend decades flapping their gums about without any real consequence. Stoking fear and hatred of Muslims can even get you elected President of the U.S. It's actually quite safe to 'criticize' Islam in the West, for the most part. You certainly don't have to fear retribution from your average Muslim, who may hold socially-conservative views, but do not subscribe to an extremist outlook. If anything, it's more dangerous to be a Muslim--or to look like you could be a Muslim--living in the West than a critic of Islam living in the West.

 

19 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

"I'm MTD. I support the Enlightenment. But when religious critics or apostates get death threats I say 'probably racist' because I don't really believe in the Enlightenment but in regressive leftist identity politics"

 

What you're pretending I'm saying and what I'm actually saying are two completely different things. You've nitpicked my original post and taken my statements out of context in an attempt to paint me as some sort of apologist for Islamist extremism. You're being disingenuous, as per usual.

28 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

EDL are a bunch of utter hooligan mongs, but they're not completely wrong in worrying about the types of values Muslims have regarding women, gays, apostates, atheists etcetera. They're also not wrong being outraged by grooming gangs.

 

The EDL couldn't care less about gay people or women. In fact, they probably share similar views on gay people and women as many conservative Muslims do. And if they really cared about grooming gangs and pedophile rings, they wouldn't focus all of their attention on Muslims. Both of those things are as British as colonialism.

45 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Because in a free modern society it is important to criticize holy books?

I don't disagree, but it's obvious why Islam and the Quaran are singled out despite other holy books having equally objectionable content.

51 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Because the atmosphere of fear related to criticism of Islam makes it very brave and important to do so?

It's more important and socially useful to ask why Islamist extremism has gained so much ground in the past few decades, what sort of conditions this brand of extremism grows out of, etc., than it is to just criticize Islam without any real social or historical context. That alone doesn't really get us anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
25 minutes ago, make total destroy said:

I didn't say that religious criticism is racist, just that those who are preoccupied with Islam in particular generally are racists

You literally said it was generally fair to accuse Islam critics of racism, because you're a regressive identitarian anti Enlightenment leftist.

Quote

However, some of the most vocal critics of Islam, like Tommy Robbinson, can spend decades flapping their gums about without any real consequence.

Tommy Robinson has been beaten up countless times, including by Antifa. Currently he is in jail. So you're completely wrong.

Quote

It's actually quite safe to 'criticize' Islam in the West, for the most part. ... If anything, it's more dangerous to be a Muslim--or to look like you could be a Muslim--living in the West than a critic of Islam living in the West.

Saying it is safe to be an Islam critic in the West is disingenuous and ridiculous. So is saying it is 'more dangerous to look like a muslim'. Muslims also face a lot of bigotry and vitriol. That is true.

Quote

The EDL couldn't care less about gay people or women. In fact, they probably share similar views on gay people and women as many conservative Muslims do. And if they really cared about grooming gangs and pedophile rings, they wouldn't focus all of their attention on Muslims.

However dumb and inconsistent they may be regarding their general conduct, they are right that these are issues relating to the muslim community.

Quote

but it's obvious why Islam and the Quaran are singled out despite other holy books having equally objectionable content.

In a free society you are free to single out whomever you want for criticism. Furthermore, it is fair to single out Islam, because muslims are often rather illiberal and reflexively respond to criticism or ridicule with violence and terror. Islam has a terror problem, Sunni Islam specifically. There are a wealth of reasons to fairly single out Islam for criticism.

Quote

It' s more important and socially useful to ask why Islamist extremism has gained so much ground in the past few decades, what sort of conditions this brand of extremism grows out of, etc., than it is to just criticize Islam without any real social or historical context. That alone doesn't really get us anywhere.

It's not mutually exclusive. You can analyze the power dynamic, and the disastrous US instigated war in the region, the social circumstances of radicalized muslim men, and criticize Islamic doctrine. None of that is mutually exclusive.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.