Board 8 > Politics Topic 86: Hawaii, Where Everything's Made Up And The Votes Don't Matter

(+) Yeah! (+)

Man that title cut it close.
---

where the news is made up

I don't get into politics much, but when I do, I prefer voluntaryism.

Stay free, my friends.
---

JDPizza posted...

I don't get into politics much,

going by years of experience in the freedom topic i can say this is false.
---

Whoops I was too slow. We want to go with this one? I'll delete mine
---

Jakyl25 posted...

We want to go with this one?

for sure. can't miss jdtay's incorrect statement about his involvement in political debates.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Okay. Any solutions?

increase law enforcement in those areas to return them to following the law of the country in which they reside. really simple solution.

There needs to be better law enforcement in any high/crime area. Saying "we can't send law enforcement in there because they are Muslims" (which is apparently what people are saying if I catch your drift, though I haven't personally seen it) is no better than saying "we have to send law enforcement in there BECAUSE they are Muslims" (Which is an attitude anyone can see with a few minutes of searching).
---

I don't really see where anybody is handwaving the problem with violent, radical Muslims

When somebody goes "Islam is evil" and somebody replies with "No it's not," that's not handwaving anything. That's directly responding to an accusation/comment. It's not really fair to use that to then "You're just ignoring the problem" when the direct problem itself didn't even enter conversation.
---

erection
---

Jakyl25 posted...

There needs to be better law enforcement in any high/crime area. Saying "we can't send law enforcement in there because they are Muslims" (which is apparently what people are saying if I catch your drift, though I haven't personally seen it) is no better than saying "we have to send law enforcement in there BECAUSE they are Muslims" (Which is an attitude anyone can see with a few minutes of searching).

what about 'we have to send law enforcement in there because people are committing crimes' and then the other side responds with 'YOU JUST HATE BROWN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!'

do you see how this is an issue

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't really see where anybody is handwaving the problem with violent, radical Muslims

I am trying to help you see it.

doesn't seem to be working with most of you!

StealThisSheen posted...

When somebody goes "Islam is evil" and somebody replies with "No it's not," that's not handwaving anything. That's directly responding to an accusation/comment. It's not really fair to use that to then "You're just ignoring the problem" when the direct problem itself didn't even enter conversation.

cool, but this isn't what was cited in reference to handwaving.
---

I'm not really sure what change it makes whether one says "terrorists" or "radical islamic terrorists," nor why it's important enough to divide over
---

is it a super big deal when people say anders breivik is a terrorist rather than a far right terrorist?
---

One doesn't demonize the brown people enough
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Problematic people of any religion should be addressed

catching up to the topic but this bit draws my ire because it's doing exactly what it's not supposed to do. it's not talking about the issues of a religion, the beliefs or practices in it, the focus lies on people and removes religion from the equation.

this is further doubled down on a couple posts later:

Jakyl25 posted...

Because the problem isn't "Islam." The problem comes from specific Muslims who think their religion gives them the right to kill other people.

this is completely wrong and another example of handwaving.
the problem of the religion's connection with murder is reduced to "specific Muslims who think their religion gives them the right to kill other people."

at the top of any religion - any philosophy really - would be the beliefs, the thoughts and ideas.
beneath that are the religious practices, the desired actions of that religion, usually with the end goal attached to a belief.
finally underneath that layer is the individual's actions in carrying out this practice.

the issue isn't "well he thinks his religion gives him this right," it's "this religion promotes murder in these situations because it believes that their death is better for everyone, including the one to be killed."

that's a bad idea.
the religious practice of doing this atrocious.
directly targeting both of these facts is what should be prioritized, not "well this guy killed someone because he just thought his religion let him do this." i mean you can technically use this as a counter if a negative practice is no longer done/a negative belief no longer exists but if you end up proving that it's still happening, that the belief is intact? it supports the idea that yes, both of those need to be addressed before any individual person is.

it's kind of similar to the idea of using education to teach people why they should not do things. a fairly liberal concept!

...just not applied here.


MariaTaylor posted...

if the left does not address the problem, the right will.

yeah, this is actively happening. mentioned her earlier but Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a clear case of this, the right loves her. you'd think the left would too but only certain parts of it - the ones willing to say the religion has problems, basically. i guess going through FGM, being almost murdered (she worked on a film criticizing Islam, both her and the director were threatened about it, said director was murdered as a result), and explaining how oppressive that religion and the societies surrounding it are to women just doesn't work.

but that woman who said she wishes she could remove Ayaan's vagina, what a hero with her helping organize the women's march.


also the problem isn't really "violent, radical, Muslims."
the problem is Islam itself has many violent practices in it and beliefs that support said practices.

the only solution to this really is one that will span multiple generations because it's getting them to understand that these religious practices are bad, why they're bad, and that their religion is not infallible.

bear in mind: for Islam, the last one borders on blasphemy. so it's gonna be a while.
---

DeathChicken posted...

One doesn't demonize the brown people enough

wow this post couldn't have been timed better to come right before wang's
---

some context on ayaan hirsi ali: she's right-wing as fuck, so wang's "you'd think the left would love her!" statement doesn't make much sense.
---

Wang, would you be for taking all the radical Muslims and radical Christians and throw them all on an island somewhere with instructions to kill each other?

Edit: talking about some random uninhabited island btw, not hawaii.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not really sure what change it makes whether one says "terrorists" or "radical islamic terrorists," nor why it's important enough to divide over

in what world could you possibly read two pages worth of discussion and somehow come out at the end thinking this is my message. this isn't even something that I said. this is something that someone else brought up in response to me.

look at what Kenri and DC are doing right now

this is an intellectual POISON that you have allowed into your side

and you need to see that

because I know for a fact the left is better than this

I am not even right leaning, I am not even a trump supporter, but apparently because I said that not all trump supporters are racist this somehow means that I hate "brown people." like, seriously. it's complete lunacy. keep in mind neither me nor wang mentioned anything about skin color or race. we are discussing religion. other people brought up race. they are using the unrelated issue of race as a means to attack and demonize those they disagree with.

this is a problem because if you start accusing everyone of being racist pretty soon they are going to catch on. 'huh, wait. but I'm not racist. and I know my friend jane smith isn't a racist. what if all the other people they called racists and dismissed out of hand are not actually racists either?' this is what I am addressing. it's so painfully and unbelievably obvious. these ridiculous handwaving tactics are what the left needs to see, and they need to abandon it, and they need to distance themselves from people who behave like this.

how is the left possibly ever going to win over moderates if they keep doing their best to push them away
---

and the response from these lunatics will be in line with 'WE SHOULDN'T PANDER TO RACISTS!!!"

except, whoops, the people are not actually racists. you're just calling them racists and then deciding that their "racism" is a reason not to engage with them.
---

Wang really really wants another Crusade it seems
---

MariaTaylor posted...

look at what Kenri and DC are doing right now

this is an intellectual POISON that you have allowed into your side

there's nothing intellectual about what i'm doing i assure you
---

I have to admit I not actually sure what's being argued here after reading the last few pages of this.
---

Be assured that your disapproval fills me with glee, you troglodyte
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Wang, would you be for taking all the radical Muslims and radical Christians and throw them all on an island somewhere with instructions to kill each other?

honestly just the setup alone would do it. there's enough radical Muslims that would interpret various scripture as already having that instruction, so they'd totally go for it. i... don't think we have many Christians radicalized to a similar point of fully accepting murder as the better choice or as part of God's will. obviously this was the case in the past with the Catholic Church but they've changed a lot.
---

Wanglicious posted...

the only solution to this really is one that will span multiple generations because it's getting them to understand that these religious practices are bad, why they're bad, and that their religion is not infallible.

I would really love to know how you would proceed towards this goal while at the same time demonizong their religion as a whole.

Especially as a champion of absolute free speech!

Do you think there is something in the Quran causing murder that should be censored?? Heavens no.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

I have to admit I not actually sure what's being argued here after reading the last few pages of this.

my best elucidation;

I'm trying to offer some insight to the political left on this board, but the members of the left who resist this notion are trying to turn it into an argument. it's probably unclear about what is being argued because, well, I'm not actually trying to argue with anyone. I'm not suggesting every response was in line with this -- I will give props to those who actually engaged in discussion even if they ultimately found my observations to be incorrect or worth little. and if even 1 or 2 people actually gave some consideration to my musings then I ultimately feel like it was worth it for me.

although at this point I probably won't invest much more time or energy into the subject since it's probably likely to yield diminishing returns.
---

Wanglicious posted...

. i... don't think we have many Christians radicalized to a similar point of fully accepting murder as the better choice or as part of God's will.

We absolutely do. They just live in such developed nations that they'd rather the military do it for them. Radical Muslims are still very hands-on in their Deus vult
---

It's been a long day and I must be reading wrong

Is Wang saying we shouldn't be focusing on the bad people and instead focusing on the religion itself?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

We absolutely do. They just live in such developed nations that they'd rather the military do it for them. Radical Muslims are still very hands-on in their Deus vult

haha this is actually a really clever observation.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

I have to admit I not actually sure what's being argued here after reading the last few pages of this.

my best elucidation;

I'm trying to offer some insight to the political left on this board, but the members of the left who resist this notion are trying to turn it into an argument. it's probably unclear about what is being argued because, well, I'm not actually trying to argue with anyone. I'm not suggesting every response was in line with this -- I will give props to those who actually engaged in discussion even if they ultimately found my observations to be incorrect or worth little. and if even 1 or 2 people actually gave some consideration to my musings then I ultimately feel like it was worth it for me.

although at this point I probably won't invest much more time or energy into the subject since it's probably likely to yield diminishing returns.

I agree that a lot of people on the left here are terrible at arguing. I was more confused as to what your objection was specifically. If you're done that's fine though.
---

Yes, he is.

He's blaming words for people's actions instead of their own free will.

Which is very odd for me, coming from him.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

I agree that a lot of people on the left here are terrible at arguing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbySdh66npI
---

I checked out of this argument like 200 posts ago because i refuse to read wangagraphs because they piss me off.

But was it brought up that Ahmadinejad was ruled ineligible to run for president in Iran?
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

I agree that a lot of people on the left here are terrible at arguing. I was more confused as to what your objection was specifically. If you're done that's fine though.

if you're interested read KP's post at the end of the last topic. he has a lot of good insights there. and I respond to those directly as well. it's a good example of us not really being in opposition but rather seeing things slightly differently in the same way. or maybe not even -- but just trying to work together to form a more clear picture of the current political reality.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wang really really wants another Crusade it seems

i don't and i don't know why you're making such a claim. the subject is Islam. you've got its beliefs, its practices.
does saying "hey, these are bad, address them as such" now mean "TIME FOR A CRUSADE" in your eyes or something?

Jakyl25 posted...

I would really love to know how you would proceed towards this goal while at the same time demonizong their religion as a whole.

...there's no need to demonize the religion as a whole?
i've specifically pointed out multiple, specific examples that are bad and should be demonized. i not once said everything about the religion is bad, where are you getting this from? like most super old belief structures, it's got a mix of everything and many antiquated ideas.

unless you're saying that the their religion is not infallible counts as "demonizing their religion as a whole."
because i mean, many will view it as such, that's part of the struggle. but bit by bit, the critique should settle in.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

in what world could you possibly read two pages worth of discussion and somehow come out at the end thinking this is my message. this isn't even something that I said. this is something that someone else brought up in response to me.

I apologize, I wasn't specifically trying to attribute that to you. The discussion/argument is a little all over the place, and I was just commenting on bits and pieces that I saw without really looking at names.

I don't actually have issue with what you're saying. Also don't really have any answers to some of the things you are asking. I was merely trying to clarify in general that I think the issue I, and several others, were focusing on was the blanket "Islam is evil" from Wang. There's no intention to handwave there. I just fully believe that when somebody says "Don't look at the people doing bad stuff, blame the religion" and just tries to plant a label on it, that causes bigger issues.
---

Wanglicious posted...

i don't and i don't know why you're making such a claim. the subject is Islam. you've got its beliefs, its practices.
does saying "hey, these are bad, address them as such" now mean "TIME FOR A CRUSADE" in your eyes or something?

How else do you do it? TED talks?
---

I'm just waiting for scarlet's response for when KP actually gave him what he asked for.

Wanglicious posted...

...there's no need to demonize the religion as a whole?
i've specifically pointed out multiple, specific examples that are bad and should be demonized. i not once said everything about the religion is bad, where are you getting this from? like most super old belief structures, it's got a mix of everything and many antiquated ideas.

So you propose to cherry pick all the violent parts out, and tell Muslims "the rest here is okay."

Which most Muslims worldwide already do on their own, at least in action if not thought.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wanglicious posted...

...there's no need to demonize the religion as a whole?
i've specifically pointed out multiple, specific examples that are bad and should be demonized. i not once said everything about the religion is bad, where are you getting this from? like most super old belief structures, it's got a mix of everything and many antiquated ideas.

So you propose to cherry pick all the violent parts out, and tell Muslims "the rest here is okay."

Which most Muslims worldwide already do on their own, at least in action if not thought.

It's almost like every religion has bad things that normal people ignore on their own
---

Jakyl25 posted...

How else do you do it?

that's not an answer.

considering i've literally said that i'm fully in support of helping the people, protecting the people, yet am extremely critical of the religion because there are multiple bad ideas in it, i don't know, like, or understand why your reaction is that i'm calling for literal holy war.

"how else do you do it" isn't the answer because the claim you made shouldn't have even come up. and you know i'm not a fan of bullshit claims like this so dial it back or we're just plain not gonna talk on this.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I apologize, I wasn't specifically trying to attribute that to you. The discussion/argument is a little all over the place, and I was just commenting on bits and pieces that I saw without really looking at names.

no worries. I noticed you checked into the discussion a bit late. I was probably a bit harsh in my response but that's my tendency -- I often come off more harsh than I intend. despite my best attempts to be mostly literal and to avoid confusion by doing that. like it definitely was not my intention to make you feel as if you needed to apologize.

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't actually have issue with what you're saying. Also don't really have any answers to some of the things you are asking. I was merely trying to clarify in general that I think the issue I, and several others, were focusing on was the blanket "Islam is evil" from Wang. There's no intention to handwave there. I just fully believe that when somebody says "Don't look at the people doing bad stuff, blame the religion" and just tries to plant a label on it, that causes bigger issues.

yeah this is another thing I struggle with making clear but like ... if you're not engaging in the harmful behaviors that I'm describing then you're not the problem. basically I'm saying 'x is the problem with the left.' and I often get a response from people on the left saying 'but I don't x, so you're wrong.' really, what it means is that you personally don't x. we should be working together to make it so the notion of x is not associated with the left anymore.

this goes back to the discussion that KP and I had. a lot of it is about both perception and reality. I definitely think there are many times when handwaving is not the intention but it can be read that way. the fact that there are people who intentionally go around handwaving issues and trying to derail conversations only exacerbates this issue. this is a 'perception' that the left needs to fix, but it's also somewhat based in reality. and it's difficult to fix when the intentional handwavers are trying to crash any and all discussion between the left and the right -- or even the left and the middle.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Which most Muslims worldwide already do on their own, at least in action if not thought.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
---

I can't tell who's shitposting and who's serious here, and that's very concerning

Eddv posted...

But was it brought up that Ahmadinejad was ruled ineligible to run for president in Iran?

No it hasn't.

Being President in Iran only makes you the 14th most powerful person there though.
---

Like, many Christians aren't violent in the name of God, despite there being passages that would allow for such if they went by the letter. But there are still too many that are.

I don't think we'd get anywhere gathering up all the Christians in a room, pulling a chair up backwards like the hip teachers that we are and having "real talk" about the dangers of taking Scripture too far. You may think you're ready for Leviticus, but don't let peer pressure push you into it.
---

...also you again are dialing it back to Muslims and their countries when the issue raised in the first place is how the left refuses to address issues of certain negative religious practices found within Islam. you have yet to tackle that very specific concern.

you're going after everything else but that.
---

Wanglicious posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Which most Muslims worldwide already do on their own, at least in action if not thought.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

This is like one of those Ulti links where it says the opposite of what you think it says
---

Wanglicious posted...

...also you again are dialing it back to Muslims and their countries when the issue raised in the first place is how the left refuses to address issues of certain negative religious practices found within Islam. you have yet to tackle that very specific concern.

you're going after everything else but that.

Because that's not the issue. The issue isn't "We need to round Muslims up and tell them what parts of Islam they can follow"

The issue is how to deal with areas/situations where violence is more common. Telling them their religion is evil isn't the answer.
---

Also, yeah. Your link... Kinda just supports Jakyl
---