But yea, why does every time someone starts talking about the inherent problems of Islam, someone always does the ~well what about all those awful religions/creeds/political groups/sandals/etc, why aren't you talking about them too? Thats problematic~ thing and do whatever they can do to shift the discussion away from the fact that Islam is driving force behind incredibly massive waves of violence, terrorism and war right now, and that it has constantly been like this (though at different levels) for the recent decades? This isn't even something thats discussed only by non-Muslims either, there are many Muslims who admit to this and call for a new Islamic movement that distances themselves from the warlike intolerant Islam that seems to dominate the most vocal groups in the religion, or is met with passive, silent support from others, either in the form of the strange sense of masochistic ~progressiveness~ that tolerates intolerance and that has infected every layer of western society, or actual intent in subjugating everything in favor of an Islamic view.
Well, there's
this oft-linked article arguing that it may have something to do with the fact that both sides of the Islamism debate act as the opposing side's primary
outgroup: Islamophobes act as the Progressives' outgroup, and vice versa. The debate is supposedly such an incestuous affair that the actual Islamists out there are rendered into featureless bogeymen or political hobbyhorses that have no connection with reality---hence the characteristic acts of exaggeration or dismissal perpetrated by each party, respectively.
That's just one theory, though, and there are probably more nuanced ones. Like, for example, there's
this absolutely brilliant article that I'm reading right now...
EDIT: One of the points in the American Reader article is that the less-than-liberal wing of the contemporary Left is looking at everything through the paranoid lens of
structural injustice, to the extent that blatant and shameless injustice like terrorism seems less insidious---and therefore less dangerous[!]---than the omnipresent ills of organized society. There's a great quote from Marcus Garvey, the famous black activist:
I regard the Klan, the Anglo-Saxon clubs and White American societies, as far as the Negro is concerned, as better friends of the race than all other groups of hypocritical whites put together. I like honesty and fair play. You may call me a Klansman if you will, but, potentially, every white man is a Klansman, as far as the Negro in competition with whites socially, economically and politically is concerned, and there is no use lying.
I mean, that almost makes sense, doesn't it? Uncle Sam professes his love for you and stabs you in the back, whereas the Klansman waves a noose in front of your face and tells what he's going to do with it. The hypocrite Ivy League prof. preaches tolerance while groping female students and shitposting on Stormfront, whereas the terrorist wants to kill you dead along with everyone you love, and he's perfectly honest about it. Which of these adversaries would seem more "trustworthy" and less dangerous when viewed through the paranoid goggles of social criticism?
Poll
71 (27.7%)
Author
Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion (Read 684057 times)