Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

And let's just ignore that any time muslims in the West are surveyed, there's way more for making homosexuality illegal than any other Abrahamic religion. I guess that's their sense of "justice".

Ok this is the creepiest thing people bring up whenever they want to argue against immigrants or multiculturalism is that immigrants aren't in favor of homosexuality...

Yet, does this REALLY matter?

i mean it does if you're in favor of lgbt rights.

luckily i'm not, so I don't have to deal with the dilemma.

I mean it matters if you want to have kids.  If you're going to have kids you should be ok with them being anything, be it gay or autistic or bedridden for life.  Otherwise when you have a kid that is one of those things...

[smjjames]

You didn't complete the last sentence in the spoilered block EM. Also, aren't Muslims already a pretty significant voting group in Britain? Way more than they are in the US.

I'd be against the sharia law stuff and all of the other oppressive stuff too, but if they have some decent ideas, then lets hear them.

[Virtz]

And let's just ignore that any time muslims in the West are surveyed, there's way more for making homosexuality illegal than any other Abrahamic religion. I guess that's their sense of "justice".

I ain't saying christians aren't capable of the same kind of shit (just look at Nigeria), but their recent track record has been a lot better, and I ain't seeing the left oppose these kinds of medieval views the way they oppose them when they come from christians.

Because Christians live here.  If Muslims ever become a voting block I'll oppose them too.  Hell, the Latino immigrants coming in are statistically in line with religion-in-government ideas I oppose, the only reason they've been welcomed into the democrat's loving arms is because Republicans won't take them.  I'm pretty sure if Republicans could find a way to distance themselves from the hateful and scary anti-immigration rhetoric and start pandering to catholic immigrants, it would 100% reverse their fortunes and put the democrats on the back foot for elections 20+ years in the future.

As for Sharia law in Muslim nations, well, I firmly believe that you don't hate people for their own sake.  "I hate you because you hurt me" can be a consistent view.  "I hate you because you hurt others" can be a consistent view.  "I hate you because you hurt yourself" is a ridiculous standard.  That's why mainstream feminism is no longer against Hijabs, for example, because any anger over that and any change is going to have to come from the people who are actually effected.

Don't get me wrong a little political pressure is a good thing.  But there is no faction in the US that I'm aware of that's saying we shouldn't highlight human rights violations in the Islamic world.  So when you say "the left doesn't oppose those kind of views", all I can hear is you criticizing me for not being hateful.  Because in what sense am I not opposing radical Islam?  I oppose those views here.  And I oppose those views in the sense that I think the governments who enact them should be pressured to stop.  As would most Americans, its just that some want reasoned political action and others would prefer invasions and blanket condemnations of an entire religion.  The political divide isn't between pro-Muslim and anti-Muslim, and it never has been.  The right sees itself as equal and opposite to the left, so since they're anti-muslim surely the other side is pro-muslim.  No, the left just doesn't have an opinion on that, they aren't pro or anti any religion.  At least not the leftists that agree with me which I think is a majority.

Spoiler: historical semi-digression (click to show/hide)

Furthermore, Sharia law was a positive force when it was first codified and it still exists for strong historical reasons.  Its kinda dickish to say "why haven't you phased out your repressive religious laws" when we were literally the colonial caretaker for the region half a century back, and we still kinda are in the neocolonial sense.  There actually is a solid pushback against Sharia Law in the Muslim world its just only taking a foothold in a few places.  Which, again, is happening for a reason.  When exactly did the Islamic world have an opportunity to enact strong social change since 1918?  We were doing a lot of sordid shit in 1918 but we got to move on.  You can see the same thing in other postcolonial nations.  They're going through the same changes the colonial masters did, just somewhere between 30-150 years behind, depending on the overall education level and stability within the region.  Look at for example India and you'll see what I mean.  You can look at how, for example, Indian immigrants often treat entry level workers like crap because they're used to doing so in their own nation, and you can judge India as a nation for that.  But the caste system is technically illegal in India and there's an ongoing dialogue over whether the caste system should be kept or abandoned.  The point is that approaching the debate like you are is

Edited out the top of your quote because I semi-agree with your statement.  I would have some quibbles in that its kind of complicated which parts of the Islamic world follow Sharia law and to what extent, but it is a good chunk of the Middle East and it does cause genuine human harm.

Fair enough, though I'd still say the left tends to deflect criticizms of one while openly criticizing the other. Just like the right, except biased the other way.

I would also argue that there's a limit to how much can be achieved when childhood religious indoctrination and threats of violence or even just ostracism are in place. I grew up in a majorily catholic country, and I know well enough what a hell hole a religious society can be, even without enacting a law that'd promote it. The idea of any law based on something written in a religious text is terrifying to me, and the idea that people on the left would step in to defend proponents of it seems pretty insane.

[smjjames]

@virtz: Except that if we so much as try to force religious schools to teach normal things or just not religiously indoctrinate, the Right would go into berserk mode. Okay, berserk mode would be an exaggeration, but it'd be like the Rights hair bursting into flame. Plus theres the first amendment and all that.

And I don't see the Left as defending laws based on religous texts just because they defend Muslims from oppression, I have no idea where that is coming from (the left's detractors obviously).

[Frumple]

... huh. We apparently now have video evidence of a republican congressman praising (terrorist attacks attributed to) ISIS, and suggesting we work with them against Iran, and vice versa. Dana Rohrabacher, it seems. R-CA, house, thursday, if you want to hunt up a clip and/or check out surrounding context. Technically he just said Sunni and didn't immediately acknowledge who Iran said was behind the attack, but, uh.

I think the best part of it is, is the reasoning looks like it was basically because ISIS was (at least claiming to be) attacking Iran, and that's a good thing so play them off each other.

Meanwhile in Baku, hey, if that's even remotely what it looks like, trump would have given us a head start on that particular batch of batshittery, ahaha...

... also jesus hell, if I didn't like the US I would be getting me a nice shipment of US arms right about now, giving them to ISIS operatives working against iranian forces, then push to make that video footage viral in the area and watch the fireworks.

[alway]

And I don't see the Left as defending laws based on religous texts just because they defend Muslims from oppression, I have no idea where that is coming from (the left's detractors obviously).

I suspect that's part of the religious conservatives' belief that they are being persecuted by liberals. Any attempt to oppose their religiously motivated laws (teaching creationism in school, anti-LGBT laws) is portrayed as evidence of being oppressed by liberals. It follows naturally that if you believe liberals were standing up for a minority religion, you would also falsely believe they would be supporting that minority's religiously motivated laws, as that's the standard they set for their own beliefs.

[smjjames]

I saw an article on The Hill mentioning that, I'll pull that up, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337274-gop-lawmaker-wasnt-isis-terror-attack-in-iran-a-good-thing . I didn't post it earlier because he's just being an idiot. He's also the lone congressman who is actually as friendly with Russia as Trump is, or friendly with Russia in any particular way.

To be fair to the rest of Congress, he did get reprimanded back over it.

Guy even pulled a godwin, kindof, here's the quote: "“So that’s like Joe Stalin was a horrible guy, we must never associate with horrible guys like that, even against Hitler,” Rohrabacher said. “And so maybe it’s a good idea to have radical Muslim terrorists fighting each other. I’ll leave it at that.”"

Also, didn't we do what he described back during the Cold War and basically spawned the Taliban? Plus backing a terrorist group puts us on the same moral level as Iran, which the Republicans would recoil at the idea.

[Frumple]

... you say that with a hell of a lot more certainty than it warrants, methinks. I'd be doubtful there's much of a moral level the GOP would recoil at, at this point, particularly if it primarily impacted people not actually on our soil. And yeah, it wouldn't be the first time we indulged in shenanigans of that nature.

_{Though if you're talking moral level of iran, you might want to check who trump was working with in baku. Fun times, that.}

[smjjames]

I get the idea of playing the two sides against each other, but more often than not, every time we try to do something like play with the terrorists, it comes right back to bite us in the ass. Not usually immediately, but eventually in some fashion.

He does say that it's a Trump strategy or just looks like a Trump strategy, but until proven otherwise, he's just winging it.

[Frumple]

Other side being, from what I recall, even when we did do stupid crap like that, it wasn't in cooperation with, y'know, something like friggin' ISIS. Near as I can recall anyway. Still generally terrible folks, mind.

Also, now that I think of it, doing something like that and it getting out would also probably torpedo our relationships with europe right to hell. Colossal stupidity is colossal. Who thought electing that guy was a good idea, again?

[EnigmaticHat]

I get the idea of playing the two sides against each other, but more often than not, every time we try to do something like play with the terrorists, it comes right back to bite us in the ass. Not usually immediately, but eventually in some fashion.

He does say that it's a Trump strategy or just looks like a Trump strategy, but until proven otherwise, he's just winging it.

Today's warzone is tomorrow's terror stronghold.  If we wipe out the entire current crop of terrorists, but in doing so worsen the factors that originally lead to those terrorists in the first place, there's just going to be more terrorists.  And they'll be stronger than before.

You'd think we'd have learned that after Iraq.

[Descan]

And let's just ignore that any time muslims in the West are surveyed, there's way more for making homosexuality illegal than any other Abrahamic religion. I guess that's their sense of "justice".

Ok this is the creepiest thing people bring up whenever they want to argue against immigrants or multiculturalism is that immigrants aren't in favor of homosexuality...

Yet, does this REALLY matter?

i mean it does if you're in favor of lgbt rights.

luckily i'm not, so I don't have to deal with the dilemma.

Sorry for existing, then.

[Frumple]

No need to be sorry, just be to just be. Or something.

...

and in political news, tomorrow may be hella' interesting. Headline: DC + Maryland claiming they're going to file suit against trump on monday, alleging breach of constitutional contract via continuing business entanglements.

[Virtz]

And I don't see the Left as defending laws based on religous texts just because they defend Muslims from oppression, I have no idea where that is coming from (the left's detractors obviously).

I suspect that's part of the religious conservatives' belief that they are being persecuted by liberals. Any attempt to oppose their religiously motivated laws (teaching creationism in school, anti-LGBT laws) is portrayed as evidence of being oppressed by liberals. It follows naturally that if you believe liberals were standing up for a minority religion, you would also falsely believe they would be supporting that minority's religiously motivated laws, as that's the standard they set for their own beliefs.

I ain't looking at detractors, actually. I seriously see leftists defend people when they say "sharia law would actually be great". And I don't mean defend from violence, I mean defend from people who rightfully point out it's a stupid idea to base your laws on a 1.4 millennia old book that includes some passages that pretty unambiguously advocate violence and violation of human rights.

Like maybe I'm seeing some crazies among liberals (although that'd suggest it's mostly crazy liberals on twitter since their opinions get pretty highly upvoted), but if it was some idiots proposing we bring back the Code of Hammurabi, I don't think any liberals would be jumping to their defense when someone pointed out how retarded that is. And if it was some conservative advocating we go all Old Testament on criminals, I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) the left would actually oppose that.

I get the idea of playing the two sides against each other, but more often than not, every time we try to do something like play with the terrorists, it comes right back to bite us in the ass. Not usually immediately, but eventually in some fashion.

He does say that it's a Trump strategy or just looks like a Trump strategy, but until proven otherwise, he's just winging it.

Today's warzone is tomorrow's terror stronghold.  If we wipe out the entire current crop of terrorists, but in doing so worsen the factors that originally lead to those terrorists in the first place, there's just going to be more terrorists.  And they'll be stronger than before.

You'd think we'd have learned that after Iraq.

The first or the sequel?

[Sheb]

I've yet to see leftist defend people saying that Sharia would be great, unless they're guys like that cleric linked to before, with a rather nice interpretation of Shariah. I mean, 90% of what I've seen which could be characterized as leftist defending Muslims is leftist pointing out that no, not all Muslims are terrorists and you shouldn't punish them all for the actions of a few. Or going against barely concealed anti-Muslim crap like those anti-Sharia protests.