I am literally saying what I am literally saying. I'm sorry that we're not going to get rid of the NSA anytime soon. I am deeply and genuinely sorry about that. But I didn't vote for it, and I excoriate everyone who did, and somehow got mocked for that too. Since being 'for' or 'against' the patriot act isn't what determines virtue, let's move on. I'm saying that since we're stuck with it, make it do something pro-social and find the Rogers and Mateens and whoever this new fucker is before they pick up a gun or get behind the wheel IN ADDITION to all the other fuckery that nobody is in favor of. Saying 'Use it while it's here until we can get rid of it' is not the exact same thing as saying 'Use this now and in perpetuity because I'm in favor of it.' When someone else presents an alternative characterization of that opinion, or a cogent and coherent explanation of what drives 'sane' actors to violence, I'll be happy to listen. But right now it's a Monty Python sketch where we accept any and all reasons that could explain why someone is a murderer EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THEY GIVE. Those two statements I made and are in no way contradictory. I can simultaneously believe that our governments have too much knowledge and power, and that they use the power that they do have irresponsibly/stupidly/inefficiently. I don't know how to encourage government actors to behave in a just manner. It is literally beyond me to imagine such a thing. I love your ideology, but it's never going to happen. I know I'm normally the all ideology all the time and hang the consequences guy, but it's not going to happen. I'm not advocating for a surveillance state. On the issue of 'Obama can read your DMs on camera in front of anybody at any time, yes or no?' I'm a firm 'no.' Me too, let me know when you find one. I didn't say that they were. But I get made fun of when I say that I consider that voting in favor of the patriot act an act of treason against the people of this country. Seems pretty easily dismissed to me. We had one. I donated to his campaign. I encouraged others to vote for him. It's a real shame it wasn't his turn.By saying "let's use it since we have it," you are literally saying there is a part of you that thinks it's alright.
I think our friends and peers deserve more credit and respect than reducing their arguments to something so easily dismissable.
No big brother merkel in my email
Use the current messed up, overreaching system for good in addition to the evil it already perpetrates'
I'm still waiting for a "swords into ploughshare" candidate.
Just because a candidate doesn't share our worldviews on a certain subject, it doesn't mean our concerns are suddenly dismissable.
It just means we have to figure out which candidate we think will best lead us in the direction we want to be going.
The pushback you and everyone else who refuses to give this any thought is related to the fact that you can't wrap your head around any granularity beyond "islam is islam" as if "christianity is christianity". There are plenty of justifications within any extant religious text for righteous religious murder. The overwhelming majority of that faith's practitioners eschew religious murder. And that's why Sam "religion causes murder" Harris annoys people - sure. There are sects within Islam that are virulently bad. But Islam as practiced by ISIS has as much to do with Islam as practiced by Yusuf Islam as christianity practiced by David Koresh has to do with christianity as practiced by Oral Roberts.But right now it's a Monty Python sketch where we accept any and all reasons that could explain why someone is a murderer EXCEPT FOR THE ONE THEY GIVE.
And we keep being ignored when we say the problem is not with Islam but Radical Islam. Not with Christianity but with Radical Christianity. Harris has been trying to show people this distinction for a while now. I'm not sure how else to say 'I don't view Islam or any religion as a monolith.'The pushback you and everyone else who refuses to give this any thought is related to the fact that you can't wrap your head around any granularity beyond "islam is islam" as if "christianity is christianity".
Yeah. Sounds like he takes extra care to go out of his way to give Islam and Muslims a fair shake.The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms.
I could ask you to re-read that, or half the stuff he writes. I could ask you to try and see how he tries to paint Abrahamic faiths with wide brushes, reducing them to ugly caricatures that are easy to criticize and attack. I could ask you to try and see how many of his statements can be seen as divisive, inflammatory, and potentially dangerous. The fact that half the time I don't understand the things he says, but can understand that he takes on the tone of a pretentious dick is telling about how massive of a douche he must really be, because I pretty much never use those terms to describe people. I don't think it'll do any good. I think at this point, you're being deliberately obtuse. So let's call it a night.
1) Who are the "radicals?" How do you separate them out? Do you only ban members of the First Church of Radical Islam, Aleppo Diocese? Or do you recognize that the problem isn't "radical islam" it's "radicals" and it always has been? 2) How can you have an entire thousand-word discussion about "Islam" without ackowledging that Shia islam isn't Sunni islam isn't Alawite or Wahabi or Sufi or any other sect? 3) "No one is losing sleep over Jain exremists?" You mean like the ones that assassinated Indira Gandhi? I mean, the buddhists slaughtered muslims in Burma. Ain't nobody immune from teh crazy. So point to the "radical" muslim and tell me why he's a problem. What makes him a "radical." And how you'll single him out without pulling a Sam Harris and arguing that somehow, because they're the other, you don't have to think about this shit.What most discussions of “Muslim extremism” miss, and what is obfuscated at every turn by commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong—and even Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck—is the power of specific religious ideas such as martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, prophecy, and honor. These ideas do not represent the totality of Islam, but neither are they foreign to it. Nor do they exist in precisely the same way in other faiths. There is a reason why no one is losing sleep over the threat posed by Jain and Quaker “extremists.” Specific doctrines matter.
Tomato tomahto. I knew sikhs who claimed to be Jains who lived on sikh ashrams, worshipped in sikh temples and lived with sikhs.
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Admittedly, I'm not that well-versed in south asian religions and interfaith relations. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the point you were trying to make. I believe certain people (of any/no religion) has the potential to be radicalised under the right circumstances, usually due to perceived threats or socio-economic factors.