Side discussion about General Topics forum

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, let's get this out there. In this forum, there is a General Topics section where we all participate in discussion of current events. A man has his head hacked off, yeah, there are going to be strong feelings. We're looking at another war with Islamic extremists. Who's not feeling tense and frustrated, angry. Oh? You are? Great, them have a little compassion for the rest of us.

No one wants to let the forum fill up with racists and hate-mongers. I don't think it is in danger of becoming so. When we do get the occaisonal racist nutter here, we let him expand on his views until he has clearly crossed the line. Then we ease him out.

I am not pointing a finger at any one individual, and I do not exempt myself from the situation, but I need to use the Steven Sotloff thread as an example.

In post 297 Skybird explains at length why he thinks Islam is bound to be an extremist doctrine, by its own rules and writings. It appears to me Sky does not necessarily hate all Muslims, but he thinks that all Muslims should be tarred by the same brush. Basically, he's saying that Islam is extremist.

In post 298 BossMark says something about deporting relatives of yahoos who have gone to join the ISIS cause. It's obvious this horrific crime has upset him, and why not? It upset me, it's pretty normal to have this reaction, and appropriate.

In 299 Tarjak rather patiently explains that won't work, or cannot be done ethically. The important thing is, he explains his reasoning.

in 300 Tarjak states to Sky:

It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause. Yet again your wall of text completely misses the point.

This simply makes it appear that you are closer to being the thing you hate and spend so much time railing against.

Well, that was rather elegant and to the point. If you think someone is a bigot, that's the way to respond.


In summary: use your logic to win your point, don't be lazy and try to shut the other person down by reaching into your toolbox and throwing out the label "bigot", "sheep", etc. You can use the ignore feature if you think your are dealing with a bigot, utopian, or garden variety knucklehead.

Remember: just because someone does not see things as you do does not make them wrong. Unless it happens that you woke up this morning and discovered you are God.

Also, know when to stop. I've had my share of heated discussions here, and when I felt I was repeating myself, I stopped and moved on without trying to WIN!! or get in the last word. Don't let your passion turn you into a zealot.

Finally, I am not infallible or an uninterested observer here, but I offer this post as a reminder that we need to work a little harder to keep the discussion of difficult topics civil.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Give up Marcus, you'll never get him to believe anything other than all Muslims are hell bent on global domination.

Ah but the point is not to change the view of the bigoted, but to prevent others from being infected by thier poisonous thinking. Particularly when said bigots are comfortable in being labelled as such.

If noone speaks out to the contrary, we all become complicit in the spread of their hatred.

Remember Edmund Burke's words. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

That and the sparring can be entertaining.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It depends which part of which post you are talking about, his views are entirely contradictory.
On the one hand he has the muslims under the bed nightmare where the entire population is out to get him because that's what he likes to believe.
On the other hand he has his wahibi streak where the overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims are not really muslims and should be put to the death because he likes the nutty interpretation of certain hadiths over the Koran.

Or as Oberon implies, don't expect him to make sense.

The key thing is to not support his xenophobic views and wherever possible, speak out against them.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Ah but the point is not to change they view of the bigoted, but to prevent others from being infected by thier poisonous thinking. Particularly when said bigots are comfortable in being labelled as such.

If noone speaks out to the contrary, we all become complicit in the spread of their hatred.

Remember Edmund Burke's words. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

That and the sparring can be entertaining.

Well, I'll leave it to you, I've done my time, nearly a decade of it, and it is now incredibly depressing and tiring to be exposed to bigotry and hatred at every turn. From now on, I think I'll resort to the ignore button wherever possible, if only for my mental health.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well, I'll leave it to you, I've done my time, nearly a decade of it, and it is now incredibly depressing and tiring to be exposed to bigotry and hatred at every turn. From now on, I think I'll resort to the ignore button wherever possible, if only for my mental health.

I know what you mean. it is a bit like bashing your head against a brick wall. But I'm an annoyingly relentless bugga who does this for fun. If it stops being entertaining, then I stop doing it. I've been winding people up since forever and the older I get the more enjoyment I get out of it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TarJak

It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause.

This simply makes it appear that you are closer to being the thing you hate and spend so much time railing against.

Blablabla. More smoke screens from you.

Like almost always.

One is wondering whether behind it there even is anything.

Anyhow, I am tired of your always personal aiming, so I leave it here. My above posting is so clear and direct that everybody reading it can easily realise whether he must feel targetted by it, or not.

[TarJak]

Well if you can't see through the smoke, you should stop smoking. Its bad for your health.

I'm sure that everyone who can read can see through what you are saying to the heart of the matter.

Good luck on your next trip and stay away from kebab shops.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm going to say this again, if only to ensure I am being more clear: stop calling names. In every argument or discussion there are 2, 3 or more sides, and yours is not by law morally superior. You need to make your point without labeling the other member. Dismissing someone as a "bigot" is a lazy way to win an argument; you are really just trying to shut down the discussion.

If someone does post something with racist hatred, it will be pretty clear; what they say will reveal them.

[Oberon]

Likewise, calling people naive, fools, sheep for not believing in the same thing you are is a bad thing. Likewise calling for the death of people and the destruction of society is probably a bad thing too.

But there you go.

[Jimbuna]

^+1 Most definitely.

[Oberon]

Or, the next best option is to use the ignore option. There's just too much anger around these days, and if it effects you to the point of exacerbating an already existing condition then your best option is to just walk away, don't waste your breath on those who you cannot reach. There are certain people who will never change their viewpoint, and they will just keep on repeating the same things, linking to the same sites, the same videos by the same person, and sadly they will convert other people to their cause and so on and so forth. Hatred and anger are much easier tools to work with than tolerance and understanding, which is why the likes of ISIL have grown so much whilst peaceful and tolerant Muslims are ignored by the majority in favour of focusing on those who do despicable acts.
It's a cycle of hatred, and I've grown very tired of trying to break it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

In post 297 Skybird explains at length why he thinks Islam is bound to be an extremist doctrine, by its own rules and writings. It appears to me Sky does not necessarily hate all Muslims, but he thinks that all Muslims should be tarred by the same brush. Basically, he's saying that Islam is extremist.

True and not true. I indeed say that Islam is an extremist ideology. What I insist on is the description "Muslim" not being given arbitrarily (like calling a meat-eating carnivore a vegan, that would be pointless as well), but that the description of that ideology'S script and rule is being the deciding criterion whether somebody is rightfully called or identifies himself as "Muslim". You are no humanist, when you act racist. You cannot claim to be liberal when you are making a stand for totalitarian rule. You are not a Muslim if you cherry-pick and ignore the Koran - in fact you even put your life at risk, from a Kopranic POV. "Muslim" is not a racial or ethnic trait, it is an ideological confession that by category is political and sociological. You are not unchangeably Muslim because of for example your skin-colour. You instead make a choice, and decide. Possible however, that if your choice is to reject Islam, this will bring you into conflict with it because it makes a claim for possessing you (if you were born to a Muslim father, for example: but that is again no biological trait "Muslim", there is no gene for becoming Muslim, but it is but ideological mumbo-jumbo).

That's why I reject your claim that I tarr all Muslims by the same brush. I instead use one and the same criterion on everybody claiming to be Muslim in order to decide whether he indeed is Muslim, or not. And that criterion is not arbitrarily redefined to the opportunist's liking, but has the Koran and the Hadith as its basis.

That is a very huge and very important difference, Neal.

[MH]

Originally Posted by TarJak

It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause. Yet again your wall of text completely misses the point.

This simply makes it appear that you are closer to being the thing you hate and spend so much time railing against.

You know what...almost any criticism about Islam is bigotry in your parts.
It seems like you are actually afraid of yourselves and Muslims more that anyone else....I hear so much this "this will make them more radical" or that is "fearmongering" or "bigotry hate spreading".
Then somehow many imagine that opposing this puts them on the higher moral grounds by default...

Fearmongering -some people may analyze some situations not to your liking , often use logical and intellectual methods and come up with scary results not to the liking of your camp therefore islamophobic...
No body likes to be a chicken or be labeled with some mental disseize...

One thing is sure , politicians on both sides are harvesting on this issue.

In may opinion there is a problem with in Muslim culture if you agree please don't hate them or put in concentration camps...
Who knows maybe some open criticism will help in dealing with extremism because their communities will try harder...

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

True and not true. I indeed say that Islam is an extremist ideology. What I insist on is the description "Muslim" not being given arbitrarily (like calling a meat-eating carnivore a vegan, that would be pointless as well), but that the description of that ideology'S script and rule is being the deciding criterion whether somebody is rightfully called or identifies himself as "Muslim". You are no humanist, when you act racist. You cannot claim to be liberal when you are making a stand for totalitarian rule. You are not a Muslim if you cherry-pick and ignore the Koran - in fact you even put your life at risk, from a Kopranic POV. "Muslim" is not a racial or ethnic trait, it is an ideological confession that by category is political and sociological. You are not unchangeably Muslim because of for example your skin-colour. You instead make a choice, and decide. Possible however, that if your choice is to reject Islam, this will bring you into conflict with it because it makes a claim for possessing you (if you were born to a Muslim father, for example: but that is again no biological trait "Muslim", there is no gene for becoming Muslim, but it is but ideological mumbo-jumbo).

That's why I reject your claim that I tarr all Muslims by the same brush. I instead use one and the same criterion on everybody claiming to be Muslim in order to decide whether he indeed is Muslim, or not. And that criterion is not arbitrarily redefined to the opportunist's liking, but has the Koran and the Hadith as its basis.

That is a very huge and very important difference, Neal.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. However, I think we disagree on that idea that if you are a Muslim, you have to practice everything in the Koran to the nth degree. I know a lot of Christians who profess belief and faith, yet they ignore many parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing, so let's not antagonize them over it. And I think millions of Muslims are the same. They would prefer to live peaceful lives, and they will "interpret" some of the more insane parts of the Koran in a more favorable light, just like the Christians I mentioned.

Back to my point, though, and that is that at some point, you can assume everyone understands what you are saying, they just disagree, so we leave it at that

Originally Posted by Oberon

Or, the next best option is to use the ignore option. There's just too much anger around these days, and if it effects you to the point of exacerbating an already existing condition then your best option is to just walk away, don't waste your breath on those who you cannot reach. There are certain people who will never change their viewpoint, and they will just keep on repeating the same things, linking to the same sites, the same videos by the same person, and sadly they will convert other people to their cause and so on and so forth. Hatred and anger are much easier tools to work with than tolerance and understanding, which is why the likes of ISIL have grown so much whilst peaceful and tolerant Muslims are ignored by the majority in favour of focusing on those who do despicable acts.
It's a cycle of hatred, and I've grown very tired of trying to break it.

I understand, but just how many times has anyone changed your opinion in a forum discussion? Was I able to open your eyes to gun rights? Or being a conservative? Or choosing Dr Pepper over ale?

Oberon, I respect you a lot. You have good intentions but if you believe the "cycle of hatred" is stronger than tolerance and understanding, then you must believe your cause is doomed. Don't worry, it isn't. It's just never going to be easy, never going to be finished. The righteous will have to be the strong and the understanding as well.

And when someone is bombarding you with their message, then you can see they are simply setting themselves up to be viewed as a narrow-minded extremist. But either ignore them ( a powerful tool) or counter their arguments with your own, but let's try to avoid labeling them. That's a technique that can be used inappropriately to isolate and dismiss. For one thing, calling someone a name does not necessarily make it true. For example, Tim may agree with BossMark that deporting the families of terrorists is a valid concept. Joe is welcome to say, "no, it isn't" and explain why. But Tim should not be called a bigot or xenophobe. Maybe Tim is a recent legal immigrant, or maybe he's a volunteer for homeless people, or special needs children. Does he need to advertise all this simply to counter Joe's accusation? (In this case, Tim is me )

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So by your definition the criteria you set means that all those muslims you claim are real muslims because they follow an 18th century minority sects interpretation cannot be muslims.
After all their interpretations of certain hadiths are directly contrary to the Koran.


Evidence points in the other direction. You managed to enjoy the world cup this year. In the last tournament you claimed that muslims have ruined the game of soccer, it wasn't this muslim or that muslim who had ruined the tournament it was just muslims.

As neal quoted this...It is comments like these that can only be likened to the propaganda used by hate groups to attract impressionable people to their cause.
It leads nicely to the supporting evidence you used to back up your claim which was a crazy "christian" terrorist supporters website which went further than your own claim by saying muslims and ******s had ruined the world cup.
If you link to crazy racists as support for your views it implies rather strongly that your views are crazily racist.

Dang, I thought N****** was a censored word here. The Admin is falling down on the job

If you link to crazy racists as support for your views it implies rather strongly that your views are crazily racist

Yeah, that's a good point. Each of us should exercise a bit of oversight--if we find ourselves agreeing with extremists, what does that say about us?

BTW, I missed that thread, how did blacks ruin the world cup?