Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 7

 

2010-12-22 18:28:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Muslims at-large (ie. the ones that are rational) don't view any government currently in existence as a Muslim Caliphate.  That is, those supposedly "theocratic governments" that you use as evidence of how shitty and retarded Islam is aren't seen by the practitioners as reflective of an Islamic government.
That probably depends on who you ask.   The average Iranian citizen seemed to feel that the Islamic Revolution put into power legitimate religious authorities.   I would guess they might feel a bit different about it now that it's obvious they don't actually have real elections anymore though.

When it comes to the Saudis, well...  the religious police seem to mostly exist because of the Wahhabis.  It's hard to say how the average Saudi feels about the Saudi family itself.   I'm guessing open criticism of the family isn't exactly encouraged.
2010-12-22 18:31:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

it's a matter of information balkanization. you have a bad view of islam and receive so many bad anecdotes and news-stories about islam because it's the media-information agenda. it's a meta-narrative. if you looked throughout the entire christian world, especially at the similarly undeveloped countries in the far-east and so on that are majority-catholic, you could find just as many 'human rights horrors' and 'moral crimes'. the fact is that newspapers and news-websites have limited column inches and a specific economic imperative to SELL their shit... so we get long, thematic concerns with 'islam as the enemy' or 'muslims as barbarians'... because, since 9/11, it sells like hotcakes to morons like you that swallow it wholesale.

'manufacturing consent'.
As I said, I don't like religion in general.  Still though...  you really think it's an anti-Muslim conspiracy by the media?  Yes, certain topics sell, but it seems a bit conspiracy theorist to suggest this is all just an agenda by the big bad West.
2010-12-22 18:39:45
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
it's not even a conspiracy or an agenda... it's just an economic imperative.

there is no incentive to 'fairly represent' the global news- certain stories sell more, certain topics shift units... it's just that simple.

in the west you can guarantee that anything about islamic terror plots or islamic atrocity will shift off the stands.

there's no interest, profit, or ad-revenue for the news corporations in talking about female oppression in the catholic far-east.

nobody wants to read it.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 18:45:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina
So, basically, what you're saying is that if coverage was more egalitarian, I'd probably hate Catholicism and other religions equally as much.   I can fathom that.
2010-12-22 18:49:06
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
and, furthermore by that logical implication, islam isn't especially 'evil'. you're a western reader in a country with an occidentally-oriented cultural production (i.e. newspaper corporations driven by profit, selling pro-western news to pro-western readers)- so of course you're going to read deprecatory and critical stories about the middle-east and the orient; it has all sorts of socio-cultural and political boosts to our own group identity, and lines the pockets of the newspapers. you think mauritania really has a unique and especially serious problem with rape? of course not, that's a ridiculously naive way to look at the rest of the world exterior to your own country: the fact is that a story about rape, female rights and islam has been packaged into a neat headline/feature on mauritania. it's nothing special. look at indonesia and you can find 101 stories with a similar nature. the difference? reporters and photographers aren't paid to currently sit there and get scoops: the western world (and its media) have their gaze currently set on the middle-east, their favourite enemy since 9/11.

i really hope you can follow that, because it's not complicated; in fact, to me, it seems painfully obvious.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 18:57:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

and, furthermore by that logical implication, islam isn't especially 'evil'. you're a western reader in a country with an occidentally-oriented cultural production (i.e. newspaper corporations driven by profit, selling pro-western news to pro-western readers)- so of course you're going to read deprecatory and critical stories about the middle-east and the orient; it has all sorts of socio-cultural and political boosts to our own group identity, and lines the pockets of the newspapers. you think mauritania really has a unique and especially serious problem with rape? of course not, that's a ridiculously naive way to look at the rest of the world exterior to your own country: the fact is that a story about rape, female rights and islam has been packaged into a neat headline/feature on mauritania. it's nothing special. look at indonesia and you can find 101 stories with a similar nature. the difference? reporters and photographers aren't paid to currently sit there and get scoops: the western world (and its media) have their gaze currently set on the middle-east, their favourite enemy since 9/11.

i really hope you can follow that, because it's not complicated; in fact, to me, it seems painfully obvious.
Well, if it's all relative, why bother reporting at all?   If we can safely assume that the media is simply profit driven and sensationalist in general, then watching or reading the news is only a pursuit of propaganda.   We touched on this in the Juan Williams thread.

So, whether or not this rape victim gets punished has no real relevance to our lives, nor anything really going on in Mauritania.
2010-12-22 19:00:07
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
the only relevance a story like this has is evident in this thread: it seeds (mis)information in the minds of western people so they can further morally distance themselves from muslim people and muslim cultural identity. the story isn't 'fairly representative', nor does it hint at some worldwide-problem with islam... but it serves the purpose, as clearly demonstrated by you, to incite 'WTF ISLAM!' sentiments in the west. the news corps get richer, we get more angry at islam, and hence more complicit and accepting of our wars and ideological conflicts there. it all serves the same goal.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:07:17
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

the only relevance a story like this has is evident in this thread: it seeds (mis)information in the minds of western people so they can further morally distance themselves from muslim people and muslim cultural identity. the story isn't 'fairly representative', nor does it hint at some worldwide-problem with islam... but it serves the purpose, as clearly demonstrated by you, to incite 'WTF ISLAM!' sentiments in the west. the news corps get richer, we get more angry at islam, and hence more complicit and accepting of our wars and ideological conflicts there. it all serves the same goal.
We believe what we believe -- they believe what they do.  That's a natural conflict resulting from a difference in values.  It's not a moral distance as much as it is a cultural incompatibility.

Conflict is inevitable when differing religions coexist.  America is better than most when it comes to tolerance and assimilation, but for example, the cartoon controversies show what happens when certain Muslims are too strongly offended by our free speech.

Also, 9/11 was a legitimate casus belli.  That can't simply be reduced down to a media agenda.  This particular article might be part of the agenda you're discussing, but the angst that existed toward Islam before this was somewhat legitimate.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-22 19:08:19)

2010-12-22 19:09:22
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
9/11 was not a legitimate reason to hate an entire worldwide religion and its followers... don't be so fucking ridiculous.

as for all this "it's natural to have cultural incompatibilities and conflict"... yes, to a degree. but you just sound like you're taking a leaf from that same-old, boring, misanthropist's handbook that you borrowed from macbeth. why so eternally pessimistic about human nature? the key to coexistence is better mutual understanding - even if it is understanding of incompatible differences - not to peddle sensationalist bollocks like you have done in the OP.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:11:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

9/11 was not a legitimate reason to hate an entire worldwide religion and its followers... don't be so fucking ridiculous.
I'd say it was a legitimate reason to be wary of Islam.

Uzique wrote:

as for all this "it's natural to have cultural incompatibilities and conflict"... yes, to a degree. but you just sound like you're taking a leaf from that same-old, boring, misanthropist's handbook that you borrowed from macbeth. why so eternally pessimistic about human nature? the key to coexistence is better mutual understanding - even if it is understanding of incompatible differences - not to peddle sensationalist bollocks like you have done in the OP.
The key to coexistence is assimilation.   Sometimes, that involves conflicts and/or war.
2010-12-22 19:14:04
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
no it is not a legitimate reason to be wary of islam. see this is the fundamental wrong that you have been lured into: thinking that a terrorist network in the middle-east has anything to do with the hundreds of millions of muslims all over the world. if a crackpot terrorist group out of utah committed a terrorist atrocity (lets just say hypothetically)- would you say they fairly represented catholics in spain? protestants in england? unitarians in new england? this is such fucking bullshit. why do i have to explain this to a grown man?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:16:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

no it is not a legitimate reason to be wary of islam. see this is the fundamental wrong that you have been lured into: thinking that a terrorist network in the middle-east has anything to do with the hundreds of millions of muslims all over the world. if a crackpot terrorist group out of utah committed a terrorist atrocity (lets just say hypothetically)- would you say they fairly represented catholics in spain? protestants in england? unitarians in new england? this is such fucking bullshit. why do i have to explain this to a grown man?
When the group doing the terrorism takes a stricter view of Islam than most Muslims, yes, it is legitimate, because it gives us an idea of what Islam can lean towards.
2010-12-22 19:18:22
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
right so david koresh and jonestown gave us an idea of what christianity and christian scriptural interpretation can lead towards, right?

guess the entire islamic and jewish world should be REAL fucking suspicious. i mean that shit is nasty.



grow up, open your eyes
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:19:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina
Fundamentalist Christians do illuminate several flaws in the ideas behind Christianity.  Observe the abortion clinic bombers for example.
2010-12-22 19:21:01
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
but they don't make you wary of all christianity?

but then fundamentalist islamists do make you wary of all islam?

funny, that. what a well reasoned, intelligent man you are.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:22:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

but they don't make you wary of all christianity?

but then fundamentalist islamists do make you wary of all islam?

funny, that. what a well reasoned, intelligent man you are.
Where did I say I wasn't wary of Christianity?  I said I distrust it less.   I still am disgusted by much of its legacy.
2010-12-22 19:24:02
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
change the fucking record then and create some christian-atrocity threads

sure you may have to check a little further than fox news, but it's all out there... information age, shouldn't be too difficult

i fear how bigoted most right-wing americans must have been before it was so easy to access news from other sources/mediums

jesus h. christ no matter shit like mccarthyism spread so easily - you people are incapable of independent thought.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-22 19:24:18)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:25:15
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

change the fucking record then and create some christian-atrocity threads

sure you may have to check a little further than fox news, but it's all out there... information age, shouldn't be too difficult

i fear how bigoted most right-wing americans must have been before it was so easy to access news from other sources/mediums

jesus h. christ no matter shit like mccarthyism spread so easily - you people are incapable of independent thought.
I bet if I made some anti-Christian threads I'd get less shit for it and probably fewer responses in general.

Oh, and making sweeping generalizations about Americans is fine while what I said about Islam isn't.  Hypocritical, aren't we?

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-22 19:26:37)

2010-12-22 19:28:33
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
american d&st stupidity seems to be a majority-trend.
islamic terrorism is a minority fanaticism.
no contest.

and yeah, the 'success' of your anti-christian threads say a lot about the state of media-inculcation / cultural production today.

and probably says a lot about the attitudes of the average d&st visitor, too.
islam? 20 pages, can't wait to get in and say your bit about brutality. christianity? dude you're crazy.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:29:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

american d&st stupidity seems to be a majority-trend.
islamic terrorism is a minority fanaticism.
no contest.

and yeah, the 'success' of your anti-christian threads say a lot about the state of media-inculcation / cultural production today.

and probably says a lot about the attitudes of the average d&st visitor, too.
islam? 20 pages, can't wait to get in and say your bit about brutality. christianity? dude you're crazy.
All I ask is that you don't pretend that you're objective.  You're clearly not.
2010-12-22 19:32:18
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
it's probably because, ironically, the bigoted arrogance and egregious statements of americans annoys me on a more regular basis than the news-stories and atrocities of the islamists. you guys have been a broken record ever since 9/11 and you're absolutely immune to any form of reason or open-mindedness. is it narrowminded of me to get frustrated when you come out with statements like this thread? i don't think so.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:34:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina
Well, at least you admit it.   LostFate was anti-U.S. but never quite could.
2010-12-22 19:38:20
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
i'm not anti-US. absolutely not. i love american philosophy, social values, society, (high) culture... i have chosen to specialize and study it for the majority of my degree. i am not anti-american. categorically not. what i am anti is stupidity put forward by modern americans re: islam, the orient, the rest of the world, generally. the crucial distinction is that i don't think this post-neoconservative stupidity is a very 'american' characteristic. nor do i think mccarthyism particularly embodies the american spirit very well. perhaps i lament the state of the american right today. but i am not anti-america.

don't be narrowminded, again, to construe and pigeonhole me as that just because i disagree with your threads. you seem to find it difficult to possess a plurality and multiplicity of views/stances/ideas... quite ironic, considering you are the guy that self-advertises himself as the ideological chameleon and great synthesizer of ideas.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-22 19:39:21)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-22 19:43:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

don't be narrowminded, again, to construe and pigeonhole me as that just because i disagree with your threads. you seem to find it difficult to possess a plurality and multiplicity of views/stances/ideas... quite ironic, considering you are the guy that self-advertises himself as the ideological chameleon and great synthesizer of ideas.
I'm trying more of the neocon thing this week.  I miss arguing with lowing, so I decided to take his place somewhat.
2010-12-22 19:45:30
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
nothing applaudable or difficult in being a moron, even less so if you're feigning it on purpose.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard