BF2S Forums Race relations thread

to be fair a sizeable number of western men have become disillusioned because no one will touch them. the incels and jihadists should form a club.

The example was meant to illustrate that if you tried to condense all of Christianity to certain values not much would be left at all. Everyone understands there is no one christianity just as people should understand there's no one islam.

Of course the ten commandments are part of Christianity, the Old Testament is part of Christianity. The interpretation and context changes due to the New Testament but they didn't scrap the Old Testament because of it. It's part of every bible.

It was my understanding we were talking about Islamic terrorism in the West. In that case, yes, it can be traced back to Sayyid Qutb, who was one of the more important inspirations for Al Qaeda.

If we're talking about worldwide terrorism the cases are context specific. Which again brings me back to the point that there's no one Islam and that other factors contribute significantly to radicalisation and violent extremism.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-04-02 02:41:20)

I remember fondly when I took atheist talking points about Christianity as fact back in check notes 2009.

Re: The Old Testament rules for Christians

In the New Testament it clearly says that Christians do not need to follow Jewish customary law aka Old Covenant aka Law of Moses. It even lays out the events that led to that becoming Christian doctrine as well as the debate around it.

Basically in the Bible sometime after the death of Jesus the leaders of early Christianity were called together at the Council of Jerusalem to codify Christian doctrine. The leaders found that they were having trouble getting Jews to convert but non-Jews were really interested in the stuff. The problem is that the non-Jews were turned off by Jewish customary law that said they had to grow beards, can't eat pork, have to get circumcised etc. So the early Christians agreed that in order to "save as many souls as possible" they would just drop almost all Jewish customary law. Therefor Christians don't have to follow like most of the Old Testament unless it is backed up by something in the New Testament. Old Covenant vs New Covenant.

The laws of Moses were probably just the culture of the uncivilized desert people at this time with a fancy name because the Jewish writers felt like being fancy. That's why a lot of Jewish customary law (beards, pork, modest dress) are Islamic rules also. The Muslims just didn't absorb Roman/Greek/European culture since the Muslims conquered the Christians instead of getting conquered like the Jews were. Interestingly, early Christian writers were convinced that Islam was just a sect of Judaism. That's a slander that continues until this day.

Let me know if you guys need any more lessons on Christianity.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you're only talking about Al Qaeda then yes, one of their various influences may well have been Sayyid Qutb. So what?
My point is that multiple strands of Islam adopt radicalisation and violent extremism independently, in different circumstances, the constant is Islam.

We've almost gone full circle now. At least you've come around and understand that Islam has many multiple strands. I've now written a lot about how there's historical examples of Islamic communities living in the west peacefully and that muslim terrorism in the west is a radical strand that looks inward (purification of Islam/Middle East), not outward (violent subjugation of the West/others). Considering the fact that many billions of muslims manage to live peaceful lives without feeling the need to murder others and that muslim immigrant communities integrated peacefully in the past, there's two points to be made.

• There's various, completely different versions of Islamic faith and holding the entire religious community responsible for terrorist action by a tiny sub-set of radicals implies complicity on the part of separate communities that have nothing in common with the radicals apart from belonging to the same identity group.
• The point stands and remains that if a small number of members of said religious community resort to violent action but the vast majority of followers do not, there need to be additional circumstances at play.

This latter point needs a little more explanation. Please understand that a religious text like the Qu'ran (or any text for that matter) has no agency. It does not do things. It doesn't take action. People, subject to social dynamics and processes, do. They interpret and give meaning to the books they read, their interpretation strongly dependent on conscious experience of their surroundings and conscious & unconscious biases that develop as a result.

Accepting this fact and knowing that most muslims are non-violent allows us to decouple the religious dimension in 'Islamic terrorism'. Which is important for several reasons. First, after all, different experience & biases are fundamental to the vastly different interpretation of the religious text. Second, the notion of Islamic terrorism suggests that this is fundamentally different from all others 'types' of terrorism. Ethnic terrorism. Political terrorism. Nationalist terrorism. Christian terrorism. Etc. It isn't. The common constant is people resorting to terrorist action. Third, understanding this allows us to analyse the problem of terrorism more comprehensively - as a human problem, not uniquely confined to or motivated by membership of specific identity groups.

Now looking at the problem in this way you can analyse it in a more academically responsible manner and draw parallels by simply focusing on the human behaviour and circumstances of those who engage in terrorist action. That's where you'll find true parallels.

In addition, you stop laying blame on the overarching community to which terrorists claim to belong....

Last edited by Larssen (2019-04-03 05:20:52)

i think it's a good insight into macbeth's racism and failings as a teacher. "I can't effectively teach one entire demographic of my classroom, and it's because of their skin color."

In a world where social media profiles and written word is shown to be an effective barometer of a person's true feelings, MacB is out here railing against the black students he teaches on an internet forum.

I typed out that I was glad at least you aren't a CBP agent or cop, but I truly do not know which is worse.

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you're only talking about Al Qaeda then yes, one of their various influences may well have been Sayyid Qutb. So what?
My point is that multiple strands of Islam adopt radicalisation and violent extremism independently, in different circumstances, the constant is Islam.

We've almost gone full circle now. At least you've come around and understand that Islam has many multiple strands. I've now written a lot about how there's historical examples of Islamic communities living in the west peacefully and that muslim terrorism in the west is a radical strand that looks inward (purification of Islam/Middle East), not outward (violent subjugation of the West/others). Considering the fact that many billions of muslims manage to live peaceful lives without feeling the need to murder others and that muslim immigrant communities integrated peacefully in the past, there's two points to be made.

• There's various, completely different versions of Islamic faith and holding the entire religious community responsible for terrorist action by a tiny sub-set of radicals implies complicity on the part of separate communities that have nothing in common with the radicals apart from belonging to the same identity group.
• The point stands and remains that if a small number of members of said religious community resort to violent action but the vast majority of followers do not, there need to be additional circumstances at play.

This latter point needs a little more explanation. Please understand that a religious text like the Qu'ran (or any text for that matter) has no agency. It does not do things. It doesn't take action. People, subject to social dynamics and processes, do. They interpret and give meaning to the books they read, their interpretation strongly dependent on conscious experience of their surroundings and conscious & unconscious biases that develop as a result.

Accepting this fact and knowing that most muslims are non-violent allows us to decouple the religious dimension in 'Islamic terrorism'. Which is important for several reasons. First, after all, different experience & biases are fundamental to the vastly different interpretation of the religious text. Second, the notion of Islamic terrorism suggests that this is fundamentally different from all others 'types' of terrorism. Ethnic terrorism. Political terrorism. Nationalist terrorism. Christian terrorism. Etc. It isn't. The common constant is people resorting to terrorist action. Third, understanding this allows us to analyse the problem of terrorism more comprehensively - as a human problem, not uniquely confined to or motivated by membership of specific identity groups.

Now looking at the problem in this way you can analyse it in a more academically responsible manner and draw parallels by simply focusing on the human behaviour and circumstances of those who engage in terrorist action. That's where you'll find true parallels.

In addition, you stop laying blame on the overarching community to which terrorists claim to belong....

Islam does have multiple strands, each of which resorts to violence when it doesn't get what it wants in its host country.
Islamic terrorism is a little different from local terrorism, any disaffected muslim can latch onto it and find a global support network.

Personally I'd be happy if every religion ceased to exist tomorrow, in the meantime they should be kept separate - multiculturalism is a failed experiment which causes too much tension which boils over into violence.
Western countries should not be tolerating backward brainwashing cults in our midst.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-04-08 16:52:55)

2019 and we are still having to highlight differing socioeconomic demographics and how it relates to, among other things, education and child-rearing.

The "Will I get AIDS if I breathe the same air as an HIV-positive patient, and other common questions" town hall is down the hall to the left, just past the "Homosexuality and Family: How Suppression Theory is a good tool to exorcise the gay out of your child" training program.

What a time to be alive!

people holding viewpoints like yours are a large reason why black africans will continue to underachieve around the world, then some slack-jawed yokel relative of yours will start this same argument and point to the same status, failing to account for the very real (and very uncool!) repression of black people at the hands of western institutions.

Cops arrest more black people for drugs despite evidence showing white people are more statistically more likely to use/deal drugs. This puts a finger on the scale for statistical analysis if one only looks at arrests and convictions. Statistical bias sucks, because people who think they are smart only know how to read numbers on a page without understanding how those numbers are put there.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Black Africans underachieve all around the world Ken.

We share 70% of our genes with fruit flies, maybe Macbeth should expect the fruit flies in the bell jar to achieve 70% of the SAT scores of the people in the class?

I'm never going to be a pro-basketballer due to my genetically determined height, black kids have trouble focusing in Anglo-Saxon schooling.

Its 2019 and people still haven't got this.

stick to calculating the maximum loads of bridges, dilbert, you’re about as good at evolutionary biology as stephen hawking was at softball (and a damn sight worse at constructing meaningful analogies than an atlanta rapper...)

your ‘scientific’ basis for racism is as laughable now as it was when worthy old men with beards went around measuring the sizes of pygmies’ skulls, or taking daguerreotypes of criminals’ faces to discern their villainous physiognomies.

and what the hell is ‘anglo-saxon’ schooling? the curriculum and system of learning in the west is latinate and relies on pedagogies developed by greeks, not anglo-saxons. the american education system adopted as its model, much like for the rest of its early civic culture, ancient rome. it’s more seneca and cicero in its ethos than king alfred the great. the only people i see who use the term ‘anglo-saxon’ as if it signifies a fucking thing are dweebs who follow facebook pages full of medieval knights-in-armour imagery and redolent of talk of ‘defending christian europe’. LARPers, in other words. another retrospectively invented term for racists to get misty-eyed over. or perhaps you mean that ‘anglo-saxon’ brand of imperial, muscular christian education, so popular in english boarding schools, along with faggots and sexual abuse?

you’re one of those guys who should embody the values of the rational, sensible, enlightened westerner but all i see is an embarrassing old fool full of prejudices and cod-victorian science and an angry, ranting ‘atheist youtuber grandad who speaks common sense!!!’ rhetoric. the sort of people who gather on reddit and self-label themselves as ‘skeptics’. christ.

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-08 18:46:09)

uziq wrote:

worthy old men with beards

Pretty sure its old men with beards who have achieved most things in the world.

I'm sorry that you're not black, gay and one-legged but there's nothing I can do.

You're an ignoramus

Folklore has it that when Carl Jung was once asked which was the correct spelling—ExtrAvert or ExtrOvert—Jung's secretary wrote back something like, "Dr. Jung says it's ExtrAverted, because ExtrOverted is just bad latin."

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "The original spelling 'Extravert' is now rare in general use but is found in technical use in psychology." That's correct. If you look at scientific journal articles, virtually every paper uses the spelling ExtrAvert.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-04-08 19:18:31)

dilbert citing jung. i've truly seen it all. i bet you really were actually citing a crank psychoanalyst that no one outside of niche psychology reads anymore, and didn't at all misspell the commonly accepted US/UK (or is it 'anglo-saxon'?) usage because you spell things as you pronounce them, like a dyslexic bogan. i mean, it's not like you didn't just copy and paste your entire post from another website ('scientific journal articles', lmao, as if you are reading those; and that has to be the first time that jung has ever been called 'scientific' by someone with more than a bachelor's degree in science...)

nup, you had that KNAWLEDGE!

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-08 19:29:09)

Since Jung coined the words lets go with his spellings eh?

Of course, Jung is a nobody in your scheme of things - the forum's great expert on science with his arts degree.

I'm fine with the spelling and Jung being a bit more a luminary than you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extravers … troversion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

Carl Gustav Jung (/jʊŋ/;[4] German: [jʊŋ]; 26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who founded analytical psychology.

Jung's work was influential in the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, archaeology, literature, philosophy, and religious studies. Jung worked as a research scientist at the famous Burghölzli hospital, under Eugen Bleuler. During this time, he came to the attention of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. The two men conducted a lengthy correspondence and collaborated, for a while, on a joint vision of human psychology.

Freud saw the younger Jung as the heir he had been seeking to take forward his "new science" of psychoanalysis and to this end secured his appointment as President of his newly founded International Psychoanalytical Association. Jung's research and personal vision, however, made it impossible for him to bend to his older colleague's doctrine, and a schism became inevitable. This division was personally painful for Jung, and it was to have historic repercussions lasting well into the modern day.

Among the central concepts of analytical psychology is individuation—the lifelong psychological process of differentiation of the self out of each individual's conscious and unconscious elements. Jung considered it to be the main task of human development. He created some of the best known psychological concepts, including synchronicity, archetypal phenomena, the collective unconscious, the psychological complex, and extraversion and introversion.

Jung was also an artist, craftsman and builder as well as a prolific writer. Many of his works were not published until after his death and some are still awaiting publication.

Seems like a life of polymathic achievement to me, let us know when you catch up, you can keep us updated.