Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

[DaveDodo007]

So, a major highway bridge in ATL collapsed tonight. A lot of people's commutes just got insanely shittier for the foreseeable future. Trump could win major points putting americans to work rebuilding our roads/bridges/highways. He could. Probably wont. :(

Give him a chance as he as to deal with your whole MSM shouting "Russia, Russia, Russia and Russia."

[Shatterface]

Aslan's series has been criticised for dwelling on the more sensational fringes of religion, e.g. cannibalistic Hindu cults.

He's indulging in what would be 'orientalism' were he white.

Maajid Nawaz has pointed out the hipocrisy of Aslan eating human brains with Hindus while denouncing Sam Harris for even talking about Islam.

[free thoughtpolice]

So, a major highway bridge in ATL collapsed tonight. A lot of people's commutes just got insanely shittier for the foreseeable future. Trump could win major points putting americans to work rebuilding our roads/bridges/highways. He could. Probably wont. :(

Give him a chance as he as to deal with your whole MSM shouting "Russia, Russia, Russia and Russia."

It's the MSM's fault that he hasn't dealt with putting a stop to chemtrails too.
The bastards.

[free thoughtpolice]

If you want to see the ultimate in sucking up to religion check out the Reza Aslan's series "Believer". He fawns over basically everything faith related, whether it be cannibalism, voodoo, or $cientology. Prepare to cringe.

Yes, it was the likes of Aslan who converted me from moderate religion to atheism. The realisation dawned that in some important ways moderate religionism isn't somewhere between religious fundamentalism and rationality, but rather it is religious moderation which is more extreme in its rejection of rationality than fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism at least says that there is a coherent path to truth (although they choose a very bad candidate) and is prepared to go where this leads. It at least rejects those non-evidenced claims outside of its own particular religion.

Religious moderation however will value all claims except for those based on rationality.

Anjem Choudhury is wrong.
Reza Aslan is not even wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ecumenical all religion is good bunch are particularly creepy. I hope that all the jihadi shaheeds get a 72 year old virgin like this as a reward for their Faith:
[youtube][/youtube]

[DaveDodo007]

That is the reason we have the electoral college, so the most populous states cannot overrepresent in an election.

Sort of a silly reason, if you happen to support the idea of one person one vote.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Fuck off you retard, if the fly over states vote was continually ignored there would be a civil war every two decades fuckwit. If you want a 'United' States then the will of the people has to reflect that. Who wants to be governed by the self loathing gimps of California and New York except the retards that come from there.

[DaveDodo007]

So, a major highway bridge in ATL collapsed tonight. A lot of people's commutes just got insanely shittier for the foreseeable future. Trump could win major points putting americans to work rebuilding our roads/bridges/highways. He could. Probably wont. :(

Give him a chance as he as to deal with your whole MSM shouting "Russia, Russia, Russia and Russia."

It's the MSM's fault that he hasn't dealt with putting a stop to chemtrails too.
The bastards.

Not trusting the MSM = believing every tin foil hat conspiracy? What's it like to be a total retard?

[CommanderTuvok]

Is that Skittles thing an April Fool?

It is now 1st April in good old Blighty, so I am paranoid that every single slightly wacky news-story (which is 99% of them these days) is a prank or wind-up.

Re: the latest schism. I have noticed for a while that there is a strange clique of people who have a weird obsession with hating Gad Saad, David Rubin, Sam Harris (although he is a long-term hate target for some of these), Asra Nomani, Rita Pahani, and a few other atheists/secular types who don't "call out" Trump enough for their liking, or in some cases, support Trump, or perhaps, are too critical of Islam, or people like Linda Sarsour, SJWs, etc. This clique have also started to engage in the "you're a Nazi" bigoteering.

This clique includes:

Aki Muthali, a "call out" merchant who cries victim when she is called out.
Nice Mangoes, see above.
Peter Ferguson, aka Humanisticus, who sees himself as some sort of moral policeman.

There are others, people I used to follow, but have become very regressive in recent months. I blame Trump. Some people have lost their liberal values and common sense. Dan Arel a prime example.

PS. Ophelia Benson is retweeting Nice Mangos like mad. Well, I guess when Sherlock said NM was acrting "like a cunt", whch she was, that triggered OB's "cunt alarm system".

[Steersman]

... But Eiynah seems to have elaborated on the theme in her own more recent podcast "The Complexity of Critiquing Islam Under Trump: Distinguishing between liberals & illiberals". And she has more of the same in her blog post on "Empowering Islamists under Trumpism". But as suggested by those titles, she basically argues that far too many on the "right" - Dave Rubin, Lalo, Harris, Gad Saad, etc - are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam. For which there is some justification. However, I kind of get the impression that she has a foot in the Muslim camp - friends and relatives, I expect - who are still committed to the "religion" which may, not suprisingly, cause her to pull her punches, or, being charitable, to seriously misinterpret what others are saying.

...

“[they] are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam. For which there is some justification” — Steersman

“I think they went somewhat overboard with the Armenian Genocide” — Adolf Hitler (1945)

LoL. Yea, me and Hitler, birds of a feather.

But that "they" may have "gone off the deep in their criticisms of Islam" doesn't mean that everyone who criticizes Islam is equally guilty of the same "crime". Although I will concede that I didn't specify precisely what I meant by "going off the deep end" in that case - for which I don't have a ready or comprehensive answer. But offhand, I think that Eiynah might have a bit of point in, apparently, justifiably condemning those who are "unjustifiably" bigoted or hateful towards Muslims. Though there is some overlap or conflation of Muslims as people, and Islam as an ideology, not all of which is unjustified - for example, see Anne Marie Waters' observations:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8DWz0bVMAEvoHQ.jpg:large

However, if you're going to suggest that I in particular am guilty of that then you might at least put a bit of evidence on the table. Relative to which, you might take a gander at this:

You might think, you apparently think, that Islam is just:

Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
Sugar and spice
And everything nice

But you might at least give some thought to how accurate the following might be, and the ramifications if it is:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8OFFfUVYAEs6pd.jpg

You know that I'm not (hardly ever) much given to hyperbole, but I think it is rather clear that Islam is, in general, a barbaric and psychotic political ideology predicated on a vision of and a demand for a theocratic society that is fundamentally antithetical to all the principles of democracy, and to the pursuit of human rights that has been part and parcel of the whole program of the Enlightenment. And therefore that it needs to be extirpated, root and branch - not much given to categoricals, but I think there's a justifiable exception to be made in the case of Islam.

[free thoughtpolice]

Not trusting the MSM = believing every tin foil hat conspiracy? What's it like to be a total retard?

Different questions comrade:
--Not trusting the MSM =believing every tin foil hat conspiracy?
Who said that? I don't believe that.
--What's it like to be a total retard?
I'm thinking it would be like being someone that asks a rhetorical question that backfires on them. :drool:

[Really?]

PS. Ophelia Benson is retweeting Nice Mangos like mad. Well, I guess when Sherlock said NM was acrting "like a cunt", whch she was, that triggered OB's "cunt alarm system".

No, Ophelia found the tweets through a vanity search for the word "cunt."

[Service Dog]

As someone who has been ass-raped, I must say...

:o wut?

Surely, Ive told the story here before... but I cant find the post, so...

Years ago I was in line for the bathroom at the bar. A finger jabbed into my basketball shorts, up my asshole & pulled-back out. Minor celebrity who I considered a friend was standing there, laughing, holding out finger as-if to show how far in it had gone: "Not bad!" Then, "Don't worry I do it to everyone" and laughter as she walked-away. I had been waiting for bathroom, so I remained there... hoping not to shit my pants.

Initially, I thought of it like hazing... unpleasant, but a rite of comradery. As if our little subculture was operating by different rules, than the puritan outside world. Maybe we were like the JACKASS pranksters on Mtv. The way for me to pass the cool test was to shrug it off. But it became clear in-person & via her feminist grandstanding in media interviews... she applies different rules for herself vs. for men.

The traumatic part was when I later learned that the people closest to me thought my experience Doesnt Count and Im an asshole for daring to suggest it is in any way comparable to when A Woman is raped. My mind reeled, when multiple people I considered reasonable & friends-- reacted with screeching bile & shunning me... when I dared speak ill of their celeb pal. My wife thought I was a jerk for suggesting my social discomfort was a good-enough reason for me to ask her to stop socializing with the cunt.

Installing a surprise, random, pop-up finger in subway seating would not match my idea of progress or improving awareness of the problem.

[Guest_d2eafb1d]

[Kirbmarc]

... But Eiynah seems to have elaborated on the theme in her own more recent podcast "The Complexity of Critiquing Islam Under Trump: Distinguishing between liberals & illiberals". And she has more of the same in her blog post on "Empowering Islamists under Trumpism". But as suggested by those titles, she basically argues that far too many on the "right" - Dave Rubin, Lalo, Harris, Gad Saad, etc - are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam. For which there is some justification. However, I kind of get the impression that she has a foot in the Muslim camp - friends and relatives, I expect - who are still committed to the "religion" which may, not suprisingly, cause her to pull her punches, or, being charitable, to seriously misinterpret what others are saying.

...

“[they] are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam. For which there is some justification” — Steersman

“I think they went somewhat overboard with the Armenian Genocide” — Adolf Hitler (1945)

LOL.

Seriously, though, the matter is complex, I'll write a post about this once that I have figured out what's going on. Neither part in the dispute agrees with Steersman on Qu'ran pissing tests or "population transfers". Steersman once again tries to act like the contrarian troll that he is and messes it all up.

[Steersman]

Is that Skittles thing an April Fool?

It is now 1st April in good old Blighty, so I am paranoid that every single slightly wacky news-story (which is 99% of them these days) is a prank or wind-up.

Re: the latest schism. I have noticed for a while that there is a strange clique of people who have a weird obsession with hating Gad Saad, David Rubin, Sam Harris (although he is a long-term hate target for some of these), Asra Nomani, Rita Pahani, and a few other atheists/secular types who don't "call out" Trump enough for their liking, or in some cases, support Trump, or perhaps, are too critical of Islam, or people like Linda Sarsour, SJWs, etc. This clique have also started to engage in the "you're a Nazi" bigoteering.

This clique includes:

Aki Muthali, a "call out" merchant who cries victim when she is called out.
Nice Mangoes, see above.
Peter Ferguson, aka Humanisticus, who sees himself as some sort of moral policeman.

There are others, people I used to follow, but have become very regressive in recent months. I blame Trump. Some people have lost their liberal values and common sense. Dan Arel a prime example.

PS. Ophelia Benson is retweeting Nice Mangos like mad. Well, I guess when Sherlock said NM was acrting "like a cunt", whch she was, that triggered OB's "cunt alarm system".

Cat-fight at the O.K. Corral; a few amusing details on some specifics:

A specific image in that montage:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8StzxDXsAE2aNo.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8StzxDXsAE2aNo.jpg

Maybe it was a bit of a stretch for Eiynah to be putting more weight on her experiences than entirely justified. But it was maybe a bit catty for Yasmine to be, apparently, discrediting all of Eiynah's arguments. Though she did add a winky so, at least in my book, she's more or less off the hook. ;-)

[Kirbmarc]

If you want to see the ultimate in sucking up to religion check out the Reza Aslan's series "Believer". He fawns over basically everything faith related, whether it be cannibalism, voodoo, or $cientology. Prepare to cringe.

Yes, it was the likes of Aslan who converted me from moderate religion to atheism. The realisation dawned that in some important ways moderate religionism isn't somewhere between religious fundamentalism and rationality, but rather it is religious moderation which is more extreme in its rejection of rationality than fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism at least says that there is a coherent path to truth (although they choose a very bad candidate) and is prepared to go where this leads. It at least rejects those non-evidenced claims outside of its own particular religion.

Religious moderation however will value all claims except for those based on rationality.

Anjem Choudhury is wrong.
Reza Aslan is not even wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There's no such thing as "moderate" religion. Religions aren't diets, where you moderate the amount of religious calories you assume daily. The expression "moderate religion" is a misnomer.

Instead there are literal interpretation and creative interpretations, plus the issue of nominal religion.

Literal interpretations are logical, assuming the literal reality of a religious text. The mindset of a literalist is "it says do X in the book(s) I assume to be true, so I'm doing X". It's internally consistent, even if it's false or terrible.

Creative interpretation is based on reinterpreting the religious texts. The mindset of a creative interpreter is "I think the my holy book(s) are true, but they say X. X is wrong or terrible or I simply don't like it, how can I interpret the book when it says X so that I can argue that it doesn't actually say X?". It's internally inconsistent by its nature, since it's explaining away the parts of a text you don't like while still maintaining the truth of the book.

Literalists interpret holy books as to-do lists, as strict guidelines for their lives. Creative interpreters interpret holy books as "paths of inspiration", full of metaphors and figures of speech, whose "real meaning" is whatever the creative interpreter projects onto them.

Depending on their interpretations and on religious politics creative interpreters can either be treated as heretics or be in charge of the church/religious organization. Also note that creative interpreters aren't necessarily progressive: it's possible to interpret a holy book creatively and still come up with an interpretation that supports regressive practices but is simply different from the letter of the text(s).

Literalists, on the other hand, tend to be overwhelmingly conservative, if only because most holy books were written centuries ago by people who held opinions which were widespread centuries ago.

Then there are the nominally religious. Nominally religious people aren't interested in interpretations, they're interested in being accepted in their religious communities and in the parts of the "religious experience" which they like (religious holidays because they like to get out of work and spend time with their families, prayers because they like peach and quiet or common activities or forms of meditation, religious practice in general because they do things they like or don't mind with people they like and who like them, or at least with people they don't mind and who don't mind them).

They don't care about theology, they don't care about the holy books themselves, they're often cherry pickers, doing what they like and ignoring what they don't. Some of them are actually even agnostics or atheists who simply like religion and religious communities, others have a vague idea of their religion and of a god/spirit/whatever but don't devote too much time to details.

Nominally religious see religion not as a set of ideas but as a common identity for their community. They passively follow what's the norm: if literalists or conservative creative interpreters are in charge they're more conservative, if only not go against the flow, if rules within the community are more relaxed they're also more relaxed.

Nominal religious people are often close to what most people think about when they say "moderate religious": people who practice a religion but without being moralizing busybodies. This is especially true if the religious hierarchy is full of relatively progressive creative interpreters, or if a hierarchy of conservative creative interpreters/literalists has little power within the community.

Aslan is a creative interpreter, not a nominally religious person. He's interested in theology and in providing justifications for islam. His creative interpretation is to assume the reality of some "spirit", some "religious energy" which shows itself through various interpretations, so islam isn't what the holy books say but just as yet another interpretation of "the divine". Aslan does this so he can justify his own creative interpretation of islam as being closer to the "universal divinity" than those who "foolishly" look at the finger (holy books) and not at the moon (the "deep divinity").

In practice he dispenses mealy-mouted deepities to appeal to most religious and "spiritual" crowds who want to feel special, to feel above the rabble of those who see things as they are since they perceive the "mystical mystery" of "something beyond" which common mortals cannot understand. He's the muslim equivalent of Rosemary Altea: a charlatan who surrounds himself with an aura of superior moral understanding.

[Kirbmarc]

About the Nice Mangos-inspired brouhaha: Nice Mango's Empowering Islamism under Trumpism is a reasonable enough article.

The main gist of the article is that Trump's blanket ban is counterproductive (true), that there are white supremacist/right-wing/Steerzoid analogues who jump on the criticism of islam to justify illiberal attitudes and ideas (true), that the left worships and fetishizes islam to an extremely cringe-worthy level as a reaction (true).

This paragraph also shows that she's not in the "Nazi-punching" camp:

As for Milo protests and Nazi punches: for the record I’m against violence, and find it to be an ineffective tactic, one that sets a worrying precedent for people who others may perceive as ‘dangerous’. If we leave it up to the public to decide who’s dangerous, some will get it terribly wrong. And ‘dangerous' is subjective too..to a hardcore theist, there’s nothing more dangerous than a charming, well spoken atheist who dismantles the terrible ideas so revered in holy books. This is a slippery slope that could effect ex-muslims, atheists, satanists…muslims even. This also fuels Milo’s fire, gives him more publicity, more support. I think that creative campaigns to peacefully and wittily protest his appearances would be more effective.

She also posts some vomit-inducing rhetoric of the "World Hijab Day" people and calls it out as cringe-worthy:

I’m all for women having the right to choose their modesty coverings if they truly have a choice and they want to perpetuate this practice, but the disproportionate focus on women’s right TO wear something that majority of women wearing it in the world get forced into, is in incredibly bad taste…its preventing liberals from muslim backgrounds from gaining the same equality for women that has been won in the west.

So far, so good. Nice Mangos seem to be a reasonable left-wing liberal critic of islam/liberal muslim. So where's the beef?

Well apparently she has decided that anyone who even slightly deviates from her orthodox version of How You Should Criticize Islam is a Trump worshipper, sympathetic to white supremacists, a bigot, etc.

She has primarily attacked Dave Rubin, but also Yasmine of the Secular Jihadists, Douglas Murray, Anne Marie Waters (who admittedly is Steersman-ish at times) and lots of ex-muslims/critics of islam who commit the capital sin of being more concerned with islam than with Trump. This is, quite frankly, asinine and idiotic (not to mention more than a little dishonest).

I'm all from making your position distinct from the Steersmans or the Wilders, but lumping together everyone who's not on board with leftist ideas into an indistinct blob of ideas which you associate with "nazism" leads you nowhere. Criticize people for what they really say, not through guilt by association. Nice Mangos has crossed the line from "there are dangerous people on the right who claim to criticize islam but are actually bigots" (true) to "anyone who's even slightly more to the right than me and dares to criticize islam is a Trump supporter/Nazi" (false, and stupid).

She even attacked Lalo Dagach, who's a left-wing critic of Trump, simply because Dagach dared to compare a SJW-ish complaint from "Mona" than non-muslims shouldn't criticize islam to what islamists do (which is actually a fair comparison).

Most of it happened though twitter, which confirms my opinion that twitter is terrible for reasoned debate.

[Kirbmarc]

Nice Mangos, IMHO, shows that there's not a complete overlap between SJWs and the Regressive Left. She's an Ophelia Bensor-style SJW: reasonably critical of islam but supporting of the Patriarchy paradigm. Benson criticized PeeZie for saying that Charlie Hebdo was racist, but still is an insufferable moralizing busybody on many issues.

[Steersman]

... But Eiynah seems to have elaborated on the theme in her own more recent podcast "The Complexity of Critiquing Islam Under Trump: Distinguishing between liberals & illiberals". And she has more of the same in her blog post on "Empowering Islamists under Trumpism". But as suggested by those titles, she basically argues that far too many on the "right" - Dave Rubin, Lalo, Harris, Gad Saad, etc - are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam. For which there is some justification. However, I kind of get the impression that she has a foot in the Muslim camp - friends and relatives, I expect - who are still committed to the "religion" which may, not suprisingly, cause her to pull her punches, or, being charitable, to seriously misinterpret what others are saying.
...

“[they] are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam. For which there is some justification” — Steersman

“I think they went somewhat overboard with the Armenian Genocide” — Adolf Hitler (1945)

LOL.

Seriously, though, the matter is complex, I'll write a post about this once that I have figured out what's going on. Neither [party] in the dispute agrees with Steersman on Qu'ran pissing tests or "population transfers".

LoL. Did I say that any party agreed with me? Apart from the two articles I linked above, you might read also read another of Eiynah's posts, this one being an Open Letter to Sam Harris (January of this year) which I think Jerry Coyne commented on at length, and quite favorably. But my entire argument, which I don't think you bothered to consider, was that Eiynah has been criticizing, with some justification - as I said, some on the right who have "gone off the deep end". Although I'll concede that I may have made a mistake as far as Harris was concerned but, as that last post was from late January, she may have been reassessing that perspective - as I thought was the case based on the podcast, and from a few tweets I had seen.

But, more specifically, you might note the follwing snippets from that post of hers:

Because so many false accusations are hurled at critics of Islam, we tend to take them less seriously, as we should. However, this has turned into a new problem where actual instances and bigoted stances are better camouflaged….and anyone speaking out against actual anti-Muslim bigotry is regarded as a 'social justice warrior', or 'regressive leftist’ - which was not the original intent of the terms, I’m sure. ....

On the flip side of the Islamophobia-shriekers there are those who think that people who make clear distinctions between people and ideas are apologists. These are the people who seek to demonize Muslims as a whole, who actually think its ok to generalize a large, diverse group as savages and rapists. ....

While there are obviously fair concerns about large numbers of people migrating to any country who may not share values or who may hold extreme beliefs, we see those who are minorities within this group further marginalized. Just as they are by the left’s refusal to address the problems posed by Islam. The blanket hate and lack of compassion towards people who want a better life, or are fleeing, drowning to get away from the same extremists we also loathe, detracts from any legitimate points being brought up in regards to immigration/migration. ....

When you partner up with someone like Douglas Murray to do a podcast specifically on migration and the refugee crisis, there are some mixed messages being sent. While he is not an open bigot like Trump or Carson, and he is eloquent, makes many excellent points in his criticism of Islam & the failures of the left, he does reside somewhere on the spectrum of people who otherize and generalize Muslims. .... [Murray's] simplistic view is that "Europe doesn’t owe anyone anything"…as if he wouldn’t do the same if him and his family were in such a desperate position. His position seems to be not one of compassion. ....

Murray is not the bigot that Trump is or that Tommy Robinson is, but he is certainly an apologist for such bigotry (such as that of far right nationalist group EDL’s), and downplays its harmfulness. He is someone who thinks Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch is a brilliant writer and scholar. This is where it gets muddy (around the 4:50 mark). .... I listened to more of [Murray's] talks and appearances, and found him to be excellent when taking down opponents like Asghar Bukhari, but its his tribalism, apologia for Christianity, compassionless stance on immigration, refugees that I can’t reconcile with. To hear you being ‘honoured’ to speak with someone who time and time again demonizes immigrants like me, was disappointing. ....

Like I've said several times, I think Eiynah makes a number of reasonable points about some on the right "going off the deep end", although I'm not entirely convinced of her position on Murray. I think he makes some very good points but I've found a number of his arguments to be somewhat questionable.

However, as I've also said, I think Eiynah is also shading into some questionable apologism, some sympathy for Muslims that is a bit misplaced. While she does recognize the problems that Muslim communities are causing, I think she's a little reluctant to consider that the only rational solution is to seriously limit Muslim immigration - Anne Marie Waters' point as I've stated several times, most recently in one of my posts above. But, for example, consider:

I understand that there are harmful beliefs to varying degrees and Islam is undeniably at the forefront of it today, but I make no mistake of excusing the rest. Certainly we can prioritize and emphasize, but we can’t devolve into apologists for other harmful beliefs simply because of our dislike for one that is currently more harmful. ...

When I hear from toxic atheists every day, I despair - and I am not comparing them to islamists…there are no atheist death threats…but there are people who call me arab scum, tell me our food is dirty, that we are savage for dipping our hands in our ‘hummus', that everyone of muslim background should be sterilized because they can’t be trusted….that the pew polls should be enough evidence to convince me that it is ok for people to discriminate against my family, because they are likely to be intolerant and savage… after hearing those things all day (along with the usual Islam apologia) - I am emotionally drained, and incredibly disappointed when I hear people like Douglas saying it’s a terrible idea to allow more muslims in. If there was ever a time to separate your stance from Murray's…this would be it….this era of Trumpian nonsense. ....

Most liberal muslims in my experience are either ignorant abt the awful violent bits of scripture, many don't read the Quran or Hadith --- or they deny it, 'reinterpret it' in some (dishonest) way to rationalize the cognitive dissonance caused by being a liberal and a muslim. I will fault them for intellectual dishonesty, but I can't fault them for the vile bits of scripture they clearly choose to ignore. [from a comment in the thread]

No shortage of evidence to justify my contention, if you and Aneris would bother to read the facts on the ground, that there is, apparently, no shortage of outright bigotry & hate directed towards Muslims. But recognizing the "vile bits" really does dick-all about preventing their inculcation or propagation or implementation. As I've frequently argued, the "moderates" more or less provide cover or a breeding ground for the extremists; simply not possible or reasonable to absolve them for all of the barbarisms done in the name of their "religion". And as Waters put, we will close the borders to Muslims, and when the reformers manage to get it to look like secular democracy (when pigs fly) then we'll consider opening them again.

Steersman once again tries to act like the contrarian troll that he is and messes it all up.

If you're not going to bother actually considering my arguments then why don't you just dismiss me with "sexist", "racist", "misogynist", and "islamophobe" and be done with it?

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/JUwL4bP.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

LoL. Did I say that any party agreed with me? Apart from the two articles I linked above, you might read also read another of Eiynah's posts, this one being an Open Letter to Sam Harris (January of this year) which I think Jerry Coyne commented on at length, and quite favorably. But my entire argument, which I don't think you bothered to consider, was that Eiynah has been criticizing, with some justification - as I said, some on the right who have "gone off the deep end". Although I'll concede that I may have made a mistake as far as Harris was concerned but, as that last post was from late January, she may have been reassessing that perspective - as I thought was the case based on the podcast, and from a few tweets I had seen.

I agree with Eiynah/Mangos' argument that some on the right have "gone off the deep end". I just think that you've also "gone off the deep end" when you advocate banning islam and testing people through pissing on the Quran. It's also funny to me that you might criticize some people for having "gone off the deep end" when you routinely joke about nuking Mecca from orbit. But please, carry on.

But, more specifically, you might note the follwing snippets from that post of hers:
<snips some reasonable comments>

I actually agree with Eyinah/Mangos about most of what she's written here (with some reservations about her opinion on Douglas Murray, where the issue isn't as black and white as she puts it). It's just funny to hear you, who advocate for far more extreme positions (banning islam, Qu'ran pissing tests) than those she criticizes, to agree with her.

Like I've said several times, I think Eiynah makes a number of reasonable points about some on the right "going off the deep end", although I'm not entirely convinced of her position on Murray. I think he makes some very good points but I've found a number of his arguments to be somewhat questionable.

And on this I agree with you. But you're not agreeing with yourself, Steers. You can't advocate "population transfers" and then say that many in the right wing go too far when they're not even supporting "population transfers". Have you changed your mind? If so, great, but it'd be nice for you to articulate your new position.

However, as I've also said, I think Eiynah is also shading into some questionable apologism, some sympathy for Muslims that is a bit misplaced. While she does recognize the problems that Muslim communities are causing, I think she's a little reluctant to consider that the only rational solution is to seriously limit Muslim immigration - Anne Marie Waters' point as I've stated several times, most recently in one of my posts above.

I'm in favor of limits to immigration, but they have to be reasonable ones. Simply saying "limits to immigration" on its own means nothing. Reasonable limits to immigration aren't the same as "no more muslims". Banning Salafi funding and Salafi preachers isn't the same as a blanket ban on muslims. Revising and restricting asylum procedures to single out economic migrants isn't the same as "all refugees are rapists". Expelling convicted foreign criminals isn't the same as expelling all foreigners. Expelling jihadists, stripping people who fight for the Islamic States or other islamist groups of citizenship or punishing them as treasonous isn't the same as targeting all muslims or people with a muslim background.

To say nothing of your "modest proposal" on banning islam as a whole and deporting muslims who are already in liberal democracies. Have you forgotten about it, Steers?

I understand that there are harmful beliefs to varying degrees and Islam is undeniably at the forefront of it today, but I make no mistake of excusing the rest. Certainly we can prioritize and emphasize, but we can’t devolve into apologists for other harmful beliefs simply because of our dislike for one that is currently more harmful. ...

More or less reasonable, I'd say, as long as it doesn't devolve into casting out everyone who doesn't devote enough effort on other harmful beliefs. Unlike Eiynah/Mangos I think it's OK to be a single-issue critic and focus more on islam than on christianity or Trump, as long as your criticism is rational.

When I hear from toxic atheists every day, I despair - and I am not comparing them to islamists…there are no atheist death threats…but there are people who call me arab scum, tell me our food is dirty, that we are savage for dipping our hands in our ‘hummus', that everyone of muslim background should be sterilized because they can’t be trusted….that the pew polls should be enough evidence to convince me that it is ok for people to discriminate against my family, because they are likely to be intolerant and savage… after hearing those things all day (along with the usual Islam apologia) - I am emotionally drained, and incredibly disappointed when I hear people like Douglas saying it’s a terrible idea to allow more muslims in. If there was ever a time to separate your stance from Murray's…this would be it….this era of Trumpian nonsense. ....

I can understand Eiynah/Mangos' concern about real bigotry. The things she quotes ARE real bigotry, from wherever they came, although I wouldn't single out atheists are the source of those claims, since christians are perfectly able of being bigots against people of Arab background, too. I also understand worries with grouping of all people into a single "othering" identity. Polls are useful to dismantle islam apoologia and point out problems within islam, not so good if they justify attacks on people on the basis of their ethnicity/religion without acknowledging individuality. I'm not sure I agree with Eiynah/Mangos about Murray, especially since it's one thing to reduce immigration and another to violate the rights of those who already live in a country, but I understand her frustration.

Most liberal muslims in my experience are either ignorant abt the awful violent bits of scripture, many don't read the Quran or Hadith --- or they deny it, 'reinterpret it' in some (dishonest) way to rationalize the cognitive dissonance caused by being a liberal and a muslim. I will fault them for intellectual dishonesty, but I can't fault them for the vile bits of scripture they clearly choose to ignore. [from a comment in the thread

And this is also true. She's talking about the "nominal muslims", those who don't know much about their religion, and the creative interpreters who try to rationalize away the bad bits. Lots of cognitive dissonance there, even if it's for a relatively noble goal (getting rid of the trash in the holy books, which basically means tossing the holy books into the trash).

Eyinah/Mangos sounds like a reasonable enough person here even if I don't agree with her 100%. Her problem is that she wanted everyone to agree with her and to distance themselves from those she thinks are dangerous, or she'll call them nazis/Trump supporters. That's stupid, counterproductive and asinine. Attacking people for not criticizing Trump enough is also stupid and counterproductive. If Eyinah/Mangos wanted to be productive she should engage in a dialogues with her critics, not act as if they're all Nazis.

No shortage of evidence to justify my contention, if you and Aneris would bother to read the facts on the ground, that there is, apparently, no shortage of outright bigotry & hate directed towards Muslims. But recognizing the "vile bits" really does dick-all about preventing their inculcation or propagation or implementation. As I've frequently argued, the "moderates" more or less provide cover or a breeding ground for the extremists; simply not possible or reasonable to absolve them for all of the barbarisms done in the name of their "religion". And as Waters put, we will close the borders to Muslims, and when the reformers manage to get it to look like secular democracy (when pigs fly) then we'll consider opening them again.

There's no "moderation". There are creative interpretation and nominal religion. The problem with your position, Steers, is that with a blanket ban, instead of a more reasonable policy of limits and visas issued to those who are educated, have jobs and/or are documented as having fled from real persecution (and not just immigrating as asylum seekers for economic reasons) you're closing borders to those who are already more or less on board with secular democracy.

As I've said limit visas, limit permissions to stay, limit naturalization and ask for integration for citizenship (not just for a test, but for tangible proof of being an active part in the country in a positive way, not just in your closed off community) and go after the gatekeepers (Salafi imams and other muslim supremacists). Blanket bans make little sense, they're likely to keep away Iranian dissidents while letting Saudi clerics in.

Steersman once again tries to act like the contrarian troll that he is and messes it all up.

If you're not going to bother actually considering my arguments then why don't you just dismiss me with "sexist", "racist", "misogynist", and "islamophobe" and be done with it?[/quote]

I've addressed your arguments. Have you addressed your own? Have you changed your mind on "population transfers" or bans on islam, or Qu'ran pissing tests?

I'm not dismissing you out of hand, Steers. I'm asking you to pick a position and defend it. As of right now you're on one hand promoting the ban of islam and deporting all muslims on the other you're saying that people who want no muslim immigration go too far. Make up your own mind!

[Kirbmarc]

Steersman saying that Tommy Robinson has gone off the deep end is like Charlie Sheen telling Bill Clinton that adultery is bad. :lol:

[Steersman]

Steersman saying that Tommy Robinson has gone off the deep end is like Charlie Sheen telling Bill Clinton that adultery is bad. :lol:

:lol: Last things first, addressing your last comments first: amusing analogy, almost good enough to qualify as a "Steersnalogy" as Couch put it recently. ;-)

However, as I've said repeatedly, the nuke Mecca was clearly a reference to the the movie "Aliens". And likewise the banning of Islam and the wholesale deportation of Muslims is essentially what has been done in Greece and India. And it is a perfectly "viable" tool or modus operandi of politicians, as the several deportations of Mexicans by America in the 30s & 40s will attest. And you might also note the current efforts of Trump on the issue of illegal immigrants. Plus, hot off the press (in Foreign Affairs), courtesy of Anne Coulter:

The Case Against Immigration
Why the United States Should Look Out for Itself
By Steven Camarota

[Aneris]

No shortage of evidence to justify my contention, if you and Aneris would bother to read the facts on the ground, that there is, apparently, no shortage of outright bigotry & hate directed towards Muslims

Don't be silly. I know this. But your rhetoric is about the strongest against Muslims on this forum, and I was simply amused that you take issue with Dave Rubin and others, who I perceive to be milder than you are. Too far to the right for my tastes, anyway!

[Aneris]

Steersman: No shortage of evidence to justify my contention, if you and Aneris would bother to read the facts on the ground, that there is, apparently, no shortage of outright bigotry & hate directed towards Muslims

Don't be silly. I know this. But your rhetoric is about the strongest against Muslims on this forum, and I was simply amused that you take issue with Dave Rubin and others, who I perceive to be milder than you are. Too far to the right for my tastes, anyway!

Quote Fail.

[Kirbmarc]

No shortage of evidence to justify my contention, if you and Aneris would bother to read the facts on the ground, that there is, apparently, no shortage of outright bigotry & hate directed towards Muslims

Don't be silly. I know this. But your rhetoric is about the strongest against Muslims on this forum, and I was simply amused that you take issue with Dave Rubin and others, who I perceive to be milder than you are. Too far to the right for my tastes, anyway!

Dave Rubin is much milder than Steersman. Hell, even Anne Marie Waters and Tommy Robinson are relatively milder than our resident robot.

[Steersman]

LoL. Did I say that any party agreed with me? Apart from the two articles I linked above, you might read also read another of Eiynah's posts, this one being an Open Letter to Sam Harris (January of this year) which I think Jerry Coyne commented on at length, and quite favorably. But my entire argument, which I don't think you bothered to consider, was that Eiynah has been criticizing, with some justification - as I said, some on the right who have "gone off the deep end". Although I'll concede that I may have made a mistake as far as Harris was concerned but, as that last post was from late January, she may have been reassessing that perspective - as I thought was the case based on the podcast, and from a few tweets I had seen.

I agree with Eiynah/Mangos' argument that some on the right have "gone off the deep end". I just think that you've also "gone off the deep end" when you advocate banning islam and testing people through pissing on the Quran. It's also funny to me that you might criticize some people for having "gone off the deep end" when you routinely joke about nuking Mecca from orbit. But please, carry on.

Well, nice to see that we more or less agree on Eiynah's various points and perspectives, even on our criticisms of her. And I quite agree with your observations as far as her reliance on "The Patriarchy!!11!" as an explanatory structure. Don't recollect anything specific she's said along that line, but she's certainly in the camp of Benson and Aki Muthali who of course do.

However, as mentioned and as you've noted, the nukes from orbit is a bit of a joke and an allusion to the movie "Aliens". And "pissing on the Quran" is, as I've been saying since forever (well before John Welch flounced), is more or less an analogy to some method of determining whether Muslims have actually repudiated the Quran and their religion - virtually impossible to do.

Like I've said several times, I think Eiynah makes a number of reasonable points about some on the right "going off the deep end", although I'm not entirely convinced of her position on Murray. I think he makes some very good points but I've found a number of his arguments to be somewhat questionable.

And on this I agree with you. But you're not agreeing with yourself, Steers. You can't advocate "population transfers" and then say that many in the right wing go too far when they're not even supporting "population transfers". Have you changed your mind? If so, great, but it'd be nice for you to articulate your new position.

You've brought this point up a couple of times in your post, and I'll address it at the end.

However, as I've also said, I think Eiynah is also shading into some questionable apologism, some sympathy for Muslims that is a bit misplaced. While she does recognize the problems that Muslim communities are causing, I think she's a little reluctant to consider that the only rational solution is to seriously limit Muslim immigration - Anne Marie Waters' point as I've stated several times, most recently in one of my posts above.

I'm in favor of limits to immigration, but they have to be reasonable ones. Simply saying "limits to immigration" on its own means nothing. Reasonable limits to immigration aren't the same as "no more muslims". Banning Salafi funding and Salafi preachers isn't the same as a blanket ban on muslims. Revising and restricting asylum procedures to single out economic migrants isn't the same as "all refugees are rapists". Expelling convicted foreign criminals isn't the same as expelling all foreigners. Expelling jihadists, stripping people who fight for the Islamic States or other islamist groups of citizenship or punishing them as treasonous isn't the same as targeting all muslims or people with a muslim background.

To say nothing of your "modest proposal" on banning islam as a whole and deporting muslims who are already in liberal democracies. Have you forgotten about it, Steers?

And I understand your desire for "reasonable limits" and measured responses. But I don't see that they're really working - Muslims continue on in their ghettos, promoting and inculcating the same barbarisms. All your bending over backwards (to supine lengths) is doing is allowing the poison and rot to fester and grow. As I argued in a post to you at some length several weeks ago (Mar 16, 2017 3:01 pm • [Post 5630]), although maybe you missed it (easy enough to do):

Though my argument has been that, like many "reformists" such as Nawaz, you're just fooling yourself if you think that Islam is reformable, that it can, in any way, be made compatible with democracy and human rights. You might read this post over at Jihad Watch which quotes extensively an article in The Federalist:

Muslim Reform Group Reached Out to 3,000 US Mosques, Got Only 40 Responses
FEBRUARY 24, 2017 3:16 PM BY STEPHEN M. KIRBY

In December 2015, a small group of Muslims met in Washington, DC to discuss the reform of Islam. With media fanfare, they named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement (MRM), issued a Declaration for Muslim Reform, and became the new face of “Muslim reformers.”

There was just one fundamental problem: the MRM never had support from the larger Muslim community. ....

That's the problem. For all the hand-wringing of people like Eiynah, and the earnest and compassionate attempts of focusing on the extremists by people like you, the plain fact of the matter is that Islam can't evolve, and most Muslims have virtually no interest in promoting the idea. Until "moderate" (?) Muslims decide to throw away their "holy book" [ha!] - which is, as you suggested, most unlikely - and until we as a society have a discussion on the premise that Islam is "flatly incompatible with democracy and human rights", I seriously expect all your suggestions are just window-dressing, and wan hopes.

<snips - partly due to limited time>

Steersman once again tries to act like the contrarian troll that he is and messes it all up.

If you're not going to bother actually considering my arguments then why don't you just dismiss me with "sexist", "racist", "misogynist", and "islamophobe" and be done with it?

I've addressed your arguments. Have you addressed your own? Have you changed your mind on "population transfers" or bans on islam, or Qu'ran pissing tests?

I'm not dismissing you out of hand, Steers. I'm asking you to pick a position and defend it. As of right now you're on one hand promoting the ban of islam and deporting all muslims on the other you're saying that people who want no muslim immigration go too far. Make up your own mind!

Well, thanks for taking a reasonable stab at doing so, at addressing my arguments. However, while I'll concede the difficultly in addressing a wide range of issues, particularly in a limited amount of time, I think you're missing my point. Or I've badly phrased it. My criticism of many on the right, and my agreement with Eiynah, is largely relative to, as you put it, "the things she quotes [that] ARE real bigotry".

Although, relative to and based on Aneris' recent comment, I may have been too vague in saying "[Eiynah] basically argues that far too many on the 'right' - Dave Rubin, Lalo, Harris, Gad Saad, etc - are going off the deep end in their criticisms of Islam". My "off the deep end" comment was more or less intentionally imprecise simply because there were many players with some diversity in their views, and because I thought Eiynah's criticisms may not have been entirely justified. But I do recollect that she was particularly bent out of shape at Rubin showing up on Alex Jones show, and there's certainly no love lost between her and Gad Saad. So I'm not really sure to what extent she is criticizing those four for their own views, and to what extent she thinks that they "enable" or promote those "things that are real bigotry".

However, it seems, at least from that Open Letter of hers, that it is only Murray who favours seriously reduced Muslim immigration, although Harris is, or course, on record as asserting, with much justification, that "we are at war with Islam" - no point at all in trying to sugar coat that. So, to reiterate, my argument is that Eiynah is reasonably correct in asserting that "real bigotry" is going too far, and NOT that "no muslim immigration" is going too far.

But, apropos of which and relative to a comment I just made in a recent post (on this page) to Aneris, I said:

I think it is rather clear that Islam is, in general, a barbaric and psychotic political ideology predicated on a vision of and a demand for a theocratic society that is fundamentally antithetical to all the principles of democracy, and to the pursuit of human rights that has been part and parcel of the whole program of the Enlightenment.

And, serendipitously, as fate would have it, Anjuli Pandavar has a great post on precisely that topic of human rights; The UDHR and the CDHRI: Their Ideals and Ours:

It is one of the enduring myths of the great liberal delusion that all people aspire to the same values as the values of the Enlightenment. Our ideals, flowing from the Enlightenment, include universal Human Rights and equality for all. So firmly is this ideal built into our psyche that we measure our societal worth by our insistence on pursuing this ideal without exception (barring exceptions, of course). It should not be necessary to point out that these are my ideals, too. I may further add that I hold these ideals to be superior to anything else humanity has hitherto devised.

It is, however, inescapable that Human Rights and equality for all are not ideals that all people share. What is more, significant sections of humanity are actively opposed to them. Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ideal of equality for all human beings are so strongly opposed by so many, that no fewer than 45 states signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), adopted in 1990, expressly to challenge the universality of the UDHR, and specifically its applicability to Muslims, and to instead safeguard the pre-mediaeval and inhuman Shari’a as the framework for human relations and interactions. It is neither a slight nor an insult to say that Muslims do not hold to the UDHR as an ideal, on the contrary, it is an affirmation. ....

“HR” in CDHRI means something entirely different to “HR” in UDHR. The piety with which many in the West react to the question of Human Rights and Muslims is both absurd and suicidal. It is also callous. Our pompous, ignorant self-righteousness is costing us dearly, and is abandoning those thousands upon thousands of people in the Islamic world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, victims of Islam all, who aspire to exactly the same ideals as those who inherited Human Rights and equality for all from the Enlightenment. ....

Indeed; amen to that. While I think she may be going off in to the weeds a bit in some of her elaborations on the theme, and I'd certainly like to hear some specifics, I think her conclusion (in the last paragraph quoted) is more or less, spot on. Think we are fooling ourselves, big time, if not being "absurd and suicidal" to think that the leopard can change its spots, that Islam and democracy can coexist within the same framework, within the same country - bedrock differences that simply aren't going to be papered over with pious platitudes and ineffectual policies.

[piginthecity]

The expression "moderate religion" is a misnomer.

Instead there are literal interpretation and creative interpretations, plus the issue of nominal religion.

I don't want to disagree with your analysis, Marc, so much as maybe report some data from 'the field' which you might not have come across.

There are people (I'm thinking of my own family members as examples) who can be classified as deeply religious because everything that provides 'meaning' in their lives is either directly related to their religion, or has been hitched up to it in some way. They would immediately respond with a religious answer to any question involving meaning or deeper motivation for anything in their own lives.

They can also be described as 'moderates' in the religious sense because they're not interested in claiming any absolute truths. For example, they never quote the bible under any circumstances whatsoever. They probably don't believe in hell, for example, and don't really care whether or not their co-religionists do. They want to attract people to their church and their community, but they don't care what these people actually believe.

They are not really "creative interpreters" in that they don't in any way worry about squaring any of their beliefs with the bible. They are absolutely convinced that the take-home messages from the bible are:
1) We should all be nicer to each other.
2) We should all work hard and live quiet, humble, thankful lives.
3) We should overcome our greedy and selfish natures.
4) Everything will turn out well in the end.

The point of bible readings isn't to actually listen to the specific words or to learn anything new. It's just to hear ancient and poetic sounding authoritative words which we can be confident boil down to the four points above. Any awkward questions (such as about those pesky Amalakites) can always be referred upwards to "The Theologians" who definitely have an answer which makes everything all OK again so we can resume the important business of keeping the church functioning and performing the ceremonies. they don't really care what the actual answer is.

So, there your go ... If you don't want to call this "moderate religion" then fair enough. But it's not "nominal" religion and it's certainly not "creative interpretation" in the Reza Aslan sense. Perhaps we can describe this as a sort of creative interpretation on the level of the individual - where everybody does the interpreting inside his or her own head and doesn't really care whether or not their conclusions are the same as everyone else's.

[Kirbmarc]

The expression "moderate religion" is a misnomer.

Instead there are literal interpretation and creative interpretations, plus the issue of nominal religion.

I don't want to disagree with your analysis, Marc, so much as maybe report some data from 'the field' which you might not have come across.

There are people (I'm thinking of my own family members as examples) who can be classified as deeply religious because everything that provides 'meaning' in their lives is either directly related to their religion, or has been hitched up to it in some way. They would immediately respond with a religious answer to any question involving meaning or deeper motivation for anything in their own lives.

They can also be described as 'moderates' in the religious sense because they're not interested in claiming any absolute truths. For example, they never quote the bible under any circumstances whatsoever. They probably don't believe in hell, for example, and don't really care whether or not their co-religionists do. They want to attract people to their church and their community, but they don't care what these people actually believe.

They are not really "creative interpreters" in that they don't in any way worry about squaring any of their beliefs with the bible. They are absolutely convinced that the take-home messages from the bible are:
1) We should all be nicer to each other.
2) We should all work hard and live quiet, humble, thankful lives.
3) We should overcome our greedy and selfish natures.
4) Everything will turn out well in the end.

The point of bible readings isn't to actually listen to the specific words or to learn anything new. It's just to hear ancient and poetic sounding authoritative words which we can be confident boil down to the four points above. Any awkward questions (such as about those pesky Amalakites) can always be referred upwards to "The Theologians" who definitely have an answer which makes everything all OK again so we can resume the important business of keeping the church functioning and performing the ceremonies. they don't really care what the actual answer is.

So, there your go ... If you don't want to call this "moderate religion" then fair enough. But it's not "nominal" religion and it's certainly not "creative interpretation" in the Reza Aslan sense. Perhaps we can describe this as a sort of creative interpretation on the level of the individual - where everybody does the interpreting inside his or her own head and doesn't really care whether or not their conclusions are the same as everyone else's.

Thanks a lot for the criticism.

I'd say that that they are nominally religious, in that they don't care about theology or the specific of their religious, only about a generic feel-good message that they think comes from the bible but actually is just a cherrypicking of the parts of the bible they like. For example if you say that they don't believe in hell then they don't believe in a big part of the religion they want to be a part of. Hell is one of the cornerstones of christian theology, medieval christianity even described it at length: when Dante Alighieri used hell as the background of the first part of the Divine Comedy he took some artistic licence but was inspired by theological works.

The bible is very specific about what you need to do, especially in the Old Testament. These "feel-good" christians would have been condemned as heretics just a few generations ago. I agree that they're much nicer to deal with then the literalists or even the Reza Aslan apologists. Their beliefs are much more tolerable and pleasant for sure.

[Kirbmarc]

The difference between christianity and islam is that in islam there are countless precise and specific rules to follow which are still followed, or at least you're strongly expected to follow them if you want to be part of the community, and if you violate those rules you hide your sins from others, and if you're caught you're at the very least shamed and ostracized.

Christianity used to be similar but has softened in time, thankfully for the world. I hope that islam will one day similarly soften but I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon, if anything people are becoming more and more harsh in applying the religious rules.

That's why I think that in order for muslims to adapt they have to give up their religion, or at least learn not to take it too seriously. "Feel-good" muslims are still forced to follow the strict rules of islam, there's no place for people who find a religious message heartwarming and meaningful but aren't so fixated on the rules.

[MarcusAu]

Personally - I cannot stand the 'many paths to the same goal' put forward as a hippy-dippy modern solution in support of some sort of multicultural nirvaneh. (Karen Armstrong comes to mind as a proponent of this sort of thing).

It is completely a-historical - there are real differences between ideologies / religions (and their believers) and it does no service to understanding and getting along if we have to lie about them.

Nom I don't believe any of this religious shit, and Yes people are still going to have to live-and-let-live anyway.

Secularism (in government and in personal life) seems to be the compromise that we have to make to get along in a free society.

[MarcusAu]

The difference between christianity and islam is that in islam there are countless precise and specific rules to follow which are still followed, or at least you're strongly expected to follow them if you want to be part of the community, and if you violate those rules you hide your sins from others, and if you're caught you're at the very least shamed and ostracized.

Christianity used to be similar but has softened in time, thankfully for the world. I hope that islam will one day similarly soften but I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon, if anything people are becoming more and more harsh in applying the religious rules.

That's why I think that in order for muslims to adapt they have to give up their religion, or at least learn not to take it too seriously. "Feel-good" muslims are still forced to follow the strict rules of islam, there's no place for people who find a religious message heartwarming and meaningful but aren't so fixated on the rules.

But there seems to be (or have been) a moderate practice of Islam in various times and places. I've heard some describe it as there being a koran on the shelf in every house - but no one actually bothering to read it. Pakistan in the 1950s - 1960s or Iran up until the revolution come to mind. This may have been a strong communist or socialist influence though - with Islam just lying dormant for a while.

[Kirbmarc]

By the way Anjuli Pandavar is right. The source of all troubles with islam is the absurd concept that muslims are Superior Beings to non-muslims and can never ever accept that they're not, that they're exactly as all other people, that their bad actions or good actions have the same value of other people's good actions or bad actions.

Even the most well-intentioned muslims are condescending to the poor, inferior kaffir who haven't "seen the light". It's pretty morally disgusting.

A big part of the reasons which made me leave islam was the rejection of this superiority, acknowledging that as a human being I can fuck up and I have fucked up just like everyone else, that my shit doesn't smell better than anyone else, that I have my qualities and my flaws just like everyone else and I need to hone my qualities and work on my flaws. That's incompatible with islam, where there's always a divide between muslims and not muslims.

This, incidentally, is why I dislike identity politics so much, because it's the same sort of rubbish. You're superior because you were born this way, because of your identity, because of belonging to this group rather than to that group, and your group is inherently better than the other group.

Fuck that noise. You're a human being just like everyone else and you can fuck up, you WILL fuck up, but it's important to acknowledge your mistakes and learn from them. You have the responsibility to guide your own life, and while people may be dicks to you or the cards may be stacked against you, and it's important to acknowledge this by trying to prevent injustice and by helping people overcome obstacles ultimately you are the one in charge of your life, you have to react to the world in the way you choose, and everyone else is the same boat.

They might have advantages over you (money, power, beauty, skills) but they're not superior, or inferior, they can pick themselves up or fuck up as you can.

Your identity is something you make, what you do with your life, not simply where you were born or who were your parents.

[Kirbmarc]

The difference between christianity and islam is that in islam there are countless precise and specific rules to follow which are still followed, or at least you're strongly expected to follow them if you want to be part of the community, and if you violate those rules you hide your sins from others, and if you're caught you're at the very least shamed and ostracized.

Christianity used to be similar but has softened in time, thankfully for the world. I hope that islam will one day similarly soften but I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon, if anything people are becoming more and more harsh in applying the religious rules.

That's why I think that in order for muslims to adapt they have to give up their religion, or at least learn not to take it too seriously. "Feel-good" muslims are still forced to follow the strict rules of islam, there's no place for people who find a religious message heartwarming and meaningful but aren't so fixated on the rules.

But there seems to be (or have been) a moderate practice of Islam in various times and places. I've heard some describe it as there being a koran on the shelf in every house - but no one actually bothering to read it. Pakistan in the 1950s - 1960s or Iran up until the revolution come to mind. This may have been a strong communist or socialist influence though - with Islam just lying dormant for a while.

True, but people were more or less nominally religious back then, especially in the cities. The clergy had less power, especially among a middle-class of educated and cosmopolitan people living in big information hubs (it was very different in rural areas).

In Iran, for example, the Shah wanted to be more or less a Western king. Princess Soraya, the second wife of the last Shah, was educated in Switzerland and studied English in London. She was an incredibly beautiful and classy woman who loved refined jewelry and flower and dressed and acted more like Audrey Hepburn's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's than like any of the wives of Mohammed.

Many upper or middle class women admired her, saw her as a role model. She hadn't been raised as a muslim. She knew nothing of islam. Muslim clerics hated her. Iran under the Shah was a country with extreme inequality where the poor and rural communities came to hate the lavish lifestyle of the Shah, while the commies and leftists in general and populists of various stripes wished for reforms that allowed modernization in the country. Mossadegh was one of those reformers. Lots of people liked him, including some less retrograde imams.

The US and the Shah hated him, though, because he was undermining the system which allowed US companies to get cheap oil and the Shah and his court to live gods. One of the Shah most trusted advisor was Ernest Perron, a Swiss man who acted as the Shah's private secretary and was a Machiavellian figure, a plotter, a kind of Rasputinian figures which of course was the subject of countless conspiracy theories and described by the muslim clerics as the symbol of Western depravity and influence over the Shah. Soraya hated him as a potential rival for influence over her husband. So as you can see there was a Western-style court, full of intrigue and wasteful spending, ruling and setting standards over a country which was still largely rural. There was a cultured and learned middle class blossoming, though.

After Mossadegh was toppled (with significant American involvement in the coup) things got worse for the rural disenfranchised masses and for the reformers. The Shah kept partying and traveling. Soraya, his wife, was famously photographed wearing a bikini, which caused scandal and which the imams used as evidence that the corruption was the source of all the suffering and the poverty inside Iran.

Leftist activists sided with the imams against the Shah, and people, fed up with the inequality, supported both. Soraya eventually divorced from the Shah and went on to be an actress in Italy and live in the "West". All sorts of people hated the monarchy more and more, from left-wing or in general reformist activists who wanted a more modern and less unequal Iran to conservative ulemas who thought the going back to islam was the solution.

And so in 1979, when the revolution happened, the Left-wing and the Islamic-wing were allies. Khomeini was supported for socialist France. People initially saw the Revolution as a progressive rebellion against the corruption and violence of the regime of the Shah.

The leftist and reformers, many of which weren't very religious or only nominally religious, were simply stupid enough to think that the conservative muslims shared their same goals. They were all killed or went in exile after the conservative muslim leaders came in power with the help of the heavily conservative rural and working-class people. The revolution had become an islamo-fascist revolution.

TL;DR: Islam was "softer" back then ONLY among educated, Westernized and relatively rich elites who had studied abroad and were only nominally muslim. They were basically atheists or agnostics or only nominally religious.

[rayshul]

Marvel Sales decline...

[Kirbmarc]

Personally - I cannot stand the 'many paths to the same goal' put forward as a hippy-dippy modern solution in support of some sort of multicultural nirvaneh. (Karen Armstrong comes to mind as a proponent of this sort of thing).

It is completely a-historical - there are real differences between ideologies / religions (and their believers) and it does no service to understanding and getting along if we have to lie about them.

Nom I don't believe any of this religious shit, and Yes people are still going to have to live-and-let-live anyway.

Secularism (in government and in personal life) seems to be the compromise that we have to make to get along in a free society.

The many paths to the same goal bullshit is only a scam that some people run to be appreciated by "religious hipsters" who think that they're more moral than the plebs. It never works because it can't work. It's a meaningless feel-good dribble which only educated elitists who want to feel "spiritually superior" find appealing.

Secularism works if religion is progressively more and more ridiculed and seen as lame, uncool, repressive. Most young people in Western Europe see religion as something for repressed virgins and for elderly people. Churches are empty and people, even those who call themselves christians, prefer staying home or going out partying on a Sunday. Even the most religious young christians have lots of extra-marital sex and only pay lip service to what the religious authorities say.

Most people don't care about religion anymore. That's the best attitude to have towards religion: not caring, thinking it's lame.

The same should be encouraged in islam. Leftists and people who care about reforms and integration in general should defend and celebrate muslims who drink alcohol or go to strip clubs. There should be plenty of jokes about Mohammed like Jebus is routinely parodied by programs like Family Guy. Clerics who preach conservative ideas should be seen as lame losers who are wasting their lives.

Instead young people are asked to be activists, to follow absurdly complicated rules for dating and drinking or to invent special pronouns or ponder about microaggressions, all stuff which is far too similar to the countless complicated rules of islam to destroy the hold of dogmatism over young people.

Teens should be partying, drinking and smoking joints when they don't fuck each other. Instead they're instructed to be moral busybodies and to obsess about "crystal clear consent" or whether it's right to call someone "zhe" or "xir".

[piginthecity]

I'd say that that they are nominally religious, in that they don't care about theology or the specific of their religious, only about a generic feel-good message that they think comes from the bible but actually is just a cherrypicking of the parts of the bible they like. For example if you say that they don't believe in hell then they don't believe in a big part of the religion they want to be a part of. Hell is one of the cornerstones of christian theology, medieval christianity even described it at length: when Dante Alighieri used hell as the background of the first part of the Divine Comedy he took some artistic licence but was inspired by theological works.

The bible is very specific about what you need to do, especially in the Old Testament. These "feel-good" christians would have been condemned as heretics just a few generations ago. I agree that they're much nicer to deal with then the literalists or even the Reza Aslan apologists. Their beliefs are much more tolerable and pleasant for sure.

How about this, Marc ?

There are religions that make specific claims about the nature of reality. There are some people who only 'nominally' believe these claims and are therefore only 'nominal' members of that religion.

There are other religions which, as actually practiced by believers, make only vague claims about reality. These religions may carry around some textual and historical baggage which involve specific claims about reality. However, it is the religion itself which only 'nominally' accepts these claims to be true. In fact, the religion, in terms of the actual beliefs of its adherents has moved on.

When you hear somebody ( I mean an ordinary Joe here, not an apologist/weasel like Aslan ) performing the moderate religion hand-waving tap-dance, it could be either because two cases are at first indistinguishable. However they are different cases. The first guy is trying to resolve cognitive dissonance in his own head. The second one is faithfully stating what he considers to be deep, but somewhat unfathomable truths which are the orthodoxy of his actual religion as practiced. The dissonance is not in his own head but inherent in a religion which considers its own texts to be somehow 'true' but only in some deep mystical metaphorical sense.

In a nutshell, you are more used to the first case and me the second.

In general terms, the first guy is not really religious because he is doing his own thinking and keeping religion in its box. A 'nominal' believer indeed.

The second guy may (and I stress the 'may') be deeply religious in that he genuinely feels that what to us is 'hand-waving' is actually wise enough to order your whole life around, even though it doesn't give what to us are satisfactory answers. His attempt to put this into practice involves commitment to the 'feel-good' stuff such as selflessness, not a theological parsing of his exact beliefs. Religious rituals celebrate the fact that it's all a mystery which we can't solve.

This is why I think you're missing something to put both into the same category and call it 'nominal' belief.

[Kirbmarc]

How about this, Marc ?

There are religions that make specific claims about the nature of reality. There are some people who only 'nominally' believe these claims and are therefore only 'nominal' members of that religion.

There are other religions which, as actually practiced by believers, make only vague claims about reality. These religions may carry around some textual and historical baggage which involve specific claims about reality. However, it is the religion itself which only 'nominally' accepts these claims to be true. In fact, the religion, in terms of the actual beliefs of its adherents has moved on.

When you hear somebody ( I mean an ordinary Joe here, not an apologist/weasel like Aslan ) performing the moderate religion hand-waving tap-dance, it could be either because two cases are at first indistinguishable. However they are different cases. The first guy is trying to resolve cognitive dissonance in his own head. The second one is faithfully stating what he considers to be deep, but somewhat unfathomable truths which are the orthodoxy of his actual religion as practiced. The dissonance is not in his own head but inherent in a religion which considers its own texts to be somehow 'true' but only in some deep mystical metaphorical sense.

In a nutshell, you are more used to the first case and me the second.

In general terms, the first guy is not really religious because he is doing his own thinking and keeping religion in its box. A 'nominal' believer indeed.

The second guy may (and I stress the 'may') be deeply religious in that he genuinely feels that what to us is 'hand-waving' is actually wise enough to order your whole life around, even though it doesn't give what to us are satisfactory answers. His attempt to put this into practice involves commitment to the 'feel-good' stuff such as selflessness, not a theological parsing of his exact beliefs. Religious rituals celebrate the fact that it's all a mystery which we can't solve.

This is why I think you're missing something to put both into the same category and call it 'nominal' belief.

You might be right. Maybe there are simply fewer people like this in islam?

If you don't mind me asking, which branch of christianity do your parents belong to?

[piginthecity]

How about this, Marc ?

There are religions that make specific claims about the nature of reality. There are some people who only 'nominally' believe these claims and are therefore only 'nominal' members of that religion.

There are other religions which, as actually practiced by believers, make only vague claims about reality. These religions may carry around some textual and historical baggage which involve specific claims about reality. However, it is the religion itself which only 'nominally' accepts these claims to be true. In fact, the religion, in terms of the actual beliefs of its adherents has moved on.

When you hear somebody ( I mean an ordinary Joe here, not an apologist/weasel like Aslan ) performing the moderate religion hand-waving tap-dance, it could be either because two cases are at first indistinguishable. However they are different cases. The first guy is trying to resolve cognitive dissonance in his own head. The second one is faithfully stating what he considers to be deep, but somewhat unfathomable truths which are the orthodoxy of his actual religion as practiced. The dissonance is not in his own head but inherent in a religion which considers its own texts to be somehow 'true' but only in some deep mystical metaphorical sense.

In a nutshell, you are more used to the first case and me the second.

In general terms, the first guy is not really religious because he is doing his own thinking and keeping religion in its box. A 'nominal' believer indeed.

The second guy may (and I stress the 'may') be deeply religious in that he genuinely feels that what to us is 'hand-waving' is actually wise enough to order your whole life around, even though it doesn't give what to us are satisfactory answers. His attempt to put this into practice involves commitment to the 'feel-good' stuff such as selflessness, not a theological parsing of his exact beliefs. Religious rituals celebrate the fact that it's all a mystery which we can't solve.

This is why I think you're missing something to put both into the same category and call it 'nominal' belief.

You might be right. Maybe there are simply fewer people like this in islam?

If you don't mind me asking, which branch of christianity do your parents belong to?

They are Anglicans. Or 'Episcopalians' as the yanks say.

[deLurch]

Is that Skittles thing an April Fool?

It is now 1st April in good old Blighty, so I am paranoid that every single slightly wacky news-story (which is 99% of them these days) is a prank or wind-up.

I am left to believe it is true. The first tweets on it well preceded April 1st in any time zone.

Also, Skittles did this before last June.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/skittles-can ... gay-pride/

[Brive1987]

High on the list is economic distress. It is a sad fact that some people kill themselves because they have insufficient money and cannot see any way their finances are going to improve. Farmers, struggling single parents and elderly people are known to have succumbed to despair about money.

Perhaps we find it easier to blame everything on mental illness rather than deal with the ramifications of banks foreclosing on farms, or pensioners or single parents having their government payments cut to levels where mere survival is a borderline proposition.

Vale John.

Elderly men are especially prone to suicide, with Australian men over 85 having the highest rate. They kill themselves at the rate of 39.3 per 100,000 – compared with the overall rate for men of 19.4 per 100,000. Many of these men are lonely (they may have recently lost a partner), they are sometimes incontinent and unable to care for themselves and they don't have the money to pay for care. Others – and some elderly women come into this category too, although their suicide rate is a lot lower – will do literally anything to avoid going into a retirement home.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mental-il ... vaa1p.html

[Spike13]

So, a major highway bridge in ATL collapsed tonight. A lot of people's commutes just got insanely shittier for the foreseeable future. Trump could win major points putting americans to work rebuilding our roads/bridges/highways. He could. Probably wont. :(

Give him a chance as he as to deal with your whole MSM shouting "Russia, Russia, Russia and Russia."

It's the MSM's fault that he hasn't dealt with putting a stop to chemtrails too.
The bastards.

Igsnay on the hem cey rails nay.... you have any idea what it took to get that program green lighted?

[Tigzy]

As someone who has been ass-raped, I must say...

:o wut?

Surely, Ive told the story here before... but I cant find the post, so...

Years ago I was in line for the bathroom at the bar. A finger jabbed into my basketball shorts, up my asshole & pulled-back out. Minor celebrity who I considered a friend was standing there, laughing, holding out finger as-if to show how far in it had gone: "Not bad!" Then, "Don't worry I do it to everyone" and laughter as she walked-away. I had been waiting for bathroom, so I remained there... hoping not to shit my pants.

Initially, I thought of it like hazing... unpleasant, but a rite of comradery. As if our little subculture was operating by different rules, than the puritan outside world. Maybe we were like the JACKASS pranksters on Mtv. The way for me to pass the cool test was to shrug it off. But it became clear in-person & via her feminist grandstanding in media interviews... she applies different rules for herself vs. for men.

The traumatic part was when I later learned that the people closest to me thought my experience Doesnt Count and Im an asshole for daring to suggest it is in any way comparable to when A Woman is raped. My mind reeled, when multiple people I considered reasonable & friends-- reacted with screeching bile & shunning me... when I dared speak ill of their celeb pal. My wife thought I was a jerk for suggesting my social discomfort was a good-enough reason for me to ask her to stop socializing with the cunt.

Installing a surprise, random, pop-up finger in subway seating would not match my idea of progress or improving awareness of the problem.

Good lord. :shock:

Can imagine all those convicted rapists, kicking themselves that they didn't get off scott free by deploying the 'don't worry, I do it to everyone' defence.

[jet_lagg]

Ayo, pitizens. Was lurking in the comment section of Slate Star Codex when Myers spat with Charly came up. It got me thinking of you all, so I wanted to pop by. What's new? Any news on Carrier's lawsuit?

[feathers]

There's a lot of racism involved. The idea of a muslim brotherhood of races living in harmory is a myth, part of Salafi/muslim revivalist propaganda. Arabs are very racist towards African people, even if they're all muslim. Muslims aren't better than non-muslim at not being racists, indeed Arabs had lots of African slaves, and foreign workers are often treated like slaves.

Also, despite all lip service, most other Arabs wouldn't piss out a Palestinian if he were on fire.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

All this Karen Armstrong talk lead me to one profound question: what's it like to pop a nun's cherry?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Carrier... in his " Big book of unified theory and how to pick up chicks on line"

Which he likely plagiarized from Wilhelm Reich

I don't want to know what he does in the Orgone generator when the door is closed....

Camp Quest should have its campers build an Orgone Collector as a project. Then tell them, 'sorry, you have to be 18 (16 in Ohio) to enter.'

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Ayo, pitizens. Was lurking in the comment section of Slate Star Codex when Myers spat with Charly came up. It got me thinking of you all, so I wanted to pop by. What's new? Any news on Carrier's lawsuit?

Carrier fired his attorney (or couldn't pay him anymore) and tried representing himself. Promptly got contempt of court and is awaiting sentencing.

Also, note the date today

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

There's a lot of racism involved. The idea of a muslim brotherhood of races living in harmory is a myth, part of Salafi/muslim revivalist propaganda. Arabs are very racist towards African people, even if they're all muslim. Muslims aren't better than non-muslim at not being racists, indeed Arabs had lots of African slaves, and foreign workers are often treated like slaves.

Also, despite all lip service, most other Arabs wouldn't piss out a Palestinian if he were on fire.

Have you tested this theory? :think:

[screwtape]

Ayo, pitizens. Was lurking in the comment section of Slate Star Codex when Myers spat with Charly came up. It got me thinking of you all, so I wanted to pop by. What's new? Any news on Carrier's lawsuit?

Carrier fired his attorney (or couldn't pay him anymore) and tried representing himself. Promptly got contempt of court and is awaiting sentencing.

Also, note the date today

I thought you couldn't do that after noon on April 1st?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Ayo, pitizens. Was lurking in the comment section of Slate Star Codex when Myers spat with Charly came up. It got me thinking of you all, so I wanted to pop by. What's new? Any news on Carrier's lawsuit?

Carrier fired his attorney (or couldn't pay him anymore) and tried representing himself. Promptly got contempt of court and is awaiting sentencing.

Also, note the date today

I thought you couldn't do that after noon on April 1st?

It is 11:16 am right now. I iz safe.

[Really?]

Cool it with the April Fools shit. Stefoknee Zvan took time out of her busy life to remind us why joy and playfulness are bad.


http://archive.is/POPt6

This is why a lot of people hate April Fools Day. As it turns out, most of us hate being treated as experiments, as means to someone else’s end. (If you’re not one of these people, let me know. There are a few things I’d like to know that I haven’t been able to get past an IRB. No, there’s no consent form. No, I’m not going to tell you what the experiment is. Why should that be a problem?)

Did I mention work? Jokes are work, and jokes that play for more than that handful of buddies who like you and want you to think you’re funny are much harder work. You suddenly have multiple audiences for whom you have to provide something worthwhile while still treating them as people instead of toys. There’s a reason we pay people who can do this on demand.
So you want to make an April Fools joke. Still. Cool. Go for it. We could use more good ones. But if yours still only exists to make other people amuse you, don’t be surprised when people tell you you’re part of the problem with the holiday.

[free thoughtpolice]

All this Karen Armstrong talk lead me to one profound question: what's it like to pop a nun's cherry?

Not speaking from experience, but I would speculate that when they get to Armstrong's age it would be like stepping on an overripe puffball.

Karen Armstrong apparently suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy which frequently has hyper-religiosity as a symptom. Muhammad is believed by many to have had that too, as the descriptions of his behaviors during his revelations closely matches epileptic seizures such as audio hallucinations, rolling on the ground, making sounds like sick camel...
Not surprising she has so much respect for good old Mo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

[Kirbmarc]

Cool it with the April Fools shit. Stefoknee Zvan took time out of her busy life to remind us why joy and playfulness are bad.


http://archive.is/POPt6

This is why a lot of people hate April Fools Day. As it turns out, most of us hate being treated as experiments, as means to someone else’s end. (If you’re not one of these people, let me know. There are a few things I’d like to know that I haven’t been able to get past an IRB. No, there’s no consent form. No, I’m not going to tell you what the experiment is. Why should that be a problem?)

Did I mention work? Jokes are work, and jokes that play for more than that handful of buddies who like you and want you to think you’re funny are much harder work. You suddenly have multiple audiences for whom you have to provide something worthwhile while still treating them as people instead of toys. There’s a reason we pay people who can do this on demand.
So you want to make an April Fools joke. Still. Cool. Go for it. We could use more good ones. But if yours still only exists to make other people amuse you, don’t be surprised when people tell you you’re part of the problem with the holiday.

Stephanie Zvan, age 8:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7d/7d4aa589 ... f7de7d.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

All this Karen Armstrong talk lead me to one profound question: what's it like to pop a nun's cherry?

Not speaking from experience, but I would speculate that when they get to Armstrong's age it would be like stepping on an overripe puffball.

Karen Armstrong apparently suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy which frequently has hyper-religiosity as a symptom. Muhammad is believed by many to have had that too, as the descriptions of his behaviors during his revelations closely matches epileptic seizures such as audio hallucinations, rolling on the ground, making sounds like sick camel...
Not surprising she has so much respect for good old Mo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

Grand mal would explain a lot about the Qu'ran and Mo's behavior in general.

[rayshul]

I have met a significant number of moderate Christians. A case in point would be my father. I had no idea he was religious until about six years ago, when it came up randomly in conversation.

[rayshul]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 0cc415d609

Australian university with an infestation.

When Alex Joske was elected late last year to the board of ANU student newspaper Woroni, he was proud and excited about how as news editor he would transform its coverage to make it more professional and relevant to the students who ultimately paid for it.

Joske, a hard-news aficionado who had been a reporter on the paper covering stories such as Chinese government influence on campus, felt he could steer Woroni towards solid news-breaking and beyond what he saw as the editorial board’s preoccupation with gender politics, ethnicity, the nuances of being gay, and tips from its sex correspondent.

It all ended in tears last month when Joske decided he had no ­allies on the paper and was beating his head against a brick wall in trying to promote professional journalism. The last straw for Joske, who is half-­Chinese, was when the editorial board commissioned a special issue to be written and edited only by ­“ethnocultural self-­identifying students”, excluding any involvement of students who were white Anglo-Celts.

[free thoughtpolice]

Cool it with the April Fools shit. Stefoknee Zvan took time out of her busy life to remind us why joy and playfulness are bad.


http://archive.is/POPt6

This is why a lot of people hate April Fools Day. As it turns out, most of us hate being treated as experiments, as means to someone else’s end. (If you’re not one of these people, let me know. There are a few things I’d like to know that I haven’t been able to get past an IRB. No, there’s no consent form. No, I’m not going to tell you what the experiment is. Why should that be a problem?)

Did I mention work? Jokes are work, and jokes that play for more than that handful of buddies who like you and want you to think you’re funny are much harder work. You suddenly have multiple audiences for whom you have to provide something worthwhile while still treating them as people instead of toys. There’s a reason we pay people who can do this on demand.
So you want to make an April Fools joke. Still. Cool. Go for it. We could use more good ones. But if yours still only exists to make other people amuse you, don’t be surprised when people tell you you’re part of the problem with the holiday.

Gosh what is it about sour miserable feminist socjus types about not having a sense of humor? Like Caine
http://archive.is/7RR7D

Yes, It’s April 1st. That Said…
Scary-Clown-Court-jester-stockholm-631.jpg__600x0_q85_upscaleI don’t like the whole “April Fool’s Day” nonsense. So, there will be none of that crap here at Affinity, and if you’re someone who just loves it, I’ll thank you to indulge elsewhere. I have enough to do already, without having to track down even more deliberate bullshit.
So, if you love your pranks, jokes, whatever, please keep them off Affinity, and we can get through the day with a modicum of sanity. Thanks.

[feathers]

Karen Armstrong apparently suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy which frequently has hyper-religiosity as a symptom. Muhammad is believed by many to have had that too, as the descriptions of his behaviors during his revelations closely matches epileptic seizures such as audio hallucinations, rolling on the ground, making sounds like sick camel...
Not surprising she has so much respect for good old Mo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

Mo couldn't stand in the shadow of whomever wrote Revelations. That was powerful stuff, man.

[Kirbmarc]

Gosh what is it about sour miserable feminist socjus types about not having a sense of humor?

Lack of sense of humor is a common trait in narcissists.

[feathers]

Gosh what is it about sour miserable feminist socjus types about not having a sense of humor?

Lack of sense of humor is a common trait in narcissists.

And it is a requirement for the SJW graded level exam part I through VI.