In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[jet_lagg]

That's right, this totally happened. Oxford students have never met a black person before, so when they meet a mysterious creature with black skin they assume she has a supernatural libido. When did this racial clash happen? in the 1920's? No the Social Affairs editor of the Guardian is born in 1981.
Further reading: how the lack of discrimination in Norway is somehow bad. Because Sweden maybe?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... fua-hirsch

This explains a certain Vox poll where people were asked whether they viewed certain minorities unfavorably, and 1-5% of respondents claimed to have never heard of black people before.

[Suet Cardigan]

DanArelCunt.png

(162.59 KiB) Downloaded 158 times

Oh, fuck off, Dan.

[Kirbmarc]

DanArelCunt.png

Oh, fuck off, Dan.

Arel calls anyone who disagree with him a white supremacist/nazi, then he's surprised that people don't like him and make fun of him when he says he's fighting Nazism.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It's also the name of a type of biscuit (or cookie if you prefer).

If it's not racist in that context - why should it be racist in the context of software?

An android on the outside, but an iPhone on the inside?

[MarcusAu]

To be fair - Arel does present evidence that there is at least one white man that thinks of himself as superior to everyone else.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The attachment DanArelCunt.png is no longer available

Oh, fuck off, Dan.

Next thing you know, folks will be complaining about anti-fascist protective barriers.

1986_08_13_Feier_25_Jahre_Mauer.jpg

(52.4 KiB) Downloaded 106 times

[Tigzy]

"There is no place in academia for craven submission to Chinese censorship demands" - Paul Mason

Craven submission to islamic censorship demands is just rooty-tooty A-OK, though.

[Kirbmarc]

However Mo is simply not a good role model for today's world. Most of the things he did are considered crimes and morally disgusting in a modern society. Even most modern muslims consider those things wrong...when it's NOT Mohammed doing them. Tell most muslims a story about a Chinese warlord who killed, pillaged, forced women to marry him and impose insanely high taxes on the people he conquered and the vast majority of them would agree that the Chinese warlord was vile and deserved punishment.

But when it comes to Mohammed it's all OK Because He Did It. So there are lots of justifications, rationalizations, double standards, etc. to whitewash Mohammed's unethical actions.

Christians are the same. If you ask about the atrocities of the old testament you get a lot of talk about different times and contexts. Dispensationalists have some pretty elaborate justifications. The main point is that it's okay because God told them to do it, and by definition God is good. It's a way of abdicating all moral responsibility to this irreproachable (and conveniently unavailable for questioning) authority. It's solving ethics by passing the buck. Must be nice to be satisfied by an answer like that.

The big difference is that most Christians in the "west" don't see what's written in the Old Testament as a role model. If you asked most Christians today whether it's OK for a Christian force to invade a country, kill all the male population and take the women as slaves most would be appalled. If you ask the same things to muslims about a Muslim force doing the same things you don't get overwhelming support for those tactics, either, but you get a lot of "ifs" and "buts" and arguments about pacts, about who started the fight, about who the enemy is, etc. etc.

Honor killings are, today, seen as appalling by most Christians. In the muslim world people aren't as much against them, the general consensus is that you shouldn't go overboard but the women killed also are to blame. Hitting your wife because she doesn't want to sleep with you is seen as a horrible crime by most Christians. In muslim communities most people think it's not so bad, again as long as you don't go overboard. Cousin marriage makes most Christians squirm, but it's the norm in muslim communities. Any sexual contact between an adult and a child is seen as the most appalling crime one can commit among Christians in the "west", but in muslim communities there are lots of qualifiers, "ifs" and "buts" to what is child sexual abuse and what isn't (for many muslims if a 60 year old man marries a 13 year old girl as long as he's "not a bad person" there's no big deal).

Mo said that women are for their husband to plow, that hitting your wife is a good punishment for her being "uppity", and that he married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9. I don't think that it's a coincidence if domestic abuse, marital rape and child marriage are seen less negatively among muslims than among "westerners".

Christians aren't basing their whole morality on the bible, no matter how much they claim to. Even the fundamentalist Christians are cherrypickers who bash LGBT people but are horrified by sexual slavery (even though the bible condones it). Christians in the "west" have two protective layers against Old Testament morality: the first is the New Testament which is supposed to change things, the second is secularization.

There are plenty of secularized muslims, liberal muslims, quasi-muslims and "cafeteria muslims" among the highly educated muslims, especially in some "western" communities. Iranians who left the country after the 1979 revolution, Ismailis or Amhadi whose families were integrated in the ranks of the colonial empires, city dwellers from Lebanon who have studied in western universities, and people who have lived their entire lives in a bubble of secularization and high education can sneer at the "uncouth" and "ignorant" people who think that islam is what religious muslims do.

But the harsh truth is that secularized muslims are a minority, and that they've more or less abandoned the Qu'ran and the ahadith even when they claim they worship them. They're "cultural muslims" who might celebrate Ramadan or pray a few times but don't devote their lives to religion.

Religious muslims are told all the time to imitate Mohammed in everything. The potential for justifying violence, child sexual abuse, rape, draconian punishment for honor crimes and other crimes, etc. is all there in the Qu'ran and the ahadith. You only need a) to truly believe in it and b) to believe that there's a war between muslims and non-muslims to justify away all kinds of appalling behavior against non-muslims. You only need to believe in islam, not even to buy into the war narrative, to justify inter-communitarian "morality policing" against those muslims who stray from the true path.

There's no way for muslims to accept separation of church and state, let alone modern moral principles, unless they're explicitly a reformer (and so a heretic). Islam isn't just a set of beliefs about the supernatural world, it's a set of beliefs about every single aspect of the real world, which include politics, wars, personal behavior, etc.

[Kirbmarc]

However Mo is simply not a good role model for today's world. Most of the things he did are considered crimes and morally disgusting in a modern society. Even most modern muslims consider those things wrong...when it's NOT Mohammed doing them. Tell most muslims a story about a Chinese warlord who killed, pillaged, forced women to marry him and impose insanely high taxes on the people he conquered and the vast majority of them would agree that the Chinese warlord was vile and deserved punishment.

But when it comes to Mohammed it's all OK Because He Did It. So there are lots of justifications, rationalizations, double standards, etc. to whitewash Mohammed's unethical actions.

Christians are the same. If you ask about the atrocities of the old testament you get a lot of talk about different times and contexts. Dispensationalists have some pretty elaborate justifications. The main point is that it's okay because God told them to do it, and by definition God is good. It's a way of abdicating all moral responsibility to this irreproachable (and conveniently unavailable for questioning) authority. It's solving ethics by passing the buck. Must be nice to be satisfied by an answer like that.

The big difference is that most Christians in the "west" don't see what's written in the Old Testament as a role model. If you asked most Christians today whether it's OK for a Christian force to invade a country, kill all the male population and take the women as slaves most would be appalled. If you ask the same things to muslims about a Muslim force doing the same things you don't get overwhelming support for those tactics, either, but you get a lot of "ifs" and "buts" and arguments about pacts, about who started the fight, about who the enemy is, etc. etc.

Honor killings are, today, seen as appalling by most Christians. In the muslim world people aren't as much against them, the general consensus is that you shouldn't go overboard but the women killed also are to blame. Hitting your wife because she doesn't want to sleep with you is seen as a horrible crime by most Christians. In muslim communities most people think it's not so bad, again as long as you don't go overboard. Cousin marriage makes most Christians squirm, but it's the norm in muslim communities. Any sexual contact between an adult and a child is seen as the most appalling crime one can commit among Christians in the "west", but in muslim communities there are lots of qualifiers, "ifs" and "buts" to what is child sexual abuse and what isn't (for many muslims if a 60 year old man marries a 13 year old girl as long as he's "not a bad person" there's no big deal).

Mo said that women are for their husband to plow, that hitting your wife is a good punishment for her being "uppity", and that he married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9. I don't think that it's a coincidence if domestic abuse, marital rape and child marriage are seen less negatively among muslims than among "westerners".

Christians aren't basing their whole morality on the bible, no matter how much they claim to. Even the fundamentalist Christians are cherrypickers who bash LGBT people but are horrified by sexual slavery (even though the bible condones it). Christians in the "west" have two protective layers against Old Testament morality: the first is the New Testament which is supposed to change things, the second is secularization.

There are plenty of secularized muslims, liberal muslims, quasi-muslims and "cafeteria muslims" among the highly educated muslims, especially in some "western" communities. Iranians who left the country after the 1979 revolution, Ismailis or Amhadi whose families were integrated in the ranks of the colonial empires, city dwellers from Lebanon who have studied in western universities, and people who have lived their entire lives in a bubble of secularization and high education can sneer at the "uncouth" and "ignorant" people who think that islam is what religious muslims do.

But the harsh truth is that secularized muslims are a minority, and that they've more or less abandoned the Qu'ran and the ahadith even when they claim they worship them. They're "cultural muslims" who might celebrate Ramadan or pray a few times but don't devote their lives to religion.

Religious muslims are told all the time to imitate Mohammed in everything. The potential for justifying violence, child sexual abuse, rape, draconian punishment for honor crimes and other crimes, etc. is all there in the Qu'ran and the ahadith. You only need a) to truly believe in it and b) to believe that there's a war between muslims and non-muslims to justify away all kinds of appalling behavior against non-muslims. You only need to believe in islam, not even to buy into the war narrative, to justify inter-communitarian "morality policing" against those muslims who stray from the true path.

There's no way for muslims to accept separation of church and state, let alone modern moral principles, unless they're explicitly a reformer (and so a heretic). Islam isn't just a set of beliefs about the supernatural world, it's a set of beliefs about every single aspect of the real world, which include politics, wars, personal behavior, etc.

[Tigzy]

It was only a matter of time :doh:

http://i.imgur.com/lEKT1D7.jpg

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... xt-slavery

Well. Gosh.

One of the obstacles all these abolitionists had to overcome was the influence of Nelson, who was what you would now call, without hesitation, a white supremacist. While many around him were denouncing slavery, Nelson was vigorously defending it. Britain’s best known naval hero – so idealised that after his death in 1805 he was compared to no less than “the God who made him” – used his seat in the House of Lords and his position of huge influence to perpetuate the tyranny, serial rape and exploitation organised by West Indian planters, some of whom he counted among his closest friends.

Actually, Nelson's 'vigorous defence' of white supremacy and perpetuation of 'the tyranny, serial rape and exploitation organised by West Indian planters' amounts to no more - from what I can glean - of one paragraph of a private letter he wrote to a plantation owning friend:

...I have ever been and shall die a firm friend to our colonial system. I was bred as you know in the good old school, and taught to appreciate the value of our West India possessions, and neither in the field nor in the senate, shall their interest be infringed while I have an arm to fight in their defence or a tongue to launch my voice against the damnable and cursed doctrine of Wilberforce and his hypocritical allies, and I hope my berth in heaven will be as exalted as his, who would certainly cause the murder of all our friends and fellow subjects in the colonies; however, I did not intend to go so far, but the sentiments are full in my heart, and the pen would write them. .—I shall as soon as I have done with this fleet go to England for a few months, and if you have time and inclination, I shall be glad to hear from you; we are near thirty years acquainted, and I am as ever, &c

http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/foru ... .php?t=288

And that seems to be pretty much it. I'm not one for whataboutery, but honestly, if it's worth getting this worked up over such a milquetoast example of historical racism then I do hope the author reserves similar ire for Che (and by extension, those t-shirts beloved by middle-class tankies), whose examples of racism in The Motorcycle Diaries are well known.

[DrokkIt]

It was only a matter of time :doh:

http://i.imgur.com/lEKT1D7.jpg

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... xt-slavery

I here by nominate AFUA HIRSCH for a cuntie.
This is how the snowflake describes her time at Oxford:

I got asked a lot of annoying questions when I was a student. Some were about my hair texture (afro, kinky), libido (presumed to be supernatural) and expected ability to dance (think Beyoncé). Over time, researching the experiences of other students at Oxford, where I studied, I’ve found these interactions to be a common consequence of being black and female in an environment that is populated not just by white students but also by many who have never met a black person in the flesh before.

That's right, this totally happened. Oxford students have never met a black person before, so when they meet a mysterious creature with black skin they assume she has a supernatural libido. When did this racial clash happen? in the 1920's? No the Social Affairs editor of the Guardian is born in 1981.
Further reading: how the lack of discrimination in Norway is somehow bad. Because Sweden maybe?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... fua-hirsch

I didn't meet a black person until I was maybe 18 or 19. UK is mostly us honkys.

[MacGruberKnows]

Dawkins in a tweet about the eclipse:

All humanity should be proud of Newton & the precision of eclipse forecasting (oh but surely an eclipse is only a social construct?)

PZ on what Dawkins said:

But why the snide remark about a “social construct”? The eclipse was also a social construct! We attach a value to witnessing these events, and also to conversing about them to our friends and families, and on social media. People felt awe when the sun was obscured by the moon. They wrote about it ... blah blah blah ...

PZ, like all SJW's cannot will not distinguish between the event, and people's reactions to the event because it serves a purpose. Do you need people to have an eclipse, no, and what a stupid question to ask. And PZ, predictably gives an even stupider answer to such a stupid question. For the cause, always for the cause.

[Suet Cardigan]

It was only a matter of time :doh:

http://i.imgur.com/lEKT1D7.jpg

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... xt-slavery

As usual, many of the commentators aren't swallowing the narrative. The highest rated comment is:

Personally when trying to remove history, I prefer a good ol' book burning.

:clap:

[Kirbmarc]

Dawkins in a tweet about the eclipse:

All humanity should be proud of Newton & the precision of eclipse forecasting (oh but surely an eclipse is only a social construct?)

PZ on what Dawkins said:

But why the snide remark about a “social construct”? The eclipse was also a social construct! We attach a value to witnessing these events, and also to conversing about them to our friends and families, and on social media. People felt awe when the sun was obscured by the moon. They wrote about it ... blah blah blah ...

PZ, like all SJW's cannot will not distinguish between the event, and people's reactions to the event because it serves a purpose. Do you need people to have an eclipse, no, and what a stupid question to ask. And PZ, predictably gives an even stupider answer to such a stupid question. For the cause, always for the cause.

Don't teach people how to predict an eclipse, teach the Moon not to obscure the sun :bjarte:

[John D]

The explanation for why Christians are more " civilized " than Muslims is that Christians think Jesus is the perfect man and Muslims think Mohammed is the perfect man. It's not that complicated.

[Kirbmarc]

Chinese people are mocking the SocJus:

Bunch of white supremacists. Punch them all :bjarte:

[Kirbmarc]

The explanation for why Christians are more " civilized " than Muslims is that Christians think Jesus is the perfect man and Muslims think Mohammed is the perfect man. It's not that complicated.

Secularization also played a role. The Christians used to be as bad as today's "mainstream" muslims when they had the complete control of society (adultery was a criminal offense until fairly recently, heretics were killed in droves, minor crimes were punished with executions, honor killings were accepted, slavery was justified, etc) and it was only after some degree of separation between church and state that things got sensibly better. Also wherever Christians dominate politics they tend to regress

Although you could say that Christianity allowed some kind of role for a secular authority spearated from the religious authorities (because of the pro-Roman Pauline interpretation) which islam completely lacked, and that through a series of social changes that role eventually led to social secularization as well. So the germs of progress were there in potential in Christianity, ready to be exploited, while they were absent in islam.

[Billie from Ockham]

Feminist icon is critical of modern feminists:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug ... are_btn_tw

Angry purple-haired lard-ass mob in 3...2...1...

I, personally, wouldn't include a "3...2...1..." count-down when linking to something from 16 years ago. Just sayin'.

[feathers]

Next thing you know, folks will be complaining about anti-fascist protective barriers.

1986_08_13_Feier_25_Jahre_Mauer.jpg

I give it 3 more years.

Btw it soon after turned out that those 'antif-fascist' ossies were hopelessly behind where it came to denazification.

[gurugeorge]

The explanation for why Christians are more " civilized " than Muslims is that Christians think Jesus is the perfect man and Muslims think Mohammed is the perfect man. It's not that complicated.

Secularization also played a role. The Christians used to be as bad as today's "mainstream" muslims when they had the complete control of society (adultery was a criminal offense until fairly recently, heretics were killed in droves, minor crimes were punished with executions, honor killings were accepted, slavery was justified, etc) and it was only after some degree of separation between church and state that things got sensibly better. Also wherever Christians dominate politics they tend to regress

Although you could say that Christianity allowed some kind of role for a secular authority spearated from the religious authorities (because of the pro-Roman Pauline interpretation) which islam completely lacked, and that through a series of social changes that role eventually led to social secularization as well. So the germs of progress were there in potential in Christianity, ready to be exploited, while they were absent in islam.

I think both religions have probably had an ameliorative effect on natural human barbarism.

It's like, you know, when someone is into some bizarre cult or something, you don't really know what they were like before they got into it, they might have been ten times worse :)

Both religions have universalist aspirations, it's really a question of degree and kind of universalism - who you include in "us" and "we." Christianity has an edge in this, in that its universalism is for all human beings regardless of beliefs, whereas Islam's caritas is for all human beings who have converted to Islam.

Christianity spread partly because it really was a kinder, gentler way of life, they cared for the poor, the downtrodden, etc., and not just Christian versions of those; and they outlawed infanticide. And the force of character of Christians devoted to these ideals has often been the reason it's spread (certainly with the initial conversions in Europe). (IOW barbarians admire force of character, indomitable will, the courage of one's convictions, etc., and Christians demonstrated that.)

One of the most ironic things about the modern Left is how its morality is so very Christian (all equal), yet (because of epistemological relativism) it's consciously held as a "leap of faith." Figure that one out.

[feathers]

Feminist icon is critical of modern feminists:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug ... are_btn_tw

Angry purple-haired lard-ass mob in 3...2...1...

I, personally, wouldn't include a "3...2...1..." count-down when linking to something from 16 years ago. Just sayin'.

It just got tweeted again by teh Peterson.

[Billie from Ockham]

Feminist icon is critical of modern feminists:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug ... are_btn_tw

Angry purple-haired lard-ass mob in 3...2...1...

I, personally, wouldn't include a "3...2...1..." count-down when linking to something from 16 years ago. Just sayin'.

It just got tweeted again by teh Peterson.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense.

[Kirbmarc]

I think both religions have probably had an ameliorative effect on natural human barbarism.

It's like, you know, when someone is into some bizarre cult or something, you don't really know what they were like before they got into it, they might have been ten times worse :)

Both religions have universalist aspirations, it's really a question of degree and kind of universalism - who you include in "us" and "we." Christianity has an edge in this, in that its universalism is for all human beings regardless of beliefs, whereas Islam's caritas is for all human beings who have converted to Islam.

I disagree. Universalism curbed small inter-tribal conflicts (to a certain degree), but it automatically created a new out-group based on belief. Pagan Rome was far more tolerant than Christian kingdoms or the Muslim caliphate of diversity of cults, if only due to pragmatic reasons (a bunch of new gods in a polytheistic society aren't that big of a deal).

I think that the barbarism shifted from a "war of all against all" to a less diffuse, more specific, orderly and refined case, which was more useful to authorities which controlled lots of people. Popes or caliphs could direct young male aggression (especially of nobles and trained warriors) towards the "enemies of the faith" instead of against the faithful masses. Better to have the warriors fighting the Evil Unbelievers than leave them to rape, pillage and burn your own countryside.

Also Christianity definitely isn't about universalism regardless of beliefs. Massacres of "pagans" and "heretics" were common during Christian history, often sanctioned by highest religious authorities. Christians also frequently expelled Jews while Muslims allowed them to stay if they paid taxes and minded their own business while accepting muslim authority (although this wasn't a perfect system of course).

So I think it's more of a case of easier, more streamlined Order instead of Chaos than one of curbing of "natural barbarism".

The difference is that in Christianity secular and religious authorities weren't one and the same. You had popes fighting emperors and vice versa. In islam the Caliph was the supreme moral, religious and secular authority.

Christianity spread partly because it really was a kinder, gentler way of life, they cared for the poor, the downtrodden, etc., and not just Chritian versions of those; and they outlawed infanticide.

I'd add that both Christianity and islam spread because they called for slaves to be treated better than before. In the case of islam of course this applied mostly to muslim slaves. Judaism (the source of most of Christian and Muslim tropes) already had some provisions (like the jubilee) to put limits to slavery, but they were limited to Jewish slaves (and similar to many other provisions for "ethnic" slaves). Universalism only made those provisions well, universal (at least within the faith).

Another important factor is that islam and christianity gave an important social role ("fighter for the faith" or "part of the propaganda machine") to disenfranchised young men (orphans, immigrants from the country to a city, freed slaves, "black sheep" rejected from their families, etc.) who in previous cultures tended to be complete outcasts and joins bands of roamers and brigands.

Under Christianity and islam those "lost boys" had the purpose to be missionaries and clerics, when before only noblemen could be the few civic clerics around. Under Medieval Christianity this was especially efficient for the European nobility since "second sons" could become priests or crusaders. This solved a lot of inheritance and social disenfranchisement issues of previous societies (only the first son inherits the land so the power of your family isn't divided, but your other sons can also become warriors for the faith or spread it to the masses, which means they're not a social burden).

And the force of character of Christians devoted to these ideals has often been the reason it's spread (certainly with the initial conversions in Europe). (IOW barbarians admire force of character, indomitable will, the courage of one's convictions, etc., and Christians demonstrated that.)

Yes, Christianity and islam both give focus and determination towards an eternal reward, which builds force of character (you know that your efforts and sacrifice will be rewarded with an eternity of delight after death, and you have only one god to please so it's easy to follow orders, instead of wondering which gods are squabbling with other gods).

One of the most ironic things about the modern Left is how its morality is so very Christian (all equal), yet (because of epistemological relativism) it's consciously held as a "leap of faith." Figure that one out.

The Modern (SocJus) Left is a cult without an eternal reward. It's a senseless sacrifice, where even allies get "no cookies". The only reason it's so strong is that it's VERY good for Machiavellian social games (play the Nice Guy and exclude the boorish "alpha males" from the group, play the Feminist and punish the "sluts" while demanding respect, etc etc) and also extremely good for academia, the new priesthood (get an easy job after parroting a few memes) and for corporations (a few cosmetic changes mean you can screw over your employees and still get their praise). And of course there's the matter of focus due to the conviction of moral superiority.

But ultimately the Machiavellian games will lead the fans of SocJus to turn on each other. The lack of a long-lasting reward is a big issue as well.

[BoxNDox]

Appros of nothing...

It's always good to see that citizens of other countries are as retarded as Americans.

I grew up in rural Oklahoma, and while Oklahomans may be pretty stupid (see for example Governor Mary Fallon) they aren't THAT stupid.

Try that shit with a real tornado and odds are they'll never find your body. Or your truck.

[TheMudbrooker]

Appros of nothing...

It's always good to see that citizens of other countries are as retarded as Americans.

I grew up in rural Oklahoma, and while Oklahomans may be pretty stupid (see for example Governor Mary Fallon) they aren't THAT stupid.

Try that shit with a real tornado and odds are they'll never find your body. Or your truck.

And it would be a damned shame to lose a perfectly good truck.

[Sulman]

The Chinese sure are interesting.


https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitalib ... net-insult

[Sulman]

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

Chairman LMAO

[jet_lagg]

<snip>

There's no way for muslims to accept separation of church and state, let alone modern moral principles, unless they're explicitly a reformer (and so a heretic). Islam isn't just a set of beliefs about the supernatural world, it's a set of beliefs about every single aspect of the real world, which include politics, wars, personal behavior, etc.

We're 99% in accord when it comes to just how much a problem religions are, just why they're a problem, and just what to do about it as a matter of attitude and government policy. I'm not as gloomy as you and Anjuli are about the prospects of Muslim reform though. All of the Christians I see as model citizens today would have burned at the stake for heresy throughout most of the religion's history. Nevertheless, the heresy became the norm in the west. So, long as government institutions can bring the religious ones to heel, progress follows. It's true there's no "render unto Caesar" equivalent in Islam, but how much did that seed really matter when we had thousands of years of stagnation followed by relatively rapid transformation?

I do see a difference between the faiths, but argue it's one of degree rather than kind. On the other hand, I grew up Christian rather than Muslim. It shouldn't be surprising we emphasize more the dangers we're familiar with.

[BoxNDox]

One of the most ironic things about the modern Left is how its morality is so very Christian (all equal), yet (because of epistemological relativism) it's consciously held as a "leap of faith." Figure that one out.

The Modern (SocJus) Left is a cult without an eternal reward. It's a senseless sacrifice, where even allies get "no cookies". The only reason it's so strong is that it's VERY good for Machiavellian social games (play the Nice Guy and exclude the boorish "alpha males" from the group, play the Feminist and punish the "sluts" while demanding respect, etc etc) and also extremely good for academia, the new priesthood (get an easy job after parroting a few memes) and for corporations (a few cosmetic changes mean you can screw over your employees and still get their praise). And of course there's the matter of focus due to the conviction of moral superiority.

I disagree. The reward is definitely there, it's just not as explicit as having a heaven to go to if you're good. It's a form of personal salvation. I see it as a variant of transcendentalist and romantic thinking, with a nod to the Christian concept of being born in sin.

And as in Christianity, you expiate your sin through acts of confession, contrition, and abnegation.

There's also a healthy dose of Marxist inevitability and "being on the right side of history" in there somewhere.

But ultimately the Machiavellian games will lead the fans of SocJus to turn on each other. The lack of a long-lasting reward is a big issue as well.

Agree with the first part, but it's the inherently inchoate nature of the reward SocJus offers that's problematic, not its lack of existence. Not to mention that most people despise those who walk about in complete assurance of their own moral superiority.

[Kirbmarc]

The Chinese sure are interesting.


https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitalib ... net-insult

One of people in the comments, a certain BC, seems obsessed with the idea that the SocJus is a myth or that nobody in the left supports them. Although he also believes that there is no left in the US so he's probably just an old school Marxist.

Or maybe he simply didn't notice other articles linked on the website he's posting on.

[MarcusAu]

....

Try that shit with a real tornado and odds are they'll never find your body. Or your truck.

And well, you know....

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

[Kirbmarc]

We're 99% in accord when it comes to just how much a problem religions are, just why they're a problem, and just what to do about it as a matter of attitude and government policy. I'm not as gloomy as you and Anjuli are about the prospects of Muslim reform though. All of the Christians I see as model citizens today would have burned at the stake for heresy throughout most of the religion's history. Nevertheless, the heresy became the norm in the west. So, long as government institutions can bring the religious ones to heel, progress follows. It's true there's no "render unto Caesar" equivalent in Islam, but how much did that seed really matter when we had thousands of years of stagnation followed by relatively rapid transformation?

I do see a difference between the faiths, but argue it's one of degree rather than kind. On the other hand, I grew up Christian rather than Muslim. It shouldn't be surprising we emphasize more the dangers we're familiar with.

I think that muslim reform could happen (not "will" happen, I don't believe in the Manifest Destiny of Enlightenment Values). It'd take a long time though. Christian reform didn't happen overnight, either. It took centuries for Christianity to reform, so it'd probably take centuries for islam to reform.

As a counterexample to secular government institutions bringing religious ones to heel I bring you the strange case of Turkey, a country with secular institutions for a century which is now sliding back into theocracy.

I think that the islamic world needs at least an equivalent of the French Revolution (expropriation of mosques, de-islamization of schools, etc. etc.) in order to even start the path that would lead it to achieve secularism. And then at least a century of struggle.

I don't see this happening anytime soon, especially since Salafism is actually on the rise among young muslims. These are dark times.

[Suet Cardigan]

AMoron.png

(51.33 KiB) Downloaded 224 times

Men have never been employees. Or Slaves. Or victims of violence.

http://noethics.net/News/images/stories ... ficate.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

I disagree. The reward is definitely there, it's just not as explicit as having a heaven to go to if you're good. It's a form of personal salvation. I see it as a variant of transcendentalist and romantic thinking, with a nod to the Christian concept of being born in sin.

You're right, there is an emotional reward but it's neither eternal nor permanent. It can be taken away at any time. Christians have a list of rules to follow which was dictated by a central authority and relatively easy to understand. The rules of the SocJus are byzantine and ever-changing.

And as in Christianity, you expiate your sin through acts of confession, contrition, and abnegation.

But unlike Christianity there's little to no forgiveness.

There's also a healthy dose of Marxist inevitability and "being on the right side of history" in there somewhere.

All cults have those elements. Without the certainty that you're going to win you wouldn't sacrifice so much.

[Steersman]

<snip>

There's no way for muslims to accept separation of church and state, let alone modern moral principles, unless they're explicitly a reformer (and so a heretic). Islam isn't just a set of beliefs about the supernatural world, it's a set of beliefs about every single aspect of the real world, which include politics, wars, personal behavior, etc.

We're 99% in accord when it comes to just how much a problem religions are, just why they're a problem, and just what to do about it as a matter of attitude and government policy. I'm not as gloomy as you and Anjuli are about the prospects of Muslim reform though. All of the Christians I see as model citizens today would have burned at the stake for heresy throughout most of the religion's history. Nevertheless, the heresy became the norm in the west. So, long as government institutions can bring the religious ones to heel, progress follows. It's true there's no "render unto Caesar" equivalent in Islam, but how much did that seed really matter when we had thousands of years of stagnation followed by relatively rapid transformation?

I do see a difference between the faiths, but argue it's one of degree rather than kind. On the other hand, I grew up Christian rather than Muslim. It shouldn't be surprising we emphasize more the dangers we're familiar with.

Rather disagree. To kind of underline Kirbmarc's points, and those of Pandavar and many other commentators, you might check out this old post at Patheos, a reposting of something on the author's Facebook page which had been deleted because it had been "violating their community standards" [spits], these points in particular:

How do you tell a radical homicidal Muslim from a moderate peace loving one?

Every Muslim humanist is asking themselves this question I first asked myself in September 2001. ....

I went deep into the Midwest, wore a hijab for a year and lived there for 8 years. In that time, I attended ISNA gatherings, met with educated, professional people like myself who were also asking the same questions. They were looking to their faith for answers. And sure, there were efforts made to modernize Islam, but they were only superficial. We couldn’t do it. We couldn’t do it because there is a logical dilemma at the core of Islam. And that is, that the Quran is the last word of God, that it is perfect and unchangeable. And to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy and apostasy. ....

Asserting that one's "holy book" [ha!] is quite literally the last word of Gawd, and is "perfect and unchangeable" in every last jot and tittle, looks like a very different critter - of an entirely different phyla - from accepting that it is at best merely inspired by a deity of some sort.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Dawkins in a tweet about the eclipse:

All humanity should be proud of Newton & the precision of eclipse forecasting (oh but surely an eclipse is only a social construct?)

PZ on what Dawkins said:

But why the snide remark about a “social construct”? The eclipse was also a social construct! We attach a value to witnessing these events, and also to conversing about them to our friends and families, and on social media. People felt awe when the sun was obscured by the moon. They wrote about it ... blah blah blah ...

PZ, like all SJW's cannot will not distinguish between the event, and people's reactions to the event because it serves a purpose. Do you need people to have an eclipse, no, and what a stupid question to ask. And PZ, predictably gives an even stupider answer to such a stupid question. For the cause, always for the cause.

Right, but what the fuck point was Dawkins trying to make with that? He is a bit of an arse.

[Kirbmarc]

Asserting that one's "holy book" [ha!] is quite literally the last word of Gawd, and is "perfect and unchangeable" in every last jot and tittle, looks like a very different critter - of an entirely different phyla - from accepting that it is at best merely inspired by a deity of some sort.

I have to admit that I'm starting to think that Steersman has a point here (maybe just because he actually bothered to read the sources this time :lol: ). Not that Christianity is intrinsically better than islam, but that it had the seeds of a potential reformation due to its ambiguities about secular authorities and divine inspiration. Not that literalism didn't or doesn't exist in Christianity, but there's marginally more wiggle room for interpretation.

In a way islam apologists are right and islam is a more refined form of Christianity (since Christianity predates islam by centuries it makes sense) with less ambiguities, less room for doubt, less ability to support change if pushed in the right direction. This makes it worse, like a mutation for a strain of TBC that makes it resistant to anti-biotics. Christianity seems to be more vulnerable to the immune system of secularization, while islam may have a protective shell that needs to be broken.

[Kirbmarc]

Right, but what the fuck point was Dawkins trying to make with that? He is a bit of an arse.

I think that Dawkins want to make a joke about how people have no trouble believing that Newtonian physics, while not perfect, are a very good model to describe the motion of objects in space, but the same people seem to doubt that sexual dimorphism exists and has a biological origin explained by the theory of evolution.

It's not a very good argument, to be fair. If you want to disprove the social constructionist approach to human physiology it's not very useful to point at Newtonian phyisics and say "science, it works, bitches!". Then again it was just a quip, just like the countless "science, it works, bitches!" quips on the Internet, which people have used against the creationists.

[Shatterface]

It's not a very good argument, to be fair. If you want to disprove the social constructionist approach to human physiology it's not very useful to point at Newtonian phyisics and say "science, it works, bitches!". Then again it was just a quip, just like the countless "science, it works, bitches!" quips on the Internet, which people have used against the creationists.

It was just an opportunity to mock the 'social construction' model of reality and he rightly took it. Some crotches need a regular kicking.

[Kirbmarc]

It's not a very good argument, to be fair. If you want to disprove the social constructionist approach to human physiology it's not very useful to point at Newtonian phyisics and say "science, it works, bitches!". Then again it was just a quip, just like the countless "science, it works, bitches!" quips on the Internet, which people have used against the creationists.

It was just an opportunity to mock the 'social construction' model of reality and he rightly took it. Some crotches need a regular kicking.

Yeah, not worse than when people mock creationists or Flat Earth supporters who trust modern medicine. Not a very convincing argument, strictly speaking, but good for a joke.

[Steersman]

Asserting that one's "holy book" [ha!] is quite literally the last word of Gawd, and is "perfect and unchangeable" in every last jot and tittle, looks like a very different critter - of an entirely different phyla - from accepting that it is at best merely inspired by a deity of some sort.

I have to admit that I'm starting to think that Steersman has a point here ...

Hallelujah! Praise the "Lord"! (And pass the ammunition.) Kill the fatted calf for the prodigal has returned! ;-)

... (maybe just because he actually bothered to read the sources this time :lol: ).

:-) Had read the article quite some time ago, and have been quoting that passage thither and yon for ages, including in your Islam & Islamist thread, most recently here. Although the link was to Rahman's Facebook page which gives, once you log on, a "Sorry, this content isn't available right now" message. Facebook really are a bunch of turkeys to get their panties in a twist at some phobia about being called "islamophobic".

And I've also frequently quoted, and have read, Shadi Hamid who has argued pretty much the same thing, although he tends to be far more of an islamopologist that Rahman is or ever was.

Not that Christianity is intrinsically better than islam, but that it had the seeds of a potential reformation due to its ambiguities about secular authorities and divine inspiration. Not that literalism didn't or doesn't exist in Christianity, but there's marginally more wiggle room for interpretation.

In a way islam apologists are right and islam is a more refined form of Christianity (since Christianity predates islam by centuries it makes sense) with less ambiguities, less room for doubt, less ability to support change if pushed in the right direction. This makes it worse, like a mutation for a strain of TBC that makes it resistant to anti-biotics. Christianity seems to be more vulnerable to the immune system of secularization, while islam may have a protective shell that needs to be broken.

Largely agree with you there, particularly in the not "intrinsically better than Islam". Somewhat moot precisely how and where they're the same, although I think, many others including Douglas Murray think, that the common root or the mephitic source is dogmatic literalism. A quote from T.H. Huxley that while specifically targeting Christianity (and Judaism), the concept of a claim to infallibility obviously encompasses Islam:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG2HTptVYAEQou-.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG2HTptVYAEQou-.jpg

hominem unius libri timeo, indeed.

[Pitchguest]

Hey, pitters! Been a while! Sorry I've neglected you guys. You might have noticed me posting stupid shit on blogs and on YouTube but I've been sort of unraveling with all that's happening with my dad so that's my way of keeping myself preoccupied with other stuff.

Anyway, I just needed to come here for Joss Whedon's death knell. Also how his official fansite shut down post haste just because his ex-wife says he's been having affairs. So fickle, his "fans", haha.

:lol:

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Dawkins in a tweet about the eclipse:

All humanity should be proud of Newton & the precision of eclipse forecasting (oh but surely an eclipse is only a social construct?)

PZ on what Dawkins said:

But why the snide remark about a “social construct”? The eclipse was also a social construct! We attach a value to witnessing these events, and also to conversing about them to our friends and families, and on social media. People felt awe when the sun was obscured by the moon. They wrote about it ... blah blah blah ...

PZ, like all SJW's cannot will not distinguish between the event, and people's reactions to the event because it serves a purpose. Do you need people to have an eclipse, no, and what a stupid question to ask. And PZ, predictably gives an even stupider answer to such a stupid question. For the cause, always for the cause.

Right, but what the fuck point was Dawkins trying to make with that? He is a bit of an arse.

I was told recently by a woo-fan (obviously parroting what she'd been told) that teaching young children that the Earth revolves around the Sun traumatizes them, because it conflicts with their perception that the Sun goes around the Earth.

I shit you not.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

The attachment AMoron.png is no longer available

Men have never been employees. Or Slaves. Or victims of violence.

http://noethics.net/News/images/stories ... ficate.jpg

Hate to go all "Grammar Nazi" on you, but shouldn't that be "moran" ???

photo-get-a-brain-morans.jpg

(33.33 KiB) Downloaded 141 times

Make the World a better place.
Punch a Grammar Nazi in the face !

[AndrewV69]

There's no way for muslims to accept separation of church and state, let alone modern moral principles, unless they're explicitly a reformer (and so a heretic). Islam isn't just a set of beliefs about the supernatural world, it's a set of beliefs about every single aspect of the real world, which include politics, wars, personal behavior, etc.

Being a good Muslim means constant daily reinforcement. I am pretty certain that if you ask around you are going to find a few people who see nothing wrong with slavery.

Just a sec. OK here is a video of Salwa al-Mutairi as she talks about sex slaves and how they might be solution to zina among other things.

KUWAITI POLITICAL ACTIVIST SALWA AL-MTEIRI CALLS FOR A LAW PERMITTING THE PURCHASE OF POWS IN ORDER TO TURN THEM INTO SLAVE GIRLS

*shrug*

Whatever man. Fuck (Die Antwoord)

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Hey, pitters! Been a while! Sorry I've neglected you guys. You might have noticed me posting stupid shit on blogs and on YouTube but I've been sort of unraveling with all that's happening with my dad so that's my way of keeping myself preoccupied with other stuff.

Anyway, I just needed to come here for Joss Whedon's death knell. Also how his official fansite shut down post haste just because his ex-wife says he's been having affairs. So fickle, his "fans", haha.

:lol:

Best wishes Pitch, you can always vent your worst feelings here at the Pit.

[windy]

I here by nominate AFUA HIRSCH for a cuntie.
This is how the snowflake describes her time at Oxford:

I got asked a lot of annoying questions when I was a student. Some were about my hair texture (afro, kinky), libido (presumed to be supernatural) and expected ability to dance (think Beyoncé). Over time, researching the experiences of other students at Oxford, where I studied, I’ve found these interactions to be a common consequence of being black and female in an environment that is populated not just by white students but also by many who have never met a black person in the flesh before.

That's right, this totally happened. Oxford students have never met a black person before, so when they meet a mysterious creature with black skin they assume she has a supernatural libido. When did this racial clash happen? in the 1920's? No the Social Affairs editor of the Guardian is born in 1981.
Further reading: how the lack of discrimination in Norway is somehow bad. Because Sweden maybe?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... fua-hirsch

Despite healthy waves of immigration, a Swedish friend in Oslo was recalling the Swedes' struggles with racial vocabulary. They have rebranded black people recently, apparently – changing the term from neger, which obviously has unfortunate connotations – to the more politically correct svart, meaning "with an immigrant background". But black Swedes are svart even if they were born in Sweden. Not sure we would stand for that in London.

That doesn't make sense. Was her friend pulling her leg? "Svart" simply means "black", not "with an immigrant background".

AFAIK the currently favored term in PC circles is "afrosvensk", or African Swede. Isn't that right, Pitchguest? (welcome back by the way!)

[Brive1987]

http://i.imgur.com/pDqV5nt.jpg

"Our"

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... 00-h275-nc

[Pitchguest]

Hey, pitters! Been a while! Sorry I've neglected you guys. You might have noticed me posting stupid shit on blogs and on YouTube but I've been sort of unraveling with all that's happening with my dad so that's my way of keeping myself preoccupied with other stuff.

Anyway, I just needed to come here for Joss Whedon's death knell. Also how his official fansite shut down post haste just because his ex-wife says he's been having affairs. So fickle, his "fans", haha.

:lol:

Best wishes Pitch, you can always vent your worst feelings here at the Pit.

Cheers, Conc. :D

[Brive1987]

Hey, pitters! Been a while! Sorry I've neglected you guys. You might have noticed me posting stupid shit on blogs and on YouTube but I've been sort of unraveling with all that's happening with my dad so that's my way of keeping myself preoccupied with other stuff.

Anyway, I just needed to come here for Joss Whedon's death knell. Also how his official fansite shut down post haste just because his ex-wife says he's been having affairs. So fickle, his "fans", haha.

:lol:

Best wishes Pitch, you can always vent your worst feelings here at the Pit.

Cheers, Conc. :D

I thought your dad was stablising? Sorry if that's not the case.

[Pitchguest]

I here by nominate AFUA HIRSCH for a cuntie.
This is how the snowflake describes her time at Oxford:

I got asked a lot of annoying questions when I was a student. Some were about my hair texture (afro, kinky), libido (presumed to be supernatural) and expected ability to dance (think Beyoncé). Over time, researching the experiences of other students at Oxford, where I studied, I’ve found these interactions to be a common consequence of being black and female in an environment that is populated not just by white students but also by many who have never met a black person in the flesh before.

That's right, this totally happened. Oxford students have never met a black person before, so when they meet a mysterious creature with black skin they assume she has a supernatural libido. When did this racial clash happen? in the 1920's? No the Social Affairs editor of the Guardian is born in 1981.
Further reading: how the lack of discrimination in Norway is somehow bad. Because Sweden maybe?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... fua-hirsch

Despite healthy waves of immigration, a Swedish friend in Oslo was recalling the Swedes' struggles with racial vocabulary. They have rebranded black people recently, apparently – changing the term from neger, which obviously has unfortunate connotations – to the more politically correct svart, meaning "with an immigrant background". But black Swedes are svart even if they were born in Sweden. Not sure we would stand for that in London.

That doesn't make sense. Was her friend pulling her leg? "Svart" simply means "black", not "with an immigrant background".

AFAIK the currently favored term in PC circles is "afrosvensk", or African Swede. Isn't that right, Pitchguest? (welcome back by the way!)

That's right. "Svart" just means black. I have no idea what that other guy is talking about. And thanks. :D

[Billie from Ockham]

With regard to only women being historically abused (which, I assume, does not mean being abused by historians), I would like to point out that for every dollar that a male slave cost, a female slave cost only about 72 cents.

[Lsuoma]

I need the English language version.

He is the Aussie Shelley compared to some.

[jet_lagg]

Asserting that one's "holy book" [ha!] is quite literally the last word of Gawd, and is "perfect and unchangeable" in every last jot and tittle, looks like a very different critter - of an entirely different phyla - from accepting that it is at best merely inspired by a deity of some sort.

Asserting that Christians, historically or today even, hold the bible to be "merely" inspired by a deity, let alone a deity "of some sort" is putting your thumb on the scale to say the least. People say Mozart all sorts of works of literature are inspired by God. I promise you they have something else in mind when they're talking about scripture. And the existence of Muslim reformers and cultural Muslims is enough to demonstrate reform can occur. It's just a question of how to accelerate the process and ensure it sticks. That last bit is where I see some valid argument to be had.

[Brive1987]

Dawkins in a tweet about the eclipse:

All humanity should be proud of Newton & the precision of eclipse forecasting (oh but surely an eclipse is only a social construct?)

PZ on what Dawkins said:

But why the snide remark about a “social construct”? The eclipse was also a social construct! We attach a value to witnessing these events, and also to conversing about them to our friends and families, and on social media. People felt awe when the sun was obscured by the moon. They wrote about it ... blah blah blah ...

PZ, like all SJW's cannot will not distinguish between the event, and people's reactions to the event because it serves a purpose. Do you need people to have an eclipse, no, and what a stupid question to ask. And PZ, predictably gives an even stupider answer to such a stupid question. For the cause, always for the cause.

Right, but what the fuck point was Dawkins trying to make with that? He is a bit of an arse.

That some things simply "are". No ifs. No buts. No variation on the dictionary definition.

PZs entire post about the socialised meaning we ascribe to objective facts is just unrelated angry-old-man raving.

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl
And he's always at home with his back to the wall.
He's proud of the scars and the battles he's lost
He struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

Give a moment or two to the angry young man
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good
He sits in a room with a lock on the door
With his maps and his medals laid out of the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage,
I've found that just surviving was a noble fight
I once believed in causes too, had my pointless point of view
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right.

And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
He's never been able to learn from mistakes
He can't understand why his heart always breaks
He's honest and pure and has courage as well
He's fair and he's true, and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to his grave as an angry old man.

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl
And he's always at home with his back to the wall.
He's proud of the scars and the battles he's lost
He struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

[Brive1987]

Hey Europeans.

What's the go with trains?

I've been quoted like $1200 for 4x second class rail tickets Rhine to Switzerland.

I can go on the German site banh.de (or whatever) and get them for like 3 or 400 euro.

How important is it to reserve seats in Sept/Oct?

[Brive1987]

Quoted by the OZ travel agent who no doubt just jumped on their own preferred booking portal and added 10%

[Pitchguest]

Hey, pitters! Been a while! Sorry I've neglected you guys. You might have noticed me posting stupid shit on blogs and on YouTube but I've been sort of unraveling with all that's happening with my dad so that's my way of keeping myself preoccupied with other stuff.

Anyway, I just needed to come here for Joss Whedon's death knell. Also how his official fansite shut down post haste just because his ex-wife says he's been having affairs. So fickle, his "fans", haha.

:lol:

I thought your dad was stablising? Sorry if that's not the case.

He was. He had chemotherapy and despite not having the final treatment the tests after that showed a reduction in the cancer growth and he had to take less painkillers to ease the pain, so I thought it was getting better. But after the latest checkup, they found another growth and the cancer had spread even further than expected. Now he's on radiation therapy and his painkillers has doubled. He sleeps most of the day now because he gets exhausted easily. So, yeah. I'm still optimistic, but damn if it doesn't make me feel like a nervous wreck. :D

[Brive1987]

Sorry to hear that. Alas, been there, seen that, got the tee-shirt.

It doesn't help even when some earnest fuck tells you that at least it's "character building".

[Pitchguest]

With regard to only women being historically abused (which, I assume, does not mean being abused by historians), I would like to point out that for every dollar that a male slave cost, a female slave cost only about 72 cents.

I chuckled, but it wouldn't surprise me if this became an actual talking point somewhere down the line. :bjarte: