I did not wake up with any bizarreness in the middle of the night last night. I also had rice with terriyaki sauce for dinner, which Patty had to make because I have not yet mastered rice, because anything else seemed too challenging. On the other hand, now I am cured.
Yay, thing that was fucked up with new lease is now unfucked up. Although management company person on speaker phone, with music playing, filing your nails (yes, I could hear the emery board), you completely suck.
There was also an incident this morning involving city inspectors and a caulking gun.
Everything I hear about Torchwood S4 is making me so excited. Yesterday's big news, at least in my book, is that it will be taking place 2 years after the events of CoE. We're not sure if that means Ianto and Steven's deaths, or when Jack takes off from earth six months later. But it's a really compelling amount of time to me either way, in terms of where Jack's head is going to be, and is really a random piece of info I've felt those of us who want to be writing speculative S4 fic really, really need. I am all over this detail. ALL OVER IT.
Last night on Buffy: It's the apocalypse sex episode! Hey, own your tropes. Also, jeez, how is Spike the only grownup around? And really, King ARthur? The sword in the stone, really? What's most ridiculous is the degree to which it works, at least in the moment of watching.
Understood. I thought that the statement was unique in looking at it as comparing two tragedies, without the introduction of religion/Islam/racism. The people I've had talks with are definitely not Islamiphobic (personal friends of mine, who I share mutual friends with who practice Islam ... oddly enough in the hacker scene ). I understand the logic behind thinking that it could be thinly veiled Islamiphobia, but I like to think that it's also possible to not be Islamiphobia at all.
I like to think that I am not Islamiphobic , and that I can view acts of politically inspired mass killing ( McVeigh/9-11 ) external of religion. It's easy to point and say 'oh no you aren't' , but that's the way the world is these days.
It doesn't introduce religion overtly, but it's there by the back door, in the implication that a gun range somehow has a comparable function within a community to a mosque.
While I understand what you mean I think you are really painting the devil on the wall here. I don't think it's safe or realistic to automatically assume that they were placing Islam and a gun range on par. They were putting two acts of mass murder on par. I grant that I was there for the conversation, and other people here were not - but I think that too many times the default path is to assume that people are inherently evil and bashing until proven otherwise. IMHO that is dangerous.
But if the analogy isn't placing the mosque and the gun range on a par, it ceases to be an analogy and becomes meaningless a string of unrelated words. You might as well say it would be like building a swimming pool at Columbine if you're not supposed to draw some conclusion about equivalency here. I really think you're reaching.
There are two locations. At each location an act of mass murder was committed. Building a structure on the location where the event happened that has a direct relation to the event ( Columbine Shooting -> Firing Range for high school kids , 9/11 -> Religious house of worship that the people who performed the attacks were members/taught hate ).
I think they are both being referred to as educational resources that people used as a basis to take action and commit acts of mass murder. It doesn't necessarily demonize either, but it does put them on equal footing as educational facilities that were (mis)used.
What I'm trying to say is that the people who are holding this opinion ( that they are on par ) are looking at it from a perspective of 'This is where the murders went to learn murder' , and less about religious bias or racism.
That depends on your point of view. Here in the USA you will rarely ( if ever ) find a Mosque where ' Death to Americans ' is taught , but in other places in the world .....
Teaching people that it's correct / religiously mandated to kill others is just as bad / dangerous as teaching them how to load and fire a gun.
When we shut down Fox News stations for similar reasons, I will listen to this line of argument. Also, last time I checked:
a) this mosque is in the US, so what other places teach in other places is irrelevant;
b) the mosque is already there. It wants a new building. Just sayin'.
Otherwise, see below re: cathedrals. I have no more to add except this: please stop pretending this is an unbiased and rational line of argument, kthx.
I don't have to 'pretend' when this sort of thing is peddled as a reasonable and neutral viewpoint. Also, I'd like to call out the intent fallacy here. I didn't call anyone a hater or a racist; I said that this line of argument is hardly free from bias. Big difference, and if you can neatly separate your personal opinions from those you hear around you, you can do this trick, too. I'll wait.
Sorry, ATD;EOF not unlike "kthx" means " Agree To Disagree " , and " End Of File " ( Geek term , meaning this is the end. ). Similar to TL;DR ( Too Long, Didn't read )
I really can't understand how you can't see the blatant religious bias in defining mosques - and not just a specific mosque but any hypothetical mosque - as a place where people go to learn to kill. The entire argument pretty much hinges on that understanding of the word; there is nothing neutral about its usage here.
Just like there are Churches in the US that tell people to kill doctors who perform abortions, there are Mosques in which in / around people are taught to kill those who do not follow Islam. Equally real, equally dangerous.
I don't see it as bias, I see it as it is. This does not mean that EVERY Church / Mosque does this, but they do exist, and they both train people to do things that in my opinion are completely stupid.
Just like we see people carrying signs that read " GOD HATES FAGS " , there are people carrying signs that say " DEATH OT AMERICA / AMERICANS ". Even the external to the USA news media has images of them.
Again, I'm not saying that ALL Churches / Mosques are like this, but there are radical ones that do exist, and they do give this message. It reflects on them as a whole, but does not define them as a whole.
You misread my use of the word hypothetical - my point was you are equating extremism with all mosques by treating this one building as inherently problematic just because it is a mosque. I doubt you'd associate *all* churches with the vile work of Fred Phelps or with other atrocities perpetrated by Christians in the name of god.
Right on. I did not intend to equate extremism with all Mosques, however all Mosques bear the stigma of extremism, just like all Catholic Churches must bear the stigma of their extremists.
Let's be clear here. 9/11 is an act of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Wahabbi "inspiration", and not an act of Islam.
Conflating it thusly is Islamophobic. You've consistently been merging *that particuar Islamic center in that particular location* with "a terror front masquerading as a mosque".
This is bias on your part toward Islam. You're not alone in this, and I'm nor surprised to hear that people can find Muslims who go along with this viewpoint when it's presented. You can find Asian Americans who will claim that the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was right and proper, too.
See again you are wrong, but insist on painting me into something I am not.
Islam was used as part of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Wahabbi "inspiration". If you have any doubts, read this : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html If you can read that and tell me that it is not related at all to Islam .. well , I'd like to hear how that could be.
If I was biased against Islam I would not be constantly saying that the religion is bearing the burden of it's extremists, and that they bring down the religion as a whole. I would simply say that they are all evil and so on... and clearly that's not what I am saying. I also have said on multiple occasions that I have peacefully lived next to Mosque, and interacted with the people therein. I also have mentioned that I have friends who follow Islam. I have not said anything against them. Your statement of me being biased is without basis.
Islam was used, and in the opinions of some was misrepresented, by Bin Laden in declaring a fatwa against the United States. That's not bias, just read the statement as linked above.
Now , to some people the mere presence of a Mosque makes them think of this - and while that is a byproduct of fear, there is some basis to that fear. This reduces their comfort level. On the other hand there are people who would be uncomfortable having a Catholic Church next to a day care center. while this is extreme, it's not unfounded.
Instead of looking at this objectively, it's much easier to slap a racist/Islamiphobic sticker on someone and condemn them, and move on to the next person. This is very similar to McCarthyisim when being a Communist was used in a similar fashion. That is what I personally have a problem with. It seems that a person can not have an opinion without being told that they have a secret back door purpose or hidden agenda .. especially if they don't. It's frustrating to have people draw assumptions and refuse to even consider that their assumptions could be wrong.
A bunch of people fired up some discontents by selectively quoting from Holy Writ.
That covers a *lot* of the sins of both Islam and Christianity. It's when you go beyond that, to "and so saying that by definition, putting a mosque there is the wrong thing to do", that you're making a bad leap of logic.
My mother has a bird phobia. It has no reasonable basis. She knows this. She still has the phobia. She just doesn't try to rationalize it.
On the other hand, a lot of people who are homophobic, racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, etc. all *justify* their bias. They have reasons why they dislike or disrespect or apply the actions of the few to the whole.
I suspect you're quite kind to individual Muslims. I think you're too willing to paint all Islam with the taint of a few extremists.
I strongly believe, rather than saying, "oh, the people who lump in all Islam do have a point", that it's important to highlight the schism. This isn't the same as the Catholic Church, since there isn't a single Islamic religious head who is signing off on the twisted dogma. It wasn't a Catholic schism, like the ones that Mel Gibson's father follows, that were engaged in the coverup of pedophile priests. But it *is* a radical offshoot that is fueling Al Qaeda. Failure to recognize that leads to a radicalization of mainstream Islam. This does not benefit anyone except Al Qaeda. And those who profit from this "war" -- Halliburton and other related interests.
In sum - there's something that the rationalization is based on. But it's still a rationalization, and worse, one that aids the cause it's allegedly fighting against.
I understand that. What I meant was being able to remove that factor and look at the whole picture outside of it. It's like saying " let's look at just the red blood cells. Ok now let's look at just the white blood cells." or in terms of listening to music isolating the drums and guitars and listening to just the vocals. Then turning the vocals off and listening to just the guitars.
Getting a feel for each component, and how it contibutes up the whole.
Thing is though - and I have a feeling we've had this conversation before - there's some things that just can't be plucked out of their context because it's the context that makes them meaningful. This goes especially in a case of an issue like this, where there's so much cultural, social, political and racial intersection - it's less like isolating a drumbeat (which can still stand on its own) and more like trying to start out studying a book by looking at only the vowels.
Extract the cultural angle - how was this person raised, how were they taught by their parents/family? How did their school life effect them. What religion did they accept and how did they interpret it?
Extract the Social : What was their peer group like. What people did they ' hang out ' with, what was their influence on the person in question.
Extract the political : How did they vote, what party do they follow, how do they feel about the government and how it operates?
Then take all of these and make like a Venn diagram out of it. Look where they influence each other. Look for WHY they act/think/believe the way they do.
This is why I was dissecting the point of view of the people who object to the Mosque at ground zero , and/or are part of the offensive bus ad. why did they choose the symbols that they did, they are afraid, but what are they afraid of and why? Yes , yes a thousand times yes their points of view are " wrong " , but that's not a solution. Understanding why they think that way and undoing it is. Instead of just clubbing them to death , trying to understand why they feel the way they do. I come to understand why they feel the way they do - but that does not mean I agree with it. Unfortunately in the court of LJ it does, apparently.
I do this every day. Multiple times a day. I have learned to do this, and I'm good at it. I can remove my feelings from the process. When you are trying to crack the password to a hard drive full of KP you have to put aside the disgust and horror you feel and look at the person who put the lock in place. You have to understand them.
Well, the court of LJ may have misunderstood you because nothing in your discourse has suggested you think that they are wrong or that you've progressed passed the understanding and onto the undoing stage. I actually agree wholeheartedly understanding where people are coming from is a key part of engaging with them (and I haven't tried to club anyone to death, though you know anger isn't unjustified, especially where issues are personal for people) but there's a difference between understanding people and excusing them.
I can remove my feelings from the process.
You may be able to, but emotion - on both sides - is at the heart of an issue like this, which is why I'd respectfully submit tackling it like a data problem might not be as successful as you think it is.
Again, with respect, in fact you haven't, or if you have, it's been lost itself in a signal to noise problem, because if you respond to people like they must just not understand the argument when they point out that it's flawed - that feels like a defence, so of course people will respond to that in turn. And speaking on a personal level, I've been responding to your analysis of the argument (which is indisputably your own) as much as the argument itself (which, okay, isn't), and it's that I've found as problematic as anything because I absolutely don't agree that you can seperate religious or cultural or racial bias from any statement as loaded - scuse the gun pun - as that one.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 02:44 pm (UTC)I like to think that I am not Islamiphobic , and that I can view acts of politically inspired mass killing ( McVeigh/9-11 ) external of religion. It's easy to point and say 'oh no you aren't' , but that's the way the world is these days.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:33 pm (UTC)I think they are both being referred to as educational resources that people used as a basis to take action and commit acts of mass murder. It doesn't necessarily demonize either, but it does put them on equal footing as educational facilities that were (mis)used.
What I'm trying to say is that the people who are holding this opinion ( that they are on par ) are looking at it from a perspective of 'This is where the murders went to learn murder' , and less about religious bias or racism.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:58 pm (UTC)Teaching people that it's correct / religiously mandated to kill others is just as bad / dangerous as teaching them how to load and fire a gun.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:02 pm (UTC)a) this mosque is in the US, so what other places teach in other places is irrelevant;
b) the mosque is already there. It wants a new building. Just sayin'.
Otherwise, see below re: cathedrals. I have no more to add except this: please stop pretending this is an unbiased and rational line of argument, kthx.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:06 pm (UTC)A : I'm sure that if it was possible some radicals would teach it within the USA.
B : As I pointed out , location, location, location.
Also , don't confuse my personal opinions with those I hear around me. I've made my feelings clear in other points.
Please stop pretending that everyone is a racist, Islamiphobe , hater. It is possible to see it without hidden agendas or back doors.
ATD;EOF;
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:51 pm (UTC)Just like there are Churches in the US that tell people to kill doctors who perform abortions, there are Mosques in which in / around people are taught to kill those who do not follow Islam. Equally real, equally dangerous.
I don't see it as bias, I see it as it is. This does not mean that EVERY Church / Mosque does this, but they do exist, and they both train people to do things that in my opinion are completely stupid.
Just like we see people carrying signs that read " GOD HATES FAGS " , there are people carrying signs that say " DEATH OT AMERICA / AMERICANS ". Even the external to the USA news media has images of them.
Again, I'm not saying that ALL Churches / Mosques are like this, but there are radical ones that do exist, and they do give this message. It reflects on them as a whole, but does not define them as a whole.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:32 pm (UTC)Conflating it thusly is Islamophobic. You've consistently been merging *that particuar Islamic center in that particular location* with "a terror front masquerading as a mosque".
This is bias on your part toward Islam. You're not alone in this, and I'm nor surprised to hear that people can find Muslims who go along with this viewpoint when it's presented. You can find Asian Americans who will claim that the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was right and proper, too.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:52 pm (UTC)Islam was used as part of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Wahabbi "inspiration". If you have any doubts, read this : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html If you can read that and tell me that it is not related at all to Islam .. well , I'd like to hear how that could be.
If I was biased against Islam I would not be constantly saying that the religion is bearing the burden of it's extremists, and that they bring down the religion as a whole. I would simply say that they are all evil and so on... and clearly that's not what I am saying. I also have said on multiple occasions that I have peacefully lived next to Mosque, and interacted with the people therein. I also have mentioned that I have friends who follow Islam. I have not said anything against them. Your statement of me being biased is without basis.
Islam was used, and in the opinions of some was misrepresented, by Bin Laden in declaring a fatwa against the United States. That's not bias, just read the statement as linked above.
Now , to some people the mere presence of a Mosque makes them think of this - and while that is a byproduct of fear, there is some basis to that fear. This reduces their comfort level. On the other hand there are people who would be uncomfortable having a Catholic Church next to a day care center. while this is extreme, it's not unfounded.
Instead of looking at this objectively, it's much easier to slap a racist/Islamiphobic sticker on someone and condemn them, and move on to the next person. This is very similar to McCarthyisim when being a Communist was used in a similar fashion. That is what I personally have a problem with. It seems that a person can not have an opinion without being told that they have a secret back door purpose or hidden agenda .. especially if they don't. It's frustrating to have people draw assumptions and refuse to even consider that their assumptions could be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:21 pm (UTC)That covers a *lot* of the sins of both Islam and Christianity. It's when you go beyond that, to "and so saying that by definition, putting a mosque there is the wrong thing to do", that you're making a bad leap of logic.
My mother has a bird phobia. It has no reasonable basis. She knows this. She still has the phobia. She just doesn't try to rationalize it.
On the other hand, a lot of people who are homophobic, racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, etc. all *justify* their bias. They have reasons why they dislike or disrespect or apply the actions of the few to the whole.
I suspect you're quite kind to individual Muslims. I think you're too willing to paint all Islam with the taint of a few extremists.
I strongly believe, rather than saying, "oh, the people who lump in all Islam do have a point", that it's important to highlight the schism. This isn't the same as the Catholic Church, since there isn't a single Islamic religious head who is signing off on the twisted dogma. It wasn't a Catholic schism, like the ones that Mel Gibson's father follows, that were engaged in the coverup of pedophile priests. But it *is* a radical offshoot that is fueling Al Qaeda. Failure to recognize that leads to a radicalization of mainstream Islam. This does not benefit anyone except Al Qaeda. And those who profit from this "war" -- Halliburton and other related interests.
In sum - there's something that the rationalization is based on. But it's still a rationalization, and worse, one that aids the cause it's allegedly fighting against.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 12:41 am (UTC)http://ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 12:46 am (UTC)Getting a feel for each component, and how it contibutes up the whole.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 02:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 02:40 am (UTC)Extract the cultural angle - how was this person raised, how were they taught by their parents/family? How did their school life effect them. What religion did they accept and how did they interpret it?
Extract the Social : What was their peer group like. What people did they ' hang out ' with, what was their influence on the person in question.
Extract the political : How did they vote, what party do they follow, how do they feel about the government and how it operates?
Then take all of these and make like a Venn diagram out of it. Look where they influence each other. Look for WHY they act/think/believe the way they do.
This is why I was dissecting the point of view of the people who object to the Mosque at ground zero , and/or are part of the offensive bus ad. why did they choose the symbols that they did, they are afraid, but what are they afraid of and why? Yes , yes a thousand times yes their points of view are " wrong " , but that's not a solution. Understanding why they think that way and undoing it is. Instead of just clubbing them to death , trying to understand why they feel the way they do. I come to understand why they feel the way they do - but that does not mean I agree with it. Unfortunately in the court of LJ it does, apparently.
I do this every day. Multiple times a day. I have learned to do this, and I'm good at it. I can remove my feelings from the process. When you are trying to crack the password to a hard drive full of KP you have to put aside the disgust and horror you feel and look at the person who put the lock in place. You have to understand them.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 02:57 am (UTC)I can remove my feelings from the process.
You may be able to, but emotion - on both sides - is at the heart of an issue like this, which is why I'd respectfully submit tackling it like a data problem might not be as successful as you think it is.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 05:59 pm (UTC)