Trumpism: Page 29 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Trumpism

Tony Montana

y va marquer wrote:
The reference to meekness threw me

Fair enough.

Like i said wrong term but I certainly don't mean pathetic.

Gurgen

Thanks for the dissection of my personality on the previous page everyone 😉 Racism is such a hollow accusation these days that I find it hard to be offended. What Coombs is basically saying is that we cannot have a critical discussion about cultural or religious values, let alone have a negative view of those values, because they are linked to ethnicity. That is unacceptable in a free society and if that's our starting point I really have nothing more to say. I also find this view quite absurd when you take into account that people like Burnsy have written numerous essays on this forum the conclusion of which is basically that the West and "whites" are responsible for all evil that mankind has suffered in history. I don't think anyone here saw that as an attack on his or her ethnicity.

flobaba

y va marquer wrote:
Tony Montana wrote:
I acknowledged that is the wrong word but the general attitude of non retaliation and going about your business is not necessarily the way forward and not what MLK led.

If you look at what he led it was more than simply suffering. They suffered then acted.

I never said that they did not act.
I'm underlining that there was a powerful element of stoicism and turning the other cheek involved, the principles of non-violence were promoted.
The suggestion from you seems to be that there was something pathetic about how the Chinese dealt with their circumstances?
I don't see it that way, I see parallels in terms of the strength it takes to refrain from violence when being trampled upon, persecuted and demonised by the state.
Violence is the cowards way, the easy way, except is been glorified for centuries, romanticised and promoted as being heroic.

This statement bothers me.

Deeply.

Gurgen

Burnwinter wrote:
Ramadan's qualification regarding "[the real] issue with how the Scriptures are being interpreted" reflects directly that factors extrinsic to Islam are motivating the way its texts are lensed in our time.

Just a question, have you actually read any of the scriptures you are talking about?

Bold Tone

Gurgen wrote:
Thanks for the dissection of my personality on the previous page everyone 😉 Racism is such a hollow accusation these days that I find it hard to be offended. What Coombs is basically saying is that we cannot have a critical discussion about cultural or religious values, let alone have a negative view of those values, because they are linked to ethnicity. That is unacceptable in a free society and if that's our starting point I really have nothing more to say. I also find this view quite absurd when you take into account that people like Burnsy have written numerous essays on this forum the conclusion of which is basically that the West and "whites" are responsible for all evil that mankind has suffered in history. I don't think anyone here saw that as an attack on his or her ethnicity.

I don't think racism, sexism, etc are hollow accusations at all. Mud sticks if you don't wash it off.
You seem to have missed the explanation Coombs gave for having a strong reaction to your point of view.
I thought it was OTT (the racist labelling) and mentioned something along the lines of "isms stiffling debate".
You also seem to have missed Y'va vouching for you not being racist more than once.
As for your comment on BW's essays, i think you will find that they were mostly counter-arguments in response to an extreme Kel/Biggus/Savz point of view and that's why nobody saw it as an attack.

Qwiss

There should be no issue with criticising Islam as an ideology but the problem arises when that is used to demonise Muslims. People say "oh you can criticise Christianity and no one cares" but the reality is Christianity is criticised without people trying to brandish all Christians as a problem, there is no suggested Christian ban in Western nations. People don't write moronic articles about how Christians are going to have too many babies and take over France.

Qwiss

Bold Tone

As an agnostic, this made me chuckle.

Gurgen

Qwiss! wrote:
There should be no issue with criticising Islam as an ideology but the problem arises when that is used to demonise Muslims. People say "oh you can criticise Christianity and no one cares" but the reality is Christianity is criticised without people trying to brandish all Christians as a problem, there is no suggested Christian ban in Western nations. People don't write moronic articles about how Christians are going to have too many babies and take over France.

That's a bit too easy don't you think? There is definitely a difference in reaction to things like satire and comedy. For example, South Park has shown the Christian god as a fly-eating monster, Jesus as an alcoholic talk show host and the Virgin Mary bleeding from her ass. Apart from a few formal protests from some Catholics, nothing much came of it. However, a few Mohammed cartoons sparked riots and Charlie Hebdo's drawings resulted in mass murder. Some people think any criticism of their religion is demonising them. Where do you draw the line and who decides where that line should be drawn?

Bold Tone

That's because of the relative difference in how the religions are practised, in my opinion.
Christianity is like a route to heaven whereas Islam is a way of life so criticism of Christianity is not felt as an attack on the individual.
This doesn't make the crazy reaction of muslims right, btw!

flobaba

If the right audience is able to view them, those South Park episodes would produce as much outrage and violence.

Zealots aren't isolated to any religion.

speedy

flobaba wrote:
If the right audience is able to view them, those South Park episodes would produce as much outrage and violence.

Zealots aren't isolated to any religion.

I'd Hazard a guess that more people saw southpark than read that hebdo magazine.

flobaba

More people where? In the West?

speedy

flobaba wrote:
More people where? In the West?

Just from % of people that watch TV and the % that read magazines. I can't remember the last time I saw someone reading a magazine.

Qwiss

Gurgen wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
There should be no issue with criticising Islam as an ideology but the problem arises when that is used to demonise Muslims. People say "oh you can criticise Christianity and no one cares" but the reality is Christianity is criticised without people trying to brandish all Christians as a problem, there is no suggested Christian ban in Western nations. People don't write moronic articles about how Christians are going to have too many babies and take over France.

That's a bit too easy don't you think? There is definitely a difference in reaction to things like satire and comedy. For example, South Park has shown the Christian god as a fly-eating monster, Jesus as an alcoholic talk show host and the Virgin Mary bleeding from her ass. Apart from a few formal protests from some Catholics, nothing much came of it. However, a few Mohammed cartoons sparked riots and Charlie Hebdo's drawings resulted in mass murder. Some people think any criticism of their religion is demonising them. Where do you draw the line and who decides where that line should be drawn?

Well American Muslims have never to my knowledge bombed an abortion clinic. Both have laws about abortion AFAIK and both have laws about not disrespecting their god. That a tiny minority took different rules to justify their violence isn't really whats important.

All religious doctrine is eventually used to justify immoral behaviour including violence. Religion is incredibly malleable that way.

y va marquer

flobaba wrote:
y va marquer wrote:
I never said that they did not act.
I'm underlining that there was a powerful element of stoicism and turning the other cheek involved, the principles of non-violence were promoted.
The suggestion from you seems to be that there was something pathetic about how the Chinese dealt with their circumstances?
I don't see it that way, I see parallels in terms of the strength it takes to refrain from violence when being trampled upon, persecuted and demonised by the state.
Violence is the cowards way, the easy way, except is been glorified for centuries, romanticised and promoted as being heroic.

This statement bothers me.

Deeply.

Why?

Coombs

y va marquer wrote:
Coombs wrote:
Is it a question of belief? I think we define racism very differently.

I've read his posts on here for years - never read anything that led me to forming a view of Gurgen as racist.

I posted an excerpt from an interview with Tariq Ramadan a page ago

MEE: Does terrorism as we know it today bring up the issue of the interpretation and reform of Islam or is it only a social matter? In other words, according to this ongoing debate between Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel, does it mean that we are seeing the “Islamisation of radicalism” (Roy) or “is Islam becoming more radicalised”?

Tariq Ramadan: I do believe that none of them is a hundred percent right. We need to acknowledge that there is a real issue with how the Scriptures are being interpreted. Whenever I am told that terrorists are not Muslim, I systematically reply that they actually are, and they cannot be marginalised, the same way they are marginalising other Muslim people. Scriptures are quoted even though their interpretations are twisted. In the face of misinterpretation the only way out would be using another interpretation of the Scriptures.

Is Tariq Ramadan racist?

"A racist" isn't something you necessarily choose to be or not be (and I never did call Gurgen "a racist" as such). Racism is usually superstructural and systemic. It sweeps people up in false dichotomies and easy rationalizations resultant from the axiomatisation of human geography, culture, and history.

You don't have to pull on a white hood to subscribe to a viewpoint, the result of which can only be discrimination based on ethnic origin.

Every human is affected by false axioms, and so we must be vigilant and critical of them from the outset. Like I said, this isnt an individual choice as much as a state of being that can be recognized and corrected for, but never truly eradicated...not yet anyway.

Coombs

Just try criticizing Christianity in the same room as a Trump supporter and tell me no one cares!

Rex

If only most people could realize the real truth - there is no god, I need to stop believing in the Man in the moon. Or elves or goblins for that matter. However, people are pretty stupid. Religion, regardless of preference, is an absolute plague on humanity in so many various forms.

flobaba

y va marquer wrote:
flobaba wrote:
This statement bothers me.

Deeply.

Why?

Like I said previously. There is a place for peaceful protest, but there is also a place for violent protest. You cannot from the outside, look at a group of people who have been oppressed, killed, raped, exploited, suffered unspeakable horrors and all manner of cruelty, a people who are being marginalized and discriminated against, who decide enough's enough and decide to fight fire with fire... you cannot label them "cowards".

The French who fought and died for liberty and democracy, were they cowards? Was that "easy"? Irish independence - was it attained by song and goose stepping?

Until you have lived the life of the oppressed you have no basis for condemning their methods of protest.

« Previous Page Next Page »