Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[Adieu]

At least after this election the "end of the world" themed new year's eve parties will be accurate

[Candiru]

If it really seems like Trump is imminent I'm actually expecting there to be a "break in case of emergency" course of action. It could come in the form of his rape trial, since they actually have a witness this time.

 

Why, you ask? Because up until now, presidential elections have been mostly symbolic. A few minor policy changes here and there that affect us little people. America is a business and unpredictability(Trump) is bad for business. Nothing this big is ever left to chance, and this isn't my optimism speaking here.

[goDel]

HRC supporters and Bernie Sanders trying to sway disenfranchised-former-Bernie-supporters-turned-third-party voters. So far it's not working lol

fixt

[auxien]

America is a business and unpredictability(Trump) is bad for business. Nothing this big is ever left to chance, and this isn't my optimism speaking here.

This.

 

Honestly, I thought the Republican Party and elites had their shit together enough to have stopped him from getting the nomination, but their party is weak and in shambles at the moment, at least at the national level.

[coax]

when america is great, everybody wins, when america is weak, everybody loses.......

 

but like, I think Assange has some interesting things to say about institutions and the way he thinks (www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Xm08uTSDQ), and I think the people talking about assange and snowden and connections to russia feels a bit hamfisted and desperate, even though they might be right in the end (i mean how much transparency do they really have?).

 

there are no easy answers to any of this. when everyone is half-right it becomes really difficult to make a coherent picture, and nobody can predict the future so that's even worse. i do think a lot of trumps comments have been despicable and stupid, and couldn't really condone someone like that for public office in any country, even if he was joking or pandering to a certain group. the positive side of trump is that he is potentially 'fresh set of eyes and ears', but i was kind of puzzled when he took the fbi's side in the apple vs fbi case, since taking their side isn't something you would do unless you are at least somewhat informed on the matter. it's not an obvious way to look at it is what i felt. or he just has advisors who tell him what to say. right now it just feels like he will become some kind of dictator* due to his big government spoutings, but not much of any of what he says fits together as such

Edited September 18, 2016 by coax

[Sally Vingoe]

 

 

fallon is, always has been, always will be.. a massive gimboid.

Yes! Finally someone agrees with me!

I have the same thing with Steven Colbert tbqh

I could almost agree with you with the new toothless Colbert, but I feel like this election needs the old Colbert show back - although this election is so nuts it might be beyond satire

[Guest bitroast]

new toothless Colbert is so sad. 

Colbert hosting a tonight show was an interesting prospect but you're absolutely right that it sort of just morphed him into something really uninteresting. it really goes to show that maybe the people hosting the show aren't necessarily the problem ( sorry for calling you a gimboid, fallon! ) but it's probably just a problem with the production of the shows at large. 

[Guest WNS000]

 

...the positive side of trump is that he is potentially 'fresh set of eyes and ears'...

 

Even though I dislike him I can agree with this. But it can also be a dangerous thing.

 

One thing is for certain. If Trump wins, I expect it will be fun to watch what happens.

[caze]

islamophobia is the racism and bigotry you mention he acknowledges. clearly this exists, one would have to have their head deeply buried in the sand to think otherwise. neither his disagreement with the term's application to certain public figures nor the fact that there are rational reasons to object to or perhaps fear islam are adequate arguments against the existence of islamophobia.

I think the very obvious problem here is that Murray and his ilk represent the flip side of the wishy washy liberals who seek to sanitize islam and try to deflect serious criticism by misusing the term. Murray (and your other bro harris) swing entirely to the other side, claiming it can hardly even be said to exist and in so doing tend to align themselves with state power and veritable hoodlums like alan dershowitz. they ignore the serious thought on this subject just like softy liberals ignore serious critiques of islam. It's a one-dimensional and unsophisticated position.

 

nope, you're almost entirely wrong. maybe you should actually read up on the history of the word, the various scholarly interpretations of it, and the varied and valid criticism of the term as it applies to actual bigotry shown towards Muslims.

 

ironically the very first use of the word was by "Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad", and it referred to "a fear of Islam by liberal Muslims and Muslim feminists, rather than a fear or dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#History_of_the_term

 

from the very name itself it should be obvious that the term relates to the ideology of Islam, not to individual Muslims.

 

the term is now widely abused (not just in the media, but in academia as well), and is used to describe people who both criticise Islam (for whatever reason, whether such criticism is valid or not), and also people who are simply racist or bigoted towards Muslim people. such a misuse of the term only serves to malign the former with guilt by association, it's a dishonest and cowardly tactic used to avoid tackling the legitimate criticism the Islamic world needs to deal with.

 

Murray et al do not represent the flip side of what you suggest, though I'm glad you at least acknowledge it exists, they're merely pointing out that the 'wishy washy liberals' spend a lot of time attempting to discredit valid criticism with false accusations of bigotry, they've never to my knowledge claimed anti-muslim bigotry can 'hardly even be said to exist', such a claim seems patently ludicrous and you'll really need to back that up if you want me to take you seriously.

 

 

...the positive side of trump is that he is potentially 'fresh set of eyes and ears'...

 

Even though I dislike him I can agree with this. But it can also be a dangerous thing.

 

One thing is for certain. If Trump wins, I expect it will be fun to watch what happens.

 

 

unsurprisingly I think you have a terrible definition of what 'fun' entails.

[Alcofribas]

ah yes of course, the word has a precise and technical meaning from 1918. indeed that is the best way to understand the term, to emphasize an anachronistic etymological understanding. nail head duly hit.

 

in that case, is there a more convenient term you offer for the very real bigotry and irrational hatred evidenced toward people perceived to be Muslim or Arabs more generally? Since it is a real issue quite prevalent in our world, it would be quite handy to have a term for it.

 

I'd just like to point out that words do develope meanings quite beyond their original use. The study of etymology is not to derive the original and thus correct meaning of a word but rather to trace the structure of their evolution. The word islamophobia in 2016 has a very different connotation than it did in 1918. There was, for example, the 20th century.

 

Furthermore, the misuse of a term for political reasons is a quite common issue. For example, there is a substantial body of scholarship examining the misuse of the word "antisemitism" to deflect criticism of the behaviors of the state of Israel. Generally speaking, misuse does not indicate that proper use is no longer applicable.

 

Contrary to what Murray suggests, the word is not an empty epithet cynically employed by defensive Muslims and confused liberals. when a Zionist, pro-trump dude burns down a mosque, I personally find the term "islamophobia" quite applicable, questions of etymology and misuse aside.

[caze]

Murray doesn't suggest that though, he merely suggests that it is often used that way, and it is (I previously said it was 'widely abused'). If all the word was applied to was the kind of thing you describe then yes, it would be a reasonable word to use - even if the meaning had changed over time, it's not though.

 

What would be a better way of describing it? Anti-muslim bigotry works well. Muslimophobia also makes more sense, but sounds a bit clunky. Or you can simply describe someone as a bigot when speaking about a certain individual when the context is obvious.

 

It's funny you mention misuse of a term for political reasons, and then go on to talk about Zionists. lol. a Zionist is simply someone who believes the state of Israel has a right to exist, there are lots of different types of Zionists, not all of them are the rabid caricature the far-left constantly promotes. You'd no doubt complain if someone mentioned the fact that a suicide bomber was a Muslim, but have no problem using the term Zionist in a similar manner.

[eugene]

regarding definitions..

 

the reddit is strong within the new watmm arrivals. it's exactly that autistic type of argument that is highly valued in there - nauseatingly talk in length about some ancient concept definitions (with sources of course!) that are completely irrelevant to the discussion and while completely missing the point, all while thinking they are making a good point of course.

Edited September 19, 2016 by eugene

[caze]

that wasn't my point though, I only mentioned it as an ironic aside.

 

the problem with it is that it's used to describe people who don't hold bigoted views about people as bigots.

Edited September 19, 2016 by caze

[eugene]

there's no problem because in current discourse it means/understood as bigotry towards muslims in general. there's really no need to delve more into that and pretend that it's not what it currently means.

[caze]

there's no problem because in current discourse it means/understood as bigotry towards muslims in general. there's really no need to delve more into that and pretend that it's not what it currently means.

 

ffs, that's exactly what I'm saying! smh. when it's then used to describe someone who's just offering some critique on some part of Islamic ideology it's a problem. if this was some minor issue that almost never happened then I wouldn't even mention it, but it's widespread.

so there are two solutions, either wankers on the left stop using it incorrectly, or talk about changing to a more sensible term to highlight said wankery.

[Alcofribas]

That's fine, I revoke my usage of the word Zionist in that context. The substance of my argument remains unchanged, however. The fact remains that accusations anti-semitism are unfortunately used to deflect criticism of israel and that such a misuse of the term does not diminish the existence of actual anti-semitism. there is nothing rabid about this observation not was my use of the term meant as anything unsavory. I do find it interesting that you seem to be so caught up in the misuse of terminology to the extent that you lose sight of the issues at hand. And what is more this fixation rather lacks nuance. For example, I completely support the right of Israel to exist but the term "Zionist" would be entirely inaccurate to describe me or my views even in a broad sense.

 

I think one of the main failures of the line of reasoning in the Harris, Murray et al types is that they problematize the issue as one between rational vs irrational approaches to the issue. What is absent from this dichotomy is the obvious fact that rational, even scientific argumentation can be employed to promulgate an essentially bigoted view. Anyone who has taken a look at the history of racism can observe this fact. Frankly, I think most bigotry, as it appears in mainstream discourse, tends to be couched in as scientific and rational a language as its users can muster. It's more rare that one opens a serious paper or book and finds a purely irrational line of argument without any attempt at a semblance of just and reasonable discourse. This is precisely what makes Trump such a unique case in American politics; the dude is just openly racist. And it is my view that people like Murray are too committed to arguing against the misuse of the term "islamophobia" to the degree that they end up with some fucked up bedfellows. The fact that they seem unperturbed by this at least indicates a terribly low taste and standard of tact. After all, Sam Harris openly welcomes his association with Dershowitz and murrays think tank openly cooperated with a Muslim extremist in their attempt to vilify Chomsky. There something quite dishonest about that.

there's no problem because in current discourse it means/understood as bigotry towards muslims in general. there's really no need to delve more into that and pretend that it's not what it currently means.

Idk if it's bc Robbie finally left but Eugene is much cooler these days.

[eugene]

 

there's no problem because in current discourse it means/understood as bigotry towards muslims in general. there's really no need to delve more into that and pretend that it's not what it currently means.

 

ffs, that's exactly what I'm saying! smh. when it's then used to describe someone who's just offering some critique on some part of Islamic ideology it's a problem. if this was some minor issue that almost never happened then I wouldn't even mention it, but it's widespread.

so there are two solutions, either wankers on the left stop using it incorrectly, or talk about changing to a more sensible term to highlight said wankery.

 

those public intellectuals who tend to "just offer critiques" about islam are very often using those critiques as a vessel for islamaphobia though, and stem-educated, reddit refugees such as yourself don't really have the right tools to grasp that, but dealing with that is alco's part anyway...

Edited September 19, 2016 by eugene

[Alcofribas]

 

 

there's no problem because in current discourse it means/understood as bigotry towards muslims in general. there's really no need to delve more into that and pretend that it's not what it currently means.

ffs, that's exactly what I'm saying! smh. when it's then used to describe someone who's just offering some critique on some part of Islamic ideology it's a problem. if this was some minor issue that almost never happened then I wouldn't even mention it, but it's widespread.

 

so there are two solutions, either wankers on the left stop using it incorrectly, or talk about changing to a more sensible term to highlight said wankery.

those public intellectuals who tend to "just offer critiques" about islam are very often using those critiques as a vessel for islamaphobia though, and stem-educated, reddit refugees such as yourself don't really have the right tools to grasp that, but dealing with that is alco's part anyway...

I'm about to shed a tear. Eugene...my brother.

[caze]

That's fine, I revoke my usage of the word Zionist in that context. The substance of my argument remains unchanged, however. The fact remains that accusations anti-semitism are unfortunately used to deflect criticism of israel and that such a misuse of the term does not diminish the existence of actual anti-semitism. there is nothing rabid about this observation not was my use of the term meant as anything unsavory. I do find it interesting that you seem to be so caught up in the misuse of terminology to the extent that you lose sight of the issues at hand. And what is more this fixation rather lacks nuance. For example, I completely support the right of Israel to exist but the term "Zionist" would be entirely inaccurate to describe me or my views even in a broad sense.

 

I'm not caught up in the use of terminology, I'm just using examples of hypocrisy to point out flaws in your reasoning. It would be entirely accurate to describe you as a Zionist in a broad sense, so congratulations you're a Zionist! (I will refer to you as a Zionist as often as possible from now on).

 

As to whether accusations of anti-semitism are used to deflect criticism of Israel, I'd agree that they are, especially notable when used by members of the Israeli government on current affairs programs and the likes, it's their go-to move. Of course this is exactly the kind of tactic I'm complaining about when it comes to Islam as well. And just as there exist real anti-muslim bigots, there also exist real anti-semite leftists, jew-based conspiracy theories are rampant on the hard-left.

 

 

 

What is absent from this dichotomy is the obvious fact that rational, even scientific argumentation can be employed to promulgate an essentially bigoted view. 

 

You'd have to provide some evidence that their views are essentially bigoted, I know that they're not. And I know that you'll try and twist some quotes taken out of context to try and prove that they are, so there's probably no point in you trying.

 

 

 

murrays think tank openly cooperated with a Muslim extremist in their attempt to vilify Chomsky

 

who?

[caze]

those public intellectuals who tend to "just offer critiques" about islam are very often using those critiques as a vessel for islamaphobia though, and stem-educated, reddit refugees such as yourself don't really have the right tools to grasp that, but dealing with that is alco's part anyway...

 

well, no they're not. also, I'm not stem-educated. and I don't use reddit, and have never used reddit. So congratulations, everything you've said is incorrect! Good job. Not surprising coming from someone who works in the social sciences I guess.

[LimpyLoo]

That's fine, I revoke my usage of the word Zionist in that context. The substance of my argument remains unchanged, however. The fact remains that accusations anti-semitism are unfortunately used to deflect criticism of israel and that such a misuse of the term does not diminish the existence of actual anti-semitism. there is nothing rabid about this observation not was my use of the term meant as anything unsavory. I do find it interesting that you seem to be so caught up in the misuse of terminology to the extent that you lose sight of the issues at hand. And what is more this fixation rather lacks nuance. For example, I completely support the right of Israel to exist but the term "Zionist" would be entirely inaccurate to describe me or my views even in a broad sense.

 

I think one of the main failures of the line of reasoning in the Harris, Murray et al types is that they problematize the issue as one between rational vs irrational approaches to the issue. What is absent from this dichotomy is the obvious fact that rational, even scientific argumentation can be employed to promulgate an essentially bigoted view. Anyone who has taken a look at the history of racism can observe this fact. Frankly, I think most bigotry, as it appears in mainstream discourse, tends to be couched in as scientific and rational a language as its users can muster. It's more rare that one opens a serious paper or book and finds a purely irrational line of argument without any attempt at a semblance of just and reasonable discourse. This is precisely what makes Trump such a unique case in American politics; the dude is just openly racist. And it is my view that people like Murray are too committed to arguing against the misuse of the term "islamophobia" to the degree that they end up with some fucked up bedfellows. The fact that they seem unperturbed by this at least indicates a terribly low taste and standard of tact. After all, Sam Harris openly welcomes his association with Dershowitz and murrays think tank openly cooperated with a Muslim extremist in their attempt to vilify Chomsky. There something quite dishonest about that.

 

there's no problem because in current discourse it means/understood as bigotry towards muslims in general. there's really no need to delve more into that and pretend that it's not what it currently means.

Idk if it's bc Robbie finally left but Eugene is much cooler these days.

Just to add some counterpoint

 

 

-I agree about the strange bedfellows stuff...SH (and prolly DM, though I'm not up on all his extra-curricular activities) dislikes Chomsky to an insane degree, and he really acts petty and spiteful as a result...the biggest way SH has let me down is probably his savoring the misfortunes of his critics

 

-For what it's worth, Harris doesn't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state...just in case there's any question about his allegiances

 

-I think language is a living evolving thing and we should embrace that, but at the same time we should be wary of sudden unilateral re-defining of terms...e.g. For many people, "racism" has come to mean essentially "when white people are racist towards non-white people" (no this is not a far-fringe thing, either)...so in that sense I think it is somewhat important to anchor terms in their classical meaning, or at least keep those classical definitions in mind, lest they gain some Orwellian momentum...it should be clear that Islamophobia is real, and at the same time accusations of Islamophobia are used merely to vandalize the reputations of opponents

 

-Anyone associating with Dershowitz bums me out...but also that video with the student saying he should die because he's Jewish is kinda scary

 

-I don't know much about Israel/Palestine beyond the basics...is the idea that journalists, media etc give Israel a pass because of personal or cultural conflicts of interest? Sorta like Joan Rivers or the chick from V For Vendetta having a sort of us/them spin on things? Beyond the U.S. Gov't ignoring all the shit they do and giving them arms and money...I don't get where the REST of the irrationality comes from

 

-I think perpetuators of racism and bigotry will always seek ways to legitimize racism and bigotry, and probably always have...there were always 'scientific' reasons for blacks being genetically inferior or why certain groups shouldn't be allowed to procreate...(I think it's simply because in high-stakes power struggles people/groups will use any tool that's handy)...people have been stabbed with screwdrivers, but not everyone wielding a screwdriver is out to stab someone...I think we just gotta pay attention to the merit of the argument, otherwise we're all just "Kafkatrapping" each other...or something like that

[Alcofribas]

 

It's funny you mention misuse of a term for political reasons, and then go on to talk about Zionists. lol. a Zionist is simply someone who believes the state of Israel has a right to exist, there are lots of different types of Zionists, not all of them are the rabid caricature the far-left constantly promotes. You'd no doubt complain if someone mentioned the fact that a suicide bomber was a Muslim, but have no problem using the term Zionist in a similar manner.

Reading back on this after your further comments about Zionism and I have to say this is some pretty dumb shit. Afaik no one on this forum has ever objected to observing that some one is a Muslim. We're talking about islamophobia, not identification of Muslims as such.

 

In my example of antisemitism I was referring to people who attempt to defend Israel from critics by labeling them antisemites. You object to my employment of the term Zionists bc not all Zionists use this tactic. And you go further by insisting that I am in fact a Zionist bc I recognize the validity of the state of Israel. FLOL dude. So I myself who am a strong critic of the state of Israel can be meaningfully said to be a Zionist but those who defend Israel against criticism by the misuse of antisemitism are not. Got it.

 

You're completely confused. The corresponding terms are islamophobia/antisemtism. Muslim/Zionist signify a different relationship.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Alcofribas

[caze]

 

Reading back on this after your further comments about Zionism and I have to say this is some pretty dumb shit. Afaik no one on this forum has ever objected to observing that some one is a Muslim. We're talking about islamophobia, not identification of Muslims as such.

 

In my example of antisemitism I was referring to people who attempt to defend Israel from critics by labeling them antisemites. You object to my employment of the term Zionists bc not all Zionists use this tactic. And you go further by insisting that I am in fact a Zionist bc I recognize the validity of the state of Israel. FLOL dude. So I myself who am a strong critic of the state of Israel can be meaningfully said to be a Zionist but those who defend Israel against criticism by the misuse of antisemitism are not. Got it.

 

You're completely confused. The corresponding terms are islamophobia/antisemtism. Muslim/Zionist signify a different relationship.

 

 

You're flat out wrong there, if people bring Muslim into the equation with regard to a suicide bomber for example it's often treated like it's irrelevant, or even racist to even bring up, that happens all the time here, and elsewhere.

 

I didn't object to your employment of the term Zionist (I just pointed out your hypocrisy), and I didn't say anything about which Zionists do or do not use that tactic (the range of Zionist positions is not defined by their choice of rhetorical strategies, it's their differing positions on land/security/human rights/etc). There are plenty of Jews in Israel who consider themselves Zionists who are strong critics of the state of Israel, you can disagree with government policy and still think your country deserves to exist.

 

I'm not in the slightest bit confused, it's just that you don't have a clue what I'm talking about by the looks of things.

[caze]

...and to make things clearer for you. zionism is a political ideology, islamism is a political ideology. criticism of zionism is ok, and doesn't necessarily make you an anti-semite (as long as you don't go as far as thinking Israel has no right to exist or other such ridiculous positions). criticism of islamism is also ok, and it doesn't make you bigoted towards muslims. you seem to think the first is ok, but the latter isn't. that's the hypocrisy. and it's a perfectly valid analogy.

[Guest WNS000]

Alco, please, finally look up what the term "racism" really means. "Bigotry" will do just fine. Don't be Ben Affleck. Thanks.

 

Also, what is wrong with using scientific arguments in controversial debates (as Alco and Eugene pointed out)? I mean, hypothetically speaking, if in 100 years somebody finds out indisputable, neurological/biological facts that some races are strongly different in some way to others (in whatever context) it should be accepted as a scientific fact. The point is to look at the facts presented and critically evaluate them. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not matter what the topic is.

 

What I am trying to say that it is not automatically wrong when somebody with racist or bigoted views is trying to propose scientific explanations for his beliefs. It is up to each individual to look at the arguments and facts and decide for himself/herself. Discussions should be honest and open all the time. If the bigot/racist in question truly believes in what he/she says you should take it as a honest offer for a honest debate and not automatically dismiss such a person. What if you can change views of such person for the better, for example? Or what if the bigot in question is right in something in which you are wrong because of your PC?

 

Also, I would like to ask if Alco or Eugene are able to acknowledge some relevant problems in Muslim world and give examples what those problems are in their opinion. Or are there none in their opinion?