Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I find it interesting that at a time when supposedly everyone is rallying around free speech, much of the discussion is about proscribing what some people ought to say.

You caught me. And just as I was about to propose that we slaughter any Imams who don't convey the message that I think they ought to be conveying. Brilliant!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by thurgreedmarshall

i fucking love this post. If i think muslims and muslim leaders should do exactly what nasrallah is doing in this article you're citing, you come up with all sorts of justifications about why neither he nor anyone else should. But somehow you feel vindicated when he actually does? Talk about making no sense.

I think this is a great thing. I think it would do wonders if others in similar positions of influence did the same thing. I think stuff like this helps. I'd like it to happen more often.

Tm

eta, from the article: "dozens of other, far more moderate muslim groups have also condemned the recent killings in paris. Dalil boubakeur, the head of the great mosque of paris, was quick to decry the killings in no uncertain terms."

2.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I fucking love this post. If I think Muslims and Muslim leaders should do exactly what Nasrallah is doing in this article you're citing, you come up with all sorts of justifications about why neither he nor anyone else should. But somehow you feel vindicated when he actually does? Talk about making no sense.

I think this is a great thing. I think it would do wonders if others in similar positions of influence did the same thing. I think stuff like this helps. I'd like it to happen more often.

TM

eta, from the article: "Dozens of other, far more moderate Muslim groups have also condemned the recent killings in Paris. Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the Great Mosque of Paris, was quick to decry the killings in no uncertain terms."

I don't think anyone participating in this discussion is qualified to opine on what Muslims - moderate or otherwise - say to each other about these types of events.

I also have no idea whether statements like these help. I suspect not very much, as they seem to crop up in the aftermath each time.

Also, check out #jesuisdalia

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I fucking love this post. If I think Muslims and Muslim leaders should do exactly what Nasrallah is doing in this article you're citing, you come up with all sorts of justifications about why neither he nor anyone else should. But somehow you feel vindicated when he actually does? Talk about making no sense.

I think this is a great thing. I think it would do wonders if others in similar positions of influence did the same thing. I think stuff like this helps. I'd like it to happen more often.

TM

eta, from the article: "Dozens of other, far more moderate Muslim groups have also condemned the recent killings in Paris. Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the Great Mosque of Paris, was quick to decry the killings in no uncertain terms."

I never said he shouldn't. I just a) pointed out that "Muslims" is a fuck ton of people and suggesting that "they" should do or say something is ridiculous, and b) that the Boston guys, especially the younger one, didn't seem like they'd be swayed by what other Muslims in Boston would say or do.

I wasn't feeling vindicated. I was posting an article about something someone from a NOT moderate sect said. I knew that moderates have been saying the same stuff all along, but no one ever acknowledges them. In part because their voices get shoved down to the bottom of the newspaper article, like this one.

ETA: I thought the more interesting part of the article was the Shia vs. Sunni stuff, which ultimately may be much, much more important than moderate vs. extreme, however that's defined.

ETA 2: More condemnation.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't think anyone participating in this discussion is qualified to opine on what Muslims - moderate or otherwise - say to each other about these types of events.

That's a very specific thought. Maybe try expanding it to the larger context of whether or not they discuss whether it is okay to punish someone for blasphemy?

Originally Posted by Adder

I also have no idea whether statements like these help. I suspect not very much, as they seem to crop up in the aftermath each time.

Brilliant analysis. Since we cannot quantify the number of minds influenced to avoid violent activity by influential people speaking out, let's assume based on some violent activity, that it's "not very much."

Originally Posted by Adder

Also, check out #jesuisdalia

Excellent. (Not even being facetious like I'm being in the response in this post directly above.)

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I knew that moderates have been saying the same stuff all along, but no one ever acknowledges them. In part because their voices get shoved down to the bottom of the newspaper article, like this one.

I'm with you on this bullshit practice. It is absolutely astounding that they summed up a ton of anti-violence sentiment in a couple of sentences at the end of this piece.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

ETA: I thought the more interesting part of the article was the Shia vs. Sunni stuff, which ultimately may be much, much more important than moderate vs. extreme, however that's defined.

No arguments here.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Crime rates in New York have dropped significantly more and significantly faster than in most other major cities.

I'm not sure that's still true (not saying it isn't either).

I also think it's silly to claim that the approach had nothing at all to do with reducing crime.

I think we're in the midst of a natural experiment that will help us find out, and I personally don't think it's going to be kind to the approach.

Arresting more people who commit low-level crimes tends to result in arresting more people who are likely to commit more serious crimes,

It sounds intuitive, but I don't know that it's at all accurate, in that I really don't know that the proverbial turnstile jumper is really any more likely than average to commit more serious crimes.

partly just because you are arresting more people

I'm sure it's not what you meant, but this sounds like you think arresting people at random would reduce crime.

The question is, is it worth it? And, more importantly, is it worth it NOW? That a particular approach contributed to the reduction of crime many years ago, when crime rates were far higher, doesn't mean that it will contribute, at all or at the same level, now, when crime rates are much lower.

This is a good point.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I knew that moderates have been saying the same stuff all along, but no one ever acknowledges them. In part because their voices get shoved down to the bottom of the newspaper article, like this one.

Funny how people being reasonable isn't really "news."

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

... no shortage of outreach for younger folks. I'm going to bet that just about anyone someone here names someone is already trying to do.

Finally, we get back to our roots.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Either you are ignoring my other posts or you are being intentionally obtuse.

It's not about finding an entire religion (or any specific community) at fault and it's not about keeping any one person from doing something insane. It's about changing the atmosphere in which any criticism of Islam is looked upon by muslims ranging from extremists to moderates as a severely punishable offense. It's about changing an atmosphere where moderates think, "Well, these extremists are more like me than them," and "I don't agree with these extremists, but I see where they're coming from," which ends up providing comfort to these lunatics.

I can draw as many analogies as you want. But I sure as hell don't understand why, when it comes to religion, there is instantly a different standard.

If you want to talk about the ghetto and the "Stop snitching" bullshit that goes on, let's do it. I think the idea that giving any help to police at all when it comes to criminal activity (even when the information is coming from the person who has been harmed by such activity) amounts to snitching--which is punishable by death in some neighborhoods--is fucking insane. Is any one person who refuses to talk to the police at fault? No. Should the community do something to eliminate the atmosphere in which cooperating with police is worse than committing a fucking crime? Absolutely. Criminals have fostered a culture (with the help of police who have a firm "us v. them" attitude) in which something that harms just the criminals has become anathema to the community those very same criminals are destroying. That is completely ridiculous.

Mind you, I can still criticize the fucking police for (i) enforcing that us v. them attitude that contributes to the problem and (ii) having the same stupid no-snitching code (hell, theirs is probably just as strong). It's not an either/or-blame proposition. I can have conversation upon conversation about how we need to stop criminals from being criminals. I can rail on and on about how cops shouldn't treat whole communities as the enemy. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't also expect those communities to do something about changing the no-snitching culture.

And I can agree with you, and Ty, and Greedy that (i) the main problem is the group of criminals and (ii) those critics who seem to only focus on what the community should be doing to get rid of no-snitching culture are shallow morons, in each case, at the exact same time.

In my mind, it's the same standard when it comes to religious extremism. Or it should be. Tell me why I'm wrong.

TM

In all these cases, what you are talking about is called alienation. Give people enough reason to believe that they don't belong (or that more people believe they shouldn't belong than believe they should), and they will stop caring about what people who do belong care or think.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Brilliant analysis. Since we cannot quantify the number of minds influenced to avoid violent activity by influential people speaking out, let's assume based on some violent activity, that it's "not very much."

Do you think the sort of disaffected person who commits these kind of acts is really likely to be swayed by the statements of any number of authority figures?

Now if we could just get the radicals who recruit them to start saying things like this...

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

In all these cases, what you are talking about is called alienation. Give people enough reason to believe that they don't belong (or that more people believe they shouldn't belong than believe they should), and they will stop caring about what people who do belong care or think.

You are completely, entirely, absolutely missing my point. And I'm not going to repeat it or distill it for you because it's right there in my posts.

I can't help you if you refuse to acknowledge anything other than the one point you have determined to be valuable, even if I have conceded time and time again that that point is valuable. So, fuck it.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Was Tim McVeigh tolerated by his white, Christian communities? Did they even know what he was thinking?

I invented that.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

now we are going in circles. a majority white christian country empowered the FBI to try to stop the Klan. so now it's your turn.

They are empowered to stop the Klan, but I thought you were referring to 10 overt acts of terrorism by islamists. I am certain I could probably pull 10 incidents of white christian terrorism out of memory without even having to google it.

People, alienated people, turn to god as cover for their cries of anger, desperation, envy, whatever it is that drives them. It isn't limited to islam. Hell, it isn't even limited to god.

What's more, the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. have been empowered to apprehend ISIS and al Qaeda, just as the FBI is empowered to inhibit the actions of the Klan.

If you keep trying to fight the symptom and never attack the disease, the patient never gets better.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I'll just not respond. This is now the same discussion we had the last time there was some horrible Islamic terrorist attack. What has been missing from all the blogs you posted and all the posts you/RT/Wonk/GGG have posted is a complete lack of what to do- lots of what we shouldn't do, and what we can't expect to happen from moderate Muslims, but nothing as an alternative. Maybe if one of tried to answer that at least we won't be snapping at our tails.

Am I on ignore?*

The thing to do is to attack the actual problem. Give people something to care about. Give them hope that there is a better way and that effort is being made to help them take that better way.

If it were up to me, the solution would begin with every mother of every terrorist saying "what the hell do you think you're doing?"


*You invented that.