islamophobia

[humblesmurph]

epepke,

When you say all that stuff about being psychotic and needing drugs and what not, you just mean people are wrong.  Nobody loses their right to ever hold an opinion or be taken seriously again because they are wrong about something.  You lost me with all the hyperbole, but I'm back now. Your point is well taken.  Whatever conclusions we come to should be based on facts.  Not everybody who expresses concern over violence committed by Muslims is a bigot.

Who are these people that you think try to sweep Islamic violence under the rug?

[epepke]

epepke,

When you say all that stuff about being psychotic and needing drugs and what not, you just mean people are wrong.

You may consider it hyperbole, but I think it goes far beyond being wrong.  Anyone can be wrong and will learn if corrected, and if only a few people did this, I would chalk it up to ignorance.  However, when someone who is educated enough to come up with evidence to make one of the polarized arguments we see all the time cannot figure out that 35 is bigger than 1 and even 4, or for the "other side" cannot figure out that Obama is a natural-born US citizen who is not a Muslim, there is something very dysfunctional going on in their brains.

I also find it interesting that so many who talk about "moderate" Muslims seem not to be able to bear even the possibility of a moderate stance on the issue.

Nobody loses their right to ever hold an opinion or be taken seriously again because they are wrong about something.

As qualified above, that's false.  People who habitually lie or have such a distorted view of reality that they cannot acknowledge basic facts are frequently considered trolls and banned from this and other fora.  I daresay that even you would stop taking seriously a poster who habitually and persistently made blatantly false statements.

Not everybody who expresses concern over violence committed by Muslims is a bigot.

One would not think so based on how the term "Islamophobia" is bandied about.

Who are these people that you think try to sweep Islamic violence under the rug?

I could make a list, but I think you can figure it out based on the criteria.

Basically, it's anyone who declares that Christians are just as violent as Muslims in the US or who operates from such a mindset underlying their arguments, or declares that Islomophobia is a huge and notable problem out of proportion to other problems, such as Judenhass.  You can generally detect the mindset by their goalpost-shifting (ah, but Christians would if they could, and Christians invaded during the Crusades, so hah!)

At this point, I should point out that around half the murders by Muslims in the US were of Jews, because they were Jews.  Also that no Jew (or atheist, for that matter) has killed a Muslim in the US during that time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's a perfectly valid question.  Since the day after 9/11, there has been one murder of a physician who performed abortions by a Christian.

I'm stating facts.  I know they make people feel uncomfortable.  But I think it's complete crap for people to talk about "moderate Muslims" while simultaneously excluding any sort of moderate position about the issue that respects the facts.

One can spin, slant, or interpret the facts, but the facts are the facts, and they are that in the US, currently, there is way more hate violence by Muslims, in absolute terms and especially in per capita terms than that of any other group.

Now, I don't think that these facts automatically justify distrust, hatred of, or fear of Muslims.  However, if there had been 35 killing of, say, Black people by White supremacist, which is pretty analogous, there would be a veritable shitstorm about it.  Yet when Muslims do it, it gets swept under the rug.

I would think that such a shitstorm would also be pretty psychotic, but some reason for concern would be justified.  I think that the sweeping under the rug is also psychotic, as is automatically assuming that anyone who has a valid concern with killings by Muslims is Islamophobic.

In any event, people who weave all this shit about a wave of Islamophobia while sweeping Muslim violence under the rug are in serious need of a Haldol drip, fast, if not Thorazine, and anybody who knows the facts and maintains this special pleading in their minds for more than 30 seconds has given up the right ever to be taken seriously on anything.

Two words, buddy: sample size.

[epepke]

Two words, buddy: sample size.

OK, humblesmurph, here's an example of the kind of crap argumentation I see.  It is, of course, only presented as a put-down quip, probably so that there is nothing really to argue with, as it isn't coherent.

One more time, for those who can read and count or have an interest in such.  One cannot, logically, simultaneously declare that 35 killings from a population of at most 7 million (probably more like 3 million) is insignificant and declare that 1 killing from a population of at least 200 million is significant.  To do so represents a serious thinking problem.  Understanding this requires keeping two concepts in one's consciousness at once, but after that it's relatively straightforward.

There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion.  One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively.  Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts.  What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides.  I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other.  Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

One polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done to a Muslim by a Christian, and the other polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done by a Muslim to a non-Muslim, both to paint a paranoid picture of their own preconceived ideas.  Neither side is even slightly interested in looking at the facts in a balanced way, nor can they resist dominating the discussion so that it becomes sound and fury, signifying nothing.

However, I've said as much earlier, and if that was not read then, I don't think that this will be read now.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Two words, buddy: sample size.

OK, humblesmurph, here's an example of the kind of crap argumentation I see.  It is, of course, only presented as a put-down quip, probably so that there is nothing really to argue with, as it isn't coherent.

One more time, for those who can read and count or have an interest in such.  One cannot, logically, simultaneously declare that 35 killings from a population of at most 7 million (probably more like 3 million) is insignificant and declare that 1 killing from a population of at least 200 million is significant.  To do so represents a serious thinking problem.  Understanding this requires keeping two concepts in one's consciousness at once, but after that it's relatively straightforward.

I'm pretty sure I didn't declare that 1 killing from a population of 200 milion is significant.  In fact, I'm positive I didn't.  Please, link to the supporting post, or retract.

And no, it's not presented as a "put-down quip"; I rather like 'Smurph, and treat him decently when we disagree.  I simply like getting to the point.  So hey, if you want to misrepresent what I write and spend two paragraphs doing so, that's your business.



There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion.  One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively.  Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts.  What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides.  I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other.  Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

One polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done to a Muslim by a Christian, and the other polarized side cherry-picks everything bad done by a Muslim to a non-Muslim, both to paint a paranoid picture of their own preconceived ideas.  Neither side is even slightly interested in looking at the facts in a balanced way, nor can they resist dominating the discussion so that it becomes sound and fury, signifying nothing.

However, I've said as much earlier, and if that was not read then, I don't think that this will be read now.[/quote]

[AreEl]

There are two absurdly polarized, anti-rational sides to this discussion. One side holds that there are hordes of destructive Muslims and focuses on them exclusively, while the other holds that there are hordes of destructive Islamophobes and focuses on them exclusively. Neither position is supportable by the facts, which is why we don't see any argument that is supported by facts. What we see consists of snotty put-downs like the one quoted, emotional manipulation, and fear-mongering and literal paranoia on both sides. I do not take either polarized side, which seems to elicit apoplexy more than if I were on one side or the other. Allies and enemies are simple and do not appear to require much thought or sense.

Excellent observation. Excellent. Every single word, excellent.

[karadan]

I can only really form an opinion about this through experience, and mine is this:

I lived in a predominantly Sunni Muslim country for four years and in that time, saw and heard of no violence from Muslims aimed at us (the western families working out there). In fact, the Malay couldn't have been more accommodating. Being Brunei - a very oil rich and virtually tax free country, people are generally very prosperous so I guess there isn't too much to be wholesale angry about. Apart from the odd human rights abuse here and there (political prisoners, etc) it is a very forward-thinking nation. They even drink alcohol, albeit from tea cups in 'tea rooms', for instance..

My experience in the UK has been very similar. The Muslim population in the city I currently live is large and vibrant and seemingly very happy. I'm under no illusion that it is in anyway fully representative of the whole of the UK, but it would seem to me that any inherently violent religion would have sporadic acts of violence cropping up wherever that particular religion is practiced, yes? As far as I know, there's been no religiously motivated hate crimes here, perpetuated by Muslims against anyone, or vice-versa.

Out of the 2.4 million Muslims in the UK, there are probably only 300 who are radical enough to support terrorism (I get these figures from attendance rates at rallies organised by people like Anjem Choudary). I'm betting there are more white supremacists and neo nazis by proportion. It is this small proportion of Muslims which advocate the use of Sharia courts in the UK. The vast majority of UK Muslims are totally happy with our society. It is why they moved here. Intelligent people (of which there are many in the UK) are able to distinguish a minority view from a majority one. I'm pretty sure on the whole, at least in the UK, people are completely unconcerned about the Islamic faith and its followers and therefore, do not subscribe to islamophobia.

So, from my personal experience, 'islamophobia' is a red herring. That doesn't mean i agree with any of the teachings of islam, though.

[The Magic Pudding]

For me to fear harm from Muslims would be Islamophobia.
If I lived in New York maybe the fear wouldn't be so irrational.
I do find it strange that Christian fundamentalists, no more threatened than me, who seemed to look at New York as New Gomorrah, use 9/11 as an excuse to burn the Koran and motivate attacks in far away places.
There was a well publicised case of a group of Moslems who gang raped a teenage girl.
I think there is a view that sex before marriage doesn't happen in their community so "our" girls are at risk.
I have two daughters, rape pushes best unpushed buttons for me.
I saw a documentary about Vlad the Impaler, the trick is grease your spike, but not too much.
Gang rape by those of non middle eastern appearance is less news worthy, but I don't want to leave them out, greased spikes for all!

[humblesmurph]

epepke,

I think your assessment of both sides of the issue is a mischaracterization.    I know people who think that Islam is an inherently violent religion that necessarily causes violence.  They think that Islam is a threat to their way of life.  While I might not agree with them, their position is a long way from the assumption that every Muslim is a threat.   They understand that the vast majority of Muslims are not political terrorists.  On the flip side, I know people who think that it is wrong to discriminate based on religion or race.  They are fully aware of the violence perpetrated by Muslims in the West.  However, they believe that the relative small number of Muslims perpetuating this violence shouldn't be used as data to discriminate against the other 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet.

On one side you have the very reasonable argument that bigotry is wrong.  On the other side you have the very reasonable argument that Islam is used by hate groups as a motivator to perpetuate violence.  People blowing shit up because it is the will of Allah is some scary shit indeed.  Bigotry is scary as well.  Violence isn't the only issue here epepke.   People having their rights infringed upon because of their religion is a concern as well.   Sure there are kooks on either side of any issue, but you are acting like everybody is wrong about everything while at the same time not offering any ideas towards a solution.

35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

[Thumpalumpacus]

35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Nothing.  Your sample-size -- both figures -- is statistically insignificant.  To base any decision on them would be not only foolish, but wrong.

[karadan]

Aren't there different reasons some people may adopt an islamophobe attitude? The Christian right might hate muslems becasue they worship the wrong god, whereas others might fear them because they feel they harbor terrorists. Other people might adopt this attitude simply because places like Saudi Arabia exist and within them, condone the stoning of women by mob trial.

Surely there's more than one reason for the uninformed to fear Islam.

[humblesmurph]

35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Nothing.  Your sample-size -- both figures -- is statistically insignificant.  To base any decision on them would be not only foolish, but wrong.

By "your" are you referring to me?  Not my sample size.  It's epepke's.  I didn't bring numbers into the discussion.  I believe epepke's very point is that one's perception on this issue, whatever it may be, should be based on an understanding of these statistics.   That point seems counter to what you have stated here Thump. Maybe you two are in disagreement.  I can only guess as I'm still not sure what he is trying to say or who he is directing it towards.  Whatever his meaning is he must feel pretty strongly about it considering he thinks anybody who disagrees must be psychotic and in need of medication.

[Thumpalumpacus]

35 is bigger than 4.  4 is bigger than 1.  Fine.  You are correct.  Now what to you suppose we do with this data?

Nothing.  Your sample-size -- both figures -- is statistically insignificant.  To base any decision on them would be not only foolish, but wrong.

By "your" are you referring to me?  Not my sample size.  It's epepke's.  I didn't bring numbers into the discussion.  I believe epepke's very point is that one's perception on this issue, whatever it may be, should be based on an understanding of these statistics.   That point seems counter to what you have stated here Thump. Maybe you two are in disagreement.  I can only guess as I'm still not sure what he is trying to say or who he is directing it towards.  Whatever his meaning is he must feel pretty strongly about it considering he thinks anybody who disagrees must be psychotic and in need of medication.

By "your" I mean anyone who proposes any action based on such paltry data.  I didn't mean to imply that you were responsible for it.  Apologies.

[epepke]

I'm pretty sure I didn't declare that 1 killing from a population of 200 milion is significant.  In fact, I'm positive I didn't.  Please, link to the supporting post, or retract.

I didn't say you did, and that's pretty much the fucking point.  You want to stick your ass in it, I can't stop you.  It's your choice.  Not mine.

No real point in dealing with the rest, which is bullshit.  I am saying something that you can choose to identify with or not.  It is your fucking choice.

[karadan]