|The Mothership |
lasted 3 seconds. new record.
ARE YOU SCARED YET?!?!?!?!?!?
I really hate fear-mongering news segments like this. Some people, including I suspect almost all of us here on poe, can brush off this type of bullshit, but to other peoplee, these segments can actually be quite upsetting.
I see this at work with depressing regularity. There's a lot of elderly patients at the VA, people who grew up in a less cynical, less media-savvy age, and still trust what Old Media says to them. Many of them have severe emotional issues, PTSD and rape trauma being amongst the most common, and shit journalism like this is TRIGGERING. It seriously affects these poor vets' quality of life, scaring them and angering them for NO GOOD FUCKING REASON. It's got the point where, whenever there's a non-state-sanctioned shooting or bombing anywhere on earth, I can guarantee that a half-dozen sweet old ladies will come in to the hospital the following day, absolutely convinced that they're going to be the next ones shot. Not a one of them seems to realize what's going on with the NSA domestically or with Obama's global War on Terror, stuff that probably will affect then directly, but they are besides themselves with worry that some random Muslim will come out of nowhere and murder them, because Muslims hate our freedom.
It's sad, and it's irresponsible, so fuck you Fox News lady.
As for her argument, I really don't think America is in danger of going down the thought police route, at least not anytime soon. While this has been happening to various degrees in Europe, those laws are always built atop centuries of precedent set in curtailing free expression; here in the US, free speech and the First Amendment still matter. Besides, Americans tend to be divided into one of two camps: people who hate Muslims, and people who hate all religious groups except maybe for Buddhists. Even discounting the first set of people (who would never vote for sharia unless it came with Jesus' stamp of approval), I don't see how a pro-Muslim, anti-blasphemy "tolerance" law could ever be worded in such a way that it would still satisfy the second group's right to keep on bashing Christians and Jews.
Haha so crazy with the eyes and the ranting... Soooo does anyone actually dispute the idea that as soon as Muslims become a majority in any one of our decadent western countries they will democratically vote Sharia into law just like they do in their own nations?
I don't think the US is in any danger of becoming a Muslim-majority nation, and even if it were, it'd take more than a simple majority to get sharia laws passed, for Muslim communities much less for everyone else, as indicated in that Pew polling data linked in an earlier video.
On a local level, there might be some areas that pass sharia-inspired laws... but so what? If some communities want to live under sharia, that's their business. I mean, hell, I can't buy whiskey on Sundays on account of Christian sharia law - nobody likes THAT bullshit except maybe the state liquor board and package stores in New York. You fix that bit of religious fascism, and then maybe we can talk about the wicked Mohammedans.
How can I be real if your eyes aren't real?
Nah, I'm just kidding. Fuck those camelfuckers, let's kill 'em all!
If you honestly are afraid of "sharia law" being passed in the United States you're already too far down the rabbit hole, but let me try anyway.
We are just now after 14 years, starting to pull our troops back from the middle east. 14 years of war, there are kids in middle school today that were born into a perpetual state of war.
If you think an attack in France is reason enough for us to continue a war that has no end, you should take a step back and ask yourself what the natural conclusion of those events would be. There are 1.5 billion Muslims, where do you want the killing to stop? Because I can tell you one thing, if by some magical scenario we entered a war with every Muslim nation on earth and killed them all with 0 casualties for our side we would still be the losers.
Even if we "win" by eradicating a religion that harbors extremist elements that scare us, we would be the biggest monsters in the world after such an event.
Mute the war drums coming out of your TV and calm down, running into more bullshit with a hot head is the last thing we should be doing right now as a nation.
1.5 billion people under an inherently violent ideology. There isn't going to be a happy ending that doesn't involve them all deciding to either alter their unalterable holy text, put it aside or take it with many, many grains of salt.
You know what he means, Gmork. Stop being an Islamist hipster.
"1.5 billion people under an inherently violent ideology. There isn't going to be a happy ending that doesn't involve them all deciding to either alter their unalterable holy text, put it aside or take it with many, many grains of salt."
No matter which religion you're talking about, there is one thing that holds true about the followers: very few of them have actually read their holy book(s), at best they have a vague third-hand sense of what's contained in there, and they might know a couple quotes.
I'm not worried that the Koran, or the Old Testament, or even the New Testament contains troubling sections, because holy texts are not operating systems that the faithful run. For better or for worse, the religious pick and choose the living hell out of Scripture.
There is also the small matter that interpretation and commentary almost always accompany any serious study of holy texts. The Jews elevated it to such an art form that one of their holy texts, the Talmud, is mostly commentary on the Hebrew Bible.
Jet Bin Fever
A Muslim majority? That's ridiculous. And I spent a lot of time in a country with Sharia law (Law law). Did it affect me at all? No, because I'm a Christian. I could make out in parks all I wanted.
I personally am terrified of what would happen if Muslims became enough of a majority to impose their religious beliefs into law.
Imagine if we lived in a state where the government wrote that we were a government "Under Allah" on buildings and coinage. Whose elected leaders disparaged non-believers in order to win votes and claimed Islam was the only path to real morality and Americanism. Imagine if they then imposed this through law, denying basic scientific concepts and banning things like pork, lying to children in state schools about birth control and sexuality to enforce a warped and sexist doctrine. Imagine if I couldn't buy alcohol or pornography in heavily Muslim areas. Imagine if stores with 'objectionable' content and art that offends the community were driven out. Imagine if minority religions, like Christianity, were told they were unwelcome and blocked from building places of worship in small towns. Imagine if gay people had to suffer for centuries of persecution and torture. Imagine if women were subjected to second-class citizenship. Imagine if at Republican/Democratic political conventions we heard the Islamo-fascists talk about how there was a war between them and all non-fundamentalist Muslims, and how people with AIDS and degenerative diseases, like atheism, needed to be locked in cages and put in camps. Imagine if this sick religion caused such delusion that the leaders of the country could use it to justify not looking after the environment and allowing children to die of cancer, because Allah will sort it all out. Imagine if self-destructive foreign policy was being fueled by beliefs like how Israel needs to be wiped out for Muhammed to return, so we should escalate violence involving nuclear states. Imagine if our Cold War leaders said it was better for all children to be dead from nuclear war, than to ever be non-Muslim.
Yeah, thank Jesus that America's never suffered under that kind of sharia law.
Im not down any rabbit hole, and Irish you are insane. I'm an atheist and you're really fucking reaching if you think not being able to buy liquor and porn on Sunday with your "In God We Trust" dollar bills is persecution.
You're sheltered and naive.
"Bort thinking Gamergate is the next Boko Haram"
Now where did I say anything of the sort? I likened Internet threats against that porn star to Internet threats against Anita -- hopefully just intimidation with little actual plan to follow through (here's hoping I'm right). Boko Haram is a very different animal and I never mentioned them.
If there's anyone who's having trouble distinguishing between Boko Haram and masturbating Internet misogynists (those Lebanese guys with their death threats), that's you, as it works out.
Seriously, how bad must your argument be if you take an idiot opinion of Bort's, make a strawman out of it, and that strawman turns around and kicks your ass?
So you agree with me that the comparison is completely out of line? Good, that's all I ask. I have no interest in "muh strawman!" or "look at me kicking your ass" forum dance.
If you disagree, then have the courage to say so and be wrong.
"If you disagree, then have the courage to say so and be wrong."
Except he didn't mention Boko Haram.
Have the courage to admit you put words in others' mouths, if not outright lied about what they said.
Right, still dancing. There's a really easy way to get past the "strawman! strawman!" bawwing. Simple yes or no question, do you genuinely believe ANY of the following:
1. GamerGate is in the same category as radical Islam, which yes includes Boko Haram
2. The "death threats" issued by GamerGate are the same in the same category as the Charlie Hebdo shootings
3. Utah is in the same category as the Islamic State
I can clearly say NO to all three. I think in his heart Bort know's it's No as well. Right now I doubt he could bring himself to say so. I think he'll go on with "No no he said she said I said you said" to avoid the question. But if he (and Kleenex) find the courage I will be impressed.
Great, so that's a "No" from IrishWhiskey, which I applaud. I would say that your original post, Irish, could have been read either way, which is why I found theSnake's reply refreshing.
"Same category" ... God you are sliding into weak defenses. ALL THINGS are in "the same category" (the set of "all things"), or they can be considered in different categories, depending on your purposes. There's a reason you're not bothering to define your categories, to give yourself infinite weasel room.
You dance like shit.
aaaand there's Bort squirming out of an answer. He doesn't like the word "category". "Category", per Bort, doesn't belong in the English language. It has a plain meaning, but Bort doesn't like it because everything's in a category, man.
How about this simple statement: Radical, violent Islam is worse than Gamergate. Can at least agree to that? Yes or no. I think that's a reasonable proposition 95% of GamerGate's angriest critics would agree with, that even GamerGate's *victims* would agree with. Can Bort?
Categories are a useful concept, but only if you define them, which you were not willing to do. For example, GamerGate and radical Islam belong in some categories together ("generally misogynistic"), but not in others ("degree of violence"). Any of your three questions could be answered "yes" or "no" equally well, so your questions are shit.
But here's what it still comes down to: I said nothing about Boko Harum, and you know it. Everything you are doing is some squirm or another out of that. You don't have to be that person, you know.
Still can't say it, can you? That's what a lack of proportion does to you. "Radical, violent Islam is worse than Gamergate." Yes, or no?
Here, let me help you. You keep on repeating "I said nothing about Boko Haram, and you know it." Sure. I completely 100% agree that your original complaint in one thread did NOT mention Boko Haram. You have repeatedly compared actual radical Islamic violence to Gamergate in a way that equates the two. I mentioned that Boko Haram is one nasty form of radical Islam -- care to deny that? And ever since you've been "who mentioned Boko Haram? Not me!" Well great, you didn't bring it up originally, that doesn't mean it isn't a valid counterexample when you equate actual religious murder to a sorry little Internet squabble.
You almost said it correctly. Now say it as exactly these words "I Hazelnut am a lying little shit" and once we've agreed on that point, I'll be happy to say lots of fascinating stuff about what you want to talk about now.
Definitely getting a poe-news vibe. :-) Anyway I think that's the closest to a concession Bort's ever come to, that was real progress.
|Robin Kestrel |
Her name is Jeanine Pirro, and she doesn't really believe that nonsense, which in my view makes her more evil than if she was just ignorant.
I have heard the phrase "We are at war" so many times it means nothing to me anymore. It hasn't for a very very long time now.
|Adham Nu'man |
Let's arm Muslims to take out those other Muslims, it worked so well when we armed the Afghans to fight the Russians.
So what is it you guys have a problem with here? What's wrong with hating Muslim terrorists (or all terrorists, for that matter) and pointing out the obvious (that Muslims, of all groups, need to be at the forefront of helping stomp them out)?
Yeah, this woman is an insufferable cunt, and a total moron (look up her comments on the Ferguson/Michael Brown situation if you really want to hate her) but I have to wonder if most of you only watched the first few seconds of this video and assumed she was saying we need to kill all Muslims.
She's saying we need to arm "the good muslims" to fight the "bad muslims".
Need I remind you that the Taliban were the "good muslims" and the US financed and armed them to drive out the Soviet threat?
ISIS is armed with the weapons the US gave to the Iraqi army, which reminds me: wasn't Saddam one of the "good guys" when the U.S. financed and armed him to fight against Iran?
There's an extensive list of "good guys" that were supported, financed and trained by the U.S., who then gosh darn it just turned into "bad guys".
Well, I offered two problems already; others, like zerobackup and Mr Nu'man, have offered more. She's grossly over-selling the dangers of Muslim terrorism, she's harping on about sharia coming to our country (it's not), and in Adham's opinion at least, her "obvious" proposal that Muslims be used to stamp out Muslims has been historically demonstrated to, errrmm, not actually work.
I'd also like to add one more thing, which is that her characterization of President Obama as some kind of limp-dick peacenik traitor is COMPLETELY ABSURD. Obama has been arguably the most alpha US executive of all time, having presided over military strikes against more sovereign nations than any other man in American history - remember, this is a dude who has brought the Wrath of God thundering down upon no less than SEVEN evil Muslim countries, plus who knows how many others through less publicized means. What's more, Big O's bravely carried the torch for all of the neo-conservative attempts to erode our civil liberties and expand the domestic surveillance state that Fox News used to love, including granting amnesty to Bush-era war criminals and extending warrantless wiretapping indefinitely (yes, the panopticon exists, and no, the good guys aren't voting it away). Yet this woman, this so-called "Judge", has the GALL to sit there, in her nice comfy studio, protected by all the best racist tank-armed SWAT teams that tax money can buy, and call Obama out as a soft-on-terror pussy.
I think the dumbest thing she said in the video was how we need to bomb ISIS.
"Political Correctness... WILL BE THE DEATH OF US!!!"
So many great quotes...
Is that Fox News or 'that guy'?
the taliban actually *were* pretty mellow muslims, until they were overwhelmed by the financial backing of mujahideen by a certain saudi wahabbi named... you guessed it, Osama Bin Laden (may God accept him as a martyr). No but really they were predominantly sufi and post-marxist. There are a lot of thick, well-researched books about this.
This woman was a judge?
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
All I can hear is Bill O'Reilly's boner.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|