The bullying of the Regressives

[Ruprecht]

ah, the chaingun has arrived.

I want to add that I think there is a radical correlation to education in many Muslim countries. I'll have to dig up my source on this, but being a college student in a Muslim country correlates very strongly with support for religious violence. Professionals make up the second most radical group- the people with graduate degrees. Where in the United States, you'll find that college has a similar kind of effect in a different way- our college kids are more radical activists in our own ways, though I don't know about our professionals, but they almost have to be skewed left of the population. So the progression in those countries mirrors the US in a way, except with ideologies of religious violence substituted for liberalism. I don't think that it's education itself causing violence, obviously, but it's a feature of educated Muslims in many countries.

The counterargument I respect most, which may or may not be true, is that from out of those impoverished countries, the trends in ideology within education emerge. A shithole country is likely to produce shithole graduates, in other words. Without trying to knock down the old strawman, I look more to issues of freedom, of human rights, and religious rights, especially for women. That's where a dialogue among Muslims can make some headway- if they convince each other that their doctrine is peaceful. Hell, it's what the Christians did. The Koran is essentially the same pile of contradictions as the Bible. Enlightenment, not education, is my best guess as to where to start. But Ruprecht already said that Indonesia, among other countries, shows that may be wrong with recent improvements in education.

Just look at the levels of religious violence within and between countries, and see how it correlates with wealth and education. Then look at the calls for theocracy within the democratic nations, as with Malaysia and Indonesia, and see how that aligns with wealth and education.
The ideologues of Islamism and Salafi Jihadism are frequently educated and wealthy (in no small part due to the role of Saudi petrolislam), but as you say that parallels radicals/activists from other ideologies. In the same way that revolutionary communism doesn't amount to much when it's just a bunch of college radicals and disaffected losers (the parallels are closer than you might think, given how much Islamist ideology took from the ideology of Communist revolutionaries. You'd better believe that Maududi and Qutb knew their "To The Rural Poor" and "What Is To Be Done").
As with communism, it relies on the support of the "proletariat" for any political traction or revolutionary strength. The parallel extends to the sorts of socio-economic and political situations in which communist revolutions gained traction as well. It wasn't a bunch of wealthy, educated middle class consumers which overthrew the last Tsar, which overthrew the Shah or which were setting themselves on fire in Tunisia at the start of the "Arab Spring". It wasn't prosperity and education which lead to the current situation in Syria.
It's nonsense to say that the education and economic development of Muslim nations is a threat, as is clear when you look at the history of education and development within the nations. You're calling for a reformation or "enlightenment" within Islam, but ignoring the conditions under which it's likely to arise. Crushing poverty, ignorance and authoritarian dictatorship clearly not meeting the requirements, as seen throughout the world.

 

[Fawlty]

What does that have to do with the overall prosperity of the Muslim world and its relationship with extremism?

I'm trying to figure out where Harris moves from merely correlating current education and prosperity with violent beliefs, and jumping into the suggestion that prosperity might actually make it worse. That claim doesn't seem fair or grounded, and I don't remember him explaining that one. I didn't catch the part about "overall prosperity" but was thinking just in that area of the middle east, where the most violent reside, and education and prosperity correlate most strongly with violent beliefs.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm trying to figure out where Harris moves from merely correlating current education and prosperity with violent beliefs, and jumping into the suggestion that prosperity might actually make it worse. That claim doesn't seem fair or grounded, and I don't remember him explaining that one.

It seems like a really awkward statement on his part meant to demonstrate the correlation with extremism and education/wealth that went a little too far. If its from the End of Faith maybe its not a statement he would defend today.

 

[Bukowski82]

Socially humiliating someone for ridiculous and hateful beliefs brings about social change. I'm happy to do it every chance I get and will continue to do so both here and in my life. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it... I only wish more people did the same thing.

 

[Fawlty]

Just look at the levels of religious violence within and between countries, and see how it correlates with wealth and education. Then look at the calls for theocracy within the democratic nations, as with Malaysia and Indonesia, and see how that aligns with wealth and education.
The ideologues of Islamism and Salafi Jihadism are frequently educated and wealthy (in no small part due to the role of Saudi petrolislam), but as you say that parallels radicals/activists from other ideologies. In the same way that revolutionary communism doesn't amount to much when it's just a bunch of college radicals and disaffected losers (the parallels are closer than you might think, given how much Islamist ideology took from the ideology of Communist revolutionaries. You'd better believe that Maududi and Qutb knew their "To The Rural Poor" and "What Is To Be Done").
As with communism, it relies on the support of the "proletariat" for any political traction or revolutionary strength. The parallel extends to the sorts of socio-economic and political situations in which communist revolutions gained traction as well. It wasn't a bunch of wealthy, educated middle class consumers which overthrew the last Tsar, which overthrew the Shah or which were setting themselves on fire in Tunisia at the start of the "Arab Spring". It wasn't prosperity and education which lead to the current situation in Syria.
It's nonsense to say that the education and economic development of Muslim nations is a threat, as is clear when you look at the history of education and development within the nations. You're calling for a reformation or "enlightenment" within Islam, but ignoring the conditions under which it's likely to arise. Crushing poverty, ignorance and authoritarian dictatorship clearly not meeting the requirements, as seen throughout the world.

Well the Arab Spring had a major human rights component to it, and yet we still see much support for religious violence in its wake, so that may be a point against me. I don't know if we can successfully separate out the factors of the civil uprisings and make good sense of which factors will or will not affect that religious violence. We're looking at big time interference from Saudi Arabia, exporting a lot of uncertainty into everything. I don't buy any argument that prosperity will cause more violence in the long term, though there are some arguments that it may in the short term (post-Weimar Germany, legitimacy of the Caliphate dependent on conquest- it's possible). I don't know what Harris means when he says prosperity may make things worse: "The only thing that seems likely to persuade most Muslims that their worldview is problematic is the demonstrable failure of their societies."

 

[Fawlty]

Socially humiliating someone for ridiculous and hateful beliefs brings about social change. I'm happy to do it every chance I get and will continue to do so both here and in my life. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it... I only wish more people did the same thing.

Are you a Sam Harris buff? We're talking about whether he is exhibiting a form of bigotry with statements like "We should profile Muslims, and anyone who could conceivably be a Muslim" (at airports- and by "anyone who could conceivably" he means mostly adult males of all color, some number of women, but not old ladies or children).

Currently I'm confused by his suggestion that prosperity in radical Muslim countries might make matters worse, because as he says, they seem to only change their beliefs when their societies fail. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me when thinking in the long term.

 

[Bukowski82]

Are you a Sam Harris buff? We're talking about whether he is exhibiting a form of bigotry with statements like "We should profile Muslims, and anyone who could conceivably be a Muslim" (at airports- and by "anyone who could conceivably" he means mostly adult males of all color, some number of women, but not old ladies or children).

Currently I'm confused by his suggestion that prosperity in radical Muslim countries might make matters worse, because as he says, they seem to only change their beliefs when their societies fail. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me when thinking in the long term.

I'm a huge Harris fan. In my opinion, the major barriers for helping people break from the stone age in Muslim countries are religion and the hold it has over them, as well as a bad economy. Get rid of Islam and or even just give people an economy they can thrive in and they wouldn't turn to radical jihad.

Also, the West should kill radicals without discrimination. Literally, ISIL should be wiped from the face of the earth like the virus that it is.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm a huge Harris fan. In my opinion, the major barriers for helping people break from the stone age in Muslim countries are religion and the hold it has over them, as well as a bad economy. Get rid of Islam and or even just give people an economy they can thrive in and they wouldn't turn to radical jihad.

Also, the West should kill radicals without discrimination. Literally, ISIL should be wiped from the face of the earth like the virus that it is.

Without discrimination implies killing a whole lot of innocent civilians who don't have much choice in living with the radicals. I think we've been down that road in the middle east and it hasn't done us a lot of favors. It's not really possible to get rid of Islam. That can't be a serious suggestion. It's all over northern Africa too. And southeast Asia.

 

[Ruprecht]

Well the Arab Spring had a major human rights component to it, and yet we still see much support for religious violence in its wake, so that may be a point against me. I don't know if we can successfully separate out the factors of the civil uprisings and make good sense of which factors will or will not affect that religious violence. We're looking at big time interference from Saudi Arabia, exporting a lot of uncertainty into everything. I don't buy any argument that prosperity will cause more violence in the long term, though there are some arguments that it may in the short term (post-Weimar Germany, legitimacy of the Caliphate dependent on conquest- it's possible). I don't know what Harris means when he says prosperity may make things worse: "The only thing that seems likely to persuade most Muslims that their worldview is problematic is the demonstrable failure of their societies."

I don't even agree with that statement to any great degree, because it's the failure of Muslim societies which created Islamism, and the failure of states (Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia etc) which has allowed it to rise.
Despite the propagation of petro-islam from the Saudis and general influences of globalisation, it's the most successful nations which have been resistant. Malaysia, Turkey, even Gulf States, like Kuwait, the UAE or Bahrain (comparatively).

 

[unimackpass]

I pasted this off a youtube comment section.


Look, by this point, we all know how SJWs, the neo-progressive collective in-group dick-riders that they are, act in public. We have endless examples of their totalitarianism. But why in the sweet juicy fuck are media treating this poor Nazi hunger strike martyr like he's literally Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks? The dude seen--or may not have seen--the #2 Reich scrawl their Heil Shitler swastika onto a wall, and conveniently, sudden Selma. Conveniently, this group that couldn't get its demands met had cause to protest their demands, and once they had ears listening they upped the ante of their demands. Convenient, ey? But why is this guy a hero? Obviously the Mizzou Tigers, and their piss-poor SEC East football players getting aboard the "strike" train meant that national sports media started carrying it, but even they were ultra PC and showed deference to this idiocy, all comparing this to the Civil Rights Movement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm aware of no black students being denied education. I'm aware of no black students who were physically threatened or assaulted. In fact, the only violence and threatening of which I'm aware came by way of ConcernedStudent1950 and their bullying of an Asian reporter. I don't expect media to be honest. But I also didn't expect that they'd transform an emotionally weak pussy, a bad example for all college kids, into an American hero

 

[voxom]

it's amazing how hard it is to get some people to even admit that what those people in the OP did was fucked up. i would have thought that those protesters beign pieces of shit would be something everyone would easily get on board with and agree with. but i guess not.

 

[Cid]

Ah the weekly college kids these days thread...

 

[sloppypie]

lol, why is this video an issue again. is there nothing else in the world going on right now to rustle your jimmies?