Social War Room Lounge v259 *InsertTitleHere*

Is it whisky or whiskey?


  • Total voters
    36
Status
Not open for further replies.
Drinking is good for you
Soon you are unconstrained
Yea here comes the womanizer
No anymore lonesome
And ya will feel awesome
Vodka

K
 
See, this is a distinctly illiberal view too, as it expressly marginalizes reason. It's not even recency bias. It's that aggressive reductionism that I mentioned earlier as the defining ideology of Trumpists, "race realists," ethnonationalists, etc.
Word salad.

Face it Trotts, your world view is formed by advocating for what you perceive to be the underdog while not realizing you're in favor of repressiveness. Hence your constant argumentation for what Communism or Islam is supposed to be, rather than what it is in the reality of the here and now. Call it something intelligent sounding like "recency bias", but that does nothing but mask reality.

Yes, Islam used to be tolerant, or at least much much more so than Christianity and Communism could work if we were selfless beings instead of aggro monkeys. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in. Yes, the west has actively fucked much of the Muslim world. Much like Communism has fucked half of Europe. I'm not even including China as their system is Communist only in name.

It's an unfortunate reality we have to live with and work through, not live in. Such is life. Move forward, try to improve, but don't live in the past. And before you correctly tell me that many Muslim countries are still being actively messed with, I'd like to remind you that not all of those conflicts originate from outside influences.

History is to be learned from, not lived in and idealism will leave you bitter and resentful.
 
Last edited:
This is so silly. Islam birthed some of the first truly pluralistic societies in the world. The Mughal Empire had a secular Muslim government presiding over a religiously and culturally pluralistic Indian subcontinent centuries before Europe liberalized. Hell, their non-democratic government was probably more tolerant of Hindus than the democratic (Hindu) government is toward Muslims today.

The illiberal aspects of Islam today are the result of geopolitics, not religious doctrine.

And I don't think the idea that a Muslim minority population will somehow achieve power in liberal democracies and turn them into theocratic dictatorships is a remotely realistic fear.

While not as pluralistic, the Ottoman Empire was also very tolerant and predated the Mughals by a few centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)

But to many right-wingers, Islam began in 2001.
 
I can't blame anyone for being disgusted by them. I mean, that's their goal. I'm more offended at how bad and nonsensical they are. When you stop to think about their plots, they're laughably stupid. Even going back to the original, with Jigsaw being the guy on the floor. Neat twist...if you don't stop to think about absurd it is.

But yeah, if SAW was a red line, you definitely want to stay away from some other flicks that don't have a ratings board trying to make them "safe enough" to bring your children to watch them. There's some real nasty shit out there.
Audition.
audition2019.jpg
 
This is so silly. Islam birthed some of the first truly pluralistic societies in the world. The Mughal Empire had a secular Muslim government presiding over a religiously and culturally pluralistic Indian subcontinent centuries before Europe liberalized. Hell, their non-democratic government was probably more tolerant of Hindus than the democratic (Hindu) government is toward Muslims today.

The illiberal aspects of Islam today are the result of geopolitics, not religious doctrine.

And I don't think the idea that a Muslim minority population will somehow achieve power in liberal democracies and turn them into theocratic dictatorships is a remotely realistic fear.
Its interesting because he tends to be very pro-nationalist.

Classical Islamic civilization was able to facilitate that kind of pluralism due to its organic, bottom up institutions and sensitivity to local customs. A huge advantage of this is that it made classical Islamic societies more resilient to state collapse. Notice that "muh Islamic Golden Age" is generally thought to have started in the eight century and persisted until the 13th century. The Abbasid Caliphate only had real power from ~750-900 AD so for most of the period we think of as the Golden age of Islam the central state was very weak.

Meanwhile, nationalist movements tended to be the opposite and would try to impose a uniform law irrespective of local customs and variation and through a top down, bureaucratic state apparatus that tend to clash with local organic institutions and norms. Would-be citizens had to be forced into the mold of the "ideal citizen". Its no accident that the genocide of Christian ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire occurred after the Empire tried to reform along European lines and tried to absorb and retrofit ideas of nationalism onto its own territories.
Audition.
audition2019.jpg
That movie is off the wall nuts, very disturbing. I do appreciate the ending though.
I literally almost threw up in the theater during Saw 2 (needle scene) and never saw another of them. Can't even imagine what sick shit must be in these other movies.
I used to be a big Saw fan back in the day. Personally I thought they were too cheesy and poorly directed to have much impact but I was into cheesy horror films at the time.
 
Last edited:
Word salad.

Don't mistake your refusal to understand something as it being incoherent.

Face it Trotts, your world view is formed by advocating for what you perceive to be the underdog while not realizing you're in favor of repressiveness. Hence your constant argumentation for what Communism or Islam is supposed to be, rather than what it is in the reality of the here and now. Call it something intelligent sounding like "recency bias", but that does nothing but mask reality.

I said it wasn't recency bias, because it's something much more flimsy. It's, as I said, reductionism. It seeks to argue based on "realities" without examining or caring at all for the causes of those realities. It's the exact same basis for the people who say blacks are inherently dumb and violent because they currently commit more crime and score lower on standardized tests. It's the exact same basis for the people who say African countries are uncivilized because of the lack of political and economic development in the continent currently.

You can say any of those are just cold hard facts that idealists need to recognize....but the idealists are generally asking the super-duper realistic persons to examine other explanations other than the objective qualities described. In this case, I'm telling you that your belief that Islam creates illiberal societies is misplaced because it has operated several liberal societies and its current correlation with theocracies is the result of geopolitics.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong that there is a present correlation between Islam and illiberal government. I am arguing that the correlation is not causation, and that we can concretely explain the actual causation by examining political history and material relations.

Moreover, if we're being super realistic, there's plenty of data showing that Muslim immigrants adopt liberal values at a very quick rate: https://www.cato.org/blog/muslims-rapidly-adopt-us-social-political-values. According to Cato, Muslim immigrants in the United States, while less liberal than American liberals on average, are about as liberal as American conservatives on social issues. As of 2017, 52% of American Muslims say that homosexuality should be accepted by society. At that same time, 54% of American conservatives said the same.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/5-homosexuality-gender-and-religion/
https://www.hrc.org/news/majority-of-american-muslims-now-support-lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-people

So, if Muslim immigrants are becoming more liberal than natural born conservatives....well, I'll let you grapple with that. Maybe we should send conservative white people into exile?

History is to be learned from, not lived in ad idealism will leave you bitter and resentful.

It's weird. I get called "idealistic" purely by persons unfamiliar with my actual opinions and get called cynical by those familiar with them. I don't like either descriptor, but I'm definitely closer to the second one. But, in this case, I'm just calling for a pragmatic view of the issues
 
Audition.
audition2019.jpg

Ehhh, it depends. That torture sequence is very extreme, but other than that, it's pretty tame and uneventful. However, the bland lead up, makes that sequence all the more impactful.

It has been quite a while since I've seen it though. I might be forgetting some things.
 
I used to be a big Saw fan back in the day. Personally I thought they were too cheesy and poorly directed to have much impact but I was into cheesy horror films at the time.

Great stuff snipped.

Torture porn is a perfect term. Even with inept storytelling, in isolation seeing someone thrown into a pit of needles is going to draw a strong reaction.
 
Ehhh, it depends. That torture sequence is very extreme, but other than that, it's pretty tame and uneventful. However, the bland lead up, makes that sequence all the more impactful.

It has been quite a while since I've seen it though. I might be forgetting some things.

I liked it. The most disturbing/memorable scene is the telephone/bag scene.
 
I liked it. The most disturbing/memorable scene is the telephone/bag scene.

Yeah, I vaguely remember some potato sack scene in a kitchen or something, where the camera just lingered on the sack. It was disturbing for what it didn't show you.
 
Oh that is their insurance, the store itself has never contacted me.

So it’s the insurance company that’s trying to pass the buck on to the cleaners? That’s not good. While lawyers have a bad rep, insurance adjusters are the scum of the Earth imo because their entire raison d’être is to deny liability for any claims for any reason they can come up with.

Now I’m actually even more inclined to suggest you seek some advice from a lawyer in your state.
 
So you softened your stance on literally the worst, most unnecessary version? I guess its different since I'm American and I don't see the need to privilege white women over blacks who have a far more troubling history of oppression at the hands of the state. In general I think blacks and Natives should be the only groups that get any access to that kind of preferential treatment given their unique history of oppression here. The lower caste quotas in India are another good example of reasonable quotas, probably the most worthwhile instance of that kind of preferential treatment. Fuck your "meritocracy", there ain't no meritocracy when Dalits have been shit on for millennia

I am open to the idea that we need to force organizations to make different choices for their own good for a limited period of time, as elites tend to replicate themselves. It is a case of creating a limited amount of equality of outcome because the 'market' did not create a meritocracy and therefore, there is no equality of opportunity.

I don't want us in Germany to start recording or making policies based on race or ethnicity. Our historical experience is not exactly positive.

I am all for empowering and supporting those from less economically or socially privileged surroundings. But in my opinion, we need to prevent self-segregation and social division by tackling housing early on and preventing the formation of ghettos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top