Slashdot Mirror
Woman Behind Pakistan's First Hackathon, Sabeen Mahmud, Shot Dead
An anonymous reader sends word that Sabeen Mahmud, a prominent Pakistani social and human rights activist, has been shot dead. The progressive activist and organizer who ran Pakistan's first-ever hackathon and led a human rights and a peace-focused nonprofit known as The Second Floor (T2F) was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Karachi. Sabeen Mahmud was leaving the T2F offices with her mother some time after 9pm on Friday evening, reports the Pakistani newspaper Dawn. She was on her way home when she was shot, the paper reports. Her mother also sustained bullet wounds and is currently being treated at a hospital; she is said to be in critical condition.
You think the US is hostile to women in tech?
I hope they find the bastards who did this, but I'm not holding my breath. She seemed like a vibrant, engaging, and intelligent woman. Pakistan will need more people like her to continue the fight against their more regressive, barbaric elements. My condolences to her family and friends.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I fear that this is what every insecure, frustrated pencil-dick who derisively uses the term "SJW" fantasises about. Fortunately, most of us aren't in a backward theocracy, and society no longer tolerates those who try to destroy those women that dare to want the same opportunities as men.
And a very subtle troll at that. I mean, citing a respectable place like 4chan.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
This is truly a tragic death. I often hear a lot from people in our society (United States) is so aggressive and repressive towards women, which I greatly disagree with. Giving soap operas here about how horrible it is is a disgrace compared to those in places like the middle east, who endure credible death threats and the like everyday. I hope this lady will be remembered, and may her death not be in vain.
Things like these make me ashamed of being a member of the human race.
Why? The human race is an amazing work of nature. It is not you that is the problem. It is the people who shot her. They are the ones who are not fit to be members of the human race and need to be culled from it before they can pass on their corrupted genes.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
But seriously - boiling the idiots responsible in oil isn't enough. Let's hope there's a hell.
You want to start up something useful get a kickstarter to hire these folks body guards.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Sabeen Mahmud, Anwar Sadat, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Lee Rigby, people in the World trade Center on 9/11, Copts in Egypt, school children in Pakistan, Christian girls in Nigeria, Yzedis in Iraq, Kurds in Syria.
It's almost as though there were some sort of shared transnational ideology behind all of their attacks.
If only our world leaders could somehow deduce the nature of this ideology, name it, and set about creating plans to fight it...
Man here, putting in my two cents under the secure veil of anonymity:
1. Yes, women deserve equal rights and should receive equal treatment.
2. It is not only justified, but beneficial, when feminist groups publicly point out and aspire to correct cultural failings in point 1 above.
3. Encouraging video-game audiences to be displeased with disrespectful treatment of women, and to request better treatment of women from game creators, is exactly the right thing to do.
4. Trying to force game-makers to make products that don't suit the tastes of their primary target audience is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is contrary to good economics, and contrary to freedom.
5. Trying to encourage game-makers to make produces that don't suit the tastes of their primary target audience is silly, and doomed to failure.
On a more personal note.....
I see women every day, both in my professional life and randomly in public (in America). Most of them can't follow me in a real conversation, nor do they care to. The topics that interest them seem vain and insipid to me, and the topics that interest me seem boring or pretentious to them (based on their direct feedback). I have found a few women who are my authentic intellectual equals (and even a few who were my intellectual superiors), but these women have been VERY few and VERY far between. I have had a *much* easier time finding men who are my intellectual equals (or superiors).
So, that is my common, everyday experience of women. Where I want to talk about the problems of our day, they want to talk about shoes or celebrity gossip. Where I want to apply my skills to the creation of new and serious economic value, they are content to organize meetings and run through checklists. Not all of them, by any means. But most of them.
If women truly want to be respected as equals, it may help if feminist groups worked harder on encouraging women to aspire to higher levels of intellectual self-cultivation.
I am sorry if you hate me. I am just reporting on what I see.
Why the GP was merely commenting on how tolerant islam is, especially about women. After all our politicians say no insist that we be completely tolerant of all muslim demands.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
But then I saw the cat pictures.
These were, of course, her own cat pictures. It is sometimes the most ordinary things in our lives that speak the loudest, if you are willing to listen.
"Hypatia (born c. AD 350 – 370; died 415[1][3]) was a Greek mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher in Egypt, then a part of the Byzantine Empire. She was the head of the Neoplatonic school at Alexandria, where she taught philosophy and astronomy."
"One day on the streets of Alexandria, Egypt, in the year 415 or 416, a mob of Christian zealots led by Peter the Lector accosted a woman’s carriage and dragged her from it and into a church, where they stripped her and beat her to death with roofing tiles. They then tore her body apart and burned it. Who was this woman and what was her crime? Hypatia was one of the last great thinkers of ancient Alexandria and one of the first women to study and teach mathematics, astronomy and philosophy. Though she is remembered more for her violent death, her dramatic life is a fascinating lens through which we may view the plight of science in an era of religious and sectarian conflict."
I hate these islamic extremists at least as much as anyone here. But it isn't just islam that is capable of such things.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I suspect Islamic religious conservatism was behind this. These cowardly idiots shoot a middle school girl in the head because she blogs. When is Islam going to experience the equivalent of the Enlightenment which softened and matured the Christian world? How long must we wait.
Most of them can't follow me in a real conversation, nor do they care to. The topics that interest them seem vain and insipid to me, and the topics that interest me seem boring or pretentious to them (based on their direct feedback).
So your argument is that because they have different interests you're smarter than them? That's not sexist, that's fucking stupid....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
She wasn't a "SJW", she was actually trying to help effect change in an environment in which women are not only oppressed, but it is distinctly easily visible in most, if not all, walks of life in Pakistan (and other countries with an Islamic majority that isn't too opposed to Sharia law).
SJW's are usually trust fund babies and well-off morons that got bored with collecting tangible things and began collecting stories of oppression as bling. They're charlatans and ideologues, profit mongers and zealots.
Ms. Sabeen Mahmud was far closer to Mahatma Gandhi than any "Social Justice Warrior" (who often, without a shred of humility, compare themselves to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Malcolm X, or hell (I've yet to see them mention her but she fought for women's rights) Theodora the Empress alongside Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire).
Everyone lies sometimes, SJW's lie more often.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
You should read how the bible treats women. It isn't any different from sharia.
Females are considered second class citizens in all monotheist religions. Fortunately the USA and most of Europe is made of descendants of various pagan religions that Christianity had to adapt to. Christianity had to add local customs. Things like Christmas, Halloween, new years, Some of those pagann religions had women as equals. It took centuries. But it happened.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
If you don't care for what other people think or their interests, why would they care about your ideas and interest?
Really intelligent people - those who are smart over the whole range, not just the logic puzzle part, are normally a delight to talk with.
And although they might be smarter than you, and know more about the world, they generally do no tell you so.
I am no friend to Muslims. If all of them were slain, I would not weep a single tear. (Can you hear the 'however' coming up?)
However, back then men were basically either a warlord, a vassal, or a slave. Also, back then it was commonplace to take humans that we now classify as 'children' in marriage. Or if slaves, use them however the master liked, including sexually. They were just slightly smaller meat puppets than all the rest of the meat puppets. The point is, Muhammad was of his time.
It is just as silly and repugnant to use today's moral standards to judge people who lived in far different times, as it is for his followers to keep using those long out-dated moral standards from then in today's world.
Right so exactly where in the Koran is it justified to kill a woman that have done nothing wrong? [hint: it isn't]
The ones that focus on Islam instead of the real reasons (extreme misogynistic traditions in many cultures) are either Islamofobists or just idiots. Islam isn't the power behind genital mutilations, rapes, killing and mutilation of women - the idea that women/girls aren't worth shit is.
One can (and should) criticize Islam and other religions. This? Just a fucking show of ignorance.
Though the Islamists seem to be quite good at it these days, Islamic fundamentalists don't hold a monopoly on using selective interpretation from unreliably transcribed ancient texts as a means to justify bad behavior.
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
Neo-nazi. Why don't you listen to the words of mid-eastern Muslim leaders who still deny the holocaust, while at the same time praising Hitler. Pull your head out of your arse. Islam is a threat to life around the world. It is at least a great a threat as Nazism was, or the Soviet.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
as it is for his followers to keep using those long out-dated moral standards from then in today's world.
The problem is that a large portion of the world's population (that is, everyone who follows an Abrahamic religion, which is probably at least half the global population) does exactly this.
That's the whole problem with these religions: they hold up these "holy books" as "the inerrant word of God", and claim that everyone should follow the moral standards contained in them.
No, it's not, it depends on the particular interests. If they have interests such as following the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty, and you have interests which include baroque music and classical literature, then it's safe to say that you're more intelligent than them.
There's nothing sexist about it. There's no shortage of idiot men who are big fans of Duck Dynasty, and there's relatively few people of either sex who are big fans of more intellectual pursuits like classical literature.
The only problem with your post here is the bit about your professional and personal life. Where do you live and work that you're surrounded by men on your intellectual level, but all the women are vapid morons?
You should try moving to Manhattan (NYC); there's tons of women there who do nothing but talk about all kinds of academic subjects. Go to OKCupid and read their profiles; they'll drone on and on about their favorite authors, obscure musicians, theater, etc. (I'm not criticizing this, I'm pointing out that this is the culture there.) It's entirely different than, say, some random mid-size city in the southeast, where all the women have pictures of themselves with guns and dead fish and pickup trucks.
It sounds to me like you just live in the wrong place.
If you don't care for what other people think or their interests, why would they care about your ideas and interest?
He's not saying he cares one way or another, it was a personal observation, that somehow he has an easy time finding men who share his more intellectual pursuits, and that women who are intellectual are very rare for him to cross paths with. This is likely due to several factors, including his particular career field and geographic locale.
As an engineer, I generally see the exact same thing. However, I don't think it's because women are generally insipid morons (as I said before, it's easy to find men who are big fans of Duck Dynasty), it's because of my career and where I'm located. If I moved to NYC and worked at the NYPL (public library), I'd probably run across tons of women with zero interest in The Kardashians who would love to instead talk about all kinds of intellectual subjects (probably literature). As an engineer, I run across very few women at all, and most of them are administration or HR people, not known to be groups full of intellectuals (and HR people are, in general, just a bunch of morons, no matter their sex).
Good Christians and Jews do. Bad Christians and Jews (though good humanists and decent people) don't. And they are decent people in precisely the same measure as they flip their demonic God the finger and use humanist ethics instead.
While the Quran doesn't include the extremes you mentioned, it does contain quite a few misogynistic verses and thereby contributes to this misogynistic culture, in the same way that Christianity contributes to a homophobic culture. To accept Islam yet reject misogyny is a paradox.
That doesn't mean Muslims or misogynists should be prejudiced against -- everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But misogynistic ideologies should definitely be spoken out against.
I know all about their religions. Good Christians and Jews, the ones who follow their books, do exactly this. It's right there in the Bible: if your children misbehave, you are to stone them. There's countless such examples. Also, women are to be subservient to men. A large number of Christians in America believe this.
Maybe you should look up the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Enlightenment is very much dependent on the amount of wealth and education available to the population
While true, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money, but is one of the most retrograde regimes in the world, with its educational system ceded to the Wahabi Muslim clerics in exchange for their support in Gulf 1. Women can't drive, and are routinely killed for "honor" crimes (imagined and/or real), imprisoned for being raped, forced to have their rapist's child, etc. etc.
So wealth does not convey enlightenment, nor does education unless the education itself is enlightened. Which is a bit of a catch-22 that christian Europe was in some ways lucky to achieve at all.
If you're waiting for an Islamic enlightenment, you're going to wait a long time. People who believe they already possess all the answers are impossible to enlighten.
If they have interests such as following the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty, and you have interests which include baroque music and classical literature, then it's safe to say that you're more intelligent than them.
An interest in Duck Dynasty is not mutually exclusive with an interest in classical literature. I don't much care for the former but we've all got our own outlets for those times when we just want to turn our brains off for a little while. Is watching Duck Dynasty any worse than playing GTA?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Sounds like you are the one here that doesn't understand the religions you are talking about.
Learn to love Alaska
I think it's a generality to say that "neither Christians nor Jews do this". Certainly, Christians do this sort of thing at much lower rates.
Jews? It's really ludicrous to even bring up the Jews. Jews don't exist. Numerically, that is.
A third of the world is Christian, roughly. (50% Catholic, 40% Protestant, 10% other, including the Orthodox churches)
A quarter of the world is Muslim, roughly (90% Sunni, 10% Shia)
15% of the world is Hindu, roughly.
Two tenths of a percent of the world is Jewish.
That means for every Jew, there's over a hundred Christians, over a hundred Muslims, around seventy Hindus, thirty five Buddhists,
There's more Sikhs than Jews. The Jews are roughly equal to the number of practitioners of Yoruba, and the Jewish number tends to include more non-religious folks than many of the other groups.
So if all religions were equally likely to incite violence, you'd expect for most violence to be Christian, then you'd expect Muslim, then Hindu, the traditional Chinese practitioners, then Buddhists.... you'd have a long list to get to Jews.
In practice, we hear more about Muslims than anyone, and we do hear about Christians some times. The fact that you don't hear about Jews doesn't mean anything- numerically, they don't exist. If you heard about Jewish violence at the same rate as you hear about Muslim violence, then the Jewish religion would be over a hundred times as violent or something. The fact that there's still some very violent strands of Islam that are extremely active right now is what makes the news, but seriously, Muslims as a group are so massive that it seems hard to make a comparison to billions based on the actions of thousands.
Hold on -- you're conflating criticism against Islam and criticism against Muslims. Criticism against all Muslims is indeed unproductive -- personal attacks almost never lead to positive change, and, as with any wide group of people, all attacks against them hinge on prejudices.
However, Islam, which is basically set in stone (it's not like the Quran is going to change), is indeed worthy of criticism. The Quran, like the Bible, encourages misogyny and homophobia. The Quran won't change, but what could happen is:
a) It's reinterpreted. If you look at the misogynistic parts, though, it seems extremely hard to interpret it as to put women and men on equal footing.
b) It's selectively ignored.
c) People stop believing it.
Vocally calling out the issues with Islam and rejecting Islam based on them (not just Islam -- any ideology) is important if you want any reform.
In many ways Anita Sarkeesian is asking for what she's getting. The rape/death threats are uncalled for, but she basically goes around slapping the misogyny label on everything and anything, even when there isn't, and it's just fucking annoying.
For example, she railed against Fox for canceling Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles and renewing Dollhouse, when the first is supposedly empowering females and the later isn't. I'm a huge fan of the Terminator franchise, but that show was so lame I couldn't even watch past the first episode. The writing sucked terribly, and the actors totally failed to live up to their characters from the movies, making the show a total let-down, so how does that make it misogynistic to cancel it?
Further, this whole tropes vs women thing is super exaggerated. I remember one time looking at Japanese animation and wondering why all of the characters looked white and not Asian/Japanese. When you look at the history of it, you notice that it isn't because their culture favors being white (like China currently does in many places,) because it still looked that way even during the WWII days when Japan saw themselves as a supreme race/culture and the white people were just a bunch of incompetents that they'd easily conquer in the coming years. It turns out that all human beings draw a mental picture of what the "default human" is, and for Japanese cartoons the default human *is* Asian. So when they draw a cartoon, they don't put much thought into it other than to make it look like a person. Think like how the Simpsons draws their characters as yellow, but in your mind you're thinking "white family." Anyways to the Japanese, white people have big noses, so when they draw people who are supposed to be white, you always see pronounced noses in the artwork, because it's the token "white feature." It's not racist, it's just saying: See this guy? He's white, so you know, you now have a better mental picture of what kind of character he is.
Likewise, with just about everybody in the world, the "default human" is a male. This is even true of female gamers. So when the creator of Pac-Man wanted to show that Mrs. Pac-Man was a female, what does he do? Attaches a token of Japanese girls to her, in this case, a bow. The purpose of the bow is just to say: This is a female, so now you have a better mental picture of what kind of character she is. He had no intention at all of trying to be sexist. (And this isn't even getting into the limits of what you are able to do with those low resolution sprites.)
This guy also says it pretty well:
https://youtu.be/v04IdNPuMlc?t...
Your fifth point is notably in error. The issue is one of changing norms; you can change the norms of behavior that people expect of themselves and others in part by changing how they think about other people. That's why you dehumanize the enemy in war with names like "Charlie," for example. That means changing the internal narrative that people use when they think about the person or group of people they are interacting with. Popular entertainment--be it television, video gaming, or via other media--is one way to begin influencing the narrative of a large number of people.
Certainly, there is an economic cost to the individual company to optimizing its narrative in part along the dimension of positive norm-building in those circumstances where it is not in keeping with optimization for marketing to the company's target demographic. However, there is also a cost to society to leaving the norms that this fails to challenge in place. That latter cost may result in many wasted lives, in substantial domestic violence, and in similar things generally considered bad today's standards. When the cost to society exceeds the gain to the company, society has a role in encouraging the company to behave differently. The only legitimate reasons we don't mandate that the company behave differently are that it is very hard to measure the cost to society and that the potential for misuse of the power of censorship is significant enough that we don't give that power to government except in the most extreme situations.
Yeah, you need to get over that and try packing up everything and moving somewhere entirely different. You haven't really lived if you haven't ever relocated to someplace very different (and you don't need to go as far as leaving the country and learning a new language; the subcultures in different parts of the US are already very different from each other).
It sounds to me like you're in a place which simply does not have many peers for you, and you're not a good fit for the local culture. I'm in the same place; I (long story) got temporarily stuck in a southeast city that is extremely conservative and has a large military presence, and on top of it I'm separated and trying to date again. I'm like a fish out of water here; there simply isn't anyone here who I have any interest in meeting or spending time with. Luckily, I've gotten a new job offer elsewhere and am relocating within a month, to a place where I think I'll fit in better.
Living in a locale which doesn't fit you can really make you miserable, I've found.
I've seen the same in the "general population". The issue isn't intelligence, but that women are trained that "smart is bad" and "gossip is good". So, they conform, as do most people. When I've looked harder (say, the graduate level at a local university, when I went back for a degree), I've found that the intelligence is equal, but women are essentially trained to hide it. That you can't find it is your failure, not theirs. That they feel the need to hide it is society's failure, not yours or theirs.
Learn to love Alaska
>> rather than women who's primary contribution to the plot is her
The word is 'whose', genius.
No True Scotsman.
You're just another religionist trying to say that 99.9% of other people in your religion are "doing it wrong".'
malcolm x was a racist bastard, no better than a grand wizard. Why would any sane person want to associate themselves with him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Aha, I think I see the problem. You're operating from the assumption that those that disagree with you ideologically are inherently stupid. Does it get lonely on that pedestal you've erected for yourself?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Crusades had the written intent of swiping "holy lands". Same as it ever was.
Table-ized A.I.
If they have interests such as following the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty, and you have interests which include baroque music and classical literature, then it's safe to say that you're more intelligent than them.
Ummm... no. There is no fundamental difference in the level of intellectual engagement required between enjoying "Duck Dynasty" and "Star Wars," and many Slashdotters (including myself) are raving fanboys when it comes to the latter. Your choice of lowbrow entertainment may be because you are dumb, or it may be because you are smart but looking for an escape that has oooh shiny and doesn't require deep thought. To draw inferences on intellectual capacity based on what TV shows someone watches is just snobbish.
Similarly, "highbrow" tastes don't indicate intellect, they indicate exposure to a different set of influences and pastimes. You probably think being an opera fan indicates higher intelligence than being a death metal fan. But 150 years ago every village idiot in Germany could hum along to Wagner, and Italian beggars could likely recite the works of Verdi. It didn't make you smart back then, and it doesn't make you smart now, it just means you've been exposed to opera while someone else was being exposed to Guns N' Roses or Lady Gaga. There is a strong argument to be made that the popular classical music or classic literature that has survived to this day is of uniformly high quality, and there is probably a good argument as well that appreciating these works properly requires an incisive intellect. But for every classic literature fan I have met with a trenchant insight into the contradictions of Proust, there is another who is just up his/her own ass and wants to make sure everyone knows they bothered to make it through "Dubliners."
So long story short - beware making intellectual judgements based on people's pastimes. Sixty seconds of hearing them talk will tell you far more about their intellect than whether, when you met them, they were holding a copy of Kierkegaard or "Fifty Shades of Grey."
"95% of all Slashdot
Still looking for one...perhaps it's only possible for rats and cockroaches...did we take a wrong turn?
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics...
4wdloop
Two tenths of a percent of the world is Jewish.
Yet they're amazingly well represented in finance, media, and law.
> Jews? It's really ludicrous to even bring up the Jews. Jews don't exist. Numerically, that is.
And yet, their cultural identity as the foundation of Christianity and Islam make them culturually. And they are politically very powerful in the Middle East, for many culturual, economic, and technological reasons. So the whole "compare by numbers" concept falls apart very quickly.
Also, many Muslims and even other nations take the ongoing battle with the Palestinians over land, security, and self-government very seriously.
> the topics that interest me seem boring or pretentious to them (based on their direct feedback).
No, they say *you* are boring and pretentious.
And they're right, and you can't even be bothered to quote them correctly.
Yes, if you really believe there's a "gay agenda" and that homosexuals are bringing God's wrath upon us and that the Rapture will happen any time now, then you are a moron.
Maybe, but that's why I was pointing out that this was very likely due to his unique perceptions and experiences. I've had many of the same experiences, due to my choice of profession, and also my lack of socializing or outside activities which have a lot of women in them; it's not because women are necessarily stupider (on average, obviously there's always outliers, as the OP himself pointed out), but quite possibly because he and I have had limited opportunities to meet more intelligent women, and instead have had ample opportunities to meet men similar to ourselves.
First, not in all countries. Second, yes. This over representation is even small part of why "Jewish conspiracies" got traction. If you looked at the tiny Jewish population and the large number of Jewish scientists, mathematicians, etc. it would be fair to draw a conclusion, but much more difficult to pinpoint exactly why (culture, religion, genes, environment).
IMO gefilte fish is nootropic :P
BTW, Grishnakh is absolutely correct. As proof, I need only look at my own upbringing.
It's right there in the Bible: if your children misbehave, you are to stone them.
I'm so glad you managed to overcome the side effects of being stoned to death.
I watch bestiality porn. I also listen - and study - Bach. I watch and read Bleach, One piece, Attack on titan but i also read Sartre and Dostoyefski. I listen to brutal death metal but i also listen to Tchaikovsky. I enjoyed Event Horizon, Silent Hill and Cabin in the woods, but i also love Stalker and Solaris. I am a physicist with an MSc but i also fantasize about watching my girlfriend being double-penetrated by mandingo and lex steele.
son't be quick to think that just because someone enjoys filth they are not able to recognize, appreciate and celebrate higher meanings and more nuanced creations, or however you want to call it.
No, it's not, it depends on the particular interests. If they have interests such as following the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty, and you have interests which include baroque music and classical literature, then it's safe to say that you're more intelligent than them.
There's nothing sexist about it. There's no shortage of idiot men who are big fans of Duck Dynasty, and there's relatively few people of either sex who are big fans of more intellectual pursuits like classical literature.
Ahahahaha!
I knew a REAL hotty who loved NASCAR. She wore halter tops, Candies and tight jeans that showed off her perfect ass. She dressed like uneducated white trash.
She has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from GA Tech and is married to a car salesman.
But if you are comparing noise made by a few bad actors, as you are when pointing out Islamic violence, then yes, the numbers are really relevant. If, for instance, one out of every 10,000 Muslims were some violet nitwit, then you would have an army of 150,000 violent nitwits. Similarly, if one out of every 10,000 Jews is some violent nitwit, then you have a gang of 1,400 violent nitwits. These are very different things, and if you were trying to make some statement about religions, you would hear about the first, and the second you likely would not.
If the poster were to die of some horrible illness, I'd make a special trip to wherever he is buried to piss on the grave.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your choice of lowbrow entertainment may be because you are dumb, or it may be because you are smart but looking for an escape that has oooh shiny and doesn't require deep thought. To draw inferences on intellectual capacity based on what TV shows someone watches is just snobbish.
Bullshit. If I want to do stuff that doesn't involve deep thought, I play some mindless video game (like an old NES game with an emulator, or an old arcade game like Pac-Man), or I go hiking or biking, or maybe watch some silly TV show like Big Bang Theory.
What I don't do is watch a TV show that requires me to listen to a lot of homophobic and religious nonsense, since this show is absolutely famous for this. Watching a show like that (unless it's just to be horrified) absolutely says something about your intellectual capacity and your leanings. This isn't just some un-serious TV drama about some people living in an apartment together.
You probably think being an opera fan indicates higher intelligence than being a death metal fan.
Anyone who knows anything about opera knows that it was considered somewhat lowbrow entertainment during its time; it was made for the masses. Also, anyone who knows much about modern music knows that there's a lot of death metal that is quite complicated and requires a lot of talent and skill to play properly. Metal as a genre is generally fairly complex, as it emphasizes musical virtuosity more than vocals or lyrics (though there's exceptions, like the 80s hair-metal).
However, neither of these typically espouse fundamentalist Christian anti-gay rhetoric.
I guess I can believe one of two things:
1) You're a smug elitist.
2) You're clairvoyant enough to know what every single viewer of Duck Dynasty believes.
I used to watch 24; if we apply your logic that means I condone torture. Funny that, I always found the show appealing because it had lots of gunfights, explosions, the occasional set of tits, and didn't require me to think very hard.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Genetically there are something like five or six human races; several in sub-Saharan African, and one just about everywhere else.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I listen to brutal death metal but i also listen to Tchaikovsky.
Metal has a fair amount in common, musically, with classical music. Metal typically emphasizes complex song structures and virtuosic playing more than other forms of modern music. I'd say country is probably at the opposite end of that spectrum. I like progressive metal like Dream Theater, I also like Bach and Telemann, but I also like Rolling Stones, Boston, AC/DC, etc.
As for all your other interests, none of those carry any kind of political connotations or religious content. None of them indicate that you're a rabid homophobe who thinks the Rapture is coming any day now. Watching Duck Dynasty indicates exactly that. There's nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies or liking different levels of literature and music. There is something wrong (IMO) with watching TV shows or listening to music which pushes moronic religious viewpoints. It's very simple: if you listen to some type of "entertainment" which preaches to you to hate people who were born differently from you, and you buy into this, then you're a moron IMO.
If I want to do stuff that doesn't involve deep thought, I play some mindless video game (like an old NES game with an emulator, or an old arcade game like Pac-Man), or I go hiking or biking, or maybe watch some silly TV show like Big Bang Theory.
And other people watch Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty. Some smoke weed. Some find themselves on mindless websites. I fail to see why those choices are any less valid than yours.
You also seem to know an awful lot about Duck Dynasty; are you a closeted fan? I've never seen an episode myself -- no CATV in the Shakrai household -- the little bit I know about it comes from those people that get offended over it, which amuses me because nobody is forcing them to watch it.
BTW, you may think Robertson is an idiot, but he's made millions of dollars while you tilt at windmills on Slashdot.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Bullshit. Most men back then just wanted to live their lives without any grandiose delusions of conquering everyone just so they could tell them what to do and make people think their dicks were bigger. Mohammed was no different except for the late stage schizophrenia and using religion as a way for political control. Christ didn't arise in a vacuum, yet Mohammed decided fucking up people was better than being nice to them.
There are plenty of women who are fans of classical literature and baroque music. They just tend to cluster in occupations that do not intersect those of the typical Slashdot reader.
And as a side, those who consider a college degree in humanities or fine arts a waste of time should not be surprised when their co-workers spend time discussing the Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Christianity and Judaism were reformed. Islam admits no reform...well, it does but the reformers are soon pushing up daisies. There are still a few nutjob Christians and Jews around, but they are a small minority.
Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Tony Robinson, never happened. Its all a fig newton of our imagination. But we can do wholesale bombing of poor brown people in other countries.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Yes, but poll numbers show Muslims think Jihad in the name of Islam is perfectly potty, just as long as it isn't Muslims getting whacked. Also, Muslims believe political power comes from Allah, most Western (and Christian, I might add) nations believe political power comes from the people. As long as Muslims indulge themselves in this belief of Allah and political power, they will have no problem killing off non-Muslims, and they will never assimilate into Western nations. They will, instead, look at Western nations as nations not yet taken over.
And the Muslim saying, "if Allah wills it" shows just how morally bankrupt they are. They will never lift themselves above dictatorships or dictatorships masquerading as theocracies. And don't bother pointing at Indonesia as a counterpoint, they periodically have pogroms targeting non-Muslims.
There are plenty of women who are fans of classical literature and baroque music. They just tend to cluster in occupations that do not intersect those of the typical Slashdot reader.
Yes, this is exactly my point.
And as a side, those who consider a college degree in humanities or fine arts a waste of time should not be surprised when their co-workers spend time discussing the Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo.
This is true too. Unfortunately a lot of people in technical professions have this mindset. It's not just them either; I've seen that opinion (non-major classes are a "waste of time") from a lot of different people these days. It seems like most college-educated people these days just don't understand the value of a well-rounded education, and are really using college as a glorified trade school. We've really gotten away from the whole reason Universities were created in the first place.
When your holy book says this is the word of God and these are the rules you shall live by, those outdated morals become a problem. We need to find a way to issue updates to the religions of the world. Continuing to use version 1.0 is causing compatibility issues.
I don't particularly relish quoting Sam Harris all day long, but as it happens he has refuted this fairly convincingly:
1. Why is this level of intensity of religious/political violence mostly confined to parts of the Muslim world? Plenty of places on Earth on war-torn, but petty tribalism and profit-seeking warlords are not quite the same thing as people willing to sacrifice their lives for a transnational, transracial, translingual, transcultural set of beliefs.
1a. Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? They have suffered worse than the Palestinians and other Middle Eastern Arabs. Possibly their different reaction has something to do with their religion being relatively more peace-oriented?
2. Take a look at the biographies of the 9/11 hijackers and many other Islamic terrorists some time. Poverty is obviously not the cause here. Why is the middle and upper middle class so strongly committed to this cause?
No, they aren't. Many of the "reformed" sects are the worst ones. All those fundamentalist Christians aren't part of the old Roman Catholic church (or any offshoots of it), they're offshoots of the Protestant movement. For all its faults, the Catholic church had a good idea, that just letting people read the Bible themselves and interpret it their own way would lead to all kinds of bad things, so they tried to keep people from doing that; the Protestant reformation is exactly what led to fundamentalism. Of course, the root problem is the whole idea that a book is "holy" and sacrosanct; trying to keep people from reading things for themselves is guaranteed to fail eventually.
Anyway, probably at least 1/2 of Protestants in the US are evangelical and/or fundamentalist. Just look at how popular the "Left Behind" books are and various other wacky Christian media warning everyone of the "Rapture". Calling it a "small minority" is ignoring a very large and serious problem in our society, no different than Muslims ignoring their own extremists and then waking up one day to find that ISIS has taken over their city.
You're just pissed because they make your own brand of conservatism look like the weak sauce it is, thanks to a culture that doesn't tolerate the same degree of batshit extremism. You should join them, they're your spiritual brothers, after all.
Yes, but poll numbers show Muslims think Jihad in the name of Islam is perfectly potty, just as long as it isn't Muslims getting whacked. Also, Muslims believe political power comes from Allah, most Western (and Christian, I might add) nations believe political power comes from the people. As long as Muslims indulge themselves in this belief of Allah and political power, they will have no problem killing off non-Muslims, and they will never assimilate into Western nations. They will, instead, look at Western nations as nations not yet taken over.
And the Muslim saying, "if Allah wills it" shows just how morally bankrupt they are. They will never lift themselves above dictatorships or dictatorships masquerading as theocracies. And don't bother pointing at Indonesia as a counterpoint, they periodically have pogroms targeting non-Muslims.
Down to the brass tacks, it is all about dominance and the struggle for resources. We conveniently excuse our brutal primitive tribalism in the name of God, Allah or whatever theology or political system which is publicly currently the rage. Who knows in twenty years Tom Cruise and Scientology might rule the human mind and be used as an excuse to cause wars over resources.
The long and the short of it all is that, killing in the name of God, Allah, the Buddha is blasphemy and bullshit because it is just an excuse for being a mindless coward who subscribes to the religion falsely At least the Nazi's admitted that war was a struggle for resources as they slaughtered the innocent. We are not an advanced species because we are cowards who cannot learn to cope with the fact that we will have to learn to live together to advance as a species!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Just how many Islamists have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why exactly are we there again?
I bet the body count for Iraqi Islamists killed by US Christians is far higher than the body count of all Christians killed by Islamists over the last 10 years.
The whole area in the middle east is intolerant to accepting people of different faith, ethnic back ground and culture. They claim to be so holy but offer little as examples of peaceful people. They act like the world is thousand of years in the past. No the US is not perfect and the example of perfect will never be achieved because we are human. This is just another example of how little these people have advanced in hundreds of years.
That's islam for you
I'm sure you're right that religion plays a role, just as it played a role in what Christians did to others some time ago. I think the main difference between Tibetans and Muslims is that there are fewer Tibetans, their target (China) is a totalitarian state with enormous security apparatus, and they have much, much less money since it's difficult to drill for oil in Tibet. Regarding the biographies of 9/11 hijackers, I've read somewhere that suicide bombers don't avenge the wrongs done to them but rather those done to their community. Really, it's a bit ironic (in a very sad way). Muslim emigrants from war-torn Middle East are rarely welcome in other, wealthy and peaceful muslim countries, so they are forced to come to Europe and USA. There they can live well enough to have the time to start thinking about how much their respective country/city/neighbourhood/family/any other community they identify with has been wronged by the greedy westerners. Some of them, with a bit of religious radicalization, will act on it - against the country which has given them shelter.
So from what species belong all the very different, but single race, human populations?
What you are referring to is political correctness ("changed over time, and is still in flux"). Some idiot believe that if you denies the existence of races you get rid of racism. Which is non-sense. There are clearly several human races and only by acknowledging this we can learn to live together.
Identifying stupid is easy when they claim that there is just one 'human race' and at the same time celebrate 'diversity'...
They are hardly 'very different', the differences are just at the level of family resemblance
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
In my entertainment choices, I prefer women like Princess Leah (tactician, soldier, leader), Ripley (skilled worker, fighter, protector), Kaylee Frye (engineer), Motoko (marksman, police officer) etc., because they represent women who have and cultivate real skills and use them to good effect under trying circumstances....rather than women who's primary contribution to the plot is her physical desirability (or perhaps her happenstance noble birth). I am just distressed that women like these are more common in fantasy than in reality.
Well, most of those shabby scripts are written by men who don't know how to write women (hey, you write what you know best), but they do know how to target the teenage boy market. One of the feminist blogs I actually have a little regard for made the good point that women can't complain TOO loudly when they don't get into screenwriting and instead expect everything the men will write will reflect their ideals.
In many ways Anita Sarkeesian is asking for what she's getting. The rape/death threats are uncalled for,
Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Really intelligent people - those who are smart over the whole range, not just the logic puzzle part, are normally a delight to talk with.
I haven't met anyone smart over the whole range, yet, especially not on slashdot. Ain't nobody perfect. Slashdot is more than usually full of precious snowflakes, for example
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
For all its faults, the Catholic church had a good idea, that just letting people read the Bible themselves and interpret it their own way would lead to all kinds of bad things, so they tried to keep people from doing that
Wait, you don't really believe that shit, do you? You're crazier than the catholics if you do. Keeping people from information is always done to handicap them. True leaders create more leaders. The Catholics only want more followers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The strawman are flying all over the place here in this thread!
The word "University" literally once meant "universal school" where everything is taught.
Well, when the term was coined that was not as diverse as in our days, it only covered Latin, Greek, theology, sciences of nature, philosophy and variations of law (statemenship etc.)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Jews? It's really ludicrous to even bring up the Jews. Jews don't exist. Numerically, that is
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Sure, they very much don't exist in some places, but they are extremely unevenly distributed due to some deliberate and deft political decisions on the part of the UK. They created the nation of Israel and one of the most complicated regions in the world got even more complicated — to the benefit of everyone but the residents of the region where the Jews were installed. And people are still lauding them for their benevolence, which is the most hilarious part.
Tell you what though, go hang out with the Palestinians and share with them your idea that Jews don't exist. You'd better move quickly though, if you want to find any. Those nonexistent Jews are working on making that impossible.
This is not to single out the Jews for bad treatment, just to point out that they are sufficiently numerous to commit atrocities. You know, kind of like Moses' slaughter of all the first-born sons... atrocities are kind of what they do, according to their own alleged history.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well 18 people were killed (10 burned to death) during the 3-14 riots in Tibet.
My personal belief in the cause of middle east terrorism is the extreme lack of economic freedom. Those countries are all extremely socialist. This includes the lack of secure private property in the occupied Palestinian lands as well.
The ones that focus on Islam instead of the real reasons (extreme misogynistic traditions in many cultures)
Islam is an extremely misogynistic tradition. That is the real reason they can't progress their cultures. You can see this at work in every Islamic state. Their culture progresses more slowly, because they've got rules to make that happen. No different from the Amish, except there's enough Muslims to be a problem, and the Amish are grossly outnumbered.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Two tenths of a percent of the world is Jewish.
That means for every Jew, there's over a hundred Christians, over a hundred Muslims, around seventy Hindus, thirty five Buddhists,
This does not make any sense at all. ... or it is a low percentage.
Either there are two tenth jews on the planet, than it is every 5th
Make up your mind.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Glad people like you are proving feminists right.
Hitchens says it best:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
As a note, the indian thing in the US wasn't an inquisition, it was a land grab. There's a difference.
The Jews are that way all over the world, so singling out the USA is a bit unfair. Today Jews run the country, so there you go.
Blacks were sold and enslaved by other blacks in Africa before they came to the US, and their old gods were obviously pretty pathetic. However, today there's nothing to prevent them from practicing Santeria or whatever they want.
That doesn't make any sense. Trolls eat billy goats and unwary travelers crossing bridges. I'd say billy goats is a fair term for troll feeders. Don't be a billy goat kids, friends don't let friends feed trolls!
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
SJW's are usually trust fund babies and well-off morons that got bored with collecting tangible things and began collecting stories of oppression as bling. They're charlatans and ideologues, profit mongers and zealots.
The geek has a future in the Kansas state Senate.
Well as I'm sure you've figured out, ''sjw'' stands for social justice warrior. Back when I and a few others started this tumblr several years ago, ''sjw'' seemed, to us, to be more of a criticism on people who used social justice to further their own bigoted ends, push already marginalized people out of their own spaces, and dominate discussions with bigoted rhetoric.
In the years since this blog died out,''sjw'' came to stand for anyone who supports social justice, a favorite go-to insult for white male nerds/libertarians/redditors. This blog is now followed by people with that attitude, and still gets asks of that nature. Hence the (partial) reason why I no longer update, even though I've somewhat returned to tumblr.
Fuck No Tumbler SJW
"Social Justice Warrior" has no visibility in Google Trends before 2013 --- and in the pejorative sense has never caught on outside the United States. Thank god. social justice warrior
The best part about the so-called Rapture is that it isn't even biblical. It's just wishful thinking on the part of a particular strain of Baptist Christianity who thought it'd be awfully nice of God to let his most true followers (i.e., them) to skip out on all that nasty business of the Tribulation and Satan running amok. Guess those faithful transcribers of God's inerrant word, A.K.A, the Bible, just forgot to add that part in or something. I'm sure it was an oversight.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
What would you update them to? Secular philosophy has zero consensus on the most basic ethical questions after trying for 2500 years.
And yes, we are applying ours current to the times. You know this. You just lie and claim we don't, and only you are advocating "1.0" for the schizophrenic purposes of attacking them. Which, is odd, since 100% of the norms you have you got from theism by cultural assimilation, which you then deny the source of, and you have no defensible objective source of your own. Atheism never has come up with anything of it's own, never will, and frankly, that's exactly what you want. You'd no more follow a non-Christian set of ethics than you would a Christian one. You want your moral code to be synonymous with whatever your whims are at the moment. I'll believe otherwise as soon as a concerted attempt is made to come up with... anything, as an alternative.
Yes, if you really believe there's a "gay agenda"
Isn't there? They seem to want to be treated like human beings. (The nerve.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First, he never said he hated anyone much less all of them. Second, how is it irrational to dislike, even hate, someone who continues to advocate the slaughter or subjugation of you and your society?
We've really gotten away from the whole reason Universities were created in the first place.
Who can afford to dick around becoming a better human? There's no money in that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's hilarious reading all of the trolls and cowards intimidated by a pussy.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.
Are you just dumb or something? I said in many ways, which exclude only those two things. Everything else she's getting is definitely called for.
And yet, it seems, you have not heard of current day Israel.
Interesting. You apparently have done ALL this research and not even noticed that small thorn in your statistical theory.
' The fact that you don't hear about Jews doesn't mean anything- numerically, they don't exist.'
However, the fact that we DO hear about Jews (Israelis) quite often, and their nearly constant and well documented
human rights violations, means quite a lot, as they are - as you say, a tiny minority. Therefore statistically they
are pretty damn active in this area..
Your statistics regarding percentages are also a lot of tripe sorry, as the ratio of 'true believers' is what matters rather than
the practically useless numbers which tend to lump whole countries in to certain religious groups based on historical
details...
I am not excusing ANY of the groups. Using religion (or pretty much anything else) as an excuse to persecute others is
just plain disgusting.
No, the US pushed for and funded the illegal immigration into the area (mostly as a move to avoid post-war immigration of European Jews to America).
The British actively fought against it, and were the targets of terrorist attacks in response (see the King David Hotel Bombing, for example).
The US then pressured a desperate Britain to allow things to continue.
In the end Britain, in desperation, turned the problem over to the UN, where the US championed a decision allowing the seeding of modern Israel.
The British still tried to resist this, and were only pushed out under force of arms.
So no, saying the UK created the nation os Israel is, in fact, simple insanity, or more likely an attempt to rewrite history.
I actually completely agree. I studied music for one semester in college before I changed to engineering, and so I heard a lot of baroque and so forth harpsichord music.
I also, back in the day, used high-speed tape-to-tape cassette recording. I remember recording somethings like Metallica (old school metallica) and being surprised and how similar, sped up, it sounds like classical harpsichord music.
I haven't tried listening to archetypical country sped up.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
Quite Right!
To suffer a modern day Inquisition in the US you had to be a damn dirty Commie! (or suspected of being one by the right people). :) happy shiny times for all!!
However, thats not a religion, right? so its all ok
If you repeat a lie long enough it will surely become reality. But, maybe, if you travel a little you will come to see the profound differences.
I've lived in 5 countries on 4 continents, 1st, 2nd and 3rd world.
Genetically, biologically, the differences are merely at the level of family resemblance and traits. The so-called 'races' are nothing more than HUGE extended families.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Neither Christians nor Jews are book-worshippers. Besides, both Christians and Jews agree that no Gentile is bound the civil/religious code of the ancient Hebrews. By the way, that is right there in the Bible too.
The statement that "neither Christians nor Jews do that" is not a universal quantification, and nobody who made it through the first week of any critical thinking course would ever mistake it for one. Finding some tiny subset of Christians in some cultish backwater of Christendom (such as, oh, the US Bible belt) does not negate the claim.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Are you just dumb or something?
Stay tuned to find out.
I said in many ways, which exclude only those two things. Everything else she's getting is definitely called for.
You said, in many ways she's asking for what she's getting. But the fact is that what she's getting includes responses which are not appropriate for any kind of behavior. There's no way in which she's asking for the fullness of what she's getting. If you want your sentence to mean what you want it to mean, then you should say she's asking for much of what she's getting. That's still victim-blaming bullshit, because there's a lot of what she's getting which is inappropriate which lies outside the realm of rape and death threats.
If you want to call a narcissistic egomaniac what they are, more power to you. But then what you do after you've pointed that out is ignore them. You don't go on to make personal attacks. I note that's what she's doing, but you only become a hypocrite when you complain about personal attacks and then engage in them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yet they're amazingly well represented in finance, media, and law.
European culture made sure that they couldn't do anything else. Historically, Jews in Europe were not allowed to be members of a trade-guild, because doing so required making a Christian oath. For city dwellers (i.e. non-farmers), peddling and money-lending were two of the only jobs available until quite recently.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
And yet, their cultural identity as the foundation of Christianity and Islam make them culturually.
Jewish people do not generally define themselves culturally as the foundation for Christianity and Islam. This makes even more sense when you consider where antisemitism has historically come from: the majority culture wherever they happened to be.
The very term "Judeo-Christian" is a piece of modern revisionist history.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Just how many Islamists have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why exactly are we there again?
I bet the body count for Iraqi Islamists killed by US Christians is far higher than the body count of all Christians killed by Islamists over the last 10 years.
The point was; religion and political affiliations are a feeble excuse for the real reasons why we engage in war which inevitably leads to genocides. Genocide and war is an animal base response and is beneath us as a species. Beware of politicians and religious figures that debate this fact. You either ascribe to the theory that we have the ability to evolve beyond war or we continue the primitive struggle for dominance which is coded into us. The equation is simple real humans have choice not to allow war and genocide base humans as primative animals do not.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
How do you know that gtall is American? If he or she lives somewhere else in the developed world, US-style fundamentalist evangelicals probably are a tiny minority there, and worldwide they certainly are.
They aren't a problem because they are numerous (on a worldwide scale). They are a problem because they've been infiltrated by secular politicians (and only quite recently; we're talking the mid-to-late 70s) and their leaders are cashed-up at the moment. Comparisons to Saudi Wahhabism are not coincidental.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Watching a show like that (unless it's just to be horrified) absolutely says something about your intellectual capacity and your leanings.
Your leanings? Absolutely. Your intellectual capacity? Not in the least.
While I personally think homophobia is abhorrent, I acknowledge that there are lots of people who are objectively intelligent (in the sense of having high IQ scores) who nonetheless disagree about the politics. I may think these people lack critical thinking skills, but more likely their cultural background has not prepared them to think critically about the issue. I also, for example, believe that there are extremely intelligent people on both sides who radically disagree about one simple fucking sentence - the Second Amendment to the US constitution. I think it's pretty clear (why else specifically mention a well regulated militia?), but lots of other smart people don't, so I don't say they're stupid because they disagree.
Consider, for example, that - had you asked them in their historical period - almost certainly Gandhi, G.W.F. Hegel, Martin Luther King Jr., Isaac Newton or John F. Kennedy would not have supported gay rights. It's not because they weren't smart, it's because they came from a background where they just weren't prepared to consider it in the same set of assumptions and contexts as many of us do today. For example, I can call Israeli settlers on the West Bank of the Jordan stupid because I believe they are "on the wrong side of history" and are harming their nation's cause in the eyes of the world; but I acknowledge that some of them may be very intelligent and - had I been through the same things as them or brought up in the same environment - I might feel the same way.
So while it's easy to say anyone who watches a show whose protagonists disagree with your views must be stupid, I counter that it's just that type of generalization which is stupid.
"95% of all Slashdot
Wrong. It isn't some "tiny subset", it's a huge number of Christians in America who are like this. Look how many American Christians believe in the Rapture. IIRC, that's based on one tiny passage in Revelations. But probably about half of Protestants in this country believe that and watch Christian movies about how the end is near. One such movie is in Redbox kiosks right now. You don't get your movie in a Redbox kiosk nationwide without having a huge number of potential viewers.
The Christians and Muslims define Judaism as religious ancestors. Given the historical and archaeological evidence, I think it's a a well supported claim.
Saudi Arabia isn't the #3 country by population in the world. America is. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world's Christians are doing, America has a huge chunk of them, and quite possibly a majority of Protestants. Most of the other heavily-Christian nations in the world are Catholic (Latin America plus the southern European nations like Spain and Italy). The other Protestant nations aren't very religious for the most part; Germany for instance is the birthplace of Protestantism (Luther), and most Christians there are probably Protestant, but Germany is not a highly religious country these days. America is. America is also the country where its fundie/evangelical Protestants are sending missionaries to Africa and converting everyone there to their brand of Christianity, and as a result, African nations are trying to pass laws legalizing murder of homosexuals.
A few points:
The 2A argument is a bit different. Personally, I can see both sides. Some of that may be my American (and southern) upbringing and environment, but to me, I can see both sides. One side argues that society is safer with guns because police can't be there in 5 seconds and you can protect yourself with one, the other side argues that a proliferation of guns is what makes society unsafe and that adding more guns to the mix just makes it worse. Both are valid points. Both sides, from what I've seen, have made valid points at times, and stupid points at others. This to me makes me think that the whole issue is far too complex for a simple binary choice, and also that our society's problems are a lot more complex than whether people have easy access to guns or not. I could go on and on about this subject, but at the very core, both sides have the exact same goal: a safe society for everyone. Neither side wants a society plagued by crime and violence, they just disagree on whether having legal access to guns helps or hurts this.
Gay rights is rather different. At its core, it's about equality: should homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else? Should they be allowed to live their lives peaceably, or should they live in fear and hide their orientation for fear of being ridiculed, harmed, or murdered? I honestly don't see how it's any different than civil rights for minority races. The only justification for oppressing gays is purely religious, and not based on anything rational at all. People hate them because they're different, and that's it.
That said, as for various smart people you listed, everyone does stupid stuff from time to time. I like to believe that we should *try* to be smart in our actions and beliefs, rather than being content to be dumb, but even the smartest of us do stupid things sometimes. Also, not everyone is smart in every subject. Being good at math for instance doesn't mean you've seriously thought much about ethics.
I'm not a Christian, but the reason the Crusades happened was that the Saracens, after their conquest of Jerusalem, had a policy of persecuting Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, et al. And for all the bitching that Muzzies & their sympathizers have about the Crusades, only the first Crusade was successful in capturing Jerusalem, but it was not too long after that that it was recaptured by Saladin. After that, it wasn't until the end of World War I that 'Christians' reconquered the place.
In Pakistan, all the parties are Islamic, unlike in your example above. Also, there is no rule that just b'cos something is happening in country X, it'll also happen in a country Y that is totally different in every respect from X. What happens in Pakistan could be similar to countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Emirates, et al, which are culturally almost identical to Pakistan. It can't be similar to Russia, in the same way that what happens in Burundi is no way similar to what happens in Portugal.
Why would any sane person want to associate themselves with him?
For the same reason that people walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts while buying $5 cups of coffee.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you want to punish people for crimes, then find the criminals and prosecute them. Don't take the whole neighborhood.
Table-ized A.I.
TL;DR America is the whole world.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Trolls hook fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
You drop a baited line, and wait for a bite. That's the origin of the term, not the mythical monster.
Your argument can be summed up with "stop liking what I don't like."
-- Will program for bandwidth
The Religion of Peace strikes again!
Muslims aren't too different from Christians -- after all, the both follow the God of Abraham. The main difference is that Christians have learned to ignore most of their Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, and in general act as you'd expect from an atheist who's half-heartedly pretending to be a Christian. Whereas Muslims tend to act more like they actually believe their Holy Book.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
but you only become a hypocrite when you complain about personal attacks and then engage in them.
I don't recall complaining about personal attacks.
Do not be a fucking pussy. I am seeing all the time women events, try to organize a men-only event, and tell me what happened.
It is just as silly and repugnant to use today's moral standards to judge people who lived in far different times
When they are discussed as moral role models for people today they absolutely need to be judged by today's standard. And by these standards he was just another child molesting mass murder.
If being gay were being blond, the blond agenda is not "we are persons like you", but "all hair color is the same, don't talk about it", which is reactionary. I sure understand the historical reasons, but it becomes an exercise in controlling other people's ideas. Today it's gays, tomorrow who knows.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
No that that's big business and corporations who are the biggest encouragers of mass immigration. As new immigrants tend to work harder for less money. So go to further increase profit margins and help to depress the need for minimum wage rises. So called 'lefties' often talk of the need to help improve the home environments of where a lot of these economic migrants are coming from. So they have less of a need to precariously travel half way round the world. To work below minimum wage. Living in poverty in the West is a paradise compared to average life where a lot of these people are coming from.
For all its faults, the Catholic church had a good idea, that just letting people read the Bible themselves and interpret it their own way would lead to all kinds of bad things, so they tried to keep people from doing that
Wait, you don't really believe that shit, do you? You're crazier than the catholics if you do. Keeping people from information is always done to handicap them. True leaders create more leaders. The Catholics only want more followers.
Interesting dilemma. I guess the key is to raise people's intelligence, for whilst the "experts" might be doing a good job, the wider populace has to be able to correct their mistakes. So we hope that for every nut who makes a truly awful reading of some moral issue, there are hundreds around who can come up with a better reading and then let the best ideas compete and spread. And as more people are exposed to more ideas, they (hopefully) become smarter.
For example, many people have the notion that there is something "wrong" with life, and so they turn to religion, on that basic belief that life is "wrong", and so some end up wanting something "pure" and "holy" which, by definition, is not part of normal life, because normal life is "bad". That then leads to them coming up with ludicrous fantasies about what is "pure". So they come up with their "pure" idea, and they notice then that 99.999% of people will think they are wrong, and really, the more people say you're wrong, the more "pure" your ideas seem to be, so you must be on the right track to being the chosen one.
The idea that you have to declare life "bad" and then toil and suffer to "achieve" purity and salvation, is pernicious and a key assumption of the monotheistic religions, and some other ones also. Yet also an idea that is very easily undone:
Consider the lilies of the field...
Nope. Not at all.
Anyone who thinks that Islaam is sweetness and light and peace and is willing to coexist with other religions should open a fucking history book.
What would you update them to? Secular philosophy has zero consensus on the most basic ethical questions after trying for 2500 years.
And yes, we are applying ours current to the times. You know this. You just lie and claim we don't, and only you are advocating "1.0" for the schizophrenic purposes of attacking them. Which, is odd, since 100% of the norms you have you got from theism by cultural assimilation, which you then deny the source of, and you have no defensible objective source of your own. Atheism never has come up with anything of it's own, never will, and frankly, that's exactly what you want. You'd no more follow a non-Christian set of ethics than you would a Christian one. You want your moral code to be synonymous with whatever your whims are at the moment. I'll believe otherwise as soon as a concerted attempt is made to come up with... anything, as an alternative.
Religion, also, assimilated from other sources, and humans have, over the aeons, developed their ability, whether that individual belonged to a religion or not.
The religious often like to say that their reason led them religion, so you see, our ability to see the value in some moral teaching, is linked to our capacity to reason. And our capacity to reason has slowly developed, and it has developed over a much longer timespan, it actually predates the major religions. That's where our morality "comes from". It all arose together, and so I don't think you can just separate one area (religion) from the rest of society and claim that it was only religion which drove things.
Consider, I can't actually feel the pain another person feels, especially if they are living on the other side of the world and I have never met them. But I can perform a cognitive trick, and I can ask myself rationally, "If I was them, would I be suffering?"
That's the Golden Rule, and it is very old rule. The key is that it relies on our ability to rationally ask a question which then leads to an imaginary leap of empathy.
I can't feel what it is like to be that person, in their shoes, but I can rationally pose the question, and then consciously bring it up in my imagination, to try to see a story, about what I might be feeling if I was that other person. Cognition is key.
And cognition is hard. Over time we gradually learnt to apply that rule to more people. We didn't used to apply it to slaves, you know, the slaves who had very religious owners. Did religion stop slavery? Doesn't look like it. No, we gradually applied the golden rule, rationally, to more and more situations. Today we use it even when imaging the biosphere.
So atheists, insofar as they have a brain, can very well think about morality and ethics and come up with answers, and our answers today are better than the typical answer you got 2000 years ago. Which isn't to say that a Buddha or a Jesus or a Lao Tzu couldn't still best us today, but they were ahead of their time.
Of course, thinking rationally about ethical problems, is hard. It is hard to try to act in the interests of the whole world. And so people can and do disagree. But that doesn't mean it is hopelessly relative and self-indulgent. Humanity is gradually pulling itself up to become better. Now, this doesn't preclude an afterlife and so on, but we have almost NO evidence for such, and all the major religions disagree on this anyway, some say you have original sin, some say you have your previous karma, some say you can be saved, some say you can only save yourself, and so on, so until we get some real evidence, we are simply having to make do with not knowing.
And that's ok, because maybe, if you wonder that there is more to life, maybe us not knowing is part of the situation, and you'll be tested at the end, and maybe they'll ask, so what did you think of the golden rule, did you use it much?
Which fucking planet are you on?
You've been around long enough that you can not claim to never have heard or seen those foaming-at-the-mouth televangelists or heard the American politicians pandering to the so-called bible belt. They point to "God's word" as being the law every fucking day.
Only a moron would infer someone's beliefs from the videos they watch.
Hogwash. Not only do the majority of Muslims* protest against Islamic* terrorism, they are the main target of that terrorism. Not only have they had their reformation, the majority adheres to that reformed form.
Wahhabism* is a form of Islam* that goes against the mainstream.
(* guess what)
Religion goes against western values. And your comment that idiots think they are right because they think they are right is (while obvious) not saying much.
So, because the most vocal and visible fundamentalist jackasses these days are Protestant, the Catholic church therefore was right all along? Do you realize that this "good idea" you speak of (not letting the common man form his own opinion) involved killing people if they were caught possessing a Bible written in English?
So, um, were the Inquisition and the Crusades glorious examples of Catholic non-fundamentalism keeping home-grown Puritanism at bay? And there is also the tiny matter of those millions of highly influential Catholic fascists in the early to mid 20th century...
It's should be blindingly obvious that the only reason the Catholic church has become more tolerant was because they have been long losing power in the face of both expanding Protestantism and the Enlightenment. It should also be obvious that as disturbing as today's Protestant fundamentalists are, they are not 1/10 as terrifying as the Catholic church was a few hundred years ago.
It was extremely interesting to visit Prague and visit the Jewish area to read the history. The Jews were constantly being segregated into their own towns or areas in cities and not able to have very many jobs. Since Money Handling was against the law for Christians, the Jews became money lenders, bankers, etc. And in reading the historical plaques and documents, you can see how that 'The Final Solution' was just the culmination of years of persecution and segregation.
Very enlightening.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
How does your "personal belief" explain the millionaire Osama bin Laden, the computer programmer "Jihadi John", the hijackers with Ph.D.s who flew jets into the World Trade Center, the millions upon millions of dollars funneled into building rockets and tunnels in Gaza, etc. ?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the large majority of terrorists are impoverished. It is clear that they are not the ones we really need to worry about. The rich are doing the most damage, and they don't even have to use the poor as pawns in the process--they are quite willing to walk away from their westernized lives of luxury and either blow themselves up or go live in a cave.
Not only have they had their reformation, the majority adheres to that reformed form.
Their religion still says they should forcibly convert nonbelievers. That's not a reformation. Their religion still insists on theocracy. That's not a reformation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm so glad you managed to overcome the side effects of being stoned to death.
I got better.
Dark Reflection
As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) just 2% rapists prosecuted/punished by Courts in India;
http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2011/...
http://www.change.org/p/indepe...
Casteism
"If all of them were slain, I would not weep a single tear." WTF Man are you insane? Psychopath? Inhuman? Inhumane?
WTF is wrong with America? How did you get so broken? Your so worried that you might be judged for being soft on Muslims that you feel compelled to state that you wouldn't care if they were all slain? The USA is around the bend full on crazy nut bar broken. For your own sake and the rest of the civilized world, get therapy.
Thank you for showcasing your ignorance and prejudice.
It is in no way incompatible with "western values" as "western values" covers a very large spectrum, and even so Muslims are by their very faith not allow to impose their views on others. They are also not allowed to go murder or harm others with differing views.
Now, are there some people, organizations and agencies that brainwash people do hurt others and say they do so in the name of religion? Yes, but those who do so are also committing a sin from the perspective of the religion's actual teachings. It is a disservice to not note the difference.
Wow you're ignorant.
Up until a few hundred years ago, while Europe was in the dark ages, Muslim societies were open, progressive, tolerant and quite liberal (don't bother comparing to what liberal means today, that would be a disservice and incredibly foolish). Point being, they were *very* advanced for their time, especially when compared to their European contemporaries.
One of the main reasons cited by Muslim historians for the success of those societies was that those Muslims viewed seeking knowledge and educating themselves for the betterment of society as worship - it was part and parcel of their faith.
Today, most Muslim societies have forgotten their rich history in the aftermath of colonialism. Yes, as much as colonialism apologists may try to deny it, colonialism is 90% of the cause of the current state of affairs. The remaining 10% being the people who find themselves at the top of society deliberately trying to keep the rest of it crippled to maintain their position.
I know a guy (a Muslim) from Pakistan. He said that he never really understood Islam before he moved to the US, since in Pakistan it was primarily codified tribal beliefs and prejudices loosely wrapped in the Koran.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're overgeneralizing. There's tens of millions of Christians in the US who believe that the Bible is literally true, and that Christian morality (or, rather, their version of it, which AFAICT differs from what Jesus said) should be enshrined in law. This is not a tiny subset, particularly as (unlike most Christians) they tend to be politically active about enforcing their beliefs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Like most wars, the causes for the Crusades were pretty complex, and not limited to the desire to protect pilgrims.
Also, you'll find that plenty of winners hold on to grudges, particularly when they were invaded in the first place. China and the Soviet Union won WWII, France won WWI, and so on back. It didn't stop them bitching about the Japanese and Germans.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They don't make religions of peace like they used to.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
How does your "personal belief" explain the millionaire Osama bin Laden, the computer programmer "Jihadi John", the hijackers with Ph.D.s who flew jets into the World Trade Center, the millions upon millions of dollars funneled into building rockets and tunnels in Gaza, etc. ?
It is true that many terrorists are highly educated by the socialist college systems, but unable to be employed because of the lack of industry in the socialist Arab countries.
But you also allude to the large amount of government money spent on AQ/ISIS by Arab socialist governments and of course Hamas by Iran.
malcolm x was a racist bastard, no better than a grand wizard. Why would any sane person want to associate themselves with him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
He was a racist bastard, something he came to greatly regret before his assassinate. Seeing whites and blacks praying together in Mecca, and seeing white struggles for black freedom in Northern Africa made him retract his earlier statements about how whites and blacks could never be at peace together.
How about Turkey then? Turkey is a secular Islamic state. You can blame the current situation in the Middle East to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which has a similar relation to Turkey as the Soviet Union has to Russia.
After World War I, the European powers, including Britain and France, dismembered the Ottoman Empire. Non-political religious movements were encouraged since they were seen as less of threat than progressive political movements. So instead of fostering a sort of Arab Renaissance, fundamentalist strains of Islam were tolerated so long as they didn't clamor for their own nation-state independent from their European bureaucratic overlords.
In practical terms the Arabs were free to kill each other so long as no Europeans were harmed, and their sectarian conflicts didn't blow up into a full-scale anti-government uprising. Who knows, maybe their Christian overlords actually used them as divide-and-rule tools of state-craft to supress the rise of a united revolutionary front.
Thank you for showcasing your ignorance and prejudice.
It is in no way incompatible with "western values" as "western values" covers a very large spectrum, and even so Muslims are by their very faith not allow to impose their views on others. They are also not allowed to go murder or harm others with differing views.
Funny thing though. Comedians make fun of Christians and their God and everyone's cool. Comedians make fun of Budhism, or Judaism, or Hinduism and everyone's cool. Draw a picture of Mohammad(pbuh) though and Islamic Scholars publish fatwah's calling for the artists death and riots break out in Muslim countries around the world.
Now, are there some people, organizations and agencies that brainwash people do hurt others and say they do so in the name of religion? Yes, but those who do so are also committing a sin from the perspective of the religion's actual teachings. It is a disservice to not note the difference.
You seem to be under the argument that westernized Muslim values are the only one and true version of Islam. The Sunni sect alone vastly outnumbers them. The Shia sect alone vastly outnumbers them. Regrettably the Sunni and Shia leadership is full of guys supporting anti-blasphemy laws. Even worse, the number of Sunni and Shia religious leaders lobbying for violence against Shia/Sunni is significant.
I totally agree you present a pretty fair version of westernized Islamic people. You are mistaken though to present that as the one true Islam. The vast majority of self identified muslims fall under Sunni or Shia theologies and the majority of teachers in those sects are absolutely at odds with western values like freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Yes, but a Jewish state does exist. I would bet that many Palestinians might disagree that global statistics make Jewish violence irrelevant. Anyway I don't totally disagree, i'm just playing devils advocate.
Ah, there you go again with your generalizing hate rant and oversimplification of the situation. You've brought nothing of value to help improve the lives of those people and their development.
Your choice to ignore the social and historical context what has caused their present state does a huge disservice to their struggles for progress. You don't just flip a switch an cause societies to change, and ranting about what's wrong with them only creates antagonism and stifles progress. But then again, maybe that's what you want.
As for the Muslim people, they are a spectrum just like any other group (and the vast majority of "westernized", whatever that means, Muslims are either Sunni or Shia, which are also full of a huge spectrum).
And yes, the vast majority of them and their leaders are *not* wackos. The problem is that the wackos are the ones that get media attention.
Again, you're so keen on painting them as "the Other"... this is typical for those part of the propaganda machine used to justify undermining, oppressing and exploiting of "the Other", makes sense given the amount of resources in their lands and their leaders willing to make deals so they can stay in power. All you've said just shows that you're a willingly or unwittingly a part of that propaganda machine
Wait, wait, so you're going to say you're not? Well then! Where's your interest in bridge building and resolution of problems. As I mentioned in:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
the people there have *real* problems for which there are real solutions (oppose foreign aid for governments, support development of education and clean water, support education for girls and the poor, etc).
Please stop this endless negative ranting of yours.
Ah, so looks like BCGlorfindel found someone to help.
I'm simply pointing our the idiocy in his/her posts. And "oooh, no! A grammatical mistake, we must stop reading at once!", really?
Read the other comments if you want to find that info. Again, it's not a new tactic. You should know better than to assume that such tactics would no longer be uses.
As for hunting down and providing links to everything, sorry but I have a life. I'm not going to hold your hand to find this info. If you're inherently biased there's no point, and if you're not then go look it up yourself. It matters not to me because that isn't the actual point to my posts.
The only reason for my posting is to say "why engage in promoting, typically false, negative views and outlooks? Why not use those energies to find solutions to improve things for others?". So what are you interested in? Just trolling and hating? Or will you be a better person and think of ways to make things better?
You don't just flip a switch an cause societies to change, and ranting about what's wrong with them only creates antagonism and stifles progress.
Unless you invoke colonialism. A colonial society can change other societies at the flip of a switch like they did with the entire Ottoman empire in your narrative. And of course, ranting about what's wrong with the colonial propaganda machine as you do is another exception where presumably it will lead to more than antagonism and stifling of progress? Eat your own before you expect me too.
the people there have *real* problems for which there are real solutions (oppose foreign aid for governments, support development of education and clean water, support education for girls and the poor,
I'm gonna take 'there' as Pakistan since that is our context. I agree the people there are facing real problems, I've listed more of them than you have, and you just complain about it being negativity.
Sabeen Mahmud was working on real solutions, until she was killed for it. Giving some attention to that seems helpful.
Shabaz Bhatti was working on real solutions, until he was killed for it. Giving some attention to that seems helpful.
Salmaan Taseer was working on real solutions until he was killed for it. Giving some attention to that seems helpful.
Benazir Bhutto was working on real solutions until she was killed for it. Giving some attention to that seems helpful.
Lubna Mahmood was working on real solutions until she was killed for it. Giving some attention to that seems helpful.
Abdul Hafeez Qazi was working on real solutions until he was killed for it. Giving some attention to that seems helpful.
Malala Yousef is working on real solutions, but can't return because the first assassination attempt on her nearly succeeded and others are sure to follow.
The list here could go on and on.
UNICEF is working on real solutions in Pakistan, but they have lost dozens of workers in the last 5 years to violence.
Teachers and schools in Pakistan are working on real solutions, but hundreds of teachers and students are being killed each year, and not as collateral damage, but as the intended targets of extremist violence.
I rally here for the lives and efforts of all these people and you want to cry about how it's only putting attention on the killers? You should be ashamed.
Your paragraph regarding invoking colonialism is nonsensical since colonialism is one root cause of the current situation. It isn't what's currently wrong, it's a why.
As for your rallying for the lives and efforts of the people trying to improve things, you only mentioned that now once I prompted you, prior to that would were just ranting.
And once more, nice try! You're trying to combine an convoluted the poor guys who got caught up and killed with the blasphemy issue (these are the relatively rare occurrences) with those killed by violence otherwise (which is, sadly, very frequent).
Yes, a lot of people who work on real solutions there have been killed by wackos. This is a sad fact.
As for your Where you and I disagree is who is behind these tragedies and what their agendas may be. You give an over simplified answer of "crazy radical extremists", whereas I say there's a combination of brainwashed morons, mercenaries and revenge bent blackwidows organized by power brokers who have agendas. But whatever, if you're not ready to accept that reality is that complicated then there's no convincing you.
However, can we at least agree that whoever these monsters are, they need to be stopped? Can we also agree that those who are trying to develop education, clean water, etc there should be supported? If we can agree on this then that's all that's really relevant, and good day to you.