True, but that is not the way it should be. Justice should be blind to money and power as it is to all else except the facts relevant to the case at hand. Arguably, any system where it isn't blind to money and power is a long way from perfect.
This blatant and unapologetic nature of this decision, and others of a similar outcome, point to the particularly greedy and corrosive nature of our system of capitalism. We value money so much that we do not even attempt to disguise the fact that it can buy you out of anything. The rules are different for the rich in America, and we don't care who knows it.
Good points, but I still don't understand the opposite argument that you present, that God always existing and creating the Universe is a simpler explanation than "The Universe just popped into existence." I mean, I understand that from a common sense point of view, things don't just pop into existence. But from a common sense point of view, Gods don't just go around existing eternally, either.
Personally, I think the idea of God comes from our ability to model the Universe in our heads. For that model to work, it must contain a model of us. In that model, we are separate from the universe. Our model is out of balance: bad things happen to good people and so on. So we need to come up with something to balance things out, lest we feel that, not only are we alone and separate from the Universe, but the Universe is cruel and arbitrary.
There are two basic tactics to take at this point: impersonal karma or a personal creator God. Buddhism takes a completely different tack: the initial model we've constructed is incorrect, there is no separate self, and thus no need for balance.
Again, the people who innovate at auto repair or farming must be balanced by the people who don't think about it, but just do what they've been told works.
Honestly, would you rather take your broken car to the innovator who is going to try all kinds of new things on it, or the guy who is just going to do what the repair manual tells him?
Fortunately, you don't have to choose. Most good repair shops have a bunch of guys who can whip out the easy stuff without getting bored, and one or two guys who can handle the challenging cases, but would slit their own throats if they had to do the same damn thing every day.
Is my premise clearer now? Do you see why evolution might have set up the human population with a certain large percentage of less imaginative, less innovative, in a word, stupid people?
Even so, using Occam's razor, the set containing option 1 and 3 is more likely than the set containing option 2 and 4, because the latter set is actually a more complex extension of the first, and given two possibilities with no other way to judge, the least complex option is more likely.
Nothing contains everything. It is a complete lack of definition and boundaries. That is a definition, and therefore does not apply to nothing. Therefore, lacking all definitions and boundaries, it must also contains all possible definitions and boundaries.
You aren't familiar with nothing, you are familiar with the lack of something, which is very, very different. Nothing doesn't lack anything, nor does it have anything.
As soon as you say anything about nothing, that is false, because you have defined it and by extension its opposite, and now it is something, not nothing.
You are stuck in dualistic, subject/object thinking. You can never understand the true void while you still think that you are you, separate from the Universe around you. You are not a little man inside your head, listening through your ears and seeing through your eyes. The sense of self is another sense, like smell or thought. Like the sound track printed on a film strip, your sense of self is just another track in the recording.
You aren't what you think you are, and this certainly isn't what you think it is.
Do you deny my basic premise? Do you really think that every genius in the world would have superior survival skills, given the right upbringing? Isn't part of genius the predisposition to think about things others aren't? And therefore, don't you need others to think about the things you aren't?
Maybe you just believe that excellence is universal, that real genius will be good at everything. I don't think that's true. Take me for example, I'm very smart but also very forgetful and absent minded. I know that I have a lot to offer but I also know that, by myself, I'm kind of incomplete as a person. Having others around, I could trade my smarts for their organizational or hunting skills. I think evolution optimizes for this, giving some people a focus on more abstract things and others a focus on more concrete things, such as approaching lions or tasty gazelles to hunt.
Actually, that has been shown to be not nearly as dangerous. Something about the fact that your attention is still focused on something in the immediate environment, and the person you are talking to can react to that same environment, as in, "AAAAaahhh! We're gonna die!"
Physically? Yeah, I guess so. Stupid people are such a turnoff to me it really doesn't matter how physically hot they are. I've only had sex with a hot-but-dumb person once, and maybe this is just sour grapes, but the experience was unpleasant. Well, the experience itself was pleasant, but afterwards I felt kind of revolted and just wanted to get her out of my house as quickly as possible.
Heh, reading that last paragraph, I can imagine most guys going "Yeah, so? That's normal, dude!" I guess I'm not normal that way, I like all that girly talking and cuddling afterwards.
We need stupid people. Stupid people do what they are told to do by their society. Most of the time, this is what has worked for their ancestors and will still work for them. This provides a surplus upon which all innovation and excellence is based. Without stupid people, you'd have everyone innovating all the time and not doing what works. The problem with innovation is that, much of the time, it fails.
Einstein, alone in the jungle without a bunch of "stupid" people around to take up the slack and focus on the environment, would likely be too distracted thinking abstract thoughts to notice the lion creeping up on him. It takes all kinds to make our world work. Remember that the next time you want to off a group of people that evolution has, so far, kept around in the gene pool in relatively large numbers.
This morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes. She was driving erratically, speeding up and slowing down, veering outside her lane, and cutting people off. Then I noticed that she had her rear-view mirror tilted so she could see herself, and she appeared to be doing her hair and makeup while driving.
That is unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is currently against the law, and it covers more than just cell phones and crackberries. It is no more enforced than any new law against one specific type of unsafe driving would be. Why don't we just enforce the laws we have instead of making new ones that will also only be conditionally enforced?
Kind of like kickbacks. Basically, company A and B do business together. Company B wants to advertise. Company A says, "mention that your product uses our product, and do it in a specific way that we like, and, because you are advertising for us, we will help cover the cost of the advertising." For example, the "Windows-ready" and "Intel inside" campaigns are both covered under co-marketing agreements.
You forgot telephone handset sanitizer. Do you have any idea what happens when you get rid of all your telephone handset sanitizers? Hah! You'll wish there really was a giant space goat.
Thirded. KSR and Bob Forward, the first two authors I thought of in regards to hard Sci-Fi. I mean sure, there's Asimov for the old-schoolers, and Bear, and Benford. But for really good science, nobody beats Bob Forward. And for good science plus non-cardboard-cutout characters (Sorry Bob!) Kim Stanley Robinson.
Fascinating. You'd think the article would mention this older technology. The difference seems to be the use of pure alcohol rather then water or a water/alcohol mix. But the basic principle is the same, and it doesn't seem like much of a leap to move to pure alcohol.
Oh, and the article you linked does say that water injection has been used on production cars, Chrysler and Saab, to be specific. It says that interest in the technology has waned after the introduction of the intercooler.
I said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore unless you apologized and stopped being rude, which you haven't, so I'll keep this brief. You are trying to prove assertions about an entire faith with circumstantial, anecdotal evidence. You need to present a preponderance of evidence to support your position. All I need to do, and what I've done, is provide enough counterexamples to call your thesis into question.
You might want to stop obsessing about other people's faith and look to your own. You are a very poor example of a Christian. Do you deny being a Christian? A faith, by the way, that advocates killing people who wear fabric made of two materials, whoring your daughters out to prevent being raped, and genocide.
Good points. Except the bit about Iran, their current president notwithstanding. Persians tend to be a bit different than others in the region.
Spirituality is neutral. Organized religion has always been more about power than a personal relationship with the divine. No one needs a priest to know God, or the Universe, or whatever you want to call it.
I am well aware of the more tolerant branches of Christianity. To be honest, religion is a positive force in most of the lives it touches. However, I think other institutions not based on power and control (such as many of the branches of Buddhism or Taoism, which, without a focus on the divine I hesitate to call "religions.") would serve as well if not better, and would not have the many down sides of organized religion.
Would I outlaw religion? Never. It would be counterproductive for one thing. And without something to take its place, it would do more harm than good.
Yeah, we've been keeping ethanol in a separate tank from gasoline and injecting it separately and directly into the cylinders to cool them and prevent knock forever. Riiiiight.
You should really read the article before making snide comments meant to demonstrate your superior knowledge of a topic.
I tried to find where in the Quran it says that it is okay to lie to unbelievers. I even went to some scary anti-Islamic sites. It seems to be a common perception, but I can't find a passage or verse. Nowhere. Nothing. Care to provide a reference?
To be honest, many of the things I've read or heard about Islam scare me. But people lie and slander all the time, especially about other people's faith, so I really don't know what to believe. So much of Islam is interpretation, and there are so many different interpretations. As for me personally, I've never gotten a creepy vibe off of anyone involved with Islam, but I haven't had many dealings with Muslims.
Do you think mentioning that slippery eel Clinton will sway me somehow? Demicans and Republocrats both pad their cronies pockets at our expense. Just one question: where's the 12 billion?
Amusing. You accuse me of ranting, when your whole post reeks of pent up rage, smug disdain, and glee at my impending humiliation at your hands. Would Jesus act like you are acting?
How is a question about drivers licenses in Iran or Iraq irrelevant while a question about drivers licenses in Saudi Arabia is?
I mention the split between Sunni and Shia because Sunni account for 85% of Muslims, and are far more tolerant and less radical. That is an important point. Sunnis think Imams should be elected, not appointed by God.
As for female genital mutilation, it might surprise you to know that Christians as well as tribal traditionalists in Africa practice it as well, so it is not unique to Islam, rather it seems unique to Africa.
The men who rule Islam didn't make the decision about women and property, that's in the Quran. God gave women inalienable rights that may not be infringed on by any man. You do know there are women Imams, right? There are still plenty of Christian groups that won't allow women priests. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey are all Muslim-majority countries and have all had women leaders. The US, a Christian-majority country, hasn't.
As women could not own property in most places in the world when Islam was founded, your argument there falls flat.
A piece of advice: don't trust everything you read on blogs. I know next to nothing about Islam, but it took me under half an hour to find plenty of material to refute your arguments with.
In short, although you seem to think you are presenting a strong case, you are not. No amount of bravado and insults will make your case any stronger. Unless you apologize, I'm done discussing anything with you as you simply don't know how to hold a civilized discussion.
Not all Muslims follow that practice. Most likely, you are talking about Shi'ites who account for 15% of all Muslims. If that is how you think, I would caution you to be equally wary of Christians.
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I caught you with guile" (2 Corinthians 12:16).
"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:19-22).
That seems to say you can lie to people to convert them to Christianity. Ah, good old Saul of Tarsus, ever the politician.
Religions suck. All of them, to a greater or lesser degree.
I don't even know where to start with this ignorant bullshit. You ignore the difference between Sunni and Shia, you ignore the fact that there are Muslim Republics and have been since the beginning. You ignore my question: how many women in Iran and Iraq have drivers licenses?
Women are not property in Islam, and can in fact own property themselves. And they can divorce their husbands.
Where in the Quaran or the Hadiths does it say anything about female genital mutilation? That was a (disgusting) cultural practice in the region before Islam was even invented.
From that very link you gave: "Of British Muslims taking part in the poll, 77% said the rise of Islamic extremism worried them." Hmmm, that doesn't support your thesis so of course you'd leave it out.
Dipshit. This is so like you. You want to come across as tolerant, so you never post your hate filled rants from your real account, always as AC. You are the one with no balls, a whiny little baby who has to hide in shadows and call people names.
Personally, I think all religions are fucked, and fucking us. I just don't choose to single out Islam.
Okay, Mr. AC please explain the difference between Sunni and Shia, and tell us what percentage of Muslims belong to each. Next, we'd like to know which Muslims want to ban the St. George flag and why. Finally, explain why ANYONE would want to move to the west except to change it, then explain why Muslims would not have that exact same motivation.
Well, I know you won't so I will. Sunni represent 85% of Muslims and believe that Imams should be elected, not appointed by God. Not many Muslims want to ban the flag, it appears, only those in prisons where prison guards are wearing it as a pin in order to insult Muslims because it is a symbol of the Crusades. People want to move to the west for its freedom and economic opportunity, both of which apply to Muslims.
Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps the people who really, really want you to hate Muslims might have an economic incentive? As long as people focus their anger on other oppressed peoples, the real oppressors have nothing to fear.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but that is not the way it should be. Justice should be blind to money and power as it is to all else except the facts relevant to the case at hand. Arguably, any system where it isn't blind to money and power is a long way from perfect.
This blatant and unapologetic nature of this decision, and others of a similar outcome, point to the particularly greedy and corrosive nature of our system of capitalism. We value money so much that we do not even attempt to disguise the fact that it can buy you out of anything. The rules are different for the rich in America, and we don't care who knows it.
2.0 is so 1.0 these days, isn't it time to move on to 3.0 yet?
Good points, but I still don't understand the opposite argument that you present, that God always existing and creating the Universe is a simpler explanation than "The Universe just popped into existence." I mean, I understand that from a common sense point of view, things don't just pop into existence. But from a common sense point of view, Gods don't just go around existing eternally, either.
Personally, I think the idea of God comes from our ability to model the Universe in our heads. For that model to work, it must contain a model of us. In that model, we are separate from the universe. Our model is out of balance: bad things happen to good people and so on. So we need to come up with something to balance things out, lest we feel that, not only are we alone and separate from the Universe, but the Universe is cruel and arbitrary.
There are two basic tactics to take at this point: impersonal karma or a personal creator God. Buddhism takes a completely different tack: the initial model we've constructed is incorrect, there is no separate self, and thus no need for balance.
"I heard-"
"No, I'm Hurd!"
"Hilarious, are you done?"
"No, I'm Dunn, he's Hurd!"
"Okay, what has he heard?"
At this point, I'm willing to bet everyone reading this is glad that none of the participants in this farce is named Watt...
Again, the people who innovate at auto repair or farming must be balanced by the people who don't think about it, but just do what they've been told works.
Honestly, would you rather take your broken car to the innovator who is going to try all kinds of new things on it, or the guy who is just going to do what the repair manual tells him?
Fortunately, you don't have to choose. Most good repair shops have a bunch of guys who can whip out the easy stuff without getting bored, and one or two guys who can handle the challenging cases, but would slit their own throats if they had to do the same damn thing every day.
Is my premise clearer now? Do you see why evolution might have set up the human population with a certain large percentage of less imaginative, less innovative, in a word, stupid people?
Even so, using Occam's razor, the set containing option 1 and 3 is more likely than the set containing option 2 and 4, because the latter set is actually a more complex extension of the first, and given two possibilities with no other way to judge, the least complex option is more likely.
Nothing contains everything. It is a complete lack of definition and boundaries. That is a definition, and therefore does not apply to nothing. Therefore, lacking all definitions and boundaries, it must also contains all possible definitions and boundaries.
You aren't familiar with nothing, you are familiar with the lack of something, which is very, very different. Nothing doesn't lack anything, nor does it have anything.
As soon as you say anything about nothing, that is false, because you have defined it and by extension its opposite, and now it is something, not nothing.
You are stuck in dualistic, subject/object thinking. You can never understand the true void while you still think that you are you, separate from the Universe around you. You are not a little man inside your head, listening through your ears and seeing through your eyes. The sense of self is another sense, like smell or thought. Like the sound track printed on a film strip, your sense of self is just another track in the recording.
You aren't what you think you are, and this certainly isn't what you think it is.
Do you deny my basic premise? Do you really think that every genius in the world would have superior survival skills, given the right upbringing? Isn't part of genius the predisposition to think about things others aren't? And therefore, don't you need others to think about the things you aren't?
Maybe you just believe that excellence is universal, that real genius will be good at everything. I don't think that's true. Take me for example, I'm very smart but also very forgetful and absent minded. I know that I have a lot to offer but I also know that, by myself, I'm kind of incomplete as a person. Having others around, I could trade my smarts for their organizational or hunting skills. I think evolution optimizes for this, giving some people a focus on more abstract things and others a focus on more concrete things, such as approaching lions or tasty gazelles to hunt.
Actually, that has been shown to be not nearly as dangerous. Something about the fact that your attention is still focused on something in the immediate environment, and the person you are talking to can react to that same environment, as in, "AAAAaahhh! We're gonna die!"
Physically? Yeah, I guess so. Stupid people are such a turnoff to me it really doesn't matter how physically hot they are. I've only had sex with a hot-but-dumb person once, and maybe this is just sour grapes, but the experience was unpleasant. Well, the experience itself was pleasant, but afterwards I felt kind of revolted and just wanted to get her out of my house as quickly as possible.
Heh, reading that last paragraph, I can imagine most guys going "Yeah, so? That's normal, dude!" I guess I'm not normal that way, I like all that girly talking and cuddling afterwards.
We need stupid people. Stupid people do what they are told to do by their society. Most of the time, this is what has worked for their ancestors and will still work for them. This provides a surplus upon which all innovation and excellence is based. Without stupid people, you'd have everyone innovating all the time and not doing what works. The problem with innovation is that, much of the time, it fails.
Einstein, alone in the jungle without a bunch of "stupid" people around to take up the slack and focus on the environment, would likely be too distracted thinking abstract thoughts to notice the lion creeping up on him. It takes all kinds to make our world work. Remember that the next time you want to off a group of people that evolution has, so far, kept around in the gene pool in relatively large numbers.
This morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes. She was driving erratically, speeding up and slowing down, veering outside her lane, and cutting people off. Then I noticed that she had her rear-view mirror tilted so she could see herself, and she appeared to be doing her hair and makeup while driving.
That is unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is currently against the law, and it covers more than just cell phones and crackberries. It is no more enforced than any new law against one specific type of unsafe driving would be. Why don't we just enforce the laws we have instead of making new ones that will also only be conditionally enforced?
What are "co-marketing funds"? Kickbacks?
Kind of like kickbacks. Basically, company A and B do business together. Company B wants to advertise. Company A says, "mention that your product uses our product, and do it in a specific way that we like, and, because you are advertising for us, we will help cover the cost of the advertising." For example, the "Windows-ready" and "Intel inside" campaigns are both covered under co-marketing agreements.
Co-marketing, marketing together, get it?
You forgot telephone handset sanitizer. Do you have any idea what happens when you get rid of all your telephone handset sanitizers? Hah! You'll wish there really was a giant space goat.
Thirded. KSR and Bob Forward, the first two authors I thought of in regards to hard Sci-Fi. I mean sure, there's Asimov for the old-schoolers, and Bear, and Benford. But for really good science, nobody beats Bob Forward. And for good science plus non-cardboard-cutout characters (Sorry Bob!) Kim Stanley Robinson.
Fascinating. You'd think the article would mention this older technology. The difference seems to be the use of pure alcohol rather then water or a water/alcohol mix. But the basic principle is the same, and it doesn't seem like much of a leap to move to pure alcohol.
Oh, and the article you linked does say that water injection has been used on production cars, Chrysler and Saab, to be specific. It says that interest in the technology has waned after the introduction of the intercooler.
I said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore unless you apologized and stopped being rude, which you haven't, so I'll keep this brief. You are trying to prove assertions about an entire faith with circumstantial, anecdotal evidence. You need to present a preponderance of evidence to support your position. All I need to do, and what I've done, is provide enough counterexamples to call your thesis into question.
You might want to stop obsessing about other people's faith and look to your own. You are a very poor example of a Christian. Do you deny being a Christian? A faith, by the way, that advocates killing people who wear fabric made of two materials, whoring your daughters out to prevent being raped, and genocide.
Good points. Except the bit about Iran, their current president notwithstanding. Persians tend to be a bit different than others in the region.
Spirituality is neutral. Organized religion has always been more about power than a personal relationship with the divine. No one needs a priest to know God, or the Universe, or whatever you want to call it.
I am well aware of the more tolerant branches of Christianity. To be honest, religion is a positive force in most of the lives it touches. However, I think other institutions not based on power and control (such as many of the branches of Buddhism or Taoism, which, without a focus on the divine I hesitate to call "religions.") would serve as well if not better, and would not have the many down sides of organized religion.
Would I outlaw religion? Never. It would be counterproductive for one thing. And without something to take its place, it would do more harm than good.
Yeah, we've been keeping ethanol in a separate tank from gasoline and injecting it separately and directly into the cylinders to cool them and prevent knock forever. Riiiiight.
You should really read the article before making snide comments meant to demonstrate your superior knowledge of a topic.
I tried to find where in the Quran it says that it is okay to lie to unbelievers. I even went to some scary anti-Islamic sites. It seems to be a common perception, but I can't find a passage or verse. Nowhere. Nothing. Care to provide a reference?
To be honest, many of the things I've read or heard about Islam scare me. But people lie and slander all the time, especially about other people's faith, so I really don't know what to believe. So much of Islam is interpretation, and there are so many different interpretations. As for me personally, I've never gotten a creepy vibe off of anyone involved with Islam, but I haven't had many dealings with Muslims.
Do you think mentioning that slippery eel Clinton will sway me somehow? Demicans and Republocrats both pad their cronies pockets at our expense. Just one question: where's the 12 billion?
Amusing. You accuse me of ranting, when your whole post reeks of pent up rage, smug disdain, and glee at my impending humiliation at your hands. Would Jesus act like you are acting?
How is a question about drivers licenses in Iran or Iraq irrelevant while a question about drivers licenses in Saudi Arabia is?
I mention the split between Sunni and Shia because Sunni account for 85% of Muslims, and are far more tolerant and less radical. That is an important point. Sunnis think Imams should be elected, not appointed by God.
As for female genital mutilation, it might surprise you to know that Christians as well as tribal traditionalists in Africa practice it as well, so it is not unique to Islam, rather it seems unique to Africa.
The men who rule Islam didn't make the decision about women and property, that's in the Quran. God gave women inalienable rights that may not be infringed on by any man. You do know there are women Imams, right? There are still plenty of Christian groups that won't allow women priests. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey are all Muslim-majority countries and have all had women leaders. The US, a Christian-majority country, hasn't.
As women could not own property in most places in the world when Islam was founded, your argument there falls flat.
A piece of advice: don't trust everything you read on blogs. I know next to nothing about Islam, but it took me under half an hour to find plenty of material to refute your arguments with.
In short, although you seem to think you are presenting a strong case, you are not. No amount of bravado and insults will make your case any stronger. Unless you apologize, I'm done discussing anything with you as you simply don't know how to hold a civilized discussion.
Not all Muslims follow that practice. Most likely, you are talking about Shi'ites who account for 15% of all Muslims. If that is how you think, I would caution you to be equally wary of Christians.
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I caught you with guile" (2 Corinthians 12:16).
"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:19-22).
That seems to say you can lie to people to convert them to Christianity. Ah, good old Saul of Tarsus, ever the politician.
Religions suck. All of them, to a greater or lesser degree.
I don't even know where to start with this ignorant bullshit. You ignore the difference between Sunni and Shia, you ignore the fact that there are Muslim Republics and have been since the beginning. You ignore my question: how many women in Iran and Iraq have drivers licenses?
Women are not property in Islam, and can in fact own property themselves. And they can divorce their husbands.
Where in the Quaran or the Hadiths does it say anything about female genital mutilation? That was a (disgusting) cultural practice in the region before Islam was even invented.
From that very link you gave: "Of British Muslims taking part in the poll, 77% said the rise of Islamic extremism worried them." Hmmm, that doesn't support your thesis so of course you'd leave it out.
Dipshit. This is so like you. You want to come across as tolerant, so you never post your hate filled rants from your real account, always as AC. You are the one with no balls, a whiny little baby who has to hide in shadows and call people names.
Personally, I think all religions are fucked, and fucking us. I just don't choose to single out Islam.
Okay, Mr. AC please explain the difference between Sunni and Shia, and tell us what percentage of Muslims belong to each. Next, we'd like to know which Muslims want to ban the St. George flag and why. Finally, explain why ANYONE would want to move to the west except to change it, then explain why Muslims would not have that exact same motivation.
Well, I know you won't so I will. Sunni represent 85% of Muslims and believe that Imams should be elected, not appointed by God. Not many Muslims want to ban the flag, it appears, only those in prisons where prison guards are wearing it as a pin in order to insult Muslims because it is a symbol of the Crusades. People want to move to the west for its freedom and economic opportunity, both of which apply to Muslims.
Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps the people who really, really want you to hate Muslims might have an economic incentive? As long as people focus their anger on other oppressed peoples, the real oppressors have nothing to fear.