You sure are quick to name calling. Without shaming and condescension you really don't have much an argument. Let's recap to make sure we both remember correctly.
1) Article about Geometry in Islamic art turned game. 2) post lamenting if it is Islamic if it was stolen during conquest. 3) your whataboutism. 4) my contention of your whataboutism and your shaming and your condescension. 5) you continue shame and condescension.
You put Islam on a pedestal beyond reproach and claim others are the bigots for pointing out history. When it is you who use shame, condescension and hate to shut others out. Did it ever occur to you that "how" Islamic art came to be could matter in a conversation about Islamic art? Do you think the early influences (whether by conquest or not) is relevant? If not then art history should never be studied again. Do those early cultures get any credit to influencing Islamic art? Or are you going to white wash history so you don't have to question a religion that is beyond criticism? After-all, unless you are islamic then you cannot criticize islam according to your ridiculous glass house standard.
Here is a thought, so what if the art was from conquest? How is that different than any other culture?... See, no whataboutism, it derrides the point of OP without shame or condescension, it treats islam as equals to other cultures, and it actually allows for those early influences to be relevant to a conversation about art (you know, art history). Others have responded to OP this way and they are not getting the same ridicule as you.
You suck at conversation. You limit discussion. You contribute more to hatred and bigotry than anything OP said or implied. You are a hate-filled bigot. Get over yourself.
So, in a topic talking about Islam and it's artistic cultural heritage (which does include destruction and theft as you even say) you turn it around to "what about these other cultures!". Bravo. Whataboutism in full force I see.
none of these countries are in any position to criticise the Islamic conquest without answering some very embarrassing questions about their own past.
Why? The topic is about Islam. The past of Islam and how it has influenced the art and culture is the topic. Why can no one mention the reality of what "change in religion" means in that time without feeling your shame and condescension?
By your standard everyone lives in a glass house because the past is horrible compared to today. Does that mean no one can talk of any culture or any past transgression unless it's their own culture? What happens if those in that culture refuse to critizise their past, I guess that means it was all rainbows and unicorn farts, and "just a change in religion" means nothing more than a friendly door knock like this.
I could actually agree with your statement. You are a voice of reason in a sea of turmoil! Even if I disagree with you it's nice to know there is still sanity on the internet with politics.
Obviously, the 'why' they obstructed is important. Whenever I read about that why (ignoring the race baiting) it seems to be a never ending "they started it". I think that is one reason why politics becomes inevitably toxic; people have a score to settle with the other side and there is history of slight. I do it too, it's natural.
I think part of my original point is that the 'why' should be irrelevant to the workings of the government. The 'why' will always change and there has always been a different reason to obstruct. All that means is that the government cannot agree and nothing should be done if no one can agree.
Any president that ignores congress (whether it be obstruction or not) is a bad president. Any president that feels they need to go around the congress to get what they want done is a bad president. By those criteria Obama was a bad president. Even if I agreed with his actions I would still think him a bad president. That goes for any president. Why congress obstructs a president is irrelevant to the fact that congress can obstruct a president making him a lame duck.
Too often we see people treat politics like sports. Well this is one of those instances where democrats are treating it like a sport because "their guy" did what they like in a bad way. It needs to be called out for what it is. Yes, I call it out for Trump and republicans too (he did something similar with ACA penalties iirc ).
I understand fine the concept of governance as well as I understand an independent bicameral congress.
You seem to assume that the only job of congress is to work with the current POTUS to pass the laws that POTUS want. That goes against that whole 'independent' part of congress.
Again, put the shoe on the other foot. If congress stonewalls Trump's agenda, would you be ok with that or would you take the same stance? Inaction by the government during disagreement is a feature not a bug.
You miss the point that if those separate bodies cannot agree for whatever reason then there is inaction. That is a feature not a bug. Many of those GOP were elected to stop Obama's agenda. They were doing the job they were elected to do which is represent their constituents.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If people elect a democratic congress that refuses to work with Trump, is that a good thing? You are dancing around the issue with excuses for Obama as if the only job of congress is to agree with POTUS and pass laws. While technically true (the pass laws part) people can elect stonewalls to stop the president from doing his job.
When does Obama own his own failings? Are you being a benevolent racist by not holding Obama accountable for his actions and excuse everything he has done to be the fault of someone else?
Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him.
It doesn't matter. The president does not write laws and if congress wants a quacking president then they do not have to work with him. That is the point of separate bodies of government. Clinton in the 90's was able to compromise with a GOP congress, why coudln't Obama? Stop making excuses because congress is independent.
he number of executive orders he signed
The number doesn't matter. It's what they did that matters.
Kind of funny you say that when it's only been a few months compared to 8 years. From that I gather it doens't matter if he cured cancer you would still think Trump == Hitler.
making a horrible choice somehow makes everything magically better.
Because democracy. It isn't perfect but it's better than the alternative. That is partially why direct democracy is bad. You sound like you hold a lot of contempt for your fellow citizen. Sad.
they have no choice but to appease him
Uh, it sounds like you haven't been following recent politics but there are plenty of Republican congressmen that do not try to appease him. They have to appease their voters and the most recent real life poll (election) showed that Trump carried a lot of support in their states. What do you expect to happen?
it's tearing them to pieces.
Right... For winning so many elections I am not sure how you can argue that it is tearing them to pieces. Have you followed any GOP politics for any length of time or are you basing that opinion on recent events? The GOP has always had diverse ideologies under it's tent which comes off as internal division and strife to an outsider. To the point, looking at state legislatures and governorship the GOP looks pretty healthy. Do you think the democrats are tearing themselves to pieces when they cannot decide whether Trump == Hitler or trying to make a deal with him? If they make a deal with Hitler then they are just as guilty as he is for the upcoming genocide!
finding ways to blame Obama for everything
As time has passed I learn more about Obama's administration and he did a terrible job in many respects to proper governing. Sure, it wasn't all Obama's fault but Obama wasn't a good president. After 8 years, dissent isn't racist.
So rational with political experience and who understood so much that she lost to probably the worst President in US history. lol.
How is that a good thing? Honestly, that speaks more against her than anything about Trump. He is obviously better at winning the general election than her.
Even if she's as evil as you claim, that would still have made a better president than Trump
Now you are deluding yourself. Trump is probably the worst President in US history because he is stupid, evil or both. You just said that Clinton understood government with experience and campaigned on getting things done. If Clinton was evil and was able to do her evil agenda then that is more dangerous than an idiot or an evil idiot.
It seems impossible to put Clinton in a good light with your comment. Was that your intention?
They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.
A lot of media orgs do but normal lying isn't as effective these days.
Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?
I listen to them most days to and from work. NPR does a better job than some and they don't always do a bad job. TBH, I am too lazy to find you specifics for something I don't care enough about to try and convince someone on/.. You can disregard my opinion if you like.
What relevant facts did NPR omit?
You can tell lies with the truth. Propaganda, manipulation, and deception are more effective with the truth. It reminds me of conspiracy theories; there is always a grain of truth to them which makes them powerful and long lasting. Knowing the fact that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" doesn't help you understand why that fact is irrelevant or why the towers fell. Someone doesn't have to be malicious to spread that lie built entirely of facts.
Forgive me, but getting a few simple facts right or wrong does not address the issue of fake news and susceptibility of lies to both viewers and organizations. Again, you can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
I think you are trying to have a different conversation.
Yes, listen to multiple sources. There are always two sides if there wasn't it wouldn't be controversial, would it?
Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.
For your example, media outlet A reports "many scientific studies show evolution is real". That is not the issue because you wouldn't care if some idiot has a dumb opinion. Someone is taking the position that media B reports "scientists wrong, world 5000 years old" and trying to enact policy based on that opinion. Media outlet A is having an argument with B about person X using B's statement to justify policy. What policy, why and how is it being implemented is the issue. The issue is 1) creationism taught in schools because 2) religious belief of people 3) being forced into schools by the government 4) instead of using science to inform science curricula in schools 5) because religious people feel that evolution is being taught as "fact"** and also 6) parents should be able to decide what education their children receive. In your example, media outlet A and B are both disingenuous to the core issue and making the argument "science vs science deniers" or "the faithful vs the heathen" which makes the whole conversation more toxic because it becomes an Us vs Them. Now, in Us vs Them there is no way to compromise. There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom. People should be able to influence the education their children receive.
** Fact in science is different than a fact for a laymen. The terms being used to argue the positions are even different.
If you can't adequately explain both sides of any controversial issue then you have probably been in an echo chamber.
CNN == FOX == MSNBC == Brietbart == NYT. There is no difference to me. They all can and have reported facts as much as they mislead and conflate opinion or falsities with fact. You can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
NPR is only slightly better but not much. It's nauseating to listen to them. What they report on and how they report on it is very one sided. Too much emotional manipulation. Too many loaded questions. Too many attempts for "gotcha moments" instead of understanding any position. Too many one sided arguments and token opponents. Too many fallacious arguments; strawmen and appeals are the norm.
If you think they are fair and balanced then perhaps you are already in an echo chamber. When I listen to them I don't feel like I am becoming better informed but rather learning talking points from a emotionally manipulative propagandist with an agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
You sure are quick to name calling. Without shaming and condescension you really don't have much an argument. Let's recap to make sure we both remember correctly.
1) Article about Geometry in Islamic art turned game.
2) post lamenting if it is Islamic if it was stolen during conquest.
3) your whataboutism.
4) my contention of your whataboutism and your shaming and your condescension.
5) you continue shame and condescension.
You put Islam on a pedestal beyond reproach and claim others are the bigots for pointing out history. When it is you who use shame, condescension and hate to shut others out. Did it ever occur to you that "how" Islamic art came to be could matter in a conversation about Islamic art? Do you think the early influences (whether by conquest or not) is relevant? If not then art history should never be studied again. Do those early cultures get any credit to influencing Islamic art? Or are you going to white wash history so you don't have to question a religion that is beyond criticism? After-all, unless you are islamic then you cannot criticize islam according to your ridiculous glass house standard.
Here is a thought, so what if the art was from conquest? How is that different than any other culture?... See, no whataboutism, it derrides the point of OP without shame or condescension, it treats islam as equals to other cultures, and it actually allows for those early influences to be relevant to a conversation about art (you know, art history). Others have responded to OP this way and they are not getting the same ridicule as you.
You suck at conversation. You limit discussion. You contribute more to hatred and bigotry than anything OP said or implied. You are a hate-filled bigot. Get over yourself.
lol, communist confirmed.
Is the universe an isolated system?
Therefore the English language shouldn't exist.
Unicorn power == natural gas... It is getting us off oil you insensitive clod!
Whoa, you used the R* word! Tell me about your communist sympathies.
So, in a topic talking about Islam and it's artistic cultural heritage (which does include destruction and theft as you even say) you turn it around to "what about these other cultures!". Bravo. Whataboutism in full force I see.
none of these countries are in any position to criticise the Islamic conquest without answering some very embarrassing questions about their own past.
Why? The topic is about Islam. The past of Islam and how it has influenced the art and culture is the topic. Why can no one mention the reality of what "change in religion" means in that time without feeling your shame and condescension?
By your standard everyone lives in a glass house because the past is horrible compared to today. Does that mean no one can talk of any culture or any past transgression unless it's their own culture? What happens if those in that culture refuse to critizise their past, I guess that means it was all rainbows and unicorn farts, and "just a change in religion" means nothing more than a friendly door knock like this.
Hillary was asked if Harvey Weinstein's behavior reminded her of her husband. She said "close but no cigar".
I'll let myself out now.
I could actually agree with your statement. You are a voice of reason in a sea of turmoil! Even if I disagree with you it's nice to know there is still sanity on the internet with politics.
Obviously, the 'why' they obstructed is important. Whenever I read about that why (ignoring the race baiting) it seems to be a never ending "they started it". I think that is one reason why politics becomes inevitably toxic; people have a score to settle with the other side and there is history of slight. I do it too, it's natural.
I think part of my original point is that the 'why' should be irrelevant to the workings of the government. The 'why' will always change and there has always been a different reason to obstruct. All that means is that the government cannot agree and nothing should be done if no one can agree.
Any president that ignores congress (whether it be obstruction or not) is a bad president. Any president that feels they need to go around the congress to get what they want done is a bad president. By those criteria Obama was a bad president. Even if I agreed with his actions I would still think him a bad president. That goes for any president. Why congress obstructs a president is irrelevant to the fact that congress can obstruct a president making him a lame duck.
Too often we see people treat politics like sports. Well this is one of those instances where democrats are treating it like a sport because "their guy" did what they like in a bad way. It needs to be called out for what it is. Yes, I call it out for Trump and republicans too (he did something similar with ACA penalties iirc ).
I understand fine the concept of governance as well as I understand an independent bicameral congress.
You seem to assume that the only job of congress is to work with the current POTUS to pass the laws that POTUS want. That goes against that whole 'independent' part of congress.
Again, put the shoe on the other foot. If congress stonewalls Trump's agenda, would you be ok with that or would you take the same stance? Inaction by the government during disagreement is a feature not a bug.
You miss the point that if those separate bodies cannot agree for whatever reason then there is inaction. That is a feature not a bug. Many of those GOP were elected to stop Obama's agenda. They were doing the job they were elected to do which is represent their constituents.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If people elect a democratic congress that refuses to work with Trump, is that a good thing? You are dancing around the issue with excuses for Obama as if the only job of congress is to agree with POTUS and pass laws. While technically true (the pass laws part) people can elect stonewalls to stop the president from doing his job.
lol, sure thing. everything is racist according to me.
When does Obama own his own failings? Are you being a benevolent racist by not holding Obama accountable for his actions and excuse everything he has done to be the fault of someone else?
Honestly, I don't care. If the Congress decides that a president will quack then we a have a lame duck president. That is called working as intended.
Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him.
It doesn't matter. The president does not write laws and if congress wants a quacking president then they do not have to work with him. That is the point of separate bodies of government. Clinton in the 90's was able to compromise with a GOP congress, why coudln't Obama? Stop making excuses because congress is independent.
he number of executive orders he signed
The number doesn't matter. It's what they did that matters.
How does it feel to be wrong so much?
If Obama didn't want "his legacy" undone he should have worked with congress instead of acting like a king with a pen and phone.
lol, you mean he hasn't cured cancer so far.
Kind of funny you say that when it's only been a few months compared to 8 years. From that I gather it doens't matter if he cured cancer you would still think Trump == Hitler.
As far as middling, to each their own.
making a horrible choice somehow makes everything magically better.
Because democracy. It isn't perfect but it's better than the alternative. That is partially why direct democracy is bad. You sound like you hold a lot of contempt for your fellow citizen. Sad.
they have no choice but to appease him
Uh, it sounds like you haven't been following recent politics but there are plenty of Republican congressmen that do not try to appease him. They have to appease their voters and the most recent real life poll (election) showed that Trump carried a lot of support in their states. What do you expect to happen?
it's tearing them to pieces.
Right... For winning so many elections I am not sure how you can argue that it is tearing them to pieces. Have you followed any GOP politics for any length of time or are you basing that opinion on recent events? The GOP has always had diverse ideologies under it's tent which comes off as internal division and strife to an outsider. To the point, looking at state legislatures and governorship the GOP looks pretty healthy. Do you think the democrats are tearing themselves to pieces when they cannot decide whether Trump == Hitler or trying to make a deal with him? If they make a deal with Hitler then they are just as guilty as he is for the upcoming genocide!
finding ways to blame Obama for everything
As time has passed I learn more about Obama's administration and he did a terrible job in many respects to proper governing. Sure, it wasn't all Obama's fault but Obama wasn't a good president. After 8 years, dissent isn't racist.
So rational with political experience and who understood so much that she lost to probably the worst President in US history. lol.
How is that a good thing? Honestly, that speaks more against her than anything about Trump. He is obviously better at winning the general election than her.
Even if she's as evil as you claim, that would still have made a better president than Trump
Now you are deluding yourself. Trump is probably the worst President in US history because he is stupid, evil or both. You just said that Clinton understood government with experience and campaigned on getting things done. If Clinton was evil and was able to do her evil agenda then that is more dangerous than an idiot or an evil idiot.
It seems impossible to put Clinton in a good light with your comment. Was that your intention?
*beep*
They seem to resort to normal lying quite regularly.
A lot of media orgs do but normal lying isn't as effective these days.
Can you cite any of the stuff you are describing from NPR?
I listen to them most days to and from work. NPR does a better job than some and they don't always do a bad job. TBH, I am too lazy to find you specifics for something I don't care enough about to try and convince someone on /.. You can disregard my opinion if you like.
What relevant facts did NPR omit?
You can tell lies with the truth. Propaganda, manipulation, and deception are more effective with the truth. It reminds me of conspiracy theories; there is always a grain of truth to them which makes them powerful and long lasting. Knowing the fact that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" doesn't help you understand why that fact is irrelevant or why the towers fell. Someone doesn't have to be malicious to spread that lie built entirely of facts.
Do you have a more recent study?
Forgive me, but getting a few simple facts right or wrong does not address the issue of fake news and susceptibility of lies to both viewers and organizations. Again, you can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
I think you are trying to have a different conversation.
Yes, listen to multiple sources. There are always two sides if there wasn't it wouldn't be controversial, would it?
Sometimes it's a difference in narrative. "AGW is real and backed by science" vs. "The political solutions to combat any environmental impact of humans and the costs involved". There will always be loudmouth idiots on both sides and using only the idiots to represent a position is as much a strawman as lighting hay effigies on fire.
For your example, media outlet A reports "many scientific studies show evolution is real". That is not the issue because you wouldn't care if some idiot has a dumb opinion. Someone is taking the position that media B reports "scientists wrong, world 5000 years old" and trying to enact policy based on that opinion. Media outlet A is having an argument with B about person X using B's statement to justify policy. What policy, why and how is it being implemented is the issue. The issue is 1) creationism taught in schools because 2) religious belief of people 3) being forced into schools by the government 4) instead of using science to inform science curricula in schools 5) because religious people feel that evolution is being taught as "fact"** and also 6) parents should be able to decide what education their children receive. In your example, media outlet A and B are both disingenuous to the core issue and making the argument "science vs science deniers" or "the faithful vs the heathen" which makes the whole conversation more toxic because it becomes an Us vs Them. Now, in Us vs Them there is no way to compromise. There is no problem teaching creationism in school so long as it is not in the science classroom. People should be able to influence the education their children receive.
** Fact in science is different than a fact for a laymen. The terms being used to argue the positions are even different.
If you can't adequately explain both sides of any controversial issue then you have probably been in an echo chamber.
CNN == FOX == MSNBC == Brietbart == NYT. There is no difference to me. They all can and have reported facts as much as they mislead and conflate opinion or falsities with fact. You can tell lies by telling nothing but the truth.
NPR is only slightly better but not much. It's nauseating to listen to them. What they report on and how they report on it is very one sided. Too much emotional manipulation. Too many loaded questions. Too many attempts for "gotcha moments" instead of understanding any position. Too many one sided arguments and token opponents. Too many fallacious arguments; strawmen and appeals are the norm.
If you think they are fair and balanced then perhaps you are already in an echo chamber. When I listen to them I don't feel like I am becoming better informed but rather learning talking points from a emotionally manipulative propagandist with an agenda.
Didn't you know? Since November of 2016 everyone in the US is Russian.