Well, no. If I dismissed a particular bearer of a particular argument as merely motivated by personal psychological issues, yes, that would be the ad hominem fallacy. But merely pointing out that personal psychological issues often underly political positions is simply acknowledging reality.
And of course, it's a matter of degree. Nearly every activist cause has some truth to it. There is plenty of tragedy and need and injustice in the world. But one way the personal psychology comes in is in how someone reacts to these things. Many activists get so emotional, and blow things up so out of proportion, that it's clear that they are upset over more than what they claim to be upset about. When college students have a passionate demonstration because the administration did not condemn "offensive" Halloween costumes, in advance of Halloween, it's obvious that more is going on. No psychologically-balanced person gets upset over Halloween costumes they haven't even seen.
It's also social signaling of one's virtue, and a way of expressing personal psychological issues. Many "activists" are deeply angry and unhappy people, and their fervor is not really about the subject of their activism.
And the other issue is that non-profits have tax advantages, so that move is not so much a repudiation of capitalism as it is a reaction to government action.
You have a very naive view of Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. True, most aren't running around committing mass murder, but that's a bit of a straw many, because scores of polls in many countries over many years prove that significant fractions (and depending on the question and sample, sometimes majorities) support imposition of Sharia law, discrimination against Christians and Jews and gays, death for apostasy, death for blasphemy, and support various Islamic terror groups. Read it and weep.
But radical Islamic groups continue to act violently when it comes to minorities, especially Christians. The groups put Christians, in certain parts of the country, under enormous pressure. Muslim Background Believers are especially targeted. Last year, more than 30 churches of various denominations were forced to close and/or were attacked.
The think-tank found that 4% expressed a positive opinion of the Islamic State (ISIS) and another 9% expressed a "somewhat positive" opinion of the terrorist group.
I'm not overly worried about the fascist meme. It was a brief 20th century phenomenon that was thoroughly crushed 70 years ago, and has had minuscule support since then. Islam, on the other hand, has a billion+ followers, and a significant fraction of them are all in favor of religious violence.
Maybe you could start by opening your home to a Syrian refugee. People fleeing the "death cult" are precisely the sort of people who could do with your help.
That's very idealistic and glib, except that one survey has shown that 13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS. Would you take a 1 in 8 chance that your houseguest wants to kill you? And even the ones who aren't terror-supporters now are still Muslims (mostly), which means they carry the same memetic infection that produced ISIS (and all the other Islamic radical groups). There's a good chance that some of their kids and grandkids will be radicals, as France has learned: many of their "home-grown" radical Islamists are from Algerian families that came to France generations ago.
In short, just because they are refugees doesn't necessarily make them good people.
Sorry, but you and much of the West are being played for suckers. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have plenty of money and room for their co-religionists. They're all part of the ummah, right? But they don't want a bunch of poor and semi-skilled people with a heavy sprinkling of terror-supporters. Why burden their welfare rolls and strain their societies? Better to fob off the refugees on Europe (and the US), where they can spread Islam and soak up Western welfare money. It is a core Muslim belief that the entire Earth will one day be Muslim. The Muslim world is taking advantage of the Syrian war to spread Islam. We are fools to go along with it.
So my problem was paying attention to actual newspaper articles, rather than highly biased sources?
Your problem was to assume that newspapers are not "highly biased sources."
"Little does the public reck how much of the news it devours every day is manufactured by entrepreneurs. Not infrequently, I have detected as much as a whole page of it in the eminent Sunpaper, a journal more suspicious than most: it is far worse in others. One reads that the representative of a national organization is before Congress demanding this or that radical change in the laws, the plain fact is that the national organization consists of its representative -- that the rest of the members are simply dolts who have put up the money for his salary and expenses in order to bathe themselves in the glare of his publicity. One hears that a million children in Abyssinia are starving, that a fund of $5,000,000 is being raised to succor them, that Baltimore's quota is $216.000, the plain fact is that an accomplished drive manager has got a new job. One hears that "the women of the United States" are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust." —from “The Uplift as a Trade" by H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, March 2, 1915
“The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer.” H.L. Mencken
Nevertheless, you have not shown any of these facts to be incorrect.
As for "it wouldn't have happened to a white person," nonsense. It happens to white people all the time. The kid who got in trouble for biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun was white. The college student who got in trouble for having a butter knife in her car (a "weapon on campus") was white. Plus, you are ignoring the fact that this was a stunt. The point was to get arrested and make a stink. That's why the kid did what he did, including plugging it in in class and setting the alarm, even after one teacher had told him to not show it to anyone. And then he was uncooperative with the police. And the famous picture of him with handcuffs was staged: the father insisted the handcuffs by put back on, so that a picture could be taken. Don't take a political stunt at face value.
Because when I look for facts I choose okayafrica, wordpress and breitbart above all.
Well, facts exist in many places. Read the links and judge for yourself. If you find them inaccurate, let us know. But to simply dismiss arguments simply because of who makes them is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
I think it's especially true that valid information on controversial subjects often comes from non-mainstream sources. In this case, most of the media went with the consensus story, something like "Innocent boy is victim of Islamophobia." Only by digging deeper did some people discover the backstory of the family. Surely it is relevant that the father is a political activist, and that having his son be a victim of "Islamophobia" might help in his next campaign for president of Sudan? Surely it's interesting that the sister was expelled from the school district for a bomb threat, and might have a grudge?
I read widely on this and realized that it was likely similar to the "Flying Imams" incident: Some Muslims do things which are technically innocent but calculated to look like a security threat, and then cry "Islamophobia!" when they authorities notice. The whole thing was a stunt.
What I find very curious are the web sites whose home pages are fully and completely written in Flash. If you do not enable flash, you see nothing but a blank page.
The owners of those websites were probably sold a bill of goods for a "cool website" by the same designers who proffered flaming logos 20 years ago....
Or, the web developer thought it was not a good idea, but the client insisted on Flash. She wouldn't listen to me, and now her site is invisible on mobile....
Right, because we all remember the famines we suffered before there were millions of illegals here. And why do you assume that all illegals are in rural areas? Have you been to a California city in recent decades?
Samsung's marketing continues its long tradition of innovation. I swear, if Apple came out with a product called "Apple Sux," within a year there's be a similar product called "Samsung Sux."
The headline is a little clickbait-y, but the article is neutral. how do you associate one headline with the "SJW-side"?
I find your sneer about a "parliament" rather odd. It's not a "bogeyman" to note that people who generally take one side of an ideological issue will... generally take one side of an ideological issue. Yes, there are disagreements within teams, but it's not unfair to make general statements about ideological teams when those teams usually act like teams.
No money is not speech. It's money. Putting a limitation on campaign contribution in no way shape or form limits your speech.
Really? Citizens United was about some people who made a movie about Hillary Clinton. If the government forbids you to spend money on making a film (or publishing a book, putting up a website, or buying an ad, or making a sign, etc.), they are certainly limiting your speech.
And note that even the defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that Citizens United overturned admitted in court that the law would have allowed the government to stop the publication of a book if it was about a candidate. If that isn't suppression of speech, what is?
I think there's a basic error in this approach. It assumes that government can and will run better with "big money" taken out of campaigning. But there's a lot of money given to campaigns for several reasons. The first is that, as Citizens United confirmed, money is speech, and spending money to support a cause or a candidate is at the heart of political expression.
The second reason is perhaps even more basic. When government is huge and has their fingers in every pie, it creates a great deal of motivation to influence those fingers. Campaign contributions are merely a form of lobbying, and lobbying has a standard message: subsidize me and cut my taxes and regulations, but burden my competitors and enemies with taxes and regulations, if not ban them outright.
If you really want to "get money out of politics," you need to (as much as possible) get politics out of the economy. (Ideologues will always lobby, and that's fine, because it's the crony capitalism and pay-to-play aspects that are most objectionable.) Which, of course, is not what many reformers want to do. Until they do, they are basically advocating spreading sugar around their picnic blanket, and then complaining about all the ants.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. If I dismissed a particular bearer of a particular argument as merely motivated by personal psychological issues, yes, that would be the ad hominem fallacy. But merely pointing out that personal psychological issues often underly political positions is simply acknowledging reality.
And of course, it's a matter of degree. Nearly every activist cause has some truth to it. There is plenty of tragedy and need and injustice in the world. But one way the personal psychology comes in is in how someone reacts to these things. Many activists get so emotional, and blow things up so out of proportion, that it's clear that they are upset over more than what they claim to be upset about. When college students have a passionate demonstration because the administration did not condemn "offensive" Halloween costumes, in advance of Halloween, it's obvious that more is going on. No psychologically-balanced person gets upset over Halloween costumes they haven't even seen.
It's also social signaling of one's virtue, and a way of expressing personal psychological issues. Many "activists" are deeply angry and unhappy people, and their fervor is not really about the subject of their activism.
Thank you. Too bad I don't have mod points now.
And the other issue is that non-profits have tax advantages, so that move is not so much a repudiation of capitalism as it is a reaction to government action.
You have a very naive view of Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. True, most aren't running around committing mass murder, but that's a bit of a straw many, because scores of polls in many countries over many years prove that significant fractions (and depending on the question and sample, sometimes majorities) support imposition of Sharia law, discrimination against Christians and Jews and gays, death for apostasy, death for blasphemy, and support various Islamic terror groups. Read it and weep.
As for Syrian refugees specifically, a survey last year by an Arabic group found that 4% have a positive view of ISIS, another 9% have a mostly positive view, and another 10% have only a mostly negative view. So if we get the 10,000 refugees Obama wants, that's 400 who support ISIS, plus 900 who mostly support ISIS, plus 1000 who don't think ISIS is entirely bad. Add to that the fact that 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants are often more radical than the original immigrants, and what could possibly go wrong?
Muslim extremists terrorize Egypt's Coptic Christians
Turkey Suppressing Christian Worship
Christians Flee Bosnia Amid Discrimination, Islamization
Google makes this easy. Indonesia:
Islamic persecution of Christians in Malaysia.
I'm sure he's a total hero with his brave, hip-hop flavored anti-authority [...].
He's not "anti-authority," he just wants to be the authority.
Of course I remember Breivik, but as you say he was one guy. He had no mass support the way Islamic radicals do.
4% + 9% = 13%:
I'm not overly worried about the fascist meme. It was a brief 20th century phenomenon that was thoroughly crushed 70 years ago, and has had minuscule support since then. Islam, on the other hand, has a billion+ followers, and a significant fraction of them are all in favor of religious violence.
That's very idealistic and glib, except that one survey has shown that 13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS. Would you take a 1 in 8 chance that your houseguest wants to kill you? And even the ones who aren't terror-supporters now are still Muslims (mostly), which means they carry the same memetic infection that produced ISIS (and all the other Islamic radical groups). There's a good chance that some of their kids and grandkids will be radicals, as France has learned: many of their "home-grown" radical Islamists are from Algerian families that came to France generations ago.
In short, just because they are refugees doesn't necessarily make them good people.
Sorry, but you and much of the West are being played for suckers. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have plenty of money and room for their co-religionists. They're all part of the ummah, right? But they don't want a bunch of poor and semi-skilled people with a heavy sprinkling of terror-supporters. Why burden their welfare rolls and strain their societies? Better to fob off the refugees on Europe (and the US), where they can spread Islam and soak up Western welfare money. It is a core Muslim belief that the entire Earth will one day be Muslim. The Muslim world is taking advantage of the Syrian war to spread Islam. We are fools to go along with it.
So my problem was paying attention to actual newspaper articles, rather than highly biased sources?
Your problem was to assume that newspapers are not "highly biased sources."
Nevertheless, you have not shown any of these facts to be incorrect.
As for "it wouldn't have happened to a white person," nonsense. It happens to white people all the time. The kid who got in trouble for biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun was white. The college student who got in trouble for having a butter knife in her car (a "weapon on campus") was white. Plus, you are ignoring the fact that this was a stunt. The point was to get arrested and make a stink. That's why the kid did what he did, including plugging it in in class and setting the alarm, even after one teacher had told him to not show it to anyone. And then he was uncooperative with the police. And the famous picture of him with handcuffs was staged: the father insisted the handcuffs by put back on, so that a picture could be taken. Don't take a political stunt at face value.
Because when I look for facts I choose okayafrica, wordpress and breitbart above all.
Well, facts exist in many places. Read the links and judge for yourself. If you find them inaccurate, let us know. But to simply dismiss arguments simply because of who makes them is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
I think it's especially true that valid information on controversial subjects often comes from non-mainstream sources. In this case, most of the media went with the consensus story, something like "Innocent boy is victim of Islamophobia." Only by digging deeper did some people discover the backstory of the family. Surely it is relevant that the father is a political activist, and that having his son be a victim of "Islamophobia" might help in his next campaign for president of Sudan? Surely it's interesting that the sister was expelled from the school district for a bomb threat, and might have a grudge?
I read widely on this and realized that it was likely similar to the "Flying Imams" incident: Some Muslims do things which are technically innocent but calculated to look like a security threat, and then cry "Islamophobia!" when they authorities notice. The whole thing was a stunt.
Here you go:
The Surprising Backstory Behind #IStandWithAhmed’s 2-Time Sudanese Presidential Candidate Father
What’s the Story with Ahmed Mohamed and his Ridiculous Briefcase “Clock”? The Answer Lies with his Father
The sister of the boy who brought a suspected hoax-bomb to his Texas high school said she was suspended from a school in a prior bomb scare.
What I find very curious are the web sites whose home pages are fully and completely written in Flash. If you do not enable flash, you see nothing but a blank page.
The owners of those websites were probably sold a bill of goods for a "cool website" by the same designers who proffered flaming logos 20 years ago....
Or, the web developer thought it was not a good idea, but the client insisted on Flash. She wouldn't listen to me, and now her site is invisible on mobile....
Right, because we all remember the famines we suffered before there were millions of illegals here. And why do you assume that all illegals are in rural areas? Have you been to a California city in recent decades?
Don't illegals use water?
Samsung's marketing continues its long tradition of innovation. I swear, if Apple came out with a product called "Apple Sux," within a year there's be a similar product called "Samsung Sux."
The headline is a little clickbait-y, but the article is neutral. how do you associate one headline with the "SJW-side"?
I find your sneer about a "parliament" rather odd. It's not a "bogeyman" to note that people who generally take one side of an ideological issue will... generally take one side of an ideological issue. Yes, there are disagreements within teams, but it's not unfair to make general statements about ideological teams when those teams usually act like teams.
How many do I need to post to prove my point? Here's Arthur Chu, the self-described "social justice stormtrooper," again expressing the "SJW side": Reddit’s Terrorists Have Won: Ellen Pao and the Failure to Rebrand Web 2.0. A big feminist blog: Pao! Right in the Kisser: Reddit assholes celebrate CEO’s resignation after a week of abuse. SJWs Brianna Wu and Randi Harper are lining up just as one would expect. The NY Times puts their editorial view directly into the news. I'm sure there will be more in the coming days.
I think Benny Hill might be appropriate, for the whole affair.
I do find it really, really strange that the SJW side is backing Pao here when the employee she fired is also a woman.
citation needed on this one. where is the SJW side that is backing Pao? unless SJW stands for Strawman Justice Warrior.
Misogynist Tantrum Officially Drives Ellen Pao from Reddit
No money is not speech. It's money. Putting a limitation on campaign contribution in no way shape or form limits your speech.
Really? Citizens United was about some people who made a movie about Hillary Clinton. If the government forbids you to spend money on making a film (or publishing a book, putting up a website, or buying an ad, or making a sign, etc.), they are certainly limiting your speech.
And note that even the defenders of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that Citizens United overturned admitted in court that the law would have allowed the government to stop the publication of a book if it was about a candidate. If that isn't suppression of speech, what is?
I think there's a basic error in this approach. It assumes that government can and will run better with "big money" taken out of campaigning. But there's a lot of money given to campaigns for several reasons. The first is that, as Citizens United confirmed, money is speech, and spending money to support a cause or a candidate is at the heart of political expression.
The second reason is perhaps even more basic. When government is huge and has their fingers in every pie, it creates a great deal of motivation to influence those fingers. Campaign contributions are merely a form of lobbying, and lobbying has a standard message: subsidize me and cut my taxes and regulations, but burden my competitors and enemies with taxes and regulations, if not ban them outright.
If you really want to "get money out of politics," you need to (as much as possible) get politics out of the economy. (Ideologues will always lobby, and that's fine, because it's the crony capitalism and pay-to-play aspects that are most objectionable.) Which, of course, is not what many reformers want to do. Until they do, they are basically advocating spreading sugar around their picnic blanket, and then complaining about all the ants.