Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LogicalFallacy

Is Political Correctness why Trump won? A Discussion Panel

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I would think that a much more moderate voice is the only answer to Trump and possibly bringing back those who abandoned the left for Trump during the last election. 

 

I agree, and this is an important point which I think deserves a response. I do want a more centrist Democrat in the White House as well as in the House and Senate seats for which I vote. I would love for Democrats to run the entire government, since I like regulation and think that abortion is not murder. While I consider myself a philosophical conservative, Democrats have a small number of very good policies which I think should be encoded as law.

 

Despite its many problems I would return to the Democrats under precisely one condition: their support for a permanent unilateral ban, effected by legislative action, on all Muslims entering the United States. Nothing short of a Muslim ban - one that is explicitly called a Muslim ban - will suffice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

My personal theory (for which I spent zero time researching so take it for what you will) is that Trump energized the indifferents through his pageantry and bucking of the status quo. People who typically don't care to vote went to the polls because he was interesting, never-mind that he's a con man and self-admitted predator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another PC debate. This one called Going Rogue: Political Correctness.

 

The speakers made some interesting points. This one is only 1 hour long.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

I agree, and this is an important point which I think deserves a response. I do want a more centrist Democrat in the White House as well as in the House and Senate seats for which I vote. I would love for Democrats to run the entire government, since I like regulation and think that abortion is not murder. While I consider myself a philosophical conservative, Democrats have a small number of very good policies which I think should be encoded as law.

 

Despite its many problems I would return to the Democrats under precisely one condition: their support for a permanent unilateral ban, effected by legislative action, on all Muslims entering the United States. Nothing short of a Muslim ban - one that is explicitly called a Muslim ban - will suffice.

 

There are a lot of issues with that bottom part.

 

It would be kind of like banning all Hindus from the US because of the caste system, gang rapes, and forced child marriages that happen in India.

 

Plus, it's extremely unconstitutional, and a violation of the First Amendment. Particularly this clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

Plus it ignores the simple fact that foreign Muslim Terrorists aren't really a problem in the US. They keep getting brought up as if they are in the media and by the government, but our issue is really with domestic terrorists, not foreign terrorists. The vast majority of whom are not Muslim.

 

Yes, there was that one big incident a while back, but for the most part our terrorists are from America and legal citizens, not immigrants. Most of them also follow the "right" tm religion.

 

Islamic encroachment is an issue we don't really share with the EU. It's a problem over there, but not so much here. Very little risk of it becoming a problem here as things stand right now.

 

Part of the reason for that is we have a nice barrier called the Atlantic Ocean in the way, where as over in the EU they can just take an Uber to whatever country.

 

I don't like Islam, or any Abrahamic religion. I generally dislike religion period because as far as I'm concerned they all follow faulty logic and come with an assortment of disorders, but some are indeed worse than others.

 

At any rate, the idea that Islamic Terrorism is any sort of threat to this country or its citizens is fearmongering bullshit for the most part.

 

I also don't see legislation solving anything. Making religion illegal doesn't make it go away, if anything it provides justification for the persecution complex religious people already have and just makes it dig in and become even more deeply rooted. It's also dangerous, and not just to the religious.

 

Put simply, your idea goes against the very core of what makes America what it is in the first place. It's the First Amendment, and they were literally ranked by importance by the founders. It wasn't just designed to protect us from religion, but to protect religion from us as well.

 

What can actually be done is banning people from hostile states from entering the country. It can't and shouldn't be based on religion, otherwise we should ban Hindus too because of the caste system, forced child marriages, and gang rapes that happen. It doesn't really matter how many Hindus actually endorse or participate in those sorts of activities, the risk of letting them into the country when they might bring that sort of behavior over with them is no greater than the risk that most Muslims will. In fact, a large percentage of people who immigrate here from Muslim countries are doing so to get away from that kind of shit.

 

If we're going to apply that to one group, we should apply it to any group and ban any and all religions that have members that behave badly. The First Amendment of our Constitution literally says that we can't do that, and that even if we did, we can't play favorites and it has to be across the board.

 

Our system of laws is literally designed to make sure what you want can never happen. It's why Trump got slapped down by the courts when he tried it. The language in the Constitution expressly prohibits Congress from legislating it away.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unconstitutional to ban immigrants based on their religious beliefs. Only those with an irrational fear of a particular religion would want it otherwise. The greatest terrorist threat to America overwhelmingly comes from American Christians. Were it up to me (and John Lennon) there would be no religion of any kind, but we have to work with what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, florduh said:

It is unconstitutional to ban immigrants based on their religious beliefs. Only those with an irrational fear of a particular religion would want it otherwise. The greatest terrorist threat to America overwhelmingly comes from American Christians. Were it up to me (and John Lennon) there would be no religion of any kind, but we have to work with what we have.

 

I agree with your no religion sentiment. I'm not a fan of ANY religion that that has militant members that want to harm others.... With regard to the immigrant comment, does the the constitution apply to non-citizens? I was not under the impression that it did, but I could be way, way wrong on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

does the the constitution apply to non-citizens?

In large part, yes. The courts have recently reversed Trump's Muslim ban that would deny citizenship based on religion. It's unconstitutional. https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 7:20 AM, Burnedout said:

PC is the modern day Puritanism.  What I don't care for are people who, because they are in the institutions of the day, think they can explain away mine and others's anger towards their preachy screeching in a sanitized, what I consider, pseudo intellectual bullshit explanation. 

 

Yeah from a redneck's Fox news perspective, that's probably the best interpretation of world affairs you'll get.

 

I'd rather get  a 'Preachy screeching in a sanitized pseudo intellectual bullshit explanation'  from a United Nation study supported by hundreds of scientists than a fundamentalist preacher spitting uneducated venom in a bible-belt church financially supported by Mike Pence faith-based initiatives.

 

The U.S.A. needs to learn how to live in a 'global' village. Modern day puritanism is about keeping a civilization alive for more than a few generations while the planet dies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2018 at 9:59 AM, ContraBardus said:

 

There are a lot of issues with that bottom part.

 

It would be kind of like banning all Hindus from the US because of the caste system, gang rapes, and forced child marriages that happen in India.

 

Plus, it's extremely unconstitutional, and a violation of the First Amendment. Particularly this clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

Plus it ignores the simple fact that foreign Muslim Terrorists aren't really a problem in the US. They keep getting brought up as if they are in the media and by the government, but our issue is really with domestic terrorists, not foreign terrorists. The vast majority of whom are not Muslim.

 

Yes, there was that one big incident a while back, but for the most part our terrorists are from America and legal citizens, not immigrants. Most of them also follow the "right" tm religion.

 

You bring up a lot of good points, but I want to address this specifically. It's not clear to me that a Muslim ban is unconstitutional (despite recent court rulings to the contrary). The plenary powers doctrine pretty much gives the federal government free reign at the border to bar prospective immigrants for any reason or no reason. A constitutional amendment banning Muslim immigrants might be in order though.

 

Now, as to my motivation for the Muslim ban, terrorism isn't a major concern on my part. The problem is the negative cultural influence of Islam. You allude to this in your analogy to Hinduism, where you cite negative culture rather than terrorism. Ironically, forced child marriages in India are an element of the Islamic culture, not Hindu. Gang rapes actually occur at a lower rate than in many Western countries including the United States (I've posted statistics on ex-C to this effect in the past). But Hindu violence against Muslims, which you might call terrorism, actually is a problem in India.

 

While I of course oppose such violence, it's hard for me to empathize with the Muslim victims given their negative cultural influence. The important thing to note however is that Islam has clearly been a negative influence on Islam, the aforementioned child marriages are an example of this. Bringing this religion to the United States will bring with it all the problems that typify Islam. Even if terrorism were not a concern, Islam is fundamentally an evil ideology which we don't need here in the West. It has no redeeming merit that I can think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bhim said:

Even if terrorism were not a concern, Islam is fundamentally an evil ideology which we don't need here in the West. It has no redeeming merit that I can think of.

 

Regarding the "threat" of Islam and what kind of influence it might have on a culture, that seems to depend on where and when they are operating in the world. In this country currently, it is Christianity that poses the real and immediate danger. As I stated before, I could do with no religions at all, but I see no reason to accept one and reject another based on what adherents may be doing somewhere else in the world. Christians are murdering people for religious reasons in parts of Africa but they also have an organized, concerted effort to actually bring us into a theocracy. Overall it's hard for me to see Islam in general as somehow more dangerous to us than our own homegrown Christianity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bhim said:

While I of course oppose such violence, it's hard for me to empathize with the Muslim victims given their negative cultural influence. The important thing to note however is that Islam has clearly been a negative influence on Islam, the aforementioned child marriages are an example of this. Bringing this religion to the United States will bring with it all the problems that typify Islam. Even if terrorism were not a concern, Islam is fundamentally an evil ideology which we don't need here in the West. It has no redeeming merit that I can think of.

 

Modern day Islam has few redeeming qualities, true, but I agree with Florduh's assessment that Christianity is the bigger more immediate threat in America. You have Christians in office who believe the world is 6,000 years old, and global warming is a hoax by the Chinese. You also have very power, well funded Christian groups in government already. Muslims have decades upon decades to have that sort of influence.

 

What's more, back in its day Islamic culture was the most enlightened of its time. While the Christian west was tearing itself apart over who's interpretation was right the Muslim world made big advances in knowledge and discovery. Then of course they got under the influence of a fundamentalist and the culture went backwards.

 

In Europe I would say there is a bigger threat from Islam, but I listened to a study and even with the numbers coming in, compared to the population overall its like 1%. So a small influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

You can live in global village if you want.  COUNT ME OUT.  Oh, and if we choose not to live in your global village, what are you going to do about it? 

Easy... you’ll be isolated.

 

Thats the whole point of Trump protectionism isn’t it? You guys ain’t seen nothin yet. The planet will organize around you. Tune up your hillbilly banjos cuz you can kiss your conomy gudbye... spittin sum fine cud down the Mississippi is about to become your main pastime lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Modern day Islam has few redeeming qualities, true, but I agree with Florduh's assessment that Christianity is the bigger more immediate threat in America. You have Christians in office who believe the world is 6,000 years old, and global warming is a hoax by the Chinese. You also have very power, well funded Christian groups in government already. Muslims have decades upon decades to have that sort of influence.

 

What's more, back in its day Islamic culture was the most enlightened of its time. While the Christian west was tearing itself apart over who's interpretation was right the Muslim world made big advances in knowledge and discovery. Then of course they got under the influence of a fundamentalist and the culture went backwards.

 

In Europe I would say there is a bigger threat from Islam, but I listened to a study and even with the numbers coming in, compared to the population overall its like 1%. So a small influence.

 

Hi LF. I'm often conflicted on whether Christianity or Islam is the larger cultural threat. Having had a far more personal experience with Christianity, I'll obviously be biased in favor of vilifying this religion. On the other hand, for all their other sins, evangelical Christians don't kill people as Muslims do. That said, I think the point is moot because Christianity has already done whatever damage it can do. This nation's inception was accompanied by heavy Christian influence, and for centuries Christianity remained a potent force. If anything, the situation has been ameliorated by the rise of secularism. At least today, the idea of the 6,000 year old earth is at best (worst?) viewed as an alternative or fringe hypothesis. A century ago, well after Darwin published Origin of the Species, it was accepted orthodoxy (ex. the Scopes Monkey Trial).

 

Is Christianity a top contender along with Islam for "worst cultural influence?" Yes, absolutely. But it's already ingrained into the culture, and can't really do any damage beyond what it already has. Besides that, we have generations of evangelicals who were born and raised here, whose families are evangelical, and whose influences permeate the entire society. In the case of Islam, we are opting to introduce another bad influence. To borrow from the President, the Muslims we're bringing here "aren't the best people." If the current refugee program admitted in doctors who are defecting from Saudi Arabia or businessmen who are fleeing Pakistan, they would at least bring valuable skills along with their horrible religion. Instead, we are admitting people from impoverished nations (i.e. "shitholes") who bring the bad qualities associated with practicing Islam, but nothing of use to our populace. I just looked up the 2016 figures from the DHS website, and of the top five nations, three are Islamic. They are Syria, Iraq, and Somalia.

 

This isn't a choice between two evils. The Christian evil is something we have to deal with whether we like it or not. The Islamic evil (and it is an evil faith) is something we are voluntarily choosing. And I have to ask why we are inflicting this wound on ourselves. I hate to quote a white nationalist politician from Europe, but "do you want more Muslims or less Muslims?" These people are killing each other in their hellholes across the world. We should let them finish the job. To paraphrase the very first ex-Christian: I am not my brother's keeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all live in a global economy. We need allies. Deal with it or be cut out as you continue to imagine that nationalism and isolationism is the way to play the tough guy because the world can't function without the USA. Our former allies are already making plans and deals without us.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, florduh said:

We all live in a global economy. We need allies. Deal with it or be cut out as you continue to imagine that nationalism and isolationism is the way to play the tough guy because the world can't function without the USA. Our former allies are already making plans and deals without us.

 

True, and I think that this will be a good test of whether protectionism is a viable policy. On the one hand, Trump goes further than I think is necessary and policies like his steel tariffs frankly don't make sense to me. That said, I think the country's natural resources and our large base of consumers might allow us to survive some weird economic gymnastics.

 

I'm not a die hard Trump supporter when it comes to his global economic policies, but I'm curious to see where this will leave us in (hopefully) six years. Perhaps you and I will be surprised, and it will turn out America really doesn't need the rest of the world.

 

...which will make an even more compelling case for banning Muslims from entering the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bhim said:

 

True, and I think that this will be a good test of whether protectionism is a viable policy. On the one hand, Trump goes further than I think is necessary and policies like his steel tariffs frankly don't make sense to me. That said, I think the country's natural resources and our large base of consumers might allow us to survive some weird economic gymnastics.

 

I'm not a die hard Trump supporter when it comes to his global economic policies, but I'm curious to see where this will leave us in (hopefully) six years. Perhaps you and I will be surprised, and it will turn out America really doesn't need the rest of the world.

 

...which will make an even more compelling case for banning Muslims from entering the country.

 

His tariff polices are potentially dangerous and disastrous for the US.

 

He's playing with fire and taking a huge risk that seems to be on the verge of blowing up in his face and starting a full on trade war with the entirety of the rest of the world.

 

That might not hurt us much in the short term, but we'd better hope whoever is in the Whitehouse in the next term can back us out of that before it tanks our economy, because if it's us VS the rest of the world and they aren't willing to back down once Trump is gone [assuming he isn't reelected] that's exactly what will happen.

 

This could be the thing that pushes him beyond simply being a "bad" president [who may not have been the worst option of the two terrible choices we had] to being the actual worst in history. Those red hat conservatives aren't going to be singing his praises near as much once the trade war he may be starting starts impacting all those blue collar jobs he's been promising to protect.

 

Meanwhile he'll be raking in all kinds of money with his foreign assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Meanwhile he'll be raking in all kinds of money with his foreign assets.

Yes, it seems the more we lose out the more money he and his family makes. Some people still don't recognize the con job going on. I can't imagine what it would take to wake up such people. It's like explaining the evils of Jim Bakker to one of his faithful flock; they just aren't having any of it regardless of the evidence. Their leader can do no wrong in their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

 

His tariff polices are potentially dangerous and disastrous for the US.

 

He's playing with fire and taking a huge risk that seems to be on the verge of blowing up in his face and starting a full on trade war with the entirety of the rest of the world.

 

That might not hurt us much in the short term, but we'd better hope whoever is in the Whitehouse in the next term can back us out of that before it tanks our economy, because if it's us VS the rest of the world and they aren't willing to back down once Trump is gone [assuming he isn't reelected] that's exactly what will happen.

 

This could be the thing that pushes him beyond simply being a "bad" president [who may not have been the worst option of the two terrible choices we had] to being the actual worst in history. Those red hat conservatives aren't going to be singing his praises near as much once the trade war he may be starting starts impacting all those blue collar jobs he's been promising to protect.

 

Meanwhile he'll be raking in all kinds of money with his foreign assets.

 

Personally I don't foresee any economic policy being more disastrous than the cultural damage incurred from importing a brood of Muslim misanthropes from Syria. Recall that one of Trump's few truthful campaign claims was that Hillary Clinton wanted to allow 65,000 Syrian refugees into the country. Is a stable economy really worth having Muslim neighbors on either side of your lawn? I'm not trying to deflect the focus of this discussion; the choice in 2016 really was between a competent person who didn't recognize what horrible people Muslims are, and an idiot whose heart was in the right place with respect to Islam. As someone who lives in an apartment complex with several Muslim families, I would say it was a choice between bad and far worse (to be clear: the Muslims are the "far worse").

 

Having said that, I don't know that these policies are really as bad as you suggest. I don't think they are the best idea; indeed the recent import tariffs on Canada - our largest oil supplier - seem particularly foolish. It's possible there could be some job losses during the Trump presidency.

 

But my question is: what if the economy turns out to be OK? Will this not demonstrate America's capacity for economic independence? We're a year and a half in to Planet of the Orangutans and the economy seems OK (though economists don't attribute this to tax reform). If the economy remains stable for a full eight years, would you consider the possibility that America does not need any assistance from the rest of the world, and that perhaps our prior globalist policies were acts of charity rather than that which was in our national interest?

 

On a related note, I've made several deliberate, derisive remarks concerning Muslim people here. To be clear: I'm referring not only to Islam as a religion but to the people themselves. To the extent that a person observantly practices Islam, I believe that such a person is morally deficient and not properly cultured to live in any civilized nation. Adding to this that I don't suggest any sort of violence against such people or forced relocation of Muslims who are - unfortunately - already living here, are we in agreement on my assessment of Muslim people? Because if not, then perhaps you should challenge my assertion before we move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of it was Trump bringing out racism that had been latent for a long time and also Clinton running such an awful campaign without a message. But PC did play a role, particularly for people who just wanted to "flip off" the perceived "PC police". I think it's a lesson about how being obnoxious and repressive helps nothing and just leads to a backlash. The same thing is going to happen in a different form in response to Trump. 

 

I also think Pinker's point is right. Facts like that only seem like an extremely momentous "red pill" if they are suppressed in the mainstream and the fact that they are suppressed makes it look like there isn't any answer to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HisGrace said:

I think some of it was Trump bringing out racism that had been latent for a long time and also Clinton running such an awful campaign without a message. But PC did play a role, particularly for people who just wanted to "flip off" the perceived "PC police". I think it's a lesson about how being obnoxious and repressive helps nothing and just leads to a backlash. The same thing is going to happen in a different form in response to Trump. 

 

I also think Pinker's point is right. Facts like that only seem like an extremely momentous "red pill" if they are suppressed in the mainstream and the fact that they are suppressed makes it look like there isn't any answer to them. 

 

But are you sure it's racism and not some other form of hatred? Speaking for myself here: I have for some time now harbored an antipathy towards poor people from other countries who receive a benefit from my tax dollars (whether that is in the form of foreign aid or illegal immigration). And this negative feeling crosses racial boundaries. I hate poor Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Pakistanis equally but I like wealthy people from these countries, with the exception of Pakistanis because I dislike Muslims.  This suggests that whatever you call my antipathy, "racism" probably isn't the best word.

 

President Trump tapped into this antipathy when he observed that Mexico wasn't sending its best people. I was able to clearly articulate my feelings from the beginning: it had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with not wanting the government to enforce charity upon me. I had no moral qualms with doing nothing while poor people from Latin America died of starvation. I will be the first to agree that Trump has tapped into my hatred. But even after significant introspection, I am unable to find a racial component to this odium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bhim said:

 

Personally I don't foresee any economic policy being more disastrous than the cultural damage incurred from importing a brood of Muslim misanthropes from Syria. Recall that one of Trump's few truthful campaign claims was that Hillary Clinton wanted to allow 65,000 Syrian refugees into the country. Is a stable economy really worth having Muslim neighbors on either side of your lawn? I'm not trying to deflect the focus of this discussion; the choice in 2016 really was between a competent person who didn't recognize what horrible people Muslims are, and an idiot whose heart was in the right place with respect to Islam. As someone who lives in an apartment complex with several Muslim families, I would say it was a choice between bad and far worse (to be clear: the Muslims are the "far worse").

 

Having said that, I don't know that these policies are really as bad as you suggest. I don't think they are the best idea; indeed the recent import tariffs on Canada - our largest oil supplier - seem particularly foolish. It's possible there could be some job losses during the Trump presidency.

 

But my question is: what if the economy turns out to be OK? Will this not demonstrate America's capacity for economic independence? We're a year and a half in to Planet of the Orangutans and the economy seems OK (though economists don't attribute this to tax reform). If the economy remains stable for a full eight years, would you consider the possibility that America does not need any assistance from the rest of the world, and that perhaps our prior globalist policies were acts of charity rather than that which was in our national interest?

 

On a related note, I've made several deliberate, derisive remarks concerning Muslim people here. To be clear: I'm referring not only to Islam as a religion but to the people themselves. To the extent that a person observantly practices Islam, I believe that such a person is morally deficient and not properly cultured to live in any civilized nation. Adding to this that I don't suggest any sort of violence against such people or forced relocation of Muslims who are - unfortunately - already living here, are we in agreement on my assessment of Muslim people? Because if not, then perhaps you should challenge my assertion before we move on.

 

Funnily enough, I do have Muslim neighbors, and they're perfectly pleasant people.

 

I live in a College town, and there are large numbers of people from all over the world living here, and a fairly large Arabic population, many of whom are also Muslim.

 

The vast majority of Muslims I've ever known are law abiding reasonable and moderate people who are no more or less crazy than the average Christian.

 

I would also point out that Muslim is not a race, it's a religion. How do you tell an Arabic Muslim from an Arabic Christian exactly? What about Black Mulims? There are White Muslims too, what about them? How do we differentiate those from the others? What about different sects?

 

From the sound of things you don't get along with Muslims. Have you considered that maybe it's because you're an ass to them? I find it difficult to consider otherwise considering the way you've posted about them on these forums so far.

 

I feel I should also consider that maybe it's cultural given your screen name and religious preference. I mean that in both directions as well. Particularly regarding Pakistani Muslims. I don't know you personally, but given the history between India and Pakistan, and your pretty vocal and direct stance regarding Muslims, I can't not consider that possibility. It's not an unreasonable assumption in this case.

 

It really does seem like the problem might be on your end and not theirs.

 

To be clear, I find Islamic beliefs to be just as dumb as Christian beliefs, but I tolerate those too and generally keep my position on that to myself. Muslims are also a lot less apt to bug me about their faith. I also don't really think Islamic extremists are really "worse" than Christian extremists. Again, most terrorism in the US is domestic and Christian. I have more reason to be concerned about Christians than Muslims in this country, as they are the bigger danger both directly and politically.

 

This country has a long tradition of people coming here to get away from bad shit going down in their own countries, we're also much better at assimilating other cultures than pretty much any EU country, mostly because we're such a large mix of global cultures and ideas already. It's easier to fit in here than it is in a country where everyone else looks similar and not like you at all, and there's only one dominant culture that isn't yours.

 

It seems to me that if you're living in the US and are so afraid of Islam, you're worried about the wrong Abrahamic religion. The threat isn't Islam. Islam has little influence or impact here and is far less of a culture shock to us because we're used to a wide range of cultures within a small geographical area. In the EU cultures largely exist within large state like regions, in the US, it's often a matter of city blocks.

 

No, what you should be fearing is Christians. They are the ones putting religious symbols into our public buildings, trying to get their prayers and slogans into public meetings and schools, and killing our citizens in terrorist attacks. They are the ones harassing the women who make choices regarding their own body, people who decide to love outside of "what God intended", and tell young people they have to confirm with their social constructs regarding their own identities.

 

Christians are the ones trying to control our lives and force us to bow to their misguided morality and bullshit stone age laws in this country. They are the ones who are taking over our country.

 

Islam is nothing. It is not even on my radar as a concern. It's statistically and culturally insignificant as something to be worried about. There is no threat of Sharia law being imposed in this country, no one is trying to put the words of Mohamed on the walls of our courts, or the Qua'ran into our school curriculum. It is currently no threat to our country or culture in any fashion at all.

 

Trump is trying [and failing] to "save" us from a non-existent problem, while quietly opening the back door and catering to our actual larger problem. This is not a Trump exclusive problem, but he is complicit in it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bhim said:

President Trump tapped into this antipathy when he observed that Mexico wasn't sending its best people.

To be accurate, Mexico isn't "sending" anybody here. People are escaping crime, crushing poverty and want better lives for their children. Obviously, we have some bad actors that emigrate from various places, but our home grown ones seem to be the larger problem. Xenophobia and religious bigotry are not necessarily racism, I'll agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, florduh said:

. Xenophobia and religious bigotry are not necessarily racism, I'll agree.

 

Making a big long post about that distinction as he did really seems like splitting hairs, though. "I'm a bigot, but I'm not that kind of bigot, so you're wrong, haha, gotchu"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

From the sound of things you don't get along with Muslims. Have you considered that maybe it's because you're an ass to them? I find it difficult to consider otherwise considering the way you've posted about them on these forums so far.

 

Come on CB, I expect better than a baseless assumption on how I treat Muslims. I'm happy to tell you about my various interactions with Muslims, but I haven't done so yet and you haven't asked. My stated opinions on Muslim people don't constitute sufficient set of information on which to extrapolate my treatment of Muslim people.

 

Despite this, your reaction is still far better than what I would get from the general public. If I stated publicly that I think Muslims are generally terrible people, how do you think the average person would react? Likely they would call me a racist, despite the fact - which you have observed - that Islam isn't a race. There's a reason I only speak openly about this on an anonymous forum or behind closed doors. Stating publicly that Muslims are bad people would result in loss of employment and severe limitation on future employment for most people. Most HuffPo bloggers would say that this is a good thing. All this, despite that I am making a broad judgment about a group of people who obey the teachings of a professed pedophile, who think that clean-shaven men should lose their heads, who believe that non-Islamic religions should either be taxed or forbidden on pain of death, and who extol the virtues of female genital mutilation. This is the religion that the Left defends. The fact that no one can talk about this openly without losing their job is why many of us voted for Trump, and why we will do so again. To be clear, in 2024 if there were no better options I would even vote for Richard Spencer, who considers me a sub-human, simply because he also thinks that Muslims are sub-humans. That is how much of a threat I perceive from Islam. It is of chief importance that Americans be able to publicly call out Muslims as immoral people without being silenced via economic warfare.

 

Now, you might think that I must be an ass to Muslims, but believe it or not this reaction is immensely tempered compared to the average non-Trump-voting American. For that you should be commended. Indeed, if you represented the fringes of the American Left, we wouldn't have as much of a problem with Islam.

 

Regardless, I wish you would answer a question for me which I posed earlier: do you want more Muslims or fewer Muslims? This isn't a tradeoff with Christianity. The question of what to do about evangelicals is important, but it's about as relevant as what you think about saturated fats. You can turn the dial on Muslim immigration without affecting the number of Christians at all. So again: more Muslims or fewer Muslims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, florduh said:

We all live in a global economy. We need allies. Deal with it or be cut out as you continue to imagine that nationalism and isolationism is the way to play the tough guy because the world can't function without the USA. Our former allies are already making plans and deals without us.

 

I'm an optimist. Why? ... totally beyond me. Maybe it's a bit of insanity but I sincerely believe we'll get out of his irrational mess.

This is a small and fragile planet. We need to be together to fix it, including Burnedout or we're all toast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.