embracedbias wrote:What proportion of ISIS and AQ fighters do you think have read Lenin? What proportion even know who Lenin is?
Dog wrote:Is there something special about socialism that makes people violent? Your arguments here roughly translate into claiming that socialism (in all its variants, including your very own nnp) makes people more prone to violence compared to other ideologies because radical socialists are violent and all socialists share the same root beliefs.
embracedbias wrote:So you acknowledge that ideology is relevant but don't think that the ideology that the individuals in question most strongly identify with (and explicitly claim is a motivating factor) should have special status. Sweet!
dempsey_k wrote:Socialists have slaughtered over a hundred million people in recent decades so it's a good question. Socialism demands a monopoly of violence, and control over the morality of people's lives down to their food choices and labor. It's traditionally extremely violent against Muslims in Central Asia especially. Most of the worst slaughters going on right now in Iraq and Syria are being undertaken by socialists and post-socialists. If we were really concerned about violent ideologies we should put eb on an ice floe.
Sturminator wrote:We have to keep in mind here that eb's concept of socialism pretty much does begin and end with Marx, while his concept of Islam almost completely ignores the first 1300 years or so of the religion's existence in favor of the present.
Craig wrote:I don't think it's that so much as he discards the impact of socialism on their psyche because they don't identify themselves as socialist or carry out killings in it's name. He thinks that people killing in the name of Islam is the fault of Islam, rather than a symptom of other things.
dempsey_k wrote:Islam and socialism are both the empty variable (and "Canada" or "the republic" or whatever, like I've said before). They don't matter. They just have to have a good goosebumpy sensation of meaning to provide the doer.
dempsey_k wrote:By empty I don't mean they don't effect, rather that they simply aren't the machinery of violence. They're not the how or why, they're just the what.
jester wrote:I understand, but they are part of the "why" to some extent and it is important to acknowledge that. Socialist ideology does not tip over into craziness for the same reason that, say, nationalist ideology can.
embracedbias wrote:American Imperialism and Jewish Zionism are absolutely major components. That point does not have a logical relation to whether or not it's reasonable to consider Islam a key component as well. The author, as is so often the case, is only arguing against the proposition that Islam necessarily leads to terrorism and militancy... a claim that no one is making.
What I don't like is the double standard. Are there cases where American Imperialism didn't lead to terrorism? If yes, does that mean that American Imperialism can't be blamed for terrorism in the middle east? Obviously not.
Turns out that there are many very different outcomes of American Imperialism... but this doesn't mean that it isn't a major component of radicalism in the middle east.
Turns out that there are many very different outcomes of Islamic ideology... but this doesn't mean that it isn't a major component of radicalism in the middle east.
AD wrote:I don't know about that. It's all about defining who the in group is and who the out group is. Then apply violence to the out group to defend the in group.
dempsey_k wrote:I don't think any ideology ever sufficiently explained the why more than a person's genetics and culture and especially experiences (what we may start crediting to epigenetics in the future).
dempsey_k wrote:ah, the Islamic practice of burning people alive rears its head once again, as prescribed in exactly no Suras or Hadiths.
embracedbias wrote:You've got it precisely the opposite.
Greenwald points out that most people who criticize "New Atheists" are themselves atheist. Clearly the "debate" has little to do with atheism. And, after all, how could it? Atheism just means that you don't believe in God. The attempt to associate that with this or that set of additional beliefs is stupid. You could only be a fraudulent atheist if you said that you didn't believe in God but you actually did.
I doubt Greenwald would agree with this. Because he is a moron.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest