Let's not make this all sabre-rattling, by the way. Part of this battle of ideas has to be an alliance in support with some people in the Middle East that are absolutely worth fighting and dying for. The Kurds, in particular, are in large part the most adult organization in that particular area, and they should not only have their own State, but should probably be built up in terms of influence and power....
Dude, where is creationism taught in American public schools? Because, for the most part, it ain't....
"You've got god on your Dollar bills!"
As far as failure to secularize goes, that's a pretty small one....
"America is a superpower, France and England aren't. There you have the root for your problems."
Then we're right back to America not bowing to terrorist demands, because we aren't going to stop being a superpower just because some bad guys don't like it....
"The people living in the middle east may not perceive the US, UK and France to be in any way separate"
That's their problem, not ours.
"and certainly the US has taken a lead in Western foreign policy since WW2."
That's absolute horseshit. America influences the region, as does most of Europe (France and England particularly), not to mention the Russians. The difference in America is that we're the biggest target on the block, we support Israel to insane levels, and we have more secularism here than in most other places. THAT'S the reason.
"1. gee, since you're all read up on these issues, please tell me WHEN all this shit started and WHO started it ? ? ? is it al qaeda or hamas or isis who IMPOSED THEIR state boundaries on US ? ? ? dividing areas of the world on THEIR SAY SO ? ? ? ...or was that the arrogant westeners who PURPOSEFULLY divided countries/tribes so they were at each other's throats and we could steal 'our' oil from them ? ? ?"
Interesting, because I thought it was the British and French colonialists who did most/all of the dividing in Northern-Africa and the Middle East, yet the US appears to be the prime target. It's almost as if those things aren't really the issue, isn't it?
"2. gee, remind me again, how many divisions al qaeda/hamas/isis/WHOEVER has landed on amerikan soil and occupied us whenever, where ever, however the fuck they feel like, for no reason except world domination and unrestrained greed... will you PLEASE FUCKING TELL ME THAT..."
Don't confuse the lack of ability with the lack of will, or did you miss the part about ISIS/ISIL saying the want to raise the flag of Allah over the White House? I prefer to take these people at their word. If you want to ignore them, feel free, though I think you do so at your peril.
And by the by, when Danish offices were rushed and when their was violence there in reaction to the government refusing to censor cartoons in society that honors free speech, that's an invasion of societal values. When journalists are murdered in the name of religious expansionism, that isn't something to ignore. When citizens are murdered in the thousands in the name of exporting theocracy, that is absolutely them "landing on our soil". Hide your head in the sand all you want, the war of ideas between secularism and theocracy has already started, and you'll either be a part of it or a complicit bystander. I want to be on the side of secularism.
"3. goshies, it just breaks my heart how often other countries and terrorists like al qaeda/hamas/isis have undermined our country, thrown out/killed elected our leaders, subverted our laws, imposed their will upon us all, controlled our behavior as a state, fomented revolution against our 'legitimate' gummint, etc, etc, etc...
oh, wait, that has NEVER HAPPENED"
Nonsense, that has happened constantly, it just so happens that the system of secularism is especially good at repelling those attacks. It's quite easy to mockingly use words like "amerika" and "gummint" and paint us secularists as war hawks. It's more difficult to formulate an alternative plan to dealing with threats, other than calls to ignore them simply because we're not yet looking those threats in the eye.
"4. when i go outside every day, i can't tell you terrified i am with all the drones of al qaeda/hamas/isis that circle overhead 24/7/365, dealing death to us from a cave in pakistan...
oh, wait, that's US again..."
I'm not pro-drone policy in general, though I do think they have their place. That said, drone use isn't exactly high on the priority list of reasons why ISIS/ISIL is threatening us directly, so this seems apropos of nothing.
"unka sam (by definition, 'good') can bomb the world, take their shit, imprison/torture whoever we want, however we want, blow up HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS (but not, you know, beheading them with a knife, 'cause THAT is barbarous!), enforce draconian laws on them, ignore laws and treaties with NO CONSEQUENCES, be the arms dealer to the world, and it is the PEOPLE whose throats are under our hobnail boots that are to blame 'cause they beheaded a handful of white devils ? ? ?"
It's high time people begin to take this issue much more seriously than the above paragraph intones. Nothing in my writing indicates that the American government is without fault, is inherently good, or that we have not done horrible things. But that isn't the point. It is possible to have a mostly-good system of government that has done wrong be threatened by something FAR WORSE. That is exactly what is happening here.
Look, guys, if you want to be on the side that either apologizes for ISIS/ISIL or else claims that they don't represent any serious threat, feel free, but I won't agree with you, I won't respect that opinion, and I will be very angry the next time ISIS/ISIL is able to pull off their barbarism due to our inaction.
Where's the hypocrisy? People who think we breed terrorists through policy haven't read the list of transgressions these terrorists are supposedly punishing us for. Their criticisms are silly, including that we don't limit speech against religious figures, we support democratic regimes in indonesia against Sharia, and we landed bases in countries to which we were invited.
The transgressions against the people of Ferguson are real and tangible, and they're something I'm against. I'm not against supporting freedom abroad (not to be confused with toppling legitimate governments), I'm not against Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad, and I'm not against defending our allies at their request.
There's no comparison here, hence no hypocrisy....
I suggest you read some of the manifestos and reasons for these extremist groups that are committing violence, because most of the reasons have ZERO to do with us killing anyone. They include:
1. Supporting Indonesian nations maintaining democracy and repelling attempts to instill Sharia
2. Supporting free speech and open ideas and cartoon depictions of religious figures in Europe
3. Installing a military base on holy land WE WERE INVITED TO by the government there
If you aim to appease these people, you'll have nothing left at the end. You actually have to read what they say to understand that, rather than spending your time apologizing for your own guilty and unnecessary feelings....
Is this yet another suggestion that groups like ISIS/ISIL are extremists born of American policy and we have only ourselves to blame for their barbarism? Because I'm especially tired of that masochistic nonsense....
"There is no battleground at all. That's the problem with the US. They have a big military hammer and they see every problem as nails that must be dealt with that hammer."
You'll forgive me, but I don't know that I wrote that the battleground was going to be boots on the ground war. I'm more concerned about the battle between civility and barbarism, secularism and theocracy. A war of ideas, which WILL indeed be occasionally be fought with guns and bombs and, unfortunately, terrorist attacks.
ISIS/ISIL has kept their promises thus far when it comes to horror and violence. They said before "See you in New York" and claimed to want to raise their flag over our capital. I prefer to take them at their word rather than wait and see what happens....
Well, as we said, there is a reasonable debate to be had here, and your response is a reasonable rebuttal. I don't agree with much of it, but it's reasonable.
The problem with pointing to sensationalized headlines looking for eyeballs is that those people only watching the video out of a sick compulsion are both few and unimportant. They don't matter in this equation. The people that matter are the 20 somethings who haven't been paying attention and might not otherwise be able to conceptualize an enemy that is very much worse than Al Qaeda and likely more dangerous....
They're just playing extremist to make cash off of loonies. What I really hate is that they put some of our stuff on their site. Not that I have a problem with people sharing our shit, of course, it's just that they suck. Hard.
I'm not sure what you mean? I was trying to build a list of joke websites that mock other sources by being silly and completely unbelievable. What am I missing?
"The problems of Wikipedia are many. One of those things is that humans are deciding if things are relevant or not, passing judgement on edits and content, and sometimes that means that sections are structured to a given editor's own biases and preferences rather than all the data."
Right, so I guess the traditional encyclopedias and the news rooms have....what, like, Gods making those decisions instead of humans or something? All you've stated in this comment is that Wikipedia is a creation of Man. Way to go.
Unless you're use of "humans" was a euphemism for "common people"....
"When a sizable majority of black children are born out of wedlock and denied the opportunity to be raised in a stable family environment, is that the fault of white racists?"
Here's the statistics for anyone else who is interested. In 2011 2/3 of every black child was born into a single parent household. White children, while having a higher number in total, only have a 1/4 chance of being born to a single parent. Here's the thing: if you opened up the prisons and released the non-violent drug offenders, those numbers will look quite different as prisoners return home to raise their kids. So, he's not wrong that it's a problem to have so many black kids grow up with one parent, but when he asks if it's the fault of racism, the mass incarceration of blacks in this country says yes.
"When drug abuse is so prevalent among African-Americans that, years before the economic crash of 2008, economists were already pointing out that blacks as a whole had given up all of the social gain that they had fought so hard to win during the Civil Rights movement, is that the fault of white racists?"
It's not, because on this one you're just making things up. White people are twice as likely to abuse drugs than blacks, it's just that blacks are 300% more likely to get some/more/longer jail time than whites.
"Wh en black parents literally teach their children to actively not strive for success because they'd be "acting too white," thereby trapping them in a cycle of failure, poverty and misery, is that the fault of white racists?"
Citation please. By the way, anyone reading this exchange, this part in particular, still want to defend Mason the racist?
"I will say, though, that people screaming "RACISM!!!!!" at every opportunity looked silly 20 years ago, they looked ridiculous after we elected a black president by a landslide, and today they mostly just look dangerous, more harmful than what pitiful amounts of actual racism still remain in this country."
I want the rest of the Techdirt community to take a moment and read this, because it's important to highlight what problems we still have in this country, and Mason Wheeler is a huge part of the problem. This isn't about "screaming" racism, it's about battling the idiots that think only a "pitiful amount" of racism still exists just because we elected a black President with something like 55% of the popular vote.
Oh, please. Anyone who has followed the story of what's been happening in Ferguson and responds with "all them looters have already looted, that's why there ain't no riots today!" is either a racist idiot or they're getting their news coverage from racist idiots. That's it.
Because the looting has been minimal, the protests have been ongoing, and a flip was switched when the police began acting like human beings. Bringing up looters in this story made zero sense at all and if you don't think "looters" is a conflation with "dem blacks", then you have your head in the sand....
"Yes... but is that only because they've looted all the local shops already? So now most of the opportunists are back home enjoying their ill gotten loot?"
Most of the demonstrations and gatherings resulting from the police shooting had absolutely NOTHING to do with looting or violence, unless you count the police firing tear gas and rubber bullets into the protesters. Nice fucking try, though.
"These riots had very little to do with the shooting and much to do about the scum of the earth using a tragedy to profit by starting looting - unless someone can tell me how looting helps the poor dead teen in any way - or his family?"
As a matter of proportion, the riots also BARELY EXISTED. Your racism is showing.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, where is creationism taught in American public schools? Because, for the most part, it ain't....
"You've got god on your Dollar bills!"
As far as failure to secularize goes, that's a pretty small one....
"America is a superpower, France and England aren't. There you have the root for your problems."
Then we're right back to America not bowing to terrorist demands, because we aren't going to stop being a superpower just because some bad guys don't like it....
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's their problem, not ours.
"and certainly the US has taken a lead in Western foreign policy since WW2."
That's absolute horseshit. America influences the region, as does most of Europe (France and England particularly), not to mention the Russians. The difference in America is that we're the biggest target on the block, we support Israel to insane levels, and we have more secularism here than in most other places. THAT'S the reason.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
is it al qaeda or hamas or isis who IMPOSED THEIR state boundaries on US ? ? ? dividing areas of the world on THEIR SAY SO ? ? ? ...or was that the arrogant westeners who PURPOSEFULLY divided countries/tribes so they were at each other's throats and we could steal 'our' oil from them ? ? ?"
Interesting, because I thought it was the British and French colonialists who did most/all of the dividing in Northern-Africa and the Middle East, yet the US appears to be the prime target. It's almost as if those things aren't really the issue, isn't it?
"2. gee, remind me again, how many divisions al qaeda/hamas/isis/WHOEVER has landed on amerikan soil and occupied us whenever, where ever, however the fuck they feel like, for no reason except world domination and unrestrained greed... will you PLEASE FUCKING TELL ME THAT..."
Don't confuse the lack of ability with the lack of will, or did you miss the part about ISIS/ISIL saying the want to raise the flag of Allah over the White House? I prefer to take these people at their word. If you want to ignore them, feel free, though I think you do so at your peril.
And by the by, when Danish offices were rushed and when their was violence there in reaction to the government refusing to censor cartoons in society that honors free speech, that's an invasion of societal values. When journalists are murdered in the name of religious expansionism, that isn't something to ignore. When citizens are murdered in the thousands in the name of exporting theocracy, that is absolutely them "landing on our soil". Hide your head in the sand all you want, the war of ideas between secularism and theocracy has already started, and you'll either be a part of it or a complicit bystander. I want to be on the side of secularism.
"3. goshies, it just breaks my heart how often other countries and terrorists like al qaeda/hamas/isis have undermined our country, thrown out/killed elected our leaders, subverted our laws, imposed their will upon us all, controlled our behavior as a state, fomented revolution against our 'legitimate' gummint, etc, etc, etc...
oh, wait, that has NEVER HAPPENED"
Nonsense, that has happened constantly, it just so happens that the system of secularism is especially good at repelling those attacks. It's quite easy to mockingly use words like "amerika" and "gummint" and paint us secularists as war hawks. It's more difficult to formulate an alternative plan to dealing with threats, other than calls to ignore them simply because we're not yet looking those threats in the eye.
"4. when i go outside every day, i can't tell you terrified i am with all the drones of al qaeda/hamas/isis that circle overhead 24/7/365, dealing death to us from a cave in pakistan...
oh, wait, that's US again..."
I'm not pro-drone policy in general, though I do think they have their place. That said, drone use isn't exactly high on the priority list of reasons why ISIS/ISIL is threatening us directly, so this seems apropos of nothing.
"unka sam (by definition, 'good') can bomb the world, take their shit, imprison/torture whoever we want, however we want, blow up HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENTS (but not, you know, beheading them with a knife, 'cause THAT is barbarous!), enforce draconian laws on them, ignore laws and treaties with NO CONSEQUENCES, be the arms dealer to the world, and it is the PEOPLE whose throats are under our hobnail boots that are to blame 'cause they beheaded a handful of white devils ? ? ?"
It's high time people begin to take this issue much more seriously than the above paragraph intones. Nothing in my writing indicates that the American government is without fault, is inherently good, or that we have not done horrible things. But that isn't the point. It is possible to have a mostly-good system of government that has done wrong be threatened by something FAR WORSE. That is exactly what is happening here.
Look, guys, if you want to be on the side that either apologizes for ISIS/ISIL or else claims that they don't represent any serious threat, feel free, but I won't agree with you, I won't respect that opinion, and I will be very angry the next time ISIS/ISIL is able to pull off their barbarism due to our inaction.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re:
The transgressions against the people of Ferguson are real and tangible, and they're something I'm against. I'm not against supporting freedom abroad (not to be confused with toppling legitimate governments), I'm not against Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad, and I'm not against defending our allies at their request.
There's no comparison here, hence no hypocrisy....
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Supporting Indonesian nations maintaining democracy and repelling attempts to instill Sharia
2. Supporting free speech and open ideas and cartoon depictions of religious figures in Europe
3. Installing a military base on holy land WE WERE INVITED TO by the government there
If you aim to appease these people, you'll have nothing left at the end. You actually have to read what they say to understand that, rather than spending your time apologizing for your own guilty and unnecessary feelings....
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re:
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re:
You'll forgive me, but I don't know that I wrote that the battleground was going to be boots on the ground war. I'm more concerned about the battle between civility and barbarism, secularism and theocracy. A war of ideas, which WILL indeed be occasionally be fought with guns and bombs and, unfortunately, terrorist attacks.
ISIS/ISIL has kept their promises thus far when it comes to horror and violence. They said before "See you in New York" and claimed to want to raise their flag over our capital. I prefer to take them at their word rather than wait and see what happens....
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re:
The problem with pointing to sensationalized headlines looking for eyeballs is that those people only watching the video out of a sick compulsion are both few and unimportant. They don't matter in this equation. The people that matter are the 20 somethings who haven't been paying attention and might not otherwise be able to conceptualize an enemy that is very much worse than Al Qaeda and likely more dangerous....
On the post: Facebook To Ruin Our Good Time With 'Satire' Disclaimer; The Onion Responds With Satire
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook To Ruin Our Good Time With 'Satire' Disclaimer; The Onion Responds With Satire
Re:
http://www.infowars.com/senators-goad-doj-into-more-pointless-online-gambling-takedowns/
On the post: Facebook To Ruin Our Good Time With 'Satire' Disclaimer; The Onion Responds With Satire
Re:
On the post: Why Do People Trust Wikipedia? Because An Argument Is Better Than A Lecture
Re: Trust or convenience?
Right, so I guess the traditional encyclopedias and the news rooms have....what, like, Gods making those decisions instead of humans or something? All you've stated in this comment is that Wikipedia is a creation of Man. Way to go.
Unless you're use of "humans" was a euphemism for "common people"....
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes... but...
Here's the statistics for anyone else who is interested. In 2011 2/3 of every black child was born into a single parent household. White children, while having a higher number in total, only have a 1/4 chance of being born to a single parent. Here's the thing: if you opened up the prisons and released the non-violent drug offenders, those numbers will look quite different as prisoners return home to raise their kids. So, he's not wrong that it's a problem to have so many black kids grow up with one parent, but when he asks if it's the fault of racism, the mass incarceration of blacks in this country says yes.
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1 /any/false/868,867,133,38,35/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431
"When drug abuse is so prevalent among African-Americans that, years before the economic crash of 2008, economists were already pointing out that blacks as a whole had given up all of the social gain that they had fought so hard to win during the Civil Rights movement, is that the fault of white racists?"
It's not, because on this one you're just making things up. White people are twice as likely to abuse drugs than blacks, it's just that blacks are 300% more likely to get some/more/longer jail time than whites.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/
"Wh en black parents literally teach their children to actively not strive for success because they'd be "acting too white," thereby trapping them in a cycle of failure, poverty and misery, is that the fault of white racists?"
Citation please. By the way, anyone reading this exchange, this part in particular, still want to defend Mason the racist?
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes... but...
....and racism is dead. Awesome.
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes... but...
I love the internet....
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Re: Re: Yes... but...
I want the rest of the Techdirt community to take a moment and read this, because it's important to highlight what problems we still have in this country, and Mason Wheeler is a huge part of the problem. This isn't about "screaming" racism, it's about battling the idiots that think only a "pitiful amount" of racism still exists just because we elected a black President with something like 55% of the popular vote.
Fuck you, dude. Seriously....
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Re: Re: Yes... but...
Because the looting has been minimal, the protests have been ongoing, and a flip was switched when the police began acting like human beings. Bringing up looters in this story made zero sense at all and if you don't think "looters" is a conflation with "dem blacks", then you have your head in the sand....
On the post: Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better
Re: Yes... but...
Most of the demonstrations and gatherings resulting from the police shooting had absolutely NOTHING to do with looting or violence, unless you count the police firing tear gas and rubber bullets into the protesters. Nice fucking try, though.
"These riots had very little to do with the shooting and much to do about the scum of the earth using a tragedy to profit by starting looting - unless someone can tell me how looting helps the poor dead teen in any way - or his family?"
As a matter of proportion, the riots also BARELY EXISTED. Your racism is showing.
On the post: True Detective Accused Of Plagiarizing Horror Author Because Characters Sounded Similiar
Re:
Next >>