Omar of MN

[JettaKnight]

46249 members, Jetta. The ones saying all muslims are a monolith are what - five? Ten? What's your preferred generalization masquerading as an accurate count?

So right back at you, either 'failing to honor the nuances of individuality' is a problem if a few, or indeed only one does it; or it's not a problem at all 'here on INGO' and doesn't need to be stated

I dunno, Bug. You tell me - you seem to want to argue this into the ground.


It's one person here, and one response.

 

[BugI02]

It takes two to argue, Jetta

I was critical of a post that was not your post, yet you felt compelled to jump in

So, of the two of us; who was looking for an argument, again?

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, to the poster vogueing in #101

Take a few weeks off, come back, and see I still have the Midas Touch. If I were a rapper I'd brush my shoulders off.

 

[2A_Tom]

There are certain members that will jump in whenever they feel someone is generalizing.

Donkey Hotey was the same way.

 

[jamil]

I will concede the point, that I overstated the case. Rather say "Why do people feel the need to act so sanctimoniously, and is testimony all that is required?"

Edit: And acceding to the desire for maximum accuracy, how many people have stated that they do see all muslims monolithically? And how often is that merely an inference drawn from what they post?

I've seen the term sanctimonious thrown about. Just so we lay it out there, you're saying people act as if they're self-righteous. I don't think I've seen many conversations like that on INGO. But, we do talk about moral positions on various topics, and right and wrong. And when you have to sides contending a moral issue in a discussion, both sides will think and argue that they're on the right side. That contention isn't sanctimony. It should be thought of as just discussing ideas. I think that's the right way to look at it anyway.

I may advocate for people to strive to be unbiased, for example. I may point it out when I see it. But it doesn't mean I think I am unbiased. I expect you to point it out when I don't see it in myself. It's easy to see the bias in other people but exceedingly hard to see it in oneself. That's not sanctimony. It's just how people are wired.

And maybe I'm wrong about all that. But that's just how I've come see it. You're welcome to state your case for why it's some other way.

 

[jamil]

Dean Burnett

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ng-when-you-do-it-the-psychology-of-hypocrisy
It’s only wrong when YOU do it! The psychology of hypocrisy

Interesting read.

I forget now where I read it, but in evolutionary terms, hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. Not every evolved feature is good though. It just means there was an evolutionary reason why those traits were more successfully passed on than not. But everyone is wired to be hypocritical and we're all hypocrites about something, and we most likely don't know that we're being that. The most evident conclusion for me about that as an evolutionary feature, is that maybe we should kinda stop hypocritically complaining about each other's hypocrisy, because we're all in the same boat on that. Not to say we shouldn't point out inconsistencies in each other. We need to figure it out some way.

 

[BugI02]

I've seen the term sanctimonious thrown about. Just so we lay it out there, you're saying people act as if they're self-righteous. I don't think I've seen many conversations like that on INGO. But, we do talk about moral positions on various topics, and right and wrong. And when you have to sides contending a moral issue in a discussion, both sides will think and argue that they're on the right side. That contention isn't sanctimony. It should be thought of as just discussing ideas. I think that's the right way to look at it anyway.

I may advocate for people to strive to be unbiased, for example. I may point it out when I see it. But it doesn't mean I think I am unbiased. I expect you to point it out when I don't see it in myself. It's easy to see the bias in other people but exceedingly hard to see it in oneself. That's not sanctimony. It's just how people are wired.

And maybe I'm wrong about all that. But that's just how I've come see it. You're welcome to state your case for why it's some other way.

I just see "Not all [pick your favorite oppressed group] are represented by [Him, Her, It or Them etc]" as some kind of progressive shahada

It serves no purpose beyond placing one's heart on one's sleeve. It stinks. It pretty clearly is meant to say "I'm not biased" and imply "but you probably are"

It is virtue signaling at it's most annoying. The OP was primarily about one particular individual, who happens to be muslim (by self proclamation) with whether she is a representative example open for discussion. She also happens to be a ***** (I agree with the OP) and arguably a number of other unsavory things

 

[BugI02]

There are certain members that will jump in whenever they feel someone is generalizing.

Donkey Hotey was the same way.

You are correct, and I am certainly one of the guilty

Don't cut me any slack

 

[ditcherman]

You are correct, and I am certainly one of the guilty

Don't cut me any slack

OK. (me too)

I just see "Not all [pick your favorite oppressed group] are represented by [Him, Her, It or Them etc]" as some kind of progressive shahada

It serves no purpose beyond placing one's heart on one's sleeve. It stinks. It pretty clearly is meant to say "I'm not biased" and imply "but you probably are"

It is virtue signaling at it's most annoying. The OP was primarily about one particular individual, who happens to be muslim (by self proclamation) with whether she is a representative example open for discussion. She also happens to be a ***** (I agree with the OP) and arguably a number of other unsavory things

Why do you think it's 'some kind of progressive shadada', whatever that is? What if someone, like me, thinks that it is just to try to find the truth/correct the mislead/bring about a better world?
Note:gotta bail for an appointment so will be out but will jump back in...

 

[JettaKnight]

I just see "Not all [pick your favorite oppressed group] are represented by [Him, Her, It or Them etc]" as some kind of progressive shahada

It serves no purpose beyond placing one's heart on one's sleeve. It stinks. It pretty clearly is meant to say "I'm not biased" and imply "but you probably are"

It is virtue signaling at it's most annoying. The OP was primarily about one particular individual, who happens to be muslim (by self proclamation) with whether she is a representative example open for discussion. She also happens to be a ***** (I agree with the OP) and arguably a number of other unsavory things

Come'on, Bug. You're going to sit there and act like that's not a contributing factor in this whole thread?

Riddle me this: Why out of the 646+ posts in the AOC thread, not one mentions that she's Catholic?



Sure, I think Omar is bad for America, but not necessarily because of her religion.

 

[jamil]

I do not view the entire American Muslim community as a monolith, anymore than I do American Christians, Jews, or any other particular faith.

Okay. Here's an example where you've thought monolithically. I'm digging way back, so I'm sure you're going to complain about my memory. Maybe some folks with a better memory who remember that conversation can testify.

Charlottesville Unite the Right protest. I said not everyone on the right was "bad". My case for that was that people didn't know what they were getting into. I based that on watching many hours of live streams from people on both sides. I wanted to know what was really going on, not what any network was telling me. There were a lot of groups on the right that thought they were just literally uniting the right around saving various historical monuments. They weren't thinking about race. They weren't thinking about "Right=White". You disagreed with me, said they were all "bad". I also defended what the President said, that there were fine people on both sides. There were. I watched their livestreams.

Antifa was bad. Saw plenty of that on livestreams. And the white nationalist groups were bad, I saw plenty of that too. But a lot of the people opposing the right just wanted people to leave. They didni't want people from other regions descending on their neighborhoods, for whatever reason. They didn't throw ****. Didn't smash fash. Or break windows or do other violence. They just wanted everyone to go back to wherever they came from. Among the people who showed up for the right, were those who were there to protest taking down historical statues, and to unite around founding principles like freedom of speech, association, etcetera. They did nothing violent either. It did not appear to me that they had any idea that the organizers were alt-right and white nationalists.

I think my point of view was vindicated on the next annual UTR demonstration when only 25 people showed up. When people thought they were uniting around conservative ideals, they showed up in droves. When they figured out what was really going on, the next year, they stayed home in droves.

So there's an example where you inaccurately treated an entire group as a monolith.

 

[jamil]

Come'on, Bug. You're going to sit there and act like that's not a contributing factor in this whole thread?

Riddle me this: Why out of the 646+ posts in the AOC thread, not one mentions that she's Catholic?



Sure, I think Omar is bad for America, but not necessarily because of her religion.

She's Catholic? I KNEW there would be another reason I don't like that *****. So she's a kid****er too?

 

[BugI02]

Come'on, Bug. You're going to sit there and act like that's not a contributing factor in this whole thread?

Riddle me this: Why out of the 646+ posts in the AOC thread, not one mentions that she's Catholic?


Sure, I think Omar is bad for America, but not necessarily because of her religion.

Perhaps because she hasn't retreated behind the facade of Catholic persecution when she got pushback on the GND; nor has she tried to portray her personal, particular values as canonical

 

[BugI02]

She's Catholic? I KNEW there would be another reason I don't like that *****. So she's a kid****er too?

Is that hypurplebole?

 

[BugI02]

OK. (me too)

Why do you think it's 'some kind of progressive shadada', whatever that is? What if someone, like me, thinks that it is just to try to find the truth/correct the mislead/bring about a better world?
Note:gotta bail for an appointment so will be out but will jump back in...

The shahada is the muslim profession of faith, often rendered as a close variation of "There is no god but [god], and Mohammad is his prophet" (I have made one change, because it is not a profession of my faith)

I used the analogy because I see the "Not every ..." formulation as a similar profession of 'faith', a belief held not just based on empirical knowledge. The truth is found by a great deal of study, correcting the 'mislead' is judgmental hubris, and bringing about a better world is just slacktivism

Those who achieve enlightenment have no need to proclaim it, those who proclaim it give the lie to the claim. It isn't the sentiment that bothers me, it's the kabuki that it's dialog for

 

[jamil]

Come'on, Bug. You're going to sit there and act like that's not a contributing factor in this whole thread?

Riddle me this: Why out of the 646+ posts in the AOC thread, not one mentions that she's Catholic?



Sure, I think Omar is bad for America, but not necessarily because of her religion.

Okay, but seriously, I would say she's necessarily bad for America because of her religion. Not because she's Muslim, but because she's radically Muslim. Her values do not appear to be compatible with America. It's like the satire bit we talked about earlier. The underlying truth of the satire was that she just hates Jews because they're Jews, and all the other reasons she may give appear to be justifications.

I'm not saying that moderate Islam is incompatible with America. But there are factions in Islam that aren't so compatible.

 

[JettaKnight]

Okay, but seriously, I would say she's necessarily bad for America because of her religion. Not because she's Muslim, but because she's radically Muslim. Her values do not appear to be compatible with America. It's like the satire bit we talked about earlier. The underlying truth of the satire was that she just hates Jews because they're Jews, and all the other reasons she may give appear to be justifications.

I'm not saying that moderate Islam is incompatible with America. But there are factions in Islam that aren't so compatible.

Agreed.


I don't know about Omar being overtly radical about Islam, so much as she's overtly anti-Israel.

And I have relatives that are Christians (by self proclamation) that are anti-Israel.



Oh, and describing 9/11 with the same tone and words as one might describe an incident of graffiti and egged cars, certainly doesn't help public opinions for her religion.

 

[ditcherman]

The shahada is the muslim profession of faith, often rendered as a close variation of "There is no god but [god], and Mohammad is his prophet" (I have made one change, because it is not a profession of my faith)

I used the analogy because I see the "Not every ..." formulation as a similar profession of 'faith', a belief held not just based on empirical knowledge. The truth is found by a great deal of study, correcting the 'mislead' is judgmental hubris, and bringing about a better world is just slacktivism

Those who achieve enlightenment have no need to proclaim it, those who proclaim it give the lie to the claim. It isn't the sentiment that bothers me, it's the kabuki that it's dialog for

Ah, when I actually understand the meaning of the word shahada that changes a lot. I should have known that.
You used another word that I didn’t know and so I wasn’t going to let the same thing happen again...
[FONT=&quot]To [/FONT]obtain[FONT=&quot] Kabuki: Under the 3rd [/FONT]full moon[FONT=&quot] of the year, the two individuals that wish to obtain Kabuki, must touch penis heads, for 3 full seconds. Only two people can have Kabuki, three or more would be gay.
[/FONT]Ok just to be intellectually honest I know that definition is not what you meant.
I should have known what shahada means because my best friend is a Muslim.
I used to be in the same place as those here who say kick them all out, behead them, burn them alive, don’t let them vote, whatever. But then my best friend from high school moved back home after 25 years and we reconnected and I can not, will not, see or believe that he and his ‘group’ (whatever they call themselves) would ever have a desire to cause harm. He is extremely peaceful, and no, he does not have me fooled. So as someone who has come from the place of thinking we should have made ‘lake america’ when we had the chance to where I’m a bit more tolerant of others beliefs *while still thinking they’re wrong* I do not speak on this out of a showiness as you have suggested or out of ‘hypurplela’, your comment above that should win the internet for at least the day, but out of a sincere belief that we as the human race have more in common than we do differences.
It’s not kabuki for those who achieve enlightenment to want to share it to make the world a better place, but we have certainly been programmed to reject many things just because of the showiness.

 

[GREEN607]

So you’re saying the Christian community, the Jewish community, and the Muslim communities are monolithic? Well. I guess Christians want to give up all this denomination nonsense then and unite. Since they all believe the same things. And if I see one Christian acting a fool, they must all be fools, right? Of course not. That would be nonsensical to attribute the actions and attitudes of one, or a few, or even many, to the entire group.

All Kut is saying is that not all the individuals within a religion believe the same things, or have the same strength of conviction, or act the same way. Not all Christians want to bomb abortion clinics. Only a tiny minority of extremists do. Yet some opponents like to cast the worst of Christians as the whole lot. And while I think it’s obvious enough that a significant portion of Muslims are that radical, it’s not even close to evident that all Muslims have the same radical convictions. What Kut said is a true enough statement that it should be uncontroversial.

No. Certainly not the Christians, and I doubt that of the Jewish faith. But the Muslim community? An absolute YES!

I'll just leave this here.....
(definition, monolith. Note the word 'inflexible' in character)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monolith

 

[BugI02]

Ah, when I actually understand the meaning of the word shahada that changes a lot. I should have known that.
You used another word that I didn’t know and so I wasn’t going to let the same thing happen again...
To obtain Kabuki: Under the 3rd full moon of the year, the two individuals that wish to obtain Kabuki, must touch penis heads, for 3 full seconds. Only two people can have Kabuki, three or more would be gay.[FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]Ok just to be intellectually honest I know that definition is not what you meant.
I should have known what shahada means because my best friend is a Muslim.
I used to be in the same place as those here who say kick them all out, behead them, burn them alive, don’t let them vote, whatever. But then my best friend from high school moved back home after 25 years and we reconnected and I can not, will not, see or believe that he and his ‘group’ (whatever they call themselves) would ever have a desire to cause harm. He is extremely peaceful, and no, he does not have me fooled. So as someone who has come from the place of thinking we should have made ‘lake america’ when we had the chance to where I’m a bit more tolerant of others beliefs *while still thinking they’re wrong* I do not speak on this out of a showiness as you have suggested or out of ‘hypurplela’, your comment above that should win the internet for at least the day, but out of a sincere belief that we as the human race have more in common than we do differences.
It’s not kabuki for those who achieve enlightenment to want to share it to make the world a better place, but we have certainly been programmed to reject many things just because of the showiness.

Lulz, well played but you skipped over a few definitiions there at Urban Dictionary, like

KABUKI
Japanese theatre where only men were allowed to act, even female roles, until ban was recently lifted. Invented in order to allow peasants a theatre of their own, as going to nobles' theatre would result in either having their eyes gouged out or their ears ripped off. Performed in poses rather than fluid action. Often very depressing.

As far as the idea that you can share enlightenment, are you familiar with the koan "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"