Page 72 of 72
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:29 pm
by Blue Eyes
I don't agree that the people you and others have been firing accusations at are racist, is my point. And when you do it that makes you appear aloof and slightly condescending and disingenuous. Thing is Karl, you particularly make mostly very interesting and valid points on the arguement, you're clearly incredibly intelligent and I admire you. I just don't think it's right the way the likes of Cal and the Stoke fan are being treated.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:44 am
by That
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have snapped at you -- it's just that, as you said, this thread has been long and incredibly frustrating.
I don't think Cal or NickSCFC are 'racist' in the sense of being mean to Muslims they meet in real life, but their views are pretty irrational and sometimes really do make for genuinely unsettling reading: NickSCFC has proposed a course of action tantamount to genocide; Cal seems to genuinely believe that the typical Muslim can't function in or integrate with Western society, which is a logical stone's throw away from EDL-level "Islamics go home!" rhetoric. I'm not saying they actually want genocide or support the EDL, but their opinions are a slippery slope with those things at the bottom.
That would be OK - Of course it's OK to have views that aren't entirely self-consistent, or to not have all the solutions to a complex problem! - if they would chat about it like normal people and take onboard the good arguments and evidence-based reasoning presented in the thread. But since, time and time again, they've shown they aren't interested in things like learning or facts, believing, for example - as Cal really does - that the act of requesting citations in support of opinions is a leftist conspiracy to shut down debate, I've stopped holding out much hope for having a real discussion with either of them and nowadays I just like to point out how they're wrong as succinctly as possible, "cast some shade" at them (as the kids are saying nowadays), and then move on with my day.
I know it's a bit petty, and I've received a few messages asking me why I don't just stop or ignore them or whatever. Honestly it just feels like a capitulation to have this kind of nonsense on the board left unanswered, and I'm not sure what impression it would give potential newbies if they were allowed to keep what would amount to a Breitbart-inspired blog across various current affairs threads with nary a comment or rebuttal in sight.
Contrast all this with Captain Red Dog and Death's Head, who don't necessarily appear to have the standard-issue lefty-liberal view on the subject, but talk about it like the well-adjusted adults they are. I've enjoyed reading their posts in this thread even though we don't 100% align in viewpoint.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:54 am
by Trelliz
I haven't gone back through this thread, because why would anyone do such a thing, but I expect someone has said at least once something along the lines of "why doesn't the muslim community do more?" etc. Well on Sunday an annual march to celebrate a 7th century moderate figure took on a more political stance denouncing ISIS, terrorism etc took place in central london,
with absolutely no media coverage whatsoever. Surely the left-biased BBC and other outlets would have jumped on this to further their regressive agenda?
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:01 am
by Herdanos
I'm interested to see Blue Eyes' reply to Karl's post
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:09 am
by Herdanos
Trelliz wrote:I haven't gone back through this thread, because why would anyone do such a thing, but I expect someone has said at least once something along the lines of "why doesn't the muslim community do more?" etc. Well on Sunday an annual march to celebrate a 7th century moderate figure took on a more political stance denouncing ISIS, terrorism etc took place in central london,
with absolutely no media coverage whatsoever. Surely the left-biased BBC and other outlets would have jumped on this to further their regressive agenda?
Ironically,
I posted about a similar march in December being ignored, and my post was ignored by the left-biased membership of GRcade and their regressive leftist agenda
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:10 am
by Moggy
Trelliz wrote:I haven't gone back through this thread, because why would anyone do such a thing, but I expect someone has said at least once something along the lines of "why doesn't the muslim community do more?" etc. Well on Sunday an annual march to celebrate a 7th century moderate figure took on a more political stance denouncing ISIS, terrorism etc took place in central london,
with absolutely no media coverage whatsoever. Surely the left-biased BBC and other outlets would have jumped on this to further their regressive agenda?
The media love bad news not good news. It doesn't matter if they are left, right or centre, they don't report nice things.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:11 am
by Moggy
easier to remember joke name wrote:my post was ignored
We tend to do that a lot with you.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:13 am
by Herdanos
Moggy wrote:easier to remember joke name wrote:my post was ignored
We tend to do that a lot with you.
It'd be nice if
some of my posts got ignored
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:35 am
by Cal
Karl wrote:I'm sorry, I shouldn't have snapped at you -- it's just that, as you said, this thread has been long and incredibly frustrating.
I don't think Cal or NickSCFC are 'racist' in the sense of being mean to Muslims they meet in real life, but their views are pretty irrational and sometimes really do make for genuinely unsettling reading: NickSCFC has proposed a course of action tantamount to genocide; Cal seems to genuinely believe that the typical Muslim can't function in or integrate with Western society, which is a logical stone's throw away from EDL-level "Islamics go home!" rhetoric. I'm not saying they actually want genocide or support the EDL, but their opinions are a slippery slope with those things at the bottom.
That would be OK - Of course it's OK to have views that aren't entirely self-consistent, or to not have all the solutions to a complex problem! - if they would chat about it like normal people and take onboard the good arguments and evidence-based reasoning presented in the thread. But since, time and time again, they've shown they aren't interested in things like learning or facts, believing, for example - as Cal really does - that the act of requesting citations in support of opinions is a leftist conspiracy to shut down debate, I've stopped holding out much hope for having a real discussion with either of them and nowadays I just like to point out how they're wrong as succinctly as possible, "cast some shade" at them (as the kids are saying nowadays), and then move on with my day.
But that's the thing, Karl, that I take issue with. I do supply quotes, sources, links. I do all of that. It comes back to that same old problem: the only links, sources and quotes being of any currency around here are those that chime with the political prejudices of the majority here - all else (especially right wing opinion) is anathema.
Karl wrote:I know it's a bit petty, and I've received a few messages asking me why I don't just stop or ignore them or whatever. Honestly it just feels like a capitulation to have this kind of nonsense on the board left unanswered, and I'm not sure what impression it would give potential newbies if they were allowed to keep what would amount to a Breitbart-inspired blog across various current affairs threads with nary a comment or rebuttal in sight.
Contrast all this with Captain Red Dog and Death's Head, who don't necessarily appear to have the standard-issue lefty-liberal view on the subject, but talk about it like the well-adjusted adults they are. I've enjoyed reading their posts in this thread even though we don't 100% align in viewpoint.
'Well-adjusted adults'. That's interesting. Because I stray too far across your permissible line of opinion I'm not 'well-adjusted', just a troll who should be shot down on sight? Some political points-of-view, having been more cautiously worded, are more valid than others?
Patronising. And people wonder why I get annoyed with the liberal bias around here. The whole tone of your reply is dripping with a very familiar sneering disregard for genuinely valid oppositional opinion.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:00 am
by Skarjo
Cal wrote:The whole tone of your reply is dripping with a very familiar sneering disregard for genuinely valid oppositional opinion.
Archive request.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:16 am
by Moggy
Cal wrote:But that's the thing, Karl, that I take issue with. I do supply quotes, sources, links. I do all of that. It comes back to that same old problem: the only links, sources and quotes being of any currency around here are those that chime with the political prejudices of the majority here - all else (especially right wing opinion) is anathema.
If we were posting evidence from SocialistWorker.org, Climatechangeisreal.co.uk or ISIS.com, then I am pretty sure you would reject those quotes/links out of hand as being too horrifically biased to take seriously. None of those would have any sort of balanced arguments.
It is the same when you post links to Breitbart or Wattsupwiththat (or whatever that site is called). None of the information there comes with any nuance, they are just straight up propaganda.
Of course there is an argument that you might see links to the BBC or the Guardian or whatever in the same way as we see Breitbart (and let's not pretend that you are innocent of rejecting information from sites/organisations that you don't like!). If you genuinely think that, then there isn't much else to say, the majority here fundamentally disagree with you and I doubt anybody is going to change their minds (including you!).
Re: [DISCUSSION] Islamic State
Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 8:00 pm
by Saint of Killers
Via Sky News:
Someone tell Putin.
Re: Islamic State
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:49 pm
by NickSCFC
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 13346.htmlGood, Assad ruling is the only possible future for a stable Syria. The sooner the rest of the West understands this the better.
Re: Islamic State
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:56 pm
by Knoyleo
NickSCFC wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-president-elect-donald-trump-support-assad-putin-syria-remove-rebel-backing-a7413346.html
Good, Assad ruling is the only possible future for a stable Syria. The sooner the rest of the West understands this the better.
Re: Islamic State
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:50 pm
by Alvin Flummux
I guess Trump's love of dictators was the only thing he didn't lie about.
Re: Islamic State
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:18 pm
by Snowcannon
I'm not convinced there are any good guys in the Syria war. It's about trying to pick the least evil.