This might sound like a question inspired by current events, but Iâve actually been thinking of this for a while and can give pointers to a few times I had asked this or talked about it.
The people who the masses look up to seem to have a strange way of dishing out their opinions/approval/disapproval of the groups of the world. Some groups can get away with being considered good no matter how negative their actions are while other groups are stuck with a high disapproval rating no matter how much good they might do, and a discussion on whether âcultureâ or a âcultâ is involved almost always comes up.
An example of this is the relationship between Islam and Scientology, in fact this is the most infamous one I can link to having spoken about. People on a certain side of the thinktank spectrum (the same side Lemmy seems to lean towards at times) are quick to criticize Scientology even though they consider âclassic Islamic philosophyâ, for a lack of a better way to put it without generalizing, as not inspiring a call for critique to see how one may change it. And Iâve always wondered, why? One at times leads people to trying to exterminate innocent groups, the other one is just âSpace Gnosticismâ that has a few toxic aspects but hasnât actually eliminated anyone. Of course, Iâm not defending either one, but certainly Iâd rather live in a stressful environment than one that actively targets me.
This question has been asked a few times, sometimes without me but sometimes when Iâm around to be involved, and they always say (and itâs in my dumb voice that I quote them) âwell Scientology is a cult, of course we can criticize themâ and then a bit about how whatever other thing is being talked about is a part of culture. This doesnât sit well with my way of thinking. I was taught to judge people by the content of their character, in other words their virtues, so in my mind, a good X is better than a bad Y, in this case a good cult should be better than a good culture, right? Right?
In fact, as what many might call a mild misanthrope, Iâd flip it around and point out how, over the course of human history, alongside seemingly objectively questionable quirks people just brush off (like Japan for a while has been genociding dolphins for their meat value just above extinction âbecause itâs cultureâ or how there are people in China who still think dinosaur bones are a form of medicine waiting to be ground up), no group/culture has kept their innocence intact, every country having had genocides or unnecessary wars or something of the like, things they ALLOW to happen by design. Then they turn around and tell so-called âcultsâ, even the ones that have their priorities on straight compared to cultures, that they are pariahs and shouldnât count on thriving, even though their status is one that doesnât necessitate gaining any kind of guilt. I was a pariah growing up, almost everyone else revolved around a select few people that seemed in-tune to the culture, and they would say anyone who revolved around people outside the group (me for example) was âfollowing a cultâ, and this hurt at the time, but now seeing all the wars going on right now, I might consider this a compliment.
My question, even though it by definition might make affirming answerers question whether they are pariahs or a part of the cultural arena, is why does nobody agree? Why are cultures âalways preciousâ while cults are âalways suspiciousâ?
Then itâs a good thing I didnât do any of that, now isnât it?
For every question you say hasnât been answered, I can point to (or quote) a part of what I said that does exactly that.
You did all of the things I listed and ignored most of my questions. If you honestly believe otherwise, I invite you to revisit what was said and asked and ask yourself whether you acknowledged it at all, let alone actually addressed what was said.
Though Iâm not stupid, I know what defensive behavior and fibbing looks like by someone that is uncomfortable. Iâm not going to be polite if you try this again.
deleted by creator
Suppose for a moment I sincerely believe I addressed everything (and I do). Saying out of disagreement âreview it yourselfâ would thus be a request I cannot humor, thatâs why I invited you to give examples. I also donât know who this Sam Harris guy is, so Iâm not sure why you say I cited him, but I even did a CTRL+F trick to make sure. I still donât see it.
Oh, so you are incapable of listening to others and doubting yourself when they disagree with you? Yes, I agree, thatâs the real issue here.
Anyways maybe youâll drop this dishonest pretense if I point out that my first paragraph was nearly all questions you did not answer:
âWhat is the relevance of what you think would happen to you in an Islamic country? Iâd also point out that Islam is not a monolith and Muslims are not a monolith, despite your implications, so which Islamic countries are you thinking of? Are you sure you didnât have a particular idea in mind when you conflated âislamic countryâ with the scenario you are thinking of? What do the people there look like? What do they believe? What would they do to you?â
At most you said it was not your intention to generalize, but (1) that still doesnât answer my questions and (2) yes you absolutely did that repeatedly, itâs literally the premise of your post and these replies. You are, of course, aware of this, youâre just handling contradiction poorly.
If youâd like a tip: you always have the option of just not responding. Itâs a lot better than what youâve been doing.
You didnât ask for examples lol
You cited his subreddit and your poorly-veiled, cagey focus is drawn from the islamophobia he pushes out. Maybe youâre so confused that you donât even know where you picked up this garbage, but as I explained in my original response, thatâs where these grifters come from.
Be better.
The comment youâre replying to with that statement implies I thought I addressed everything, and when you objected to that, I asked if you could point to where you believe I hadnât. Thatâs not the same as not listening. If itâs dishonest to ask someone to give examples, I would doubt you think anyone on this thread is honest.
I do maintain I answered the questions, but I will paraphrase my answers, piece by piece.
The relevance is in the character. People see âtrueâ cults with negative connotations. But if we were comparing said âcultsâ with groups that are part and parcel with the global community, they have a better human rights track record than some of the latter. The first group that would come to mind in this context is Islam. People in those countries (and you can say Iâm generalizing, but whether âallâ such countries do it isnât the point, itâs that cults have a better track record) still execute/imprison people based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and sometimes politics and medical conditions. People will argue cults are accepting of people for the wrong reasons, but itâs still better than mistreatment.
I didnât list them all, but I did give an area, and I did imply Palestine as it falls under the umbrella of current events. I donât have an exact visual map of all Islamic countries, but my point didnât require it, it does not need to specify which countries whether or not it claims all the countries over there are susceptible to it (and it doesnât), because it pertains to the cultures and the groups harbored by them. The point, again, is that cults have a better track record than those groups.
See my paragraph above.
Nothing in particular. That was never a factor in what I was implying. I donât have a set idea on that.
The Quran, which has my death warrant inscribed within it. If theyâre not out to kill/imprison me, thank God, but it also means the Quranâs definition of what it considers Islam has been reduced.
See my paragraph above.
See my paragraph four lines ago. Generalization would require someone say all of a group is like the most stereotypical people in said group. I made no such remark, and any claim that says I implied it is reading whatâs not in the words. I did refer to âthemâ though implying the fact there is a âconventionalâ way they go about themselves. The statement âall sheep are whiteâ =/= the statement âsheep are typically whiteâ.
So saying âfor every question you say hasnât been answered, I can point to (or quote) a part of what I said that does exactly thatâ isnât a cue for you to do, well, exactly that?
Citing a post in a subreddit referred to as r/samharris isnât the same as citing the actual Sam Harris, so that confusion was on you. Such pseudo-groups occur all the time on Reddit. Neither does it imply everything in it is going to be created in malice. So thatâs a strawman, as have been much of the responses Iâve gotten.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
a strawman
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
Iâm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks Pipey.
I just did that again itâs the whole first paragraph that was basically just questions. And you never asked, you just made assertions.
PS I shouldnât need to do that because you are perfectly capable of going back, finding questions, and rethinking whether you addressed them.
Is that what Iâm saying is dishonest?
Right youâre not getting the question. Itâs intended to make you question at a deeper level why youâre asking the question in the first place, a question that builds on islamophobia tropes that are common in the sources youâve cited. Everyone already knows youâre thinking about comparing cults and Islam. Everyone already knows you perceive danger from Islam. Iâm trying to prompt you to question why you chose this example in particular given that it is a trope among racists.
You waved vaguely towards the Middle East albeit without actually directly answering my question. So no, you didnât answer that question, which was clearly asking you to concretize your veiled statements.
But okay, what comes to mind for you is Palestine. Nobody is surprised that you chose this moment to share denigrating opinions towards the people of Palestine. Again, Iâm not stupid, but you are being cagey.
Do you see how my descriptions of racist islamophobia and its purveyors are relevant? An entire population is facing occupation and genocide and your first thoughts are about how to be afraid of and denigrate them, supposedly due to their culture and religion, and conflating them with the entirety of Islam (hmmm lumping very different cultures and ethnicities together to dismiss them over fears, I wonder what that is).
Doubling down to say âI donât need to distinguish Islamic countriesâ is an interesting choice.
Your paragraph above doesnât really answer the yes or no question. Seems like it might be no? Who knows, you are afraid to speak plainly.
You have no mental image of the people you fear would oppress you if you lived there? You donât know what people vaguely in the middle east (apparently what youâre referring to) look like?
Anyways this question was intended to make you confront the cultural and ethnic diversity you were glossing over by lumping all of Islam together and you didnât answer it in any way earlier.
Another question that was intended for you to think a little more deeply (and you didnât answer before).
Your entire understanding of Islam in the middle east is just that they all believe the Quran? The generous interpretation is that you know thereâs diversity and this is the commonality, but I think we both know thatâs not what youâre thinking, especially given your comment about whatâs in it.
Have you actually read the Quran? The Hadith? The history of tolerance in Palestine and surrounding countries? The origins of fundamentalism that I mentioned in my earlier responses? (These are rhetorical, you obviously donât and are not curious).
So, islamophobia?
Wrong. You just have to generalize by, say, ignorantly lumping all Islamic countries together to make a false claim. Though you certainly are leaning on right wing stereotypes of Muslims.
Yeah you donât seem to understand what asking means. Are you confused about that all the time or only when contradicted?
I was hoping youâd try to make that meaningless distinction. You think I donât know why you use that source? lol
Yessss I was hoping for an erroneous reference to a logical fallacy. Surprised it didnât come up earlier. I know your type very well, lol.
Donât worry Iâll give you a free lesson anyways. A straw man argument is where you intentionally set up a position you claim your opponent holds (even though they donât) just because itâs easier to knock down than their actual position. On the contrary, Iâve been trying to get your cagey butt to acknowledge what youâve been hinting at and criticizing the positions I know are behind them. This is because you arenât fooling anyone with your veiled and general references, there are real humans here that know what islamophobic, chsuvinist âskepticâ grifters say and do and have actually had to spend time defending their communities from the braying racism youâre trying to both show and hide.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
a strawman
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
Iâm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Unless, of course, I believed I already addressed them, and my answers I did provide in my previous reply were paraphrasings of things I already said.
Kinda proves my point, doesnât it? You leave the interpreting to me and wonder why you get misinterpreted after I ask you to elaborate.
You say that like there is no instant access to the many other replies Iâve gotten on this thread. Youâre the only one here with the objection you imply you have. The only one. âEveryone already knows you perceive danger from Islamâ is false, again the other replies are readable, not only do I not assume all Muslims are the same but everyone else does agree something is afoot today with the culture. The keyword being culture.
Again, proving my point I moments ago mentioned you proved.
Iâm guessing this is personal for you. Yeah, I chose this moment, because this kind of thing is currently more vivid on peoplesâ minds.
To think I merely gave Islamic culture as an example of a broader topic and I incur your anger. Israel and Palestine are both somewhat guilty, the difference is one is the only state of its kind and not only does the other one follow a philosophical system followed by a whole area of the world but is also currently backed by Russia and North Korea, one of which is a nation with a machiavellian agenda while the other is a historically infamous human rights mess itself.
in-groups =/= cultures =/= countries
Youâre proving that one point again.
Must I? Iâm trying not to generalize. Especially ethnicity. Are you asking me to?
So in other words you set up a trap and I avoided it? Iâm not understanding. This isnât about race. Iâm not against any race. To say I am is⊠kinda generalizing. Culture is not race. Hawaii is an Asian-majority state, does that make it less Hawaiian culture than it was generations before? Aspects of peoplesâ biology is just not on my mind in any part of this.
The whole point of not generalizing is to apply as few assumptions as possible, so yeah, all of Islamic culture has the Quran in common and nothing more. Again, are you asking me to generalize now?
Yes, I have read hundreds of works on this, enough that I can engage in conversations such as my tweet here and all the replies itâs replying to, so no need to attack me with the remark that I must not for personal sake.
Inevitably, I have looked at the Quran to look for answers as well. Muhammadâs darker moments are context-specific, but that doesnât mean theyâre not there and used to justify said human rights relapses.
The hadith is worse in this regard, though I wasnât even thinking of it, as many places in the Ummah, fortunately, donât even consider it unquestionable. It has the same problem as Paulâs books in the Bible canon, in that it was written by authorities who wanted to put insertions in a growing movement.
Tolerance has varied in Palestine and surrounding countries throughout history, but in every point in history, theyâve always had at least a few people who they downplay, yet even the fact that any point in a groupâs history has systemic homicide makes it worst than your regular cult, none of which have any distinction of weeding out minorities on such a scale, again (for a fourth time) the point of my question being the worthiness of cultures versus cults.
Also, not sure if youâre trying to imply theyâre not in the Ummah, but I should point out Southeast Asia is in the same sphere of influence. They, though, have been far, far better about how to treat minorities and only someone who is generalizing wouldnât give them an honorable mention.
Read the above.
Then itâs a good thing I didnât do that, now isnât it?
Put me on record as pointing out youâre the very first person to bring politics into this. In the words of almost every Democratic candidate in the past two decades, human rights are not a political issue.
I asked you in the reply of mine after the one where I cued you. You did acknowledge what my intentions were at the time too, namely when you told me to review it myself, so contradiction seems to be a theme here.
Case in point. You call it a meaningless distinction, but in practice itâs generalization. I had seen the post before and googled it to get it again, thatâs why the post you saw is the one you got.
If done intentionally, putting words in someoneâs mouth regarding their views is what someone does when they have nothing they can say in response to their actual words.
Your replies where you assume my whole political ideology, culture, race, religion, and intentions would certainly suggest you think you do, but I have more proof to the contrary. Both in the form of my ability to speak for myself and links to me talking about my past viewed. Which makes it exactly how you describe strawmen in your definition.
You think you know who I am? Prove it, with evidence (not just your word about my word versus my word about my word). Iâve been debating for a decade and a half, surely you can find evidence. Or you can acknowledge that, as I say again, that the OP is simply about cultures versus cults (in general).
Weâve now entered the pathological lying portion of coping with contradiction. You didnât answer several of those questions in any form and made confused passes at a couple out of order.
Uh yeah you do have to interpret questions in order to answer them thatâs how the game of question-answer works.
Wrong. Check out those upvote ratios, lib.
There is no contradiction even though youâre acting like there is one.
Your point where you feign incompetence to avoid answering a question?
Whoosh
You have still failed to internalize that there is no such thing as singular Islamic culture. Youâre doing the racist thing right here and now. You canât help yourself.
Oh, I donât care about your ignorant opinions on Israel and Palestine.
?
I was calling attention to the fact that Islam is multi-ethnic and global in contrast to your lazy and racist statements.
I suppose you would think that challenging your false assumptions is some kind of trap, lol.
And yet you conflated islamic culture and being vaguely middle eastern. Of course youâre being racist. Only someone who has no idea how race is socially constructed could disagree.
Race has never been about biology btw.
I am describing what youâve done, you just donât like the characterization.
âI have read hundreds of works on thisâ is weirdly not an answer to my question and makes me wonder what the âyesâ means. If you are claiming to have read the Quran and the Hadith, as in all of it, I donât believe you. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of Islam and incuriosity.
Who knows what that tweet is supposed to demonstrate.
Cool this jives with my position that youâve exclusively read other peopleâs opinions.
Who is âtheyâ? What does it mean that they downplayed a few people? None of this makes sense.
None of this makes any sense. It is not coherent thoughts.
A sphere of influence has an influencer, which is required to understand the claim, but you donât list one.
Except you did generalize and in fact keep doing it over and over again. You canât rhetoric your past and current statements out of existence.
Except you did.
This post and thread is inherently political. Impressive that you donât understand that.
Why should I respect the opinion of Democratic candidates?
Human rights are 100% political. In fact, the term itself is used in an exclusively political way. Have you ever noticed how only non-Western-aligned countries are the only ones described as violating human rights?
I will help you understand what asking is. If it doesnât have a question mark, you didnât ask for it.
Generalization is not inherently bad and is in fact necessary for someone to learn anything. Learning things like what kind of person thinks Sam Harris isnât an embarrassment and uses his subreddit as a source.
A generalization is bad when itâs reactionary and dehumanizing, like being racist.
Did I make up the fact that you cited the Sam Harris subreddit? You know, the subreddit dedicated to the infamous islamophobe? The âskepticâ who uses the same language you do? Folks that jump at the chance to identify a perceived logical fallacy?
I havenât mentioned your political ideology. I would wager that it is incoherent and immature. But you are embedded in a reactionary and islamophobic subculture somewhere, one in the orbit of self-proclaimed skeptics or rationalists.
Not difficult to guess given what people worry about a vague conglomeration of Muslims coming to their country and making things dangerous.
Nope havenât said anything about those
Easy to interpret from your caginess and use of multiple racist and xenophobic tropes.
These are not in contradiction with what I said.
Except itâs not because the things Iâm criticizing are the things youâre actually writing down right here on the internet.
No thanks. Donât care and I already have enough info for my personal satisfaction.
Iâm just letting you know that this is all unoriginal and Iâm already very familiar with it, right down to the obsessive sophistry to avoid admitting any kind of error whatsoever.
Nah Iâll stick with the truth.
Itâs easy to say that all one wants about someone theyâre talking to if no second opinion is granted or if ignoring all the other replies, so Iâll take someone elseâs word for it. You donât come across as a semanticist.
If only I was referring to that.
I did, semi-anonymous upvotes and downvotes (whose unreliability is ironically consistent enough it can be relied upon and arenât even particularly plentiful in this case but also which can be seen in the modlog) donât change my statement about replies and repliers.
Also, the fact Iâm accused of being a lib while also being accused of being right winged suggests this is about dislike for me somehow and not an actual point.
âŠas opposed to?
No, but thank you for asking.
Iâm sorry, I meant metaculture (happy?).
I couldnât tell based on your comments bringing it up.
Then why ask?
You implied it was.
Youâre reading too much into the simple act of someone pointing a finger.
Uhm, yeah, Iâll definitely let the Lemmy world get back to you on that one, especially considering race has sadly been dragged into the topic of eugenics and considering the ongoing debate of whether transracial identity is valid.
Because it goes with the âyesâ, my argumentatively novice friend.
I can name the verses people cite in order to justify violence. I donât NEED to see anything else to criticize these verses. Yet I have read enough from the Quran/Hadith that you can quiz me on them.
I have doubts youâll answer this, but tell me for the sake of suggesting consistency, by your logic, are the people who use select verses to justify violence (or anything else) ignorant of the group they claim to be a part of since they too imply that much of the book has a very different attitude⊠especially considering the fact thereâs a longstanding speculation amongst scholars that the final chapters of the Quran were written by Muhammadâs hostile in-laws (through Aisha) who wanted to make him seem more like them?
Exactly what it says on the tin.
Or that multiple people can, I donât know, come to the same opinions on things. Itâs not rocket science, and you didnât even quote anything there.
Maybe because thatâs not the complete sentence.
Ahem, this guy perhaps?
âŠas opposed to?
âŠas opposed to?
Then why insert religion into the mix, hmm?
You accuse me of being right wing, then of being a liberal, then ask me why you should respect the position of Democratic candidates? How does one please you?
They are politicized, but that isnât the same as saying they are destined to be political by design. I believe in a world where faith, race, ethnicity, medical condition, politics, family, etc. donât play a role in how someone is treated. If youâre judging someone by the contents of their character, you donât need to know any of these things about someone, and if someone feels they must persecute a fact of life/biology/society such as oneâs ethnicity or medical condition in order for their doctrine so-to-speak to work, can we even call it practical since types of people who are part and parcel to the human experience serve as a kryptonite to said doctrine?
Thatâs a generalization, is it not? You can tell me if your sentiments are personal or not.
Easily I can name Western countries that engage in human rights abuses, in fact most of them did at some time, from Britain and the famine of India to the US and its early 1800âs/1900âs eugenics program to the fact Canada wasnât allowing people with medical conditions to immigrate there until covid happened.
Then itâs settled.
A broken clock is right twice a day, eh?
No, but you did make up several other things about me and what I have been saying/implying (reread this whole reply section for more on that). One of these being the notion that I didnât link to a post from that subreddit coincidentally. You hate the subreddit obviously, but what do you say about the post itself (aside from it being in its subreddit)?
Ahem, you variously accused me of being right wing and a liberal. Iâm starting to question how sound you think you are.
You would be surprised (ainât that an understatement)
Keyword here is âinterpretâ. Youâre not concluding anything without a doubt.
But they are assumptions.
Things I say =/= interpretations of things I say
Directly goes against your claims of not assuming anything about me or my politics/culture/etc.
Iâll give you a demonstration/example of your lack of the knowledge you claim you can infer from me about me. I can guarantee nowhere in your info does it say Iâm on the socialism spectrum. Did you see that coming? Now, if youâre still confident you can infer things from me, can you guess my exact philosophy?
You mean headcanon?