U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Lovecraft]

5 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Yeah, they'll all be queueing up to get 90 months in jail. 

Which politicians have done any time for it?

 

 

[periodictabledancer]

2 hours ago, Lovecraft said:

Which politicians have done any time for it?

 

 

You tell me. 

[JFK-1]

Pelosi Home Invasion Comes After Years Of Trump Targeting The Speaker

 

Chris Hayes: “Political violence, intimidation, menace has been cultivated and encouraged by the ex-president for years to his followers. And that threat of violence has been specifically directed at Nancy Pelosi for years now.”

 

 

[JFK-1]

Chilling: The Pelosi Attack Amid Rising Threats To Lawmakers

 

Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi was violently attacked by an intruder at his San Francisco home The attacker assaulted him in the head with a hammer and attempted to tie him up “until Nancy got home.”

 

It comes amid a record number of threats to lawmakers. Presidential historian Michael Beschloss tells MSNBC

 

“We’re in a time where violence is licensed and encouraged by an ex-president” and tells viewers why this is different from historical examples of political violence. “never seen before in American history.”

 

 

[Lovecraft]

12 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

You tell me. 

[Mikey1874]

Fox News said the guy should have been released because hammer attacks are no big deal.

 

 

[Jeffros Furios]

38 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Fox News said the guy should have been released because hammer attacks are no big deal.

 

 

Fox News is pathetic and maybe that big nosed twat  can get skepled on the napper with a hammer ..

Aye only assault 

[Mikey1874]

20 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Fox News is pathetic and maybe that big nosed twat  can get skepled on the napper with a hammer ..

Aye only assault 

 

Saying 'where's Pelosi' is enough for attempted murder charge. 

[Jambo_Gaz]

16 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Chilling: The Pelosi Attack Amid Rising Threats To Lawmakers

 

Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi was violently attacked by an intruder at his San Francisco home The attacker assaulted him in the head with a hammer and attempted to tie him up “until Nancy got home.”

 

It comes amid a record number of threats to lawmakers. Presidential historian Michael Beschloss tells MSNBC

 

“We’re in a time where violence is licensed and encouraged by an ex-president” and tells viewers why this is different from historical examples of political violence. “never seen before in American history.”

 

 

 

They were both half naked when the cops arrived. 

 

Look it up mod. 

[JFK-1]

18 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

 

They were both half naked when the cops arrived. 

 

Look it up mod. 

 

Where do we look it up? Where did you look it up?

[Jambo_Gaz]

27 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Where do we look it up? Where did you look it up?

Hope this link is sufficiently left wing for you. It raises a lot more questions... 😌

Edited October 29, 2022 by Jambo_Gaz

[JFK-1]

5 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Hope this link is sufficiently left wing for you. It raises a lot more questions... 😌

 

It raises the question of where does all this nudity you led with come into it. Not a thing we didn't already know.

 

Incidentally I'm not left wing. Are you?

[Jambo_Gaz]

There's something really off about it all. Almost Jussie Smollett like...

 

 

 

[Jambo_Gaz]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

It raises the question of where does all this nudity you led with come into it. Not a thing we didn't already know.

 

Incidentally I'm not left wing. Are you?

Doesn't take Columbo to work this one out. 

 

Same husband of Nancy Pelosi that was arrested a few months back too. Not that the MSM seem to recall....

[JFK-1]

30 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Doesn't take Columbo to work this one out. 

 

Same husband of Nancy Pelosi that was arrested a few months back too. Not that the MSM seem to recall....

 

What in the world are you going on about? I'm still looking for the nudity you started this with. Where is it?

 

MSM? The news? There were nudes running all over the house and they're not reporting it?

[BlueRiver]

8 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

What in the world are you going on about? I'm still looking for the nudity you started this with. Where is it?

 

MSM? The news? There were nudes running all over the house and they're not reporting it?

I’m really confused too. I can’t tell if he’s going for an “it was staged” angle or “they’re lovers who were into rough sex” given his talking about them both being undressed…

[Watt-Zeefuik]

47 minutes ago, Jambo_Gaz said:

Doesn't take Columbo to work this one out. 

 

Same husband of Nancy Pelosi that was arrested a few months back too. Not that the MSM seem to recall....

ffs

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, BlueRiver said:

I’m really confused too. I can’t tell if he’s going for an “it was staged” angle or “they’re lovers who were into rough sex” given his talking about them both being undressed…

 

I want to know where it's reported that "they were both half naked when the cops arrived"

 

 

[John Gentleman]

On 24/10/2022 at 08:42, JFK-1 said:

It amuses me that there was once a sizeable Trump fan club around here. Drooling over what a genius they deemed dopey Don to be. How he's going to win another election, do this do that.

 

Well there was no second election win and as for doing this and that well we have what must be one of the most farcical coup attempts in history. Espionage in the form of stealing classified government documents, massive tax fraud to name but a few.

 

He's making history all right, but where are the fan club? Found another idiot to follow like sheep?

 

Problem is, he's still around and hasn't been brought to justice for his malfeasance. By all accounts he wants to run for the next presidential election, though Desantis may have other ideas.

America's institutions withstood the 2020/1 assault on democracy. I'm not sure they can withstand another, particularly with a stacked supreme court sitting.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Since there's no thread for it and I don't feel like firing up a new thread, I'm just going to pretend the topic says "American Politics" and say thank feck Lula won tonight. If Bolsonero's Amazon policy was allowed to continue, the damage to the planet would have been truly catastrophic.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that the fash is going to do the same thing Trump did and do everything he can to nullify the election, but hopefully it meets with the same end.

[JFK-1]

Good news from Brazil. But I'm still waiting for a link to the story about people running around the Pelosi household half naked. 

[ri Alban]

On 29/10/2022 at 23:11, Jambo_Gaz said:

Doesn't take Columbo to work this one out. 

 

Same husband of Nancy Pelosi that was arrested a few months back too. Not that the MSM seem to recall....

Feck Columbo, send for Harry. 

 

 

 

[JFK-1]

So I finally found a report about the all the running around naked in the Pelosi household.

 

It came from "fringe far right" sources. Mindless pish I would never look at because it's mindless pish. Clearly someone around here does read mindless pish and thinks it's real.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/63477452

 

[A Boy Named Crow]

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

So I finally found a report about the all the running around naked in the Pelosi household.

 

It came from "fringe far right" sources. Mindless pish I would never look at because it's mindless pish. Clearly someone around here does read mindless pish and thinks it's real.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/63477452

 

I suspect the poster in question just picked this up off some oddball on Twitter, sorry that's not the term for it...I meant did their own research.

Edited November 2, 2022 by A Boy Named Crow

[JFK-1]

17 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I suspect the poster in question just picked this up off some oddball on Twitter, sorry that's not the term for it...I meant did their own research.

 

Could be describing the housebreaker too. I'm pretty sure he didn't get whatever shit he was on from Reuters.

[JFK-1]

Moments leading to attack on Paul Pelosi were caught on camera

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

14 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

So I finally found a report about the all the running around naked in the Pelosi household.

 

It came from "fringe far right" sources. Mindless pish I would never look at because it's mindless pish. Clearly someone around here does read mindless pish and thinks it's real.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/63477452

 

 

To be fair, he hasn't posted again because it must be difficult to admit that you swallow every bullshit made-up story that the right-wing crazies dream up.

[JFK-1]

12 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

To be fair, he hasn't posted again because it must be difficult to admit that you swallow every bullshit made-up story that the right-wing crazies dream up.

 

Trump called in to some wacko podcast to comment on it. The take down of Trumps absurdity is classic. I wonder where Trump gets his 'intel' from. Maybe his ramblings are originals. Video primed to begin at the relevant point.

 

 

[JFK-1]

'Cold Civil War': Maher Warns MAGA Election Deniers Fueling Trump Coup

 

Bill Maher joins MSNBC’s Ari Melber for a wide ranging interview on the midterm elections, the Democratic strategy, election deniers, and lessons learned in the Trump era.

 

Maher, who predicted Trump would refuse to leave office, now telling Melber he thinks Trump will “show up at the inauguration, whether he’s on the list or not” adding a warning, “this time, he’s going to have this army of election deniers that he’s put into place.”

 

Melber presses Maher on his assertion that “we’re in a cold civil war in this country.”

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

Bill Maher advertises himself as a comedian, but he's a very shrewd political commentator, and he's been spot on about Trump since 2015.  When others were scoffing "Trump will never win", Maher was predicting a Trump victory.

 

I think his Titanic analogy in this interview is accurate ... people are acting like it's business as usual whereas everything has changed.  If / when the Republicans gain control of Congress at the mid-terms, the future for the USA will be a shit show. 

[Lovecraft]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

Bill Maher advertises himself as a comedian, but he's a very shrewd political commentator, and he's been spot on about Trump since 2015.  When others were scoffing "Trump will never win", Maher was predicting a Trump victory.

 

I think his Titanic analogy in this interview is accurate ... people are acting like it's business as usual whereas everything has changed.  If / when the Republicans gain control of Congress at the mid-terms, the future for the USA will be a shit show. 

Yup.  The US is ****ed.

 

We are watching a dictatorship being started in realtime and televised.

 

All the morons are lapping it up.  I give it 10 years before the whole country fails.

 

 

 

 

[BlueRiver]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

Bill Maher advertises himself as a comedian, but he's a very shrewd political commentator, and he's been spot on about Trump since 2015.  When others were scoffing "Trump will never win", Maher was predicting a Trump victory.

 

I think his Titanic analogy in this interview is accurate ... people are acting like it's business as usual whereas everything has changed.  If / when the Republicans gain control of Congress at the mid-terms, the future for the USA will be a shit show. 

He’s not the most popular figure amongst my age group from what I can tell but I really like Bill. I think my politics are fairly closely aligned to his mind you which always helps 😂

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I really despise Mahr's Islamophobia and his cultural commentary is extremely elitist and arrogant. I thought he was funny like 20 years ago but I can't stand him anymore. I can't even make it through that video without getting annoyed. If he told me the sky was blue I'd go check.

 

He goes in on the "both sides" on that video and even though he qualifies it it's just nuts. I'll give him that he wasn't dismissive of Trump's chances the way many were, but even in that Trump lost the popular vote and almost certainly wouldn't have won in 2016 without James Comey being a colossal ****ing douchebag a week before the election.

 

He's also just studiously ignorant. He says, "this time, we're not neatly divided by borders." Mate the last time we weren't either which was a big reason the whole thing was such a slaughterhouse.

 

All that said, he's calling out the danger to democracy right now and he's 100% right about that.

 

I think the thing that folks like Mahr miss, which I think the better commentators have gotten, is that American democracy has from the very beginning been fraught, limited, and skewed. Backsliding on democracy has been the norm from the beginning. We had elected Black representatives from the south in the late 1800s, some extremely good legislators, and then none for nearly a century. This isn't good news, and the backsliding should always be ferociously resisted, but the better commentators are pointing out that this is hardly the failing of a 246-year old star, and more just falling off the wagon again.

 

I'm studiously ignoring the polls. Everything is wacky right now and it's all going to come down to who shows up to vote. There are definitely going to be some extremely dangerous people elected, but there are also some outstanding candidates, and except in the worst case scenario, some of them will win and we'll maybe get a less geriatric Democratic party.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Also, one related oddity. In what's sure to give the anti-immigration nuts plenty of fodder, the attacker at the Pelosis' home was an immigrant in the country illegally. Clearly we need a border wall . . . . . with Canada.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Led Tasso

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Instead of Maher, I really strongly recommend this piece.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-day-after-3/sharetoken/fkMD72dvk8aP

 

Very practically about what's going to be terrible in the next two years should the GOP win the House (the likely but not definite outcome) and what's not as bad as some are saying.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

Instead of Maher, I really strongly recommend this piece.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-day-after-3/sharetoken/fkMD72dvk8aP

 

Very practically about what's going to be terrible in the next two years should the GOP win the House (the likely but not definite outcome) and what's not as bad as some are saying.

Yes that was an interesting article but the impact he had on me was likely the opposite from what he intended.  He seems quite unconcerned about the possibility of the USA losing democracy, " ... then we'll have to work on getting it back ..." without acknowledging that there will be strong forces in the USA working to ensure that it doesn't come back, and they will be in the government.

 

Most worrisome to me is his discussion about a debt default by the US government.  It looks like we're all screwed.

 

"So I think a default will happen. The consequences of that will be cataclysmic, immediate and mostly unfixable. This isn’t something where people get furloughed for a few weeks. It’s the U.S. government declaring bankruptcy which will have all the impact you can imagine on its future ability to borrow money at low costs. And also, it’ll basically mean a global financial crisis."  

[JFK-1]

Maher insisted for years beforehand that Trump would refuse to leave office if he lost the election, I saw him state that more than once over the years. That demonstrates insight. Nobody seemed to take that too seriously and I confess I didn't either but he was right.

 

I thought Trump would kick up a fuss, lie, talk witless shite and be gone. How wrong was I, he attempted a violent coup with many threads and is still walking around. Try transporting that someplace else. Would Boris still be walking around if he had done everything Trump has in an attempt to keep power?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

Maher insisted for years beforehand that Trump would refuse to leave office if he lost the election, I saw him state that more than once over the years. That demonstrates insight. Nobody seemed to take that too seriously and I confess I didn't either but he was right.

 

I thought Trump would kick up a fuss, lie, talk witless shite and be gone. How wrong was I, he attempted a violent coup with many threads and is still walking around. Try transporting that someplace else. Would Boris still be walking around if he had done everything Trump has in an attempt to keep power?

Trump refusing to leave was the consensus among everyone I knew. We didn’t quite know how it would go down but whatever else Maher’s insights (I didn’t think Trump would win in 2016), that one wasn’t all that novel.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

Yes that was an interesting article but the impact he had on me was likely the opposite from what he intended.  He seems quite unconcerned about the possibility of the USA losing democracy, " ... then we'll have to work on getting it back ..." without acknowledging that there will be strong forces in the USA working to ensure that it doesn't come back, and they will be in the government.

The point I was trying to make earlier, and which Marshall echoes, is that it would hardly be the first time. The US started as a barely democratic republic and has repeatedly reversed back into anti-democracy. It’s not pleasant but it’s hardly new.

 

What helped save the US during the first Trump admin was devolved federated government. Even in a huge GOP wave there will be enormous parts of the US with anti-MAGA state governments with a large amount autonomy. I don’t know what’s coming or how this gets resolved but I find most of Maher’s analysis pretty pat and lazy.

[JFK-1]

35 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

Trump refusing to leave was the consensus among everyone I knew. We didn’t quite know how it would go down but whatever else Maher’s insights (I didn’t think Trump would win in 2016), that one wasn’t all that novel.

 

I'm somewhat puzzled by your anathema is the first word that popped into my head about Maher. You think he's some sort of anti Islamic extremist? And lies like Trump?

 

Can you give me an example of that? I have seen a lot of him because I think he's hilarious and that's predominately why I watch him, for the laughs.

 

But I also think he's a rational political commentator. He's not some sort of Tucker Carlson is he? Because that's what you appear to be making him look like to at least some degree.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I'm somewhat puzzled by your anathema is the first word that popped into my head about Maher. You think he's some sort of anti Islamic extremist? And lies like Trump?

 

Can you give me an example of that? I have seen a lot of him because I think he's hilarious and that's predominately why I watch him, for the laughs.

 

But I also think he's a rational political commentator. He's not some sort of Tucker Carlson is he? Because that's what you appear to be making him look like to at least some degree.

 

Maher has repeatedly dug in on Islam being fundamentally incompatible with civilization in much the same way Richard Dawkins has, a position as noxious as it is ignorant of both history and contemporary Islam. It's so widespread that someone at Georgetown apparently put an entire page together about it.

 

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-bill-maher/

 

He's not anything like Tucker Carlson, both in the fact that he has far less cultural impact and that he is not, from what I can tell, a cynical nihilist who will fabricate things out of thin air that end up destroying lives for a temporary bump in ratings. What I object to is him being presented as some reasonable and informed evaluator of the cultural moment. He is a producer of as well as a product of a very real problem in liberalism and in certain parts of the leadership and the consultocracy of the national Democratic party, a studied arrogance that's presented as a kind of worldliness. The kinds of shit he spouts, not just the Islamophobia but the presumption that all the problems of racism and intolerance are somehow "out there" and not in the very room that he creates and curates. I don't know if Trump or Giuliani were ever actually chummy with Maher, but I guarantee they were at the same parties in New York for decades. What folks like Maher (and for that matter the New York Times) can never see is that Trumpism isn't something that arose out in Wyoming or West Virginia or Alabama, but that it was fomented in the same New York spaces of cultural production and commentary.

 

To wit, Trump's chief election denial henchman was Rudy Giuliani before he famously imploded at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philadelphia. Giulani's signature program in New York was "broken windows" policing, an idea that sounds great in principle until you see how it was implemented, and how much it's driven the anger and hatred towards police officers where it's been implemented. Maher has repeatedly defended this program as needed and good (at times to boos), again from the naively defensible position of order maintenance, but also showing he has done nothing to listen to the now mountainous scholarship showing the uselessness and harmfulness of the program. Maher is again arrogant in his ignorance, dismissing the critics as somehow unhinged despite them having the overwhelming weight of empiricism on their side.

 

So it's not really Maher himself I dislike, although I find his schtick totally tired and played out and unfunny at this point. It's his proud and dismissive ignorance, something that's not unique to him but which he wears proudly like a cape.

[JFK-1]

23 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Maher has repeatedly dug in on Islam being fundamentally incompatible with civilization in much the same way Richard Dawkins has, a position as noxious as it is ignorant of both history and contemporary Islam. It's so widespread that someone at Georgetown apparently put an entire page together about it.

 

https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-bill-maher/

 

He's not anything like Tucker Carlson, both in the fact that he has far less cultural impact and that he is not, from what I can tell, a cynical nihilist who will fabricate things out of thin air that end up destroying lives for a temporary bump in ratings. What I object to is him being presented as some reasonable and informed evaluator of the cultural moment. He is a producer of as well as a product of a very real problem in liberalism and in certain parts of the leadership and the consultocracy of the national Democratic party, a studied arrogance that's presented as a kind of worldliness. The kinds of shit he spouts, not just the Islamophobia but the presumption that all the problems of racism and intolerance are somehow "out there" and not in the very room that he creates and curates. I don't know if Trump or Giuliani were ever actually chummy with Maher, but I guarantee they were at the same parties in New York for decades. What folks like Maher (and for that matter the New York Times) can never see is that Trumpism isn't something that arose out in Wyoming or West Virginia or Alabama, but that it was fomented in the same New York spaces of cultural production and commentary.

 

To wit, Trump's chief election denial henchman was Rudy Giuliani before he famously imploded at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philadelphia. Giulani's signature program in New York was "broken windows" policing, an idea that sounds great in principle until you see how it was implemented, and how much it's driven the anger and hatred towards police officers where it's been implemented. Maher has repeatedly defended this program as needed and good (at times to boos), again from the naively defensible position of order maintenance, but also showing he has done nothing to listen to the now mountainous scholarship showing the uselessness and harmfulness of the program. Maher is again arrogant in his ignorance, dismissing the critics as somehow unhinged despite them having the overwhelming weight of empiricism on their side.

 

So it's not really Maher himself I dislike, although I find his schtick totally tired and played out and unfunny at this point. It's his proud and dismissive ignorance, something that's not unique to him but which he wears proudly like a cape.

 

I suppose Maher could be described as opionated, but I see no malevolence in his opinions and I don't by any means agree with everything he says.

 

You said a lot of stuff but let's just take one point. Regarding Islam Maher would say pretty much the same things about all religions as would Dawkins, both have torn Christianity to shreds. If anything they might say Islam is a standout in terms of religious threats, and in this day and age it undeniably is in my view.

 

These guys don't give any special consideration to an ideology because it's a religion, why should they? They're like some sort of card carrying atheists, should the GOP get any special consideration in terms of criticism?

I have always been uncomfortable with this "islamophobia" label, how many other ideologies do we have a phobia about? Are Maher and Dawkins Christophobic too? Talking about it is a phobia?

Could we here perhaps be described as being say Trumpophobic? Or the one they actually used Trump derangement syndrome? Which was simply a tactic to stop and or muddy the waters of unsavoury truths about Trump. Nothing to see here.
 

And I feel islamophobia smacks of the same thing.  

[Watt-Zeefuik]

55 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I suppose Maher could be described as opionated, but I see no malevolence in his opinions and I don't by any means agree with everything he says.

 

You said a lot of stuff but let's just take one point. Regarding Islam Maher would say pretty much the same things about all religions as would Dawkins, both have torn Christianity to shreds. If anything they might say Islam is a standout in terms of religious threats, and in this day and age it undeniably is in my view.

 

He and Dawkins absolutely single out Islam. Dawkins has tweeted about this as recently as last month (noting Islam as somehow uniquely unsuited to civilization, rational thought, etc.), and that page that I link to has repeated examples of Maher singling out Islam.

 

Which in a country where white nationalist Evangelical protestantism is fomenting fascist and anti-democratic terrorism along with the removal of protections against forced birth coming down from the Supreme Court with the same obsessions, is pretty ****ing rich. It is forms of Christianity that are the greatest threat to democracy now, not Islam. Likewise, Maher and Harris have repeatedly put up rank apologetics for the state of Israel bombing childrens' hospitals and slaughtering innocents as justifiable because somehow Judaism is more compatible with civilization.

 

Which is patently absurd in the face of history. I realize it gets swept under the rung from Anglo-American colonialism, but huge swaths of the prides of Western civilization were built on the backs of a half millennia of advances in the Islamic world, from math to chemistry to philosophy (how exactly do people think the works of Aristotle that inspired the Renaissance were "rediscovered?") to art to technology. Islam isn't incompatible with modern civilization, the Islamic world practically invented it!

 

Folk probably know by now that most would term me a fairly devout Christian, as I'm married to a minister and personally take my kids in to Sunday School every week, but I'm also pretty adamantly opposed to white nationalist Christianity. I had really high hopes for the "new Atheist" movement to produce really good, trenchant critiques of contemporary Christianity (and I used to recommend Dawkins' books on evolution to anyone who was interested in the topic), as I really can only stay in church if I hold to semper reformanda, the need of the church to always be reformed, often in response to cutting but badly needed criticism. However among the whole lot they've almost all fallen into near parodies of themselves, often revealing that when they're on their tirades against "religion," it's often Islam they carve out special cases for. Which is almost entirely based in imperial coloniality. Incredibly disappointing.

 

55 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

These guys don't give any special consideration to an ideology because it's a religion, why should they? They're like some sort of card carrying atheists, should the GOP get any special consideration in terms of criticism?

I have always been uncomfortable with this "islamophobia" label, how many other ideologies do we have a phobia about? Are Maher and Dawkins Christophobic too? Talking about it is a phobia?

 

I agree that "Islamophobia" is a terrible word, but it's the accepted one. The correct term is simple anti-Islamic intolerance, grounded in ignorance and bigotry. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Maher have proved useful in the end. They've done excellent work to reveal that religious hatred need not be limited to the religious. I get far more interesting critiques of Christianity in my conversations with my Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist friends (and better critiques of Protestantism from my Catholic friends) than has ever come out of atheism. Ultimately what's underneath the "new atheists" is little but cultural bigotry, ignorance, superstition, and hate. They're just like us after all.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Led Tasso

[JFK-1]

3 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

I agree that "Islamophobia" is a terrible word, but it's the accepted one. The correct term is simple anti-Islamic intolerance, grounded in ignorance and bigotry. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Maher have proved useful in the end. They've done excellent work to reveal that religious hatred need not be limited to the religious. I get far more interesting critiques of Christianity in my conversations with my Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist friends (and better critiques of Protestantism from my Catholic friends) than has ever come out of atheism. Ultimately what's underneath the "new atheists" is little but cultural bigotry, ignorance, superstition, and hate. They're just like us after all.

 

I agree that in the current moment extremist Christian ideology is more impactful in the US than Islamic ideology is, but that's a relatively new phenomena at the current level.

 

The past couple of decades Islamic ideology has been at the forefront and got a lot of attention because it had to, there have been serious problems globally just one manifesting itself in Iran right now. Multiple terrorist attacks in the UK alone over those decades inspired by an Islamic ideology. This ideology absolutely must be free to discuss.  

 

I personally haven't seen any of these names you mention say Muslims are bad in the way you appear to be portraying it here. In fact I have seen all of them go out of their way to say they're not. They can't be stopped from criticising what they see as detrimental facets of this ideology under the guise of they're attacking individuals.

 

I personally am aware of islamic contributions to preserving ancient records and work in mathematics etc. so I presume Harris , Maher etc. all are too, and would acknowledge it. But it was a very long time ago and has no relevance to the here and now.

 

Saudi Arabia churns out more graduates in "islamic studies" than anything else. They wont be winning any Nobel science prizes any time soon. And that's not a swipe at them, simply a reality. Saudi Arabia exports oil Western technology located, extracts and refines, and they export an ideology, nothing else. 

 

In addition that's not all these people talk about, I have seen all of them speak on religions in general but the vast majority of the material I have seen produced by them is entirely unrelated to religion. You may actually agree with them on more things than you don't.

 

As a religious man do you think you may have a grievance against the likes of these people who present as let's say anti religionists on some level? 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I agree that in the current moment extremist Christian ideology is more impactful in the US than Islamic ideology is, but that's a relatively new phenomena at the current level.

 

It really isn't. The Crusades were violent wealth and land grabs against perhaps the most peaceful, prosperous, and advanced part of the world at the time (at least west of the Indus and east of the Atlantic). The KKK was deeply grounded in Christian ideology. Antisemitism is a fairly new phenomenon in the Muslim world, largely generated by the politics surrounding the creation and expansion of the state of Israel, whereas antisemitic violence was endemic to European Christianity for a millennium. Christian ideology, notably the "doctrine of discovery" but also Anglican imperialism, drove the destructive forces of settler colonialism. Christianity was long used to justify the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

 

Now, does this give Islam a clean bill of health? Of course not. Muslim-driven violence is also quite old and repressive Muslim states have generally been just as violent as anyone else. But that's the point, they've only been as violent (and at times less so) than everyone else. To say differently is just repeating unempirical Western chauvinism, although I realize it's widespread and taken as "common knowledge" in many places.

 

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

The past couple of decades Islamic ideology has been at the forefront and got a lot of attention because it had to, there have been serious problems globally just one manifesting itself in Iran right now. Multiple terrorist attacks in the UK alone over those decades inspired by an Islamic ideology. This ideology absolutely must be free to discuss.  

 

While it's impossible to deny the Islamic connections of terrorist attacks over the past decade, it would also be unserious to pretend those aren't connected to the West's anti-Islamic rhetoric and launching catastrophic wars of choice in Iraq and utterly bungling our invasion and two-decade occupation of Afghanistan. Of course nihilistic Wahabist sentiment drove the 11 Sept attacks, but even that was in response to the West's ongoing rancid alliance with the government of Saudi Arabia. None of this excuses the brutality of the attacks, but to present it as one-sided is hypocritical.

 

In fact, in current events, Muslims are far more likely to be the victims of violent repression than they are to be engaged in supporting terrorism. Myanmar's genocide of the Rohinga, China's throwing the Uighurs in concentration camps, and the Modi government's ongoing demonization of Muslims and stoking anti-Muslim sentiments are far more destructive than anything Muslims are doing to anyone else at the moment. Again, this isn't to dismiss Erdogan or the Ayatolahs, it's to point out that you're painting 2 billion people with a very broad brush that should be used far more narrowly.

 

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I personally haven't seen any of these names you mention say Muslims are bad in the way you appear to be portraying it here. In fact I have seen all of them go out of their way to say they're not. They can't be stopped from criticising what they see as detrimental facets of this ideology under the guise of they're attacking individuals.

 

Sam Harris literally called Islam the "motherload of bad ideas" (which Maher has repeated and defended) and said that the toxicity of Islam justified indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, including specifically the bombing of a children's hospital. He said that. He's called the Koran the "only worse source of morality than the Bible" (dude Mein Kamph is *right there*)

 

 

I'm not a huge fan of Current Affairs by any means but this covers an awful lot of his nonsense.

 

Dawkins, for his part, just tweeted like three weeks ago that Muslims, unlike Christians, were incapable of modulating or adapting their beliefs, unlike other religions (again, a thoroughly unempirical observation). (I would go dig it up but I just deleted both of my Twitter accounts and don't feel like wading through the public interface to find it.) His anti-Islamic bigotry is admittedly much less virulent and dug-in than Harris's (also he's basically been retired for a bit), but it pops up every now and again when he just can't help himself.

 

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

I personally am aware of islamic contributions to preserving ancient records and work in mathematics etc. so I presume Harris , Maher etc. all are too, and would acknowledge it. But it was a very long time ago and has no relevance to the here and now.

 

Saudi Arabia churns out more graduates in "islamic studies" than anything else. They wont be winning any Nobel science prizes any time soon. And that's not a swipe at them, simply a reality. Saudi Arabia exports oil Western technology located, extracts and refines, and they export an ideology, nothing else. 

 

In terms of the global Muslim population, Saudi Arabia is absurdly tiny. It is an extremely reactionary petrostate that happens to be the custodian of the holiest sites in Islam. Judging the global Muslim population by Saudi Arabia is roughly the same as judging all of Scotland by Old Firm season ticket holders, or around 1.6% On top of that, as an authoritarian state, Saudi Arabia's actions are hardly representative of the 35 million souls there, but of an extremely small elite of extremely wealthy people and their henchmen who actively repress even the slightest bit of dissent. So it's more like judging the entire UK based on the membership of the Tory party alone.

 

Now you may say, "ah but let's throw in Iran." Yes, let's. A brutal Western dictator was overthrown by a popular revolutionary movement that was immediately co-opted and consolidated by a reactionary authoritarian theocracy, again enshrining the rule of a very narrow few. And now the citizens are yet again revolting, trying to overthrow that theocracy. So are they trying to overthrow Islam? Well that's complicated I'm sure, but in the failed "green revolution," a sign of support was yelling "God is greatest" from their rooftops at night after curfew, so I kind of doubt they're atheist. In other words, the actions that folks like Harris ascribe entirely to Islamic ideology are far more tied up in a very limited number of authoritarian states whose existence the West is thoroughly complicit in.

 

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

In addition that's not all these people talk about, I have seen all of them speak on religions in general but the vast majority of the material I have seen produced by them is entirely unrelated to religion. You may actually agree with them on more things than you don't.

 

As a religious man do you think you may have a grievance against the likes of these people who present as let's say anti religionists on some level? 

 

I find the "new Atheists" more a colossal disappointment than anything. As I mentioned before, I used to widely recommend The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker as outstanding. (In their day they were, but genetic science has moved on and Dawkins hasn't in many ways.) I read excerpts of Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation and had hopes for it but was really disappointed, and he doubled down on that with his nonsense "science-based ethics" campaign that turned into a bunch of evo-psych woo woo. They simply aren't very good at critique, and more to the point they aren't actually critical scholars, they're just modernist atheist humanist maximalists. Meh.

 

By contrast, folks like Bart Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian turned atheist who remains a scholar of Biblical texts is far more interesting (and challenging) in his criticisms of the church. I pay for his blog, and he's often writing things that upset stuff I've been settled on for a while.

 

But in the end, I want good religious critique. I dislike the "new atheists" both because they're bad at their jobs and because a lot of them now (like Alan Dershowitz) have been unmasked as unapoletic right wing proto-fascists. But I will never have the antipathy for them that I have towards the white nationalist Evangelicals like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell. The new atheists are annoying and bad. The Evangelicals are far more dangerous.

[Unknown user]

We're not used to reading the signals, will you let us know if the firearms are away to come out?

[Captain Slog]

On 04/11/2022 at 14:34, Smithee said:

We're not used to reading the signals, will you let us know if the firearms are away to come out?

Probably out of context @Smithee, but that statement is scarily true and sent a shiver down my spine as i recalled.

 

When I entered an American courthouse, a policeman shouted are they the real deal? (pointing at the dirk and sgian dubh) and started backing away pawing his holster.

I have no clue how to react if i think i gun is about to be drawn - thankfully the Judge was on hand to reassure him it was national dress and he'd permitted it inside.

 

I understand a cop taking his job seriously, just think if any mistakes are made, someone would be shot easily through misunderstandings, at least in Britain you'd just get a sore face.

 

But normal civilians.  I had a guy tap his gun when i mentioned the nice Mexican family ahead.  Turns out Texans look like Mexicans, and if Id been brought up in America i would have observed the nuances and not upset him, - a bit like when Europeans call us Scots English, but this civilian was prepared to consider a gun for the insult.

 

For the record, if they wear a stetson and have a gun, they are Texan, even if they look Mexican.

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Captain Slog

[ri Alban]

If Trump gets back in, The US will split.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 06/11/2022 at 14:18, ri Alban said:

If Trump gets back in, The US will split.

We already fought a war and killed a half million soldiers over that. It's not splitting. But it might get more violent.

[Maple Leaf]

Today (Tuesday) is election day in the USA.  This is the day that Republicans assume control over Congress.

 

And they will never give it back!