General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

Islam is facing an ideological crisis, like Japan was prior to World War II. It's caught between 1500 years of history and a world that has chosen to reject it, like Japan modernizing after the idea of an empire became more or less obsolete. I honestly think it's going to take actual international conflict to change Islam and curb further fundamentalist terrorism that stems from Islam. Also, I think your ethnic bias is showing.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Are you saying that honour killings occur nowhere else in the world?

Are you saying that it is just a coincidence that British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/

By the way, that's CNN reporting on that one. Not even the left can spin that to show Islam being tolerant.

Since said poll (as far as I can tell) only accounts for Muslims, I'll use a source that covers more groups:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su

It looks like American Muslims are more likely to support gay marriage than Protestant, Mormon's and Jehovah's Witness Christians and tallying a grand total of 2% behind Christianity as a whole. Are you saying that Christian 'pray away the gay' camps aren't a thing?

Is it a coincidence that 87% of Muslim women in Bangladesh (which is Asia and not even Middle East) suffer from domestic abuse?

http://m.asianews.it/index.php?art=30204&l=en

Why does Islam get a free pass? Why do you feel the need to apologize for a culture that doesn't see the need to do so for themselves?

I'd like to know what part of anything I've said has been 'apologising' for fundamentalist Islam? Or how asking for clarification on whether someone's abuse took place in a country that I would describe as very fundamentalist is apologising for said behaviour? If you think that my refusal to judge an entire group by it's most radical, fundamentalist and otherwise unpleasant members is something I only do with Islam, than you're mistaken.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Phillius

[blah the Prussian]

Islam is facing an ideological crisis, like Japan was prior to World War II. It's caught between 1500 years of history and a world that has chosen to reject it, like Japan modernizing after the idea of an empire became more or less obsolete. I honestly think it's going to take actual international conflict to change Islam and curb further fundamentalist terrorism that stems from Islam. Also, I think your ethnic bias is showing.

I'd argue that Islam worldwide is facing the opposite problem as Japan; Japan was faced with a rapid modernization under the Meiji Emperor that left a good deal of its conservative populace discontented. They concentrated their power in the military, which led to Japanese Fascism being basically focused on glorifying the Bushido focused past. Essentially, it was rapid modernization followed by a rapid reaction. Islam stayed in the same place it was for centuries, only to rapidly regress into Sharia after the fall of the Ottomans. The two situations are somewhat similar, but not entirely.

[Life]

Since said poll (as far as I can tell) only accounts for Muslims, I'll use a source that covers more groups:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su

It looks like American Muslims are more likely to support gay marriage than Protestant, Mormon's and Jehovah's Witness Christians and tallying a grand total of 2% behind Christianity as a whole. Are you saying that Christian 'pray away the gay' camps aren't a thing?

I'd like to know what part of anything I've said has been 'apologising' for fundamentalist Islam? Or how asking for clarification on whether someone's abuse took place in a country that I would describe as very fundamentalist is apologising for said behaviour? If you think that my refusal to judge an entire group by it's most radical, fundamentalist and otherwise unpleasant members is something I only do with Islam, than you're mistaken.

First point: Immoral =/= Illegal.

The poll I showed says that homosexuality should have a penalty of jail time. Yours uses the word "immoral".

Basically, you're trying to say that just because most Conservatives won't bake a gay couple a cake, that's a form of discrimination. Meanwhile, in Britain, over half the Muslim community believes in a jail sentence for homosexuality.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Secondly, you have answered most of my questions with "not all Muslims believe that". But there are full countries that do. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria...

You clearly said that you won't use Iran as a measuring stick. Who will you use then?

It's great that American Muslims are supposedly more tolerant. But I don't expect it to stay that way.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Alright, I see how it's going to be.

Basically, you're trying to say that just because most Conservatives won't bake a gay couple a cake, that's a form of discrimination. Meanwhile, in Britain, over half the Muslim community believes in a jail sentence for homosexuality.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Do you really think that's exclusive to Islam? Because I can make a list of non-Muslim majority countries where that's the case:

[spoiler=Same-Sex Sexual Activity Illegal. Not counting penalties that aren't enforced]

South Sudan

Ghana

Togo

Cameroon

Burundi

Kenya

Uganda

Tanzania

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Angola

Botswana

Namibia

Swaziland

Zambia

Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Jamaica

St. Kitts and Nevis

St. Lucia

There's more, but I'm not going to list all of them. Here's an official report from ILGA, go nuts.

http://ilga.org/downloads/02_ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2016_ENG_WEB_150516.pdf

Secondly, you have answered most of my questions with "not all Muslims believe that". But there are full countries that do. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria...

You clearly said that you won't use Iran as a measuring stick. Who will you use then?

It's great that American Muslims are supposedly more tolerant. But I don't expect it to stay that way.

You obviously didn't pay attention to what I said, as I clearly stated that I will not judge an entire group based on the "radical, fundamentalist and otherwise unpleasant". Of the nine countries you listed, seven of them are in the Middle-East/North Africa region (the fundamentalist Muslim region) and all of them are listed as developing countries.

http://www.iugg2015prague.com/list-of-developing-countries.htm

Could it be that there's more than one variable that contributes to the awfulness of these places are than just 'because Islam'?

Edited August 19, 2016 by Phillius

[Moblin Major General]

Here's the metric you should use for Islam is Jordan. Does Jordan do it? If so, apply it to Islam. If not, why doesn't it apply to Jordan? Right Wing, you should seriously consider doing this, especially because Jordan stands between Israel and her enemies, so you need it.

[Life]

You obviously didn't pay attention to what I said, as I clearly stated that I will not judge an entire group based on the "radical, fundamentalist and otherwise unpleasant". Of the nine countries you listed, seven of them are in the Middle-East/North Africa region (the fundamentalist Muslim region) and all of them are listed as developing countries.

http://www.iugg2015prague.com/list-of-developing-countries.htm

Could it be that there's more than one variable that contributes to the awfulness of these places are than just 'because Islam'?

This is my favourite part. The first part was a list of other developing countries when I clearly mention that Radical Islam is an issue to the Western World. Western countries are more than likely developed (unless the definition changed while I wasn't looking).

But for your question here.

Could there be more than one variable aside from "radical Islam" for making those countries 3rd world?

Ummm... no.

[Time the Crestfallen]

This is my favourite part. The first part was a list of other developing countries when I clearly mention that Radical Islam is an issue to the Western World. Western countries are more than likely developed (unless the definition changed while I wasn't looking).

No you didn't. Your point was about immoral ≠ illegal and how British Muslims want homosexuality to be made illegal as opposed to fundamentalist Christians considering it immoral. I pointed out that making homosexuality illegal is hardly unique to Muslims and ties into my question, which was not that 'radical Islam' makes countries 3rd world, but that the shittiness of the nations you listed being blamed entirely on Islam could potentially be incorrect since, as listed above, their are plenty of non-Muslim majority developing countries that are just as awful in regards to women and LGBT Rights and that maybe, just maybe, the awfulness of these countries can also be explained with the inherent problems of being a developing country as opposed to radical Islam being the sole cause of those countries awfulness.

[Moblin Major General]

No you didn't. Your point was about immoral ≠ illegal and how British Muslims want homosexuality to be made illegal as opposed to fundamentalist Christians considering it immoral. I pointed out that making homosexuality illegal is hardly unique to Muslims and ties into my question, which was not that 'radical Islam' makes countries 3rd world, but that the shittiness of the nations you listed being blamed entirely on Islam could potentially be incorrect since, as listed above, their are plenty of non-Muslim majority developing countries that are just as awful in regards to women and LGBT Rights and that maybe, just maybe, the awfulness of these countries can also be explained with the inherent problems of being a developing country as opposed to radical Islam being the sole cause of those countries awfulness.

Not exactly. Until recently, many of those countries were developed. They unraveled when either the people had enough bullshit, or the US did, except for Bangladesh, which has always been a Subcontinental backwater, and maybe Morocco, which I would argue because of Casablanca still being an important cultural center for North Africa. Rebellion sowed the seeds of fundamentalism in almost all of these countries, and nearly open war in as many. You seem to not realize being a third world country means the cause came from somewhere. I'm sure there has yet to be a place in the world where it's bad because it's always been. Right Wing is right, except not in the way he thinks: The fall of the House of Osman caused a lot of the problems for the Middle East, and now it's going to take decades of warfare for another caliphate to rise, although probably democratically rather than forcefully.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Not exactly. Until recently, many of those countries were developed. They unraveled when either the people had enough bullshit, or the US did, except for Bangladesh, which has always been a Subcontinental backwater, and maybe Morocco, which I would argue because of Casablanca still being an important cultural center for North Africa. Rebellion sowed the seeds of fundamentalism in almost all of these countries, and nearly open war in as many. You seem to not realize being a third world country means the cause came from somewhere. I'm sure there has yet to be a place in the world where it's bad because it's always been. Right Wing is right, except not in the way he thinks: The fall of the House of Osman caused a lot of the problems for the Middle East, and now it's going to take decades of warfare for another caliphate to rise, although probably democratically rather than forcefully.

Zimbabwe? That's a joke, don't take it literally.

I understand that, even if it might seem like I don't. My argument is that Islam is not the sole factor for these countries being less than ideal. The fall of the House of Osman (to my knowledge) kick-started the whole mess and now there are many factors at work (lower HDI statistics and political instability/corruption come to mind) and that's without considering what the War on Terror/general US involvement has done to the region.

[Life]

So a rabbi in France was just stabbed in the middle of the street by a man who yelled "Allahu Akbar".

Nope. No such thing as Radical Islam in first world countries.

Meanwhile, Trump's launched his first true shot at Hillary. I like it but it's still not enough for me.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Tryhard]

Nope. No such thing as Radical Islam in first world countries.

I highly doubt he is suggesting that. But you even say 'radical' yourself, our problem is that 1.5 billion Muslims were likened to the KKK and that xenophobia is a reasonable course of action because they are Muslim. I don't need to be scared of my Pakistani neighbours for ten years or my half-sister. I don't have any issues with admitting there is problem in the culture of Islam, and in fact I find it pretty funny that some in the far-left would defend it because that culture is pretty traditionally conservative (edit: authoritarian/lack of freedom of expression, to clarify) and goes against their values.

It was said before, but there was discussion about how the Middle East is in a state of turmoil. It doesn't exactly help matters.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

I don't have any issues with admitting there is problem in the culture of Islam, and in fact I find it pretty funny that the far-left would defend it because that culture is pretty traditionally conservative.

I certainly don't. I won't defend a religion that stands against the notion of freedom of expression. I would prefer if the West left the Middle East to fester, save the Israel the pariah. God forbid I be called a conservative for defending parts of the still-progressive American tradition. I'm also not afraid to tell a Muslim they're wrong, unlike a lot of people in my camp that are probably too PC for their own good.

[Life]

in fact I find it pretty funny that some in the far-left would defend it because that culture is pretty traditionally conservative (edit: authoritarian/lack of freedom of expression, to clarify)

That's never been a conservative idea. Only liberals.

Liberals loved both Stalin and Hitler (leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party) who were far left. Pol Pot was also left, by the way. In comparison, Ayn Rand was far right (to give you an idea of how left and right works). This is based on economics, however. Authoritarianism can be both left or right but most examples tend to emerge from the left.

Conservatives have never been anti-freedom of speech as a general idea. Liberals are more in that camp but they usually do it "for the greater good" (a socialist idea).

Edited August 19, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Moblin Major General]

That's never been a conservative idea. Only liberals.

Liberals loved both Stalin and Hitler (leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party) who were far left. Pol Pot was also left, by the way. In comparison, Ayn Rand was far right (to give you an idea of how left and right works). This is based on economics, however. Authoritarianism can be both left or right but most examples tend to emerge from the left.

Conservatives have never been anti-freedom of speech as a general idea. Liberals are more in that camp but they usually do it "for the greater good" (a socialist idea).

I know that as a Jew you would definitely prefer to distance yourself from Hitler, but Free Speech is Libertarian, not Conservative. Stalin and Hitler were obviously Authoritarian, the opposite of Libertarian. You are a conservative libertarian, where Hitler and Stalin were center authoritarian. As much as I despise hate speech and Shoah denial, I will only go so far as to call those out and criticize them, until or unless the person expressing said views commits a hate crime.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

small question, when y'all talking about alignments and stuff, https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif its related to this right?

according to the site, Stalin and Hitler were definitely up there on authoritarianism.

[Tryhard]

It doesn't matter what Hitler said he was leading lol, he was a right-wing fascist and you could argue that his economic policies were left-wing, but who cares about that when the real issue is that he enforces with an iron fist and fascism is straight up defined as extreme right wing. Now you could argue how right wing he is. Mussolini is another example.

You are right about there being left authoritarianism, though. I should have said that there is both left and right authoritarianism, Stalin is an example of left wing (communism).

Regardless, who are the people that have been repressing women and gay rights in America for years? Republican Christian conservatives. Ban gay marriage, it's immoral. Ban abortion, it's immoral. Women should act this way and that way. Some think that America should be a theocracy. The same that were the moral police especially in the '90s (but duh children).

I don't think my assertion that some of the fundamental rules from Islam are more similar to right-wing authoritarianism then left is wrong.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

small question, when y'all talking about alignments and stuff, https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif its related to this right?

according to the site, Stalin and Hitler were definitely up there on authoritarianism.

That's correct. Right Wing is definitely bottom right quadrant, right in the middle. I'm more bottom left, lower and to the right of Ghandi.

[ping]

So I was wondering... (this doesn't really have anything to do with the last few pages, but I hope that's OK)

What do you guys think about the voting system in the US? Personally, I don't really see the point in the electoral delegates. I mean, this makes it very possible that a president is elected with less than 50% of the votes, it makes individual votes more or less valuable depending on the quota voters/delegates and if you're living in a state where the outcome is clear anyway, your vote kinda doesn't matter at all, even if the election is close nationwide.

I might just be dumb (very real possibility ;) but I just don't see any real advantages... So is there a reason why the voting system doesn't get changed?

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

well i know that france has a similar voting system, i think.

but the more i play this politics simulator game, the more i do understand, and get confused by why this is the voting system.

To me it seems like an free way for the democrats to get 55 free electoral votes because California rarely ever goes Red. (which i have achieved in game, but only on lower difficulties, it just doesn't happen on higher levels.)

Edited August 19, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Phoenix Wright]

First of all, it's so frustrating to point out that institutionalized racism does not exist in the police force because nobody wants to admit that. Hell, the black sheriff of Milwalkee even says that.

he's wrong.

The first problem is that none of you don't understand the word "-phobia".

lol

At the end of the day, why am I supposed to believe that these attitudes are acceptable? I'm not speading hate. I have no problem with blacks and Muslims. But we need to start calling out these problems as they are rather than excusing them. And both the black and Muslims need to decide if they are going to condemn or condone this behaviour. Currently, it's condone.

at least in the case of black people, i don't think you know many or read outside of conservative think-tanks often, because it's definitely not "condone."

PS: I'm very sure that the reaction to this post is "you're racist and Islamaphobic". Let me be clear: I hate racism just as much as the next person. But criticizing communities for serious issues =/= "racism" especially when people like Aynaz Anni Cyrus and David Clarke (the black police sheriff of Milwalkee) are saying the exact same thing.

stop playing the victim because it's really annoying.

quoting radical islamists and a wrong sheriff doesn't validate a point. yes, islam is problematic, but in my worldview, that is true of every religion. islam is not special. the difference is that islam is still backwards today, but things can (and probably are) change.

I'm going to expand on Aynaz's idea. Islam is not a religion. A religion is based on faith. There is no faith component to Islam. You either follow the Koran as a good Muslim or you are an apostate with the punishment of death. Turning your back on the religion is also punishable by death. That is essentially verbatim from Koran and Hadith.

Can the religion become reformed and this "religion of peace" that liberals claim it is? Absolutely. But a bloody civil war will need to take place to do that.

are you saying there is no component of faith in the religion of islam? lol

You clearly said that you won't use Iran as a measuring stick. Who will you use then?

jordan is p dope. turkey isn't radical compared to like saudi arabia.

That's never been a conservative idea. Only liberals.

what?

Liberals loved both Stalin and Hitler

what

Pol Pot was also left, by the way. In comparison, Ayn Rand was far right (to give you an idea of how left and right works). This is based on economics, however. Authoritarianism can be both left or right but most examples tend to emerge from the left.

political alliance is more important. everyone you mention is authoritarian, which is a shitty ideology. liberals don't love anyone you just listed.

most presidents lean authoritarian. the bushes, reagan, etc. etc.

Conservatives have never been anti-freedom of speech as a general idea. Liberals are more in that camp but they usually do it "for the greater good" (a socialist idea).

i feel like you just say shit and because you say it it's right.

conservatives and liberals both want the opposing ideas to have less influence in their lives.

So I was wondering... (this doesn't really have anything to do with the last few pages, but I hope that's OK)

What do you guys think about the voting system in the US? Personally, I don't really see the point in the electoral delegates. I mean, this makes it very possible that a president is elected with less than 50% of the votes, it makes individual votes more or less valuable depending on the quota voters/delegates and if you're living in a state where the outcome is clear anyway, your vote kinda doesn't matter at all, even if the election is close nationwide.

I might just be dumb (very real possibility ;) but I just don't see any real advantages... So is there a reason why the voting system doesn't get changed?

i think our voting system from start to finish is terrible.

[Moblin Major General]

I just read through your replies, Mr. Wright, and found there was very little that was actually conducive to any argument you could possibly make. You seem to be trying to deconstruct Right Wing's arguments, but you're failing at it, because I don't get the gist of what your trying to say, other than what I've already said, albeit with lacking tact. It seems that you and Phillius oppose Right Wing because he holds a stance that is visibly unpopular. I might not defend Right Wing, but he needs to be at least treated like he's on the same level of intelligence that we all claim to be.

[Phoenix Wright]

i'm not sure how to respond to "liberals loved stalin and hitler," if not with sarcasm and utter disbelief that someone actually believes that.

[Moblin Major General]

i'm not sure how to respond to "liberals loved stalin and hitler," if not with sarcasm and utter disbelief that someone actually believes that.

Stalin was Communist and rejected priesthood for Communism. As for Hitler, he was centralist but a complete authoritarian, not to mention he probably took Keynesian economics well past the logical limit, which is actually associated with liberal policy making. So he was right, from a certain point of view. Most of your responses are reactionary, which is a terrible thing to be in political debates.I take time to read posts so I don't come across as a dumbass.

[Phoenix Wright]

Stalin was Communist and rejected priesthood for Communism. As for Hitler, he was centralist but a complete authoritarian, not to mention he probably took Keynesian economics well past the logical limit, which is actually associated with liberal policy making. So he was right, from a certain point of view. Most of your responses are reactionary, which is a terrible thing to be in political debates.I take time to read posts so I don't come across as a dumbass.

no, he's still wrong. you do realize that "liberal" is a blanket term life uses to describe the left? as in, the left loves stalin and hitler.

the left comprises many (dozens, i believe) sociopolitical ideologies and only one of them would love stalin. and even then not really, because stalin was a dictator and most wouldn;t really enjoy a dictator as a leader.

politically, liberals did not love hitler. also, a vast majority of left-leaning folks in the united states do not support government control of business. so even economically, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that adored hitler.

life doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and quotes conservative think-tanks constantly. i'm half-expecting a cite to conservapedia at some point. he asked for "decent" left-wing journalists, to which i replied with a couple, and has since been ignored. i'm not going to waste my time on someone who comes here and treats this place like a soap-box under the guise of "discussion." he's not willing to educate himself--just look back to the whole transgender thing. the science is literally there and he denies it.

and life has been like this since before you got here, so i'd much rather waste my time amusing myself than talking to someone who won't listen.

edit: and just to give you an example of the fact that i personally am willing to actually discuss things, i can tell you that that general ciraxis guy got me thinking more about the impact of illegal immigration. i still disagree heavily with conservatives on the solutions, but i can say that i was informed that the impact was greater than i once thought.

also, i used to be a christian homophobe until i came here. people like esau helped change me because i listened. granted i was like 13 but still, i listened to actual facts and reasoning.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Phoenix Wright