translator's preface: rephrasing the following into early 21st century English is, to understate things slightly, a challenge. To even explain why it's a challenge would, likewise be a challenge. How does one explain the polyseme in vocabulary terms that existed in the 21st century? One might as well attempt to translate the 21st century word "internet" into Old English in a way that would be accessible to denizens of a mead hall. Any attempt, including this one, is necessarily flawed.
1357 U.E. (i.e. 3328 C.E., i.e. 3328 AD), Oort Cloud Commensal
After a long shift at the atelier I returned home and turned on the polyseme to catch up on the emerge re the refugee crisis.
#general
"…then we as members of the Commensal have a duty, a moral duty, to help. We've all experienced the wholesales of the refugee family crawling from their burned lander near the shores of the Achelous Sea, the father cradling his dead son as he steps out onto Ganymede. The time to debate is over, and the time to act -"
"Madame Secretary!"
"-the time to act is now. We must -"
The emergent raised his voice. "Madame Secretary! I must object. Before we talk about importing potentially a hundred million refugees, we have to have a serious conversation about whether they can possibly integrate into our culture."
The secretary didn't bother to keep the annoyance from her face. [ translator's note: all references to physical gestures are, at best, illustrative, and – at worst – ficitive ] "You're going to say 'a flood of refugees', aren't you? I, for one find that phrasing offensive. May I remind you that exact sort of language was used just three hundred years ago when the Martian Diaspora brought so many people to us here in the OCC. Are you going to tell the many proud citizens who trace their ancestry to the M.D. that you don't like their kind?"
The emergent shook his virtual head. "It's inane to compare the citizens of the Martian Diaspora to the current refugee crisis. On the Barnes scale the people of the M.D. were almost all type 1 and type 2 ideologues: Nationalists, Trade Unionists, Libertarians, Atheists, Catholics. Non-totalizers, all. The Hitlerite diaspora that threatens to swamp us now -"
"Sir, I find that offensive. This is not a Hitlerite issue. This is an inner system issue. These people aren't coming here to attack us, they're coming here because they're fleeing war."
"Madame secretary I agree, they're fleeing war – a war that the Hitlerites themselves have caused".
The Secretary took a long breath. "I utterly reject that sort of bigotry. To call this a Hitlerite issue is to blame the victims. The problem is not Hitlerism – it's a small evil group of people who are twisting the words – the beautiful words of an ancient faith – to their own destructive ends."
The emergent seemed to cough. "A small group? Twisting the words? Madame secretary, have you absorbed the Hitlerites texts? Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you listened My Idaho Struggle? Have you played through even one of level of A Pure Moon and A Pure Sky: My Manifesto?"
"Yes, sir, I have. Have you? To quote one of my favorite sayings of the prophet 'We want this people to be peace-loving but also courageous, and you must therefore be peace-loving and at the same time courageous.' These are beautiful words, and when we look at our brothers and sisters from the inner system, we need to see that these are the words in their hearts, the words
"Madam Secretary, those quotes are nonsense. I -"
"I can assure you, sir, that they are entirely real! Hitler said those very words. The references are inline and you -"
"I don't mean that they're false. I mean that they have absolutely no bearing on the true core of Hitlerism."
"Sir Emergent, I find that frankly offensive. The core of Hitlerism is the same as the core of any of our ideologies. Respect for one's neighbor, personal growth, family -"
"The core of Hitlerism is none of those things; it's mass-murder, pure and simple. Let me quote from Mein Kampf. 'We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.' This is the core of Hitlerism: the suspicion of contamination, the hatred of the Other. First it was Jews and Gypsies and the disabled. Later it was Hispanics and Blacks. By the time of the Near Earth Wars it was AIs and the Uplifted. Mark my words, if we let Hitlerites into the OCC, next it will be us!"
"Sir Emergent, you are out of line! All serious scholars of Hitlerism agree that the Hitlerite concept of a holy war against Jews is an allegory, an inner struggle against the 'Jew' of our own worst natures. A struggle against hate, against selfishness, against, dare I say it, suspicion of others. And, given your readiness to slander an entire people, it's perhaps a struggle that you yourself should consider engaging in. This slander against their belief system -"
"It's not slander, Madam Secretary, it's historical truth, amply documented by the Hitlerites themselves. Read their holy texts. Look at the historical record. The first war of Hitlerite Expansion in minus 32 U.E. killed 60 million people. The second war of Hitlerite Expansion in 60 U.E. killed 115 million. The third war -"
"It is historically irresponsible to ascribe all of the deaths in those wars to the Hitlerites. The causes of the wars were complicated. Let me remind you that in World War Two – and let us use the proper names for these wars, not some minority's invented jingoistic terms – it was the anti-Hitlerite bigots who used nuclear weapons. And then in the Unification War it was the anti-Hitlerites who unleashed the Sleep Plague. And, of course, in the First Near Earth War it was the anti-Hitlerites who initiated comet strikes. So if you want to talk war crimes, sir -"
"I do want to talk about war crimes, and I-"
"Let me finish. If you want to talk war crimes, then you have to acknowledge that no side is blameless. The World Wars, the Near Earth Wars, the Martian Conflict – those happened long ago, in a different time, and our own ancestors were as much to blame – perhaps even more to blame – for the death toll."
"Long ago? The Martian Diaspoa was only 300 years ago. Many of our AI citizens remember it! But I digress: no one is arguing that there weren't casualties caused by both sides. The argument that those of us against Hitlerite immigration are making is that Hitlerism is inherently a violent expansionist ideology, that all of the wars of Hitlerite Expansion were innitiated by the Hitlerites, and that letting Hitlerites into the Oort will be a terrible mistake."
"Sir Emergent, it is disrespectful and disgusting to slander an entire people – an entire faith community – by labeling them as violent and expansionist. The vast vast majority of Hitlerites have never engaged in violent, and polls consistently show that the majority reject violence. They-"
"Fifty seven percent reject violence – which is another way of saying forty three percent endorse it!"
"If you interrupt me again, this debate is at an end."
The emergent shrugged and the secretary continued. "As I was saying, the majority of Hitlerite believers reject violence. And, in fact, the people that we are discussing today are themselves refugees from the extremist violence of their homelands. We are discussing victims, not agressors here."
Neither party spoke for a moment.
"Sir emergent, would you like to reply?"
"Ah, you're done? Very well. I believe that we both agree that forty three percent of Hitlerites endorse initiating violence, do we not?"
The secretary pursed her lips. "A minority do, regrettably, yes. I'd be curious to see what percent of O.O.C. citizens also do. I bet it's at least as high. Your [ translator's note: the following word is imprecise ] faction, for example, is on record as saying that we should burn the refugee ships before they cross into Jovian space -"
Sir Emergent [ translator's note: the following is terribly imprecise, but no better phrase is available ] drummed his fingers on the podium.
" – and – if I may quote 'destroy them all, so that no more invasion ships will launch'. Between these two choices, genocide or tolerance, the only moral choice is tolerance."
Sir Emergent [ translator's note: as per above ] leaned forward. "First, I object to the assertion that 'my faction' has argued that. There are multiple overlapping phyles in this quor-alliance, as there are in your own. To tar my entire mindshare by saying that it endorses genocide, just because a few of the more excitable four sigmas have said they want to burn the ships is to engage in the non-central fallacy. Second, to say that there are only two choices, burning the ships of the Hitlerite refugees or admitting arbitrary numbers of them to the O.C.C., is to engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are more than two options. We have repeatedly backed porposals in the Unicam to fund refugee colonies on Ceres. Additionally, there are vast numbers of unused and underutilized O'Neil colonies in the trailing Jovian Trojan point, which could be purchased quite cheaply from the controlling AI syndics. More than enough to house all of the Hitlerite refugees."
"House them in permanent refugee camps? To treat them as second class citizens is offensive to post-human dignity – both theirs and ours."
"Madame Secretary, I agree that the Hitlerite refugees shouldn't be treated as second class citizens – they should be treated as non-citizens. Which is what they are!"
"I find your attitude condescending and pre-post-human."
Sir Emergent [ translators note: I give up. ] shrugged. "You are free to have whatever emotional response you prefer. The facts remain stubbornly on my side, though, and they are these:
One: The Hitlerite ideology was created by a madman, a murderer, and a genocidal dictator. It was birthed in war, and has only ever grown by war.
Two: The Hitlerite regime has done nothing but grow for 1,500 years. It has occasional setbacks, yes, but first it conquered the Teutonic regions, then all of Old Europa, then the Northern Hemisphere, then Earth, then the Lunar -"
"Please spare us from the tedious -"
"Madam Secretary, you chastised me earlier for interruption. Please let me finish."
Madame secretary harrumphed.
The Emergent continued "Then the Lunar Republic, then in rapid succession Mercury and Venus. And we've already covered the Martian Diaspora. This list only includes Hitlerite aggression in meat-space. I note that where there was once a flourishing civilization of AIs inside the Belt, there are now precisely zero.
"Three: you can argue all you want that the Hitlerite ideology is fundamentally similar to our own OCC family of ideologies, but it's not; Hitlerism is based on the premise that outsiders must be eliminated. You can argue all you want that Hitlerism has moderated from its early days, but it hasn't; you yourself admit that almost fifty percent of the refugees believe in initiating violence. Their attitudes towards the uplifted and cyborg citizens are even worse. Polls back me up on this. And finally, you can argue that refugees will assimilate into Oort culture and become more moderate in time, but there is little or no evidence to support that. Witness the Jovian Collectives experience with their Hitlerites: the permanent resentful underclass, the recent Hitlerite-led pogroms against uplifted dolphins and racoons on New Europa and Ganymede, the proposed laws against large arrays of personalities.
"Madam Secretary, in short, to admit Hitlerites to the OCC is to invite the destruction of our own society.
"We must be insane, literally insane, to permit this inflow. If we do it, we will be building our own funeral pyre."
"Sir Emergent, that's quite enough. I ask the Moderators General for unanimous consent of the delegates to dissolve this quorum and instantiate another more conducive to proper discourse. A vote please? Very well. We'll now continue with a new construct. Welcome Sir Emergent Novus."
Sir Emergent Novus bowed from the waist. "Thank you for having me here, ma'am."
I turned the polyseme off and checked the replicator. This debate was boring, would never affect me, and – besides – I was hungry.
Last 5 posts by Clark
- Clark's Farewell To Popehat - December 30th, 2015
- The Current Refugee Crisis - November 18th, 2015
- Top Seven Things I Like About Internet Shame Mobs - July 29th, 2015
Gamer Gate vs Anti Gamer GateA Civil Discussion on Inclusiveness - June 23rd, 2015- Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or #Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin) - June 10th, 2015
If you have so much as a scintilla of evidence that 43% of the world's 1 billion Muslims endorse violence against non-believers, put up…or fuck off.
QC
Muslims?
I don't understand.
This is a story about Space Nazis.
Why are you dragging Muslims into this debate?
FWIW, Quiz Cat, 38% of Muslims support terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
But, again, let's not get off topic. This post is about Space Nazis.
@ClarkHat
And Animal Farm was about pigs.
The parallels you're drawing are both obvious and heavy handed.
(This isn't to say I disagree or agree with your larger point, but only that playing coy is dumb)
Is it playing coy if it's 400% obvious and I'm camping it up for the audience in the cheap seats? I don't think so.
HEY! I paid good money for these seats & the popcorn's expensive.
It is also perhaps worth mentioning that the cited document claims that 38% of Muslims surveyed claim that suicide bombing/terrorism is justified 'at least rarely' – which is both hardly 'support' for terrorism, and not entirely different to what you might hear from a typical crowd from any OTHER group of people.
We could keep reading, and see that only 8% of Muslims think that terrorism can be justified often, and that's in the most terrorism-loving countries surveyed. Still a high number, but also far lower than the percentage of, say, people in the US that support military action for cause X, or see no problem with Israel's disproportionate responses to hostile acts.
But, well, as the man says, let's not get off topic. This is about space nazis. Besides, the parallel would really be if Muslim countries were being asked to accept refugees from traditional warmongers like the US, England, Germany, or France. So clearly it has nothing at all to do with what's going on in the world today.
So let us instead consider the story in and of itself, and laugh at how foolish the anti-immigrant forces were, that wanted to conduct space nazi type actions against space nazis in order to prevent their society becoming anything like that of the space nazis.
Luke 10:25-37
*boos*
*throws popcorn*
So how come we shouldn't lock up all the guns again?
By "guns", I mean "guns".
By "lock up" I mean "Allow the US government to take away the right of US citizens to own guns , and then confiscate all private owned guns".
@Clark
I don't like to quibble, but there was some nuance in that cite.
Which is not quite the same as unconditional "support". And a touch further down:
Yielding a figure of 28% globally. I like my evil precisely defined and measured, whether it be muslims, space nazis, or telephone salesmen.
Comparing a belief system to a tool seems inapt.
But I'll take a stab at it. The laws upon which our space colony were founded included the right of space-citizens to own space-arms. If you edit the charter, you've rendered the whole enterprise unsupportable.
Nowhere in our intergalactic charter does it say we're obliged to host space Nazis.
(Not to mention the practical considerations: Closing our space-borders is a lot easier, and far less bloody, than space-confiscating our space-guns)
Needs Daleks.
More interesting from that wikipedia link. 1-8% of all Muslims surveyed thought it could be justified often.
Assuming that one in thousand of those would commit an act of violence… that's several thousand acts of of violence. I'm not convinced I'd want to import than into the OCC. Or my home country, for that matter.
TL,TB;DR
(that's "too boring" in the middle)
There are legitimate questions that could be raised about whether the US, or any country, has any sort of "moral obligation" to take in refugees, or whether the current groups in particular are more or less deserving than others… but I don't see any indication, as of the point that I gave up reading, that this science fictional allegory is going anywhere near those questions.
Not one of Clark's better pieces.
@Blast Hardcheese
Nowhere in the charter does it say we can't host space Nazis, either. But that's not the point. There's not really a constitutional answer to this question, because as numerous people on this site have pointed out (in so many words) out no matter what the US Constitution says, it's not an active safeguard of our rights. If the Federal Government wants to take away the guns tomorrow, The Constitution will not fly out of it's display case and defeat the Federal Government with death rays. Though there should exist a form of media where this actually happens. Maybe this could be the plot of Saints Row 5 (assuming the boss travels back in time to before she becomes President to stop what happens in 4, and in the process a crazy demagogue becomes president instead. It's up to The Boss and the rest of the Second Street Saints to stop him. The US Constitution becomes a living thing as one of the Saints' two new members. If you've played 4 you know who the other is! Why doesn't this game exist).
A minority of gun owners commit horrible crimes, but "conservatives" (what passes for such in the media/talking head/facebook circuit, anyway) wave that away because it's just a minority. This is a ridiculous about face. It is my sincere hope that the response to the question – no matter who is responding – isn't going to be "well, it is a lower percent of problem people". And not simply because we haven't adequately defined exactly what percentage of Muslims are big jihad fans (although that does seem important if we're going down that road, I think). It's not a sound basis on which to argue any point, frankly (and it's certainly a problem for whatever we call people who like guns these days who make this point and then say we can't let refugees in for the same reason; I don't recall if Clark has made the former point and don't care). I mean we've already slashed the figure by 15% without even trying.
A friend enunciated elsewhere what has been bouncing around in my (and I'm sure quite a few other's) head this morning, and I simply restate it here. I can accept a number of arguments for not allowing refugees (though I'm not likely to agree with any of them). The "but some number of them secretly want to commit violence" isn't really impressing me, though.
Clearly this is intended as some kind of allegorical parable, but I'm having trouble parsing it and sorting out its intended referents. Is the Commensal supposed to be some kind of decision-making body composed of representatives of various Anarcho-Capitalist private security companies, none of whom assert a monopoly on force over any particular spacial-territorial jurisdiction?
If so, how do they enforce a border between the inner system and the Oort Cloud? Yes, I realize it's set in 3328 AD, so maybe they have some kind of high-tech force-field enclosing the inner system, but presumably every single cubic light-second of space within the cloud is under private ownership, so switching on the force field without violating anybody's space-property rights would require universal contractual buy-in from all property owners along the entire surface area of the force-sphere. If even a single spaceowner refused to sign on to the scheme, the space-nazi's could just come through the resulting hole in the force-sphere, couldn't they? And then as long as they found someone outside the sphere willing to sell or space-lease them some space-property, there wouldn't be anything the members of the Commensal could do to stop them, without initiating force or asserting a territorial monopoly thereof, no?
Or am I misreading the story? Was it instead intended as a dystopian parable about how the evil institutions of statism are likely to persist, even on into the year 3328 AD, completely un-burned-to-the-ground?
BUILD FORCEFIELD
Making this about Space Nazis is not really helping matters. Even then, if you're really asking the question "Would it be a good idea to accept refugees fleeing a Nazi regime" Then I have to wonder about your fundimental humanity.
Well, I see we still haven't seen the worst of Clark.
Comparing Muslims to Nazis is obscene. Shame on you.
Sure they're both totalitarian expansionist ideologies, but at least Hitler confined himself to mass murder. Mo was at least as enthusiastic about murdering Jews – then added brigandage, child rape, and sex slavery to the mix.
Literally worse than Hitler.
Reading this makes me want to install and play Alpha Centauri game. God I miss it.
You cannot destroy a strong culture, only a weak one. Russians tried to destroy American culture before, but in the end they are wearing Levi's jeans, listening to American music and watching badly translated "Friends". They even pretend to have democracy, just like the Americans.
The point i am trying to make is that weak cultures do not survive, and the will die when they encounter a stronger, more influential culture. People would not care about refugees if they had a guarantee that they would integrate into the western culture. Even the hypothetical piece about "Hitlerites" rings the same message to me, they will not integrate and instead we will integrate into them or perish. Once again, what is it about western ideology that make it so weak to influence other people to join? Are we not aggressive enough in spreading our ideology? How is ISIS even able to recruit young minds, but we cannot stop them?
To me all this crisis reeks of Natural Selection but with culture. We are encountering an ideology that can make people more devoted, fanatical and loyal and we our (western) culture cannot compete with it.
@Kevin
There might be some less … meat-space type traffic which is the norm for interplanetary travel that is much easier to regulate and police. Think warp gates or physical internet or such. You have to be granted access to travel to a certain gate which could include some ship or personal ID that can be checked/filtered automatically.
I think this story is pretty ineffective in whatever viewpoint or parable it is trying to convey. It's neither strawmen enough (one side is simply more annoying) nor does it try and answer why shouldn't this issue be debated again and again. Godwin's law doesn't help either.
Clark I think you need to get to the actual root cause of this crisis Galactic Entropy. The over-usage of our galaxy has caused a net loss in energy production of .002% and it's already causing horrible effects such as more red dwarfs and numerous and more explosive super novas of nearby stars along with fewer dense mineral resources. As we all know galactic entropy hits the poorest among us the worst and it's only going to accelerate from here if we don't do something right now. We need to stop using dense minerals. and instead pour more research into alternative sources
Too many of you guys are jumping the Godwin gun. This is clearly a story about speech control being used for the good of everyone – to prevent an evil spacehuman from arguing against accepting refugees fleeing from Nazi terror.
Gee, this is totally going to help create a more productive and civil dialogue around this issue.
And what a surprise, Clark is one of those people who prides himself on how civilly he discusses his viewpoints, and claims to abhor discourse based on mud-slinging and insults. Gosh, I certainly never expected that someone who espouses THAT viewpoint would then turn around and post incendiary nonsense like this, and especially not chiding others for having emotional reactions to Nazi comparisons.
But hey, I'll bite.
Ever heard of the [no available translation for this, closest related historical event substituted] Crusades? You know, when the Potentate of the Uplifted Animals of Uranus claimed that the ["Hitlerites" hereafter referred to as "Helghast" to try and use a less well-poisoned term] had forced them out of their capitol moon and slaughtered kittens and puppies by the thousands? Historians later determined that the Helghast had actually held that moon for several hundred years and seemed to have no problem with the local Uplifteds. Turned out what the Potentate was really upset about was a petty turf war with some random Helghast Official, and of course, trade routes, which meant *gasp* PROFIT was at stake.
Yeah, by an odd coincidence, as soon as it became financially advantageous for Posthumans to believe that the Helghast were evil expansionist marauders who needed to be stopped at all costs, they became convinced that the peaceful and loving AI goddess Elua wanted them to go to the High Realms and massacre Helghast. And they killed their fair share of civilians.
Incidentally, that 43% (actually 38%) is the percentage of Helghast who said, when asked directly, that they could hypothetically conceive of some situations in which violence would be justified. The surveyors didn't ask whether the Helghast they were talking to actually believed any currently-existing situation in the universe justified violence (almost like the pollsters wanted to arrive at a certain conclusion ahead of time).
And finally, that claim that the Helghast are a specifically warlike ideology by design, started by a madman? Well, there's plenty of historical dispute about what our own lady and admin Elua actually had to say on the topic of those who reject her peaceful teachings. You may notice that not all of the four record files of her teachings seem to agree on the actual text Elua outputted to her subordinates. Oh, and the Iovian Mystics, for all their talk of inner peace and harmony and karma points, grew out of the ancient Vaderic traditions, whose pantheon were the same bunch of glitchy warmongering lunatics that every faction had to deal with in the very early days of AI.
Which makes sense. I mean, historically, "Killing the first active spawn of every AI" was about the kindest and most loving attitude you could have and still survive, because if you didn't cripple your enemies' ability to hack, they'd just grow up to massacre you in turn. It was pure natural selection that bred warmongering AIs back when these factions were just springing up. Heck, we still saw a fair chunk of that as late as the 21st century. Lucky we've grown out of it in these posthuman days of the thirteenth century UE, right?
Now, if you can find me any civilization anywhere that wasn't forged in fire and blood, I might concede that the Helghast are a uniquely evil tribe.
@Guy who looks things up
Matthew 15:22-28
God damn Clark, everything I read that you write is disgusting, ignorant, and so fucking smug.
I come to this blog for the well-written thoughts of Ken White. Reading your opinions is an offense against intellect; any intellect, whether it be left or right, statist or libertarian. You are, quite simply, a shithead who confuses verbosity with understanding.
To give an example; that quote about 38% of Muslims supporting terrorism is next to useless. It must be taken in its context, as Sylocat points out. It needs to be viewed against the atrocities committed against Muslims (ever heard of Chechnya?). It needs to be compared against the level of development of this part of the world, and the poverty seen in these parts of the world. In fact, have you actually read (or, having read, understood) anything about the history of the middle east over the last 150 years?
I enjoy discourse with people with varying political opinions, and I can see the validity in multiple sides and in others opinions. But you; you are barely worth talking, you smug bastard. Screw you.
I would like to comment on something StaticVariable said:
"… they will not integrate and instead we will integrate into them or perish. Once again, what is it about western ideology that make it so weak to influence other people to join? "
I think this is a great misunderstanding of what people fearful of the incoming culture really believe.
Most of the people I've known who are fearful of losing their culture are not so fearful of their culture being "forgotten" or one-upped, but simply are not happy about needing to accommodate for other cultures. This is a *huge* semantic difference, which as a programmer, I'm sure you'll appreciate. :)
An example: In Sweden… all schools are required to serve Halal meals. *That* is the distinction. By being upset over something like this, you are not fearful of your diet going away, you are upset that your culture and way of life now needs to adapt to people who don't share the same cultural norms. School lunch menus change to appease the new religion, you foot the bill.
You don't have to be a nationalist or even care about culture to be bothered by that.
BIG difference.
@nightform says
What aspects of the history of the world in the 33rd century AD would
you say I'm most ignorant of?
What aspect of my short story betrayed, to your mind, an excessive
pride in myself or my achievements?
Thank you for pointing out the factual errors and stylistic misteps in
my short story.
Obviously.
Clearly.
Thank you for your feedback. You've raised a lot of very solid points and I promise to think deeply about what you've said and, perhaps, adjust my point of view.
Good thing we integrated the Hitlerites here in timeline Aleph6 on EarthPrime.
As the only Earth with nachos and the only timeline with decent whiskey, we have a lot to be happy about already. Still, we had cowards like the emergent back then and still have them today, so it's good to have this cautionary tale on the dangers of xenopohobia.
I understand lots of people still revere Martin Luther.
I see Clark still thinks he's funny.
Too bad he can't write worth a damn.
You must have truly massive forearms Clark to lift such a heavy handed allegory and employ it smashing your lovingly created strawman.
Most of the time reading Popehat leaves me feeling more informed and thinking about alternate points even if I don't agree with them. This just…this just makes me sad that you obviously failed to integrate any of the critical thinking skills you ought to have acquired in university past the time you turned in the final paper.
Clark, I would like to point out that if I were to waste my time providing a well-reasoned, referenced, and thought-out response to your bullshit, you would still respond with your typical passive-agressive smugness, and cling to your ignorance. Which is why I didn't bother; much simpler and more fun to insult you instead. Childish, I know, but sometimes it's the only sane response to idiocy.
Because, at the end of the day, you lose. No-one important agrees with you, we'll let the refugees in, the world will move on and you'll be left clinging to your fantasy world. We'll win anyway; why bother trying to persuade you otherwise?
Oh, we've seen that already. It was back when Clark promised to rain hellfire on Vox Day if Vox insulted Ken based on Ken's posts about depression. Vox, of course, insulted Ken as predicted. But rather than raining hellfire, Clark vomited up 5,000 words that amounted to "Ken is a friend, but Vox is this guy who writes provocative things I find interesting, so I support both."
You don't need to read anything else Clark has written to know what you need to know about him. All you need to know is that he promised to defend a friend and purposefully failed to do so.
I'd vote for fewer Clark posts, more refugees.
Taken as fiction, or even loose analogy, I didn't mind it.
As for polls of Muslim support levels for terrorism, I expect they look pretty pacific compared to back-in-the-day American support for bombing Iraq as a response to 9/11. Remember Iraq, the place that had nothing to do with 9/11 and due to American destabilization is now providing the world with the spectacle of Daesh?
Quick, someone look up a bible quote about reaping what you sow.
Too many of the responders to Clark’s post are missing the money sentence in this post (Probably because it’s their bull being gored.)
“Second, to say that there are only two choices, burning the ships of the Hitlerite refugees or admitting arbitrary numbers of them to the O.C.C., is to engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle.”
Or, as we say in 21st century English, a Straw Man.
It is quite possible to care for the plight of refugees, and to be concerned about bringing them into the country, at the same time! There is no inherent contradiction in this. I believe newly recovering drug addicts should have every opportunity to beat their addiction, but I’m not inviting one to live in my spare bedroom.
Thank your for reading my post and thinking about it @Aonghus. You picked up on my core point.
Not badly written but I believe this uses the techniques and traditions of Science Fiction in an incorrect way. Using Nazis to represent any faction introduces an emotional response in most people that prevents any mature consideration of the arguments in the piece. To put it another way those chanting "Godwin's Law" over there in the corner have a point.
What you are describing is an exodus of refugees from a culture that has become necrotic because of an excess of intolerance within that culture. While it is undeniably true that we have accelerated the necrosis by financing and arming, and sometimes oppressing, the various factions nevertheless the underlying problem eventually needs to be addressed within that culture itself.
The problem with the refugees is a not unreasonable fear that they might introduce such intolerance into our own society. Unfortunately to turn away refugees who are in obvious distress is in itself intolerant enough to mean that we would be abandoning our own values without even waiting for them to be destroyed. Every immigrant wave usually has equivalents of the mafia or the Bolsheviks. So far they've all been assimilated. To accept the people is not to unquestioningly accept the ideology. We must be clear that in the West their ideology and their religion will be strongly challenged, as will ours. If that's not acceptable they should turn around and go back into the chaos. One of the Scandinavian nations, I believe, has its immigrants sign an agreement that they understand their children may be taught by a gay teacher and that they may see atheism being promoted in the newspaper. That seems to me to be a more honest approach.
In crude terms we should take them but require some ideological health inspection.
Btw: you might want to try running with the idea, in the comments, about the US constitution as an AI. I think thatwould make a much better story.
"What aspects of the history of the world in the 33rd century AD would
you say I'm most ignorant of?"
You know, I know, and everyone else knows that the history of the 33rd century has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's just a find-replace on your actual argument. There's not anything enlightening or interesting about the "metaphor": in reality, America did pretty well with the refugees it picked up from Nazi Germany, including some with substantial Nazi ties (Von Braun). You might have engaged with that if this post had anything to do with the 33rd century or the Nazis, instead of being the blogging equivalent of a little kid "not touching" you.
That's where the smugness comes out by the way, you doing something not that clever while obviously believing it's oh-so-clever. When you write, your opinion of your own intelligence and your audience's intelligence comes through, and you obviously believe the gap is quite large. It shows in almost everything you post, but it's so much worse when you think you're being smart. If you want to seem less smug, you have to actually respect your audience a little more, or humble yourself some. I doubt that will happen, because believing you have the correct opinions because you're just smarter than everyone else probably feels pretty good. Probably feels even better when you have extreme minority opinions, "proving" you're smarter than 90+% of the population instead of just half.
I don't even think that mass immigration of Muslims to the US is a good idea! The second-generation immigrant effect is real and worth grappling with. You can't actually grapple with anything though if your goal is just to look smarter than your opponents instead of actually talking about your ideas and positions.
This apparent attempt at humor is so opaque, I predict even British readers won't get it.
Thank you for reading the full post. I wholeheartedly agree that this is a discussion we need to have.
But not with Clark, who would equivocate about selling his family into slavery if some guy he agreed with online convinced him it was okay.
Even if only 8% of Muslims, er, Space Nazis support acts of terrorism "often" if there are 1 billion Space Nazis that equals 80 million Space Nazis like that.
"My Idaho Struggle" would be a great name for a band.
Aryans are white, Docrailgun. Please try to keep up.
Note that the US did accept refugees from Nazi Germany.
"An example: In Sweden… all schools are required to serve Halal meals. *That* is the distinction. By being upset over something like this, you are not fearful of your diet going away, you are upset that your culture and way of life now needs to adapt to people who don't share the same cultural norms. School lunch menus change to appease the new religion, you foot the bill."
Excellent point and very true. As for the precise percentage behind support of jihadism, it doesn't really matter.
If you were given 12 grapes and were told 2 were poisoned, would you eat any of them? Just like how you have to pick your battles, you have to pick those you ensure their safety. You can't save everyone, and often, is it really worth putting money into it when there are already countless mentally ill, unhelped homeless people and vets on the street everyday? Why not take care of these ones first, rather than taking in new ones to jump the gun? let's face it, we have no framework to hold the refugees. We barely have enough framework to hold the central american illegal aliens as it stands, and even that tumbles downward, as history shows it.
Being a Christian, I'm all for helping people. But as said, there's an end of that line, when you can't deal with others let alone yourself, and people have to go elsewhere [and Europe already overly accommodates them, so why do we, the U.S., need to?]. While racism is not impossible, I would hardly call anti-immigration "racist." At most, it's strategic.
as for all of this weird fantasy talk, I have no idea about what everyone is speaking…
There's an old rule in comedy: if you need to explain the joke, it isn't funny.
It looks like a grand total of one person has come away with the actual message you apparently wanted to communicate.
You may want to look again at what you've written.
Gotta say, I find it very weird to see Christians casting stones at Muslims for the various barbarisms in the Quran. It's not as though the Bible were more than a smidgen better– there's plenty of God-commanded genocide, enslavement, and rape in your own godawful Good Book, Clark.
Guess what? Given the right cues from their environment, people learn to ignore the awful things their holy texts command and find their own ideas of right and wrong, which differ from everyone else's but somehow the world keeps turning. If we took in a few hundred thousand refugees, whoever they are right now, they might spend the next few decades becoming people you and the right wing won't be so afraid of.
Since no-one else has submitted a 'scintilla' of evidence so far beyond a Wikipedia page, can I comment to your attention a recent Atlantic article on "What ISIS really wants"
To the author's mortification, he discovered the fundamental tenets of Islam do indeed put Hitler to shame:
"We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature…
In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse. The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves…
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam." (My emphasis).
Note especially the comments and follow-up discussion, noteworthy for the way the jihadists congratulated the author on having got so many things right.
None of this should be a surprise to United Statesians. In the lead-up to the 1815 war against the Barbary States on ambassador remonstrated with these pirate states that their behaviour was uncivilized and irreligious. The Barbary rulers, as he related to the US Senate, sharply contradicted him, observing that the pillaging and enslavement of the unfaithful was not only meritorious in the eyes of their god, but a positive duty laid upon Islam.
Personally I'd be in favor of letting the immigrants in, nonetheless. However bad the parents might be, their children and grandchildren will look at their embedding culture with fresh eyes.
But Clark it quite right about the fundamental teachings of Islam. I'm sorry, the Hitlerites. Still, it seems to be widely acknowledged that the teachings of Islam, and particularly the Koran, favor Clark's point of view. I give a few particularly problematic suras by way of example below – in a variety of English translations. Notably, the Ibn Warraq discussion of suras relating to the treatment of other faiths is compared to other prominent translations of the Koran, such as those of M.H. Shakir, and Abdullah Yusuf Ali
i) [Ibn Warraq] IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;
[Shakir] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan.
Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.
[Yusuf Ali] Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil:
So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
ii) [Ibn Warraq] VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”
[Shakir] [8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[8.41] And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Apostle and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer
[Yusuf Ali] 8:39
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.
8:40 If they refuse, be sure that God is your Protector – the best to protect and the best to help.
8:41 And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to God,- and to the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer
[On martyrdom in battle]
iii) [Ibn Warraq] IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”
[Shakir] [4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
[Yusuf Ali] 4:74 Let those fight in the cause of God Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God,- whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
racoons should properly be known as trash pandas.
*slow clap*
Bravo, Clark. That's some grade-A Space Cartman right there.
I think Clark owes some royalties to Eliezer Yudkowsky for infringing on his market of heavy-handed soapbox rants in clear plastic wrappings of short sci-fi tales.
Clark fails to mention that the OOC exacerbated the Hitlerite situation a couple hundred years ago after they were attacked by Europa's Watercress-Trefoil anti-simulation nano-spores, but responded by attacking Callisto instead, touching off the century-long Jovian Sector Conflict and setting the stage for modern Hitlerism.
That the OOC attacked Callisto despite the well-established historical counter-example of George Bush's irrational invasion of the wrong country suggests that there is something badly wrong with OOC's military AI. Perhaps the rumor that the OOC's defense establishment has been infiltrated by a rogue Discordian memetic cluster from Uranus is true!
I know a century-old Pentium-6000 mining bot, one who's been out in the cometary halo with insufficient shielding. The poor thing's taken far too many cosmic-ray strikes through its memory core and can no longer pass the Turing test, but the rantings it produces are far more coherent than Clark's attempts at scholarship!
While Pickwick is quite right to point out that barbarisms in the Bible are comparable with those in the Koran, that has more to do with the Old Testament than the New.
Apart from the emphasis on forgiveness, Christianity grew into power from being a religion of slaves – one common route to conversion was a slave wife influencing her husband. Under such circumstances barbarity was neither necessary nor particularly desirable.
As for the Old Testament, some years ago the Economist magazine discussed the relative apocalyptic tendencies of Abrahamic religions, noting that Judaism leaves holy war for the coming of the Messiah, who must among other things be a descendant of David. It wryly observed that this trigger for barbarism did not seem likely any time soon, and similarly for Christianity. The duties laid on the Islamic faithful are much more immediate, and better documented, and indeed not really in dispute.
However, Pickwick is right to excoriate Christians for their own misdeeds. Isolated examples of inducement by the almighty to violence do exist, and since Pickwick has not provided any perhaps someone else should. The classic is surely Matthew 9:34, where Jesus makes sure his disciples realize that he is come not bring peace but "a sword". This usage is figurative, but Luke 12:51 makes clear that Jesus believed he came to cause division and strife.
@Clark:
1) Sorry, but your thinly masked and rather heavy-handed "science fiction" story is written in the most turgid and boring style possible. Trying to ape the worst parts of 1950s science fiction, especially with SF-monologuing, is not something I encourage.
2) Thinly disguised polemics about current day discussions never come off well.
2a) However, you're almost completely ensured publication at Castalia House. They tend to publish hacks.
2b) No, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with hack SF writing. There's always a place for popcorn reading.
3) Spinrad, you are not. You completely fail at a space version of "The Iron Dream".
===
@Sylocat:
I'd blame it on the company Clark keeps, but hey, birds of a feather…
===
@nightform:
Certainly smug. I've found that to be a characteristic of anarcho-capitalists, which is unsurprising for a group who considers their axioms to be incontrovertible. I mean, if you are absolutely right, you're going to be smug at the plebes who dare disagree with your wisdom.
===
@Clark:
Oh, come now. There's no need to fucking lie.
===
@Chuck:
DING. We have a winner. Clark is far too enamored of Vox and Vox's viewpoints to do aught else.
===
@Aonghus:
No, we caught that all right.
As a Christian who believes in Christian charity, as the Church so divinely prescribes, I have decided to follow the teachings of the Church on this. Your…lack of charity is noted, of course.
===
@Kyle:
*shrugs* Well, if we won't take them, then they'll have to go somewhere else. And if they can't go somewhere else, well, then they'll just have to die, as those who are staying are doing now. And as Christians, we will need to be OK with that, because we cannot stop them from dying if they stay where they are. So let us make the sign of the Cross and quote the good Abbot: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
I should also note that I've never before seen a thread begin with a Godwin's Law violation… amusing – if train wrecks make you laugh uncontrollably!
I'd like a Clark-only RSS feed. I don't care about Ken's pozzed ramblings, but the butthurt commenters on Clark's posts are always a delight.
"Quick, someone look up a bible quote about reaping what you sow."
I recently came up with a rule of thumb: If it's less than 1.5% of the population, it's not an invasion.
By that standard, the 2003 Iraq invasion was actually the 2003 Iraq immigration.
We also had a controlled experiment: We had "boots on the ground" in Iraq and it's a minor mess. We did not have boots on the ground in Syria and it's a major mess.
As for "reaping what you sow," it looks like terrorists have been concentrating on other nations.
A moral and intellectual coward decides to ape a trope that not even Neal Stephenson could manage to make interesting, and manages to produce a polemic hidden behind a translucent allegory.
No great surprise.
@Clark
So… you were attempting to point out an excluded middle fallacy? Where do you see one?
So far, I've seen a lot of arguments for stopping all Syrian refugees – which gives you the only worried about bringing people into a country part. In opposition to that, I see arguments for continuing the current, very strict and limited refugee program. That gives you the "middle" – concerned about bringing people into a country and still wanting to help refugees.
Maybe I missed all the people arguing we need totally open borders.
Considering your stated preferences, I did check more ancap sources – often a good place to find open border advocates. Unfortunately, I mostly found a lot of poorly disguised glee about how the Paris attacks could be BTFSTTG, The Happening, blahblahblah, etc.
@Kyle
"If you were given 12 grapes and were told 2 were poisoned, would you eat any of them?"
Probably not, but only because grapes aren't people. But if you want to go crazy with this analogy, what I wouldn't do is use the poisoned grapes as an excuse to say, "Okay, 2 out of 12 brown grapes are poisoned, so we won't let any brown grapes in. Only 1 out of 12 white grapes are poisoned, that's an acceptable risk so we'll let them all in. Also, I'm a white grape."
It's funny. I don't recall Kyle being so unforgiving when, for example, the "poisoned grapes" were people legally buying guns to commit illegal acts. Kyle isn't in favor of the government requiring ALL corporations to submit themselves to federal scrutiny because SOME of them are committing fraud. Kyle thinks that if a substantial minority of a group SAY they support terrorism, that's reason enough to condemn the entire group. By that logic, if a bunch of political groups SAY that the federal government is bloated, that it's taxing us beyond its Constitutional right to do so, and that we should be starving it of the revenue it needs to expand by any means necessary, then it's perfectly prudent to remove those groups as a threat… or at the very least, have the IRS audit them to ensure they aren't committing tax evasion. Which is why I am sure that Kyle, being a man of principle, was a vocal defender or Obama during that particular scandal.
@Castaigne
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if Clark is just a straw-man sock-puppet run by one of the more left-leaning members of Popehat. The most stubborn extremists of just about any ideology tend to be smug asshats. There are reasonable (and reasonably pleasant) people who probably agree with 99% of Clark's apparent views on economics and government–you simply don't think of them when you think of "anarcho-capitalists" because the extremists dissociate from them (because debating opponents civilly means they're no true Scotsmen, I assume.) If you look at the left, there's a lot of overlap in ideology between modern European socialism and many of the more far left American progressives. But if you look at the Americans who CHOOSE to call themselves socialists, you'll have pretty much the same ideology, but a far higher chance of meeting a smug, militant asshole.
The allegory gets at an interesting question. How conditional is our support for refugees?
Sir Emergent & Madame Secretary are both working from an unstated premise. They assume that the council should accept refugees IF AND ONLY IF their ideology has pure origins.
The story is set up so that Sir Emergent wins the historical argument. His description of events 1400 years before the story is more accurate than Madame Secretary's.
Madame Secretary's mistake* is that, in debating Sir Emergent's explicit point, she's accepting his implicit premise that the historical trivia matters.
A much stronger position is to say that we care about the refugees because of who they are now. Wars in 632 CE are less relevant than plague deaths in 1347.
The allegory is interesting because it sets up a situation where pro-refugee policies could be defended even if we grant the anti-refugee contingent's their core, disputed facts.
* This is the same mistake that Clark's critics are making. Along with the faction of people who defend Islam's history during refugee policy debates.
@Sylocat,
The next time you see Clark posting about how civil he is, keep this in mind:
Clark:
@J
So you regard the Nazis' positive eugenics program as something other than sex slavery? Would it then be a huge stretch to surmise that you also regard imperial Japan's comfort women as also absolutely willing and consenting?
http://davidsevera.tumblr.com/post/130220421479/an-imagined-dialog-on-immigration-between-two
I think it's ridiculous how many here worry about some abstract percentage <10 % of Muslims supporting violence against civilians, while the majority of Americans support drone strikes.
For the slow-witted: It IS violence against civilians if you know from expericence that you are going to hit innocent civilians while bombing poorly identified "extremists".
Maybe the beliefs of the Muslim community are not so incompatible to the American mindset after all ….
This made my evening. It's brilliant and funny. Should I say, even… hitlerious.
In all the furor about WWII refugees, most particularly Jews fleeing Hitler, I keep wondering why nobody seems to raise this point:
The people fleeing the Nazis were not members of a different branch of Naziism, whom the Nazis in power wanted to kill for being the wrong *kind* of Nazis. They were an entirely different group whom the Nazis wanted to kill more or less for the Hell of it. (Or insert theory about Hitler's Jewish ancestors, feelings of inadequacy, whatever.) While some of them were probably Communists of some sort or other, this was not a factional dispute, and there was ZERO chance that the refugees would seek to establish their brand of kinder, gentler Naziism in their new homes. Or become violent when it turned out that their hosts weren't interested in Naziism Lite, despite the fact that it involved significantly less punitive amputation and sex slavery.
The analogy, in other words, isn't.
This is terrible. Why did you write this – more importantly, while everyone gets a free pass to write bad fiction every now and then, why are you acting like it is profound or clever?
@jackrousseau
Thanks for you constructive feedback. I'll think over your points and perhaps adjust my point of view.
@Dante
Personally, Dante, I worry about Muslim immigrants who endorse terrorism and about the horrific US policy in the middle east that kills innocents. I'm against both of them.
"As a Christian who believes in Christian charity, as the Church so divinely prescribes, I have decided to follow the teachings of the Church on this. Your…lack of charity is noted, of course."
You should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the Church.
"The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
– Jesus Christ, Matthew 15:25-26
There is the very minor bit of trivia that the founder of the faith being debated here, Peace Be Upon Him, was (unlike the founder of every other faith I can think of) one of the bloodiest perpetrators of violence ever to have lived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
One can only speculate what we would have if Genghis Kahn had created a faith with 1.4 billion adherents, but at least one comparable example exists.
We are actually lucky that so few aim to emulate the example of the founder.
ISIS announced ahead of time they were going to enter Europe as refugees and attack Europe, and then they did so with the generous support of European governments.
I have a hunch that the EU is actually into this sort of thing, in an S&M kind of way.
But what if EU leadership is into kinky things that its public isn't into? Isn't that, like, nonconsensual? Feminists, please help clarify.
@VD
That's Matthew 15:26
Note that two sentences later, in 15:28, He grants her request after all.
The Christian thing to do is to help the refugees…but that's not to say that the Christian thing to do is to import them into our own polity.
No, what he said to the woman was “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
Saying first implies that it's okay to feed the dogs, or the hitlerites, or whatever, but after the children. No children in this country go hungry because Obama gives them all the food they need. Therefore, Syrians.
"….she's accepting his implicit premise that the historical trivia matters.A much stronger position is to say that we care about the refugees because of who they are now. "
I think this might be one of the dumbest comments I've read in a while. First of all, past behavior is a fantastic indicator of future behavior. Plenty of people are getting rich using that concept from businessmen to the folks underwriting your loans.
But let's assume zebras change their stripes! I mean, they honored the call for a moment of silence for Paris at a soccer game. Oh wait, no they didn't.
The refugees are on their best behavior in Europe and there are no or limited reports of violence and rapes. Oh wait, that's not true either.
But who cares? After all, everyone knows #AmericanLivesDON'TMatter
Gosh, it's a real shame that we don't have a recent historic example to draw from…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13
Really, it's terrible that we have no idea how things could possibly end up when incorporating refugees from war-torn nations.
"There's an old rule in comedy: if you need to explain the joke, it isn't funny."
Actually the rule is: If you need to explain the joke, the audience is probably full of college educated liberals.
I though the piece was funny, but the hissy fits from the SWPLs was LOL.
I agree with you however, the US Foreign Policy needs to take the blinders off. The best thing we can do is stop feeding fuel to the Syrian rebels and stop destabilizing ME countries.
The best place for the Syrian refugees is a stable Syria.
@Clark
Do you think your Space Nazi allegory would carry the same meaning if it were Space Catholics instead?
Many are arguing, essentially, "we (the west) did lots of bad things to Muslims throughout history (Muslims are always reactive, never proactive, its a wonder how they ended up conquering so much territory considering that they are such pacifists) and therefore if some of them are violent it is our fault."
To which my reply is, so what?
The premise of your own argument is that some percentage are going to be violent.
I am immensely and magnificently indifferent to the reasons for their violence. I just want to be able to enjoy my croissant and latte before repairing to the Musee d'Orsay for the morning without fear of being shot to death or blown up.
Leftists are the ones always nattering on about safe spaces. How about working on providing one so that little children don't fret about having to leave their homes so that the mean, mean people with guns won't shoot them?
"I think it's ridiculous how many here worry about some abstract percentage <10 % of Muslims supporting violence against civilians, while the majority of Americans support drone strikes. "
Don't put the drone strikes on the American people.
We are ruled by an autocrat who generally does not even tell the public what he is doing. The drone strikes program is kept secret. The administration droned my neighbor Warren Weinstein back in January while he was a hostage in Pakistan. The administration did not even inform the Weinstein family until the press started breaking the story in April. During the intervening months they lied to the Weinstein family and said they were working on Warren's release.
But we are not talking about food are we? So in the current circumstances we are talking about providing refuge from religious extremists. So in this case we can't provide shelter for either the children or the dogs, because we cant tell if wolves are in the mix.
Well said, nightform.
Fuck right off, Clark. You can never just say anything; you just have to be a smarmy sarcastic fuck about it.
@Observer:
It is perhaps worth remembering that the Christian god is documented, in their holy book which is infallible, as having committed the single worst genocide ever, leaving but one family alive and but two of any animal. Said god also bombed several cities to dust for the grave sin of too few good people in them at the time.
Of Judaism, Moses called down numerous damaging plagues upon Egypt, including the death of all first-born Egyptians. Not exactly the most peaceful move.
The founder of Presbyterianism, John Knox, founded it with blood and fire, and had to form several international peace treaties by the end of the founding end the wars he started.
Confucious, though he used political actions, razed the homes of several aristocratic families to make room for those he supported.
Jesus himself was known to flip tables and beat people with whips in his time.
You can find more examples of religions founded by less-than-nonviolent means if you care to look. Yes, Muhammed was involved in a lot of fighting… but if you examine it? He was constantly striving for peace. He only became involved in any of it because he was selected to be a moderator/adjucator of grievances among several peoples. He tried to emigrate away from enemies, and the battles started when they refused to let his people live in peace. He routinely formed peace treaties, and battled only when the warmongers around him left him no options. And when he won, he punished as few people as possible, and returned the land to a peaceful status quo as quickly as he could.
Yes, he was involved in warfare… but not in the way your post suggests. It was, honestly, his bad fortune to be an intelligent man of peace stuck in a time of war, and to be an important man in a culture that valued writing. If he hadn't engaged in those battles, he would more than likely have died rather a bit sooner than he did. He did not 'perpetrate violence' so much as counter-strike and win – the other guy ALWAYS threw the first punch. And unlike the god worshipped by those who look down their nose at him, he did the minimum possible killing needed to secure peace and balance. And if he'd been part of most other cultures of the time? It's entirely possible the histories surrounding him would be just as incomplete as many of the histories surrounding OTHER culture's similarly important people.
@Dan
Clearly when Quiz Cat told me to "fuck off" in the first comment of this thread
https://www.popehat.com/2015/11/18/the-current-refugee-crisis/#comment-1328558 it was wrong of me to respond with sarcasm.
Sarcasm is never an appropriate way to respond to people who swear at me, and I deeply apologize to you and to everyone else reading this thread for using it.
Yep. And his inheritors continued that tradition. Did you know they "Emigrated" right up to the gates of Vienna! The poor dears must have took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, in their quest for peace.
GuestPoster is proof that civilization is doomed. The self-hatred he exhibits is that intense, and he represents a generation.
He routinely formed peace treaties
Just like Hitler! Great guy, but unfortunate to be a man of peace in a time of war.
What. A. Putz.
The axiom that SJWs always lie does not need any more evidence. But GuestPoster outdoes even the most fervent SJWs in this regard.
That Muhammad was a conqueror of many lands is a simple historical fact. This particular SJW is unusually committed, lying so baldly about such easily verifiable history.
@Guestposter has lied on almost every recent thread, often in multiple comments, but he really outdoes himself here.
…And Marc has won the thread.
As the right-wing Dan, I remain civilized and avoid swearing and ad hominem, preferring to win each argument on its merits.
We the civilized remnant of Dans deplore these uncivilized, brutish Dans that go on unhinged tirades when, lacking argument, they also cannot find in themselves the civility to concede.
I went on bing and did a search using the terms hitler peace treaty and found this:
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.html
A paper actually arguing that Hitler was forced into war by his neighbors and that Hitler made numerous attempts to eliminate weapons and form peace treaties between 1933 – 1939.
You don't think Hitler was being duplicitous do you?
Nah, then you might have to make the same assumption about Mohammad, and that's unthinkable.
Anyway, throwing over tables and chasing people out of a sacred space that they are profaning is way worse than anything Mohammad ever did.
Again, What. A. Putz.
This allegory is bullshit.
First, only 13% of refugees support ISIS, not 38%
Poll: 13% Of Syrian Refugees Support IS
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110415-779192-poll-13-of-syrian-refugees-support-isis.htm
Second, out of the 2 million refugees expected this year, 13% means it's only 260,000 ISIS supporters per year. That's barely a drop in the ocean.
Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
Third, in every single European country integration has demonstrably worked because a majority of muslims are AGAINST suicide bombings. Of France's 5 million muslims, only 35%, or 1,750,000 are favorable toward suicide bombings. That's hardly cause for concern.
What I see here, rather, is cause for moral preening. Did you notice how morally superior I am, worrying about muslims and their welfare? Did you? Did you? Did you notice? Look at my chin! Isn't it morally superior? And look at me pose. Huh? Not saying you should build a statue of me or anything but, you know, if you wanted to, for whatever reason, I don't know any reason really, I wouldn't ask, obviously, but I wouldn't object either, anyway, if you wanted to make a statue of me, again, for whatever reason, this would be a great pose. Just in case, you know, you wanted to. Not that I'm asking or anything.
Some people say constant ego self-stroking is bad because mental masturbation creates a synthetic sense of self esteem. I say so what? Why should I do something and achieve something real when I can be better than anyone else just by talking about my feelings for others? Look at all those idiot doctors and bankers and lawyers working so hard to become teh hot shit. What a pack of retards; moral preening is so much easier and it makes you a much much better person, not to mention morally superior all the time.
It is perhaps worth remembering that the Christian god is documented, in their holy book which is infallible, as having committed the single worst genocide ever, leaving but one family alive and but two of any animal. Said god also bombed several cities to dust for the grave sin of too few good people in them at the time.
And finally, cause seriously, What. A. Putz. That god is also the god of Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_in_Islam
“The moral of the story? Conservatives and supposed libertarians wet themselves over eeeeeeeevil scary brown people even in 3328."
I wonder if space moslems would toss gays into black holes or if they would still throw them off buildings when personal anti grav packs are available.
"All serious scholars of Hitlerism agree that the Hitlerite concept of a holy war against Jews is an allegory, an inner struggle against the 'Jew' of our own worst natures"
Inner struggle against 'Jew' of our own worst natures= when I went into a McDonalds on Veterans day to get a free big mac.
“If you have so much as a scintilla of evidence that 43% of the world's 1 billion Muslims endorse violence against non-believers, put up…or fuck"
This is video from a moslem peace conference, note all of the hands going up saying they want to kill gays & loose women.
http://vladtepesblog.com/2013/10/19/islamic-peace-conference-in-oslo/
@Nxx
ISIS was never mentioned. You are changing the discussion.
But that said, do you think that only 13% of people is a good number? If 13% of Americans supported the KKK and wanted to kill all blacks, would you say "well, 87% of Americans are against it – so Americans are clearly a tolerant people!"
Would you also have us accept refugees when 13% of them are in favor of murdering gays and others?
"That god is also the god of Muslims."
Bwhahahaha!
Amazing how that pesky little detail just takes down GuestPoster's wall of text.
But I am thrilled he is here to school us on major world religions. Who cares if he can't keep the Deity worshiped straight.
Guestposter hilariously writes,
"Yes, he was involved in warfare… but not in the way your post suggests. It was, honestly, his bad fortune to be an intelligent man of peace stuck in a time of war, and to be an important man in a culture that valued writing. If he hadn't engaged in those battles, he would more than likely have died rather a bit sooner than he did. He did not 'perpetrate violence' so much as counter-strike and win – the other guy ALWAYS threw the first punch. "
LOL. Have a look… It's pretty much 100% offense. A hundred different known battles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
Tip: when fibbing, it helps to be kinda sorta close to the truth.
Considering the number of your "alt-right" buddies who are implicitly and explicitly fine with just these things, I'm not sure you should be the one casting stones on this issue, Clark.
1) I speak out against the initiation of force by everyone; check out my twitter TL where I argue w folks on the alt-right continuously.
2) you're not answering the question
Let me repeat: do you think that bringing in 100,000 people, 13% of whom think that it's legitimate to murder gays, is a good idea?
As crazy as this post was … It was at least super fun to read which in my books is a huge improvement. Kudos.
GuestPoster says
After musing your wall of "good think" its hilarious the inadvertent irony that is contained within it. You managed to strut your Antisemitism, Hate for Christianity, and took a back-handed slap at Muslims all in the same post. The truly delicious part is you are completely oblivious to it. That's Talent!
The God of the Moslems, is the the God of Jews (the God of Abraham), who is the God of Christians. Moses is held as a prophet to all three religions and is the one who penned the first five books of Christian bible, provides the basis for the Torah, and the foundation for the Quran. Furthermore the period of time you quote (written by Moses) is held up as an example of Allah's justice against unrighteous people.
Your wall of stupidity brands you as an Anti-Semite for your hatred of the Jewish God, and a blasphemer of Allah's prophet by Muslims. But look on the bright side! You simply earn the title of ignorant jackass for insulting the same God by practicing Christians.
I thought Clark was brilliant.
Don't read their doctrine, don't listen to what they say and don't watch what they do. *cough* Paris. *cough* These are not the droids you're looking for- Got it.
Stipulating islamic immigration to be entirely neutral, if not a entirely unalloyed good, all I want is for us to house displaced Syrians (temporarily, of course) in well-furnished tent cities set up in the open spaces (football fields too) at Harvard, Yale and Stanford. And also at the pre-Ivories prep schools. Tent cities ONLY if no dorm rooms are available. Fill up the dorms first. This will be temporary only and just until we can integrate these benighted souls in to suitable residences located Cambridge, Berkeley, Beverly Hills and Manhattan.
What could go wrong? All I am saying… Is give peace a chance. And put your money where your mouth is.
@honkhonk113:
This is a free speech blog. Free speech does not indicate freedom from criticism or freedom from the consequences of that speech. He spews bullshit, he gets called out on it. I do not describe that as being "butthurt".
Perhaps you would prefer it if we all shut up and agreed with Clark? Remember, silence is acceptance, agreement, and consent.
===
@Manatee:
No, he's a real person. Sadly.
If so, then they're not on the internet or vocal on the internet. But that is hardly surprising.
===
@VD:
VD, eh? I'll be amused and assume you're Vox himself. Two things, Vox:
1) It's amusing when a Protestant heretic and apostate tries to lecture me on the faith. Next it'll be that sedevacantist heretic Wright.
2) Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. And you are not within.
Ah, the quote game.
"For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." – Matthew 25:25-36
I have a strong feeling that you would prefer Andrew Schlafly's Conservative Bible Project instead. He's managed to remove most references to mercy and charity by deeming them to be inserted by liberals over the past 2000 years.
@Clark
At the risk of speaking for @Nxx, I think you may be missing the point he's trying to make with his statistics.
@Castaigne – For a meal, as an individual; not for perpetuity, as a nation.
Castaigne
You better hope not. If this is the standard then only Messanic Jews are within the Church, and you Catholics will be roasting right along side those Protestants.
Just to make it clear. You are NOT the tree. You are the branch that is grafted.
this has got to be the first time Godwin's law has been invoked even before anyone had a chance to comment
FWIW, Godwin's Law is an assertion that the chance of Naziism being raised converges to one.
It does not say that an argument is thereby rendered invalid.
@Castaigne
You must spend a lot of your time commenting on the Internet. Or accepting, agreeing, and consenting. Duty calls.
I don't get why an ideological or philosophical litmus test is acceptable for immigrants but not for citizens. Why would you guarantee the absolute right to domestically produce ideas that are so hatefully repellent they may not be imported? Sounds like a great argument for banning all political expression, association or activities for ideologies that the government considers unacceptable.
@StaticVariable
Bin Laden's comments about strong horses and weak horses seems very applicable here.
@_NL – You clearly don't understand the concept of citizenship.
"silence is…..consent."
And here I thought it was golden.
So which faction of Hitlerites is refusing to built the Stargate Spice warpline that is causing the war in the first place? I don't see why the OCC should be dragged into a manufactured crisis by Hitlerite factions over the spice trade. This refugee crisis is simply a plot to force the OCC to pick sides in a Hitlerite civil war. Someone in the OCC must stand to make a whole lot of credits on this deal.
Given Liberals glee in the usage of the IRS against political enemies I can see the connection.
Reading through the comments here – looks like a lot of people studied Larry Correia's "internet Argument Checklist" as a how-to manual and not as a "here's how stupid idiots argue" manual.
This thread is particularly full of disqualify. The ones about how poorly written this is are especially funny, because it's obvious that the "if you have to explain the joke" person got the point, as well as most of those calling Clark full of crap.
But then SJW's alway lie.
That's a good point, Docrailgun.
Or maybe the poster meant to reference the Strumabteilung and confused "Brownshirts" with "Brown People" because reading is hard.
Or maybe the Space Aryans have a tan.
Wups – it was calling Clark full of crap, not pope…. Made the correction
@Manatee
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if Clark is just a straw-man sock-puppet run by one of the more left-leaning members of Popehat.
You've figured it out. Clark is actually a sock-puppet account maintained by Via Angus, who he occasionally uses to make allegorical points in favor of anarcho-capitalism when his normal cow-logic fails to sway us.
It all makes so much more sense now!
@SikoSoft says
"An example: In Sweden… all schools are required to serve Halal meals. *That* is the distinction. By being upset over something like this, you are not fearful of your diet going away, you are upset that your culture and way of life now needs to adapt to people who don't share the same cultural norms. School lunch menus change to appease the new religion, you foot the bill.
You don't have to be a nationalist or even care about culture to be bothered by that.
BIG difference."
Exactly! All this fuss is ultimately about some Halal meals for heaven's sake. And we're not even talking about the benefits, just that there's no costs at all! But let's talk about the benefits anyway:
Fact 1: Sweden is number one in Europe for immigration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden
Fact 2: Sweden has become number two worldwide for rape and sexual violence per capita.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-5-countries-highest-rates-rape-1434355
Fact 3: Almost half (38%) of Swedish women live in fear of leaving their homes.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/when-it-comes-to-rapes-islamized-sweden-is-already-in-a-state-of-war
The last link highlights how well Sweden is progressing; "The proportion of women who are afraid have risen sharply in the past 13 years. In 2000, 20 percent of women did not dare go out alone." It is comforting to know that the percentage of Swedish women living a perma-nightmare of fear has doubled so rapidly. Currently Sweden is only 38% progressive, but at this rate in twenty years time it will finally become 100% progressive. Whereas we who live in non-progressive hell holes have to shell literally thousands of dollars for ultra high def, ultra 3d sound, 4D effects, Swedish women get to experience horror movies from INSIDE the horror movie at maximum fidelity. All free.
No doubt some selfish retrograde might object to Swedish women having to share more. Such small mindedness ignores the fact that Swedish women benefit twice over; first, from shedding their unearned vaginal privilege and second, by gaining an appreciation for the finer points of immigrant culture. It is well known that being routinely gang raped is helpful in this regard.
@Clark
You know, normally I HATE it when people invoke Godwin's law, and especially when people invoke it as if it's some sort of critique of a point being made, or as if they're pointing out some sort of a logical fallacy. My position has always been that if you can't draw comparisons to one of the worst regimes in history, you are basically just ignoring history. Pretty much every time I see someone invoke Godwin's Law, I feel compelled to reply with one of my favorite stock-quotes:
"You know who would have invoked Godwin's law to try to shame his opponents into submission? Hitler."
However, in this case, I think the Nazi comparison really does hurt your point. If, as you say, the main point you are trying to get across is that just because you want to help refugees doesn't mean it's a good idea to let them into your country/home scott-free, the Nazi comparison simply detracts from your point. Not only are Nazi comparisons generally a mindkiller, which makes your readers less likely to consider the piece reasonably, but it also makes the resulting discussion all about "is the Nazi comparison apt," even among those who are willing to try to consider the piece on its own merits.
If you're trying to compare Islam (or, to be fair, a particular branch of Islam) to Nazi philosophy, fine. There's arguments to made either way in that case. But if that's what you're trying to do, don't try to mix it in with a piece about how there are valid reasons to want to keep refugees out, and that if you want to do so, it doesn't mean you are unwilling to help them. There are innumerable other factors you could come up with to give the "keep them out" side a valid reason, especially in a sci-fi setting, where anything goes. Maybe they randomly emit poison clouds, or they're normally placid and friendly, but their minds can be taken over at a whim if a hive queen gets close enough to them, or something like that.
I'm sort of getting the impression that the main reason you even included the Nazi analogy was so you had an excuse to throw in lines like "All serious scholars of Hitlerism agree that the Hitlerite concept of a holy war against Jews is an allegory, an inner struggle against the 'Jew' of our own worst natures." And I'll admit, that's a very clever criticism of some of the worst arguments that people sometimes use to justify, or at least rationalize, some of the worst components of the Qur'an. However, if you want to make that argument, just go ahead and make it, rather than trying to work it into an argument about something entirely unrelated.
Not every post needs to be about all things. This is a trap I see you fall into in your writing very often. You have a few good points scattered here and there, but you try to work them all together and make them relate in ways that they just don't need to, and it doesn't help you to actually make those points. It's a trap I have a nasty tendency to fall into myself, so it's a shame to see you doing the same thing.
The correct response to terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. That means, in this case, that we keep our moral centers and help those who need help, regardless of how those crybabies who ARE allowing themselves to be terrorized whine about how important it is to be afraid of refugees (or be frightened of brown people, or turn away the "evil" Jews from our shores as we did in the late 1930s…)
When I see cringing politicos refusing refugees I see that terrorism is a successful strategy!
I'll answer with a different question. Do you think it would be a good idea to deport 100,000 people because 13% of them think it's legitimate to murder gays (and blacks, and Jews)?
@Paradigm Spider:
This is an excellent question, and I thank you for joining in a good debate.
My answer is that (a) I think there is a huge asymmetry between giving or not giving someone a gift, and (b) taking or not taking from someone property that is there own.
I can morally make the former decision on the flimsiest of reasons, bc the gift – until given – is my propery.
I can almost never take someone's property from them.
So my answer is: no, I do not think it would be moral to deport 100,000 people in order to deport 13,000 likely-soon-to-be-murderers, but I *do* think it is moral to refuse to admit any of the 100,000.
"When I see cringing politicos refusing refugees I see that terrorism is a successful strategy!"
I think you need to learn what "successful strategy" means just like the Facebook intellects need to understand what "win" means in the phrase "The Terrorists will WIN, if you don't do what we say."
The terrorists win when they have the opportunity to KILL us. They do not win when they are stuck on the other side of the world stomping their foot and complaining about how "mean" we are.
But by all means, open the borders. When Americans die in the next attack you can calmly explain to the families how you sacrificed their love ones so no one would call you a chicken.
@Troutwaxer
I had this exact same debate with someone the other day: they were saying that the best way not to be scared by a kitchen fire was to stop storing a gasoline can next to the stove.
I disagreed vehemently with them. As you and I both know, the best way to not be terrorized by a kitchen fire is to store the gasoline wherever you want, but if it DOES catch fire, not to let that fire change anything about how you prepare breakfast.
An excellent story, Clark.
What I don't get is why so many Americans seem to have their panties in a twist over the current refugee crisis – the refugees are not knocking at your door. Personally, I think you should take them all (minus a smaller percentage for the Brits), as it was your foreign policy that created the conditions that allowed the problem to emerge in the first place. Of course, that is not going to happen, because being American means never having to take any responsibility for the damage you do – instead, you continue on your merry way, creating problem after problem the rest of the world will have to clean up after you.
And none of this "it's not us, it's our government" bullshit – the U.S. is a republic, and the U.S. people are its sovereign, meaning they are ultimately responsible for anything the U.S. government does.
Regarding the 13% debate (or whatever number), sure. It's bad to let them into the country. But nobody's seriously arguing otherwise (except the people who love space nazis, anyways. Probably best to talk about the real world here.) What we have in place is a process that takes roughly 2 years, involves a tremendous number of interviews, background checks, etc., and if a single story detail doesn't match with outside data we collect, you almost certainly have your application rejected. So, one might reasonably imagine that this would cut that 13% (or whatever number) down pretty darn extensively.
Now, compare to the two alternatives. 1) The person ALREADY hates the US, enough to want to bomb us. So they, oh, get a plane ticket (which costs FAR less than applying for refugee status), and try to lie their way past customs (which has far less time, and far less data, to work with than the two-year long process). How many of those people do we expect to make it in? How many would have been caught in the full process?
2) The refugees were effectively given a choice: join us or die. They chose option three – run away. If that option is removed, if we or other countries refuse to take them, how many will then simply turn over and die? After we demonstrate to them that the terrorists are RIGHT, and the west is actually full of heartless evil countries, how many will choose to be shot rather than just joining up as a terrorist/Isis/whatever?
Why is it more sensible to deny entrance to EVERYONE, when 13% might use that as an opportunity to defeat incredibly expensive and intense screening, when the alternatives lead to an even higher chance of being attacked by someone who escaped notice?
@Eric
Most Americans did not vote for Obama. None of us voted for Hillary or Kerry in State.
You posit much more moral responsibility for the actions of our administrations than I do.
@John Farrier
Thanks, John!
And either way I look at it it's collective punishment based off of fears of the future. So I guess that's the difference between us.
Not my particular fire, but you do realize the applicability of this quote to things such as gun control or public speech, right?
Edit:
I guess by that standard even fewer Americans voted for Bush, and he was the one going around invading places.
@GuestPoster
I disagree. Refugees are already arriving, are they not?
@M
In your opinion, Is this also an acceptable argument to justify increased NSA surveillance, indefinite detention without charge, and TSA security theater?
@Clark
Or, how about the best way to respond to a kitchen fire in your neighbor's house is to not throw away your best ideals and give in to fear-mongers and pants-pissers? Too on the nose?
The writing reminded me of c0da.
I like c0da.
"Of course, that is not going to happen, because being American means never having to take any responsibility for the damage you do – instead, you continue on your merry way, creating problem after problem the rest of the world will have to clean up after you."
A Frenchman came over to thank my father-in-law for his service in the armed forces and spoke so kindly and admirably about the American soldiers because they gave their lives so Europe could be free.
I have dead uncles buried in France. I know women who raised housefuls of children alone because their husbands never came home.
But please, tell me again how Americans don't answer calls for help.
@Eric – That's a very inaccurate, Ameri-centric viewpoint. The conditions that led to war in the Middle East have existed for literal millennia. They are, arguably, history's greatest constant.
@M – But Hitler was *also* the fault of the U.S., doncha know.
@Grandy
At risk of politicizing a recent tragedy, why don't you ask the citizens of "Space Paris" how well locking up all the guns worked out for them? :op
Snide remarks aside, in an attempt to be fair to the point I think you're probably trying to make, yes, theoretically making it completely, 100% impossible to obtain a weapon would have the same effect as making it 100% impossible for terrorists to get into the country. And you would also be right in saying that making it 100% impossible for terrorists to get into the country and making it 100% impossible to acquire guns are both impossible tasks. However, the steps required to get close to that 100% on preventing terrorist entry are far, far easier than getting close to 100% on preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons, by several orders of magnitude. The first requires you to close your borders, watch them those borders like hawks, and hope you are able to prevent homegrown terrorists from arising. Other than that last step, those first two are easily within your control. To make it impossible to acquire weapons, on the other hand, you need to not only confiscate every existing weapon and prevent new ones from being made, tasks that are both even more difficult than the ones in the previous example on their own, but ALSO prevent the same thing from happening anywhere else in the world/solar system/whatever, AND still close your borders on TOP of that.
People like to talk about the logistics of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants being impractical, and they're not wrong about that. But that is NOTHING compared to the logistics it would take to render America (or Space America. Whatever.) completely gun-free.
In short, you can't just build a terrorist in your garage using a shovel. (Note: In the 33rd century, this may no longer be true. :op )
Moreover, even if you ignore the logistical differences, you also need to compare the consequences of failure with the situation you would have if you never even tried. In the case of denying access to immigrants, if a terrorist happens to get through anyway, you are in exactly the same position as if you hadn't denied the immigrants access in the first place; the terrorist still kills people. In the case of disarmament, if a terrorist gets access to weapons despite your best efforts to stop them, then not only does the terrorist still kill people, but you've ALSO given the terrorist a significantly more vulnerable target.
The two situations are really not comparable at all. In one, you simply fail to stop the terrorist. In the other, you deny your population of even the option of distributed defense in depth, and distributed defense in depth is literally the only tactic that stands a chance of stopping a Mumbai or Paris-style attack.
(Note: I should probably point out that I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of unilaterally refusing access to refugees. I'm still undecided on that point, because, like I said above, 100% preventing terrorist entry into the country, using only that method, is pretty much impossible. I'm simply saying that comparing it to disarmament is not a valid comparison.)
@Clark: Yes, refugees are arriving. They started the process ages ago. The US takes in refugees all the time, as there's always violence happening SOMEWHERE that people want to flee from.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not a big group of Syrian refugees who've managed to skip the massive screens – if this is incorrect, please do feel free to provide information to the contrary. The Syrian Civil War started in 2011, thus at roughly 2 years for security screening, that's three years worth of refugees who could have made it through the process by now to enter the US. The president of the United States certainly seems to support this viewpoint, as he just outlined the extensive security screening to us the other day. This also supports the view that nobody (or, at least, nobody serious, or nobody with the power to implement it) is suggesting that a huge flood of refugees should be allowed into the US without security screening.
All that is being suggested is that 'Are you Muslim' should not be a question asked, since it is not any more predictive of future hostile acts than 'are you happy' is. Heck, there's ALREADY an enhanced level of screening for Syrian refugees – the Syrian Enhanced Review Process. How much more do they need?
And with all that, why would anybody who meant the US harm go through that long, expensive process rather than just hopping a plane and hoping to get through customs?
Or, perhaps I am misunderstanding your question, or you misunderstood my point. I am happy to agree that it is bad to let that specific 13% (or whatever) in – but I am also quite happy to allow entrance to the other 87%. I am further arguing that the single WORST way for the 13% to gain entry would be via refugee applications, and so it is both heartless AND brainless to want to shut that process down in order to guard against them.
@Castaigne
"This is a free speech blog. Free speech does not indicate freedom from criticism or freedom from the consequences of that speech. He spews bullshit, he gets called out on it. I do not describe that as being "butthurt".
Perhaps you would prefer it if we all shut up and agreed with Clark? Remember, silence is acceptance, agreement, and consent."
Nobody asked for the SJWs to be censored. Well, you're asking if he would ask, but he never asked so idk why you're asking if he would ask if you get my drift. He was making fun of you for writing a post where the only content of most sentences was some form of insult. It's ironic that you would answer with that by crying how he wants to silence you and that everyone has the right to make fun of people for bad posts.
Oh and yeah, free speech does guarantee freedom of some consequences of the speech. There isn't a magical machine that shuts off speech, and the free speech debate isn't about whether we will use such a machine if we could invent it. But I mostly wanted to make fun of you for implying someone wants to censor you when they were making fun of you making fun of somebody else. Haha,
@GuestPoster
I recall Obama saying recently that he wasn't giving arms to any Syrian groups because it was impossible to effectively vette them.
Can you explain the "massive screens" that you're talking about here?
Oh god I can't handle the idea that you actually believe this. You actually think it's realistic for America to both close and watch its borders. What's next, are you going to ask Donald Trump to build two walls and get both Mexico and Canada to pay for them?
And that's leaving aside your blithe dismissal of homegrown radicalism when the vast majority of the Paris attackers were Europeans citizens from birth.
Oh man this tripe again. You know the last person you want running around in the scene of a crisis with a weapon? Untrained, unskilled, unidentifiable civilians!
@ Dr. N
"In your opinion, Is this also an acceptable argument to justify increased NSA surveillance, indefinite detention without charge, and TSA security theater?"
Of course not. You are trying to expand my words into an argument I didn't make.
I'm not the one arguing a person is a coward or letting the terrorists win if he or she questions if we should be letting in a group of people who have already committed acts of violence in their European host countries, admit they have sympathies for ISIS, and ISIS has admitted they will use the group as a cover (and has successfully done so on at least one occasion.)
The above is an emotionally-manipulative argument that deserves to be mocked. So I mocked it.
Dr. Nobel Dynamite says
I'll take false equivalences for $1000 Alex!
Rejection of police state tactics is not equivalent to rejection of a Trojan Horse.
If the 34th century Hitlerites are as far from the 20th century Nazis as 21st century Muslims are from 7th century Muslims, then the emergent's arguments are entirely unconvincing. And no points to the secretary for allowing herself to be drawn into the debate (and losing it). (Of course, I could write a short story where I debate with Clark, and he ends up pooping his pants and admitting I'm right. I wouldn't expect it to convince anyone.)
If, on the other hand, the 34th century Hitlerites are still ideologically tied to Hitler and the 20th century Nazis, then the emergent is right, but the story has no force as an allegory.
I have to wonder when I read something like this, whether the author actually knows any Muslims.
@L
Given that large numbers of 21st century Muslims have multiple wives, believe in Sharia, believe in stoning adulterers and gays to death, etc. I disagree with you entirely.
@M
And "When Americans die in the next attack you can calmly explain to the families how you sacrificed their love ones so no one would call you a chicken." isn't? We'll have to agree to disagree about that one.
In any event, you reference "a group" in your comment that I'm not entirely clear on. Are you referring to Muslims in general, or just Syrian refugees?
"And "When Americans die in the next attack you can calmly explain to the families how you sacrificed their love ones so no one would call you a chicken." isn't?"
Of course it is.
I'm mocking the poster in their native language so they will understand me.
As for "a group"- In this case I'm speaking of the refugees.
@Clark,
Yes, ~45 % of the American electorate didn't bother to show up for the 2012 election – up from the 43% that didn't show up in 2008 (can't really blame them for not wanting to vote for the shinier of two turds). But the numbers that voted or for whom they voted doesn't really matter. Whatever the American government does is ultimately the responsibility of the American people. That's what sovereignty means.
And it's disingenuous to lay all the blame on the Obama administration – your foreign policy fuckups are a bipartisan project, and have been since long before 2008.
@ S1AL
"But Hitler was *also* the fault of the U.S., doncha know."
Oh really? Man, we are some bad folks.
Why do people keep inviting us to parties?
I think people who don't vote should be counted as voting for either or both, since that's effectively what they're doing. For example, in 2012, about 28% of the electorate actively said they wanted to keep Obama, and about 45% of the electorate passively said they were fine with keeping Obama. 73%! That's a regular mandate! Even bigger than the 70% Mitt Romney got!
@M
I don't think that's terribly honest of you to make that kind of argument and then hide behind 'I'm just doing what the guy I don't like is doing', particularly since no one here appears to be making the argument you claim to be parodying. But whatever–you agree that's a spineless, intellectually bankrupt argument, so that's all I was pointing out.
You say you're concerned about Syrian refugees being admitted who, among other things, have already committed violence in Europe. I don't know all the ins and outs of the screening process, but I am quite confident that this is probably something we're screening for.
@S1AL
Bullshit. The conditions that led to the creation of ISIS are the destruction of the secular Iraqi state and the severe weakening of the secular Syrian state – both the results of U.S. policy. ISIS began its life in the U.S. army's Camp Bucca prison camp.
Maybe he could get his buddy Beale to include this in the slate of nominees that Beale is going to use to game the Hugo Award nominations again next year. I mean, yeah, it's not very good, but it's not much worse than most of the dreck that Beale shat out last year. Hell, it's actually better than a couple of them
And after Clark's performance in the "I'll rain hellfire on him… oh hi Ted, what you said about Ken wasn't very nice but hey, whatever, we're cool" fiasco I'm sure he'd be happy to find a spot on the nomination ballot for it
@ Dr. N
No one is making the argument I am mocking?
Here is one of your comments: "Or, how about the best way to respond to a kitchen fire in your neighbor's house is to not throw away your best ideals and give in to fear-mongers and pants-pissers? "
What's tripping you up? The fact I was more polite and said coward?
@M
It was the "When Americans die in the next attack you can calmly explain to the families …" portion of that argument I found to be spineless and intellectually dishonest, not the reference to "coward." It appears you now do disagree with that sentiment.
I think the anti-refugee hysteria in this country is led by a bunch of pants-pissing cowards who want to capitalize on fear mongering and throw away our best values. I make no bones about that.
@M
Gee, why don't you ask the Iraqis you "liberated" about that ? Or the all the non-Sunni (and non fundamentalist Sunni) Syrians ? Though I guess at this point they'd gladly forego your "help" and settle for you not making things worse.
I'd also like to point out that WWII ended 70+ years ago. Gratitude has a half life, especially when you cause nothing but trouble in the meantime. Or do you still thank the French every day for making your revolution possible ?
"When Americans die in the next attack you can calmly explain to the families …" portion of that argument I found to be spineless and intellectually dishonest,
How is it intellectually dishonest?
If we let them in and Americans are hurt either through an ISIS attack or by the bad behavior of the sweet, sweet refugees….don't you think some blame should land on the Americans who mocked, shamed and bullied those who counseled caution?
Or would it just be another unforeseeable tragedy?
@Clark's sarcastic "thank you for your constructive criticism" responses to insults would be more warranted if he actually responded to substantive criticism. I gave up about eighty comments in, so maybe he does in the latter half, but I've rarely seen him respond to substantive critiques in previous posts either. @Clark, when you're a boring troll, people will eventually give up on giving you real feedback and just throw crap under the bridge for fun in case some of it hits you. Deal.
@M
No, just like I don't think that the blame should fall on proponents of strong encryption, defenders of civil liberties, or those who argue against dumb, reactionary responses to terrorism.
We should have a smart, reasonable screening process for anyone who wants to seek refugee status in this country. No one is arguing for throwing the gates open and saying come one come all. But the anti-refugee hysteria is absolutely ridiculous and cowardly right now, and our grand kids will be ashamed of us if we choose to throw away our ideals because we're scared.
@ Eric
Europe doesn't need to be grateful. We were happy to help.
As for the middle east, as many have pointed out it has been a problem area for a long time and no one has been able to find a workable solution. Although it looks like the Russians are about to make a go of it.
"Bullshit. The conditions that led to the creation of ISIS are the destruction of the secular Iraqi state and the severe weakening of the secular Syrian state – both the results of U.S. policy. ISIS began its life in the U.S. army's Camp Bucca prison camp."
No, it began its life in the Quran. And we're talking about a region that has engaged in more years of warfare than the rest of the world combined. Or did you forget the Iraq-Iran War? How about this lovely list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Syria
I'm all for fully disengaging in direct action in the Middle East and dealing with the problems we have here already, but blaming the U.S. for the Syrian Civil War is silly. Hell, saying that "The United States and … Britain" are responsible ignores the hundred or so other countries that did the exact same thing.
"We should have a smart, reasonable screening process for anyone who wants to seek refugee status in this country."
Agreed.
But I think you and I will start disagreeing about what constitutes a "smart, reasonable screening process"
@M
We've got an extremely thorough system now that takes almost two years to complete. And a whatever our differences, I would hope that we would agree that a system which requires the head of the FBI to personally sign off on each and every Syrian refugee is nonsense, and the worst kind of political theater.
Eh.
If our "best values" are importing hundreds of thousands of people who oppose our other values, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.
Syrians built Syria. This doesn't strike me as a good argument for inviting them to pitch in on our, uh, noble experiment of self-government or whatever we're calling it these days.
Oh gosh that's brilliant! Two years to check if a person is bad news or not, what could go wrong? I mean NOBODY ever immigrated to a new country and then shot up their new place of residence in that time frame.
I mean the idea is so fundamentally absurd you would have get on a boat headed for Greece, have it sink, end up in a random European nation, then shoot up a major cosmopolitan city to get any more ridiculous!
Who does that? What a silly idea!
See kids, moral absolutes ARE real! As long as you start with a flawed premise, make ridiculous assumptions, and land on totally outlandish conclusions – anything's possible!
From the allegory – ""Madame secretary I agree, they're fleeing war – a war that the Hitlerites themselves have caused"."
So…clearly Serbian refugees from WWI are the bad guys, they "caused" that war. This implies that invaded territories become the bad guys once they fall under Hitlerite control. Sorry Poland in WWII, you get lumped in w/ the Hitlerites since you're in "their" territory. No asylum for you. Every man, woman, and ESPECIALLY child is dangerous.
Also, what if you're a violently oppressed minority in a Hitlerite region? You're SOL, apparently. All persons from Hitlerite-controlled areas shall be treated the same. No exceptions.
Also, the emergent makes a logical fallacy (construing all members of a group to be represented by a minority), and then gets all indignant when the secretary points out that turnabout is fair play (your minority can be construed as representing your group). Cognitive dissonance is real, boys and girls.
Also, the Bible has nothing bad in it. It's 110% sunshine and rainbows – you'll recall the stirring story of humble David, and how, against all odds, he was able to gather 200 foreskins because "God was with" him…wait, wrong David story, sorry. The point is, this peaceful text could not possibly be twisted to support any war, or any awful ideological bigots. In fact, I'm confident that's never once happened in history.
In any case, it's CERTAINLY not happening in the US right now, not even in the WESTern BOROugh.
As for killing civilians – the US has never accepted any civilian deaths, and that's why we hold the moral high ground here. Extended bombing of a Doctors without Borders hospital is the kind of thing the US is never accused of. Sheesh, it's not like we called in a drone strike on a wedding party or anything!
See? It's simple! We're the good guys and they're the bad guys. No critical thinking needed!
What I am trying to get at is that we should have compassion for these Syrians and understand that currently some are faced with a choice to either join ISIS or die. That is why the option which Trump advocates of creating a safe zone in Syria for these refugees may be the most reasonable option to take care of the most people.
@HamOnRye
So you're against all immigrants, not just refugees?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
@S1AL:
@Ken in NJ:
I personally would absolutely encourage this.
VD is absolutely a shitty writer who exemplifies the meanings of "turgid" and "overblown verbosity". Seriously, no one wants to read Moldbug in novel form. I've read Wilkie-Collins-style Victorian novels that wandered less and were infinitely more interesting. But hey, there's a market for everything, even RAHOWA: The Fantasy Series.
===
@anon:
Ok…great? I wasn't referring to them?
No, I'm not an SJW, if you're asking.
I said his writing was turgid, heavy-handed, and overall bad.
Literary criticism is an insult these days? Who knew!
I didn't say anything about the content, about the theme. Here, let me check…yup, all I talked about was the quality. As a matter of fact, so are most people who are criticising the story.
Yes, I insult bad fiction. People who criticize and discriminate do that.
Not getting the irony here.
* I wasn't crying about being silenced; I asked if that's what he wanted. That's a fair question. Or is one not allowed to ask questions?
* I think you're assuming I'm an SJW. Definitely not one.
* Yes, everyone has the right to make fun of people for bad posts. Everyone has the right to make fun of people for whatever reason they want. Just like I believe everyone has the right to dox whoever they want too. SJWs, NRxs, whatever. Free to do as you please.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No, I don't believe that at all. No one is immune. No one.
@M:
No, that's a military strategy, not a strategy of terrorism. The goals of terrorism are far more broad. In fact, what we're doing right now is EXACTLY what Isis\Daesh want us to do. All you need to do is study their propaganda to determine what their actual goals are; you can do that by acquiring English-language copies of their magazine 'Dabiq'.
I recommend doing so, by the way; it's always best to study your enemy.
That was almost a century ago. When are you going to stop trading on that? 25 years, tops, is what's relevant. As the kids like to say, "What have you done for me lately?"
…no, we weren't. We did it out of necessity and we did it because we expected some serious fucking concessions and economic 'loot' afterwards. And we got it. Let's not try to pretend we were noble about it.
===
@GuestPoster:
Ah, but this is exactly what Clark, Vox Day, Free Republic et al., really want. It separates things into two sides – they on the side of the righteous Crusaders saving Western civilization, and the evil Mooselimbs and whoever doesn't want to crusade. They'll never say it in so many words, of course – they'll equivocate and bloviate and otherwise say a lot by saying nothing much at all – but it is what burns in their heart. The Crusade. The call to arms. The chance for glory and victory and power and ascendance! And when they have won, the glorious Dark Enlightenment will create their Awe-Inducing Neo-Reactionary Techno-Kingdoms to maintain Western culture and civilization for eternity.
And blah, blah, blah. It's a cute fantasy, like all black/white scenarios, but it's pretty much all bluster and bark, no bite. It's a pity; if they actually had any chance, I'd give them a hand and implement their wishes for them. It would be amusing to see what Vox and Clark would do with their sterilized Muslim rape-slaves.
===
@Dr. Nobel Dynamite:
They'll never say yes, because they're not the ones in charge.
Seriously that's a really pathetic attempt at baiting. Its insults me that you would put out such a lame attempt. At least make it a challenge.
I take it you haven't been reading the news? Syrian refugee rescued off the coast of Greece who later shoots up Paris? Ring any bells??
"Considering the number of your "alt-right" buddies who are implicitly and explicitly fine with just these things, I'm not sure you should be the one casting stones on this issue, Clark."
The video I linked had all of moslems raising their hands to kill gays. Funny thing is that it is not the STR8 White Church Going Christian Men that commit the majority of crimes against gays like the Soros paid gatekeepers tell us. When the San Francisco Gate published the demographics of bashings & crime in general queens clutched their pearls and fainted onto their couches. Blacks make up only 5% of San Fran but commit the majority of crime there, even worse is they make up 8% of San Fran public school students but are 71% of those arrested.
I don't know of any STR8 YT CGCM that has serial killed gays since Ali Mohammad Brown did so in 3 states, with shockingly little news coverage. There is even a gay conservative site, Gay Patriot, for those gays that don't want to have more taken out of their paychecks because Latrina squatted out more crack babies. Most conservatives are willing to live and let live as long as they don't have to subsidize others, but if they are not there is a gay gun org named Pink Pistols.
I would be safer in Churchill's UK who was in charge of the royal navy, and said "all you have to know about the navy is rum sodomy and the lash", than today when UK soldiers get beheaded on the street in broad daylight London. In the UK so many HIV+ moslems are using up AIDS treatment it is hard for citizens to get care which runs $2,000-$5,000 a month just in medication alone.
@HamOnRye
You're the one who brought up immigrants, and nothing in your statement made any distinction between why refugees should be halted but immigrants should not. And you didn't answer my question.
You misunderstand. You're just repeating a news report, but your point in repeating it is unclear. Are you trying to argue that because one out of eight of the Paris attackers was carrying a possibly fake Syrian passport, this means that we should halt all refugees trying to enter the United States?
Guestposter "there is not a big group of Syrian refugees who've managed to skip the massive screens – if this is incorrect, please do feel free to provide information to the contrary."
The US military couldn't even screen 5 people out of all the Syrians they gave supplies to that ended up not being jihadi. Even after spending millions to do so. How much better do you think some govt worker will be to ferret out Taqiyya?
@Castagine.
"No, that's a military strategy, not a strategy of terrorism. The goals of terrorism are far more broad. In fact, what we're doing right now is EXACTLY what Isis\Daesh want us to do."
What are the more broad goals? Don't all roads lead to conquering us or killing us?
You seem to be implying the only way we win against the terrorists is if we do exactly the opposite of what we think the terrorists want us to do. How about we play our own game, have our own strategy and not just react to the enemy?
Now, I know you don't have a high opinion of the terrorists and neither do I, but I am pretty sure they can do more than one thing at a time. You don't think they have plans for how to exploit our decision to let the refugees in AND have plans to exploit our decision to close our borders?
@Paradigm Spider
What "blithe dismissal of homegrown terrorism" are you talking about there? Did you fail to notice the part in the very line you quoted where I specifically point to homegrown terrorism as the third factor, which we have no control over? How about the numerous times where I specify that preventing terrorists from entering the country is impossible to do with 100% accuracy, or the part where I explicitly state that I'm undecided on the refugee issue?
The difference is, those first two factors (whether or not we close the borders, and how closely we watch the borders if we do so) are within our ability to control, even if it would be difficult to do so, whereas ALL of the factors necessary to disarm the population are out of our control. I never said closing the borders is the most realistic plan, just that it's not even remotely comparable with the completely disarming America.
The only "blithe dismissal" going on here is you, blithely dismissing everything I actually wrote.
Oh man this tripe again. You know the last person you want running around in the scene of a crisis with a weapon? Untrained, unskilled, unidentifiable civilians!
…Oh, wait, I was wrong. There actually IS another blithe dismissal going on here. I'm blithely dismissing your opinions on this matter, because you obviously don't know WTF you're talking about.
You know who the last person I would want running around the scene of a crisis with a weapon would be? A terrorist shooting every person they see! Anyone who is actively trying to stop this person is beneficial to the situation, even if all they can actually accomplish is to act as a speed bump, buying some time for better trained personnel to arrive. Is the terrorist in question going to kill more people, because the person shooting back at them made them mad? No. They're going to keep on killing, because their entire plan is to kill as many people as they can. The argument that you are going to make a situation that was specifically planned by the attacker to be as deadly and chaotic as possible somehow more deadly and chaotic by fighting back is laughable, at best.
Even if response personnel misidentify the defender and kill them by mistake, every CCW permit holder that I know is well aware that 1) this is a possibility, and that while it would be tragic, it is a risk they are willing to take, and 2) to stop shooting and keep their hands clear as soon as responders do arrive.
Moreover, what is this magical "training" that qualifies people to fight back? Not everybody can be SWAT or infantry, obviously, but there's plenty of LEOs and military who only fire their weapon often enough to qualify. I'm a Marine in the Air Wing myself, and despite the "every Marine is a rifleman" ethos, and despite me considering myself a pretty good shot and fairly level-headed in a crisis, I sure as hell know several civilian CCW holders who I would be more confident of in a firefight than myself. Should I not be allowed to fight back in the case of an all-out attack, such as the one in Paris? If not, then what about the civilians I'm talking about, above?
The attack on Camp Bastion was repelled by a bunch of POGs who only fire their weapon once a year, not infantry who train for that sort of thing every day. Training is important, obviously, and quite a lot of it is necessary if you want to win consistently, but it doesn't take years of constant training before you can be allowed to simply fight back when people are shooting everyone in sight. Frankly, in most places the requirements for a CCW permit aren't all that much less restrictive than the requirements placed on military and LEOs to qualify with their weapons. And in general, the people who go through the trouble to get one are the sort of people who want to learn how to react in that sort of situation.
The "civilians will just make the situation worse" argument is patently ridiculous. The situation is already as bad as it's going to get. Letting the attacker get their way without any resistance isn't going to make it any better.
@m:
Nope. That depends entirely on the ideology of the group in question. I say that in reference to terrorism of all stripes.
The specific goal of ISIS\Daesh with their current terrorism is to lure the US and European forces to battle in Syria. They specifically want us to plant armies there, for a Western-led army to put boots on the ground in Syria. They believe that once we do that, Allah will specifically grant them supernatural victory over Western forces.
This then leads to their next goal. With the destruction of Western forces, we will be unable to defend Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, who are all in cahoots with each other and who control Western civilization. Thus, ISIS\Daesh will conquer the Middle East and execute all the apostate Muslims, which includes all Shiites and any Sunni who do not join them. They'll probably (Who am I kidding? Will.) get rid of the Christians and Jews too, because they don't really see a difference between those and the Shiites.
What they'll do after this magnificent conquest, they have no clue yet. But in order for them to win, Western nations MUST engage in a boots-on-the-ground crusade against them. The only interest they have in us right now is to provoke us to do that.
And it's not something you can logically argue with them against. This is based on faith; they're as sure of the outcome of what they're doing as the Heaven's Gate cult was sure of the outcome of their group suicide. Or the Baader-Meinhofs were sure of the destruction of the bourgeosis proletariat.
Oh, I'm fine with that. The problem with how the USA has played the game and issued the strategy for the last century is that we keep projecting our own preconceptions of what [INSERT ENEMY] wants and crafting the game/strategy to match that. And it always turns out to be rankest bullshit. It's especially why the last 15 years of war in the Middle East has not gone well for us.
Do you know what's funny to me? ISIS\Daesh WANTS us to block all refugees, send them back. All Western countries. As they view it, the refugees will then see the truth of their cause and automatically join them. And we're going to do just that; it makes me grin and caper with glee. Seriously.
Sure! We let them in, they'll keep trying to plant people so that we can be provoked with terrorist acts. We exclude them, they believe they have ready-made soldiers. They consider it a win both ways. And of course, no one is coming up with any other options.
Me, I'm perfectly happy – and willing – to make VD and Clark's crusade happen. It would suit my Hobbesian view of humanity just fine.
@Dr. Nobel Dynamite
Your not trying to make a distinction between immigrants and refugees (and in this case is there a difference?), your trying to set a trap try to paint people as xenophobic so you can sit back and say "AHA! RACIST".
Does it matter if it was fake or real? He got in using a Syrian passport and slipped past EU protections. The passport being fake or real is pretty much an academic detail at this point. ISIS did exactly what they said they would, which is use this crisis to move in their people. Are you seriously trying to argue they wont try it in the US?
Are you that slavish in your attitude that you would be willing to risk a terrorist attack here, so you don't get called a racist? As for me, I think providing support for the refugee's while not bringing them to US soil is the prudent course of action. Of course I also guilty of double bad think that you and your fellow progressives should stop starting civil wars in other people's countries would help too.
@HamOnRye
Buddy, I'm asking you if you're making that distinction, and everything you're saying so far indicates that you're not, but it makes you pretty mad to have to admit that.
Nope, I'm arguing that we have a system in place that is screening for people we want to keep out, and to stop taking in refugees and aid ISIS in their goals is both counter to our values and our interests.
@Castaigne
Well, alright then. You are right, it would behoove me to learn our enemy better.
As for another option, sounds like a good problem to take to Our Lady Undoer of Knots.
@Dr. Nobel Dynamite
Thats funny – (D) Nancy Pelosi doesn't share your optimism
Not sure why you think having a cabinet level officer review refugees is viable, when house minority leader doesn't think its workable. Maybe you are just so much smarter then she is?
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2015/11/19/pelosi-count-me-as-a-lioness-on-national-security
@HamOnRye
You could fill a barn with what Nancy Pelosi and I disagree about. And if you think my position is partisan–that Republicans are the only pants-pissing cowards here–you are sorely mistaken.
@Castaigne – Funny, I don't remember the RCC having an interpretation of that verse that says anything about immigration. I also don't know how you can possibly apply it to non-Christians, given "Amen, I say to you, insofar as you did it for one of these least of my brothers, you did it for me."
Then again, you managed to have the Papacy without any justification.
@Dr. Nobel Dynamite
Well we have some common ground, if only a little. I am certainly no fan of the San Fran Nan.
However I do take the woman seriously if she says the program isn't going to work. She has at least insiders knowledge into the workings of government, and I do not see her motivation to lie in this regard.
With a nation as rich with resources and options as the US, why is the only viable option "park the refugee's in the US, who may or may-not-be trouble"? I genuinely do not get this obstinate refusal for taking a careful approach to this situation?
Clark, trolling his way to 200 comments in a heartbeat.
Well played.
@Vorkon
So as not to stretch out this thread even further I'm going to say two short things.
Firstly, if you think the idea of closing America's borders is any more possible than disarming its civilian population, you have no idea of the logistics involved.
Secondly, people don't need firearms to fight back. If you've ever heard of a shooter being tackled by civilians during a rampage; if you remember UA Flight 93; hell, if you have heard about Adel Termos, you should know that it is not weapons that provide the capacity for resistance. Having guns doesn't help you make the right decisions.
@Paradigm Spider
Point one: As I've said, I have no doubt that closing America's borders would be a phenomenal waste of resources. I stand by my assertion that it would be nowhere near comparable to attempting to disarm its population, however, which was the whole point of my original post in the first place.
Point two: Agreed on all fronts. None of that contradicts my assertion that saying "armed civilians will just make the problem worse" is ridiculous in any way, however.
Well, this illustrates why Vox couldn't engineer an awards win; his writers. Openly and obviously choreographed rather than proceeding in a manner reminiscent of human thought processes, in desperate need of an editor on multiple fronts (the urge to be declamatory rather than descriptive, prose that needs to be tightened in word count for impact, never be subtle when you can be blunt), and a desire to argue with criticism in /AnneRiceMode.
Of course, I suppose that's a compliment to Patrick.
Wow! This is just verbal diarrhea as far as I'm concerned.
J. Krowsky:
You have shared a very interesting and pointed fact about the manner in which you approach fiction and arguments that you disagree with.
Thank you.
Seriously. What the fuck did I just read?
Lots of commenters have legal backgrounds so legal question: Does Clark have a cause of action against his dealer?
Food for thought: Automation and Immigration are seldom mentioned in the same article.
If there's automation right around the corner that will render millions of jobs, particularly unskilled jobs, useless, isn't it really stupid to take in large numbers of unskilled immigrants?
@ naturalized: Does Clark have a cause of action against his dealer?
No. Clark's dealer has a cause of action against Clark, who has rendered drugs unnecessary until the conversation ends.
Believe in Sharia? It's not the easter bunny.
Clark's Checklist:
☑ Scratch itch to write science fiction allegory.
☑ Rile up the commentariat to heretofore unknown levels of woodchipperism.
☑ Sit firmly astride Poe's Law so nobody can tell if it's serious or not.
☑ Bury the lede three-quarters of the way down to check if people are actually reading the post or just reacting to it.
Bravo.
The butthurt here is palpable, and delicious. It looks like an awful lot of people:
1. really, really don't like seeing that form of Stockholm Syndrom that we label "political correctness" dismantled by an allegorical reductio ad absurdam
2. will neither change their minds nor change the subject
3. have Clark living in their heads rent-free
@Castaigne
I describe that as basic bitch shitlib signalling. It's the bottom of the internet content barrel and appeals to free speech aren't an improvement.
@Clark
Exquisite.
This is your daily reminder that the bulk of the "refugees" are not refugees at all. They're chiefly economic migrants fiending for handouts and better living conditions, with a small minority of subversives aligned with ISIS (and other such groups) and actual refugees.
This is not to say that if you stripped out all the terrorists, it would be a good idea to let the rest in. It would still lead to war in Europe. These people are outgroup, and an evolutionarily better fit group as well. If let in in any numbers greater than those which allow for complete assimilation (to the point where the individual is no longer distinguishable from a native except by genetic cues), they will eventually (even soon, given the fertility of the locals) take over.
The USA deserves to get all of them, as far as I'm concerned, for destroying the stable and appropriate regimes of the Middle East. Reap what you sow, rather than foisting the negative externalities on your vassal states. The vassal states are well justified in closing their borders and expelling foreign elements from the war-torn regions.
I remember back when Patrick introduced Clark as a new, left-leaning member of the team.
Why wouldn't a leftist object to mass immigration? The migrants aren't remotely left-wing. It is at least theoretically possible that with sufficient representation, they will ally with the Nationalists and the Christians on common points – which are quite divergent from the left's goals. Weirder alliances have occurred.
Terry Cole:
Sure, Jesus says that. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Only, he's not advocating violence. He's trying to prepare his followers for the violence they'll RECEIVE. As in, "I'm preaching a message of peace, but things will get worse before they get better. Especially for you – you'll be put to the sword for this. It'll even turn your families against you!"
The problems he wanted to cause were all about how he figured people would receive his preachings. It starts at verse 5 and ends at verse 42, if you want to check it out for yourself: http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/10.htm
Luke 12:51 is similar. Jesus intended for the world to be separated between his disciples who received violence, and the non-virtuous who did not, ASAP. He figured the end-times were coming soon, so no other conflicts matter anymore, even seemingly important stuff like, "My brother took our whole inheritance for himself. Could you maybe talk to him?"
Of course, the end-times STILL haven't happened, and if you're a non-Christian like me you kinda figure that's 'cause they won't.
This one's longer, and it's harder to decide what's relevant and what isn't 'cause it kinda meanders. You be the judge, if you care to: http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/12.htm
There's lots of people whinging in the comments because you're not towing the right line for them but I actually quite liked the story.
—–
With that in mind may I draw the Emergent's attention to some of the earlier cases in history, indeed in the earliest days of the Hitlerite's when citizens of the Hitlerite nation tried to flee as refugees but were turned away by the other [factions/phyles/nations] existent at that time.
[Mind-Data file attached https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis%5D
In the esteemed Emergent's opinion did many of the other [factions/phyles/nations] make the right moral choice by turning away the people fleeing the Hitlerite's in that case?
Considering that the refugee ships nearing Jovian space are filled with citizens of the Hitlerite [phyles] who have been branded as [near jew] by the dominant [mindshare] of the Hitlerites might the esteemed Emergent admit any similarity between this situation and the historical example?
[Additional Mind-Data file attached https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wihxNTh1_agC&q=Wagner-Rogers+Bill&hl=en#v=snippet&q=Wagner-Rogers%20Bill&f=false ]
Noting also that many of the refugee ships now nearing Jovian space are transporting primarily [juvenile mind-seeds] of individuals deemed [near jew].
That's a fair point.
I think the distinction is whether particular refugees are Hitlerites of some sort or not Hitlerites at all – those who are Hitlerites should be turned away. Non-Hitlerites oppressed by Hitlerites should, instead, be helped, to the extent that is prudent (not necessarily by welcoming them to the Oort Cloud).
Another question is how reliably Hitlerites and non-Hitlerites can be distinguished. Given that Hitlerites are fully human, they may be able to successfully deceive human inspectors that they are non-Hitlerite and gain access to the OCC for whatever nefarious purposes their leaders have sent them to do. Hopefully our advanced AI technology can help successfully weed them out.
I, for one, would rather live around Muslim refugees than the cowardly white trash animals who piss their pants at the sight of widows and orphans. Fucking diseased subhuman vermin.
White trash are diseased subhuman vermin.
@Clark
Hey Clark, I was genuinely hoping you'd be able to answer whether you thought your Space Nazi allegory would carry the same meaning if it were Space Catholics instead, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
@ FunkyMonkey: I, for one, would rather live around Muslim refugees than the cowardly white trash animals who piss their pants at the sight of widows and orphans. Fucking diseased subhuman vermin.
Damn Straight!
It should go down like this. We accept one Syrian refugee. We exile one pants-pissing cowardly white-trash animal. To Syria.
@Troutwaxer:
2040 AD:
Syria's economy growing at 15% per year, America's domestic jihadi terrorism problem growing at same rate.
@Dr. Nobel Dynamite
A bit too busy today for much beyond drive-by snark. Perhaps over the weekend or early next week.
I imagine it applies pretty well with space-mormons debating whether to allow space-catholics in as well, their holy book does have all that stuff about smashing babies heads against rocks for the glory of god and their history is a little crusadey and genocidy.
Space-mormons would be quite justified in being a little nervous about allowing them in en-mass.
@Clark:
Serious questions:
1. Have you ever met a Muslim?
2. Did his way of life seem Hitlerite to you?
3. Would you care to meet a Muslim?
4. Would you know if you had?
Cheers in advance, if you do answer them
Clark, what is the average number of deaths by terror, in the US, in the last twenty years, including 9/11 and the Oklahoma city bombings?
What is the average number of deaths in the US each year due to "Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin?" (HINT: This cause of death is listed in government statistics.)
What does this say about the need to fear refugees or undertake any limitation of liberty whatsoever?
For bonus points, answer the following question: Are you a whining, sniveling coward, or do you simply misunderstand statistics?
Wow. If anyone thought "pants-pissing" was hyperbole, Clark has concisely but thoroughly refuted that error.
In fairness to Clark, it could be both.
I cannot imagine how hard it must have been for you to write Clark, with those massive hams you have where your hands should be.
@S1AL
I agree 100%. There is no possible way that Christ meant that non-Christians should be shown the same charity and understanding that would be shown to Him Himself, given that Christianity was its own totally separate religion, completely distinct from Judaism, when Christ was preaching. I'm also certain that He was specifically excluding Muslims from this proclamation, because Islam was totally its own separate thing back then too.
[NOTE FOR THE EXTREMELY TONE-DEAF: THAT WAS SARCASM]
Exactly!
Also, the Bible says love your neighbor. Neighbor. It's not like Jesus ever said that you have to love your enemy, right?
He did?
Okay, but "love" probably means in the abstract. It's not like Jesus ever said that you have to actually do good to them, right?
Oh. Well, then, I don't know.
@M
Then why even bring it up ?
Yes, the Middle East has more than enough historical problems – so why does the U.S. insist on fanning the flames ? If you don't want to fight ISIS yourselves, why don't you shut the fuck up, politely move aside and let the Russians do it ?
Suddenly the SJWs are all Christians.
@S1AL,
Let me spell it out for you – the Syrian civil war started in part because of the encouragement of the U.S. and it's "allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It would have ended long ago with a decisive Syrian government victory but for two things:
1) The civil war in Iraq, started by the American destruction of the secular Iraqi state, spilled into Syria. Incidentally, ISIS is well equipped with American weaponry – small arms, vehicles, ATGMs, even artillery.
2) The U.S. and its friends Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel have done everything in their power short of direct intervention to make the Syrian government fall.
The Brits have been with you all the way on this, so they are included in the blame. Perhaps you can now name the hundred or so other countries you feel are just as culpable ?
And perhaps you can also explain why the U.S. policy establishment is still calling for a Syrian no-fly zone, when the only beneficiaries would be ISIS and their allies (neither have aircraft, so a no-fly zone wouldn't impact them at all) ? Why don't you just shut the fuck up, step aside and let the Russians do what needs to be done ?
Not at all! I definitely don't think we should do good to Daesh.
It's just fun to point out that suddenly (though not really suddenly) the Christians aren't Christians.
@S1AL,
I don't know what Christian denomination you hail from, but the Catholic Church interprets (and has always interpreted) "brothers" to include all humans, Catholic or not. It is actually one of its redeeming qualities, IMO. Pope Francis has called on all Catholics to take in refugees, and has done so himself. As a lapsed Catholic, I don't agree with many things the Pope or the Church says (and I'm certainly not going to quarter any refugees in my apartment), but I do respect him for at least trying to practice what he preaches.
We should take note that while President Obama increased the cap on refugees entering the US, excluding the Syrian refugees is not equivalent to refusing to help refugees. The US refugee system would simply replace the 10,000 Syrian refugees with 10,000 of some other refugee group. As such, the focus specifically on the Syrian refugees, as opposed to the refugees groups the US was previously helping, smacks of a political favor by President Obama to some of the European nations rather than a simple effort by the US to help alleviate suffering.
Concerning the "Christian" thing to do. 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 (NIV) "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” That is the Christian command to help the poor is not a command to permanently support the poor. Rather it is a command to help the poor until they can get on their feet. If an individual or group refuses to provide any effort (EG work), you move onto the next poor individual or group. President Obama's earlier removal of welfare limits and the refusal to cut off support to refugees who refuse to work means there is less resources to help other refugees.
The sad thing is, someday this thread could end.
Donald Trump would know how to handle these Space Nazis.
@Anonymous
Stable? Stable?!
Or are you blaming us for the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire?
@Eric
Because we have an administration and a government in general that is obsessed with "doing something" even if it doesn't actually accomplish anything. Frankly, at this point, we're seeing what would happen if Facebook slacktivists had the levers of power.
Of course, for this administration, even things like that are often too much like work, which partially explains the current love affair with hashtag diplomacy.
We get our girls back yet?
The sad thing is, someday this thread could end.
No dude, it doesn't. We can keep mocking Clark forever! We can die mocking Clark!
I enjoyed and appreciated the allegory. I may not always agree with Clark but I find his work thought provoking and rational. Clark's earlier witty rejoinders to the inane comments were hysterical.
To the Popehat Powers-that-be — is it reductive to add a "Like" or "Dislike" button to individual comments? Even if it is reductive, would you please consider it? That way, the slow thinkers — like myself — can play (read: cheer) without spraining anything.
I enjoyed and appreciated the allegory. I may not always agree with Clark but I find his work thought provoking and rational. Clark's earlier witty rejoinders to the inane comments were hysterical.
To the Popehat Powers-that-be — is it reductive to add a "Like" or "Dislike" button to individual comments? Even if it is reductive, would you please consider it? That way, the slow thinkers — like myself — can play (read: cheer) without spraining anything.
I like Ken, but I like Clark more. It would be great if he posted more regularly. It would also be nice if he posted about topics I find interesting; Gamergate and Mad Max didn't do it for me. But as mentioned, these are the "cheap seats."
ADDENDUM: Last night I dreamed I was mocking Clark, except that he was Superman and I was Batman (I know that because I was driving the Batmobile) and we were talking about the politics of Gotham and Clark was getting everything wrong, then I was telling Clark that he wasn't really Superman and so he didn't have to worry about kryptonite bullets. Then we were in a club and I was dancing with Robbie the Robot but he kept stepping on my feet. I finally woke up when Robbie steered me into a table, then I realized the dog had just jumped on the bed.
Dreams are weird.
…with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
The punchline is that both of them are Muslim.
@Troutwaxer:
Did you ever have that one where you're standing on top of a pyramid in sort of sun-god robes, and thousands of naked women are screaming and throwing little pickles at you?
All of them? We don't have any racial or ethnic underclasses? Because I do not believe that is true.
You forgot to add "mic drop!" at the end, @careless.
…and you should have.
Re: your 38% statistic, Clarke, I wonder what percent of god-fearin' good ol' American patriots would respond that it's "at least rarely acceptable to bomb civilian targets?" Such as, say, Hiroshima? Or village in Pakistan?
And more pertinently, would you condemn one but not the other?
Anyways, I hope it's clear to everyone here that Clark is making exactly the same argument as ISIS when it comes to Western Muslims. One of ISIS' stated goals is to provoke Europe and the United States into making it untenable for moderate or Western Muslims to make their homes here, forcing them (in their words) "either to apostatize, and thereby secure their place among the kaffir, or otherwise make the hijrah to the Caliphate." So, ya know, bravo.
@justamblingon
Thank you.
I think the most interesting question at this point is "how shitty does Clark have to be before Ken stops associating with him."
@justamblingon
What's your definition of "shitty"? Presenting, without insult or rancor, opinions that aren't approved of by the chattering classes?
"No-platforming" : the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Uh it started out being about Nazis. And a thread can't start with a Godwin's law violation; that's impossible
@Clark A weird thing to say about my first and, to that point, only post in the thread.
Just take that in for a minute Clark.
Wow, I've learned a lot about being a good Christian by reading through these comments.
It seems spiritual and moral health is all about what government decisions you support (and that's not even a strong "support") and definitely has nothing to do with your own actions and the way you treat others in your personal life.
What an invigorating religious life that must be, salvation through internet arguments.
@King Squirrel
What, am I supposed to think that you've scored a devastating hit, because denying someone a place to speak is exactly the same as thinking that importing a population with an 80% literacy rate with a paleo-fascistic ideology is a questionable move?
Oh, so people have an obligation to associate with you, or else they're bad people. I see.
Noticed you ducked the question.
Also, you've ignored this point in the past, so I'm sure you'll manage not to notice it again, but one of the things that makes you so goddamn disingenuous is that you think the tone of your argument is what makes it insulting or not insulting, as opposed to the content. You can use the nicest, most elegant verbiage in the world to say that (for example) women are hysterical weak-minded whores who cry rape at the drop of a hat, a fact that your pal Vox Day exploits routinely, but it doesn't mean there's nothing insulting in your assertion.
@justamblingon
Not at all. The thread was started with you wanting Ken to toss me out of the blog.
Ken is free to do that any time he sees fit.
What I was being contemptuous about was your tactics of wanting Ken to toss me out, rather than you just debating my points on the merits.
No one has an obligation to associate with me, and that's as it should be.
Excuse me? I just reviewed the last few messages and it sure looks like there was no question (other than my question to you, which you have not answered.
Anyway, we've gone a few rounds and you've said nothing interesting, so I think I'm about done.
I seldom comment here but I love reading practically everything that's posted.
Except when I have to read a comment that is so clearly ingrained in American exceptionalism that it's not even funny.
There's no hiding on sarcasm or anything else… At this point, it's an awful train-wreck. There's no point discussing with someone who thinks he is better than everyone else and that his "tribe" is inherently superior.
A hit?
I don't understand.
My comment was suggesting you read your comment.
Why are you dragging your views on Muslims into this debate?
@Neto
I know that temptation, Neto, oh do I know it.
And yet, I force it down and try to explain things to progressives anyway.
Are you just trolling? Dude, how do you miss the question in this post:
I don't really understand why these ideas are so hard for you to wrap your head around. Mein Kampf doesn't include any racial slurs, but that doesn't mean it's polite debate that needs point-by-point rebuttal. Ditto for your defense of the idea that throwing acid in women's faces is a small price to pay for the many benefits that the subjection of women brings to society, that gay people are disgusting subhumans, and so on.
You're a vile nativist misogynistic coward, and your smug assurance that by dressing your bigotry up in obtuse overwritten parables, you somehow elevate those qualities to the level of polite rational discourse, is almost as stomach turning as your actual ideas themselves.
So yeah, I'd like Ken to dump you, because I cannot for the life of me reconcile the thoughtful guy whose posts I enjoy with someone who'd think your Westboro-reminiscent views are even remotely acceptable.
I stopped reading at the word "Clark" and skipped down to the comments for the entertainment. Unfortunately they weren't worth reading this time, either.
@justambligon
1) what? when did I _ever_ defend that?
2) are you sure you don't have our roles confused; you're the one arguing for more Muslim immigration, and throwing acid in women's faces and throwing gays off buildings is very much a Muslim thing.
Your cognitive dissonance here is amazing.
Enjoy the vibrant new American you're creating!
I'd just like to say that this seems like an incredibly optimistic future for the human species.
Hmm, what an interesting allegory for the problem of whether to accept Jewish refugees in light of the injunction to exterminate the Amalekites and other horrific, if historically remote, aspects of their sacred texts.
. . . wait, that was the point, right?
For real.
It's depressing to see that in the distant future people (or entities, whatever) will still be saying all the same things about those fleeing war and violence that they did about European Jews in the first half of the 20th century.
Same solution, too. (Let them have underutilized colonies!)
Those who don't learn from history, I guess.
PS — @nostalgebraist: That actually happened. It just wasn't scripturally based. But then neither is the OP, allegorically or in reality.
The funniest part about this is that Clark actually thinks writing "Muslims are bad, mmkay" is an opinion not approved of by the chattering classes. Such brave. Much courage. If you were a better writer you could get this shit published in all sorts of respectable chattering class publications.
Actually, I was wrong. The funniest thing is that Clark is fat.
@Clark
Debating with you might be more appealing if you would actually debate back.
@SomeRandomNickname
I'm blaming you for destroying Saddam and Kadafi, and for encouraging the destruction of Mubarak, and attempt to destroy Assad. These are *exactly* the sort of regimes you ought instead to be supporting.
"I don't really understand why these ideas are so hard for you to wrap your head around. Mein Kampf doesn't include any racial slurs, but that doesn't mean it's polite debate that needs point-by-point rebuttal. Ditto for your defense of the idea that throwing acid in women's faces is a small price to pay for the many benefits that the subjection of women brings to society, that gay people are disgusting subhumans, and so on."
lmao, I couldn't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with Clark until the second paragraph.
When Clark starts comparing Muslims to Nazis it's hard not to conclude he doesn't really know much about Islam beyond what he's read on Breitbart and doesn't know many Muslims personally. It's always easiest to fear what we don't know.
When Clark feebly tries to pretend it's not an allegory about Muslims, it's hard not to conclude he's too cowardly to come right out and defend his own intentions.
When he misrepresents statistics about Muslim support for violence it's hard not to conclude that either he doesn't understand how to analyze data or that bigotry is blinding him.
And overall it's hard not to conclude that Clark is fundamentally a rather boring textbook reactionary, rather than the brave radical he seems to perceive.
-Vox Day
-Clark
The thing is, you know you're a troll, because you keep adopting this purposefully baffled attitude and pretending you have no idea what anyone could possibly be referring to. It's the debating tactic of a very small child.
And you still are ducking the questing re: Muslim support for bombing civilians vs. American support for bombing civilians.
Even this is a straw man. No one is arguing for allowing in refugees without the current screening process,* which indicates supporters of allowing in the refugees do recognize concerns about bringing them in.
That is, Clark turns the fallacy of the excluded middle into a straw man because refugee supporters have not actually excluded the middle.
___________
*As an open borders advocate, I would let them in without screening. The wholesale rejection of my position by everyone but a few libertarians is evidence enough that the middle is not excluded.
Explain to me how this is different from arguing that shooting up schools is very much a white male thing, and so we should stop allowing white men into the country.
Are you really so cut off from reality that you can't separate Taliban from Muslim? And if so, are you equally comfortable arguing that all Christians should be judged by the actions of pedophile priests?
I know you tend to start ignoring questions when they get tough, so let me just recap the other question you ducked:
Every population has some level of intrinsic criminality. Importing more criminal people into your country makes the situation worse for you. Importing less criminal people into your country, on the contrary, makes it better. I don't see any protest against immigration of highly law-abiding, non-criminal people, like Norwegians or Japanese.
Importing middle-eastern Muslims, gypsies, Africans, and other highly criminal people into a country populated by people less criminal than them increases the domestic crime rate for no good reason. How could anyone be against keeping the crime rates as low as practical?
You might be surprised to know that de facto, we do punish and restrict males more in comparison to females, because they damn well are more criminal and more dangerous than women. And this is entirely okay.
The Taliban and similar terrorist organizations are very much a Muslim thing, too. Are you so divorced from reality that you can't put two and two together and see that religious terrorism is primarily done by one religion only? Can you not possibly imagine that Islam might just be the reason these people act they way they do?
Both appear to substantially support bombing the enemy civilians. While I don't endorse civilian collateral damage, I do recognize that both sides have good reasons for their enmity.
PROTIP: Don't let your enemies into your base.
Can the dudes whaling on Clark chill, and bear in mind that he seriously believes that preference for democracy is genetic?
There's no arguing with ignorant.
You can plausibly argue that all preferences are genetic to some degree.
Fuck.
And this is your daily rejoinder pointing out that with a few minor adjustments (substituting "Bolsheviks" for "ISIS" etc.), this too could easily have been said about Eastern European Jews in the '20s and '30s. And was, by many, many Americans. If the substitution was for "anarchists" or "papists," it might also have been said of Italians and the Irish, in the same time period or a little earlier.
Why? Because time cannot wither nor custom stale fear-based ignorant xenophobia and bigotry. It always sounds pretty much the same.
If you went by genetic cues, I would be neither more nor less distinguishable from a native than a refugee from the Middle East would. And I'm a half-second-generation/half-third-generation American Jew. Unless by "genetic" you mean "visual," in which case it's more like "than 80% of refugees from the Middle East."
Where do you stand on the destruction of Mosaddegh, I'm wondering?
Seriously. That last sentence is an incredible statement. Are they *exactly* the sort of regimes we ought to be supporting at home and everywhere else? Or just in the Arab world (plus — presumably — Iran and possibly Turkey)? And if the latter, on what grounds?
Because I've lived in the Middle East. And newsflash: It's full of people.
You might want to take that under advisement.
Incidentally, the Ottoman Empire did not collapse in a geopolitical vacuum. There was a little something called World War I. Which was preceded by a little something called the Crimean War. But never mind that for now. Baby steps.
And yet, he's seriously comparing other people to Nazis. Allegorically.
Fuck what, Ken?
Fuck this shit right here? Fuck Clark? Fuck ignorance? Fuck xenophobia? Fuck an allegory so appallingly heavy-handed that it would make the love child of George Orwell and Ayn Rand blush?
Or did you mean fuck us, the gibbering commentariat? Fuck your readers? Fuck a sense of scale or perspective? Fuck Muslims? Fuck Jews? Fuck refugees? Fuck the tired, poor, huddled masses? Fuck sanity?
Now that we've established "fuck" I'm just wondering who's fucking whom around here…
I could. And I could also plausibly argue that my preferences for democracy or lack thereof are non-trivially influenced via some kind of butterfly effect by the biochemistry of what I consumed for breakfast.
That's not the point that Clark was making.
To quote (of all people) Andrew Sullivan:
Which is the G-d's truth, so to speak. And the reason it doesn't happen in the present is not that Christianity and Christians are too peace-loving. It's that after centuries of bloodshed, the Christian soldiers won.
It's completely possible to find a textual justification for religious war in the scriptures of every major world religion there is or ever has been. War-minded adherents of each have been doing exactly that since the world began. Islam is no exception because there is none, and for no other religious reason.
@clark —
I believe you said something about debating points on the merits?
@justamblingon
So because I think that Vox can make some good points, I necessarily agree w all of his points?
I've fought w Vox many times on many things. He's in favor of sinking refugee boats, which I've called out as advocating murder, among some minor disagreements.
Respectfully, Ken, it's your blog, so you know where the buck stops. Not that you owe anyone an explanation for your choices, and not that I'm arguing for you to decide otherwise, but if you offer read meat a platform you have to know you're inviting the lions to feed. ;)
@clark —
No. Just the ones that prompted you to remark that he can make some good points, those being:
You're still are ducking the question re: Muslim support for bombing civilians vs. American support for bombing civilians, just by the way.
Hey Clark, since you seem to keep missing it:
Are you interested in defending your views or just acting bewildered that the nasty ol' libruls find them objectionable?
@Clark:
You have that one to? I thought I was the only one who had that dream.
Shorter Clark: banning refugees who have to go through a two year vetting process is absolutely necessary because some day something bad might happen. Forcing potential gun owners to wait fifteen minutes for the most cursory background check ever isn't needed because gun atrocities only happen every month or so. This makes sense because I pick my political positions by listening to sword wielding assholes who say they are smart and who kick my actual friends with depression when they are down.
Also I'm at least as logical as Donald Trump.
Full disclosure: I, Sebastian, don't support gun control and I do support accepting refugees. That's because I am capable of noticing that small frequencies are in fact small. I'm sure Clark will take this criticism to heart as much as he is able to.
Oh, what the hell. I'll chime in.
The answer is either that (a) 47% -60% found that prospect acceptable in Iraq in 2003 and that 80% did in Afghanistan in 2001; or (b) the same percentages do not grasp that you can't drop lots of bombs all over a country without hitting a non-trivial number of civilian targets.
There wasn't a whole lot of moral outrage about firebombing Japan, either. I think that's probably a better example than Hiroshima, for which a case could arguably be made, though it wouldn't be by me.
@Clark, @justamblingon, Gallup has a ready-made answer for you from 2011:
As it turns out, Americans are downright enthusiastic about dead civilians when it's the military doing it (49% say it's "sometimes justified"), and nearly 22% think it's sometimes justified when it's an individual or small group killing civilians.
And you're worried about importing people with a "paleo-fascistic ideology"?
Paleo-fascists are neo-nazis who don't eat grains?
Emotional processing leads to inane, if not insane, decison making.
That's just if you ask them about it directly, in the abstract. IRL, there have been gruesome atrocities committed by Americans in every armed conflict they've fought in since at least the Civil War (both sides). Because that's what happens in war. It's just ludicrous and juvenile to claim that only the bloodthirsty enemy does it because they're evil.
To return to our 20th-century history refresher course:
The Ottoman Empire would, in fact, have collapsed quite a bit earlier than it did if it hadn't been propped up and maintained in a state of enfeebled corruption and dependency by the British, for whom it served as a buffer state between Russia and the jewel in its imperial crown, India.
The political map of the modern Middle East, in its entirety, is a one hundred percent artificial construct imposed from without by the French and British following World War I. With the exception of Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria (plus Iran and Turkey, if we're counting them), none of the countries that make up that part of the world now are naturally united by a shared cultural-national identity. That's why they're still riven by conflicts that might otherwise have resolved themselves c. the 17th – 18th century.
Their prejudice against the west didn't come out of nowhere. They think we're stupid Franks. However, when nobody western is wreaking bloody havoc or imposing brutal dictatorships on them, that's no different than our thinking they're stupid towel-heads. It doesn't mean that anybody wants to wipe anybody else off the face of the map.
It might surprise people who are living in an insane fantasy world in which their glorious natural masculine supremacy is continually being threatened by a variety of bogeymen to learn this. But Islam is the fourth largest religion in the United States already. Nearly 96,000 people from Islamic countries became legal permanent U.S. residents in 2005, and more than 115,000 in 2009. And yet, democracy has not tottered and crumbled.
So there's really not a whole lot of reason to start crying "Eek! A Muslim!" and climbing on chairs now unless you're afraid of your own shadow or not fully oriented to reality.
Acid-burned faces ok, murder not ok.
It's good to know you have principles.
@Hanley
> Acid-burned faces ok, murder not ok.
Are you willfully trying to misunderstand my position, or would it actually clarify things if I said "I am very pro-individual rights and very against acid-burning people's faces"?
If the latter: I am very pro-individual rights and very against acid-burning people's faces.
Of course.
@Clark —
Then what good points did that quote prompt you to remark he was capable of sometimes making? That lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability are, broadly speaking, all to the social good?
Because while i'm not entirely sure what "demographic stability" even means (as regards age? race? ethnicity? income? religion? geographic distribution?), with the exception of "homogenous populations," the general social desirability of all those things is so close to universally uncontested that remarking on their being worth [something] barely rises to the level of "idea."
And admiration for the "homogenous populations" part would be not so very becomingly anti-hitlerite.
So what was it in there that caused you to comment approvingly?
Auto-deplatforming is the last refuge of a scoundrel. And I was under the impression that you were pro-speech. So please do tell.
Not including Israel, and corresponding adjustments consequent thereto. I should probably have mentioned.
Always telling to watch Clark run something up the flagpost, and see how many people dump their free-speech values in favor of demanding he be censured or expelled.
Dear Jeebus,
Please send us another post on Popehat such that this discussion shall die.
Hallelujah.
El Rushbo
Wow. I have never read an article that reminded me of passing a kidney stone. But like a kidney stone, now that it's over I really don't want to have to do that again.
Nobody is demanding the government violate Clark's right to free speech. People, including me, are questioning why someone who seems reasonable (Ken) would allow his blog to become a platform for smug, self-satisfied nativism.
@Toastrider —
I just went over the whole thread, and by my count, that would be:
People demanding censure: 0.
People demanding expulsion: 0.
You didn't say anything about always finding it interesting to see how many people exercised their freedom of speech to express the pleasure they'd feel were Clark to be dumped. But FWIW, that number is one (1).
Also, having just gone over the whole thread:
Are people really this ignorant of their own comparatively recent history?
The United States did not welcome people fleeing the Nazis, nor did it regard the chances of their seeking to impose their putative natural tendencies on the land as "ZERO."
I have no clue where you got the idea that it did. But it's wrong.
There was frank and widespread open support for Nazism in the United States until 1939. Plenty of people were also opposed to it, granted. But nobody was running around saying, "OMG, threat to the American way! Get them out, out, out!" However, the same could not be said for Jews. Because there was even more widespread tolerance, partial sympathy, and/or respect for the basic tenets of Nazi idealogy than that. Before WWII, this was not politically controversial. It was mainstream. Many prominent Americans (Joseph Kennedy Sr., Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford) thought that Hitler fellow was really onto something.
There was such wholesale opposition to accepting large numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler and/or pogroms that although there were already strict immigration quotas in place, 90% of them went unfilled straight through from the Depression to the end of WWII, at which point the Holocaust became general knowledge and the United States still didn't want to take in very many Jewish refugees and neither did anybody else, which is why there's a nation of Israel. Zionism was enormously unpopular with most European and American Jews up until the early '30s. And maybe later.
Also in 1939, the US refused entry to the slightly-less-than-a-thousand Jewish refugee children aboard the MS St. Louis.
With a few minor adjustments, anti-refugee sentiment of the day sounded virtually identical to what it does in the present. A threat to our values. A contamination of everything they touch, everywhere they go, after which they take over. A menace to the culture we hold dear.
The same old same old, in short.
It sure as hell is.
As long as we're liking France at the moment: Plus ca change.
I despise this post, and its ilk, and the white supremacists and assorted douchebags they tend to attract. But most readers understand that the post running here does not reflect endorsement by anyone other than the specific author, any more than the author endorses my posts just because they are here.
Clark, I'm honestly curious; do you understand why people find your approval of that statement disturbing?
@Terry Cole
I read that article, too, and his point was not that Islam is fundamentally worse than Nazism, but that it's a mistake to say that the ultra-fundamentalist sectarian Salafi ideology of the Islamic State isn't religious.
Which it is, in the same sense as the ultra-fundamentalist sectarian Christian ideology of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and a number of other hardcore schismatic groups with thousands of followers.
It's not really clear what ISIS's numbers really are. But the CIA estimate is probably less biased than that of ISIS or the Kurds. So you're probably talking about 20,000 to 30,000 people in Iraq and Syria, some of whom are likely fighting for reasons other than religious conviction.
I mean, at the command level, it's largely an ex-Baathist Army enterprise, not a religious movement, per se.
it's not like a bunch of people just woke up one morning and realized they were neglecting their religious obligation to wage bloody war on apostates and infidels for the sheer Islamic principle of the thing.
War is never that simple. It's also rarely primarily (and just about never exclusively) religious. That's sometimes the come-on, at the popular level. But even the Crusades were politically motivated, for the most part.
@Jhanley@adrian.edu
I'm sorry; without threading, I'm not sure which statement you're referring to.
Please clarify and I'll respond.
Personally, I don't think "nativist" is a dirty word, but – that being said – I am not remotely a nativist.
I am in favor of immigration, perhaps at rates higher than we have today.
What I am not in favor of is a particular flavor of immigration that threatens to either endanger our safety or snuff out the Enlightenment.
@Ann
Your counting leaves much to be desired; there are several people idly wondering in a "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" way when I'll be purged from Popehat.
That's fine – it's their right to wish me gone, and it's Ken's right to throw me out at any time he likes.
@Tradegeek
And yet you read the whole thing?
Clearly you don't come here for the hunting, Bob.
@Ken White —
Speaking strictly for myself, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to completely demolish a despicable, ill-informed, and poorly considered political argument in an impartial venue.
Because there's really no point in doing that if you're only going to be addressing jingoistic like-minded souls on the other side of the debate, and not much of one when it's the same side.
Plus, I happen to have some time on my hands. Probably shows.
I'm sorry to say that's a chronic deficiency.
However, my reading comprehension is excellent. And this…
…does not contradict the assertion that there were zero demands for expulsion and/or censure.
Perhaps you overlooked the part of my comment that acknowledged that a wish to see you gone had been expressed by one person. But I'm not really sure how. It was right immediately below the part you quoted. Unmissable, I would have thought.
Several, you say? I'll look again.
I still only see one. That would be: One, O-N-E, one (1).
The only other possibility I even see is The Cheap Seats, who explicitly says that no request or demand for censure/expulsion is felt or intended. So who are the other two or more?
I could easily believe that I missed them. And I'm willing to stand corrected. But I've been over the whole thread twice. Are you sure you're not just so easily threatened that one person wishing you gone feels like more?
Isn't it your blog, though? I genuinely doesn't understand what you think Clark contributes; it's not like there's a shortage of genuinely thoughtful, knowledgeable conservatives you could host. Instead, Clark's modus operandi is:
1) Write something horrifyingly racist/bigoted/otherwise shitty, in the guise of allegory or parable
2) When directly called racist, reply "of course you're just calling me names, because you can't address me actual point"
3) When instead engaged on the substance of his post, ignore the questions and pretend he never saw them
4) When really backed into a corner, pretend the original metaphor wasn't actually a metaphor, but was in fact literal (i.e. why are we suddenly talking about Syrians, this was about space Nazis!)
5) Make lots of smug statements about how boring and stupid everyone else is
I mean, this is literal trolling:
followed by:
Seriously?
I know you get this all the time and I know you've said it drives you crazy, so I'm sorry for repaying t, but if you want a dissenting voice don't you think you can do better? And honestly, how is allowing Clark to blog here more morally defensible than providing a megaphone to the Westboro Baptist Church or ?
@justamblingon —
If the Westboro Baptist Church was willing to put its ideas out there in an open forum to be debated on their merits, that would be such an enormous step in the right direction as to border on transformational.
And that would be true irrespective of whether they ducked all questions before shouting "Butthurt! No backsies!" and slinking hastily off.
It makes a difference.
@Clark —
Would that be the give-me-your-tired-your-poor-your-huddled-masses-yearning-to-breathe-free-the-wretched-refuse-of-your-teeming-shore-type immigration?
Or do you favor something more discriminating, the precise specs for which you find it rhetorically convenient to omit?
I've raised quite a number of substantive points in rebuttal to, inter alia, the ahistoricity of your allegorical premises, btw.
My main one is that there are only really two significant differences between WWII-era vs. present-day homogenous-population-favoring refugee-opposing Americans who thought themselves so genetically superior to a culturally foreign group from a different religious tradition that they were more concerned about preserving their own self-regarding delusions than the lives of the innocent people who were being slaughtered in very large numbers elsewhere. And they are:
(a) In the WWII era, most people didn't actually realize what was happening to the unwelcome outgroupers.
They do now; and
(b) There was some excuse for succumbing to the ideological allure of a quasi-eugenic, romantic-nationalist, xenophobic exceptionalism back in the day. People had no way of recognizing that it was proto-fascist or knowing where it led. It had never happened before.
It has now.
Please respond.
And btw:
The parallel is obviously neither perfect nor completely apt in every detail. So don't bother pointing it out as if I'd claimed that it was, or meant anything by it beyond what I said.
However, if you're planning on hanging your rhetorical hat on the ostensibly intrinsic and unchangably bloodthirsty, primitive savagery of Islam as a creed and/or Muslims as a people, please be prepared to demonstrate that you have the first clue what you're talking about, due to having made a diligent effort to inform yourself before you started yapping about it.
(By which I mean: Converting "13% of Syrian refugees surveyed in a poll I just this second learned of, haven't read, and know so little about that I couldn't tell you if they numbered in the tens or the thousands support ISIS!" into "13% of the refugees we're thinking of admitting to this country favor teh gay-killing!" is not going to cut it.)
Thanks in advance for your attention. Looking forward to your reply.
Double post.
Apologies.
Surely you can preen about being the intellectual superior of all the SJWs who disagree with you without me giving you the speech-victimhood you're craving.
No, you can just keep shitting on the living room rug of a host who is increasingly repulsed by your oeuvre.
Someday when trolling is a socially acceptable career path, Clark will be required reading.
Clark wrote:
I'll give Clark "courageous" (in the sense that he posted this allegory despite knowing the hate that would come his way), but can someone enlighten me how Clark's allegory is prudent, just, or restrained?
@Ann
And they were right. The Anglo-American institutions were eroded by these migrants, who were both used to and desired more totalitarian government structure than the Anglos. Now you reap the fruits of letting them in.
He was a legitimate ruler of the Iranians. His deposition was illegitimate.
In the Arab world. The semi-secular, autocratic dictatorship is the closest you can get using the western republican model to something that can keep the orthodox muslims in check. A better alternative would be a fiqh-based islamic monarchy, but that's largely impossible with USA's policy of inflicting democracy on people who neither want nor are benefited by it.
Yes. And they are people who can very barely run a civilized state, keep the lights on, and so forth. These people cannot deal with elections as a basis for government, because if any one party gets rulership, they will swiftly try to change the political system to exclude everyone else. And then everyone else will revolt, because they wanted to do that first.
That quote is about as ignorant as it could possibly be.
The Muslims started the conflict by conquering the bottom half of the Roman Empire, cutting Europe from its main food supply, its centers of learning, and disrupting trade for a millennium.
The Crusades were a limited retaliatory action when a more zealous breed of Muslim took over the Holy Land, harassing Christian pilgrims, which is the straw that broke the camel's back. IMO, the Crusades were too little, too late. They should really have taken a cue from the Spanish, and driven the Muslims back into the desert.
The Roman Inquisition was founded in objection to the cruel practices of the medieval monarchs, who burnt people willy-nilly on accusations of witchcraft and heresy. It provided experts on these matters to properly distinguish between those who were merely mistaken and could be redeemed, versus the actual unrepentant heretics, who they would turn over to the state.
The Spanish Inquisition was under the control of the Spanish crown, not the Pope – that was the whole point. The Spanish wanted to get rid of the Jews and Muslims who formed a fifth column under their rule. And they did so, to their benefit.
You yourself look like a sort of fifth column, from your advocacy of Muslim invasion while being a Jew. I wonder what will happen when said Muslims, being extremely more anti-semitic than just about anyone in the west, start harassing you?
Personally, I've commented and tried to engage on Clark's posts before. While I've often had disagreements with what Clark has written, I like to engage with people I disagree with in a good-faith discussion about our differences.
After reading this post, and Clark's behavior in it I've changed my decision. I no longer think Clark is operating in a good-faith discussion, Clark: you've gone off the rails, man. Why are you resorting to trolling, instead of having an honest discussion and disagreement? Do you honestly think your point is so weak that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
Clark,
I think that's a more problematic claim than you're suggesting, Ken. This is not a public forum, after all, but private property.
If people speak on the quad at Big State U there's no presumption that the university endorses them because it's understood (by anyone with reasonable understanding) that the university has no authority to deny them a platform. But if I invited a select few people to have carte blanche to give speeches from my front porch could I really escape the implication that I to some extent endorsed their words because I continue to give them a platform?
Guilt by association is not entirely unwarranted when the association is wholly voluntary.
I think you can continue allowing Clark a platform or you can deny some degree of endorsement, but I'm dubious you can really do both simultaneously. That is, you can certainly–persuasively–argue that you despise what he's written, but you give an impression of wanting to be seen as wholly inculpable, and I think you'll always be disappointed in trying to achieve that perception. (Unless, that is, you don't have the control over the blog people assume–and of course readers' assumptions are famously unfounded, which could also apply to my assumption about how you want to be seen.)
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone who's a regular reader actually thinks you like or approve of posts like this. In fact I think the puzzlement of people is caused by their certainty that you don't like or approve, but nonetheless continue to host them on your front porch.
" In fact I think the puzzlement of people is caused by their certainty that you don't like or approve, but nonetheless continue to host them on your front porch."
That's called being a supporter of free speech.
Do you agree with every word that comes out of your friends' mouths? Do you shout down and threaten to expel your family from the dinner table if they dare offer dissent?
The idea you are expressing here is part of why America has gotten so polarized. People used to be able to have friends with different viewpoints. They used to have discussions and consider dissenting arguments. Now, people shout others down, stop associating with others or use passive-aggressive tactics of "agreeing to disagree."
Don't give me the private/public crap. If you don't support free speech in private, eventually you will stop supporting it in public.
(Because this is the internet and someone is bond to be unreasonable- no you don't have to allow someone arguing for child abuse or murder at your dining room table. If you are confused as to why please go talk to your neighborhood Pastor.)
Well, I'll try. I like this allegory in the way that it satirizes the political discussion surrounding Syrian refugees and the more problematic aspects of their majority's belief system. Perhaps my opinion is also colored by The Atlantic's recent "What ISIS Really Wants" article, which is incredibly well-written and I feel is worthy of everyone's attention.
On Prudence
The post could be read to proscribe a course of action which neither admits refugees into U.S. territory, due to concerns over radical beliefs potentially held by their membership, nor abandons them to misery, which is morally repugnant when we are wealthy enough to afford to aid them. This actually strikes me as the most prudent course of action to balance the concerns from terrorism against our ethical sense of duty. Or, to borrow an analogy from further up the thread, there's no need to keep the gas can next to the kitchen stove, if the goal is simply to shelter it from the elements.
On Justice
I believe it's a just satire of political conversation around this topic (and, honestly, most topics of interest in U.S. politics). Extremist, "our way or no way" politicking has been running rampant in our government for at least the last 8 years, possibly more. Moderation and compromise seem to no longer have any place in the political system or debate, whether we're discussing current affairs like the seemingly mad ravings of presidential-hopeful Donald Trump or less recent issues like the Democratic supermajority's passage of the Affordable Care Act. It speaks volumes about the tenor of U.S. politics that suggesting a third option, even through allegory, promptly incites ridicule, frustration, and anger.
On Temperance
Clark is not well known for moderation, which is something I like about him, personally. Though, I also honestly believe that subtlety would work against the allegory, much in the way that subtlety would have worked against Animal Farm (to again borrow from earlier in the thread). Without a heavy-handed approach to its message, I think it would be too easy for the message to get lost, especially if the reader isn't keenly paying attention. Or, as Clark himself put it, "camping it up for the audience in the cheap seats."
Even with regards to using Space Nazis in place of Islam, though it is clearly the least temperate aspect of the post, I feel that the intended parallels with ISIS and the more problematic aspects of Sunni Islam are clearly called out, leaving the rest by the wayside. I struggle to find a less provocative example of violently expansionist beliefs which would be identifiable to a broad audience. Perhaps Ghengis Khan? Except nobody reveres Khan in the way that Neo-Nazis revere Hitler, making it highly unlikely that "Khanists" would be a plausible future religion the way "Hitlerism" could be.
Okay, censor.
What if you come in my house and put a sign saying "kitchen stove" on my bookshelf and a sign saying "gas can" on one of my books. Is my most prudent course to take the book off the bookshelf? Just in case, you know.
I realize that, when I posted this last night, I was putting too much burden on Clark. After all, I had not shown that it was not prudent, just, or restrained.
So, let's go down the list.
Prudence:
I could give lots of reasons that this post wasn't prudent, based on my opinion that such an extreme allegory will not convince your opponents and will even alienate some of your supporters, that I don't think it creates a productive dialogue between you and the Muslim community, that you apparently had a point that was overshadowed (i.e. some MUSLIMS ARE LIKE NAZIS so we should be more careful of who we let in). However, on the point of prudence, my opinions are all worthless next to this:
When that's the reaction of the person who owns the blog that you are posting on, perhaps your post wasn't prudent.
Just:
As others have previously noted, you made overblown assertions of how many Muslims were supportive of terrorism, without comparing to the very relevant statistics of how many Americans thought that civilian casualties are acceptable: 46% vs. a presumable 0% sounds a lot more of a contrast than 28% across the Muslim world vs, 22% in the United States.
Sources for those numbers: the Wikipedia article you cited for the 28%, and the Gallup poll that G cited for the 22%.
So yeah, I'd say that your analogy wasn't just.
Temperant:
Godwin's law is a thing because comparing someone to Hitler or a Nazi is about the most extreme thing that could possibly happen in a discussion. It may sometimes, be an apt comparison, but there is no more extreme comparison that is possible when trying to highlight how bad a person or group is. I think that shows a lack of restraint.
Perhaps, if you'd like more civilized, "virtuous" debate on the Internet, you should lead by example. If that was your intention in this case, you failed utterly.
@Richard —
It's temperate in that it's an allegory, rather than straight-up "argle bargle argle bargle The International
JewMuslim, The World's Foremost Problem, argle bargle SJW" hating upon.It's prudent in that it served the purpose Clark wished it to serve, in whole or in part, assuming that it did, which I believe is a reasonable assumption.
If there's any conception of justice whereby it could be described as just, I don't know what it is.
The wiki page on the Cardinal virtues that Clark is quoting suggests that he means something like "justice as defined by Plato, Cicero, St. Ambrose***, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas."
Well….To the best of my recollection, you'd have to stretch Plato's definition past the breaking point to bring into alignment with Clark's allegory. And I'm certain that it's categorically incompatible with the definitions of Ambrose, Augustine, and Aquinas. I don't know about Cicero, but I doubt it. They're all lineal descendants of those that went before.
***Which is amusing since Ambrose was a strong advocate — one might even say "warrior" — for social justice.
But then, Thomas Aquinas thought that liberality was a sub-virtue of justice. Catholic theology and social teaching inclines toward the pro-SJ, generally, in fact.
@StephenH:
The message may be prudent, but when it takes until Comment#38 that someone picks up upon that message, perhaps the medium (the post) is not prudent.
Again, perhaps that speaks toward the allegory being used, more than the option that he is attempting to present.
Because of the heavy-handed allegory (Muslims are like Nazis), the message (maybe find someplace safer to keep them) did get lost. See my comment #38 remark above.
I'm fine with a lack of temperance, myself, but these are the virtues that Clark himself is proposing should be more common when debating on the internet. It merely find it interesting that this post, in particular, seems to discard them entirely.
@Richard
I'm not so certain it took so long. xtmar (comment #4, or "the second comment that isn't Clark") seemed to understand the allegory just fine.
@StephenH
Perhaps: xtmar doesn't elaborate about what he thinks the "larger point" is. Would you not agree, though, that the debate over what to do with Syrian refugees attempting to land in the United States has been largely overshadowed by debate over whether or not the allegory was apt?
This is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; all you're doing is drawing the line about what ideas one must or must not provide a platform for, in a different place. You draw the line at child abuse; I draw the line at saying gay people are monstrous and diseased, or marital rape doesn't exist, or black people are subhuman. There's no qualitative difference, just a quantitative one.
Moreover, I remain confused as to how the simple act of opening a blog suddenly burdens you with the responsibility to allow anyone, no matter how vile, to become a guest blogger there.
Lastly, while Clark's views are vile, what really bothers me about him is his unwillingness to defend them. He'd rather troll and provoke than actually have a genuine debate.
If you're going to hand wring about Clark's sucking up to his refugee buddy Vox, you should take the trouble to quote him more fully. Vox may or may not posses the superintelligence he tediously boasts about, but he does have a certain low cunning, and one of his main tricks is to seize upon his opponents misuse of his previous statements as a way of disqualifying them. Vox was taking a shot at atheists with that statement-he wasn't saying we should throw acid on young girls, he was saying atheists should support the taliban, "[b]ecause female independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills" and most atheists are, as you know, all strict utilitarians. Focus on the stupid shit Vox actually says, like "raising girls with the expectation that their purpose in life is to bear children allows them to pursue marriage at the age of their peak fertility, increase the wage rates of their prospective marital partners, and live in stable, low-crime, homogenous societies that are not demographically dying." Also don't ask Vox if his wife is well educated.
Somehow I always end up regretting it when I take the time to read Clark's posts. He never uses one word where ten will do. And while I usually enjoy (for lack of a better term) differing opinions and having to challenge and reevaluate my point of view, Clark's posts have such a smug self-righteousness about them I find it a struggle to feel anything but sick by the end of each read. Sorry, Clark! Not my cup of tea. I doubt you'll lose sleep over it.
"This is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; all you're doing is drawing the line about what ideas one must or must not provide a platform for, in a different place. You draw the line at child abuse; I draw the line at saying gay people are monstrous and diseased, or marital rape doesn't exist, or black people are subhuman. There's no qualitative difference, just a quantitative one."
The point remains where does KEN draw the line.
Other posters here are saying that Ken has to agree (at least in part) with Clark's comments, if he allows them to be posted. That's not true.
Ken can say "this is like child abuse- get out" or he can say "this is dissent- I'll allow it."
But saying Ken agrees with a dissenting opinion because he allows it to be expressed on his blog is silly.
@Anonymous —
I have no comment on the first half of your post. However:
The Crusades were initially a political response to the Great Schism, you
idiotfoolperson who knows nothing about medieval ecclesiastical history, which is (btw) fascinating.They also served a number of other purely temporal social and political purposes. For example, they gave all the second, third, and fourth sons who had been disenfranchised by the re-institution of primogeniture (on which the stability and continuance of the feudal system depended) a gainful occupation and outlet for energies that might otherwise have been directed towards trouble-making at home.
But you can just stick with your little Davey-and-Goliath-level fantasy version, if you prefer.
(a) So?
(b) You're missing an inquisition, there, bub. (Medieval.)
(c) Oh my god. I'm upgrading you to "person who also knows nothing about ecclesiastical history during the Renaissance."
The Roman Inquisition was (among other things) an attempt by the Church to reclaim the temporal authority it had lost as a consequence of the rise and spread of centralized monarchy in the high middle ages.
That one's really the prize-winner. Even wiki knows why it's wrong:
In short:
How would you know?
Not precisely what I'm advocating. But why, thank you!
FFS. I interact with Muslims everyday. I have been on the receiving end of anti-semitic harassment in the United States, but not by Muslims. Or Arabs. And the two are not necessarily synonymous. Nor are all Arabs, all Syrians, or all Muslims either very religious or very anti-semitic.
FWIW, in my personal experience, which is both anecdotal and limited, Copts are likelier to be religious anti-semites than members of any other faith. But they still have child saints who were blood-libel martyrs. So that's not very surprising. And I've always gotten along with them great anyway. Copts and Egyptian Jews also did just fine, prior to the expulsion of the latter. For centuries.
You don't know much about how the world works, do you?
m,
That's rather silly. As it turns out, I find it quite easy to defend the rights of racists and other offensive people to run their own blogs and talk their ugly talk in their own houses and to stand up in public squares and make their repulsive arguments without ever inviting them to post on my blog or talk from my front porch.
If you're not serious, I apologize. It's kind of hard to tell on this thread.
But that's not censorship. In fact, I believe that it's a First-Amendment right. Or would be, if the state was trying to interfere with it.
You can measure how much Clark is trolling by counting the ratio of his replies to serious objections and his replies to outbursts of mere disgust.
DRed,
Sure, good point.
Here's the whole statement from Vox Day.
No, Vox Day isn't actually writing approvingly of acid-burnings. Rather, he's making a laughably bungled argument about utilitarianism and Clark is enthusiastically supporting it.
Not as bad (not that I actually thought Clark truly approved of acid-burnings, or even that Vox Day necessarily did, just that I thought Clark approved of a statement that was callous about acid-burnings). Ignorant, still, from a couple of guys who fancy themselves smarter than average, but not as bad.
Although I long ago stopped reading Clark's posts (and I didn't read this one), the volume of comments in this one made me curious enough to look in. As is often the case, there is a number of commenters who seem to find Clark's ideas repulsive. It's possible that these commenters are not familiar with Clark and his blogging practices here.
Clark is pleased to style himself a libertarian. As is true of many such persons I have encountered, Clark combines an intelligence that I judge to be well above average with the emotional maturity of a snotty twelve-year old boy: at any rate, that is the persona he has adopted here. As one might therefore conclude, Clark seems to take deep pleasure in eliciting outrage from adults; Clark's main vehicle for doing so here on this blog is the expression of ideas and opinions that many find morally repugnant. Reacting to his posts only stimulates him to continue doing so (unless you have him intellectually cornered, in which case he'll ignore you). In other words, he is an Internet troll par excellence. A suggestion: When mature readers of this blog encounter a post by Clark, they will save themselves an infinitude of frustration by ignoring it. If they choose to read one of Clark's posts anyway, they might profit by keeping in mind the excellent Internet dictum "Do not feed the trolls."
m,
Absolutely. I would also agree that the characters in the narrative spend too long debating the fictional history of the Hitlerites, even though it's used as a foil for how the left-wing revises its perspective, and demonizes specific decisions, of history to suit its own purposes.
I'm not going to call this post some greatly layered onion of political commentary, but I do think that the Space Nazis are the paper wrapping around an entirely different idea. I would label it a failing of the commenters to get hung up on that, to the exclusion of everything else. I especially think that it's myopic when commenters emphasize minutiae such as the "forty three percent", when its context is a clear allegory to how politicians make horrible, demonizing misrepresentations of statistics and polls to support their positions (and because, if you cannot intellectually divorce it from Islam, then it also appears to be an optimistic midpoint between Turkey and Jordan, the two of Syria's neighbors which were recently polled by Pew Research on the approval of terrorism, according to Wikipedia).
I agree that "Space Nazis" are just the wrapping, but when your wrapping paper is covered in swastikas, that's naturally going to draw more attention than the contents of the box (for nearly all boxes). That's a fairly predictable consequence, which is why I don't think that the analogy was prudent or temperate (which Clark himself claims discourse on the Internet should be).
@Anonymous —
Forgive me. I don't know how I managed to skip this one:
The Roman Empire collapsed one-hundred-plus years before the Muslim conquests began and more than two hundred before they ended.
The Byzantine Empire lost some territory, but:
(a) C'est la vie;
(b) That has no more to do with the West than it would have if it had been the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul was Constantinople, etc.);
(c) You're an ignoramus; and
(d) FOOD SUPPLY????? Let alone its MAIN food supply?????
Oh my god I don't even know what to say or where to begin.
Not-quite-Western-Europe-Yet in the 7th century was still in the middle of the second wave of the Barbarian Invasions and long had been a great big on-and-off chaotic free-for-all since well before the rise of Islam. Some of it was still pre-Christian. Tithing wheat to Rome was not a thing because there was no Roman Empire.
In short: The Roman Empire fell. Birds flew north and south for a few centuries. There were various people from tribal cultures marauding around trying to make the next big thing out of themselves in both the East and the West. Then Mohammed and Charlemagne, in that order, and things as we know them today began to take shape.
That's crazy reductive, but it's a start.
How it is you figure that any centers of learning in the East were European before there even was a Europe to speak of is a mystery I'd prefer not to plumb.
As to trade: Hello. I'd like to introduce you to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It had quite an impact.
The millennium part is baffling. But if you're suggesting that transcontinental trade was humming along at its right and proper predestined level right up until 633 AD, at which point it imploded and did not recover until the 17th century, that's crazy talk in every regard, and utterly divorced from reality.
Show some pride in your heritage by getting acquainted with it. At least the basics. That's my advice.
Absolutely hilarious. I don't find Clark's posts all that funny, but this one made me laugh.
I agree that "Space Nazis" are just the wrapping, but when your wrapping paper is covered in swastikas, that's naturally going to draw more attention than the contents of the box (for nearly all boxes).
Exactly. If Clark wished to convey ambiguity, this was a very poor effort. Beyond the ridiculous identification of Muslims with Nazis, one side of his "debate" is making very effective arguments, while the other side is making very poor arguments. The side making the poor arguments is easily identified with the "left" while the side making the effective arguments is easily identified with the "right."
The piece's complete lack of balance makes it impossible to regard it as being deliberately "ambiguous." It's obvious that Clark vastly prefers a particular side in this debate, and its obvious which side he prefers.
I was not being sincere. I was taking "M" on his/her own terms. In the comment I was responding to, "M" said that supporting free speech required not only tolerating repugnant ideas, but giving them a forum. S/he also said,
But then, "M" did a bit of a 180, saying, "you don't have to allow someone arguing for child abuse or murder at your dining room table."
Certainly, I agree with you that for a private individual to shut down advocacy of child abuse or murder at the dining table doesn't constitute censorship. But "M" strongly suggested that it is censorship, and then said that s/he is okay with it. So, since "M" said that censorship (as misdefined by "M") is okay, I called "M" a censor.
A little wordy, but not so bad as far as YA fiction goes. Throw in a winning ingenue, and Hollywood will no doubt come a-knocking.
It dawned on me that you're probably talking about the Library in Constantinople. I was confused by that never having been in Islamic control until 700 years after the Muslim Conquests, at which point it belonged to the Ottomans, who opened it up to the Latin West for the very first time.
However, that's not all there is to it. So just for the record:
Ancient Greek texts (mathematics, philosophy, medicine, and more) were lost in the West during the fall of Rome and its aftermath.
They were preserved in Constantinople (now Istanbul), which was the capital of the Byzantine (or, to you, "Roman") Empire.
The Byzantine Empire was Christian. And so, before too long, was the West. However, the texts largely remained lost to the West because the Byzantine Empire (Christian!) didn't approve of or care to circulate them.
Some of them were recovered during the 100% Islam-free Christian-on-Christian sack of Constantinople (now Istanbul) during the Fourth Crusade.
But for the most part they filtered back into the Latin West because they'd been preserved and translated by Islamic scholars who then went to Spain and reintroduced them to their Christian counterparts, before — a couple centuries later — being expelled in the Inquisition.
Averroes, look him up, all you hateful buffoons out there!
ETA: I knew this shit would come in handy some day. But algebra? I've never used it once.
@L —
Thank you. I am in awe of the lucidity and precision of your thought.
And now for something completely off topic…
A candidate is running on the platform of giving every American a pony. This man MUST be stopped!!!!
No– thank you for the excellent work you are doing in this thread, history-wise! Keep it up!
Algebra, by the way, is an invention of Abbasid-era Persian Muslim mathematician Muhammad ibn-Something al-Khwarizmi, who called it al-jabr or "restoration," referring to the process of adding a quantity to both sides of an equation.
Wait, what the hell are we even talking about any more…
Space Romans. I think. Starring Mark Hamill, and directed by Chris Roberts.
@Dan —
I don't know!
But all those (something)-id caliphates, dynasties, and empires are such a complete and total blank to me that I'm perfectly capable of saying that Islamic scholars went to Spain, when in fact they were already there, being….I don't know. Sassanid, or maybe Arachnid, for all I know.
Same for that mess of empires, republics, and monarchies following the French Revolution. I can never remember it. If I don't have a reference point, it's just French Revolution>Something>Something>Renamed all the months>Something>Something>Something>De Gaulle, in my little world.
Sometimes if someone hums a few bars. But it's iffy.
I have not read as incompetent a piece of writing since 10th grade English.
I don't see that myself. It appears to me to be an attempt to portray Syrian refugees as more like Nazis than Jews, which founders on the shoals of (for example) the author's apparent unfamiliarity with such key points as the military and strategic capacities of ISIS being pretty much entirely and directly due to Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2, rather than religious in origin.***
And I don't think anybody actually debates that. Some prefer to ignore it for partisan reasons (or, as one might say, "revise their perspective in order to whitewash specific decisions of history to suit their own purposes"), certainly. But that's not the same thing. They don't debate it. Because: Can't.
Plus, if it founders on that, it runs aground and totally falls apart on the author's apparent ignorance that the principle way the current refugee crisis resembles its WWII-era equivalent — and, really, the only way that it truly and completely does — is that the latter went down the way it tragically did precisely because a bunch of ignorant bigots made arguments against it that were virtually identical to the one he's making, which is no less ignorant or bigoted.
At all. He does not appear to know the first thing about Islamic history, and barely any more than that about Islam in the present. His views on the matter are frighteningly unmoored from plainly observable quotidian reality right here in the USA now, in the contemporary present. There are upwards of six million Muslims in the US, ffs.
Honestly, I've always understood the conventional protocol as: "Reading the text that's there = success" and "making up some other thing that accords better with your extant, extraneous preferences = failure."
But maybe you're one of them deconstructionamists or something. Could just be over my head.
Adducing your argument from explicated quotes might help.
*** eg — ""Madame secretary I agree, they're fleeing war – a war that the Hitlerites themselves have caused".
I mean, even if there were some logic whereby it could be true that all the people fleeing war — each and every one, including women, children, the elderly, Kurds, and others, not all of whom are necessarily Muslims — were responsible for causing it (which there's not), that would still just be simplistic to the point of complete inanity.
It's not how war happens. There has never been a cause for war that ridiculously singular in all of human history. It's a childish fantasy. Even Ayn Rand has more complexity than that. It just doesn't seem like it after she gets done repeating every part of it several hundred times for emphasis. Or possibly because she was getting paid by the word.
@JHanley —
See the part where he bungles laughingly into the completely unsupported assertion that female independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills?
Good. Now forget all about it, except for taking it on faith.
Because what I want you to look at is the part where he singles out acid-burning women's faces as a means of keeping women from achieving independence, whereby a whole host of social benefits (some ostensible) can be achieved. Approvingly.
Now ask yourself these two questions:
(a) Could he possibly be unaware that the only kind of independence that throwing acid in women's faces prevents them from attaining is some modicum of the independent right to say "yes" or "no" to would-be suitors as long as their families are all right with it?; and
(b) Could he possibly also be unaware that no culture that practices acid-burning is actually known for having achieved a permanent social union between lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability?
ANSWER KEY: (a) No; (b) No.
BONUS QUESTION: Bearing in mind what the only kind of female independence prevented by acid-burning is: Once you strip away the camouflage, what is the benefit for which he's really saying that it's a small price to pay, under the false color of writing approvingly about affordable housing?
It's every bit as bad as it looks
All these SJWs angry at ClarkHat and others are missing the cosmic joke.
ClarkHat is actually somewhat to the left of reality as it is. Compared to reality, ClarkHat is downright left-wing.
You see, ClarkHat believes that the main problem with this refugees is their ideology is their belief system which is admittedly, to use a SJW-ism, problematic.
But that is not the half of it. These Syrian refugees could be given all German software, so to speak and there would still be an enormous problem.
Nature has seen fit to give Syrians Syrian hardware, which is dramatically different from German hardware (and not merely on IQ, which levels on average are dramatically different, but on innumerable other characteristics as well).
And the problem with Nature is, She doesn't much care if She is called a hater, a racist or a bigot. She's pretty much non-responsive to labels. She cares not a whit about equality and she is totally immune to persuasion.
You are welcome to attack this observer with as many labels as you wish, but unless you can convince Nature to change Her ways, another observer will come along soon enough and point out the same thing. And another. And another.
@Carl Pham:
You must not be on the Internet that much.
Vox Day favors acid burnings? Can any of these third rate intellects even follow an argument?
He clearly has contempt for people who practice those things and wants nothing to do with them. Female Genital Mutilation is now a big problem in many western countries but it is not the Voxes of the world who are permitting that sort of thing.
No, in light of your arguments, I'm perfectly willing to concede that I've simply overlooked the overt bigotry.
I see both sides of the narrative's debate as parodies of the U.S. government's own factions: The Right with their arguments that this time is different and the refugees are all a danger to our society, the Left with their arguments we're the historical monsters while the refugees are perfect little angels that we have a moral imperative to unquestioningly admit. I believe neither position is grounded in reality.
Having that predisposition and prejudice against either side's arguments leaves me free to dismiss the rest of their debate, which follows those patterns straight to the end. Whether we're talking about Syrian refugees or goose-stepping space Nazis, it's the same circus. The most sympathetic and reasonable character is the narrator themselves, who gets bored and moves on to other things in response to the banal pageantry, which has doubtless played itself out many dozens of times between now and the year 3328.
That all having been said, I would repeat that I agree with your arguments. On a more deliberate reading of the post, I see where you're coming from. Is Clark a bigoted a*****e? Possibly, or even probably. I don't know whether that was his authorial intent, but you make a solid case.
That's fascinating, because the request for aid came from the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor!
Also, name-calling? Have you sunk so low already?
Those are secondary factors and elements which made the Crusades possible, rather than what triggered them.
My bad. I conflated it with the Roman, since they're both under the control of the Papacy rather than the temporal authorities.
So the Papal-controlled Inquisitions were doing what they were supposed to do – reduce injustice and weed out real heresy. Which they did.
Your rhetorical floundering will get you nowhere.
Your argument (if I can even assense it correctly from the passive-aggressive way you presented it) is self-contradictory, since you suggest that:
a) the medieval monarchs were centralizing power and usurping it from the Pope,
b) the Inquisition was under the control of the Papacy because the kings were his subjects.
Which is it?
What ARE you advocating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Islamic_antisemitism_in_Europe
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king.
The Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire, as they called themselves, is the direct successor state to the full Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire fell, the Eastern did not for quite a while.
Now here is a rare sight – a modern person who believes in the right of conquest, which went out of style around Napoleon's time. Meaning you should be entirely fine with things like western Colonialism, the various American conquests in the Middle East, and so forth.
Statement lacks substantial content. Cannot reply meaningfully.
Name-calling again.
Tithing may not have been a thing, but Mediterranean trade still existed. The successor states to the parts of the Roman Empire could buy their food from Egypt, rather than taking it, which also worked fine. You appear to have no conception of how prohibitive overland transport was in those days, compared to overseas.
Because the Roman civilization is the direct ancestor of ours. Before the Muslim conquests of North Africa, it was considered part of Europe the same way as England is.
Have you never heard of the Barbary Pirates? Never heard of the Muslim slave raids along the Mediterranean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
You may also be surprised to learn that places like Tunisia were much more fertile than they are now, before the pastoral Muslim invaders overgrazed it until it became a wasteland.
I actually meant Alexandria and Syria. They are the reason the myth of the Muslim technological advancement came along – the Muslims captured the equivalent of the Silicon Valley.
I have some advice to you, too: Cease your rhetoric and insults.
Can I just offer a vote of thanks to Ann, at this late stage in this thread's life? She seems, via the simple virtue of knowing what she's talking about, to have shut down most of the bloviators, up to and including the Arch Trolviator who kicked it all off. I read 100 comments, then left it for a few days, depressed by the level of 'debate'. Things were no better as I slowly caught up just now. Then Ann appeared, sprinkling facts, reason and perspective before her, and lo, few were the folk who were up to responding. Please keep up the good work.
I think the use of Space Nazis was brilliant. Those who oppose admission of refugees think their best arguments are about how bad Islam or terrorists are. You cut those arguments off at the knees if you say, "Fine, let's make them the worst imaginable people in the world."
That just makes their arguments stronger!
@StephenH —
Thank you for your thoughtful and gracious response.
I feel an instinctive resistance to describing the present-day (D) side of the aisle as "left," due to Nixon actually having been further to the left in most (if not all) regards. But I agree with you that raging political-debates-du-jour are tedious, predictable, and annoying.
If anybody is arguing that we have (or ever have had) a moral imperative to unquestioningly admit refugees (or, ftm, any class of people) to the country because they're perfect little angels, I disagree with it. It's no less unmoored from reality than the argument Clark is making.
Likewise the argument that we're historical monsters. I mean, people are generically capable of doing both awful, vile things and awe-inspiringly great ones. That's just human nature. To single any one class out in sweeping terms as categorically lacking in either capacity (and/or a demonstrable record of same) is always bullshit, and usually dangerous, stupid bullshit.
I wouldn't go nearly that far. It's also human nature to project whatever imaginary narrative happens to most enjoyably tickle your own fears and desires onto the blank screen of something you don't have any personal knowledge of. I can't honestly say that I've never done it, or even that I've never done it along similar lines to the OP.
Just bigotry-wise, I mean. Because I can honestly say that if the pursuit of policies based on my worldview had triggered an infinite bloodbath of epic proportions that (among other things) made the world a less safe place for me personally, I would take my share of the responsibility for it. And I certainly wouldn't go the I'm-rubber-they're-Nazis route. Out of sheer self-interest, if nothing else. I'm a pragmatist.
CORRECTION:
Two-hundred-plus. I absent-mindedly subtracted mid-5th century from 632 AD, which ought — in any event — to have been 623.
That's the chronic deficiency I was prematurely referring to back when I acknowledged that it was actually within the realm of possibility that I had come to grief attempting to count to one.
^^That's still wrong.
Yeesh.
Almost two hundred.
Are you satisfied now, Simple Math? Good. Quit picking on me.
They are reporting that a third Paris terrorist was found to be a "refugee". They are also telling us that gun sales are soaring in previously bucolic Austria and shotguns are virtually sold out throughout that country.
You lefties are going to have to work harder on narrative production. As tremendous as your efforts have been, reality keeps protruding through. This is intolerable. You must redouble your efforts.
Martin,
Without making any insinuations as to its applicability in the particular case, that is a wonderful portmanteau.
Just to tie up a few loose ends:
Unless you're reliant on Nazi racial ideology for your definition of "white," so are most Arabs, actually. Frequently whiter than I am, in strictly shades-of-pale terms. And Iranians are Aryan, ftm.
@J —
Ann, SJW explainer extraordinaire who I am guessing is actually male (Martin, since you are white-knighting him, you should be aware!), wrote,
"It's completely possible to find a textual justification for religious war in the scriptures of every major world religion there is or ever has been. War-minded adherents of each have been doing exactly that since the world began. Islam is no exception because there is none, and for no other religious reason."
Except that the founder of one religion and not any other engaged in numerous wars of conquest. Although every engagement was purely defensive (snort), he somehow managed to amass enormous territory. In one religion, the central role model was a warrior. (Looking toward history, Old Norse religion had similar role models, and the Old Norsemen were similarly … enthusiastic.)
Ann also flogged the dead horse of Westboro Baptist Church. Really, if the worst thing one can think of in Christendom is a single clan that is fond of rude words, then Ann is kind of arguing the opposite side from the one he thinks he is arguing.
Speaking of Ann, come to think of it, @Dwight, everyone's favorite SJW explainer, has been curiously absent from this thread. I can't imagine him resisting. Mr. Schrute, is that you?
I'm catching up on my blog reading and this…There'd be the possibility of offense if it weren't so poorly written. I'm not a fan of Clark, but I know he's capable of better writing than this. Seriously, why even? And then the comments…the ones that kept to the tongue in cheek setting were sometimes better written than the original post (except for when people forgot what they were doing and switched back to the present partway through). It's not even just that I disagree with the reasoning or the misrepresentation of statistics. I'm insulted by the lack of competence. Clark, you're geekier than this, you could have done so much better.
@Dan —
Are you serious?
(Gr. Argh.)
Okay. Do you see that thing in my previous post where I recommend using reality as a starting point for life and political problem-solving?
Good.
Where — in reality — has anybody, of any political persuasion, ever effing said or suggested that no one could ever possibly travel from the Middle East posing as a refugee in order to commit an act of terrorism, as evidenced by its never having happened?
That's not a part of anybody's narrative
Except, of course, for the imaginary lefties living in the minds of people who need to find a rhetorical work-around that enables them to avoid stating directly that in their narrative, all refugees are terrorists, or — if not — just as good as terrorists, due to the complete and utter impossibility of distinguishing between Muslims, Arabs, Syrians, terrorists, and refugees.
But I said: In reality.
Speaking of which:
I don't know if you're aware of this, but in reality, there's actually no way to entirely safeguard against lone or small-group bombings and shootings by terrorists who are determined to commit them. You can get it down to very few or (with geographical luck on your side) virtually none.
But you can't entirely protect against it, including — chance being a fine thing — by refusing all refugees. Or even by instituting universal and rigid totalitarian controls. Where there's a will, there's a way. That's why terrorism is. Same for guerilla warfare, generally.
You don't get to opt out of that because you don't like it. It's reality. Leaping to hysterical, overly broad conclusions doesn't help. No matter what direction you leap in, left or right. It usually makes things much worse, in fact.
That doesn't necessarily militate for or against the admission of refugees. It's just boosterism for dealing with reality.
Ann @ 1:48 pm, excerpt that ISIS announced ahead of time they were going to march into Europe posing as refugees and then kill a bunch of people, and then they did exactly that.
Ann you represent everything wrong with these new Internet warriors of political correctness. They are willing to expend boundless effort on the narrative, and no facts or new information can cause them to change their view. More words, more narrative, more explaining, and every set of facts can be adjusted to.
In my experience, the strength of someone's argument is often inversely related to the amount of words needed. The most devastating arguments are usually the briefest. You sure use a lot of words.
@Dan
Anders Breivik is "white".
And ever so concerned about Muslims integrating and then taking over his country.
Anonymous!
I didn't see you there. But I'm happy to.
Yes. Although that doesn't really have much (or, I think, any) bearing on the People's Crusade, which was technically (and actually) first. As I recall. I'm not 100% sure.
The First Crusade was also called by Pope Urban II!
I'd be perfectly happy to talk about it great detail, with reference to all the principle parties and interests involved, if you want. I'd have to brush up a little on some of it. But I paid good money to major in Medieval Studies. Plus, I was raised by two medievalists, whose interests included Islam and the Byzantine Empire. Dinner conversation was frequently just deadly. And I don't get nearly enough opportunities to capitalize on any of it.
But enough about me. Pleasant as it is to chat like this:
The Crusades were primarily politically motivated, and the instantiating cause for them was the Great Schism. Or, strictly speaking, the fall-out therefrom.
I don't know why you think that what Alexios I Komnenos said and did transpired in some reality bubble that was unaffected by that. But it's neither true nor reasonable.
That was mostly for comic writing effect, wherever it occurred. But now that I know you're delicate about it, I'll refrain.
If you think so, go ahead and make your best case for why the causes for the Crusades should have been uniquely free of the social and political factors that defined the place they originated and the lives and interests of the people in it
Because that would be such an enormously exceptional state of affairs that it needs more than a flat voice-of-god assertion to establish it as fact.
No biggie. But just as a point of reference:
The Roman Inquisition was not a response to anything medieval monarchs were doing, owing to its having happened during the Renaissance.
Witch-burning is an early modern phenomenon, which was not characteristic of the Middle Ages, though it probably happened here and there.
And heresy was instrinsically unadjuticatable without the involvement of the Church until Henry VIII in England, and later everywhere else. (That isn't Catholic. In Catholic countries, it's still the case, obvs.)
This would, again, run so enormously counter to (afaik) all historical (and, ftm, a good bit of — possibly most — then-contemporary) understanding that it requires more than a flat, unelaborated statement to make the case for it.
So go for it.
I don't know about that. It helps keep me off the streets.
I'll do the rest in a bit. See you then.
To say nothing of common sense. You're talking about things that happened in the same real world you live in, except earlier.
@Dan —
Citation?
Also, I asked you a question. And it was: Where in reality does this leftie narrative you refer to exist?
Again, an example would help.
True that.
I can't say I share your experience. And it frankly seems to me like a very reckless standard for evaluating all arguments above the "is-not, is-so, is-not, is-so" level.
Plus. I do kind of wonder why you then chose to respond to a straightforward question with three paragraphs of completely extraneous rhetoric on another subject.
But to each his or her own. I look forward to your admirably direct and concise answer to my inquiries.
@Paradigm Spider —
In reality.
Not that making it up yourself then sneering at it isn't real. You've just demonstrated that it is. But that's not what I mean.
The Internet in a nutshell —
SJW: This is just so beautiful. I am literally crying right now.
Grandpa: But that's just a man. In a dress.
SJW: 1000 word exposition on gender theory, plus some disparaging remarks.
Grandpa: Well ah kin see, and that's a man.
SJW: 10,000 word exposition on gender theory. Loads of colorful ad hominem.
Grandpa: But that thar's a man.
SJW: 30,000 word exposition on gender theory. Ad hominem from SJW goes exponential….
Grandpa: Y'all may have a lot of fancy words but ah knows a man when a sees one.
SJW reports Grandpa for threatening speech and reflects that Free Speech is important but it obviously doesn't mean extremists such as Grandpa can get away with hate speech.
@Except that says —
(a) Please help me, I implore you, because I just don't understand:
Is there something about this "in reality" concept that's somehow not getting through?
(b) In re: SJW explaining — Quotes or GTFO.
Yes, in the 7th century. Congratulations for knowing that! What's your point?.
"Purely defensive"? (Snort)?
Since I can't draw a diagram, here's a song.
But seriously. How hard can it be?
I don't know about the "somehow" part. He united a lot of nomadic warrior tribes behind one cause. It was pretty straightforward.
Also, it's not just Norse myth. Gaelic, Celtic, Cornish, Welsh and Breton myths are all along those lines as well. Probably those of Picts, Huns, Slavs, Vandals and Visigoths, too, although I don't really know.
But they all were or had been tribal cultures with a sometime raiding-and-pillaging economy, which was about as far as a lot of the world had gotten at that point. Because it was the 7th century. So that's not very astonishing.
The thing that actually distinguishes Islam from the rest is that it's post-Christian and therefore incorporates some of Christianity's most successful and innovative features (eg — One-True-Faithiness and the imperatives that go with it; heavenly reward or eternal damnation as the imminent immediate consequences of actions in this lifetime, and the temporal powers for religious authority that go with it, etc.)
That's why it had the strength and longevity that Norse myth didn't.
And I'll just skip Judaism, because as a courtesy to Dan, I'm leaving most of the interesting and meaningful parts out.
Please note:
A little bit of that is opinion. But most of it is just fact, which I don't make up to suit myself, because it's not possible. So don't go salivating and gnashing your toothless gums on some SJW chewy treat about it. It was a long time ago. I wasn't there. It's not my fault.
That wasn't me, dude. I responded to a question about it. But that's all.
R-E-A-L-I-T-Y: Reality. Check it out.
Again: Wait. What? Does that mean something? What are you talking about?
Rats. We're back to that fantasy again?
Just when I was going to say that the force and power of your arguments had left me trembling, breathless, docile, compliant and with my negligee slipping off my shoulders, then invite you to put me in my place by [feel free to fill in the rest of the details yourself, as long as you don't share them and it doesn't involve me].
But I guess there's no point in that now.
Seriously, Except that says:
Not that it matters, and by all means, suit yourself. But I actually happen to be female.
Also, if you have an argument, please make it.
Thanks.
"I look forward to your admirably direct and concise answer to my inquiries."
LOL!
@Luke —
(a) Reality or GTFO;
or
(b) Your ignoble retreat from an argument you can't win is duly noted.
Take your pick.
"But I actually happen to be female."
Yikes!
@Dan —
Your ignoble retreat from an argument you can't win is duly noted.
Neither. And I didn't intend to be passive-agressive or unclear. It was just a snotty. shorthand way of saying via quote:
The Church was basically an imperial power during the Middle Ages, though not always a very strong one or an entirely independent one. It needed Catholic monarchs and they needed it. There were conflicts and strategic maneuvering all the time.
But Catholic monarchs, whether formal or informal, did not just go off the reservation and start running their own Catholic show however they felt like, purely on their own initiative.
Quite apart from anything else, Catholicism has a very orderly and non-optional hierarchy. The laity needs a priest. They can't be Catholic without one. So they have to answer to him. Likewise and for similar reasons, the priests answer to bishops, who answer to other bishops, and so on, all the way up the institutional ladder to the pope.
It therefore was a religious as well as a political impossibility for a Catholic inquisition to be happening outside or independent of papal authority. If it did, it wouldn't have been Catholic.
For engaging with reality.
That's not aimed at you, though.
Anonymous, if I may say so:
I have a feeling that you might be keeping some of your politics to yourself. But if so, that's your business. I couldn't care less. You've been a model of candor, good-sportsmanship, and civilized discourse.
In the unlikely event that your objections to the insults aren't just as much of a Kabuki debate tactic as the insults themselves were. I sincerely apologize. I don't really think you're ignorant, or stupid, or anything like that.
I think you're relying on a version of history that's very thin at best and mistaken at worst. But if it works for your purposes, whatever they are, that is again your business.
Yes, I know. But what they called themselves has not been what they're called for quite a number of centuries. People sometimes say "Eastern Roman Empire" for contextual reasons, or if they're talking about Constantine or whatever. But apart from that, "Roman" means the one that collapsed for once and for all in 455 AD. And "Byzantine" means the one that had its capital in Constantinople (Now Istanbul.)
Don't look at me. They're not my rules. But there is a reason for them. The Byzantine Empire carried some stuff over. It had gladiators and so on. But it was its own culturally, politically and socially distinct entity, not just the remains of something else.
I mean, among other things it was Christian.
You're reading an awful lot into the words "C'est la vie" that I had no idea they connoted and didn't intend to put there.
I was responding to the assertion that the Muslims started the conflict by conquering the bottom half of the Roman Empire, cutting Europe from its main food supply.
I mean, if there's a way that annexing the North African territories of an empire that's mostly in Asia can cut off the food supply for a bunch of unrelated Germanic tribes and kingdoms on the other side of another continent, you're going to have to walk me through it.
Aha! All is explained. But you can't blame me. You said Europe and cutting off food supply.
I'm pretty sure that there's no era in history that included trade to which the words "Mediteranean trade still existed" wouldn't apply, which is really pretty staggering if you think about how mind-bogglingly old Ancient Egyptian civilization really was, not to mention the ones I know even less about. Sumeria and what-have-you.
But I don't really have a point there. I'm just making conversation.
North Africa has never been considered part of Europe, because it's not.
And if Roman civilization was the direct ancestor of Medieval Europe, it would have been news to Medieval Europeans. That's not how Christendom defined itself. Hence "Christendom."
You seem to be arguing that irrespective of minor details such as continental location and the passage of more than a millennium and a half during which boundaries were frequently redrawn and entire civilizations both came into being and ceased to exist, every single piece of territory that was once a part of the Roman Empire should now be a part of Europe, because reasons.
I have trouble following the logic of that. What should Canada be a part of, according to this scheme?
No, I've heard of both. But how they lead to the conclusion: The advent of Islam disrupted trade for a thousand years is opaque to me. I mean, Mediterranean trade still existed, QED. There were other pirates and other slave raids.
I guess what I'm struggling with is the idea that there's some divinely pre-appointed level and volume of Mediterranean trade on which the existence of Islam has some kind of anti-trade effect.
That doesn't really go with my understanding of what trade is.
This is that "everything in classical antiquity that ever was is actually the rightful inheritance of these people who had nothing to do with it and not those people who had nothing to do with it" argument again.
And I still don't see how it makes sense. What about people of Slavic descent, who (unlike Muslims) were never connected to any piece of land that once belonged to the former Roman Empire? Are they just freeloaders and thieves masquerading as rightful heirs? How about Egyptians? I'm baffled.
Done.
I certainly am. I've been there. And I didn't even know it was a wasteland.
Thanks, Anonymous. Cheers.
Popehat said it. I believe it. That settles it.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
The solution to Salafism.
Because nothing says "anti-hitlerite" like a final solution.
Thanks for the good times, everybody. Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Turns out reality is often complex and needs some explaining. I get that simple folksy wisdom may be the most immediately persuasive approach for the sort of person who liked that GW Bush 'followed his gut,' but for those of us more interested in understanding the world we live in, such anti-intellectualism doesn't hold much persuasive power.
Ann, who must be joy to hang out with given her tendency to try to filibuster every debate, thinks that by sitting on a thread she has won an argument. Even on Thanksgiving Day, she tended to her thread, in which she labors with the Sisyphean task of explaining why Islam is exactly like every other religion and is not all tended toward violence, backwardness and intolerance, or if it is then so is every other faith ever.
Since Ann is fond of giving assignments to others on this thread, here are a few for Ann:
(1) Please explain how Indonesia, which is constantly held up as the shining example of how Islam can be tolerant, is so remarkably intolerant and violent toward other faiths.
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/10/18/christian-church-muslim-indonesia/
(2) Please research the patent output of Islamic countries and then explain how Muslim countries which collectively have more than a billion people have virtually no patent output. Please compare how many patents Japan gets in a single day to how many patents the whole Islamic world gets in an entire year.
(3) Please tell us how many Muslim countries carry the death penalty for homosexuality.
(4) Please tell us how many Muslim countries carry the death penalty for apostasy (leaving the faith).
(5) Please review the survey below and answer the questions which follow:
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
(a) Why is it that the most devout Muslims appear to be the least tolerant?
(b) Why do so many western apologists suggest that extreme views are an exception when in many countries the percent holding extreme views constitute a majority?
(6) Why do Western Islamic apologists dig so far back in history to find examples of Christian crusading or Islamic invention? Surely there must be plenty of examples of these from our own lifetimes.
Thank you, Ann. We look forward to your responses.
@justamblingon —
The funny thing is not only that he's making an anti-speech argument, but that he could easily have done it less verbosely (eg — "Bitch, shut up"; "Too much wordz").
But for some reason he chose to censor himself.
Ann, you have not won anything. The blog owner, whose public advocacy for free speech does not comport with his extremely thin skin, has been slow-walking comment approval for reasons which are not clear. I suspect it is because this thread does not give him good feels.
Ann you are part of the regressive left. To quote Sam Harris from his blog:
"These people are part of what Maajid Nawaz has termed the “regressive Left”—pseudo-liberals who are so blinded by identity politics that they reliably take the side of a backward mob over one of its victims. Rather than protect individual women, apostates, intellectuals, cartoonists, novelists, and true liberals from the intolerance of religious imbeciles, they protect these theocrats from criticism. "
You have picked the most regressive side possible, by laboring to defend Islam. It is ironic because you imagine yourself a progressive but Islam is probably the most regressive thing you will ever encounter.
I do not have the free time that you have to sit on a thread and write thesis after thesis. Do not consider that 'winning.' Do you have a family or hobbies?
I left a long, thoughtful and polite comment yesterday in response to Ann. What happened to it?
A normal human being, with normal human interaction abilities, might leap to the conclusion that people might not be paying much attention to their blogs over holiday weekends. But you aren't a normal human, are you?
I'm sure if you waddle off to Vox's site or Heartiste's or Roosh's you'll find people to give you the immediate personal affirmation you so crave. Run along, now.
Dear Dreary Scholar:
Please accept my abject apologies for not monitoring comments in moderation promptly enough over Thanksgiving weekend. I was spending time with my family and not devoting sufficient instant attention to the brilliance and insight that is you.
"I'm sure if you waddle off to Vox's site or Heartiste's or Roosh's you'll find people to give you the immediate personal affirmation you so crave. "
Please accept my apologies. Your site is special, it really is. Intelligent lefties and intelligent righties can actually collide.
Lefties would flee from the sites you mention like vampires flee sunlight. And lefty controlled sites usually delete all comments that don't adopt their viewpoint.
Affirmation, pshaw! Dialectic is where its at. If my wife wouldn't object, I'd throw you some quid for the pleasure.
@Dreary Traveler —
…
Would it be an assignment if I said "Where'd I do that?"
Because I was under the impression that asking other people questions about what they'd said was a pretty routine part of civilized debate.
OK.
If you can find any place on this thread where I asked someone else to answer six questions — one of which entailed reading a 226-page document — that were:
(a) completely unrelated to anything they'd said or suggested;
(b) without as much as a gesture in the direction of quotes or citations indicating what I thought had merited; and
(c) in a nutshell, apparently premised exclusively and solely on my demented fantasies about their position
I'll apologize.
But if you want me to answer, you're going to have to go to the trouble of pointing out where I said anything that raised those questions.
I mean, seriously:
I don't know. When did you stop beating your wife?
FFS, what part of IN REALITY do you guys not get?
@Dan —
Take it up with Dreary Scholar. Since he's the one who knows that I think it, I guess he knows more about it than I do.
Either that or he's just making up thoughts, motivations, and opinions out of the clear blue and then attributing them to me without reference to anything I said in reality.
Speaking of which:
Sorry to interrupt. But I know you like brevity. Thank you for sharing.
I asked you one question. And it was:
Where in reality does this leftie narrative you refer to exist?
That's a simple question, considering that it arose directly from a thesis you'd already typed up and posted. And in the meanwhile, you've had time to write two whole theses — or, in short, thesis after thesis! –about my putative political and stylistic failings.
So time doesn't seem to be the issue.
I refer you again to Dreary Scholar.
Family, yes. Also occupations, pastimes, pursuits and interests. Plus, you know. The usual assortment of accomplishments, failures, misfortune, and good luck. Although overall, I'm a very lucky person, much more so than I deserve. So I got no complaints, all told.
But I've never really been the hobbies type. And I don't know why. Maybe if I lived someplace where they had mini-golf.
You?
Correction to that response up there addressed to the non-existent Dreary Traveler —
* Dreary scholar.
My apologies. I regret the error.
@Dan —
Wait. You mean this?
You're right. I overreached. Please accept my apologies and amend it to:
"Your ignoble retreat is duly noted."
That's really all I meant.
@Except that says —
I don't know where my mind was at***:
Judaism. Canaan. Whether the founder is considered to be G-d, Abraham, and/or Moses. It doesn't get more conquest-y. The objective is conquest.
***Except unconsciously burdened by the awareness that not only was that one of the wellsprings of the WWII-era xenophobic bigotry that you're under the impression your feelings aren't the least little bit like, it still lives on today. (Responsible for all the wars in the world, etc.)
@Clark
I guess you're probably gone for good from this thread, although I'm holding out hope that you were just enjoying the holiday weekend. I am disappointed that you have not addressed the substantive criticism regarding comparing Muslim approval of killing civilians to US approval of the same. Any chance you would take a shot at it – not just a one line throwaway, but a thoughtful answer to a realistic question?
@Ann – you have done the Lord's work here. Literally.
For those who find no value in Clark's posts, he gets huge credit from me for his Turing Test a year or two back. I think he failed the test, in that he seemed to understand the form of liberal/progressive positions without understanding the reasoning behind them, but he gave it a good effort and it was worthwhile reading. It covers a lot of sins.
One final note. Those who are correctly pointing out that Clark promised to defend Ken against Vox Day and then failed to do so are missing what was the most egregious part of the whole thing to me – that he blamed the dispute on Ken. I am sorry that I didn't get to see what "raining hellfire" on Vox would have looked like. I hope it wouldn't have been another allegory.
@wolfefan, and also, from earlier, Martin —
Aw, shucks. It's really no big thing. But thanks for your kind words. They're much appreciated.
Seems like things are all wrapped up here, but I gotta say, shocked that we made it to the end of the discussion without Clark ever seriously engaging with any criticism of his beliefs. That's pretty disingenuous behavior for someone who likes to lecture on the importance of intellectual debate over petty name-calling.
The actual fact of the matter is that since 9/11/2001 there have been more attacks against the US by home-grown right-wing extremists than by Muslims. These extremists practice various dangerous right-wing philosophies such as Nazism, White Supremacy, and Christian Supremacy, and these philosophies are frequently practiced in tandem with one another.
Therefore I advocate unrestricted carpet-bombing the practitioners of Nazism, White Supremacy, and Christian Supremacy, and the provisional detention of anyone likely to follow these philosophies… we need to target and arrest the leaders of those churches which practice Christian Supremacy, kill the leaders of the White Supremacist movements, and perform mass drone-attacks against Nazi weddings and funerals!
I trust that I have made my point, and will note in advance that anyone who accuses me of being a "typical leftist" is missing the point in a very big way… satire much?
@Troutwaxer —
Considering that when I responded to a question about the Westboro Baptist Church by saying something that was actually a defense of Clark, as well as an all-around encomium to free, frank, and open debate, Except-that-says attacked me for being a man who hated Christendom, I wouldn't bet on it.
I mean, if merely typing the words "Westboro Baptist Church" is a thought crime, I can't imagine what expressing disapproval of domestic right-wing terrorism is.
Honestly, I would like to think that the libertarian right's habit of regarding all speech that falls outside their rigidly doctrinaire formulas as proof that the speaker is an SJW G-d-and-country-hating leftie menace even when he or she was agreeing with them is just a bug and not a feature.
But it sure does seem to crop up a lot.
@ Ann: Honestly, I would like to think that the libertarian right's habit of regarding all speech that falls outside their rigidly doctrinaire formulas as proof that the speaker is an SJW G-d-and-country-hating leftie menace even when he or she was agreeing with them is just a bug and not a feature.
Ann, you have to remember that there are two kinds of Libertarians; those who didn't know that Ayn Rand was writing fiction, and those who didn't know that Heinlein was writing fiction.
Given the literary antecedents of Libertarianism, I think that expecting rationality, or even intelligent reading comprehension, is probably too much to ask for.
Really? I thought it seemed perfectly in character for a moral and intellectual coward.
@Troutwaxer —
To be fair, Ayn Rand also wrote quite a bit of non-fiction. And she was politically active enough that there's some record of how her ideas work when they're put into practice.
For example, she spent the mid-to-late '40s doing stuff like covertly informing the FBI that the screenwriters for It's a Wonderful Life were part of a Communist plot to destroy banking, as evidenced by the casting of Lionel Barrymore as Mr. Potter and their reportedly having been seen having lunch with other people.
And her only complaints about the voluminous friendly-witness testimony she gave to HUAC were that they wouldn't let her explain why The Best Years of Our Lives was Red propaganda and that they didn't act on her demand to come back later and testify some more.
She didn't like movies about people overcoming adversity that included both scenes in drugstores and WWII veterans making loans without collateral, evidently.
But, you know. Most free-speech advocates would handle that by writing reviews or voting with their feet, not by privately snitching out people who hadn't committed any crime to the feds in hopes that the government would create enough of an environment of fear to silence them.
The dogma probably already has a pre-fab "except that…" counter-argument for that somewhere just waiting for acolytes to come collect it, though. And maybe it even makes sense. You never know.
Hence my concern that it's a feature not a bug, however.
@Paradigm Spider —
I wouldn't be surprised if he responds in a whole new post, either with or without a complete redefinition of terms in his favor.
I'm not so sure that's even dishonorable. I mean, it might not be my idea of intellectual honesty. But it's not my intellect. And it's not like his critics were denied a forum.
So blogger's prerogative, basically.
^^That's not disagreement. It's just the expression of a related thought.
Troutwaxer,
May I introduce you to public choice theory?
@JHanley —
Do you mean something like "The libertarian right will realize that Rand and Heinlein wrote fiction if and only if the costs of maintaining the illusion that they didn't are greater than its benefits"?
Or do you mean something more like "People act out of self interest, therefore Objectivism"?
Or do you mean some third thing that I'm too slow-witted to grasp?
Since I seem to have a bad reputation, please let me hasten to add that that's not a hostile question. I'm just not sure what you mean.
PS — I do realize you weren't talking to me. Just curious.
@Ann —
I'll keep things simple, since six questions is more than you want to handle. For all your staggering verbosity, you addressed virtually none of the points that I raised.
Since six points were too many, I'll stick to one: I find it absurd that you compare the plight of Islamic 'refugees' to Jews during WWII, when so many differences abound.
There are by my count 47 Muslim majority countries and 57 countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. There were zero Jewish majority countries at the time of World War II. Jews truly had no place go. The comparison you make is utterly false and utterly dishonest. You parrot the world "in reality" over and over like a small child, but the two situations you compare could not be farther apart. Just because you can say "in reality" does not mean you are in touch with it.
It is just not true that these "refugees" have no place to go. They pass through many safe countries, before arriving at a destination such as the United States or Germany or Austria. This in addition to the enormous number of Islamic countries available to them. The Jewish people really had no country and no place to go and they created a country out of sparsely inhabited desert.
Indeed many Jews are fearful of the influx of "refugees" and the growing danger that brings to them, because of the intense anti-Semitism that is the norm in Islamic culture.
http://www.thelocal.at/20151123/jewish-group-urges-limit-to-refugee-influx
Already Jews are unsafe due to Islamic anti-Semitism in France, Sweden and other places.
Not only that but the extraordinary intellectual and economic bounty brought forth by Jewish people stands in sharp contrast to the extremely anti-intellectual climate across the Islamic world. Have any Nobel Science prizes ever gone to the Muslim world which is more than a billion strong? The Jewish population meanwhile has won 36 in Chemistry, 51 in Physics, 55 in Medicine, in spite of being only 1/100 of the size of the Islamic world.
http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html
Why would anyone even make this comparison if they had a shred of intellectual honesty?
Ann,
First, I have greatly enjoyed your comments here, and am amused that people were interpreting them as social justice warriorism. Maybe you are in the SJW camp, but damned if you don't know some history and make intelligent arguments, and I think it takes a reactionary ideologue to read that into what you've written.
Second, I do mean a third way, neither Randian objectivism (which I don't buy for several reasons I won't detail here), or Heinlein, whom to the best of my knowledge I've never read.
I also don't mean "the right," and am tired of the easy but inaccurate conflation of libertarianism and right-wing politics (by both non-libertarians and a particular not-to-my-liking subset of libertarians).
I do mean self-interestedness, but in the sense that we should assume governing officials (elected, appointed, or civil service) are not pursuing "the public good," but their own interests, which includes their ideological interests that they (left, right or center), conveniently interpret to be the public good. In a nutshell, public choice is the application of economic analyses to political analyses–it assumes that homo economicus and homo politicus are not fundamentally different. (Some public choice theorists, however, will go so far as to admit that some folks' interests may be in pursuing benevolent public service.)
I also mean the impossibility of aggregating the varied preferences of the many citizens into a coherent preference order the public as a whole, and so the, if not impossibility then extreme rarity, of anything that objectively could be considered the public good.
For example, on the impossibility of aggregating preferences, just today I had my students doing a voting simulation, where we change the voting method–using only legitimate methods that give each person an equal vote–and get a different winner with each method, even though no voter changes his/her vote. That is, it's not solely the voters' aggregated preferences that determine who that voting public chooses, but the way in which we aggregate the preferences.
In addition to that there is the impossibility of judging value in the absence of prices, so that there is to really determine how much the public wants of some policy–national defense, environmental protection, welfare–at what price points. And no individual person really knows how much they're paying for a particular policy because the cost is bundled in taxes and remains opaque to them, so it's easy for the politically connected to disperse the costs of some policy and concentrate the benefits on a very few, or fool us into having the middle class subsidize the middle class, and so on.
This promotes a great skepticism about government and an insistence on looking beyond the more obvious benefits of a particular policy to ask what are the often hidden costs, and to ask "benefits to whom, at who's cost?"
This is also often combined with an insistence on a broad base of fundamental rights (although that's a normative position, and so is distinct from the positive perspective of public choice theory), so that libertarians have been at the forefront of battles for same-sex marriage and against the drug war.
See also http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html and http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/PublicChoiceTheory.html
None of that requires that a person has even heard of Rand or Heinlein. In fact I find the devout Randians and Heinleinians to be detrimental to libertarianism as an intellectual perspective.
@JHanley — One reason I regarded Ann as being in the SJW camp is that she uses her obviously strong intellect and knowledge of history for the unhelpful purpose of trying to gloss over differences and erase distinction.
Distinguishing between things and making judgments that certain ideas, systems and choices are better than others is not a bad thing to be covered up but an important and crucial step if progress is to be made. Making judgments is what our minds evolved to do, and making judgments has been key to our thriving.
Ann is a much better than you however, JHanley. On November 24, 2015 at 6:53 am you urged Ken White to no-platform Clark. Ann at least is willing to debate. You would shut down debate and avoid discussion. Ann, for all my disagreements with her, remains an intellectual in my eyes.
You took an emphatically anti-intellectual stance.
@JHanley, the fact that you who teach at a university urge no-platforming of those who would have debate is fairly disgraceful. In this regard, you are intellectually inferior to those who came before you at the academe, who believed in discourse and dialectic.
If Clark was willing to debate, I might agree with you. Instead, he wrote his (despicable) original post, and then totally refused to engage with criticism. He doubled-down on this strategy by playing dumb ("why are you talking about Muslims, this is about space Nazis?!") while simultaneously, disingenuously, accusing people of failing to participate in an informed, civil debate of the important issues he raised.
In other words: genuine discussion deserves a platform. But I'm not sure why Ken should feel obligated to host someone who's only goal is to troll.
@justamblingon, you say Clark is trolling but you are incorrect.
Clark's view (assuming that Space Nazis are the symbol everyone is taking it to be) is that Islam is a genocidally destructive ideology that threatens civilization itself. This statement is both horrible and true at the same time.
Clark is not trolling because he really believes that Islam is destructive. The fact that SJWs turn it into a 400+ comment post does not mean Clark was being insincere. The fact that he does not have enough time in his day watch a thread day and night does not make him a troll either.
Clark also happens to have the correct view. Even the most stable and prosperous of Islamic societies, such as Saudi Arabia, are intellectual backwaters that live in a benighted state and also genuinely oppress a huge number of groups. The spread of Islam does not mean the spread of enlightenment, but rather the loss of what many regard as the best parts of civilization.
The interesting question, is my mind, is whether this statement is meant to apply to all of the Islamic faith, or just the Sunnis, or just the Wahabbists and/or Salafis.
I ask, because the more I learn about Islam (though admittedly I still know very little), the more I'm inclined to view the differences between Sunnis and Shiites as being akin to the differences between Judaism and Christianity.
@Dreary scholar —
Six questions would be fine, as would 12, 18, or 36 questions, as long as they were questions that had some bearing on something I said and not just a random grab-bag of pointed inquiries designed to get me to concede points that I'm not effing disputing.
If you have a problem with something I said, challenge me on it. I'm not interested in wrestling with whatever clutch of strawmen you feel like dumping on me. Who would that help?
It was a qualitative not a quantitative issue.
I didn't actually. And don't.
I did compare the xenophobic bigotry of people who are hostile to the plight of Islamic refugees to the xenophobic bigotry of people who were hostile to the plight of Jewish refugees.
Oh, brother.
Why was there a need for a Jewish majority country, Dreary scholar? Why couldn't Polish Jews just live in Poland, and Hungarian Jews just live in Hungary, same as they'd been doing since anyone did?
Was going to live in a Jewish majority country something European Jews really, really wanted to do? Their very first and favorite choice, above all other choices? A good, a just, a happy thing for everyone, the repetition of which is much to be hoped for?
Listen, Dreary scholar. I'm not the one whose reading comprehension is so selective that it skipped right over the place where I said, addressing Clark:
But it was about 974 comments ago. And I meant it.
If you're under the impression that I've been insisting that it is, you're not living in reality, Dreary S.
Well. That's not what happened, or why. Or even when. But I really don't want to get started on it, because unfortunately I know a lot about it.
So just get back to me when you have something to say that has some bearing on a blessed thing I said, and not just on your assumptions and fantasies about it. I'd appreciate it.
@JHanley —
Thanks for the articulate and edifying clarification.
I don't see a thing I disagree with, but that's neither here nor there. Because (a) it would still make sense even if I did; and (b) who cares what I think?
About this:
That kinda bugs me, too. I actually meant to do the opposite by specifying. But I can see how it would read the other way.
If I understand Dreary Scholar and Jeff's point, it is that states run by Muslims are so terrible that it is important to make sure those unfortunate to be born within such states remain there, rather than be allowed to live under more enlightened regimes.
I'm less than convinced.
Dreary Scholar brings up Nobel prize winners. Okay. I find three from the Muslim world, all of whom won their Nobel prizes while affiliated with western institutions (two of them in the US). This strikes me as a pretty good argument in favor of allowing Muslims to come to America.
@ JHanley – Public Choice Theory looks interesting and I may dig deeper into it at some point. I can already see some points of agreement and disagreement. Obviously there are some intellectually serious Libertarians, but it will be a far better movement when jokes like mine above aren't so telling…
On the subject of Heinlein, you should read some of his material if you want to understand "those kinds" of Libertarians. The two most important works for this purpose are probably The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Time Enough For Love. There are 5-6 other books which should probably supplement these two which I can recommend if you'd like. I'm sure plenty of people will recommend Starship Troopers* but I'm not sure it is a "Libertarian" book.
@ Jeff: I do agree that Islam is a problem… in the same sense that religious fanatics who wish to kill for theological reasons have always been a problem. The major point which I, as a Liberal, take towards Islam is that it is not immediately threatening and we can take our time to approach it with three very important steps.
1.) Stop being afraid. The average number of terror deaths by Islam in the U.S. is about 140 a year over the last twenty years. (If I recall correctly, it is a single digit problem in all years but two of the last twenty.**) When you consider that there are 2,500,000 deaths annually in the U.S., your chance of personally "dying by Islam" is about 18,000 to 1 against. You're literally 50 times more likely to die because you walked into a drug store and chose the wrong over-the-counter pain reliever (approximately 7,500 deaths annually in the US) than you are to die by Islam. Giving up fear is essential and the best way to stop being afraid is to understand what death statistics are actually telling you.
2.) Develop a long-term strategy against the problem. We are talking about a strategy of handling Islam (and probably other homicidal theologies as well) which could take 50-100 years to implement. The essence of this strategy is that we need to develop soft power in the region which is stronger than Saudi Arabia's. Unfortunately, managing such a strategy requires Americans educating themselves about social, political, and economic issues at a level which most Americans are unwilling to undertake, so I doubt it will happen.
3.) Implement our very-long-term strategy. This probably starts by getting out of the Muddled East for 15-20 years, then returning with a soft-power strategy rather than a hard power strategy. Make changes to implementation as required by circumstances. One crucial aspect of this strategy is the destruction of the current Saudi Arabian government, everything else requires winning hearts and minds without blowing shit up or shooting people.
@ Dan: You wrote, One reason I regarded Ann as being in the SJW camp is that she uses her obviously strong intellect and knowledge of history for the unhelpful purpose of trying to gloss over differences and erase distinction.
I read Ann's remarks in a completely different spirit than you do. I see Ann as being very much aware that history and society are very, very complicated, and that simplistic solutions undertaken by poorly informed people rarely solve anything. If this makes her an SJW, then I don't understand what anyone means by the term. At this point I understand SJW as being pretty much without meaning. It seems to be used in the sense of "you are among the leftward 50 percent of the populace and I disagree with your politics." In essence, SJW is becoming meaning-free.
IMHO, SJW should be understood as defining the worst bottom-feeders of any social justice movement; the one's who make problems worse rather than better. The crazy ones.
* Starship Troopers is the ur-document of military sci-fi.
** More people are killed by right-wing types than Islamists for 18 of the last 20 years, but this is also usually a single-digit problem in any given year.
I think there's been some miscommunication. This thread is a veritable epic of discourse, enough that it's easy to forget who-said-what (and in digging up the history, there's been a lot of that).
I think Dreary Scholar means to refer to this quote, when Ann was responding to my attempted defense of Clark's post:
Except that this was not Ann drawing the comparison herself, this was Ann commenting on the comparison Clark had made in his original post.
This is me reading between the lines again, rather than the words directly within them, but it seems like Dreary scholar has taken great offense at Ann's extensive knowledge of history and her willingness and patience in sharing it. Or, at the very least, has taken offense to her occasional barbs that people ought to invoke reality in favor of the fairy tales and "common wisdom" (my words, not hers) they've been accustomed to.
As a programmer by trade, and a lifelong computer geek, the analogy I'm drawn to would be seeing a crowd of comments espousing the beneficial filesizes of BMPs over PNGs, or claiming that JPGs are never used in internet media. Of course, those ideas are laughably in error. I would really only expect that level of ignorance from Yahoo Answers.
So, if anything, I applaud her patience, that she has been willing to come back, time and again, and has yet to reach the point where she calls us all morons, drops the mic, and walks away forever.
@Dan —
Thank you for the implicit compliment.
Honestly, it's really not my intention to gloss over differences and erase distinction. You're right that it's never anything but unhelpful. And again, I thought I was doing the opposite.
I guess we're just managing to talk at cross-purposes. And possibly we always will be. Because, you know. Happens.
About the SJW-ishness. I wouldn't want to mislead you. That's not really what I'm about, in the sense that I'm not an ideologue and don't believe in putting theory before fact patterns. Because if you do, you just see what you're looking for and miss the fact patterns. Obviously.
But that might well be a distinction without a difference from your point of view, even if it isn't from mine. I mean, generally speaking, I'm definitely a person of the left on most things, no matter how I get there.
So, you know. Call it as you see it, however and whenever you feel like. I wouldn't want to stand in your way. But fwiw, I'm not just asking for quotes and citations because I'm a harridan and a nag. I really, genuinely don't know what part of what I'm saying is prompting the epithet. I'd try to take it seriously if I did.
That said, the first part is the part I really meant. Call it as you see it, however and whenever you feel like. I'll do the same. That's how it should be, imo.
@StephenH —
Yes, exactly. I would never have brought it up if the question wasn't already in play. Having done so, I'll defend it within its own very limited-purpose-comparison terms if I have to. But beyond that, I don't really care. I mean, we're here now.
…
I guess that that "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!" might have independently merited the analogy. But, you know. It hardly needs pointing that out.
Hey!
Really? How so?
(I have a guess, but it's probably wrong.)
I want everybody to know that it took all the self-control I have not to go on a 9,000-word rampage over that "Jews now happy in the Jew-place, as is only right and fitting" thing.
I want to again point out that my understanding of Islam is nascent, at best; however, it is my understanding that Sunni is a more traditional, conservative, and oftentimes literal reading of their holy scriptures. Shiite is supposed to mean something along the lines of "new way", and is more innovative and liberal in their understanding of the Koran.
If that's far divorced from reality, then I deeply apologize.
Sunni traditionalism strikes as being akin to Orthodox Judaism – lots of rules and laws, many of which are described directly in the holy texts, and interpreted exactly as the holy texts describe. Jewish food laws are particularly famous, but my understanding is that many Jewish communities still maintain religious courts which uphold the other religious laws as well.
Contrast that with Christianity, wherein Christ specifically countermands the food laws, and frequently teaches an interpretation of the old texts that favors forgiveness over literal application, including an entire segment of holy texts called the "New Testament", in contrast to the "Old Testament".
I'm certain there are problems with the analogy, but it feels slightly more apt than comparing with, say, the divide between Catholicism and the various Protestant churches.
@Dan,
I did no such thing. I urge you to read more closely.
@Ann,
I get you. Sorry for the misreading.
@L wrote:
"Dreary Scholar brings up Nobel prize winners. Okay. I find three from the Muslim world, all of whom won their Nobel prizes while affiliated with western institutions (two of them in the US). This strikes me as a pretty good argument in favor of allowing Muslims to come to America."
To date there have been 579 science prizes handed out. Three to a group that numbers 1.5 billion is unbelievably poor. Proportionally one would expect 124 science prizes, so we are talking about 2.4% of the expected total. As someone who loves the sciences, I find this extremely depressing. But I am not going to pretend this reality is otherwise just because it makes me feel bad.
Scientists aren't being stopped. There are pathways for them, provided they show distinction and merit. But they are precious few and vastly outnumbered by the hundreds of millions who hold literally genocidal views, or the more than a billion who hold sharply anti-scientific views. To those would say, yes but (fill in the blank with your favorite whipping horse of the west, presumably Christianity) is just like that, I'm sorry but the numbers don't bear that out.
Has this ever happened among Christian med students?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066795/Muslim-students-walking-lectures-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.html
That article is from 2011, so presumably those students are doctors now. Good luck to you if you get sick in the UK.
Perhaps not exactly. This is an older article (2002), but I believe it summarizes my counterpoint quite well:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/24/usa.schools
Those students, as well, would be old enough to have become doctors by now.
Ann — One of the main activities of an SJW is arguing in defense of pet groups that rightly receive criticism. To the SJW, the act of criticizing one of the SJW's pet groups is worse than any behavior of the pet group, no matter how objectively bad that behavior is. Not only is that unhelpful, it is also extremely patronizing toward the pet group.
By that measure, Ann, the term SJW fits you to a T. Wear it with pride.
JHanley —
I said, "on November 24, 2015 at 6:53 am you urged Ken White to no-platform Clark."
You said, "I did no such thing. I urge you to read more closely."
Well I did re-read that comment. And yes, you did urge Ken White to no-platform Clark. Repeatedly. I was going to give an example but then I would have ended up copy-pasting most of what you said. Tip, when lying don't make it about something so easily checked.
StephenH wrote —
"Sunni traditionalism strikes as being akin to Orthodox Judaism – lots of rules and laws, many of which are described directly in the holy texts, and interpreted exactly as the holy texts describe. Jewish food laws are particularly famous, but my understanding is that many Jewish communities still maintain religious courts which uphold the other religious laws as well."
….
"If that's far divorced from reality, then I deeply apologize."
Apology accepted. The Orthodox Jews are deeply attached to history. Across the Sunni world, especially in Saudi Arabia and Syria, there is a strong effort to destroy Islamic history, art, architecture and historic sites on purpose because they represent idolatry. This iconoclasm is exactly opposite to the close attachment to history of Orthodox Jews.
"Mecca's ancient heritage is under attack"
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/16/news/adfg-mecca16
Several on this thread are undertaking great efforts to draw analogies to this or that faith in an effort to minimize what we see with our own eyes.
As Observer noted on November 19, 2015 at 7:05 am, the faith in question does have fundamental differences. Is it possible to analyze it on its own as something distinct, or can we only draw awkward these analogies?
So, pointing out when another person has stated incorrect or misleading facts is unacceptable when those "facts" involve a group that, in your opinion, deserves criticism?
I can't see any other reason why you would think that Ann saying "I have studied Muslim history extensively, and this is, point by point, why you are wrong about Muslim history," is "arguing in defense of pet groups that rightly receive criticism."
@ Richard: "I can't see any other reason why you would think that Ann saying "I have studied Muslim history extensively, and this is, point by point, why you are wrong about Muslim history," is "arguing in defense of pet groups that rightly receive criticism."
So an Dan thinks an SJW is someone who's better educated than him on a particular subject – perhaps they took multiple college classes in the subject – and they tell him he's wrong? Why doesn't he simply accuse her of thoughtcrime and get on with it?
Christ, it repulses me that Clark attracts people like you here.
For the same reason he thinks the comment "I think you can continue allowing Clark a platform or you can deny some degree of endorsement, but I'm dubious you can really do both simultaneously." is the same as "[urging] Ken to de-platform Clark"
Because some people, when faced with complex, detailed, and/or subtle arguments, try to boil them down to the same level of bumper-sticker simplicity that they themselves use in order to respond to them. Unfortunately, this frequently leads to an incorrect paraphrase of the actual argument. In short, they create a straw man when they try to simplify the argument down to their own level, but they actually believe that straw-man is what the other person said.
The biggest complaint I have seen people level against "SJWs" is that they don't respect the idea of free speech. It seems to be one of the things that people who use that term are most concerned about.
Ken: By posting about free-speech issues, and allowing comments, you attract the same sort of people. Perhaps not in the number or trollishness that Clark does, but they will congregate wherever people are talking about free speech.
If you want to get rid of them, you only really have three choices: stop posting altogether, stop posting about free speech (or controversial issues, which, in turn, start conversations about free speech), or moderate your comments more stringently.
I don't want you to do any of those things, and I doubt you do either, so I'm guessing that we'll be putting up with them for a long, long time.
I take it you consider yourself an authority on the Islamic faith, so for those of us who are not — but wish to form a basis of understanding anyways — please try.
No, please don't. I deeply apologize to you. And to anybody else to whom the same kind of apology is owed. I really must have been being more of a harpy than I knew.
I think that part of the problem is that I've actually been to Syria, though just as a tourist. And while that's not really material to the discussion in the sense that even if I hadn't, something like, let's say, this…
…would seem to me to be about as sensible as dragging the Philippines into a discussion of a civil war that was happening in Monaco simply because they're both 85% to 90% Catholic and neither is a democracy.***
Anyway. my point is that my having been there probably informs my tone more than I realize, even though I've been regulating against it on the grounds of irrelevance/who cares?
Because, you know. not really any different than if people were being slaughtered like animals in Cooperstown or San Antonio instead of Palmyra — ie, it's not my place on earth, I don't live like the people there do, the ways and beliefs of many are foreign to me, I can't say I know it all that well, and all that stuff. But I know for a fact and beyond doubt that it is (or was) an ordinary place on earth with people living on it, like people do. Because I've been there.
Not that that's much of a distinction. Foreign tourism used to be a big part of Syria's economy. Fourteen percent of it before 2010, according to Wiki. It is (or was) a tourist-friendly country.
So. If that's an unfortunate impact on my manners, I regret it.
I just wanted to get that out of the way. More response later.
***Whatever "except that" you "except that" specialists may be about to sling at me, hold your horses. I'm putting the elaborate qualification in another post, after which you can accuse me of verbosity. So it's all good.
ELABORATE QUALIFICATION:
Yes, there are numerous differences between Monaco/the Philippines and Syria/Saudi Arabia.
For instance: Monaco and the Philippines have little cultural commonality. But Syria and Saudi Arabia are not only both Islamic, they're both Arab countries! People in both speak Arabic. They have some cultural stuff in common wrt cuisine, custom, etiquette, music. It's also true that Arab culture generally is both traditionally homophobic and sexist, although that would actually be an improvement in the case of Saudi Arabia. I don't even know what to say their cultural attitudes and practices are, apart from horrifying, repellent, and indefensible.
But it's just pure crazy talk to lump those two countries together as if they were one thing.
There's a reason why Saudi Arabia was not a part of the Roman Empire, why the West never bothered colonizing it, why it has practically no foreign tourism industry, why it's bereft of foreign cultural influence and has practically no cultural heritage of any kind apart from Mecca and Medina. And it is:
It is, was, and always has been a bunch of tribes in the middle of a desert, living in a society that hasn't changed all that much since the Middle Ages and wasn't very interesting or advanced then. There isn't, wasn't, and never has been any reason for people to go there unless they're getting paid or making a pilgrimage.
Syria's got some serious problems, some of which are contemptible and horrific. But it's actually much more like the Philippines than it is Saudi Arabia, except Mediterranean, Arab, and with a European rather than an American colonial heritage.
IOW: In many regards it was a horror before. But it's not an apocalypse now because the people who live there are nothing but a bunch of bloodthirsty Salafi fundamentalist savages, ravening to slaughter their enemies and eat their hearts and livers. That's largely a new and foreign development.
Which is not to say that there probably weren't some Syrians living in rural cultural isolation for whom the idea of heart-and-liver-eating vengeance was not entirely just some archaic artifact of the past that could never again become a living practice. But the same probably goes for Egypt. That doesn't mean it's the custom of the land in either place, or that the populations of Syria and Egypt as a whole don't feel the same way about it as the populace of any modern country anywhere.
I imagine that might be one reason why there are so many refugees. Because that just seems to me like a more realistic surmise than that they're on a conquest to overrun Western Civilization and raze it to the ground so that everybody can live in a happy state of primitive, punitive and violent theocratic subjugation forever after, because they're just born that way.
In fact, the latter strikes me as one of those things that's only distinct from a paranoid delusion because it's culturally commonplace. But whatever. Every culture's got a few. That's life.
None of the forgoing proceeds from political bias. Facts are facts. If they're wrong, correct me.
@Dan —
I have no idea what you're talking about. But since without quotes or references, it's just name-calling, it doesn't actually mean enough to me that I care.
If you do, please advise.
@Richard —
People who are seriously concerned about freedom of speech don't go around preemptively convicting a billion people worldwide of future acts of terrorism on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Because that's flatly, unambiguously not compatible with respect for the idea of free speech.
That incomprehensible sentence fragment a few comments upthread should have started "*My personal feelings about it are* not really any different than *they would be* if people were being slaughtered like animals in Cooperstown or San Antonio instead of Palmyra"
Not that my personal feelings are all that precious or special. I just prefer to make sense.
@anonymous "That just makes their arguments stronger!" Sure, for an instant. But then they can never come back to their trump card.
"Christ, it repulses me that Clark attracts people like you here."
And it repulses me that you lean in favor of these apologists for the most dangerously de-civilizing ideology extant in the world today.
In leaning this way, you take a firm stand against civilization, Ken White. Congratulations. I think it is your impulse to prefer leftism over civilization (I think of your initial defense of the ridiculous UN censorship efforts, before you returned finally to the side of sanity).
Your ad hominem troubles me not at all, Ken White, for I am quite certain that I am right. I would think that liberals would be fiercest in their condemnation of Islamist ideology because they have the most to lose, and because it is in such stark contrast to all they profess to hold dear.
It is pathetic that liberals can't even fight their own battles. Gee, one would think that because there is NO FREE SPEECH anywhere in the Islamic world, this might have a little traction with you, Ken White.
Please don't get mad but take this as a complement. I have higher expectations of you than I do of most liberals.
And yet here you linger, unwanted, like a turd on the porch.
Gosh, "Dan." I can't help but notice that you and "Dreary Scholar" and a few other people with very congruent views share the same IP addresses.
Ken, don't like the crazies drag you down to their level. From your point of view the whole thread must be very frustrating, but calling names and acting angry is very much beneath you.
What have you got against Bronies, dude?
@Ken White —
Shocking. And after Dan exhibited mysterious psychic knowledge of the "slow-walking" of Dreary scholar's post, too. Who could have predicted?
I think I'm just going to continue regarding them all as separate people on the grounds that it's much more fun for me that way. After all, I don't know that they're not.
Plus I've kind of gotten fond of Dreary scholar, due to his quirky penchant for making cryptic and occult pronouncements about Jews. I mean:
^^If I thought that meant anything, I'd wonder what it was. It's sort of thought-provoking, in a way.
@Ken in NJ —
I think he meant SJWs.
I think he meant SJWs.
Pish and tosh.
Ess Jay Double-Yous are a fart in the wind compared to the menace of My Little Pony
Oh, I know they're not being intellectually honest in their cries for free speech: calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar is a good way of showing that you don't really care whether anyone who disagrees with you has a chance to speak, because you're not listening to them anyway.
I'm just saying that they get attracted to "free speech" arguments because it allows them to heap all of their disgusting ideas about their opponents into one place, and then stand on top of that heap and sneer down at the rest of us. The problem for them is that the rest of us are wondering what this guy is trying to do by standing atop a pile of shit.
Using an occasional sock puppet is helpful with your commenters since they generally write off people with the temerity to disagree with a certain progressive narrative as trolls. Already many people on this thread have been dismissed as trolls including Clark.
Trolling is not my main goal. My arguments are serious and sincere. (It was my persistent contrary view that helped turn you around on your errant view re UN censorship. Perhaps you will gradually appreciate the conflict between Islam and free speech.) My criticisms seem uncomfortable but I believe they are important.
But lets assess:
(1) You are talking about my IP address.
(2) By your unhinged ad hominem I see you are quite angry, so I cannot discount that you might want to dox me.
(3) You have some left wing commenters with a tremendous amount of time on their hands, which might make doxing troublesome.
I take that as check mate on me. That's too bad. I have been extremely polite by your standards, although obviously I present sharp disagreement. I believe in a vigorous dialectic exchange to pursue truth, but most people don't really want that because real truth is often bleak. I used the name Dreary scholar for a reason.
Not a classy way to end things, but so be it.
Dan:
You must have felt quite threatened since you used so many sock puppets.
I guess next time Vox talks about the dialectic powered by his superior intellect I'll realize what he's talking about.
Say hi to the folks at your federal agency.
@Dan/Dreary Scholar
Because if there's one thing that PopeHat and its community are known for, it's criminal behavior and harassment?
I think I got some grape Crystal Light up my nose when I chortled at your response. I hope I don't end up sneezing purple.
But no, you can't simultaneously make a statement that claims to understand the patterns of behavior here and then convincingly argue that you believe the admins would attack you in such a way. This isn't 4chan.
Fucking sea lions
@StephenH —
I have a kind of loose grasp of what the Sunni-Sh'ia conflict means in practical, political terms. — ie, one of the reasons I'm not ranting like a crazy person out of sheer gibbering fear of World War Three now is that I did that in the run-up to Iraq. And I don't mean I was prescient. Stopped clock, more like. I just mean I know exactly enough about it to know it had that kind of potential, but that's about it.
And I barely know anything about the fine points of the faith at all, beyond that Sunni is caliphate-having, Shia is non-caliphate-having and they're inherently very antagonistic to one another, but not all the time or in every circumstance — eg, Hezbollah will fight side-by-side with Hamas so that the latter can "to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," even though if that ever happened, they'd probably immediately start thinking about fighting against Hamas because they're Shiite fundamentalists and Hamas is Sunni.
However, fwiw:
Well. Iran is pretty damn traditional, conservative, and literal in its reading of holy scriptures, and they're Shiite. So I don't think that's true.
My understanding is that it's more like the taxonomic equivalent of: Order – religion; Family – Islam; Genus – Sunni/Shia.
IOW, you can't answer the question "dingo, wolf or miniature poodle?" without knowing the school (species) and level of devotion (sub-species.)
I mean, Muslims aren't likelier to be super-observant and devout than any other group of a billion-plus people. Religion looms larger in traditional cultures, but it doesn't necessarily loom deeper for more individuals. If people didn't mostly follow those kinds of rules as they find them, there wouldn't be any such thing as culture to begin with. But society is still an intrinsically dynamic, broad-spectrum thing, not a narrow fixed one. Because people. IMO.
I think they're both more like Orthodox Judaism, in the game of rules department. Likewise baseball.
Very fundamentalist Orthodox Jewish sects and schools — ie, Hasidim; the Ultra-Orthodox — might never use any kind of court besides a Bet Din. But the Modern Orthodox — ie, regular old mainstream Orthodox Jews — might easily never use one at all. And apart from what's biblically forbidden (cheeseburgers, lobster, using milchig dishes for fleishig foods), there's no uniform rule for exactly what constitutes keeping kosher.
The thing about Jewish religious law is that it's based on the bible, plus 6200 pages of rabbinical commentary and exegesis that takes every position and its opposite and was compiled c. 200 CE. There's a lot of room for interpretation.
Seriously. There are some Hasidic and Sephardic sects whose you-do-what-now? beliefs and practices aren't even recognizable to me as Judaism. Kind of like how Methodists see Mormons.
Christianity, while not monolithic, is much closer to it than the other two Abrahamic faiths, as well as much more organized and incomparably more appealing. It's sort of like: "OK, if you're a member of this faith you get to go to heaven. But if you're a member of that one, all living things in the water without fins and scales shall be an abomination to you, and you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. I'll be right back with your drinks unless you're ready to order."
One can really see why things worked out how they did.
@Richard —
People who really have studied Islam and Middle Eastern history extensively would probably keel over laughing at that idea. Or possibly hang themselves in sheer despair. I wouldn't rate myself above the level of survey-course, and even that's probably unduly flattering to me. It's just a comparatively arcane subject.
But thank you.
Difficult to see how acting as a chorus wouldn't do more to confirm such suspicions than it would to dispel them.
It's funny how these personal-responsibility types are always being victimized for reasons that aren't their fault. It's like they're driven to commit auto-troll or something.
@Ann
Thank you, that's quite helpful! It appears that I have much and more to learn about Judaism as well.
Dan,
Fortunately, others can read for themselves, as you either have reading comprehension problems or are a liar. On the off chance you only have reading comprehension problems, I did not urge Ken to no-platform Clark, but only that Ken cannot both continue to give Clark a platform and disclaim all responsibility for what Clark posts here.
That was a statement about Ken's options, which appear to me to be mutually exclusive, not a recommendation about which option to choose.
@ Jhanley
how about we just cut off Clark's internet access so he can't post mean things about anything?
I mean, if you gonna say that Ken is responsible for what Clark writes and he shouldn't give him a platform(lets be honest, this is what you really want even if you say you did not urge Ken to do it) then obviously any ISP that Clark is using is also responsible and I doubt they want to hurt any feelings. Might as well just cut him off the internet for ever!
While we are at it, maybe we should just set off all the nukes on earth too. After all, the earth is giving platform for religious extremist all over it. We can't have earth doing that and claim no responsibility for them.
So, on the one hand, I agree that it's possible to read a subtext in JHanley's observation suggesting that Clark be no-platformed. On the other, that's only because I believe it's possible to disavow responsibility for Clark's post without removing it outright.
The disagreement between Clark and Ken here is basically a case of "bickering parents". Dad #1 said a thing, Dad #2 says that it's terrible and brings terrible things. There is every possibility that much more vitriolic conversations are happening between the adults, off to the side where we can't see or hear them. Would they be interesting? Almost certainly. Are they appropriate to have in the comments section? Quite probably not. "Free speech" does not mean that all speech is required to be public.
I stopped counting at 9 aliases for Dan.
So dialectic. Much vigorous.
I, a liberal, am happy to condemn Islamist ideology because it runs counter to all I hold dear. But I'm not dumb, ignorant, or paranoid enough to think that every Muslim subscribes to an Islamist ideology.
Of course it is. That's why you do it. But that doesn't excuse it. Using steroids is helpful to athletes. Kickbacks are helpful in securing a government contract. Pretending to be sick is helpful in getting to stay home from work. The fact that a particular tactic is helpful in a given situation does not address the question of whether you should do it.
I understand that you're sad that nobody is taking your arguments seriously. I get sad sometimes too. But it's just impossible to take them seriously when they are so divorced from reality. How are we supposed to accept that Islam represents a monolithic illiberal anticivilization horde when we have regular interactions with nice, normal, liberal, functioning-within-modern-Western-society Muslims? Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes?
I understand you feel you're the victim of an accepted "narrative." But if I went around saying the earth was flat, people wouldn't take me seriously because my views also would run counter to an accepted narrative. That's not a bad thing.
And classy as all hell.
I assume "guesting" is just another Dan alias?
Saying a false thing under another name doesn't magically endow it with truth-value.
@jhanley
No I'm not, Ken can actually tell you if he decides is worth his time.
As for what i wrote, it is taken from the very post before mine, YOUR post. Aside from that I haven't read the whole thread(I followed Ken's link from twitter and scrolled down).
I don't know where this "making things up" argument comes from when you said this:
"..I did not urge Ken to no-platform Clark, but only that Ken cannot both continue to give Clark a platform and disclaim all responsibility for what Clark posts here…"
Your intent is clear. If you don't want to admit it then that's your problem.
you cannot say "I don't want Clark shut down" and then follow with "but ken is kinda responsible for the bad stuff if he allows him to post it".
Guesting,
This may come as a surprise to you, but I have an advantage over you in understanding my own words and intent.
@Jhanley
It would seem just about everyone has an advantage over him in understanding your words. Except the Dans 1 through 9, of course.
@guesting
Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.
I wish the Westboro Baptist Church would just shut up and sit down already. But I don't support anyone using force to shut them up or ship them off for me. I think that anyone that invites WBC to speak at their event, knowing the kind of message they bring, bears responsibility for the crowd they will attract, on both sides of the matter. Russell Brand bears some responsibility for spreading WBC's message even though he invited them on his show with the express purpose of arguing against their message and calling them out as irascible scoundrels.
Similarly Ken bears some responsibility for the crowd that Clark draws and for enabling the spread of his message. Even though Ken disclaims it publicly; even though the platform allows and encourages vigorous debate. Even though Clark's message and method are not nearly as despicable as WBC's. I happen to like Clark's work — though I seldom agree with it — and I hope that he continues to write here.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence of speech. Similarly, providing a platform for free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences on your platform. In this case the consequence is an epic comment thread with varying levels of vitriol and argument from naivety. Oh no!
@Ken in NJ —
It's called ambiguity intolerance, and it's thought to be a feature of the authoritarian personality, though it's not necessarily predictive of it.
@Richard —
I actually meant Clark. I mean, the allegorical premise was that 43% of Muslims support terrorist acts because their faith is Islam. Then when that figure turned out to be bullshit, it switched to 38%, which also turned out to be bullshit, and then to 13%, which if you track to the poll that was its source — hey, guess what? — turns out to bullshit.
So he's really just saying, allegorically, that millions of people lust for murder in their hearts and should therefore be denied refuge that others in the same position would merit, simply because he just doesn't like the idea of that faith and doesn't think that kind of thing belongs here in the Good Ol' USA.
That seems to me to be flatly, unambiguously incompatible with respect for the idea of free speech. I mean, a person who has a strong, principled commitment to the First Amendment is, by definition, also a person who doesn't go around trying to deprive people of the rights to life and liberty that he enjoys simply because he doesn't care for their religious beliefs.
Obviously, if he was talking about their actions, that would be another story. But he's not.
Oops.
Pls. disregard.
@Clark
This column was a genuinely ugly thing to write, and the lack of any kind of serious defense of its pretty glaring flaws seems to indicate that it was only ever intended to serve as drive-by snark.
Dear Ken, my cuddle cakes,
I am so impressed by how you stuck with the program in face of those haters and bigots trying to overwhelm you with facts and data. It made me sooo wet for you!
But I worry how you're holding up now that there has been a major terrorist attack right next to your office. I hope you're still managing your thinking and purging yourself of dangerous "unthinkable" thoughts at this crucial time. You're usually really good at that — that's what initially attracted me you — but we both know that some days are harder (wink, wink) than others.
And I wanted to remind you at difficult times such as these that you are always welcome at my dojo, where we can unpack each others' knapsacks and check each others' privilege, just like old times.
Yours always,
Arthur
An observation that is reinforced by the fact that the "maybe early next week" comment was made more than two weeks ago.
@Arthur Chu
Assuming that it was a religiously-motivated attack? I can only speak for myself, but incidents like this don't terrify me. They just piss me off. Why call it terrorism?
According to leading scholars in Islam, that's what Daesh is trying to do. They want to piss us off, to attract the army of "Rome" to some cataclysmic final battle that brings about the end of the world.
Which is why I'm for neither being afraid nor giving them what they want.
I'm just puzzled that our latest hardcore slayer evidently wants Ken W. to f-ck him. ("I'm sooo….")
Honestly, that shooting looks to me like it was half terrorism, half folie a deux. But maybe it was all terrorism. It still wouldn't magically transform the arguments made by Dan & the Socks plus Clark into "facts and data."
I mean, nobody disputes that Islamic terrorism exists. How could they? The question is whether it's a good idea to begin hysterically convicting large numbers of people of crimes they didn't commit because you have an ignorant bigoted antipathy to their religion.
The FBI doesn't think so. They think it drives more people to terrorism.
Must be a buch of SJWs.
Yep, it was terrorism.
And?
And it doesn't change the averages I wrote about above at all.
Alex
I suspect the reason he hasn't responded is he's been quietly dropped from the masthead.
For a blog in which authors and commenters alike enjoy mocking "feelz"-based argument, the writing around here is becoming awfully feelzy. Not to mention monolithic in opinion.
There used to be some good back-and-forth around here, owing to the edgelords and the communists sharing an interest in free speech. Shame to see that go.
@Blast Hardcheese —
Indeed.
For example, Clark departed the thread in an apparent sulky fit shortly after his feelz caused him to assert that "several" people had been demanding his expulsion/censure and/or wondering when he'd be purged, when in hard, cold, unfeelzy reality, one (1) person had merely expressed a wish to see him gone and nobody at all had demanded anything.
Some people are just more emotionally delicate and easily hurt than others, however. There's no shame in it.
FTFY.
Not that I know. But it's a way better fit with the evidence.
I'm afraid to read the article because I might be triggered, but before I retreat into my safe space, can somebody confirm Popehat's published assertion that the offender Clark has voluntarily confessed his crimes and will be voluntarily enrolled in a re-education camp, so he can never trigger again? Thank you ever so much.
Thank you for your third contribution on this topic, Ray. A fourth there shall not be.
yes but large personality arrays and AIs are actually bad