The News Thread

[number8]

By the way, before anyone get too excited one way or another, this will obviously only work with that kind of inter-island commuter planes where you pay when you show up like a bus. Even without the sensitivity issue, this is impossible to implement on commercial airlines where most people buy their tickets in advance.

[MadMan]

Roger Ebert's cancer has returned.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,4281746.story

:sad:

[number8]

[B-side]

haha ^^^

In less hilarious news, hundreds of thousands of people in Bangladesh are protesting in demand of the death penalty for blasphemy. This will surely enrage the bleeding heart liberals who seem to think that everyone is on even footing, but this shit is precisely why these countries will remain poor, oppressed, lacking basic freedoms, corrupt and in a perpetual state of civil war.

[MadMan]

haha ^^^

In less hilarious news, hundreds of thousands of people in Bangladesh are protesting in demand of the death penalty for blasphemy. This will surely enrage the bleeding heart liberals who seem to think that everyone is on even footing, but this shit is precisely why these countries will remain poor, oppressed, lacking basic freedoms, corrupt and in a perpetual state of civil war.

Every time I think that democracy is taking more steps forward, I get word that its been punched in the face and that its stumbling backward. Depressing, yet I refuse to give up hope yet.

[B-side]

Seriously. I know not all Muslims are like this, etc. -- and all the other self-evident platitudes that go along with that, but this is a very serious problem. Most countries are moving forward whether they want to or not, but countries like this are moving backward. Just a few days ago a poll of Pakistani youth was released where the majority favored military rule and/or Sharia law over democracy. It's astonishing to me how easily these countries can stem the tide of progress. This is fucking 2013 and millions of people still want you to die if you don't love their religion. Of course, the other major religions aren't exempt from this, but when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of people marching on Washington to demand a Christian blasphemy law? They're simply not on the same playing field.

[Robby P]

This will surely enrage the bleeding heart liberals who seem to think that everyone is on even footing, but this shit is precisely why these countries will remain poor, oppressed, lacking basic freedoms, corrupt and in a perpetual state of civil war.

To be fair, you could argue that our own superior Western democracy already meets the first four of those criteria, albeit to a far lesser degree.

I don't disagree that fundamentalist Islam represents a serious problem but it's a problem that needs to be solved through education, diplomacy and dialogue rather than brute force and economic sanctions. Meaningful change must ultimately come from within, it can't be imposed by an external force. That sort of change takes time to come around and the more we choose to demonize a culture the more obstacles we place in its path. This is where I disagree with Sam Harris and the other "New Atheists".

[Wryan]

I don't disagree that fundamentalist Islam represents a serious problem but it's a problem that needs to be solved through education, diplomacy and dialogue rather than brute force and economic sanctions. Meaningful change must ultimately come from within, it can't be imposed by an external force. That sort of change takes time to come around and the more we choose to demonize a culture the more obstacles we place in its path. This is where I disagree with Sam Harris and the other "New Atheists".

I agree with this. The more force we try to apply, the more strongly/aggressively they will resist; I think that's a rather common part of human behavior, broadly speaking, especially when it comes to personally held beliefs. Harris also spoke in firm favor of profiling at airports and the like. I think in this regard (fundamentalist Islam), Harris feels he's a bit of an heir to Hitchens and perhaps tries to cultivate that. Hitchens seemed pretty unbending on this point, as if he couldn't possibly conceive of a world in which FI didn't exist (and so it had to be met head on and with iron will and necessary aggression). Frankly, I can imagine such, but it's a pretty great distance away and would take a lot of work and, as you say, internal change. There are younger Muslims today who are more rational and flexible and realistic and don't take such a take-it-or-leave-it (read: die) attitude. I can't recall his name, unfortunately, but one such young man is held highly in regard among young Muslims, though he's a clear moderate and seems to be working for cooperation and understanding.

[B-side]

To be fair, you could argue that our own superior Western democracy already meets the first four of those criteria, albeit to a far lesser degree.

There's no such thing as a perfect state, but countries like Norway represent about as perfect a state as you can get in nearly all facets, so yes, Western democracy is easily the superior system in a more or less empirically proven fashion. We have poor people and corruption, but we have free press, a social safety net and the basic right to say and be what we choose if it doesn't hurt anyone else. The same cannot be said of these other countries.

I don't disagree that fundamentalist Islam represents a serious problem but it's a problem that needs to be solved through education, diplomacy and dialogue rather than brute force and economic sanctions. Meaningful change must ultimately come from within, it can't be imposed by an external force. That sort of change takes time to come around and the more we choose to demonize a culture the more obstacles we place in its path. This is where I disagree with Sam Harris and the other "New Atheists".

Of course. I would never argue that bombing the shit out of these countries would change anything. I disagree with the solely soft-hearted approach, though. Islam needs public criticism. It needs to be dragged into the spotlight and mocked and targeted. If it continues to be a completely taboo subject, this will never change. And I don't think Harris' ideas on the matter are quite as aggressive as you two are making them out to be. Keep in mind that Harris is primarily a thinker, and is philosophy isn't meant to be seen as rational policy. He crafts thought experiments and forces people to re-calibrate their ideology. His essays on torture aren't meant to endorse torture. They're meant to draw our attention to how easily we accept collateral damage while so feverishly dismissing (lighter) torture. It highlights a massive moral discrepancy, and his arguments, along with those of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, are why I've personally adjusted my own attitude toward torture.

[Robby P]

Did you read the Greenwald column in The Guardian as well? I thought that article did a good job of bringing up some of the points I disagreed with Harris on although it attracted a huge backlash from his supporters. I don't know if I'd describe him as an Islamophobe but I do take issue with his aggressive neoconservative political views.

Admittedly, by Western democracy, I was referring primarily to the US as that is typically the model people like Harris and Hitchens use for "civilized" society. Of course, our nation is not only plagued by endemic poverty and endless corruption but it is also rampant with oppression of minorities and flagrant abuses of civil liberties, so it is sometimes difficult to take the moral high ground when criticizing other non-democratic nations. I'm certainly not advocating moral relativism but I do think it's important to remember that our own society suffers from many of the same blights and abuses we criticize others for enduring.

I agree that Islam deserves public criticism (although I'd amend that to 'fundamentalist Islam') but I think this needs to be done without in turn demonizing a large heterogeneous group of diverse people based upon the actions of a fanatical but powerful minority. Most practicing Muslims are peaceful, reasonable people and just like any other religious group there is a small, loud faction of nutters that take their beliefs to extreme levels. Those people rightfully deserve to be criticized but not at the expense of the much more passive, tolerant majority which is what I think Harris is sometimes guilty of doing.

[B-side]

Admittedly, by Western democracy, I was referring primarily to the US as that is typically the model people like Harris and Hitchens use for "civilized" society. Of course, our nation is not only plagued by endemic poverty and endless corruption but it is also rampant with oppression of minorities and flagrant abuses of civil liberties, so it is sometimes difficult to take the moral high ground when criticizing other non-democratic nations. I'm certainly not advocating moral relativism but I do think it's important to remember that our own society suffers from many of the same blights and abuses we criticize others for enduring.

Our corruption and poverty is nowhere near as horrific as theirs. Yes, there are problems, and some people seem willing to sacrifice some decidedly first world privileges in order to keep us safe, but to equate these with the situations in these other countries is just plain naive. We are not on even footing, and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to say that the US is a far superior place to live than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I agree that Islam deserves public criticism (although I'd amend that to 'fundamentalist Islam') but I think this needs to be done without in turn demonizing a large heterogeneous group of diverse people based upon the actions of a fanatical but powerful minority. Most practicing Muslims are peaceful, reasonable people and just like any other religious group there is a small, loud faction of nutters that take their beliefs to extreme levels. Those people rightfully deserve to be criticized but not at the expense of the much more passive, tolerant majority which is what I think Harris is sometimes guilty of doing.

No person or religion is above criticism or satire. If we can mock or critique the tenets of Christianity without impugning the majority, we should be able to do the same for Islam. In general, we're on the same page, though.

[B-side]

Qatar aims to raise billions for Darfur

Interesting how Qatar seems to be becoming the major power in the region. Their influence is extraordinary. Between brokering the peace deal in Sudan, to hosting Karzai's talks with the Taliban, to holding the major middle eastern conferences and aiding the Syrian rebel movement, they're really diving into the international political game head first. They may yet be the first country in the region to set a precedent for change and international participation and cooperation.

[Dead & Messed Up]

No person or religion is above criticism or satire. If we can mock or critique the tenets of Christianity without impugning the majority, we should be able to do the same for Islam. In general, we're on the same page, though.

I'm reminded of that Onion picture of non-Islamic icons sodomizing and orally pleasuring each other, with the caption "No One Killed Because of This Image."

[B-side]

I'm reminded of that Onion picture of non-Islamic icons sodomizing and orally pleasuring each other, with the caption "No One Killed Because of This Image."

Exactly. To clarify, I think all major religions (save lay Buddhism) are silly, so I'm in no way unfairly targeting Islam or the tenets therein. I'm sure the Koran is just as heinous as The Bible.

[Robby P]

Our corruption and poverty is nowhere near as horrific as theirs. Yes, there are problems, and some people seem willing to sacrifice some decidedly first world privileges in order to keep us safe, but to equate these with the situations in these other countries is just plain naive. We are not on even footing, and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to say that the US is a far superior place to live than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I agree we are not on even footing with religious theocracies but I think you are drastically understating the extent of our own involvement in abhorrent, 'uncivilized' behavior. We haven't merely sacrificed 'first world privileges', we've willfully engaged in practices completely opposed to Western democratic values and the rule of law such as indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, domestic surveillance, torture, fraudulent wars of aggression, extralegal assassinations, etc. That doesn't mean that we have forfeited the right to criticize places like Pakistan, Iran or other oppressive middle eastern nations but it does mean that we need to place our own actions into context when extolling the virtues of Western freedom and democracy.

[Acapelli]

Qatar aims to raise billions for Darfur

Interesting how Qatar seems to be becoming the major power in the region. Their influence is extraordinary. Between brokering the peace deal in Sudan, to hosting Karzai's talks with the Taliban, to holding the major middle eastern conferences and aiding the Syrian rebel movement, they're really diving into the international political game head first. They may yet be the first country in the region to set a precedent for change and international participation and cooperation.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer...6170--sow.html

[B-side]

I agree we are not on even footing with religious theocracies but I think you are drastically understating the extent of our own involvement in abhorrent, 'uncivilized' behavior. We haven't merely sacrificed 'first world privileges', we've willfully engaged in practices completely opposed to Western democratic values and the rule of law such as indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, domestic surveillance, torture, fraudulent wars of aggression, extralegal assassinations, etc. That doesn't mean that we have forfeited the right to criticize places like Pakistan, Iran or other oppressive middle eastern nations but it does mean that we need to place our own actions into context when extolling the virtues of Western freedom and democracy.

We're on the same page. I don't and would never excuse the things we've done and continue to do. That doesn't mean we can't be critical of this behavior elsewhere, as well as at home.

And yeah, Acapelli, I'm under no illusions about Qatar being some sort of beacon of human rights and freedom. They're doing some great things for other countries, but they're ignoring their own country in the meantime.

[Dead & Messed Up]

They're doing some great things for other countries, but they're ignoring their own country in the meantime.

Man, if I had a qatar for every time I heard that.

[B-side]

Man, if I had a qatar for every time I heard that.

It's actually pronounced somewhere between "gutter" and "cutter".

[B-side]

Qatar alone pledges $500 million dollars, long with the UK pledging $16.5 million a year for the next several years, with most of the money going toward rebuilding and improving infrastructure, water facilities, roads, worker training, improving access to finances and helping people grow and cultivate their own food

Why aren't all donor pledges done this way? Instead of throwing money at dictators, we could actively participate in the process of rebuilding communities and insuring these people are able to continue their lives post-aid without the handouts.

[[ETM]]

4-yo child shoots Tennessee deputy's wife with his own weapon.

[B-side]

haha ^^^

In less hilarious news, hundreds of thousands of people in Bangladesh are protesting in demand of the death penalty for blasphemy. This will surely enrage the bleeding heart liberals who seem to think that everyone is on even footing, but this shit is precisely why these countries will remain poor, oppressed, lacking basic freedoms, corrupt and in a perpetual state of civil war.

Thankfully, Bangladesh's PM says it's not happening.

[B-side]

There's been an interesting debate going on lately between Sam Harris and some other "new atheists" and hypocrites like Glenn Greenwald over Islam. Basically, liberals are accusing Harris and others of Islamophobia, and Harris and others have been responding with potent evidence to the contrary, and that nobody cares when they criticize Christianity. They seem to have adopted the same view as Robby P here; that they're singling out extremists and holding them as representative of the whole, which is entirely false. As Harris eloquently points out:

It is simply not easy to differentiate prejudice against Muslims from ordinary racism and xenophobia directed at Arabs, Pakistanis, Somalis, and other people who happen to be Muslim. Of course, there is no question that such bigotry exists, and it is as odious as Greenwald believes. But inventing a new term does not give us license to say that there is a new form of hatred in the world. How does the term “anti-Semitism” differ? Well, we have a 2000-year-old tradition of religiously inspired hatred against Jews, conceived as a distinct race of people, both by those who hate them and by Jews themselves. Anti-Semitism is, therefore, a specific form of racism that, as everyone knows, has taken many terrible turns over the years (and is now especially prevalent among Muslims, for reasons that can be explicitly traced not merely to recent conflicts over land in the Middle East, but to the doctrine of Islam). “Sexism,” of course, is a bias against women, not because of any doctrines they might espouse, but because they were born without a Y chromosome. The meanings of these terms are clear, and each names a form of hatred and exclusion directed at people, as people, not because of their behavior or beliefs, but because of the mere circumstances of their birth.

[Robby P]

I don't see how that quote even begins to address the claim that Harris is conflating extremism with broad generalizations of diverse groups of people. He continues to claim that Islamophobia is a made up word conjured up by bleeding heart liberals but I thought Greenwald pretty clearly defined the term in his article (and was even so gracious as to qualify it as 'anti-Muslim animus'). And all of this still ignores the most pernicious aspects of Harris' philosophy: his neoconservative politics, his relentless Zionism, and his uncritical praise of Western infallibility. Those, I think, are people's principal objections to Harris - not the amount of time he spends criticizing Islam in comparison to other religions.

[B-side]

I don't see how that quote even begins to address the claim that Harris is conflating extremism with broad generalizations of diverse groups of people.

It's pretty simple, actually. His criticisms are never addressed toward people. He addresses the problems of the beliefs, which have no intellectual merit unless manifested in individuals. I can criticize something you say without indicting the entire language or everyone with the name Robby. If you were a Christian, I could criticize The Bible and its dogma (which is the central framework for all of Harris' discussions vis a vis Islam) without insinuating that everyone who reads it or finds it useful in any fashion is insane or dangerous. There's a distinction between conceptual criticism and criticism of individuals. Harris' criticism is largely conceptual. It simply follows that if you abide by a dogmatic text, you may be inclined to, y'know, actualize its content. You're willfully neglecting the distinction in favor of a broadly accepting narrative.

He continues to claim that Islamophobia is a made up word conjured up by bleeding heart liberals but I thought Greenwald pretty clearly defined the term in his article (and was even so gracious as to qualify it as 'anti-Muslim animus').

And Harris responded to that directly. Let's break down the aspects of Islamophobia Greenwald holds as the standard:

It signifies (1) irrational condemnations of all members of a group or the group itself based on the bad acts of specific individuals in that group;

Well, we know this isn't accurate. Harris both condemns the individuals as well as the text that inspired those actions. There's nothing irrational or prejudicial about that. Harris has never once condemned all Muslims. Again, it doesn't work.

(2) a disproportionate fixation on that group for sins committed at least to an equal extent by many other groups, especially one’s own;

This is factually incorrect. Harris has spent far more time and energy assessing morality as a general concept, free will and Christianity than Islam. To argue that this recent scourge of discussion is proof would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't call someone racist without knowing there will be a response. It's immature.

(3) sweeping claims about the members of that group unjustified by their actual individual acts and beliefs.

Again with the sweeping claims about a group. It is absolutely justified to look into the rationale behind a murder or suicide bombing. If it then follows that the rationale was derived from a holy text, then it makes perfect sense scientifically and philosophically to scrutinize said text to better understand why it would elicit such behavior.

And all of this still ignores the most pernicious aspects of Harris' philosophy: his neoconservative politics

There's nothing specific here. If you disagree with his thought experiment on torture, then you need to address its flaws. I don't think it has any. And if you actually read the context of this thought experiment, you'd know he explicitly states that torture should in no way be made legal or sanctioned by anyone. It's called the "Ticking Bomb Scenario", and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- that bastion of conservatism -- also happens to take the same stance as Harris. This is not an appeal to authority, but a refutation of your generalized application of the neoconservative label.

his relentless Zionism,

Selective reading.

and his uncritical praise of Western infallibility.

Also demonstrably wrong. He's written endlessly about atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, which is a strictly Western phenomenon. And in no way, shape or form is he holding anyone else to a different standard. Harris holds a concept of equality and democracy -- a Western phenomenon -- against the actualized oppression and murder of millions based on a book. It's really not difficult to understand the difference here.

Those, I think, are people's principal objections to Harris - not the amount of time he spends criticizing Islam in comparison to other religions.

Then those people need to spend more time actually reading the man's writing instead of gasping at contextless quotes nitpicked by a hypocrite like Greenwald.