RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $4910

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>


[edit] Make goat love, not edit war

For the drama I'm trying to prevent with this vote, see here.

Methinks it might be time to vote on the thing we've been edit warring over, with the naming of sources?

  • Pro: It's mildly convenient.
  • Con: The effect can already be achieved by mousing over the link.

All I ask is that we either write out the sorce for all WIGO posts, or for none. Otherwise it'll just be a source of eternal cockfighting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Yay to typing out the name of all sources

  1. Jagulard (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. That'd be very convenient for the user and Owlman wants just to label sources HE dislikes (and of course not Greenwald's propaganda rag The Intercept or the moonbat rag Alternet).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. I stand by the position that I have always held: You are free to add the source and strongly encouraged to make your text as clear and descriptive as possible, but you should not revert sources added by someone else, because... Why would you even do that? It's more work for you with the result of less convenience for the reader. I am not the Ombud's man 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Just look at how ugly WIGO:World is right now. It's not improved. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it has become uglier. And even if it did, should this really be our top criterion? I am not the Ombud's man 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. I'm open to discussion on this, but my impression is that naming all (as opposed to naming no) sources will soothe the zealots most effectively. Correct me if I'm wrong.Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Nay to typing out the name of any sources

  1. In the long run it'll lead to elitism & a blacklist.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 01:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Needless bureacracy that will create an echo chamber.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    How will it create an echo chamber? I am not the Ombud's man 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Dont see why it is necessary Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 12:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Chances someone is seriously hurt by a source being absent: 0%. Chances that it creates a giant hassle that needlessly complicates the process of submitting to WIGO: 100%. Conclusion: this is a spat about one entry that an editor decided to try to turn into a policy so they can be right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    What harm is done if an editor adds a source to an entry? Is there a specific reason that should be reverted? Jagulard (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Your counter-argument here seems to present a false dilemma: either a source is mandatory by rules or a source cannot under any circumstances be added. I'm sure you can see that neither of those need be true. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. If you want to know the source before you click, it's there at the bottom of the screen when your mouse is over the link. (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC) (Sophie)
  6. If you feel the irresistible urge to add the name of the source to your entry, you are of course free to do so (I have occasionally done so myself, in fact) but there is absolutely no reason to make it mandatory or to force it upon other editors' entries.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. What Joris said. Nerd271 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    @JorisEnter @Nerd So, does that mean other editors can take yours out constantly? That was the nature of the edit war just now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    No. I think it should be optional. That of course does not mean entries without labels should be taken out. If an editor wants to, they can label an item. But there is no need to require labeling. This is the system that has been in place and I think it is working just fine. I am open to suggestions to the contrary, however. Nerd271 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    It is working just fine, with the minor exception that people are now cooping each other over these exact labels. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. So basically there are people who want "Trigger warnings" for news articles? Give me a break. NameThatNobodyTakes () 21:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah if "trigger warnings" means printing the name of the author on the book and putting it in the shelf according to its genre, I guess. I am not the Ombud's man 21:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Apparently there are some who will be "triggered" into annoyance when they see the web design of a site of which's political leanings they disagree with. Let's not pretend that the concept behind it is completely unrelated - why would it be necessary then to inform such people before they accidentally click on such a link? If somebody is so discontent with that scenario then they should install a block filter to their browsers. This is just ridiculous, not to mention the hypocrisy of clicking on a link somebody genuinely thought was interesting from the short write-up and then deciding it's not worth somebody's time just because of the very site which hosts the article. NameThatNobodyTakes () 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  9. Nay! PB3 (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  10. Actually, screw it. Mouse over the link, people. Smartphone users: press and hold the link. It'll show. It'll show. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  11. Not necessary unless they're editorially useful in that particular case (e.g. "TW: Daily Mail" or "why is this source publishing this garbage"). This is not something to exempt from judgement - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat love

  • First question I have is what the problem with sourcing all of them is. Lately, the blog stuff has seemed shady as hell. I mean, the Intercept? That's Greenwald's personal masturbation organ, and while they sometimes have stuff of interest, they're mostly to be ignored. Alternet? Consistently shit. American Spectator? Consistently shit. I just want to know whether I should bother before clicking the link. Sources help that immensely. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    AlterNet is an aggregate so they can be hit or miss so I have no problem labelling them. I agree that The Intercept is Greenwald's echo chamber but I don't think that justifies labeling them. Lastly, who link the American Spectator?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yet you've labeled others, and reverted when we've labeled Alternet. All of which begs the question again, what's your criterion for labeling? Jagulard (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Firstly, you were the only one to label AlterNet. Secondly, my criterion, as if it matters, is whether the community views a source as unobjective.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Where did the community decide this? Pease point me to the list of "unobjective" sources. Jagulard (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Boy, your concern trolling is nonstop, isn't it. Clearly, there is no list so it is up to the individual user to decide. If a source catches a lot of flak then it is probably for the best to not use it but there isn't any way to stop it. Regardless, no single user can mark another user's link or remove it for being "unobjective" unless that source is clearly wrong or pure crankey.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    So, they're labeled according to "whether the community views a source as 'unobjective'," but "it is up to the individual user to decide." Just like you decided that LH was wrong to label Al Jazeera and reverted it, but decided that, of all the sources listed, only the American Conservative was so untrustworthy as to deserve a warning? Try all the handwaving and ad hominem you like, but you're operating under a double standard: the only "echo chamber" you're worried about is the one that's not your own. Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Given that one can determine the source of an entry by floating the mouse over them, I'd say putting in place a requirement for calling out sources to be creating bureaucracy where it's not needed. However, I completely agree with David that contributions should be summarized. Just putting headlines in a big link is lazy; why not add some context, like a link to something relevant on the site, or even some snark? —Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    The link doesn't show up on mobile devices. Jagulard (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    You just have to press and hold the link for it to show you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    No, it does not work that way on the ipad I sometimes use. SmartFeller (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    In other words, make the users sort through it all rather than make it convenient for them. Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Another important point David (among others) have raised, as I understood it, is that we ought to snark and give context (among other things) in order to reduce the Clickbait-level of certain headlines when given "as-is". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think this is strongly supportive of labeling as well. In my opinion, labeling the source of an entry a) allows me to decide whether the article is worth reading according to my own opinion of the source, and b) prevents the WIGOs from being too "clickbait-y": I don't want to give ad revenue, no matter how small, to a site I find objectionable. Jagulard (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd settle for people providing meaningful and informative descriptions/appraisals, rather than stuff I can get from mouseover/glancing. Or people voting on what they consider to be shit. Annquin (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We take the time to include labels for autoplay videos as warnings. Is that really such a tremendous "bureaucratic" hassle? Jagulard (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Goodpost.gif I am not the Ombud's man 17:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain to me, in a relatively unbiased manner, what this is really about? CorruptUser (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Editors here have different views on which sources/media outlets are particularly bad and particularly good. Some editors here thought that the particularly good or bad ones deserved to have their name mentioned in parenthesis next to the actual, traditional WIGO summary-and-link. Others disagreed with which deserved to be named and which didn't. Drama and a coop case ensured. The above vote is to set the record straight — either we mandate all WIGO links name the source, or we mandate none do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Jerboa lovings

  • If we label like this, then... well, WE NEED SOME CSS MAGIC UP IN THIS Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 04:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    What would really be impressive is not CSS, but some JS magic that would add the label automagically. Jagulard (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    RMF board member here. One of our primary goals for the site is updating the MediaWiki softare, generally — not adding additional custom code or applets to the current Wiki platform. After this hypothetical upgrade is completed, however, the sky may or may not be the limit... But for now, expect nothing that would diverge from the priority of freshening up the Wiki softare generally. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Point of order

To avoid the next fight breaking out, does not requiring all sources to be labeled mean any user can label the sources of a WIGO not created by them without fear of being reverted cooped or desysoped? I am not the Ombud's man 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

This discussion was moved here from the Saloon bar.

Everybody has the right to add sources to any WIGO (Frankly the concept of "ownership" is a bit weird in non-userspace) and once there (and correct, naturally) they should not be reverted. If a source has an article here, a link is allowed. Nobody is forced to add sources to either their own or anybody else's WIGO. WIGO entries are only ever commented out due to downvotes never due to source or content. Please state your objections clearly, so they can be addressed. I am not the Ombud's man 18:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's obnoxious and pedantic and this whole argument is the most unnecessary debate since we were told to teach the controversy. You've always been allowed to edit WIGO entries, and that hasn't changed, what has changed is a change that adds nothing got reverted. Just... stop acting like this is a free speech issue, for god's sake. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I never said this is a free speech issue. Also "adds nothing" is a doubtful statement, because who writes something is important, especially when we are talking about opinion pieces (most entries in WIGO) I am not the Ombud's man 18:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I wish fewer of my interactions with you ended in exasperated sighs at how far you push small things. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well it is a small issue to allow adding of sources, so I do not understand why some are so virulently opposed to it to the point of edit warring. I am not the Ombud's man 18:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, well, as someone who has, on multiple occasions, given up making a change to a wigo entry when the original editor who placed it reverted it because they felt it didn't help: you were the one edit warring, nitwit. And then you made a stink about it. And then you made a policy proposal about it. And now you're proposing a "compromise" that really is just you getting your way, and I'm having none of it. I didn't revert you here. Not once. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I never said you edit warred, if that is what you understood I apologize. I am not the Ombud's man 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so re-reading your statement with that in mind, why were you so virulently in favor of it to the point of edit warring? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I defer to the judgment of the +++Reverend+++ as to whether I was edit warring. I thought adding sources should be uncontroversial, and more editors agreed that removing already added sources was a bit stupid. I am not the Ombud's man 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] "soft" paywalls

There are a couple of websites (The New Yorker and the New York Times among them) that have a paywall that does not automatically block access to some or all articles if you don't shell out, but grants access to a certain limited number of articles per period of time. Now for the most part, those paywalls don't care if you just click on the article and close it five seconds later or whether you read it. Should there be a "warning" for soft paywalls like we do with autoplay videos? I don't care either way (and I certainly won't add it unless someone with mod authority explicitly says that I can or should), but I thought this topic might be worth raising. If not, just archive this. I am not the Ombud's man 16:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC):::

That wouldn't be a big deal but from what I understand, one can just use incognito mode to get around the paywall.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Really? I thought they worked via IP tracking rather than cookies... another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 19:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, I know that it doesn't work with all sites but I haven't had any issues with NYT or WaPo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't remember which ones are which (between NYT, Washington Post, etc.) but I've found at least one that you can dodge with incognito mode (so must be cookies-based), and another where (when you follow a link to an article) the article loads followed by the message in front of it telling me I've reached the limit, so with these I just click the 'stop loading' button in the address bar after the article text has loaded. I think it means any videos embedded in the article won't work but the rest of the content is there. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Downvoting my own wigo

Whoops, I missed an important bit about the Dawkins research. Sorry for failing to read the whole article. I think I'm probably due some castigation for that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that article earlier but didn't link to it because of the bias. I don't think there is anything wrong with adding it, though. Just clarify next time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't read the whole article, clearly. If I'd read that part, my reaction would have been pretty much the same: not worth linking. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] No they're not

The article claiming pundits are scapegoating minorities for Trump's win. It should not be difficult to understand that pundits who are blaming "identity politics" for the Democrats loss are not blaming MINORITIES for the loss but left-wing outlets and the DNC for relying on "identity politics". Conflating those two things are why people feel progressives are too quick to throw the leftist label at them. "I represent minorities therefor if you disagree with me you're a racist". Newsflash: Minorities didn't have a high voter turnout either. They're voting for the lesser of two evils, not because they love identity politics. What a fucking joke. 2nd Newsflash: DONALD TRUMP CONTROLS THE WHITE HOUSE! DONALD... TRUMP! And here are the same "leftists", doubling down on the same shit, calling everyone with a suggested improvement (including Bernie Sanders) a racist. Fuck me mate. Please stop losing everything, or would you like eight years of Donnie Trump followed by eight years of Ted Cruz? ClothCoat (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but what are you responding to?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh just the title of the article posted "Lashing out at Identity Politics, pundits blame Trump on those most vulnerable to Trump" sorry should have been more clear about that. It appears to be put out by a left-wing version of Accuracy in Media or something? Anyways I was mostly just venting after seeing its upvote ratio and realizing Donald Trump may be our president for eight years sorry if I annoyed anyone. ClothCoat (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I assumed so and linked the article. I am not quite sure how you came to that conclusion which doesn't deride Sanders (FAIR has criticized the media for blacking out his campaign and misrepresenting him). The article itself points out how these op-eds attacking identity politics with no evidence. One example of this is David Brooks attacking pollsters who reduced individuals to a hive mind identity w/o citing any such pollster.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I read the article but I'm not really sure how you would even collect data on this? Most voters don't really know what "Identity politics" even is per se so you couldn't even ask, though most of the polling data shows economic issues are the main reason people voted Trump so that would be a point in their favor. That's why they're pundits, they're giving they're suggestions/opinions, you can agree or disagree. I'm saying that the title inheriently presents them as blaming minorities for Cinton's loss by conflating identity politics with "minorities" which is disingenious. Here is what we know about the campaign:
1) The DNC and Clinton primarily avoided economic issues and instead focused on various forms of (what could be broadly termed) modern "identity politics", focusing on "first female president" rhetoric, celebrity endorsements, labeling Sanders a "sexist", and so on.
2) Donald Trump won by both focusing on economic issues such as free trade in swing states in the rust belt with a heaping of white identity politics.
3) Donald Trump won.
If you want to disagree with the analysis that identity politics lost Clinton the election (despite it being her main strategy) fine, but articles like this are, yes, making it impossible to disagree without being called a racist/misogynist/etc. because it suggests they're throwing minorities under the bus for Clinton's loss rather than "progressive" activists. ClothCoat (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your assertion and I have argued the same as well as linked to op-eds which have linked articles criticizing this strategy. I think that it is odd to attack this article for this; I agree that the title may be making an assertion about the prejudice of a pundit but it does point out that Mark Lilla belittles stories about trans people in Egypt as unimportant. I don't understand your point on polling on identities since it was Brooks, not the article, which asserted that the pollsters declared that entire identities would vote homogenously for one candidate over another.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm saying the article is claiming that "There's no data identity politics pushed people to Trump" when there is no obvious way of collecting such data. You can't walk up to most voters and ask them whether identity politics played much of a role since A) many voters don't even know what that is, even if they like or dislike it in practice and b) most voters operate on a "gut level" on which candidate connects more with them. Again my main beef is they call the attack on identity politics A) totally bogus despite it being the DNC's main strategy and therefor perhaps relevant and B) yes, completely accuses people of bringing up the emperor may not have clothes of being closet racists/sexists/bigots. ClothCoat (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay but I think you would be able to ask them if they thought Trump was politically incorrect and if that was something that they liked. Also, I think the Dems rejection of their grassroots and their refusl to have any class politics have forced them intoo a state of disrepair.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we're mostly in agreement but I found some data on "political correctness" and it doesn't look good for the Dems (at least from a PR standpoint). ClothCoat (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yikes that isn't good especially since the Dems are usually associated with political correctness, at least, where I am from. I do agree with you but I don't reject identity politics, only when it is used as a cudgel against class politics. I do think the Left is to blame for using racist (among other words describing oppression) as an insult that ends debate rather than an abstract concept on societal structures which has led to most people misunderstanding oppression as an individualistic phenomenon.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Check Your Secular Privilege, Liberal America

About the "A Moroccan ex-Muslim on being branded a "native informant" by American liberals." Am i wrong to be sceptical about his claims?

He is using his Anecdotal evidence (He was called racist once) as a reason to sweepingly call all liberals uncritcal of Islam. He sounds a lot like the "reasonable" Islamophobes, Sam Harris and his ilk. Also he claims Mona Eltahawy was called a "native informant" wich is not referenced in the Article he links to her. It is not that his arguments aren't without merit, but it reads a lot like "Bash the Liberal" straight out of the New Atheist Handbook.(a subjective claim on my side, but thats why i am asking.) — Unsigned, by: Benaresh / talk / contribs

Assuming good faith, I thought what he wrote seemed perfectly fine? Why are you particularly skeptical against this one man's rather short anecdote? I mean, you've correctly identified it as evidence from which no far-reaching conclusions should be drawn — but surely he is entitled to his tale, and deserve to be heard?
As many women reporting rape or sexual abuse will tragically note, it is easy to either accuse the very telling of the story to be a malicious engendering of negativity, and indeed to simply gaslight anyone with an uncomfortable story to tell.
I don't think it reads like any "handbook" (?) for anything at all, and the only "bashing" in the article is directed at Donald Trump, et. al. He doesn't mention Sam Harris or the likes. Though, what he is criticizing is clearly what some would term the "regressive left", this isn't a term that appears in the blog post.
I'm caused to think by your mention of Islamophobia in this context — which the blog post specifically rallies against in the form of "closing the US to all Muslims" (while also supporting a call to inclusively work closer with muslim-American citizens). Do you think that there is any legitimate criticism to be made against Islam? If so, do the same formal criticisms have different value based on the identity of the person making them?
And as a feminist, I have to wonder how different this man's angle of complaint really is from the perfectly valid one of Postcolonial feminism[wp]? Especially considering his headline of choice. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I started to feel paranoid after i read the Comments of the Article. I didn't say he shouldn't tell his Story quite the opposite. And maybe i am misreading it.
On your points: I dont care much who makes the point (Milos whatshisname is a Gay Breitbart writer how can breitbart be racist? <-bullshit in case you think i believe that.) On your other points. I am not uncomfortable with discussing the failings of a Religion like Islam (or any other tbh) that that Woman unwarranted called him a racist, i even believe. But i get the feeling that his Article is just a form of legitimating uncritical Islam-bashing and similar to Milos, is the Muslim-bashing easier to defend when you can point to a former muslim.
As an Example:

"Not because his rhetoric was utterly hateful and discriminatory, but because, deep inside, I knew that it would push many of his liberal opponents to take on the cause of defending Islam. And so they did." was the sentence that feels odd to me. He didn't roll his eyes at hatred but at the defence by liberals?

He wrote:

" Their very ideological platform is rooted in standing with society’s underdogs: underrepresented ethnic groups, religious minorities, LGBTQs and free thinkers. Yet when Middle Eastern dissidents advocate for the same fundamental rights, liberals would rather not hear it. Why the inconsistency?"

I read this Conversation between maher and Dawkins once on this wiki :
Dawkins: "Oh, that’s their culture, you have to respect it."
Maher: "That’s right! That’s what they say. It’s just insane."
Dawkins: "Liberal about everything else, but then this one exception, ‘It’s their culture.’ Well, to hell with their culture."
which i think sounds oddly similar.
Also the last paragraph: "Middle Eastern expats eager to advocate for secular societies back home have no choice but to seek freedom of speech. When our liberal allies in America try to silence our plea, they ::imply that the Middle East does not deserve the same rights they enjoy here. Interpreting our struggles purely from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy is borderline ethnocentric. Surely, that is not the ::liberal thing to do."
Gives the impression to me, that he implies all Discussions about Islam are shot down as racist by Liberals.
Again i might just be paranoid. But i seen to many links to theReligionofPeace.com in the comments to be 100% comfortable with that Article. After reading why-robert-spencer-is-an-anti-muslim-extremist-an-open-letter i had the feeling (subjective i know) that compared to the open Letter, is way more into critizing "Regressives" and legitimate Islam-bahing than to critisize Islam.
Again it's all feeling from my side and the tone of the Article mightjust hit me wrong and i use the Association_fallacy by the End. --Benaresh (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your nuanced reply! I honestly think that you're not wrong to sense the impending comment field shitstorm when reading an article like that. You better believe articles like these are proudly appropriated and put on display by various self-invited islamophobes. That being said, they don't know what the hell they're doing anyway. Legit, no-bullshit islamophobes are as uneducated, pseudo-intellectual and confused as conspiracy theorists are.
They're still a force to be reckoned with, but my point is — they cherry pick and shoehorn their narrative so wildly that what they claim is rarely claimed by their sources. They combine stories like these, and others, and then say much more far-reaching things than the stories ever said. They are consumed entirely by confirmation bias (which serves to remind us not to trust our own confirmation bias!). Most importantly however, the people who grab and run with that man's article don't represent the man who wrote it, nor his views.
It's important to not fall into splitting[wp], since doing so deprives us of all nuance. Jonanism is equally a vice to watch out for — jonanism is, indeed, the whole basis for becoming an islamophobe. "They're all ISIS", something something darkside.
I think our Islamophobia article, while far from perfect, atleast shoots for the nuance we sorely need. The first segment (subheaders included discusses the completely hate-driven, xenophobe-type Islamophobia that basically everyone here at RW despises and fights. Those who deny that this exists, or is a problem, are completely wrong.
The second segment (subheader included) discusses the complicated meeting ground between criticism if Islam (which, let's be honest, IS a touchy subject to the faithful) and all other angles and motivations, ranging from good to bad, true to false, and so on. Those who deny that valid criticism of Islam exists, or that such criticism constitutes a problem, are completely wrong.
The second portion of the article is where one's impulse to splitting and jonanism is truly tested. Because there are a LOT of criticisms to leverage against faith-based thinking, against the literal mind (in contrast to the ironic), against religious pseudoscience and superstition, against theocratic reaction and antifeminism — all of which instantiate themselves equally in all three desert dogmas. And, of course, because the people actually belonging to the first part of the article tend to masquerade as belonging to the second part — this process is no different from pseudoscience trying to ape the appearance of science. The important thing to remember, however, is that nobody genuinely belonging to the second part aligns with those in the first.
I had a discussion on that with a fellow who tried to (in the nicest of terms) argue me into his viewpoint — that the word "islamophobia" was the problem. A bit like gay bashers complaining that "homophobe" is a term of abuse, and thus, that people in support of homosexuals are also guilty of something something darkside. Naturally, these strategies are nothing but apology. To deny that muslims suffer prejudice, and that people hold an insane fear of muslim culture, arabic, and (in their eyes) "brown people" is just appaling. And the idea that "calling phobic people out for their phobia is itself a phobic reaction" is nonsensical.
If you want, I highly recommend reading the discussion, both to get a view into the mind of an islamophobia apologist (Onideus), and to see my reasoning on why fighting real islamophobia and fighting for the right to criticize the sensitive beliefs of the faithful are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have just one angle — criticising Islam without also fighting Islamophobia becomes nonsense. Conversely, fighting islamophobia without also criticising Islam becomes nonsense.
We have to be very watchful against those who would dehumanize the faithful, or anyone else. That being said however, the doctrines of Islam are false. Metaphysically, epistemologically, morally. The prophet was wrong (and I get to draw him if I please). Allah doesn't exist, and if he did, he'd be a monster anyways. Thus, the theocracies in which evil is done in the name of these falsehoods are themselves false and wicked. And they need to be resisted, powerfully, with reason and argument.
Forgive the length and ranting themes in this post. It just grew and grew and I tried to boil it down to a point (or two). When in doubt, don't assume the worst (about anyone). Th hug.gif All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! You helped me understand the upvotes(of the Article) and that the Article itself is not part of the Problem! You don't know how much fear the normalisation of racism in all its forms scares me, now that AFD here in Germany became somewhat mainstream... --Benaresh (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem! And yes, it terrifies me too. Our own tendency to tribalism is perhaps our own worst enemy; forgetting that others are human beings — no better or worse — just like ourselves. A great lesson of biology is also how closely related we all are — distant siblings at worst, every single human being on this planet. (This is a great book, btw). Also, regarding AFD, don't miss our very own article on them. We also cover the dangerous nut organization PEGIDA. If you can help any of these articles with sources or reasoning, you're very much invited to give it a shot. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools