Talk:Flying carpet fallacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This Logic related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • Desperately needs sources.

First and only contribution of that user. I'm tempted to move it to Essay space.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Coffee deprived brain agrees. Tyrannisan iron, yet caring fist 12:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be a few blog posts that give the idea that this is a term that has a bit of mileage. I MIGHT suggest a name change - the academic in me wants to call the article contemporary Orientalism, which, if you've read your Said, is essentially what this guy is getting at. Certainly, the ideas expressed in the article are mainspace-worthy. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 14:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If there's evidence this is a term that's actually used, that was my only concern - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an exact copy of this blog post, Delete, delete, delete.... Cloud Yeller (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So? If it's not a copyright violation, that's fine - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My point was not the potential copy-vio, it was that someone was dumping their essay around the internet. I'm not sure that that is what we are for. Cloud Yeller (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I appreciate this is a reasonable concern. I see it's been deleted as a copyvio. I've pinged the author - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually it is not an exact copy, although I used the blog author's examples (with permission), and cleaned it up to match the format of RW. This fallacy has been used in many areas and appears in printed works as well. After talking to another editor, I'm going to restore it. SulaymanF (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Lump of Lumpistan[edit]

"his magic carpet takes you to a place that blurs the distinction between Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, South Asians, Turks, Afghans, and the various nations and regions they belong to. That is, what he terms as “the Muslim world,” is simply a single entity in his mind, as if 25% of the world's population is all identical in thought and action and viewed as uniquely foreign."

An old fellow I knew, who was in the business of analyzing Middle East affairs for the US defense establishment, sometimes called that straw-man place of blurred distinctions "Lumpistan," whose population is lumped into one undifferentiated mass, ignoring the living, changing ethnic groups, sects, factions, tribes, and other allegiances that make it up. Naturally, its ruler is the Lump himself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that a neighboring country of Derkaderkastan? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Might could be, but I think Herpaderpistan is closer to Dogpatch. Seriously, my googlings mostly seem to point to a Li'l Abner strip from about 1975, but behind a paywall I do not care to go. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and they both border Ubekibekibekibekistanstan. (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, "Lumpistan" is a good title for the "they're all alike" fallacy. Should we create that as a new idea on a separate page? SulaymanF (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if the name was widely used, or not. Googling did not show me very much. Until someone finds out more, a mention on this talk page might be enough. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Very (too?) late addition to this discussion: I'd suggest "Farawayistan", drawn from Disney's non-specific foreign country where some Ducktales adventures unfold. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Flying Carpet page[edit]

                     Moved from User talk:4153mary's talk page

AS you seem to suspect, your POV on that article is not likely to be widely shared here. But more to the point, the Flying Carpet ploy is specific to Muslims living in Western states where they face discrimination. By what reasoning do you expand this to include Islamist behaviour toward other Muslims in Muslim countries? PLease address this all on the talk page at that article. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

reply -- Where a fact is disputed and there is another side to the argument this should be included otherwise the entry is biased and being used for propaganda.
Unfortunately your response itself is lumping Islamists in together with muslims, which illustrates the entire problem. Islamists are oppressing progressive muslims whose voices are not heard, including in Western countries, and this unedited entry is continuing that oppression by silencing the other side of the argument. my edit corrects this without interfering with the original.
The entry is about the Flying Carpet being used in Western Countries and the examples I used are of Islamists using the Flying Carpet against progressive muslims and non-muslims in Western Countries. To ask for one example to deal with Western Countries and the other to deal with muslim countries wpuld be to compare apples with oranges, which would be unreasonable.
Thanks 4153mary (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The intro to this article cites the essay by the man who coined the term. He's not addressing dynamics between Islamists and other kinds of Mulsims on non-Western nations. Nor have you persuaded me that it applies in that scenario.---Mona- (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
ADDING: the Flying Carpet fallacy is not exemplified by the (some of them dubious) examples you cite. If you want to write an article about the purported undermining of progressive Muslims by Islamists, in or out of Western countries, feel free (and expect to be challenged). But that isn't what this article is about.---Mona- (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear 4153mary, what you're referring to is not the flying carpet fallacy (FCF) but the more general whataboutism/whataboutery of which the FCF is arguably a specific subvariant (although the FCF has an admixture of other fallacies too, e.g. the association fallacy, straw man, stereotyping etc.). So, if you want any chance of your edits "sticking", add them to whataboutism instead. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)