From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Irrational Fear?[edit]

Given that less than 1% of the US population (that would be Muslims) is responsible for around 6% of all domestic terror attacks... I wouldn't exactly call it "irrational" to fear Muslisms. And technically that figure is like... more than a half decade off (it's even higher now). The Muslim religion is not really something you can easily cherry pick positives from because of abrogation. It's like the Bible but in reverse. With the Bible the New Bushwa effectively overwrites the Old Bushwa, that's good because the New Bushwa is MUCH more positive than the old/horrible parts. But with the Qur'an it's backwards... the nice/happy parts are like the Old Bushwa and the horrible/disturbing parts are like the New Bushwa.

Granted if you want to argue semantics you could certainly say it would make a lot more sense to fear dying of a heart attack or a car accident, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a VERY obvious problem with the Muslim religion and simply ignoring it is not going to make it magically go away. Just a little food for thought. --Onideus (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point, I think. You have to understand that we don't mean to conflate the term "Islamophobia" with "criticism of Islam". What we're trying to say is that there are people who fear or hate Islam for terribly poor (or, really, no coherently citable) reasons. Imagine this. If you hold a position, say, that the Earth rotates around the sun — making you a heliocentrist — you wouldn't feel that someone who walked up to you all chummy and went "Heeey, you're a heliocentrist too? I'm with you on this; Hitler's ghost visited me and he's proven that heliocentrism is actually our best weapon against satanic jewry! Hey everybody, I just found my intellectual soulmate!" was actually sharing your view at all. People who share a conclusion with you for patently shitty reasons, and who genuniely think you're now on the same page as them, should not be seen as your allies in opinion. That's what Islamophobia is about. As an unapologetic critic of Islam, I can't do enough to take space from people who would love to hand me a mic and hear me chant against Islam just because they "don't like sand people" or whatever. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm about. For this reason, as a critic of Islam, actual Islamophobia cannot be highlighted enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay but you get that on every end of the spectrum. I mean that's like all the dozens upon dozens of hilarious examples of news reporters asking anti-Trump protestors and rioters what their motivation is and what specific policies of Trump they find so terrible and they largely just stutter along incoherently for lack of a real/substantial argument.
The point is your intended purpose, what are you trying to do with such an article. I assume you're not striving to be Encyclopedia Dramatica, so the apparent point is a bit confusing. If your general intention is to create strife, conflict and do all the things that allowed Trump to become president in the first place... this sort of article is a shining beacon of inspiration.
I understand that it can be a good way to blow off steam and all, especially when dealing with irrational little rocks, but... I mean... running around calling somebody an "Islamaphobe" is not inherently helpful to any purpose other than making them even more entrenched into their irrational beliefs.
The primary problem with a lot of the articles on this Wiki is that they suffer from the inherent flaw of the Double Slit Experiment... that is, they don't bother to take THEMSELVES into consideration as far as the potential impact they might have.
Here's a TL:DR version of that...
--Onideus (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but that's hardly a reply to the suggestion that any responsible thinker would do well to actively distance themselves from insufferable morons who — literally via misunderstanding your position — hail you as their long-lost intellectual twin. They're not. There are utterly disgusting and incoherent ways to reach any conclusion that could be reached in an ethical and logical manner (though the opposite isn't true), and there's no to me conceivable reason not to actively disinvite a strawman of one's own position. You seem to be under the impression that the whole concept of Islamophobia is some kind of invented straw man. If so, that is thankfully incorrect — Islamophobia is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam, and you better believe that that exists. In fact, if you claimed that the irrational criticism of Islam was not a fundamentally separate entity from the rational criticism of Islam, you would claim that there was no rational criticism of Islam, as it'd be inseparable from the irrational criticism of Islam — they would then, according to you, be one and the same. So please, as a critic of Islam, let's not confuse what we do with genuinely xenophobic and moronical hate-mongering. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's only a "strawman" in the sense that you never even considered it as a possibility of your actions, even though it most certainly is. Again, I can use Trump becoming president as a direct citation of that fact. You're generally operating on the presumption that most humans think the way you do... they do not. Humans are not intelligent beings, they're EMOTIONALLY intelligent beings. As such you can certainly use various forms of emotional instability infliction in order to forcibly burn information and experiences directly into a person's long term memory engrams... which is fine if you're a malevolent bastard who runs around under the metaphorical pretext of being the living God of humanity's demons (talking about me here), but otherwise... not really the best idea/form to use.
Islamaphobia might be "real", but that doesn't mean you should carelessly throw that word around to the point where it will be picked up by lesser intellects and used as a "talking point" of sorts. It's usually better to try and come up with a NEW NAME for such things, so that you can directly separate yourselves from the usual/common form usage... which is an ATTACK. You get that... right? You get that 99.99% of the time a stupid little rock uses the word "Islamaphobe" they're directly using it as a VERBAL ATTACK on someone... and MOST of the time it's NOT justified in the context to which they're using it. --Onideus (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You're really all over the place here. I don't know if you think that I'm representing some kind of organization other than myself, or if you think that "we" (RationalWiki?) affected the outcome of the recent US election or something (?). Regardless, aside from the fact that I have a life outside of RationalWiki, never mind outside of the Internet, never mind outside of politics, I'm also not even American, but a Swede. So I don't really know what you're driving at here with that word salad. It would appear to me that you're doing all you can to shoehorn together a plausible case for the claim that "nobody deserves to be called an islamophobe" or something. Which is, of course, ridiculous — Islamophobes deserve to be called Islamophobes. I mean, it's tautologically true to point out that Islamophobes are indeeds Islamophobic. The question then becomes, what constitutes Islamophobia? Again — the irrational fear or hatred of Islam (without a demarcation to which, there could be no rational criticism of Islam). The irrational fear or hatred of Islam is — another deductively true statement — irrational, see? And whatever philosophical position I'm critical of Islam from, it's clearly not irrationalism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hrmmm... okay let me try something else here...
'I mean, it's tautologically true to point out that Retards are indeed Retarded. The question then becomes, what constitutes Retardation?'
You see what I did there? Yes, the term "retardation" is medically/factually/scientifically accurate to describe those with mental defects... however 99.99% of the time a person uses the word "retarded" they're using it in a NEGATIVE/ATTACKFUL context. Because you're overly analytical you're fixated in the denotation of words and you're completely ignoring connotation.
Just because the denotation of the word "retarded" means mentally disabled doesn't negate the SLANG usage of the word or the CONNOTATION, which is very, VERY negative/attackful.
Verbally attacking people does not generally get them to change their position... it gets them to DOUBLE DOWN in their positions. --Onideus (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of connotation — you seem to forget that nobody self-identifies as a retard, while there are those who self-identify as islamophobic. While it is true that your example is also a tautology, please do not forget that two different tautologies cannot be equal to each other. If they were, they'd simply be the exact same tautology. Regarding what effect something has on people's minds — while irrelevant to the propositional logic itself — the fact is that opinions develop based on prior views, not new evidenceWikipedia's W.svg. Though, while I personally demand courteousness from myself, I don't support the general tone argument you seem to be making. RationalWiki is not any type of safe space, and logical arguments cannot be met with reference to "being triggered" or anything of the sort. Though I will agree with you that calling people names is not helpful — this is why I support the term "Islamophobia". If it didn't exist to separate valid criticisms of Islam from invalid criticisms, critics of islam could be unfairly strawmanned as Islamophobes. Thankfully, as the term "Islamophobia" is established, we now know it means something different from criticism of Islam. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
"critics of islam could be unfairly strawmanned as Islamophobes"
Um... they are. That was like.. one of the main points I was making. Another is that articles like this help contribute to the proliferation of such fallacies/attacks... even if that's not your directed intention, that is a SIDE EFFECT. It's like trying to measure the air pressure of your tires... you can't do so without letting OUT some of the pressure... that may not be your directed intent, but you are CAUSING that outcome to happen nonetheless.
If you want you could call such an effect the Double Slit Experiment Fallacy.
In your attempts to try and create the most "rational wiki" you are inherently causing and contributing to a lot of IRRATIONAL side effects. Yin and Yang and all like that fun stuff. --Onideus (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Assuming you aren't a proponent of prosecuting thoughtcrime, there's nothing you could do to stop people from making straw men of your positions. The first lesson of psychology is that you can't necessarily affect how others function; you can only adjust how you function in relation to them. And aside from "could be done", there's nothing that should be done either — a straw man is fallacious, thus, when your opponent uses one, he debases his own argument. In fact — from a purely game theorist angle — you ought to celebrate when your opponent is using fallacious debating tactics against you. The fallacy fallacy notwithstanding, him doing so means he's disqualified himself. Because, why — if his arguments were logically sound (instead of fallacious), you'd have to (and want to) accept his conclusions, lest you'd be the one falling prey to fallacyWikipedia's W.svg! Furthermore, I fail to see the logic in your analogy to checking tire pressure — are you implying that we ought not to check our tire pressure? Also, I don't particularly recognize your homegrown "Double Slit Experiment" fallacy, though not because you've decided to title it after an experiment on diffractionWikipedia's W.svg, despite the fact that it actually seems to be deriving its point from the observer effectWikipedia's W.svg. The main reason is instead that what you describe is alreadyWikipedia's W.svg knownWikipedia's W.svg. The contention that this article "contributes to" "attacks" is both unlikelyWikipedia's W.svg and irrelevantWikipedia's W.svg — as said articles exist in order to establish the very existence of valid criticisms of Islam — via the law of noncontradictionWikipedia's W.svg. Not separating Islamophobia from valid criticisms of Islam would instead invoke the law of identityWikipedia's W.svg, and that is only done by those who actively posit one of two things — either that all criticism of Islam is valid — no matter how irrational or hate-based — or that no criticism of Islam is valid — no matter how sound and reasonable. Talk about a straw man! So to try to construe the basic, necessary practice of separating Islamophobia (which deserves scorn) from the valid criticism of Islam (which deserves praise) into some kind of proven moral hazard based on the outcome of the processWikipedia's W.svg or on how some people abuse or react to itWikipedia's W.svg, never mind to suggest that "we" are now "part of the problem"Wikipedia's W.svg, comes across as rather nonsensical. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Men commit 90% of all crimes. Is it rational to fear men 9x as much as women? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is and that's what people experience as well. (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Lol! You really think men are feared 9 times women? If it were ever very unlikely true, that would be the proof of the dreaded white male default of extreme Sjw theories, my dear :D. As you can see such statistics only start to become a social problem if compared to the non muslim white statistics. If it were true that men commit 90% of crimes (though it probably includes women mandated ones and those with women accomplices, I hypothize, and with equality I think they'll become closer), the profiling of men is not proportioned to that (I might be wrong about this, though) and the justification of bigotry against them because of such statistics, comes pretty much only from very fringey radfems, shunned by pretty much anyone, including feminists and non fringey radfem. That's the only group which advocates a bigotry proportional to that, but much less widespread. Although it has to be said a part of moderate feminism (don't take my word for it, I'm going approximately about groups, knowing they are very varied) supports the "shroedinger rapist" theory, which is problematic if taken literally, but they don't think men are inherently violent and criminal biologically speaking, they recognize when they don't and appreciate that. About Islam, though I got this from an old conversation in the Saloon about demographic tendencies "You call Muslims "quite conservative", but I think most Muslim immigrants are actually rather moderate relative to the societies they are coming from (even if what is moderate in those societies sometimes seems rather conservative or even extreme by Western standards), and their moderation suggests their descendants are unlikely to resist the allure of secularisation/liberalisation/assimilation/intermarriage. " you can find it in the "Rip feminists" thread? What to say, it turns out that to him Muslims will also decrease in fertility because of this reason and turns out the biggest demographic "threat" are in theory orthodox sects on most religions, expecially jews and Amish. But I think at one point they would have to stop and share resources, giving it a break because of the unsustainability of such fertility trend. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 19:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Onideus the projectionist[edit]

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot you existed. Your point about psychology applies only to academic/medical level pursuits. There are actually OTHER branches of psychology that exist outside the realm of traditional academia, primarily as far as SE Hacking or social engineering, con artistry, subliminal hacking, thought manipulation, emotional instability infliction, etc, etc. And in those fields, yes, you can directly manipulate and control others, largely by exploiting common cognitive biases and patterns of behavior. As I said, you're doing it in this article to a certain extent, you're just not actively aware of the fact that you are. Your ignorance of the potential impact that your words have and the fact that you so callously disregard the stated point that you are in control of how others perceive your writing (to a certain degree) only serves to show that you are very lacking in emotional intelligence. I'm guessing your likely autistic to some degree, which is why you're seemingly incapable of understanding the potential emotional impact of the words you choose. Instead you choose your wording based on purely analytical denotations, taking a "stereo instructions manual" style approach while completely ignoring any connotations and social/emotional perspectives. In short, you are a very poor writer, at least for the masses. You'd probably do well in the legal profession though. --Onideus (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If the fear of a belief system that explicitley advocates the murder of those who don't share it or abandon it (apostates) is "irrational", then I guess the author believes it's Islam what's rational, right? This website is a magnet for progressive cucks subscribing any self-hating ideology. (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
H3h3 stabilized.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting, perhaps[edit] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Was the term "Islamophobia" invented by the Mullahs of Iran or other Islamists?[edit]

I have on multiple occasion heard that the term "Islamophobia" was invented by either Ayatollah Khomeini or "the Mullahs" of Iran or "Islamists" in general to silence criticism of their antiques. Is that accurate? Does anybody know more about this? And no, I don't have sources, that's why I ask... Evil Zionist (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That Trump quote[edit]

I think Islam hates us.
—Donald Trump

The exact quote doesn't encapsulate Islamophobia, so it shouldn't be a the top or in the article at all. If the quote is there to take jabs at Trump, put it in his article, not here, where it belongs.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

From outside the West[edit]

This page is largely written from the perspective of westerners where Islam has historically been a non issue. I generally agree with the thesis that those living in North America have no reason to fear Islam to the extent that many anti-Islam critics would like them to fear. But for others this may not be the case. Just as a disclosure I am a Hindu (though currently living in the United States). From my perspective, fear of Islam is totally justified by history: According to K.S. Lal, between 60 million and 80 million Hindus where massacred by Islamic forces during the second millennium. And the only thing that prevented this number from being even higher was the military protection of the British Raj (One of the Few Positives of the Raj, which is itself also responsible for many massacres). From my perspective, my fear of Islam is equally justified as a Jew's fear of Nazism. Perhaps a separate section for political movements against Islam in countries that actually have a historical conflict with Islam would be appropriate. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 00:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, please put new sections at the bottom of the page.
Second, please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~.
I'm not sure that would be appropriate on this specific article. I think there might be another one you might want to try, something about legitimate criticism of Islam or something like that. Bring this suggestion up there. Make sure to back up your claims with sources, too. Thanks, RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice[edit]

The Israelites began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab, joined with them in the worship of their gods, and learned the rituals of the Baal of Peor. Yahweh said to Moseh, “Take all the chiefs of the clans and hang them up in the sun before Yahweh, so that Yahweh’s fierce anger may be turned away from Israel.” Numbers 25:1-4 Wodenoz (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)