This might sound like a question inspired by current events, but I've actually been thinking of this for a while and can give pointers to a few times I had asked this or talked about it.
The people who the masses look up to seem to have a strange way of dishing out their opinions/approval/disapproval of the groups of the world. Some groups can get away with being considered good no matter how negative their actions are while other groups are stuck with a high disapproval rating no matter how much good they might do, and a discussion on whether "culture" or a "cult" is involved almost always comes up.
An example of this is the relationship between Islam and Scientology, in fact this is the most infamous one I can link to having spoken about. People on a certain side of the thinktank spectrum (the same side Lemmy seems to lean towards at times) are quick to criticize Scientology even though they consider "classic Islamic philosophy", for a lack of a better way to put it without generalizing, as not inspiring a call for critique to see how one may change it. And I've always wondered, why? One at times leads people to trying to exterminate innocent groups, the other one is just "Space Gnosticism" that has a few toxic aspects but hasn't actually eliminated anyone. Of course, I'm not defending either one, but certainly I'd rather live in a stressful environment than one that actively targets me.
This question has been asked a few times, sometimes without me but sometimes when I'm around to be involved, and they always say (and it's in my dumb voice that I quote them) "well Scientology is a cult, of course we can criticize them" and then a bit about how whatever other thing is being talked about is a part of culture. This doesn't sit well with my way of thinking. I was taught to judge people by the content of their character, in other words their virtues, so in my mind, a good X is better than a bad Y, in this case a good cult should be better than a good culture, right? Right?
In fact, as what many might call a mild misanthrope, I'd flip it around and point out how, over the course of human history, alongside seemingly objectively questionable quirks people just brush off (like Japan for a while has been genociding dolphins for their meat value just above extinction "because it's culture" or how there are people in China who still think dinosaur bones are a form of medicine waiting to be ground up), no group/culture has kept their innocence intact, every country having had genocides or unnecessary wars or something of the like, things they ALLOW to happen by design. Then they turn around and tell so-called "cults", even the ones that have their priorities on straight compared to cultures, that they are pariahs and shouldn't count on thriving, even though their status is one that doesn't necessitate gaining any kind of guilt. I was a pariah growing up, almost everyone else revolved around a select few people that seemed in-tune to the culture, and they would say anyone who revolved around people outside the group (me for example) was "following a cult", and this hurt at the time, but now seeing all the wars going on right now, I might consider this a compliment.
My question, even though it by definition might make affirming answerers question whether they are pariahs or a part of the cultural arena, is why does nobody agree? Why are cultures "always precious" while cults are "always suspicious"?
What is the relevance of what you think would happen to you in an Islamic country? I'd also point out that Islam is not a monolith and Muslims are not a monolith, despite your implications, so which Islamic countries are you thinking of? Are you sure you didn't have a particular idea in mind when you conflated "islamic country" with the scenario you are thinking of? What do the people there look like? What do they believe? What would they do to you?
Where is "here"? Why are "they" going to where you are? Almost certainly, uou will find that the point of xenophobia is to distract you from what was done in your name to the people forced to immigrate to your area. To excuse the much greater violence and turn your fears and frustrations against a population that you and your culture stripped of their homes and safety - and then justifies through dehumanization and a focus on Islam as the problem.
You will indeed find some immigrants that are reactionary. Imagine a world in which social developments could occur within countries through legitimate struggles rather than forcing deprivation and murder on people from different cultures and then whinging about how they don't think how you do.
In short, you're doing the exact problematic thing that Sam Harris serves a function for. You're identifying an enemy to fear and degrade and it's blinding you to the much greater dangers and violences that are directly involved but where blame lies in your country and your culture. Centuries of colonialism premised on ethnic cleansing and extraction, now neocolonialism doing the same. Go look at where Wahhabism and the other forms of Islam you are scared of came from. They are recent inventions arising from occupations, not intrinsic aspects of Islam.
And review the reactionary aspects of your own culture, as you are fearing hypothetical harms by people coming from countries that your country and culture actively participates in destroying. The only question would be whether that country is a very active player in imperialism or a hanger-on.
Hence the way I phrased it when I said "classic Islamic philosophy" and then clarified it wasn't going to be my intention to generalize. Literally in my wording.
I'm well aware of my own culture's faults and not using this as a distraction to that, in fact that's the very point of this, to ask why "cults", which one could (and they have called them these) call "pseudocultures" or "quasicultures" or "paracultures", are seen as wrong while "actual" cultures are protected by the view that relativism is supposed to tolerate cultures "just because" they're cultures. Not that you actually know what my culture is just by reading what I'm saying right now.
I used the umbrella of Islam as an example, partially because of current events, but it's by no means the only one and I wasn't trying to imply this; I mentioned more groups down below, in reply to other people. The thought process behind the question is there are "wannabe cultures" that haven't done anything wrong, yet which get criticized, but here we ("we" as in onlookers of current events) are wondering what kind of cultures would be better in the place of the destructive ones, and so I think "what about these 'wannabe cultures' that have done nothing wrong or have done comparatively little wrong".
To answer the other question, I am an LGBT woman with interracial ancestry with a highly frustrating medical condition and what one might call a spiritual tradition that would come off as iconoclastic in any part of the world, but especially in the nations closest to the middle of Eurasia. To use a metaphor, seeing that an immovable piece of the world, in this case a world culture, would kill me on sight makes me feel as if Earth's immune system sees me as a bad cell. So naturally I wonder, one, does it really have to be this way, and two, would a "cult" as I mention be more worthy to exist as its very own "culture" than one that decided it wanted people like me gone first, even though there will always be people like me (meaning they too are against something immovable in the world)?
I invite you to answer the questions I asked and consider much greater violences at hand. I didn't make you cite Sam Harris or conflate Islamic countries or buy into right wing xenophobic fear narratives, but I did respond to them.
Then it's a good thing I didn't do any of that, now isn't it?
For every question you say hasn't been answered, I can point to (or quote) a part of what I said that does exactly that.
You did all of the things I listed and ignored most of my questions. If you honestly believe otherwise, I invite you to revisit what was said and asked and ask yourself whether you acknowledged it at all, let alone actually addressed what was said.
Though I'm not stupid, I know what defensive behavior and fibbing looks like by someone that is uncomfortable. I'm not going to be polite if you try this again.
Suppose for a moment I sincerely believe I addressed everything (and I do). Saying out of disagreement "review it yourself" would thus be a request I cannot humor, that's why I invited you to give examples. I also don't know who this Sam Harris guy is, so I'm not sure why you say I cited him, but I even did a CTRL+F trick to make sure. I still don't see it.
Oh, so you are incapable of listening to others and doubting yourself when they disagree with you? Yes, I agree, that's the real issue here.
Anyways maybe you'll drop this dishonest pretense if I point out that my first paragraph was nearly all questions you did not answer:
"What is the relevance of what you think would happen to you in an Islamic country? I'd also point out that Islam is not a monolith and Muslims are not a monolith, despite your implications, so which Islamic countries are you thinking of? Are you sure you didn't have a particular idea in mind when you conflated "islamic country" with the scenario you are thinking of? What do the people there look like? What do they believe? What would they do to you?"
At most you said it was not your intention to generalize, but (1) that still doesn't answer my questions and (2) yes you absolutely did that repeatedly, it's literally the premise of your post and these replies. You are, of course, aware of this, you're just handling contradiction poorly.
If you'd like a tip: you always have the option of just not responding. It's a lot better than what you've been doing.
You didn't ask for examples lol
You cited his subreddit and your poorly-veiled, cagey focus is drawn from the islamophobia he pushes out. Maybe you're so confused that you don't even know where you picked up this garbage, but as I explained in my original response, that's where these grifters come from.
Be better.
The comment you're replying to with that statement implies I thought I addressed everything, and when you objected to that, I asked if you could point to where you believe I hadn't. That's not the same as not listening. If it's dishonest to ask someone to give examples, I would doubt you think anyone on this thread is honest.
I do maintain I answered the questions, but I will paraphrase my answers, piece by piece.
The relevance is in the character. People see "true" cults with negative connotations. But if we were comparing said "cults" with groups that are part and parcel with the global community, they have a better human rights track record than some of the latter. The first group that would come to mind in this context is Islam. People in those countries (and you can say I'm generalizing, but whether "all" such countries do it isn't the point, it's that cults have a better track record) still execute/imprison people based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, and sometimes politics and medical conditions. People will argue cults are accepting of people for the wrong reasons, but it's still better than mistreatment.
I didn't list them all, but I did give an area, and I did imply Palestine as it falls under the umbrella of current events. I don't have an exact visual map of all Islamic countries, but my point didn't require it, it does not need to specify which countries whether or not it claims all the countries over there are susceptible to it (and it doesn't), because it pertains to the cultures and the groups harbored by them. The point, again, is that cults have a better track record than those groups.
See my paragraph above.
Nothing in particular. That was never a factor in what I was implying. I don't have a set idea on that.
The Quran, which has my death warrant inscribed within it. If they're not out to kill/imprison me, thank God, but it also means the Quran's definition of what it considers Islam has been reduced.
See my paragraph above.
See my paragraph four lines ago. Generalization would require someone say all of a group is like the most stereotypical people in said group. I made no such remark, and any claim that says I implied it is reading what's not in the words. I did refer to "them" though implying the fact there is a "conventional" way they go about themselves. The statement "all sheep are white" =/= the statement "sheep are typically white".
So saying "for every question you say hasn’t been answered, I can point to (or quote) a part of what I said that does exactly that" isn't a cue for you to do, well, exactly that?
Citing a post in a subreddit referred to as r/samharris isn't the same as citing the actual Sam Harris, so that confusion was on you. Such pseudo-groups occur all the time on Reddit. Neither does it imply everything in it is going to be created in malice. So that's a strawman, as have been much of the responses I've gotten.
I just did that again it's the whole first paragraph that was basically just questions. And you never asked, you just made assertions.
PS I shouldn't need to do that because you are perfectly capable of going back, finding questions, and rethinking whether you addressed them.
Is that what I'm saying is dishonest?
Right you're not getting the question. It's intended to make you question at a deeper level why you're asking the question in the first place, a question that builds on islamophobia tropes that are common in the sources you've cited. Everyone already knows you're thinking about comparing cults and Islam. Everyone already knows you perceive danger from Islam. I'm trying to prompt you to question why you chose this example in particular given that it is a trope among racists.
You waved vaguely towards the Middle East albeit without actually directly answering my question. So no, you didn't answer that question, which was clearly asking you to concretize your veiled statements.
But okay, what comes to mind for you is Palestine. Nobody is surprised that you chose this moment to share denigrating opinions towards the people of Palestine. Again, I'm not stupid, but you are being cagey.
Do you see how my descriptions of racist islamophobia and its purveyors are relevant? An entire population is facing occupation and genocide and your first thoughts are about how to be afraid of and denigrate them, supposedly due to their culture and religion, and conflating them with the entirety of Islam (hmmm lumping very different cultures and ethnicities together to dismiss them over fears, I wonder what that is).
Doubling down to say "I don't need to distinguish Islamic countries" is an interesting choice.
Your paragraph above doesn't really answer the yes or no question. Seems like it might be no? Who knows, you are afraid to speak plainly.
You have no mental image of the people you fear would oppress you if you lived there? You don't know what people vaguely in the middle east (apparently what you're referring to) look like?
Anyways this question was intended to make you confront the cultural and ethnic diversity you were glossing over by lumping all of Islam together and you didn't answer it in any way earlier.
Another question that was intended for you to think a little more deeply (and you didn't answer before).
Your entire understanding of Islam in the middle east is just that they all believe the Quran? The generous interpretation is that you know there's diversity and this is the commonality, but I think we both know that's not what you're thinking, especially given your comment about what's in it.
Have you actually read the Quran? The Hadith? The history of tolerance in Palestine and surrounding countries? The origins of fundamentalism that I mentioned in my earlier responses? (These are rhetorical, you obviously don't and are not curious).
So, islamophobia?
Wrong. You just have to generalize by, say, ignorantly lumping all Islamic countries together to make a false claim. Though you certainly are leaning on right wing stereotypes of Muslims.
Yeah you don't seem to understand what asking means. Are you confused about that all the time or only when contradicted?
I was hoping you'd try to make that meaningless distinction. You think I don't know why you use that source? lol
Yessss I was hoping for an erroneous reference to a logical fallacy. Surprised it didn't come up earlier. I know your type very well, lol.
Don't worry I'll give you a free lesson anyways. A straw man argument is where you intentionally set up a position you claim your opponent holds (even though they don't) just because it's easier to knock down than their actual position. On the contrary, I've been trying to get your cagey butt to acknowledge what you've been hinting at and criticizing the positions I know are behind them. This is because you aren't fooling anyone with your veiled and general references, there are real humans here that know what islamophobic, chsuvinist "skeptic" grifters say and do and have actually had to spend time defending their communities from the braying racism you're trying to both show and hide.
deleted by creator