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"?
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.
Unless, of course, I believed I already addressed them, and my answers I did provide in my previous reply were paraphrasings of things I already said.
Kinda proves my point, doesn't it? You leave the interpreting to me and wonder why you get misinterpreted after I ask you to elaborate.
You say that like there is no instant access to the many other replies I've gotten on this thread. You're the only one here with the objection you imply you have. The only one. "Everyone already knows you perceive danger from Islam" is false, again the other replies are readable, not only do I not assume all Muslims are the same but everyone else does agree something is afoot today with the culture. The keyword being culture.
Again, proving my point I moments ago mentioned you proved.
I'm guessing this is personal for you. Yeah, I chose this moment, because this kind of thing is currently more vivid on peoples' minds.
To think I merely gave Islamic culture as an example of a broader topic and I incur your anger. Israel and Palestine are both somewhat guilty, the difference is one is the only state of its kind and not only does the other one follow a philosophical system followed by a whole area of the world but is also currently backed by Russia and North Korea, one of which is a nation with a machiavellian agenda while the other is a historically infamous human rights mess itself.
in-groups =/= cultures =/= countries
You're proving that one point again.
Must I? I'm trying not to generalize. Especially ethnicity. Are you asking me to?
So in other words you set up a trap and I avoided it? I'm not understanding. This isn't about race. I'm not against any race. To say I am is... kinda generalizing. Culture is not race. Hawaii is an Asian-majority state, does that make it less Hawaiian culture than it was generations before? Aspects of peoples' biology is just not on my mind in any part of this.
The whole point of not generalizing is to apply as few assumptions as possible, so yeah, all of Islamic culture has the Quran in common and nothing more. Again, are you asking me to generalize now?
Yes, I have read hundreds of works on this, enough that I can engage in conversations such as my tweet here and all the replies it's replying to, so no need to attack me with the remark that I must not for personal sake.
Inevitably, I have looked at the Quran to look for answers as well. Muhammad's darker moments are context-specific, but that doesn't mean they're not there and used to justify said human rights relapses.
The hadith is worse in this regard, though I wasn't even thinking of it, as many places in the Ummah, fortunately, don't even consider it unquestionable. It has the same problem as Paul's books in the Bible canon, in that it was written by authorities who wanted to put insertions in a growing movement.
Tolerance has varied in Palestine and surrounding countries throughout history, but in every point in history, they've always had at least a few people who they downplay, yet even the fact that any point in a group's history has systemic homicide makes it worst than your regular cult, none of which have any distinction of weeding out minorities on such a scale, again (for a fourth time) the point of my question being the worthiness of cultures versus cults.
Also, not sure if you're trying to imply they're not in the Ummah, but I should point out Southeast Asia is in the same sphere of influence. They, though, have been far, far better about how to treat minorities and only someone who is generalizing wouldn't give them an honorable mention.
Read the above.
Then it's a good thing I didn't do that, now isn't it?
Put me on record as pointing out you're the very first person to bring politics into this. In the words of almost every Democratic candidate in the past two decades, human rights are not a political issue.
I asked you in the reply of mine after the one where I cued you. You did acknowledge what my intentions were at the time too, namely when you told me to review it myself, so contradiction seems to be a theme here.
Case in point. You call it a meaningless distinction, but in practice it's generalization. I had seen the post before and googled it to get it again, that's why the post you saw is the one you got.
If done intentionally, putting words in someone's mouth regarding their views is what someone does when they have nothing they can say in response to their actual words.
Your replies where you assume my whole political ideology, culture, race, religion, and intentions would certainly suggest you think you do, but I have more proof to the contrary. Both in the form of my ability to speak for myself and links to me talking about my past viewed. Which makes it exactly how you describe strawmen in your definition.
You think you know who I am? Prove it, with evidence (not just your word about my word versus my word about my word). I've been debating for a decade and a half, surely you can find evidence. Or you can acknowledge that, as I say again, that the OP is simply about cultures versus cults (in general).
We've now entered the pathological lying portion of coping with contradiction. You didn't answer several of those questions in any form and made confused passes at a couple out of order.
Uh yeah you do have to interpret questions in order to answer them that's how the game of question-answer works.
Wrong. Check out those upvote ratios, lib.
There is no contradiction even though you're acting like there is one.
Your point where you feign incompetence to avoid answering a question?
Whoosh
You have still failed to internalize that there is no such thing as singular Islamic culture. You're doing the racist thing right here and now. You can't help yourself.
Oh, I don't care about your ignorant opinions on Israel and Palestine.
?
I was calling attention to the fact that Islam is multi-ethnic and global in contrast to your lazy and racist statements.
I suppose you would think that challenging your false assumptions is some kind of trap, lol.
And yet you conflated islamic culture and being vaguely middle eastern. Of course you're being racist. Only someone who has no idea how race is socially constructed could disagree.
Race has never been about biology btw.
I am describing what you've done, you just don't like the characterization.
"I have read hundreds of works on this" is weirdly not an answer to my question and makes me wonder what the "yes" means. If you are claiming to have read the Quran and the Hadith, as in all of it, I don't believe you. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of Islam and incuriosity.
Who knows what that tweet is supposed to demonstrate.
Cool this jives with my position that you've exclusively read other people's opinions.
Who is "they"? What does it mean that they downplayed a few people? None of this makes sense.
None of this makes any sense. It is not coherent thoughts.
A sphere of influence has an influencer, which is required to understand the claim, but you don't list one.
Except you did generalize and in fact keep doing it over and over again. You can't rhetoric your past and current statements out of existence.
Except you did.
This post and thread is inherently political. Impressive that you don't understand that.
Why should I respect the opinion of Democratic candidates?
Human rights are 100% political. In fact, the term itself is used in an exclusively political way. Have you ever noticed how only non-Western-aligned countries are the only ones described as violating human rights?
I will help you understand what asking is. If it doesn't have a question mark, you didn't ask for it.
Generalization is not inherently bad and is in fact necessary for someone to learn anything. Learning things like what kind of person thinks Sam Harris isn't an embarrassment and uses his subreddit as a source.
A generalization is bad when it's reactionary and dehumanizing, like being racist.
Did I make up the fact that you cited the Sam Harris subreddit? You know, the subreddit dedicated to the infamous islamophobe? The "skeptic" who uses the same language you do? Folks that jump at the chance to identify a perceived logical fallacy?
I haven't mentioned your political ideology. I would wager that it is incoherent and immature. But you are embedded in a reactionary and islamophobic subculture somewhere, one in the orbit of self-proclaimed skeptics or rationalists.
Not difficult to guess given what people worry about a vague conglomeration of Muslims coming to their country and making things dangerous.
Nope haven't said anything about those
Easy to interpret from your caginess and use of multiple racist and xenophobic tropes.
These are not in contradiction with what I said.
Except it's not because the things I'm criticizing are the things you're actually writing down right here on the internet.
No thanks. Don't care and I already have enough info for my personal satisfaction.
I'm just letting you know that this is all unoriginal and I'm already very familiar with it, right down to the obsessive sophistry to avoid admitting any kind of error whatsoever.
Nah I'll stick with the truth.
It's easy to say that all one wants about someone they're talking to if no second opinion is granted or if ignoring all the other replies, so I'll take someone else's word for it. You don't come across as a semanticist.
If only I was referring to that.
I did, semi-anonymous upvotes and downvotes (whose unreliability is ironically consistent enough it can be relied upon and aren't even particularly plentiful in this case but also which can be seen in the modlog) don't change my statement about replies and repliers.
Also, the fact I'm accused of being a lib while also being accused of being right winged suggests this is about dislike for me somehow and not an actual point.
...as opposed to?
No, but thank you for asking.
I'm sorry, I meant metaculture (happy?).
I couldn't tell based on your comments bringing it up.
Then why ask?
You implied it was.
You're reading too much into the simple act of someone pointing a finger.
Uhm, yeah, I'll definitely let the Lemmy world get back to you on that one, especially considering race has sadly been dragged into the topic of eugenics and considering the ongoing debate of whether transracial identity is valid.
Because it goes with the "yes", my argumentatively novice friend.
I can name the verses people cite in order to justify violence. I don't NEED to see anything else to criticize these verses. Yet I have read enough from the Quran/Hadith that you can quiz me on them.
I have doubts you'll answer this, but tell me for the sake of suggesting consistency, by your logic, are the people who use select verses to justify violence (or anything else) ignorant of the group they claim to be a part of since they too imply that much of the book has a very different attitude... especially considering the fact there's a longstanding speculation amongst scholars that the final chapters of the Quran were written by Muhammad's hostile in-laws (through Aisha) who wanted to make him seem more like them?
Exactly what it says on the tin.
Or that multiple people can, I don't know, come to the same opinions on things. It's not rocket science, and you didn't even quote anything there.
Maybe because that's not the complete sentence.
Ahem, this guy perhaps?
...as opposed to?
...as opposed to?
Then why insert religion into the mix, hmm?
You accuse me of being right wing, then of being a liberal, then ask me why you should respect the position of Democratic candidates? How does one please you?
They are politicized, but that isn't the same as saying they are destined to be political by design. I believe in a world where faith, race, ethnicity, medical condition, politics, family, etc. don't play a role in how someone is treated. If you're judging someone by the contents of their character, you don't need to know any of these things about someone, and if someone feels they must persecute a fact of life/biology/society such as one's ethnicity or medical condition in order for their doctrine so-to-speak to work, can we even call it practical since types of people who are part and parcel to the human experience serve as a kryptonite to said doctrine?
That's a generalization, is it not? You can tell me if your sentiments are personal or not.
Easily I can name Western countries that engage in human rights abuses, in fact most of them did at some time, from Britain and the famine of India to the US and its early 1800's/1900's eugenics program to the fact Canada wasn't allowing people with medical conditions to immigrate there until covid happened.
Then it's settled.
A broken clock is right twice a day, eh?
No, but you did make up several other things about me and what I have been saying/implying (reread this whole reply section for more on that). One of these being the notion that I didn't link to a post from that subreddit coincidentally. You hate the subreddit obviously, but what do you say about the post itself (aside from it being in its subreddit)?
Ahem, you variously accused me of being right wing and a liberal. I'm starting to question how sound you think you are.
You would be surprised (ain't that an understatement)
Keyword here is "interpret". You're not concluding anything without a doubt.
But they are assumptions.
Things I say =/= interpretations of things I say
Directly goes against your claims of not assuming anything about me or my politics/culture/etc.
I'll give you a demonstration/example of your lack of the knowledge you claim you can infer from me about me. I can guarantee nowhere in your info does it say I'm on the socialism spectrum. Did you see that coming? Now, if you're still confident you can infer things from me, can you guess my exact philosophy?
You mean headcanon?
Deflection.
Incomprehensible.
It's what you said don't blame me
It means I'm not the only one with my sentiment (your claim) and that people think your comments are bad. This is obvious. Your primary tactic in disagreement is to refuse to even try to understand very simple things or look for some pointless technicality. This is a dishonest thing to do, you know.
You should learn to ask questions when you don't understand something, as you seem to be unfamiliar with the vast majority of things that you want to have an opinion on. Calling you liberal and subscribing to right wing end reactionary talking points is entirely consistent, you just don't know what I mean by liberal. Let's see if you can figure out how to acquire this information!
This makes no sense. What is your point or question?
Suuuuuure you did. 10 comments deep trying to do a little dance and you'd like to revise your claim to an esoteric term used by like 200 people on the planet and where is entirely opaque if not oxymoronic in how it would even apply to all of the things you've said.
A simpler explanation: you don't handle being wrong very well.
Glad we sorted it out then
The quote you're responding to literally says why. More feigned incompetence.
Please don't lie. Lying is bad.
It's just the same thing over and over again. Lying and deflecting. Pointless little quips. Incomprehensible statements from a confused mind.
Racist conflation is not "the simple act of someone pointing a finger", but your behavior in claiming it is as good a reason as any to give up on you as being a pathological liar with no capacity to self-criticize or even go through the motions of a conversation.
Because this has become so repetitive and the blocking point is your bad faith behavior, I'll just dismiss you and stop replying. May you someday have the courage of your convictions and until then shut your trap.
You're not the authority of what I say/mean. Alone, perhaps you'll never realize this. Hence the part before it about taking someone else's word for it, which you claimed was deflection.
Replies prove that, not upvotes and downvotes. Only words can clarify someone's reasoning. Votes are not a language, nor are they an argument. I don't even see downvotes anywhere this time around.
Alright, let's make a trade. Rather than put words in your mouth, I will ask you about the things you say and accept you as the sole authority of your own words. In return, I ask you to ask me about the things I say and accept me as the sole authority of my own words. Do we have a deal?
The words "...as opposed to" are asked when someone is singling out one individual, entity, or action that one would expect to exist under the same rules as others which have not received the same credit or blame. I said that a number of times because it was therefore fitting to ask a number of times.
You'd have to prove someone wrong first, but instead you're trying to belittle, something people do when they cannot handle being wrong.
So you asked me, in response to a reply that wasn't about race on a post that wasn't about Palestine or even Islam in general except for an example, what race I see Muslims in the same reply as you accuse me of generalization, and when I say I don't see them as any race in particular, not only do you claim the purpose of the question went over my head, but you say you asked because my answer was correct, as if belittling it was pointless?
If it wasn't, my point above this one is where the confusion lies. No attempt at lying here, there's already been so much of that lately.
Then why do it? You're the only one in this whole thread with any issue, unless you can point to someone else who has had it. The most desperate form of deflection was using upvotes/downvotes as a point like populists always do.
Our respective profile/comment feeds say otherwise, even the relevant parts.
Don't tell me to shut up, you're not my mom.
But they aren't the only person here with an issue. My comment wasn't as confrontational but I also clearly raised a red flag at the question being asked and the reasons people start asking these kinds of questions. I also see what you're doing. I just don't want to spend the next week doing this thing you're calling a debate.
My comparison between Scientology and the sphere of Islamic thought was nothing more than an example of what I was asking in the OP, no matter how partially inspired the act of asking the question was by current events, and to say I had more of a motive than that is to read too much into it by assuming my mind and put words in my mouth, especially considering I named other cultural spheres in replies to other comments. Note that even their first few comments goes on to do things like assume my culture and undermine my capacity, so you're right, it would be generous to call this a debate.
Questioning someone's motives is like diagnosing a medical condition, you just cannot do it impersonally without some doubt when compared to doing it personally, but in the case of the former, you can always ask questions. I would've (and in fact have) dispelled the fears the two of you had, unless someone is insisting someone else has the authority to be my proxy even despite my objections.
deleted by creator