Mozzer is like wee nev chamberlain with his bit of paper.

Name change please mods Rog

(02-10-2017, 06:57 AM)Mozzer Wrote: It doesn't help shaun.lawson.

It doesn't help because there IS a clash of civilisations...those who believe that a literal interpretation of a book full of mad rantings from a lunatic and those who believe in liberal principles like equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, trial by jury etc.  Those two things are completely incompatible.   A clash there is and it is necessary.  I know that for leftists it's all about American imperialism and the evils of capitalism but that doesn't matter now...radicalised Islamists exist and they HATE you and the principles you believe in.

That's not a fascist world view...no matter how much you want it to be so.  Nor is acknowledging that the numbers of blacks killed by the police tiny.  Insignificant statistically.   Again the reasons why young black men are more likely to be in situations where a police officer uses deadly force may well be as you see it...racist, inequality, the ills of capitalism.   It's awful for the families but it really isn't evidence for a racist police force.  Nor is my saying so evidence of my being a fascist.

Again, I'm happy to turn on the Trump regime as soon as I see evidence of fascism.

Fascist M.

Radical Islam isn't a civilisation. If you're going to use 'clash of civilisations' rhetoric, at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't consider yourself only to be talking about a minority of radicals.

Edit: re. the Trump regime's fascist tendencies, one problem with accusations of fascism is that there's no single definition of what it means. Here are two different lists of 'fourteen features':

http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umber...scism.html

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

The Trump regime recognisably brings together enough, from either list, to warrant concern.

(02-10-2017, 08:15 AM)Makween Wrote: Radical Islam isn't a civilisation. If you're going to use 'clash of civilisations' rhetoric, at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't consider yourself only to be talking about a minority of radicals.

We are in near total agreement.

There is little civilised about the "tiny minority of radicals" who genuinely wish to see the collapse of Western democracy and to replace it with something more wicked and destructive than anything seen since the Nazis.

Obviously we disagree on the "tiny minority" claim Makween...there will be no common ground found there. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. We've been over that claim before so there is little point in doing so again.

I am not a Trump fanboy nor a Trump supporter. I no longer feel comfortable in labelling myself as right, left or centre politically. Maybe I have simply been duped though and have in fact become a fascist without my noticing it.

Fascist M.

Did we not talk about this before Mak?

The idea is that the jihadis make up a tiny portion at the centre, but around them are a larger circle of fundamentalists who fuel jihadism through ideology and finance, then around them is an even larger circle of conservatives who tacitly support jihadi movements or consider their goals to be desirable.

That isn't to say that covers all conservatives, but is to give an idea of how it pervades the religion.

(02-10-2017, 08:25 AM)Mozzer Wrote: Obviously we disagree on the "tiny minority" claim Makween...there will be no common ground found there.  I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.  We've been over that claim before so there is little point in doing so again.

Fair enough. I've edited my last post to expand on my position re. Trump and fascism.

(02-10-2017, 08:25 AM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: Did we not talk about this before Mak?

The idea is that the jihadis make up a tiny portion at the centre, but around them are a larger circle of fundamentalists who fuel jihadism through ideology and finance, then around them is an even larger circle of conservatives who tacitly support jihadi movements or consider their goals to be desirable.

That isn't to say that covers all conservatives, but is to give an idea of how it pervades the religion.

We have talked about it before. To say that it 'pervades the religion' implies that that final circle of conservatives makes up the majority of Muslims worldwide.

'Clash of civilisations' rhetoric is normally based, among other things, on the idea that there's been conflict between the global West and Islam (which until recently was concentrated in the global East/South) ever since medieval times (but more specifically since the Enlightenment) because the two are mutually incompatible. The big difference now is the presence of large numbers of Muslims in the West - mostly treated as though their religion were the only cultural influence acting upon them. The idea of 'circles within Islam' isn't terribly relevant to that.

Sad!

(02-10-2017, 08:27 AM)Makween Wrote: Fair enough. I've edited my last post to expand on my position re. Trump and fascism.

I'd need to know who wrote those definitions before I could lend them any credence.

Fascist M.

(02-10-2017, 08:36 AM)Makween Wrote: We have talked about it before. To say that it 'pervades the religion' implies that that final circle of conservatives makes up the majority of Muslims worldwide.

'Clash of civilisations' rhetoric is normally based, among other things, on the idea that there's been conflict between the global West and  Islam (which until recently was concentrated in the global East/South) ever since medieval times (but more specifically since the Enlightenment) because the two are mutually incompatible. The big difference now is the presence of large numbers of Muslims in the West - mostly treated as though their religion were the only cultural influence acting upon them. The idea of 'circles within Islam' isn't terribly relevant to that.

It doesn't imply it's a majority, just demonstrates that violent jihadism involves more than just a few bad eggs. The problem goes deeper than those that would actually carry out acts of terror or join militant organisations.

Not really sure what you're saying in the second bit.

I still stand by my view on 'Clash of civilisations' but would also point out that there are unquestionably clashes going on within Islam, not just down sectarian lines but intellectual and cultural lines too. This is more than just being about 'West vs Islam', we have friends and potential friends in these countries already fighting, arguing and protesting. I don't think it does them any favours to be in denial about the problem. There's a bit more to it than 'Islam bad', it's about supporting the democrats, the intellectuals, the secularists in their struggles against religious oppression rather than saying it's not our problem.

(02-10-2017, 08:47 AM)Fire Mixtape Wrote: It doesn't imply it's a majority, just demonstrates that violent jihadism involves more than just a few bad eggs. The problem goes deeper than those that would actually carry out acts of terror or join militant organisations.

Not really sure what you're saying in the second bit.

I still stand by my view on 'Clash of civilisations' but would also point out that there are unquestionably clashes going on within Islam, not just down sectarian lines but intellectual and cultural lines too. This is more than just being about 'West vs Islam', we have friends and potential friends in these countries already fighting, arguing and protesting. I don't think it does them any favours to be in denial about the problem. There's a bit more to it than 'Islam bad', it's about supporting the democrats, the intellectuals, the secularists in their struggles against religious oppression rather than saying it's not our problem.

The idea of a clash of civilisations has been very well developed in both intellectual and mainstream circles, and if you accept that there's also internal conflict within Islam then what you're saying neither fits in with the 'clash of civilisations' as it's been theorised or could be referred to as a clash of civilisations in any meaningful sense.

(02-10-2017, 08:46 AM)Mozzer Wrote: I'd need to know who wrote those definitions before I could lend them any credence.

Fascist M.

I'd suggest you actually read the links, as both say who wrote the definitions.

(02-10-2017, 09:07 AM)Makween Wrote: I'd suggest you actually read the links, as both say who wrote the definitions.

Sorry Makween...I managed to not see the authors names in HUGE letters!

Umberto is certainly a leftist and not an unbiased source...the other individual I would need to do a bit of research on before determining whether I felt them to be reliable and unbiased.

Fascist M.

Everyone's biased. That's not a determining factor in whether or not their definitions can be trusted.

(02-10-2017, 09:26 AM)Makween Wrote: Everyone's biased. That's not a determining factor in whether or not their definitions can be trusted.

I think that's only partly true.

A dictionary definition is most certainly free from bias...bias occurs once we start attempting to define the definition!

I think a view expressed by someone who openly holds a particular worldview (left or right) is a good way of determining how much I (or you) trust their definitions. You disagree. That's OK. I'm not claiming to be right...it's just how I see it.

Fascist M.

I'd say that it's one factor among several that you need to take into account when determining whether or not someone can be trusted or taken seriously: another, in the case of Eco, would be that unlike either of us he actually lived under a fascist dictatorship. It'd be naive to suggest that an individual's political stance shouldn't be taken into account when judging their political views, but it'd be equally naive to suggest that it's the only thing that need be taken into account.

In the case of something as politically charged as defining what it means to be fascist, particularly in a context in which the leader of the world's most powerful nation is being accused of it, no-one is ideologically neutral. If you refuse to take into account the opinions of 'leftists', do you refuse to take into account the views of the right too? Who exactly would constitute someone worth listening to?

I'll repeat: I don't think that the Trump administration should be labelled fascist just yet, but I do think that it's shown some fascist tendencies. While some of the left-wing accusations of fascism might just be examples of the time-honoured political tradition of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a fascist, equally I think that the dismissals of any such accusation are based upon a dangerous underlying assumption that 'that would never happen in our time'.

(02-10-2017, 09:44 AM)Makween Wrote: I'd say that it's one factor among several that you need to take into account when determining whether or not someone can be trusted or taken seriously: another, in the case of Eco, would be that unlike either of us he actually lived under a fascist dictatorship. It'd be naive to suggest that an individual's political stance shouldn't be taken into account when judging their political views, but it'd be equally naive to suggest that it's the only thing that need be taken into account.

In the case of something as politically charged as defining what it means to be fascist, particularly in a context in which the leader of the world's most powerful nation is being accused of it, no-one is ideologically neutral. If you refuse to take into account the opinions of 'leftists', do you refuse to take into account the views of the right too? Who exactly would constitute someone worth listening to?

I'll repeat: I don't think that the Trump administration should be labelled fascist just yet, but I do think that it's shown some fascist tendencies. While some of the left-wing accusations of fascism might just be examples of the time-honoured political tradition of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a fascist, equally I think that the dismissals of any such accusation are based upon a dangerous underlying assumption that 'that would never happen in our time'.

Fabulous response Makween.

Thoughtful and considered.

Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Fascist M.

(02-10-2017, 10:26 AM)Mozzer Wrote: Fabulous response Makween.

Thoughtful and considered.

Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Fascist M.

Dripping with sarcasm.

(02-10-2017, 03:51 PM)pondlife Wrote: Dripping with sarcasm.  

It absolutely isn't.

It was a fair and reasonable response...so I said so.

Trump and his period in power is a serious issue (even here on talkhearts)...I'm treating the discussion with the seriousness it deserves.

Fascist M.

(02-10-2017, 04:45 PM)Mozzer Wrote: It absolutely isn't.

It was a fair and reasonable response...so I said so.

Trump and his period in power is a serious issue  (even here on talkhearts)...I'm treating the discussion with the seriousness it deserves.

Fascist M.

Okay; fair enough. I picked you up wrong.

That (his) response didn't have a word of original thought within. Everything was an absolute given. Standard jazzed-up mak.txt; fancy words ... fur coat and no knickers come to mind.

Anyway, bash on; I generally enjoy the discussions. It's why I'm on here like a pig in shit. But an occasional lash-out comes with the package.

The eberdeen fermer.



"Donald Trump is cunt."