Alright...

Alright, many people here have been making threads asking why leftists and liberals have such fucking hardons for defending Islam when the ideology is illiberal in every way.

I *am* a liberal, or left-winger, if you prefer, and the same question has plagued me as well. The accusation is valid: some liberals *do* give a pass to Muslims. The question is why.

I have thought long and hard about this, and I believe I can explain it.

There are four factors at work here.

1) Perversity
The right-wing hates Muslims, therefore the more reactionary, authoritarian faction of the Left which defines itself against the Right can only defend them. The Right is against it, thus the Left is for it.

2) Ignorance
The general experience of liberals with regard to religion is a mild one; one goes to church once a week, listens to some guy mouth a few empty platitudes, puts a few bucks in the collection plate, then goes home. For most people, religion is not actually that great a factor in their lives. Muslims, as shown by the number of Islamic theocracies, take their religion infinitely more seriously than does the average Christian is the US.

3) Virtue-signalling
Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd." The more ridiculous the dogma, the greater the virtue gained by remaining faithful to it. I believe something similar is at work here: the more intolerable the ideology, the more virtuous it is to tolerate it.

4) Fear
The idea that 1.5 billion Muslims are adherents of a violent, intolerant, fascist, genuinely patriarchal and misogynist ideology, intrinsicly opposed to liberal democracy, and the freedoms of speech, religion, thought, and conscience, is terrifying. Thus, they try to convince themselves that it is only a tiny "fringe" that is the problem.

This is my theory. What are your thoughts, denizens of Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

phys.org/news/2016-01-tackling-credibility-crisis-science.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'd agree, though you are downplaying the sheer retardation factor

"Stupid" is a theme which pervades the whole matter, no argument there.

Muslims in the US do not live in an islamic theocracy, many fled from them and they live in the US by choice

>The right-wing hates Muslims
No. The so-called "right" is interested in preserving national integrity (generally speaking) and protecting it from foreign invaders. Muslims themselves have come out saying their migration to western nations is an invasion and plan to outbreed the native European peoples who are in a demographic downward spiral. It's called "self-preservation" you autistic lefty.
>The Right is against it, thus the Left is for it.
That doesn't even make any sense. "They do 'x' therefore I'll do 'y' just because lolooollolo"
>2) Ignorance
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER
>The more ridiculous the dogma, the greater the virtue gained by remaining faithful to it.
You should look more into human psychology to understand how it is people can be brought to believe the most asinine things so long as they have faith that their leaders are valid. It's called "herd mentality" and the left is the epitome of it. If Obama chopped a little kid's head off and shit down its esophagus the people would clap and cheer.

Good news bad news.
The picture above is a suppository.

Do you have any cites to support any of your theories or are you just pulling them out of your ass?

>You should look more into human psychology to understand how it is people can be brought to believe the most asinine things so long as they have faith that their leaders are valid. It's called "herd mentality" and the left is the epitome of it. If Obama chopped a little kid's head off and shit down its esophagus the people would clap and cheer.
"The Righteous Mind" by Haidt was a decent read. And I thoroughly doubt that more than a select few among the fringe of society would clap and cheer if Obama chopped some kid's head off.

>And I thoroughly doubt that more than a select few among the fringe of society would clap and cheer if Obama chopped some kid's head off.
That's probably because I was being sarcastic and exaggerating to make a point.

Honest people relay facts, not exaggeration. If you have to exaggerate to make a point, it means your position is weak.

Really? Everything that happened with Clinton and people still voted for her, what about that? She's probably had people actually murdered and still almost became president so how is it a weak fucking point you autist?

And what is your point?

I have to think for you too now? How assrammed are you?

That used to be true
The problem is when they flee for other reasons.
Then they want to make their destination a theocracy also.

>national integrity
Do you forget that America is a nation of immigrants?
>Muslims themselves have come out saying their migration to western nations is an invasion and plan to outbreed the native European peoples who are in a demographic downward spiral.
Cite me a single source that says that ALL Muslims or even the vast majority of muslims believe this.

I'm fucking waiting.

>I only believe what is published by one of a handful of large corporations.

No you idiot. You have to state your opinion (which you didn't) before you can question others on your point. I can ASSUME that you are butt-hurt and confused about comments and policies made by past presidents that are minimally relevant to the recent decisions made by the current POTUS, but I don't know for certain because your point was never clear.

>I'm fucking waiting.
>It thinks I care

Didn't even read lel. You sound like a boring loser. Kill yourself.

>I only believe what I want to believe and disregard peer review
This is what you are presenting yourself as. Are you even aware of what peer review is?

Peer review is where people whose time is worth quite a lot volunteer to read over enormous stacks of studies and papers submitted for publication, to ensure they do not contain glaring errors of style, punctuation and grammar, mostly. That a paper has passed peer review is not any sort of endorsement of its validity, truthfulness or relevance.

>no idea what logic is
>only listens to whatever rhetoric is pertinent to one's own mindset
Found the Trump supporter, guys.

>Found the Trump supporter, guys.

Hate to break it to you, but there is likely to be much more than one in any thread on any board you go to.

Forget 'left vs right' bs
Belief in religious tolerance / free speech means tolerating stupid religious beliefs. Bible is also pretty vicious if taken literally. Muslims in reality are a very diverse lot in terms of what they actually believe and practice.

Most respectable journals will send back errors of logic, missing/skewed evidence, etc.

Don't rely on that. The Lancet, Nature and NEJM have published patently ridiculous studies showing, among other things, links between vaccines and autism.

phys.org/news/2016-01-tackling-credibility-crisis-science.html

Don't worry about where something was published, or who thought it up. Think about it, do some of your own research, and decide for yourself whether it makes sense or not. Sorry, but there's no trustworthy authority to save you from having to think.

True; he did win the presidency after all. He is, for whatever reason, still hung up and butt-hurt over the fact that he didn't win the popular vote.

>have published patently ridiculous studies showing, among other things, links between vaccines and autism.
Likely true, but such publishers also tend to self-correct in the face of new evidence vs blindly accepting whatever supports the initial findings.

That's rare, and usually in response to controversy. Read the link I gave you, since you like cited sources. There is a huge credibility crisis in science. Most studies are never reproduced, and when they are, about half fail.

>phys.org/news/2016-01-tackling-credibility-crisis-science.html
All of the 10(!) citations of that article are all supportive of the authors' point of view.

That being said, I will agree with you that there is a problem with the way that peer-review is being conducted in most self-proclaimed "peer-reviewed" journals.

Isn't that link supportive of the fact that publishers tend to self-correct in the face of new evidence?

Two problems, really: time and money. No one has the time to really go back and check someone's work, and publishers are interested in headline-grabbing results.

It seems like the whole world has become involved in a contest of trading bullshit for cash. Academia is not immune from this. The systems that worked to hold academia above slinging snake oil several decades ago no longer work.

Put it this way: if you had to choose between your having your integrity and poverty as you try to pay off hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans and find no one willing to gamble that your proposed studies will reach conclusions that support their business or political agendas, and spouting good-enough-looking nonsense for tenure, financial security and the respect of your peers, which would you choose?

No, the link does not talk about new evidence. It talks about how shitty the old evidence is, and how PLOS has recognized the fact that a large portion of published science is unreproducable. The fact that one publisher has decided to study studies doesn't mean most publishers are racing to expose their own lack of credibility.

because it was obviously hyperbole

Jesus fucking christ this is some garbage amateurishly masked as intellectualism. How about letting people live their lives as they wish? Get the fuck out of here with your hogwash.

>obviously hyperbole
But it was presented as fact.
See: >Read the link I gave you, since you like cited sources

>"edgy" exaggeration
>pedantic tut-tutting

Wait, what board am I on again?

A nation of legal immigrants from vetted countries. In the past we would take anyone because we needed cheap labor. Oh how times have changed. We don't need as many now, AND if we do, we want immigrants that will assimilate. The USA should go the oath of New Zealand and only bring in immigrants with necessary skills. Period.

Liberal ideology is based on egalitarianism. The notion that all people are equal.

Since they start with the notion that all men ARE equal. It leads to many other mistaken assumptions; all men can be educated the same, if men can't succeed on their own they deserve compensation, that immigrants from any nation are all going to be good citizens, that if minorities are underrepresented in any field that they get the job first (even if they're less qualified).

Since egalitarianism cannot be proved and nearly all facts and statistics DISPROVE it (like differences in IQ and rates of crime of different races), some serious mental gymnastics must be performed.

This is why they go out of their way to talk about the poor persecuted negro (neglecting to mention that 13% minority commits over 90% of our violent crime, nearly all of the rapes, and collects over half of the welfare dollars) and Muslim..... the reality of the matter is both of those groups (particularly black Muslims) overwhelmingly do NOT contribute anything to our culture except a drain on our nations wealth (via welfare, social programs, and incarceration) and the crime statistics. In Sweden last year they accepted 163k refugees, last than 500 got jobs. But on the other hand they know have Muslims committing 99% of their rapes (the Quran glorifies raping, murdering, and cheating infidels)!

Prior to the 1960s this was well known. This is why immigrants of European stock were typically welcomed yet Africans and Middle Easterners were not.

Which makes complete sense. No one was created equal and not all races or immigrants will be of equally good stock.

Academia does have it's faults (publishing bias is probably predominant) but it does, eventually, self-correct and is a far better way to argue an opinion over simple "gut feelings" or knee-jerk reactions because it backs up its findings.

.She did..There are plenty of obviously apparent acts of murder from her camp over the years. The Clinton blood trail.

Although, we will eventually find out that he most likely did. Until that time, butthurt libbys

Amen. Most people simply disregard this, although there stunning facts presented hourly.

>A nation of legal immigrants from vetted countries.
Correct. That's what Clinton and Obama wanted. Trump wants to ban all TRAVEL (tourists, etc.) from the countries that Obama previously banned refugees from temporarily without providing any evidence to do so. The reason why the courts are putting a halt towards the Trump ban is because they weren't provided enough evidence to support such a ban in the first place. They aren't overruling the president's ban, they're simply doing their jobs and upholding the laws of the land.

>Found the Trump supporter, guys.
That's cute considering I was the one telling people that Trump would be the same shit as everyone else but okay. Apparently I also don't understand logic because I wouldn't give into your demanding hissyfit tier bullshit. But I'm the one who doesn't understand logic with that amazing nonsequitur. KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

It's pretty simple, really.

There are two kinds of liberals. The first kind is those that have thought through their beliefs and correctly (yes, correctly) determined that liberty and equality for all are good things. When faced with a new situation, they will think about it and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Then you have the idiot variety. This variety exists on the right too, the only difference being that they play for a different team. They just learn basic rules, e.g. that feminism is good or Islam is... not good, but not bad. Then they apply this to anything. So they will get behind any feminist-sounding idea, no matter how retarded it is, and they will defend Islam whenever possible. The right wing variety seems to work in a different way: if you ever defend/support something that sounds vaguely feminist or Muslim, you're a libtard who loves Muslims and wants to be ruled by angry women. There is no room on either side to think about each question individually.

1) he didn't win the popular vote and his reasons why are unsubstantiated and counter to his own inner circle (his own daughter registered in two states).
2) more like:
>until that time, butthurt Trump for the rest of his presidency

>No citations for those numbers
>Diatribing on the internet
It's okay that not everyone is exactly of equal value, but it's funny to think that based on race you would find an imbalance rather than on class position and cultural background. White children raised in poverty is conditions would and do live the same life style as blacks in poverty US conditions. We like to make it about race when it is really about psychology, and what people do to survive everyday.
I'm black an was raised by two mothers in the suburbs of AZ. I'm in college and am studying for composition of music.
The world would be a more equal place if everyone was raised in a suburb and had an opportunity to go to school.
Treating people like shit because you don't struggle like they do makes you worth a lot less as a human being, and citing statistics really just makes you a Cuck because you don't use your mind to understand, you use it to segregate and spout numbers that please your disposition.

There are diamonds in the rough, sure. And sometimes, the bullshit people get paid to game their studies to show really is true. However, it is not a business of conducting studies to discover the truth. It is a business of conducting studies to support whomever is paying for the studies.

So, very often, in practice, no, it's not better.

Fine. Tell me precisely where you clearly stated your point and I'll acquiesce.
>demanding hissyfit tier bullshit
welcome to law 101 fag. You can't blindly accept one piece of evidence and ignore another.

If it only a fringe thAt feels this way, why do we never see Muslim groups protesting every time someone gets beheaded or someone dies in an explosion? Why? Why do the "religion of peace" Muslims not vocally separate themselves from the ones killing people in the name of their religion? Until they do, I will never trust a Muslim, never let m guard down around them. Silence = consent.

What's the alternative? Blind feelings because one simply "knows" that something is the correct because the "feel" it?

How about leftists being fucking retards as an explanation.

>law 101
oh shit, everyone watch out, we have a fucking lawyer here! i'll make sure to do that ;D

you unironically retarded losers that have no self awareness and forget where you are on here crack me up

THIS IS THE DEBATE OF A LIFETIME AND MY ENTIRE EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON ME BEING RIGHT

>why do we never see Muslim groups protesting every time someone gets beheaded or someone dies in an explosion
>measuring things by protesters
Really?

>Since they start with the notion that all men ARE equal.

No. Liberalism is about treating people equally, not believing everyone has the same value.

>Since egalitarianism cannot be proved and nearly all facts and statistics DISPROVE it (like differences in IQ and rates of crime of different races), some serious mental gymnastics must be performed.

You're getting borderline retarded here if you think liberalism=egalitarianism=everyone must have the same IQ.

As for your facts and statistics, the more I look around and see white people being just as niggerish as anyone else, the more I realise that it's more complicated than "which race commits the most crimes" or "which race has the best IQ". Look around countries with few black people and you'll still find a hell of a lot of niggers. Look at squatting slavs, travellers, chavs and American "white trash". Look back to earlier days of the US and their niggers were white people: Irish gangs, etc. If today's generation of black people commit more crimes and are less well-educated, of course their next generation will end up a lot like that too. It doesn't mean it's genetic.

If winning the popular vote was important he simply would have campaigned more in new york and california.
It isnt important so he didnt do that.

>Provides zero evidence to support claim
>opinion is disregarded by the law of the land
BUTTHURT EVERYWHERE
Do you see the resemblance with the Trump visa case?

^^^^This.
Nice summary.

In that same logic, if shillary would have campaigned more, would she have been president?

>How about letting people live their lives as they wish?
And if that wish includes forcing you to adopt their religion at gunpoint?
Or pay a non-believer tax if you want to worship other gods besides theirs?
Or maybe just shoot you because of what your politicians predecessors did to their ancestors even though you had fuck-all to do with it?

I'm not saying all Muslims, nor even most, fit those descriptions. But there are people out there who *do* fit those descriptions. How will your stance change when "as they wish?" includes a gun to your head or even just legislating your daughter's religion?

>I *am* a liberal

who r u trying to fool here?

I think the answer to all your questions can be found in the line you quoted.

eat a dick, fucc boi

Nice straw mans bro

>implying ISIS doesn't exist
>implying ISIS doesn't kill people for breaking their rules
While I like the irony of letting the Muslim kill the "I'm so tolerant that I tolerate intolerance" guy, I don't like the idea of fundies being given the right to do whatever they want or they'll kill you. Much as I hate to admit it, I'd be impelled to attempt to defend the tolerant idiot's life.

>They aren't overruling the president's ban, they're simply doing their jobs and upholding the laws of the land.
Stupid fucking statement. The law clearly states that it's the President that has complete and total authority in this matter. The judges in the case were clearly stepping well outside their constitutional limits. The 9th circus is a completely activist court.

Personally I find it kind of odd that some random judge in one state can override an order from the president of the nation.
I'd understand if it was the Supreme Court or something, but a regular judge in Washington being able to pull rank on the Commander In Chief?

That wasn't my point. My point was that if the rule is to let people live as they wish, they're doing it wrong if they put guns to heads. Obviously letting people live as they want isn't anarchy, because anarchy only allows the strong to live as they want. That's why there are some limitations on everyone doing exactly as they want, because it's judged that their freedom to build bonfires in the street isn't as important as others' freedom to use streets without worrying about bonfires. And that's the flaw in libertarianism, which I would think was just a straw man parody of liberalism if I didn't know better.

no u

Op you are correct

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>//////////////////ledddittt////////////

I thought you were conflating basic tolerance of other people's religion and way of life to tolerating violent jihadism. All in all though we probably have similar outlooks. Nobody likes fundamentalists of any religion

I don't defend muslim ideology, but i defend freedom of speech, even when i disagree with it. I also defend freedom of and from religion. It's a shame that some liberals take it too far and actually defend the ideology itself. Personally, I'll defend their rights to their religion while also pointing out that it's retarded, like all religion.

You're a retard.

The reason is that the left understands that the best way to win is to control the hearts and minds of the Muslim people moreso than the polarizing forces. Allow me to put this in terms you can understand.

Suppose you are a black man during the black civil rights era. There are white people who hate you and white people who accept you but mostly there are white people somewhere in the middle. There are also powerful polarizing forces that are trying to convince other white people that you are a dangerous menace and a threat to their livelihood. Those polarizing forces want a fight from you, they want to see you be dangerous because their goal is to convince others that they were right about you all along.

It is not so different here.

The rationale behind the *temporary* stay is that Trump did not provide enough evidence to support the law. Trump had every right to appear and state his claim but he didn't.

>if the rule is to let people live as they wish
>if the rule is
>the rule is
>rule
There's the problem right there.
Just because it's *your* rule, doesn't mean it's *his* rule.
If he believes that God tells him that not only is it okay to kill nonbelievers but that it is in fact required, and you tell him that you don't believe that, then you have no nonviolent path forward. If his beliefs do not preclude killing people who disagree, just disagreeing with him isn't going to get you very far.
You cannot coexist with people who want to kill you. It is extremely difficult to convince people that you are right and that the command of their god is not, especially when that command is to kill people who say that their god is wrong.
There are people out there whom you simply will not be able to survive tolerating.

What percentage of Muslims actually believe this though?

>complains about 9th circuit granting an injunction against Trump.
>doesn't care that the 5th circuit did the same thing to Obama several times.

Circuit courts being able to grant injunctions like this is actually kind of a bad thing in general.

That said the court's decision was based on a lack of reasonable justification from Trump. Basically Trump shat on his credibility for TV ratings and now it's backfiring on him.

9th circuit is right below the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court ends in a tie then the 9th circuit's decision will stand.

The vast minority. Most would actually have kind of split-vision on this kind of behavior the same way moderate christians do. Which is to say that believing that righteously following the commands of god and going to battle for god is a good thing when it's something you're reading about that happened a long time ago, but not something they would disrupt their own lives to stand up and do. Some of those people (still the minority) would applaud such actions as righteous. A bit more of those people wouldn't condemn it even if they don't support it. The majority would probably dismiss the radical as "not a true Christian if he's acting like that..." while continuing to read stories to their children about people who acted like that long ago.

But there are places in the world where those hardline beliefs are the law of the land and you get maimed or killed publicly for violating them. While those people are, globally, in the minority there are places where they are the majority and are seeking to expand. It's easy to be dismissive of this as "what percent?" when you're safely on the other side of the planet, but even though the percentage may be low the fact remains that there *are* people out there that you cannot survive tolerating. You can surrender, or you can die, there is no debate to be had in their point of view.

I am making this point solely to show that the "let everyone live as they wish" is functionally, fundamentally, impossible because there will always be people against whom you have no other option but to defend yourself against violence.

>9th circuit is right below the Supreme Cour
Yes, but the injunction placed on the President's Executive Order (the one that Trump went to the 9th Circuit to have lifted) came from a regular judge in Seattle, Washington.

Thanks for the thoughtful rebuttal.
The "what percent" concern is valid but it doesn't completely acknowledge the actual number of people killed by terrorists of foreign status currently banned from entering the US since 9/11 (the answer is zero). Provided this evidence and no counter evidence, the courts had no choice but to delay the Trump ban.

That was a temporary restraining order. A bunch of states have law suits against Trump over the order. Washington is one of them. A TRO is issued when a case is being taken to court (where the true fate of a thing will be decided). The reason the Federal Judge in Washington issued the TRO is because they asked Trump's lawyers basic questions about the effects of the order and the lawyers said they didn't have any idea yet. The judge was basically like
>how can I allow this to be in effect when not even you guys know what the fuck it's doing.

Washington's lawsuit focuses on some clauses that put restrictions on the president's powers over this kind of thing. Specifically discriminating based on religion and some other things.

Agreed

I am a right of center mutualist anarchist. My thought on it is we should not discriminate against any thought it ideology unless it seeks to limit others rights. I have no issue with moderate Muslim immigration. I do have issues with blue laws and wouldn't want Sharia to even be considered. The issue is freedom and prepolicing are on opposite sides of the issue. I currently fear my government more than the Muslim boogie man. The scrutiny given towards Muslims could easily be directed at you next. Just some food for thought.

Go away ShariaBlue. This shit is so fucking annoying.

>The judge was basically like
>how can I allow this
And I'm like
>How can the lower levels of the Judicial branch just slam the brakes on the highest level of the Executive branch? I could see if the Seattle judge passed the case up the chain to the higher courts, that would make perfect sense. But the Lower courts being able to tell the President "No" and the President having to be the one who takes it to the higher courts seems ass-backwards to me.
How is it even up to a regular Judge in Seattle to "allow" the leader of the nation to execute powers that are legally available to him (US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 11, Section 11, § 1182 10(f)

>highest level
forgetting that there are three equal branches of government in the US.
>How is it even up to a regular Judge in Seattle to "allow" the leader of the nation to execute powers that are legally available to him (US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 11, Section 11, § 1182 10(f)
to the best of my knowledge, I believe that it was basically due to Trump not providing evidence to substantiate his claim to a pertinent threat under the aforementioned law.

Gotta get that black cock inside of you! Open butthole, no restrictions

>regular Judge

He is a federal judge who was nominated by George W. Bush.
>In the United States, the title of federal judge means a judge (Article Three of the United States Constitution) appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate pursuant to the Appointments Clause in Article II of the United States Constitution.

>many people

It's one person. Fuck off with your false flag shit. Liberal =/= SJW

You rang?

How is this any different than the Irish immigration or the Polish immigration or the Scandinavian immigration or the Italian immigration?

People are spewing the same rhetoric now as they did centuries ago when your ancestors came over. And guess what? America adapted.

>forgetting that there are three equal branches of government
>three equal branches
>equal
Apparently not, considering a regular rank-and-file Judge can shut the door on the highest ranked member of the Executive branch.
I wasn't implying that Judicial was lower than Executive, but that this was a low-ranked member of the Judicial branch pulling rank on the highest ranked member of the Executive branch.
>not providing evidence to substantiate
Read US Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 11, Section 11, § 1182 10(f)
There is no mention of the President needing anyone's approval, needing to prove anything to anyone, or showing any evidence to anyone in order to exercise this power. It is plainly stated to be at the President's discretion.

This is nothing short of the Judicial branch placing it's lowest ranked members above the Presidency and pre-existing written law.

This is an intelligent thread OP. Your analysis is pertinent. I just don't agree with point 3. Too "esoteric" when compared with the other three.

>Whenever the President finds
>finds
That's what the current suit is about. The president did not provide any evidence to "find" any country accountable for anything so multiple state attys are suing him for that reason.

>The world would be a more equal place if everyone was raised in a suburb and had an opportunity to go to school.

This is the case in Europe for muslims. Look at the results.

"finds" != "proves"
The way you want it, the COURT has to FIND that the President is justified.
That's not what US Code Title 8 says. It's not up to the court, it's up to the President.

The difference is, Poles and Swedes don't want to kill you because of your religion and don't have a religion that's in complete opposition to the western moral values that they want to make into law for everyone.

You have yet to provide a single source to say that anyone in any of the countries that Trump wanted to ban (kek) actually pose a threat to US citizens.

That's a ridiculous notion. A country should be allowed to ban anyone they please from entering said country for whatever reason.