Terrorist Attack at New Zealand mosques

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

On 3/18/2019 at 9:00 AM, DaveSumm said:

I apologise if this isn’t the place, but I’ve seen a few casual remarks about Sam Harris on the forum being ‘racist’, is there anything you found racist about the quote she’s points to, that Islam presents unique challenges? Some of Maher’s statements are a little crass, I’ll grant. But it seems very odd to suggest Harris’s criticism of Islam, even it were misguided (which I don’t think it is) could be a drop in the ocean compared to Trump.

Yeah I wouldn't call Sam Harris conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That being said, I think he's a lot more full of shit than Christopher Hitchens or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or any of the other "new atheists" that he's always name-dropping. Maher is a professional jackass and not peers with any of these people, though his show can be worth watching for the guests.

The problem I think many of the folks around here have with these guys is that while they themselves may have good intentions, their material, specifically the way it's presented, can have a kind of galvanizing effect on the prejudices of the simple or intellectually lazy.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The manifesto has now been banned by the Censorship Office:

https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/#christchurch-attack-publication-the-great-replacement-classified-objectionable

I fully agree with banning the video, but I think banning the manifesto is a mistake.

[Heartofice]

44 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Yeah I wouldn't call Sam Harris conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That being said, I think he's a lot more full of shit than Christopher Hitchens or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or any of the other "new atheists" that he's always name-dropping. Maher is a professional jackass and not peers with any of these people, though his show can be worth watching for the guests.

The problem I think many of the folks around here have with these guys is that while they themselves may have good intentions, their material, specifically the way it's presented, can have a kind of galvanizing effect on the prejudices of the simple or intellectually lazy.

I think the echo chamber nature of the internet means that if you only listen to stuff by many right wing commentators then when you hear someone like Harris or Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak then it will simply feed into your own prejudices and confirm what you already believe. I actually think Harris has a quite reasonable position on Islam and its pretty consistent with his views on religion in general. 

However I think the issue is really the nature of the internet itself, and the ability for people to get tribal and surround themselves with information that they already agree with. I don't see Harris or Ali as a problem as they are trying to confront some of the fanatical and unpleasant elements within Islam, which seems to be a worthwhile thing to be doing. That there are intellectually lazy people taking their words out of context or using it to back up their own terrible opinions doesn't mean we should prevent someone like Harris from speaking. 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think the echo chamber nature of the internet means that if you only listen to stuff by many right wing commentators then when you hear someone like Harris or Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak then it will simply feed into your own prejudices and confirm what you already believe. I actually think Harris has a quite reasonable position on Islam and its pretty consistent with his views on religion in general. 

I think Harris could do more to discourage that kind of audience, but chooses not to because that would mean selling fewer books. That being said, I think he's as horrified as anyone else by these attacks and blaming him or anyone like him is an understandable but also a somewhat knee-jerk response in the immediate wake of yet another large scale terrorist attack.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I think Harris could do more to discourage that kind of audience, but chooses not to because that would mean selling fewer books.

I don't think thats true at all. He's often talked about the issues of the far right, nazism and racism and it's very clear he abhors them. They are not the people buying his books or listening to his podcasts and they certainly don't use his meditation app. 

There is a difficult balance to be had around discussing Islam, and I think he does it reasonably well most of the time. I don't think it does anybody any favours to throw the blame on atrocities like this at people like him.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

14 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don't think it does anybody any favours to throw the blame on atrocities like this at people like him.

I don't think anyone is seriously blaming him for this. Some are using him or things he has said to vent their anger and sadness about what's happened, but that's just part of being in the public eye. I still remember my mother going on about Marilyn Manson having blood on his hands after Columbine happened, so I am sick of people like Harris talking about some hypothetical Orwellian Left trying to shut them down like it's this new thing that just came out of nowhere.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I don't think anyone is seriously blaming him for this. Some are using him or things he has said to vent their anger and sadness about what's happened, but that's just part of being in the public eye. I still remember my mother going on about Marilyn Manson having blood on his hands after Columbine happened, so I am sick of people like Harris talking about some "new" Orwellian Left that's trying to shut them down.

Well I think there have been people who actually blamed him and Marr for it. However I would say there is always some element of the internet willing to say anything, and throw insults around like confetti. I did see quite a bit of a push to lay the blame at the door of people who criticise Islam , which really just came across as pointscoring.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well I think there have been people who actually blamed him and Marr for it. However I would say there is always some element of the internet willing to say anything, and throw insults around like confetti. I did see quite a bit of a push to lay the blame at the door of people who criticise Islam , which really just came across as pointscoring.

I can go on the subway and find somebody who blames vampires for 9/11. What I meant was that I don't think anybody with any real influence over their careers, or any of those planning retaliatory acts of violence, would actually lay responsibility for these attacks on Sam Harris or Bill Maher.

[Conflicting Thought]

In my view, they are responsible for expressing anti islam views and islamphobia that in a way legitimizes this whites supremasist terrorists. Its hard to deny that they (harris, maher, etc) advance this idea that islam is full of extremist and that islam in itself is the problem, and that plays into the hands of white supremasist and racists. 

They are fearmongerers, and that has consequenses in real life. 

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

. Its hard to deny that they (harris, maher, etc) advance this idea that islam is full of extremist and that islam in itself is the problem

Harris in particular is very critical of Islam. But then this whole thing brings up the discussion as to whether criticism of a set of beliefs should be downplayed for fear of your words being twisted and used by the wrong people. 

Really though I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for this discussion.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Really though I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for this discussion.

Sure, just wanted to "balance" the responsabilty angle a little. Ill drop it now. 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

In my view, they are responsible for expressing anti islam views and islamphobia that in a way legitimizes this whites supremasist terrorists. Its hard to deny that they (harris, maher, etc) advance this idea that islam is full of extremist and that islam in itself is the problem, and that plays into the hands of white supremasist and racists. 

They are fearmongerers, and that has consequenses in real life. 

I think it's a little more complicated than that, but I do agree that their message about Islam tends to do more harm than good. It's not even that I disagree with the message itself, tbh. Islam is being used as a tool by a lot of strong-arm groups to oppress people, and it does need a reformation in parts of the world, fine. But do either of these guys really sound like they're talking to Muslims when they do their little dance about Islam, and the West, and blah blah blah? No, they're not. From Bill Maher it is especially galling as I believe he's on the record as saying he would never visit Asia or "radical muslim countries" in North AFrica.

That being said, to accuse them of fear-mongering or implying that they were in any way responsible for violence against muslims, particularly on this scale, is an over-reaction. Especially in light of there actually being people out there making concerted efforts to radicalize young people into violence. White nationalists, religious fundamentalists of every type.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think objective atheists would be viewing each of the Abrahamic religions as ridiculous superstitions. It is a little offputting and suspicious to me when I hear one try to elevate anyone or two of the three above the others. They are intertwined cousins to any outsiders.

Its like laying three new marbles down together and then trying to give a speech about one or two of the three being so much different than the third. I find such arguments unconvincing and seemingly prejudicial. I have to suspect whether this person is really an agnostic or atheist or are they Christians having a rebellious phase in their life?

Lets not overlook that this crazed NZ shooter (like the Norway mass shooter) was viewing himself as some sort of avenging knight fueled by the history of Europes past holy wars, he was no atheist or agnostic. And we shouldnt be laying the blame for him at the feet of atheist or secular personalities like Harris, Maher, etc. That argument holds no water.

[Conflicting Thought]

I dont blame them, i just think they are a part of a narrative promotes islamophobia and gives arguments to racist people, and they have to take responsability for that.

They are part of the problem. 

[Zorral]

At this stage of the development of massive gun massacres, wherever they happen, whoever commits them: it isn't first and foremost about ideology or religion of any kind; it's about making the score.

It's about making the biggest kill, getting the most media coverage, going down into history.

NZ's prime minister is so wise she realized this.  She won't say his name.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

7 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

 Islam is being used as a tool by a lot of strong-arm groups to oppress people, and it does need a reformation in parts of the world, fine. 

I sincerely hope you mean reformation with a lower-case r. There are few things that irritate me more than Western commentators who insist that the problem with Islam is that it hasn't had a (capital r) Reformation - for a start Islam lacks the unified centre of intellectual authority that sixteenth century Catholicism had, and secondly, insofar as it can have a Reformation, ISIS, Osama bin Laden, et cetera, are exactly that. The goals and methods of early Protestantism are not that that alien to modern Islamic crazies, who want to cast off modern corruption, and return to a purer, simpler faith. Basically, I wouldn't wish a Reformation on anyone. 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I sincerely hope you mean reformation with a lower-case r.

Yeah that's why I used a lower case r when I wrote it. Though really I was paraphrasing the general schtick of the commentators being discussed.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

5 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I dont blame them, i just think they are a part of a narrative promotes islamophobia and gives arguments to racist people, and they have to take responsability for that.

They are part of the problem. 

Still a bit of an over-simplification IMO. I'd say rather that they are contributing to one problem while ostensibly addressing another. Though really, I think a lot of it is more self aggrandizing than they'd like to admit.

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Still a bit of an over-simplification IMO. I'd say rather that they are contributing to one problem while ostensibly addressing another. Though really, I think a lot of it is more self aggrandizing than they'd like to admit.

At this current point in time their opinions seem self aggrandising, but a couple of years ago, at the height of islamic terrorism in Europe I think what they were saying was highly relevant and useful. 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

At this current point in time their opinions seem self aggrandising, but a couple of years ago, at the height of islamic terrorism in Europe I think what they were saying was highly relevant and useful. 

What kind of reverse hindsight shit is that? Nationalism has murdered more people in Europe than every crusade, religious pogrom, and armed jihad in the combined global history of all the Abrahamic faiths, and a lot more recently too.

And btw, Sam Harris and Bill Maher are both Americans, speaking mostly to American audiences. Pointing at assimilation problems in European states, which have a history of being much more ethnically homogeneous than the Americas to begin with, and implying that these will imminently become American problems is a great strategy for getting attention, but it is the last thing from helpful.