This might sound like a question inspired by current events, but Iāve 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 ācultureā or a ācultā 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 āclassic Islamic philosophyā, 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 Iāve always wondered, why? One at times leads people to trying to exterminate innocent groups, the other one is just āSpace Gnosticismā that has a few toxic aspects but hasnāt actually eliminated anyone. Of course, Iām not defending either one, but certainly Iād 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 Iām around to be involved, and they always say (and itās in my dumb voice that I quote them) āwell Scientology is a cult, of course we can criticize themā and then a bit about how whatever other thing is being talked about is a part of culture. This doesnāt 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, Iād 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 ābecause itās cultureā 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 ācultsā, even the ones that have their priorities on straight compared to cultures, that they are pariahs and shouldnāt count on thriving, even though their status is one that doesnāt 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 āfollowing a cultā, 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 āalways preciousā while cults are āalways suspiciousā?
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, doesnāt 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 Iāve gotten on this thread. Youāre the only one here with the objection you imply you have. The only one. āEveryone already knows you perceive danger from Islamā 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.
Iām guessing this is personal for you. Yeah, I chose this moment, because this kind of thing is currently more vivid on peoplesā 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
Youāre proving that one point again.
Must I? Iām trying not to generalize. Especially ethnicity. Are you asking me to?
So in other words you set up a trap and I avoided it? Iām not understanding. This isnāt about race. Iām not against any race. To say I am isā¦ 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 peoplesā 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 itās 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. Muhammadās darker moments are context-specific, but that doesnāt mean theyāre not there and used to justify said human rights relapses.
The hadith is worse in this regard, though I wasnāt even thinking of it, as many places in the Ummah, fortunately, donāt even consider it unquestionable. It has the same problem as Paulās 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, theyāve always had at least a few people who they downplay, yet even the fact that any point in a groupās 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 youāre trying to imply theyāre 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 wouldnāt give them an honorable mention.
Read the above.
Then itās a good thing I didnāt do that, now isnāt it?
Put me on record as pointing out youāre 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 itās generalization. I had seen the post before and googled it to get it again, thatās why the post you saw is the one you got.
If done intentionally, putting words in someoneās 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). Iāve 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).
Weāve now entered the pathological lying portion of coping with contradiction. You didnāt 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 thatās how the game of question-answer works.
Wrong. Check out those upvote ratios, lib.
There is no contradiction even though youāre 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. Youāre doing the racist thing right here and now. You canāt help yourself.
Oh, I donāt 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 youāre 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 youāve done, you just donāt like the characterization.
āI have read hundreds of works on thisā is weirdly not an answer to my question and makes me wonder what the āyesā means. If you are claiming to have read the Quran and the Hadith, as in all of it, I donāt 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 youāve exclusively read other peopleās opinions.
Who is ātheyā? 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 donāt list one.
Except you did generalize and in fact keep doing it over and over again. You canāt rhetoric your past and current statements out of existence.
Except you did.
This post and thread is inherently political. Impressive that you donāt 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 doesnāt have a question mark, you didnāt 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 isnāt an embarrassment and uses his subreddit as a source.
A generalization is bad when itās 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 āskepticā who uses the same language you do? Folks that jump at the chance to identify a perceived logical fallacy?
I havenāt 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 havenāt 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 itās not because the things Iām criticizing are the things youāre actually writing down right here on the internet.
No thanks. Donāt care and I already have enough info for my personal satisfaction.
Iām just letting you know that this is all unoriginal and Iām already very familiar with it, right down to the obsessive sophistry to avoid admitting any kind of error whatsoever.
Nah Iāll stick with the truth.
Itās easy to say that all one wants about someone theyāre talking to if no second opinion is granted or if ignoring all the other replies, so Iāll take someone elseās word for it. You donāt 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 arenāt even particularly plentiful in this case but also which can be seen in the modlog) donāt change my statement about replies and repliers.
Also, the fact Iām 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.
ā¦as opposed to?
No, but thank you for asking.
Iām sorry, I meant metaculture (happy?).
I couldnāt tell based on your comments bringing it up.
Then why ask?
You implied it was.
Youāre reading too much into the simple act of someone pointing a finger.
Uhm, yeah, Iāll 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 āyesā, my argumentatively novice friend.
I can name the verses people cite in order to justify violence. I donāt 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 youāll 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 attitudeā¦ especially considering the fact thereās a longstanding speculation amongst scholars that the final chapters of the Quran were written by Muhammadās 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 donāt know, come to the same opinions on things. Itās not rocket science, and you didnāt even quote anything there.
Maybe because thatās not the complete sentence.
Ahem, this guy perhaps?
ā¦as opposed to?
ā¦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 isnāt 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. donāt play a role in how someone is treated. If youāre judging someone by the contents of their character, you donāt need to know any of these things about someone, and if someone feels they must persecute a fact of life/biology/society such as oneās 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?
Thatās 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 1800ās/1900ās eugenics program to the fact Canada wasnāt allowing people with medical conditions to immigrate there until covid happened.
Then itās 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 didnāt 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. Iām starting to question how sound you think you are.
You would be surprised (aināt that an understatement)
Keyword here is āinterpretā. Youāre 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.
Iāll 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 Iām on the socialism spectrum. Did you see that coming? Now, if youāre still confident you can infer things from me, can you guess my exact philosophy?
You mean headcanon?
Deflection.
Incomprehensible.
Itās what you said donāt blame me
It means Iām 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 donāt 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 donāt know what I mean by liberal. Letās 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 youād 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 youāve said.
A simpler explanation: you donāt handle being wrong very well.
Glad we sorted it out then
The quote youāre responding to literally says why. More feigned incompetence.
Please donāt lie. Lying is bad.
Itās just the same thing over and over again. Lying and deflecting. Pointless little quips. Incomprehensible statements from a confused mind.
Racist conflation is not āthe simple act of someone pointing a fingerā, 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, Iāll just dismiss you and stop replying. May you someday have the courage of your convictions and until then shut your trap.
Youāre not the authority of what I say/mean. Alone, perhaps youāll never realize this. Hence the part before it about taking someone elseās word for it, which you claimed was deflection.
Replies prove that, not upvotes and downvotes. Only words can clarify someoneās reasoning. Votes are not a language, nor are they an argument. I donāt even see downvotes anywhere this time around.
Alright, letās 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 āā¦as opposed toā 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.
Youād have to prove someone wrong first, but instead youāre trying to belittle, something people do when they cannot handle being wrong.
So you asked me, in response to a reply that wasnāt about race on a post that wasnāt 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 donāt 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 wasnāt, my point above this one is where the confusion lies. No attempt at lying here, thereās already been so much of that lately.
Then why do it? Youāre 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.
Donāt tell me to shut up, youāre not my mom.
But they arenāt the only person here with an issue. My comment wasnāt 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 youāre doing. I just donāt want to spend the next week doing this thing youāre 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 youāre right, it would be generous to call this a debate.
Questioning someoneās 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 wouldāve (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.