4 ms·

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

by jakeogh 10y ago

grzm 10y ago
I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban. There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required. Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms? 'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban. 'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners. 'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban 'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in. One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position. And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!
mozumder 10y ago
Because actions happen on individual people, and not on an ideology.
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Opposing an ideology necessary involves individuals. Pretending it's skin color that motivates this will continue to result in endless defeats on the 'everyone is welcome' side you appear to be trying to defend.

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

by jakeogh 10y ago

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

grzm 10y ago

I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban. There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required. Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms? 'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban. 'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners. 'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban 'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in. One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position. And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!

mozumder 10y ago

Because actions happen on individual people, and not on an ideology.

jakeogh 10y ago
Opposing an ideology necessary involves individuals. Pretending it's skin color that motivates this will continue to result in endless defeats on the 'everyone is welcome' side you appear to be trying to defend.