The Regressive Left

[maryjane48]

we would not have science with out theoretical thinking , whats your point ?

[Donald G]

Postby maryjane48 » 3 minutes ago

we would not have science with out theoretical thinking , whats your point ?

Almost all theoretical science that gave us anything was at University level.

Comic books and the Tyee could be called theory in the Regressive Left occupied by the NDP.

Theory lacking reality is useless, which is why we have the things like the Hadron Collider, Test pilots and rigid medical testing of medical theories.

[neilsimon]

It's a bit rich for a militant atheist, known to be very intolerant of religion and an islamophobe to criticise others who identify as progressive as not being so.

I agree with Dawkins that Universities should be a place open to the discussion of popular and unpopular opinions, but I am surprised that a seemingly intelligent man such as Dawkins forgets that freedom of speech does not mean that others have to invite you to speak, or even provide you with a platform you can use. Speaking at a University is a privilege and not a right. In the same way that speaking on Real Time with Bill Maher is too.

Additionally, it is well understood that the term racism is no longer applied in the narrow sense that Dawkins seems to think it is. In fact, Merriam-Webster's definition of race includes:

a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

So, discrimination against Muslims is, by a broad interpretation of race, a form of racism. Even leaving that aside, he can definitely make the mental jump required to realise that he is actually being accused of bigotry. Dismissing someone else's argument on minor semantics issues is to dodge the argument, not to address it.

Of course, Islam should be open to scrutiny, but one must apply the same scrutiny to all religions if one is to be fair and unbiased and there are many terrible acts committed by Christians and even Atheists too. Bill Maher is quick to use religion as the defining feature Muslims who are repressive (there are plenty of examples of this), but I've never heard him call out China's government over its Atheism, or Eritrea over its Christianity (very high rates of female genital mutilation, even among Catholics and Protestants). The fact that Bill Maher is so unwilling to do so reeks of bias in favour of some religions over others.

If there is a true "Regressive Left" it includes those such as Maher and Dawkins too. They are intolerant and either wilfully ignorant, or deliberately misleading.

BTW, if you are looking for a good foil to Bill Maher when it comes to Islam, Reza Aslan is at least as well informed and probably a lot more so, even if he is also biased too (but aren't we all)

Sorry about the rant, but Bill Maher is the kind of ignorant jerk who gives progressives a bad name

[Glacier]

At least Dawkins and Maher are honest. Reza Aslan pretty much lies about everything he says on the topic of Islam.

[maryjane48]

bill is admitly biased , but i disregard his views on fairytales written by man . i watch him for his take on politics . as far as dawkins he could out debate anyone on this forum

[neilsimon]

At least Dawkins and Maher are honest. Reza Aslan pretty much lies about everything he says on the topic of Islam.

Honest and wrong is still wrong ;)

Okay, I admit that Mr Aslan isn't the most trustworthy in terms of his academic credentials, which isn't nearly as uncommon a crime as is being presented in this video (I know plenty of academics, graduates, etc. who have done exactly the same, often repeatedly). Of course, it fits with Mr Pakman's narrative to suggest that Aslan's exaggerated claims are rare, because he wishes to vilify him.

While watching the segment on FGM, it was clear that Pakman twists words to make his point. He claims that Aslan "has denied that FGM has any sort of connection with Islam". This is a clear and probably deliberate misrepresentation of Aslan's position, which Aslan claims is that FGM is not a Muslim problem (which can be reasonably interpreted to mean that it is not Islam that is the root cause of FGM, rather than no Muslims practise FGM), and that it is a Central African problem, which it clearly is to a very significant degree: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/02/reza-aslan/fact-checking-reza-aslans-retort-bill-maher/. Since some of the Central African countries have large Muslim populations, there is definitely a connection between FGM and some Muslims. Of course, the fact that some of them are predominantly Christian countries, and FGM is widely practised by Christians too, means that there is a very strong connection between Christianity and FGM, but it is not a Christian problem. I suspect that some Atheists practise it too (though I have no proof of this). As an Atheist, I would also claim that FGM is not an Atheist problem either.

Pakman's absurd claim that Aslan's assertion that "FGM has nothing to do with Islam" (a claim Aslan did not make), might inhibit global research on FGM is just plain daft. In the past, I was an academic in a completely different field but I know that any such claim would actually make me want to research it more and get to know much more about it. Hell, if Pakman and Bill Maher's claim that FGM is a solely Islam caused problem (see two can play at the straw man game, Pakman), and I was a student of such rituals, I would certainly have less reason to research it as there would be a simple explanation, but since the explanation is certainly quite complex (more in fitting with Aslan's claim) it is a much richer field of study.

As for Bill Maher being honest, I can't be sure if he believes all he says, that is hard to know, but he seems to wilfully avoid knowing the truth when it does not fit with his existing narrative. I certainly don't expect well reasoned discussion from him, but in fairness, he is, first and foremost, a comedian, and he makes a name for himself by being sardonic and just a little bit controversial. He shows no willingness to apply an equally critical eye to the US as he does to Islamic Middle East. His views reek of imperialism and ascribe far too much to religion and far too little to other possible explanations (poverty, lack of education, being the victims of a constant war, etc.). If he were to have thoughtful, reasoned discussions, and actually challenge the views held by his audience, I suspect he would have a far smaller viewer-ship. He basically parrots back to his audience exactly what they want to hear with the occasional, slightly controversial statement, and gets adoration and lots of money for doing so. This desire to only hear views matching one's own is a problem with liberals and progressives, just as with those conservatives who watch Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. Bill Maher is not some great source of truth, as real truth is rarely found in fashionable quips.

To claim that

Reza Aslan pretty much lies about everything he says on the topic of Islam

is absurd, and this video doesn't do much to support such an assertion. It badly attempts to denounce him on a couple of issues, through twisting comments and ignoring much of what Aslan has said. That's not to say that Aslan is completely trustworthy, or accurate either, but just that Pakman is about as intellectually honest and in fairness, both are seemingly a little better informed than Bill Maher, who is just trying to make a quick buck, in my opinion.

To me the problem is that we are too quick to try to simplify complex problems. To blame a religion for the behaviour of some or even many of its supporters is to ignore the fact that for any significant body of people, the typical person's behaviour is far more driven by the totality of other factors than it is by religious beliefs alone. Do we claim that George W Bush started a war against Iraq because he is Christian, even though he has claimed to have a connection to God, or that the soldiers followed his orders for the same reason? Nobody of any note is claiming that Stalin caused the deaths of millions because he was an atheist. Despite this, it somehow seems fashionable to claim that atrocities committed by Muslims are all done in the name of and because of Islam, but to not do similar for the myriad of Christian terrorists. By running to use such labels as "Islamic terrorist" we lazily ignore the wonderful complexity that is the human being. We are not simple creatures and even the most ardent follower of a religion is hugely influenced by many factors outside of religion. Perhaps worse still is the fact that in using these labels, we alienate the single largest religious denomination, the Sunni, all because we are being lazy.

[Glacier]

[cpen]

At least Dawkins and Maher are honest. Reza Aslan pretty much lies about everything he says on the topic of Islam.

Not to mention lying about his credentials. Every interview he seems to yell out his credentials trying to convince the viewers that hes legit.

[Glacier]

Not to mention lying about his credentials. Every interview he seems to yell out his credentials trying to convince the viewers that hes legit.

Yup. A lot of people have noticed that.

[hobbyguy]

My personal opinion is that this all starts with the mistaken view that one can view the political spectrum as a line - left to right.

At the very least I think one should rather think of the political spectrum as a circle. After all, if one ignores the rhetoric, there is little to choose in practical terms between the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the totalitarianism of Stalinist Russia. So if you put democracy on one side of the circle and totalitarianism on the other, it becomes clear that democratic thinking people should be equally suspicious of both the "the far left" and "the far right", for they lead to the same miserable place.

The folks on the far right and the far left, at least in my opinion, tend to fall into the trap of orthodoxy. Mao's little red book and Mein Kampf tend to come to mind. By investing themselves in whatever orthodoxy attracts them, they become manipulable and very subject to accepting half-truths and propaganda verbatim - at least from their "side". Most of us will recognize that once we get ourselves invested in an orthodoxy, it is difficult to shake oneself out of it. The manipulators of this world know that.

Once you start to throw in religious beliefs, you can add another circle (which haven't fully thought out). Then add in cultural traditions as another circle (e.g. the tradition that women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen) and you get another politically effective circle. More and more circles get added and really, if you look at any person or group, what you will find is more like an amoeba shape on a sphere.

We all get comfortable with our amoeba. Hard to push or pull something like an amoeba unless it wants to be moved. (It is one of the reasons I like these forums, because it reminds me there are other equally valid perspectives).

Getting locked into an orthodoxy of any kind can, and has historically, lead to some pretty awful things.

From the perspective of more mundane topics, Pierre Trudeau's NEP was an over-reach, but the opposite orthodoxy "threw the baby out with the bathwater" by not adopting the plans for a west to east pipeline (wouldn't Alberta love to have that now?). I use that example because it shows how easy it is to dismiss in total the ideas of "the other side" if we fall into the orthodoxy of there being sides rather than a range of ideas.

I just watched the series of debates that Gore Vidal and Bill Buckley had (Neflix). We are still having some of those debates.

Just remember not to dismiss the far left, or the far right in total. Within their orthodoxies are some valid points. And remember that most of us have within our "amoeba" both progressive and regressive ideas.

[Glacier]

Al-Qaida is noticing that you have to be very careful who you target if you want to get full credit for you crime - Praise to Allah! The regressive left will fail to notice your true motives if you've made even the slightest mistake of targeting a minority.

Al-Qaida Urges Lone Wolves to Attack Whites to Avoid Hate Crime Label