Owen Jones attempts to have rational discussion on Orlando atrocity

June 13, 2016 at 9:01 am (crime, homophobia, islamism, Jim D, LGBT, media, murder, tragedy, United States)

I’m not Owen Jones’s biggest fan, but on this occasion I can completely understand his anger and frustration at the refusal of Sky News presenter Mark Longhurst to recognise this as a homophobic attack. Longhurst told him “you cannot say this is a worse attack than what happened in Paris”, which Jones did not say. Eventually, Jones walked out, and good for him:

The US Socialist Worker (no longer related to the UK organisation/paper of the same name) at least makes an attempt at a serious analysis, but is not entirely coherent and verges, towards the end, on a version of “blow-back”.

Donald Trump is all too predictable … and loathsome.

Owen Jones explains himself at greater length here

Leave.EU has wasted no time in cashing in:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ck1HGLZWsAAXwdt.jpg:large

 

62 Comments

  1. Steven Johnston said,

    At least the US SWP has the courage to describe ISIS as reactionary.
    But this is not our fault, if it is, what is it that we have to do? Ban homosexuality? Is that how far we have to go to appease the terrorists?

  2. Lamia said,

    “The US Socialist Worker (no longer related to the UK organisation/paper of the same name) at least makes an attempt at a serious analysis.”

    Really?

    Incidence of the following words in the article:

    ‘Gay’: 5

    ‘Muslim’: 13

    ‘Homophobia’: 1

    ‘Islamophobia’: 5

    Remind us who got slaughtered in large numbers in this attack, Jim. remind us who were the actual victims rather than the imaginary ones you and the US Socialist Worker would rather be talking about.

    The left is no position to pontificate about this and in fact should feel deep shame over its role in bringing about this state of affairs.

    For years the authorities in the UK, US and other countries have refused to take seriously the words of scores of Islamist preachers who have openly incited the murder of gay people. Worse still, the political left has run cover for these creeps and denounced those who demanded a crackdown on Islamists as ‘Islamophobes’ and their fears as imaginary. This was manifested in the indifference to instances like ‘Gay Free Zones’, indifference to the homophobia preached at places like East London Mosque, and even to the murder of gay people by ISIS. They have done this while preening as they make a huge ‘principled’ deal out of condemning homophobic Christians for much lesser scumbaggery.

    Well now we see the result of your double standards. Nice going, guys. Is it real enough for you now? Or will it still not be real until you yourselves suffer what you’ve allowed to happen to others?

    As for Jones, a couple of weeks back he was gleefully tweeting his support of Suliman Gani, the anti-Ahmadi, antisemitic, homophobic preacher who earned the love of the left by being supposedly ‘smeared’ as an extremist by a Tory prime minister. That is the moronic moral logic of the regressive left: if the Tories don’t like you, you are our friend, whoever you are.

    Jones’ and the rest of the left’s Islamist fan club are traitors to gay people and other minorities. Please don’t fool yourselves by the noise of your Queers against Palestine mates and the idiots in the NUS that ordinary gay people haven’t noticed the left’s double standards and habit of cosying up to people who say we should be killed. That Corbyn counts among his mates so many poisonous homophobes (and antisemites, and misognynists).

    If you think that gay people will just be feeling sad and lighting candles about this, Jim, you are wrong. We are angry at Islamists. And we are angry at those, including western governments and most of the left, who have for so long appeased and allied with them rather than opposing them.

    • Jim Denham said,

      Lamia: I thought I’d made it pretty obvious that I don’t agree with the emphasis of the US SW article.

      • Lamia said,

        No, you suggested that you took issue with the ‘blowback’ implication. You didn’t say anything at all about the fact that from start to finish it was an article about Muslims not gay people being the real victims in all this, with the actual victims almost nowhere in sight.

        I think you are a basically decent person, but the fact that you did not even register the whole thrust and tone of the article and the imbalance in coverage of gay people and Muslims is an indicator of how deep the rot on the left has gone. You just can’t see it, can you? In its obsession with Islamophobia, the left has betrayed the victims of Islamism. We’ve noticed, even if you haven’t.

    • Bitethehand said,

      “Worse still, the political left has run cover for these creeps and denounced those who demanded a crackdown on Islamists as ‘Islamophobes’ and their fears as imaginary. “

      Here’s Ally Fogg, self-defined anarcho-syndicalist and former darling of the Guardian.

      A perfect example of accusing others of Islamohobia to protect his own popularity.

  3. Lamia said,

    To add: do you have an idea at all how attacks like this make gay people feel, Jim? Or how we are likely to feel when the automatic response of our self-styled ‘allies’ on the left is to change the subject to ‘Islamophobia’?

    I don’t think you can, or you would not have praised that callous piece of whataboutery by the US Socialist Worker.

    • seditionsquare said,

      Aren’t you forgetting that Owen Jones is also gay? Is he not entitled to his opinion? Or is it just YOU that speaks for gay people, and you alone?

      • Lamia said,

        He is entitled to his opinion, and he’s clearly having a meltdown trying to reconcile his opposition to homophobia with his slavish adoration of a religion that is extremely homophobic.

  4. ZINR said,

    “Mateen’s father, Mir Seddique, told NBC News that the rampage had ‘nothing to do with religion,’ but was sparked by his son’s bigoted response to seeing two men kissing.”

    And his bigoted response towards public displays of homosexuality comes from…where, exactly? If he was a Christian, would we be so keen to pretend that his bigotry wasn’t at all influenced by his religion, or rather wasn’t at all influenced by those who promulgate political Christianity and campaign for the US to be run according to hardline religious principles?

    Also, why is Hilary Clinton not allowed to mention Radical Islam when a member of ISIS commits an atrocity? it may well be “political opportunism” to the extent that any politician’s response to any crisis is “political opportunism” but the fact remains that ISIS cannot be entirely separated from political Islam in its other forms. Take a look at any Islamist organisation, from the Hamas to the Muslim Association of Britain, from the Iranian government to the Muslim Brotherhood, from Enharda to Jamaat-al-Islam, from Hizb ur Tahrir to the Respect Party and you will see the same aims, the same goal in sight – a worldwide Caliphate free from homosexuality (and free from Jews, Christians, apostates, women’s rights, etc etc). The only beef these organisations have with ISIS is regarding methodology, not ideology.

    Islamism is a totalitarian politico-religious ideology akin to Fascism and Communism. It has many millions of adherents. They do not tolerate homosexuality; they believe it to be punishable by death. Certainly, there are many millions of Muslims who do not believe homosexuality should be punishable by death. That’s not the point. The point is that you cannot possibly expect people to read about the latest in a wearyingly long line of atrocities committed by Islamists and say to themselves “y’know, the important thing here is that we don’t say anything to upset Muslims, the attack had nothing to do with The Religion of Peace, our priority is to remain vigilant where there might be Islamophobia. Whatever happens we mustn’t allow anyone to think that this indicates any problems with Islam, which is essentially benign”. It is reasonable for the person reading the news to wonder whether it is time to stop making allowances for Islamists, whether we could now stop mollycoddling the representatives of Islamist organisations, whether we need to take some sort of firm and decisive action to end the legitimacy that Western politicians have been bestowing upon Islamist groups for the last two decades. This can be done without causing non-Islamist Muslims any harm or consternation. I am given to believe that a majority of Muslims do not subscribe to this foul ideology – well then, surely they will be delighted if we take the power away from their self-appointed “community leaders,” most of whom will today be saying “well, we condemn the attack of course, though we do believe that, in our ideal state, an Islamic State, homosexuality will be punishable by death. If course ISIS’s methods are wrong; in the future these executions will be determined by an Islamic Court and we will have no more of this disease of homosexuality in our society, inshallah.”

    Yes, obviously we have to remain in firm and visible opposition to the Far Right and we have a duty to stop them from attacking Muslims as a reaction to these events. So what? We should be doing that already. As if they need an excuse, anyway.

    Donald Trump is indeed loathsome. Instead of endlessly pointing this out and expecting that at some point his supporters will listen (these people mostly can barely write their own names, let alone listen to any nuanced political argument), how about we take some sort of action against Islamist groups and their supporters, thus giving Trump supporters less to cling onto?

    Jim, I know that you don’t subscribe to the current Far Left orthodoxy on Islamism and that you have about as much in common with the UK SWP as I do with the Al-Aqsa Martys Brigade (Lamia above tries, typically, to conflate the publishing of an article with an impassioned defence of its contents, despite your disclaimers) but really – it’s time for everyone on the Left to throw out their horrific complacency about Islamism, publically denounce it and take steps to kick it out of their political alliances. Until this is done the International Left will continue to play a supporting role in every Islamist atrocity.

    • seditionsquare said,

      What, you mean we should do something like annihilating masses of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan? Or, when peaceful Islamist parties assume power legally, supporting a military coup against them (Egypt)? Perhaps a domestic solution would suffice, like preying upon the vulnerable through honey-traps and actually inspiring them to become terrorists? All of that will nip all of this in the bud, instead of basic gun checks, correct prioritisation of terror suspects, and a peaceful/admirable foreign policy.

      • Lamia said,

        Ah, how sweet. John ‘Caliphate’ Tummon has a new left wing friend.

        There is no such thing as a ‘peaceful Islamist’. All Islamists believe in discriminating against, persecuting and in many cases killing groups in society. You might as well talk about ‘peaceful Nazis’.

      • seditionsquare said,

        [citation needed]

      • ZINR said,

        You’re right, you’re right. Bearing in mind evil Western intervention in peaceful (ahem…excuse me) Islamic nations, the adherents of this depraved ideology have every right to slaughter people in the West, and every right to propagate their totalitarian, anti-democratic idea of society in the US and in Europe. What we should do is give them everything they want – when they threaten death to cartoonists we should ban the cartoons. When they threaten death to homosexuals we should say, as Lindsey German did, “Gay rights shouldn’t be a shibboleth” and maintain political alliances with them. When they talk about annihilating Jews we should nod in solemn agreement whilst we think of our persecuted brothers in Palestine, undergoing the True Holocaust at the hands of our evil Zionist allies. When they demand modesty for women we should reflect on our own degenerate ideals which leave our women so vulnerable to attack.

        And you’re quite right, it’s definitely we who inspire them to become terrorists. Not Islamism, that unimpeachable ideology which preaches peace and tolerance, but us, the ignorant kaffir, sticking to this morally redundant lifestyle and defending Jews, Christians, homosexuals, feminists and all those other horrid people who just won’t play ball and agree to live under Islamic dictatorship.

        What’s more, the second we withdraw all troops from all Islamic countries and dismantle Israel (we can’t have those Kikes over here in the West as it upsets Islamists, so I guess we can just throw them all into the sea, eh?) Islam will be revealed as the peaceful ideology you always told us it was. Sunni and Shia will live in harmony and everyone will be equal under the Caliphate.

        Thank you for re-educating me.

      • seditionsquare said,

        I hope at some point you’ll recognise that you’re talking to your own delusion. Tell me, do you ever talk to people in real life?

  5. Lamia said,

    “If he was a Christian, would we be so keen to pretend that his bigotry wasn’t at all influenced by his religion, or rather wasn’t at all influenced by those who promulgate political Christianity and campaign for the US to be run according to hardline religious principles?”

    No. The left would be hugging themselves with glee. More to the point, they would not be leading with the insistence that this was nothing to do with Christianity.

    “Lamia above tries, typically, to conflate the publishing of an article with an impassioned defence of its contents, despite your disclaimers”

    Jim made one disclaimer – about the ‘blowback’ implication. He said nothing about the fact that the article had far more to say about Muslims being the victims of Islamophobia than about gay people and homophobia, and that in an article about a mass murder of gay people homophobia was mentioned once to Islamophobia’s five times.

    Jim probably didn’t mean it, because he probably didn’t even notice it. Even the better people on the contemporary left appear to have stopped noticing the left’s weird biases and double standards long ago.

    I know the left likes to think of itself as the great friend of all minorities. I would like the saner people on the left to stop and reflect why to a good number of certain minorities it doesn’t look that way at all.

    And before anyone resorts to the go-to deflection: Donald Trump is a scumbag. I don’t need you to tell me that. That doesn’t make all his opponents nice people, though.

    • Jim Denham said,

      Lamia: I did, in fact “notice” the imbalance in the US SW piece, and the greater emphasis given to “Islamophobia” (a term I don’t use) and homophobia. I decided, after some thought, and various re-writes of my brief comments, to leave it at “but is not entirely coherent”.

      I think we can have a rational discussion of all this, and invite you to participate.

      • Lamia said,

        With respect, Jim, I gave quite a lengthy reply above and you didn’t really address any of my points. In fact, I don’t think today’s left can address those points easily, because it is guilty as hell in this and it knows this.

        The left has not merely been negligent, it has actively allied with the kind of theocratic scum who advocate that people like myself should be killed. It has whitewashed and defended them. It has gigglingly insisted that people like Suliman Gani are nothing like as extreme as Cameron etcetera etcetera. It has painted members of the groups targeted by Islamists as bigots and Islamophobes for even criticising such preachers.

        When in 2004 Lyndsey German insisted that support for gay rights should not be a shibboleth for the left, there were quite a lot of people even on the far left willing to call her out on that. Today, the left as a whole seems to have internalised and be in tacit agreement with her statment. The left supports gay people and other minorities… so long as there is no negative Muslim dimension to a situation, in which case the preferred course of action is to change the subject to ‘Islamophobia’, as in the article cited above and so many other articles from the usual left suspects, and the Guardian et al.

        In cases like the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims (and recently the murder of one in Glasgow) it has engaged in a sort of collective silence because of the identity of those habitually persecuting them. It has turned into a deeply unpleasant pantomime of the left pretending not to see what is right there in plain view, and getting angry when increasingly most people don’t play along.

        I don’t know what else to add. I don’t think the left even knows where to start. If anyone has any constructive suggestions, I’d be interested to read them, but I think it would involve a lot of soul-searching and self-criticism, and most importantly a resolve to change which the current left is just not prepared to engage in.

        It’s easier just to say: ‘You’re an Islamophobe’, isn’t it?

      • Jim Denham said,

        “It’s easier just to say: ‘You’re an Islamophobe’, isn’t it?”

        No-one here is saying that, Lamia: we’re trying to have a rational discussion.

  6. Steven Johnston said,

    I can understand why you are so angry Lamia, the left has turned it’s back on the LGBT community. They support clerical fascism now, though still oppose the political variety.
    Though it is odd that the religion the left hates the most, the protestant variety, is probably the least reactionary of them all.

    • Lamia said,

      Thank you Steven.

    • Bitethehand said,

      I can understand why you are so angry Lamia, the left has turned it’s back on the LGBT community.

      Not just “turned its back” but but pinned on the targets.

      • Steven Johnston said,

        Well, the left did have a hierarchy of how radical groups were. At the bottom came the white, middle-aged man at the top came the blacks, the gays and women. Unfortunately, like a lot the left believed in it turned out to be BS. Maybe the muslim community have usurped their place in this hierarchy? So the left moved on and no longer looks to ranks of those previous groups for their recruits and saviours.

  7. Steven Johnston said,

    Here is the link to the UK SWP.

    https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/42891/After+the+homophobic+massacre+in+Orlando%2C+dont+let+the+right+divide+us

    You guessed it, it’s all the fault of the Americans. Though they state that ISIS are not to blame but even if he did at because of ISIS, they are not to blame, the West must take the blame.

  8. Steven Johnston said,

    Hang on, aren’t we being a bit too simplistic here and sound like a left-wing version of Mary Whitehouse, just because someone says it’s ok to kill this or that type of person, does not mean that you will actually listen to them.
    Society shapes the ideas we hold not the other way round.

  9. seditionsquare said,

    I don’t understand any of you.

    50 people are dead, and immediately people begin blaming one another. People jump on the availability of guns, knowing that NRA enthusiasts are going to take offence and blame the unavailability of guns. People blame the west, knowing that right-wingers are going to intercept this and blame the east. 50 people are dead and we all point at each other with the same, tired arguments.

    ‘Guns’ aren’t to blame, ‘the west’ isn’t the blame. ‘Religion’ isn’t to blame. ISIS isn’t to blame – as much as they want to be. None of these caused the shooting as far as we know, not directly. Some insane man was able to buy assault weapons to fulfil some ambition he probably didn’t even understand himself. All indications are that the attack was inspired by, and not planned by, ISIS – meaning this man simply took his weird grievance against gay people and subordinated it to most heinous people he could think of. Why would someone want to do that? There’s something missing in our conventional understanding of terrorism here.

  10. Lamia said,

    Jim: “No-one here is saying that, Lamia: we’re trying to have a rational discussion.”

    Okay, someone say something constructive. Please. I’ve contributed two long posts and there must be some points in there that merit response to, or something that people wold like to introduce or elaborate upon.

    • seditionsquare said,

      It might have something to do with you droning on about ‘the left’ and their appeasement and allying with ‘minorities’. I nearly always switch off when someone talks about ‘the left’ (especially but not exclusively if ‘left’ is capitalised) – as perhaps I might if some creature talked about the blacks, the gays, or the rising sword of Islam.

  11. Lamia said,

    I didn’t criticise the left for “allying with minorities”, I criticised them for allying with Islamists and betraying minorities. Are you really denying that they have done that? Can you explain why the SWP, Stop the War, UAF and even Labour MPs such as Corbyn and his crew have repeatedly allied with homophobic, antisemitic, misogynistic Islamists?

    Islamists are not a perscuted minority. They persecute and murder others. I am a member of the same minority murderously attacked by an Islamist in Orlando and by Islamists round the world. I want to know why the left has appeased, whitewashed and allied with those bastards and when it is going to stop. I think we deserve an answer.

  12. seditionsquare said,

    Given that your question is so unfocused (‘Islamism’ in your usage apparently meaning Islamic extremist, ‘the left’ meaning some sort of political unit that doesn’t exist) I think you’re unlikely to get an answer from anyone.

    Glenn Greenwald (who, by the way, is openly gay) has written a fascinating article I invite you all to read: Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies. It uses logic and evidence to support overarching points – new-fangled stuff to some of you, I’d wager!

    https://theintercept.com/2016/06/13/stop-exploiting-lgbt-issues-to-demonize-islam-and-justify-anti-muslim-policies/

    • Rilke said,

      The article is not logical, neither in its internal logic nor its basic general precepts. It proposes a break down of very low rates of acceptance of gay people in Islam by comparing this religion favourably to Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and poorer areas where versions of Evangelical Christianity is prevalent. The apparent stated principle is that these last two versions are terrible but Islam is getting better. Not true, compared to Buddhism and Hinduism, (the article ignores the high scores for these faiths for some reason), all these religious doctrines, at least in their sincere and active versions, are by the articles own account, very very repressive in general compared to other more accepting faiths.
      In terms of its given general claim the article is borderline idiotic. It states that we should be more aware and understanding of the internal and changing nature of religious bigotry toward gay people, while at the same moment claiming that huge swathes of people called ‘the Chinese’ and ‘the Russians’ are far worse. Sinophobia and Russophobia are fine but being anti clerical is a problem? Waste of time and certainly not logical.

    • Jim Denham said,

      The day we take anything by that hypocrite, charlatan and ass-hole Greenwald seriously, is the day we may as well give up on socialism.

      • Steven Johnston said,

        Do we still have to vote Corbyn in 2020?

      • seditionsquare said,

        Jim! I should have known that Greenwald (who has worked tirelessly to expose bulk surveillance and western militarism, far more than any other journalist) would be on the schedule for your daily 2 Minutes Hate. I can’t possibly think what he might have done (maybe Comrade Neil spoke unfavourably one evening), but it makes me appreciate him all the more.

        Rilke, the entire point of the article is that religious creed (or lack thereof) does not correlate with homophobia and socially liberal values. It’s very telling that you ignored this entirely and leapt to the assumption that Greenwald was making a comment about Islamic faith. It’s also ironic that you imply that he is Russophobic, given that many commentators have accused him (equally absurdly) of being ‘pro-Russian’.

      • Jim Denham said,

        A minor point, but who exactly *is* “Comrade Neil”?

      • seditionsquare said,

        You reposted a pro-Remain thing by Comrade Coatesy the other day that mentioned the mysterious Comrade Neil.

  13. vildechaye said,

    It’s a misrepresentation to say that the the other two didn’t recognize it as a homophobic attack. Of course they did. They simply — and correctly — did not recognize it as ONLY a homphobic attack. Whereas Jones refuses to recognize it as an attack by Islamic extremists. Jones outdenies the other two, and then storms off the set for THEIR supposed denial. You couldn’t make it up.

    • Jim Denham said,

      Jones is trying to make a simple point: it was a homophobic attack, first and foremost, and Longhurst, perversely, seems unwilling to accept this simple fact. As Jones says, if a synagogue had been attacked, no one, surely, would demur from describing it as anti-semitic.

      • Lamia said,

        Did you read the Guardian’s disgraceful coverage of the Toulouse murders? Here’s a reminder:

        https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/03/22/hate-crime-in-toulouse-the-guardian-lefts-callous-disregard-towards-antisemitic-ideology/

        “The word “antisemitism” is never once written, not even when speculating on the possible motives of the brutal attack.”

        This was really not a ‘parallel’ that Owen ought to have brought up. It’s another instance where the British left behaved contemptibly towards the victims of Islamist terrorism because of their obsession with Islamophobia (and in that case, their antipathy towards Jews).

      • Jim Denham said,

        … and I, without hesitation, condemn the failure to recognise anti-Semitism just as I condemn the failure to recognise homophobia.

  14. Rilke said,

    Seditionsquare,
    Irrational creeds give form and direction to inchoate hatreds and phobic impulses. In other words, they formalise them, even to the point of making these hatreds and phobic responses compulsory and so on. No one with any sense argues that religion or other creeds ’cause’ these impulses. It is a typical move by apologists for religious backwardness when formalised religious hatreds are pointed out, to say, ‘ah but there is a guy down the road who is an atheist and he is a homophobe too, so religion is not the cause of this problem…, etc etc. As stated, this type of response is a false argument. We never encounter an absolute true cause for any social phenomenon because the cause by definition, has already occurred. So, one can also say the cause of the issue is elsewhere. That is an easy trick.
    In fact, to say that religious doctrine does not formalise and entrench phobic impulses and therefore does not ‘correlate’ to irrational hatreds seems to me to be utterly blind. Try simply observing some of the rituals and doctrines related to female sexuality in most of the monotheistic religions. These doctrines and faith based conducts concretise an irrational phobia about female sexuality. To counter this by simply saying ‘there is a guy down the street who is a sexist arsehole but he is not religious, so these formalisations do not matter’ seems to me to be infantile. The battle against religious backwardness, not to mention the religious elites, in the name of humane emancipation has been going on for centuries and now we have left apologists for obscurantism, telling is it is not really relevant.
    In terms of logic, if there is no ‘correlation’ whatsoever, then the article is utterly meaningless as it attempts to prove its main point by asserting correlations in its favour. If there is no correlation at all, why do Buddhism and Hinduism score higher? The so called logic of the article contradicts itself and therefore cannot be logical.

    • Steven Johnston said,

      So are you saying that ideas shape the society we live in, rather than the other way round?

    • seditionsquare said,

      There’s a far stronger correlation between poverty and homophobia (as there is with women’s rights and religious tolerance), which is what Greenwald proved by mentioning acceptance of homosexuality around the world. If people rigidly stuck to doctrine (and people, being people, seldom do), wouldn’t religious attitudes be uniform regardless of the country? And shouldn’t Christian responses match muslim responses, given the presence of homophobic remarks in their respective holy books?

      The culture of religions does factor in, as the example of evangelist responses in the US demonstrates for example. But blaming religion oversimplifies the situation, and always enables right-wing politicians to take the hawkish position to bomb more muslims (Clinton and Trump are both agreed on this already, even though ISIS didn’t plot Orlando). As reports come out that the murderer was a regular at the bar and was active on gay dating apps, I think we’re beginning to build a picture of some serious repression issues, exacerbated by some kind of psychotic mental illness.

      I’m sure you’ll all ignore it and blame The Left for some contrived reason, though.

      • Rilke said,

        Once again, you wilfully misrepresent the position to yourself. Where in my passage does it state that I ‘blame’ religion or the left? You can always claim it is something I ‘could’ say of course, then you can denounce what I might say. Religion has been intrinsic to human society from the beginning. Its main forms are now backward. Once again, for the record. Religious doctrine and practice entrenches and formalises the various phobias and anxieties of communities. Anthropologist are agreed on this. Psychosis takes various forms. You sound like those conspiracy fools who say that the Nazis were all psychotic maniacs and its rise had nothing to do with German militarism, and social and economic factors.
        Greenwald’s argument is specious by its own logical faults. One can always claim that religious organic intellectuals find easy converts in poorer areas. There is in fact, a ‘correlation’ in that pattern.
        Typical trick to then try and place those that expose your logical faults alongside Trump…an infantile and shallow move. Just as easy to align you wth the Vatican in its justifications of the utter blamelessness of religious dispositions and doctrine. At least people can vote for Trump or not. As far as I am aware, only cardinals and higher clerics get to vote for your friends the Pope, the Ayatollah, the Divine Lama and the Grand Patriarch. Why not justify totemism or Shamanism? Are these religious forms somehow less valid in your view, if not, why not? Keep visiting the tarot card reader, there is no correlative proof that they talk rubbish, heh heh heh.

      • seditionsquare said,

        If you don’t understand what I (or Greenwald, for that matter) have written, don’t respond. And I know you have no idea what’s going on, Rilke, because you’re all over the place and assuming a dozen things in place of the few you’re not addressing.

  15. Rilke said,

    Alright, you obviously really need it.
    In basic philosophical logic there exists the nonsense correlation. 98% of heroin addicts drank milk as children, 87% of people who claim to be racists wear vests. There appears to be a correlation but there is none. There is no causal or logical interrelation. Is that clear? Correlations are prone to illogical conclusions and are, according to logic, inadmissible as proofs and are not acceptable as a basis for concrete propositions. Your support of Greenwald’s article and the article itself, are also subject to fallacies of definition largely due to syllogistic error and argumentum ad lapidem. In general, the article is a perfect example of false equivalence.
    I may be all over the place, I enjoy travel, but you are claiming logical validity where there is fallacy and no logical merit. It is clear you are not aware or trained in either logic or dialectics. Stick to shallow political rhetoric and cheap denunciation, it is obviously more your style. Falsely accusing people of supporting Trump or of promoting ‘imperialism’ because they point out logical error is more your mode – a mode that it is conducive to boredom now, you must know that.
    I won’t charge you for the first year college lesson in logical fallacies, but I will direct you to Kierkegaard’s fine book on ‘The concept of irony’ so you can better get a grip on the figure of irony. You see the whole book argues that irony cannot be a concept only a trope, so the book is itself,you guessed it, ironic. Clever that….and certainly not for thickos.

  16. seditionsquare said,

    Rilke, your lecture in logic would have been more respectable if you had not made illogical assumptions and weird tangents all the way through this comment thread:
    -in the first instance, you confused Greenwald’s religious comparison for the sake of demonstrating that muslims in the US are by no means more homophobic than Christians with the assumption that “The apparent stated principle is that these last two versions are terrible but Islam is getting better”, bringing Hindu and Buddhist perspectives to bear even though this is not relevant to the discussion (Islam is under the spotlight, Christianity is the predominant religion in America)
    -secondly, you completely ignored any discussion about a correlation between poverty and illiberal views, a far more likely cause. You highlight Hindu views as being especially high in the US, for example, without considering that the biggest country with a Hindu-predominant population (India) still bans homosexuality. Strong doctrinal views do not equate to religious belief, as the evidence shows.
    -third, you then waffled about correlation not equalling causation even though this was not my point (note my use of the phrase ‘a far stronger correlation’).
    -fourth, you implied that I’m an apologist for all religions for no reason at all
    -fifth, you brought Donald Trump comparisons into the debate for no reason at all
    I, however, will make the assumption that you’re a charlatan and a liar, with absolutely no training or education in logic, anthropology, or anything else you will arbitrarily decide to invoke.

  17. Rilke said,

    If you check your own post you will see clearly that it is you who first mentions Trump, in order to cover your false propositions and in fact, you frame the phrase as an accusation. In short, you lie. It is there in front of you. If you reach for such worthless accusations you deserve all that comes back to you.
    Second, you implied that those who pointed out the fallacies in Greenwald’s article were on the side of those that ‘blame’ Muslims for being ‘more’ homophobic. I made it clear that religious doctrine and practice entrenches and formalises phobias and anxieties about the ‘degenerate Other’ most often women and gay people and of course certain foods, sexual hygiene and iconography that they find objectionable and so on. You cannot point to any phrase in which I ‘blame’ Muslims for homophobia. In other words, you are a charlatan who defends charlatans.
    I will point out to you once again, your reliance on ‘stronger correlations’ is weak and has no logical merit for the reasons I have stated. You have not proved otherwise. If you think you can prove that correlatives can be logically valid in specific cases I would be pleased to hear it. Perhaps you are one of those special people that can imagine a square triangle.
    Third, your emphasis on poverty is bland and empty and does not engage with the interrelations of poverty and ideological, in this case religious, apparatuses and social forces. There are many wealthy elites who are steeped in religious bigotry, take a look at Utah. I suspect you imply that poverty and ignorance are the primary factors in homophobia – if a religious bigot was better off, then they would not be so bad etc – but the promulgation of ignorance is the stock in trade of religious organisations and historical forces. You wish to deny this, which is fine, but you cannot disprove it or justify your assertion.
    By the way, any second rate geometry teacher will tell you that tangents cannot be ‘weird’, ha ha ha. It is logically impossible. I must admit your at least amusing, although to be fair, not quite comic.

    • seditionsquare said,

      Rilke, I can point out that lie just by looking up. I said “blaming religion oversimplifies the situation, and always enables right-wing politicians to take the hawkish position to bomb more muslims (Clinton and Trump are both agreed on this already, even though ISIS didn’t plot Orlando)”. To which you then said: “Typical trick to then try and place those that expose your logical faults alongside Trump”, and later: “Falsely accusing people of supporting Trump or of promoting ‘imperialism’ because they point out logical error is more your mode”

      Note how far from reality you get the more you post.

  18. Rilke said,

    I repeat, who is ‘blaming’ religion here? Because you cannot point out any phrase here which is ‘blaming Muslims’. You say, Trump and Clinton are ‘blaming’ them and try and smear those that disagree with you as aligning with those two and therefore ‘enabling’ them to ‘bomb Muslims’. That is an old trick, very easy and was your first default position. As stated, you mentioned ‘Trump’ and ‘bombing Muslims’ in this debate not any one else. There would have to be at least a concrete political narrative and perceivable connection between ‘blaming Muslims’ and a call for ‘bombing’ them stated here on this blog in order for you to make that assertion. There isn’t one. You cannot seek to generally silence people in that way without showing specific evidence. Does talking about money ‘enable’ people to rob banks? Did criticism of the Vatican policy on contraception truly help the Shankhill Butchers murder Catholics? Did denouncing Idi Amin really ‘enable’ the National Front attacks on black people? Is there any other subject in addition to religious repression, that you wish to ban so as not to ‘enable’ Trump? Maybe you can compile a list and take note of the disobedient.
    Goodbye.

  19. seditionsquare said,

    Rilke, I’m not sure what you get out of lying when one only needs to look up to see that Trump was actually mentioned in the OP and by two people before me. Actually, it was BECAUSE he was mentioned by Jim, Lamia and ZINR as an example of right-wing exploitation of this incident that prompted me to show how buying into the right-wing narrative enables him (and Clinton) to advocate more unnecessary military action in the Middle East.

    More fake comparisons and wild accusations please, Rilke. And do tell us what other disciplines you’ve mastered in the meantime -alongside logic, anthropology and geometry, of course!

  20. Sue r said,

    The shooter in Orlando came from a wealthy background, in fact, his father had stood in an election to be the President of Afghanistan, not something that your averag Joe would b able to do. His father hadalsodeclared allegiance to the Taleban, so did the son declare allegiance to ISIS as a way of getting back as his father? ISIS is trying to build itself up in Afghanistan, I believe. Theoint is I think the left has been disgraceful over his. It should be restating basic democratic Enlightenmnt values, and not playing the Islamist blame game. This week in Qatar, a woam was sentenced to a flogging for reporting a rape, she was convicted of nlawful sex outside of marriage. Are you seriously telling me that that is a state of affairs that one would regard as desirable. As for the comparisons with various Christian scts, well, they don’t often kill people, or enslave them. We also have a concept of secular law, and democracy, albeit flawed.
    .

  21. Rilke said,

    Please stop thinking like this Sue and moreover, on pain of a contrary moral exhibitionism, do not write about what you may be thinking on….you are a ‘Trump enabler’ if you do.

  22. Sue r said,

    Can you please elucidate your last comment? What do you find offensive exactly. That I referred to the class background of the shooter. Or, his family’s political affiliations? Or, a belief that only the workers’ movement can truly defend democracy? Or, how violence against women is enshrined in sharia/Islamic law? I am genuinely puzzled and am eager to learn from my mistakes.

    • seditionsquare said,

      I think Rilke was referring to his argument with me, and suggesting that I would compare you to Trump and try to stop you from expressing your opinion. Please ignore him and feel free to speak your mind.

      It’s hard to know exactly what role Islam plays in all of this, and the incident seems more convoluted by the day. The Washington Post has reported that Mateen’s father has made a name for himself *pretending* to be the Afghan president, or at other times an informed analyst, occasionally supporting the Taliban. It seems he has constructed some sort of strange fantasy land for himself – what impact this in turn had on his son is anyone’s guess.

  23. Rilke said,

    Schlegel’s distinction between irony snd parody would useful for you. Then again, it does assume a basic recognition of the terms.
    Cum Grano Salis

  24. Sue r said,

    Yergotme!!!! Mr Rilke, assume it s mr. Still, we live in post-ironic times. As for ‘a pinch of salt’, as a sufferer of high blood pressure, my doctor has advised me to cut down on it.

  25. Rilke said,

    Heh heh, very true…it is supposed to imply a cure for poison, but we slobber so much salt these days it has become a bloody poison! One of the ‘benefits’ of industrial commodity production. Post ironic indeed…

  26. Sue r said,

    By the way, for all those insisting that Islam has nothing to do with it, I would like to ask why when such atrocities are two a penny in the Islamic State. Are they unaware of the group of young men who were executed in public (summarily)for watching a football match or those killed for the crime of being post menopausal and Yazidi? The Morning Star had a very unhistorical article yesterday arguing that homosexuality was not criminal in the Ottoman Empire. Firstly, that homosexuality was rife in the Ottoman Empire is not the same as today’s concept of sexual equality. Is concubinage, polygamy, slavery, harems, tax farming infidels etc. to be considered desirable political and social models? It could be argued that the Islamic State does not represent mainstream Islam, in which case, mainstream Muslim leaders (and not just trendy Muslim young adults living n the metropolitan countries a la Guatdian) need to distinguish their variety from the nastier type.

    • Steven Johnston said,

      The Morning Star has a tenuous grasp of history and just makes it up as it goes along.

  27. Sue r said,

    Having looked the phrase up, I discover that salis also means ‘wit’. So, one should take it with i)intelligence and ii)good humour. Except, I fear it will take more Than that to defeat the rampant narcissi ism and life-denying philosophy that is unfettered Islam.

  28. Rilke said,

    Salis, as in a ‘salty’, or dry comment, implying biting or witty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: