How to Defeat the Opposite Ideology

[CauseImbetta]

Sikhs are not an ethnic group, anybody can be sikh. The mongols themselves had their shamanist beliefs but they never defended its superiority. They allowed everyone to practice their religion. Is religious tolerance with the superiority of the state over religion not one of the biggest hallmarks of secularism? Or is it because they didn't call it that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Islam doesnt allow for other religions? The Ottoman Empire was undoubtedly muslim and yet, they allowed religious communities to live. In fact they were more religiously tolerant in their time than the christians of their time.
Lebanon is 60% Muslim 40% Christian, what's going on there? You said everybody must be Muslim and yet a bunch of muslim countries allow non-muslim groups to live there and some even allow religious tolerance.

Truly humorous for you to tell me to research anything when you seem to not know anything you're talking about.

Which Islam are you talking about? I am talking about today, the time you live in. Not in the 18/19 century or hundreds of years ago. Welcome to today.

 

[Pwent]

By engaging them and defeating their ideas in debate

But it would be very difficult if the media reinforced their ideas 24/7 and they had "comedy" shows training them to dismiss and mock the opposition without actually listening to them

 

[Jack V Savage]

Conservatives need liberals and liberals need conservatives.

Sounds pretty hokey. I think one of the most common mistakes we see in people who try to talk about tendencies of people on the left or right is running way too far with uncertain and small findings. Like, you'll see a finding like "people 6'6" or taller are 3% more likely to be liberal than the general population," reported as "tall people are more liberal," and then hacks will trumpet it as every tall person is liberal, and other people will try to explain liberalism in terms of societal responses to taller people.

I strongly agree with this.

How do you reconcile your support for that with your trademark nastiness and dishonesty?

 

[Deleted member 457759]

I've been saying it for a while now, many conservatives need to start claiming the word liberal for themselves as they stand for more liberal values and it's a positive word in the eyes of many. And many people on the left who call themselves liberals are in fact regressive socialists and post modernists.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Sounds pretty hokey. I think one of the most common mistakes we see in people who try to talk about tendencies of people on the left or right is running way too far with uncertain and small findings. Like, you'll see a finding like "people 6'6" or taller are 3% more likely to be liberal than the general population," reported as "tall people are more liberal," and then hacks will trumpet it as every tall person is liberal, and other people will try to explain liberalism in terms of societal responses to taller people.



How do you reconcile your support for that with your trademark nastiness and dishonesty?

Stop being an asshole Jack.

 

[TheGreatA]

Stalin did a pretty good job.

 

[WiolentOne]

I've been saying it for a while now, many conservatives need to start claiming the word liberal for themselves as they stand for more liberal values and it's a positive word in the eyes of many. And many people on the left who call themselves liberals are in fact regressive socialists and post modernists.

< --- Right wing liberal

Really, I fancy the liberal vs illiberal dichotomy because the battle of individual liberty is of the most paramount importance. Most, if not all, issues in American politics can broken down to fundamental philosophies of individualism and collectivism (i.e. man vs tribe; an individuals liberty vs the society's social concern or benefit).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Stop being an asshole Jack.

There you go again...

 

[Quipling]

Why should a 1st century book written by sand strewn barbarians have any bearing on sexuality in the 21st century between consenting adults?

Whether it's Lot getting wasted and banging his daughters, Jacob getting paid with a woman, Judah banging a family member thinking she was a prostitute, or King solomon's creepy poetry on tits, I dont think these are sober, lucid minds that should be listened to.

Solomon's poetry on oral sex has gotten me laid more than once.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Solomon's poetry on oral sex has gotten me laid more than once.

Solomon's poetry sounds like the musings of a 40 year old forevervirgin, or an eight grader whose never seen a pair of titties.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Solomon's poetry sounds like the musings of a 40 year old forevervirgin, or an eight grader whose never seen a pair of titties.

The guy had like 1000 wives. He'd probably never seen only a pair of titties.

 

[Quipling]

Solomon's poetry sounds like the musings of a 40 year old forevervirgin, or an eight grader whose never seen a pair of titties.

You sound like you don't appreciate the value of anecdotal evidence.

 

[Metusalemi]

Sounds pretty hokey. I think one of the most common mistakes we see in people who try to talk about tendencies of people on the left or right is running way too far with uncertain and small findings. Like, you'll see a finding like "people 6'6" or taller are 3% more likely to be liberal than the general population," reported as "tall people are more liberal," and then hacks will trumpet it as every tall person is liberal, and other people will try to explain liberalism in terms of societal responses to taller people.

I know psychology is not an exact science, but I don't think you should outright dismiss it. Specially when the studies find that people are born with liberal/conservative traits, hence making it impossible to get rid of either.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

For the left wing:
Make as many minorities migrate to your country, but don't let any of them become a majority. Tell them that if they don't vote for you they're going to get holocausted by the other party. Also give them as much welfare as possible to promote their birth rates and tell them that the other party is going to cut it.

For traditional conservatives:
There is no hope. Conservatives have never conserved anything, they always lose in the end. 20 years from now they will be trying to conserve the sanctity of gay marriage.
Texas will turn blue in a few years due to hispanic migration and it's over for the GOP.

For the right wing:
Close the borders and have children. That will lead to violence which goes against TS.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Islam doesnt allow for other religions? The Ottoman Empire was undoubtedly muslim and yet, they allowed religious communities to live. In fact they were more religiously tolerant in their time than the christians of their time.
Lebanon is 60% Muslim 40% Christian, what's going on there? You said everybody must be Muslim and yet a bunch of muslim countries allow non-muslim groups to live there and some even allow religious tolerance.

I'm not sure of the context but they were allowed to live as you put it. They were prohibited from any influence on government. They extracted taxes from religious minorities and they didn't have a place to go anyway. After the end of the ottoman empire millions of christians migrated to the west, especially Brazil, where we now have more lebanese than lebanon itself.
That was mostly a compromised the muslims reached because when they conquered these lands they were mostly christians and it made no sense to kill or expel everybody. Pogroms against christians and jews were common though. And foreign christians were not allowed to move to islamic lands, that's one of the reasons the portuguese were so eager to find a route through the Cape to reach India.
The french colonized Lebanon and made it a christian country too, but after the civil war christians lost their power and they're slowly disappearing.

Muslims never had secular presidents in the sense we understand in the west. They had secular dictators supported either by the west or by the USSR that called themselves presidents. Like Saddam Hussein. As soon as they were toppled they elected religious leaders. There is one exception, Tunisia.


Western Christians treated Jews similarly. They were allowed to live in ghettos.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

I know psychology is not an exact science, but I don't think you should outright dismiss it. Specially when the studies find that people are born with liberal/conservative traits, hence making it impossible to get rid of either.

It's not that, it's that people purposedly misunderstand studies. Also being born with certain traits certainly doesn't translate directly into supporting what is currently considered to be liberal or conservative.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Agreed. So integrate them and teach them evolution in schools (science). They can become science teachers one day. They can become what ever they want.

Religious fanatics do not want to integrate. It's not just muslims, see the amish or the mormons.
Mormonism is one of the stupidest religions ever devised, it was created by a convicted fraudster and their book is a farce, it was obviously written by Joseph Smith himself while trying to appear as an older text by using comically wrong "historical language".
Still it prospers in the USA, because they simply refuse in listening to any contrary evidence.
The amish live in 19th century style villages to avoid losing their faith.

As TS explained you can't use violence. Trying to integrate these groups would necessitate violence, taking their kids by force and sending them to real schools.

 

[Metusalemi]

It's not that, it's that people purposedly misunderstand studies. Also being born with certain traits certainly doesn't translate directly into supporting what is currently considered to be liberal or conservative.

So you think we can get rid of conservatives or liberals?

 

[Vagitarian]

I'm not sure of the context but they were allowed to live as you put it. They were prohibited from any influence on government. They extracted taxes from religious minorities and they didn't have a place to go anyway. After the end of the ottoman empire millions of christians migrated to the west, especially Brazil, where we now have more lebanese than lebanon itself.
That was mostly a compromised the muslims reached because when they conquered these lands they were mostly christians and it made no sense to kill or expel everybody. Pogroms against christians and jews were common though. And foreign christians were not allowed to move to islamic lands, that's one of the reasons the portuguese were so eager to find a route through the Cape to reach India.
The french colonized Lebanon and made it a christian country too, but after the civil war christians lost their power and they're slowly disappearing.

Muslims never had secular presidents in the sense we understand in the west. They had secular dictators supported either by the west or by the USSR that called themselves presidents. Like Saddam Hussein. As soon as they were toppled they elected religious leaders. There is one exception, Tunisia.


Western Christians treated Jews similarly. They were allowed to live in ghettos.

Still better than the super tolerant christians. I can think of maybe 1 or 2 Christian country that has a sizeable muslim minority that didn't come in just recently. (unless you use most of the war room standard which is more than 0 muslims is too much)

Regarding the pogroms, they were a common sight in Europe even after the enlightenment. When people their religion seriously, they do these stupid things. Western society as a whole has embraced secularism and managed to outlaw or discourage extreme forms of christian worship.

and Portugal was looking for a different route because it was tired of the Ottoman Empire controlling trade with Asia through the Mediterranean Sea. Has nothing to do with Portuguese people wanting to move to the Middle East.

The situation with Lebanon isn't that simple. The muslims and christians there lived in an uneasy peace but all of it changed when Israel was created and it drove Palestinians out and a lot of them came to Lebanon. You can see how a mass vengeful, embarrassed, religious crazies can upset such a delicate balance. Note I'm not saying Israel is right or wrong, thats a different discussion. I'm only talking about the effect of it on Lebanon.

Gamal Abdel Nasser the second president of egypt was popular with the people and while he may have authoritarian, he wasnt some dictator like Sadam. He also had no western support since he stood against the British and was hated by them.
Egypt actually made an effort to combat religious influence in government and I applaud that. They have a lot of work to do though, especially in its treatment of Copts and civil society being more islam centric.

mohammed mosadegh was elected in Iran and was secular. But you're right he wasnt a president, he was a prime minister and the U.S and Britain deposed him before he could really do anything.

 

[Vagitarian]

Which Islam are you talking about? I am talking about today, the time you live in. Not in the 18/19 century or hundreds of years ago. Welcome to today.

The ottoman empire had its most religiously tolerant period at the end of its life, in the late 19th to early 20th century. And you didn't specify which time period you wanted examples of. You made a blanket statement about Islam. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're moving the goal posts.

and other examples I gave are literally standing today. Lebanon is still around, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan became countries in 1991 and are still around. Turkey, while going down the shitter, was for most of its history tolerant and there are still churches operating and work in Istanbul and even in Anatolia for the Armenians who live there. Tunisia has secular education and kids also learn the history of not just islam, but Christianity and Judaism. According to you, that could never exist in the Muslim world.

I could also start bringing up examples of Gamal Abdel Nasser's egypt and he was in power in the 50s to 70s, the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Mosadegh.