Hating crap

[Richard Wiig]

Richard,

I certainly do not have to jump through your arbitrary hoops to come to a conclusion about you

I know you don't. You can reach whatever conclusion you wish. Whether or not it is an objective conclusion is another matter. Since it's very clear that you don't care about identifying things properly, it quite obviously is not an objective conclusion.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: are you exaggerating or smearing him?

Michael,

What's the example of 'hating' you are accusing this fellow of? Can you clip or link to the worst example of that? (It's not in this thread you peeled off.)

Here are three things that are NOT 'hate-mongering' or 'hate speech' [whether or not you agree with any or all of the three]:

1. Holding the position that Islam is a dangerous religion and much worse today**-- in advocacy of sharia, stonings, abuse of women, the obligation to pray multiple times a day, the 'medieval' submission approach -- in worldwide practice than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

**in medieval times, paradoxically, Islam was the best of the religions at the time in practice!

2. Someone burning a religious book to dramatically show their disgust with religion.

3. Hating an idea -- as opposed to hating all the people who practice it.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks for the grade school lesson, Phil.

You posted it in the correct section, the Garbage Pile.

Michael

[jriggenbach]

What's the example of 'hating' you are accusing this fellow of? Can you clip or link to the worst example of that? (It's not in this thread you peeled off.)

Who sits around reading old posts? (Yawn.)

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: are you exaggerating or smearing him?

Michael,

What's the example of 'hating' you are accusing this fellow of? Can you clip or link to the worst example of that? (It's not in this thread you peeled off.)

Here are three things that are NOT 'hate-mongering' or 'hate speech' [whether or not you agree with any or all of the three]:

1. Holding the position that Islam is a dangerous religion and much worse today**-- in advocacy of sharia, stonings, abuse of women, the obligation to pray multiple times a day, the 'medieval' submission approach -- in worldwide practice than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

**in medieval times, paradoxically, Islam was the best of the religions at the time in practice!

2. Someone burning a religious book to dramatically show their disgust with religion.

3. Hating an idea -- as opposed to hating all the people who practice it.

It's a two-way conversation you're asking one of the parties to bring you up to speed on and without giving any evidence of real interest on your part. That's beyond lazy into insolence.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

What's the example of 'hating' you are accusing this fellow of? Can you clip or link to the worst example of that? (It's not in this thread you peeled off.)

Who sits around reading old posts? (Yawn.)

JR

It's wicked, JR, to import ammo from another thread to lambaste a lambaster.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> It's a two-way conversation you're asking one of the parties to bring you up to speed on and without giving any evidence of real interest on your part. That's beyond lazy into insolence.

No, it's a polite way of saying I haven't seen any evidence. Prove it if you're going to call people names.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who has anybody names other than hater?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Who has anybody names other than hater?

Michael

I guess we need to beef this up. I'll start: You, Michael, are a transmogrifying thespian transitor (TTT).

--Brant

heart's not in it

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can you clip or link to the worst example of that?

Why would I do a damn fool thing like that for Phil?

The last time I spent a couple of hours looking up stuff he requested, he didn't even bother to look at it. And even made a point of saying so.

Michael

[william.scherk]

> It's a two-way conversation you're asking one of the parties to bring you up to speed on and without giving any evidence of real interest on your part. That's beyond lazy into insolence.

No, it's a polite way of saying I haven't seen any evidence. Prove it if you're going to call people names.

Subject: Polite disagreement

1) If I understand your point correctly, you object to MSK's use of 'hater' -- and you wish he would give a distinct example of straightforward 'hate' on the part of Richard Wiig.

I agree with you, Phil, insofar as a simple appellation like "hater" is a sweeping general term. And I think it is fair to ask for a reference or quote or link to demonstrate that Richard is indeed a 'hater' in Michael's term (I believe this is Michael's shorthand for folk who are bigoted about Islam [or any other particular body of religious thought or group or nation or assumed collectivity]).

Richard has been consistent and relatively straightforward: he 'hates' Islam. He can tell the difference between a Salafi, a Talibani, an Ikhwan, a Shi'a, an Ismaili, an Ahmadiya, an Alawite, A Twelver, an Islamist, an Islamicist, a violent jihadi and a Sufi, and tell the difference between a Bin Laden, a Rashid Ghannouchi, and an Amr Khaled. He knows that there is a difference between Yusef al-Qaradawi and Sohail Raza. He can lay out for us the differences between the various Islamic currents in Tunisia, Egypt, Bosnia, Chechnya, and the various schools of Islamic thought that compete for influence around the world.

That is not what is important to Richard, as far as I can tell. He hates Islam, an evul, oppressive religion that threatens the West and freedom.

2) In the politest possible way, Phil, I request that you use a consistent means of adequately quoting/referring to posts & participants in discussion here. Please use both name and post number when you excerpt someone's words. If you will not or cannot do that, I will probably put you under my ignore filter.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... a 'hater' in Michael's term (I believe this is Michael's shorthand for folk who are bigoted about Islam [or any other particular body of religious thought or group or nation or assumed collectivity]).

William,

This is very close, but not complete.

The hater has two characteristics (in addition to the collectivism you alluded to and a few other characteristics) in my use of the term--and note, I don't believe all haters are bigots.

1. They prioritize hatred over productive effort. In the case in point, if you start a discussion on standing for Israel (like I did), they jump in, not to discuss the merits of what and why or even why not, but instead to show that this is one more proof that Islam is evil--one more proof of why their hatred is valid and why others should hate like they do.

On the Objectivist front (not all Objectivists, of course), Glenn Beck is a good target for hatred. When you present facts that he digs up and combines, haters will not even look at them, but instead resort to mockery, dismissal, calling him a fascist, a religious loon, and so forth. Their hatred is far more important than the issues you present.

And if you show that he was the force behind removing the threat of ACORN or Van Jones, etc., or show the character and quantity of the people who went to the Restoring Honor rally, etc., or show his track record in predictions, etc., they sit back for a while and stew until they can forget about it, then they go back to mockery, dismissal, calling him a fascist, a religious loon, and so forth.

There are plenty of other examples from all viewpoints and topics to go around, but I think I have illustrated what I mean using a couple of my own efforts as examples.

The hatred of haters (in my meaning) is like a blob-like goop that soaks in, but does not integrate, whatever facts you provide, It will temporarily change shape, but eventually it goes back to blob goop form.

2. The hater will end up mocking you and eventually even hating you if you do not go along with his hatred of whatever he hates. Notice how easily a person is called an appeaser if he does not want to insult peaceful Muslims, then the person is called dishonest, then it gets worse.

On the Objectivist front, Peikoff showed his own behind. He hates religion so much that he once endorsed voting for the Democratic ticket across the board and claimed that those who did not were deficient in being able to understand Objectivism. And he drummed Tracinski out of ARI because of it. On that issue, I consider Peikoff to be a hater.

(There is another so-called Objectivist who I call a hater. Want to take a guess at who that might be? )

Notice that those who are not haters manage to stand for their values--and even fight for them and defend them effectively--without denigrating good people. It is far more important to these individuals (usually good productive folks) to spread their values to others than spread their hatred around. Hatred to them is short-term, however intense.

Hatred to haters is long-term and top priority as their goal in communication. This leads me to believe that it is also top priority among their reasons for living.

This, to me, goes way beyond combating bigotry. It is identifying a form of thinking based on false premises where an object of hatred takes the place of identifying reality as fundament.

That's what I mean by hater.

Michael

EDIT: There's actually a third characteristic of haters as opposed to non-haters, but it is not as uniform. Haters usually go where non-haters are, impose their presence and play their games, ultimately demanding that those folks hate. Non-haters usually are content to live and let live, even after they have expressed disagreement.

[jriggenbach]

Peikoff . . . hates religion so much that he once endorsed voting for the Democratic ticket across the board and claimed that those who did not were deficient in being able to understand Objectivism.

Oh, are we back to pretending that it makes some difference whether Republicans or Democrats win elections? I always hate it when that rotation pops up again. I'm in something like the position of Alice in her famous conversation with the Red Queen:

"Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one can't believe impossible things.'

"'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'"

JR

[Richard Wiig]

Phil: Objectivity is clearly not the name of the game here. The terms hater and bigot - floating abstracts that are never clarified - are tossed about with gay abandon, yet no one can even answer Ted Keer's very simple question. Threads can be devoted to the hating of one individual, little hate-fests that pop up from time to time, where objectivity flies out the window, while attempts at proper critical examination of Islam are sabotaged and treated as if they are the same as those hate-fests. Liberty is clearly not the number one focus.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Infidel

[Richard Wiig]

Please use both name and post number when you excerpt someone's words. If you will not or cannot do that, I will probably put you under my ignore filter.

Like you put me under your ignore filter?

[Richard Wiig]

Richard has been consistent and relatively straightforward: he 'hates' Islam.

What do you actually understand by this, William? Do I wake up in the morning with a seething hatred of Islam? Do I wake up with a seething hatred for Muslims? Does Islam dominate my thoughts all day while my hatred for it consumes me? When I see an obvious muslim am I overcome with fear? Do I feel disgust? Anger? Pity? Anything at all? Do my thoughts turn to how we'd all be better off without muslims? Do I slot whichever muslim I happen to see into the OBL category? Or do I feel relatively little when I see a clear and obvious muslim? Do you know any of this, and how do you know it? Is there anything I've said at this site that gives you an insight into where I might be?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, are we back to pretending that it makes some difference whether Republicans or Democrats win elections?

Jeff,

I did not mean to insinuate a political message here. (How did you get that message in that context, anyway? Your own hatred? )

I was merely discussing the reason for Peikoff demanding adherence to a political position from others--hatred of religion, specifically in that case Christianity. It would have been the same had he demanded voting Republican across the board because he hated some broad characteristic that Democrats share in general.

I, personally, have used Robert Ringer's phrase, Demopublican Party, often in the past. I think it's accurate in terms of fundamentals. I haven't used it much recently, but that does not indicate a change in my thinking.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

The funny thing about this statement from Michael is...

1. They prioritize hatred over productive effort.

...that the purpose of critically discussing Islam is to be productive. The ones who are making it unproductive are the ones who sabotage with labels of bigot and hater.

In the case in point, if you start a discussion on standing for Israel (like I did), they jump in, not to discuss the merits of what and why or even why not, but instead to show that this is one more proof that Islam is evil--one more proof of why their hatred is valid and why others should hate like they do.

My interjection was not about showing that Islam is evil at all. My interjection was over your view of Terry Jones burning a Qur'an. That's why I made my initial post. It was about motivations. In the end it wasn't explored. It was merely shot down with charges of bigotry.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Right-ee-oh.

Terry Jones hates Islam and burns the Qu'ran, so he should be called a hero who stands up for his rights.

Got it.

Wait a minute. Isn't that hating Islam at root?

Dayaamm!

I think it is...

As I said, I stand for his right. I do not stand for his hatred. Richard objects to those who object to the hatred.

In other words, hatred in first place.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Right-ee-oh.

Terry Jones hates Islam and burns the Qu'ran, so he should be called a hero who stands up for his rights.

Got it.

Wait a minute. Isn't that hating Islam at root?

Dayaamm!

I think it is...

There's so much wrong with that analysis it's not funny. It omits a huge amount that provides context and perspective. I think that's exactly your aim.

Poking the Rabid Porcupine

Pastor Terry Jones is an easy figure to make fun of. His mutton chops went out of style with the end of the Franco-Prussian War. His congregation has dwindled, as the New York Times reports, to a group of just a few dozen—whom a neighbor, according to the Times reporter, compared to a “cult.” Jones' gesture, burning a sacred book that belongs to someone else's religion, is on the face of it repugnant. It's something I'd never do, if only out of respect for the billion plus human beings who misguidedly revere it. Little use as I have for slavery, I wouldn't think much of black people who burned a Confederate flag. I would feel that way out of deference for all those Southern Americans whose ancestors fought and died in that morally compromised cause. I'd much rather have people read the Qur'an than burn it.

What is more, Jones handled his public gesture with a combination of hamhandedness and naivete, gaining massive attention the first time he threatened to burn that book, to the point of taking phone calls from major Obama administration officials—then backing down after swallowing empty promises regarding the Ground Zero victory mosque. Now, several months later, he has whipped up attention again by holding a weird, symbolic “trial” of the Qur'an, complete with prosecutor, jury, and (unbelievably) an imam who agreed to serve as defense attorney. The whole thing reminded me of nothing other than the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus (816 – 896 ), whose successor Stephen VI had Formosus's body exhumed and tried for crimes against canon law. The dead pope lost out to the live one, was duly convicted, and was tossed unceremoniously into the Tiber. (Nobody ever said that papal infallibility precluded pontiffs from behaving atrociously.)

And now, there are people lying dead because of Pastor Jones' outrageous action: Lethal riots in Afghanistan, and murders of U.N. workers... no doubt there will be more, which nothing short of the U.S. Congress enacting Pakistan-style blasphemy laws is likely to stop. All were committed by outraged Muslims, who claimed that they were reacting to Jones' sacrilege, and the West's refusal to punish him.

I remember when gay activists marched into St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989, and violently disrupted the Mass; some even went up for Holy Communion, then stomped the hosts into the ground. (Similar protests in Boston entailed attacks on priestly ordinations, where young men and their aging mothers—attending the equivalent of a wedding—were pelted with condoms.) At the time, I and outraged friends said loudly, “They wouldn't try crap like this against the Muslims—because they know what would happen to them.” We said this in bitter envy, wistful for co-religionists with spine. But now that I see a religion with plenty of spine—indeed, that is covered with spikes like a porcupine, which feels entitled to race all over the world skewering the rest of us with its pricks—it doesn't look very pretty.

For the first time since it happened, I now am glad that the Irishmen who served as ushers at the Cathedral didn't pound those protesters into fruit compote. (Nor did the blasphemy in St. Patrick's provoke, thank God, a wave of retaliatory gay-bashings. No bombs were thrown at the Stonewall Inn.) For a while, their failure to do so left us Catholics looking weak. But didn't Jesus look weak as He walked the Way of the Cross? Wouldn't St. Peter's plan of attacking the Romans with swords have made a much stronger impression? Indeed, looking back at these events (as we do each Lent), I realize that Peter's approach would have been better-suited to Muhammad, who only preached peace and co-existence while he was at a military disadvantage. Once he'd got hold of a city (Medina) and built himself an army, the divine “revelations” that kept pouring down from heaven became a whole lot more intolerant. Judge a man not by how he acts when he is weak, but how he attains a position of strength, and how he uses power once he has it.

With that insight, I have come to change my opinion of Pastor Jones' actions. No doubt, he was provocative—and see what he has provoked. Like the cartoonists who drew Muhammad, Jones has prodded the world's Muslims into showing Islam's true colors. While the West still lies half-drowsy, sung to sleep by the lullabye that Islam is just a religion of peace, this simple, crude action by an obscure Florida pastor with no church behind him, no government support, and weird facial hair, has served as a wake-up call. If burning a book can “provoke” Muslims to burn and kill six thousand miles away, just how peaceful can their religion really be? Next people must start to wonder: What's in that book, anyway—and what does it say about the fate of non-believers? What does it say about Jews and Christians, and the righteousness of waging religious war?

The fact that critics of Islam are doused on a daily basis with charges that we are hatemongers—even as Muslims answer our pamphlets and blogs with bullets and bombs—tells me that we are winning. The frenzy of leftist and dhimmi hostility to those who speak truthfully of Islam reminds me of the rhetoric that poured out of the Communist Party U.S.A. in the dying days of the Soviet Union. We “running-dogs” and “imperialist lackeys” of the “corporate elite” can wear these terms of abuse like military decorations. We should pin them to our coat. Having said that, I must overcome my initial distaste for the manner and matter of his gesture, and offer Pastor Jones the Red Badge of Courage.

Posted by Roland Shirk on April 4, 2011 6:49 PM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm a critic of Islam (i've written several times about this) and I don't seem to have the hatemonger problem poor misunderstood Mr. Shirk has.

Maybe it's because I'm not a hatemonger and I make that very clear.

I can't say about him because I don't know enough of his writing. Despite his complaint of being victimized with this, I have my doubts. He also said about burning the Qu'ran (quoting above): " It's something I'd never do, if only out of respect for the billion plus human beings who misguidedly revere it.."

This is my sentiment, although I wouldn't say "misguidedly" in that context since that cuts close to rhetorical game-playing. But I'll give that one a pass and presume good intentions.

I have a feeling that if I don't keep reminding the haters that I stand for Jonse's right to free speech--if I just don't say anything at all about it for a while--the hatred will slowly grow from a smoldering ember into a flame and they will start accusing me of wanting to restrict his rights in order to appease yadda yadda yadda.

Hate drives discourse in that direction.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

(which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak).

This comment here really just shows your ignorance.

Richard

[Brant Gaede]

(which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak).

This comment here really just shows your ignorance.

Richard, have you made any posts lately on any non-Islamic subject? I'd like to read a few.

--Brant

Edited April 11, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

Please use both name and post number when you excerpt someone's words. If you will not or cannot do that, I will probably put you under my ignore filter.

Like you put me under your ignore filter?

Yup. Which means when I look at a thread, all posts from you are replaced by "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Infidel." I can, however, click a link that reads "View it anyway?"

Phil is now, apparently, including a post number with his excerpts, which is a nice compromise with those who harry him about using the quote function.

Speaking of quotes, you italicized this phrase: (which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak) -- but you did not note who said it and where. The phrase does not occur in this thread. Who said it and where, Richard? It is difficult to know if your charge [just shows your ignorance] is accurate when you do not provide context.

[william.scherk]

... a 'hater' in Michael's term (I believe this is Michael's shorthand for folk who are bigoted about Islam [or any other particular body of religious thought or group or nation or assumed collectivity]).

This is very close, but not complete.

Thanks for the extended definition, Michael. I question the use of 'hater' as I once questioned your use of 'bonehead' as a useful appellation for James Valliant.

One can fairly claim Richard Wiig is a hater of Islam, and link to an OL post in which he explicitly tells us he hates Islam tout court in some places, while in others lets us know the limits of what he hates, as in this excerpt delimiting his view of the 'enemy':

My enemy, our enemy, the enemy of freedom, in the concrete sense, are Muslims who have taken to heart the aspects of Islam that inculcate supremacist and totalitarian ideas, the aspects of Islam that set up an "us and them" mentality. It's true that those aspects are not the entire religion, but it's also true that they are part and parcel of the religion, and so long as individual muslims, in whatever numbers they may be, take them to heart, then there is a problem. In short, Islam is not safe, because any devout muslim at any time could take those supremacist murderous aspects of Islam to heart. There are many examples of it, from collective groupings such as Al Qaeda, to lone individuals such as the Fort Hood murderer, to otherwise peaceful muslims who shift the blame away from the perpetrators.

So, whether there is a minority of supremacists or not is irrelevant. Either way we have a serious problem, and that ultimately is what matters.

I said most of what I had to say about my differences with Richard in this post about the hard work of correct identification and in this post about his incorrigible sloppiness.

I excerpt some of Richard's judgements on Islam from the last link (and in which I told Richard he went on my ignore list). This is what he believes to be true:

Islam is a culture of death with world subjugation on its mind.

The Jihadists with their bombs are visible for what they are, but the ongoing encroachment of Islam through peaceful means is not. The majority of muslims in the west might be peaceful (for now - if you ignore the rioting . . .), but they are working towards exactly the same ends that the violent Jihadists are working towards only by different means.

Islam is contained in the Koran, Hadiths and Sunna, and that has NO commitment to individual rights. They are immutable for all time. Any individual Palestinians, or Syrians, or Iraqi's, or anyotheree's who are pushing for individual rights, are NOT part of Islam. They are apostates for which their punishment is death.

Osama Bin Laden, et al, are not separate from Islam. They are practicing Islam as Islam has always been practiced, and is meant to be practiced.

Do you know that there is no separation between politics and religion in Islam? Islam is all encompassing upon every aspect of life.

The fact that some muslims don’t follow their teaching to the zenith, either because they don’t understand it, or because they are too lazy, or because they want to pretend that’s not really what Islam means, doesn’t alter the menace of what Islam is.

Do you know that it is a central obligation upon each and every muslim to spread Islam until religion is all for Allah? Do you know that? Simply because many muslims do not strap bombs to their waists and blow themselves up, means little.

If you look at Islam – the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira – you will see that it is their duty to subjugate you, the infidel, under Islam. That is a simple undeniable fact. It is all there for you to look at and discover in the Islamic texts.

Islam cannot be reformed, because the Qur’an is the “perfect word of God”. Any tinkering with the perfect word of God is to make it imperfect.