RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
scottmil's comments:
on Islam in the Northwest
Soggy Portlander,
I would prefer you actually address the profound objections that I have provided or combat them, because you have done neither. All you have alleged is that I am stereotyping, whatever that means in this instance? It is a nice buzz word, but, you need more then that. Saying I don’t like Muslims, Jews or Christians because of their ideologies is um, not stereotyping. Or at least not in the negative way it can be assumed you are alleging. I would prefer that I am incorrect, because it would mean better things for the world, but you have certainly provided nothing to invalidate what I proposed.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Islam in the Northwest
Soggy Portlander,
What stereotyping? Perhaps you would also encourage me not assume all white supremacists are racists? Is that the sort of thing you want? You want me to ignore the ideology of religions or make exceptions for people who may not really believe those things they allege to believe, and they align themselves with, because they take a lose interpretation of the faith they supposedly follow? Exactly what are you on about because it is not making sense?
Now that I have read your other comments I can see why it is not making sense. You seem to propose that Muslims must be nice, good people because they are polite in public. What a laugh! Lots of egregious people have good manners and can be polite. You don’t use superficial qualities to attempt to speak deeply about an ideological group. You look at their beliefs and what they actually mean and say about the world and the other people in it---where these beliefs lead and the implications of them.
I think what you are inaccurately doing is requesting I pretend all Muslims are somehow 'French,' and, well, French people are all different so Muslims must be too. But the important and paramount distinction is that France is a country, it is not an ideology. To be French means nothing concrete, or nothing beyond the superficial. To be Muslim, means you attach a complete ideology to yourself, an ideology I do not like, because it does not like me. It is an ideology that is inherently exclusive, and at base, bigoted towards other views about the explanations of the world. I can tell you have many good intentions but unfortunately they are, for all of us, sadly inaccurate.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Islam in the Northwest
The major religions are all violent in the end. Even if the believers themselves don’t condone violence, they outsource it to ‘god.’ God who will get rid of the wicked, or send them to a hell. To suggest that most religions are not inherently violent is a luxurious view, the threat of this violence is what keeps people in shape, this fear of god’s wrath is largely what makes these religions work as they do. It is fair to question whether one religion favors or is prone to violence more often then others. And many people come to the conclusion that Islam is more violent.
The religious can’t have things both ways, they can’t claim they are all the same---they don’t have that right because it doesn’t make logical sense. If all religions were the same then why are there many? Because they are all different, it is fair to assess those differences, and it is fair to go a step further and decide which religions are more of a threat, which religions you respect and which religions you dislike.
Religion is not race and ethnicity. Because of atrocities like the holocaust, in an attempt not to repeat them, it has become impolite to speak ill of a particular religion. Which is completely inaccurate! Religions are ideologies of choice. If it is fair to dislike Republicans or Democrats then it is fair to dislike Christians, Jews and/or Muslims, because you don’t like where their ideology leads.
I don’t like Muslims, but I also don’t like Jews and Christians either. Why would I? They all believe I deserve death, some because I am gay, and others because I am a non-believer---the flock may not personally carry out my demise, but god will take care of me in the end. And you have to ask why I don’t like them? Why I don’t like people who can’t stand me? And not only can’t stand me but go a step further and think I don’t deserve life. In return, I don’t go that far in my views towards them, because that would be crazy. But I am not going to make nice and pretend we are all apples and apples. I am only intolerant in response to their inherent intolerance. I don’t take any action against these religions, I simply don’t have room for their views and don’t respect their ideologies or the people who believe them. Which seems like a healthy and rational response to intolerance.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on RUT? Teens & Texting
There is nothing inherently wrong with texting, or even sexting. At times it can be a useful activity for anyone. My objection to it, is that many believe this is a modern, hip, innovative activity in itself, when really it is just another line for the same garbled communications everyone was having before. No one is saying anything new, they are just saying it through a different, neurotic, medium.
The main texting problem is the instant passive aggressive interruption it provides---ding-dong I’ve get something to say to you. But who really has this much to say? And, so often? The whole mess is schizophrenic, other voices, other phones---but is anyone even listening? Who are these folks with so much to say? But, on the positive side, at least these garbage mouths are speaking in silence.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
bonzosa,
This is exactly the problem, compromise IS an all-or-nothing argument when it is about fundamental issues. Compromise is nice as a theory, or as a manipulative tool, but it doesn’t apply to most of the deepest questions we face in the world.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
Compromise is a Utopian word that is a lie to begin with, its alleged meaning doesn’t exist in reality. What does compromise even mean in the way we normally use it? At this point it is a cliche to suggest everything is ‘partisan.’ It isn’t that people are partisan and they are overly enamoured with their political party, the problem is much deeper then superficial partisanship or an unwillingness to compromise---the roadblock is much worse indeed, half of the country actually doesn’t agree with the other half on central issues. There is essentially little to compromise on, there really is nowhere to go. This compromise people are talking about simply means one side giving up on what is important to them. We have gone somewhat far as a culture and we are now left with grappling the issues that are fundamental, issues that are impossible to compromise on.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on The 2010 Election Divide
Isn’t the inherent nature of conservative ideology pessimistic? I am not suggesting this is a good or bad thing. But, any group that favors tradition, is going to tend to be pessimistic about the future because the future is constantly changing. It is essentially the nature of conservatism to be on the defensive in a modern world, because change and progress are always an attack on the ideology. The only things that are not an attack on the ideology are regression and stagnation. I say this not to say something bad about conservatives (although I do detest them), but I propose it to point out that conservatives are doing nothing wrong by their pessimism itself nor should they be ashamed of it. And this poll states little more than the obvious.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Fandom
Being a competitive sports fan is akin to being a nationalist. I am wary of anyone that supports one group of people in general, particularly when there is no ideology behind their support, and it ends up being arbitrary. As a child I rarely had a favorite anything, no favorite colors, or favorite foods---and I have remained that way. Even if I admire a certain something, I still recognize that there are other options out there. Being a sports fan is like being a zealot, it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing that people can get so worked up about a game, and then go even further and get worked up about a particular team. These teams change over time, the players change, to show allegiance to something so random and meaningless seems a bit pathetic.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Bomb Plot in Portland
So, from all this work, we now know there was one person in America willing to participate in a terrorism plot. Yes, assuming all is true, Mohamed is a criminal and we should be concerned about his potential. But, didn’t we know this already? Didn’t we know, that somewhere in America you could find someone willing to join an already organized terror group? This is hardly a big telling event. There are a lot of people in America, it would be more surprising if you couldn’t find someone. I guess the FBI did some market research for entrepreneurs wanting to start their own terror cells. Hopefully they didn’t snatch up the only available applicant.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Math Appeal
It makes a bit of sense that current Americans don’t excel in mathematics, because math is a frugal discipline and Americans are not a frugal people. It is the sort of thing that is mainly creative at the higher, theoretical levels. Yes, much of our world functions on the principles of mathematics, but much of math is esoteric. It can be useful to understand the foundations, the nuts and bolts, but sometimes one just wants to live in the building. As much as I like math, and did fairly well in it, it is essentially a dead end, except for the most brilliant mathematicians. Math is pure elegance, but it is elegant at the most banal level, it lacks the philosophical interests that other fields hold. Math has been glorified for too long. For most people math is not much more than a foundational tool, and the real excitement begins in the things one can do with math, not in the ‘math’ itself. Math is like linguistics---sure, it would be great to know about the science of language, but personally I’d rather spend my time writing 'the book.'
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Free Speech or Hate Speech?
Jacob,
We seem to interpret tolerance in a broad way. And to me, most religions are intolerant. An extremist is not a negative thing, unless the goal is negative. We label people extremists when we don’t like what they are being ‘extreme’ about. Probably many of the world’s greatest geniuses were extremists, because they were so focused in one area.
My point (hopefully) with all this, is that it is simple to say that we should tolerate everyone (even with a disclaimer that excludes the intolerant), but at some point, and it is a difficult point, we have to decide and determine who is intolerant and who is an extremist (in a negative way). Collectively we haven’t done this, we haven’t even begun to approach how to do it, we probably don’t even have the language and the words to do it. Or, maybe some think we shouldn’t do it at all? I think it is a complex challenge and one of the most important challenges that face our entire world. It would be great to do a show about this topic, because so much of these discussions have this tolerant/intolerant dilemma at their root. We see the dilemma all over, the Islamic cultural center by ground zero, the burqa question in France and now at Clark Community College. Yes, we all bandy about ‘free speech,’ myself included, but that is too easy!
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Free Speech or Hate Speech?
VITALPAC,
Most liberals believe in the free exchange of ideas, we just prefer that they are good, logical ideas. I am not against thinking about whether different ethnic groups might have inherent differences. I realize people shy away from this because they rush to assume it is racism, and indeed, perhaps most often these inquires are motivated by racism. But the inquiry itself is a fair line of questioning, the problems stem from motivation and what you intend to do with the information. Odds are against you, that this information is being sought to do good and that people will not take this information to reinforce their beliefs or stereotypes. Really it is not the potential information that is the problem, it is our capacity to act responsibly with it.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Free Speech or Hate Speech?
If I understand you correctly (which I might not be), this seems to be exactly the thing we don’t need to do: see any and every group as one and the same. This idea that the PTA is exactly the same kind of group as Catholics is much of the problem we face. We need to evaluate what people believe and say rather then what group they belong to. We can’t see all groups as equal merely because they are groups, this is a similar type of problem to seeing corporations as individuals. Not tolerating a certain religion or group because they have a hateful or bigoted ideology is not being intolerant. The effects of extremism depend entirely on the scope or capacity of the belief, all extremism is most definitely not the same in its potential. If I believe Dora the Explorer is a modern day saint, and worship her, and preach about her, this extremism is a lot different from believing black people are superior and should be in control of the world. It is not enough to say the behaviour is extreme, we have to look at where these things lead, and how they impact others, or whether their nature is inherently intolerant of others.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Free Speech or Hate Speech?
First, I am trying to figure out what ‘hate speech’ even is. What do people mean by this term? From what I have read about hate speech, religion is one of the groups generally protected. Which is problematic, if they got rid of the religious category from hate speech, I might feel more sympathetic to the term. But how can you protect an ideology, and then allow people practicing this ideology to foster their own kind of hatred. Plus it is a contradiction, because almost all religions technically hate each other, even if they pretend not to, the logical conclusions of their beliefs are that some god or other is going to save them and destroy everyone else---this is definitely hateful. How can you protect an ideology, without advocating that ideology? You either protect all ideologies or you don’t protect any. People repeatedly make an egregious mistake with religions protections. They have elevated religion to something like eye-color and many of us swallow this pill. Religion having any special protection, in any law whatsoever, is obscene and nonsensical.
Putting it another way, it is one thing to say I hate white people, and a completely different thing to say I hate vegetarians. It is totally legitimate to hate vegetarians, because you could potentially defend your view with an opposing ideology. But you cannot defend a view of hatred against a group based upon an inherent characteristic which cannot be modified, and wasn’t a personal choice to begin with, like skin-color or gender. If hate speech protections were reserved strictly for groups that are organized by biological characteristics it might make more sense, but when you include ideological considerations, the protections lose logical credibility.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Spore to Spoon: Mushrooms in Oregon
I feel as though mushrooms have some kind of bad-ass cachet, like they are the tattoos of produce, but at the same time they manage to maintain what seems to be a highbrow appeal. Of course I am perhaps not objective, because I personally can’t stand them. And, as stupid as this sounds, mushrooms seem to be cliche, although, unfairly, I do sometimes like the flavor of truffles. Not liking mushrooms is a bad proposition for a vegetarian, because every restaurant seems to feel like you will be so excited for their one vegetarian option to be a dish based around mushrooms. Marrow, oh, the new-old cliche of the food world, yikes. Is marrow at Burgerville yet? Is this supposed to be creativity? Sounds more like the Charles Bukowski approach to food.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Turnidge Trial
uncommonsense,
Oh, gosh, gee, thanks for that. I wasn’t aware I was making a generalization.... . Nope, had no idea. In fact, I was purposefully making a generalization, and what of it?
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Turnidge Trial
It is odd how rare they are, and how infrequently things like this happen. It is surprising we don’t have more people going off their rocker. Are we doing something right? Maybe people don’t go crazier, because they are afraid someone with a gun might stop them! But, seriously, it is very surprising that things kind of, go about, so normally. I often think about it when I am a passenger in a car, and although people certainly don’t do a good job of following the rules, they follow them in essence, people aren’t exactly mowing people down every day intentionally. For the most part things run relatively smoothly.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Turnidge Trial
uncommonsense,
No, it was based on the Turnidges’ desire to purchase guns, and also their fear of gun control, which is alleged as one of the reasons they were so angry that they wanted to teach people a lesson. Yes, I find an ironic connection, if you don’t, then stretch your intellect elsewhere.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Turnidge Trial
I did find this whole thing pretty amusing, perhaps I am terrible. Woodburn is such a conservative community and I have to suspect that the people harmed by this were the very people who would generally never vote to allow gun controls. And Woodburn is hardly some idyllic, tight-knit community, it is a place, like many places, that is full of anger, mixed with a whole lot of trash. Is there any community in America that is allegedly not tightly-knit and full of family values?
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
on Sustainable Oregon and Iraq
It is not just that people don’t know how to be sustainable, it is more likely that they don’t care. It is an uphill battle getting anyone to plan for the future, and thinking about climate change is the ultimate sort of 'planning for the future.' It is incredibly difficult to get us to save money, let alone thinking about preserving the planet ‘as is’ for future generations. Even accepting climate change, which I do, I see little evidence that suggests we won’t survive it. Yes, areas may flood and be uninhabitable, certain species may become extinct, but that is no reason to suspect that humans can’t survive it. I think we need to go back and develop a better argument for sustainability that actually and accurately presents the risk, and perhaps sells sustainability as a good idea in itself, that is based on and promotes the simple concepts of resourcefulness and efficiency as a philosophy, rather then basing everything on saving the human species from climate change.
This Oregon-Iraq partnership is one big, well-intentioned, sensational gimmick. It ends up making people look like radical nutters. Don’t get me wrong, it is fine to be a radical, but your motivation needs to be substantive rather than cheap.
posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context
