171–180 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class warfare seems to be a standard part of far right ideology, from Trump crowd to European far right.
Trump isn't far right. If you think he is you likely have very little knowledge of politics.
From a European perspective, Trump crowd is certainly far right. Shit, even most democrats would be right wing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Momentum isn’t far left, the Communist Party of Britain is. Labour wasn’t taken over by Momentum, people that liked Corbyn joined Labour. And finally, antisemitism accusations were used cynically by the right of Labour for years, trying to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Have a look at the Labour Files at least. So not even a little.
> Momentum isn’t far left, the Communist Party of Britain is. If you support terror groups - and I mean in the strictest sense, as in people that attack civilians - you're on the far edge of politics. Before you shout that Corbyn was 'reaching out' to terrorists by saying they're his friends, that punishing people that killed innocent people in Brighton was a show trial, or laying wreaths at their funerals: everyone…
“More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.” Just a reminder that the far ends of the political spectrum loop back and connect.
One doesn't need seeing the film to notice the racism in the title. The title could be "terrorist rehab", but it now looks like jihad is bad per se, while jihad for Muslims can mean anything from "struggle against self ego" to "defend country from invasion". All Muslim scholars denounce terrorism and yet she chose "jihad" in the title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're missing the point. The point is not about who's a good guy and who's a bad guy, who's a victim or an oppressor; it's about honesty. If you do an adversary investigation about the Sacklers, using public footage or even private conversations that you obtained without them participating in any way, then sure you don't have to care about what they think. But if you do a documentary where you ask for your s…
>But if you do a documentary where you ask for your subjects' help, then you owe them something, and the least you can do is not exploit or spin their testimony to fit a specific point of view -- esp. a point of view they would discover after the fact. That's a betrayal. It sounds like you are saying that it's unethical to include interviews in a documentary unless the interviewee is on board with the message of the…
Yes, I think I would. I think the proper behavior in that case would be to return to them after you decide they're the villains, and let them respond to that. If they chose not to, fine, you can go ahead with the original footage. But if they choose to answer your new questions, you should include those too.
I'm writing this as an Iranian immigrant, and feel compelled to say so because it is apparently and depressingly necessary in order to lend legitimacy to my statements (though I don't think it does). The idea that a white American can't understand non-white non-American views, makes the same amount of sense the other way around. Both ways around need a great deal of research by the ones trying to understand, and I be…
Thank you for posting this. Many of us agree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump isn't far right. If you think he is you likely have very little knowledge of politics.
Or perhaps you have very little knowledge of politics? From a European perspective, Trump crowd is certainly far right. Shit, even most democrats would be right wing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Momentum isn’t far left, the Communist Party of Britain is. If you support terror groups - and I mean in the strictest sense, as in people that attack civilians - you're on the far edge of politics. Before you shout that Corbyn was 'reaching out' to terrorists by saying they're his friends, that punishing people that killed innocent people in Brighton was a show trial, or laying wreaths at their funerals: everyone…
This is hacker news not Facebook. If you want to argue politics go there.
Quoted post unavailable.
Well, the Arabic version of that same Wikipedia article provides the Hadeeth transmitter’s analysis of the Hadith regarding Al-‘Asmaa bint Marian, and the verdict that this hadeeth is fabricated (Mawdoo’). It simply isn’t true. Moreover, the language of the claimed poet - I’m an Arab - is far different from the language of the time, far from being poetic, and the statement claimed that Prophet Muhammad said has a ver…
The adulation towards voluntary segregation disturbs me. I can't help but explain this queer desire as some sort of side effect of the various "bans" against discrimination. As best I can tell, regardless of circumstance or intent, there is a fundamental hunger for sameness, and the exclusion of otherness. I don't see that as good or bad, but merely a confusion of ideas counter to everything the world seems to bombar…
People never changed their attitudes, they just updated their language and their branding. In every era and in every identity group you have your MLK's and your Malcolm X's.
I hope this doesn't come off as sounding "preachy" since I've been warned by the mods in the past for "preaching". I think it does fit the topic though:
"Food will not make us acceptable to God. We are not inferior if we don’t eat, and we are not better if we do eat. But be careful that this right of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak."
1 Corinthians 8:8-9 (HCSB)
I see it as something to the affect of, no matter what time we look at the world, posturing of some sort, over some reason, carries an inherent risk of: belittling those who do not do as we do, while artificially glorifying our own position, through a means of self-defined terms and metrics. That there is a push to not just to do what is right because it is right, but instead to do what is right because of how it makes us appear.
I think that there is a matter of arrogance, pride, and glory that each of us needs to struggle with on our own terms, to find a means to humble ourselves and show humility to others. Some way of reminding ourselves that our "greatness" (good + extra works) is merely a thing that is defined by some arbitrary, outside force of what is right. Instead, we raise ourselves up because of whatever stick we use to measure by.
I'm not even sure if the people who enact this kind of rhetoric perceive their own actions in the heat of the moment. There is a sort of self-induced high we get through "going the extra mile" by insisting on be not just right, but extra right.
I hope that makes sense. It's hard to really put into words; it sounds kind of pseudo-intelectual. I just mean something like: if a man is sitting in a chair, he is not raised up off the floor just because he pulls upward from the legs of the chair. I think it's a thing we're all prone to doing. It really seems to be a matter of recognizing the risks of that thing, and being able to say "I was wrong" and turn away from it when we finally see the error.
I hope that the sorts who push for this voluntary segregation stuff do see the severe error in it. I guess I just still have some kind of twinge of regret in even holding them accountable for it, because I have absolutely tried to posture myself as better than everyone else many times, for very little reason or incentive - I just had the luck of it not making it to a national/international spotlight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is just that we, Arabs, are a radically different culture that values stability and tradition. Something of the sort of “People should mind their own business”. Free speech undermines both. It’s a significant cultural difference that the west has no intent to respect, because they regard it as oppressive." This is an interesting remark that gave me some new insight into Arabic culture. That said, free speech wasn…
Free speech is necessity for democracy. Democracy is necessity for the movement of enlightenment and justice. Enlightenment and science based governance led to the technology revolution, medical understanding and productivity boost. Authorian societies will never be as productive productive and never be good source of innovation. If people wish to live according to tradition, conservatism and authorian rule it is ok,…
That’s a debunked 1980s conceit. Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and Korea are all counter examples. China is on the same trajectory.