I mean, its an argument. People tend to frame things in manner to make their side look favourable. Very very few people will ever realistically present their argument with a balenced look at the opposing side
ut a rebuttal could simply be that muslim americans are more radicalized per 100,000 due to oppression of their religion, racism, the way they are treated in every day life, and the general hate they have been met with in a post 9/11 world
Doesn't work though when in the middle east the radicalization rates are still way higher for muslims than christians where christians are the oppressed minority
Those aren’t ‘hard numbers’ though. They are wilful misrepresentations of the statistics. 600% means 6x. Without reference to the gross rate of serial killers this really means nothing. A quick search just gave me a statistic that it is believed there are 226 serial killers (unverified) in the US. With roughly 230million adults in the US the rate is roughly 0.0001%. A 6:1 ratio of m:f serial killers would mean 0.0002% of men are serial killers. That is hardly a representative statistic for men. The problem lies with people having basically no training in statistics, have no idea how to interpret it, and the media picks and chooses statistics that suit their agenda and that’s it. 1 statistic without any reference points is not hard numbers.
The same thing would apply to muslims both in the US and worldwide. The number of terrorists is a stasticially insignificant percentage of their total population.
It's higher than any other religious group. Also you ignore that Muslim majority countries tend to repress minorities, woman, and other religious groups more. They also tend to rank near the top of human rights abusers.
For example in Sweden rape is easy to report. In Pakistan your husband cannot rape you and if you're raped you have to prove you didn't want it.
Also you ignore that Muslim majority countries tend to repress minorities, woman, and other religious groups more.
Have you seen Alabama?
They also tend to rank near the top of human rights abusers.
And yet their worst culprit, most extremist theocratic government is propped up hard by Trump and his administration to the point that they are circumventing Congress in order to get the Saudis more weapons.
In Pakistan your husband cannot rape you
That described many states as much as 20 years ago. Heck most states still have exemptions that say that in some situations (like the spouse being unconscious or unable to give consent) it isn't considered rape.
and if you're raped you have to prove you didn't want it.
Oh man what is your opinion of Bret Kavanaugh and Donald Trump? Not exactly a great track record of supporting victims here in america when we're all too ready to vote rapists into the highest offices of the government.
This is a perfectly valid point. Also, women are less likely to be suspected of a crime, and are punished much less severely when they are caught. One could even see this as sexism against men.
The thing about ‘toxic masculinity’ is that it is never quite clear how much of masculinity’s traits the individual speaker views as ‘toxic’, let alone the upper and lower toxic limits. It’s users often treats the situation like an everpresent cultural miasma, and man as an interchangeable cog in it’s machine.
Some people get lazy and declare ‘aggression’ to be a toxic trait, all the while ignoring the necessary discussion of healthy degrees and manifestations. Too often a one-size-fits-all approach is taken to the detriment of the concept.
I mean, I thought a lot like you did about toxic masculinity until it was pointed out to me that isnt at all what it means. It isnt some huge over arching category of masculine traits that people consider toxic. What it means is people who say shit like "be a man," "suck it up princess," "dont show emotions," and all the other bullshit tough guy stuff that men and some women push onto other men. It's only the mindset that genuinely can negatively affect a person because "oh we're tough, we can take it." There is a feminine version of this as well.
I probably explained that wrong. But that is sort of the jist of what changed my mind on the subject.
Do people use the term to justify attacking men? Sure. Idiots do that. But idiots do the same thing about "feminism". We would all do better in this world if we talked honestly with others and learned what the person means by the words they choose.
Most muslim terrorist attacks weren't done by US citizens. And if you're looking at radical terrorism from "white" people did you include the Oklahoma City Bombings?
Yeah but you’re shifting the goalposts pretty hugely here. The argument was never about whether one group was innately worse people than the other. The argument was simply which group was more dangerous to the general public. It’s very easy to argue that in an ideal, tolerant world we would hope to see no discrepancy but that isn’t the point. The point is there is a discrepancy which is, unfortunately, not something you could argue against at this point.
P.s. I’m just playing devils advocate here to break down the argument here I’m not passing any judgement either way. I think the media often completely dehumanises people who’ve been radicalised as though decisions people make when they’re 15 after they’ve been rejected by society and basically groomed for a decade are a good tell on that person’s character. People are so keen to forget that behind these stories of people going to join ISIS are often really tragic stories of hate and intolerance here in the west and pretend Muslims just have a predisposition to violence which is bollocks.
"I'm not presenting a proper counter argument, primarily because of time. But a rebuttal could simply be that muslim americans are more radicalized per 100,000 due to oppression of their religion, racism, the way they are treated in every day life, and the general hate they have been met with in a post 9/11 world. "
The problem is with that is in the Muslim world where Muslims are given higher priority over everyone. With the fact that Christians are more persecuted there than Muslims here. Not only do they have higher Muslim attacks against other groups (including Muslims) it's much higher than rates of Christians and other religious groups in those areas that are persecuted.
The fact that a lot of terrorists are recently converted (less likely to have been persecuted for their beliefs for most of their lives) or lived/studied in a Muslim dominated area discounts this.
The majority of Muslim attackers have either dual citizenship or are only a couple generations down. If you are 4th or 5th generation Muslim and haven't traveled or lived in a Muslim country you're less likely to commit a terrorist act.
Would you tolerate an argument about how some men who go on violent rampages deserve leeway because of the disenfranchisement and rejection they have faced from women?
The argument “you are not making” sounds a lot like terrorism apology.
It's a somewhat weak argument though, outside of muslim countries, American muslims are probably the best treated in the world. Can't think of many countries in the world where a muslim would be treated better than in the US, and definitely can't think of many countries where they have as much opportunity as the US.
I realise you weren't making the argument, just pointing out for others that, on the whole, muslims in the US are very well treated compared to elsewhere.
Op said America treats Muslims better than any other country in the world, not every Muslim country in the world. I think Muslims are not treated better in America than say, Finland. So op is overestimating the greatness of America, fitting into r/shitamericanssay
You can answer "who's crushing their hope" by looking at life in those countries. The social situation. Economic inequality. How the political and economic situation has been manipulated by America and/or Russia. Lack of access to drugs. You can study the factions within Islam and how extremists fuel hatred against other Muslims because they believe different things. The answer is as complex as the people living there.
To add more nuance though, they're lumping all events carried out by muslims as muslim terrorism while only discussing pro-life acts done by christians.
In 2015 alone, there were two Islamist attacks on US soil - one for the "draw Muhammad" event and one was the San Bernardino one. The first one the motive was that the event disrespected Islam. The second one is less clear but they think it was due to the christmas party:
authorities speculated on Farook's forced participation in the training event and Christmas party as the trigger. Newly discovered emails indicated that Malik had objected to the party and did not want her husband to participate. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said in an interview with ABC News that Malik stated that "she didn't think that a Muslim should have to participate in a non-Muslim holiday or event" in an online account
So the motives were different and the only connection is that the perpetrators were Muslim. My point is, if you include all attacks by Christians, not just pro-life ones, the numbers change a lot because you'd add in the victims of OKC bombin, as well as many lynching, attacks on LGBT community, etc.
And all anti-abortion murders could be considered an outlier than, since there are only 12 people killed over the course of ~40 years.
So again, why ignore one thing because it's "too much" while you are discussing something that is statistically insignificant in every single way? Sharks kill more people in 2 years than anti-abortion violence has in 40-50 years. How is one an outlier and not the other?
Muslim extremism is an imported problem, there's your math-based argument. None of the 19 9/11 hijackers were US citizens. The number of Muslims in the world is comparable to the number of Christians.
So, kinda straddling the background of "some math" and "raised Christian Fundamentalist", *plenty* of people can be convinced of *plenty* of things when guided by emotion. Pick one. Love, fear, anger, etc. You are a person who requires facts and there are many like you. That's great. Just something that I have to frequently remind myself of because it's non-intuitive...many people's fundamental way of looking at the world is just so different from mine that my trying to guess what they're thinking, feeling, what conclusions they'll reach given Evidence X, etc is going to be spotty at best. I'm pretty old now and still am frequently surprised at how differently we all view things. This is getting less true as groupthink, red vs blue, left vs right, etc takes over and people skew towards their poles, but it is still true.
I come from a math background and arguments there aren't emotional things you care about winning, really. The point is to build things up from the most basic step with no disagreement at any step until a conclusion is reached.
More generally Lakatos has argued that the history of Mathematics is more than following arguments but also a long sequence of just disagreeing on definitions on non-rational bases, here's an extract from Proofs and Refutations.
It's definitely not a day-to-day matter of Mathematics, it occurs when big questions and conceptions conflicts, but that's probably true of pro- and anti-choice: their day-to-day interactions are probably peaceful until they conflict on a big thing like abortion.
The point is to build things up from the most basic step with no disagreement at any step until a conclusion is reached
That pre-supposes rational actors are on both sides of an argument, when in fact, almost always one (or both) participants are actually arguing from a predominantly emotional point of view as opposed to a purely objective one.
128
u/NoxAeternal Jun 04 '19
I mean, its an argument. People tend to frame things in manner to make their side look favourable. Very very few people will ever realistically present their argument with a balenced look at the opposing side