Echo chambers of hate in After Hours.

Boggles

gandalf wrote: »

Do you actually know any Muslims? Have you spent any time with them, talked to them?

That's an excellent question actually. I note you didn't get an answer.

Manny89 wrote: »

Why is not perfectly fine to say that importing large amounts of people from the developing world who hold extreme religious beliefs is a bad thing?

Would these large imports not be fleeing areas with "extreme religious beliefs"?

Manny89 wrote: »

You're the one falsely generalising. You claim that only a few are extremists. This is false. The majority of them hold extreme beliefs.

I have seen this cited more than once, when proof is asked for it's ignored.

So will try once more, have you any credible evidence to back up your claim?

gandalf

Manny89 wrote: »

Yes, Catholicism did hold back and damage Irish society. It's perfectly fine to say this. Why is not perfectly fine to say that importing large amounts of people from the developing world who hold extreme religious beliefs is a bad thing?

But do the majority of those people hold extreme religious beliefs? I would counter that the majority don't and again it is a minority. You made generalised remarks about Islam, you didn't qualify your statement so I assume you meant all Muslims? Is that the case?

You're the one falsely generalising. You claim that only a few are extremists. This is false. The majority of them hold extreme beliefs.

And what do you base that on? Please cite your sources?

I'm not interested in your friend down the pub who is a Muslim. I'm interested in studies and polls that show that only a small minority hold extremist views.

What studies and what polls?

As someone who was calling for factual discussion without incorrect generalisations, I'm sure you'll produce some to back up your claims.

You're the one generalising mate now you back up what you are saying please.

gandalf

Calhoun wrote: »

While i agree with most of what you have said i think that argument stands in a perfect world. While we shouldn't bring Religion into politics and education for now they have inserted themselves into it and we must discuss them to an extent.

Yep I agree it is a perfect world arguement and tbh given the tendrils that the Church has on Education and Health Care in this country we are quite a distance away from it.

We also in my opinion must be willing to discuss extremism no matter Religion or beliefs. We shouldnt be afraid to challenge ideals in the way that we have, either we fear the risk of reprisal or we fear the risk of offending a "minority".

Again no problem discussing this once it doesn't descent into generalisations and people throwing labels without actually discussing anything.

Manny89

Back up your claims that it's only a small minority of extremists. This is constantly offered up, but is completely untrue.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

The "only a small percentage" mantra is absurd, even without those (completely damning) figures. Hey, the polling data may be wrong. There are very few places or even communities on the face of the Earth today where a Muslim can even ask a question about any aspect of Islam without facing immediate repercussions.

Boggles

Manny89 wrote: »

even without those (completely damning) figures.

From the link you provided.

Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam. Asked specifically about suicide bombing, clear majorities in most countries say such acts are rarely or never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies.

Damning indeed.

gandalf

Have you actually read the documents you are linking to? I've read the executive summary and the only mention I see about extremists is this.

At least half of Muslims in most countries surveyed say they are concerned about religious extremist groups in their country, including two-thirds or more of Muslims in Egypt (67%), Tunisia (67%), Iraq (68%), Guinea Bissau (72%) and Indonesia (78%). On balance, more are worried about Islamic extremists than about Christian extremists.

So how you jump to your assertion that the majority of Muslims in Ireland are extremists from that document as proof is fallacious in the extreme.

Manny89

Terrorism is not the sole barometer of extremism. The majority of the world's Muslims believe in death for apostasy. I would consider that extreme.

gandalf

Manny89 wrote: »

Terrorism is not the sole barometer of extremism. The majority of the world's Muslims believe in death for apostasy. I would consider that extreme.

No they don't according to the document you linked to it varies widely between the countries sampled. The details are on page 55 if you want to check them out. You're generalising in the extreme.

The Hill Billy

What was a thread with feedback on AH is now just another AH thread. Either bring it back to feedback or we'll wrap it up.

tHB

pilly

Yet another thread has turned into "all Muslims are bad". Somewhat proving the original premise.

AlekSmart

pilly wrote: »

Yet another thread has turned into "all Muslims are bad". Somewhat proving the original premise.

What a strange interpretation of a thread which has been very well defined and conducted.

It goes nowhere near "Proving" this premise,which some contributors appear to require "proven",in order to have a thread locked and dissenting posters infracted or banned.

Most reasonable people,some of whom actually post here,do not need to preface their questioning or condemnatory posts with a warning that "All Muslims are NOT bad",as that is a given and to quote the late Peter Cook,perfectly bleedin obvious !.

When I,yet again,come across posts expressing this odd form of reverse bias,I am minded of the adage..."Methinks,he doth protest Too Much"....and there may well be some other,largely concealed,reasons for such repetitive direction ?

Yourself isit

pilly wrote: »

Yet another thread has turned into "all Muslims are bad". Somewhat proving the original premise.

Actually a search would find you and gandalf as the first to use on this page.

We probably need people to understand the difference between criticism of Islam and "All Muslims".

Calhoun

pilly wrote: »

Yet another thread has turned into "all Muslims are bad". Somewhat proving the original premise.

Very dangerous if we allow thought police to dictate what we can and cannot discuss. It damages critical thinking if we are to all subscribe to the same doctrine.

I cannot remember who said it but a guy on a radio interview recently said, we must always embrace debate because allowing crazy opinions to be aired only highlights how crazy they actually are. By actually debating them properly we take the wind out of their sails and show them up for the crazy that they are.

If you work to shut down debate you are actually creating support for the side you hate so much and its disturbing that people don't see that or that grown adults cannot handle that others think different from them.

AH if anything is already fair to liberal, If we are to harden up more based on the OP i think we would need to one have some fairly robust charter with taboo subjects but we would also kill what AH is.

Pelvis Parsley

Yourself isit wrote: »

Actually a search would find you and gandalf as the first to use on this page.

We probably need people to understand the difference between criticism of Islam and "All Muslims".

And yet again, I raise the point of hypersensitivity among those tasked with modding and administering this site. They choose to think it's about "all of'em" 'cos it suits THEIR narrative.

Last time I used the phrase hypersensitive, I got a yellow, I may get banned now on foot of a subjective and knee jerk opinion. I don't really care though. It's irrelevant. Carry on in your bubble lads, the world will move on without ye!

biko

What I like with AH is that it is (appears to be) a cross section of Irish society.

It allows people with very different opinions, that might not otherwise debate, to meet and weather their opinions and viewpoints.
Some may hold "extreme" opinions but hopefully by open dialogue and fact-checking these opinions are tested and we all learn something from it.

Of course there is not a right or wrong but if your/my point of view is challenged maybe it can help you/me clarify what you or I actually think about something.

pilly

Calhoun wrote: »

Very dangerous if we allow thought police to dictate what we can and cannot discuss. It damages critical thinking if we are to all subscribe to the same doctrine.

I cannot remember who said it but a guy on a radio interview recently said, we must always embrace debate because allowing crazy opinions to be aired only highlights how crazy they actually are. By actually debating them properly we take the wind out of their sails and show them up for the crazy that they are.

If you work to shut down debate you are actually creating support for the side you hate so much and its disturbing that people don't see that or that grown adults cannot handle that others think different from them.

AH if anything is already fair to liberal, If we are to harden up more based on the OP i think we would need to one have some fairly robust charter with taboo subjects but we would also kill what AH is.

I'm not trying to shut down any debate. Simply stating the fact that this thread isn't about that debate.

It gets so tiresome when every thread ends up with the same discussion over and over again. With the same posters posting the same views over and over.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Let people state their ridiculous beliefs but not over and over again in threads that aren't even about that belief.

Do you know what I mean?

TerrorFirmer

Calhoun wrote: »

Very dangerous if we allow thought police to dictate what we can and cannot discuss. It damages critical thinking if we are to all subscribe to the same doctrine.

I cannot remember who said it but a guy on a radio interview recently said, we must always embrace debate because allowing crazy opinions to be aired only highlights how crazy they actually are. By actually debating them properly we take the wind out of their sails and show them up for the crazy that they are.

If you work to shut down debate you are actually creating support for the side you hate so much and its disturbing that people don't see that or that grown adults cannot handle that others think different from them.

AH if anything is already fair to liberal, If we are to harden up more based on the OP i think we would need to one have some fairly robust charter with taboo subjects but we would also kill what AH is.

Excellent post and exactly what I think a lot of us were getting at.

Calhoun

pilly wrote: »

I'm not trying to shut down any debate. Simply stating the fact that this thread isn't about that debate.

It gets so tiresome when every thread ends up with the same discussion over and over again. With the same posters posting the same views over and over.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Let people state their ridiculous beliefs but not over and over again in threads that aren't even about that belief.

Do you know what I mean?

This thread is exactly that, the OP is quite dangerous to AH if it is to have some semblance of free speech and not be an echo chamber. Your support of it is pretty much advocating for it.

Constant vigilance is the price we must all pay, if we don't want to pay that price then we must start making subjects taboo. Who gets to decide what is taboo and what is not?

If anything from this thread i get the impress we may already have some taboo subjects in AH and the mods just need to come clean on it.

pilly

Calhoun wrote: »

This thread is exactly that, the OP is quite dangerous to AH if it is to have some semblance of free speech and not be an echo chamber. Your support of it is pretty much advocating for it.

Constant vigilance is the price we must all pay, if we don't want to pay that price then we must start making subjects taboo. Who gets to decide what is taboo and what is not?

If anything from this thread i get the impress we may already have some taboo subjects in AH and the mods just need to come clean on it.

I've no idea what you're on about now.

Little CuChulainn

Calhoun wrote: »

This thread is exactly that, the OP is quite dangerous to AH if it is to have some semblance of free speech and not be an echo chamber. Your support of it is pretty much advocating for it.

Constant vigilance is the price we must all pay, if we don't want to pay that price then we must start making subjects taboo. Who gets to decide what is taboo and what is not?

If anything from this thread i get the impress we may already have some taboo subjects in AH and the mods just need to come clean on it.

I don't think the op suggested making any topic or opinion taboo nor do I think anyone else here is. The op seems more concerned about how to ensure these topics are discussed constructively without resorting to trench warfare and personal attacks.

Calhoun

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I don't think the op suggested making any topic or opinion taboo nor do I think anyone else here is. The op seems more concerned about how to ensure these topics are discussed constructively without resorting to trench warfare and personal attacks.

Interesting how different people see different things, i don't believe i am the only one who would have gotten the perception right or wrong that we wanted to moderate what we discussed/thought.

Maybe it was the usage of echo chamber to describe the problem. It comes across like the OP wants to introduce an echo chamber with their own beliefs.

Personal abuse should not happen in rational debate at all. Trench warfare is a hard one, as we seem to be importing allot of the tactics from the US.

pilly

Calhoun wrote: »

Interesting how different people see different things, i don't believe i am the only one who would have gotten the perception right or wrong that we wanted to moderate what we discussed/thought.

Maybe it was the usage of echo chamber to describe the problem. It comes across like the OP wants to introduce an echo chamber with their own beliefs.

Personal abuse should not happen in rational debate at all. Trench warfare is a hard one, as we seem to be importing allot of the tactics from the US.

I just re-read the OP just in case I was forgetting it but no, I totally get where it's coming from.

Don't know if I'm phrasing it very well but let me just give an example.

I expressed my doubts about abortion on a thread and immediately had at least 7 people jumping up and down and getting quite abusive. It stifles any rational debate at all because anyone with genuine questions around something just get extremes from the left or the right going way over the top.

I do believe that needs to be moderated, otherwise all that are left are extremists on both sides screaming hysterically at each other. If that makes sense?

.......

This post has been deleted.

The_Valeyard

pilly wrote: »

I just re-read the OP just in case I was forgetting it but no, I totally get where it's coming from.

Don't know if I'm phrasing it very well but let me just give an example.

I expressed my doubts about abortion on a thread and immediately had at least 7 people jumping up and down and getting quite abusive. It stifles any rational debate at all because anyone with genuine questions around something just get extremes from the left or the right going way over the top.

I do believe that needs to be moderated, otherwise all that are left are extremists on both sides screaming hysterically at each other. If that makes sense?

Dont forget you also have active members or supporters of political parties on this site, particularly from college campus wings of parties. So, they will jump on users who do not support the party line while trying to sway other users to agree to that party line, but then again, we could be said for other lobby groups operating the same way. Whether it be either side of a controversial issue.

pilly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you've an unhealthy interest in what I post.

Shall be sticking you on ignore now.

.......

This post has been deleted.

B_Wayne

pilly wrote: »

I just re-read the OP just in case I was forgetting it but no, I totally get where it's coming from.

Don't know if I'm phrasing it very well but let me just give an example.

I expressed my doubts about abortion on a thread and immediately had at least 7 people jumping up and down and getting quite abusive. It stifles any rational debate at all because anyone with genuine questions around something just get extremes from the left or the right going way over the top.

I do believe that needs to be moderated, otherwise all that are left are extremists on both sides screaming hysterically at each other. If that makes sense?

If you are being personally abused in a thread, you can report that and mods do take action. Depending on size of forum, imagine it's hard to spot without being reported.

pilly

B_Wayne wrote:

If you are being personally abused in a thread, you can report that and mods do take action. Depending on size of forum, imagine it's hard to spot without being reported.

It has been reported but some threads are so fast moving that the damage is already done.

Outlaw Pete

pilly wrote: »

I expressed my doubts about abortion on a thread and immediately had at least 7 people jumping up and down and getting quite abusive. It stifles any rational debate at all because anyone with genuine questions around something just get extremes from the left or the right going way over the top.

I do believe that needs to be moderated, otherwise all that are left are extremists on both sides screaming hysterically at each other. If that makes sense?

Very hard to moderate what you're referring to, as unless users get personally abusive towards you, mods would just be accused of stifling debate should they intervene. No harm reporting any needless badgering or ganghanded strawmanning though, as I have seen both get addressed (on-thread) down the years.

Also, on a forum where certain opinions tend to be held by 95% or so of a userbase, and you're expressing an opinion held roughly by 5% or so, you will undoubtedly have your work cut out for you and will need, sadly, to be a little more thick skinned in how you approach such threads, given that your posts will invariably undergo a level of scrutiny and semanticism which the other side of the debate won't have to endure.

Also, many confuse back slaps and group think for being right thinking too and so whenever you're expressing a minority held view, no matter how correct you are, sneering is something you will have to contend with. Even back in the days when they argued over whether or not the world was flat, you can be damn sure those who were saying it was round got very very few thanks on Internet discussion forums.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Also, many confuse back slaps and group think for being right thinking too and so whenever you're expressing a minority held view, no matter how correct you are, sneering is something you will have to contend with. Even back in the days when they argued over whether or not the world was flat, you can be damn sure those who were saying it was round got very very few thanks on Internet discussion forums.

Well, that's if the minority view is the correct one which of course it sometimes isn't. Sometimes the majority hold an opinion for very good reasons. And in some debates, there is no right or wrong, whether majority or minority.