Toxic Certainty

[Leyla Shen]

Since I was raised by Muslims and am a female, your perception of Muslims is wrong.

There. Your prejudice is now duly unjustified.

[Leyla Shen]

The interesting this is that no-one has yet said that my perception of Muslims is wrong. People have said that my prejudice is wrong, but no-one has actually told me why specifically I shouldn’t be prejudiced against Muslims. I perceive the Muslim culture as being predominantly misogynist, and I fear them because of their tacit acceptance of acts of terrorism in western countries.

And I reject your position as rational and moral because of your tacit acceptance of of acts of terrorism against Muslims in the Middle East by the West.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Bilby,

Prejudice is blind, and you don't seem to be advocating for blind prejudice. You asked if there was anything to the stereotype. My friend I spoke of earlier is very even tempered, is not disrespectful of females, and has never been lewd or crude with me. He has been patient and was helpful when i had marital problems.

In response to your question about if there was anything to the stereotype, Leyla confirmed your stereotype, and has expressed no interest in countering the stereotype you present. She claims to value logic and reason, yet spewed her venom (again) in the process.

As for the misogyny, you will not find an outcry against that here. My second motive for being here was to try to prove through example that not all femininity is stupid, and not all women are vicious airheads - as the QRS writings seem to dictate. Here is but one example, which they explain doesn't really mean biological females - but then on other occasions they will say that generally speaking, females are vicious airheads. All I ended up proving was what they had said before, that there are some exceptions. Out of online examples, actually they ended up proving their stereotype to me - with exceptions, of course.

Perhaps what Leyla is proving is that your stereotype of Muslims might be true, with some exceptions, like my friend. Of course she is also a female, so she falls under that stereotype as well. It seems to me that male chauvinists are idiots - in general, of course - but those who maintain an open mind that just because someone is a female does not make her a vicious idiot - those people could be okay. I'd say the same goes for Muslims - that one should keep an open mind that just because someone is Muslim does not mean that they constantly spew venom like Leyla does. Prejudice is prejudging someone based on the stereotype of their group. That is not wise because it shuts down opportunities for seeing the true value of the other person. I tried to show you the values I saw in Muslims, but all that happened in response was that everyone but you ganged up on me - including Leyla. That is certainly something to contemplate.

[Katy]

I have never experienced any prejudiced actions towards myself from any muslims based on my gender, and this includes being quite good friends with several Saudi Arabians online for many years.

[Leyla Shen]

Stupid wrote:

You asked if there was anything to the stereotype. My friend I spoke of earlier is very even tempered, is not disrespectful of females, and has never been lewd or crude with me. He has been patient and was helpful when i had marital problems.

That’s precisely the stereotypical Muslim I see, having been raised in a Muslim environment, rather than some concocted media-based stereotype.

In response to your question about if there was anything to the stereotype, Leyla confirmed your stereotype, and has expressed no interest in countering the stereotype you present. She claims to value logic and reason, yet spewed her venom (again) in the process.

Sorry, the “venom” that burns you so is strictly an artifact of Western culture. You will find, by and large, that Muslim women are not at all like me. Unless you think I'm a stereotypical Muslim male?

[keenobserver]

There is more to the matter than meets the eye.
Looking in on an muslim household where all is well, plenty of food, money, etc, love and prayer, happy people, it may seem that women are being treated fairly. But are they?
Or has mom merely adapted?

Looking in from the west with discerning eyes to often sees women stuck in traditional roles, since every man and grandparent wants a servant. No matter how cozy they may be, I think it's difficult to dispute that middle-eastern women are rarely encouraged toward independence, masculinity and self-fulfillment, or to think of themselves first. No, God and his supposed Word comes first, and we all know where that book leaves the gals.

Frogs can adapt to water hot enough to nearly kill them.
People can adapt to smoking 2 packs a day with great satisfaction.

That eastern women are advancing slowly does not justify invasion, however.
But this isnt why our governments do it anyway. More to do with a need to dominate, insecurity, oil, and of course practice for the troops and a great opportunity to test and develop new weapons and ways to kill people.

Im proud to say that Americans are some of the most effective killers on earth!

[Leyla Shen]

keenobserver wroter:

There is more to the matter than meets the eye.

Like what? For someone who thinks they are such a keen observer, you don't reveal anything new.

Looking in on an muslim household where all is well, plenty of food, money, etc, love and prayer, happy people, it may seem that women are being treated fairly. But are they?

That is different to the typical Western household, how?

Or has mom merely adapted?

Women always adapt to stereotypical roles, even the male kind in the West. That's what makes them women.

[Dan Rowden]

Elizabeth, you said that: “Bilby already understood that prejudice was illogical, and sought a rational cure for it”.

This isn’t correct. I don’t believe that my prejudice is illogical, and I’m not seeking a cure for it. I believe that my discrimination against Muslims is logical, and is based on my perceptions gathered over the last few decades.

That's fine. All that Leyla has been doing is aphoristically showing that there's no proper basis for this kind of prejudice. That is, it's too much based on stereotyping, extrapolation and engagement in composition fallacy, not to mention parochialism. How come I can see exactly what she's getting at and no-one else can? If you said your prejudice was highly contingent and open to modification by more information I don't think Leyla would have a problem. But that information is readily available. You just have to want to look for it. Just as the distorting force of parochialism is there to see if you want to look at it. Basically Leyla is just rolling her eyes at people. I can understand why.

What I was asking in the original post was: If our value judgements are at odds with discrimination, which should give way to the other? I am not arguing for mindless racism or bigotry. I am making a stance for prejudice, in the case where your moral values would otherwise be compromised.

Ok, this is an interesting point. If there is a real basis for prejudice then it isn't really prejudice. It's simply a value judgment and that not only perfectly ok, it's perfectly necessary for functioning human beings. The point is we should make such judgments on the best possible data and mindset we can.

The interesting this is that no-one has yet said that my perception of Muslims is wrong.

I did. I asked you to be more specific. All you've done, really, is to iterate pop-culture stereotypes and negative propaganda. It's possible to build a case for prejudice against almost any cultural group this way - including one's own.

People have said that my prejudice is wrong, but no-one has actually told me why specifically I shouldn’t be prejudiced against Muslims. I perceive the Muslim culture as being predominantly misogynist,

Based on what? There's no information in this assertion. You need to address some of the questions I put to you earlier.

and I fear them because of their tacit acceptance of acts of terrorism in western countries.

How do you know they think this way? But yes, there's no reason for them to fear such terrorism, even though they live here. The bombs will discriminate in their favour.

So either my perceptions are correct, or they aren’t. If my perceptions are wrong, then my prejudice is irrational. But what if my perceptions are correct? If these characteristics do accurately describe Muslims, and if I’m a racist because of this, how can my racism be wrong? How could prejudice be illogical in this case?

It wouldn't be if your values differed. But the question is whether your perception are wrong and how you go about testing this hypothesis and informing those perceptions.

My moral values are fairly universal in that I know that terrorism is wrong.

Um, well, yeah, but ya know, there's something that stinks about your use of language here. Need me to tell you what?

If a nation can’t achieve outright victory on their home turf, it doesn’t therefore follow that terrorism against innocent people on the other side of the world can be justified.

Tell that to America, which has invaded two Muslim nations - with our help. This is the level of thinking that makes me doubt the basis of the rest of your thinking about Muslim people and their cultural horrors.

If one quarter of Muslims believe otherwise, then my fears are rational.

Sure, it would be reasonable to fear such people. I already do. So does Leyla. So do 75% of Muslims by your logic. If you said you have a fear of or prejudice against fanatical Muslims who want to kill you, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

No-one here has argued against my view of entrenched Muslim misogyny.

You haven't done anything but assert its existence; you haven't given any detail of behavior that constitutes misogyny, which makes me think you can't other than to spout pop-culture views and attitudes.

It is almost universally accepted that women are on an equal footing with men, and laws world-wide reflect this, with the exception of Muslim countries.

This is largely, but not entirely true. And it doesn't say anything about whether we or the Muslims are right. "generally accepted" isn't an argument; it's just a cultural observation.

So if my perceptions are correct, then my prejudice against Muslims is rational, to the extent that it would be morally culpable of me to think otherwise.

Sure, they're rational to the extent that they are correct. But I can't tell how correct they are because they haven't yet risen above the level of Current Affairs show analysis.

[sue hindmarsh]

Here's some food for thought:

The Biggest Muslim

National Security

Mosman Mosque

What do you make of all that, Bilby?

-

[Bilby]

Dan said: “If there is a real basis for prejudice then it isn't really prejudice.” Even if prejudice is warranted, it’s still prejudice, if you take this to mean a pre-conceived notion based on stereotypical thinking. How can you help stereotypical thinking? Stereotypes summarise all of your experiences of a particular group, over time. If a news story shows Muslims unfavourably this isn’t “negative propaganda”. It’s just a news story.

I like Scottish people for example. This could be because I’ve had a few good Scottish friends, and generally find them chatty and friendly. If the Australian government said that it would increase the migrant intake of Scots I’d view this favourably, even though I had never met these particular people before. So I’m making a very broad presumption based on my personal experiences only. This could be called positive prejudice.

On the other hand, I discriminate against Muslims, and this is based mainly on the same news stories that every other Australian has seen. Saying that the media “portrays” Muslims in an unfavourable light ignores the fact that the media can only report the news, so any negative connotations can only be related to the story itself. Any reporting of the twin towers tragedy would be seen as a negative portrayal, but how could it be otherwise. I didn’t decide one day to discriminate against Muslims, it just happened gradually over time. I can’t prove to anyone here the strong undercurrent of misogyny in Muslim culture, because all I could do is retrieve the same news stories that we have all seen, but which only I remember, and everyone else here has forgotten. My views are from the accumulative affect of all of these stories over many years.

The question is, at what stage do the above prejudices become irrational? Are my views towards Scots irrational? If your answer is no, then why are my views towards Muslims irrational?

[Leyla Shen]

Bilby somehow managed to write:

The question is, at what stage do the above prejudices become irrational? Are my views towards Scots irrational? If your answer is no, then why are my views towards Muslims irrational?

But you have been given an answer to this time and again. An answer based on what you have proposed as one of your own values. Obviously, you have absolutely no interest in reason.

You said you believe religion can never justify violence.

But your “reasoning” here goes something like this:

1. Television cannot lie (if it’s not on TV, it didn’t happen).
2. Television cannot be irrationally biased.
3. Therefore, I need no other source/s of information in order to come a rational conclusion regarding---anything.
4. I have seen people commit violence in the name of Islam on Western (which translates to Christian, but you would like to conveniently ignore that) television for years.
5. I have not seen (at least as much) violence committed in the name of any other religion (what, no violence from Christians over the so many years you’ve been watching telly? No regard for the fact that the US is a Christian nation with a great deal of religious influence in their government?) and even if I had, it’s OK because Scots, a few of whom I’ve personally known, are predominantly (from the…) Christian (…race?).
6. Therefore, my prejudice against the “Muslim race” is rational and labelling them as a race accordingly is also rational.

I mean, really, Bilby? Do you really call that rational?

Are you a Christian?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The American media is uncannily sloppy at reporting the "news" so I have to give the news about the same credibility as gossip - but it could be better than no information at all, as it gives one a starting point for figuring out how much is true. Of course our own personal experience could be skewed as well, which is why I do not see the value of stereotypes, whether true or false in general - since in any particular case they could be wrong.

For example, as far as I know, Leyla is the only Muslim woman I know at all (and I do not believe that I know Leyla particularly well). I had not stereotyped all Muslim women to be like Leyla - but once the parallels were mentioned, I did recognize the similarity between Leyla's behavior and the televised Muslim response to the pope's statement that Islam was a violent religion by violently protesting his statement. Although the media does get a lot of things wrong, there is a certain amount that if you look at the picture and judge for yourself what is going on - even if you are careful to not read too much into the picture - certain images do point to a truth.

Leyla eventually stated that most Muslims are like my friend, rather than like her, or like the guy who raped me, or like the guy at the video store who kept waiting on males but would not give me the time of day until I insisted, and them was rude and abrupt as he could be. I still consider people individuals, but stereotypes do exist, and they would not exist unless there was some kind of reason.

[Katy]

Leyla eventually stated that most Muslims are like my friend, rather than like her, or like the guy who raped me, or like

Huh? I must have missed something, but I am fairly certain that Leyla would not say that most muslims are like a rapist. In fact I'm pretty sure I saw the number 25% somewhere in there.

f a news story shows Muslims unfavourably this isn’t “negative propaganda”. It’s just a news story.

Just because you saw it on the news does not make it an accurate portrayal. For one thing, the media is much more likely to mention religion if the person is muslim but not mention it if they are Christian. For another, the news people have 20 minutes (once you subtract commercials) to tell you "everything you need to know" - in reality, this means that most news doesn't ever make it to the news. What does make it is what will give the highest ratings, and irrational prejudice against muslims is popular right now, so the news gives it to people more often.

Let's look at the major terrorist bombings that have taken place recently in the US, say 1990 to today...

First attempt on the WTC 1993 - Muslim
Oklahoma City 1995 - American
Centennial Park 1996 - American
9/11 - Muslim

Only half of them have muslim perpetrators, while the other half were done by Americans. 9/11 was the biggest, but news stories from 1995 (which I conveniently remember because I video recorded an episode of seaQuest DSV that was interrupted with the news of the attack) said that Ok City was the biggest terrorist attack on American soil at the time.

What was interesting is that the immediate "breaking news" story that interrupted my show stated that they were looking at Al-Qaida as a suspect before they had any evidence other than "holy crap that blew up!" Turns out it was an American, but the news assumed it was islamic terrorism without any evidence and reported it that way increasing people's irrational bias.

[keenobserver]

Leyla eventually stated that most Muslims are like my friend, rather than like her, or like the guy who raped me, or like the guy at the video store who kept waiting on males but would not give me the time of day until I insisted, and them was rude and abrupt as he could be.

Was he an American muslim? Why do you think he was that way?
Perhaps he was old-fashioned, v religious, so not allowed to associate with strange women, used to dealing with their brothers and husbands instead.
You suppose he darts every female customer! How can he possibly holde that job?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The guy in the store? He was light skinned, about in his 20's, looked of the same lineage as the guy that raped me, and had a bit of an accent. There were a couple of other females to whom he behaved as though he would be unwilling to help, so they just went to someone else rather than putting him in a position of really giving them the brush-off. Sometimes I just refuse to take a clue. The area is desperate for minimum wage, part-time workers, but even at that I only saw him at the store that one time. I suspect he was behaving according to the mores of his country despite being in America. Even if one understands that people in another country behave differently, it can be difficult to go against the way one has behaved one's entire life. Of course, if one is not willing to do as the traditions of the country one is in, I have to wonder what that person is doing in that country. That was why I refused to take a clue. Firstly, I wanted to know if what I was observing was just my imagination influenced by his appearance, so I wanted to test that out. Secondly, if he was here for nefarious reasons, I hoped to be an example of an American who could treat him like a human despite his not treating me like a human. There is always a chance that any of us could run into a potential terrorist, and change his mind by being an example of an ethical person from our country. Admittedly that is a bit of a long shot, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

[Bilby]

Katy said: “Just because you saw it on the news does not make it an accurate portrayal.” News is by nature, factual, as opposed to say, current affairs programs.

Katy also said: “the media is much more likely to mention religion if the person is muslim”. Whenever an act of terrorism is perpetrated we need to know the underlying reason. If an extreme right-to-lifer has just blown up an abortion clinic, then this description too, has to be reported, or are you suggesting this shouldn’t be the case? It is obviously in our interests to know why someone decides to blow up buildings with people in them. Whether the perpetrator is a neo-Nazi as in the Timothy McVeigh case, an extreme right-to-lifer like Eric Rudolph, or a Muslim, these facts are all relevant and must be disclosed. There is no inherent “bias” here. It’s just the reporting of facts.

We have to try to learn from these tragedies. A person isn’t being irrational in drawing conclusions from the above examples, and I suppose the main lesson here is the potential destructiveness of any form of extremity. In all of the above cases, earlier intervention may have prevented some of these situations. Perhaps people are frightened to get involved, are generally wary of the ultra-religious, or don’t want to be perceived as “racist”.

[Dan Rowden]

Katy said: “Just because you saw it on the news does not make it an accurate portrayal.” News is by nature, factual, as opposed to say, current affairs programs.

Ok, that's me done. Enjoy yourselves.

[Katy]

News is by nature, factual, as opposed to say, current affairs programs.

OK but it's a fact that I went to a biblestudy tonight. Now, you could just report that fact and come off with the idea that I'm a good christian. Or you could look at "the biblestudy was in my house, and I was rather surprised to find myself there actually, but whatever, several of my friends showed up at my house for my roommate's bible study and I was bored. Plus once there I caused several problems and laughed at them and then IMed a friend and made fun of the entire concept of God and realize that it's just a weird thing that happened.

If there are 100 murders in a day and one of them is perpetrated by a Muslim, that is the only one that will be reported on the news (unless one is a black man killing a white woman or especially grotesque). Sure, it's true that a muslim committed a murder. But that ignores the 99 non-muslim killers. This is how the news perpetuates bias; not by lying but by selectively filtering the potential stories.

[Bilby]

In a country like America where you have so many murders, only a few of these are going to be newsworthy. It’s just a case of numbers. It would take too long to report each and every crime. So you’re right in saying that the only the more grotesque crimes will make the 6.00 o’clock news. This is the way news is. If a granny bashes someone over the head with her umbrella this will make the news. Not because the media is biased against grannies, but because the story is newsworthy. All murders are reported over here, because we just don’t have that many of them.

A racially-motivated murder is always going to be more newsworthy than a run-of-the-mill drugs deal gone wrong, where some crim shoots some other crim. It’s more an issue of ratings rather than bias, if you’re talking about TV. Newspapers on the other hand, tend to be more representational in reporting the news.

If you went to bible study night, and discovered a piece of toast with the image of the Virgin Mary on it, this might be newsworthy. If I was the reporter I’d say: Katy a _________ (your occupation) was at Bible Study etc. I wouldn’t say Katy, a devout Christian, unless it was true, and particularly relevant to the story. If you were a Muslim, I probably would mention this, because of its irony.

[Katy]

I would be willing to bet a lot that not all murders are reported over there.

And anyway, you completely missed my point, which is that the news chooses what to emphasize, and what to mention. They'll choose to emphasize religion in the case of a muslim more often than they will a christian.

[Kelly Jones]

Katy: “Just because you saw it on the news does not make it an accurate portrayal.” News is by nature, factual, as opposed to say, current affairs programs.

Dan: Ok, that's me done. Enjoy yourselves.

The girls are continuing what you started, Dan. If you want to get into human politics, why not move to New York and become a Republican?

I don't see anything more in this "current affairs" than romance-oriented socialising, myself.

-

[Katy]

I don't see anything more in this "current affairs" than romance-oriented socialising, myself.

-

How interesting that you had to join in, then.

[Dan Rowden]

Katy: “Just because you saw it on the news does not make it an accurate portrayal.” News is by nature, factual, as opposed to say, current affairs programs.

Dan: Ok, that's me done. Enjoy yourselves.

The girls are continuing what you started, Dan. If you want to get into human politics, why not move to New York and become a Republican?

Excuse me? What did I start, Kelly? You don't think people's criteria for gathering evidence and rationality etc etc are important matters; matters beyond the label of mere politics? In your desire to find fault with me you are looking desperate and disoriented. You don't seem to be able to even see what I'm arguing.

Try again.

[Kelly Jones]

I wrote: I don't see anything more in this "current affairs" than romance-oriented socialising, myself.

Katy: How interesting that you had to join in, then.

Well, I think it's important to tell any orgy invitees they've come to the wrong house. It's my way of looking after my guests.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Excuse me? What did I start, Kelly? You don't think people's criteria for gathering evidence and rationality etc etc are important matters; matters beyond the label of mere politics? In your desire to find fault with me you are looking desperate and disoriented. You don't seem to be able to even see what I'm arguing. Try again.

I would like to know if your political position is coherent.

Have you looked at the Raman thread recently ?

-