Perhaps he just means facists are the only ones who acknowledge that Islamic extremists are indeed motivated by what's in the Koran. Even if he's wrong, I still don't see how that's endorsing facists.
He said and I quote, "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."
If that's not Islamophobic bigotry then nothing is.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYou should cool it a bit with the triple-posting. Try to make your points in a single post rather than machine-gunning in different ones.
You're dodging the question. The point being asked is why he only brought up waterboarding when Islam was the enemy, considering that the statistical majority of terror attacks in "the western world" are by white supremacists (depending on the metric) and the so-called "western society" faces much more danger from Fascists, white supremacists and plain ol' conservatives any kind of supposed Muslim threat. Yet it is only with the Islamic terrorists that he brings up this utterly inhumane method of torture. This is, at best, ideologically suspect.
It is not on me to prove that he means only Muslims because I am not a psychic. Of all the monstrous things and threats to society in the world, he only said that about Islamic terror, specifically, and that's the stone-cold fact here. The burden of proof is on him (and you, if you take his side) to prove otherwise because I can only judge him from what he said, not what he could possibly have said.
This entire section is such a bad faith argument it is making me want to drop the entire discussion here and be done with it. It's trying to aim for a ideological gotcha with 0 substance while completely ignoring what was said, as both Spartan and Djoki have noted. It's the kind of argument that would suggest you're a Islamophobe or Fascist sympathizer yourself with how shallow and bad faith it is. It's that level of disastrous. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you just botched that line of argument, but if you make anything close to "you see, agreeing with Fascists about ethnic minorities is alright because Fascists agree breathing air is good so we have common ground" nonsense I'm dropping this faster than lightspeed.
Let's change the context up a a bit to give you a chance to clarify yourself. Say Harris was talking about the problems in fundamentalist Judaism (such as the one expressed by Israel policy makers with regards to the Palestine, from time to time, most recently Benjamin Netanyahu), maybe also something about the controversy around circumcizing infants without their consent, sure. Now I want you to imagine Harris expressing that with this paragraph:
"The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of Judaism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Judaism poses to Europe are actually Fascists."
Read that and think very carefully with the knowledge of what has been discussed and the knowledge it is a direct quote of Sam Harris with "Islam" changed for "Judaism". And I want you to tell me if that sounds like a remotely okay sentiment. If you swing back with "But fundamentalist Judaism is different from fundamentalist Islam" (hence completely dodging the question) I'll have my answer.
So, run it back to me again: tell me why saying you agree and support with the the people saying "We should wipe out, root and stem, the Muslim vermin poisoning the very lifeline of western civilization" in bold capital letters not make you a Islamophobe, or at least a Islamophobe adjacent?
Edited by Gaon on Mar 28th 2021 at 7:02:13 AM
"All you Fascists bound to lose."@Every Other Handle Is Taken: Ah, yes. You don't hate ALL Islam. You just hate the versions that call for hurting people. But, you're also the same troper that tried to "argue" that any decent Muslim is not following Koran. So, are you arguing that Koran and thus by extension Islam is inherently indecent?
But, of course, this isn't about Islam. This is all about suxxing Sam Harris's HYPER WEAPON false accusations of Islamophobia! And just like racism, we shouldn't bring race into this kind of discussion! Good faith discussion FTW! What is so Islamophobic about saying Islam and Koran is inherently indecent anyway? I don't see it. Anybody does?
Sam Harris did say some Islamophobic idiotic shit, but you argue that it doesn't necessarily make him Islamophobic. And, of course, it's a brilliant and flawless defense! He is definitely not Islamophobic if we didn't think any idiotic shit he said matters! Brilliant! This is the kind of brilliance that I expect from the Internet. Someone should make a poet to immortalize this moment.
What next? The good old "I think Nazi fascist has a point." argument? Hmm... You are slipping up, my fellow troper. And you have managed to maintain the "I'm just a naive person who just want opinions and guidance, senpai." role for so long... And you just blew it all up like this. I'm disappointed.
And before you go "But, fascism-senpai really has a point!" or "I don't support everything fascism-senpai said. Just this one tiny point he said." And I'm just like why fascism? There are shitload of other things to look for if you want some support for anti-FUNDAMENTALISM arguments. Why go to some two-bit hacks and fascism? Unless this isn't about fighting the "bad" Islam, but about how Islam is inherently indecent. Of course, I'm not accusing you of anything here. I'm seriously just saying and asking here.
And... what the fuck does Obama and Cuba doing here? I thought this is all about false accusations of Islamophobia suxxing Sam Harris's HYPER WEAPON!? Come on, my fellow troper. I need you to focus here!
Before you say "Maybe this glorious troper named Steam that come out of nowhere is a bit biased?" Well, maybe, but if we ignore that bias, I'm not only not biased. I'm outright the most fair and unbiased person ever. So, it's all good, right?
Edited by SteamKnight on Mar 28th 2021 at 9:07:26 PM
I'm not as witty as I think I am. It's a scientifically-proven fact."that the statistical majority of terror attacks in "the western world" are by white supremacists "
I doubt that this is true if take Europe into the equation and consider the number of people killed in say the last decade. Islamists are certainly leading when it comes to mass killings incidents.
Edited by Zarastro on Mar 29th 2021 at 9:43:38 PM
![]()
At a blind guess you’d end up with no clear majority, as you’ll then be looking at a mix of white-supremacy, regional separatism and extremist-Islam.
Yeah that’s crazy. Hitler Ate Sugar is about when fascists are doing something that’s normal and everyone agrees with. As a basic rule if the only people around to cite as supporters of a position are fascists then it’s a fascist position.
Edited by Silasw on Mar 29th 2021 at 10:07:42 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYannow, I am inclined to agree that he's arguing that any Muslim who's a decent person is not actually following what the Koran says. feels Islamophobic. I haven't read the Quran in any detail but there are many parts which I did read that are perfectly wholesome.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanGiven the way religious texts are treated, it's kind of a moot point.
Pick any religious text and there'll be a tonne of speculation, interpretation, parts that are widely ignored, parts that most observers know don't really apply anymore, etc.
Singling out one group's text and trying to find ways to claim it's corrupt while pretending its followers all obey it to the letter is automatically suspect.
Edited by Bisected8 on Mar 29th 2021 at 11:50:40 AM
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faerHeck the Bible has a bit stating that any woman who helps her husband in a fight by crushing his opponent's genitals should have the hand with which she did the crushing get chopped off.
Which I guess begs the question of what exactly was going on back then that this was considered important enough to include in the Bible.
Edited by M84 on Mar 29th 2021 at 6:54:46 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised"And didn't Harris write a book criticizing Christianity called "Letter To A Christian Nation"?"
I haven't read it, but if he uses the same logic in that book, then two wrongs dont make a right. It isn't about being evenly unfair toward different mainstream religions, it's about criticizing specific practices and not whole communities of people.
"Criticize practices not people" is a good rough rule of thumb, actually.
"Based on the statista page "Terrorism: Most active perpetrator groups worldwide in 2019, based on number of attacks" (it's hard to actually link things on my phone, but hopefully you can find it with Google), it would appear that violence in the name of Islam or Communism is more relevant worldwide right now than violence in the name of other religions."
Others have already challenged the statistical aspect of this (that white nationalism seems to have eclipsed Islamic Jihad as justifications for violence), but I would like to point out that even if the basic statistical claim here is accurate, it still isn't a justification for suppressing, regulating, or criticizing Muslims as a whole, since the vast majority of self-identified Muslims have no direct connection to the violence done in their religion's name. That a couple thousand hard core killers call themselves Jihadis doesn't justify calling Islam a violent religion, nor does it justify laws that discriminate against Muslims.
"Don't we as a society also tend to focus on the more common perpetrator groups in general? Is it sexism or malephobia to talk about male rapists and mass shooters more often than female ones, for instance?"
Not equivalent. It would be as if someone criticized being male on the basis that most rapists are male. And it isn't true that we "concentrate" on groups (whatever you mean by that)—we concentrate on individual offenders.
For example, we know what the risk factors for radicalization are—and there are public programs designed to deradicalize people who fall into those risk factors. No one is suggesting that deradicalization programs are necessarily Islamaphobic (although they can be, it depends on how they are designed). It's when you regard all Muslims as inherently at risk for radicalization that you fall into Islamaphobia.
As for the fascist comment: Harris is wrong. "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists" cannot be a sensible statement because "Islam" poses no threat to Europe. Radicalization of young people poses a threat to Europe, and the people who speak most sensibly about that are community organizers like these
.
Edited by DeMarquis on Apr 3rd 2021 at 2:14:55 PM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.So if he'd referred to the threat posed by Christian theocrats like Mike Pence and the threat posed by Christian terrorists as "the threat posed by Christianity" and he felt that facists were the ones speaking most sensibly about that threat, would that be anti-Christian bigotry?
Alright, I'm gonna assume you're actually asking this question in good faith.
Painting a whole religious group as dangerous based on the actions of extremist elements is bigoted.
I'm Catholic - now imagine if every thime a car bombing by the IRA or atrocities committed by an extremist group like, say, the Lord's Resistance Army make the news, people would call it a problem inherent to Christianity or portray Christians in general as dangerous. Imagine politicians called for Christian travel bans.
Most Christians don't do these things, just as most Muslims don't blow themselves up or chop people's heads off. There's a reason we call the people who do that extremists.
And honestly, the main reason Christians don't have this shit happening to them - at least not in Europe or America - is because those regions have been predomantly Christian-influenced for a long time, while Muslims are still seen as "the other".
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on May 6th 2021 at 4:20:36 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyIt's apples to oranges, Christian theocrats are a privileged militarily aggressive group and thus decent people can object to them. But fascists do not hate Muslims for any remotely justified reason. Thus agreeing with fascists in regards to Muslims is no different from agreeing with them on black people or Asians, it's just a mask-off moment.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 6th 2021 at 7:20:25 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSo.....I clicked on the link to the article that was supposedly the source of Harris's quote on waterboarding, and I couldn't actually find the quote in the linked article. Could you point me to the actual source of the quote so I can read the quote in its full context?
In any case, I'll address your point about Judaism:
Let's say Harris said exactly that quote where you replaced "Islam" with Judaism. Now let's say that based on a number of his other quotes which we've discussed earlier in this conversation, it seemed clear to me that by "Judaism" he meant "the correct version of Judaism as proscribed to all Jews in the Torah, including the parts about killing gay people and any parts that can be and are used to justify immoral behavior such as the circumcision of infants without their consent and Israel's bombing of Palestinian civilians."
Under those circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily blame him for saying "the people who speak the most sensibly about the threat that Judaism possess to Europe are actually facists." Particularly if I also seeing such trends as the following:
- Anytime a person makes a statement about Judaism justifying infant circumcision, that person is accused of antisemitism.
- Anytime a person makes a statement about Judaism justifying Israel's killing of civilians, that person is accused of antisemitism.
- Anytime a person makes a statement about problems common in majority Jewish countries, that person is accused of antisemitism.
- These statements about the problems with Judaism are based on lines you can find in the Torah that really do appear to justify the immoral behaviors currently done in the name of Judaism, yet pointing this out will still get you accused of antisemitism by people who have no problem with pointing out immoral quotes in another holy book (such as the Bible or the Quran).
- Oftentimes when someone points out the immoral Torah quotes to make theese points, the response they get is "but there are equally horrible things in the Quran", as if to imply that two wrongs do make a right.
- People who say Judaism is the most dangerous religion are accused of antisemitism and given whataboutism arguments regarding awful things in the Quran and Islamic terrorism despite statistics that say there are currently more terrorist attacks being carried out in the world right now that are done in the name of Judaism than in the name of any other religion.
- The Americans most likely to agree with you when you point out the horrible things being done in the name of Judaism and not accuse of antisemitism for pointing out the facts are supporters of the Republican Party, which can fairly be called a facist party at this point (meaning the Americans most readily acknowledging the awful stuff in the Torah and the prevalence of evil in the name of Judaism vs. evil in the name of other religions are facist Americans, so it wouldn't be surprising if the same were currently true in Europe).
Edited by EveryOtherHandleIsTaken on May 6th 2021 at 8:06:09 AM

Sam Harris, the philosopher and author who most people on this forum say is Islamophobic. I'm not convinced that he's Islamophobic, which is what I've been debating with others in this thread.