Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Yonan wrote:
Maher and Harris remain two of my favourite people, despite disagreeing with them on some things. The left (which I've always identified with) is increasingly radicalising and censoring debate which is hurting the causes they want to champion. Affleck was doing exactly what they were saying was problematic, and is a huge problem elsewhere - we're getting a similar thing with radical feminism in gaming atm where you cannot argue with them or you're a misogynisM ; )

It's not just in gaming. I was recently told dismissively that I was "mansplaining" something In a discussion, pointed out that it was dismissive and offensive, and was told because I was a white male I couldnt be offended by anything.

I was an little shocked.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I don't think people can lie absent intent.

It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.

For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.

Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."

I don't think Aslan is a liar. You might not agree with him, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as him lying. I read the article. A lot of those details are significant (particularly the information about the political situations in Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, etc.) but I don't expect someone to go in depth into the socio-political and religious history of every country that gets mentioned in the course of a five minute interview. However, like dogma, I don't agree that everything he said was wrong, and in addition, I take issue with some of the interpretations put forth in that article.

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I don't think people can lie absent intent.

It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.

For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.

Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."

I don't think Aslan is a liar. You might not agree with him, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as him lying. I read the article. A lot of those details are significant (particularly the information about the political situations in Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, etc.) but I don't expect someone to go in depth into the socio-political and religious history of every country that gets mentioned in the course of a five minute interview. However, like dogma, I don't agree that everything he said was wrong, and in addition, I take issue with some of the interpretations put forth in that article.

So the self-proclaimed religious scholar makes a demonstrably false statement and he gets a pass because... Reasons?

bs.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I don't think people can lie absent intent.

It isn't absent intent. He's a religious apologist trying to gain sympathy from his audience.

For the third time, please read the information I presented showing where he deliberately says things that run contrary to known facts. He is a religious scholar (something he loves to remind people of), and yet he tends to say a lot of things are just downright aren't true.

Doing that is called "lying." People that do it are "liars."

I don't think Aslan is a liar. You might not agree with him, which is fine, but that's not the same thing as him lying. I read the article. A lot of those details are significant (particularly the information about the political situations in Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, etc.) but I don't expect someone to go in depth into the socio-political and religious history of every country that gets mentioned in the course of a five minute interview. However, like dogma, I don't agree that everything he said was wrong, and in addition, I take issue with some of the interpretations put forth in that article.

So the self-proclaimed religious scholar makes a demonstrably false statement and he gets a pass because... Reasons?

bs.

What was demonstrably false about his statement?

I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges. I also posted a Pew Research poll that laid bare how Muslims in Muslim-majority countries feel about their religion (it backs up Maher much more than Aslan).

If you disagree with anything I used to prove my point, feel free to offer up some of your own proof.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges.

And I read that article. I take issue with much of it. So I'm asking you to articulate specifically what was demonstrably false about his statement, and we can go from there. If there are specific issues of particular concern you'd like to cite from the article or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss them, but I would prefer we start with whatever you find particularly pertinent in order to facilitate the actual discussion, rather than you post an article and I just list everything that I think is wrong with it.

Whatever the root cause of Aslan's difficulty with the truth, one thing is clear...the dude could use a couple semesters in charm school. The dude is oozing pomposity from every pore of his body. Maybe thats his schtick, but it makes it hard for me to take him seriously.

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges.

And I read that article. I take issue with much of it. So I'm asking you to articulate specifically what was demonstrably false about his statement, and we can go from there. If there are specific issues of particular concern you'd like to cite from the article or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss them, but I would prefer we start with whatever you find particularly pertinent in order to facilitate the actual discussion, rather than you post an article and I just list everything that I think is wrong with it.

If you want me to retype my issues what he said just for your sake, you can keep waiting. I've expressed my concerns with his rant; what he said isn't true as I have shown with my evidence (multiple articles stating as much, including parts I highlighted as the best points backing my case).

All you have said is you disagree with it but haven't elaborated at all on that point. So again, feel free to tell me what is wrong with the criticism I've presented.

Don't worry, I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I'll humor you for a moment.

His list of Muslim countries where women have the same equality as men is laughably wrong.

His use of women heads of sate as proof that they have equality is laughably wrong (as evidenced in one of the articles I linked).

To be fair, Scooty. I think a few of those heads of state at least fall into the "technically true but..." Camp as dynastic leaders. ;-)

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I already posted an entire article highlighting what was wrong with his what he said in response to Maher's charges.

And I read that article. I take issue with much of it. So I'm asking you to articulate specifically what was demonstrably false about his statement, and we can go from there. If there are specific issues of particular concern you'd like to cite from the article or otherwise, I would be happy to discuss them, but I would prefer we start with whatever you find particularly pertinent in order to facilitate the actual discussion, rather than you post an article and I just list everything that I think is wrong with it.

If you want me to retype my issues what he said just for your sake, you can keep waiting. I've expressed my concerns with his rant; what he said isn't true as I have shown with my evidence (multiple articles stating as much, including parts I highlighted as the best points backing my case).

All you have said is you disagree with it but haven't elaborated at all on that point. So again, feel free to tell me what is wrong with the criticism I've presented.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

I think I missed your highlights of the Aslan article (I thought you had only done the Maher interview), my bad. I wasn't expecting you to retype anything, I didn't realize you'd highlighted the Aslan article initially.

So, to discuss some of your highlights. It's a five minute interview, and Aslan seems to be discussing a lot of big picture ideas. The article, in contrast, picks out specific examples of where Aslan's very general statements don't apply. The bit about Indonesia, for example, mentions that it has been becoming increasingly conservative, and mentions a problem with Sharia courts in a specific state. The existence of problems within the system, while it could be said to raise a legitimate issue with Aslan's statement, doesn't make him a liar (or even necessarily wrong). It'd be like making a statement like "In the US, women are equal to men," which, while generally true, we all know some significant caveats exist in terms of employment and earnings and things like that. If someone made the statement that women are equal to men in the US, I wouldn't necessarily think they were lying just because they didn't immediately mention the gender gap. Just as I wouldn't think someone was lying if they said "In the US, everyone is equal" if they didn't immediately start talking about white privilege and that sort of thing. But that also, of course, doesn't negate the fact that reality is often more complicated than what general statements provide. The article admits that Bangladesh has a progressive constitution with the caveat that it utilizes Islamic law in private life. I don't think think the existence of imperfections within progress completely negates that progress, and I doubt Reza Aslan would claim that those countries don't still have room for improvement.

I also don't think Aslan's use of Turkey as an example is a problem because Turkey has secular past. I think it actually strengthens his argument, in the sense that a primarily secular nation of Muslims is actually a thing.

In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.

In regards to the genital mutilation issue, no, it is not academically sound to take lack of study for proof of non-existence. That said, it's equally spurious to take lack of study for proof of existence. I would argue that Aslan's point that two primarily Christian nations have some of the worst issues with female genital manipulation would lend some weight to his assertion that it is more of a African problem rather than an Islamic problem - or at the very least that it's more than just a "Muslim country problem" as they put it in the interview.

As far as Mariya the Copt being a concubine or wife of Muhammad goes, it seems like there is evidence on both sides, although to be honest I'm not really sure why that distinction is particularly important.

Anyway, that's a start. Again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but I don't think he's a liar and I don't think that article effectively supports the claim that he is.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Maher and Harris remain two of my favourite people, despite disagreeing with them on some things. The left (which I've always identified with) is increasingly radicalising and censoring debate which is hurting the causes they want to champion. Affleck was doing exactly what they were saying was problematic, and is a huge problem elsewhere - we're getting a similar thing with radical feminism in gaming atm where you cannot argue with them or you're a misogynisM ; )

It's not just in gaming. I was recently told dismissively that I was "mansplaining" something In a discussion, pointed out that it was dismissive and offensive, and was told because I was a white male I couldnt be offended by anything.

I was an little shocked.

Yeah it's becoming endemic. Males not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on planes, being assumed to be predators in public, supporting "rape culture" if they argue against guilty until proven innocent US college rules and so on. I can't say I'm turning right wing because of all this, but I just think we need to clamp down on the radicals on the left. How? Hard to say. In the gaming part, we're trying to remove the support base for their platform by pulling their advertisers as it's the only way we can with no other voice. In public we're you're scum for discussing these things... I don't even think getting conservatives in government would help, not to mention the collateral damage from that too.

I'm proud of Bill for using his platform to stand against the extreme left whilst remaining left himself. We do need equality for all - but the radicals are hurting that more than they're helping it without realising it, they're alienating those who would help them by creating a culture of fear of speaking out because of exactly what Affleck was doing. "Listen and believe" is far too Owellian for comfort. I read a good post from a "social justice activist" calling out similar things from the extreme crowd with a very good inside take on what some of the causes of the problems are.

 Yonan wrote:
Males not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on planes, being assumed to be predators in public

When has this happened?

 Hordini wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Males not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on planes, being assumed to be predators in public

When has this happened?

Here.

 Yonan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Males not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children on planes, being assumed to be predators in public

When has this happened?

Here.

That's pretty messed up.

Holy crap. I had to double-check that wasn't from the Onion.

 Hordini wrote:

So, to discuss some of your highlights. It's a five minute interview, and Aslan seems to be discussing a lot of big picture ideas. The article, in contrast, picks out specific examples of where Aslan's very general statements don't apply. The bit about Indonesia, for example, mentions that it has been becoming increasingly conservative, and mentions a problem with Sharia courts in a specific state. The existence of problems within the system, while it could be said to raise a legitimate issue with Aslan's statement, doesn't make him a liar (or even necessarily wrong). It'd be like making a statement like "In the US, women are equal to men," which, while generally true, we all know some significant caveats exist in terms of employment and earnings and things like that. If someone made the statement that women are equal to men in the US, I wouldn't necessarily think they were lying just because they didn't immediately mention the gender gap. Just as I wouldn't think someone was lying if they said "In the US, everyone is equal" if they didn't immediately start talking about white privilege and that sort of thing. But that also, of course, doesn't negate the fact that reality is often more complicated than what general statements provide. The article admits that Bangladesh has a progressive constitution with the caveat that it utilizes Islamic law in private life. I don't think think the existence of imperfections within progress completely negates that progress, and I doubt Reza Aslan would claim that those countries don't still have room for improvement.

Why I am saying he is wrong comes mainly from the comprehensive Pew Research poll I posted a while back. It shows beyond a reasonable doubt that nearly all Muslim-majority countries support Sharia law for all Muslims (and some for everyone, regardless of faith). That shows that they do not view nor would allow a women to have equal rights in their society. Like the anchors said directly to Aslan, this isn't the scary extremists that want this, it's the so called "moderates" that my fellow liberals love to talk about and defend. That is a serious issue that Aslan purposefully skirts because he has to know there is no just defense against it.

I also don't think Aslan's use of Turkey as an example is a problem because Turkey has secular past. I think it actually strengthens his argument, in the sense that a primarily secular nation of Muslims is actually a thing.

Turkey is secular, which is why it is an outlier. That alone makes it extraordinarily weak for Aslan to use as an example; it's an anomaly. Islam was forced out of government with actual force. And guess what, Turkey's hands are far from clean when it comes to human rights violations (which is probably why it won't join the EU any time soon).

In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.

Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.

In regards to the genital mutilation issue, no, it is not academically sound to take lack of study for proof of non-existence. That said, it's equally spurious to take lack of study for proof of existence. I would argue that Aslan's point that two primarily Christian nations have some of the worst issues with female genital manipulation would lend some weight to his assertion that it is more of a African problem rather than an Islamic problem - or at the very least that it's more than just a "Muslim country problem" as they put it in the interview.

He deflected the issue entirely though through his whataboutism, which is typical of apologist like him. Yes it happens in other countries (even ones not in Africa), but he completely deflects it because Christian majority nations do it too so it can't be a Muslim issue... which is absurd.

As far as Mariya the Copt being a concubine or wife of Muhammad goes, it seems like there is evidence on both sides, although to be honest I'm not really sure why that distinction is particularly important.

Again, the scriptures are quite clear on the subject.

Anyway, that's a start. Again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but I don't think he's a liar and I don't think that article effectively supports the claim that he is.

Like I said before, he is either lying and isn't scholarly background isn't as firm as he suggests. Since I believe his credentials are sufficient (it should be noted that it's an issue raised by his critics in the past), I'm going to say that he is deliberately choosing to defend himself with incorrect information.

All of this explains why I've said numerous times that he both outright lies or is just wrong. He's an apologist, plain and simple.

 cincydooley wrote:
To be fair, Scooty. I think a few of those heads of state at least fall into the "technically true but..." Camp as dynastic leaders. ;-)

That's exactly what it is... Which is why I said he is wrong to use that as an example of female equivalence.

 jasper76 wrote:
Holy crap. I had to double-check that wasn't from the Onion.

Today Tonight is far from the best news reporting in Australia, but they were pretty spot on here. The guy was forced to change seats, the companies did (do?) have those policies, and the test at the pool did happen with those results. It's ridiculous.

 Hordini wrote:
That's pretty messed up.

Very much so, and it's not slowing down, the more you look into it the worse you see it's gotten with hotbeds of it in academia now and college courses that reward students for slanting wikipedia articles to their radical ideals. The huge outcry against it in gaming atm will hopefully get some traction. Actors like Adam Baldwin (from Firefly) and feminists like Christime Sommers are speaking out against it but with the entire games media (and most mainstream media coverage of it) toeing the party line it's an uphill battle.

I also saw an article of it targetting tabletop gaming today: MISOGYNY AND THE FEMALE BODY IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

edit: not to sideline with the gaming thing. Just showing that what Maher and Harris are saying is happening in many places. The left really needs to control their own radicals before they force people to the right and harm leftist ideals.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.

Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.

You don't think that families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys aren't more-or-less dynasties as well?

In regards to the genital mutilation issue, no, it is not academically sound to take lack of study for proof of non-existence. That said, it's equally spurious to take lack of study for proof of existence. I would argue that Aslan's point that two primarily Christian nations have some of the worst issues with female genital manipulation would lend some weight to his assertion that it is more of a African problem rather than an Islamic problem - or at the very least that it's more than just a "Muslim country problem" as they put it in the interview.

He deflected the issue entirely though through his whataboutism, which is typical of apologist like him. Yes it happens in other countries (even ones not in Africa), but he completely deflects it because he is an apologist and therefore, his religion cannot be wrong.

Mentioning that the problem of female genital mutilation is primarily found in central African nations rather than specifically Muslim nations doesn't really count as whataboutism. Him being an apologist doesn't mean that his religion cannot be wrong either. He certainly does not hesitate to criticize elements of Islam and the extremists that are produced by it. Whataboutism would be like the interviewer asking about female genital mutilation in Muslim nations and him responding with criticism of anti-abortion extremists in the US, or something else unrelated to genital mutilation.

As far as Mariya the Copt being a concubine or wife of Muhammad goes, it seems like there is evidence on both sides, although to be honest I'm not really sure why that distinction is particularly important.

Again, the scriptures are quite clear on the subject.

I admit this is an issue I'm not that familiar with, but I'm not sure why the distinction is a particularly huge issue in this case.

Anyway, that's a start. Again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but I don't think he's a liar and I don't think that article effectively supports the claim that he is.

Like I said before, he is either lying and isn't scholarly background isn't as firm as he suggests. Since I believe his credentials are sufficient (it should be noted that it's an issue raised by his critics in the past), I'm going to say that he is deliberately choosing to defend himself with incorrect information.

All of this explains why I've said numerous times that he both outright lies or is just wrong. He's an apologist, plain and simple.

An apologist who has also criticized aspects of Islam?

Yonan wrote:
I also saw an article of it targetting tabletop gaming today: MISOGYNY AND THE FEMALE BODY IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

Foot placed into the bear trap, but

article wrote:
The problem that recurs in both of these historic examples of game systems is one that elevates the ideology of simulation above values of inclusivity, plurality, and compassion.

makes me want to retort with what are likely asinine things.

Instead I will just point that phrase out and let it hang out there.

You've misquoted me. I'm not the one who posted that.

Misquote threw me off, but yeah the problem with that quote should be self evident. I've got more game related examples but I think it'll be derailing so I'll try and leave it there.

Sorry guys, fixed.

 daedalus wrote:
Sorry guys, fixed.

No harm done!

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.

Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.

You don't think that families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys aren't more-or-less dynasties as well?

Given that there is a total lack of them controlling the Presidency for any consecutive terms with multiple members. No.

They're certainly active politically, and win a lot of offices. But they're not Dynastys. A Dynasty would be son following right after father for several generations, and guaranteed succession through clearly rigged elections.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

In addition, I don't find Aslan's mention of female heads of state in Islamic countries to be particularly troubling either. Why should anyone be surprised that they all had political connections? Every head of state in every country, male or female, has political connections. One of our most likely options for a female head of state, namely Hillary Clinton, has an incredible amount of political connections and influence.

Sorry, that is the biggest cop out you could have come back with. Besides, there is a big difference between political connections and being put in power by what is more-or-less a dynasty.

You don't think that families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Kennedys aren't more-or-less dynasties as well?

Given that there is a total lack of them controlling the Presidency for any consecutive terms with multiple members. No.

They're certainly active politically, and win a lot of offices. But they're not Dynastys. A Dynasty would be son following right after father for several generations, and guaranteed succession through clearly rigged elections.

I think the fact that some of these majority-Muslim countries even allow for a female head of state says something. I realize Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, but there are other examples who haven't been. I also think Aslan's point about different countries having different issues is pertinent. Saudi Arabia has issues that are Saudi Arabian issues, for example, and not necessarily "Muslim country" issues.

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean they're free and clear of issues with active discrimination against women.

The fact we have a Black president certainly doesn't mean we've outgrown racial issues.

And discrimination against women is definitely an issue with the general cultural traits associated with Islam.

I started disagreeing less than a minute in (although I have to watch the rest), but it is utter nonsense. Now to watch more than 45 seconds .

Edit: Ah, they are being weird about it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Perhaps, but it doesn't mean they're free and clear of issues with active discrimination against women.

The fact we have a Black president certainly doesn't mean we've outgrown racial issues.

And discrimination against women is definitely an issue with the general cultural traits associated with Islam.

Certainly not, and I don't think Reza Aslan would claim otherwise (although he might contest that your last point is a national or regional issue rather than a specifically Islamic one, but I don't know that I'd agree with him on that).

If a country strictly follows Islam as a legal code, it is going to be inherently treating anyone who isn't an Islamic male as second class citizens. That's just how it is.


And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence

Huh, apparently the Kurds are at least somewhat onboard with it... so yeah.

 Bromsy wrote:
If a country strictly follows Islam as a legal code, it is going to be inherently treating anyone who isn't an Islamic male as second class citizens. That's just how it is.


And FGM is fairly widely reported in countries outside of Africa - a good chunk of them Islamic countries. The out and out statement that it only happens in Africa and is thus an African and not Islamic problem is nonsensical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence

Huh, apparently the Kurds are at least somewhat onboard with it... so yeah.

I don't think he actually said that it only happens in Africa, did he? Granted, he certainly claimed that it was more of an African issue than an Islamic issue though.