A serious Aladdin problem.

[DanieltheDragon]

A recent survey of republicans churned up some interesting notes. For one the majority support raising the minimum wage to 10-15$ an hour. On a more deeply disturbing note there is a minority fraction within the party that is becoming irrationally xenophobic. A silly throw away question at the end of this survey
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... esults.pdf

asked a very silly question,"would you support the bombing of agrabah?"

Agrabah is a fictional Arabic city in Aladdin. It is not real yet a full 30% of respondents checked yes. Islamic extremists are real and they are very much a threat especially for those who actually live in the Middle East who face the vast brunt of Islamic terrorism. How can we as a country address this threat when our rhetoric has gone so far that a significant segment in our population is willing to bomb any Arabic sounding name?


For debate has our rhetoric gone to far?

[Hamsaka]

A recent survey of republicans churned up some interesting notes. For one the majority support raising the minimum wage to 10-15$ an hour. On a more deeply disturbing note there is a minority fraction within the party that is becoming irrationally xenophobic. A silly throw away question at the end of this survey
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... esults.pdf

asked a very silly question,"would you support the bombing of agrabah?"

Agrabah is a fictional Arabic city in Aladdin. It is not real yet a full 30% of respondents checked yes. Islamic extremists are real and they are very much a threat especially for those who actually live in the Middle East who face the vast brunt of Islamic terrorism. How can we as a country address this threat when our rhetoric has gone so far that a significant segment in our population is willing to bomb any Arabic sounding name?


For debate has our rhetoric gone to far?

That is ridiculous. Not entirely unexpected, though, because of all the Christian Right rhetoric. I post at CARM where there is a strong contingent of folks who get their 'news' from Breitbart and World News Daily as a rule, and they are very, very anti-Islam out of what they feel is self-defense, especially on the immigration/refugee platforms.

If you peruse the headlines presented in these sources, it does look as though we are under imminent attack and the Obama administration is actively importing terrorists disguised as Muslim refugees as we speak.

Those of us who do not see things that way are sticking our head in the sand and promoting Islam against Christianity. They are whipped up into stiff meringue

Sometime last week a school in one of the New England states was studying Islam and did a calligraphy assignment, in Arabic, that translated as "There is no other God but Allah" or something like that. The kids weren't given the English translation, but they were given the suggestion they could wear traditional Islamic garb or whatever to school. Parents went berzerk.

Rhetoric goes too far whenever it is not based in fact, but it can be difficult to parse fact from fiction, if parsing is even attempted in the first place. The evangelical/fundamentalist sects require an enemy, as evidenced by them always having one. The thing is, ISIS is really, really bad and we should all be very concerned -- but about the things that are actually happening, and how ISIS is being dealt with.

It is very disturbing to think of the implications of stirring religious people up. McCarthyism was too long ago, it is just a peculiar episode in American history that couldn't happen again, we're too smart for that, right? The problem wasn't McCarthyism -- it is the human character flaw that is. Except this character flaw is built right into the system as a survival instinct that is difficult to override. If all the information you get is from Breitbart-type sources, it's like operant conditioning, the 'right' combination of words and kaboom, the amygdala is on fire and there's no getting through to someone who is hyped for fight or flight.

What disturbs me the most is that it is deliberately done, and the folks getting jerked around the worst are the least educated and most likely to vote with their amygdalas. There's folks on CARM who are convinced Obama is thinly disguised Muslim importing (yes, really) terrorists, but they see right through the Trojan Horse of giving sanctuary to those Syrian refugees! They genuinely believe this, at least it looks like it. They are horrified at any attempt to mitigate this 'information', because the Christian Right has set up a terrifying false dichotomy; if you don't agree with Breitbart then you are siding with the terrorists (and Obama).

They are the folks who would say 'yes' to bombing a city with an Arabic sounding name. Not because they just luuuuurve to bomb cities but because they have been whipped up by rhetoric that probably only exists to sell itself. I hope that's all it is, anyway.

[Ancient of Years]

Sometime last week a school in one of the New England states was studying Islam and did a calligraphy assignment, in Arabic, that translated as "There is no other God but Allah" or something like that. The kids weren't given the English translation, but they were given the suggestion they could wear traditional Islamic garb or whatever to school. Parents went berzerk.

Here is a story on this. (It was in Virginia BTW.) The assignment explicitly identified the Arabic phrase as the Islamic statement of faith.

I imagine that if either of the following were assigned to be copied and they were identified, a different set of people would have gone berserk demanding separation of church and state. (The high school in question is public.)

Πάτε� ἡμῶν, � �ν τοῖς ο��ανοῖς
�γιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου

שְ�מַע יִשְׂרָ�ֵל ה' �ֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' �ֶחָד

[WinePusher]

How can we as a country address this threat when our rhetoric has gone so far that a significant segment in our population is willing to bomb any Arabic sounding name?

For debate has our rhetoric gone to far?

I think the real problem is that we have a group of people (regressive leftists) so disconnected from reality that they'd rather focus on rhetoric they don't like rather than the radical jihadists who are killing people, torturing women and oppressing minorities.

Btw, I don't support bombing Agrabah. However, I do wholeheartedly support bombing nonfictional cities with "Arabic sounding names" like Raqqa and Mosul.

Oh wait, saying that I support bombing ISIS strongholds is "dangerous rhetoric" right? And dangerous rhetoric is far, far worse than Islamic radicals blowing people up and chopping off people's heads right?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by WinePusher]

You think that regressive liberalism is a bigger problem than people who would be willing to bomb any Arabic sounding place regardless of whether we should bomb it or not?

You listed two places you think we should bomb at least you had an idea of where they were and who controlled them. I think the real problem is ISIS not "regressive liberalism". Banning all Muslims from entering the country, banning Islam as a religion, registering Muslim Americans to a national database, and other profoundly idiotic ideas actually help ISIS rather than works against them.

Oh wait, saying that I support bombing ISIS strongholds is "dangerous rhetoric" right? And dangerous rhetoric is far, far worse than Islamic radicals blowing people up and chopping off people's heads right?

No that's not dangerous rhetoric, but I appreciate your attempt to frame it that way. No one is making the argument that dangerous rhetoric us worse than ISIS. I am making the argument that dangerous rhetoric makes it difficult to address the real problem that ISIS represents.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Interestingly enough, 57% of republicans weren't sure compared about it, compared to only 45% of democrats. (Not to mention 19% of democrats were in favour of bombing it.)

They probably assumed it was related to current affairs and was somewhere the US is currently bombing, like in Syria.

[WinePusher]

You think that regressive liberalism is a bigger problem than people who would be willing to bomb any Arabic sounding place regardless of whether we should bomb it or not?

This is why polling data is notoriously unreliable. If the people participating in the poll were told that Agrabah was a fictional city then their answers would have been different. If the participants were asked if they support bombing peaceful Muslim cities that are NOT strongholds for ISIS, and if they still said yes then there would be an actual problem. As of now, this poll doesn't give any indication as to whether 30% of people actually support bombing peaceful cities.

You listed two places you think we should bomb at least you had an idea of where they were and who controlled them. I think the real problem is ISIS not "regressive liberalism".

Regressive liberals are essentially apologists for ISIS. Donald Trump helps promote the cause of ISIS by proposing things like a ban on all Muslims, and in the same way regressive liberals promote the cause of ISIS by 1) failing to realize that Islam uniquely prone to violence in ways that other religions aren't 2) by using bogus terms like "Islamaphobia" as a way to silence any criticism of the religion.

The following video shows two intellectuals demolishing liberals:

[youtube][/youtube]

Banning all Muslims from entering the country, banning Islam as a religion, registering Muslim Americans to a national database, and other profoundly idiotic ideas actually help ISIS rather than works against them.

Yes, these proposals are insane and people who support these proposals are promoting the cause of ISIS. Regressive liberals, the kind of people who'd rather focus on "violent rheotic" rather than the violent actions committed by radical Muslims, the kind of people who cry about Islamaphobia, the kind of people who think global warming is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, the kind of people who can't understand the difference between opposing gay marriage and stoning gay people, these people also promote and defend the cause of ISIS.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by WinePusher]

Yes, these proposals are insane and people who support these proposals are promoting the cause of ISIS

So addressing these issues would effectively reduce the promotion of ISIS?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by WinePusher]

Regressive liberals, the kind of people who'd rather focus on "violent rheotic" rather than the violent actions committed by radical Muslims, the kind of people who cry about Islamaphobia, the kind of people who think global warming is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, the kind of people who can't understand the difference between opposing gay marriage and stoning gay people, these people also promote and defend the cause of ISIS

This sounds rather a lot like a stereotype and not really useful for this debate. Since we are discussing the issue of violent rhetoric not whether or not regressive liberals are helping ISIS. It also seems like you agree that the violent rhetoric I am talking about contributes to the cause of radical Islamic extremism.

It seems like you agree but somehow can't say it directly for some reason. Instead you keep trying to Segway off topic about liberalism.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 7 by WinePusher]

This is why polling data is notoriously unreliable. If the people participating in the poll were told that Agrabah was a fictional city then their answers would have been different. If the participants were asked if they support bombing peaceful Muslim cities that are NOT strongholds for ISIS, and if they still said yes then there would be an actual problem. As of now, this poll doesn't give any indication as to whether 30% of people actually support bombing peaceful cities.

Yes I get this that is why it is all the more troubling. Even for the democrat respondents who it should be noted were at 19%. They didn't know anything about the question yet were ok with it anyways. They could have been asked about bombing a peaceful Muslim city and the results likely would have been the same if it was just the name of the city.

That's a shoot first ask questions later mindset born out of fear, which makes them easy to manipulate don't you think?