So did he or did he not say that the Nazis didn't use their own women and children as human shields?
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
He doesn't have to be a nazi sympathiser for this quote to still be fecking dumb and completely unneccessary.
No he's got a point. I definitely represented the fall of civilization into a post-enlightenment world because I posted a tweet of a clip of man saying "Hitler didn't do thing" and then posting a picture of Hitler doing a thing. It's not hilariously overdramatic at all.
He said that? Bruh.
Firstly, I personally think Harris' obsession with jihadism is obviously not healthy, and don't share all of his beliefs. I can kind of understand his desire to turn things into simple, moralistic equations in which case it's hard to get worse than jihadism if you're into a successful society, but fine.
Secondly, it was reasonably tongue in cheek, and was more about highlighting how bad both are, not forgiving one and not the other.
Thirdly, those comments have already spun up a discussion on reddit where folks are trying to show 'human shields' equivalence and (I regret typing this in advance when shades of grey aren't allowed) I do think there's a pretty big difference between what ISIS did with women and children and what the Nazis did towards the end of the war in recruiting, training and yes deploying underage boys in service.
Fourthly, and I can't believe I have to type this: jihadism is really, really f*cked up. So is Naziism. Both are stains on humanity, and I personally don't have a big problem with saying we'd be better off if literally everyone who believes in either is hunted down and killed. But for some reason anyone can say anything they want about Nazis and face no repercussions on today's world, but there are a non-zero number of people that get really sensitive if you say means things about jihadists. Not Hamas, not mulsims, jihadists. The murderous dealth-cult. That's idiotic.
Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is this: if someone wants to argue that Jihadism has worse (or better) moral standards than other movements, that should be allowed to happen. You can disagree with it, you can argue against it but I hate this whole culture of glibbly tweeting a single comment or phrase. It's not discussion, it's 'gotcha' and it does nothing but make everyone involved look worse.
Secondly, it was reasonably tongue in cheek, and was more about highlighting how bad both are, not forgiving one and not the other.
Thirdly, those comments have already spun up a discussion on reddit where folks are trying to show 'human shields' equivalence and (I regret typing this in advance when shades of grey aren't allowed) I do think there's a pretty big difference between what ISIS did with women and children and what the Nazis did towards the end of the war in recruiting, training and yes deploying underage boys in service.
Fourthly, and I can't believe I have to type this: jihadism is really, really f*cked up. So is Naziism. Both are stains on humanity, and I personally don't have a big problem with saying we'd be better off if literally everyone who believes in either is hunted down and killed. But for some reason anyone can say anything they want about Nazis and face no repercussions on today's world, but there are a non-zero number of people that get really sensitive if you say means things about jihadists. Not Hamas, not mulsims, jihadists. The murderous dealth-cult. That's idiotic.
Anyway, none of that is the point. The point is this: if someone wants to argue that Jihadism has worse (or better) moral standards than other movements, that should be allowed to happen. You can disagree with it, you can argue against it but I hate this whole culture of glibbly tweeting a single comment or phrase. It's not discussion, it's 'gotcha' and it does nothing but make everyone involved look worse.
Within the scope of your own argument;
- Define Nazi
- Define Jihadist
Not being a prick. But that’s not a good faith argument, and kind of plays into why that weird little debate club cult sets their stall out in that manner.
Its not really a gotcha moment if they've quoted something verbatim, especially something as absurd as what Harris has said. So he's rightly going to be called out for it. From what I can see nothing has been lost in context nor has he been misquoted.
Jihadism isn't a movement either.
What makes jihadism not a movement? You might argue its a religious concept that creates a movement but im not sure if we are just nitpicking.
This is a good summary of the development of jihadism as a “distinct and identifiable movement” within the much broader Islamist current - Jihadism on its own terms: Understanding a movement
But i mean you can go back to the life of Muhammad and the ones succeeding Muhammad and still consider Jihadism as a movement rather than referring to very recent modern history.
I don’t think so really, jihad is a doctrine comprising one element of the classical Islamic legal tradition, but I don’t think you could say a distinct movement emerged around it before the modern age.
But isnt that just a distinct movement separated from a caliphate? Or am I splitting hairs here?
I don’t really understand your question.
I'll try to tune back in when im sober if i can explain what i meant.
Perhaps in a different thread.
Probably yeah
True. You should expect a visit from discourse police tomorrow morning. Remember to pack something warm.