NZ Shooter used the term overton window in manifesto

[Freedom_2018]

Ok, I'm frustrated because I feel that we (including jacob) all agree on something, and that I'm being misunderstood.

Maybe because while I had a background in science and technology by education and training but worked in sales/biz dev/ops strategy finance type stuff my perspective on issues such as this are informed in a way that might or might not appeal to you but in the interest of increasing understanding, here it goes:

I think there can always be arguments about data and its interpretation and more argumentation and interpretation does not necessarily bring most people closer to understanding on human affairs and belief systems type of issues.

<Also, please note that I am not trying to convince you, just considering different ways of looking at a situation >

So let's say that you are right and there are violent acts prescribed in some texts. I realize that I will get nowhere if I were to argue with someone on the accuracy or interpretation of those texts (* primarily I think this happens because people have different implicit belief systems )...even though this can be quite satisfying to try.

However I am more likely to create a change in the direction I want if I am able to demonstrate the benefits of my belief system without explicitly challenging the belief system of the other (hopefully they will reach the conclusion you initially wanted but do it on their own and that makes all the difference...it might be very tempting to say "look I told you so" but that would only be detrimental to the process).

From an execution standpoint to me it would look like building on the parts that are common to each party and even (genuinely) recognizing some of the good things in the other's doctrine. So basically instead of starting conversations with "I read that your texts say you should behead kafirs/non-believers" to me personally it makes more sense to be talking about the invention of algebra in the Arab world or how so many stars have arabic names etc...I think this puts the "adversary" in a more receptive state and appeals to their higher instincts which can then form the basis for productive change.

That is why I also think say theocratic Islamic regimes/groups that are "anti western" will always appeal to the lower instincts of their followers by calling out the moral decadence of the west and pointing out our women with short dresses and MTV type culture as a moral decadence of the west but will not talk about great inventions and progress made under their own ancestors/kings/cultures previously.

* Once upon a time, a shoe company sent two salesmen to Africa to determine the market potential for their products. One salesman was sent to the east coast of Africa, while the other salesman was sent to the west coast of Africa. Both the salesmen completed a basic survey of the target market and called back to the office. The salesman sent to the east coast of Africa reported “No one here wears any shoes, there is no market for us here!”. The other salesman sent a message “No one here wears any shoes, there is a huge market for us, send inventory fast!”.

[Jason]

I know many Muslims who believe that every word in the Koran is divinely given and none have tried to kill me. Maybe they're reading it with the wrong hermeneutic. Maybe they agree with you and they just haven't found the right opportunity to kill me. Just seems to me, those who have acted upon such a reading are limited to a fringe element. There are like 2 billion Muslims in the world at this point. You'd think if you were right, they'd start really moving on the matter.

[Freedom_2018]

Sorry if my comments are not very 'intellectually' interesting but for me 'doing in the real world' greatly exceeds 'discussion'.

From my own experience, I can see that seeing me live an ERE type life (following my belief system) for over 6 years and being happier and more fulfilled is more effective in making an impact on the minds/hearts of people I know than preaching ERE principles to them or rubbing my travel photos in their faces (challenging their belief system). It is one of the reasons I don't have social media either.

[Jean]

What is wrong in the way I write that it makes everyone not answer my question, and respond to something I specificaly said there is no point discussing here because all there is to do is read the references.
Jean: The Coran is ok
Jason:You're wrong, muslim that tell me they follow the Coran don't wan't to kill me.
.....
It is like this since the begining of the discussion. It's not the first time it happens to me. I assume I'm doing something wrong I don't find it. Please someone help me. I already agree with what you're saying. I'm trying to add something, but no one seems to see it.

[Jason]

Jean, I've really tried to follow you and maybe I have misinterpreted some things you've said. For that I apologize. I don't think you're a bad person or anything like that.

But let's face it, parallel to the discussion itself, what you do to the English language? Well, some may consider it nothing less than Jihad.

[Jean]

Argh, I thought my english was ok.

[Jason]

It is better than Ok. However, I think when discussing a highly charged topic like this, although not required, linguistic nuance is helpful, especially when promulgating viewpoints that may be interpreted as controversial. Plus, and this I can't confirm, but suspect may have occurred, the accidental omission of just one word can radically alter what you are trying to say. For what it's worth, as far as my opinion of you goes, nothing has changed or for that matter, ever will change, as it was forever cemented at the unveiling of your shit pipe.

[Campitor]

Ok, I'm frustrated because I feel that we (including jacob) all agree on something, and that I'm being misunderstood.
I'm saying that the books that constitute the Canon of Sunni Islam(Quran, Sahir Muslim, and Sahir Bukhrari) command to kill us all. This can be checked.
If we assume that I'm right on this, can't we agree, that encouraging an ideology that revere those books as canon is detrimental? And that converting to islam isn't the best way to show love to muslims.

My very religious Muslim friends say this interpretation of the Quran is incorrect. Killing innocent civilians is forbidden, killing women and children is forbidden. Tolerance for people of the books is preached (Christians and Jews). Jesus is considered a prophet per my Muslim friends. Suicide is apostasy per my Muslim friends. I have never read the Quran nor do I speak or read Arabic. So I only have the word of my various Muslim friends and coworkers to rely on.

Nowhere I'm saying that all muslim wan't to do what is prescriped in those books. But like we sign Apple or google end user license agreement without reading them, people accept to be muslim. And then, the prealable agreement can be used to push some of them into doing violent action.

Every person is molded by the culture and the experiences lived within that culture. Radical Islamic schools educating children into adulthood, poverty, Muslim on Muslim violence, and a few Western bombs killing innocent non-combatants = radicalized Muslims accepting misrepresentations of the Quran and hatred of Westerners and non-tribal-conforming Muslims. They kill each other more than they kill Westerners.

I've witnessed a debate between two muslims, where one was calling the other (who was saying what I'm saying about this) a lier, because reading those books is too difficult according to him, so I think it's a fair assumption that some muslims don't know what's in those books.

Muslims lack a centralized religious council so religious disagreements are common depending on which mosque you go to and how much you rely on the Iman therein to interpret the Quran.

I'm feeling that criticism of Islam as been lumped with a lump judgement of all people originating from muslim countries, which I can understand if one as be lumped oneself.

You are viewing this problem through a Western lens. For Muslims, the Quran is self identity, the belief is part of their culture. Westerners have a hard time with this because of the secular nature of our governments. In the USA, we believe in secular democracy but that hasn't stopped the ideological or physical skirmishes by the various political factions within the United States. And take a second to research the number of civilians killed in the Middle East by Western military action. The Western countries lead the death scoreboard by a significant margin. Looking at the death tolls reported, it appears the both Western and Islamic ideologies are equally murderous (I'm playing devil's advocate here).

Secular Political Ideology to Westerners is what Quran ideology is to Muslims. You can't divorce yourself from your political ideology anymore than a Muslim can divorce himself from their Quran ideology; your belief systems are the sum of experiences and beliefs you have been exposed to. So if you look at it this way, you see how it's the ideological culture you've been exposed to, without a counterbalancing force, that guides your expression of that ideology. The Muslim problem is a problem of culture more than it is a problem of the Quran. If this were not so, you'd have billions of Muslims strapping on explosive vests and buying used 747's to fly into buildings.

[7Wannabe5]

Yesterday my African-American gardening partner and I were helped with our work by an 11 year old Muslim volunteer, and our new Muslim neighbors on the other side of the back fence passed over some fruit juice and homemade bread for our lunch after we discussed working together to clear out the overgrown brush between our properties.

Never once in my many dealings with Muslims, running the diaspora from villager-working-class to quite wealthy, Tehran to Bangladesh to some village in Yemen, have I encountered a vibe of "evil, decadent West." One reason this is true is that thanks to modern technology and the global economy, EVERYBODY on the planet already lives in the U.S., and the image of the U.S. broadcast across the world portraying such unrealities as "Housewives of Beverly Hills" render the realities of Midwestern moms wearing Teddy Bear appliqued sweat-shirts with maybe-a-little-bit-tight stretchy pants while driving a mini-van to pick up some green sugar sprinkled pine tree shaped cookies to share with a classroom full of recently immigrated Muslim kids not all that thrilling. I mean most Muslim women I know dress more hootchie mama underneath their garments they wear in public than most feminist-leaning academic community American females. I think it might actually be the case that the Puritanical underpinnings of religious practice in the U.S. magnifies and lends credence to this mythology.

Also, the way one very thoughtful Muslim described the situation in Iran was "We used to drink in public and pray in private. Now we pray in public and drink in private."

[Riggerjack]

@ Jean

Most muslim (most people for this matter) are good people, but faithfull to their traditions. They will lie to themselves about what's in the Qoran instead of being forced to choose between there sense of good and loyalty to their tradition. It doesn't change the content of the book.

Most Christians (most people for this matter) are good people, but faithfull to their traditions. They will lie to themselves about what's in the Bible instead of being forced to choose between there sense of good and loyalty to their tradition. It doesn't change the content of the book.

That was a change of 2 words.

What makes a few passages in the Quran (I am assuming, I haven't read it myself) appropriate for judging all Muslims? Why aren't all Christians judged by the content of the old testament?

After all, most Christians are good people, but faithful to their traditions.
*****

Jean, I don't mean to pester you, nor do I assume you are being anything but truthful. I have been hesitant to bring this up, because it is a charged topic here in the states. But you seem comfortable talking about it, and I am always curious.

I do believe that you and I see Muslims differently, and I'm trying to define that difference. Somewhere along the path, you went left, and I went right. Now I'm curious what was down that path I didn't take. The only way I know how to do this, is to describe what I see and have seen, and compare it with what you see and have seen.

[Jean]

I think you see muslim as people, who want the same thing as you and it's fine because there is plenty of it, and I see muslim as people who want the same thing as me, and it sucks because we don't have enough of it and we'll end up fighting for it one way or another.
The Hadiths offering a better moral framework for taking from other than postchristian values is only making it worse in my point of view.

Your sentence doesn't work, Christians either admits that the old testament describes a psychopathic god (some even go all the way to say it was the devil), or agree with what's in it and want homosexuals to burn (I'm slightly hyperbolic here). Some muslim probably do this too, but it's not what I described in my sentence, and questioning the book is then more difficult. I'm aware it's a cultural issue, as Iranians (just an exemple) seems to be able to do this just fine (at the country level, not just rare individuals).

I recomand quran.com for those who want an english translation (the original text is visible too, with word for word translation). For french speakers, I highly recommand Adlo Sterone (an algerian man) youtube channel.

I would add that the first part of my post is the most important. I believe there is a war going on, people will end up being forced to choose a side. Grouping early would allow to settle this trough intimidation. When war wagging muslims are in Europe by millions, it's too late. Muslim could even be included in the us. I know muslims which I believe are sincere in the way they consider themselves a part of us, and those willing to invade europe a part of them, despite their shared muslimhood. Those people will be forced into them if we let them become too powerfull. Whn Erdogan calls for a Turkish Invasion of Europe, after having said that his best weapon was the belly of the Turkish women in europe, there are objective reasons to be scared, espcially since a majority of Turks in europe support him.
I'm aware that military meddling into the middle east is pushing more muslims into the them side.

All I want is people to acknowledge that it's a serious issue. That some people already only see a violent way out and take action. That Islam is a part of the problem, by its objective content, but more by the link it creates between warmongering and peacefull muslims.

I'm trying to make my opinion clear, then you can reject it. At least I learn a lot about what people understand when I write, so thank you all. I hope I'm better than before at expressing diferentiation in how i group humans.

[Freedom_2018]

Ok...I think I've been holding back a bit on my own opinions and thoughts since I was trying to understand where others might be coming from and also asking open ended questions to see if it fosters understanding. But i think the gap is too great on here for the latter to happen.

So for what its worth, I think Jean's analysis and assessment of the situation globally is more accurate than the other viewpoints I've seen here. Although in the interest of peace and kumbaya I wish it were not so.

Why I say this?

Sample Size and Type - As I mentioned before, the sample size of muslim immigrants we see in the US is on average significantly different from what people in Europe experience. Thanks to the Atlantic Ocean, we in the US do not get to experience the impacts of boats of immigrants landing on our shores and have to deal with impacts of that on the local population and not to mention immigrants themselves. No immigrant 'ghettos' in the US unlike in say Denmark (where govt is enacting measures like these : http://time.com/5329100/denmark-ghetto- ... al-europe/).

What you are exposed to sets up your perceptions. My partner taught English as Second Language to Adult immigrants for a good part of her career. Almost without exception they were hard working and came to the class to learn English so they could apply for better paying jobs or help their kids with homework. Most were Mexicans and some from Latin America. Gang members and thugs do not attend such classes...so the experience that she and her colleagues had with immigrants were all positive. This influences their politics and attitudes towards immigrants.

Negative population growth rates and immigration policies - In many countries in Europe, the base population growth rate is negative (Japan too suffers from this). Increased economic opportunities for both men and women and the increase of automation has resulted in fewer babies from the local population. Since our economic world seems to be dependent on number of future customers, immigration policies have catered to this 'business need'.

Arc of History - Europe has always seen war. Even well before the current muslim immigration issue, there have been skirmishes and battles all over the place. In the US we've been lucky to have been pretty removed from such stuff. If I were a betting man, Europe is much more likely to have a skirmish over immigration issues than the US. History reliably shows us that religious conflict is the favorite activity of humans over the long term. Why do we think it is going to be different this time?

Can't talk about certain things - In the west, especially among educated people there is a reluctance and indeed revulsion to even discuss certain topics or consider a disturbing viewpoint. This leads to surprises when Trump type person gets elected or the mortgage crisis of 2007 (remember...it was only supposed to be a 'subprime' crisis). Or leads to situations where people who have never lived under socialist policies seem to advocate it as a solution to capitalism whereas a brief conversation with an ex communist country immigrant to the US will inform you otherwise. Somehow we believe that if we don't talk about something, it will just go away. Or talking about something unpleasant must mean we condone it.

[Freedom_2018]

I don't think 99% or any significant percentage of any group/religion are killers/thugs etc. So that is not the issue. So for example clearly 99% of Mexicans are not drug dealers.

So how would you implement your belief if it were applied to say overall US immigration strategy or borders with Mexico?

Do you think the people in Europe worried about immigration from Africa and Middle East countries are overreacting?

I'm just trying to understand how a belief or rationale would play out in real life.

[Freedom_2018]

Well this should be a 'safe space' for discussion as long as we adhere to the house rules.

What is the point of this forum if we can't get our thoughts out in the open respectfully?

The anonymity of the Internet has surely been used to do ugly stuff. Why not use it in the pursuit of increased transparency and understanding?

[Jean]

What augustus, you don't think that welcoming 8 millions uneducated mexicans young men would be good for the united states? You surely deserves to be tared and feathered.

[Kriegsspiel]

I'm pretty sure more people have foe buttoned me in the last month than my entire time here That whole chilling effect thing that the WGOTW crowd was complaining about cuts both ways.

WGOTW?

I see western civilization as the pinnacle of human society to date (which is to say the last 10,000+ years). I think that anyone who is pro revolution needs to take a long hard look at pol pot (did you know that glasses were a legitimate reason to murder people under pol pot? the reasoning was that if you had glasses you were educated, and thus privileged, and thus needed to be clubbed to death and added to their skull pyramids [google image search it]), lenin, and the chicoms.

It almost goes without saying that Pol Pot was a highly educated elite himself. In addition, as Jordan Peterson says in his 12 Rules book,

Marxist ideas were very attractive to intellectual utopians. One of the primary architects of the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, Khieu Samphan, received a doctorate at the Sarbonne before he became the nominal head of Cambodia in the mid 1970s. In his doctoral thesis, written in 1959, he argued that the work done by non-farmers in Cambodia's cities was unproductive: bankers, bureaucrats, and businessmen added nothing to society. Instead, they parasitized the genuine value produced through agriculture, small industry, and craft. Samphan's ideas were favourably looked upon by the French intellectuals who granted him his PhD. Back in Cambodia, he was provided with the opportunity to put his theories into practice. The Khmer Rouge evacuated Cambodia's cities, drove all the inhabitants into the countryside, closed the banks, banned the use of currency, and destroyed all the markets. A quarter of the Cambodian population were worked to death in the countryside, in the Killing Fields.

Western civilization needs to spread, because I don't think it can last longer than a few hundred years in any specific locale (for historical examples note how often republics slide into tyrannies). Distributed systems are inherently more stable.

So, what are you referring to as "Western civilization?" At any rate, I don't think everyone wants Western civilization.Word is, the Chinese like their system they have going. I'll bet Afghans would be totally pumped if everyone left them alone so they could live in their tribes and do Afghan things. I think Western civilization deserves to be defended where it is, and allowed to spread passively if possible. That seems like an ok situation to me.

[Riggerjack]

I think you see muslim as people, who want the same thing as you and it's fine because there is plenty of it, and I see muslim as people who want the same thing as me, and it sucks because we don't have enough of it and we'll end up fighting for it one way or another.

I think you see people, who want the same thing as you and it's fine because there is plenty of it, and I see people who want the same thing as me, and it sucks because we don't have enough of it and we'll end up fighting for it one way or another.

I deleted 4 words for clarity.

What you seem to be describing here is a scarcity mindset. And I agree that moving beyond a scarcity mentality is great for opening one's mind to opportunities, and letting go of old hindrances. But I don't understand what this has to do with Muslims.

I believe there is a war going on, people will end up being forced to choose a side. Grouping early would allow to settle this trough intimidation.

I believe there is always conflict going on. And I believe that the people who choose sides before the shooting starts, are volunteering to be the connon fodder/pawns.

I wonder, if one were to set up a filter for who one spent time with, and that filter selected for people who wanted to be on a side in a cultural conflict, what would that group look like?

Maybe people who have a strong urge to join a group. But there's lots of groups to join. What is special about this one? It wants to have a conflict along a religious/cultural line. So this filter would select for people who felt wronged by that religion/culture.

As a general rule, are the people who feel wronged by some aspect of society the winners, or the losers? Are they the ones most able to adapt, or least? Are they the strong, or the weak?

So, if one set up a filter for who one spent time with, does this filter produce a group of people who will challenge and inspire you to be the best you can be? Or would it make a group who will accept who you are, and allow you the slack to indulge yourself in your preferred indulgences? Will this group encourage you to be who you really want to be? Or who they want you to be?

I think you have a great awakening before you, when you apply the same lesson you learned in selecting women to date, to the rest of your life. When you move from choosing the most extreme path, to choosing the best path for you.

But I don't know your friends, or really, much about you; and I may just be projecting my own story.

[Jason]

So, what are you referring to as "Western civilization?" At any rate, I don't think everyone wants Western civilization.Word is, the Chinese like their system they have going. I'll bet Afghans would be totally pumped if everyone left them alone so they could live in their tribes and do Afghan things. I think Western civilization deserves to be defended where it is, and allowed to spread passively if possible. That seems like an ok situation to me.

From a political standpoint, Francis Fukuyama states the determining factor is rule of law. And I think the word "rule" is operative. The basis of Western law is the separation of morality from law so that we essentially have rules. Although Judeo/Christianity and our republican understanding of natural rights speaks of the intrinsic value of man, our laws, like those against murder, are based on an exchange - I forfeit my right to seek personal justice and give the government the right to prosecute murder as it is my best bet against being murdered myself. This is not the case in Islamic countries, hence Sharia law. And as you stated, that is why they don't want Western Civilization. In those countries, the religion has a totalitarian control over everything else.

[Campitor]

I don't think 99% or any significant percentage of any group/religion are killers/thugs etc. So that is not the issue. So for example clearly 99% of Mexicans are not drug dealers.

So how would you implement your belief if it were applied to say overall US immigration strategy or borders with Mexico?

Do you think the people in Europe worried about immigration from Africa and Middle East countries are overreacting?

I'm just trying to understand how a belief or rationale would play out in real life.

I think you're conflating two different issues: orderly immigration versus not stereotyping an entire group as a murderous ululating barbarous horde. Every nation has a specific interest in orderly immigration. Governments need to know who you are and where you live so they can allocate resources, and taxes , appropriately. Having massive waves of immigrants arriving unchecked and undocumented creates logistical and legal consequences. Undocumented immigrants are exploited, tend to assimilate poorly, and aggregate where they can hide in plain sight which really hampers the job opportunities they can explore. And even if a small minority are criminal and/or violent, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent felons from sneaking in. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

The key is moderation, understanding, and nuance. A Muslim who wants to work hard, is friendly, and hates violence - good. A radical fundamentalist who wants to burn churches, synagogues, mosques, and toss bullets and explosives - bad. It's not a binary choice - we don't have to choose between having orderly immigration versus believing most people are good.

[Jean]

@rj
Muslimhood gives them a "us", in the name of which many are already being violent against us. I will not list exactions and call for violence, commited by muslims against the indigenous european population. You're being condescending and calling my friends loser. It doesn't serve the purpose of convincing me.
It happened a lot of time during history, I don't know why you believe it can't be happening now.
Maybe it's because you grew up effectively in a time and place where effectively, scarcity was irrelevant. Oil and land were virtually free. The most direct consequence of immigration for you is an increase in the value of your assets.
Scarcity mindset is created by the percieved possibility of scarcity. I bet on scarcity in the near future. You bet on what you want, but has you have much less skin in the game than me (you don't intend to have kid and are much older), I will try to propagate my message.
In a way, it's the same issue as global warming. I think the sanest attitude is to allow every possibility about what might be true to be eard and discussed seriously. You convince flat earther by listening to them, not by calling them flatards..