Says it better than I could

[Skeptic]

From flickr's "atheism" group. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2353324364_88bc3e501a.jpg?v=1240526372)

[Upchurch]

Says what better than you could?

[fuelair]

What about christofascism?

[Cleon]

Islamofascism: A Word We Made Up to Demonize People We Don't Like

[linusrichard]

Islamofascism: A Word We Made Up to Demonize People We Don't Like

Yep. You start out by misdefining "fascism" to include every action you disagree with taken by a state or someone loosely associated with a state. Once you've done that, it's easy to look at Muslims doing this and come up with a phony "Islamic fascism," but that isn't quite catchy enough, so you smush it together for "Islamofascism." Yay.

It is an extremely useful word, though. If I'm reading something, and I see the word "Islamofascism" pop up, I instantly know that my time (a scarce resource) is better allocated elsewhere.

[headscratcher4]

"Islamofacism" is one of those words that reduces everyting to stupid...it paints Islam -- all Islam -- with negotive connotations. Does nothing to help anyone understand the differences between, say, Shia and Sunni Islam, the history of Islam and the split within (Shia and Sunni), its history with the west, the individual history of the countries at the heart of the controversy. It does nothing to suggests solutions...other than war. Worse still, public figures who use the term frequently -- say Santorum or Gingrich -- say it and are never pressed to expalin it.

[fuelair]

"Islamofacism" is one of those words that reduces everyting to stupid...it paints Islam -- all Islam -- with negotive connotations. Does nothing to help anyone understand the differences between, say, Shia and Sunni Islam, the history of Islam and the split within (Shia and Sunni), its history with the west, the individual history of the countries at the heart of the controversy. It does nothing to suggests solutions...other than war. Worse still, public figures who use the term frequently -- say Santorum or Gingrich -- say it and are never pressed to expalin it.Just out of curious, does Santorum ever use the word "santorum" in his speeches?

[linusrichard]

Just out of curious, does Santorum ever use the word "santorum" in his speeches?

I think he uses santorum in all his speeches, but he never mentions it by name.

[Skeptic]

Islamofascism: A Word We Made Up to Demonize People We Don't Like

I can't imagine why anybody would demonize the poor, innocent dears.

[Upchurch]

I can't imagine why anybody would demonize the poor, innocent dears.
mm'hm. What point were you trying to make?

[ProbeX]

I can't imagine why anybody would demonize the poor, innocent dears.

You mean you honestly can't see how the "Islamo" aspect of that supposedly generic religious label demonizes the bad apples of just one religion to the exclusion of the bad apples in all the other religions? ... Really? Truly??

[linusrichard]

mm'hm. What point were you trying to make?

You mean you honestly can't see how the "Islamo" aspect of that supposedly generic religious label demonizes the bad apples of just one religion to the exclusion of the bad apples in all the other religions? ... Really? Truly??

And how the "fascist" aspect of it makes no sense since the term is applied to groups that have nothing to do with fascism? It's like they were trying to figure out what to call it, and they figured "Islamoevil" didn't flow well enough, and "Islamobad" sounds too much like the capital of Pakistan, but, hey, "fascism" means pretty much whatever we want it to mean as long as it's the opposition, right, Jonah Goldberg?

[Skeptic]

But it's true. The reason Al Quaeda, Hizbullah, Ahmadenijad etc. are fascists IS because of their interpretation (at least) of Islam, their religion. Islamic fascism (I prefer that to "Islamofascism", but that's a minor issue) *IS* nothing more, or less, than a fascist movement based on religion.

So, first of all, the question is not if something is true, but whether one may or may not say 2+2=4, I mean, that Islamic fascism is a totalitarian movement based on religion, and particulartly, on Islam.

The reason one should not say so, apparently, is that it will encourage hatered of Muslims because using the word "Islamic" might cause awful things to Muslims because it "generically describes" Islam as violent.

First of all, this makes as much sense as saying that if I say, "Ted Bundy was a bad man" then, because I used the "generic word" man, I encourage hatered of men in general. The whole point of using the word "bad" is to qualify -- to make clear I'm not talking about ALL men, but about BAD men. That's what adjectives usually do.

Same here: calling it "IslamoFASCISM" is, of course, exactly used to make clear I am not talking about ALL Muslims, but about FASCIST Muslims. Do people really not understand basic English?

Second, nobody complained that Communism described in the same photo as being "based on class" somehow implies all, say, UAW members are inherently communists. Nor did people complain that Nazism being described as "based on race" somehow implies the NAACP is a Nazi organization.

If being "generically described" as being based on religion (or on Islam) is so dangerous and incorrect and "Islamophobic", surely being "generically described" as being based on class or race is being "against the workers" or perhaps "racist", too.

Which shows the silliness of the whole argument.

In sum, the conclusion that using the I-word in a non-positive sense is somehow "proof" of my "Islamophobia" or something is based on premises so silly to state them is to refute them.

So it clearly it is not the words themselves, but the fact that Muslims are the current designated victim group -- a group about which nothing bad must be said lest "Islamophobia" be encouraged -- which all "progressives" must protect by showing (fake) outrage at anybody who dares to use English correctly to describe an obvious truth.

This is what is known as the "totalitarian temptation" of the left (which also exists on the right, of course): the desire to control language, so that the very discussion of certain subjects would, by the forbidding of using of accurate terms, make the "progressive" point of view win by default.

For example, if -- as a UK minister recently suggested -- one may not say that Islam has a strong fascist element in it, due to the terrorist acts those who follow Islamofascism engage in, but only that "the religion of peace" sometimes has people commit "unIslamic acts" (terrorist bombings), it is obvious that the only possible "conclusion" of the reasons for Islamofascism is that it's all the evil, evil, western colonialism's fault; this conclusion is built into the terms used, as it were.

The chances of actually undestanding Islam and the fight between the modernists and fascists in it using that language is about as high as finding out the causes of obesity when one must not use the word "fat", but must call obese people "the eaters of thinness" and binge eating "unthin acts".

But of course investigating the truth has nothing to do with why such language is invented. It's all actually a matter of social control (all is done in the name of some wonderful, utopian goal -- "stop Islamophobia!" or whatever -- of course).

Still, we are lucky that it's still true that a good belly laugh at these would-be big brothers is legal.

[linusrichard]

many words

None of this has anything to do with fascism. If you want to argue that "Islamofascism" makes sense as a term (and I agree with you in preferring "Islamic fascism," and I agree with you that it's a small point), then you have to show why the group or individual you identify as an "Islamofascist" is:

1. Islamic.
2. Fascist.

Further, I think it is useful to show how the Islam relates to the fascism, otherwise it would be like calling someone a "Beardofascist" or something - it wouldn't make sense.

Now, I will give you point 1 - it's pretty trivial to say that al Qaeda, the Taliban, bin Laden, whoever, are Muslims. I'll let the Muslims debate about whether or not they're real Muslims, if they want to have that debate. And I'll give you the third part - whatever it is they're doing, fascism or whatever it is, is tied to their Islam. But we're still missing an important part - is what they're doing fascism? So of course you have to explode the second point, and say

1. What is fascism?
2. What does this alleged "Islamofascist" believe?

So first you have to bring me a non-BS definition of "fascism." The closest you get to a definition in your post above is that fascism is totalitarianism, and that fascists commit terrorist acts. I do believe that all fascism is totalitarianism, but I am sure that not all totalitarianism is fascism. And I don't see any necessary connection between terrorism and fascism. So: What is fascism?

The next step is then to say what the alleged "Islamofascist" believes, and to see if it matches up with that definition.

Wikipedia provided me with a nice quote:
The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.

That was 1944, so the problem I have is not new. And that was George Orwell, who knew a thing or two about manipulating language for political ends.

If you are willing to "accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist,'" then I grant you: al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas: these are Muslim bullies. I am not willing to accept "bully" as a synonym for "Fascist" - I'd rather have a real definition.

[corplinx]

Poor mix of terms or not, Islamofascist is the vernacular term that means "militant islamist ideology descended in part from Al Ikwan which teaches that western influence must be purged by force from muslim/holy lands and that western countries should be attacked for letting women wear mini skirts and for letting gay people kiss in public".

All the whining about the term every time someone uses it does nothing to diminish the truth it represents. People like Skeptic who understand what it means don't need to be reminded every time he uses it that it is not an optimal word for conveying its underlying meaning. I'm sure he's read all of the commentary about the innate insensitivity related to it many, many times by now by people wringing their hands over it.

We picked "Islamofascist" because "butt heads" conveyed the underlying truth even worse and offended everyone with a butt.

[portlandatheist]

I think its a perfectly appropriate term. How else would one describe a group like Jemaah Islamiyah? Certainly they are Islamic and their ideology could most definitely qualify as "fascist". Additionally, the term "Islamic supremacist" is appropriate just as "white supremacist" or "black supremacist" is if that indeed describes a person or a group to which you are referring.
It is quite the straw man to say calling an Islamic group that is clearly fascist "Islamofascist" is to mischaracterize your average Muslim because its not. I have no qualms with therm "christofacist" if that indeed describes the group, perhaps the Christian Identity movement would be deserving of such a term and we could call them that without offending the sensibilities of your average Christian.

[linusrichard]

I think its a perfectly appropriate term. How else would one describe a group like Jemaah Islamiyah? Certainly they are Islamic and their ideology could most definitely qualify as "fascist". Additionally, the term "Islamic supremacist" is appropriate just as "white supremacist" or "black supremacist" is if that indeed describes a person or a group to which you are referring.
It is quite the straw man to say calling an Islamic group that is clearly fascist "Islamofascist" is to mischaracterize your average Muslim because its not. I have no qualms with therm "christofacist" if that indeed describes the group, perhaps the Christian Identity movement would be deserving of such a term and we could call them that without offending the sensibilities of your average Christian.

So Jemaah Islamiyah "could most definitely qualify as 'fascist.'" And it's "clearly fascist." But why is it so clearly fascist?

The more I think about this topic, the more I think Islamofascism is basically an oxymoron. Fascism exalts the state above all. Islamism exalts Islam above all. It's true that so-called "Islamofascists" want to equate the two, but I don't think that squares the circle. Does Islam serve the state, or does the state serve Islam? I think Fascism and Islamism require two different answers to this question. Not just Islamism, but theocracy in general, I'm coming to think, are incompatible with fascism.

Although they do have a lot in common! And I hate them both!

[portlandatheist]

So Jemaah Islamiyah "could most definitely qualify as 'fascist.'" And it's "clearly fascist." But why is it so clearly fascist?

The more I think about this topic, the more I think Islamofascism is basically an oxymoron. Fascism exalts the state above all. Islamism exalts Islam above all. It's true that so-called "Islamofascists" want to equate the two, but I don't think that squares the circle. Does Islam serve the state, or does the state serve Islam? I think Fascism and Islamism require two different answers to this question. Not just Islamism, but theocracy in general, I'm coming to think, are incompatible with fascism.

Although they do have a lot in common! And I hate them both!

They wish to create a totalitarian, single party state. Even if they wish to exalt Islam above all else, including the state, I still think that would reasonably qualify as fascist but I do see your point, its an international movement as well and is different than the nationalist movements we typically think of, either way, it still quacks like a duck in most regards.

[portlandatheist]

What about christofascism?
Plinio Salgado would be a great example of a Christofacist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinio_Salgado

[Tricky]

Several posts split to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141990). Keep it on topic. Eschew personal attacks. You know the drill.

[pgwenthold]

Several posts split to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141990). Keep it on topic. Eschew personal attacks. You know the drill.

Given the OP I assumed it was a content-free thread.

I'm serious.

Crack down on THAT, moderator.

[headscratcher4]

I am interested in the assertion that "they" want to create a "single party" state. I am ignorant, so please provide some citation. I ask, because I can't see that they are interested in "party" or "politics" at all, but rather in an almost messianic belief in an all-embracing islam...creation of a complete religious state. I think...and am willing to be wrong...that is different than a "totalitarian" state as facism is traditionally derived.

It is a strange argument, as I understand it. Facism was very much a "western" ideology born of statist, socialistic tendencies exacerbated by the aftermath of World War II. Mussolini, for example, "evolved" from a farily standard Italian socialist into a "statist" facisit over the course of the war.

It seems to me that the argument about Islam should be put in the context of states dominated by a central religous belief, and that facism (traditionally) is more about political and social econmic structures. The islamic radicalism exhibited by AlQeda and their followers reminds me of some of the protestant mellenial crazies at the time of the reformation...John Calvin, etc., than say Hitler or Mussolini. It is not clear to me that Hilter or Mussolini believed in anything much more than themselves and the power of their will to dominiate. Arguably, the islamic radicals believe that they answer to a higher god (whether we believe it or not). Again, I see them more like well organized David Koresh or even Joseph Smith types, than Hitler or Mussolini.

Anyway, interested to be educated. Baby steps please. Parroting NeoCon bable not necessary.

[Skeptic]

So, let's see: George Bush -- evil fascist.

Al-Queda? Hizbullah? Er... you're using the word wrong... it isn't EXACTLY fascism because it applies only to the movement in 1920s... maybe they don't want a one-party state -- perhaps they're willing to have two or three (men-only, Muslim-only, no dirty Jews, homosexuals, atheists, etc.) parties as long as they all agree Allah's mullahs should rule the earth... and stop using such bad words about the poor dears, you... you... neocon Islamophobe!

Pathetic.

Anyway, to the point, there are, indeed, differences between the religious, class-based, and racist fascism. But they are minor compared to their general genocidal violence, totalitarian mentality, and contempt for freedom, democracy, and human rights. I, myself, think the racist totalitarianism of the Nazis was the worst; but there is, after all, much to say for Dr. Johnson's observation that there's no point discussing the relative merits of a lice and a flea.

[linusrichard]

So, let's see: George Bush -- evil fascist.
Do you see anyone here making that argument?

Al-Queda? Hizbullah? Er... you're using the word wrong...
Correct
it isn't EXACTLY fascism because it applies only to the movement in 1920s...
Do you see anyone here making that argument?
maybe they don't want a one-party state -- perhaps they're willing to have two or three (men-only, Muslim-only, no dirty Jews, homosexuals, atheists, etc.) parties as long as they all agree Allah's mullahs should rule the earth... and stop using such bad words about the poor dears, you... you... neocon Islamophobe!
Do you see anyone here making these arguments?

Pathetic.
I agree wholeheartedly!

ETA: I seem to recall a term that refers to the practice of inventing absurd arguments, falsely attributing them to your opponents, refuting the arguments (easily, since they were absurd arguments to begin with), and then claiming you have discredited your opponent thereby. Are you familiar with a term that describes that practice? Because that is exactly what you just did. It is almost as though you had been challenged to knock down a man, but fearing the task too difficult, you instead constructed a man out of some vegetable material you had at hand, knocked down this "man" with no trouble, and then claimed you had met the challenge.

Anyway, to the point, there are, indeed, differences between the religious, class-based, and racist fascism. But they are minor compared to their general genocidal violence, totalitarian mentality, and contempt for freedom, democracy, and human rights. I, myself, think the racist totalitarianism of the Nazis was the worst; but there is, after all, much to say for Dr. Johnson's observation that there's no point discussing the relative merits of a lice and a flea.

Relative merits? You're the only one talking about merits. This is a debate you're having with yourself, in which pointing that "Islamofascism" is a dumb word is somehow a defense of radical Islamist organizations and individuals. Nobody's defending these groups. My dislike of the word "Islamofascism" doesn't come from my love for radical Islamists, but from my love of the English language.

[Skeptic]

This is a debate you're having with yourself, in which pointing that "Islamofascism" is a dumb word is somehow a defense of radical Islamist organizations and individuals.

It is. The reason is clear: it's a refusal to call things by their right name; in particular, it's a refusal to recognize the fascistic worldview and actions that are central to radical Islam. When you refuse to call things by their right name, such as the UK member of parliament who demanded that suicide bombings by Islamofascists be called "anti-Islamic activities", you are helping the Islamofascists, to the degree that your refusal to tell the truth helps every evil to hide from the light of day.

It's a defense of radical Islam in the same way that calling rape "just a little fun" or "you can't blame a chap for trying" (as it was known in the past) was helping rape, since it refused to acknowledge it for what it is. Same with calling murder of women by their husbands or brothers "honor killing" (very honorable, that) -- to name a few of many examples of euphemisms I could give.

Besides all that, it's simply unmanly and shows a disconnect from reality. It shows one has a worldview when using terms that will not possibly cause offense to anybody is far more important, and violation of this "rule" causes more outrage, than the actual acts of violence committed by those the "insensitive" word is intended to describe.

[headscratcher4]

Was Meyer Kahane an Judeofacist?

I don't know the answer to this. Just wondering if I'm now using the word "facist" correctly.

[linusrichard]

It is. The reason is clear: it's a refusal to call things by their right name;
No, it's the opposite: an insistence on calling things by their right names.
in particular, it's a refusal to recognize the fascistic worldview and actions that are central to radical Islam. When you refuse to call things by their right name, such as the UK member of parliament who demanded that suicide bombings by Islamofascists be called "anti-Islamic activities", you are helping the Islamofascists, to the degree that your refusal to tell the truth helps every evil to hide from the light of day.
All of which begs the question.

It's a defense of radical Islam in the same way that calling rape "just a little fun" or "you can't blame a chap for trying" (as it was known in the past) was helping rape, since it refused to acknowledge it for what it is. Same with calling murder of women by their husbands or brothers "honor killing" (very honorable, that) -- to name a few of many examples of euphemisms I could give.
All of which also basically begs the question.

You can't prove that "Islamofascism" is a correct term by drawing comparisons that only work if "Islamofascism" is a correct term. You can't prove that "Islamofascism" is an accurate term by asserting that it's wrong not to call it "Islamofascism" assuming "Islamofascism" is an accurate term. Do you see what you're doing?

Besides all that, it's simply unmanly
Are. You. Serious.

and shows a disconnect from reality. It shows one has a worldview when using terms that will not possibly cause offense to anybody is far more important, and violation of this "rule" causes more outrage, than the actual acts of violence committed by those the "insensitive" word is intended to describe.

I don't care one iota about causing offense to the pigporkers in al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other like organization you care to mention. And you can't point to anything I've ever said that shows I do care. Because I don't care. It's offensive to me to twist and misuse the English language in this way to score political points.


All of your arguments in this post assume that "Islamofascism" is an accurate term. By definition, this means they cannot be good arguments to prove "Islamofascism" is an accurate term. In other words, you're still at square one, if you're trying to convince anyone.

If you're not trying to convince anyone, but are instead trying to produce textbook examples of logical fallacies, well, you're two for two with your last two posts. Congrats.

[portlandatheist]

Was Meyer Kahane an Judeofacist?

I don't know the answer to this. Just wondering if I'm now using the word "facist" correctly.

I certainly would think of him as a Judeofacist.

[corplinx]

Ask the people whose countries in southeast asia have had Islamic law forced on them after their government's were taken over by radicals if they feel those governments are fascist.

[Praktik]

Ask the people whose countries in southeast asia have had Islamic law forced on them after their government's were taken over by radicals if they feel those governments are fascist.

I wonder if they would describe it as fascist, given that their cultural history is one more closely rooted in theocracy, tribalism and communism than it was in fascism of any sort (when it comes to authoritarianism that is).

Im sure a lot would express their feelings for these governments in terms of disdain but I doubt they would take the curious western affectation of labelling things they don't like with the word "fascism". They probably have their own label culturally specific to them.

[Cleon]

Ask the people whose countries in southeast asia have had Islamic law forced on them after their government's were taken over by radicals

:confused:

Which countries in Southeast Asia are you talking about, exactly? Indonesia? Malaysia? Singapore? Vietnam? I can't think of a single Southeast Asian country that has been taken over by Islamic radicals.

if they feel those governments are fascist.

You know, that's not exactly an objective measure of whether or not it's fascist. You don't have to look very far to find an example of someone thinking that just about anything is fascist. Some people felt that Bush was a fascist--this obviously wasn't so.

A stronger case could be made that someone like, say, Pinochet was fascist. You could (obviously) make a stronger case for him than for Bush, but even then I think it's stretching the definition of "fascism."

Repression != fascism. Fascism is repressive, but not all repressive regimes are fascist.

[Praktik]

good point cleon, was about to re-edit my post to ask which country he was asking about - cause on second thought, I couldn't think of any either. I took his premise as correct when I should have given it some more thought.

Maybe he's thinking about some parts of Indonesia? As far as I know the central government is still secular though, and in the running for one of the most corrupt on the planet.

Im sure there's a whole host of terms the Indonesians would use to describe THAT government..;)

[headscratcher4]

Ask the people whose countries in southeast asia have had Islamic law forced on them after their government's were taken over by radicals if they feel those governments are fascist.

I guess what I'm having trouble with...in the interest of words meaning something...is the seemingly blind use of the word Facist to now cover any totalitarian or even authoritarian regime. They used to blindly use "communist" or marxist to make the group, country, philosophy seem black or white.

Really, it seems to me, that "Facism" has a political, socio-economic, ethnic (certainly in the case of Nazism, but nationalist in Spain, Italy, etc.) framework that is essential for understanding the movement, its goals and tactics.

While religion can be an element (the Falange in Spain ) it wasn't really part of what drove Mussolini or Hitler. THey'd accomodate relgion to an extent, but where both looking for ways to de-couple facism from church...or otherwise completely subsum the church into their movement.

These were also movements that were looking forward. Sure, their was a wistful myth making about Rome or German culture, but these were movements concerned with industrialization and technology and even science...Nazi's reveled in German Science, but while it abandoned many modern scientific norms, it did not abandon them all (the social sciences were particularly suseptible because they are so squishy). These were also mass movements that tried to fill the void after the collapse of other social systems...principally the European monarchies. In short, they weren't looking to put kings or Czars back on the throne.

Islam, even that espoused by Al Qeda, etc. is certainly absolutist...but it is a particularly back-ward type of philosophy. It embraces the middleages as the perfect, just period in history -- the caliphate -- for example. While it struggles against westernization and regimes that it views as westernized, it isn't struggling to replace the religion or even the economic systems of the Arab/Moslem states. Instead, it wants a return to a purer Islam, as I understand it, believing that all disbilivers will crumble before the god-powered might of pure islam.

They are Joseph Smith and David Koresh and maybe even a little Martin Luther, not Hitler or Mussolini. I don't mean that they aren't as nasty, violent or even intrinsically evil. I don't mean that they are no threat to the west or to our democratic ideals. I mean that the god-component, for me, moves it out of the range of a facist ideology. THis is a millenial movement. Hitler didn't preach suicide because you would get a reward in heaven, nor did Mussolini...thier plea to sacrifice was to sacrifice to the greater good and for honor and to elevate the community...not as an act of god-directed vengence.

There is nothing good to say about AlQeda, but calling them "facist" seems lazy to me and facile.

I really want to know, please explain "facism" to me, and than explain why AlQeda is Facist?

[Cleon]

There is nothing good to say about AlQeda, but calling them "facist" seems lazy to me and facile.

I really want to know, please explain "facism" to me, and than explain why AlQeda is Facist?

The other problem is that it lumps any and all Islam-based governments and organizations into the same tent. Al-Qaeda and Iran are both labeled "Islamofascist," but they're fundamentally different in numerous ways.

OTOH, Saudi Arabia - which is arguably as repressive as Iran - does not get the "Islamofascist" label. Syria does, even though Assad's Baathist dictatorship is as secular as it gets.

What this tells me is that "Islamofascist" is not meant to accurately describe any real phenomenon. Instead, it's propaganda; it's a "scare word" used to label those perceived as the "bad guys" by US foreign policy.

[Skeptic]

I certainly would think of him as a Judeofacist.

Me too.

And, in any case, even if I disagreed the term is accurate (which i do not), then if someone called him that (I believe people did), I certainly wouldn't get my knickers in a twist because they used a bad word that might possibly be misinterpreted by someone else as claiming all Jews are fascists because "Judeofascist" starts with the 'genetric term' "Judeo".

This sort of hysterical overreaction to "bad words" is only seen, for some reason, when Islamic fascism is attacked. Methinks the lady protests too much -- the Islamists' fascism is so obvious the only way to not notice it is to quibble about words.

[linusrichard]

This sort of hysterical overreaction to "bad words" is only seen, for some reason, when Islamic fascism is attacked in my wild fantasies. Methinks the lady protests too much -- the Islamists' fascism is so obvious the only way to not notice it is to quibble about words have an understanding of what "fascism" is.

... and fixed.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I have an even better idea. Why dont' we just call it's proper name. Islamic terrorism.

[lionking]

Given the OP I assumed it was a content-free thread.

I'm serious.

Crack down on THAT, moderator.

What?

Who do you suggest decides the validity of threads? You?

[pgwenthold]

What?

Who do you suggest decides the validity of threads? You?

I am allowed to report threads that I think are improper, yes.

But you tell me: what does the content in this thread have to do with the thread title?

While I admit my comment that got deleted was snarky, it was actually on-topic. Tricky says, "Don't get personal" but the OP MADE IT PERSONAL!!!! The title of the thread is a personal statement.

The judgement of whether the link "says it better than (the poster) could" depends on how good the poster can say it.

Yes, I find threads consisting only of a link to be completely worthless, and if I were in charge, I wouldn't allow any of it. But this thread goes beyond that - it is a non-informative title with only a link. And then I get chastised for going off-topic?

[David Wong]

We simply can't use language in the way that Skeptic wants to use it. You use a word according to its definition, not according to its emotional connotations.

This is why it was silly to call George Bush a fascist, it's why it's silly to call Obama a communist or accuse Dick Cheney of treason. Those words have definitions, and when you start using them in the wrong context just to get an emotional reaction, you've ruined your own ability to communicate.

[headscratcher4]

We simply can't use language in the way that Skeptic wants to use it. You use a word according to its definition, not according to its emotional connotations.

This is why it was silly to call George Bush a fascist, it's why it's silly to call Obama a communist or accuse Dick Cheney of treason. Those words have definitions, and when you start using them in the wrong context just to get an emotional reaction, you've ruined your own ability to communicate.


Indeed, and if you follow skeptic's logic here, however, it isn't so fanciful to call Bush a Facist -- the secret police state being built inside our intelligence agencies, the alleged whittling away of Constitutional rights, the cozy relationships between the party in power and the business community...you could spin it and make it sound just as logical as islamofacist.

In fact, it is not unlike what some of the Teabaggers were doing to Obama....

[Chaos]

Indeed, and if you follow skeptic's logic here, however, it isn't so fanciful to call Bush a Facist -- the secret police state being built inside our intelligence agencies, the alleged whittling away of Constitutional rights, the cozy relationships between the party in power and the business community...you could spin it and make it sound just as logical as islamofacist.

In fact, it is not unlike what some of the Teabaggers were doing to Obama....

Are you drawing parallels - no matter how justified - between things the US and fascism? Bad headscratcher4!

What are you, some evil liberal leftist progressive or something?

[headscratcher4]

No, I'm a leftist Facist Marxist IslamoChristianist -- we're a dangerous group, confused, but dangerous.

[Praktik]

No, I'm a leftist Facist Marxist IslamoChristianist -- we're a dangerous group, confused, but dangerous.

I happen to think confused people are among the most dangerous of all:

http://www.ibzp.net/archive/2006/files/page0_blog_entry395_1.jpg

[linusrichard]

Indeed, and if you follow skeptic's logic here, however, it isn't so fanciful to call Bush a Facist -- the secret police state being built inside our intelligence agencies, the alleged whittling away of Constitutional rights, the cozy relationships between the party in power and the business community...you could spin it and make it sound just as logical as islamofacist.

In fact, it is not unlike what some of the Teabaggers were doing to Obama....

True enough - following Skeptic's logic, we could not only call Bush a fascist, but we could call al Qaeda et al. "Islamoconservatives." I wonder if he'd like that appellation. "Islamoconservatives." It has a ring to it, no?



ETA: For the slow: I'm not claiming al Qaeda et al. are actually conservative. But they do have some things in common with conservatives, and that's enough, according to Skeptic's "reasoning."

[Megalodon]

ETA: For the slow: I'm not claiming al Qaeda et al. are actually conservative. But they do have some things in common with conservatives, and that's enough, according to Skeptic's "reasoning."

Well, according to Skeptic's "logic" we could call them "IslamoJews" (they both abhor pork), IslamoNewagers (both go for confy clothes and sandals), IslamoDemocrats (they both hate America), IslamoRepublicans (both are religious fundamentalists with a gun fetish) or IslamoSkeptics (both are bigoted fools with no regard for either truth or rationality).

Fortunately most people only reach Skeptic's "logic" under dangerous levels of intoxication...

[MarkCorrigan]

OTOH, Saudi Arabia - which is arguably as repressive as Iran - does not get the "Islamofascist" label.

Arguable nothing, Iran is a positive haven of liberal free thought and human rights compared to the mire that is Saudi Arabia.

I really, REALLY want to know where people get the idea that Iran is the most locked down, oppressive nation in the world (or close to) from, I really do. Granted, it's NOT a haven of freedom, sunshine and happy kittens playing in the streets but it's not even remotely close to Saudi Arabia.

[Cleon]

Arguable nothing, Iran is a positive haven of liberal free thought and human rights compared to the mire that is Saudi Arabia.

I really, REALLY want to know where people get the idea that Iran is the most locked down, oppressive nation in the world (or close to) from, I really do. Granted, it's NOT a haven of freedom, sunshine and happy kittens playing in the streets but it's not even remotely close to Saudi Arabia.

I don't disagree, I just didn't want to get derailed into a Who's Got the Biggest Repressive Schlong fight.