Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[celedhring]

Yeah, I think the issue was that people on the list haven't been convicted of anything yet. But yanks can probably correct me on that. I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.

There is no right to fly a plane

I have to admit that would have been farsighted of 18th century politicians to enshrine.

I know that, but it's still funny. Like how in several places it's illegal to own realistic looking toy guns, but it's legal to own the guns themselves (and yeah, I know the reason is so the police don't mistake a toy gun from a real gun).

[The Minsky Moment]

The right to bear arms isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting guns in America. Guns aren't something innate, it's a lifestyle choice. The United States should be able to decide who gets them and who doesn't. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.

Alternate version.

[frunk]

Except it is: link.

Polls concerning our actual Muslim population are irrelevant--because they ignore the history of Muslim immigration to the United States. Only about 26% of American Muslims are Arab, we have a large population of converted Muslims in the African American community (many started out as Nation members in the 50s/60s/70s when it was a major political movement, and most eventually converted to Sunni Islam if they didn't abandon the religion--as membership in the actual NoI is much lower now), and we also have a large portion of Muslims who are from India and other places where Islam tends to be practiced in a much less virulent way.

Britain's issue is a huge portion of its Muslims are from Pakistan, where we know Muslims can barely go a day without committing various atrocities, and all evidence suggests they take that behavior with them wherever they go. Only about 300,000 people of Pakistani heritage live in the United States.

So, since the Muslim populations of America and Britain (and Europe) are very different, your claims just aren't credible. All evidence we have from Britain suggests that Muslims are a serious problem in large numbers and fail to integrate appropriately.

I thought you were making blanket statements that all Muslims resisted integration.  Are you saying instead that it isn't the religion that's the problem but the culture that the individuals come from?

[Malthus]

You mention Hispanic immigrants to the US, and compare them with Muslim immigrants to the UK. Isn't the better comparison with Muslim immigrants to the US?

Actual polls concerning Muslims in America:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

The poll numbers are telling. Muslims "score" almost exactly the same as Protestants generally on the question "homosexuality should be accepted by society": 45% of Muslims agree in 2014 (up from 38% in 2007 - so much for "unchanging Muslim attitudes"). Compare with Protestants generally: 48% in 2014, up from 38% in 2007. They do better than several other categories (Jehovah's Witnesses in 2014: 16%; Mormon: 36%  Evangelical Christian: 36%).

Similar results from the question about same-sex marriage, though in that  case Muslims do better: 42% of Muslims favour it, as opposed to 39% of Protestants generally.

I'm afraid your position is not fact based.

Except it is: link.

Polls concerning our actual Muslim population are irrelevant--because they ignore the history of Muslim immigration to the United States. Only about 26% of American Muslims are Arab, we have a large population of converted Muslims in the African American community (many started out as Nation members in the 50s/60s/70s when it was a major political movement, and most eventually converted to Sunni Islam if they didn't abandon the religion--as membership in the actual NoI is much lower now), and we also have a large portion of Muslims who are from India and other places where Islam tends to be practiced in a much less virulent way.

Britain's issue is a huge portion of its Muslims are from Pakistan, where we know Muslims can barely go a day without committing various atrocities, and all evidence suggests they take that behavior with them wherever they go. Only about 300,000 people of Pakistani heritage live in the United States.

So, since the Muslim populations of America and Britain (and Europe) are very different, your claims just aren't credible. All evidence we have from Britain suggests that Muslims are a serious problem in large numbers and fail to integrate appropriately.

What has that to do with anything, though? People are arguing about "Muslims" generally, not about Pakistanis specifically. Is the claim now that we should bar Pakistanis? Why should Americans care particularly about a problem that you now allege is specific to Pakistanis living in the UK? You can't generalize from that, to Muslims generally in the US, let alone Muslims wanting to immigrate to the US.

According to the Pew Poll, the majority of Muslims in America are themselves immigrants:

About half of U.S. Muslims (51%) and 61% of Hindus say more immigrants is a change for the better; majorities of both groups are immigrants themselves.

The poll cites a link which I will not bore you with.

Therefore, actual evidence, as demonstrated by the Pew polls (whose legitimacy I have not seen seriously questioned), demonstrates that:

1. The "majority" of American Muslims are immigrants;

2. American Muslims are, as a group, no more homophobic than American Protestants; and so

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Certainly, there are countries where homophobia is a virulent part of the culture - as I've already noted, Jamaica is allegedly one; no doubt several majority-Muslim countries fit the bill as well. However, be that as it may, the evidence demonstrates that actual immigrants to America apparently integrate just fine on this issue (and on others - the poll covers a wide range of attitudes). I see no particular reason to suggest that the UK experience is more significant to what is likely to happen in America than the American experience.

[The Brain]

I don't think Pewdiepie polls are universally accepted.

[Berkut]

I don't get it. Was he gay or homophobic or muslim?

d. All the above

Yeah, and I fail to see why him being gay actually changes anything about the analysis.

Nor do I.  I'm seeing news reports that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target.  If so, pretty clearly being an Islamic extremist had more to do with him carrying out a terrorist attack than any gay angle.  Being a self-loathing gay man may or may not have been a factor in his ultimate choice of target, but I'd guess that he was likely going to carry out an attack of some sort anyway.

Yeah, definitely agree.

It is hard to peel the onion of crazy of course.

[Berkut]

That something is Islamism, or the desire to impose any version of Islam over any society. Jihadism is the attempt to do so by force. This ideology of Islamism has been rising almost unchecked among Muslims for decades. It is a theocratic ideology, and theocracy should no longer have any place in the world today.

given that this has been part of islam since mohammed did his thing she's basically proposing to take the islam out of islam. Good idea but higly unlikely to happen.

the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims

to get rid of islamism is to get rid of islam. for by her definition islamism is what her prophet did.

No, you need to read what he is saying.

Islam is a religion.

Islamism is a political ideology that is founded on the idea that political power, organization, etc., etc. ought to come from Islam. IE, that the ideal society is a theocratic one (Iran, basically, or some version thereof).

Jihadism is the idea that one should move toward Islamism through force, rather than (or in addition to) a political process.

It is ridiculous to claim you can't have Islam without Islamism. We have that in many places today already, indeed, the vast majority of Muslims live in secular countries.

[Valmy]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

[Barrister]

Immigration isn't a civil rights issue. We need to accept that there is nothing immoral or even wrong about not wanting Muslims in America. Islam isn't something innate, it's a belief system. The United States should be able to decide who gets in and who doesn't get in. Anything that gets in the way of that--including the Constitution, must be pushed out of the way.

Freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination based on race or religion very much are civil rights issues.

[11B4V]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

Seems the problem is not the older Muslims immigrants living here, but the second generation. IOW you don't see a 50 year old muslim  blowing and shooting shit up. Recent incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Oralando, Paris, Hebdo, London, etc. are the younger generation. Their version of millennials.

[Berkut]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

Seems the problem is not the older Muslims immigrants living here, but the second generation. IOW you don't see a 50 year old muslim  blowing and shooting shit up. Recent incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Oralando, Paris, Hebdo, London, etc. are the younger generation. Their version of millennials.

Let's be careful here - we don't see a problem in the second generation either. We have such a tiny sample size that it is basically impossible to draw any kind of generalizations about them in particular. Reality is that there are literally millions of first and "n" generation Muslims living in the USA who have integrated just fine and are no threat to anyone.

There is no "Muslim problem" in the USA. There is a radicalized crazies problem, and the couple instances we have seen in the last few years have happened to be first generation. It would not be reasonable to presume that their status as that generation has any real bearing on the actual issue.

[Malthus]

3. All evidence we have from America suggests that Muslims are not a serious problem in large numbers and do not fail to integrate appropriately.

Generally our Muslims are fine but bear in mind that most of ours tend to be middle class educated types here for the jobs our moronic natives cannot do. They do not tend to be boat people types.

But I could be wrong about that.

No, you are right. Muslims in the US tend, on average, to be well-educated (and reasonably well off), better than the local norm. Demographics here:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#religion-and-immigration

Part of my point being: questions such as homophobia and other backwards social attitudes are tied as much to such matters as class (and to a degree, country of origin) as to religion: it makes as much sense, or more, to say 'no immigration of poor and uneducated people' as it does to say 'no immigration of Muslims', if what you want is to prevent immigrants from worsening the body politic in terms of social attitudes. If you were gay and worried about your neighbors having homophobic attitudes, better to have a reasonably well off, well educated and Muslim Iranian, than a poorly educated, poor Jamaican Protestant - on average.

[Martinus]

Vis-a-vis comparing Jamaica to say, a Muslim country. The fact is we've had years of significant Muslim immigration into Europe. There was a famous poll last year in which over 50% of British Muslims believed the laws of Britain should be changed to make homosexuality illegal. Much of Britain's Muslim population has been there for years, and many are second and sometimes third generation.

On the other hand, gay marriage is largely unaccepted in Mexico and much of Latin America. However, Hispanic immigrants in the United States, after being significant opponents of gay marriage in the early 2000s, actually majority support gay marriage now.

The reason being they over time adopt the social values of the country to which they have emgirated. Muslims do not do that.

The simple fact is--if you are not willing to accept our liberal Western values, you should not be allowed to move into this country, period. We to this day have laws on the books prohibiting people who were members of the Nazi party from moving here (albeit we of course made exceptions for guys like von Braun, and the language on immigration forms is pretty silly these days since anyone who was a practicing Nazi is now ancient, but it was there.) That's because we were taking a stand that we didn't want people like that in our country, because their values were incompatible with ours.

Islam is no different.

Yeah but it seems Islam is actually different - as I said before, rationally there is no reason why it should be the case. I mean, I can get why people coming from Christian cultures assimilate better in the US and Europe - but there seems to be no simple rational explanation why Muslim immigrants would have it harder to assimilate than Hindu immigrants from India or non-Muslim immigrants from East Asia. Yet, it is the case.

The difference between a rationalist and an empiricist is that the former concludes that, because there is no apparent rational explanation, the data that suggests otherwise is ignored or seen as inaccurate; an empiricist takes the data and concludes there must be some currently inexplicable difference.

I am much more inclined to take an empirical approach to Islam than a rationalist one - and take special care when dealing with it.

[Martinus]

I always find it funny that they can bar you from boarding a plane but not from buying a gun but heh, America.

I think it is pretty easy when you know two things about US constitution.

[CountDeMoney]

Saw a woman coming into work this morning, wearing her jilbab.  As she was walking, I could see flashes of color at the hem by her feet:  hot pink laces on Chuck Taylor All-Star high tops.

I found that interesting.