I have recently joined a disussion here:
Interesting, not just for the way arguements tend to fractionalise and split away from what the original author thought they were talking about. A comparison of muslims and sharks ends up discussing stuff like scientific Linnaean taxonomy, via contested stuff about the Israel / Palestine conflict and, frankly, whether there can be a genuine and neutral 'history of the world'.
I find it quite interesting, in the sense that you may wish to stay away from both sharks and muslims, which was the original precept, on the grounds of nearly certain death.
And then you think.
Maybe not a lot. Maybe you say to yourself that someone, whose monicker is Iron Mike - how sad is that - is completely right? Do you think that sharks and muslims are a synonym?
Or perhaps Iron Mike is right? Perhaps his happy comparison between some sharks and some people is just the way of the world?
I am not convinced that alienating muslims from christians from jews is ever done in the best of faiths. And I say that as an atheist.
But that is not all of it, is it?
There is a huge cultural capital being spent on being right, or offended about stuff, isn't there?
It is enough to make people fight. It is this demonisation of 'the other' that seems to be something that activates some of us to violent solutions, and depending where we are in a society, we throw rocks, we sniper, we cavalry charge, we drop agent orange, or we nuke folk.
It seems to me that 'being offended' is a convenient way for jews and christians and muslims to see street violence and repressive states and all the rest of it as normal.
I think this idea that fighting each other, seen as usual, is actually pretty stupid. It is up to the Abrahamic Religions - the whole lot of you - to tell the rest of us why you are relevant to the 21st C.
For, it seems to me that none of you are relevant or useful.
Going for an English -
1 year ago