Liberals' failure to talk honestly about Islam is responsible for the rise of Trump

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty much agree with everything Sam Harris has to say on politics. For those who don't know him, he's a neuroscientist and philosopher, but also speaks out on other things too. He's possibly the most clear/rational/critical thinker I've come across. FTR he doesn't like Trump or Hillary but she is the unfortunate lesser bad one of the two.



    A few quotes...

    "Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Why can't Hillary Clinton or President Obama say that?

    "And if only a right-wing demagogue will speak honestly about it, then we will elect right-wing demagogues in the west, more and more in response to it. And that will be the price of political correctness. That's when this cheque will finally get cashed. That will be the consequence of this persistent failure we see among liberals to speak and think and act with real moral clarity and courage on this issue. The root of this problem is that liberals consistently fail to defend liberal values as universal human values. Their political correctness, their multi-culturalism, their moral relativism, has led them rush to the defence of theocrats and to abandon the victims of theocracy, and to vilify anyone who calls out this hypocrisy for what it is as a bigot. And this transformation of our country is unfolding with each news cycle. The words we use matter here, because in place of conceptual clarity and moral courage, what we're getting from the left is just sanctimony and charges of bigotry against people who are not bigots, who are anything but bigots. And here I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about the millions of people who may yet be tempted to vote for him, because their common sense is being demonised and defied at every turn on this issue. And this leaves everyone who is appropriately worried about Jihadism and stealth theocracy - in a way which our freedom of speech is already being abridged by the quote religious sensitivity of a religious community, the world over - it leaves these people with nowhere to turn but the right, toward their own bullies, and even theocrats. This is happening across Europe, and it is happening in the US. And Trump's candidacy is a clear expression of this."

    "This is the problem. Because liberals have seeded this ground based on political correctness, and based on this sinister meme of Islamophobia that just shuts down any conversation on this topic (and has been consciousness engineered to do so, by the way), the only people left to make sense are increasingly bigots and xenophobes, and people you generally would worry about having an alliance with. So the people who make similar noises to the ones I'm making now about Islam are people who are making those noises for the wrong reasons. These are people who are not especially worried about the maintenance of civil society and free speech and the rights of women. These are people who, in some cases, are theocrats (of the Christian sort), or like there are fascists in Europe who just hate the idea of immigrants coming into their countries at all. So, this abdication of intellectual honesty among liberals has left right-wing nut-jobs as the only people left to make sense on this topic."

    Other video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5dDfX30Zw
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There are many things responsible for the rise of Trump.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TooEasy123)
    "Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Why can't Hillary Clinton or President Obama say that?
    Well, in Obama's case, because much of his foreign policy has been about pivoting away from framing it in the similar terms used by Bush.

    In the Bush (and to a lesser extent, Blair in the UK) years, Washington's MidEast policy was the "War on Terror" in which 9/11 was conceptualised as an act of war and the US and its allies were presented as being "at war" with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc as opposing combatants. In the Obama years, by contrast, while the actual practice didn't change that much, the language used went through a significant alteration - it was now understood as a widespread international law enforcement operation rather than a war. 9/11 was redefined as no longer an act of war, but a crime. Terrorists were to be opposed and hunted down as criminals, not as enemy combatants.

    This change was done not so much out of concerns about setting the US against Islam, but because "War on Terror" was perceived as too vague and boundless, and lacking specific aims.

    With regard to the actual merits of what Harris is saying here, he's rehashing the Huntingdonian 'Clash of civilisations' model widely no longer taken seriously. What he's calling "moral clarity" really just seems to mean moral simplification - reducing everything to simplistic good/evil battles. This kind of argument isn't critical, it's lazy and lacking in nuance.

    At about 6:48 he starts saying something about how if the Orlando killer had used pressure cooker bombs to kill people rather than guns, then Obama's focus on guns wouldn't have made sense. But if we're having "what ifs", then we can do so for every factor; what if the attacker had attacked a straight bar rather than a gay bar?; what if he'd attacked somewhere other than a bar; what if he'd been white, or black?; what if he'd been of another religion, or none at all? Etc. Then Harris' focus on Islam wouldn't have made sense.

    He also focuses heavily on ideology as the causal factor, when a lot of recent work into modern atrocity (such as on Nazism, Rwandan Hutu Power, ethnic nationalism, etc) has preferred to emphasise ideology more as an enabling factor, or even just as a legitimation for things bad guys were planning to do anyway.

    For example, take the Chechen wars. 25-30 years ago, Chechens were not a particularly religious people - after all, they'd been living under the USSR's Stalinist state atheism for 70 years. The Chechen war to break away from Russia was mostly a secular ethnic nationalist one, seeing their separatist desires as no different from the independence movements in Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Don't get me wrong, they still did horrible things, but they were not Islamists. However, desperate for any support they could get against the vastly militarily superior Russian army, they did invite foreign 'volunteers', including Islamists, to fight for their side. Over time, Islamists gained more and more influence in the Chechen conflict, until eventually Dokka Umarov formally abandoned Chechen nationalism in favour of Islamism. If you want to see the transformation of the Chechen conflict in simplistic visual terms, this is what Chechen rebels and leaders looked like in the 1990s:





    And this is what they look like now:





    For the most part, they still do much the same things. Chechen nationalists still committed horrible atrocities. The only thing that's changed is that now they frame it in religious fundamentalist terms.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Harris is one of the few liberals that sees Islam for what it is. Most liberals or progressives I come across tend to handle Islam with kid gloves whilst not holding back when it comes to Christianity or Judaism. Even if liberals did their job consistently, we would still have people supporting the far right- but the numbers of supporters would be greatly diminished.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TooEasy123)
    "Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.
    No he hasn't.

    Getting the whole civilised world to address the issue you want to address means addressing the issues that others want to tackle.

    Why should say, Mexico be united under US leadership in the fight against Islamic terrorism if Trump wants to build a wall?

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still regarded in the Middle East as the main destabilising effect on many of their governments. Yet Trump wishes to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    What about those European countries where environmental issues can dominate politics. How does Trump's attitudes to climate change help to get them onside?

    Does Japan feel threatened by Islamists or China? Does Japan feel reassured that America under Trump will protect Japan?

    Trump and those like him are stripping the art of diplomacy from government. What we are getting is government by toddler.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You don't need to be bright to realise that establishment politicians appear to ignore the elephant in the room (Islamism), and that addressing the elephant could enhance your credibility as a non-establishment politician- it's something he could be exploiting. I do not believe Trump genuinely gives a rats *** about the problem. Even if he did, he doesn't appear intelligent enough to even talk about it, many of the things he proposes would merely exacerbate the situation.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No he hasn't.

    Getting the whole civilised world to address the issue you want to address means addressing the issues that others want to tackle.

    Why should say, Mexico be united under US leadership in the fight against Islamic terrorism if Trump wants to build a wall?

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still regarded in the Middle East as the main destabilising effect on many of their governments. Yet Trump wishes to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

    What about those European countries where environmental issues can dominate politics. How does Trump's attitudes to climate change help to get them onside?

    Does Japan feel threatened by Islamists or China? Does Japan feel reassured that America under Trump will protect Japan?

    Trump and those like him are stripping the art of diplomacy from government. What we are getting is government by toddler.
    Should'nt the Mex. Gov. want to stop it citizens from illegally entering the U.S.? After all, It is a crime. Cross into Mex. illegally and you will see they are a bit less lenient.

    How destabilizing would the Arab/Israeli conflict become if the Arab countries gave up their infantile hatred of the Jews?

    If environmental issues dominate your politics you probably have little to contribute to the war on terror.

    Japan has no reason to believe we would not defend them. They have every reason, just as Europe does, that they have to start paying their fair share.

    Trump is bringing common sense back into government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And this is what they look like now:





    For the most part, they still do much the same things. Chechen nationalists still committed horrible atrocities.
    This is a Dagestani militant islamist Aliaskhab Kebekov.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    This is a Dagestani militant islamist Aliaskhab Kebekov.
    If you want to be pedantic, he's Avar - there's no such thing as an ethnic Dagestani.

    Kebekov was the leader of the Caucasus Emirate group. This grew gradually from the Chechen nationalist armed movement, converted into an pan-Islamist cause by Dokka Umarov, the last leader of the Chechen government-in-exile, in 2007. I admit I erred in assuming that the Caucasus Emirate leaders would still be ethnic Chechens, but the point still stands.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    but the point still stands.
    Not really. All religious confessions, including Christianity and Judaism, revived in Russia after the USSR dissolved. It includes also radicalization. Islam strongly rose in Caucasus and some other parts in Russia, but radicals didn't have and don't have real population support.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    And the failure of the Republican party.

    Look, Trump isn't going to win, Hilary Clinton is.

    You can analyse the "rise of Trump" like you can analyse the "rise of Corbyn".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    And the failure of the Republican party.

    Look, Trump isn't going to win, Hilary Clinton is.

    You can analyse the "rise of Trump" like you can analyse the "rise of Corbyn".
    He won.

    And yes we can.

    Corbyn probably has a good shot too, lol. Not that I like Trump or Corbyn, but being able to see through the media's narrative and gauge what the real public opinion is is something that most liberals/left wing people seem to have so much difficulty in doing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with him in one aspect and that is rendering moderate people's concerns illegitimate pushes them towards whichever avenue will solve the problem to which they are opposed and the failure of any mainstream dialogue has spawned a general push and surge in the numbers of 'far right' and 'alt-right' supporters simply because they classify peoples concerns as important (albeit often alongside totally ridiculous beliefs). The complete shutdown in mainstream media and debate, the pointless and vapid moral signalling from everyone with a platform to do so and the commitment to the breakdown of borders for globalist purposes has left a lot of opposition in its wake and failure to engage has created a rather oxymoronic situation whereby before they blamed the 'hard right' as a boogeyman for nonconformist views and in doing so created the hard right as a significant voting block who are now saying things I cannot possibly agree with, yet these things are being widely supported. It's the same method by which the words 'racist' and 'sexist' have lost their power - so overused that to people hearing them they're immediately dismissed as pointless ad hominems. The left has cashed its political capital for identitarianism and the loss of that currency has surged the right into power as people stop caring about labels and start trying to take action about what matters to them.

    I do not like UKIP, I do not like Trump, I do not like the loon alt-right advisers he now engages with. Their views are ridiculous and short sighted. But their victory was an inevitability in a society where the legitimate concerns of the everyday person is mocked and derided. Clinton's entire platform was 'I'm a woman and I'm not Trump' which thankfully was insufficient as she tried to cash the aforementioned capital too late. Similarly only uni educated people seem to believe in Corbyn. The vast majority see him as a head in the clouds madman and are impressed labour managed to find someone less electable than ed milliband (I mean Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, come on labour at least try to pretend (a) you represent the interest of the working class: and (b) you have a leader somewhere that isn't either useless or mad). All in all this fall from grace for institutions like the EU, with Le Pen chomping at the bit to get French independence and with large right wing risings in Germany and Italy to name but a couple, is an obvious consequence. On balance I'm pro-EU but it simply cannot exist in its current state. As a supreme legal authority that essentially is only bound to the treaties and passes down judgments like 'the definition of worker includes those looking for work' and that 'it is immaterial if people intentionally played the rules [to gain access to EU benefits]' what did people expect the outcome to be? Especially when it leans on countries (its vindictiveness towards the UK is well documented) and keeps making decisions against the will of the people of the union without consultation or debate with said people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I agree with him in one aspect and that is rendering moderate people's concerns illegitimate pushes them towards whichever avenue will solve the problem to which they are opposed and the failure of any mainstream dialogue has spawned a general push and surge in the numbers of 'far right' and 'alt-right' supporters simply because they classify peoples concerns as important (albeit often alongside totally ridiculous beliefs). The complete shutdown in mainstream media and debate, the pointless and vapid moral signalling from everyone with a platform to do so and the commitment to the breakdown of borders for globalist purposes has left a lot of opposition in its wake and failure to engage has created a rather oxymoronic situation whereby before they blamed the 'hard right' as a boogeyman for nonconformist views and in doing so created the hard right as a significant voting block who are now saying things I cannot possibly agree with, yet these things are being widely supported. It's the same method by which the words 'racist' and 'sexist' have lost their power - so overused that to people hearing them they're immediately dismissed as pointless ad hominems. The left has cashed its political capital for identitarianism and the loss of that currency has surged the right into power as people stop caring about labels and start trying to take action about what matters to them.

    I do not like UKIP, I do not like Trump, I do not like the loon alt-right advisers he now engages with. Their views are ridiculous and short sighted. But their victory was an inevitability in a society where the legitimate concerns of the everyday person is mocked and derided. Clinton's entire platform was 'I'm a woman and I'm not Trump' which thankfully was insufficient as she tried to cash the aforementioned capital too late. Similarly only uni educated people seem to believe in Corbyn. The vast majority see him as a head in the clouds madman and are impressed labour managed to find someone less electable than ed milliband (I mean Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, come on labour at least try to pretend (a) you represent the interest of the working class: and (b) you have a leader somewhere that isn't either useless or mad). All in all this fall from grace for institutions like the EU, with Le Pen chomping at the bit to get French independence and with large right wing risings in Germany and Italy to name but a couple, is an obvious consequence. On balance I'm pro-EU but it simply cannot exist in its current state. As a supreme legal authority that essentially is only bound to the treaties and passes down judgments like 'the definition of worker includes those looking for work' and that 'it is immaterial if people intentionally played the rules [to gain access to EU benefits]' what did people expect the outcome to be? Especially when it leans on countries (its vindictiveness towards the UK is well documented) and keeps making decisions against the will of the people of the union without consultation or debate with said people.
    Similar happened in Brexit. Obama coming to the UK and basically saying we've got to vote remain or we'll be back of the queue for anything associated with the US completely backfired. Clinton getting all these celebrities to tell people to vote for Trump (like their opinion somehow matters) just because a celebrity is going to. Pretty sure most people thought "nah, f*** off mate", which explains the low turnout for younger people. For both Brexit/US Election, a lot of people saw through it all and it all backfired.

    It's a shame that the independents and alternatives are the only ones saying what needs to be said (can there not be a genuine middle-ground party?) because, like you said, these movements/groups/parties come with a territory, a lot of other bad stuff...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    And the failure of the Republican party.

    Look, Trump isn't going to win, Hilary Clinton is.

    You can analyse the "rise of Trump" like you can analyse the "rise of Corbyn".
    Trump won. LOL.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am a liberal and I agree with everything said in the OP, although the rise of Trump, or more accurately, the fact that he actually won the presidency was the result of 'the establishment's' failure to tackle economic problems, which is why the swing states voted for him. Sure, there is a big amount of people who support Trump because they like that he names Islamic terrorism for what it is, but I wouldn't say it's the #1 reason why he is successful. He would've still won without the Islamic issue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aladdinsaaane)
    I am a liberal and I agree with everything said in the OP, although the rise of Trump, or more accurately, the fact that he actually won the presidency was the result of 'the establishment's' failure to tackle economic problems, which is why the swing states voted for him. Sure, there is a big amount of people who support Trump because they like that he names Islamic terrorism for what it is, but I wouldn't say it's the #1 reason why he is successful. He would've still won without the Islamic issue.
    So in fact the OP wasn't right. Clinton (Bill not Hillary) was right. "It's the economy, stupid". It virtually always is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    So in fact the OP wasn't right. Clinton (Bill not Hillary) was right. "It's the economy, stupid". It virtually always is.
    OP was right in the sense that a lot of people are tired about politicial correctness and fact denial, his rise to fame, but yes, it is always a ****ed up economy that leads to far-right / radical parties to gain votes. In times of prosperity, people are happy and happy people are not part of the alt right and so on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TooEasy123)
    Pretty much agree with everything Sam Harris has to say on politics. For those who don't know him, he's a neuroscientist and philosopher, but also speaks out on other things too. He's possibly the most clear/rational/critical thinker I've come across. FTR he doesn't like Trump or Hillary but she is the unfortunate lesser bad one of the two.



    A few quotes...

    "Only Trump has expressed moral clarity on this issue. He said that America must unite the whole civilised world in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Why can't Hillary Clinton or President Obama say that?

    "And if only a right-wing demagogue will speak honestly about it, then we will elect right-wing demagogues in the west, more and more in response to it. And that will be the price of political correctness. That's when this cheque will finally get cashed. That will be the consequence of this persistent failure we see among liberals to speak and think and act with real moral clarity and courage on this issue. The root of this problem is that liberals consistently fail to defend liberal values as universal human values. Their political correctness, their multi-culturalism, their moral relativism, has led them rush to the defence of theocrats and to abandon the victims of theocracy, and to vilify anyone who calls out this hypocrisy for what it is as a bigot. And this transformation of our country is unfolding with each news cycle. The words we use matter here, because in place of conceptual clarity and moral courage, what we're getting from the left is just sanctimony and charges of bigotry against people who are not bigots, who are anything but bigots. And here I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about the millions of people who may yet be tempted to vote for him, because their common sense is being demonised and defied at every turn on this issue. And this leaves everyone who is appropriately worried about Jihadism and stealth theocracy - in a way which our freedom of speech is already being abridged by the quote religious sensitivity of a religious community, the world over - it leaves these people with nowhere to turn but the right, toward their own bullies, and even theocrats. This is happening across Europe, and it is happening in the US. And Trump's candidacy is a clear expression of this."

    "This is the problem. Because liberals have seeded this ground based on political correctness, and based on this sinister meme of Islamophobia that just shuts down any conversation on this topic (and has been consciousness engineered to do so, by the way), the only people left to make sense are increasingly bigots and xenophobes, and people you generally would worry about having an alliance with. So the people who make similar noises to the ones I'm making now about Islam are people who are making those noises for the wrong reasons. These are people who are not especially worried about the maintenance of civil society and free speech and the rights of women. These are people who, in some cases, are theocrats (of the Christian sort), or like there are fascists in Europe who just hate the idea of immigrants coming into their countries at all. So, this abdication of intellectual honesty among liberals has left right-wing nut-jobs as the only people left to make sense on this topic."

    Other video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5dDfX30Zw
    seems to me that the rise of trump can only be blamed on the lies he told to the american public, if you dont alow the public there perseption its not democratic is it? isnt this just psychological gasslighting of a sociopath and nothing to do with opinions? love to know what you think
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I agree with him in one aspect and that is rendering moderate people's concerns illegitimate pushes them towards whichever avenue will solve the problem to which they are opposed and the failure of any mainstream dialogue has spawned a general push and surge in the numbers of 'far right' and 'alt-right' supporters simply because they classify peoples concerns as important (albeit often alongside totally ridiculous beliefs). The complete shutdown in mainstream media and debate, the pointless and vapid moral signalling from everyone with a platform to do so and the commitment to the breakdown of borders for globalist purposes has left a lot of opposition in its wake and failure to engage has created a rather oxymoronic situation whereby before they blamed the 'hard right' as a boogeyman for nonconformist views and in doing so created the hard right as a significant voting block who are now saying things I cannot possibly agree with, yet these things are being widely supported. It's the same method by which the words 'racist' and 'sexist' have lost their power - so overused that to people hearing them they're immediately dismissed as pointless ad hominems. The left has cashed its political capital for identitarianism and the loss of that currency has surged the right into power as people stop caring about labels and start trying to take action about what matters to them.

    I do not like UKIP, I do not like Trump, I do not like the loon alt-right advisers he now engages with. Their views are ridiculous and short sighted. But their victory was an inevitability in a society where the legitimate concerns of the everyday person is mocked and derided. Clinton's entire platform was 'I'm a woman and I'm not Trump' which thankfully was insufficient as she tried to cash the aforementioned capital too late. Similarly only uni educated people seem to believe in Corbyn. The vast majority see him as a head in the clouds madman and are impressed labour managed to find someone less electable than ed milliband (I mean Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, come on labour at least try to pretend (a) you represent the interest of the working class: and (b) you have a leader somewhere that isn't either useless or mad). All in all this fall from grace for institutions like the EU, with Le Pen chomping at the bit to get French independence and with large right wing risings in Germany and Italy to name but a couple, is an obvious consequence. On balance I'm pro-EU but it simply cannot exist in its current state. As a supreme legal authority that essentially is only bound to the treaties and passes down judgments like 'the definition of worker includes those looking for work' and that 'it is immaterial if people intentionally played the rules [to gain access to EU benefits]' what did people expect the outcome to be? Especially when it leans on countries (its vindictiveness towards the UK is well documented) and keeps making decisions against the will of the people of the union without consultation or debate with said people.
    Truer words have never been spoken.

 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 3, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.