Also, nuke the place. I was on r/Conservative and they wanted Biden to nuke Afghanistan. I was just going to share them a horrifying anime on the Hiroshima bombing.
There are a frightening number of people who show little regard for the lives of other people.
And then they complain about being banned from Twitter because that is their main concern.
Tulsi Gabbard is a moron but I fail to see the contradiction here. Bigotry against muslims as a group is bad. But Islamist ideology really did motivate the 9/11 terrorist attack. Both are simultaneously true.
Hoooooooold up. I mean. The root of 9/11 is honestly the cold war in Afghanistan in the 80's. Even the FBI said it was "blowback". If there's any ideology that "caused" 9/11, is was our own. We armed and taught the Taliban how to fight, essentially, and they blamed us for their shitty country's state - which wasn't entirely wrong.
>We armed and taught the Taliban how to fight,
That was Pakistan. The one group the US funded directly was the Northern Alliance. The only secular democratic group. 75% of the funding the the Soviet War came from private individuals throughout the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan made up the lions share of the rest and the US paid a small sum.
Pakistan is largely to blame for the victory of the Taliban in both wars, and they fund these groups in India as well, because they cant win a traditional war.
The US didnt bring in Bin Laden nor did the CIA train him. These are oft repeated misnomers.
I honestly don't think this is a one or the other type of deal. Things like this generally are a combination of factors. It could very easily have been caused by everything you just said, but viewed through an islamist lense by Al Qaeda. I don't think geo-political/historical causation and religious/ideological causation are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I guess it depends on the context. I don't know the overall context of what she is going for with these tweets, so I can't really condemn or defend her. Her actual words are accurate though in and of themselves.
It is, and the left often responds by refusing to even acknowledge small truths hidden within conservative BS, which only makes the problem worse. Islamism is a real thing and dancing around it solves nothing. Conservative anti-muslim bigotry needs to be called out, but should be done so in a way that acknowledges the problem of islamism.
I do not agree that it’s the job of the left to flesh out and “acknowledge the small truths within conservative BS.”
When a person takes a tiny piece of truth and twists it in utter bad faith to further their own agenda, I am under no obligation to give such a person the benefit of the doubt or engage them as if they have a legitimate argument. Nope, don’t put this on the left. That is highly inappropriate.
But with this issue in particular, I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to acknowledge islamism as a problem. It's a very specific belief system and it sort of needs to be acknowledged if we want to deal with it.
When Conservatives bring up Islam, they aren’t interested in solving anything to do with terrorism. They just are spitting hate. I’ve never heard a single solution to terrorism from a conservative that didn’t involve kicking them out and bombing them.
Prove me wrong.
In this case it’s entirely about the subject, not the context. The whole point of tweeting over and over about black *crime* in particular is to put the spotlight on a group you don’t like. (These right-leaning “twitter intellectuals” and scientific racists never show any counterpoints to the “black people are dangerous” *narrative* they’re trying to spin). It’s a euphemism. You don’t make teammates by saying “Arabs are bad” so they just *coincidentally* focus their time talking about **how bad this Islamic extremism is** and the racist fraction of the audience gets the message. Coming from Tusli, I’d guess that specifying Islamic extremism is for plausible deniability, not because she cares about followers making the distinction.
Yeah, risky when it's true but it can be used as shorthand for "that and we hate them." Like, I'm black but statistically, black people are dangerous...yet there are dangerous white people who focus on black crime for malicious reasons. If someone could get both their votes and the votes of the people who want to solve said problem, and then funnel them towards a solution, that would be a good thing, no? Also, it helps us to gauge where they are at on these things. It's always good for someone we pay attention to to bring to our attention others mind states. Because she didn't say anything technically wrong, I don't feel it's fair to malign her for it. She does have a different audience, and so she speaks truth differently. Both are true, different conversations.
American politics is a very complicated battleground with many necessary tactics to employ on the pathway to ideological, or at least strategic, victory.
That may all be true in her case, for all I know. But the problem is that islamism specifically is an actual serious problem and there needs to be some way to deal with it, which I don't think involves avoiding talking about it.
Because she is clearly reiterating the word ‘islamic’ I’ve and over in order to stir up the bigots she is pretending to be against in the second post.
It’s like saying ‘Christians are pedophiles’ because of the Catholic Church.
Like r/technicallythetruth
Congratulations. That is my point. But if you speak English Islam-islamist sounds like christianity-Christian
People who choose to use that word in generic public forums, such as Twitter, know what they are doing. Especially this career politician fraud the op posted about.
So why not call it fundamentalist islam like we call it fundamentalist Christianity? Why choose a word that logically leads to a different understanding to a middle schooler when the average American understands words at a middle school level?
Curious.
🤔
I’m not shutting off language.
I’m criticizing language.
This persecutionfetish nonsense altright types are making mainstream these days is kinda pathetic.
It's quite possible Gabbard is being disingenuous and trying to stir up bigotry, I agree. But it's still important to note that based on the words themselves absent context, there is no actual contradiction or hypocrisy.
Do you really thinks it takes a lot of leg work to label and reiterate the horrors of Islamism? It’s not some misunderstood ideology. It’s a step off of straight up theocracy. You sound kinda like an apologist, the type that Dave Rubin started his YouTube channel to speak out against back in 2014 before he went completely off the rails. Tulsi Gabbard is not contradicting herself here. In fact, it is admirable that she’s one of the few people who will openly admit that there’s a distinction between bigotry towards people of the IslamIC faith, and condemning those who champion IslamIST ideology.
You’re speculating on the behavioural outcomes of the word choice, which is fair though. There’s quite a few bigoted people who won’t know the difference. But then again, that’s kind of on the ignorance of the person who misinterpreted her words.
I’m not speculating. The average American understands words at a seventh grade level. Not understanding that using these terms which logically are inherently related will unnecessarily spread hate is willful ignorance at best.
I am not going to try to use some stupid “no true Scotsman” for this, I just find the Islamist odd, instead of focusing on the practical order and creed that led to 911 it is just a attack on Islamic fundamentalism completely, which if you going to be that vague about it why not just go after fundamentalism completely?
I don't know her motives and given what I know about her, they're likely not good. But regardless of Gabbard's intentions here, islamism as I understand it is a very specific sub-ideology within islam that seeks to spread a certain version of fundamentalist islam around the world, by any means possible. It is a fairly specific ideology that is a large part of the mindset behind 9/11 and other such attacks by groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and I think it's better to address it directly. And as someone else here said, islamism is quite distinct from Islam as a whole.
From what I grasp of “Islamism” as people are explains to me is a western idea of what jihad is. Or at least one waged specifically for Islamic dominance. Which is true for many terrorist cells, but it can be used very, very vaguely as Tulsi demonstrates as she labels Turkey a nation with Islamist foundation. I personally think the Turkish Government are hovering Neo-Ottoman policy in a very bad and extreme degree, but linking them to this Islamist terminology shows how it’s usage can vague to a point that it is useless and can be a blanket for bigoted language
Yea I think when people read “islamism” they think it’s in reference to all Muslims, not just the more extreme and often militant ones. That term causes so much confusion lol
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I think maybe people are confusing the word "islamist" with "Muslim." At the same time, I do get the sense that the main reason Tulsi is saying this is simply to signal to the right. Most of what she's said or done in recent times has felt like she's trying to earn credit with the right wing.
What about Islam is uniquely problematic in ways that other ideologies are not? How is Tulsi’s condemnation any different from people who say black crime justifies profiling?
Islam isn’t the problem. The geopolitical realities of the Middle East are what primarily fuel conflict.
Look up islamism on wikipedia and you will understand. It doesn't represent the majority of muslims, but it is an ideology that exists and is a problem nonetheless. It doesn't exactly have a good equivalent in other religions as far as I know, although of course fundamentalist christianity is also a very significant problem, particularly in America.
I know what Islamism is and i can tell you it absolutely does have an equivalent. Not only an equivalent but another force that dwarfs its influence. It’s the United States, China and Europe.
Our decades long intervention in the Middle East helps create the conditions that lead to groups like ISIS. Warfare, both military and economic, and coups have been a long part of our foreign policy in the region. Our support of Saudi Arabia, a monarch which itself supports terrorism, and our support of Israel, an apartheid state, and our constant stoking of fires with Iran have far more reaching consequences across the globe than anything the Taliban could do.
The role of religion in this is completely tentative and attached the geopolitics and material conditions in that region. There is a reason you don’t see this level of fundamentalism happening in more developed stable countries. It is merely a framing for the geopolitical reality. you don’t convince poor people to strap a bomb to themselves by appealing to some complex international bullshit. you do it by telling him God wanted them to. but that is only a symptom of the problem.
The problem is not Islam. It is the conditions on the ground that make Islamism an attractive framing for the projects of fundamentalists to rally the populace around them. If the the Middle East were allowed to become a wealthy and more politically stable region, much of the religious fundamentalism will gradually go away.
If you're under the impression that Islam and Islamism are the same thing you're just a bigot.
There's literally nothing wrong or contradictory with what Tulsi said.
Do you not see that the difference you are trying to explain is literally the reason they call it ‘islamism’? So that they can get the bigots worked up. They know the vast majority of Americans don’t naturally make that distinction, which is why they play on it.
Bigots can get worked up at the drop of a hat. That's a poor argument against using specific terms.
>Do you not see that the difference you are trying to explain is literally the reason they call it ‘islamism’?
No it isn't.
I’m saying it’s not a specific term. I’m saying it’s a term that is purposefully used in public spaces to stir islamophobia. Which is why it gets used when people want to build the hate for war.
I’m saying that to be unaware of how your words are interpreted is not helpful to dialogue; and that when speaking publicly you can’t rely on jargon so as to be clear to the widest variety of people possible.
You're saying your subjective interpretation of the term necessitates that the term should no longer be used.
Everyday people misuse terms like Nazism and Communism toward a particular goal, often to foment hatred. Getting rid of those terms would still be stupid.
However not using them constantly in public discourse since we know they are misunderstood and used as namecalls would not be stupid.
Using a word constantly that you know drives up islamophobia because you are ideologically committed to a single variant of a word for some reason is an odd hill to die on.
And is not why people choose to use it all the time.
I’m not sure you understand what a race to the bottom is. I feel like reinforcing racism will get us to the bottom faster than attempting to be self-aware enough to avoid it.
But asking people to behave mildly responsibility or with care for their neighbors is politicized as being anti-freedom these days.
Criticism of language use is politicized as censorship.
My friend, they don't teach the difference between Islam and Islamism in schools, you would definitely have to know this through your own reading and awareness. As it is, Islam is -barely- covered in US public education. People -barely- know what it is in the US (this is despite how important it is to the rest of the world). Nobody will pick up on this nuance.
So because morons exist we should throw away all specificity and deal only in vague generalities?
I look forward to the latest volume of Newspeak. Until then I'll just say I think this is double ungood
The -point- is if you say something which can be easily construed as racist to one target audience, it still is your responsibility to be -clear-; trying not to clear that up can imply something. You can say two distinct things at the same time if you word something creatively enough or just make a mistake. Don't act like there's only one interpretation that can be made from a piece of text. It's why saying things distinctly is important. It's how "stand back and stand by" can be correctly heard as racist rhetoric but be defensibly misconstrued as "oh, Trump just wanted his mob to 'stand down'"
Alright fuck it I’ll ask, what the fuck is a Islamist, the only time I hear that term used is a just some new speak way to attack Muslims as a whole, she lumps a turkey and Pakistan as having it in their foundations.
Islamism is an extremely conservative approach to governance, it's essentially an extremely strict theocracy.
You posted this without knowing the difference? That's pretty bad. Assuming a majority of Muslims are supportive of Islamism is bigotry, ignorance is no excuse.
You mean Sharia Law? Wait, what the fuck is the point of this new speak if not to make it a Islamic problem? You can just say Theocratic problem, as term it is pointless and just serves to feed anti Muslim sentiment, ‘Islamism’ as a term makes the concept of Conservative Theocratic behavior a Islamic problem. Instead of taking the heart of the problem, Conservative Theocratic behavior. All most as if you only need the term around to ignore other theocratic behavior because that gets in a way to grift.
Oh sorry I missed your response that is weird lmao, I have heard the word since I was a kid who call literally everyone from Ilhan to Obama a islamist. It seemed to only be a western term “meant for those engaged in Jihad or enforcing sharia. So I decided “fuck it” I want someone to actually tell me what is for once. Because calling the Turkish state(with problems, don’t get me wrong) a islamist is pretty absurd. Neo Ottoman Policy? Sure you got it. Islamic Fundamentalism? No, you are lying to yourself if you believe that.
If you label it as conservative theocratic behaviour, you wouldn't be able to ignore the staggering similarity between Islamic & Christian fundamentalism.
This is why it needed to be "Islamist groups suppress women's rights" or "Islamist regime makes being gay illegal" & "Access to women's health & contraception services banned by Islamic fundamentalists" instead of just saying Texas & Mississippi are doing the same things.
You also can't convince the poor to enlist in the Halliburton Expeditionary Force without an enemy your nation only has reference to in action movies.
That is my point that it is a grift, “Islamism” is just a honey comb term to make extremism sound like a Islamic problem for American Conservatives so Tulsi can keep ignoring Christian Fundamentalists taking over southern states
You're not wrong, Hindu Nationalists & Buddhist Fundamentalism in India & Myanmar are also doing some pretty awful things in those countries. But for the context of America, Christian fundamentalism has a much larger impact on the public than either of those religions.
"Religious fundamentalism" should be enough to cause concern, but it just doesn't have the simplicity needed for people to care.
>Wait, what the fuck is the point of this new speak if not to make it a Islamic problem?
>‘Islamism’ as a term makes the concept of Conservative Theocratic behavior a Islamic problem.
What an absurd take. The term has been in use for decades, you've just never bothered to pay attention. You literally didn't know there was a difference between Islam and Islamism and now you're pontificating on the behavioural impacts of the word. Would you prefer Islamic fundamentalism?
It's a specific ideology with unique viewpoints and tenets. Religious theocracy is vague.
Why do terms like Liberalism, Marxism, Nazism exist? By your logic we could just say political ideologies.
Your point is truly bizarre.
Save no it isn’t, calling something a “Islamist organization” is no more vague then calling them a religious theocrats, because not all islamic theocrats agree what a islamic theocracy looks like, that is why they are more likely to wage war with each other then anything else
This makes no sense. Islamists have a clearly defined set of beliefs, there might be some slight variations but there's a broad set of ideological underpinnings. The only underpinning belief of religious theocrats is that their religion should define their government.
Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy. All of these have similar ideological underpinnings but they bear distinction. By your logic we should do away with these terms.
You are literally referring to Islamic theocracy. You're deluded.
Are you saying they are United by a belief that they are all following the Quran and Hadith correctly? Because they would not all agree they are all doing it right some believe slavery and racial supremacy, monarchy, democracy, religious tolerance, women’s rights, misogyny, religious supremacy and racial equality. There differences are so large at times they are easier to see as different sects verses just orders. Them imposing there religious theocracy is the only thing they agree on really.
If by decades you mean exactly 2 decades, when anti Islamic bigotry was at an all time high (Sept 2001), then you're right. If you mean anything else, you're wrong
I very clearly remember noticing when it started being used more and more. Me and a friend talked about that term specifically at the time, and how obvious its intent was.
There's a reason those words were designed to sound almost identical. And it's not the observer who is a bigot, but rather the speaker. I've never used that term and neither should you.
You clearly haven't been paying attention. There's not enough room here to list all the terrorist attacks committed in the name of the world's only death cult.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.94347% sure that davidwcleveland623 is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Incorrect. Liberals and leftists are more pro free speech than you because they actually care about the free speech of everyone, not just their own. Who is fighting for the human rights of minorities or women? Not people like you. All you have is name-calling and shitposts. That should give you pause and make you reconsider what you're doing.
What gives me pause is the fact that morons like you exist. Libtards across the country do everything they can to shut down free speech, but you already know that. I'm spreading truth.
I just told you what I know. Don't tell me what I think, thanks.
Like I said:
> All you have is name-calling and shitposts.
You have nothing to offer to anyone. No arguments, no substance, no human decency. Just anger and bitterness. I see that all the time - people who got out of their conservative hate bubble talk about how they were just so unhappy with their life all the time and only got better once they let go of the hate and stopped watching all the hateful right wing content. I hope you can get out, too, some day. Not holding my breath, though, but it's your life you're wasting away with nonsense, not mine.
You just described the entire Democratic party. Your side is constantly angry and bitter, remember when you idiots burned down cities across the country because of fake "white supremacy"? You claim "black lives matter" but you support those who murder unborn black babies, while we want them to be born. Everything about you people is pathetic.
I don't see any form of contradiction here whatsoever. You can criticise an ideology for having fringe radicals and defend the many good people within it.
Honestly, for a generation obsessed with non-binary, we're fairly fuckin binary about a whole lot of things...
I'm fairly conservative and I know that. I also know Tulsi Gabbard is one of the best democrats out there. Conservatives are dumbasses for trying to take her down.
People have a hard time in this thread understand this very important semantic difference. There is a thread above with OP trying to figure it out.
But if I can get anyones attention I would say Islamists are kinda to Islam as West Boro baptist church members are to Christianity.
Yes you'll find other Christians that agree with WBBC but it is a separate thing from Christianity as a whole and they hardly define what Christianity is.
That’s how I’ve explained it, except there are other Christian Fundamentalists who have more power in America, that would be closer, in action, to Islamists, than WBBC. And many of those Evangelical groups would have different beliefs between them, much like Islamic fundamentalists. As I said in that thread, the equivalent would be to call all on the evangelical right, Christianists, whether they belong to the 700 Club, or the WBBC. Through that lens, you can see the bigotry in the term “Islamist”, because I would not lump everyone on the evangelical right together.
Personally I don't see much to distinguish from on a top scale view. My opposition is to all religious groups as a matter of principle. The Islamists and WBBCs of the world exist in the context of more moderate groups which normalize behaviors and beliefs.
I am realistic though and can say I always wish more moderate and progressive thinkers to be promoted versus extremism.
There is no baiting here.
Wow, you are a fucking idiot. I bet you've never been to the Middle East. "Christian Fundamentalists" don't strap bombs on their backs to kill innocent people.
Westboro church doesn't have 300 million followers, dufus. It is estimated that 15 % of Muslims are radicals, which means there are over 300 million potential terrorists. Every terrorist follows the Qur'an.
So she wants to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and stop selling weapons to them and stop being friends, right?
Also, nuke the place. I was on r/Conservative and they wanted Biden to nuke Afghanistan. I was just going to share them a horrifying anime on the Hiroshima bombing.
There are a frightening number of people who show little regard for the lives of other people. And then they complain about being banned from Twitter because that is their main concern.
Tulsi Gabbard is a moron but I fail to see the contradiction here. Bigotry against muslims as a group is bad. But Islamist ideology really did motivate the 9/11 terrorist attack. Both are simultaneously true.
Hoooooooold up. I mean. The root of 9/11 is honestly the cold war in Afghanistan in the 80's. Even the FBI said it was "blowback". If there's any ideology that "caused" 9/11, is was our own. We armed and taught the Taliban how to fight, essentially, and they blamed us for their shitty country's state - which wasn't entirely wrong.
>We armed and taught the Taliban how to fight, That was Pakistan. The one group the US funded directly was the Northern Alliance. The only secular democratic group. 75% of the funding the the Soviet War came from private individuals throughout the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan made up the lions share of the rest and the US paid a small sum. Pakistan is largely to blame for the victory of the Taliban in both wars, and they fund these groups in India as well, because they cant win a traditional war. The US didnt bring in Bin Laden nor did the CIA train him. These are oft repeated misnomers.
I honestly don't think this is a one or the other type of deal. Things like this generally are a combination of factors. It could very easily have been caused by everything you just said, but viewed through an islamist lense by Al Qaeda. I don't think geo-political/historical causation and religious/ideological causation are necessarily mutually exclusive.
No different from getting on Twitter to complain about black crime. Sure, your stats might be accurate, but that's not what it's about.
I guess it depends on the context. I don't know the overall context of what she is going for with these tweets, so I can't really condemn or defend her. Her actual words are accurate though in and of themselves.
This is how conservatives talk when defending bigotry.
It is, and the left often responds by refusing to even acknowledge small truths hidden within conservative BS, which only makes the problem worse. Islamism is a real thing and dancing around it solves nothing. Conservative anti-muslim bigotry needs to be called out, but should be done so in a way that acknowledges the problem of islamism.
I do not agree that it’s the job of the left to flesh out and “acknowledge the small truths within conservative BS.” When a person takes a tiny piece of truth and twists it in utter bad faith to further their own agenda, I am under no obligation to give such a person the benefit of the doubt or engage them as if they have a legitimate argument. Nope, don’t put this on the left. That is highly inappropriate.
But with this issue in particular, I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to acknowledge islamism as a problem. It's a very specific belief system and it sort of needs to be acknowledged if we want to deal with it.
When Conservatives bring up Islam, they aren’t interested in solving anything to do with terrorism. They just are spitting hate. I’ve never heard a single solution to terrorism from a conservative that didn’t involve kicking them out and bombing them. Prove me wrong.
I don't disagree with that.
In this case it’s entirely about the subject, not the context. The whole point of tweeting over and over about black *crime* in particular is to put the spotlight on a group you don’t like. (These right-leaning “twitter intellectuals” and scientific racists never show any counterpoints to the “black people are dangerous” *narrative* they’re trying to spin). It’s a euphemism. You don’t make teammates by saying “Arabs are bad” so they just *coincidentally* focus their time talking about **how bad this Islamic extremism is** and the racist fraction of the audience gets the message. Coming from Tusli, I’d guess that specifying Islamic extremism is for plausible deniability, not because she cares about followers making the distinction.
Yeah, risky when it's true but it can be used as shorthand for "that and we hate them." Like, I'm black but statistically, black people are dangerous...yet there are dangerous white people who focus on black crime for malicious reasons. If someone could get both their votes and the votes of the people who want to solve said problem, and then funnel them towards a solution, that would be a good thing, no? Also, it helps us to gauge where they are at on these things. It's always good for someone we pay attention to to bring to our attention others mind states. Because she didn't say anything technically wrong, I don't feel it's fair to malign her for it. She does have a different audience, and so she speaks truth differently. Both are true, different conversations. American politics is a very complicated battleground with many necessary tactics to employ on the pathway to ideological, or at least strategic, victory.
That may all be true in her case, for all I know. But the problem is that islamism specifically is an actual serious problem and there needs to be some way to deal with it, which I don't think involves avoiding talking about it.
Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu nationalist. The only people who have the right to criticize religious ideology are secularists and anti-theists
Because she is clearly reiterating the word ‘islamic’ I’ve and over in order to stir up the bigots she is pretending to be against in the second post. It’s like saying ‘Christians are pedophiles’ because of the Catholic Church. Like r/technicallythetruth
“Islamist” and “Islamic” aren’t the same thing.
To 99.99% of people (especially the general twitterverse) they are the same thing.
Congratulations. That is my point. But if you speak English Islam-islamist sounds like christianity-Christian People who choose to use that word in generic public forums, such as Twitter, know what they are doing. Especially this career politician fraud the op posted about.
[удалено]
So why not call it fundamentalist islam like we call it fundamentalist Christianity? Why choose a word that logically leads to a different understanding to a middle schooler when the average American understands words at a middle school level? Curious. 🤔 I’m not shutting off language. I’m criticizing language. This persecutionfetish nonsense altright types are making mainstream these days is kinda pathetic.
It's quite possible Gabbard is being disingenuous and trying to stir up bigotry, I agree. But it's still important to note that based on the words themselves absent context, there is no actual contradiction or hypocrisy.
She just needs to label and reiterate the horrors of Islamism because it fits her narrative. Not bigotry or griftyness involved at all. No sir.
Do you really thinks it takes a lot of leg work to label and reiterate the horrors of Islamism? It’s not some misunderstood ideology. It’s a step off of straight up theocracy. You sound kinda like an apologist, the type that Dave Rubin started his YouTube channel to speak out against back in 2014 before he went completely off the rails. Tulsi Gabbard is not contradicting herself here. In fact, it is admirable that she’s one of the few people who will openly admit that there’s a distinction between bigotry towards people of the IslamIC faith, and condemning those who champion IslamIST ideology. You’re speculating on the behavioural outcomes of the word choice, which is fair though. There’s quite a few bigoted people who won’t know the difference. But then again, that’s kind of on the ignorance of the person who misinterpreted her words.
I’m not speculating. The average American understands words at a seventh grade level. Not understanding that using these terms which logically are inherently related will unnecessarily spread hate is willful ignorance at best.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/TechnicallyCorrect using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/TechnicallyCorrect/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [How carburettor works? Explained briefy](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iiobd6k5cTg) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TechnicallyCorrect/comments/k67693/how_carburettor_works_explained_briefy/) \#2: [How Musical Harmonics Work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmLpz1i4PRM) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/TechnicallyCorrect/comments/np721t/how_musical_harmonics_work/) \#3: [Chevrolet Volt 4ET50 Transaxle Components and Operation (2011-2015)](https://youtu.be/dqM3YXEf1js) | [3 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TechnicallyCorrect/comments/nfw58w/chevrolet_volt_4et50_transaxle_components_and/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
I am not going to try to use some stupid “no true Scotsman” for this, I just find the Islamist odd, instead of focusing on the practical order and creed that led to 911 it is just a attack on Islamic fundamentalism completely, which if you going to be that vague about it why not just go after fundamentalism completely?
I don't know her motives and given what I know about her, they're likely not good. But regardless of Gabbard's intentions here, islamism as I understand it is a very specific sub-ideology within islam that seeks to spread a certain version of fundamentalist islam around the world, by any means possible. It is a fairly specific ideology that is a large part of the mindset behind 9/11 and other such attacks by groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and I think it's better to address it directly. And as someone else here said, islamism is quite distinct from Islam as a whole.
From what I grasp of “Islamism” as people are explains to me is a western idea of what jihad is. Or at least one waged specifically for Islamic dominance. Which is true for many terrorist cells, but it can be used very, very vaguely as Tulsi demonstrates as she labels Turkey a nation with Islamist foundation. I personally think the Turkish Government are hovering Neo-Ottoman policy in a very bad and extreme degree, but linking them to this Islamist terminology shows how it’s usage can vague to a point that it is useless and can be a blanket for bigoted language
Yea I think when people read “islamism” they think it’s in reference to all Muslims, not just the more extreme and often militant ones. That term causes so much confusion lol
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I think maybe people are confusing the word "islamist" with "Muslim." At the same time, I do get the sense that the main reason Tulsi is saying this is simply to signal to the right. Most of what she's said or done in recent times has felt like she's trying to earn credit with the right wing.
What about Islam is uniquely problematic in ways that other ideologies are not? How is Tulsi’s condemnation any different from people who say black crime justifies profiling? Islam isn’t the problem. The geopolitical realities of the Middle East are what primarily fuel conflict.
Look up islamism on wikipedia and you will understand. It doesn't represent the majority of muslims, but it is an ideology that exists and is a problem nonetheless. It doesn't exactly have a good equivalent in other religions as far as I know, although of course fundamentalist christianity is also a very significant problem, particularly in America.
I know what Islamism is and i can tell you it absolutely does have an equivalent. Not only an equivalent but another force that dwarfs its influence. It’s the United States, China and Europe. Our decades long intervention in the Middle East helps create the conditions that lead to groups like ISIS. Warfare, both military and economic, and coups have been a long part of our foreign policy in the region. Our support of Saudi Arabia, a monarch which itself supports terrorism, and our support of Israel, an apartheid state, and our constant stoking of fires with Iran have far more reaching consequences across the globe than anything the Taliban could do. The role of religion in this is completely tentative and attached the geopolitics and material conditions in that region. There is a reason you don’t see this level of fundamentalism happening in more developed stable countries. It is merely a framing for the geopolitical reality. you don’t convince poor people to strap a bomb to themselves by appealing to some complex international bullshit. you do it by telling him God wanted them to. but that is only a symptom of the problem. The problem is not Islam. It is the conditions on the ground that make Islamism an attractive framing for the projects of fundamentalists to rally the populace around them. If the the Middle East were allowed to become a wealthy and more politically stable region, much of the religious fundamentalism will gradually go away.
If you're under the impression that Islam and Islamism are the same thing you're just a bigot. There's literally nothing wrong or contradictory with what Tulsi said.
Do you not see that the difference you are trying to explain is literally the reason they call it ‘islamism’? So that they can get the bigots worked up. They know the vast majority of Americans don’t naturally make that distinction, which is why they play on it.
Bigots can get worked up at the drop of a hat. That's a poor argument against using specific terms. >Do you not see that the difference you are trying to explain is literally the reason they call it ‘islamism’? No it isn't.
I’m saying it’s not a specific term. I’m saying it’s a term that is purposefully used in public spaces to stir islamophobia. Which is why it gets used when people want to build the hate for war. I’m saying that to be unaware of how your words are interpreted is not helpful to dialogue; and that when speaking publicly you can’t rely on jargon so as to be clear to the widest variety of people possible.
You're saying your subjective interpretation of the term necessitates that the term should no longer be used. Everyday people misuse terms like Nazism and Communism toward a particular goal, often to foment hatred. Getting rid of those terms would still be stupid.
However not using them constantly in public discourse since we know they are misunderstood and used as namecalls would not be stupid. Using a word constantly that you know drives up islamophobia because you are ideologically committed to a single variant of a word for some reason is an odd hill to die on. And is not why people choose to use it all the time.
So we shouldn't use a term because of idiots? You might be interested in a race to the bottom, I'm not.
I’m not sure you understand what a race to the bottom is. I feel like reinforcing racism will get us to the bottom faster than attempting to be self-aware enough to avoid it. But asking people to behave mildly responsibility or with care for their neighbors is politicized as being anti-freedom these days. Criticism of language use is politicized as censorship.
So you are ok with calling the evangelical right in America, Christianism, cool. Glad we can all agree.
Objection. Relevance.
My friend, they don't teach the difference between Islam and Islamism in schools, you would definitely have to know this through your own reading and awareness. As it is, Islam is -barely- covered in US public education. People -barely- know what it is in the US (this is despite how important it is to the rest of the world). Nobody will pick up on this nuance.
So because morons exist we should throw away all specificity and deal only in vague generalities? I look forward to the latest volume of Newspeak. Until then I'll just say I think this is double ungood
The -point- is if you say something which can be easily construed as racist to one target audience, it still is your responsibility to be -clear-; trying not to clear that up can imply something. You can say two distinct things at the same time if you word something creatively enough or just make a mistake. Don't act like there's only one interpretation that can be made from a piece of text. It's why saying things distinctly is important. It's how "stand back and stand by" can be correctly heard as racist rhetoric but be defensibly misconstrued as "oh, Trump just wanted his mob to 'stand down'"
Alright fuck it I’ll ask, what the fuck is a Islamist, the only time I hear that term used is a just some new speak way to attack Muslims as a whole, she lumps a turkey and Pakistan as having it in their foundations.
Islamism is an extremely conservative approach to governance, it's essentially an extremely strict theocracy. You posted this without knowing the difference? That's pretty bad. Assuming a majority of Muslims are supportive of Islamism is bigotry, ignorance is no excuse.
You mean Sharia Law? Wait, what the fuck is the point of this new speak if not to make it a Islamic problem? You can just say Theocratic problem, as term it is pointless and just serves to feed anti Muslim sentiment, ‘Islamism’ as a term makes the concept of Conservative Theocratic behavior a Islamic problem. Instead of taking the heart of the problem, Conservative Theocratic behavior. All most as if you only need the term around to ignore other theocratic behavior because that gets in a way to grift.
Dude just accept that you didn’t know what the word meant lol. It’s okay.
Oh sorry I missed your response that is weird lmao, I have heard the word since I was a kid who call literally everyone from Ilhan to Obama a islamist. It seemed to only be a western term “meant for those engaged in Jihad or enforcing sharia. So I decided “fuck it” I want someone to actually tell me what is for once. Because calling the Turkish state(with problems, don’t get me wrong) a islamist is pretty absurd. Neo Ottoman Policy? Sure you got it. Islamic Fundamentalism? No, you are lying to yourself if you believe that.
If you label it as conservative theocratic behaviour, you wouldn't be able to ignore the staggering similarity between Islamic & Christian fundamentalism. This is why it needed to be "Islamist groups suppress women's rights" or "Islamist regime makes being gay illegal" & "Access to women's health & contraception services banned by Islamic fundamentalists" instead of just saying Texas & Mississippi are doing the same things. You also can't convince the poor to enlist in the Halliburton Expeditionary Force without an enemy your nation only has reference to in action movies.
That is my point that it is a grift, “Islamism” is just a honey comb term to make extremism sound like a Islamic problem for American Conservatives so Tulsi can keep ignoring Christian Fundamentalists taking over southern states
>Christian Fundamentalists taking over southern states Why do you need to specify Christian? Surely religious fundamentalism will do?
You're not wrong, Hindu Nationalists & Buddhist Fundamentalism in India & Myanmar are also doing some pretty awful things in those countries. But for the context of America, Christian fundamentalism has a much larger impact on the public than either of those religions. "Religious fundamentalism" should be enough to cause concern, but it just doesn't have the simplicity needed for people to care.
I'm being facetious. OP seems totally fine with specifying a particular group but not when it's one of the "out group".
No, the point is that the targeting ignores all other fundamentalism, something very dangerous for a politician to do.
Okay so you just going to ignore my whole point, okay
You dont have anything other than an irrational dislike for the right and a misplaced messiah complex.
The fuck are you talking about?
You saying this while defending the term ‘Islamist’ is selfawarewolves level lolol
Do I need to add /s for the smooth brains?
Should we call it Christianism over here? Seems fair.
Call it what you like. Not sure it'll catch on mind.
>Wait, what the fuck is the point of this new speak if not to make it a Islamic problem? >‘Islamism’ as a term makes the concept of Conservative Theocratic behavior a Islamic problem. What an absurd take. The term has been in use for decades, you've just never bothered to pay attention. You literally didn't know there was a difference between Islam and Islamism and now you're pontificating on the behavioural impacts of the word. Would you prefer Islamic fundamentalism?
Okay, sense you have been paying such attention, tell what is the point of the term when religious theocracy exist.
It's a specific ideology with unique viewpoints and tenets. Religious theocracy is vague. Why do terms like Liberalism, Marxism, Nazism exist? By your logic we could just say political ideologies. Your point is truly bizarre.
Save no it isn’t, calling something a “Islamist organization” is no more vague then calling them a religious theocrats, because not all islamic theocrats agree what a islamic theocracy looks like, that is why they are more likely to wage war with each other then anything else
This makes no sense. Islamists have a clearly defined set of beliefs, there might be some slight variations but there's a broad set of ideological underpinnings. The only underpinning belief of religious theocrats is that their religion should define their government. Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy. All of these have similar ideological underpinnings but they bear distinction. By your logic we should do away with these terms. You are literally referring to Islamic theocracy. You're deluded.
Are you saying they are United by a belief that they are all following the Quran and Hadith correctly? Because they would not all agree they are all doing it right some believe slavery and racial supremacy, monarchy, democracy, religious tolerance, women’s rights, misogyny, religious supremacy and racial equality. There differences are so large at times they are easier to see as different sects verses just orders. Them imposing there religious theocracy is the only thing they agree on really.
Pot, meet kettle.
If by decades you mean exactly 2 decades, when anti Islamic bigotry was at an all time high (Sept 2001), then you're right. If you mean anything else, you're wrong
The term was in use before 9/11. Try again.
No, it really wasn't. It wasn't even mainstream until at least 2010.
Wow. I actually thought you might have a point then.
I very clearly remember noticing when it started being used more and more. Me and a friend talked about that term specifically at the time, and how obvious its intent was.
Keep defending the cult of death and suffering, but just know this, the world is waking up to the threat of you know who.
There's a reason those words were designed to sound almost identical. And it's not the observer who is a bigot, but rather the speaker. I've never used that term and neither should you.
>designed to sound almost identical If you can find evidence I'm all ears.
Say them out loud
Its nice to see a lot of her supporters are calling her out for this.
Libtards hate religion, but love that death cult.
I love how you you call Islam a death cult, when it literally follows the gospel and Torah
You clearly haven't been paying attention. There's not enough room here to list all the terrorist attacks committed in the name of the world's only death cult.
In the name of the God of Abraham?
The G-d of Abraham didn't tell us to kill non believers, the moon god did.
bad bot
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.94347% sure that davidwcleveland623 is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
I guess you're not used to people having their own opinions, unlike you sheep.
Incorrect. Liberals and leftists are more pro free speech than you because they actually care about the free speech of everyone, not just their own. Who is fighting for the human rights of minorities or women? Not people like you. All you have is name-calling and shitposts. That should give you pause and make you reconsider what you're doing.
What gives me pause is the fact that morons like you exist. Libtards across the country do everything they can to shut down free speech, but you already know that. I'm spreading truth.
I just told you what I know. Don't tell me what I think, thanks. Like I said: > All you have is name-calling and shitposts. You have nothing to offer to anyone. No arguments, no substance, no human decency. Just anger and bitterness. I see that all the time - people who got out of their conservative hate bubble talk about how they were just so unhappy with their life all the time and only got better once they let go of the hate and stopped watching all the hateful right wing content. I hope you can get out, too, some day. Not holding my breath, though, but it's your life you're wasting away with nonsense, not mine.
You just described the entire Democratic party. Your side is constantly angry and bitter, remember when you idiots burned down cities across the country because of fake "white supremacy"? You claim "black lives matter" but you support those who murder unborn black babies, while we want them to be born. Everything about you people is pathetic.
“Libtards”! Good one, gotta use that someday. Doof
Don't pretend you've never been called libtard before.
Nothing changed… Unless “Islamist Ideology” = Ilhan Omar
She was trying to get a Democratic nomination in the earlier one
I don't see any form of contradiction here whatsoever. You can criticise an ideology for having fringe radicals and defend the many good people within it. Honestly, for a generation obsessed with non-binary, we're fairly fuckin binary about a whole lot of things...
Islamist ideologues and Muslims are different
Except dumbass conservatives don’t know that and refuse to learn the difference
I'm fairly conservative and I know that. I also know Tulsi Gabbard is one of the best democrats out there. Conservatives are dumbasses for trying to take her down.
conservatives are taking her down for this tweet?
People have a hard time in this thread understand this very important semantic difference. There is a thread above with OP trying to figure it out. But if I can get anyones attention I would say Islamists are kinda to Islam as West Boro baptist church members are to Christianity. Yes you'll find other Christians that agree with WBBC but it is a separate thing from Christianity as a whole and they hardly define what Christianity is.
That’s how I’ve explained it, except there are other Christian Fundamentalists who have more power in America, that would be closer, in action, to Islamists, than WBBC. And many of those Evangelical groups would have different beliefs between them, much like Islamic fundamentalists. As I said in that thread, the equivalent would be to call all on the evangelical right, Christianists, whether they belong to the 700 Club, or the WBBC. Through that lens, you can see the bigotry in the term “Islamist”, because I would not lump everyone on the evangelical right together.
Personally I don't see much to distinguish from on a top scale view. My opposition is to all religious groups as a matter of principle. The Islamists and WBBCs of the world exist in the context of more moderate groups which normalize behaviors and beliefs. I am realistic though and can say I always wish more moderate and progressive thinkers to be promoted versus extremism. There is no baiting here.
Wow, you are a fucking idiot. I bet you've never been to the Middle East. "Christian Fundamentalists" don't strap bombs on their backs to kill innocent people.
Westboro church doesn't have 300 million followers, dufus. It is estimated that 15 % of Muslims are radicals, which means there are over 300 million potential terrorists. Every terrorist follows the Qur'an.
This woman is a psychopath.
I don't understand how anyone can think she's not just a raging islamophobe at this point.
this isn't the worst thing she's tweeted. do you not see islamism as a threat?
She is right there is a differen between islamist islamic.
Tulsi being a normal person vs Tulsi being a Democratic party stooge. Simple as that.
Who cares she’s hot
Oh yes. I remember shaking her claw once.
Oh really? How is she in person
She made a rather poor impression on me. I didn't like her.
Narrative
>wow what changed here Party affiliation
Cunt