News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by monster

As you said, the majority has the freedom in their practices. So any personal practice of the minority can never restrict that of the rest. So there is no need to further amend/restrict such practices beyond some of the restrictions already in place in some societies, such as outlawing human sacrifice.

That said, each practice should be evaluated individually. Nonetheless, the point remains that what you want is no longer about freedom, but conformity.

That is a ridiculous causation-correalation refute. For your info, shipments get delayed in Karachi due to daily prayers at the dock. Granted it is a Muslim country, logistics companies have to bear with it. If the crane pilot is elsewhere, why would the truckers and the wharf supervisors down the line have to wait for him to finish his prayers with a container dangling in midair?

If it is non-Muslim country, the port reserves the right not to hire him/her because of faith, but rather their practices. That is why certain Muslim dock workers do not adhere to such practices outside of Muslim countries. They adjust by having make-up prayers, tea-break trades, etc.

That is what freedom is. Everyone to have their own faith in moderation, sacrifices made by everyone involved so there is freedom of faith. There is no conformity; your interpretation is blackwhite and cliched to the extent of insisting that my point is such.

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is a ridiculous causation-correalation refute. For your info, shipments get delayed in Karachi due to daily prayers at the dock. Granted it is a Muslim country, logistics companies have to bear with it. If the crane pilot is elsewhere, why would the truckers and the wharf supervisors down the line have to wait for him to finish his prayers with a container dangling in midair?

If it is non-Muslim country, the port reserves the right not to hire him/her because of faith, but rather their practices. That is why certain Muslim dock workers do not adhere to such practices outside of Muslim countries. They adjust by having make-up prayers, tea-break trades, etc.

That is what freedom is. Everyone to have their own faith in moderation, sacrifices made by everyone involved so there is freedom of faith. There is no conformity; your interpretation is blackwhite and cliched to the extent of insisting that my point is such.

You're not saying anything different that what I just said here. The port reserves the right to describe the job requirements and any would-be employee can either try to meet that requirement or not.

This has nothing to do with amending any practice in a general sense or on a societal level, but rather only on an individual level and on a case by case basis.

Where I am saying you are pushing toward conformity is your statement that people should be prepared to be ostracized for following a particular practice. That goes beyond the level of simply having a working society.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by monster

You're not saying anything different that what I just said here. The port reserves the right to describe the job requirements and any would-be employee can either try to meet that requirement or not.

This has nothing to do with amending any practice in a general sense or on a societal level, but rather only on an individual level and on a case by case basis.

You are subverting my point. My point has always been that, religious practices should be adapted according to place so everyone can have a general freedom. What you have insisted that, such an act is conformity.

Society in general is made up of many different faiths and practices. Like a dock, trades and barters for leeway to practice faith has to be done. To rob someone else of the right to discuss ideas freely is tyranny, whether it be satire or otherwise.

Offensiveness is subjective based on personal tolerance levels, so if one feels offended by the culture of French satire, they can either leave the place or grow thicker skin.

The latter is a better option IMO. Try going against the Ulema in a Mideastern country.

[Ithekro]

"Majority rules, Minority rights" is generally how things work. When the minority has any rights to begin with, that is.

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You are subverting my point. My point has always been that, religious practices should be adapted according to place so everyone can have a general freedom. What you have insisted that, such an act is conformity.

It is when you are saying even practices like dietary habits should be adapted. There is a reasonable limit in which certain religious practices should not be practiced in a given society, but that limit does not include such very personal practices.

Society in general is made up of many different faiths and practices. Like a dock, trades and barters for leeway to practice faith has to be done. To rob someone else of the right to discuss ideas freely is tyranny, whether it be satire or otherwise.

Offensiveness is subjective based on personal tolerance levels, so if one feels offended by the culture of French satire, they can either leave the place or grow thicker skin.

The latter is a better option IMO. Try going against the Ulema in a Mideastern country.

I have not discussed the matter of satire and freedom. The only thing I said about satire is to know who your target audience is and for what purpose you make it.

It's not about banning people to use satire, but about making sure people understand whether or not satire is the best way to achieve their goal.

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Dietary habits shouldn't be passive. Consumption of pork in many parts of the world, other than those with a staunch religiously influenced political environment, is a norm. To go to an European potluck and insist everything is halal/kosher is bad manners at best.

I agree that people shouldn't insist that everybody else caters to their dietary habit. However, it does not preclude the person from bringing his/her own food and to decline from eating any food he/she deems inappropriate.

And that is not all. Having other quirks like regular prayers, etc, is what makes people put off by certain religious sects.

Like what Ithekro said, majority has the right to rule. The majority of the world do not have that many restrictions as compared to Muslims/Jews, so isn't it time for practices to be adjusted to modern day settings?

The rule of the majority does not necessarily take away the right of the minority, as the potluck example shows.

As for regular prayers, like I said, every practice must be evaluated individually.

An offer of food is an entreatment of peace. Moderate Buddhists have rejected their vegan diet, Gurkhas take beef under the Queen's protection, it would be nice to see soliditary with a fellow human being with beer and pork at a barbecue regardless of faith.

I think solidarity does not depend on food. Or rather, it shouldn't.

[SaintessHeart]

With all that you have written, I think it boils down alot of personal worldview and individual opinion when it comes to freedom of faith. Not like it is going to change anytime soon.

Thanks for the exchange. Hope to have another one like this soon.

Idol group’s collaboration with blackfaced performers sparks controversy in America

J-pop-cum-doo-wop group Rats & Star have been active for decades in Japan singing soul tunes and doing the occasional electric slide. It’s a style of music that they have embraced whole-heartedly. In fact they are so into the sound that they paint themselves black during shows to look the part.

Their act had continued without major incident for quite some time until one of their singers Yoshio Sato posted a promotional image of them with idol unit Momoiro Clover Z on Twitter for an upcoming TV appearance, nearly all with faces painted black.

As you might expect, many Americans are up in arms over the image, but what do Japanese people have to say about this?

The incident started when Hiroko Tabuchi of the New York Times picked up Sato’s tweet.

One of those really makes me wonder what exactly was going on in the UK in the mid-70s, but let’s stay on track. Sato quickly removed his tweet, but the damage had already been done. A few days later the complaints echoed back to Japan where many were confused over the controversy. Here’s a selection of the comments made by Japanese net users:

“WFT HAHAHAHA!”
“Where exactly is the racism in this?”
“Aren’t they copying black people because they think they’re cool?”
“They don’t have any contempt for black people. This is stupid.”
“Painting your face black is terribly rude and discrimination.”
“I think it’s not discrimination if they’re not intending it. Racism comes from your thoughts not your actions.”
“Rats & Star paint their faces out of respect.”
“The New York Times cares about Rats & Star?”

Based on most people’s comments on either side, Momoiro Clover Z has been removed from the equation. It’s probably for the best as idols aren’t exactly known for their independent thoughts and behavior. So let’s focus on Rats & Star’s long history of performing in blackface.

Probably most people can agree that the group’s choice of make-up wasn’t done maliciously as Japan doesn’t share the USA’s history of slavery, oppression and minstrel shows. Still, does that make it excusable for them to paint their faces in this way?

On one hand, it’s not fair to hold one country to another’s standards of racial sensitivity. America’s hatred of blackface is certainly justified but there are also differences between the exaggerated features and actions of a jumping Jim Crow and what Rats & Stars have been doing. That’s a judgment call, though, so you can watch this video as decide for yourself.

[ganbaru]

Egypt bombs Islamic State targets in Libya after 21 Egyptians beheaded
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LJ10D20150216

'Nut rage' prompts South Korea to consider law against high-handed conduct
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LJ05Z20150215

Japan's old flip-phones soldier on while smartphones shrink
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LK0AN20150216

[SaintessHeart]

Why Islamic State’s brand of horror works so well

The grisly killing of Jordanian pilot Mouath al-Kasaesbeh by burning him alive sent shock waves across the globe and brought heaps of condemnation from political and religious leaders of all stripes against the new heights of macabre of which Islamic State proved capable. Horror and sickening disgust may represent enlightened persons’ natural reaction to this barbarity, but beyond the condemnation, it is important to understand its reasons and likely consequences in the tumultuous context in which the Islamic State phenomenon has been playing out. Several questions arise in this regard.

The first is whether Islamic State brutality represents the frenzied unleashing of sadism on the part of psychopathic leaders, or a deliberate strategy intended to boost its “larger than life” image and cast a terrifying shadow that makes adversaries tremble and its followers cheer. The consistent manner in which Islamic State has been executing its “reign of terror” suggests the latter. The organization issues pamphlets in which the rape of female captives is justified, routinely strews the heads of victims throughout the city of Raqqa, its “capital,” and engages in other activities attesting that for Islamic State, brutality is not a whim but a matter of core policy.

No less important is the question of whether the strategy works. Judging from Islamic State successes so far, the answer seems affirmative. Since September 2014, as the United States continued its campaign of air strikes against Islamic State, the group has nearly doubled its Syrian domain, and it is now increasingly active in Libya. Admittedly, Islamic State’s triumphant march cannot be fully ascribed to its brutality and barbarism. Yet brutality and barbarism are part and parcel of its brand, whereby it sets itself apart from competing groups like al Qaeda. It is that special brand that excites thousands of foreign fighters (30,000 according to last estimates) and drives them to risk life and limb on Islamic State’s behalf. By this measure, atrocities that Islamic State perpetrates certainly contribute their share to its accomplishments.

So what is it about bizarre ways of killing and the cult of death that has such a magnetic appeal to so many? Sigmund Freud famously highlighted humans’ profound fascination with sadism and masochism by postulating a death instinct, a universal force that governs the dark side of our psyche. The enigma of death and dying has mesmerized people from time immemorial, bringing thousands of cheering Romans to watch Christians being devoured by lions or gladiators being slaughtered by their victors. The luster of death has hardly dimmed over the centuries. In the not-too-distant American past, lynchings in the South attracted large audiences, as state-sponsored beheadings and stonings in Saudi Arabia and other nations ruled by Sharia law do today. The proliferation and popularity of TV shows that feature cruel and bizarre ways of killing prove that fascination with death isn’t reserved for “another place,” and that morbid curiosity about grisly atrocities has a respected seat in the living rooms of ordinary Americans.

Watching, of course, is hardly the same as doing. One may abhor and be disgusted by what one sees while continuing to ogle it. There is in our psyche a battle between “good and evil,” and civilization works by restraining our destructive impulses and allowing their expression in highly sublimated forms. It is OK to watch atrocities on TV and images of beheadings, but it is profoundly unacceptable to engage in any kind of authentic violence. This allows us to let off our (destructive) steam, which affords catharsis without presumably causing any real damage to society.

The tranquility of the social order is upset, however, when the societal narrative is turned to sanction real violence. This often happens when a category of people is demonized – depicted as less-than-human, despicable vermin that merits no sympathy or consideration. Destroying the scourge is reframed as the good, justifying all violence in its aid. In the case of Islamic State, their take on Islam provides such a justifying narrative, twisting the Koranic spirit to legitimize unrestrained mayhem against the alleged enemies of Allah.

Once unbounded from societal restraints, unmitigated violence holds multiple attractions to its practitioners. For one, it instills a primordial fear in the hearts of its enemies. The very idea of dying is profoundly scary to most people; the idea of dying in incredibly humiliating and painful circumstances multiplies the dread. In addition, the dispensation of cruel and unusual punishment lends the perpetrator an aura of overriding force of godlike proportions. It creates a myth of potency that many people, especially those disempowered and belittled, may find irresistible. Identification with an aggressor is a way to feel powerful and safe. “I am the danger,” quips Walter White to his wife Skylar in a striking episode of the TV series Breaking Bad. He means to reassure her and allay her anxieties because the role of perpetrator is antithetical to that of victim, and there is psychological safety in being at the initiating (rather than receiving) end of violence.

Finally, though not of least importance, the readiness to go to extremes of cruelty by disregarding universal norms of humanity and compassion signals a depth of commitment to a cause — a total devotion and assurance in its justness and utter legitimacy. Such confidence, too, is compelling and of particular appeal to people who are confused, uncertain and perplexed. The untold violence that Islamic State practices attests to the depth of its ideological commitment. It thus provides a much desired sense of purpose and personal significance to those who join the group.

These strategic advantages notwithstanding, there is another crucial side to heinous violence that bodes ill for its perpetrators: The unleashing of evil mobilizes a concerted effort to defeat it on behalf of the good. It unleashes one’s own powers of destruction to eradicate the plague. The outrage and disgust that grisly cruelty evokes can create a powerful backlash; previously separate factions can unite behind a sacred purpose and feel empowered to put an end to the atrocity. Before the execution of al-Kasaesbeh, the Jordanian population was polarized in its attitudes toward Islamic State; it spoke in resolute unison afterward. Other voices in the Middle East and elsewhere echoed the outrage and grim resolve of the Jordanians. Possibly then, this time Islamic State may have crossed a red line, and the advantages it used to reap from its unbounded violence may be offset by the storm of outrage that gathers against it.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Japan's old flip-phones soldier on while smartphones shrink
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0LK0AN20150216

The article doesn't say whether Japanese users still think 1seg is an important feature. A number of us thought that a rather cool technology when it appeared in Tokyo Magnitude 8.0. Smartphones offer live video streaming, of course, but not over-the-air broadcast reception. The lack of 1seg has apparently discouraged the acceptance of smartphones in Japan in the past, but the Reuters article doesn't mention it as a factor in contemporary adoption rates.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by monster

It is when you are saying even practices like dietary habits should be adapted. There is a reasonable limit in which certain religious practices should not be practiced in a given society, but that limit does not include such very personal practices.

I have a feeling that SH may have a personal unpleasant experience of bbq with a Muslim vegan.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The article doesn't say whether Japanese users still think 1seg is an important feature. A number of us thought that a rather cool technology when it appeared in Tokyo Magnitude 8.0. Smartphones offer live video streaming, of course, but not over-the-air broadcast reception. The lack of 1seg has apparently discouraged the acceptance of smartphones in Japan in the past, but the Reuters article doesn't mention it as a factor in contemporary adoption rates.

Feature phones in Japan also do much more than feature phones in markets like the US (which, honestly, also has its quirks). They're obviously not quite on the level of smartphones, but with a closer technology gap and living in an expensive market with 95%+ saturation, combined with a lot of compelling options for mobile devices like gaming, I can see why many consumers would just stick with what works for their budget.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

I have a feeling that SH may have a personal unpleasant experience of bbq with a Muslim vegan.

It is more like planning outings with religious conservatives in the group. This is against their belief to do/eat this, that is illegal from their religious standpoint. And when you don't invite them due to the activities being too "liberal" it is "racist".

And that is not all. With the advent of social media, I have been seeing alot of posts by Muslims calling for "religious tolerance" towards Muslims in a way which gives them more and more leeway for their strict practices. Similarly, the Christians have been using social media as a platform to turn new followers, lambasting anything they don't like as "lacking in Christian values", to the extent that Monster energy drinks are labelled as "evil".

In an attempt to make themselves look more "pious" in the name of their entities, these people are asking for more liberty in marketing and practicing their religion to the extent of upsetting the social balance; it is like an executive being consistently late for work asking for more travelling time, and when not given whining that it is unfair to his rights.

That is why I avoid religious debate as much as I can today. Nobody knows what they are talking about anymore even when it comes to talking about their own religion.

Case in point :

Insane “Christian” Woman Beats, Kicks, Stomps Jewish Neighbor: “You’d Better Accept Jesus”

[Fireminer]

Not a news, but I want to see what is your reaction: Why are Americans such cowards?
Ok, even I'd say that the author has gone overboard. Statically wrong,...

[Xellos-_^]

What we see as an advantage, however, sparks contempt among foreigners that our adversaries in this war for hearts and minds exploit in their recruitment and fundraising efforts. You see it in the faces of the Afghans and Pakistanis I have interviewed: If the United States military had any honor, they say, it would come and face our warriors man to man, on the battlefield, rather than pushing a button thousands of miles away. Every “terrorist” we blow up makes us look worse.

the US military would love it if the Taliban and AQ would face the US troops in a open battlefield.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the US military would love it if the Taliban and AQ would face the us troops in a open battlefield.

Sure! Without your helicopters, aircraft, body armour, NVDs, and all sorts of advanced equipment! [/sarcasm]

[Ithekro]

It is harder to fight like an army when the enemy does not present its army to fight.

Fighting in lines on the battlefield is long gone it seems. Regardless of how equipt the US Army is, the war tends to be house to house at best when there is actual ground combat in the old traditional sense of the word. When was the last time an army stood up in formation for war that wasn't a line of tanks? (and when was the last time that line wasn't just blown apart from the air because it is very effective when one has air superiority).

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Not a news, but I want to see what is your reaction: Why are Americans such cowards?
Ok, even I'd say that the author has gone overboard. Statically wrong,...

The article is all over the place, and it's basically just an angry rant. I wouldn't give it much thought.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It is harder to fight like an army when the enemy does not present its army to fight.

Fighting in lines on the battlefield is long gone it seems. Regardless of how equipt the US Army is, the war tends to be house to house at best when there is actual ground combat in the old traditional sense of the word. When was the last time an army stood up in formation for war that wasn't a line of tanks? (and when was the last time that line wasn't just blown apart from the air because it is very effective when one has air superiority).

War can't go backwards. We can't go back to melee range any more than we can go back to bright red military uniforms. If the extremists want to talk honour, they should drop the guns and use scimitars instead.

[erneiz_hyde]

I for one am immediately reminded of Lelouch's quote. Perhaps when we develop sword wielding giant robots we can finally restore honor on the battlefield.