Buying Next to Islamic Center

[spdrun]

He brings out emotions because a large portion of bigots are angry at the fact that a first-generation American with a darker skin tone than them got elected as their executive. And is doing a decent job considering the mess he inherited.

His demeanor doesn’t matter — no matter what, he’ll annoy certain small minded folks. Same as Kennedy pissed people off because he was an Irish Catlick, not a good ‘ol Protestant Anglo-Saxon boy.

[FlyerInHi]

That’s the anxiety flu spoke of on a separate thread. People are all for equal opportunity until others are better than them.

I added that people love to talk about enterprise and hardwork, until others work harder and are smarter. The worship of hardwork is self defeating, because the end result would be work to death.

Kennedy had money and blue blood. Back then being part of the Brahmin class and speaking Brahmin English carried a lot of weight.

[spdrun]

Nitpick … JFK was not a “Brahmin” — the term Boston Brahmin specifically excluded Irish Catholics. And again, his family’s success in the past didn’t matter. He annoyed a lot of people by not being part of their tribe, or the usual tribe that participated in US national politics, anyway.

I think that 3/4 of the hatred of Obama comes from raw tribalism. If he smashed ISIS, ended all wars in the Middle East without killing a single soul, made for the employment of every American that wanted a job, he’d still be hated.

Me? He makes me happy. I’m not a WASP. The more diversity there is in American politics, the more chance my children (or grandchildren), if I choose to have them, will have for success in this arena.

[FlyerInHi]

Yes true. Kennedy annoyed a lot of people. Part of it was being young, smart and goodlooking, and not having “paid his dues”. There was a lot of hate in Dallas where he has assassinated. Dallas was a very different place back then.

The thing about Trump talking about immigrants and Muslims is that he’s dropped the code words. His supporters love his political incorrectness.

[Anonymous]

[quote=skerzz]That is a poll of Muslim Americans.[/quote]

A poll with results that you used to come to a conclusion about Muslim Americans.

If we asked all Americans the same question, would the results be any different?

Would you come to the same conclusion?

But we don’t really need to conduct the poll. We already know that a significant number of Americans, Muslim or otherwise, believe that violence against civilian targets is justified to defend America from its enemies.

[paramount]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

The thing about Trump talking about immigrants and Muslims is that he’s dropped the code words. His supporters love his political incorrectness.[/quote]

True because political correctness often masks reality and demonizes those who don’t buy into the PC/Multi-culturalism BS.

[njtosd]

[quote=paramount][quote=FlyerInHi]

The thing about Trump talking about immigrants and Muslims is that he’s dropped the code words. His supporters love his political incorrectness.[/quote]

True because political correctness often masks reality and demonizes those who don’t buy into the PC/Multi-culturalism BS.[/quote]

Politically correct speech is usually not spontaneous, but instead is calculated. Humans understand that they are not getting very much information about the true motivations of the person speaking, and may feel a bit manipulated or taken for a sucker. Donald, on the other hand, provides real info about his opinions. He seems honest, in a way, because the things he says don’t make him look good. Reminds me of a hit man who I once heard testify, saying he’d be an idiot if he worked on credit. Trump is interesting in terms of what his appeal says about human nature, but I am hopeful he does not become president.

[skerzz]

[quote=harvey][quote=skerzz]That is a poll of Muslim Americans.[/quote]

A poll with results that you used to come to a conclusion about Muslim Americans.

If we asked all Americans the same question, would the results be any different?

Would you come to the same conclusion?

But we don’t really need to conduct the poll. We already know that a significant number of Americans, Muslim or otherwise, believe that violence against civilian targets is justified to defend America from its enemies.[/quote]

How would that question be relevant to the original topic of this thread? We are discussing if there is any additional risk or negative impact of purchasing a home buying next to an Islamic place of worship. You would need to ask all Americans if violence against civilian targets is justified to defend [enter religious affiliation here] from its enemies and then compare results across religions to see if one population is a higher violence risk than others.

[NotCranky]

I wouldn’t buy next to an Islamic center because I don’t like living in busy places.
I am however fine with immigrating lots of Muslims even though it is guaranteed that some violent of them will kill here, in mass perhaps, occasionally , or more often. Not that I hope it happens or would abet it. I would report someone in a heart beat. I just think violence, whether it be retribution or plain old holy war or any other thing is coming anyway ,and maybe less if we become more interdependent across religions and ethnicities, it’s for the good of humanity in the long run, well, it might be compared to what we have seen so far.

Interdependence might aid evolution. It’s worth a try.

[spdrun]

So far, the risk of being killed by a Muslim immigrant committing an act of terror has been smaller than slipping in the tub.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]So far, the risk of being killed by a Muslim immigrant committing an act of terror has been smaller than slipping in the tub.[/quote]

People don’t reason using numbers. They go by emotions.

[spdrun]

Well, I reason by numbers. If more people did and thought about real risks, it would be a better world with less hatred.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Well, I reason by numbers. If more people did and thought about real risks, it would be a better world with less hatred.[/quote]

I grew up outside of Detroit and left in the late 80s. The Detroit area, generally has a large middle eastern population and Dearborn, MI has the second most dense population outside the middle east. I never recall there being any anti Muslim sentiment – zero. Probably, in part, because most of the Muslims that I knew did not present themselves as a group, but more as individual immigrants or first generation people who wanted a better life in the US. In fact, my high school had both a very large Jewish population and also a very large middle eastern population (although not as large a Southfield Lathrop, which later made it onto the cover of Newsweek with the caption “The Gaza Strip”). There was no religious tension – or if it existed, it was very well hidden.

So – if it were a matter of simple hatred, why didn’t it exist back in those days? People were, if anything, more provincial prior to the internet.

People do, however, respond disproportionately to a real risk over which they have no control. I can put little stick on slip guards in my tub – but individuals have little control over who gets let in to the country. It doesn’t help matters that people like the Tashfeen Malik make it in notwithstanding some very questionable associations.

I think Ben Carson put it most succinctly last night – if terrorists are not trying to get into the US as refugees, that would be considered “terrorist malpractice.” And he’s right. If your job is to be a terrorist and you want to engage in violence in the US, you’re failing at your goal if you don’t try to come in as a refugee.

Do I believe that there is any enhance risk near an Islamic center? No. In fact, my guess is that you are safer there (at least from terrorists, maybe not from Americans) than elsewhere.

[spdrun]

I disagree — why not come in as a tourist or to Canada then across the border? The two year vetting process for refugees would make coming in as one like performing brain surgery while wearing a blindfold and ski gloves.

As far at the Internet — I think it amplifies hatred. It provides a forum for people to spread their hatred and for others not yet radicalized (yep, said it) to follow in their footsteps.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]I disagree — why not come in as a tourist or to Canada then across the border? The two year vetting process for refugees would make coming in as one like performing brain surgery while wearing a blindfold and ski gloves.

As far at the Internet — I think it amplifies hatred. It provides a forum for people to spread their hatred and for others not yet radicalized (yep, said it) to follow in their footsteps.[/quote]

Coming in a refugee to commit terror is a long shot. As you said, there’s a 2 year or longer vetting process by the UN, various transit countries, US State Department, and Homeland Security. That’s just fanning the flames of anti-Muslim sentiments. Anti-Muslim sentiments is just it.. people see the pictures and feel invaded by hordes of Muslims.

The visa waiver program for citizens of the EU and other developed countries is more likely means of entry. Maybe a tourist or student visa, but that would mean a consular interview before a visa is issued.

Democrats proposed tightening the visa waiver program, but that would make it hassle for tourists and it would be bad for the travel and tourism industry (foreign tourists spend a lot more than domestic tourists).

Coming through Canada would not be different because the traveler would still have to be inspected at a border checkpoint (unless he walked across, somewhere out in the boonies along the border).

[Author]

Posts