(int)0xFFFF... with a bunch more F's
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
(int)0xFFFF... with a bunch more F's
as a real secret any more, if there ever was. If the "secret" is based on scientific research, it's been published and is reproducible and all the relevant people already know about it.
Nope, not true. I have a friend with a Physics Ph.D. who does nuclear weapons related research at LANL. Her work is read only by fellow DoD scientists and certainly is not published in public journals.
This is actual law in many places around the world,
Which sucks, but is entirely irrelevant in the US.
OK, fair enough to some extent, I agree that people clamoring for sharia law and/or jihad isn't a real threat as long as individuals never act on their barbarous ideology (unfortunately many individuals do), and as long as Muslims don't become the majority locally, regionally, or nationally (they have in some areas here, and regionally/nationally elsewhere in the world). A pretty good litmus test for how the progression to sharia is going would be to walk through a neighborhood wearing a yarmulke and see how you are treated. That's not safe in some neighborhoods of Paris these days, although I have a vague understanding that it's politically incorrect for me to point that out. It's weird how Jew-hatred goes in and out of vogue among the self-designated intelligentsia of Western culture; currently it's "in".
and it's amazing to see liberal non-Muslims "see no evil, hear no evil" etc. when they fail to admit sharia is creeping onto their own turf.
Or it could be that "creeping onto their own turf" is utter bullshit fear mongering.
One of us is in denial about the obvious, that's for sure.
I vote for sideslash, then. Clearly your name is pejorative enough.
Aha, that is creative. I hadn't thought of it that way.
Meanwhile, you say you "may" be murdered. Well, fuck, I "may" be murdered for burning the US flag is I seek out those most likely to be inflamed and irrational and then desecrate their holy symbol.
Perhaps you're unaware that death is specified in Muslim holy texts as the correct response to desecration of the Koran, blasphemy of Mohammed or Allah, attempted apostasy or turning away from the Muslim faith, along with a laundry list of other sins. This is actual law in many places around the world, and it's amazing to see liberal non-Muslims "see no evil, hear no evil" etc. when they fail to admit sharia is creeping onto their own turf.
Nobody will kill you for burning an American flag. Maximum forcefulness of response, like on the order of a punch in the nose, I guarantee it.
So, what vile thing should we call you and conflate you with?
I'm going to leave that up to you -- be creative, see what you can come up with.
Your original argument was that the mere desire to ban Koran burning made them Islamists, now you've switched to talking about the Muslims who want to kill you for it. That is another conversation.
No, they're still different despite your efforts to paint them the same. The ban on Koran burning will almost never exist in isolation, but rather as part of a continual progression toward Islamic domination of the society. It's part of a larger package we really don't want, which is called "sharia". Well, at least _I_ really don't want it, don't know about you.
Are you unaware that sharia principles are not isolated, one-off notions taken by individuals, but rather are actually written down and codified in Islamic primary religious documents? Do you know what it's like to live in an Islamic country and face a modern Inquisition for being a free thinker?
Don't be so naive about Islam. I agree that there are some practitioners of a sort of modern "hippie Islam" who are cool with coexisting and diversity of thought, but I think they're in the minority. The aim of Islam in general is to take over, run things, and enforce sharia law in some form; and you're naive if you don't recognize that.
If I burn a Koran, I may be murdered by those who want to split the USA into favored adherents of Islam versus subjugated slaves of Islam (dhimmis). I am... uh... really not OK with that, and I despise and want to publicly shame people who promote that agenda. Do you see the difference now, hippie?
Since around 50% of Americans support a flag burning amendment does that make them all scary nationalist nuts? There's not even a god who's supposed to care about that one.
This may come as a shock to you, but this is the USA, and patriotism is OK here. If some people get a little carried away, that's not as big a deal as people who want to subject non-Muslims to sharia law. If you really don't see the difference between the two, then it appears that you will never be in danger of someone demanding you relinquish your hippie credentials.
(Side note: I agree with the SCOTUS that flag burning and other forms of expression that don't actually cause harm to others should remain legal.)
As you pointed out the "disempowered" covers Muslims in the US. And my evidence for them being disempowered (marginalized would be a better term) is the ease with which people will hear Muslim and translate it to Islamist, and then they'll start sprouting off half a dozen negative stereotypes that would be verboten if applied to most other groups.
You're really going off on a tangent here. Getting back on subject, perhaps we can agree that the most likely reason for SMBC's curious silence toward Islam is not because Zach can't find anything silly in their beliefs, but rather because conservative Muslims around the world, aka Islamists of different degrees, are likely to commit acts of violence in response to their religion being made fun of.
Also, just for the record, equating "Muslim" and "Islamist" is often a reasonably accurate approximation, particularly outside the USA but frequently here as well. There are useful litmus tests to identify an Islamist, such as: "Should it be illegal to burn a Koran?" "Should people be allowed to apostatize from Islam?" and so forth. If you only ask about affinity for Osama bin Laden you will definitely miss a lot of the scary religious nuts. Their ultimate goal is not peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society, but rather enforcement of norms of sharia law and subjugation of non-Islamic people. Whether they are likely to be successful in their goal is irrelevant as to their classification as Islamists in that respect.
It could be caution, but it could also be the fact that poking fun at empowered groups in your own culture carries a very different context than poking fun at foreign cultures (or disempowered groups in your own culture).
So you're saying Islam is a "foreign culture" in the USA. How many Muslims do we have to have living here as citizens before it becomes one of the (many) American subcultures?
Also, your use of the term "disempowered" is hilarious. Just because Islamists in the USA can't get away with chopping off people's heads here (like they do elsewhere in the world) doesn't make them "disempowered" relative to Christianity and Judaism. Always with Islam it's the (pardon the expression) camel's nose in the tent. Islamists have no sense of humor, no tolerance for criticism, and no qualms about taking their half from the middle and screwing atheists, homosexuals, apostates, and in general, persons of other religions (inculding variants of Islam slightly different from theirs).
They'd better be careful how they handle this. It's supposed to be decades into the future, and thus after Deckard and Rachel are both supposed to be dead by their targeted end of life engineering as replicants. You know: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"
Maybe he will be a different iteration of Deckard, i.e. another replicant clone or something.