Saudi female rapper arrested

Shanazel

Super Moderator
And BOOM! We're off to a great discussion.

Yes, but that will never happen because we're human and every one of us is unique with our own experiences and desires. The only way to get one single belief is to force people to believe it or kill the ones that disagree.

That was kinda my point, Ariadne. ;)

Saying history is the story of extremists isn't a statement of whether a particular philosophy is good or bad, nor is it an attempt to put Hitler and Martin Luther King into any kind of box, let alone the same box. The extremists and the visionaries and the just plain crazies make big enough noise, for better or worse, to be remembered as history. Ayn Rand expressed her extreme ideas in literature. Mary of England expressed hers by burning heretics at Smithfield. Mother Teresa's extremism took the path of a life spent tending the so-called untouchables of humanity.

My apologies to Ayn Rand. I should have written " An extremist with a good grasp of rhetoric" rather than prefacing it with "Just another..." The latter does seem to diss her, and that was not my intention.
 

Tourbeau

Active member
Ariadne said:
I don't believe our current issues are because of different beliefs but because of people who have decided that anyone who doesn't agree with THEIR beliefs are evil and that others who want power (something that always exists) are taking advantage of the situation.
One of the reasons it is so challenging to grow democracy in places that don't have a history of having it (even from within like the Arab Spring) is the inability to unseat the idea that the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing is not a zero-sum gain. If you can't accept the idea that someone who disagrees with you and/or lives differently than you should have the same rights as you do, particularly the same right to have a say in government as you do, your country is never going to crawl out from under authoritarian rule. Freedom depends on the social contract of everybody having a civil relationship with their fellow citizens, even when those other citizens think or live differently.

If you look at the recent cultural growing pains in the West around gay marriage, most of the conversation boiled down to "No, seriously, how does it diminish your life, your family, your relationship with God, your anything if a gay couple you don't even know gets married?", and eventually, a critical mass of people replied, "Well, now that I think about it, I guess it doesn't."

Bringing it back around, part of the issue with Saudi Arabia is there aren't enough people asking, "No, seriously, how does a young woman rapping about living in Mecca diminish the intrinsic value of Islam, the profundity of the Quran, or your personal relationship with Allah?" If that which your prophets consecrated is so brittle and fragile it can be irreparably damaged by somebody reciting a silly poem to music in a coffee shop, this is a fundamental incompatibility with how more moderate societies think....
 

Zorba

"The Veiled Male"
If you look at the recent cultural growing pains in the West around gay marriage, most of the conversation boiled down to "No, seriously, how does it diminish your life, your family, your relationship with God, your anything if a gay couple you don't even know gets married?", and eventually, a critical mass of people replied, "Well, now that I think about it, I guess it doesn't."
Yep. Which is why we need a "Mind Your Own Business Party", instead of the various forms of slavery promulgated by the two big ones we have now. I want nothing to do with either!
 

Tourbeau

Active member
Zorba said:
Yep. Which is why we need a "Mind Your Own Business Party", instead of the various forms of slavery promulgated by the two big ones we have now. I want nothing to do with either!
That was supposed to be the point of the Libertarian Party, but they haven't had much luck getting their act together for the national stage. It doesn't help that the current US system is stacked so hard against third parties, but based on the televised coverage of their 2016 convention, they can't seem to decide if they want to be a serious political party for small government and less intervention in citizens' lives, a promoter of idealized anarchy with no laws, or a bunch of people who don't care about politics beyond legalization of recreational drugs, plus a few smaller factions grinding assorted axes.

I highly recommend watching the Libertarian debate when it comes around, even if you have no interest in voting third party. Compared to the big two, the Libertarian debate is like a cross between the airing of grievances on Festivus and open mic night at the PoliSci Student Lounge. Where else can you see two people seriously arguing about whether a toddler should be able to buy a gun?

And, yes, I hear you and share your dissatisfaction with the two major parties. They keep confusing what the squeakiest wheels in their bases want in the primaries with what everybody else hopes for in November.
 

Zorba

"The Veiled Male"
I was registered Libertarian for decades. I don't agree with everything they say, particularly regarding National Defense, but they're far closer to my ideals than either of the big two. If more people would just VOTE Libertarian, we might get somewhere. But as I've said before, most people aren't interested in real freedom; they just want fair masters that agree with them. Since I'm not interested in slavery, and I don't agree with either major party even 50%, I'm not interested.

As "Treebeard" said: "Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little orc."
 

Shanazel

Super Moderator
I need to go find We the Living and search for the passage in which the main character aligns herself with an underdog which seems to her more appropriate than joining the overcats. (Anyone remember Underdog the cartoon?) Anyway, it is something that has stuck in my head, however imperfectly, ever since I read the book so many decades ago.
 

Greek Bonfire

Well-known member
Huh. I read up on the book. It does seem to be very much a product of it's time. The one I've thought of reading is Atlas Shrugged. I hadn't heard of Fountainhead before.
Both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are similar in their messages but I found Fountainhead easier to follow as Atlas Shrugged was a very involved and layered book. A movie was made of Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal back in the 1940s which wasn't bad.
 

Greek Bonfire

Well-known member
One of the reasons it is so challenging to grow democracy in places that don't have a history of having it (even from within like the Arab Spring) is the inability to unseat the idea that the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing is not a zero-sum gain. If you can't accept the idea that someone who disagrees with you and/or lives differently than you should have the same rights as you do, particularly the same right to have a say in government as you do, your country is never going to crawl out from under authoritarian rule. Freedom depends on the social contract of everybody having a civil relationship with their fellow citizens, even when those other citizens think or live differently.

If you look at the recent cultural growing pains in the West around gay marriage, most of the conversation boiled down to "No, seriously, how does it diminish your life, your family, your relationship with God, your anything if a gay couple you don't even know gets married?", and eventually, a critical mass of people replied, "Well, now that I think about it, I guess it doesn't."

Bringing it back around, part of the issue with Saudi Arabia is there aren't enough people asking, "No, seriously, how does a young woman rapping about living in Mecca diminish the intrinsic value of Islam, the profundity of the Quran, or your personal relationship with Allah?" If that which your prophets consecrated is so brittle and fragile it can be irreparably damaged by somebody reciting a silly poem to music in a coffee shop, this is a fundamental incompatibility with how more moderate societies think....
It's about control - control of everyone's lives. Recently here there was a proposed bill about limiting the amount of tampons women could buy. In another state, someone shot back and proposed a bill requiring men over 50 to get a vasectomy because they're too old to have kids.
 

Zorba

"The Veiled Male"
It's about control - control of everyone's lives. Recently here there was a proposed bill about limiting the amount of tampons women could buy. In another state, someone shot back and proposed a bill requiring men over 50 to get a vasectomy because they're too old to have kids.
I hadn't heard this - who proposed the tampon ban, Bloomberg? Who proposed the vasectomy law, Adolf Hitler?

Both our major parties promulgate this crap, which is why I don't want anything to do with either of them, although RIGHT NOW, the Left is more egregious in this manner "by a nose". Back in the early oughts, it was the Right. Slavery on the Left, Slavery on the Right - WHY won't people vote Libertarian? Way I see it, Dems and GOP are both 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds wrong; whereas the Libertarians are about 2/3rds right, and 1/3rd wrong - a substantial improvement!

People don't want freedom, they just want fair masters - that agree with their worldview.
 

Tourbeau

Active member
Zorba said:
WHY won't people vote Libertarian?
It's difficult to convince people to vote third party because of the perception you are throwing your vote away. In the case of the President and the Electoral College, it would be virtually impossible to get a third-party elected from some states, because of the way the two major parties have rigged things.

I don't have a problem with the Constitutional theory of the Electoral College. It's the implementation that is defective. Electors should be impartial, and they should stop this nonsense that in some states, you vote blindly for an elector on a closed ballot. This person represents you in the country's most important election. You should be able to know what kind of person you're voting for without having to go to party meetings. I also disagree with the idea that states should award electors all or nothing. How has this never been ruled unconstitutional? It basically says your vote only counts if you pick the winner.

So much of what is wrong with the US government can be traced to the way power has consolidated and calcified around the two major parties. We're coming up on our state primary, which is closed, so you have to pick your battle. Do you want to vote on who could be in the White House or your local government? You can't have a say on both here until November, which will be too late for some candidates. I would like input in which Democrat is running for president, but I would also dearly love to cast a vote against this Republican carpetbagger who is running for local office, and who should be tried for crimes against the environment for the way she and her donor network have blanketed us with mailers (no kidding, they must have sent out two dozen in the last month!). So fun choice--do I want to vote to realign Washington or swat away Veruca Salt who wants Daddy and his friends to buy her a county prosecutor job?

People don't want freedom, they just want fair masters - that agree with their worldview.
No, they don't want anything to do with fairness. They want masters who are clearly biased in their favor, and who will punish the other side.
 

Zorba

"The Veiled Male"
That's another thing. Primaries should ALL be on ONE day. Otherwise, "super Tuesday" states, including Commiefornia, get to make the decisions for the rest of the country! Never mind that large metropolitan areas call the shots for the rest of us whether or not we want them to or agree with them.

But I hear you about the 2 party system and parties in general. Our founders warned us about parties, yet here we are. "The Party of Marx" vs "The Party of Jesus" - both are absolutely evil and I want "None of the Above"!
 

Tourbeau

Active member
Zorba said:
That's another thing. Primaries should ALL be on ONE day.
I'll see that and raise you "...and all candidates are restricted to one month of campaigning prior to each election. Furthermore, citizens must EXPLICITLY OPT IN to any and all political mailings, phone calls, surveys, and door-to-door canvassing efforts."
 

Greek Bonfire

Well-known member
I hadn't heard this - who proposed the tampon ban, Bloomberg? Who proposed the vasectomy law, Adolf Hitler?

Both our major parties promulgate this crap, which is why I don't want anything to do with either of them, although RIGHT NOW, the Left is more egregious in this manner "by a nose". Back in the early oughts, it was the Right. Slavery on the Left, Slavery on the Right - WHY won't people vote Libertarian? Way I see it, Dems and GOP are both 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds wrong; whereas the Libertarians are about 2/3rds right, and 1/3rd wrong - a substantial improvement!

People don't want freedom, they just want fair masters - that agree with their worldview.
The GOP proposed these issues. A violation of human rights for both men and women. And influenced by the extreme evangelical right.
 

Zorba

"The Veiled Male"
That doesn't surprise me either. Socialists or Theocrats - talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. *disgust*
 

Greek Bonfire

Well-known member
That doesn't surprise me either. Socialists or Theocrats - talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. *disgust*
I thought religious organizations were not supposed to publicly back politicians or they will lose their non-exempt status. Guess I missed an updated memo changing this, but I think they're getting a pass by the rich to promote their own ends.
 
Top