- 27 May 2017 14:15
#14808855
Whenever someone talks about increasing engagement against domestic Muslim extremists, certain people start saying "not all Muslims", calling people bigots and assuming certain things. But who is really assuming what here?
First, to target Muslim extremists with greater scrutiny is not necessarily to target all Muslims.
Second, to hold western military actions responsible for Muslim hostility presumes that Muslims are one monolithic group that respond in a uniform way when any of them are attacked. The largest Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others have not been directly attacked by westerners in sometimes hundreds of years. To assume that the west attacked "Muslims" and brought certain things upon themselves is to assume that a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, Libya or Syria are all members of the same group, something that is clearly not true.
The one exception to these collectivist presumptions, generally, is immediately after a terrorist attack when the left argues that the attackers weren't Muslims at all. This is an exception that proves the rule; by saying the attacker(s) weren't Muslim at all, they maintain the illusion that Muslims are a single group that can only have one policy applied to them. Since immediate attackers necessitate a response, they can avoid a fracturing of the group in their minds by making the people they have to respond to not count as Muslims at all.
As such, the people assuming that certain parties would lump all Muslims together if any action were taken are actually lumping all Muslims together themselves and projecting their delusion onto other people. We should reject this fallacy and not let "cry bullies" dictate important policy according to what their fantasies are.
First, to target Muslim extremists with greater scrutiny is not necessarily to target all Muslims.
Second, to hold western military actions responsible for Muslim hostility presumes that Muslims are one monolithic group that respond in a uniform way when any of them are attacked. The largest Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and many others have not been directly attacked by westerners in sometimes hundreds of years. To assume that the west attacked "Muslims" and brought certain things upon themselves is to assume that a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, Libya or Syria are all members of the same group, something that is clearly not true.
The one exception to these collectivist presumptions, generally, is immediately after a terrorist attack when the left argues that the attackers weren't Muslims at all. This is an exception that proves the rule; by saying the attacker(s) weren't Muslim at all, they maintain the illusion that Muslims are a single group that can only have one policy applied to them. Since immediate attackers necessitate a response, they can avoid a fracturing of the group in their minds by making the people they have to respond to not count as Muslims at all.
As such, the people assuming that certain parties would lump all Muslims together if any action were taken are actually lumping all Muslims together themselves and projecting their delusion onto other people. We should reject this fallacy and not let "cry bullies" dictate important policy according to what their fantasies are.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!