Yeah so she took it in the completely wrong direction with her "toxic masculinity" bullshit BUT she actually raises an interesting point, which is that saying that all terrorists are men is technically more accurate than the republicans' fearmongering about Muslims and then refusing to call something terrorism because it was done by a non-Muslim. (Case in point, the recent Oregon stabbing.)
However, I think it is common sense to say that we shouldn't make that equivalence in either case, because it is overly generalizing and unfair to the rest of the group.
Saying there are more male terrorists than muslim terrorists is like saying you're an inch taller than a sibling. I'm pretty sure Muslim terrorists make up most of the attackers more so than a generic male terrorist with a generic hateful idealogy, becuase the only idealogy that claims the second spot for most terrorist attacks in recent history are communists, and they lag far behind the top spot in number of attacks. All this "terrorists are men" talk tells me that the idealogy they follow don't respect, or even tolerate women for such a task, unless they're suicide bombers. It's just a smoke and mirrors effect to avoid addressing why we support and make excuses for a religion where tossing gays off a roof is perfectly legal, while we claim to be "progressive". It's just a natural dissonance I have when people protest for women and gay rights, and claim to be allies for the islamic faith. It makes no computable logical sense.
Don't get me wrong, I think countries which implement Sharia law are disgusting, I mean it's illegal to be an atheist in Saudi Arabia, like what the fuck.
But there's equally disgusting stuff in the Bible too, so it's not as much about the religion itself as about the society. The Middle East just produces more radicalized individuals, because their legal systems implement the religion, while the West is secularized. Basically, if you read a book and society tells you "Don't take it literally though", you're less likely to be radicalized than when you read the same book and society tells you "Yup. That's the law and you better follow it to the letter." There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians. There are good Atheists and there are bad Atheists.
PS: It's spelled ideology.
Oh many thanks. Spellcheck is disabled and I cant tell if I'm spelling something wrong. Good points all around though, won't disagree with what you have to say there.
I'm honestly glad you're so polite about this. It's getting difficult to find a good conversation partner on the internet nowadays. Most people just get offended when they encounter different opinions.
However, I think it is common sense to say that we shouldn't make that equivalence in either case, because it is overly generalizing and unfair to the rest of the group.
But there's equally disgusting stuff in the Bible too, so it's not as much about the religion itself as about the society. The Middle East just produces more radicalized individuals, because their legal systems implement the religion, while the West is secularized. Basically, if you read a book and society tells you "Don't take it literally though", you're less likely to be radicalized than when you read the same book and society tells you "Yup. That's the law and you better follow it to the letter." There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians. There are good Atheists and there are bad Atheists.
PS: It's spelled ideology.