The title of Rushdie's uses a phrase borrowed from a western characterisation of an incident in the life of Mohammad, a phased not used in Islam. Probably because the reference to the cranes is less embarrassing, less sensational, and more technical.

The title "satanic verses" may thus be seen as tendentious, as not using the due respectful tone and vocabulary one should use while speaking of the Prophet. And it is also western and therefore ideologically suspect from a modern Muslim perspective. — Olivier5

Didn't original muslims scholars (back in the 600s-700s) actually refer to them as inspired by Satan? Rhushdie's version sounds at least as historically true.

Ownership creates that accountability. If you have started a business, invested in it and operate it, it's success or failure depends on you. Even in an cooperative it's the members of the enterprise, not others, who have this accountability. What is collective (effects others) should regulated the laws your business operates in. — ssu

I don't know where to start. This quite frankly sounds insane.

I see both, honestly.

I see a certain need for government, and a certain need to enforce rules that allow people to live together in cooperation, but I also see that at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion. — Tzeentch

Ending it with "predicated on violence and coercion" doesn't sound like seeing it both though but I'll take your word for it and think that you probably have a much lower limit for what should be the government's job than I and consider the current setup too broad.

What kind of government activities are you against? I seem to recall you thought the lock downs were inappropriate. (We'll not rehash that discussion here, I disagree with that position during the immediate pandemic but agree the current permanent change is unacceptable as it removes the case-by-case oversight of Parliament). Any other things?

I struggle to see how capitalism is responsible for all of that, or how a departure from capitalism would solve it. But I'm open to hearing ideas. — Tzeentch

That's too much to write online, particularly at this time, but it's already interesting to me that what is obvious to me, isn't to you. At the same time, I think we agree on quite a few issues about what's wrong in our country so an important part of our moral intuitions are aligned. We differ in our assessment what caused them and therefore differ in what we think it would take to solve them. We're going all over the place (kind of by necessity, but still). I'm not sure how to get this back to a manageable subject for discussion.

I don't think solidarity that's forced at gunpoint is solidarity at all. — Tzeentch

These statements always rub me the wrong way. You see force, I see democratic cooperation/social contracts and contracts need to be enforced. What we saw in the 70s was a strong government that had broad support from society and not just the parliamentary coalition partners.

As an aside, coalition agreements back then fitted on an A4 - certainly part of the problem as the coalition agreement is a non-democratic instrument now used to lock-in voting behaviour of the coalition parties' members.

They are unprecedented reactions to unprecedented actions by Trump.

Hillary provided access to the entire email server and there was no issue surrounding paper documents because there was no probable cause she did that too. So she was cooperative. Trump on the other hand, knowingly retained documents that he knew he was supposed to return.

I'm not sure what situation with Bill you're referring to. He had sex with someone and I can't recall confidential information was involved.

That's just the thing: It _is_ law. It is _Islamic_ law. — baker

No, it isn't. Depends on whether a given country recognises is as such. So it might have been law in Iran but it certainly wasn't in the US.

The Islamic authorities disagree. — baker

Point me to the part where they considered the harm principle. They didn't disagree, it simply wasn't a consideration. Your statement is therefore false.

Would you make the same case for hate speech? — baker

A book that would call for violence against others is not protected speech and does harm others when people act upon the call. Since Rhusdie didn't, your suggested equivocation is wrong footed.

Wrong. It's not about not wanting to be aggravated or insulted. It's about not tolerating such aggravation or insult.

Nobody specifically wants to be aggraved or insulted. It is not fair to expect some people to quietly tolerate aggravation and insult, while others get to revenge themselves. — baker

You're simply missing the point and arguing against a straw man. The point is that aggravation is not grounds for punishment. You currently aggravate me with a badly argued post. Off with your head.

Blasphemy does damage a higher norm. — baker

Which higher norm? You're free to follow a religion, I'm free to ridicule you for it.

Example: If a person who is not a citizen of the US says or does something that the US authorities consider harmful to the US, what does the US do? They punish this person, and this punishment can include death. When another country does this same kind of thing, why is this problematic? — baker

This is not an example but an interesting representation of your biases. I talk shit about the USA on a daily basis and I'm fine.

Equivocating a fatwa with a rule of law is just plain wrong. A fatwa isn't law and in this case the rule was also intended to have retroactive effect, because it imposes a punishment for behaviour that existed before the rule was communicated. That is always bad law.

The reason high treason is punishable is because it generally detrimentally affects a large group of people. So from a typical liberal perspective, the harm principle can be applied. Since nobody is harmed by Rushdie's book, they can after all choose not to read it, punishing it is quite frankly ridiculous. If you don't want to be aggravated or insulted, don't interact with people at all, don't read, don't watch television and don't listen to the radio.

In a similar vain, treason that could never damage people or protects a higher norm, shouldn't be punished either. Generally, judges tend to take such effects into account when deciding on the severity of punishment.

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlagschennis#:~:text=Vlagschennis%20is%20het%20verbranden%2C%20verminken,de%20nationale%20vlag%20strafbaar%20stellen.

The Dutch version explains it's neither a crime in the Netherlands nor Belgium.

I'd hope not! :rofl:

If you were to burn the Dutch flag in public, what would be the consequences?
It's just a piece of cloth, isn't it? — baker

Nothing happens. It's not considered criminal behaviour.

That's not terrible, that would've been justice and the right order of thing especially if that traitor Pence got killed. At least, that's how I imagine Trump's thoughts go to the extent he has them.

You misunderstand his quote. Terrible things might happen to Trump. Terrible things happening to others aren't part of his moral calculus. The temperature going down is about the DOJ and FBI backing off and only they are responsible for the current temperature. He was so drunk on power that the idea of him having done anything illegal as president doesn't compute.

However, where we may differ in views is that I do not believe governments are able to resist against this phenomenon, and giving governments further mandates to fight private business will only result in larger, more unaffordable behemoth government, and more mandates that will be in the end abused against the citizen. — Tzeentch

Yes, we definitely diverge there. We know from history that smaller government leads to worse abuse by capitalists (exploitation). Especially in light of modern corporate power, the state is the only entity capable of being a counterveiling force to capitalist power. Trust in the Dutch governments was highest with "vadertje Drees", a social Democrat. The last politician we had that was respected across party lines when the ontzuiling wasn't even fully accomplished. Because back then his breed of politicians at least tried to do what was best for most citizens, instead of catering to special interests.

Since then we've seen the slow erosion of the welfare state due to liberal theory's narrow idea of freedom (as only negative freedom). Without financial solidarity, there's no social solidarity. And when a government isn't seen to combat social injustice, you get distrust of the government. If that distrust isn't addressed but instead exacerbated due to an immoral shift in political culture, you get the what we have now. Combined with a rising power of corporations due to internationalisation, concentration and financial deregulation, they are also more prone to be influenced by special interests.

In this day and age while I'll always be more of a socialist, I think it's no longer about party ideology but personal character. We need representatives that can ignore party politics, set aside their ego and sincerely think about "what is best" instead of technocratic adjustments and I don't really care if he's a liberal or a socialist deep down. Both ideologies brought a lot of good and probably reflect in a sense a basic human contradiction: that of belonging (socialism) and being yourself (liberalism).

I consider capitalism as it's ordered at this point in time to be an affront to both. Wage slavery, attacks on labour unions in the US, liberalisation of international markets meaning that people are slowly all become flex workers with related deterioration in labour protections and room and freedom for personal development, etc.

Indeed. Still, I remain puzzled with the intensity of the reaction to what I remember as a respectful, even insightful 'novelisation' of Mohammad's revelation. — Olivier5

If the Quran is supposed to be divinely inspired then the suggestion some of the text is the consequence of political considerations is blasphemous. That part seems relatively straightforward, if possibly alien/ridiculous to most Christians and atheists.

Which worked out perfectly for capitalists (and just them), which was his point I think.

We're both Dutch. You're welcome to share everything that you think is going wrong and we can talk about how those specific issues would be best solved over a beer.

I have plenty of problems with the Dutch government but that's not really the point between us at this moment. Where "evils" were perpetrated, you have to show this is the result of government functioning or the result of politics. It's almost always the latter, although I'd argue the US governmental institutions and their relations are set up in such a way that they invite abuse with too little in the way of counterveiling forces. So there are definitely systems that are better than others. I think the Dutch system is one of the best - one of my favourites is the easy access for new parties that allow for the introduction of new issues in political discourse that are relevant to society but ignored by mainstream parties. The better the system, the less corruption or "special interest" have a chance to influence decision making. But at the end of the day, to me it's mostly about political culture.

I might be mistaken and it's just because I'm older and notice it more, but I feel that Dutch political parties have become more corrupt than say 20 years ago, with political leaders not taking responsibility for governmental failures, a focus on political symbolism and point-scoring in media. Just look at the toeslagenaffaire, how Pieter Omtzigt was treated and the talk about a new "culture of transparancy" but nobody following it through. Just windowdressing.

And this has influence on how ministries are run and act. They are increasingly in the business of keeping elected officials out of trouble. So they avoid taking difficult decisions because the minister is not going to sign off on it any way.

I applaud that step. Contains the problem to the USA.

So they say the attack is justified. — Michael

Lovely.

Thomas Aquinas said that atheists should be executed. He was echoing Plato. None of those guys were crazy. It's part of who we are as a species to get murderous about sacrilege, which has many forms. I don't say that to apologize for Muslim leaders who are silent now. It's just that I need a way to understand. — Tate

Agree. I believe civilisation really is only a very thin veneer, easily dropped under various circumstances.

This: a few translators and sympthasizers have already been attacked. The Japanese translator died and the Norwegian and Italian translators survived.

We got guys ready to kill for hearsay, for a fucking rumor...

I guess some people beg to be manipulated. — Olivier5

I unfortunately do not share your disbelief. Isn't every religious war exactly this? It requires you to buy into the religious fundamental assumptions that I'm pretty certain most believers never experienced either. God is infallible, omnipresent, angels, hell, heaven, etc.

I suppose it's not so much manipulation but the indoctrination resulting from whatever society you grow up into. Most people do not question their position or role in that society. And I'd say "education" is an important factor in avoiding this but then Iran was well-educated and "modern" well into the 70s. So it's also politics and how politics and religious thinking can be (mis)used. Just like "God save America", "God is with us!" and "I'm doing God's work" are and were used for political purposes.

Another excellent piece mentioned our 'internalisation' of the fatwah with links to other articles.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/13/we-internalised-the-fatwa-against-salman-rushdie-this-horrific-attack-is-what-follows — Amity

This is a good article and makes an interesting link to identity politics.

Upon reflection, what surprises me is that despite the decentralised nature of religious leadership in Islam, such a fatwa can have such a far-reaching almost monolithic agreement with the fatwa even by Muslims who aren't part of the religious tradition of Ayatollah Khomeini. I somehow feel that it can't just be identity politics that resulted in that. Am I overestimating European societies ability to create room for people to have their own opinions about these sort of things? Hell, I have very fundamental different views than my parents about almost everything to do with politics.

I'm just glad he survived.

I want to say yes just to see you talk more silliness.

I didn't know that. My Persian ex always corrected me and said "It's Farsi idiot".

we had double digit inflation in the 70s here. Golden years. It's not very interesting if wages can keep up.

my bed and wrote in persian — Olivier5

You mean Farsi.

RM?

I suspect the lawyer is so bad, he didn't actually check and simply asked Trump and accepted his answer as true.

If that's your point, then you are arguing semantics.

The whole "price stability" has been bullshit from the start. "We'll never have another crisis": my ass. Only hyperinflation is an issue. Both moderate deflation and inflation should just run its course.

It's just a really, really big mushroom. Keep your distance.

Yes, which then leads to increased acidification again so not necessarily a good thing.

FYI, found a reference to the research about lower temperatures in the northern hemisphere: https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/207427

Sorry, it's from memory. I think I read it in relation to the little ice age. It's something I must've read in 2004-2010 when I was working at the ESA. Might even be obsolete nowadays to be honest.

Even if the thermohaline circulation would shut down, this would result in relatively local climate change limited to eastern North America and Western Europe and would result (as far as we understand) to lower temperatures.

What a cheap retort to what is an argued position. It must be wonderful to be so convinced about your own position you can dismiss others without trying to understand them and instead impute bad faith.

I see people are back to arguing the equivalent of "water causes itself to be wet". Whatever floats your boat I guess. Carry on. :yawn:

Always nice to see people rant about governments without acknowledging what they have managed:

1. prohibited slavery
2. prohibited child labour
3. gender equality
4. welfare
5. healthcare
6. labour laws
7. environmental laws
8. independent courts
9. infrastructure
10. accessible educations
11. anti-trust legislation
12. police
13. fire departments
14. etc.

I could go on but I thought of one every second just now, each institution or law program improving socio-economic circumstances of a lot of people and to the extent it cost money it improved social justice. I don't really care about the motivation of people who are against governmental action toute court, because it's based on a total lack of historic perspective and only driven by ideology.

Why? Whatever Trump does, it doesn't matter for his supporters. Because it's all just fake news, even if they hear about the issues. What would change their minds, other than Trump going full liberal? — ssu

What exactly is funny about Saudi Arabia getting nuclear weapons information?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/11/russia-oil-production-sanctions-limited-effect-ukraine-war

Limited effect on Russia. Europe on the other hand... There's a lot of Dutch families having trouble paying their bills due to the increased energy prices and there's a larger wave expected at the end of the year when the invoice for actual use is sent. Here we have a system where you pay an advance, which is calculated on historic use but also prices when the advance is set (eg. beginning of the year or contract if you have a longer term contract). So unless people have voluntarily raised the advance, they will have a hefty bill at the end of the year. The National Institute for Family Finance Information has already pointed out too little people are doing this and they expect a significant spike in defaults at the beginning of next year.

So if sanctions aren't really hurting Russia but are hurting the most vulnerable in our own societies, why continue with them?

HAHAHAA! — ssu

There's nothing remotely funny about this so I'm puzzled by your reaction.

Well, raiding a house of a previous president and a potential presidential candidate does raise eyebrows. — ssu

Yes, so since it would be political suicide if this were directed by the Democrats or done without probable cause, we can be confident there actually was a smoking gun.

Meanwhile Republicans are like the raid was "disturbing and dangerous".

Fuck.

Just wondering out loud, can he run while he's not been convicted yet? And if either he or another Republican wins the next presidential election, can he be pardoned?