Colonialism? As if there weren't states in Africa before colonial times? Tribalism especially in the African context is just a condescending way to describe a similar phenomenon like patriotism and nationalism. — ssu

Africa has countries, not states for one. Two, tribalism is a lot different than how the early Europeans came and how they treated indigenous tribes. These are false equivalencies you're presenting.

If it’s wrong for the alt right to address issues of race as they do then it’s wrong of others too. If it’s not wrong of others then it’s not wrong of the alt right. — Brett

The reason why it is inherently wrong is the same reason why certain arguments from men's rights groups can be wrong: thinking that equity is oppression. The basis of the alt-right is to maintain systemic racism by allowing whites to remain on top in all sectors of society. If we look at history European colonialists from Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, and others have all had an advantage through colonizing various lands and exploiting various cultures. Eurocentrism, and Eurocentric standards of beauty has conditioned many indigenous groups that "white is right," and that darker skin complexions and primordial religions, and indigenous beliefs are all superstition and that the culture of the white man has been indoctrinated in all these occupied cultures convincing them that their culture is primitive.

So when progressive change happens and fight for equality happens and when these disenfranchised groups learn self-love and develop schools, groups to represent their concerns to level the playing field, to the majority, whites this seems unfair. People forget whites had centuries upon centuries of benefits which propelled many of their citizens ahead of the game. Systemic racism has very often told minorities that their culture is primitive and that their phenotype is cursed using God as a proxy to condemn them. So in retrospect the alt-right is concerned with maintaining white identity not as a source of it going away, but to maintain an advantage over others.

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism — Judaka

Due to centuries of European colonialism

, the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites — Judaka

I disagree, and in fact that is not even accurate historically.

The alt-right is basically complaining about that and many liberals hate them for it but why? — Judaka

The alt-right is a rag tag group of whiny cry babies who also try and point fingers about others crying while they themselves cry.

"Jews will not replace us" remember?

The criticism of the alt-right shows the reality that the main frustration is not actually with ethnicities being interpretatively relevant but actually a hatred of the "white ethnicity" — Judaka

Hatred of the alt-right is deserving because death is the result or have you forgotten Charlottesville? Hatred of the alt-right stems from the fact that white nationalism has become dangerous masked by the idea that it is a benign ideology bent on isolationism.

Sadly, I think a great deal of the posters on this forum fit this description but are completely oblivious to it. — Judaka

I against white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right because nothing positive for the benefit of the human race has came out of such ideologies but irrational fear and ignorance.

Since my undertaking of internet forums as of late, I notice a lot of racially conscious young people who are often ignorant of race intersectionality. One thing I do notice about Caucasians that many are not aware (both unintentional and intentional) of their own privilege and their own racial prejudices and biases.

On the other side, the exchange of hateful messages creates echo chambers on the internet (as it is prone to do) which can send people 'down the rabbit hole'. — Tzeentch

Very often people think by vilifying "hate speech" you are prohibiting it. In my other thread I made the point that people forget that there are consequences to speech. I you hate me and use words that are insensitive, and I have poor impulse control, the result could be that your life is taken. That is not to say violence out to be the common denominator if someone insults you, but that physical reaction ought to be understood to be something that could potentially happen. I think in light of the recent situation, people want to prevent speech from getting out of had because hate speech is not a dialogue (as you say it creates echo chambers).

Hate speech is not the exchanging of ideas, rather you're telling me an idea or worldview you have, and in response there is nothing productive I will share in return. I for one, loath hate speech. there is nothing beneficial of you (not you specifically) telling me how horrible "my people" are because you have some sort of animosity towards members of my group.

I'm just not sure hate speech actually creates hatred. — Hallucinogen

That is the problem, you don't.

but the people calling for censorship believe that hate speech causes both hatred and violence. — Hallucinogen

The individual that caused 51 murders didn't just subscribe to an ideology or espouse hate, this individual put it into action. the continuous problem I see is that there are a lot of members of the non-targeted group making the same comments you're making.

"vote Trump 2016" written in chalk on the floors of university campuses, racist graffiti, or smiling catholic school boys wearing Trump hats — Hallucinogen

I'm not in the least bit in support of Trump but how do you equate hate with a trump hate or the slogan Trump 2016?

what would I have to say to you, to convince you to hate another group? — Hallucinogen

To believe that your ethnic group is superior to others, white supremacy is a fine example of this. You also need a group where you have conditioned the minds of people of your in-group to believe this to be true. This is something Hitler has done. He has taken the mythological rhetoric of ethnic superiority, and use his enemies to promote their ethnic inferiority. Taking "junk science" to further promote this rhetoric by conducting skewed research to validate confirmation bias. People of the in-group with no ability to reason for themselves and who lack any foundation of a college education are more likely than not to believe such rhetoric.

What could I say to you, to convince you to hate Buddhists? Or Jews, or black people?
If the answer to that is "nothing", we are on the same page. — Hallucinogen

What I just mentioned previously.

Still, it is possible that the unfortunately dim-witted in society may be swayed by the artful speech of a manipulator. — Hallucinogen

This validated my paragraph which I just described.

I think they are the exception rather than the rule, and that the rest of society should hardly suffer a limitation in speaking rights purely because exceptionally dumb people exist. — Hallucinogen

No. there are a lot of people which does not make them exceptions to the rule. this violent crime was promoted by white supremacy. White supremacy and systemic racism exist, and it continues to exist.

No, I think hatred is not created by speech — Hallucinogen

That is the problem, and your mistake. If I hate members of your group and use rhetoric to solidify this mindset and I convince others and I create a system where I can exploit you and people that look like you because of my hatred, my speech can definitely actualize itself into action.

I think the one thing a lot of people especially Caucasians suffer from is empathy, and I say that because when it isn't you, it's not a problem. Very often some of you proclaim that such and such isn't harmful, well why don't you ask the 51 dead Muslims who died because some coward white guy decided to kill people to prove a point. This coward only demonstrated that Caucasians that think like him are intellectually deficient and incapable of making their voices heard in an academic setting. They are the very low IQ people who are inferior, the very same categorization they give to other people of color.

Not so easy considering that white nationalism is a growing problem.

What sort of empirical research have you done for claims like that, and logically, what do you believe the upshot of that fact is, assuming the empirical support for it is solid? — Terrapin Station

You really want me to present scholar articles? I suspect you've never taken a course dealing with cultures, race, and history? I have no issue supporting the evidence, but for any student especially in college it is apparent.

I asked if your position could be interpreted as “islamophobic — I like sushi

Ok fine, but like anything, it could or couldn't be it is up to the one observing it.

I’m not convinced that someone should be sacked from work because they are looked at as being some kind of “-ist” over a comment on a forum like this. — I like sushi

Your convincing is irrelevant when it comes to at-will employment. You can be fired at a job for most things that could be perceived as a liability to the work environment. If you held a job you'd be aware of this. Your speech matters, and people from various hospitals and other facilities have been fired over what they say over the internet. Many have argued free speech but again, if you are making comments and in this case like as you say, made the benign remark telling another African-American to "get on their knees like they used to," and I'm a witness to that and we all work in the same environment I could bring this up to HR. Most likely you'll be either questioned or reprimanded, especially if I bring evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter if you don't find it offensive or not, it matters to the ones who can hire and fire you.

If someone says something crazy then I would eather ask them, try and underdtand why they think what they think what they think and challenge them. — I like sushi

In the case where speech of this kind, in my own experience it is pointless to discuss with someone who has a perverse view of reality especially if they are dead set on it.

People are most certainly looking to react and look for offense as it is the nature of most comments sections and the lack fo physical proximity causes people to act differently, and for people looking to their content viewed to make mountains out of mole hills in order to make money on the back of their myopic analysis that falls into whatever the latest “outrage” is. — I like sushi

This is one of the many setbacks with internet. There is a project in Brazil where people who make pejorative remarks online get aired out on billboards, and by this I'm referring to their real names and faces. It begs the question whether if one would make hateful comments if their true identity was revealed?

You don’t seem willing to respond to my comments about your other thread — I like sushi

Well maybe because I'm just not coming around, and maybe because while I'm getting to it I'm also at work which is the only time I'm able to.

You don’t seem willing to respond to my comments about your other thread which could be interpreted as “islamophobic”? — I like sushi

It wasn't "Islamophobic" considering I already tied in the ethical issues concerning terrorism in relation to extremism. In fact there are books concerning Ibn Safwan's extreme determinism and its potential association with terrorism. I mentioned terrorism in that thread because I made the connection with how extreme determinism, lack of education, and religious extremism can contribute to terrorism. Terrorism, which is a gross misrepresentation of extreme action from personal disagreement of social policy in this case the philosophy of Ibn Safwan's view of determinism seems to contribute to the root cause of heterodoxy in Islamic beliefs. Ultimately, Islam's criterion for orthodox belief holds that "justice" is the main principle of Islam:

"O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. ... And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do."-Surah 5:8

So as I mentioned in that thread Jahm ibn Safwan's position was confronted by the Mu'tazilites because Jahm's position indicated on one end passivity, even Islamic philosopher Walid ibn Ata even said:

"It is inconceivable that God might order man to do something and he be unable to do it, or feel unable to act. Whoever denies man’s ability, denies the necessity [of obedience to God].”

But then on the polar end, the extreme determinism of Jahm's view would also indicate that acts specifically evil acts like terrorism are also a part of God's will which would run counter to how God is identified in the Holy Qur'an. God is just, and so if such is true what is just about a terrorist killing a lot of innocent people? This is why the Mu'tazilites stated that mankind was given the capacity of agency which they can act upon their own will to make choices. Ultimately, the Mu'tazilites believe Ibn Safwan's Quranic interpretation was misplaced.

Now that I spent an inordinate amount of time explaining that......

I agree with Tim wood. I scanned the post, but it was really hard to read. — T Clark

This is the result of tangential thought.

Does God have a brain? — Robert Tomlinson

God is incorporeal. The brain is a corporeal substance.

But what the heck does Donald Trump have to do with this?

Natural selection. Dangerous men, violent men, by harming others, can do better for themselves (and their female partner and their offspring). — Michael Ossipoff

How?

Females who get with violent men therefore have more surviving offspring, — Michael Ossipoff

How does that fit in the hunter-gatherer model?

So, what you really mean is you learned it is pointless to have discussions with people who not automatically see things the way you do — DingoJones

No. when it comes to discussion, if someone is unwilling to see a different perspective especially when it comes to pejorative phrases aimed at a specific group of people, and people are unwilling to understand that viewpoint because THEY think its not racist, then the discussion is pointless.

For example the subject concerning the NBA player Russell Westbrook's incident concerning the fan that made those comments towards him. I share the same cultural demographic as Westbrook so when I mentioned that I understand how Westbrook reacted towards the fan it is because I've had the same shared experiences like other African-Americans when pejorative phrases like "get on your knees like your used to" are being said in public.

I understand how sensitive those comments can be because it is those comments that were used against my grand-father and his family. The problem that I had with sushi was not his opposing view, but the point where he thinks "well, I don't see that as racist" given the fact that collectively, phrases of this kind were meant to harm African-Americans. There is the collective experience concerning these types of phrases and so essentially when a person denies that phrases of that sort are racist and aren't using reasons as to why it ultimately for me, means that these individuals are unwilling to see the cultural sensitivity of such phrases being used.

I did a thread on this (Dark Triad Theory).

Ok. One of the things I learned in graduate school studying racial intersectionality is if someone is unwilling to be open to have a different perspective outside their own mind it’s a pointless endeavor.

I’m not familiar with his work — I like sushi

This is all I needed to know. Then this really destroys the length of your argument concerning what you think he was referencing. I think you ought to read the book I referenced in my original post before you continue on Ibn Safwan's hypothetical position on Islamic theology concerning the aforementioned subject. Although I said discuss, if you're going to reference Ibn Safwan, it is best to use his works you are familiar with to make your point. Making your point outside referencing Ibn Safwan even though you mentioned him in what you think he was mentioning, really doesn't make the discussion fruitful. I'm specifically referring to this school of thought in conjunction to the Islamic idea of determinism, and fatalism.

Only by someone looking to be offended. — I like sushi

I don't think people often look to be offended. I don't think NBA players in the case of Westbrook go to arena and arena looking to have a fan use inflammatory speech against them, that is wrong. I think people for the most part look to do what they please and mind their business.

There is absolute NOTHING racist in the comment. — I like sushi

To you and that is okay because you're one person with one perspective but most certainly your perspective is not reflective of reality.

Using abbreviations is hardly enough to get you sacked, seriously? — I like sushi

Jesus, it was an example. Do people on ThePhilosophyforum.com are that much of a literalist to actually think hypothetical examples which use abbreviations are actually the crux of various points that are being made? The use of the word "homo" was indeed at one point used and still is used in the context that was meant to be pejorative. Similarly the abbreviation of the word raccoon, morphed into the pejorative term "coon" in reference to African-Americans in context was meant to cause harm. Regardless whether they are abbreviated or not, in their said context these are pejorative phrases that are harmful.

Joking about homosexual activity is not “homophobic” and joking about cultural/ethnic/racial stereotypes is not “racist” or any other “-ist” unless it’s blatantly ironic and/or purposefullu derogatory. — I like sushi

Again to you it's no problem but again you are one person and your view bears no actual realistic way of approaching the subject. I invite you to look at this video (if you so choose look at the entire video) and fast forward to 43:43



As the woman said a joke was made that was completely racist and apart from her nobody got it, and sometimes speech of this sort can completely go over someone's head because the target of said joke or comment is not them.

. If someone is saying something publicly about their work then obviously, prejudice or not, they will be putting themselves in a position where they could lose their job. Note: this is if it’s AIMED specifically at a work colleague or the establishment itself. — I like sushi

Not just work, but people included. If you are a racist and use your Facebook to espouse your rhetoric while working at a hospital you most certainly can/will be fired in at-will employment states. Your free speech is not protected.

The demographic business is more nonsense. We’re all, in some manner or another, a minority of some given group — I like sushi

Not necessarily. See, you keep disregarding things as nonsense and when you state your reasons they are unsubstantiated neither with research or with anything else. If we take the United States for example despite the progressive movements and changes in our society Caucasians are still over-represented socially, economically, and psychologically. Now, when it comes to particular things like sports then yes. Even demographically when it comes to places where one resides then yes but by being a minority in regards to sports and district demographics this is minute compared to the other facets of society. This is well documented fact in research.

Be it by the music we like, the clothes we wear, the length of our hair, our wealth, etc — I like sushi

This is irrelevant especially in comparison to what matters.

Somehow I think you may change our opinion — I like sushi

Who is our? I'm in no business to change nobody's opinion and from I see a lot of opinions are not based on reality. I think people here are using a lot of jargon with their own personal conjecture. I deal with facts not jargon used in intellectual gymnastics.

I made a post, but for some reason it is not showing up. Your line about “fire in a movie theater” does not come from the First Amendment, was never binding, and the case it was quoted in was overturned in 1969. — czahar

You're right, but I believe the spirit of inciting violence and harm still stands.

Let me give you an example....

Do you go into a room full of MS-13 gang members with your wife and kids (this is hypothetical of course) and use racist epithets towards them? Obviously no, because your words could endanger the lives of you and those around you who were not using inflammatory speech.

Usually people stressing that (free) speech has "consequences" are folks who support things like violence in response to speech in some instances, taking away or making it difficult for someone to earn a living, basically ostracizing or blacklisting the person, etc — Terrapin Station

Apparently if you're referencing me why not quote me?

Usually people that believe people ought to say what they want whenever they want usually end up unemployed or worse, beat up or shot. I do not condone violence in any way, however I'm not surprised if someone ends up hurt for using pejorative remarks. I think if you're stupid enough to use racial epithets towards a player which may have people of the same demographic you shouldn't be surprised that you are pummeled. I think it takes actual cognitive thinking and maturity to demonstrate restraint of speech in this regard.

Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with saying “sell the team” or “get down on your knees”. — I like sushi

Well in the first instance there is nothing wrong per se, but the owner is known to be quite "emotional." For the latter, as I mentioned to another poster, the context can be perceived as racial. If you're not of the demographic and do not share the collective experience of said demographic especially when it comes to historical racism you're in no position to define what is pejorative and what isn't. you're speaking as an outsider and for all intensive purposes, it's not a plausible position. That is like someone using the word homo in the context of a joke. Although you may find it funny someone who is homosexual may not, but you don't sit there and define that such and such speech using the word homo is not inflammatory. This is your position but by no means does it reflect reality.

If someone does use racial slurs at a sporting event they shouldn’t be surprised if they’re thrown out and banned.

Isn’t this obvious? — I like sushi

Not to those that believe in freedom of speech. These advocates believe that in all facets of society one ought to be free to use inflammatory speech regardless where they are and that is not aligned with reality. People even at my job are getting fired for posting stuff on Facebook about their employer. The common defense in Human Resources is: "well I have freedom of speech and that is my private account."

Wrong.

People forget that in at-will employment states they can almost fire you for anything even if you're using a social media platform that is "private" if someone told HR on the type of speech you're using you can most certainly get fired. In sporting arenas as you've stated, these are private businesses and if they find you disruptive and combative towards players you most certainly will get banned.

Harm, impact, yes. That must be weighed against the harm and impact of restricting speech. — DingoJones

Of course. In the case of Westbrook the fan was disruptive enough to potentially cause an incident.

As the OP quoted, all your other freedoms come from your freedom to speak. Even the bad speech, because whatever harm that causes is a picnic compared to the alternative. — DingoJones

True, but there are limitations. You don't have freedom of speech with at-will jobs.

Words cannot enslave, this requires physical force — DingoJones

I suspect you're not American nor African-American? Ever heard of Willy Lynch letters? Perhaps you want to read that. Furthermore speech has a psychological impact especially if used with physical force, but you can enslave someone even with speech.

Words cannot maim, this requires physicsl force, or physical injury/harm — DingoJones

Without speech which is the requirement to cause harm when it comes historical slavery yes. You're taking it quite literally which is not something you ought to do. Most certainly speech can be attached to a harm done by someone.

Retaliatory against other violence. Shoot if your shot at, hit when you are hit upon, yell when you are yelled at. Its pretty simple. — DingoJones

Um, you didn't get it.

I know you have an idea of what kinds of speech should be responded to with violence — DingoJones

At this point judging by your response you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

If you grant people the right to commit violent acts in response to speech then violence will become normal — DingoJones

But where am I saying that. I'm merely highlighting that inflammatory speech that is racist in an arena where the target of the racist epithet, could potentially have members of the same demographic can be a problem. Besides a basketball arena, like a football arena are private businesses as well so yes your speech is limited.

To Terrapins point, you should be restricted to using your voice to fight back, not your fists unless you’ve been attacked with fists. — DingoJones

I agree you "ought" to be restricted but in reality that is not the case. I think from a sociological standpoint based on history you and Terrapin lack the historical understanding how residual pain through the proxy of words can indeed affect people. I think as a non-member of said demographic you don't get to define for someone else how they ought to react given the residual affects of the elements of a given word(s).

Punishment for defamation is usually a fine, but you can get here a two years prison term for aggravated defamation. — ssu

I suspect states have different levels of punishments yes.

And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. — ssu

Defamation is written speech, slander is oral....They are forms of speech

I guess the majority of people understand this, meaning that they understand what freedom of speech means. — ssu

I understand what freedom of speech is and there was nothing I wrote that stated otherwise.

Um, I guess DingoJones got it but can you rephrase that for me?

Because if I said you are a pedophile and I alerted the news station, and subsequent to that socially I've convicted you to guilt without evidence, and the result is losing your job, pursuit of happiness and perhaps placed you in danger all unfounded on a lie I'm sure you'd want a law to protect you.

Its for grown ups, not sensitive children who get hurt feelings and call it violence. — DingoJones

But the idea that words do not hurt is a myth. Legally it is within one's right for speech within the confines of the law, but there are limitations. It is not necessarily about hurt feelings, rather, in certain arenas should there be limiting factors of speech? For example could free speech in fact cause harm? Yes, see:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/massachusetts-high-court-upholds-michelle-carter-s-conviction-texts-encouraging-n968291

Can racial epithets formed from so-called free speech cause harm? Yes.

Whatever happened to “sticks and stones...”? — DingoJones

No. In American history words were used to enslave, maim, and kill other people. The residual pain over the generations is evident enough to know words do in fact have an impact on others.

We taught that to CHILDREN, because we wanted them to one day be ADULTS. — DingoJones

We also taught children to use violence in retaliatory fashion. We also cite MLK's speech. We also do a lot of things in the United States and elsewhere touting democracy and yet in reality we do the complete opposite.

If you restrict speech, you are eroding your access to your fundamental freedoms.
And yes, that includes the vulgar and hateful. — DingoJones

My argument here is not to restrict speech, but to also note that the consequences of freedom could result in violence.

Speaking of grown ups (which is a rather juvenile attempt to protect inflammatory) as mentioned before at will employment does not put up with it, and neither does the law. Nobody cannot absolutely say things freely without consequences. This is why we have laws against slander, libel, defamation etc.

Although I understand your position I'm not sure Ubn Safwan was stating that which is why I stated unless you're familiar with his works it would be helpful to post it here.

You said it was a joke

No. Said it as in general

Yet naturally religion isn't the only reason. Of course the Mongols and the whole Arab/Ottoman World turning inwards would be reasons too. — ssu

Yeah. I recall listening to a lecture by Neil Degrasse Tyson on this...

As Islam had no Renaissance, it's no wonder that they have now to tackle with these issues as science and technology is so important in our time. — ssu

Interesting perspective!

We take this “metaphorically” to mean “morally speaking”. — I like sushi

I see your point here.

Your words here might well be used as an example of religious hatred too and serve to recruit people to commit acts here or there — I like sushi

Well, I was merely hypothesizing the view of ibn Safwan's thought concerning the extreme determinism on his part. I would suspect that religious leaders would use this particular philosophical thought process to indoctrinate followers. See in the following for example:

Imam: "See, you're poor and hungry. The Americans, the Canadians, the British all the western world has destroyed your family. You have no home. Allah has willed this. Allah has also willed that you follow his command and fulfill your oath to fight those who expel you and fight against you! it is said that Allah controls all things and with that as a Muslim Allah compels you to fight against the western powers."

Somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan I can see this happening to someone ignorant of the true tenants of Islam. To indoctrinate someone and compel them with dramatic speech to commit horror using deterministic philosophy of this sort.

It is here where the responsibility of our actions should be regarded as at least partly willed/authored/chosen by us (as they are given that “us” is a human being and we’re delineated from each other and other objects enuogh to be able to talk about it! Haha!) so our choices do not pass us by due to our possibly self-infused apathy toward the world. — I like sushi

Agreed. But isn't all what you have said here contingent upon the individual believing they have agency?

Yes, we’ve a sympathetic nervous system. It was a pedantic musing about how we’re unaware of our initial circumstances in life - highly unlikely that we’re “born suicidal,” it was a joke. — I like sushi

Gotcha! sorry

Wow that is very interesting....!

Of course, when we're talking about dark triad, it's all smoke and mirrors. It's flattery and illusion. — csalisbury

Interesting perspective. I've read some other psychobiological articles relating to this article as well, I'm starting to think there must be some modified psychological mechanism inherent in males and females that patterns us after these qualities (e.g. narcissism) which may make us attractive this way maybe?

Wow....My gosh, I didn't know. My condolences.

I think that is an unfair analysis of what Safwan wrote. — I like sushi

Well I'm merely touching the surface of some of his writings, if you are more familiar with it then please submit something further to substantiate his position. So far, ibn Safwan's position is looking more heterodoxical.

The issue is mostly about people using the term “free will” in different contexts and conflating one with the other — I like sushi

Ok, but in the context of human agency both internal and external actions are all controlled by God. All actions are pre-ordained according to ibn Safwan. That means as I type, it is not my will that I type, but by God's will that I type this to you and construct the sentence the way I am designed to. From what I understand from ibn Safwan, I'm merely playing out the script that was written.

suicidal are obvious exceptions to this and not an innate tendency or we wouldn’t be here in the first place — I like sushi

Well how do you reconcile that with kids who grow up to be extremists, who live poor, starving, and with no hope with the exception of religious text that implants this idea of God's will and that to "kill the infidel" means you are destined for paradise, away for a desolate life? I believe the Muta'zilites saw this coming and criticized it because it circumvents the duty upon all Muslims to be observant of justice. I'm even willing to be ibn Safwan's thought could be used in extremism to justify terror, because terrorist would see no other way outside the rationale of terrorism.

but then again, maybe we’re born instantly suicidal and then by the time we develop into a condition where we’re capable of taking our own lives we’ve “matured” into something else and decide otherwise! — I like sushi

Since you like citing so much, if indeed we are born suicidal then why would all humans have a sympathetic nervous system? Why do we have a fight or flight response? Internally, the body was created to live until an appointed time of death or due to some external factor.

I see that as motivated by the inability to face the burden of having to decide and to act. Essentially it says that nothing you do matters — Wayfarer

This was the problem with the Muta'zilite school of thought because this ran contrary to Quranic theology:

"[This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it. Whoever please, i.e. with his free will, believe and whoever please disbelieve: (18:29)."

and it’s possible that our decisions are fatally flawed. — Wayfarer

Which according to the Muta'zilites this is where ibn Safwan made the error because this would render God flawed due to him controlling the actions of mankind. For Muslims, this line of thought leads to kufr or disbelief.

And if you believe in the reality of eternal damnation, then that’s a terrifying possibility. — Wayfarer

That is essentially the problem that I've encountered especially looking at the philosophical side of Quranic text. How is judgment "just" if the actions were pre-ordained to begin with? Surely God does not discern human agency from his own if in fact according to ibn Safwan, God controls human agency!

Agreed

I'm other-agnostic-theist

As someone who voted for Hillary Clinton, plans to vote for Kamala Harris — Noah Te Stroete

And just when I was beginning to like you....(Sarcasm)

You know it was on the list. What sort of thing is that to say? — Brett

Because not all people didn't think racism was bad, especially during that time...