|
I don't at all, but the thing is that in western culture she probably is more influential than the president (sadly enough). Her side controls the message. When you are famous enough to be followed by 46M people on social media, you need to realize that you have a responsibility if you decide to go into political matters. We're at a point where I think liberals would literally be fine with impeaching Trump if it meant Ariana Grande took his position. That's not even hyperbole.
|
But her platform doesn't penetrate the type of people that are involved in some way with terrorism. She reaches out to fans, many of which are teenagers, most of which live in Western countries. She's more influential on a local, teen scale, but Trump is more influential when it comes to countries like Saudia Arabia, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, etc. and people of all faiths, especially Islam. She also isn't in a position to create political change through law, Trump is. So her political comments hold less water than Trump's do, because she's a celebrity, and Trump is the President.
|
What's your solution? Do you not think that such a thing would drastically lower the rate at which terrorist attacks occur? At the expense of what? People can't enter the country? It's our country, so? Don't you think they need some sort of cleansing or reformation of their religion?
|
At what cost, though? Yes, the ban Trump proposed would undoubtedly decrease the chance of terrorist attacks on America. It might also create some homegrown attacks from people who get radicalized and are triggered by the ban to commit terrorist attacks, but overall it will decrease them. Most of our prisons are filled by African Americans, so can we just treat all African Americans differently than all other races and not allow only African Americans to not posess guns or other drastic measures? It's about the cost versus the benefit. As an Independent, I think that the cost outweighs the benefit when it comes to the proposed ban. This might be taken out of context or may be poorly worded by myself, but I can't think of a good way to say this: A few people's lives does not outweigh the principals of an entire population, when the lives will have been lost from those who don't share the peoples' principals.
|
Liberalism is the disease that's going to allow ISIS to become perpetually stronger. Had they instead targeted some right-wing entertainer who has spoken up in support of Trump or Brexit, it would empower liberal idiots even more and their embrace of this dangerous ideology would become even greater, that's the saddest part. We're in a downward spiral due to the position of western media. They control the message that everyone sees, and their message is strongly in support of a culture that hates gays, oppresses women, and wishes death on apostates.
|
I'm an Independent, which I only point out (again) to note that I don't think this type of rhetoric helps the conversation. Arguing opposing viewpoints is great, but when it just becomes an attack on Liberals or when Liberals just make it an attack on Conservatives, all support for an argument is lost.
|
They are losers. Why does this offend you? They're pathetic. They're the lowest and most pathetic forms of life out there, they're terrorists. Are you trying to imply that we should be afraid to say this about them? You want everyone to pretend they're nice so that they won't attack us? What the hell is that?
|
It doesn't offend me. I wouldn't have even brought it up before you criticized Ariana Grande's reponse. My point was that it was simply a response to a terrorist attack. Trump's verbal response isn't going to do anything to stop the attack, and he has an enourmous platform. My point was that you shouldn't expect even more from a young celebrity singer.
Damn, you really inferred a lot from me just because I brought up Trump's response. Of course terrorists are the pathetic scum of the Earth. No one's pretending they're nice, not even Liberals. Again, the argument is lost when it just becomes partisain attacks. No one pretends they're nice or that we should be afraid to condemn them. The issue is with overgeneralizing the problem - which Trump didn't even do by the way.
|
You seem like a huge apologist when it comes to this. Can you not even condemn Islam on the basis that they murder gays and harshly discriminate against women? Flat out, ISIS is evil and Islam itself is regressive. Neither of them are good, and I'd be quite happy with experiencing neither of them in the US.
|
You keep making personal attacks and inferring things from me out of no where. The problem of overgeneralizing is present in your statement. Hell yes, many Islamic countries treat women poorly. Every religion did in the past; most have progressed with the times. Islam surely will, but it will be painful and slow for them. Many Muslims actually leave those countries for Western countries because of their treatment. Every Muslim I know believes in equality and treats everyone equal. Again, Islam itself isn't the problem, it's the countries, the leaders, and the ideologies they spread through their population which is mostly Muslim. I just think it's a very narrow perspective to overgeneralize the entire religion as bad because of the propoganda being fed to mostly Conservatives. Hell, even America doesn't treat people all equally and 50 years ago we most certainly didn't. Yes, currently it's on a different level of inequality, but inequality nonetheless. Doesn't mean all of America is bad.
This is the 'bad apples' problem that pisses me off with the overgeneralization of police. One police officer discriminates against blacks, and some people with very narrow viewpoints end up painting all police as racist.