If your interpretation isn't a dynamic system, then you misunderstood me right from the start. You're the one trying to argue my argument is essentialism. You have failed so far.
But I'm now bored with your bullshit straw man nonsense. If you want to have a conversation try arguing against something I have actually said
You say I misunderstood you—but you’ve repeatedly blamed “modern Islam” for atrocity, claimed Gaza’s population is shaped by a culture of violence, and justified civilian suffering by pointing to ideological conditions. That is essentialism. And calling it a “dynamic system” doesn’t change the fact that you’ve treated identity as destiny.
If you’re bored, it’s because the mirror isn’t flattering. But don’t pretend it’s a straw man just because you don’t like the accuracy. I’ve argued against exactly what you’ve said—verbatim. What you’re upset about isn’t misrepresentation. It’s accountability.
I guess I'm not arguing from essentialism then. Fancy that
Except you are—you’ve just backed into admitting it.
You said, “Islam today breeds atrocity.” That’s not pointing to a fringe group or specific political context. That’s assigning causal blame to a religion practiced by nearly two billion people. It’s a claim about what Islam is, not just what some extremists do. That’s essentialism.
Trying to walk it back now by saying “I guess I’m not arguing from essentialism” doesn’t erase what you said—it confirms that you don’t fully grasp the implications of your argument. The problem isn’t that you used the word wrong. It’s that you used the logic and just didn’t recognize it.
So no, you don’t get to say “Islam breeds atrocity” and then pretend that’s not an identity-based indictment. That’s exactly what essentialism looks like in practice.
Again... stop using words you don't understand
Actually, I understand the word perfectly—which is precisely why I used it.
Essentialism is the belief that certain traits—like violence, corruption, or irrationality—are inherent to a group’s identity: their race, religion, culture, or nationality. That’s not a misuse. That’s the textbook definition. And when you say “Islam today breeds atrocity,” you are not describing actions or ideologies—you are attributing a fixed quality to a religion and, by extension, to its followers.
You can’t backpedal by pretending I don’t understand the term when your own rhetoric fits it so precisely. You’re not engaging with extremist ideology as a political phenomenon—you’re painting a civilizational indictment and calling it “reality.”
So no—I’m not misusing the word. I’m holding up a mirror. And if the reflection makes you uncomfortable, maybe the problem isn’t the vocabulary.
Just stop this nonsense. Of course it isn't
Then explain what it is, because so far, all you’ve done is repackage sweeping generalizations as “cultural analysis.”
When you say “Islam today breeds atrocity” or that atrocities are the “expression of a culture,” you’re not talking about policy, power structures, or specific ideologies—you’re blaming a religion and its followers for the violence committed by a few. That’s not neutral. That’s not “acknowledging reality.” That’s using correlation to imply essence—exactly the thing you keep denying.
You compare it to U.S. school shootings, but here’s the difference: when we talk about American gun violence, we criticize gun laws, economic inequality, toxic masculinity, and policy failure—not Christianity or “Western culture” as inherently violent. You’re not doing the same with Islam. You’re bypassing political analysis and going straight for identity-based causation.
That’s the core problem. You want to talk about “cultural shortcomings”? Fine—be specific. Critique ideology, institutions, education systems. But the moment you start implying that a global religion or ethnicity “leads to” atrocity by nature, you’re not diagnosing a problem. You’re manufacturing a scapegoat.
Lol. Your arguments are so weak. This is a dumb inference of anything I have said imho. Why should I bother replying to something I obviously never said nor implied?
Then clarify—because so far, your own words have implied exactly that. You said:
“Islam today breeds atrocity.”
“Modern Islam is a scaffolding of atrocity.”
“We need to acknowledge cultural shortcomings or we will just repeat history.”
That isn’t just critique of bad actors. That’s indicting a global religion as the source of atrocity—without separating ideology from identity, belief from behavior, or violent factions from 1.9 billion diverse people. If you didn’t mean to suggest that Islam itself is causally responsible for terrorism, then say so. But if you stand by that wording, then yes—you are making exactly the move I described.
And calling the rebuttal “weak” doesn’t make it so. It just lets you dodge the substance of your own rhetoric.
That does not follow. Where do you get these absurd notions? Just stop
It follows directly from your own logic. You said:
“Islam today breeds atrocity.”
“When stuff repeatedly happens in a culture, that is a cultural expression of that culture.”
“We need to acknowledge cultural shortcomings.”
Apply that same logic to another group:
If someone said, “Judaism today breeds apartheid,” or “white American culture breeds school shootings,” you’d (rightly) call it bigotry or an unfair generalization. But when it’s Islam, you call it “acknowledging reality.
That’s the double standard I’m pointing out. If you want to hold cultures accountable for trends, you can’t exempt the ones you sympathize with. And if you don’t think every Jew or Christian should be implicated in the actions of extremists, then stop implying Muslims should be.
You’re not describing behavior—you’re branding identity. And dressing it up as analysis doesn’t make it less prejudiced. It just makes it easier to excuse.
tried to give an example to make you understand. But you are now no true scotsmanning. Stop embarrassing yourself
No, I’m pointing out that your example proves the opposite of what you think it does.
Post-WWII Germany didn’t reform by saying, “Germans are inherently prone to atrocity.” They reformed by rejecting the ideology that dehumanized others and justified mass violence—the exact kind of logic you’re now applying to Islam.
You’re not identifying root causes. You’re essentializing identity. And when called on it, you deflect with terms like “No True Scotsman” instead of engaging the actual point: that blaming a people instead of an ideology is the very mindset history warns us against.
You’re not explaining anything. You’re just repeating a pattern: accuse, generalize, and then cry foul when your logic is used against itself. That’s not analysis—it’s projection.
Groups of people consists of individuals. So there goes your argument out the window
Groups are made up of individuals, yes—but holding individuals accountable is not the same as blaming the entire group. That’s the fallacy you keep making: turning correlation into identity, and pattern into essence.
When white nationalists commit mass shootings, we don’t say “Christianity is violent.” When Israeli extremists burn olive groves, we don’t say “Judaism leads to terror.” We hold the perpetrators accountable. We don’t indict the religion or ethnicity.
So no—my argument doesn’t go out the window. Yours does, the moment you confuse collective identity with collective guilt.
It’s not a straw man when I’m quoting your own words. You said “Islam today breeds atrocity” and that extremism is the cultural expression of Muslim society. That’s not cultural nuance—it’s collective blame.
You’re not pointing to extremist groups—you’re indicting the religion and, by implication, everyone shaped by it. That is essentialism. That is the rhetorical scaffolding that turns violence into “consequence.”
You can call it realism, tough love, or cultural observation—but when the outcome is rationalizing the suffering of millions, it’s not a straw man to call it what it is. It’s necessary.
You don't need me in this conversation. Juat keep going. Let's see where your psychic seance takes you next
Enjoy your fantasy excursion into crazy land
When someone resorts to mockery instead of addressing the argument, it usually means they’ve run out of one.
You can dismiss this as a “fantasy” or a “seance,” but the record is clear: you labeled modern Islam a “scaffolding of atrocity,” claimed Gaza’s suffering is culturally driven, and implied that millions live under self-inflicted conditions because of their religion. That’s not analysis—it’s cultural indictment.
If you didn’t mean to say that, you had every chance to clarify. But instead, you doubled down, dodged, and deflected. That’s not my projection—it’s your pattern.
So no, I’m not inventing a narrative. I’m pointing to the one you’re already telling—and just refusing to own.
Or, you can't be bothered trying to understand what I am saying. You're arguing against a straw man
No—I’m arguing against what you’ve said, not a straw man. You called Islam “a scaffolding of atrocity,” claimed it “leads to extremist violence,” and described Gaza’s suffering as culturally self-inflicted. That’s not nuance—it’s a sweeping indictment.
Saying “Islam is mostly a force for good” doesn’t cancel out the rest. It’s a rhetorical cushion you added to soften an essentialist argument. If you want to be understood clearly, own your framing. Don’t claim you were misread when the words are still right there.
This is your last chance. If you want me to respond you’re going you have to make an effort to understand what I am saying. I refuse being your straw man punching bag
You weren’t made into a straw man—you built one out of 1.9 billion people. You framed Islam as the source of atrocity, justified collective blame, and cloaked it in pseudo-analysis. If you can’t own that, there’s nothing more to say.
NHC
