You're the one who accused me of essentialism. What I have said about Islam does not fit the above definition.
Essentialism suggests a kind of cultural pre-determinism. Go ahead and try to find evidence of me implying that
Claiming that people in a group influences each others behaviour (within and without) isn't essentialism. Its the opposite. Since that would be a dynamic system
I still maintain that you don't understand what the word means
No—you’re trying to salvage your point by redefining the term mid-argument.
Essentialism is exactly what you’ve been doing: attributing atrocity to “modern Islam” itself, as if violence naturally flows from Muslim identity or culture. That’s not describing dynamic systems—that’s labeling a belief system as inherently pathological.
You say, “Islam today breeds atrocity.” That’s not a comment on specific groups, behaviors, or regimes—that’s an identity-level indictment. You didn’t say “some Muslims have adopted violent ideologies” or “certain factions promote extremism.” You labeled the religion—and by implication, the people in it—as the source of the problem. That is cultural essentialism.
Essentialism doesn’t require you to say people can’t change. It just requires you to imply that what they are—by culture, race, or religion—explains what they do. And that’s exactly your line: Islam produces atrocity. Not “some extremists.” Not “a political ideology.” Islam.
So no—I used the word correctly. You just don’t like that it exposes what you’re actually arguing.
That's just straight up nonsense.
Its like saying that US school mass shootings is not the result of American culture, just because it's rare events.
When stuff repeatedly happen in a culture, then that is a cultural expression of that culture. No matter how much we wish ut wasn't.
Acknowledging reality isn't to dehumanize anyone. Rather the opposite. I'd say denying Islam leads to extremist violence is to treat Arabs like less than human, since we aren't the holding them accountable.
Here's a counter point. Following WW2 Germans acknowledged that their culture is prone to lead to extremism. This has led them to put in place a bunch of social safeguards in order to lessen the effects. Obviously the new social norms to stop extremism are also extreme. But it's Germans... so this was going to happen. My point is that we need to acknowledge cultural shortcomings or we will just repeat history
What you’re calling “acknowledging culture” is just blaming identity.
Saying mass shootings are a symptom of American culture isn’t the same as saying Christianity causes school shootings. But that’s the move you’re making with Islam: not just observing a social trend, but tying it to a religion’s essence, and then using that to justify mass civilian suffering.
You say Islam “leads to extremist violence.” That’s not cultural criticism. That’s civilizational indictment—holding 1.9 billion people suspect because some claim their acts in its name. That’s no different than saying Judaism leads to apartheid, or Christianity to white nationalism. Would you accept those as “cultural analysis”? Of course not.
And your Germany example actually destroys your argument. Post-WWII reforms didn’t come from saying “German culture is evil.” They came from recognizing the dangers of unchecked ideology, authoritarianism, and dehumanization. Exactly the kinds of dangers you’re now embracing.
Holding people accountable doesn’t mean branding their religion violent. It means holding individuals and systems accountable for their actions—not their identity.
What you’re defending isn’t realism. It’s a dangerous double standard dressed up as tough love. And it’s exactly how history repeats—by convincing good people that collective blame is just “acknowledging culture.”
You're the one who brought up the "scaffolding of atrocity ". I took your term and used it to show how it can be used to prove any point
No—you didn’t just flip my term. You embraced it.
You used “scaffolding of atrocity” not to critique the concept, but to apply it to Islam. You wrote, “Somehow Muslims managed to create a scaffolding of atrocity,” and then claimed this cultural dynamic justified analyzing “modern Islam” as a source of terrorism. That’s not rhetorical judo. That’s ownership.
So let’s stop pretending you were testing a theory. You weren’t. You were building one—with Islam as the foundation of violence, and Gaza as the case study for why an entire population’s suffering is the result of their religion.
You didn’t “borrow my phrase to make a point.” You absorbed it into your worldview—and then used it to excuse mass civilian death as a cultural inevitability.
That’s not intellectual cleverness. It’s ideological laundering. And yes, I have a problem with it—because when you treat identity as evidence of guilt, you’re not offering insight. You’re building a scaffold for atrocity yourself.
Yes. And you're trying to use fancy long words to explain away reality. Its not working out for you
Islam obviously is mostly functional and a force for good. Or there wouldn't be so many Muslims. But its not ONLY a force for good. Clearly
If you truly believed Islam is “mostly a force for good,” you wouldn’t repeatedly describe it as the cultural engine of terrorism. You’re trying to have it both ways—condemning a global religion wholesale, then walking it back with a disclaimer so it sounds balanced. But that’s not analysis. That’s hedging.
And no—pointing out the danger of reducing entire populations to ideological threats isn’t “using fancy words to avoid reality.” It is reality. Because the moment you say atrocity flows from the religion itself, you’ve crossed into essentialism—and once you do that, every civilian becomes suspect, every mosque becomes a red flag, and every death becomes “understandable.
You’re not naming nuance. You’re paving over it with a smile and pretending that’s insight.
So no—your disclaimer doesn’t clean up what you said. It just highlights how deeply you know it needs cleaning.
I don't think you are making any sense. Are you perhaps doing the black white fallacy?
No, this isn’t a black-and-white fallacy. What you said wasn’t a nuanced critique of extremist factions—it was a blanket claim that “modern Islam” itself breeds atrocity. That’s not analysis of a problem within a religion. That’s assigning the problem to the religion.
If someone had said “modern Judaism breeds apartheid” or “modern Christianity breeds white nationalism,” you’d rightly call that antisemitic or anti-Christian. So don’t pretend it’s just “hard truth” when you do the same to Muslims.
You’re not identifying extremists. You’re smearing 1.9 billion people and then acting confused when it’s called out. That’s not a fallacy on my part. It’s deflection on yours.
I think the problem is that you are arguing against a straw man. I'm sorry I don't conform to the MAGA caricature you seem to be fantasising I am
You’re not being straw-manned—you’re being quoted. You said “modern Islam breeds atrocity.” That wasn’t a caricature. That was your framing. Now that it’s exposed for what it is—essentialist, reductionist, and dangerous—you’re pretending I made it up.
I’m not debating a MAGA version of you. I’m holding you accountable for your own words. If you’ve changed your position, say so. But don’t blame me for pointing out what you actually said.
Yes, captain obvious. Please say more obvious things I, at no point, have denied or argued against
Then stop talking like Islam is one thing. You can’t say “modern Islam breeds atrocity” and then claim you never collapsed it into a single violent force. If you agree it’s diverse, then start speaking like it. Otherwise, you’re not stating the obvious—you’re contradicting yourself.
Extremism is like the top of an iceberg. Its a result of all that non-extremist stuff below the water
You're like a Republican complaining about the high crime rate among poor people, while ignoring that crime is a result of the entire system
Exactly—and that’s why your logic collapses. If extremism is the tip of the iceberg, then the answer isn’t to bomb the iceberg. It’s to understand the conditions below the surface—poverty, occupation, repression—that produce it. But you’re doing the opposite: blaming the iceberg itself and calling it Islam. That’s not systemic thinking. That’s scapegoating.
NHC
www.bbc.com
