The feeling is mutual, kthxbye

[mahnmut]

"The Constitution of Turkey establishes the Republic of Turkey as a secular state and provides for freedom of conscience, religious belief, and conviction, as well as freedom of expression and dissemination of thought".

Does freedom from religion count too, I wonder? Um, guess not:

In a nutshell: "Atheists are animals".

That's nice, you know.

Comments

[underlankers]

World Net Daily as a source? O.o OK.

I was hoping that the Turkish Islamists would be more in the vein of the Christian Democrats, but they keep disappointing me by proving to be slightly less thuggish equivalents of the Muslim Brotherhood. Then again as Donald Trump shows, nothing about democracy or 'moderate' options means people would actually choose them, the masses have through the 6,000 years of human history as civilization repeatedly taken self destructive choices before. Also sad that Turkey almost caricatures at this point the idea that the region can choose between secular dictators or theocrats as the champions of the masses as they actually are.

[mahnmut]

OK, does the Washington Times count for a source?
Or maybe CNN?
Reuters, then?
Huffington Post?
BBC, maybe?

Shall I go on?

[underlankers]

The Times are run by that asshole Sun Myung Moon, who is anything but reputable. Reuters is fine. As I said, it's deplorable that Turkish Islamists seem hell-bent on validating the stereotype of the secular dictator versus the backward masses.

[mahnmut]

Would you be so kind to present me with a list of media which you consider reputable enough, so I could know the next time what I should do in order to specifically match your criteria?

[underlankers]

WorldNetDaily writes articles like this entirely seriously

[mahnmut]

Well, sorry for not meeting your expectations in terms of source reliability.

So do you have a list of sources that you consider reliable or not?

[underlankers]

I already told you, Reuters, the BBC, the Huffington Post. Any site that has actual editing standards and doesn't employ fascist nutjobs like Michael Savage.

Reuters
BBC
Der Spiegel
Al Jazeera English
CBS
MSNBC
Associated Press

^All of these are better than WND

[mahnmut]

I'll keep that in mind the next time I search for links. Can't afford to let underlankers down, can I.

[underlankers]

So, about the rest of that comment, the bit that said that this is a deplorable pattern that ultimately meant the people who warned these people were dangerous that were right. There will eventually be some reference to the rest of that post, and to my attempts to keep the topic specifically to denouncing the kind of conduct the Islamists (and Erdogan) have relative to democracy, yes? Maybe?

[mahnmut]

Yes: Kudos.

[mahnmut]

Same question here, by the way.

[dexeron]

Rationalwiki, although a bit of a biased source in its own right, is often a good source for vetting some sites, at least those like WND. For example, their page regarding it:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND

At the very least, their takedowns are often amusing. ;)

[mahnmut]

I love Rationalwiki.

What I love even more than Rationalwiki is how threads like this one can be hijacked by red herrings that look exactly like the current conversation we're having right now.

[underlankers]

I've said in every single post (and for the bulk of that one) that I think that the conduct of the Turkish state and the Islamist party associated with it and Erdogan's regime is deplorable. There was one line about WND in that post and there was a much longer paragraph decrying Turkey (as opposed to rhetorically and reflexively defending it like I believe it was expected for me to do as I expect I'm one of the people called out for 'defending' Turkey because I don't like the PKK worth a damn

[mahnmut]

OK. Let's have that discussion.

What's the reason for that region to continuously take self-destructive decisions?

[underlankers]

I believe it's because the dictators destroyed any potential secular opposition to themselves in a democratic fashion, first and foremost.

Second, monocrop economies tend to be relatively barren soil for democracies to rise on as it's easier for dictators to buy contentment in a short and a medium term.

Third, democracy just gives people the power to make decisions, it does not guarantee that they make the right decision on a logical basis. Demagogues wouldn't exist if that were so.

Fourth, that democracy is associated with bloody, chaotic, and self-destructive Western invasions probably hasn't really helped its case that much either, as if the fruit of Israel and the US invasion of Iraq is what it is, I wouldn't exactly see Western democracy as something more than a potential source of death by bombing.