What do Trump and Caitlyn Jenner have in Common with the leader of ISIS

[PregnantPornStar]

Time Person of the Year 2015 Runner-Up Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

I am not quite sure what is worse. This, or Rolling Stone glorifying Dzhokahr Tsarnaev by running a cover story with him looking like a model. 

I am actually quite horrified by Time doing this.  ISIS has used the internet and social media to recruit, we all know this, and now this will likely be used as an additional recruitment tool. 

[louisa05]

It isn't an award. It is an acknowledgement of the person's impact on the world, positive or negative. 

Hitler was the person of the year in 1938. 

[PregnantPornStar]

54 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

It isn't an award. It is an acknowledgement of the person's impact on the world, positive or negative. 

Hitler was the person of the year in 1938. 

I understand it isn't an award. Thanks. 

Ayatollah Khomeini has also been person of the year.  While Hitler, Khomeini, Stalin and Khrushchev are all "no-excuses" bad, I think, being that the internet is what it is, we are all connected more than ever and ISIS is using the internet to recruit young soldiers globally, it was not only distasteful given the past month, but also irresponsible. 

Still, not impressive to list Hitler as Person of the Year either. But, that doesn't mean I can't bitch about the leader of ISIS being on the list.

[louisa05]

I think that ISIS has plenty of claim to fame, with or without this, which they can use to recruit. Time is not incorrect in writing that they have had a major impact on global affairs and domestic American politics this year. It is not irresponsible to report facts. 

Are you equally concerned about blatant Islamophobia such as acts of violence, harassment, etc... and calls for government sanctioned discrimination against Muslims being used by ISIS for recruiting? Because those things play into their propaganda that the West hates Islam and do aid in recruiting. Yet your posting history on the topic seems to indicate that you are not concerned about that. 

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

It isn't an award. It is an acknowledgement of the person's impact on the world, positive or negative. 

Hitler was the person of the year in 1938. 

It's always been my impression that Person of the Year is about who is influential in the world, not necessarily who is the most positive or likable. Sometimes the winner isn't even a person like the time it went to a computer sometime in the 1980s. I seriously doubt that young people being tempted by ISIS are going to care whether the leader of ISIS was shortlisted to be person of the year by a magazine they probably don't read.

[Catey]

Posts on an online forum are really not the best measure for what peoples stance is on things, I am sure if I were to sift through all I have written I would be shocked at what I have said/left unsaid. Often times I just respond to something that I see without getting into the layers of complexity that surround many of the issues discussed.

While I realize that we (we as a world I mean) need to have these type of conversations if we are ever going to get to the root of discord, I get the reaction to just not want to give them anymore air time, in the same way that some media outlets will not use the name of a shooter in the wake of a school shooting to avoid giving him anymore attention and turning instead the conversation to the victims and the issues that allowed the tragedy to occur.

Intellectually I understand the point of naming them to that list, however seeing that in print does invoke a negative emotional response on my part at least . 

[2xx1xy1JD]

At what point does the media cease to merely be reporting a story, and actually start to drive the story?  Because I think we've long past that point with these 3 examples.

ISIS actively thrives on media attention.  Even if 99.9% of people consider them beyond evil, that still leave the 0.1% who may respond to the idea of being young, angry and rebellious.

Trump is a like a media perpetual motion machine.  He does something crazy, the media reports it non-stop, his poll numbers go up because he's the one everyone recognizes and has sucked up all the oxygen in the room, media reports more on the "Trump phenomenon", lather rinse repeat.  Can you imagine what the race would look like if all the news outlets gave equal time  and coverage to all the candidates, and lined them up in alphabetical order for the debates?

[Childless]

I have no problem with Time's nominees.  Like them or not, ISIS and Trump have been influential on a global scale this year as has Merkel.  I don't have an issue with stating facts.  Once people start condemning others for reporting facts, you end up with the likes of ISIS and Trump who think they can force others to bend to their will.

[PregnantPornStar]

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I think that ISIS has plenty of claim to fame, with or without this, which they can use to recruit. Time is not incorrect in writing that they have had a major impact on global affairs and domestic American politics this year. It is not irresponsible to report facts. 

Are you equally concerned about blatant Islamophobia such as acts of violence, harassment, etc... and calls for government sanctioned discrimination against Muslims being used by ISIS for recruiting? Because those things play into their propaganda that the West hates Islam and do aid in recruiting. Yet your posting history on the topic seems to indicate that you are not concerned about that. 

Where has my posting history indicated that? Because I have expressed a larger concern for Human Rights within Islamic countries? Because I find an article naming a leader of a terrorist group a "Person of the Year" distasteful? A leader of a terrorist group that is growing significantly and not only a threat to the West, but is also slaughtering people within it's own "region"? Because I have discussed the need for reform within Islam?

NONE of that means I am not concerned about hate crimes or violence towards any group. In fact, it is exactly what I am speaking against. It just so happens that ISIS is more violent towards others than all groups together are violent towards Muslims. I am not denying violence doesn't happen. However, is there an excuse for the slaughter of people in Paris or anywhere else? No. If you claim so, that would be victim blaming. Trying to justify the reason Islamic Terrorists slaughter any people is disgusting. There ARE Muslims who are speaking out and want to see reform. THOSE people actually risk violence happening to them. Anti-Muslim violence was very low prior to 9/11, it drastically increased in 2001 post 9/11 and since then has gone down and stayed pretty steady. The FBI hasn't released numbers for 2015, so we don't know what the numbers will look like. Note, I am not excusing the violence, just pointing out the facts.  Seriously, where the hell have I ever gave indication that I don't care about violence toward any group of people? Although, in all fairness, I am okay with terrorists being killed. 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/tables/table-1

What about anti-Jew crimes? Are you equally concerned about blatant Anti-Semitism? Do you know how rampant anti-Semitism is in Europe? How often there is anti-semitic  Are you equally concerned about THAT?  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/15/jewish-anti-semitic-attacks-western-europe/25807273/

What about the anti-black or African-American crimes? 

And so on....

Muslims are not the only group under attack. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings

This one has been linked to the Boston Bombers. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Waltham_triple_murder

Of course I don't want to see innocent people harassed. Knowing that kids deal with this makes me feel even more sick. That obviously won't ever help anything. There are things we can do to deal with that. Teach our children to be kind to others, stick up for others and take time to learn about others. HOWEVER, when there is a problem, don't ignore it and only worry about how it may impact people, actually worry about what is causing the problem. ISIS is NOT helping the situation and with ISIS around, or any other radical Muslims, discrimination will continue to happen. That is a huge part of the problem. Does it make it right? No, but is it still happening? It is and we can still combat both issues at the same time. 

So, weeks after a slaughter by ISIS in France, and a week after another Slaughter by followers of ISIS in California, Time decides it is a good idea to name the monster who is the leader of ISIS as "Person of the Year"  I mean, honestly, is it even fair to call this guy (or Hitler, or Stalin) a "Person" I mean, I know technically and all, but come on. This was a sensational piece of journalism and I am sure Time was well aware of exactly what they were doing. They can do what they want, but I don't think it is a "respectable" thing to do. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

It's always been my impression that Person of the Year is about who is influential in the world, not necessarily who is the most positive or likable. Sometimes the winner isn't even a person like the time it went to a computer sometime in the 1980s. I seriously doubt that young people being tempted by ISIS are going to care whether the leader of ISIS was shortlisted to be person of the year by a magazine they probably don't read.

I hope you are right, but I am doubtful this will go unnoticed. ISIS is pretty on the ball with what they use for propaganda. Maybe the young people that are tempted by ISIS won't/don't read Time, but I wouldn't be shocked if publications used to radicalize use this as propaganda.

[PregnantPornStar]

4 hours ago, Catey said:

Posts on an online forum are really not the best measure for what peoples stance is on things, I am sure if I were to sift through all I have written I would be shocked at what I have said/left unsaid. Often times I just respond to something that I see without getting into the layers of complexity that surround many of the issues discussed.

While I realize that we (we as a world I mean) need to have these type of conversations if we are ever going to get to the root of discord, I get the reaction to just not want to give them anymore air time, in the same way that some media outlets will not use the name of a shooter in the wake of a school shooting to avoid giving him anymore attention and turning instead the conversation to the victims and the issues that allowed the tragedy to occur.

Intellectually I understand the point of naming them to that list, however seeing that in print does invoke a negative emotional response on my part at least . 

And I think refusing to name the shooter might be at the other extreme. We want to know about who does what so we can hopefully learn how to stop things from happening. I also hate that victims and their friends and families get lost in the sea of everything else being reported on. So, I think all of these things are important. 

I get it intellectually as well, but it seems so very extreme. Running a story on him would have been one thing, but putting him on the list...I actually had to check and see if I was reading satire when I saw it. It seems so bogus. 

4 hours ago, 2xx1xy1JD said:

At what point does the media cease to merely be reporting a story, and actually start to drive the story?  Because I think we've long past that point with these 3 examples.

ISIS actively thrives on media attention.  Even if 99.9% of people consider them beyond evil, that still leave the 0.1% who may respond to the idea of being young, angry and rebellious.

Trump is a like a media perpetual motion machine.  He does something crazy, the media reports it non-stop, his poll numbers go up because he's the one everyone recognizes and has sucked up all the oxygen in the room, media reports more on the "Trump phenomenon", lather rinse repeat.  Can you imagine what the race would look like if all the news outlets gave equal time  and coverage to all the candidates, and lined them up in alphabetical order for the debates?

Exactly to all of this. I do want to say, that while I think Trump is an Asshat, I do think it is incredible to lump him in with the leader of ISIS. Love him or hate him, I think it is fair to say he won't ever be releasing beheading videos of kidnapped journalists. 

But, as you said...ISIS thrives on media attention. In a huge way. I imagine leaders in ISIS have already seen this and are laughing about it...or celebrating it. Maybe I am wrong...but giving them any satisfaction pisses me off. 

[sawasdee]

PPS- Please read ALL the way through your sources. I am bored with the idiocy of some of your links. You are now on ignore. (by the way,I am convinced you are a troll - no one could be as stupid as your posts seem to imply if it wasn't deliberate).

[PregnantPornStar]

4 hours ago, Childless said:

I have no problem with Time's nominees.  Like them or not, ISIS and Trump have been influential on a global scale this year as has Merkel.  I don't have an issue with stating facts.  Once people start condemning others for reporting facts, you end up with the likes of ISIS and Trump who think they can force others to bend to their will.

Really, I will say it again. Trump isn't ISIS. He isn't on the same level, whatsoever. You can try to argue differently, but I think Trump is simply a showman. In fact, whenever he says something ridiculous, his ratings go up. I don't even think it is because people agree with him, most don't seem to, but because he is saying something other than any "typical party line"  He knows exactly what he is doing. 

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, PregnantPornStar said:

Really, I will say it again. Trump isn't ISIS. He isn't on the same level, whatsoever. You can try to argue differently, but I think Trump is simply a showman. In fact, whenever he says something ridiculous, his ratings go up. I don't even think it is because people agree with him, most don't seem to, but because he is saying something other than any "typical party line"  He knows exactly what he is doing. 

The very sad thing is you think ISIS doesn't, but they play people like you like a fiddle in my opinion.  

[GodsKnickers]

Trump is a racist dillhole that does as much for ISIS as any of its own leaders do.

[sawasdee]

1 minute ago, PregnantPornStar said:

Really, I will say it again. Trump isn't ISIS. He isn't on the same level, whatsoever. You can try to argue differently, but I think Trump is simply a showman. In fact, whenever he says something ridiculous, his ratings go up. I don't even think it is because people agree with him, most don't seem to, but because he is saying something other than any "typical party line"  He knows exactly what he is doing. 

Do you actually understand what childless was saying? Because your post gives no evidence that you do. She was talking about influence, not impact. Please try and process information before you comment.

(By the way, this is the last post of yours on which I will comment - for my own sanity, I am putting you on ignore - so please do not bother to reply!)

[PregnantPornStar]

Just now, Woosh said:

The very sad thing is you think ISIS doesn't, but they play people like you like a fiddle in my opinion.  

How so? Do you think that ISIS isn't a threat? That they can be ignored? That ISIS is not growing?

ISIS doesn't make empty threats and not act on them. They follow through. I don't know how ISIS has "played me like a fiddle".  It isn't as if they have threatened to behead journalists and activists if we didn't meet demands and then simply did nothing about it. It isn't as if they stated they would use the refugee crisis to their advantage and then didn't follow up on that. The list goes on.

2 minutes ago, GodsKnickers said:

Trump is a racist dillhole that does as much for ISIS as any of its own leaders do.

Could you give me an example of this?

[GodsKnickers]

Could. Don't feel like it though. *shrug*

[Whoosh]

3 minutes ago, GodsKnickers said:

Could. Don't feel like it though. *shrug*

Exactly - I was going to say "Would, but I already know who won't listen".  Too bad we can't even talk about the dangers of fundamental Islam on FJ.

[sawasdee]

8 minutes ago, Woosh said:

Exactly - I was going to say "Would, but I already know who won't listen".  Too bad we can't even talk about the dangers of fundamental Islam on FJ.

PPS- Ugh! To quote my late ( and much loved) mother - Jaysus, Mary and Joseph!!!

[PregnantPornStar]

14 minutes ago, Woosh said:

Exactly - I was going to say "Would, but I already know who won't listen".  Too bad we can't even talk about the dangers of fundamental Islam on FJ.

What would be the acceptable way to do that? I am actually asking in all seriousness, because I am talking about exactly that.

[Curious]

And away we go

[PregnantPornStar]

6 minutes ago, Curious said:

And away we go

I debated starting it here, but figured that most people could be on board with "snarking" on ISIS without starting an internet war. My bad.

[PregnantPornStar]

Well, at least the readers poll had different results. 

http://time.com/4110428/person-of-the-year-readers-poll-results-2015/

[HerNameIsBuffy]

48 minutes ago, PregnantPornStar said:

How so? Do you think that ISIS isn't a threat? That they can be ignored? That ISIS is not growing?

ISIS doesn't make empty threats and not act on them. They follow through. I don't know how ISIS has "played me like a fiddle".  It isn't as if they have threatened to behead journalists and activists if we didn't meet demands and then simply did nothing about it. It isn't as if they stated they would use the refugee crisis to their advantage and then didn't follow up on that. The list goes on.

Could you give me an example of this?

To the first bolded - I know you're really, really scared of them but you've been posting with the tone that you're in a room full of ISIS supporters.  If you can find one post from someone here saying that ISIS isn't a threat or defending them as legitimate group I will ...damn, it's hard to make an online bet since not much to offer...stop posting for a week.  (It's all I've got to pony up.)  I'm that sure you can't find any pro-ISIS posts here.

Also, you are really hyper-focused on this issue.  I honestly think you might feel better if you took a step back and focused on something else for a while.  I do that too when I'm scared, I get it, and I can feel the fear coming off the screen from your posts.  No one here is in the position to solve this problem, or personally protect innocent people from terrorist acts - no number of posts or just the right wording is going to enable us to solve this issue.

Are you reading what other people are posting?  Because no one here has a la di da approach to murder or death and not giving a shit about Time's person of the year (because their own longstanding criteria shows it's not always positive) doesn't mean we're in favor of awards ceremonies for monsters.

to the second bolded - it goes back to the us vs them discussion from the Trump thread.  To people who hate our country he is us.  And a front runner to lead our country being personally biased against all Muslims is a great recruiting tool - certainly more than Time.  Have you ever known anyone to base a life choice on who Time selected for anything?

Now, there are plenty of legitimate necessary things we do that make them hate us and I'm not of the opinion that we should be placating anyone merely so they will like us and maybe fewer people will be recruited.

 

[PregnantPornStar]

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

To the first bolded - I know you're really, really scared of them but you've been posting with the tone that you're in a room full of ISIS supporters.  If you can find one post from someone here saying that ISIS isn't a threat or defending them as legitimate group I will ...damn, it's hard to make an online bet since not much to offer...stop posting for a week.  (It's all I've got to pony up.)  I'm that sure you can't find any pro-ISIS posts here.

Woosh claimed ISIS is playing me like a fiddle. I honestly am having a discussion about ISIS because I generally care about current events. I always do, and this happens to be at the forefront of current events. It is a pretty big deal and a pretty "scary" one. I wouldn't same I am "really, really scared of them" I also wouldn't say I am NOT scared of them.  I also don't think people fully think about what they are saying. I don't mean that to be rude or snarky. In fact, I think a lot of people generally want to be good and focus on the good. That is fine. It is good to talk about the good, but when people make "sweeping statements" and insist on acting as if everyone is going to "go nuclear" after a terrorist attack, well, I don't know...That isn't the America I know and love. In fact, I think Americans are pretty damn good at unifying during these types of events. What scares me is the attitude that we can't discuss the bad guys because it might hurt the good guys. THAT is the general feeling I get from people here. I wouldn't call it pro-ISIS, but I believe in honest conversation and I think ignoring the reality is troubling. THAT is what scares me. 

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Also, you are really hyper-focused on this issue.  I honestly think you might feel better if you took a step back and focused on something else for a while.  I do that too when I'm scared, I get it, and I can feel the fear coming off the screen from your posts.  No one here is in the position to solve this problem, or personally protect innocent people from terrorist acts - no number of posts or just the right wording is going to enable us to solve this issue.

Again, it is a current event. I like discussing current events and this one is a pretty large thing. It is impacting our world in many ways. We are trying to figure out how to take care of the good, how to weed out the bad, how to stop radicalization, we are dealing with terrorism. It brings up conversations about immigration, refugees, guns, profiling, security levels, human rights, religion, politics, war, etc. I realize that these things have always happened, but radical Islam is actually impacting all of these things on a really large scale. I don't like that this is happening to our world at all. I am not scared for myself, but for my kids and grandkids (and yours). There are things we CAN do, small things in comparison, but why not try? Why not listen to those who want to see positive reform? Why not learn about Islam and understand what does need reform? Pay attention to local mosques. Reach out to good ones and don't to bad ones. Be kind to people, teach your kids to be kind and also, speak out about what is wrong. I think most of us are on the same page here. However, in life, outside of FJ, I see people talking about reaching out to CAIR and I feel frustrated. Or I see Rolling Stone put a terrorist on the cover and wonder WTF is happening. I understand the thought behind it, but at the end of the day, I can't help but think it would have been best to not do so. So, maybe this is where I think a bit of self censorship beyond a simple Trigger Warning is needed Or at least put the monster on the cover looking a little less sexy. I am pretty certain we will only see the PP shooter looking his worst. I could be wrong, but I do find it unsettling.

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Are you reading what other people are posting?  Because no one here has a la di da approach to murder or death and not giving a shit about Time's person of the year (because their own longstanding criteria shows it's not always positive) doesn't mean we're in favor of awards ceremonies for monsters.

I think others are not reading what I am posting. I am posting my opinion and then getting down votes for it. I don't even know that it is fair to suggest anything I posted was deserving of that. I don't know that people would think it was a smart move to put Adam Lanza on the list either. It is okay to crap on the media...and I doubt Time's reasoning was all about the impact. I am not suggesting Time is supporting ISIS btw, simply that even negative attention is a good thing. 

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

to the second bolded - it goes back to the us vs them discussion from the Trump thread.  To people who hate our country he is us.  And a front runner to lead our country being personally biased against all Muslims is a great recruiting tool - certainly more than Time.  Have you ever known anyone to base a life choice on who Time selected for anything?

I haven't ever known anyone who has chosen to join ISIS, so there is that. I will agree Time wouldn't be the primary recruiting tool, but to even see it used invokes all sorts of negative feelings for me. As far as Trump, I don't think we have had the world look upon us favorably for quite some time in regards to our leadership. I also have a lot of thoughts about how there is a lot of things that are terribly wrong in America and a lot of things that are terribly great. Even if the rest of the world doesn't appreciate all of those things. Still, when I lived in Germany I often had people say some of the most hateful things to me about Obama. I was under the impression that Obama was well loved, but...nope. In fact, I had a Turkish guy in my local doner shop go on the LONGEST and craziest Obama rant I have ever heard. My point isn't to bash Obama. I am certainly not a Trump fan, and I wasn't a fan of Bush....anyway, I am just rambling over this.  I don't think we have a single candidate that is "good" and I find that depressing. 

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Now, there are plenty of legitimate necessary things we do that make them hate us and I'm not of the opinion that we should be placating anyone merely so they will like us and maybe fewer people will be recruited.

 

The thing is, there are a lot of people in the world that "hate us" but nobody in the world is deserving of this. This isn't how civilized people behave. Or good people. I am referring to radical groups, and part of what "they" hate is Western values.

 We are also, essentially, talking about two very different civilizations....some want to LEAVE the "other" and be part of "us" but by allowing radical parts of that civilization to be part of our society, we are hurting those who want what they believe is better. Imagine how frustrating that article in Time must be to Syrian refugees who have recently fled.