What are you reading, watching and listening to? - All languages

[malloc]

Despite how much damage their donations are doing, I have met Islamists who are very nice in person. They want society to be more religious so that more people care for the poor and the elderly. Then they see your chess set and recoil in horror at the idolatry, shocked that you would commit such wicked deeds. You seemed so nice. Don't you care about the poor? (This is the kind of delusion that makes me believe we should discourage religion as much as possible.)

Islamists object to chess? That seems ironic since the name for the game in Europe and some terminology (like "checkmate") originate in Persia, although perhaps before it converted to Islam.

[Travis B.]

Despite how much damage their donations are doing, I have met Islamists who are very nice in person. They want society to be more religious so that more people care for the poor and the elderly. Then they see your chess set and recoil in horror at the idolatry, shocked that you would commit such wicked deeds. You seemed so nice. Don't you care about the poor? (This is the kind of delusion that makes me believe we should discourage religion as much as possible.)

Islamists object to chess? That seems ironic since the name for the game in Europe and some terminology (like "checkmate") originate in Persia, although perhaps before it converted to Islam.

Islamists tend to be more fanatical Muslims than most Muslims were during the Islamic Golden Age, I should note. Islamists tend to forget this, and think that more fanatical Islam will bring it back (which it won't).

[Travis B.]

Apparently the reason why Islamists consider chess haram is that 'games of chance' and gambling are specifically denounced as haram in the Quran and hadith, and during the time of Muhammad in Arabia games of chess and checkers were very commonly gambled upon, so the prohibition of 'games of chance' was considered as extending to them even though, strictly speaking, chess and checkers do not involve chance.

[rotting bones]

Apparently the reason why Islamists consider chess haram is that 'games of chance' and gambling are specifically denounced as haram in the Quran and hadith, and during the time of Muhammad in Arabia games of chess and checkers were very commonly gambled upon, so the prohibition of 'games of chance' was considered as extending to them even though, strictly speaking, chess and checkers do not involve chance.

The math prodigy Giasul who told me this seemed to think the chess pieces look like idols. He might not have known what he was talking about in terms of Islamic law. Note that he recoiled in horror from many, many other things, including seeing a cooking knife in my kitchen. Not because of Islam; just because he thought it looked violent.

Islam has more and more fanatical rules the more religious you want to be. Yes, chess was ubiquitous in the Islamic world and spread it abroad. Yes, Islam forbids chess. No, the world makes no sense in terms of what passes for common sense in the 21st century.

The 21st thinks societies are shaped by their religions. The 21st century is wrong, including all your favorite geniuses. I'm sorry to tell you your dog probably has more common sense than they do. I trust your dog more anyway.

[rotting bones]

Despite how much damage their donations are doing, I have met Islamists who are very nice in person. They want society to be more religious so that more people care for the poor and the elderly. Then they see your chess set and recoil in horror at the idolatry, shocked that you would commit such wicked deeds. You seemed so nice. Don't you care about the poor? (This is the kind of delusion that makes me believe we should discourage religion as much as possible.)

Islamists object to chess? That seems ironic since the name for the game in Europe and some terminology (like "checkmate") originate in Persia, although perhaps before it converted to Islam.

Islamists tend to be more fanatical Muslims than most Muslims were during the Islamic Golden Age, I should note. Islamists tend to forget this, and think that more fanatical Islam will bring it back (which it won't).

It's not just the Golden Age. Ottomans and Mughals loved chess. Wahhabism began in the eastern Arabian desert. In the last century, it grew into a worldwide phenomenon after they allied with the West against the Ottomans and the rulers of Mecca, sold oil to the West and made lots of money.

Money talks. Marx is right. Humans are wrong.

[rotting bones]

Despite how much damage their donations are doing, I have met Islamists who are very nice in person. They want society to be more religious so that more people care for the poor and the elderly. Then they see your chess set and recoil in horror at the idolatry, shocked that you would commit such wicked deeds. You seemed so nice. Don't you care about the poor? (This is the kind of delusion that makes me believe we should discourage religion as much as possible.)

Islamists object to chess? That seems ironic since the name for the game in Europe and some terminology (like "checkmate") originate in Persia, although perhaps before it converted to Islam.

Nope. It was the Muslims, the ones whose religion forbids chess, who loved and spread chess.

If anything, I heard that at least one Zoroastrian dynasty preferred backgammon to chess because it lets God choose the victor. That might have been a legend though.

Turn away from the 21st century. Return to the true doctrine of Marxist analysis!

[malloc]

Islam has more and more fanatical rules the more religious you want to be. Yes, chess was ubiquitous in the Islamic world and spread it abroad. Yes, Islam forbids chess. No, the world makes no sense in terms of what passes for common sense in the 21st century.

It does sound strange. Based on your posts over the years, you make Islam sound rife with hypocrisy and cynicism.

[rotting bones]

Islam has more and more fanatical rules the more religious you want to be. Yes, chess was ubiquitous in the Islamic world and spread it abroad. Yes, Islam forbids chess. No, the world makes no sense in terms of what passes for common sense in the 21st century.

It does sound strange. Based on your posts over the years, you make Islam sound rife with hypocrisy and cynicism.

Historically, the Muslim lack of faith is what the English called their "degeneracy".

[zompist]

It's not just the Golden Age. Ottomans and Mughals loved chess. Wahhabism began in the eastern Arabian desert. In the last century, it grew into a worldwide phenomenon after they allied with the West against the Ottomans and the rulers of Mecca, sold oil to the West and made lots of money.

Aren't you leaving out the Hashemites? It was the sharif of Mecca, Hussein, who allied with the West against the Ottomans; and they were opposed to the Wahhabis. The Wahhabis in Nejd then attacked Hejaz in 1924. By this point the Brits apparently thought Hussein was not malleable enough and supported ibn Saud instead.

[rotting bones]

It's not just the Golden Age. Ottomans and Mughals loved chess. Wahhabism began in the eastern Arabian desert. In the last century, it grew into a worldwide phenomenon after they allied with the West against the Ottomans and the rulers of Mecca, sold oil to the West and made lots of money.

Aren't you leaving out the Hashemites? It was the sharif of Mecca, Hussein, who allied with the West against the Ottomans; and they were opposed to the Wahhabis. The Wahhabis in Nejd then attacked Hejaz in 1924. By this point the Brits apparently thought Hussein was not malleable enough and supported ibn Saud instead.

There were lots of shifting alliances. I'm reporting how it all fell out in the end.

[rotting bones]

It's not just the Golden Age. Ottomans and Mughals loved chess. Wahhabism began in the eastern Arabian desert. In the last century, it grew into a worldwide phenomenon after they allied with the West against the Ottomans and the rulers of Mecca, sold oil to the West and made lots of money.

Aren't you leaving out the Hashemites? It was the sharif of Mecca, Hussein, who allied with the West against the Ottomans; and they were opposed to the Wahhabis. The Wahhabis in Nejd then attacked Hejaz in 1924. By this point the Brits apparently thought Hussein was not malleable enough and supported ibn Saud instead.

The West made deals with many Arab leaders, but I'm pretty sure it's the arms deals with the West that helped the Saudis win.

Nowadays, many wealthy people in Saudi Arabia are irreligious (including members of the royal family). I also heard Mecca, the city forbidden to non-Muslims, is one of the least fanatical cities in the Western Muslim world.

[zompist]

It's not just the Golden Age. Ottomans and Mughals loved chess. Wahhabism began in the eastern Arabian desert. In the last century, it grew into a worldwide phenomenon after they allied with the West against the Ottomans and the rulers of Mecca, sold oil to the West and made lots of money.

Aren't you leaving out the Hashemites? It was the sharif of Mecca, Hussein, who allied with the West against the Ottomans; and they were opposed to the Wahhabis. The Wahhabis in Nejd then attacked Hejaz in 1924. By this point the Brits apparently thought Hussein was not malleable enough and supported ibn Saud instead.

There were lots of shifting alliances. I'm reporting how it all fell out in the end.

Well, divisions among Arabs and divisions among Westerners are part of the story.

The Brits, behaving like jerks as ever, supported the Hashemites (who were non-Wahhabi) against the Ottomans, used them to grab some territory for themselves. Then, after the war, they stabbed Hussein in the back.

There was no oil flowing out of Saudi Arabia until1938, and when it did, it was to a US company. The Saudis effectively got a 50% share in the 1950s, and took it over in the 1980s.

I don't think there's an end to this story yet, as Trump is spectacularly demonstrating his inability to keep allies safe or the oil lanes open.

[rotting bones]

The Brits, behaving like jerks as ever, supported the Hashemites (who were non-Wahhabi) against the Ottomans, used them to grab some territory for themselves. Then, after the war, they stabbed Hussein in the back.

The arms deals the Saudis made with the West helped them win IIRC.

I should take notes on these points. There's no way I'm going to remember all of it when I need it.

There was no oil flowing out of Saudi Arabia until1938, and when it did, it was to a US company. The Saudis effectively got a 50% share in the 1950s, and took it over in the 1980s.

The US took over from the Brits after WWII. There's a name for this. It could be Atlanticism, but I'm not sure.

Nothing in what I said requires the military support and the oil to happen at the same time.

[Ares Land]

The problem with Leninism is that their authoritarianism is not accidental. It's a deliberate design choice (democratic centralism). Many democratic revolutions have succeeded too.

Sure; but after a democratic revolution you have to work with the actual number of people who support you, and people who support other options; hence the need for discussion and alliance.

---

Speaking of religious intolerance; Massacre at Montségur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade
Merciless medieval wars; the birth of the Inquisition

[rotting bones]

The problem with Leninism is that their authoritarianism is not accidental. It's a deliberate design choice (democratic centralism). Many democratic revolutions have succeeded too.

Sure; but after a democratic revolution you have to work with the actual number of people who support you, and people who support other options; hence the need for discussion and alliance.

Changing the structure of the democracy changes the structure of the alliances too. For example, you don't need cults of personality if you have a direct democracy. They will probably still exist, but they won't be an inalienable part of the governing structure anymore.

[Ares Land]

Changing the structure of the democracy changes the structure of the alliances too. For example, you don't need cults of personality if you have a direct democracy. They will probably still exist, but they won't be an inalienable part of the governing structure anymore.

That I entirely agree with!

[Raphael]

Islamists object to chess? That seems ironic since the name for the game in Europe and some terminology (like "checkmate") originate in Persia, although perhaps before it converted to Islam.

Can you imagine how long a list of things that both 1) originated in the West and 2) are hated by Christian fundamentalists would be?

[Raphael]

r b: people do things that don't make financial or economic sense all the time, and can often be a lot harder to bribe than they would be if material factors would be as all-determining as Marx and you claim.

[rotting bones]

r b: people do things that don't make financial or economic sense all the time, and can often be a lot harder to bribe than they would be if material factors would be as all-determining as Marx and you claim.

I agree. The Marxist answer is that those people lose over time. The Social Darwinist conclusion is: therefore, the poor must die. The Marxist conclusion is: therefore, society must be reconstructed to let everyone do the work they enjoy doing.

[rotting bones]

Islamists object to chess? That seems ironic since the name for the game in Europe and some terminology (like "checkmate") originate in Persia, although perhaps before it converted to Islam.

Can you imagine how long a list of things that both 1) originated in the West and 2) are hated by Christian fundamentalists would be?

There's an assumed metaphysics behind mainstream 21st century thinking on both the left and the right: 1. every individual belongs to a cultural collective, 2. culture determines values and that 3. the values of each culture Platonically emanate out of its religion.

On the left, these people argue for multiculturalism. On the right, these people argue for civilizational war as an objective reality regardless of how you wish to respond to it (Samuel Huntington). Much like how some people think race war in an objective reality. The weird left engages with this narrative in a weird way. E.g. Zizek says only a Christian can be a real atheist.

Personally, I disagree with each and every point of this narrative. This is the sense in which I reject the 21st century. My proposal also originated in the 21st century, but it follows Marxist analysis instead of the mainstream 21st century narrative.