Bryan Caplan  


The World Without Marx... Bush-Trump Bet...
Nicolas Kristof:
I've defended Islam from critics like Bill Maher who, as I see it, demonize a diverse faith of 1.6 billion Muslims because a small percentage are violent extremists. But it's incumbent on those of us who object to this demonization to speak up against genuine extremism.
Related: Me on "Where Would You Prefer that Women Be Oppressed?"

HT: Alex Tabarrok

COMMENTS (7 to date)
jon writes:
"Where Would You Prefer that Women Be Oppressed?"

As far as earthly possible from my mother, my wife, and my daughter.

Nate F writes:

I am a 4th generation American, from Poland. The first member of my family was an absolutely violent person. I could easily see the locals here pointing towards him and going "see - they are going to destroy this country! We won't change them they will change us!"

Fast forward now... Almost everyone in my immediate and extended family makes above $100k/year. I don't know a word of Polish. If Poland gets invaded tomorrow I have no more desire to save them than say, Belgium or Japan.

I think if we let in a constant percentage of our population, the stability effects are negligible and the benefits are high. I do think having a country of 50% immigrants would be unstable socially and politically but I don't know where that line is.

I think its the same with Muslim immigrants, even ones from societies that oppress women. A few generations after they get there, they will be a lot different than those societies.

Koenfucius writes:


You are most likely right (by which I mean, I mostly agree with you :-)).

However, it seems to me that the USA is actually a prime example of a socially stable country with way more than 50% immigrants (if you include their descendants). There must be way fewer than 50% native Americans, and most of current US citizens (or their ancestors) were immigrants some time in the last 15 generations.

TravisV writes:

In case you missed it, Scott Alexander has a new post:

"Contra Huemer on morals"

J Hanley writes:

Is there actually a dearth of people speaking up against real extremism?

Seems like a strawman to me, seasonally appropriate perhaps, but less tasty than my mom's applesauce cookies.

Ahmed writes:

Bill Maher has made the comment that if all the bad apples are coming from one orchard, then maybe there's something wrong with the orchard. He's right in one sense and wrong in another.

Mr. Maher is defining the orchard as the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. He is masking by generalization.

While it it true that America was attacked by 19 Muslims on 9-11, these were no ordinary Muslims, they were Muslims of exactly one type. 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudi nationals and 19 out of 19 followed the salafi/wahabi branch of Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia. This is the same for every Muslim terrorist since that time. ISIS/ISIL/IS teaches out of Saudi textbooks. So does Al Qaeda.

So yes, there is an orchard producing bad apples, its name is Saudi Arabia. How many more links back to Saudi-financed and Saudi-influenced terrorism do we need to see before we admit to that fact.

ConnGator writes:


Perfectly said, shout it from the rooftops.

I am agnostic regarding religions WITH THE EXCEPTIONS of those that attempt to restrict freedoms. (No, I don't consider avoiding beef on Fridays a significant restriction).

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top