This might sound like a question inspired by current events, but I've actually been thinking of this for a while and can give pointers to a few times I had asked this or talked about it.
The people who the masses look up to seem to have a strange way of dishing out their opinions/approval/disapproval of the groups of the world. Some groups can get away with being considered good no matter how negative their actions are while other groups are stuck with a high disapproval rating no matter how much good they might do, and a discussion on whether "culture" or a "cult" is involved almost always comes up.
An example of this is the relationship between Islam and Scientology, in fact this is the most infamous one I can link to having spoken about. People on a certain side of the thinktank spectrum (the same side Lemmy seems to lean towards at times) are quick to criticize Scientology even though they consider "classic Islamic philosophy", for a lack of a better way to put it without generalizing, as not inspiring a call for critique to see how one may change it. And I've always wondered, why? One at times leads people to trying to exterminate innocent groups, the other one is just "Space Gnosticism" that has a few toxic aspects but hasn't actually eliminated anyone. Of course, I'm not defending either one, but certainly I'd rather live in a stressful environment than one that actively targets me.
This question has been asked a few times, sometimes without me but sometimes when I'm around to be involved, and they always say (and it's in my dumb voice that I quote them) "well Scientology is a cult, of course we can criticize them" and then a bit about how whatever other thing is being talked about is a part of culture. This doesn't sit well with my way of thinking. I was taught to judge people by the content of their character, in other words their virtues, so in my mind, a good X is better than a bad Y, in this case a good cult should be better than a good culture, right? Right?
In fact, as what many might call a mild misanthrope, I'd flip it around and point out how, over the course of human history, alongside seemingly objectively questionable quirks people just brush off (like Japan for a while has been genociding dolphins for their meat value just above extinction "because it's culture" or how there are people in China who still think dinosaur bones are a form of medicine waiting to be ground up), no group/culture has kept their innocence intact, every country having had genocides or unnecessary wars or something of the like, things they ALLOW to happen by design. Then they turn around and tell so-called "cults", even the ones that have their priorities on straight compared to cultures, that they are pariahs and shouldn't count on thriving, even though their status is one that doesn't necessitate gaining any kind of guilt. I was a pariah growing up, almost everyone else revolved around a select few people that seemed in-tune to the culture, and they would say anyone who revolved around people outside the group (me for example) was "following a cult", and this hurt at the time, but now seeing all the wars going on right now, I might consider this a compliment.
My question, even though it by definition might make affirming answerers question whether they are pariahs or a part of the cultural arena, is why does nobody agree? Why are cultures "always precious" while cults are "always suspicious"?
You're not the authority of what I say/mean. Alone, perhaps you'll never realize this. Hence the part before it about taking someone else's word for it, which you claimed was deflection.
Replies prove that, not upvotes and downvotes. Only words can clarify someone's reasoning. Votes are not a language, nor are they an argument. I don't even see downvotes anywhere this time around.
Alright, let's make a trade. Rather than put words in your mouth, I will ask you about the things you say and accept you as the sole authority of your own words. In return, I ask you to ask me about the things I say and accept me as the sole authority of my own words. Do we have a deal?
The words "...as opposed to" are asked when someone is singling out one individual, entity, or action that one would expect to exist under the same rules as others which have not received the same credit or blame. I said that a number of times because it was therefore fitting to ask a number of times.
You'd have to prove someone wrong first, but instead you're trying to belittle, something people do when they cannot handle being wrong.
So you asked me, in response to a reply that wasn't about race on a post that wasn't about Palestine or even Islam in general except for an example, what race I see Muslims in the same reply as you accuse me of generalization, and when I say I don't see them as any race in particular, not only do you claim the purpose of the question went over my head, but you say you asked because my answer was correct, as if belittling it was pointless?
If it wasn't, my point above this one is where the confusion lies. No attempt at lying here, there's already been so much of that lately.
Then why do it? You're the only one in this whole thread with any issue, unless you can point to someone else who has had it. The most desperate form of deflection was using upvotes/downvotes as a point like populists always do.
Our respective profile/comment feeds say otherwise, even the relevant parts.
Don't tell me to shut up, you're not my mom.
But they aren't the only person here with an issue. My comment wasn't as confrontational but I also clearly raised a red flag at the question being asked and the reasons people start asking these kinds of questions. I also see what you're doing. I just don't want to spend the next week doing this thing you're calling a debate.
My comparison between Scientology and the sphere of Islamic thought was nothing more than an example of what I was asking in the OP, no matter how partially inspired the act of asking the question was by current events, and to say I had more of a motive than that is to read too much into it by assuming my mind and put words in my mouth, especially considering I named other cultural spheres in replies to other comments. Note that even their first few comments goes on to do things like assume my culture and undermine my capacity, so you're right, it would be generous to call this a debate.
Questioning someone's motives is like diagnosing a medical condition, you just cannot do it impersonally without some doubt when compared to doing it personally, but in the case of the former, you can always ask questions. I would've (and in fact have) dispelled the fears the two of you had, unless someone is insisting someone else has the authority to be my proxy even despite my objections.