Power of the Internet

In Skypeland, I have had numerous examples of the power of the internet. Today, I talked to two young ladies studying Japanese in university in Shanghai. Although they had standard government educations in Chinese government schools and only got their information from web newspapers issued by the Chinese government, they were suprisingly well informed about Chinese history and current affairs. I was stunned that they knew about the Chinese attacks on Tibet, India and Russia, although I think they new less about the Chinese attacks on Vietnam a few decades ago. They were well-informed about the relations with Taiwan and the failed negotations with North Korea. They were pessimisstic about the current negotatiations with North Korea to get North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program, and sounded more like Neoconservatives in the United States than Chinese on this issue. They expressed displeasure with the Chinese communist party. I was surprised at how different they seemed to be than most Chinese people I have talked to.

A Japanese friend said it was possibly because these women speak Japanese, and so have more access to foreigners than the average Chinese person. However, other Chinese students of Japanese we have talked to were not this knowledgable.

I am not sure how these two ladies knew so much, but maybe it is because of the internet. It is just too difficult for the Chinese government to censor everything on the internet.

Islam is the perfect religion !

In Paltalk, there are many Muslims who want to use the venue to recruit others to Islam. It can give some interesting insights into Islam to look at their arguments. For instance, this gentleman, named "I", told me that Christians pray to Mary, and this proves Christianity is a weak religion since Christians are praying to a woman.

Here is some more of our discussion. I first asked him to join me in a Paltalk room entitled "Why I am not a Muslim". He declined, saying:


I: that room doesnt respect Islam

I: they say bad things about our Prophet

I: sallallahu alaihi wa salam

O: I will be glad to discuss it anywhere you want

I: discuss here

I: or invite me to another room

O: but if you want a discussion, you have to be prepared to hear it all

I: no problem

O: if you do not want to hear it all, maybe you should never talk to anyone who is not Muslim

I: but i dont like foul language

I: anyways discuss here

I: in pm

I: u r not even a christian

I: so y u inviting me to a christian rom

O: I was raised as a Christian

O: and that is not a Christian room

O: you are a bit confused about religion

I: just tell me why u r not a muslim

I: give me 1 reason

O: you do not know much about Christianity

O: and you do not know much about other religions

I: i know everything about christianity

I: i know everything they believe

I: i can prove from bible jesus denies being god

O: No you don't. You said that all Christians pray to Mary.

I: not all christians

I: most of them

O: that to start with proves you know NOTHING

O: haha

I: i.e. catholics

O: not even most

O: haha

I: yes catholics are the majority

I: they are over 50%

I: majority is defined by being over 50%

O: you do not know much about Christianity

I: prove i dont know much

I: ask me any question

O: Ok tell me how many books in the bible

I: i dont know the exact number

O: haha

I: it differs

O: oh yes? tell me how

I: catholics have extra books

O: and who else?

O: haha

O: and what are the extra books called?

I: there is no answer to that question

O: sure there is

I: since different bibles have diff number of books

O: you forgot the Orthodox

I: apocrypha

O: and what about the pseudopigraphia? What is that?

I: same thing

O: nope

O: you better do some more reading

O: when the Christians established the canon, the disagreements were about the apocrypha

O: and when the Jews established their canon, they excluded the pseudopigraphia

O: that is it approximately

O: and there are more than 300 million orthodox

O: so one should not ignore them

I: ok

I: now what is ur objection to Islam

O: I have a few

I: just 1

O: the more I learn

O: the less I like about it

I: at a time

I: Islam is the pure religion

I: no religion can compare

O: haha....of course you would claim that

I: no book can compare to the Holy Quran

O: haha

O: of course you claim that

I: no person can compare to Muhammad (alaihi salatu wa salam)

O: of course you claim that

I: no question about it

O: well there is at least one other side to that

O: I would say to start with

O: I disagree with the Apostasy statutes in Shariah law

O: that I find offensive

O: profoundly offensive

I: apostasy is in christianity as well

I: say something unique about Islam

O: but there is no "Shariah" law in Christianity that is applied across a wide range of those in the faith

O: there are all kinds of statements in the old testament that have been superceded by the new testament

I: christians believe in the bible do they not?

I: bible says to kill apostates

O: some believe in it literally, some do not

O: most do not

I: whether christians follow the bible or not isn't our problem

O: at least 90 percent do not believe in it

O: haha

O: you say that since you do not understand Christianity

I: say something about Islam which no other religion is "guilty' of

O: the sermon on the mount basically supercedes all the mitzvot etc

I: actually no

O: well Christianity is not "guilty" of apostasy laws

I: jesus himself said to kill not only apostates

I: but all those who reject him

O: well you are going to tell me what Christianity says?

O: ok give me the verse

O: if you believe it is true

O: and should be taken literally

I: luke 19:21

O: and not allegorical etc

O: ok let me look

I: sorry

I: luke 19:27

I: But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me

I: i have to go pray soon

I: we will discuss later

O: Well you have to understand that passage in context. That is part of a parable.

O: I read the full thing, which goes from 19:11 through 19:27. It means something totally different than what you claim, from what I have heard for years and years.

O: I have never heard it interpreted as an attack on Apostates

O: or Jesus ordering the killing of Apostates

I: yes its a parable

O: You making that claim really reeks

O: haha

I: the person who orders killing of non-believers represents JEsus

I: learn what a parable means

O: Believe whatever you want

I: these are words of Jesus

O: However, as I have maintained many many times, if you want to force your beliefs on others, then you will have trouble

I: he is ordering killing of all non-christians

O: Just a friendly word

O: you are wrong I

O: and living in a dream world

I: during medieval times the church used this verse to kill heretics

O: of course all the passages have been used for all kinds of purposes

O: like the story about Onan

O: to forbid masturbation

I: u cannot change the fact

I: bible and jesus are very violent

I: even in book of revelation

O: I freely admit that there are lots of bad things in the bible

O: haha

I: it says jesus will do some major killing

I: so much so his pure white robes will become red with blood

O: The Revelations of St. John the divine are like a hallucination

O: and it is not even clear what they are referring to

I: of course its a hallucination

I: my point is christians believe in it

O: most scholars adopt some variety of preterism to interpret it

O: some do

O: but most do not

I: its part of their pathetic religion

O: haha

O: you do not know much about Christianity friend

O: you know almost nothing

O: you know hate-filled rhetoric from Imams

O: if you get the Fatwahs against me personally to have me killed lifted

O: then I might have some respect for Islam

O: until you do that

O: you will find me not particularly convinced that Islam is much good

I: listen buddy

I: stop beating around the bush

I: why cant u answer a simple thing

O: Ok you asshole

O: Islam wants to kill me

O: so I will give you the same back

I: u claim christianity is peaceful

O: i never claimed it

O: but I am not peaceful

I: everything u said so far is weak

O: so deal

O: haha

O: If you want death

O: The west will give you death

O: how is that?

O: I am not peaceful

O: Islam is a religion of hatred and death

I: lo0l

I: now u r swearing

O: and if Molsems wants death

O: they will get it

I: calling me "asshole"

O: yep

O: haha

O: yes i did

I: what is the point of that

O: you wanted plain speaking

O: and i gave it to you

I: if u cannot debate properly why u challenge people?

O: if it offends you

O: too bad

O: haha

O: I am offended by death threats

O: how do you like that?

I is now offline. Messages will be delivered when they sign on to Paltalk.

After he logged off, I added this portion for him to read when he logged back in:

O: Look, get the fatwahs against me threatening me with death lifted. And then I might find Islam to be a bit more compelling. You cannot speak peace if you want to constantly threaten others with death. If you threaten others, then you will buy a negative relationship. Is that what you want? I am asking you to try to see your way clear to live in peace with the others you share the planet with. Tolerance is the path of peace. Intolerance like that represented by aggressive proselytizers like yourself is not the path to peace, but the path to death and evil. So why not give peace and tolerance a chance? What is wrong with that?

O: However, as I see with all Muslims, you are not able to actually handle a frank discussion.

O: Oh well.

O: As you sew, so shall ye reap

O: If you want to have rooms with no one who disagrees with you, there are plenty of Muslim rooms. They throw out anyone who disagrees. Try one of those.

Israelis are immoral

On Paltalk, I heard some Arabs ranting about how immoral Jews are, particularly those in Israel. And what were they complaining about? They were complaining that Israelis ate falafel, tahini poppy seed dressing and hummus, which they consider Arab foods. They felt that Israelis should not be allowed to eat Arab foods, or to serve them in their restaurants. To do so they felt was dishonest, and immoral. Oh my...

Students cheated by foreigners

One can easily sample opinions from around the world in Skypeland. Talking to a 19 year old from China, we asked her about Tiannamen Square. She said she knew all about Tiannamen Square. I asked what she knew. She said that it happened in 1989. I asked what happened in Tiannamen Square. She said that the soldiers had killed students in Tiannamen Square. I asked why the government had killed them. She said that students had been cheated by foreigners. She said the students were criminals, obviously, and so the soldiers had shot them. I told her tens of thousands of Chinese students in the US had stayed in the US after the Tiannamen Square Massacre. She said this was impossible since few Chinese students were allowed to go to university at that time.

I asked her if China was in any wars in the last 50 years. She said that China was in no wars in the last 50 years. I asked about Chinese wars with Russia, India, Vietnam and Tibet in the last 50 years. She was shocked and said they did not happen.

I asked about the Cultural Revolution. She said she knew everything. I asked her what she knew. She did not tell me.

I asked if she had free speech. She said she did. I asked if she could protest the Communist Party and she said of course she could not, but why should she?

She said she had full access to information on the internet. I told her that China had the world's largest internet censorship program. She was shocked to hear that. I told her that China had threatened western companies like Yahoo and Google if they do not cooperate with China's censorship program. She did not have much to say in response.

I asked if North Korea should have nuclear weapons. She said they should be allowed to have them. I asked why she disagreed with the Chinese government. She was somewhat shocked to be told that she disagreed with her government.

She became quite annoyed with me for bringing these things up. She said many foreigners tried to tell her these things, but she did not want to hear them since she believed that she had a happy life and the Chinese Communist Party is good and she supports it.

Amazing. But quite a good example of what sort of culture exists in much of China.

Russian language

One hears all kinds of crazy stories in discussions with people from all over the world. This includes assorted theories about languages. For example, I have had several people try to tell me that Arabic is the root of all modern languages, or that Hindi is the root of all the languages on earth. A friend found someone arguing that the origin of the Russian language is an animal language. Oh man, where do people get this sort of nonsense?

More conspiracy theorists

This is a great website that rants and raves about all kinds of terrible conspiracies, including the classic conspiracy claim that 911 is an "inside job". There are all kinds of crazy claims on this webpage.

For example, supposedly the Club of Rome has been creating food shortages on purpose for decades. Also, the evil global elites have been trying to reduce the world population for decades intentionally as part of some evil plan. Bob Barker supposedly revealed this evil plot with his message at the end of each "Let's Make a Deal" episode when Barker advised viewers to "spay and neuter" their pets.

This character, Markus Allen, believes that vaccination is an evil conspiracy. Allen thinks that the word "therapist" really should be parsed as "the rapist" proving that mental health professionals are evil.

Allen also thinks that a fire drill in the World Trade Center held on the morning of 9/11 is absolutely irrefutable proof that the attack was an inside job. Allen knows that there was a fire drill since he lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and many New Yorkers visit Lancaster on vacation and he gets to talk to them. He claims that since only 2500 people of the 100,000 or so in the World Trade Center died because 911 was clearly a fraud. He believes that 4 hijacked planes inside the US were proof that US defenses were penetrated 4 times, and he claims that it is impossible for planes to invade the US since it has the world's most powerful military, and therefore 911 must have been an inside job. He claims that the pilots hijacked the planes at the same time and struck the buildings at exactly the same time, which is impossible. He also claims that flight 175 flew right through the building unscathed, which he claims is impossible since the nose of these airplanes is made out of plastic and is very flimsy. His final proof that this was an inside job stems from people calling the World Trade Center "ground zero", because "ground zero" is the name for the location of a nuclear weapons strike. This shows that Americans are being manipulated and brainwashed. He claims that 911 was planned for several centuries by the military intelligence community of the US, aided by the UK, Israel and the G8. All the commanders of the military in the US were trained by the Jesuits, so this proves that the Catholic Church was involved, and the black pope who runs the Jesuits planned it.

Oh brother...

Shiites are Jews

In these VOIP discussions, one can probe into other cultures to find out what they think. In a discussion room on Paltalk called "Islam answers back", several were discussing problems with the Shiites. Several said that you could see by looking in their eyes that they were haunted and cursed. They said they had seen Shiites on television so they knew. Someone else said that they were just really Jews because they had similar beliefs. I asked what beliefs of the Shiites were similar to those of Judaism. I was told that the Shiites and the Jews both wait until the three stars are visible to start their feasts, and that Shiites and Jews both practiced "nudity and perversions". I mentioned the Supreme Ayatollah and I was accused of being a dirty Shiite. I was told that all ayatollahs are Kafirs.

Ah yes. Religion of peace.

More proof of Islam's superiority

In my meanderings in Paltalk, I have encountered some who like to tell me that they have "proof" or evidence that Islam is the one true religion. One gentleman went on a long rant about how all the animals knew that Islam was the "true" religion and praised Allah, showing how much better they are than Jews and Christians and other "kafirs". He then said that even the rocks themselves knew that Allah reigned supreme and that Islam was the true religion, and were therefore smarter than Christians and Jews. He even told me that turds worship Allah.

This is probably based on some passages in the Koran where the animals and rocks and trees talked to Mohammed. To complete his "proof", this character stated that the bible ordered all Jews and Christians to eat excrement. Ah yes, I see, clearly a very well known biblical passage that Jews and Christians follow!

For example, in the book of Ezekiel 4:12-13, it states that the Lord said: "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."

A passage in 2 Kings 18:27 says: "But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

The first of these is generally interpreted to refer to the use of dung as fuel. The second is a bit more sketchy, but certainly does not appear to refer to a "commandment" to eat excrement. In any case, the fact that there are over 30,000 varieties of Christianity alone, each with their own interpretation of the bible shows that some sort of blanket statement about what Jews and Christians are ordered to do, and all accept, is just plain silly...

Just ask questions

One of Skype's competitors, Paltalk, offers a somewhat similar venue to Skypeland for discussions. What is different is that Paltalk has fewer foreign language discussions, and many more English discussions than Skypecasts do (or did, since it is not clear if Skypecasts will return). In addition, Paltalk software only allows one person to speak at a time (although a beta version I tried some months ago seems to allow more than one to talk at once). Paltalk also makes a lot more use of a single text chat window accessible by all users than Skypecasts typically do. This is quite confusing, because a user is asked to respond to someone speaking, as well as potentially dozens of other interlocutors in a very fast moving text chat, as well as "whispers" (private messages between room participants). Although Skypecasts could have such a chat window, it would be a bit impractical since the participants would have to be added manually. It is easier for participants in Paltalk to hold forth for extended periods, lecturing the others in the room. Since they cannot be interupted by others, the only way to stop them is to silence them or boot them from the room, which is often done. Another difference is that Paltalk hosts have much more ability to silence discussion participants than Skypecast hosts, and Paltalk hosts can even ban certain users from a given room for 24 hours. Hosting a room in Paltalk appears to be a much bigger deal than it does in Skypecasts, and it is much harder in Paltalk for any user to become a host. It appears that this extra power given to hosts has resulted in much less discussion and debate in Paltalk than one typically finds in Skypecasts. The rooms are less interesting as a result, but calmer. I also think there is less information exchange in Paltalk; I have found fewer people able to support their positions with real evidence, since they just can drive people that disagree out of the room or silence them much more easily.

For example, someone invited me into a room entitled "Muslim Christian Debate". A Muslim was speaking and invited me to ask questions. I asked him what he thought of extremist Muslims. I was told that they did not exist and that all Muslims were moderate. So, I asked about the Supreme Ayatollah and his 3000 answers to a series of traditional "religious queries" published in his "thesis"; surely these were somewhat extreme positions. I was told that Ayatollahs do not count.

I asked if Ayatollahs were not Muslim, and I was told that Ayatollahs are not Muslim. Pondering this, I asked if Shiites were Muslim and I was told they are not. In response, I asked if Sufis are Muslims and I was told they were not. I inquired about the Kharijites and the Alevi, but I did not receive any answers.

I tried to ask why these groups were not Muslims but I was just met with more jeers and invective. I was told that all Muslims who called themselves something else were not Muslims, or who have hyphenated labels. I asked if this was true of Salafis and I was attacked and insulted for asking this. I tried to point out that I had been invited to ask questions, and now I was being assailed for doing so. All this did was increase the agitation of others in the room. Apparently, the room participants did not want to be asked questions and did not want to have a dialogue.

What was interesting to me was how I was repeatedly assaulted, criticized, and ridiculed visciously, for asking questions. Even though I had been invited to ask questions, I was bombarded with jeers for doing so. I waited and waited while I was hit with more and more personal slurs and attacks. Finally I stated that I had had enough and I would leave the room. I was met with a stream of insults for this statement. Still, after a good 10 minutes or more, no one had really addressed most of my questions in any reasonable way. I gave up and left. I was invited back but I did not see who had invited me, otherwise I would have talked to them in private. So I left. Such things can happen in Skypecasts, but I do not think it is as common in Skypeland as it appears to be in Paltalk.

A similar thing happened in a room supposedly about conservative politics. I asked what people knew of Governor Sarah Palin's views about creationism and the use of prayer to "cure" homosexuality. Again, I was beset with wave after wave of insults and snide remarks, expletives, execrations and imprecations from all sides, in text and by voice. My question of course was not addressed or even allowed to be discussed. This might happen sometimes in Skypecasts, but I noticed that usually a different culture reigns in Skypecasts in which people are allowed to state their position clearly. Often someone in Skypecasts will ask that someone who is "odd man out" and clearly holding a different opinion than most of those in a room be allowed to make at least one statement unimpeded. In Paltalk, most of the rooms seem to be populated only by one group with similar views. It appears that it is not common in Paltalk to find a room which is dominated by those with opinions that are different than that of the host, as is often found in Skypecasts. Paltalk hosts quickly censor anyone with a contrary position, or even remove them from the room very rapidly, at least from what I have observed so far. If someone is booted from a Skypecast room, they can immediately return, although they will not necessarily be allowed to speak. In Paltalk, someone booted from a room is not allowed to return for 24 hours.

I brought the Palin question to a room on "Christian debate" where I was again met with wave after wave of derision. About 10 or more speakers approached the microphone to tell me in extremely rude terms, often laced with assorted vulgarities, that no political questions were allowed there since this room was only for discussion of religion. I tried to point out that some topics like creationism or abortion or homosexuality or Sharia law overlap between religion and politics, but this was met with derision and repeatedly rejected. I was told over and over that off-topic discussions are not permitted.

Someone said that donuts were a permissable topic and so I sarcastically asked about donuts, and the room residents enthusiastically discussed their favorite donuts for a few minutes. I opined that the reason there are few "debates" in these rooms, even rooms labelled as "debate" rooms is that it is not permitted in Paltalk. I was told over and over that Skypecasts never had existed and that I must be lying and that the format I was describing for a discussion would never work. I was even told that sarcasm was improper and not allowed in a discussion, which I found curious.

Interestingly, an hour or two later, several people came up to lecture the "Christian debate" room about political topics, including someone who is clearly a Hindutva supporter. No one objected, even when I pointed this out. The Hindutva gentleman wailed on and on about how evil the US is and how God is planning to destroy the US and how all of Judaism is derived from the Dravidians and their religious ideas. It took me quite a while before I started to even understand his position because it was so confused. Others just let him spew away with little response. Apparently he does this regularly and no one objects. Possibly, this is because they cannot understand what he is saying.

I find it interesting how different sets of rules and powers for hosts and a slightly different communication medium has resulted in a completely different culture on Paltalk. The Paltalk rooms might be more orderly and less contentious, but they are also less interesting and less informative. I learned long ago that controversy is the lifeblood of these internet discussions. Without an exchange, rooms die. Paltalk hosts can filter out everyone who disagrees or states a contrary opinion. Therefore the Paltalk rooms tend towards peaceful armed camps where everyone agrees and any interlopers are swiftly dealt with and removed. Since an interloper in a Skypecast cannot be easily removed, and is at least allowed to listen and message many in the room by text, or even start a competing room easily, other methods have developed to deal with disagreements in Skypecasts. Many in Skypecasts have been forced to become experts in various controversial subjects, and to demand that anyone who enters into a debate be able to support their position with evidence. Except for people reading long passages directly from the Koran, the Hadiths, the Vedas or the Bible, I saw little to no supporting evidence being discussed or presented in Paltalk. Although there were Skypecasts rooms in which all contrary views were suppressed, these rooms tended to quickly whither and die because they just are not interesting. Also, the extra powers and privileged positions of Paltalk hosts tend to create tinpot dictators, smug and pleased with themselves. Although Skypecast hosts can become comfortable and familiar to many "fans", they are not as powerful and the atmosphere in Skypecasts is different.

Use your left hand

A great part of Skypeland is the chance to learn about other cultures. One young Muslim Arab man who claimed to be from Kuwait entered our room to tell us how superior his culture was to American culture. He said that he never used toilet paper after defecating because toilet paper was contaminated with bacteria. Instead, he thought it was much more sanitary to "wash" himself with his bare left hand after completing his evacuations.

Well, that sure sounds reasonable and much cleaner, doesn't it?