Isn't this just intentionally misleading by the SUN (or rather, appropriately leading to those who harbour anti-muslim suspicions)? Or am I not understanding the article? I have to say it is poorly written.
Like it or not, it has become acceptable in North America to hurl unfounded accusations, bigotry and racist attitudes towards Muslims and people from the Middle East. Especially in the US.
Case in point: A Texas lawmaker today is asking visiting Muslims in Austin to pledge allegiance to the US flag.
Iran is no better. The huge and horrible part of the problem is that these regimes are cynically using terrorist networks as their tools to achieve various economic objectives.
yup, An Iranian Republican Guard General gets zapped within 7 miles of the boarder with members of Hezbollah,
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I assumed you were taking that type of stance which is why I haven't chickened out and left the thread even though the more I post the more fuel it is for the people that dislike me (the usual suspects giving thanks in the anti-EE posts). I'm outspoken and opinionated and that doesn't mesh well with some people but I'm not going to let someone call me a bigot and turn the other cheek as that's simply going too far IMO. I knew what I was doing (calling him an idiot) and was willing to face the consequences as long as things were fair and the other guy was also disciplined.
You are correct that the tit doesn't justify tat and this definitely doesn't make this a better place but I really wish some of these sensitive people could respond in more of a "don't you think that's racist" rather than taking the easy route and calling people "racist". That alone would have kept the discussion civil and on topic.
Really though how interesting is this discussion? How can you really separate the actual discussion when a lot of the people posting would be in unison ganging up on me regardless of the topic as long as there was something to latch on to as an excuse? Flameswin and MMF have attacked me in this thread but not regarding the the racism so you must fully realize that this goes much deeper than the whole "racist" discussion no?
Wouldn't it be easier and clear up what you're basically claim is a misinterpretation of your initial post if you just came out and and said "I worded that post badly." "What I meant was ...."
Apparently admitting that the wording of your post created this firestorm is not an option. You'd rather play the victim.
Rather than continue to claim "everyone hates me", take a look in the mirror and think about why almost every post you make, regardless of the topic, is so unpopular.
Rather than continue to claim "everyone hates me", take a look in the mirror and think about why almost every post you make, regardless of the topic, is so unpopular.
I think it's important too to distinguish being told "what you said was bigoted" vs. "you are a bigot". I'm not going back to check, but I don't believe Shantz ever called EE a "racist"... I think he or she said what he "said was racist". There's a big difference there. I also don't think the analogy BBS used to kick this off was all that inappropriate given EE"s post, but that's just me.
__________________
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
I think it's important too to distinguish being told "what you said was bigoted" vs. "you are a bigot". I'm not going back to check, but I don't believe Shantz ever called EE a "racist"... I think he or she said what he "said was racist". There's a big difference there. I also don't think the analogy BBS used to kick this off was all that inappropriate given EE"s post, but that's just me.
Except it's not racist, so it's a bad assertion. It's ridiculous that we're still arguing about that post. Both EE's post and the reply were dumb. How about we let them cross each other out and move on.
ok fine - i thought bbs corrected what he effectively meant was "bigoted". I'm not trying to make a point about racism or being racist but rather about communication which seems to be the direction now that the thread has taken.
__________________
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
In any event, I don't want to pile on EE, but he deserves the calling out he is getting. What he said was bigoted, straight up. But even if someone can't understand that from the explanations provided by those like Jammies, the posting style deserves criticism.
I missed the part where Jammies explanation was anything other than his opinion which I personally don't agree with. I don't deserve it and it's not bigoted. Your opinion is not fact it's just your opinion. Feel free to say "IMO what he said was..." but please refrain from saying "What he said was bigoted, straight up" because the concept of opinions not being factual is lost on many of you.
I missed the part where Jammies explanation was anything other than his opinion which I personally don't agree with. I don't deserve it and it's not bigoted. Your opinion is not fact it's just your opinion. Feel free to say "IMO what he said was..." but please refrain from saying "What he said was bigoted, straight up" because the concept of opinions not being factual is lost on many of you.
So all I was missing was the "IMO". To me that is an odd thing to fixate on, particularly given the rest of that post, but ok. IMO it seems to me that unless someone is relaying a fact - something that happened in the world - they're relaying their opinion. What I said wasn't a fact it was an opinion on what you said. That seems so obvious to me, i wouldn't include "IMO". Similarly, I don't think you needed to put "IMO" before your opinion BSS is "a complete and utter idiot". It was obviously just your opinion, as my comment about what you said obviously was.
But I take your point about trying to be clearer and I don't want to argue semantics.
__________________
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
I think this is an interesting line of thinking. Sadly, it's often espoused by people in times when they can point the finger at other "groups." In other words, it's easy to toss this expectation at Muslims because you're not part of that group, and you feel it emotionally and intellectually safe to call them to carpet.
This type of irrelevant accusation is also often tossed at Americans traveling in Europe. I've seen it first hand with friends: "Hey, your president is an idiot and your vice president advocates torture. How backwards and immoral a group you guys are... and why haven't we seen each and every one of you denounce torture?" According to your framework, you're going to need to be not "complacent" and assure that each and every American you come into contact with actively denounces association with that "group."
It's easy to toss grenades from an epistemically enclosed shelter.
Its true though. At that point, when you are called out, you make the decision as to whether you distance yourself from the actions of the president or you accept that you are at least apathetic to the situation and either defend yourself or choose to ignore it.
Just to add to watching good reformist videos and real worthy discussions about the problem of Islamists, do check out the Quilliam Foundation on youtube, this is Naajiid's foundation and they have a lot of great videos.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
And yet I never said anything like that.
-edit- ah I see that I referenced people who don't like being called bigots. I think I slipped that in there against my own better judgment, since I was trying to speak more towards a trend in ALL threads about "Muslim" terrorism.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I think this is an interesting line of thinking. Sadly, it's often espoused by people in times when they can point the finger at other "groups." In other words, it's easy to toss this expectation at Muslims because you're not part of that group, and you feel it emotionally and intellectually safe to call them to carpet.
This type of irrelevant accusation is also often tossed at Americans traveling in Europe. I've seen it first hand with friends: "Hey, your president is an idiot and your vice president advocates torture. How backwards and immoral a group you guys are... and why haven't we seen each and every one of you denounce torture?" According to your framework, you're going to need to be not "complacent" and assure that each and every American you come into contact with actively denounces association with that "group."
It's easy to toss grenades from an epistemically enclosed shelter.
It's also worth noting that Islam is a wide-ranging religion with a huge variety of denominations and sects (even among the obvious Sunni and Shia). Very similar to Christianity with Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants branching into lots of smaller denominations.
Much in the same way you wouldn't judge a Catholic based on the antics of the Westboro Bapist Church because they're both technically Christian, there's no reason to expect different denominations of Islam to feel as though some extremist sect are representing their beliefs.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JayP For This Useful Post:
Its true though. At that point, when you are called out, you make the decision as to whether you distance yourself from the actions of the president or you accept that you are at least apathetic to the situation and either defend yourself or choose to ignore it.
When you "call" people out, all you're actually doing is forcing them into your worldview narrative and asking them to defend themselves against your broad, accusatory assumptions.
So in that respect, no one is going to change your mind in this thread. You were already convinced, and now you'll occasionally mine the internet for data and surveys that fit your hypothesis.
But I do hope you eventually come to understand the damage done by such generalities. These sweeping assumptions allow discrimination to be ratcheted up against innocent people. Ask any minority (or heck, ask a majority like women!) of the dangers of being nonchalant about sweeping generalizations and false narratives. Also those little bricks help build a system of discrimination and disenfranchisement... to the point where muslim americans in the US have to be humiliated by being explicitly asked to pledge allegiance to the flag.
If we substituted people of other ancestries or religions to such treatment, people would be outraged. And rightly so.
But luckily, through the escalation of rhetoric and false accusations against muslims, US politicians are openly questioning their value as citizens. And not losing their jobs over it.
It's also worth noting that Islam is a wide-ranging religion with a huge variety of denominations and sects (even among the obvious Sunni and Shia). Very similar to Christianity with Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants branching into lots of smaller denominations.
Much in the same way you wouldn't judge a Catholic based on the antics of the Westboro Bapist Church because they're both technically Christian, there's no reason to expect different denominations of Islam to feel as though some extremist sect are representing their beliefs.
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Just to add to watching good reformist videos and real worthy discussions about the problem of Islamists, do check out the Quilliam Foundation on youtube, this is Naajiid's foundation and they have a lot of great videos.
When you "call" people out, all you're actually doing is forcing them into your worldview narrative and asking them to defend themselves against your broad, accusatory assumptions.
So in that respect, no one is going to change your mind in this thread. You were already convinced, and now you'll occasionally mine the internet for data and surveys that fit your hypothesis.
But I do hope you eventually come to understand the damage done by such generalities. These sweeping assumptions allow discrimination to be ratcheted up against innocent people. Ask any minority (or heck, ask a majority like women!) of the dangers of being nonchalant about sweeping generalizations and false narratives. Also those little bricks help build a system of discrimination and disenfranchisement... to the point where muslim americans in the US have to be humiliated by being explicitly asked to pledge allegiance to the flag.
If we substituted people of other ancestries or religions to such treatment, people would be outraged. And rightly so.
But luckily, through the escalation of rhetoric and false accusations against muslims, US politicians are openly questioning their value as citizens. And not losing their jobs over it.
I wouldn't call someone out unless they gave me reason too. It'd have to be a much bigger reason then them saying they are a certain ethnicity or subscribe to a certain religion.
This still doesn't change the complete lack of reform in that religion though. How we're ignoring such large portions of a population base, millions of people, being okay with violence in the name of islam is something I don't understand though.
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
I wouldn't call someone out unless they gave me reason too. It'd have to be a much bigger reason then them saying they are a certain ethnicity or subscribe to a certain religion.
This still doesn't change the complete lack of reform in that religion though. How we're ignoring such large portions of a population base, millions of people, being okay with violence in the name of islam is something I don't understand though.
Predominantly, Muslim countries average 2.4 murders per annum per 100,000 people, compared to 7.5 in non-Muslim countries. The percentage of the society that is made up of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country's murder rate. More authoritarianism in Muslim countries does not account for the difference. I have found that controlling for political regime in statistical analysis does not change the findings. More Muslims, less homicide.
Why are non-muslims so violent?! Why are muslims so peaceful?! I mean, we all saw Breivik right?! Isn't that reason enough for you to call out Christians?
I think sweeping assertions such as "large proportions of a population base... being okay with violence" are demonstrably weak. But I also think we're discussing something that is happening in a blind spot. The last word is yours.
Why are non-muslims so violent?! Why are muslims so peaceful?! I mean, we all saw Breivik right?! Isn't that reason enough for you to call out Christians?
I believe this issue isn't Muslims murdering Muslims rather Muslims extremists contempt for non-Muslims.
