Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-14-2019, 06:01 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
All that being said, the rightwing attacks on her over this are not valid. They are simply using this incident as an exploitable opportunity to hatefully smear a Muslim woman in Congress.
  #52  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,800
It's interesting how white Christian America has abused non-whites and non-Christians over the centuries and yet demands that they act nothing less than grateful. If it were just a matter of indignation, if the message from the rabid right were simply "Be grateful you live here" and nothing else, that would be bad enough, but not ominous. I suspect, however, that the implied message goes one step further: "Be grateful you live here, because we can always kick your kind out any damn time we feel like it."
  #53  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
All that being said, the rightwing attacks on her over this are not valid. They are simply using this incident as an exploitable opportunity to hatefully smear a Muslim woman in Congress.
Connect the dots: it's not just Muslims, but also Hispanic Americans. There is a campaign against diversity in America, against an inclusive and democratic society.

And people are naive if they think it ends there. I seriously doubt it does.
  #54  
Old 04-14-2019, 08:25 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Connect the dots: it's not just Muslims, but also Hispanic Americans. There is a campaign against diversity in America, against an inclusive and democratic society.

And people are naive if they think it ends there. I seriously doubt it does.
I dont disagree at all.
  #55  
Old 04-14-2019, 10:00 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So yes, she would probably take great offense if someone brushed off the New Zealand attack as "someone did something"
Bullshit: it's not a brushoff, no matter how assiduously you're trying to frame it that way.

What it is is a very specific comparison between some people doing a particular thing---and that's in no way downplaying, brushing off or minimizing the fact that they were very evil people doing a massive very evil thing---and the consequence of all people in a much broader racial/religious category being attacked in retaliation for that thing.

It's not that hard to understand, if you don't start out with the predetermined goal of trying to make Omar look bad or callous or as though she's taking the "side" of Muslims "against" victims of the 9/11 bombing.

Last edited by Kimstu; 04-14-2019 at 10:01 PM.
  #56  
Old 04-16-2019, 05:20 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,378
"...Some people did something..", "...Grab them by the p___y..." both come from the same ignore the context to make a point play book.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #57  
Old 04-16-2019, 06:29 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
"...Some people did something..", "...Grab them by the p___y..." both come from the same ignore the context to make a point play book.
What?
  #58  
Old 04-16-2019, 06:54 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,666
See, the context is that Omar never committed a terrorist attack, and Trump has sexually assaulted at least a handful of women, so when Omar talks about something she has no responsibility for it is EXACTLY the same as Trump talking about the horrible things he’s done.
  #59  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:18 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Allegedly. Keep in mind, we really only have his word on that.
  #60  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:42 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Omar's quote was just a case of human nature: People naturally place greater weight on atrocities that affect their side but less weight on atrocities that affect others. This doesn't make Omar a bad person - it's just human nature.
Excuse me, what the fuck? Their side?
  #61  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Omar's quote was just a case of human nature: People naturally place greater weight on atrocities that affect their side but less weight on atrocities that affect others. This doesn't make Omar a bad person - it's just human nature.
"Their side"? I think this says a lot more about who you personally believe is on your "side" vs the other "side" than Omar.
  #62  
Old 04-16-2019, 08:58 AM
Triskadecamus is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm coming back, now.
Posts: 7,598
Of all the things the murdering scumbags who killed thousands on 9/1/1 did, being muslim didn't piss me off the most. Even the fact that the murder cheerleaders among muslims were, and remain unapologetic about the part they played in those murders. But the profit driven corporate and government policy that the Nation of Saudi Arabia, which teaches, and finances acts like it to this very day does. But we need their oil, so it's all okay with us.

The outrage of our nation is based on inconvenience, and discomfort, not ethics.

Tris
__________________
All this only applies in cases where simple bigotry isn't the entire answer.
  #63  
Old 04-17-2019, 12:10 AM
rowrrbazzle's Avatar
rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,728
"CAIR was founded after 9/11"
Not true (already noted).

"because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

"some people did something" is really vague. But if it refers to supposed acts of prejudice, why didn't she just say that? It would be well received on the left and all the media. It's clear to me she was being vague to try to downplay 9/11, and she has a vested interest in doing so. What else would she be vague about?

"Starting to lose access to our civil liberties” is also not at all true. She was elected to Congress and still is free to say what she said, but freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism.
  #64  
Old 04-17-2019, 06:31 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't read it that way at all. She is saying that on 9/11, "some people did something" meaning that some extreme Muslims did something and now every Muslim is in danger of losing their civil liberties because of it.
Not only every Muslim, in fact (although she may have meant it that way; after all, she was addressing a Muslim audience), nor only immigrants, nor merely brown people. Everybody in the US and in many other countries has lost civil liberties as a consequence of 9/11. Many attacks on civil liberties which would have been considered completely unacceptable on 9/10 are applied or excused on account of "security" after 9/11.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 04-17-2019 at 06:33 AM.
  #65  
Old 04-17-2019, 06:41 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle View Post
"CAIR was founded after 9/11"
Not true (already noted).
Not true, but it certainly became relevant to the experience of Muslims in America in a way that it hadn't been previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle View Post
"because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

"some people did something" is really vague. But if it refers to supposed acts of prejudice, why didn't she just say that? It would be well received on the left and all the media. It's clear to me she was being vague to try to downplay 9/11, and she has a vested interest in doing so. What else would she be vague about?
And so what? I think that if people are going to judge someone's attitudes toward 9/11, then listening to one line out of a 15-20 minute isn't really fair. Sure she could have chosen her words better. There are probably any number of times on any given day when the same could be said about any of us. Like I said, so what? We're all reacting to a manufactured controversy, and if anything, the reaction lends credibility to the concerns she has voiced before about dealing with anti-Muslim prejudice in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle View Post
"Starting to lose access to our civil liberties” is also not at all true. She was elected to Congress and still is free to say what she said, but freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism.
People can lose their freedom not only from laws themselves but also in terms of how the law is applied, which I think is her point. If Muslims are being subjected to additional scrutiny at airports or by having their Mosques under surveillance, then that's a loss of civil liberty. We can debate the particulars of degree, I suppose, but that's a loss of freedom - the freedom to be treated like any other American without prejudice.
  #66  
Old 04-17-2019, 08:31 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle View Post
It's clear to me she was being vague to try to downplay 9/11, and she has a vested interest in doing so.
This is, as I said before, profoundly untrue. If she's being purely practical and greedy, she has a vested interest in playing up 9/11, because:
1) She's an American, goddammit; and
2) She needs to make it very clear to bigots, using very simple, small words, that 9/11 was perpetrated by psycho murderer cultists and not by mainstream Muslims.

What vested interest do you imagine she has in downplaying 9/11? Do you think she believes all Muslims like 9/11, so making it seem less bad makes Muslims look better? Do you believe she supports the goals of al Qaeda and so wants to cast them in a good light? Where are you going with this "vested interest" thing?
  #67  
Old 04-17-2019, 08:46 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,800
What needs to be put into perspective is that Rep. Omar, for all of her love of terrorism , has been among the harshest critic of Saudi Arabia -- at a time when the president vetoes an amendment to stop their barbaric campaign in Yemen. The Republicans mostly support Saudi Arabia as well, so it's not just Trump. They knowingly support a state sponsor of terror, and a country that spreads radical Islam that they claim to condemn. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with these scumbags, and ignorance knows no bounds for the morons who fall for these culture wars.

Seriously, her blithering right wing critics can just have a nice big cup of shut the f___ up already.
  #68  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:25 AM
Dr. Crap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 327
I'm calling it. Trump's next campaign slogan will be Omar's face and hers will be links to editorials in her defense.
  #69  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:46 PM
Doubticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South-West
Posts: 428
I think Omar's lack of experience is hurting her. As time goes on she will learn to more effectively convey her points in a way not to be taking out of context. Given the audience her speech was directed at, I don't consider "some people did something" as offensive. Moving forward, she should describe such people as extremists and zealots.
  #70  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:45 AM
oshiimidori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishamael69 View Post
I’m hoping to keep this GQ, but I have my doubts as to if it is possible.

Rep. Omar said, “far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen and frankly, I'm tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

I’ve seen a lot of people and articles complain that her words above were being taken out of context. I understand how some might agree or disagree with her characterization, but how are they being mis-contextualized? Is she not referring to the 9/11 attacks? Isn’t the context right there that she is talking to CAIR about why CAIR was founded?
Context is often everything. Still, the "some people did something" is an avoidance and THAT is what people heard and if nothing else, her understanding of what will be used as a sound bite is sub-par.
  #71  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:13 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by oshiimidori View Post
Context is often everything. Still, the "some people did something" is an avoidance and THAT is what people heard and if nothing else, her understanding of what will be used as a sound bite is sub-par.
You're contradicting yourself. Context is important, but "somebody did something" is only significant when it is pointedly taken OUT of context.

You're suggesting Omar is at fault for how other people willfully or stupidly misinterpret her comment.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #72  
Old 09-26-2019, 08:07 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't read it that way at all. She is saying that on 9/11, "some people did something" meaning that some extreme Muslims did something and now every Muslim is in danger of losing their civil liberties because of it.

Not a bad point to make, but the phrase "some people did something" seems awfully dismissive what what those some people did.
A lot of things seem dismissive if you take them out of context. If you listen to the words in context there's nothing outrageous at all about it; the meaning is very clear, and it's not meant to pretend killing three thousand people was no biggie. It is flatly dishonest to take a person's words out of context on purpose to make them sound as if they mean something they did not.

Do you know who, on 9/11, responded to what had happened by saying "The functions of our government continue without interruption?" God, what a fucking asshole, huh? A dreadful terrorist attack and the guy just coldly replies that the post office is still working? What a dick. That was imam Mohammed bin... no, I'm just kidding. It was George W. Bush. That's a direct quote. Of course, I'm taking it out of context; if you read it in context, it's not cold at all and makes perfect sense.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #73  
Old 09-26-2019, 10:01 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
You're contradicting yourself. Context is important, but "somebody did something" is only significant when it is pointedly taken OUT of contex.
It's the right's playbook. See also: "invented the internet," "you didn't build that," "what difference does it make?" and every other time they "paraphrase" to reverse the meaning of something and build outrage.

Last edited by TimeWinder; 09-26-2019 at 10:01 PM.
  #74  
Old 09-26-2019, 10:14 PM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,113
Also out of the right’s playbook: when your guy in the White House is under investigation for impeachment revive an old dead thread from last Spring to try to redirect the conversation to anything else.
  #75  
Old 09-27-2019, 06:39 AM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 417

If we've settled down a bit by now ...


... since we've had a number of invitations to imagine various variations on a theme in this thread, I'd like to propose that we imagine some very, very slight revisions to the original quote and see how they sound to the ears of our respective imaginations.

Let's confine ourselves to just the "they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties" portion.

I wasn't at that speech and I haven't heard any recordings, but I think it's reasonable, from the structure of the syntax, to place emphasis thus:

"... they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

Hmm. Well, that sounds a little more realistic, and not quite so problematic. Let's add in just one adjective. How can we describe that "something"?

"... they recognized that some people did something [horrific] and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

or maybe

"... they recognized that some people did something [inexcusable] and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

Now, granted, that's not what she said. But if adding in one adjective can make her statement sound so ... accurate and reasonable, I'd submit ... then how unconscionable could the original statement be?

If Tim Apple were here, I would ask him.
  #76  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:15 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
What Omar said was a pretty bad choice of words. That being said, flubs happen. Nobody has an entire speech pre-scripted and rehearsed in advance; when one has to make a long steady stream of remarks on the fly, something less-than-ideal is bound to be said.
We seem to hold Trump accountable for all his "flubs" and he puts absolutely NO thought into what he says. Why not Omar?
  #77  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:23 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
There's no fucking way that she was doing that on purpose.
Sometimes that's known as a Freudian slip.
  #78  
Old 10-04-2019, 09:39 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
We seem to hold Trump accountable for all his "flubs" and he puts absolutely NO thought into what he says. Why not Omar?
Are you kidding? Trump says a dozen worse things every day. How is that comparable to, at worst, a single instance of a thoughtless turn of phrase?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017