Yes, that’s what launched the most recent resurrection of this thread back in post #1718.
That’s what that means?!
And here I thought he was just lighting his farts…:smack:
CMC fnord!
Yeppers. Derived from the 1944 mystery-thriller film Gaslight, in which a husband tries to fool his wife into thinking she’s going mad (by secretly moving and changing things in her surroundings so she’ll believe she’s having delusions, for example, as well as by explicitly expressing concern about her nerves and mental health), so that he can get her institutionalized and have free rein to pursue his (additional) nefarious purposes.
More evidence we should have been using religion as a major factor in immigration policy long ago:
(Now, with that I’m out for the weekend; back on Monday.)
What the everloving fuck? I hate Rep. King about as much as a person can while remaining civil face-to-face (an unlikely and unforseen issue that arose a few weeks ago), but this is either ridiculously tone-deaf or the garish lovechild of too much mescaline and whiskey. Did you do a stint working in a boxing gym as a speed bag?
FFS, just own your bigotry. It’s went beyond tiresome months ago.
“See, I’m not actually a bigot. My judgments are based on ‘science’, so it’s alright.”
Fuck that moral cowardice. If you want to have your disgusting opinions on someone because of their race or religion or whatever, own it. Don’t hide beyond science or some authority figure or anybody else. Just own it. I’ll still judge the shit out of you for your bigotry but consider you modestly less of a slimeball for having the testicular fortitude to be forthright about it.
This makes zero sense. I have been as aggressively candid about my views, and my sincere reasons for holding them, as anyone you will ever encounter.
That’s definitely some impressively florid language. Pretty lacking in actual content though. When you get a chance, maybe you could explain what exactly was incorrect about what I posted. Kthx
What evidence are you talking about? This? (from your link)
If so, then you need to be quite a bit more clear about exactly what you mean by “using religion as a major factor in immigration policy”.
Nobody at all is claiming that we shouldn’t prohibit extremist bigoted religious nuts from immigrating to the US, if their extremist bigoted religious nuttery poses an actual threat. (On the other hand, I would oppose on civil-liberties grounds automatically excluding adherents of harmless nuttery such as belief in the divinity of Elvis, for example.)
But to describe that commonsensical screening approach as “using religion as a major factor in immigration policy” is painting with far too broad a brush. You cannot reliably identify dangerous extremist bigoted religious nuttery just by looking at a few broad categories of religious identity.
Yep, most terrorists in the US are right wing wackos.
Study: Almost ⅔ Of US Terrorism Linked To Right Wing Extremists
Not sure what that has to do with anything, unless it’s supposed to get Muslims off the hook. But Muslims make up one percent of the US population, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and take a wild guess that they account for significantly more than one percent of terrorist attacks. :dubious:
US demographics are a red herring when most Muslim terrorist attacks in the US were not committed by US citizens.
The successful assimilation of Muslim Americans, who (statistically) are less violent and more prosperous than most other American groupings, is one of the greatest success stories in America, as well as helping to create a bulwark (as long as bigoted assholes like Slacker don’t get their way and alienate American Muslims) against the possibility of those few bitter and violent strains of radical Islam spreading in the country.
Your preferred policies would harm America and endanger our future. Being a welcoming and great country for Muslims to live ensures the vast majority of Muslim Americans are generally happy and prosperous neighbors, rather than a segregated, bitter, and fearful community.
It shows that right-wing wackos are a significantly more serious terrorist threat than radical Islamist-extremist wackos.
In no way is that supposed to let any radical Islamist-extremist wackos “off the hook” for their hostile actions or intentions. It’s just one of the overwhelming number of reasons to resist and reject your perennial efforts to put all Muslims as a group on the same “hook” with radical Islamist-extremist wackos.
Of course, andy: your “logic” here is pretty much identical to your earlier take on crime statistics. :rolleyes:
Idiots who think red herrings make for convincing argument really shouldn’t question anyone else’s logic. Or “logic”, even.
Rolling your eyes is probably a lot easier than trying to refute arguments.
No, andy, rebutting your arguments is pretty easy too. 
Broader question for nearly all of you: why do you call it “bigotry” to have antipathy for a set of beliefs and the people who subscribe to said beliefs? You guys have nothing but scorn for my beliefs, but if they were based on an old book about magical, all powerful, but invisible beings, then they would be inherently worthy of respect? :dubious:
(This isn’t about ethnicity, as my example of Steve King and Dutch Calvinist immigration illustrates.)
Says you, and Steophan (who has to lie about me)… Anyone else? Great company you’re keeping there.
As to bigotry - you’re making mass judgements and casting mass aspersions based on the most superficial characteristics. Not beliefs - those who identify as Muslim have an incredibly diverse set of beliefs. Just labels. Which is pretty much the simplest form of bigotry - negative judgements based on superficial characteristics.
That claim about Muslims is truly bizarre. But congrats, I guess, for asserting something so weird that it leaves me at a loss as to how to respond.
Let’s just get this clear - you think it’s “truly bizarre” and “weird” to say “those who identify as Muslim have an incredibly diverse set of beliefs”? Is that right?