I thought Mark Foley planned to turn over a new leaf as soon as he got to the bottom of the page.
Untrue!
However he does like to lick his fingers before turning pages.
It’s not an innocent question. It is a question designed to spread an ignorant and hateful idea that the Republicans are putting forth that week for the purpose of inflaming their base. The whole idea that it is an innocent question is nonsense. They do this all over the internet and then they have their usual fellow traveler posters to add, “oh this is so reasonable to ask”. It isn’t.
Lutherans don’t erect “victory churches”, nowhere in the Koran is there instructions to erect “victory mosques”, Islam has no more mosques on former church sites than any other religion and they are not “victory mosques”. The community center Park51 is not a mosque, it is not at “ground zero”, Islam did not cause 9/11.
One of our regular posters here, loves to nitpick liberal posters for the slightest inaccuracy. Yet on the “victory mosque” debate, he doesn’t question the use of the phrase “victory mosque”, doesn’t correct that Park51 is a community center, doesn’t correct that it is at “ground zero” doesn’t correct that Islam did not cause 9/11. The OP in “victory mosques” is filled with direct and implied hateful and lying premises. But the usual Republican apologists that love to nitpick accuracy from liberals are silent on this.
And let’s not mince words, the scapegoating of Muslims by Republicans (heightened in this election cycle) is every bit as dangerous and venomous as what the Nazis were doing before they gained power.
I’m glad you can read minds. Personally, I can’t.
I’ve never heard of a “victory mosque”. If I read a thing talking about Islam’s history of setting up victory mosques, I’d raise an eyebrow :dubious:, and then post to GQ a very similar OP as Huerta88 did, expecting to get a lot of people saying, “No.”
Why would I ask? Is it because I secretly long for the answer to be, “Yes.”? No, it’s because I enjoy learning interesting trivia. Knowing that there were “victory mosques” in the age of the Crusades would be interesting. I wouldn’t think that relevant at all to the mosque being built in New York, but that’s entirely independent of whether such a thing ever existed.
Huerta88 has been a member for 8 years, and that I can tell the only time he’s been pitted is because the name he chose has unfortunate connotations. Overall, so far as I can tell, he’s a long-standing and respected member of the community. I have no particular reason to think that he had an ulterior motive in posing the question. Nothing in his OP suggests to me that he asked for any reason than because, like me, he was interested in what the history of the idea was.
Because it’s related to a debate in the U.S. that’s incredibly loaded with bigotry, fear, and hatred. Even if the OP is just looking to debunk that particular myth, he should have no objection to people offering historical information on what all various religions have done over the years in terms of erecting religious spaces, both to celebrate victories and to convert the worship spaces of other religions. Especially when the question is clearly prompted by some (mis)information coming out of a “debate” that is an attempt to demonize the entirety of a widely diverse religion.
As I mentioned in the original thread, if I posted a thread in QG asking if Black people like fried chicken and watermelon, should I be able to get all in a huff if people respond with anything other than straight-up yes or no answers with cites, including perhaps information on the dietary preferences of other groups?
I’ve always assumed that it was a reference of both the Mexican dictator Huerta and Heil Hitler, kinda “Heil Huerta”, as his (her?) posting is generally fascist supporting. I see a denial.
As for reading minds, I have a pretty good ability to read my own mind and I understand when someone is yanking my chain or trolling. There is a difference between googling “victory mosques” and posting a question provocatively. The all-innocent “nobody does that” or “88 doesn’t do that” really clashes with my experience of how people especially Republicans behave and how 88 behaves.
Again, I will point out that Republicans will nitpick the slightest miss from the mark when it suits them, but to this day claim Jimmy Carter said the US is in a malaise in a speech (he didn’t), or that Bill Clinton carried on with Monica Lewinsky in “the oval office” (he didn’t, it was a private office), or that Al Gore claimed to “invent the internet” (he didn’t), or that Park51 is a mosque (it isn’t) etc.
It’s bullshit spreading of bullshit.
There is nothing loaded about that question, and he explained very clearly why he asked it.
Let’s examine the post I was responding to:
Now, it had already been established multiple times that “Christians do it, too”. The OP had already said he was only interested in Muslims, and he explained why. Note that elbows had to call into question not only the motivation of the OP, but implies that he’s a hypocrite.
That’s what should be Pitted about that thread. Fucktards like that who can’t keep their ideological bullshit out of GQ. Why you felt you had to jump in to defend his is beyond me.
I notice you still haven’t responded to my “Black people love chicken and watermelon” hypothetical OP. Wonder why?
You guys have gone off half-cocked on this one. The question was inoffensive.
Exactly as inoffensive as “Do Black people love eating fried chicken and watermelon?”
Actually, it’s more like, “Do Jews kill and eat Christian children and/or babies?”
Well, if the OP explicitly said he was only interested in dietary habits of black people, then yes, I would hope people would avoid posting about the dietary habits of white people.
But you’re missing the point. It’s not so much the “Christians do it, too”, but the implication that the OP is trying to dodge that fact, or that simply asking that question makes the OP “suspect” (your words).
Notice that the very first post in that thread was not only about “Christians do it, too”, but then asked “what’s the difference”?
The OP said he didn’t want a GD debate, and GD debates aren’t appropriate in GQ anyway. Yet the very first post tried to push in that direction. Others followed. More than one person called it a “loaded question” which is absolutely ridiculous.
Heh, it was nothing like those examples. 
Some religions do in fact on occasion establish religious edifices on the sites of military victories, either in commemmoration or to do penance - there are some examples from Christianity, such as the Hastings “Battle Abby”, erected by the victorious Normans with the altar right over where King Harod fell. Islam as it turns out doesn’t, but it is by no means obvious that they don’t.
Only if you’re inclined to be offended. There is nothing wrong with this question, which is better analogy to the OP:
There is a stereotype of black people eating fried chicken and watermelon? Is there any basis for this stereotype?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that type of question, and it’s perfectly appropriate for GQ.
Isn’t it more like: Was Hitler really that bad? :rolleyes:
The context is that the “victory mosque” claims are part of a determined campaign on the part of part of a right-wing faction in America to spread violence and hatred through lies and deception. If someone is asking a question that indicates they’ve been exposed to those lies and misrepresented half-truths, it behooves any listener to ensure that the person is exposed to the true background that informs the scare tactics those extremists are using.
Get it now, you fucking tards?
Heh, be outraged and offended if you want - as I said, you are going off half-cocked, Guns.
It was a perfectly legitimate and inoffensive question, inoffensively worded. The OP merely wanted to know if there actually existed any such thing as 'victory mosques", as alleged by the scaremongerers. There well might have been - as I said, such things are known in Christianity, though not common - but as it turns out, there isn’t.
The OP explicitly stated that the reason he was asking the question was because of what was being said by right wing scaremongers. He wanted to know if there was any basis in truth. We do this sort of thing all the time. The fucktards are the ones who ignore that and try to turn a GQ thread into an outing session.
If you don’t see someone asking about the validity of a claim that clearly came from a group of disgusting, bigoted scaremongers as an opportunity to fill that person in on some more accurate background surrounding said ridiculous claim, then I don’t see that we have any real opportunity for discussion here.
I see what you did there.
If you don’t see that what people were actually doing was accusing the OP of holding those views hinslef, then you haven’t read that thread. Hell, you were doing it yourself!
I’ve explained it multiple times, and you keep dodging it. You’re right, there is no real opportunity for further discussion.
Hey, I have no problems with “filling someone in”. I did the same myself - looking for example at Christianity. That’s what leads me to the conclusion that the question isn’t an absurdity - as there are in fact “victory churches”, which makes it less obvious that there would not be “victory mosques”.
What I find objectionable is taking out ire rightly directed at the scaremongers on the OP, thinking s/he is “suspect” if they simply want to know the answer to the question rather than see their thread disolve isto a giant tu quoque party, etc.
I plead the fifth.
This year it’s socialists and Muslims. Two years ago it was terrorists and homos. Two years before that it was homos and Mexicans.
Same shit, different year. I’d like to think that they’ll eventually run out of targets. After they get to the leftys, anyways.
-Joe
(handedness, not politics, obviously)
-Joe