“Every bit”, huh? Is it your contention that if the Republicans come to power, they will round up Muslims and kill them by the millions?
Glad to see we have such paragons of ignorance fighting here. Such even handed antidotes to scaremongering and scapegoating.
I think it’s best not to assume ill intent in GQ if at all possible. I don’t know if it makes a difference if an OP is posting a question with bad intent. If they’re asking a question, just answer the question without being overly concerned with motives.
He’s talking about what they are doing, you’re predicting what he thinks they will do. Pretty weak shit, even for you.
-Joe
It’s “every bit as dangerous”. What makes it every bit as dangerous if it doesn’t result in roughly the same thing?
In that case, my cat snarling at me is every bit as dangerous as a Siberian tiger growling at me. No, it’s not.
It’s not a surprise that you think it is okay to bait Muslims as long as it results in nothing. That’s pretty sorry, even for you. But let’s be clear just two weeks ago a mosque under construction was burned in Tennessee.
And your suggestion that it will result in nothing is not only belied by the fact that it has already in this particular round of baiting, but it ignores 1,500 years of religious strife between some Muslims and some Christians and ignores human nature.
Where did I say it was OK to bait Muslims and that it would result in nothing?
Look, there is one and only one reason for invoking Nazis, and that’s to invoke the image of death camps. If you don’t want to be called on that, then don’t invoke Nazis. It’s really that simple.
And btw, a mosque was not burned in Tennessee two weeks ago. Some construction equipment was burned. Not to minimize this type of hate inspired arson, but get your facts straight.
See me, I like to think that one day, for one shit-smearing campaign they’ll actually stumble upon a nugget of truth or factual issue, probably by mistake, instead of running exclusively on bullshit.
T’would be a breath of fresh ass.
There were actually Nazi atrocities prior to the death camps being set up in 1943 that were outrageous, such as burning synagogues, blaming things on Jews, etc. The time to point out the dangers of burning mosque sites as in Tennessee and stabbing cabbies as in New York is now, not after people get sent to death camps. In Serbia and Bosnia they have been regularly killing each other over religious differences for 700 years. We don’t have that in the US because it is firmly denounced and religious strife is not accepted for use of political purposes. But that requires people to denounce it and show they will turn their backs on those who do. It was wrong and evil for the Nazis to do it in the twenties and early thirties to come to power and it is wrong for Republicans to scapegoat Muslims for political gain for the same reasons.
Yes, you are correct that construction equipment at a mosque site was burned, and not an actual mosque and I was wrong to write it that way. That is a however, a distinction without a difference. It is still a criminal act and an act of terrorism that you didn’t denounce. How about instead of “not to minimize this type…” kind of passive voice bullshit that you condemn it and the the people who did it and the atmosphere of hatred that your fellow travelers have whipped up. “Not to minimize” is not “I denounce it and will not offer engage with people who talk like that”.
Whether it is children killed in a church bombing in Mississippi, a cabbie stabbed in New York because he is a Muslim, it is all caused by the kind of bullshit propagated by non-innocent questions that imply that Park51 is a “victory mosque”.
Damn Huerta88 for stirring up religious strife. Damn you Dionisio for defending it.
He’s not stirring up religious strife. He heard people criticizing this mosque/community center/whatever by saying that Muslims have a tradition of building mosques on the sites of their victories, and he didn’t know if it was true or not, so he asked. That’s what you’re supposed to do if somebody makes a claim that you don’t know if it’s true. You ask. Would you rather he just accepted or dismissed the statement without finding out if it was true or not? How is that a better thing?
Or what, did you think he knew it wasn’t true when he asked it? How does that make sense? If he asks it and people show the statement isn’t true, that would hurt what he’s trying to do.
How dare you criticize someone for asking a question in GQ? That’s what this website is about. That’s what Cecil is about; separating the truth from the bullshit, answering questions, even if the questions are embarrassing, stupid, or uncomfortable. You scrofulous idiot, what gives you the right to decide what questions may be asked in GQ and what questions may not? Who made you moral guardian over the rest of us?
I called it “hate inspired arson”. I’m under no obligation to condemn it the way you want me to condemn it. I was merely pointing out that you can’t even keep your own facts straight.
But more on point, we’ve been talking about a guy posting a question on GQ and you invoke Nazis. You can wallow in all the self-righteousness you want, but you’re off the deep end on this one. So, no, I’m not going to patrol GQ to make sure only “right thinking” people can post questions there without someone like you coming along to call them Nazis.
And to address this point of idiocy, have you seen what I’ve posted in GD concerning this issue?
Fellow travelers, my ass. I’m on the side of those who don’t give a rats ass who builds what on that site. I’ve argued against the conservatives on this board who are “troubled” by the MCC. And yes, I’ve gone out of my way in at least one thread that I remember to call it the MCC and not a mosque. But I don’t get into politics in GQ. If that offends you, then that’s your problem.
Yes, you called it “hate inspired arson” and you are under no legal obligation to condemn it in the way I want. But calling it what it is is not condemning it. You haven’t condemned it and said that religious baiting is wrong. You are splitting hairs to defend it. In doing so you implied that the Nazis were okay up until the death camps in 1943.
Specifically, I am offended by you thinking that we are too dumb to spot Huerta88’s trolling question.
Sheesh, you sound like Sarah Palin or Bill O’Reilly. You haven’t condemned it, you haven’t condemned it! I called it “hate inspired arson.” I only said “not to minimize” because I didn’t want anyone to misconstrue my having to correct factually inaccurate info.
It would be one thing if the OP was some newbie, snickering while he asks the question, and then dances around anyone who attempts to actually answer it. I’ve seen that before. But **Huerta88 **accepted the answers given, and he’s been around a long time. I’ve questioned his user name before, but I don’t think the sum of his posting here paints him as a neo-Nazi.
No, they weren’t accusing him of it. They were responding as if he may have held those views himself, or, perhaps more accurately, as though he may be in the position of potentially holding as credible those who do. So, the logical thing to do is to give him enough background information so that he understands the context of the question he was asking, preferably enough to realize how fucking retarded the people screaming “victory mosque” are.
Cite? I responded to the idiot in the thread spewing “‘Cordoba’ is a shibboleth for Muslims assraping Christians” bullshit.
I’d go see that band.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization at all. We want people to verify the truth of ridiculous claims like this. However, I don’t think it’s appropriate for them, or other people, to then object to being given additional context around the answer, such as might give them a better background on the entire situation and lead them to be more able to judge the veracity of future similar claims on their own at the time they’re presented with them.
I think the 88 at the end of his username is simply an unfortunate coincidence, and I have no doubt that it’s the result of using a randomized email address as he claims. Which isn’t to say that I don’t find some of his opinions revolting, but I don’t think he’s a closeted open Neo-Nazi, or whatever it would make him to append “Heil Hitler” to his name and then vehemently deny that’s what it means.
Is there any truth to the meme that George W Bush shit all over the Constitution with his “signing statements”? I really don’t want any discussion of other signing statements by other Presidents. I just want to know if it’s true about Bush.
Yes.
Reminds me of my second favorite album title: “White Trash, Two Heebs and a Beaner” from NOFX. (My favorite is also by them: Punk in Drublic.)