Call it the triumph of optimism over experience. On the other hand, I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said, “Ignorance is like a hothouse flower: touch it, and the bloom is lost.”
So you don’t like being called a fundie, but you’re arguing for calling people “towelheads.” Yeah, there’s some real hypocrisy on the SDMB.
What particularly sickens me is that the Bible has a few ambiguous things to say about homosexuality, and gay Christian teens sometimes kill themselves over it. The Bible also has some very unambiguous things to say about turning the other cheek, but that doesn’t even slow most Christians down.
Wildest Bill, instead of wasting your mental energies on finding the perfect slur, why don’t you read a book for once? I would suggest one on Islam or geopolitics, but it might be best if you finally got around to reading the Bible.
-Ben
Just don’t let tracer pick the passages!
::g,d&r::
Oh, come on, guys. I have it on very good authority that Wildest Bill reads books.
Of course, it’s convincing him to read something other than the Bible and the Left Behind series that’s the trick… 
In fairness, the OP does not say HE wanted to call people “towel heads.” He asked if it was becoming acceptable to do so.
It’s a good question, and one with enough historical precedent to merit asking it. It’s true that during World War II we routinely referred to Japanese as “Japs” and Germans as “Krauts” or “Huns.” Not just in impolice society, either; the word “Japs” was routinely used in the headlines of major daily newspapers.
So let’s answert the question; will it become politically correct to call Arabs or Muslims “towel heads” or “Camel jockeys”?
My guess is “no freakin’ way,” for four reasons.
-
Society in general is more sensitive to racial slurs now than it was in 1943, so we’re less likely to accept racial slurs no matter if there’s a war or not.
-
As a result of (1) the use of racial slurs to identify military enemies has become uncommon since World War II. It was NOT common in polite company to refer to Vietnamese as “gooks” during the Vietnam War (and “Charlie” was a military slang term that referred to a military force.) It wasn’t widely acceptable to call Arabs “towel heads” during the Gulf War.
-
The common use of racial slurs in World War II is different from what we might see now, in that World War II was a full scale knock-down survival war against two enormous military empires. We were engaged in full-scale wars of conquest on a previously unknown scale, massacring thousands and millions of each other’s people. It’s not the slightest bit comparable to this conflict. Or most conflicts. Calling a German a “kraut” during friggin WORLD WAR II is different from calling an Arab a “raghead” during something that isn’t even a war yet.
-
Arabs and Muslims are a far more widespread, global ethnic group than Germans or Japanese were in WWII. There’s really only two majority-German nations; Germany and Austria, and we were at war with Germany and they’d eaten up Austria. The only Japanese nation is Japan. But there are many Muslim and Arab nations. If we’re at war with Iraq and Afgahnistan, we’re still friends with Egypt, Bahrain, Indonesia, etc. The enemy cannot be summed up as the entirety of an ethnic group.
See, I told y’all that Wildest Bill is a comedian. He’s just trying out new material on us!
-
We’re not at war, no matter how often E.D. of Fox & Friends repeats her mantra.
-
Looks like the press is jumping the gun with ferver again, seeing as nobody knows the facts on the firefighter/flag issue. However, the firetrucks up in Bezerkley aren’t going to be flying the nation’s flag for a while 'cause the anti-everything protesters might be targeting the poor firefighters whilst the firefighters are out trying to save lives.
Nope, WB, that derogatory term is not acceptable, in peace or war.
You may however begin warming up the term “Talibandits”, if it should become necessary to use it.
Please forgive m if this has been mentioned already, but I didn’t want to read the entire “educate WB again” thread:)
In case you missed it Wildest Bill, here is a picture of two of the terrorists:
Pictures Of The Terrorists
I find it hard to believe that you missed it since you like Drudge so much. (so do I BTW) You should notice that two of the terrorists are not wearing anything on their heads. The funny thing is, I never pictured them in my mind as wearing turbans, and I doubt that any of the others wore turbans as they took over the planes.
You have fallen victim to a stereotype, and you would do well to try and figure out who our enemy really is, instead of imagining monsters under your bed.
Wildest Bill
As an act of contrition, I suggest you turn to the east, bow down till you can see between your legs and chant the old Muslim prayer “O’wotanas siam”. If you repeat it three times, we may be able to forgive this latest transgression.
I agree with the majority on this one; it’s racist and completely wrong.
I would like to suggest, however, that it’s much easier to kill people if you dehumanize them first. I think that I’d have fewer nightmares after shooting a ‘slur’ than I would after killing a person. If this escalates into a major war, I worry that racist stuff like this may be tolerated.
Before the flames get me, let me say that I served my country proudly for 6 years, and this sort of thing wasn’t tolerated in the peacetime army.
Bare,
The joke was okay in the punchline, but to call it an old Muslim prayer is just prejudicial.
Given the number of times he behaves in an unacceptable fashion and then demands that we provide Bible passages that say he can’t do it, I have to wonder if he’s read the Bible much at all.
-Ben
Ben, Ben, Ben, Ben; have you learned nothing from the appearance of F[sub]ourth[/sub]o[sub]f[/sub]G[sub]od[/sub]? Do you not remember when he practically screamed at us all that Heaven is really sin and God is filled with the terrible sin of Pride?
Ya gotta keep up with the nuts, friend.
Huh? I don’t remember this at all. You mean the “movie that will change your life” guy?
-Ben
That would be the lunatic in question, Ben. You may recall that he beat to death durn near the concept that yeast in the Bible ALWAYS means evil (when it doesn’t) and that God is PROUD of the lunatic in question. After he declared himself, unwittingly (after all, he had no wits to begin with), the fourth member of the godhood, I began calling him F[sub]ourth[/sub]o[sub]f[/sub]G[sub]od[/sub]. Takes a bit more to type it, but worth it for the visual effect.
Oh, yeah. There’s even a drinking game named after ol’ Fourth. It’s in the BBQ Pit.
Apparently, it is.
I saw Rep. John Cooksey (R-La.) on TV yesterday (Thursday) evening.
His idea for stopping terrorism was encouraging police to pull someone over if they “had a diaper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around the diaper on his head.” 
I tried to find a link. Google gives two hits on “diaper,” “fan” and “Cooksey” that mention the quote in the summary but when I went to the pages I didn’t see the quote.
And we go yet another round with ignorance… :rolleyes:
Esprix
And just a technical correction, it was FriendofGod, not Fourth of God, which sounds like the High Holy Days with fireworks.