And I am amused that you think you have uncovered some hidden dirt on me that you can triumphantly expose to the world, bringing about my downfall. It’s a recent post in the same section of the same message board, for chrissakes. That’s some real sleuthing on your part there! LOL
Yeah, I think in an ideal world we make interesting melting pots (or “tossed salads”–isn’t that the more au courant metaphor?) in some places, while preserving more localized culture in others. I visited Quebec a few years back, and visited three locations: a small town in the countryside where no one spoke English (that was the most fun in some ways since I was the only one in my group who spoke proficient French); Quebec City (still very French culturally); and Montreal (a completely international city). I’m glad a place like Montreal exists, forming 21st century culture on the cutting edge; but I wouldn’t want those other places to lose their traditional francophone character.
Similarly, I remember reading that Parisian cuisine was being increasingly seen by “foodies” as kind of a musty mausoleum preserving recipes from the 19th century (or even earlier), and they were much more interested in cities like London or Madrid where the hot chefs were experimenting with brand new creations. But I thought, shouldn’t there be room for both? Isn’t there some value in these classic recipes and cooking techniques that at least at one time were considered the ne plus ultra in international cuisine?
Western Europe only has about six percent of the world’s population. China and India *each *have three times as many people as are in Western Europe; similarly, the Muslim world has about four times as many people, and sub-Saharan Africa is close to having three times as many people as Western Europe as well. Combined together, all these relatively poor neighbors contain more than 12 times as great a population as Western Europe (not to mention higher fertility rates). If Europeans just throw open the doors and welcome all comers, they will be swamped. Almost nothing of their traditional culture will remain, and the region will just be one big undifferentiated polyglot parade. That would really be a shame, I think. (As it would be for the aforementioned Japan, for that matter.)
10000 signatures on the petition!
suck it progressives!
For those who may be interested, there was an extensive rebuttal of the SPLC’s accusations against Ayaan Hirsi Ali published today by Heather Hastie:
They lost me at the part where they go for paragraphs about Obama not saying the magical incantation against islamic fundamentalism.
First, to keep things in perspective a recent survey found that 47% of Americas consider themselves progressive or liberal. (about 120 million adults) So I’m not impressed at all with that, more related to surveys like that, an ACLU petition to end bigotry has more than 15,000.
Second, the petition is lying right out of the bat. The ACLU is not silencing the ones they are pointing out, they are only advising that the media at large do not let get away when they do reach for seeping generalizations against a religion to make their points (if one thinks about it, a lot can still be done to criticize the stupid things that Muslims in power are doing in several nations without needing to reach for sweeping right wing bigoted talking points).
What the SPLC is making that list for was to tell the media at large to not let bigoted points go unanswered just because of a minority is making them, it would be like letting the Hispanic supporter of Trump get away with hisTaco trucks in every corner comment. Or letting he and others justify the bigoted things Trump has said with no counter.
I read that, and I find it ridiculous. Putting people on lists creates generalizations. If you want to stop that, you discuss the things they actually say, not people.
There is no reason to list someone specific unless you are saying “don’t listen to these people” rather than “don’t listen to these specific ideas.”
The point stands, there is nothing that will prevent right wing sources from publishing what they write, and the only bad thing is that others will only counter the sweeping generalizations (I actually do remember that a lot of the so called liberal media will not do this anyhow), that is all, even in the article they pointed out that the ones pointed out by the OP do not belong to a hate group.
She did nothing of the kind. You attacked her by calling her stupid. She then pointed out that you posted something incredibly stupid, and thus had no room to talk.
Ramira may be argumentative and strong-headed, but she has never once come across as stupid. Using her use of English as a way to call her stupid was a low blow.
I do not see how this refutes anything I said. The point is that, if they want to go after generalizations and such, they need to actually attack the generalizations.
By attacking people, they are generalizing, pretending that everything they say is wrong, and that people should ignore them completely.
I don’t even have a huge problem with the list. I have a problem with their bullshit justification. You do not need a list of people to do what they are claiming to do.
Half the adult population is liberal? Cite?
You need to read the article then, they did point at them.
Again, I said Progressive and Liberal. And I also said close to half, not half.
All I can say to that is that clearly MMV. What you are referencing with more positive or at least neutral adjectives is exactly what I am talking about. She lashes out wildly without doing much of anything to support her screeds. Nor does she evince one iota of wit–“humorless” would be an apt descriptor. She falls back on predictable talking points that tend to be awkward fits, at best, for the subject at hand–but she heedlessly and clumsily shoehorns them in anyway. Overall, she presents all the subtlety and nuance of a blindfolded bull in a china shop. In the eyes of this beholder, none of that speaks well for her intelligence or rationality.
ETA: Yes, I have said I don’t post on weekends, and here it is the middle of the weekend. But I am hanging out with my in-laws and getting bored.
Bunch of more-or-less irrelevant stuff, then,
How could it not be? What do they think “inherent” means?
That’s easy to explain. Forgiveness of enemies is inherent to Christianity. Right? Do all Christians forgive their enemies?
Certainly not.
I think the Christians I know would disagree.
http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/how-to-forgive-your-enemies-4417
http://faithcapo.com/pages/page.asp?page_id=349005&programId=234569
The point is that Islam is an ideology, whereas Muslims are people.
This is why “Islamophobia” is such a troublesome word, since it (perhaps deliberately) seeks to conflate the two, equating criticism of the ideas of Islam with racism. But much as both Islamists and the Regressive Left would like it to be so, none of the misogyny and bigotry that permeates much of current Islam should be held above criticism on the basis that people might take offense at their religion is being “disrespected”; people who engage in such criticism are not racists, their number should include all liberals. There certainly are many actual racists, but a better word for the kind of racism that’s directed against all brown-skinned people who look vaguely Middle Eastern would be “Muslimophobia”.
Yes, let’s not forget that the Quran (like Deuteronomy and other portions of the Old Testament that are no longer taken seriously by anyone but a few ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel, although those people do have disproportionate power in the Likud coalition government right now, and that is scary) is in large part a document written about an empire conquering territory around it.