If ACists would stop linking to articles by racist ******s like Hans-Hermann Hoppe as though they're reasonable contributions to political theory, this problem could at least be mitigated. I'm not saying you do this, but the bulk of FlyWf's scorn about racism that I've encountered is directed at precisely this issue. Certainly the only time I've accused posters of not understanding racism has been related to this.

I completely agree. A gay Jewish synogoge in Chichago kept messing with Yemen so it got what it deserved. A bomb in the mail. or if those damn christians in Iraq would quit messing with muslims they wouldn't get taken hostage and killed.

We aren't even taking the Iraqi oil. And I didn't intend my comment to be a partisan post. The Dems you listed are also Christians.

There may be an instance where timely information is required and looking for chest hair is quicker than running a PCR.

Cool story bro.

Obviously these are bad things. But yeah, try to see the bigger picture.

Wookie and shoe,

I'm probably explaining myself really badly here I'll try again the whole discussion of are christains as violent as muslims, who has more extremists etc is negative for both of you. It hurts the points that you are trying to make. Wookie it hurts you because it plays into the idea that it matters wether a person is christian or muslim of atheist when they do horrible things, that accounting for that characteristic is important, and shoe it hurts you because you come across as having suspect motives rather than the motive you claim which is you want to reduce the incidence of bad thing X (violence restriction of freedoms etc) no matter who is doing bad thing x.

Shoe, consider the difference in these two sentences.

Muslim extremists force women to cover themselves up therefore they are evil.

Anyone who forces a woman to cover themselves up is evil.

Just say the second sentence and you will get your point across without getting bogged down in unnecessary debates about bigotry. Not only that but you can be more forceful in your argument because you won't have to caveat it with "most muslim extremists" or anything of that kind. No one will be able to nitpick you by pointing out some muslims who may or may not be defined as extremists blah blah blah.

Of course the reason a lot of people aren't that clear in their proclamations is that the univeralisation of their stated principles can cut a little close to home. But if you are being honest and genuine then you won't mind reassessing your beliefs on based on this fact.


edit : I know most of my posts in politards are one liners and the ones that aren't probably aren't that good but I do wish everyone in this forum would read this post and take heed of it. Universalise your principles don't argue with regards to specific characteristics. Things would be a lot less tense if this was the case.

No they don't. I know plenty of muslims who don't do it. They do it for a billion and one reasons.

But we are securing future oil supply lines as we build their infrastructure.

Then in that instance you are choosing to be bigoted perhaps for a good reason perhaps not. The first step though is to be honest with yourself.

Racism is interesting to me from a psychological perspective, but that's not the focus of those who bring it up. They aren't really even interested in analyzing it, just labeling people as racist. I'm not interested hearing people lambasting conservatives for being racist, not understanding what racism is, or analyzing whether a politician is racist or not.

Both.

Try searching "racist", Politics Forum, FlyWf. 10 pages to choose from.

Fantastic editing.


Also, that's non-response to my request. Be specific. What subject was being discussed when race was injected inappropriately? You said it bothered you in "other threads", you must have multiple threads in mind, right?

I don't remember the last time an Afghan wedding party messed with America. Meh, never mind, we should drop the whole Muslim extremist stuff into another thread, though that numerous people popped in to more or less explain why their hatred of Muslims is justified is pretty telling and relevant.

This implies a different definition of bigot than Wookie used in his OP though.

I hit reply on accident before I was finished.

Not interested. This thread exists for a reason.

Eh, I kinda see your point here. I guess I didn't need to bring Christianity explicitly into the argument to state the case that since and including 9/11, Americans have killed way, way more innocent Muslim civilians than Muslim terrorists and/or soldiers have killed Americans in total, whether they be civilians or soldiers. But his point was about Islam being the most dangerous religion specifically, rather than simply about Islam being dangerous. For the former argument, I think making mention that Bush was doing something God told him to do that has resulted in massive death is relevant, but for the latter, simply using Americans instead of Christians is just as effective.

Wookie is the one that first brought up anything related to Islam itt.

It is pretty telling and relevant that you equate talking about Muslim extremists to "people popped in to explain their hatred of Muslims." Such equivocation is insulting to a lot of Muslims that have nothing to do with extremism or fundamentalism. Good job, bigot.

Did you actually look through those 10 pages for where the racism was not extensively analyzed, or are you just making **** up? [citation needed]

The problem is even if you have the facts on your side (which you most likely do) legitimising that type of argument (there are two types of people muslims and non muslims and one is more dangerous than the other) is bad for the position you are trying to get across. That it doesn't matter who does the actions but it is actions themselves that are good or evil. If that isn't what you are trying to get across then I'm wrong but it seems to me like that is what you are trying to say here.

I read them. His argument is still consistent with Muslim hatred rooted in Western meddling, even if it's being misdirected (not going to try and argue that this is permissible, or that it isn't bigotry). Also, that article was written in 1990, so it's missing 20 years that have been pretty damn important in terms of American meddling.

Muslim extremists have killed more innocent Muslim civilians than Americans have.

Again, fair, but the purpose, albeit inartfully stated, was not to argue that Christians are the most dangerous group of all time (kanyewest.jpg), but that individuals from a group that Shoe doesn't perceive as all that dangerous are pretty damn dangerous, and that the Muslims haven't actually been all that dangerous, despite his fears and despite the fact that we've given them ample reason to hate us.

He says pretty much the same things today. See: http://www.amazon.com/What-Went-Wron...8677562&sr=8-3

And I'm not sure you read it carefully. He specifically addresses how "Western meddling" is not even close to a sufficient explanation for Muslim rage.

Yeah. Does that somehow make 22 9/11's-worth of civilians killed by Americans any less of an atrocity?

Nope, and it's not even important if I am wrong and an extensive analytical discussion did crop up in some thread, just make a new thread!

Are we going to discuss foreing policy all over again? I will try a new tangent Europeans have a nice history of killing themselves only recently they have calmed down, yet nobody was ever racist towards europeans because they were dangerous or anything to other countries. So the killing between muslims should be irrelevant to hating them as a collective, do we hate asians? The chinese are quite brutal but I dont see you hating chinese people.

If you take into account agression from each block, americans have done more damage and have cause much more suffering in islamic countries than viceversa.
I dont see 4 million american kids with malnutrion because of vile economic sanctions.