Aestu wrote:
I grasp the "point" entirely.
You believe that everyone has as much an inclination to react with bigotry and paranoia to accusations proven false as you.
New York is a diverse community. If you are a hardcore bigot you cannot get by there because you rub arms with people of every background, every day. The Muslims are a fact of life, 9-11 or no, and in a community like that people have a bit more perspective than the rednecks. This is characteristic of most major metropolitan areas. The hubbub about the "Ground Zero Mosque" was driven largely by people who weren't New Yorkers, just like the Iraq/Afghan wars.
Islam is a faith practiced by millions with a diversity in format and beliefs comparable to Christianity. It means many different things to many different people, and it has a history going back a thousand years.
The Confederate flag, by contrast, has only one historical context: a war fought to keep black people as slaves. It is a symbol honored only by a homogenous group of Americans regarded by their countrymen as a disgrace to the country and by the larger world as the most ignorant and bigoted people on the face of the planet.
Your argument is invalid.
Well, thanks for proving my point, which is that you obviously didn't get the point.
Eternal's reference to the other thread had nothing to do with the mosque, it was about Mayo's inconsistent opinion on whether it was OK to offend people or not. The mosque conversation was merely the context for the occasion of Mayo providing and opinion inconsistent with the one he's stated in this thread. The mosque and controversy surrounding it are ancillary to the point, and the only one dwelling on the issue mosque is you, because everyone else looked at what Eternal posted and said, "I C WUT U DID THERE."
Mns wrote:
Yeah, probably because one of them actually represents the institutionalized oppression of a race of people for hundreds of years whereas the other is a community center that's the projection of your fear of brown people in America.
So what you're saying is that it's OK for one group of people to be offended because they resent past crimes and fear more in future, but that it's not acceptable for another group of people to be offended because they resent past crimes and fear more in future? What's the dividing factor there...do you only stop marginalizing the fear and concern of "people who hate brown people" after a few hundred years of terrorist attacks?
Mns wrote:
How do you feel about the nazi flag, btw?
Godwin
Mns wrote:
EDIT: Pretty sure I've been consistent, mainly because the qualms of racists should be ignored. If I'm a hypocrite because I don't give a fuck about the feelings of people who are shitting their pants in fear about this country becoming an Islamic theocracy, then fine, you've got me.
The idiot racist qualms of racists should be ignored, sure, but the sort of bigotry you engage in isn't much better. You accuse people who disagree with you, more often than not, of being "racists" or just settle for telling them they "hate brown people." You assume people with whom I find common ground would assault me and "tell me to go home to Mexico," which is funny because a) I'm not Latino, and b) you're so hung up on race that you make assumptions based on my appearance.
To be fair, though, I do look a little Mexican.
Mns wrote:
There's a reason that there's only 2 people on this board that agree with you, and I have no idea why Jubber's on your side on this, because the same people who would fly their idiot flag high and proud would probably pelt rocks at him and tell him to go home to Mexico. God forbid that his kid is half-white, they'd probably lynch him for that.
You're wrong because the majority of people say you are, Copernicus.
Mns wrote:
DOUBLE EDIT: Then again, Jubber rallies behind people who would be more than happy to send his job overseas, wipe out his savings, foreclose on his house, and leave him to rot in the street. Maybe its a character flaw.
A lot of the conversations we have here, mostly ones where you make one or two of the kind of remarks I expect to hear from teenage girls trying to be catty before abandoning the conversation, involve what is sending jobs overseas. You say it's the fault of people I "rally behind," but I disagree, and instead of just blaming "those other guys" and ascribing unsavory qualities to people the way you do, I point to things that are causing the migration: high taxes on business, excessive regulation, and the excesses of labor unions. For some reason, the only way you can deal with any idea that is different from the ones you've accepted is to reject it, and instead of examining the reasoning behind those ideas, you just bat them away saying that the messenger(s) who have brought them are stupid, racist, or otherwise flawed.
You complain that people are racists when they disagree with you, but you're the one here separating people by group affiliation and ascribing qualities to them as a group afterwards, such as the "Mexicans shouldn't be conservatives(!)" and "(white) people who disagree with me are racist" implications of your "pelt rocks" comment. You engage in the moral juggling of double-standards and seem shocked that people see hypocrisy. What do you expect, accolades and applause?
Yuratuhl wrote:
If I were any good at painting, I'd act on my proposal to paint murals of William Tecumseh Sherman all over the south.
You'd probably be surprised by the way it would be received. People in the south are fascinated by the Civil War. Hell, even the ones that would hate your face would probably be impressed with endeavor, but they'd be like, "Somebuddy done a picture of that varmint what burnt everything down to remind us 'bout what a bunch snake dem yankees are."
Your Pal,
Jubber
