|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Calling someone or something they posted racist is just the best way for some liberals to flame. |
I guess that's a point a view, though it doesn't really stack up, reality-wise - racism does exist, you see. It really does.
And there are easier ways to flame rather than to present a point, try to argue it cogently, point to specific pieces of evidence and even do a little research on the 'net ...
An easier way to flame is to just call something crap, toss about a word or two like "hypocrite," or "flame" and then walk away. That's quite a lot easier, in fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| racism does exist, you see. It really does. |
I agree with you that racism exists. Though many times, its probably more to do with what you are comfortable with, so you treat a person different from you differently. Its not that if you got to know them, you wouldn't change.
Though it is also true, that many times "Racism" is used to stop an argument or to make someones points invalid. This takes away from the real problems of racism and undermines the real need to combat it. Plus many people who use it as a counter to an argument, at times tend to not be as open to others as they purport.
It is sometimes better to educate a person to your beliefs, ideas or what is wrong about theirs, then to simply state "you're racist". This being done, ends a discussion and closes ones mind, thus not changing anything or understanding anything.
Not everything that is said is racist, sometimes its a limitation of language to fully explain all the different nuances, expressions, understandings, misunderstandings, society driven education that makes up an individual. Maybe only after a lifetime has been lived, can we really say whether someone is racist or not. As a lifetime is needed to be lived. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
Calling someone or something they posted racist is just the best way for some liberals to flame.
I guess that's a point a view, though it doesn't really stack up, reality-wise - racism does exist, you see. It really does.
And there are easier ways to flame rather than to present a point, try to argue it cogently, point to specific pieces of evidence and even do a little research on the 'net ...
An easier way to flame is to just call something crap, toss about a word or two like "hypocrite," or "flame" and then walk away. That's quite a lot easier, in fact. |
I don't disagree with any of that, but a lot of people who are called racist around here don't seem to many people to be so in the slightest, except for perhaps their opponent in debate. Racism exists, but going around on an anti-racism crusade on the internet doesn't just seem pointless, but a little agenda-driven, no? Was Big Bird racist for calling Germans a Kraut? Not likely, but certainly she was being provocative. So what? Do I think Wannago or TUM are racist? Nah.
People really should be given the benefit of the doubt in this context because it's not national politics or some mega-corporation where a little racism could do a lot of damage, but it's a message board. I mean, does nobody else here think pulling the racism card smacks a little of ad hominem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 5:46 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
I was also notified that the Muslim communities in the USA were coming together to have greater influence in politics, that the muslims are gaining control in france and will soon have full.
That the leader of my country doesn't speak out against muslims now, because it was made aware to my leader that they held a sizeable number of votes in the electorate. There was and is more going on then we are made aware of in the media. |
So, Muslims will soon have "full control" of France?
That's exaggerated BS.
Bush should speak out against Muslims?
Why? Because they are trying to influence politics? If they are US citizens, it is their right, if not moral obligation, to do so. Why, exactly, would that mean that Bush should speak out against them? Hispanics are enjoying greater political influence. Should he speak out against them as well? Or, is there the suggestion here that Muslims are some sort of second-class citizens?
Bearing in mind that not all Muslims are ethnically Arabs, I wouldn't call it racism, but these remarks are clearly prejudicial. And they do have parallels with comments made against Jews in Hitler's Germany.
For the record, I don't actually think that Bush is anti-Muslim. He may have been at some earlier point, but I doubt, with the experience of the last four years, he would entertain such a simplistic, narrow-minded stance.
Kuros,
You're using what I see as a poor choice of wording to make blanket statements about liberal tactics while ignoring what I see as blatantly prejudicial comments. I find that surprising.
Wannago,
I agree the statements are anti-Bush. That doesn't mean they aren't anti-Muslim. I see nothing out of step about criticizing them. Liberals can defend Bush, just as you seem to be supporting criticism of him here.
Summer,
See above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I don't disagree with any of that, but a lot of people who are called racist around here don't seem to many people to be so in the slightest, except for perhaps their opponent in debate. |
Two points.
First, if you are referring to moi - and I do seem to be the one most commonly identified in this regard in the past few months - you'll find that the debates in question nearly always hinge on matters of race, discrimination or bias posed against groups for reason of difference from the mainstream with regard to gender, sexual orientaion or religious affiliation. You'll be hard-pressed to find that I've injected it into discussion where it is not applicable, such as for instance the social security debate or nuclear disarmament with N Korea.
If the debate hinges on bigotry in some way, it's fair game to point out that what seem to bigoted viewpoints are being expressed.
Second is that a lot of bigoted thinking is in the realm of the semi-concious - it tends to come from parts of mental life that is not always well-examined by the person holding such opinions - and as such it is usually not recognized for what it is, especially by the person speaking them. I don't exclude myself from this diagnosis by any means. Unconcious racism is still exactly that, however, and it's fair to point out that the most consistent reaction from the conservative wing for quite a while now it to simply not discuss it, object when others want to discuss it, and to claim (by excluding it from debate) it is a matter of minor importance.
There is a lot of it about on these forums, far more than I myself have time to comment on - and unfortunately a few of the opponents you refer to seem to think there's hypocrisy involved in not noticing ALL of it - but these very same people, I would hazard, also have never seen racism at all (except "reverse discrimination" against white people) and I think there's something important to notice about that.
| Quote: |
| Racism exists, but going around on an anti-racism crusade on the internet doesn't just seem pointless, but a little agenda-driven, no? Was Big Bird racist for calling Germans a Kraut? Not likely, but certainly she was being provocative. So what? |
It might seem like a crusade, but after several years of seeing such comments expressed and not pointing them out as what they do indeed seem to me to be, I simply felt it was time to start mentioning it. As long as I am able to present an argument that could possibly be as plausible as, say, the case made by Rumsfeld for invading Iraq, then I think it's worthy of discussion.
Anyone is free to disagree, but I seldom see anyone take the same trouble to make a reasoned rebuttal as I took to make the original case.
| Quote: |
| Do I think Wannago or TUM are racist? Nah. |
I try (and sometimes fail) to refrain from calling particular people "racists" rather than merely point out that a particular opinion as expressed appears to me to be a racist view. It may seem like a small distinction but I do think it's important to be able to label an idea in a certain way rather than an entire human being - again, I realize I have failed in this on a few occasions.
As for the people you mention, they weary me, and I think I've made the point in regard to what they regularly say as well as I am likely to want to ... until the next time they do it, of course,
| Quote: |
| I mean, does nobody else here think pulling the racism card smacks a little of ad hominem? |
I think it would oinly be ad hominem if it were pulled out of thin air in a discussion unrelated to matters of bigotry in any way. If the subject is a religious fundamentalist who thinks equal rights for gays equals "special rights" and and represent a dire threat the Republic, then someone pipes up with a quip about gay marriage opening the door for someone to be able to marry their dog ... well, it's pretty on-topic to point out that putting homosexual loving relationships on par with true sexual deviancy is pretty hateful and bigoted.
I've never quibbled with anyone's desire to be able to express racist or bigoted ideas here, but it does seem interesting that so many on the right do wish to quibble with my desire to point it out and say clearly what it is.
And people DO get the benefit of the doubt. Summer Wine has made at least a somewhat urbane case that at least seemed to indicate he was willing to entertain the concept as a discussion point. I can grok that fine. I have no problem when some disagrees or continues to disagree, as long there is room to talk about it openly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Kuros,
You're using what I see as a poor choice of wording to make blanket statements about liberal tactics while ignoring what I see as blatantly prejudicial comments. I find that surprising. |
Which statement? This one?
| Quote: |
| Calling someone or something they posted racist is just the best way for some liberals to flame. |
I inserted the some for a reason, so it wouldn't be an attack against liberals as such. And the reason I specified liberals rather than simply someone of any political persuasion is that I believe people on the left as opposed to the right fall into this tactic more often (although accusing someone of anti-semitism or anti-americanism unfairly is done regularly enough by the right).
Bobster,
Thanks for the response. Far be it from me to accuse someone of being too accusatory, it smacks a little of hypocrisy, so I won't do it. For my part, I've been accused of racism on this board when I was pretty sure I wasn't being racist. I even tried my hand at the game once, luckily, the poster who I harassed hasn't held it against me. But, plain and simple, I don't think that there are as many instances of bigoted speech as you do. In this particular case, I definitely don't think that Summer Wine made a racist comment in anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 6:54 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Kuros,
I understand your use of "some", but you made that post following these comments:
1. Muslims will soon control France.
2. Bush should speak out against Muslims.
What do you think about these statements? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Bush should speak out against Muslims |
by Nowhere man.
I will reply to this. Nowhere, did I imply, state or otherwise mention that Bush should do anything. It was assumed and assumption is the mother of all ----ups. Thus read the whole series of points including my clarifications and I will explain in more detail what I was attempting to say through my original post.
Please do not take what has not been said and read more into it then what there is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. Muslims will soon control France.
2. Bush should speak out against Muslims. |
#1 is not exactly true. Muslims will eventually control France given current immigration trends, demographic rates. Should these rates continue, Muslims will be a majority in France in 100 years.
#2 I can't agree with. What would Bush gain from that? 99% of Muslims are not a problem whatsoever, and I believe that American Muslims tend to integrate better in the United States for a variety of reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 8:02 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
#1 is not exactly true. Muslims will eventually control France given current immigration trends, demographic rates. Should these rates continue, Muslims will be a majority in France in 100 years.
#2 I can't agree with. What would Bush gain from that? 99% of Muslims are not a problem whatsoever, and I believe that American Muslims tend to integrate better in the United States for a variety of reasons. |
Hmm... 100 years. Does that qualify as "soon"? Does that qualify as "not exactly true" or as exaggerated, alarmist BS?
Note to Summer: That is not a personal attack. That is criticism of your "extremely skewed" statement.
#2-Let's go back and look at this statement along with another point you made:
| Quote: |
| Thirdly, there is no law in a democracy that states that a democratic and liberal environment has to continue regardless of who controls the number of votes. |
The law in "democracy" (representative government) is majority rule. That DOES mean who controls the votes wins. And what are you suggesting "the law" actually is? That a "democratic" (representative) government has some heretofore-unmentioned authority to shut the government down if they don't like the way the vote's going? Exactly what kind of government would we have if such a ludicrous notion were entertained?
Now, as Kuros points out, it would be political suicide in this country to openly speak out against a minority irregardless of campaign contributions. The other minorities wouldn't take to that very kindly.
But, yes, Summer, let's get down to what you're talking about.
Your "in the know" buddies are talking about how Bush would speak out against Muslims if it weren't for political influence.
What do you think Bush should do? If campaign contributions weren't a factor, what should he do? Speak out against Muslims or not?
Are you not, here in this thread, speaking out against Muslims yourself?
I'd be extremely interested in an explanation of how you're not.
And, Kuros, you're defending it.
As I've said, Muslims are not a race. So, I don't see these comments as racist. They are, however, blatantly prejudicial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please.
Nowhereman wrote
| Quote: |
Your "in the know" buddies are talking about how Bush would speak out against Muslims if it weren't for political influence.
What do you think Bush should do? If campaign contributions weren't a factor, what should he do? Speak out against Muslims or not?
|
I don't care what Bush does or doesn't do. I never mentioned Bush.
My point is that we believe that we live in a liberal democracy, made up of many diverse ethnic groups who agree and support liberal democracy. (I could be wrong about this). That anyone who comes and lives in our nation (which ever one it is) will continue and strenghten these principles of freedom of speech, human rights, individual freedoms that we all love.
But that does not mean that this is 100% true, individuals may come, live in our country and rather than see our diversity, freedoms as a good thing, consider them to be wrong. They may in fact look forward and work actively towards the day that their religious or political views may become the dominant ones.
Thus Society will change, regardless of who is currently in power. Demographics may mean that the views of a current minority may in the future become the views of a majority. Society is not set in stone. Seeing the leadership of a country as a problem, may cause you to fail to notice that others are also desiring a change in your nation or in the political direction of your nation, regardless of who is in power. That was my original point, though I did not explain it well and I used comments made to me by a friend who viewed the US as morally degenerative and looked forward to the day when Islamic morals would be prevelant in all the countries of the world.
I did not explain well and for that I apologise, my last response was that Nowhere man tends to be ascribing views to me that I do not hold nor made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:21 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I think you have clarified a lot.
I appreciate that.
To make it crystal-clear, let's clarify some more.
You seem to be concerned about Muslims gaining majority-control of the United States. Are you?
While Kuros has posited that it would take a hundred years for Muslims to constitute the majority in France, what do you mean by "soon"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nowhere man wrote:
| Quote: |
You seem to be concerned about Muslims gaining majority-control of the United States. Are you?
While Kuros has posited that it would take a hundred years for Muslims to constitute the majority in France, what do you mean by "soon"?
|
I am only concerned about muslims gaining majority control in any non muslim country if they believe that allows them the right to push muslim rules on non muslims. I believe that muslims can exercise the right to freedom of religion in my country, that I don't distinguish between my muslim friend, my christian friend and my athiest friend (correct spelling?) so long as they don't believe that they can force thier views upon me or my family and friends.
Am I concerned about Muslims gaining control, if as I have read they are the fastest growing religion in the world, then I guess in the future they may gain control in America. Kuros wrote that demographics will probably put muslims in the majority in france in 100 yrs, personally, I believe as soon as demographics creates a situation where the influence of a muslim vote allows change to the immigration policy then someone will argue for increased immigration from muslim countries. I don't personally know if that will 100 yrs or 30 yrs.
Will Muslim control be a positive or a negative, History has repeatedly shown that minorities, whether ethnic, religious or other have less control of thier lives than majorities. I don't dislike Muslims, I dislike Wahabism (?) which has been pushed by Saudi Arabia over the last 30 odd years if not longer. It is a very extreme belief that doesn't allow for coexistence with others unless they are dominated.
I dislike the chains of gold concept that appears in the Quaran. But that is just my personal feeling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
