[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Almost as bad as Don Imus being fired for calling some women basketball players "nappy headed hoes".

In the case of Imus, his remark wasn't a single incident, but a long standing repeated pattern of remarks over the years. I tuned him out years ago because I just got damned tired hearing his ignorant white boy kind of remarks...there were just too many of them.

	Helen Thomas also got forced out of her job for saying the "Jews should get the Hell out of Palestine."

Yeah, that was a bit nutty of her to say. I remember thinking at the time, uh my neighbor was born and raised in Israel (he's a naturalized U.S. citizen now) and his parents came to Israel from Iran in the 50s. Uh...so if he'd stayed in Israel he should...go back to...Iran? That just didn't compute. But it was one remark made after years of an outstanding career, and you know, there is some point there to be made about the Palestinians being occupied. On some level, if you don't want to know what someone thinks, don't ask!

	If you ask me people need to get over their desire for political correctness and grow a pair. Everyone is afraid to say anything anymore because they worry about offending some group of people's feelings. I would wager that a good bit of the American populace identifies with Juan Williams's statement.

If you look at the comments on NPR's article on the subject, you'll see an overwhelming majority of people definitely identify with Williams and not with NPR. It doesn't seem like a lot of people look at "Muslims=terrorists" -- they know better. But the prevailing opinion is "wow, you fired him just for that?"

A lot of claims I hear about political correctness strike me as overblown. But many of them are not. There is such a thing as political correctness, and in my view it's shutting down conversation. We would all do better to go off into a closet, say our favorite cuss word 10 times, put our big boy pants on, and return to have a real conversation and try to understand where the other person is coming from.

There are topics I wouldn't get anywhere near, even here, because I would be instantly condemned as some sort of oppressive irrational control freak for daring to make an observation that I can back up with an argument bolstered by actual data. *shrug*

I would prefer the opportunity to have a real exchange. After all, I might be wrong and someone might be able to show me how.

---------- Post added 10-21-2010 at 07:23 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Vogue To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If America keeps up with this "Muslims are evil and terrorists" thing don't you think we're only fueling the fire? Islamaphobia has the potential to turn everyday Muslims into 'western-world' haters. Your radicals will always be your radicals, but we don't need to create radicals.

I spend several hours a week on other forums blowing holes in the anti-Muslim crap spewed out by the truly Islamophobic. I consider it an opportunity to educate those who are not Islamo-bigots, but simply need more information.

I suppose we could just pretend that people don't have concerns about Islam that spring from any source other than bigotry. But then those people who just lack information will not have their concerns allayed by anyone and will continue to think they're entirely justified in their fears.

Is that what you want?

Because when we shut down the conversation, that's precisely what happens.

In my view the way to stop the fire is to remove the fuel, not pretend there's no fire.

[INTroJect]

Im suprised that the conversation in this thread even crosses into race. Islam is quite happy to have white people join them. Race has nothing to do with it. This conversation is about the commentators comments regarding a religion with a doctrine that encourages the very events that the commentator is concerned about. Sure there are muslims who say "NO NO NO, the part where it says to kill the non-muslims, it doesnt mean that!" But, the ironic part is that (1) it says it and (2) the very muslims who are attacking us are saying that that is what it means. When I read the Koran, my interpretation was with the murderous rampagers, however, fortunately for all of you, I reject such doctrine. I also seriously question people who subscribe to a belief system that is telling them to do this.

Its not just 9/11, they have been building up quite an impressive resume. Its quite conerning that NPR throws the biggot flag and fires someone who brings the topic up. Perhaps when Juan Williams gets "nervous", its because he is trying to figure out if those muslims (even the white ones) are jazzed up to commit (or directly/indirectly support) an act of violence or not. I wonder the same thing when I see someone with a shaved head wearing black boots with white shoelaces.

[jm123]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's mix that up a little... A being a common trait in B doesn't mean that B is a common trait in A -- by any definition of the word.

You fail to remember that the Muslim faith does advocate terrorism/killing infidels. Now most Muslims take this with a grain of salt similar to animal sacrifices from other religions pasts, and do not advocate it, as we have not been truly exposed to the word via a messenger such as Muhammad. However in this case his logic does hold up, because it is a literal fact that the Muslim faith advocates killing infidels.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If caveats were enough to mitigate their initial statements, one could say "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim" without fear of reprisal.

Except Williams specifically pointed out examples of where, if we were as stupid about other terrorists as we are about those supposedly "inspired" by Islam, we'd be condemning all of Christianity, but of course we don't do that.

I have no problem with people taking on Williams for whatever it is he said. He can stand behind his own words, for good or ill. What I have a problem with is the knee jerk reaction of firing him for one comment. Not to mention I've heard what the people doing the firing had to say, and it doesn't scan.

	Of course, bigotry is a matter of degree, but justifying the fear one has for members of another race or religion with flimsy generalizations is clearly worse than justifying it with facts or admitting its irrationality.

It's the perception of some that it justified the fears. It's not a perception I share. He said what was on a lot of people's minds. Well, fine. So let's address those fears as a nation and see if they're reasonable or not. We have an opportunity to do that, provided everyone doesn't just go off screaming bigotbigotbigot at anyone who has a slightly different view or maybe just a few concerns that may or may not turn out to be reasonable.

	Even so, I wouldn't say Juan Williams is a bigot. Like Rick Sanchez, he said some bigoted things, and that's all there is to it. I agree that it isn't fair to label them as bigots.

And yet they carry that label now and have lost their jobs over it. I don't think people in public positions like that should expect to have the same latitude as a private person does in terms of freedom of speech. Well, they do in the sense that the gov't shouldn't have anything to say about it. But I'm ok if their employer has something to say about it. I only ask that the employer use a little sense and I don't think that happened here.

	Without a doubt, though what happens today is typically a bit more subtle than that--avoiding interaction rather than actively displaying fear.

In the 60s I did my damnedest to be subtle about it. I understood that the majority of blacks were not going to harm me any more than the vast majority of Muslims in this country have any interest in harming me or anyone now. I saw no need in hurting anyone by being obvious. I simply chose not to go some places, nothing more.

I couldn't escape my own neighborhood, which was primarily black, but there was no need to. People knew who I was in my neighborhood and they knew I wasn't remotely interested in causing anyone any grief. All anyone there wanted to do was make a living and raise a family, regardless of who there ancestors were. Causing grief for others is such a waste of energy anyway.

[Ray9]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Could you please clarify what part of the article tells you he was fired for being too right-wing in his opinions and not, as NPR claims, because he made controversial remarks? Unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing there to support your assertion.

Williams was fired for violating a strict code of political correctness which has become the foundation of NPR. This essentially means that anything other than complete subservience to left wing politics is regarded as heresy and will not be tolerated. The left, unlike the right, resorts to silencing opposing viewpoints by any means possible while at the same time slandering and smearing opposition, and, in addition, receiving public funds which opposing points of view do not get.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think the point is that a public figure shouldn't be using their position to spread fear

	Originally Posted by SeaCzar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...How on Earth could anyone be nervous or worried when flying with Muslims?!? Its quite beyond me.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's downright scary. Thought police, speech police and the iron hand of ridgid, lockstep ideological intolerance. Juan Williams was not fired for comments about Muslims, he was fired for not genuflecting intensly enough to the liberal left in recent years. Williams made the mistake of placing personal and professional credibility over partisan political hackery.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Tell me, all you who think what Juan Williams said was so awful: Was I a bigot because back in the 60s I would try to avoid walking down streets where the neighborhoods were largely black and I was unknown to anyone?

These could all be reasonable perspectives to derive from the story, but I think its take-home, practical lesson doesn't really have anything to do with politics, bigotry, or scaremongering. The fact is, you should never show your full hand when dealing with other people. You should never bare your feelings and speak openly to another human being, unless 1) you're at a shrink, 2) those feelings aren't strong, or 3) your spouse has your back up against the wall. This is one of the special things about anonymity on the internet. We can be pretty honest here.

In this sense, the outcomes of the Juan Williams story and the Helen Thomas story were largely correct. Rare are the times I side with NPR.

[INTroJect]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Im curious about this. Lets pretend that the firing didnt happen and discuss it from that perspective. So, Juan Williams just made a controversial statement about muslims and NPR is still standing by him. What are your thoughts about this?

[Mogura]

Just for the record, it's written in the Jihad manual somewhere that the best method of infiltration is to adopt the dress and hygiene standards of the place you wish to infiltrate. If memory serves correct, the extremists that hijacked the planes on 9/11 were clean-shaven and wore western-style clothing when they boarded the planes.

Anyway, hijacking by terrorists should be the least of an air passenger's concerns.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by JTG To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's hard for me to judge it any better than that, given the fact that the article doesn't give the full transcript in context

Ah, the vid's available now:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 10-21-2010 at 08:55 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's mix that up a little... A being a common trait in B doesn't mean that B is a common trait in A -- by any definition of the word.

Sorry that example doesn't fly. The people who knocked down the Twin Towers didn't do it in the name of "maleness." They did it in the name of Islam.

No matter I think they are completely deranged in their view of what Muhammad taught about warfare, it was the justification they actually did use.

---------- Post added 10-21-2010 at 08:58 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is exactly what happened with Shirley Sherrod, and it turned out her comments had been edited and taken out of context. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Obviously I won't speak for MM, but the Sherrod incident is very much in the forefront of my thinking when it comes to knee jerk reactions. It looks too much like a pattern of left-wing weenieness resulting in people being fired from their jobs without doing due diligence, and that's the sort of thing I don't have a lot of respect for.

Funny it took years for anyone to fire Dobbs for his schtick, though it was often offensive and *non factual*.

It seems like you can talk offensive smack from the right and it'll take years to catch up with you (if it does at all), but zomg someone from the center or left makes a comment that's anywhere from mild to taken out of context, and they get treated like they'd kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

---------- Post added 10-21-2010 at 09:04 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by jm123 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You fail to remember that the Muslim faith does advocate terrorism/killing infidels.

No, it doesn't.

Quote me sura and ayat and I'll tell you where you got it wrong. It's probably best left for a thread over in the Religion subforum, though.

[Megalomania]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This comparison is ridiculous. Don Imus insulted a bunch of college girls and said they looked like hoes. Helen Thomas expressed a very obviously biased and angry political position. Williams simply stated a fact that he can't help but get a little nervous when he sees a bunch of guys who look like guys who want to take down airplanes on airplanes. This is a feeling that I don't care how PC you are you can't help but feeling a little bit when you see someone like that in that situation. He then went on to defend muslims against O'Reilly and talk about how regardless of how we may feel instinctively, we as Americans shouldn't treat them any differently. That's not a biased position at all. It's a statement of fact, and he's right.

No. Not really. Perhaps I was vague. I meant it was stupid he was fired over his comment just as it was stupid the other two people I mentioned were fired for their comments. That's where the comparison amongst the others ends. I was merely listing a trend that seems to be occurring fairly frequently in the U.S. where people are fired because they say things that aren't PC.

Helen Thomas's angry and biased political opinions? Exactly how did you come to that conclusion? Because you disagree with her? I mean I don't agree with her, but she has every right to state her opinion in an interview for crying out loud.

[hubcap]

Does anyone think ol Juan would've gotten fired if he had said that christians made him nervous?

[lurk]

From
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Jesse Jackson
	There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life,” Jesse Jackson once told an audience, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.

Was Juan Williams' statement more appalling or bigoted?

[SeaCzar]

From the Editorial page of the Washington Post, not known as the most conservative daily newspaper by a long shot.

IN A DEMOCRACY, the media must foster a free and robust political debate, even if such debate may, at times, offend some people. At the same time, they must uphold standards of civility, including an appropriate respect for the legitimate sensitivities of all members of the public. The eternal question is how to strike the right balance.

No one has a perfect record. And it's even more difficult now, as Americans grope for the right words to address two realities: the growth of an overwhelmingly law-abiding Muslim population in the United States and the threat from Islamist terrorists. Recently The Post spiked a satirical comic strip captioned "Where's Muhammad?" for fear of offending Muslims, who consider depictions of the prophet blasphemous, even though the strip did not actually depict Muhammad. Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander said the decision could be seen as "timid," noting that the artist intended to protest death threats that some of his cartooning colleagues have faced from Muslim extremists.

Now comes NPR's decision to fire pundit Juan Williams, a former colleague of ours at The Post, for his remarks about Muslims and terrorism on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night. NPR, a radio network supported by federal grants and private contributions, said in a statement that those comments "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." What was Mr. Williams's sin? He admitted, with apparent chagrin, that he has engaged in a kind of racial profiling in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks: "When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Mr. Williams then alluded to a declaration of war against America by convicted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and added: "I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."

In making this confession, Mr. Williams undoubtedly spoke for many Americans who are wrestling with similar feelings. His words could be offensive to some, if construed as an endorsement of negative stereotyping. But the full broadcast makes clear that Mr. Williams intended the opposite. To be sure, he struggled to get his point across, because host Bill O'Reilly kept interrupting him. But Mr. Williams did manage to observe that "we don't want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they hear rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy."

In short, Mr. Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory. His reward was to lose his job, just as Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod lost hers over purportedly racist remarks that turned out to be anything but. NPR management appears to have learned nothing from that rush to judgment. "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality," Mr. Williams told Mr. O'Reilly. NPR, alas, has proved his point.

[INTroJect]

I just watched the whole video, my initial thoughts:

That seemed really strange coming from a black guy on television. But ive read dozens of books by Dr.MLK and he mentions his concerns regarding the religion so I can understand 100% where Williams is coming from. Funny how the fingerpointing Islamo-defenders would probably also call Dr. Martin Luther King a biggot today for rejecting the ideas that he saw as an impediment to a non-violent movement for civil rights. That man is a saint for what he accomplished but it is twisting his work to assume that it applies to anything and everything blindly.

Maybe Juan William's dismissal will mark a turning point of where the PC police have gone too far. Growing up, we had a class on islam in 7th grade, they even brought someone in to tell us all about it. None of it sounded anything like what I read in the Koran, what I observed in that part of the world, the current events and the American History overshadowing all of it. Im willing to free up the homosexual realm to scrutiny if that means we can have a truthful discussion about this "religion". Heck, we can even have a discussion of my latino heritage if that means that we can openly examine a doctrine of violence without screaming liberals trying to protect a racial minority (perhaps thats what it is going on?). The word "Biggot" only seems to come trumpeting into the conversation lately when the other side doesnt have anything of merit to add anyway.

[jm123]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, it doesn't. Quote me sura and ayat and I'll tell you where you got it wrong. It's probably best left for a thread over in the Religion subforum, though.

I will just say 9:111 was one of Osama's main justifications behind 9/11/01. Which is what this topic is primarily concerned over, you know being scared of Muslims on planes. We really do not need to get into this, as it is hashed out on multiple other sites, and I was just pointing out a logical fallacy.

However the fact remains that it is not an abstraction to read 9:111 and many verses as literally stating that killing infidels is accepted/expected. In addition, there is a large sect of Muslims who adhere to a literal interpretation of the Quran; some of which killed several thousand people via airplane. Once you add these facts up, it is not unbelievable that a person who is susceptible to paranoia, could have an irrational fear of all Muslims on planes.

Please note, I said literally, not spiritually interpreted or widely accepted. Literal was in both my original statement and this statement. If you wish to start a thread in the Religion sub-forum be my guest. I am only making my position a literal interpretation.

[Vogue]

Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I suppose we could just pretend that people don't have concerns about Islam that spring from any source other than bigotry. But then those people who just lack information will not have their concerns allayed by anyone and will continue to think they're entirely justified in their fears. Is that what you want? Because when we shut down the conversation, that's precisely what happens. In my view the way to stop the fire is to remove the fuel, not pretend there's no fire.

No, my point is that Williams wasn't opening up conversation, he was spreading fear. In the context of your analogy he is the fuel. It's comments like "I get scared when I see a Muslim on an airplane" that allow fear-mongering to continue. Perhaps it would be better if he had said "Why do we still fear seeing Muslims on airplanes?" Then go from there.

---

For those saying Muslims support killing the infidels that is not true. Nowhere in the Qur'an is this supported. It's even condemned in a few places. The Qur'an does advocate that it's okay to kill invaders, but that's about it.

[JTG]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stop trying to analyze what Williams said or determine what he meant. He was fired for not moving as far to the left as NPR. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.   Schiller said the comments violated NPR's code of ethics, which says journalists should not participate in media "that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."

Replaced the section you quoted with the actual reasoning behind why he got fired.

This factors into my opinion i stated earlier. I think impartiality is an important air for a journalist to cultivate. This is why i have such disdain for people like Bill-O who try to pass themselves off as journalists. Journalism is about presenting facts, not opinions.

And yes... "media that encourage punditry and speculation" could very well have been a reference to Fox. That's the business Fox is in. They're all about feeding opinions and making wild speculations designed to play on people's fears. There's no place for that kind of posture in legitimate news broadcasting.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ah, the vid's available now: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This doesn't really improve my opinion of Williams. I understand he was making a point about political correctness, but he comes off like he's afraid to fly because of the scary Muslims on the planes.

Truth be told though, the firing seems political to me. Not in the democrat/republican sense, but in the fact that as soon as he got fired, Fox scooped him up, and it seems he got fired as much for his association with Fox as he did for what was said on the air. I think it's sad that people take out their rivalries on others, although who knows, perhaps Williams had been using his position with one company to undermine the other

[INTroJect]

Punditry and speculation? See, I disagree with that. I think those lables only get put there when someone disagrees with the content. Not that Fox is innocent in any way, but I could sit and slap that label all over NPR babble all day long. Here. Lets look at some information and watch how the voices rise up and label accordingly.

In order to have a proper conversation of the Islam, one must do so with the scholars of the religion.




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Here is Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Arifi


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- This holy man kind of scares me actually. Funny how everything that he is saying matches with my interpretation as I read the koran.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Can never have enough Jihad and world conquest says Musa Bin Muhammad al-Qarni


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Oah look. Here is the former Jordanian Minister or Religous Endowment (?) Skeik Ali Al-Faqir


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- LOL. Ive heard this one before in real life. The HAdiths (old texts of the religion) say somewhere that Islam will conquer rome. They have been mouthwatering for it for the past (+or-) dozen centuries. I suspect that has more to do with the concept of ancient Rome in that time! Really... who wants to conquer Rome these days?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Here is a 3 year old named "Bismallah" on Irqa TV. Notice in the comments section there are people saying "oah no, this is fake translation." People - I speak (enough) arabic. I cant understand what the child is saying directly because her voice is muffled but the lady is saying matches with the flow of the conversation and she is repeating plenty if it back.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Monsterous croud screaming death to america.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- This arabic is clear as day. Notice that the #1 enemies for this 2 year old girl are the christians and the jews. Theres no talk about "understanding the quran in its proper context". The koran says it all over the place that non-muslims are the enemy.





Most of these videos come from an Israel-related organization, that disclaimer should be added, however, I wouldnt expect this to be shared by an Islamic Imam the FYI the Americans. Overall, for the most part, I can vouch for the arabic translations, certaily not 100% but enough to say that I take it to be reliable. My arabic is only OK. Personally, I cant tell if these views represent a majority or a minority of muslims but it is prevalent in that part of the world and it permeates the society to some degree or another, depending on the country. So, going back to Juan Williams. I can see very well why he is nervous. This isnt just some small minor thing to be completely unconcerned about. Is it a wonder that Saudi Arabia didnt outlaw slavery until 1963? Mauritania until 1981? Oman 1970? The prophet owned slaves.

September 11 wasnt just some random independent event, for the longest time I thought that it stemmed from our support for Israel but, even if Israel didnt exist, the deamonizations written in that book about us would still be there. Even looking at the history of our country, just a couple of years after we gained independence, our shipping was being plundered and enslaved in the mediterranean. The very Dey of Algiers had first pick of the non-muslim slaves captured. A good account of this is "The Captives" written by James Leander Cathcart, captured and enslaved in Algiers for 10 years. Jefferson and Adams met with the Ottoman ambassador in London to ask them to stop and we get Quran justifications and demands for tribute. Direct Literal Interpretations of the Koran. I would probably argue that this demand for tribute stemmed from the concept of Jizya in the Koran, where it is expected for non-muslims to pay tribute in order to be allowed to live in peace.

Just to pre-empt the ever-vigilant islamo-defenders - Sure, the videos dont represent "all muslims", but the verbage that is written in that book does. Thats certain. Personally, it raises an eyebrow. When children in the middleast are asked to recite the Koran, they make direct recitations. And for some, this starts at a very early age. Is it biggotry to have such information about this subject? Biggotry to talk about it?

[dogwoodlover]

The fact of the matter is, honest and frank discussion should always be encouraged, de facto. Having "not offending someone" as the focal point of any socio-political discussion is bullshit.

That may be beside the point as to why Williams was fired, but we live in an environment (at least I do) where walking on eggshells is the norm when it comes to any sociological or political discussions that don't revolve solely around white Christians.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Unfortunately, yes, that is what it has mostly become. It used to be that when someone said they were offended, you paid attention. It was not a charged thrown around lightly. You could have a discussion with them about the issue, appologize or come to some other resolution, and move on. Now it is just a way to attack, threaten, or get back at someone. Claiming to be offended, or just threatening that you might be offended, has become the acdeptable method of enforcing censorship of opinions.

Opinion or prejudice?

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Scary Youtube videos

Oh, scary Youtube videos!

Yay.

Do you have more pictures for us as well?

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is it a wonder that Saudi Arabia didnt outlaw slavery until 1963? Mauritania until 1981? Oman 1970? The prophet owned slaves.

A lot of people owned slaves. America was built by slaves. This all has little to do with the muslim family living next door to me.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is exactly what happened with Shirley Sherrod, and it turned out her comments had been edited and taken out of context. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Shirley Sherrod actually DID act in a bigoted manner, and described as such in her story. The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION fired her. If you want to throw President Obama under the bus with NPR, be my guest.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Shirley Sherrod actually DID act in a bigoted manner, and described as such in her story. The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION fired her. If you want to throw President Obama under the bus with NPR, be my guest.

I don't particularly see either Obama or NPR as bastions of moral righteousness. My inquiry was more after the consistency of your position.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't particularly see either Obama or NPR as being drastically more morally righteous than one another. My inquiry was more after the consistency of your position.

My position has been consistent. Shirley Sherrod confessed to and detailed acting in a bigoted manner towards a white farmer.

Juan Williams has neither done nor confessed to any such thing.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My position has been consistent.

Your "consistency" relies on a lavish distortion of THE FACTS -- see? I can use ALL CAPS too.

Here is the problem:

	Shirley Sherrod confessed to and detailed acting in a bigoted manner towards a white farmer.

Confessed? What is this, a church? Shirley Sherrod described an incident in which she overcame her own bias against a white farmer -- a bias rooted in a negative stereotype about the white community's treatment of black Americans -- and went on to help him and his family, and learned from this overcoming. So you're right, she and Juan Williams aren't comparable in that he made no visible attempt to overcome his own stereotyping.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Confessed? What is this, a church?

Seemed like it when she was preaching.

	Shirley Sherrod described an incident in which she overcame her own bias against a white farmer -- a bias rooted in a negative stereotype about the white community's treatment of black Americans -- and went on to help him and his family, and learned from this overcoming. So you're right

She admitted to being a racist bigot.

	she and Juan Williams aren't comparable in that he made no visible attempt to overcome his own stereotyping.

Excep that Juan's isn't based in some bigoted racist view, nor has Juan admitted to taking particular bigoted, racist actions. He's relaying being nervous about being on a plane with someone who is in Muslim garb. That's simply natural human reaction to people who have been terrorized by Muslims. He isn't making a claim that it is justified or that he acted based upon those feelings. He's simply acknowledging that those feelings exist based upon his previous experiences.

To be honest, this was a wonderful opportunity to advance the conversation on race and bias because these feelings exist in people who have had repeated traumatic experiences with someone of a particular race. If we continue to attack and shun people who express what is a very natural human reaction, nothing is going to change.


It's a bit like blaming a rape victim for her feelings towards men after a rape. If you shun and attack her for her feelings, nothing is going to change. But if you acknowledge that such things are real and have a basis for existence, even if they are unjustified as a generalization, then we can begin to deal with them.

I do think this is part of what Sherrod was trying to do within her own community, and she was victimized by her own community for it.

In effect, by requiring that all expression tow the liberal/PC racist line, any chance of moving the conversation forward stops.