Reply With QuoteOh man, that may be the best NWJ smackdown I've ever seen.Originally Posted by Bahimiron
My point wasn't we need to establish credentials before our views can be heard.
I understand what it's like to be fresh out of college and ready to take on the world and challenge all preconceptions at face value. But I believe society is better served by honest discussion of the real issues we face, and establishing a "no discussion of Islam" rule within hours of an event like that at Fort Hood isn't doing anyone any favors. I've tried to avoid the various analogies and comparisons being thrown around in this thread, but for the sake of those who can't seem to grasp concepts without them, I'd say a discussion of the role of extremist Christian churches in the bombing of abortion clinics and shooting of physicians (in church, no less!) is equally warranted. One of the most controversial pro-life organizations in this country calls itself "The Army of God." That's significant to me. We ignore the affiliations of these people with certain elements of the Christian faith at the risk of never addressing core issues behind the tragedies.
Oh man, that may be the best NWJ smackdown I've ever seen.
You and cubit should start a club! I'd also invite madkevin and Unicorn McGriddle if you really want some good fireside chats.
Fair enough.
Religious stereotyping and discrimination is a bigger issue in America than the Fort Hood shooting with the potential to do more long term harm, so I'm game for a discussion on how to make sure reactionary outrage doesn't lead to more idiots hating muslims.
That's the spirit, I knew you'd bounce right back. You are too skilled a troll to be stopped by being absolutely exposed as completely wrong.
Anyway, I'll stop feeding the troll and NWJ back on ignore. Carry on.
... which, i suppose, the semantics of the word terrorist in the mass media? Didn't i address that already? That i felt that the desire to compartmentalize everything and compare it with previous examples so readily and with such focus causes the actual event to become lost from view? That you're discussing the event as comparative history 10 minutes after it has occured?
It makes sense that mmalloy is a prof teaching race, because imo, it betrays her... intellectual prediliction... to drill upon certain facts. Basically, when you hear of a Muslim man gunning down others, what is your intellectual focus upon gaining this knowledge?
- What will happen to innocent Muslims in retribution?
- Why did this happen? What can we do to stop this from happening again?
I mean, even Fox News can call the time right twice a day, if by accident. Just because something is labelled by the right wing as something, and that they failed to do so before, doesn't automatically invalidate the current comprehension of events.
Last edited by Enidigm; 11-10-2009 at 06:28 PM.
I think we have to deal with the facts of an incident without worrying about "reactionary outrage." We can't treat an entire subset of our population with kid gloves just because we're afraid of hurting their feelings. If muslims truly are repressed in this country, refusing to allow anyone to even talk about their religion isn't going to solve it. I'm sure in her class mmalloy encourages discussion of all religions. We should follow that example.
See... i have issue with this statement because... it lacks specific details. It feels like projection, like an anti-abortion activists screed. Wherefore this religious dicrimination, and is it greater or worse for one group than another (rather than trotting out examples which i'm sure there are a few)? And since we're the most religious country, aren't athiests most at risk for discrimination, ect?
That feels unlike you Kraaze, a bit too shallow.
That's funny, many would call it idiotic.
Put your head in the sand at your own peril. These are real threats we face, they kill deal people.
Jose ridicules me because I call him out for what he is: A fucking troll.
Alright, alright, please put aside Kraaze's attacks on me. I certainly don't want to be (nor do I believe I am) on his ignore list, as I think he may have something useful to contribute to this discussion. Let's let all that go and see if we can get back to figuring out how we can approach this incident in a manner best suited for discovering the truth, and whether that will necessarily mean ruffling some muslim and grad student feathers.
EDIT: I also apologize for "ridiculing" cubit. Cubit, please continue making useful and interesting posts in this thread!
I'm not saying to never talk about religion ever. I'm saying you should talk about it when it is relevant. If I thought no one should talk about this, I'm sure I would be trolling with Fussie over there that this thread should be locked.
I still have yet to see your explanation for why it is factually relevant to what happened that Hasan bought his morning coffee wearing 'traditional Arab garb' or why he is described as a 'U.S. Citizen of Palestinian decent.' I have yet to see you explain why the religion of the Orlando shooter was not immediately reported on, or why the word 'terrorist' was not used to describe the shootings at Fort Bragg.
Reporting that he is a Muslim is ineffective because it doesn't tell you anything and only leads to fear and ignorance on the part of people who won't hear anything beyond 'Muslims are terrorists.'
I'm not afraid of hurting people's feelings. I'm afraid of ignorance in this country and there is a hell of a lot of it. I'm afraid of the media taking the majority of situations and making them racial whether or not there's a racial aspect to it. You don't see it because you're so used to it. It doesn't bother you that the Orlando shooter was described as a 'man' whose citizenship was not in question whereas Hasan is suddenly a 'Muslim' who is 'a U.S. Citizen of Palestinian decent.'
People are frustrated that I am still engaging you but I do it because I am at this point mistakenly optimistic that you will understand what I am saying here. That you might not agree, but that you might step back and think 'wow, I really shouldn't refer to anyone as 'the Muslim' or maybe start thinking twice about what do those census boxes that we check mean and who decides what goes where or that you know, most Muslim people don't actually identify as Muslim but as, oh, American. Or Iraqi or Irish or what the fuck ever. And that maybe just because you aren't a part of a group that might be discriminated against, you should still be very aware when things like this come up and not tolerate it.
Mmalloy, serious question. Do you think the religious views of the guy who killed the abortion doctor are relevant?
Let me answer that in a round-about way: I don't recall reading any article that specified what Scott Roeder's religion was. Just that he did it to save unborn babies. I could not tell you, right now, what he was. Probably some kind of Christian I assume. And he was called a 'domestic terrorist' by the family's lawyer.
So relevant to him committing the crime? Sure. Relevant to be reported on? Apparently news agencies didn't think so at the time.
Would you see it as being relevant if he had never before warn "traditional Arab garb" at his place of work before?
As far as the Palestinian descent thing, it's explaining that he wasn't a convert to Islam (he looked basically American in the pictures). I'm sure you might think it's trying to ruin his name through guilt-by-association, but i think he took care of that part himself.
... but, what if he did conspire (if only in his mind) to commit an act of terrorism, or at least terrorism as he might understand it? I mean, it is relevent, right? Or is no act of terrorism ever comprehenisble in any socio-political context? It's always the act of a deranged individual isolated from all other acts?Reporting that he is a Muslim is ineffective because it doesn't tell you anything and only leads to fear and ignorance on the part of people who won't hear anything beyond 'Muslims are terrorists.'
Is it relevant in a post 9-11 world? Is it the Lingua Franca to asssume a "man" in the US means white-descent, or non-ethnic (as far as the word means today)?I'm not afraid of hurting people's feelings. I'm afraid of ignorance in this country and there is a hell of a lot of it. I'm afraid of the media taking the majority of situations and making them racial whether or not there's a racial aspect to it. You don't see it because you're so used to it. It doesn't bother you that the Orlando shooter was described as a 'man' whose citizenship was not in question whereas Hasan is suddenly a 'Muslim' who is 'a U.S. Citizen of Palestinian decent.'
Are you really more afraid of the ignorant backwoods redneck mothers' sons more than the perpetrators of 9-11? And, if so, why? And how many Muslims are killed every year in hate crimes in the US?
Yeah, Roeder was definitely not called a domestic terrorist in the mainstream media. Him being Christian was never a headline either.
If I can answer too: it's not a distinguishing factor. Religion doesn't necessarily make you an anti-abortion terrorist. In fact, the doctor was attending church when he was killed.
Is there a contest going on to see who can miss her point the most? If so, are you winning? Is the prize a car?
... just because it's not a distinguishing factor?... where does this information come from? So anti-abortion activists are just as likely to be atheist, or of other religious affiliation, as the population at large? You can't just say "it's not a distinguishing factor" and have it proved, QED, MF.
Yea, rhetorical, but she assumes that your comprehension of the situation is a projection of your biases, ethnic, racial or religious. You know it is possible to condemn him as a terrorist without automatically prejudging every muslim in america, though, yes?
Endigm, if you want to go back and read archives (I know I was doing it before I posted) and find a mainstream media article (or articles!) that points out and makes central to the killing of George Tiller the religion of Scott Roeder, your posts will carry more weight.
Otherwise, I'm going to ask you why religion was not heavily and instantly reported on in that case of 'terrorism' and it was in this one.
It's clear that many people in this thread consider it relevant. You're asserting it's not and any discussion of it in this case is egregious, and it's an assertion you made within hours of the incident. The instinct to declare religion a non-issue and demonizing anyone who brings it up a "bigot" is a bad one - it supersedes any other discussion and shifts what could be an enlightening conversation into yet another retread of the tired trope of minorities being the eternal victim of the majority (including the media). I suggest again we will never be able to overcome these perceived or real injustices if we're playing referee on discussions as soon as we perceive the POTENTIAL for a backlash.
I'm not responding for Fox news or any other media outlet. Go write letters to the news if that's your beef. But you've made it quite clear ALL discussion of Islam as relates to Hasan is to be ceased even in this thread, chastising those of us who disagree and labeling us as ignorant or stupid or whatever. That's the intolerance I disagree with.
I have no idea why news outlets report the things we do. If there is evidence either of those shootings was somehow related to a belief espoused by some element of an organized religion, by all means it should be discussed.
In this case, it clearly did tell us something, and it appears more and more likely that what it told us is relevant.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be lectured on my inherent cultural insensitivity due to my race by a white Ivy League teacher. I'm just as capable as you at evaluating the media's portrayal of mass murderers, and perhaps more able to detach from that and approach this situation with a mind ready to accept any number of reasons for Hasan taking the action he did. Including religion.
Well I have no idea what any of that has to do with looking at the religious speech and postings of a man who just killed thirteen people. It's possible to be sensitive to religious persecution (though as others have mentioned in this thread, I'm not sure I see a lot of it happening beyond the talk shows) and still realize there are elements of Islam that wish the US harm and it's worth investigating whether Hasan was affiliated with them.
Also I salute your bravery in continuing to try and reach this hopeless forum poster despite the cries of the other sane people here.
No one is saying Religion makes you a terrorist, but certain extreme religious beliefs ARE indicators of potential risk for violence. For example, believing that Abortion is child-murder in direct contravention to the will of God and that using violence to stop it is honorable.
No. There are TERRORIST ELEMENTS that wish the US harm. Not fucking Islam.
Jesus Christ. This is, again, why I think you're ignorant. It's impossible to discuss things with you because you honestly believe Islam is the enemy. It comes across time and time and time again in your posts.
There are Islamic Terrorist elements that wish us harm too.
Mmalloy, have you never heard of Islamism? It's like you don't understand the context of Islamic terrorism at all.
If you haven't i would be happy to mail you (free of charge) my used copy of Gilles Kepel's Jihad (according to wiki, currently the Philippe Roman Chair in History and International Affairs at the London School of Economics)
It sounds like you've been called racist a few times before. Me too! We should hang out sometime.
Just because it's not reported doesn't mean it's not understood? Don't you think everyone in America believes anti-abortion activist = hardcore Christian? It would be more surprising if he weren't than if he were.
You're looking for a always-blind reporter that uses the corrent gender pronouns and speaks with the perfect PC verbage that assumes there are no differences between minority and majority, or that there is no such thing as a shared cultural context.
Again, you're missing the point about WHY something happens. If you look at the Roeder case it appears he was as into right-wing conspiracy theory nutballism as religious extremism. In fact, i haven't found evidence of religious extremism in his case (not looked real hard though). Maybe the reason it wasn't reported was because it wasn't an issue....
Please go find acts of small terrorism in Middle Eastern states, reported by ME media outlets, that point out the religion of the perpetrators in every case as well.
They would probably point out the sect they are in.
Honestly i don't know. It would be intersesting to know. But my point was that, if they did not, in the most religious nations on earth, perhaps it was because they assumed that not saying anything meant he/she were of the majority in their nation? Sort of like the news media does here?
And god help me for stepping up to defend the US mass media... bleh.
Posting Permissions