Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[Argus]

I disagree. Public racist statements are a crime in Canada. If you have accusations of racism they should be taken to the moderators. This is a label that is all too often abused.

Yes, by you, among others.

[Argus]

The trouble with Scotty's title is that he brands ALL Islam. So if even one Muslim is not a "sneaky bugger" (whatever the hell that is), then he is not only a hypocrite, but a r------ as well.

Again, one of the problems we have with the vast overuse of the term racist is so many posters without the necessary education to even know what the word means. Unfortunately, they can't ban people for being ignorant, they can only ban them for acting ignorant.

[Argus]

Or your definition of the word "racism." According to the American Heritage dictionary, racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement." Based on that, how, iyho, is that thread title not racist?

Not unless you believe Muslims are a race. Do you?

[Argus]

But I'm not talking about the thread, I'm talking about the thread title. It's clearly racist by any definition of racism, so in effect the mods are saying, go ahead, spew racism all you want, but beware if you try to identify it as such.

Some people, like yourself, say, like to refer to racism as any criticism of any non-white, non-Christian group for any reason whatsoever. That's one of the reasons the term is so wildly overused.

[Argus]

Yet another example of poor debating is to take a debate completely out of context and make up points that were never said. I never called the op a racist; I said the original thread title was racist by the American Heritage definition of the term racism.

But it wasn't. Only by YOUR definition. Here's a hint: What race do Muslims belong to?

Edited October 15, 2007 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

Because the modern concept of racism is more culturally based (i.e., we don't want Mexicans living among us). Mexcians in and of themselves are not a race either, but contempt and hatred for the Mexican people would still qualify as racism.

No, according to the cited definition, such is not the case. Bigotry yes...racism no.

As for your idea that racism in Canada is beyond the pale, I would disagree. Again, your knowledge of Canadian culture is quite limited. Racism is rampant in Canada, and largely accepted. There is a great amount of accepted racism against Aboriginal people among others, and its prevalence can be seen by reading this forum, which provides countless examples on a daily basis.

You have made an assumption that is incorrect, as I am fully aware of the rampant "racism" in Canada, as well as the window dressing to pretend it doesn't exist. Hence the hue and cry over "racism" and "hate speech". Indeed, several Canadian members make references to the American "Deep South" for "racism" when there are more than enough examples right at home (past, present, and future).

[jazzer]

Again, one of the problems we have with the vast overuse of the term racist is so many posters without the necessary education to even know what the word means. Unfortunately, they can't ban people for being ignorant, they can only ban them for acting ignorant.

Resorting to insults shows the character of the poster, and is against the rules. Here are two other definitions of racist. Enjoy!

Racism - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist

Edited October 15, 2007 by jazzer

[Argus]

Resorting to insults shows the character of the poster, and is against the rules. Here are two other definitions of racist. Enjoy!

Racism - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

How odd that when I go to wordnet and type in racism it says nothing whatsoever about religion. Perhaps you would like to offer up a cite - and an unaltered quote.

Here is what wordnet actually says:

Racism: Noun

* S: (n) racism (the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races)

* S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)

[Guest American Woman]

Yet another example of poor debating is to take a debate completely out of context and make up points that were never said. I never called the op a racist; I said the original thread title was racist by the American Heritage definition of the term racism.

But it wasn't. Only by YOUR definition. Here's a hint: What race do Muslims belong to?

According to ScottSA, to the "little brown people" race:

I also think Christianity holds the moral high ground in a face off with Islam, because its present day adherents don't blow themselves and others up all over the world every day of the year. I also call down the double standard of people when they forgive little brown people their idiocy but lambast Christians for their's.

Link

Edited October 15, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

How odd that when I go to wordnet and type in racism it says nothing whatsoever about religion. Perhaps you would like to offer up a cite - and an unaltered quote.

Here is what wordnet actually says:

Racism: Noun

* S: (n) racism (the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races)

* S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)

Why, that's exactly what I found too. I guess Jazzer has a "special" understanding of how to read text as well. Not that it matters a whit even if some dictionary included kumquats and gheckos in the definition, because the term is fairly exclusionary.

Edited October 15, 2007 by ScottSA

[ScottSA]

But it wasn't. Only by YOUR definition. Here's a hint: What race do Muslims belong to?

According to ScottSA, to the "little brown people" race:

I also think Christianity holds the moral high ground in a face off with Islam, because its present day adherents don't blow themselves and others up all over the world every day of the year. I also call down the double standard of people when they forgive little brown people their idiocy but lambast Christians for their's.

Link

Not that it matters, but I use the phrase "little brown people" to mock the lilly white liberal paternalism so reekingly apparent among champagne liberals that they don't even smell it anymore.

Edited October 15, 2007 by ScottSA

[Higgly]

Yes, by you, among others.

Not really. I do use the word bigot from time to time. Why don't you supply a few links, Argus?

[jazzer]

Why, that's exactly what I found too. I guess Jazzer has a "special" understanding of how to read text as well. Not that it matters a whit even if some dictionary included kumquats and gheckos in the definition, because the term is fairly exclusionary.

It's pretty clear with this link re the last definition.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racist

I realize some folks here would like to use any reference that they agree with, and exclude all others.

Edited October 15, 2007 by jazzer

[Guest coot]

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary provides several definitions of race, including:

"a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent;" and even "a group of persons etc. with some common feature (e.g., the race of poets)."

[Guest coot]

Some people, like yourself, say, like to refer to racism as any criticism of any non-white, non-Christian group for any reason whatsoever.

When did I say this? You couldn't provide a link because you're making things up again for lack of a good argument.

Edited October 15, 2007 by coot

[betsy]

You're saying he doesn't believe what he writes? A belief is an opinion. He stated an opinion in the thread title. You can get into what the definition of "is" is, I suppose.

Until you read the initial post that followed the title, your opinion is nothing more than just an irresponsible speculation.

He stated an opinion in the title....but, just like any book with controversial title, you simply cannot judge it by its cover alone. You're passing a sweeping judgement on something you know nothing about!

What, you're like saying that the Mel Gibson movie "Signs" is about traffic/driving rules! And you'll insists it is so since he's been caught driving while under the influence!

Your argument simply does not have any legs at all.

Edited October 16, 2007 by betsy

[Guest coot]

How was the thread different from the title? I doubt you will answer because I'm sure it wasn't different in any significant way. Instead, you'll continue to grasp on the one strand of argument you have left: the thread title wasn't racist because I didn't bother to read the thread. Yet you admit that he stated an opinion in the title, and by any reasonable standard that opinion was bigoted. I don't see how I'm being irresponsible by stating that. Please explain in greater detail how this is so.

[Argus]

It's pretty clear with this link re the last definition.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=racist

I realize some folks here would like to use any reference that they agree with, and exclude all others.

Yep, clear as mud. What race to Muslims belong to again?

[betsy]

How was the thread different from the title?

Don't ask me. Do your homework! READ!

You're in a forum for crying out loud!

[Argus]

But it wasn't. Only by YOUR definition. Here's a hint: What race do Muslims belong to?

According to ScottSA, to the "little brown people" race:

The term "brown people" was a sarcastic reference which I believe Kimmy first introduced to refer to the furious, liberal, knee-jerk defense of well, non-whites from any criticism no matter what they do. It was to point out how liberals will attack a given action - unless the person committing the action is non-white.

I also think Christianity holds the moral high ground in a face off with Islam, because its present day adherents don't blow themselves and others up all over the world every day of the year. I also call down the double standard of people when they forgive little brown people their idiocy but lambast Christians for their's.

Link

Yes, but I've said the same. Because it's true. For example, all the liberals here who defend Islam and Muslims against any attack have never openly confronted the fact that Islam is extraordinarily hostile towards gay rights, womens rights, etc., the very things you hold dear. They are far and away more hostile to these things than the likes of the US Republican Party - who you despise for their small mindedness and bigotry. That hypocrisy is what he was commenting on.

[Argus]

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary provides several definitions of race, including:

"a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent;" and even "a group of persons etc. with some common feature (e.g., the race of poets)."

None of which encompasses Muslims.

[Guest coot]

Don't ask me. Do your homework! READ!

You're in a forum for crying out loud!

I read the op. It was even more racist than the thread title. So I'm asking again to explain how it isn't bigoted. I mean it is a forum, after all. Provide an argument already.

[Guest coot]

None of which encompasses Muslims.

Please explain how muslims are not a group of people of a common feature.

[Guest coot]

They are far and away more hostile to these things than the likes of the US Republican Party - who you despise for their small mindedness and bigotry. That hypocrisy is what he was commenting on.

Not everybody despises others as you do.

[M.Dancer]

Please explain how muslims are not a group of people of a common feature.

Well there are black muslims, asian muslims, european muslims.....fundamentalist muslims, secular muslims, sunni muslims, shia muslims, sufi muslims,.......