Best First wrote:You wrote a provocative post that deliberately misconstrued the question being asked. We have been over this.
No, I don't think we have. First of all, I think it's a fair answer to the question that was posed and subsequent talk about the west needing a new enemy post-Communism still doesn't mean that 9/11 wasn't the catalyst for the present situation. Likewise, saying "it's election time and the Republicans are trying to stir up anti-muslim sentiment because it'll win them votes" also ignores the fact that if 9/11 hadn't happened they wouldn't be able to stir up anti-muslim sentiment.
You yourself said:
Best First wrote:...[Yaya] was pointing out that a lot of the criticism that is (rightly or wrongly, which is a separate point) leveled at both Islam as a religion and Islamic countries can also be leveled at other religions and other regimes.
Which would be fair comment if any of those other regimes and religions had carried out massive terrorist attacks on the west but they haven't, so bringing it up is what-abouttery, pure and simple.
Best First wrote:So yes you are trying to revise as you are airbrushing out the fact that you knew it would wind up some people and now feigning surprise that it ruffled some feathers. You didn’t ‘just post a picture’ – stop kidding to yourself.
So making a point that winds up some people negates the point entirely? I'm not feigning anything, I stand by what I posted - which was a picture.
Best First wrote:Where do I try and fashion you into some ‘right wing super bigot’? Again how can you call foul on what people are saying when the moment they challenge you churn out the underhand debating tactics you accuse them of and deliberately misrepresent what they are saying? Come on, show me where I do something that is worthy is being characterized as such. I missed the post where I wrote “I think Rob is actually Johann Schmidt”
Throughout this thread you've misrepresented my position (when you're been "arsed" to address it) as "...really telling me that, say, Yaya is "pretty much indistinguishable" from one of the guys who flew into the twin towers? Or say that guys i know at work. Really? I mean really seriously? If so, what are you advocating?" when all I have been trying to do is explain the situation as it is, not how I would like it to be. I don't know about you, but when I'm trying to examine a difficult situation objectively I don't appreciate the implication that I'm promoting eugenics.
Best First wrote:But why don’t you care? This is a key point for me. If we are going to have conversations about big serious topics that draw in a wide spectrum of views, if you are even vaguely interested in the truth, surely this is something to care about?
I'm more interested in the truth than I am in tippy-toeing around trying not to upset people who take offence on behalf of their sky god, if that's what you mean. Besides, a discussion about the way muslims are treated in America that doesn't mention 9/11 would be completely pointless. I mean, how did this thread get started in the first place? It was about some muslims trying to build a mosque...where? Yet I'm the one who gets criticised for invoking it as a causal factor? Yes, that seems completely fair.
Best First wrote:I also think it’s important in this instance because seeing atheists act like pricks towards people and then worse still seemingly pat themselves on the back for it strikes me as a particularly dumb move on the part of the atheist as it will have the opposite effect of what they ultimately want.
And what is it that I ultimately want? Please enlighten me, because I really don't know what you're talking about.
Best First wrote:Which given it is the same as what I ultimately want means I have a vested interest in curtailing counterproductive behavior.
Okay, tell me what you want instead but whatever it is, if pointing out inconvenient historical facts is "counterproductive" then I doubt you're going to get far with it.
Best First wrote:Again where have I called you a racist? I know I asked what you were implying - but so have several other people because you didn’t do a very good job (in distinguishing between asserting what some people might be thinking and what you were saying as you.
Okay, I might be way off on this and if I am I apologise, but this seemed like an exceptionally below the belt jibe directed at me:
Best First wrote:Seemingly sound people going mental and wading off on racist tirades or the like.
Again, if it wasn't directed at me then I'm sorry, but throwing out indiscriminate accusations of racism probably isn't the best way to carry yourself in any case.
Best First wrote:Because huge amounts of history that play a part in the Western attitudes to Muslims and the Middle east and vice versa exist prior to 911.
You mean like when the Taliban were the west's allies against the Soviets? Before that or after? Gulf War I? NATO coming to the aid of muslim minorities in Bosnia? Prior to 9/11 it seems islamic/western relations were a pretty mixed bag, to be honest. Give me some examples here?
Look, I'm not saying that the west and the islamic world existed in completely separate bubbles prior to 9/11 but it is the single event that has shaped this century so far, inspired two wars against islamic countries, inspired countless copycat terror attacks and put Al-Q on the map, plus the image of that day is as indelibly stamped on the American psyche as raising the flag on Iwo Jima. How the Republicans stir up anti-muslim sentiment in the US? They just point to 9/11. It really is that simple.
Best First wrote:Does that mean 911 is not significant? No, and I have never said as such – but when you use phrases like “the catalyst” you one suggest that all things flow from this point, which they don’t and two, effectively erase all the things that have happened before (it amused me that you cite racial profiling as a result of 911 for example, when this has been true for much longer) which is anathema to getting to the truth of things.
Yes, racial profiling has existed for centuries but routine ethnic profiling of muslims happened post-9/11 and has gotten steadily worse in the years since. I posted links to the Independent and the BBC reporting this, did they amuse you too? And have you got any links or examples to back up your points or do I have to take your word for it?
Best First wrote:And yeah, for what it’s worth, I don’t feel I need to respond to every point you have made. I don’t go on the internet specially to validate your opinions I am afraid. Other people have said more or less what I would have in some cases. And often the manner in which you have responded to them, notably Jack, has meant I am glad I didn’t bother.
Okay fine, next time someone compares me to a notably bigoted Daily Fail columnist I'll thank them for the compliment and carry on as if nothing happened. If they misrepresent my position I'll play nice and act as if I was calling for the extermination of the muslims all along.
Best First wrote:And yes, your approach to talking to someone like Yaya about how his faith is wrong (which I agree with) has proved counter productive – it’s self evident in that he no longer wants to participate.
Funny, 'cause someone's got hold of Yaya's account and he's debating with you in this thread even as I type this.
Best First wrote:Given you are clearly keen for people to listen to you, deliberately winding them up is not a clever thing to do – to adopt your tone, surely this isn’t hard to see?
Why not? There are different ways of making a point, and I'm not out to try and convert anyone to the path of reason here.
Best First wrote:And as a separate point can you not see that the validity of a point does not necessarily vindicate the manner in which it was made? There’s no link there.
I think it does. Just because a point is (in your view) badly presented, doesn't make it any less valid. What's that saying, the truth hurts? In truth there is no beauty?
Best First wrote:Yeah, you have in no way got personal with anyone. Dude. Seriously? You give it all “high horse” and “paragon of virture” and then this? Aw, poor me am only one playing by civilized rules of mother****ing debate. Not to mention the ball/player thing is a smokescreen “yeah I know I spoke in vile terms about something that means everything to him but I don’t call him names so I fail to see the problem”.
So I'm not allowed to criticise Islam any more in case I hurt Yaya's feelings? It's going to result in some extremely stilted discussions. And how come it's only in this instance? I never used to get this sort of criticism when me and Blacksword were going at each other over Christianity...Seems to me like everyone's suddenly hyper-sensitive when the islams are involved.
Best First wrote:And sorry but this whole ‘not my problem thing’ – I think its bull. It’s like saying you have no concept of how people will react to what you will say. I’m definitely not saying you should not say it, but on the assumption that you know how people will react to an extent you do then bear some responsibility for that reaction – especially within a confined group (I think it’s a bit different when people want to ban, say, plays that no one has made them see for example, the play right would only be responsible if he had hustled them into the theatre and stapled their eyes open) . You yourself have said there are things you would not say at work about others beliefs, surely if the problem is entirely theirs, what is stopping you?
The difference is that this is a thread on an internet forum specifically for the purpose of debating religion, initially Islam in particular. I don't challenge the people I work with on their religious beliefs because it's not the forum for doing that, but I make no secret of my contempt for them and I've brought it to my boss several times now that if the Jews get Friday afternoons off, as a Pastafarian I should get all of Fridays off.