Commenter Archive

Thank you, that's exactly what we needed here.

Things to remember:

*People can, in good faith, and with well-reasoned logic, propose things that you find absolutely abhorrent. They can suggest that abortion shouldn't be restricted, for example, or that two persons of the same sex should be allowed to form binding social compacts.

It is important to suppress one's emotional response when discussing such propositions. And it may well be that, barring that emotional response, you can't come up with an acceptable rebuttal of that proposition.

And that's okay. It's all right to say "I don't consider this particular proposition to be acceptable to me." But be aware of when your response is emotional and when it isn't--and, if you have to make a decision based on it, be prepared for your decision to have unappealing consequences.

*That said: If someone says "okay, I can't argue this with you any further"...accept that. Don't continually be coming back to that concession as a form of mockery, or as an attempt to browbeat the person into agreeing with you on other things. Basically, don't do a sack dance.

Oh look, it's Response #4. That was quick.

"What I take Tim to be saying is, “The bigots think some horrible things about Muslims..."

The problem is the trigger-word/instinct-response behavior that too damn many people call "thinking". Tim suggested that Muslims might be doing something not-quite-fully-good. He is criticising Muslims. Therefore he's a racist, because Muslims are (typicall) not white, and the only reason you'd criticise a nonwhite person is racism.

The substance of Tim's argument is irrelevant. He criticised nonwhites. The. End.

"What is this magical way that Christians act when confronted with criticism that ensures that they are treated better than Muslims?"

You don't exactly see riots and threats of violent retribution in response to a story that someone chucked a Bible into a storm drain.

This is me not getting the joke and writing a lengthy rant about a typographical error.

"I might say it’s wishful thinking, given that Muslims are about 0.5% of the US population to think they can do much to counter bigotry."

Yes, pity the poor Muslims, who can't do anything for themselves and need white men to come in and save them from their plight.

"I might have said it’s a strange case of blaming the victim, given that moderate Muslims have tried pretty hard to distance themselves from their more militant brethren..."

If 'moderate Muslims have tried pretty hard' to do the things that Tim suggests they ought to do, then it should be the work of a few minutes to come up with examples, dozens of examples, of moderate Muslims declaring that the Islamic religion is entirely contra the notion of suicide bombers or killing nonbelievers, and doing it without reference to Israel or to "western aggression" or implying that it's justified vengeance instead of sheer zealotry.

Indeed, as Jaybird says...write a guest post.

Yeah, it really sucks when people can say things you don't like, right? I hate having to form intellectual responses to reprehensible viewpoints! I'd rather just go with the ungood bellyfeel.

It REALLY FROSTS MY SHORTS when people say that they "give someone free reign". The aphorism you're thinking of is "free REIN", like reins on a horse. Yes, your spell checker says that "free reign" is okay, butt tats be cause the spill chocker is a maroon.

One of the photos I put on the dating site was of me with my arms crossed and a grim expression. I captioned it "i are serious (DensityDuck). this are serious photo."

My wife said that this photo/caption combination was one of the things she liked about my profile.

"People may make kiddie-touching jokes about Catholics, but is anyone calling for Congressional hearings? Boycotting the construction of a church near a school?"

It isn't newsworthy when they do, because people do things like that all the time. Maybe you missed the endless debates about removing Christian symbols on government-operated property, eliminating Christian references in public activities, etcetera.

"...despite the contrived War on Christianity, Muslims are a far more marginalized group who get more than their fair share of criticism, while Christianity and Christians often get a pass; my intent is to offer more nuance to the conversation."

A: "contrived"? My well, she is poisoned. I like how you insist that there's no such thing as anti-Christian sentiment, but take it, as it were, on faith that pervasive anti-Muslim sentiment is real.

B: What Tim's post was trying to ask is whether the reason that Muslims find themselves "marginalized" and receive "more than their fair share of criticism" is their refusal to act like Christians when confronted with criticism.

This comment snidely declares that there's no such thing as bigotry.

At least Robert Cheeks acted like he was taking the conversation seriously, and he can't even post on the front page!

Wow, just wow.

*sigh*

The things I've described aren't troubling to Christians.

They are, on the other hand, according to such people as E.D. Kain, a terrible burden for Muslims to bear, an unfair restriction we place upon them. To expect a Muslim to suggest that suicide bombers are crazy idiots--and not say anything at all about Israel--is just too much.

"This person makes pretty embarassing arguments to boot in his comments on his own post: I can’t be a bigot, I have Muslim friends and they luuuve me. "

According to Tim, his co-worker disagreed with just about everything he posted.

And, besides...you're going for the low-hanging ad hom fruit, here. If he doesn't know anyone then "oh, you have no personal experience, I can safely ignore your arguments!" If he does, then "oh, some of your best friends are black, right, I can safely ignore your arguments!"

I'm saying that if Tim's post had been about Christians instead of Muslims, then A: the comments would have been nothing but "good post!" "I agree!" "You're right!", and B: Kain's post (this one) would never have happened, because of course it's the responsibility of Christians to denounce extremists of their faith, of course it's the responsibility of Christians to passively accept blasphemy and slander, of course Christians must apologize for the bad behavior of other Christians.

Yeah, I remember the first time *I* read that Dan Simmons article. Good times. Of course, the only really quality thing I read from Simmons was the two "Hyperion" books; shame, he's got good prose, but he's got this weird obsession with Space Jews Versus Time-Traveling Robots.

The article accused us of censorship. This was clearly a lie and we could not permit them to print it.

"Mainly I’m confused why you would presume to tell the billion or so Muslims out there how to act, how they should put their religious belief on display, and why you think you’re in a position to do so."

Apparently you've missed the endless debates about how the billion or so Christians out there ought to act, how they should put their religious belief on display, etcetera.

Delete "Muslim" from the top post, and insert "Christian". What's your reaction? Do you think that it's inappropriate to suggest that Christians disavow the extremist groups that label themselves "Christian"? Do you think it's racist to suggest that Christians ought to behave in a manner calculated so as not to offend? Do you think it's anti-intellectual to feel that Christians, in general, will always respond the same way to certain situations?

"Maybe a nation that demands assimilation is hard to connect with."

That would make it pretty damn hard to connect with just about anywhere, then, since Muslim nations place more emphasis on "assimilation" than America.

I guess you could move to Sweden, although if you aren't a white Swede then it's pretty tough to be anything but a working-class menial.

Accusing someone of being a "concern troll"; it's the new, internet-acceptable form of ad hominem argument!

Would you promote racial harmony by opening the "Black Power Soul Food And Rap Music Parlor -- Whites Not Allowed"?

"The last time I checked, most Muslims in the United States were not blowing themselves up in suicide attacks against their fellow Americans. They were not issuing fatwas against Harry Potter or converting your favorite folk singer. "

The last time I checked, most Christians in the United States weren't suggesting that women were best found in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Most Christians weren't throwing turds at abortion clinics. Most Christians weren't handling snakes, or claiming that dead soldiers were queer and died because God hated them. Most Christians weren't involved with the Crusades or Galileo.