I’m with the others. This sounds about right, given the current political climate. I second the call for closing tax loopholes for both individuals and corporations. I might also throw in a law taxing corporations where they make their money, not where they put their headquarters so that they don’t just put an office in Switzerland or somewhere in the Caribbean while they make a few billion here near tax free, if not completely tax free. Oh, and I’d throw in single payer health care, too, since it will ultimately save money as well. OK, now I’m getting more and more politically infeasible.
Tim, I’ve got to say, this post actually makes you look worse, to me, instead of better. Sure, you say all the right things about how you appreciate Muslims and their culture. You do throw in the “No really, I’ve had a Muslim friend” thing, which seriously, dude, is the worst way to respond to accusations of racism or bigotry. But the real problem with the post is that you not only stick to your primary position, which is that if Muslims would just do better PR, at least the reasonable bigots would feel differently, but you actually respond to the criticisms of this position in the most predictable way: “Yeah, sure, they go on TV, or release official statements condemning violence, but it just seems like it’s not sincere enough, or they feel the need to condemn the other side’s violence at the same time, so it’s just not working for me.” I’d ask why they shouldn’t criticize both sides of a self-reinforcing cycle of violence, but that, I see, would be pointless. Instead, I’ll just point out to you that it sounds like nothing they could do would be enough for you. And that makes you look like you’re certainly not one of the reasonable people whose mind could be changed. I’m not saying that’s true, but that’s how you come off.
Perhaps a better way of approaching this is to suggest that both sides, the “reasonable” people who feel like Islam may be incompatible with western ideals and culture, and the “moderate Muslims” (the fact that you feel the need to modify “Muslims” with “moderate” doesn’t make you look good, either – do you feel the need to modify “Catholics” with “moderate” to distinguish them from the IRA and Phalangists, “Jews” with “moderate” to distinguish them from Gush Emunim or TNT, or do you often say “moderate Hindus” to distinguish them from the LTTE? Something tells me you don’t), should engage in more dialogue. It’s clear that many of these “reasonable” non-Muslims have misperceptions, or gaps in their knowledge of Islam, and I can’t imagine Muslims wouldn’t benefit from understanding the differences between these “reasonable” people and actual bigots, if such differences exist. This way, you’re not blaming the victim, as you seem to be set on doing, but instead suggesting that we start a dialogue to move towards mutual understanding, which, you know, is what we really need.
No, DD, that's not what happened. I've agreed with Rufus that it's not necessarily bigotry that produced Tim's post, but Tim's post suggests blames the victims for the bigotry against them, which is a classic tactic of bigots. It looks even more like bigotry when he talks about the Park 51 Islamic center. Again, I'm willing now to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if you use classic bigoted tactics, and take the position of bigots (on the Park 51 center), you can't be surprised, or even offended, when you get accused of being a bigot. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, people's fist reaction is going to be, it's a duck! Even if when you look close it's actually a goose.
Rufus, eh, I'm willing to believe he's not bigoted. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I do in fact have doubts (though seriously, if someone calls you a bigot in the future, Tim, don't come back with, "But I have a Muslim friend!"). I still think the post is wrongheaded in the extreme, but perhaps not bigoted.
It's hard for me to tell, honestly. The nonsense about the Mosque suggests that the prejudice is at least somewhat justified, in that the Muslims should have been more sensitive about it. Unless Tim is in the habit of suggesting that we play nicely with the feelings of bigots qua bigots.
Rufus, or more directly, "We fear and hate them for the actions of a few because all they've done is sit around being peaceful, go on TV and condemning extremism, and just living their lives, instead of trying to comfort our prejudiced asses" is, if not bigoted, profoundly naive.
Sure, they tried to open a cultural center in a building kinda near to a place where people in an entirely separate religious sect, espousing ideas that we they don't agree with, but sharing the same label, did something really bad, but calling that insensitive is to suggest that those who are the object of prejudice should work hard not to hurt the prejudice-based feelings of the bigots who despise them.
Rufus, 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, but that it's not necessarily bigoted, if he hadn't included the nonsense about the Islamic Center that's not in the shadow, or even in view, of Ground Zero, thrown in (in the comments) the bit about having a Muslim friend, etc.
But really, "they're just not doing enough to counter the prejudice with PR" is basically the same rationalization people have been using for prejudice since, well, forever.
Educate us, oh brilliant one, for we see not the error of our ways.
Seriously, blame the victim for prejudice, throwing in a view blatantly prejudiced opinions along the way, and we should be embarrassed for treating the author harshly?
I believe someone earlier in the thread wondered whether Jews should have been better explainers of their religion and culture, so that anti-Semitism wasn't rampant throughout European history. You're essentially suggesting the same thing, you and Tim. What's more, it's not like Muslims in this country haven't frequently publicly condemned militant Islam. What else should they do? Go door to door like Mormons, handing out copies of the Qur'an?
Prejudice isn't rational. Might a good PR campaign counter it a bit? Perhaps, though there's a pretty strong PR campaign trying to inflame those prejudices here, too, so who knows how well it would work. But prejudices in which people take a small, visible group to be representative of the whole are rarely, if ever the fault of the whole. And pointing this out, in addition to pointing out that there's bigotry in the view itself, is hardly something to be ashamed of. But you know, that time you were in Pakistan, South America, Iran, the Soviet Union, and playing golf on the moon while running CIA ops in Beruit, and going into business with three Iraqi dissidents, all at the same time, has made you wiser than the rest of us, most certainly.
Bob, just dismissing those who disagree with you as "PC" is a wonderful way to avoid having to reflect on your own position, much less that of others.
Before someone suggests it, there is a difference between what Bob does with his frequent use of the "PC" label to deflect accusations of bigotry, and actual accusations of bigotry. Tim's position is that the reason people are prejudiced against Muslims, taking the actions and beliefs of a few to be representative of the entire population, is because the rest of the population hasn't done enough to counter those prejudices. Forgetting for a moment the fact that pretty much since the day of September 11, 2001, Muslims have repeatedly and regularly taken to every medium to say unequivocally that they disagree with militant Islamists, and that they don't represent their religion, or even the fact that millions of Muslims live among us peacefully, Tim's position is a classic rationalization of prejudice. And since he doesn't actually present any arguments for that rationalization, just expands on it, with quotes and assurances that he is not a bigot and actually had a Muslim friend once, it's not unreasonable to point that out. Perhaps, given the weight of the word "bigot," one should say why it's bigoted, but at least with the word "bigot" that is possible, but with "PC," which long ago lost any real meaning, that's not even remotely possible.
By the way, on the cultural center, which may have been a PR disaster, but only because of people's prejudices (seriously, it's in the same neighborhood as Ground Zero, but it's not like it's right friggin' next door, and even if it was, really?), if one wants to see that it wasn't really about that particular Islamic building, one need only look to Murfreesboro.
Perhaps I'm unusual (though I don't think I am), but this post didn't make lower my opinion of the blog, only my opinion of Tim, which didn't have far to fall to begin with. One of the things I like about this blog is that, unlike other group blogs that talk about political issues, the authors of this one are not grouped around a central political ideology or team. That makes it easy to see it as an only loosely associated group of authors, which means any one post isn't likely to affect the opinions of the collective of anyone who's actually, you know, paying attention.
“I’m not a racist! Just ask my black friend.”
Seriously, though, I think it’s quite clear that you’re a bigot, though not any more than a substantial portion of Americans. What’s disturbing is not the bigotry, which again is pretty much ubiquitous, but the fact that you think that the bigotry that you and so many share is the fault of the people against whom you’re prejudiced. What’s more, you think they’re not doing enough to make you and your ilk feel more comfortable with them. If you don’t recognize in this a timeless rationalization for prejudice, then you’re as unreflective as I thought.
It seems odd to ban the regular troll when there's a concern troll writing the original posts. If anything, having Bob here helps put Tim's main-page concern trolling into stark relief.
Shrinking this cultural divide really isn’t as hard as it seems. One simple thing moderate Muslims could do to this end, for example, would have been to denounce the Park51 mosque. Most Americans condemn the mosque as the tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea that it is.
This part of the post, particularly the last sentence of it, is all one needed to read to know that Tim is basically talking out of his ass (if the "blame the victim" schtick didn't tell you that right off). Because seriously, a cultural center with a prayer room that's not really even in sight of Ground Zero is a "tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea" only to people who are talking out of their asses.
At some point, Tim's going to write something insightful or at least interesting on this site. I'm afraid I'm going to miss it, because so far it's been all boilerplate conservative nonsense, and that doesn't inspire me to read any more.
I agree with RJ. I don't know Dennis, but see no reason to think he's a bad person simply because he's a conservative, and Mark seems to be genuinely trying to engage the issue and the poll itself. You're showing your own prejudices more than anything, here.
Eh, here’s a little project: count the number of gay couples on prime time television shows. Then count the number of black-white interracial couples on prime time television shows. Try it again with soap operas.
I think the Marx question would be pretty silly, since the vast majority of American Democrats have never read a word of Marx (though they may have heard something about "the opiate of the masses"), and are probably about as averse to the name as most American Republicans.
But I do think the racial questions are important because, while interracial marriage may not be up for debate, other issues related to race are, and it's not so bad to know how people stand on race. And interracial marriage is a pretty good weather vane.
It might help to read the other comments by that same employee, Dustin Ingalls. Relevant to the discussion we've been having, he notes that they asked the interracial marriage question of everyone, and that the questions in the report were not the only questions asked. This is puzzling (why didn't they include the other questions in this report? Are the results coming out in future reports?), and it may mean the survey was long, but it also answers one of the objections Mark and others have raised.
On the age issue, he also gives info on the margin of error for the young age group. This doesn't completely answer the concerns, but it helps a bit.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Return to Normalcy Budget”
Death panels!
"
I’m with the others. This sounds about right, given the current political climate. I second the call for closing tax loopholes for both individuals and corporations. I might also throw in a law taxing corporations where they make their money, not where they put their headquarters so that they don’t just put an office in Switzerland or somewhere in the Caribbean while they make a few billion here near tax free, if not completely tax free. Oh, and I’d throw in single payer health care, too, since it will ultimately save money as well. OK, now I’m getting more and more politically infeasible.
On “Muslims and PR: A response to comments”
Tim, I’ve got to say, this post actually makes you look worse, to me, instead of better. Sure, you say all the right things about how you appreciate Muslims and their culture. You do throw in the “No really, I’ve had a Muslim friend” thing, which seriously, dude, is the worst way to respond to accusations of racism or bigotry. But the real problem with the post is that you not only stick to your primary position, which is that if Muslims would just do better PR, at least the reasonable bigots would feel differently, but you actually respond to the criticisms of this position in the most predictable way: “Yeah, sure, they go on TV, or release official statements condemning violence, but it just seems like it’s not sincere enough, or they feel the need to condemn the other side’s violence at the same time, so it’s just not working for me.” I’d ask why they shouldn’t criticize both sides of a self-reinforcing cycle of violence, but that, I see, would be pointless. Instead, I’ll just point out to you that it sounds like nothing they could do would be enough for you. And that makes you look like you’re certainly not one of the reasonable people whose mind could be changed. I’m not saying that’s true, but that’s how you come off.
Perhaps a better way of approaching this is to suggest that both sides, the “reasonable” people who feel like Islam may be incompatible with western ideals and culture, and the “moderate Muslims” (the fact that you feel the need to modify “Muslims” with “moderate” doesn’t make you look good, either – do you feel the need to modify “Catholics” with “moderate” to distinguish them from the IRA and Phalangists, “Jews” with “moderate” to distinguish them from Gush Emunim or TNT, or do you often say “moderate Hindus” to distinguish them from the LTTE? Something tells me you don’t), should engage in more dialogue. It’s clear that many of these “reasonable” non-Muslims have misperceptions, or gaps in their knowledge of Islam, and I can’t imagine Muslims wouldn’t benefit from understanding the differences between these “reasonable” people and actual bigots, if such differences exist. This way, you’re not blaming the victim, as you seem to be set on doing, but instead suggesting that we start a dialogue to move towards mutual understanding, which, you know, is what we really need.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
No, DD, that's not what happened. I've agreed with Rufus that it's not necessarily bigotry that produced Tim's post, but Tim's post suggests blames the victims for the bigotry against them, which is a classic tactic of bigots. It looks even more like bigotry when he talks about the Park 51 Islamic center. Again, I'm willing now to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if you use classic bigoted tactics, and take the position of bigots (on the Park 51 center), you can't be surprised, or even offended, when you get accused of being a bigot. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, people's fist reaction is going to be, it's a duck! Even if when you look close it's actually a goose.
On “Muslims Don’t Need Better PR, Americans Need More Tolerance”
I suppose this never happened. And that's a pretty small-time case.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Rufus, eh, I'm willing to believe he's not bigoted. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I do in fact have doubts (though seriously, if someone calls you a bigot in the future, Tim, don't come back with, "But I have a Muslim friend!"). I still think the post is wrongheaded in the extreme, but perhaps not bigoted.
"
It's hard for me to tell, honestly. The nonsense about the Mosque suggests that the prejudice is at least somewhat justified, in that the Muslims should have been more sensitive about it. Unless Tim is in the habit of suggesting that we play nicely with the feelings of bigots qua bigots.
"
Rufus, or more directly, "We fear and hate them for the actions of a few because all they've done is sit around being peaceful, go on TV and condemning extremism, and just living their lives, instead of trying to comfort our prejudiced asses" is, if not bigoted, profoundly naive.
Sure, they tried to open a cultural center in a building kinda near to a place where people in an entirely separate religious sect, espousing ideas that we they don't agree with, but sharing the same label, did something really bad, but calling that insensitive is to suggest that those who are the object of prejudice should work hard not to hurt the prejudice-based feelings of the bigots who despise them.
"
Rufus, 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, but that it's not necessarily bigoted, if he hadn't included the nonsense about the Islamic Center that's not in the shadow, or even in view, of Ground Zero, thrown in (in the comments) the bit about having a Muslim friend, etc.
But really, "they're just not doing enough to counter the prejudice with PR" is basically the same rationalization people have been using for prejudice since, well, forever.
"
Any time, Bob. Ardalyon and I will be here all week. Try the veal. Don't forget to tip your server!
"
Strange, I've argued my position several times, even in that comment., yet your response is patriarchal chest thumping.
Eh, I forgot that I just ignored General Ivolgin for a reason.
"
Educate us, oh brilliant one, for we see not the error of our ways.
Seriously, blame the victim for prejudice, throwing in a view blatantly prejudiced opinions along the way, and we should be embarrassed for treating the author harshly?
I believe someone earlier in the thread wondered whether Jews should have been better explainers of their religion and culture, so that anti-Semitism wasn't rampant throughout European history. You're essentially suggesting the same thing, you and Tim. What's more, it's not like Muslims in this country haven't frequently publicly condemned militant Islam. What else should they do? Go door to door like Mormons, handing out copies of the Qur'an?
Prejudice isn't rational. Might a good PR campaign counter it a bit? Perhaps, though there's a pretty strong PR campaign trying to inflame those prejudices here, too, so who knows how well it would work. But prejudices in which people take a small, visible group to be representative of the whole are rarely, if ever the fault of the whole. And pointing this out, in addition to pointing out that there's bigotry in the view itself, is hardly something to be ashamed of. But you know, that time you were in Pakistan, South America, Iran, the Soviet Union, and playing golf on the moon while running CIA ops in Beruit, and going into business with three Iraqi dissidents, all at the same time, has made you wiser than the rest of us, most certainly.
On “The Title of This Blog Post Is Only Slightly Inflammatory”
In this reply to his own comment, Heidegger suggests that one of you listen to a particular piece by Bach.
"
In this comment, Heidegger accuses you all of being commies.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Bob, just dismissing those who disagree with you as "PC" is a wonderful way to avoid having to reflect on your own position, much less that of others.
Before someone suggests it, there is a difference between what Bob does with his frequent use of the "PC" label to deflect accusations of bigotry, and actual accusations of bigotry. Tim's position is that the reason people are prejudiced against Muslims, taking the actions and beliefs of a few to be representative of the entire population, is because the rest of the population hasn't done enough to counter those prejudices. Forgetting for a moment the fact that pretty much since the day of September 11, 2001, Muslims have repeatedly and regularly taken to every medium to say unequivocally that they disagree with militant Islamists, and that they don't represent their religion, or even the fact that millions of Muslims live among us peacefully, Tim's position is a classic rationalization of prejudice. And since he doesn't actually present any arguments for that rationalization, just expands on it, with quotes and assurances that he is not a bigot and actually had a Muslim friend once, it's not unreasonable to point that out. Perhaps, given the weight of the word "bigot," one should say why it's bigoted, but at least with the word "bigot" that is possible, but with "PC," which long ago lost any real meaning, that's not even remotely possible.
By the way, on the cultural center, which may have been a PR disaster, but only because of people's prejudices (seriously, it's in the same neighborhood as Ground Zero, but it's not like it's right friggin' next door, and even if it was, really?), if one wants to see that it wasn't really about that particular Islamic building, one need only look to Murfreesboro.
"
Perhaps I'm unusual (though I don't think I am), but this post didn't make lower my opinion of the blog, only my opinion of Tim, which didn't have far to fall to begin with. One of the things I like about this blog is that, unlike other group blogs that talk about political issues, the authors of this one are not grouped around a central political ideology or team. That makes it easy to see it as an only loosely associated group of authors, which means any one post isn't likely to affect the opinions of the collective of anyone who's actually, you know, paying attention.
"
“I’m not a racist! Just ask my black friend.”
Seriously, though, I think it’s quite clear that you’re a bigot, though not any more than a substantial portion of Americans. What’s disturbing is not the bigotry, which again is pretty much ubiquitous, but the fact that you think that the bigotry that you and so many share is the fault of the people against whom you’re prejudiced. What’s more, you think they’re not doing enough to make you and your ilk feel more comfortable with them. If you don’t recognize in this a timeless rationalization for prejudice, then you’re as unreflective as I thought.
"
It seems odd to ban the regular troll when there's a concern troll writing the original posts. If anything, having Bob here helps put Tim's main-page concern trolling into stark relief.
"
Shrinking this cultural divide really isn’t as hard as it seems. One simple thing moderate Muslims could do to this end, for example, would have been to denounce the Park51 mosque. Most Americans condemn the mosque as the tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea that it is.
This part of the post, particularly the last sentence of it, is all one needed to read to know that Tim is basically talking out of his ass (if the "blame the victim" schtick didn't tell you that right off). Because seriously, a cultural center with a prayer room that's not really even in sight of Ground Zero is a "tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea" only to people who are talking out of their asses.
At some point, Tim's going to write something insightful or at least interesting on this site. I'm afraid I'm going to miss it, because so far it's been all boilerplate conservative nonsense, and that doesn't inspire me to read any more.
On “Revisiting the Mississippi Interracial Marriage Poll”
I agree with RJ. I don't know Dennis, but see no reason to think he's a bad person simply because he's a conservative, and Mark seems to be genuinely trying to engage the issue and the poll itself. You're showing your own prejudices more than anything, here.
"
Let's see, it seems Tom has now covered all the bases:
-Bias! Bias!
-Yeah, but black people believe some crazy shit too!
-Liberals are the real racists!
Yet, he hasn't actually addressed the poll itself or even the issue the question addresses.
"
Eh, here’s a little project: count the number of gay couples on prime time television shows. Then count the number of black-white interracial couples on prime time television shows. Try it again with soap operas.
"
Oh, I don't doubt that they're highly correlated. I'm rather saying that the relationship is non-linear, particularly at the tails.
On “Do a Plurality of Mississippi Republicans Want to Ban Interracial Marriage?”
I think the Marx question would be pretty silly, since the vast majority of American Democrats have never read a word of Marx (though they may have heard something about "the opiate of the masses"), and are probably about as averse to the name as most American Republicans.
But I do think the racial questions are important because, while interracial marriage may not be up for debate, other issues related to race are, and it's not so bad to know how people stand on race. And interracial marriage is a pretty good weather vane.
On “Revisiting the Mississippi Interracial Marriage Poll”
It might help to read the other comments by that same employee, Dustin Ingalls. Relevant to the discussion we've been having, he notes that they asked the interracial marriage question of everyone, and that the questions in the report were not the only questions asked. This is puzzling (why didn't they include the other questions in this report? Are the results coming out in future reports?), and it may mean the survey was long, but it also answers one of the objections Mark and others have raised.
On the age issue, he also gives info on the margin of error for the young age group. This doesn't completely answer the concerns, but it helps a bit.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.