Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (91,742 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

SophistiKat

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Melchior

I don't know in what context you'd ever be 'critiquing Islam' that wasn't racially charged in some way. Policy discussions about the integration of Muslims into Western society are incredibly rare, boring and complicated and are more or less pretty removed from the religion itself. Most of the issues in question are regional things anyway. Like, do you really not see how this is mostly just an expression of xenophobic mass panic? Should "is Islam good or whatever" be a matter of public debate?

 

Also Tommy Robinson and the EDL are drunk racist football hooligans who apparently "make some good points."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
4 hours ago, Melchior said:

I don't know in what context you'd ever be 'critiquing Islam' that wasn't racially charged in some way.

You assert this but you don't really provide any relevant argument or evidence for it, because you're really just race baiting.
 

Quote

Like, do you really not see how this is mostly just an expression of xenophobic mass panic?

Within the mass panic there are certainly xenophobic/bigoted/racist elements. There is no doubt about that. But it is unreasonable to pretend all questioning of muslim integration in Western countries, or critique of Islam as a doctrine, is xenophobic. Much of the interesting Islam critics are former muslims, or former radical muslims who have become moderate, and to pretend they are being 'xenophobic' is pretty much insane. But among non muslims there are also many who see legitimate concerns with Islam, and to pretend they "are all racist" is regressive race baiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

Islam as a religion deserves as much criticism as, if not more than, any other religion, that's true. The Abrahamic ones especially are still rooted in Medieval philosophy. The only difference is that many muslims live where such philosophies are still valid, thanks in no small part to a century of western and Russian/Soviet meddling, plunging their homelands into a pit of anarchy and despotism. Can't blame them for not developing liberal reforms when their governments rarely last for more than a generation.

 

What's absurd, though, is to think they can't possibly integrate. Humans are remarkably adaptive and resilient. This idea seems to be based on little more than irrational fear of the sharia law boogeyman. Give them a generation and they'll be no more or less a threat to American culture than any other ethnic or religious minority. Irish? Catholic? Latter Day Saints? Germans? The Dutch? Chinese? It's been quite a while since anyone assigned some weird conspiracy theory to those groups (and those that did weren't exactly the best company to keep), and yet they function perfectly well in the modern USA. The only way to really f*ck up their integration is to alienate them and force them into some sort of underclass (for example: African-Americans, Latinos). Integration is a two-way street, you know. I can't help but notice that those groups are a little more melanin-rich than the examples of integrated minorities, which seems more than a bit coincidental. You call it race-baiting, but you could just as easily call it pattern recognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday
2 hours ago, Twang. said:

What's absurd, though, is to think they can't possibly integrate. Humans are remarkably adaptive and resilient. This idea seems to be based on little more than irrational fear of the sharia law boogeyman. Give them a generation and they'll be no more or less a threat to American culture than any other ethnic or religious minority. Irish? Catholic? Latter Day Saints? Germans? The Dutch? Chinese? It's been quite a while since anyone assigned some weird conspiracy theory to those groups (and those that did weren't exactly the best company to keep), and yet they function perfectly well in the modern USA.

Can I challenge this notion without being labeled Islamophobic?

I have no issue with Islamic people or their faith on an individual basis but when it comes to mass-assimilation into Western culture? You have to be naive to think that Islam doesn't present unique challenges that were not a concern within the Irish or Catholic or LDS or German or Dutch or Asian communities. And it's not just the pigment density of their skin.

 

During the 'moment' of their respective integrations, the other cultures or ethnic groups you mentioned were not already locked into a bloody ideological civil war that is spilling across political boundaries around the world. Catholics and Irish and even Chinese only had to overcome the obstacle of being slightly different in appearance and demeanor. Islam has to overcome the obstacle of being even MORE different in appearance in addition to an even FURTHER removed societal identity. When the Christians were integrating they had already endured their reformation. Martin Luther already had his revolution and it was relatively peaceful. Islam appears to be reckoning with it's cultural revolution as we speak and it's been anything but peaceful. It's yielded rivers of blood that has been mostly spilled by innocent women and children. Christians extracted their share of needless blood and terror but it was literally generations ago. They've had time to work on their good press and dull the sharpened edges of fundamentalism. We don't exactly have to worry about a radical Christianity Dictatorship getting its hands onto a nuclear device. But Islam still happens to be stuck in this cesspit.

 

I'm not afraid of Sharia.

I'm afraid of irrational religious actors who believe in the apocalypse and would welcome it and potentially have the means to produce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Twang. said:

Islam as a religion deserves as much criticism as, if not more than, any other religion, that's true. The Abrahamic ones especially are still rooted in Medieval philosophy. The only difference is that many muslims live where such philosophies are still valid, thanks in no small part to a century of western and Russian/Soviet meddling, plunging their homelands into a pit of anarchy and despotism. Can't blame them for not developing liberal reforms when their governments rarely last for more than a generation.

They deserve equal criticism, but they are not the same. The figure of Muhammad is vastly different from Jesus, and the Quran is far more violent than the New Testament. The argument that geopolitical influences have ruined liberalism in the Middle-East is true, but simultaneously the possibility of an enlightened Islam has to be proven to be able to last. Currently the fact that Iran and Saudi-Arabia are the major power centers and also the sources of Sunni and Shia orthodoxy and radicalism, is turning the entire region more conservative and radical. Part of this proces is likely also anti Western sentiment, where they are unwilling to adopt Western enlightened liberalism, because of the anger they have towards the United States, and muslims seem to increasingly identify in opposition to the West.
 

Quote

What's absurd, though, is to think they can't possibly integrate.

To be fair though, the integration of Muslims in the US (where I think you are from) has been much more successful than in Europe, for several reasons. Firstly the US has a very strict meritocratic immigration system, and didn't import vast amounts of low skilled workers and refugees, but high skilled ones. Secondly, the relative amount of muslims in the US is far smaller than in most European countries. You can take a look at how Turkish people voted in the referendum on Erdogan in the US compared to the Netherlands, and the difference is vast. From what I remember in the US only 20% voted pro Erdogan, and in the Netherlands 70%. The European situation where low skilled muslim migrants have become parallel societies doesn't exist in the US at all, and US ghettos are populated by different demographics.

 

Muslims in Europe haven't assimilated very well, and many of the later generations are becoming more conservative than their parents. All of that is worsened by alienation by right wing rhetoric. The right wing rhetoric is a response to actual issues with integration that were being covered up by mainstream politics and media, and a response to Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has been escalated by US meddling in the region. But Islamic doctrine is an aspect that can't be removed from the equation either.
 

Quote

 I can't help but notice that those groups are a little more melanin-rich than the examples of integrated minorities, which seems more than a bit coincidental. You call it race-baiting, but you could just as easily call it pattern recognition.

It's pattern recognition that race plays a role in the real world, and that people aren't color blind. What is race baiting and regressive is pretending that if we criticize the religion of melanin rich peoples, that we're in actuality criticizing their melanin richness, and deeming them inferior. It's incredibly demeaning and even racist to pretend melanin rich people can't handle criticism. This race baiting tendency originates in a complex of white saviorism, where white progressives want to save helpless victims. What they don't seem to notice is how demeaning that practice is.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
On 6/4/2018 at 1:54 PM, Eutyphro said:

You assert this but you don't really provide any relevant argument or evidence for it, because you're really just race baiting.
 

But it is unreasonable to pretend all questioning of muslim integration in Western countries, or critique of Islam as a doctrine, is xenophobic. Much of the interesting Islam critics are former muslims, or former radical muslims who have become moderate, and to pretend they are being 'xenophobic' is pretty much insane. But among non muslims there are also many who see legitimate concerns with Islam, and to pretend they "are all racist" is regressive race baiting.

 

Well done +++

 

I'm getting sick and tired of the average sheep who needs his college professor to tell him how the world works and how he should live his life. These types of people are common, they need someone else to verify it and they can't decide with their own thinking. Some common examples are racism against white, or in this case against Islam - they immediately jump to the conclusion, with some fancy words they've learned at Berkeley, that if you criticise Islam then it's a racism factor.

 

The type of people who talk about equality but can't even allow someone else to share a different opinion without branding them racist..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pink
Posted (edited)
On 5/31/2018 at 11:55 PM, Eutyphro said:

.. An interesting case is one where recently someone posted an article on the forum about how Maajid Nawaz was bigoted/racist against muslims. Maajid Nawaz, who is of Pakistani origin and a former fundamentalist muslim, who is now an anti Islamic fundamentalist activist.The lefts opposition to him might be the peak of their degeneration.

5

This is what I'm talking about. 

 

The Southern Poverty Law Centre put him on their field of guide Anti-Muslim Extremists. The irony is that he's still a practicing Muslim. 

 

Also, if I can address this.  MTD, you said..

 

Quote

"actively criticizing Islam without any actual repercussions"

What do you mean by repercussions? If you mean being labeled a bigot or a racist, then I would disagree. Yes, I hope to think we all can critique an institution, a religion(s), organizations etc. It's a discussion. It's an exchange of ideas and opinions. 

 

Quote

issue is when you project your criticisms onto 1.3 billion practicing Muslims, as though all of them believe the same exact things,

 

Absolutely, you are correct but come on man, really? Who is doing that here? By even posting a Pew poll regarding Muslims and their answers to how they view things, by definition, it's #notallmuslims because none of the polls came out at 100%. Because by definition, even the most staunch critic Islam, posting a Pew poll of one most conservative and Sharia friendly nations in the world, will not have a poll with 100%.   I don't think anyone on here is claiming 1.3billion Muslims have anti-homosexual views favoring honour killings or any other negative behavior that ties in with religious conservative beliefs of Islam. As your one Brigitte Gabriel said, if you look at most of history, most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazi's drove the agenda and as a result 60 million people died, the peaceful majority were irrelevant. If you look at Russia, most Russians were peaceful yet they still managed to kill around 20 million during the Soviet times. The peaceful majority are irrelevant. So, I think we can move on from those worries that criticizing Islam is equal to that of criticizing 1.3 billion people. The moderate majority is irrelevant. 

 

I'm quite happy as are people like Majid Nawaz and Quilliam calling for a reform of Islam and/or criticizing it. People like you may call us racist or bigotted. That's OK. I know I'm not. Because despite what I think of Islam, I still will defend a Muslim's right to practice it or a revised, modernised version of it, and it still wont stop me from befriending Muslims or getting my haircut at my local Pakistani Muslim barber. And people like the Southern Poverty Law Centre will put people like Nawaz and Ayan Hirsi Ali on their list of Anti-Muslim Extremists.   

 

I'll happily call out Scientology too at the risk of offending ALL Scientologists and I'll call out governments at the risk of offending ALL people that voted for them. And I'll call out the Catholic church at the risk of offending ALL Catholics. 

 

I hope we can all criticize regressive value systems routed to beliefs that arguably repress human evolution and are stuck in the past because they have real-world consequences on people that don't subscribe to that brand of worship or thinking. And of course, not all Muslims. But we also need to protect ex-Muslim atheists who can't come out and feel threatened by violence, being ostracised from their communities or even face death for expressing their disbelief. How can we protect them if any critique is attempted to be shut down with accusations of racism/bigotry.

 

#notallscientologists

 

First of all, we know Islam isn't a race. I know white Muslims that adopted the religion. But lets say you meant "bigotted."  When Ayan Hirsi Ali or Majid Nawaz criticize Muslim thinking directly linked to Haddith and Quaran such as punishment of death to apostates, are you suggesting it's some sort of self-hating racism of some sort? Or could it be more plausible that people like Nawaz a former extremist and Hirsi Ali know that there needs to be a reformation in Islam and their thinking in oder for to be compatible in western society? 

 

 

  Quote

Like, do you really not see how this is mostly just an expression of xenophobic mass panic?

 

Is it? What gives you that belief?  Why is is it hard to believe that mixing old religious conservatism in with progressive left-leaning values may cause compatibility issues?. Why is it that it must be xenophobia?

 

If I'm to summarise what you said. 

 

You can't criticize Islam without being racist/xenophobic. Or at least you "don't know what context criticizing Islam that wasn't racially charged..." so you at least are claiming ignorance or are open to the idea of hearing a context. Well, I gave you a context. Majid Nawaz, a former Islamist extremist who happens to have brown skin (like that matters but I think it matters to you) OR how about a member here who grew up in Muslim environment on the previous page? 

 

  Quote

Should "is Islam good or whatever" be a matter of public debate?

Yes. Why not? When people spread anti-homosexual ideals, want women to cover up, think death to apostates, adulterers and stoning of people and women is OK punishment, I think it's reasonable for discussion, especially if there's public debate about importing more of that religious conservative thinking. 

 

I don't care what colour you are, if you think death and amputation are good solutions then we need to have a discussion. If you don't think it's good discussion, you can step out of it. Let us the people who want to discuss, discuss. 

 

I'm seriously thinking of setting up a satire group on behalf of Scientology about all the abuse and Scientologyphobia that's peddled in the media. But they're mostly white so we wouldn't score many points for "oppression" and it's hard to pull the race card as a mainly white organization. 

 

Am I racist for disagreeing with this kind of thinking in the video below? Or is that you can only reduce people down to simple things like race? Because race is held in high regard, even over values, according to your thinking. I can't criticize the values of a brown-skin person, it's just a disguise for my racism, right? Melchior, do you agree with the sentiments of these gentlemen in the video below. Is that a community you wish to live in. Forget about the colour of their skin for a second (I know that might be hard for you :P). Imagine an all-white community with the values of these gentlemen. Would you like to live it that? This video was recorded in Oslo. 

 

What kind pains me here as well though is that people are actually concerned for values such as equality of women, homosexuals/LGBT, humanity when it comes to critiquing the value system that is Islam yet Melchior and others just misguidedly reduce it down to "racism" and "xenophobia." Why? Because they are mostly brown people from another country? So even when we speak of values, these apologists ignore values and instead insist it's about just being racist and xenophobic. When actually what I can see is a soft bigotry of low expectations or probably more accurately as Eutypro put it.. "where white progressives want to save helpless victims."

 

 

Edited by Mister Pink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel

Islam deserves all the criticism that it gets. In fact it deserves more. People don't seem to realize that there is no Islam without Islamism. There is no Islam without the political side of it that we see in Muslim countries where Sharia Law is, well, the law. Islamic "extremists" are simply following the most accurate interpretation of their religion. Moderate Muslims may as well be apostates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
On 7/10/2018 at 11:38 AM, Darth Yokel said:

Islam deserves all the criticism that it gets. In fact it deserves more. People don't seem to realize that there is no Islam without Islamism. There is no Islam without the political side of it that we see in Muslim countries where Sharia Law is, well, the law. Islamic "extremists" are simply following the most accurate interpretation of their religion. Moderate Muslims may as well be apostates.

Didn't see that coming. Yokel going full Geert Wilders on us. Might as well been a post by John Smith. I agree with most of it except for this:
 

Quote

Islamic "extremists" are simply following the most accurate interpretation of their religion. Moderate Muslims may as well be apostates.

I agree all Islam is political. But I think it is foolish to pretend Salafism is the only viable interpretation. I think you're wrong about that. Only a very small portion of the Islamic world is Salafi, and a minority of those are violent. To pretend it's the only viable interpretation of Islam is silly. And yes, the portion of the Islamic world that sympathizes with terror is likely much larger than the one that practices it. What most credible experts I've witnessed are saying is that there are many credible interpretations of Islam, and some are violent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel

You can make up any interpretation of any religion that you want and if even one person accepts it, we'd say that it's viable. Because why the f*ck not? Religions are about as viable as any fairy tale anyway. The thing that I'm interested in is the original intent of the religious text. And that is not really difficult to understand if you take into consideration certain historic factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
25 minutes ago, Darth Yokel said:

You can make up any interpretation of any religion that you want and if even one person accepts it, we'd say that it's viable.

No, that's nonsense. You have to accept the Quran as the word of god and Muhammad as his messenger. That is what compromises viable interpretations.
 

Quote

 And that is not really difficult to understand if you take into consideration certain historic factors.

This is the exact factor to complicate how to interpret the text. Muslims themselves don't even agree on the historical factors, which is why there is Shia and Sunni Islam. How to interpret the text in relation to the historical factors, which on their own have no comprehensive consensus, complicates interpretation even further. This idea that we can identify 'one real Islam', when Islam is 1400 years old, and arose in entirely different technological, political and historical settings, not remotely close to the present, is bogus.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
8 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

No, that's nonsense. You have to accept the Quran as the word of god and Muhammad as his messenger. That is what compromises viable interpretations.

I don't think you understand how made up sh*t + free will work.

 

8 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

This is the exact factor to complicate how to interpret the text. Muslims themselves don't even agree on the historical factors, which is why there is Shia and Sunni Islam. How to interpret the text in relation to the historical factors, which on their own have no comprehensive consensus, complicates interpretation even further. This idea that we can identify 'one real Islam', when Islam is 1400 years old, and arose in entirely different technological, political and historical settings, not remotely close to the present, is bogus.

That is only a problem for people of faith. It's hardly a problem for atheists who see it all as man made crap. I don't care at all how Muslims or other people of faith interpret their religions, since they are always going to be wrong.

Edited by Darth Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
1 minute ago, Darth Yokel said:

I don't care at all how Muslims or other people of faith interpret their religions

Then what's the f*cking point? You've been watching too much Bill Maher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
3 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Then what's the f*cking point?

The point is that they're all wrong and they should be told that they're wrong. They should learn to accept criticism and to expect more of it.

 

4 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

You've been watching too much Bill Maher.

I don't like Bill Maher. I find him to be extremely annoying. I don't think that I've ever seen a single episode of his show aside from few clips on YouTube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
On 7/10/2018 at 11:38 AM, Darth Yokel said:

Islamic "extremists" are simply following the most accurate interpretation of their religion. Moderate Muslims may as well be apostates.

Quote

You can make up any interpretation of any religion that you want and if even one person accepts it, we'd say that it's viable.

Quote

 I don't care at all how Muslims or other people of faith interpret their religions

You're all over the f*cking place..
 

Quote

I don't like Bill Maher. I find him to be extremely annoying. I don't think that I've ever seen a single episode of his show aside from few clips on YouTube.

The anti-Islam and atheism schtick is Bill Maher to a t. You'd probably like him a lot. Furthermore he's a partisan who cries about Trump all day pretty much like you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
20 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

You're all over the f*cking place..

Not really. I'm just not interested in anyone's excuse for believing in a particular version of their fairy tale. The same goes for other religions. If you only knew how many times Orthodox Christians attempted to defend their own faith by blaming Catholics. I don't care which version of the story is directly responsible for any particular evil act. It's all derived from the same story. So it's pretty damn indefensible to believe in any version when you look at the source material. That's also what makes Islam indefensible. It doesn't matter how you wish to interpret it when anyone who's read the Qur'an and who knows a bit of history can tell you that Mohammad was a warlord and Islam was spread mainly through violence.

 

25 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

The anti-Islam and atheism schtick is Bill Maher to a t. You'd probably like him a lot. Furthermore he's a partisan who cries about Trump all day pretty much like you do.

The sound that he makes when he opens his mouth is very annoying to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
1 hour ago, Darth Yokel said:

So it's pretty damn indefensible to believe in any version when you look at the source material.

Religious belief vs atheism isn't really the point of this thread. The point of this thread is political correctness, and in this context, whether criticism of Islam should be allowed.
 

Quote

The sound that he makes when he opens his mouth is very annoying to me.

Yeah, it is this:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Yokel
6 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Religious belief vs atheism isn't really the point of this thread. The point of this thread is political correctness, and in this context, whether criticism of Islam should be allowed.

And I said yes.

 

6 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Yeah, it is this

That guy is so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

We're experiencing a crisis of Political Correctness run amok in the United States where context is dead.

Not sure if anyone has been following this nonsense.

 

 

And here's the real point: Papa John got caught saying the word "ni**er" in private. Ok, obviously "ni**er" is not a nice word but what was the context? A training exercise that got leaked to the public?? What if the same word was used in a joke-email-chain that he forwarded? I don't know Mr. John personally and I don't know what is inside his heart and mind (neither do you). But I can tell you that everyone who is applauding for his downfall better have one thing in common: they better have NEVER, EVER, IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE said ANYTHING in private that might be considered wrong in public... that better be the only reason they're cheering. Whatever happened to "let he without sin cast the first stone" you bunch of hypocrites. I thought this was a Christian nation of forgiveness. What the hell is going on here?

 

We have to restore context, people. Context is literally everything.

Without context, you have to call the police and report a murder when someone says "Boy, those Giants really slaughtered the Indians last night!" Without context, you have to immediately dial 911 and call for an ambulance when someone says "This traffic is killing me!" Context matters and yet we have lost all semblance of context in this GOTCHA society where everyone needs to be fired and ostracized for every single mistake.

 

America is not the land of the brave but it's definitely the land of self-righteous high-horsing and something needs to change soon.

 

Edited by Doctor Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
7 hours ago, Doctor Holliday said:

And here's the real point: Papa John got caught saying the word "ni**er" in private. Ok, obviously "ni**er" is not a nice word but what was the context? A training exercise that got leaked to the public?? 

 

Was it actually "private" though? I thought it was a corporate training exercise, which is not even remotely 'private" and very much the kind of situation where a pressured resignation would be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday

You're making my point for me.

 

Corporate training is internal.

How did the excerpts of this exercise become public? Someone had to leak it and then John has to admit it.

 

We the public never would've been privy to this nonsense if someone didn't decide that it had to be made public for the purposes of shaming Mr John.

And so I ask; where do they get the self-righteous nerve to clamor for his job and his livelihood? Did he say "ni**er" to the face of a black person with malicious intent? Obviously no. So all these people cheering on the sidelines better only be shaming him because they're all COMPLETELY innocent of ANYTHING similar... and yet you know that they're not. Because we're all just humans. The hypocrisy is stifling. I'll say it again; context is dead and our society is suffering for it. I don't even really care if it was private or public or not.

 

Context is truly the issue at heart. Without context language is meaningless, but context is under attack right now.

Edited by Doctor Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz

Yeah, that appeal to hypocrisy is a pretty weak argument and hasn't really got any traction outside of middle school classrooms. As for context, the only context that could have made the situation anything other than racist sh*t would be if this was a black person reclaiming and using the term. Since this isn't the case, it remains a piece of racist stupidity. The other examples you mention are also very far off the mark, since they have to do with (semantic) ambiguity which is cleared up only in context, while the N-word is not ambiguous in any sense. There's no doubt what it means, ever. Let me just say it's interesting that what truly worries you is not the fact that someone is a racist piece of sh*t, but the fact that they were caught. Very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Christ. Papa John getting his just desserts with a side of cheesy bread for dropping an N-bomb is the last thing I would expect anyone to complain about. We are, after all, talking about the same man that said the protests by NFL players was killing the NFL and thus his pizza sales, so I'm sure his use of the word 'ni**er' isn't just some sort of innocent indiscretion. Besides, Papa John's 'job'--which isn't an actual 'job', as he is not selling his labor power to anyone in exchange for a wage--and livelihood are built on the backs of his low-wage work force. f*ck the greasy Benny-from-New-Vegas-looking prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
2 hours ago, Doctor Holliday said:

Corporate training is internal.

How did the excerpts of this exercise become public? Someone had to leak it and then John has to admit it.

If a significant figure in a public role, such as the owner of a notable limited company, made a comment like that at an internal event I was attending I'd gladly leak it myself. I'm of the view that public figures should be held to high standards, and scrutiny on their personal views is entirely deserves and reasonable.

 

Frankly I'm astonished anyone would lament this. As for the impact to his "job and livelihood", he's absurdly wealthy. It's not like stepping down is going to bankrupt him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
2 hours ago, Fonz said:

Yeah, that appeal to hypocrisy is a pretty weak argument and hasn't really got any traction outside of middle school classrooms. As for context, the only context that could have made the situation anything other than racist sh*t would be if this was a black person reclaiming and using the term. Since this isn't the case, it remains a piece of racist stupidity. The other examples you mention are also very far off the mark, since they have to do with (semantic) ambiguity which is cleared up only in context, while the N-word is not ambiguous in any sense. There's no doubt what it means, ever. Let me just say it's interesting that what truly worries you is not the fact that someone is a racist piece of sh*t, but the fact that they were caught. Very nice.

Is this actually serious? We are supposed to all be pc babies that refer to the word 'nïgger' with 'n-word'? And if we don't we are supposedly 'racist pieces of sh*t'? That's just insane and ridiculous really. Surely context is everything regarding the use of the word 'nïgger'. Someone mentioning the word, and not being an n-word pc baby, is entirely different from someone calling people that way.

 

2 hours ago, make total destroy said:

Christ. Papa John getting his just desserts with a side of cheesy bread for dropping an N-bomb is the last thing I would expect anyone to complain about. We are, after all, talking about the same man that said the protests by NFL players was killing the NFL and thus his pizza sales

What he said according to the NY Times is "the company’s former chief executive suggested that its pizza sales had declined in part because of player protests during the national anthem." Is that such catastrophic and problematic thing to say. It seems a pretty matter of fact thing to say. But I guess CEO's can't say anything, because everything they say is extra racist, because they're CEO?

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fonz
29 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Is this actually serious? We are supposed to all be pc babies that refer to the word 'nïgger' with 'n-word'? And if we don't we are supposedly 'racist pieces of sh*t'? That's just insane and ridiculous really. Surely context is everything regarding the use of the word 'nïgger'. Someone mentioning the word, and not being an n-word pc baby, is entirely different from someone calling people that way.

Lol, nice gymnastics, but I think it's clear to any person gifted with the amazing power of discernment that I wasn't talking about referring to the word for the purpose of discussing it as a thing in itself (its origins or how it came to be widespread, its recuperation etc.). Given this wasn't a talk on etymology, sociology or power structures in language, it should be pretty clear that those situations don't apply. Obviously, nobody thinks a dictionary is racist for including racial slurs (if it does).

 

As for the "PC babies" bit, people sound much more like babies when they cry online about society not putting up with offensive or abusive nonsense. It betrays a certain sense of entitlement (to use a word liberals love so much) that is absolutely hilarious. It's even better when the edgier fellas double down and go on huge emotionally-charged rants about people being too emotional and PC nowadays or whatever it is with zero sense of irony. Of course the word can't and shouldn't be erased, but this obsession with being able to use it has a pretty obvious meaning and it definitely isn't pushed by a bunch of editors who just want to publish the unexpurgated works of Mark Twain. Everyone understands the difference between a "clinical description"--or historically legitimate preservation--and rampant racism, which is the former isn't really a cause for concern. The range of situations in which it is used non-abusively simply isn't wide enough to be ambiguous, and it's usually very specific. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
16 minutes ago, Fonz said:

Lol, nice gymnastics, but I think it's clear to any person gifted with the amazing power of discernment that I wasn't talking about referring to the word for the purpose of discussing it as a thing in itself (its origins or how it came to be widespread, its recuperation etc.). Given this wasn't a talk on etymology, sociology or power structures in language, it should be pretty clear that those situations don't apply. Obviously, nobody thinks a dictionary is racist for including racial slurs (if it does).

Which indicates context is everything. It matters whether he was discussing the word, which is the most common use for the word nïgger these days, or if he was referring to people that way. If he was referring to people that way, on his own initiative, in his function as CEO, then surely he should've been fired on the spot. But context and intent is everything.
 

Quote

people sound much more like babies when they cry online about society not putting up with offensive or abusive nonsense.

I agree people can be childish edgelords on this issue. And especially on the internet this is common. That's surely true.

 

But treating the word 'nïgger' as if it is Voldemort is also childish and hysterical. Pretending a word is so emotionally tainted that it can't be mentioned is emotionally unstable. You give a mere word more power than it deserves that way.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

Dude should have been persona non grata years ago for making such trash-ass pizza. How hard is it to make decent pizza? Just about as hard as it is to not say the n-word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Holliday
17 hours ago, make total destroy said:

Christ. Papa John getting his just desserts with a side of cheesy bread for dropping an N-bomb is the last thing I would expect anyone to complain about. We are, after all, talking about the same man that said the protests by NFL players was killing the NFL and thus his pizza sales, so I'm sure his use of the word 'ni**er' isn't just some sort of innocent indiscretion. Besides, Papa John's 'job'--which isn't an actual 'job', as he is not selling his labor power to anyone in exchange for a wage--and livelihood are built on the backs of his low-wage work force. f*ck the greasy Benny-from-New-Vegas-looking prick.

You're adding tons of context now which doesn't actually matter.

I'm talking about political correctness and how it relates to the use of language in public settings.

 

If you think Mr John is a douche in his personal life this really has no bearing on the issue in question as it relates to public free speech and professional consequences. We can talk about employee wages in another discussion but that's totally off topic right now...

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

he's absurdly wealthy. It's not like stepping down is going to bankrupt him. 

You've totally missed the point.

His personal wealth has nothing to do with the public consequences for less-than-politically-correct free speech. I could make the same arguments I've been making about a poor person and you've said nothing to counter that point. The point stands regardless of the man's personal finances.

17 hours ago, Fonz said:

Let me just say it's interesting that what truly worries you is not the fact that someone is a racist piece of sh*t, but the fact that they were caught. Very nice.

So you know what's inside of Mr John's heart and mind? You know he's an absolute racist? You'll bet your life savings on that? Are you his wife? Are you his intimate confidant? You know his deep, true intentions? You were in the room that day?

 

You're making my point for me.

Hyper political correctness is killing context which in turn is killing language and our ability to communicate on a level playing field. Why are there 2 rules for the same word? Context is everything. You can't label someone a racist for saying a word. It depends on why and how they said it. Are all rappers racist? Of course not.

 

You don't know Mr John.

Thanks again for making my point for me. Everyone rushing to their corners to judge each other, like judging the cover of a book, is killing American democracy and free speech.

Edited by Doctor Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 1 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.