Thursday, November 12, 2009
News Irshad Manji on Hardball
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM
It pains me to say it—it's always painful when you have to say this—but the Michelle Malkins of the world have a point: politically correct timidity seems to have prevented the Fort Hood shooter's colleagues from taking appropriate action against him before he shot and killed 13 soldiers. They were so afraid of being labeled "Islamophobic" that they refused to move against Maj. Nidal Hasan despite believing him to be psychotic because he was also "espousing... extremist Islamic views." If Hasan had merely been crazy they might have kicked his ass out. But he was crazy and a conservative/radical Muslim and no one wanted to appear intolerant. Irshad Manji correctly diagnoses the problem on Hardball yesterday:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The money quote: "We are willing to tolerate intolerance in order to be perceived as tolerant ourselves." And that's a mistake and it has to stop. Advocates of tolerance have to be aggressively and unapologetically intolerant of intolerance. Islamic bigots, Christian bigots, racist bigots—they're all aware of this weakness, this desire on the part of the tolerant to model tolerant behavior, and they actively exploit it. Call bullshit on their discriminatory and hateful political agendas and they whine, "You say you're all for tolerance but you're not willing to tolerate me when all I'm doing is attempting to discriminate against you!" And this moronic line of argument seems to paralyze people.
Look at it this way: Everyone agrees that violence is always wrong—except in self defense. It's wrong, for instance, to shoot people. But it wasn't wrong for that cop at Fort Hood to shoot Nidal Hasan. That was appropriate violence, violence employed to put a stop to violence, violence in self defense. Being intolerant is always wrong—except in defense of tolerance. That's appropriate intolerance, intolerance employed to put a stop to intolerance, tolerance acting in its own self defense.
Share via
1
What about the Christians you insult and devalue on this blog every day, Dan? Will you be more tolerant of them?
Not all of them are bigots. Yet you treat them all the same -- with disdain.
Not all of them are bigots. Yet you treat them all the same -- with disdain.
3
Well said dan. Just went I was starting to think you were crazy......you have to pull this logical reflective non-partisan b.s.!
YOUR money quote....."Being intolerant is always wrong—except in defense of tolerance. That's appropriate intolerance, intolerance employed to put a stop to intolerance."
YOUR money quote....."Being intolerant is always wrong—except in defense of tolerance. That's appropriate intolerance, intolerance employed to put a stop to intolerance."
4
@ 1 Did you even read this post? Savage is making an excellent point about being intolerant of "intolerance." When he posts about Christians here on SLOG he is posting about intolerant, bigoted Christians (that aren't acting very Christ-like). He is right to be intolerant of their un-Christian intolerance.
Could he post about Christians that aren't bigots and hypocrites, sure. Unfortunately Christians that aren't bigoted, hypocrites rarely make the news and therefore wouldn't appear on this blog. PS I am pretty sure Savage has mentioned Christians that actually support equal rights at least once on SLOG.
Could he post about Christians that aren't bigots and hypocrites, sure. Unfortunately Christians that aren't bigoted, hypocrites rarely make the news and therefore wouldn't appear on this blog. PS I am pretty sure Savage has mentioned Christians that actually support equal rights at least once on SLOG.
5
@2. Maybe you should take the place of some of those "intolerant" people. I am sure you would be more than willing to tolerate leaving your normal safe life to live in a war zone, right?
6
This meme that the Army wouldn't discharge Hassan because they were afraid of looking like islamophobes is bullshit. Hassan was trying to get out of the army. You're saying if they had accepted his request he would have turned around & cried foul? He even offered to pay back the tuition they paid.
The Army wouldn't discharge him because they are asshole who only care about bodies.
You're larger point is correct, but crediting the likes of Malkin is really fucking stupid.
The Army wouldn't discharge him because they are asshole who only care about bodies.
You're larger point is correct, but crediting the likes of Malkin is really fucking stupid.
7
I said almost the same thing here a couple of days ago, and the kooks came out of the woodwork to call me names. But it's true - no matter how tolerant you are, there are some things that can never be tolerated. A soldier in the U.S. Army whose loyalties lie with his religion before his country is one of them.
8
@6 I sort of agree. There's lots of 20/20 hindsight that always sounds suspiciously like Covering Your Ass behavior after incidents like this.
Review the ad naseum analyses of Columbine shootings, mass murders etc and people always jump back coupled with some form of "I just knew that was going to happen..."
Dan's argument isn't formed well, but the overarching point of being intolerant of intolerance seems true. If we could just get hypocrasy dull to a low simmer, things would change too.
Review the ad naseum analyses of Columbine shootings, mass murders etc and people always jump back coupled with some form of "I just knew that was going to happen..."
Dan's argument isn't formed well, but the overarching point of being intolerant of intolerance seems true. If we could just get hypocrasy dull to a low simmer, things would change too.
9
Let's not forget about the way that the Michelle Malkins of the world contribute to this problem. They act as the living examples of the hateful, frightened, bigoted people that reasonable people don't want to be, or feel like, or be percieved as.
10
I had been thinking the same thing - PC-ness really let us down here. And @6 - you're right that he was desperate to get out, but I'm willing to believe that the army is like many such huge institutions, where the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. The people who had suspicions about him may not have been aware that they could have had this easy "out".
11
@1 My exact thought.
Calling people of faith who have a different opinion to yours, bigots, douchebags, homophobes, nazis, and now terrorists. Spreading accusations against the Mormons, and all Christian churches saying that they should not be allowed to participate in the civil discourse in this nation. And racism, really? who has been the target here more, if not those uppity African Americans that don't get with the program, after all they owe so much according to him. He's not kidding anyone but himself here.
Calling people of faith who have a different opinion to yours, bigots, douchebags, homophobes, nazis, and now terrorists. Spreading accusations against the Mormons, and all Christian churches saying that they should not be allowed to participate in the civil discourse in this nation. And racism, really? who has been the target here more, if not those uppity African Americans that don't get with the program, after all they owe so much according to him. He's not kidding anyone but himself here.
12
if he'd said he was gay he'd have gotten out and all those kids would still be alive. the military is fucked up and apparently can't train a decent psychiatrist. doctor, heal thy colleague.
13
Yah, the problem with the military is that they're not violent enough against Muslims. You realize their mission is genocide against Muslim groups, right?
14
5280 FTW, of course. Hey Loveschild, what's more important, your religion or the USA? If you said religion, then move. The Constitution, not the bible, is the authority.
15
Zoroastronomer, the constitution allows even the Loveschilds of the world to place their religion above their country. But it does not grant that same privilege to a soldier.
16
Sigh, quite right. Also, though, in the vein of security, the fundies' precious "patriot" act could wind up biting them in the ass when it's proven it can be used on "real uhmurrikans" and not just brown people.
19
Typical slog strawman argument.
The shooter's colleagues weren't tolerant of his views- they were afraid to act to remove him.
Afraid because of a climate of Liberal PC.
The antidote to intolerance is not more intolerance.
It is education.
Dan is trying to justify his own ignorance fueled hate, bigotry and intolerance.
He doesn't know any actual Christians- he gets his world view from the crap he googles endlessly.
He focuses on the .01% of religious people who turn up on his searches without ever interacting with the millions of kind caring giving people of all faiths that are the backbone of our society.
His attitude toward people of faith is exactly like the racist bigot's attitude toward blacks- fueled by paranoia and an intellectually lazy steady diet of horror stories and inuendo and urban legend- totally void of any human interaction.
"Bigot" is Dan's N word- he hisses it at anyone who disagrees with him as thoughtlessly and automatically as the racist spews "Nigger" at anyone black.
Dan's formulae has been tried as long as man has lived- and continues with spectacular violence and bloodshed and failure- in the Middle East, and before that in Ireland, and so on.
Hate never cures hate.
It just adds to the hate.
Intolerance won't cure intolerance.
It just swells the pool of intolerant haters.
The shooter's colleagues weren't tolerant of his views- they were afraid to act to remove him.
Afraid because of a climate of Liberal PC.
The antidote to intolerance is not more intolerance.
It is education.
Dan is trying to justify his own ignorance fueled hate, bigotry and intolerance.
He doesn't know any actual Christians- he gets his world view from the crap he googles endlessly.
He focuses on the .01% of religious people who turn up on his searches without ever interacting with the millions of kind caring giving people of all faiths that are the backbone of our society.
His attitude toward people of faith is exactly like the racist bigot's attitude toward blacks- fueled by paranoia and an intellectually lazy steady diet of horror stories and inuendo and urban legend- totally void of any human interaction.
"Bigot" is Dan's N word- he hisses it at anyone who disagrees with him as thoughtlessly and automatically as the racist spews "Nigger" at anyone black.
Dan's formulae has been tried as long as man has lived- and continues with spectacular violence and bloodshed and failure- in the Middle East, and before that in Ireland, and so on.
Hate never cures hate.
It just adds to the hate.
Intolerance won't cure intolerance.
It just swells the pool of intolerant haters.
20
"Everyone agrees that violence is always wrong—except in self defense. It's wrong, for instance, to shoot people. But it wasn't wrong for that cop at Fort Hood to shoot Nidal Hasan"
Actually a very sizeable portion of the liberal left in this nation espouses moral relativsm and condemns the use of violence by us against the germans and japanese, for example, or after 9-11 all my liberal buddies in seattle seemed to agree "hopefully this will allow us to study our own nation's conduct in the middle east" or some other passive bullshit that amounted to saying (but too scared to say it): "god damn right, we need to get our troops out of the middle east, so we had it coming actually."
Similarly, while Israel has some crimes on its scorecard, many systematically ignore the ardent and persistent desire of many nations and peoples to push Israel's Hews into the sea and their violent rocket attacks on them.
So, no, in fact, not everyone agrees violence in self defense is okay. It kind of weakens the left in this nation opening us up to charges of being stupid (sometimes correct) or unpatriotic (not correct).
So on one hand thanks for pointing out that violence is actually GOOD sometimes (hard to swallow, PC liberals, but there it is) and let's reclaim the Rooseveltian package which includes blasing economic royalists AND defending the USA AND standing up for freedom abroad (um, except when we can't do it, as when we gave away half of europe to the commies....the counterargument that our power is limited is valuable, too).
You're welcome.
Actually a very sizeable portion of the liberal left in this nation espouses moral relativsm and condemns the use of violence by us against the germans and japanese, for example, or after 9-11 all my liberal buddies in seattle seemed to agree "hopefully this will allow us to study our own nation's conduct in the middle east" or some other passive bullshit that amounted to saying (but too scared to say it): "god damn right, we need to get our troops out of the middle east, so we had it coming actually."
Similarly, while Israel has some crimes on its scorecard, many systematically ignore the ardent and persistent desire of many nations and peoples to push Israel's Hews into the sea and their violent rocket attacks on them.
So, no, in fact, not everyone agrees violence in self defense is okay. It kind of weakens the left in this nation opening us up to charges of being stupid (sometimes correct) or unpatriotic (not correct).
So on one hand thanks for pointing out that violence is actually GOOD sometimes (hard to swallow, PC liberals, but there it is) and let's reclaim the Rooseveltian package which includes blasing economic royalists AND defending the USA AND standing up for freedom abroad (um, except when we can't do it, as when we gave away half of europe to the commies....the counterargument that our power is limited is valuable, too).
You're welcome.
21
For example, the above comment is entirely stupid. "Hate never cures hate" well in fact we kicked the royal shit out of the nazis and the japanese and we nuked the japanese and this made them surrender saving what about 2 million of our boys' lives in an immoral war that they the japanese and the nazis had started.
They were wrong.
We were right to fight back including w horrific violence.
And this proves that morally justified violence DOES CURE HATE you idiot because when is the last time you heard the German or Japanese nation or peoples try to claim the USA committed war crimes?
WE don't hear a complaint out of the people we killed buddy.
Because they know we were right, and they were wrong.
Your "moral equalivalence"" seeing all violence as equal is both morally wrong and profoundly idiotic and stupid because in history there are MANY example of good violence as in:
-our fight against english to be a nation, duh
--Union fighting south to fucking free the slaves. What, you would have preferred we did not have that fight so they could still be slaves? Idiotic.
--our side in WW2
-and today our side in some of our actions in so called war on terror )others were wrong, duh).
Go ahead, please explapin how the union army violence in the civil war was "hate that breeds hate" and so it would have been better if the union just let the south secede and keep all black people in chains. Try to explain yourself. thank you.
(BTW here's another example of good violence: every single slave revolt ever. We should have 5 holidays in the USA commending Nate Turner and Bras Coupe and others...folks you've never even heard about. They were using violence for liberty, too and how DARE you condemn them with your tired idiotic cliche that "hate only breeds hate"... I wish some of them had suceeded but I guess you take the side of the slave holders, mm?)
More...
They were wrong.
We were right to fight back including w horrific violence.
And this proves that morally justified violence DOES CURE HATE you idiot because when is the last time you heard the German or Japanese nation or peoples try to claim the USA committed war crimes?
WE don't hear a complaint out of the people we killed buddy.
Because they know we were right, and they were wrong.
Your "moral equalivalence"" seeing all violence as equal is both morally wrong and profoundly idiotic and stupid because in history there are MANY example of good violence as in:
-our fight against english to be a nation, duh
--Union fighting south to fucking free the slaves. What, you would have preferred we did not have that fight so they could still be slaves? Idiotic.
--our side in WW2
-and today our side in some of our actions in so called war on terror )others were wrong, duh).
Go ahead, please explapin how the union army violence in the civil war was "hate that breeds hate" and so it would have been better if the union just let the south secede and keep all black people in chains. Try to explain yourself. thank you.
(BTW here's another example of good violence: every single slave revolt ever. We should have 5 holidays in the USA commending Nate Turner and Bras Coupe and others...folks you've never even heard about. They were using violence for liberty, too and how DARE you condemn them with your tired idiotic cliche that "hate only breeds hate"... I wish some of them had suceeded but I guess you take the side of the slave holders, mm?)
22
They allow this insane asshole to stay in but continue to discharge gay men and women for no reason. Boggles the mind.
23
You are such an idiot.
Remember Steven Green? The psycho who raped an Iraqi girl then killed her and her family? The military knew he was crazy and didn't give a shit. And what about the many members of the military who rape female service members and NEVER get punished for it? The military never gets rid of crazy and/or violent service members unless it's forced to.
Your paranoia is showing. Again.
Remember Steven Green? The psycho who raped an Iraqi girl then killed her and her family? The military knew he was crazy and didn't give a shit. And what about the many members of the military who rape female service members and NEVER get punished for it? The military never gets rid of crazy and/or violent service members unless it's forced to.
Your paranoia is showing. Again.
24
"How DARE those Jews in Warsaw use VIOLENCE against the Nazis-- don't they KNOW, hate only breeds hate!"
26
Who determines who is intolerant? If I support gun control am I being intolerant against people who own guns? How do you not tolerate intolerance? Laws? Restrictions of Speech?
27
Nobody in this country is particularly tolerant of anyone or anything, just good at ignoring it.
Occasionally we regret it, (i.e. the Fort Hood shootings) but we've managed to Twitter away our attention spans to the degree that we can quickly forget almost anything.
This will all be forgotten by next week, and we will be on to the next issue du juor.
Occasionally we regret it, (i.e. the Fort Hood shootings) but we've managed to Twitter away our attention spans to the degree that we can quickly forget almost anything.
This will all be forgotten by next week, and we will be on to the next issue du juor.
28
@11
"Spreading accusations against the Mormons"
What accusations weren't true?
And that's still a dowdy, ugly housedress om your female/drag queen icon.
"Spreading accusations against the Mormons"
What accusations weren't true?
And that's still a dowdy, ugly housedress om your female/drag queen icon.
30
21
silly girl.
you equate 'hate' and 'violence' and 'warefare'.
@19 never mentioned violence.
it wasn't hate or violence that turned the Germans and Japanese into democratic allies after ww2.
it was generous treatment and education about democracy.
nations have been defeated by violence and hate and come right back for more.
the germans lost a violent bloody war in 1918 but 20 years later were at it again.
the US treatment of the Germans and Japanese is unique and was successful because of the lack of violence and hate.
wars waged to mantain freedom, such as the Federal Army in the Civil War, are not examples of hate.
and it was not violence and hate that brought racial harmony to our country- it was tolerance and understanding. the nation followed MLK and not the Black Panthers.
In the Middle East, on the other hand, round after round of violence and hate have only generated more of the same.
Hate never cures hate.
It just adds to the hate.
Intolerance won't cure intolerance.
It just swells the pool of intolerant haters.
silly girl.
you equate 'hate' and 'violence' and 'warefare'.
@19 never mentioned violence.
it wasn't hate or violence that turned the Germans and Japanese into democratic allies after ww2.
it was generous treatment and education about democracy.
nations have been defeated by violence and hate and come right back for more.
the germans lost a violent bloody war in 1918 but 20 years later were at it again.
the US treatment of the Germans and Japanese is unique and was successful because of the lack of violence and hate.
wars waged to mantain freedom, such as the Federal Army in the Civil War, are not examples of hate.
and it was not violence and hate that brought racial harmony to our country- it was tolerance and understanding. the nation followed MLK and not the Black Panthers.
In the Middle East, on the other hand, round after round of violence and hate have only generated more of the same.
Hate never cures hate.
It just adds to the hate.
Intolerance won't cure intolerance.
It just swells the pool of intolerant haters.
31
@ 19
You are both angry and incorrect. Either that or I'm a figment of your imagination that can type. It maybe more correct to say that Dan doesn't know any Christians who act like relgious bullies, but you would need him to personally confirm that for you.
You are both angry and incorrect. Either that or I'm a figment of your imagination that can type. It maybe more correct to say that Dan doesn't know any Christians who act like relgious bullies, but you would need him to personally confirm that for you.
32
It is unfair to read too much into Dan's vitriol.
It is his schtick.
Beck cries.
Rush pontificates.
Dan does spittle spewing tirades about ASSHOLES and BIGOTS.
It's what he does to drive hits.
(you know- slog gets ZILLIONS of unique hits every day...)
Dan isn't REALLY a hatemongering intolerant bigot.
He just plays one on slog.
He's really just a media whore spreading his cheeks for hits.
It is his schtick.
Beck cries.
Rush pontificates.
Dan does spittle spewing tirades about ASSHOLES and BIGOTS.
It's what he does to drive hits.
(you know- slog gets ZILLIONS of unique hits every day...)
Dan isn't REALLY a hatemongering intolerant bigot.
He just plays one on slog.
He's really just a media whore spreading his cheeks for hits.
33
@1
Yes, Dan treats all Christians like shit, and he's wrong (and small-minded) to do this, but I do respect that he's at least honest about his opinions instead of sugar-coating them with a layer of passive-aggressive bullshit.
If there had been a bit less sugar-coating and pussy-footing in this Fort Hood situation, maybe this fucked up shit wouldn't have happened. Excellent post.
Yes, Dan treats all Christians like shit, and he's wrong (and small-minded) to do this, but I do respect that he's at least honest about his opinions instead of sugar-coating them with a layer of passive-aggressive bullshit.
If there had been a bit less sugar-coating and pussy-footing in this Fort Hood situation, maybe this fucked up shit wouldn't have happened. Excellent post.
34
31
We're sure Dan is terribly fond of adoring fan 'Christians' who assure him that the Bible and God endorse Sodomy.
We're sure Dan is terribly fond of adoring fan 'Christians' who assure him that the Bible and God endorse Sodomy.
35
@1, @19, @33, and @34,
You are all welcome to your opinion on Dan's feelings for all Christians. We will disagree.
And, @ 34, your welcome to your own biblical interpretations as well.
You are all welcome to your opinion on Dan's feelings for all Christians. We will disagree.
And, @ 34, your welcome to your own biblical interpretations as well.
36
There are a lot of Americans who hate America.
Not all are Republic Party of No extremists - some are Muslims.
Not all are Republic Party of No extremists - some are Muslims.
37
@34, hmmm, the bible I read says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "Do not judge, lest ye be judged."
38
@31
I plead not guilty.
I am neither angry nor incorrect.
Dan cherry picks (and often invents) the worst episodes vaguely involving people associated with religion and uses them to form negative generalizations that he applies to all Christians.
All Fundamentalists.
All Mormons.
All Catholics.
It is the essence of bigotry.
(wiki: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion. --sound familiar?)
Dan would destroy religion and the overwhelming good it does in society because of the elements of some beliefs he disagrees with.
Irrational.
Do you read Slog? Do you disagree that Dan has animosity to Christians? Hatred?
I don't know you-
but if you are a friend of Dan's and a "good" Christian it doesn't seem to have affected his outlook.
Perhaps Dan has Christian friends in the same way that Pat Boone has gay friends...
I plead not guilty.
I am neither angry nor incorrect.
Dan cherry picks (and often invents) the worst episodes vaguely involving people associated with religion and uses them to form negative generalizations that he applies to all Christians.
All Fundamentalists.
All Mormons.
All Catholics.
It is the essence of bigotry.
(wiki: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion. --sound familiar?)
Dan would destroy religion and the overwhelming good it does in society because of the elements of some beliefs he disagrees with.
Irrational.
Do you read Slog? Do you disagree that Dan has animosity to Christians? Hatred?
I don't know you-
but if you are a friend of Dan's and a "good" Christian it doesn't seem to have affected his outlook.
Perhaps Dan has Christian friends in the same way that Pat Boone has gay friends...
39
The phrase "politically correct" is so 1992. PC my ass. This scenario makes perfect sense to me. Forcing islamist nutjobs to stay in the armed forces helps us win the hearts and minds of those who live in occupied territory. Allowing willing and able homosexuals in the armed forces puts our troops at risk.
The more you know...
The more you know...
40
@37
It also says
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
How do you interpret that, @35?
It also says
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
How do you interpret that, @35?
41
@38
You're absolutely correct - great post. The starstruck groupies sometimes have trouble seeing things clearly.
You're absolutely correct - great post. The starstruck groupies sometimes have trouble seeing things clearly.
42
@37&@40- The bible also says "My brother Esau is a hairy man." In fact, Esau was so hairy that a goat's skin could be mistaken for Esau's arm. As a hairy man, I find that very comforting.
43
I could find a bunch of tards who might say this blog post smacks of hypocrisy (if they weren't so dang 'tarded!).
44
I just want to present a different viewpoint here: The guy was not acting on religious or political views. His research with Muslims in his last days involved finding out whether suicide was acceptable to his God. He found it wasn't. He was suicidal and since he couldn't off himself decided to go and kill people until someone killed him... (death by cop)
45
Oh, he'll get death alright, Subwlf: 13 counts of first degree murder were filed against him today. Wonder if the ragheads think that qualifies him as a "martyr." Probably. Too fucking bad he's in for a big surprise.
47
The Untolerant
As we know,
There are tolerant tolerances.
There are things we know we tolerate.
We also know
There are tolerant intolerants.
That is to say
We tolerate some things
We do not want to tolerate.
But there is also intolerant intolerance,
The ones we don't tolerate
With tolerance.
—with regrets to D.H. Rumsfeld. Adapted from his talk of Feb. 12, 2002, at Department of Defense news briefing (The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld)
48
There is "overwhelming good" religion "does in society"? Do I really have to list the endless atrocities that have been carried out in the name of god?
Oh, you mean feeding the homeless? Yeah, that makes up for genocide.
Oh, you mean feeding the homeless? Yeah, that makes up for genocide.
49
Right on @30. This is exactly why we are losing the "war on terror" - our violence has only bolstered the Taliban. Same thing with Israel - fighting between them and the Palestinians is only making the situation more unstable.
50
Jesus Fucking Christ! Shut! Up! you festering pile of fat.
He has two, by the sound of it, exceedingly knowledgeable people on his show and all he does is yell yell yell and drown them out. Is this what qualifies as TV these days? Christ.
He has two, by the sound of it, exceedingly knowledgeable people on his show and all he does is yell yell yell and drown them out. Is this what qualifies as TV these days? Christ.
51
Confluence @38,
So you believe that he treated his mother, a Christian like shit? The word "all", includes her as well. And you said, "Yes, Dan treats all Christians like shit, and he's wrong (and small-minded) to do this, but I do respect that he's at least honest about his opinions instead of sugar-coating them with a layer of passive-aggressive bullshit." So you must have known his mother well to determine he treated her like shit? Or, your choice of the word "all", was hyperbole?
That's my point. Dan makes blanket statements and apply them to certain groups and individuals, but he doesn't apply then to "all" groups and individuals. There are exceptions, his mother in particular, that negate the word "all". Just as you eloquently argued your opinion, that not "all" individuals who decline to vote for marriage equalilty are bigots. Frankly, blanket statements suck, none of us should make them.
I'll take "starstruck groupie" as a compliment. So, thank you.
So you believe that he treated his mother, a Christian like shit? The word "all", includes her as well. And you said, "Yes, Dan treats all Christians like shit, and he's wrong (and small-minded) to do this, but I do respect that he's at least honest about his opinions instead of sugar-coating them with a layer of passive-aggressive bullshit." So you must have known his mother well to determine he treated her like shit? Or, your choice of the word "all", was hyperbole?
That's my point. Dan makes blanket statements and apply them to certain groups and individuals, but he doesn't apply then to "all" groups and individuals. There are exceptions, his mother in particular, that negate the word "all". Just as you eloquently argued your opinion, that not "all" individuals who decline to vote for marriage equalilty are bigots. Frankly, blanket statements suck, none of us should make them.
I'll take "starstruck groupie" as a compliment. So, thank you.
52
This post might make sense if Dan could point to even one person who ever got in trouble for bad-mouthing Muslims. PC my ass. It's not hard to find stuff like this:
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?New…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07m…
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?New…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/07m…
54
This "We're too PC" meme is, in general, bullshit. In this specific case, it also probably bullshit. A refutation here: http://www.salon.com/news/fort_hood_shoo…
55
Funny, I always find the more religious a person is the more bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant they are. "God" (or rather their religious leader) does their thinking for them. They can't be bothered to do it themselves.
56
Christopher S @ 38 - Funny, IRLs I'm a Christopher S too, and I couldn't disagree with you (or Loveschild or the others) any more powerfully. Religion does overwhelming good? If I had to weigh all its charitable works and recovered alcoholics against, oh, the damage of anti-gay laws & attitudes, and holy wars and the whole nine thousand yards, .... Fuck religion. And it's funny how Dan's post is referred to as spittle-throwing and angry etc etc, when its tone - in purely literary terms - was practically cordial. Allow me to throw the spit -
Christianity is shit, Islam is shit, and I honestly wouldn't blame either for the actions of a lone psycho, but - y'know - I wish hell was real so people like you could meet Falwell and Torquemada etc in person, instead of just rotting peacefully when you go. Which you will.
Guess I'm getting a bit off topic. Have a nice day.
-
Christianity is shit, Islam is shit, and I honestly wouldn't blame either for the actions of a lone psycho, but - y'know - I wish hell was real so people like you could meet Falwell and Torquemada etc in person, instead of just rotting peacefully when you go. Which you will.
Guess I'm getting a bit off topic. Have a nice day.
-
57
If a professor presents an inspired useful course he might be due some credit for the student who mastered and applied the material and went on to benefit himself and his community.
If the class also contained a dope-smoking slacker who paid no attention and was kicked out of class in the second week and went on to be a failure and a burden to society should the same professor be condemned?
You condemn religion for the actions of those who pervert and distort it.
Not very reasonable.
We don't judge all homosexuals based on Jeffery Dahmer...
If the class also contained a dope-smoking slacker who paid no attention and was kicked out of class in the second week and went on to be a failure and a burden to society should the same professor be condemned?
You condemn religion for the actions of those who pervert and distort it.
Not very reasonable.
We don't judge all homosexuals based on Jeffery Dahmer...
58
Pervert and distort? You know that before Henry and Martin Luther, the catholic church was the last word in european christianity? The barbarians that were so hungry when they burned a path through eastern christendom that they started eating their victims? Gays have a handful of cannibal wackjobs, your side has an army of them. Not to mention a lot of famous closet cases, lest you imagine the world is divided between you and gays neatly and discreetly.
60
You can only educate someone if they'll listen to you. Sometimes you have to use the 'cheap' method of overstatement/oversimplification to get people to listen.
@ 19, etc. Dan grew up Catholic, didn't he? I understand; I grew up surrounded by incredibly doctrinated Southern Baptists myself. The argument that Dan is wary of Christians because he doesn't know any doesn't hold water; many (most?) people who are wary of Christians are that way because we've known too many evil ones.
Dan's rhetorical method also stems partially from this upbringing. Many Christians are used to hearing things presented in the anecdote, punch line, black/white argument form. I agree that education is the best way to change people's minds. But you can't educate someone who thinks you're the enemy from the start. Sometimes using the same rhetorical method that Christians are used to is the only way to get through to some of them. In fact, screw the Christian part; the short B/W arguments are, unfortunately, the only way to get through to most people (I cite TV commercials winning elections for politicians). Only once they'll listen to you can you educate them and make it stick.
@ 19, etc. Dan grew up Catholic, didn't he? I understand; I grew up surrounded by incredibly doctrinated Southern Baptists myself. The argument that Dan is wary of Christians because he doesn't know any doesn't hold water; many (most?) people who are wary of Christians are that way because we've known too many evil ones.
Dan's rhetorical method also stems partially from this upbringing. Many Christians are used to hearing things presented in the anecdote, punch line, black/white argument form. I agree that education is the best way to change people's minds. But you can't educate someone who thinks you're the enemy from the start. Sometimes using the same rhetorical method that Christians are used to is the only way to get through to some of them. In fact, screw the Christian part; the short B/W arguments are, unfortunately, the only way to get through to most people (I cite TV commercials winning elections for politicians). Only once they'll listen to you can you educate them and make it stick.
61
@60
"...people who are wary of Christians are that way because we've known too many evil ones."
Exactly the point.
The "evil ones" are not following Christian teachings and are not in fact "christians" (despite what they may 'self identify' as...), and there are plenty of "good ones" who do and are.
Judging the philosophy based on the actions of people who clearly do not adhere to it is simply foolish.
Condemning an entire group containing hundreds of millions of people based on unpleasant anecdotal personal encounters is the foundation of prejudice and bigotry.
There are "good" people of faith who do great good and benefit society.
Either Dan is unaware of that fact or willfully overlooks it- ignorance or malice, both fuelstuffs of bigotry.
Are Southerners entitled to be racist if they have personally "... known too many evil ones"?
Are gay bashers justified if they have "... known too many evil ones"?
I really doubt that in his entire childhood Dan never encountered any people of faith who were also good (and better for their beliefs..) but if Dan's upbringing causes him to have issues with Catholic Doctrine (or yours with Baptist) then perhaps his "hate" might be better directed in arguing those points rather than condemning everyone and everything remotely associated with religion.
"...people who are wary of Christians are that way because we've known too many evil ones."
Exactly the point.
The "evil ones" are not following Christian teachings and are not in fact "christians" (despite what they may 'self identify' as...), and there are plenty of "good ones" who do and are.
Judging the philosophy based on the actions of people who clearly do not adhere to it is simply foolish.
Condemning an entire group containing hundreds of millions of people based on unpleasant anecdotal personal encounters is the foundation of prejudice and bigotry.
There are "good" people of faith who do great good and benefit society.
Either Dan is unaware of that fact or willfully overlooks it- ignorance or malice, both fuelstuffs of bigotry.
Are Southerners entitled to be racist if they have personally "... known too many evil ones"?
Are gay bashers justified if they have "... known too many evil ones"?
I really doubt that in his entire childhood Dan never encountered any people of faith who were also good (and better for their beliefs..) but if Dan's upbringing causes him to have issues with Catholic Doctrine (or yours with Baptist) then perhaps his "hate" might be better directed in arguing those points rather than condemning everyone and everything remotely associated with religion.
62
The Sun and the Wind saw a man walking and made a wager who could persuade him to take off his coat. (...to remove the barrier that surrounded him- to open himself up to new ideas...)
The Wind went first. He angrily blew against the man. Nothing happened. He blew harder and more fiercely and more belligerently and louder. His 'arguments' were fierce in-your-face 'Fuck You!' black and white simplifications.
The man only drew his coat tighter and tighter around himself.
The Sun took his turn. He smiled brightly and warmly on the man. He bathed him in considerate thoughtful reasoned discourse. Soon the man removed his coat.
Foul obscene hateful bluster will never open the doors of communication or understanding. It will only strengthen barriers and animosity and hostility.
Perhaps Dan's upbringing makes him incapable of understanding this. Or unwilling to accept it. If so he deserves our sympathy.
But if he truly cares about the 'Cause' he will recuse himself. David Duke never did anything to improve race relations, either.
The Wind went first. He angrily blew against the man. Nothing happened. He blew harder and more fiercely and more belligerently and louder. His 'arguments' were fierce in-your-face 'Fuck You!' black and white simplifications.
The man only drew his coat tighter and tighter around himself.
The Sun took his turn. He smiled brightly and warmly on the man. He bathed him in considerate thoughtful reasoned discourse. Soon the man removed his coat.
Foul obscene hateful bluster will never open the doors of communication or understanding. It will only strengthen barriers and animosity and hostility.
Perhaps Dan's upbringing makes him incapable of understanding this. Or unwilling to accept it. If so he deserves our sympathy.
But if he truly cares about the 'Cause' he will recuse himself. David Duke never did anything to improve race relations, either.
63
Dan is 100% right. If he were a white supremist and was spouting off that kind of hate speech towards blacks, hispanics, jews, and gays the left would been in a rage that his behavior didn't cause action to be taken against him.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
This Shit Will Never Get Old by Eli Sanders
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (63) RSS