-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 12:47:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  The Non-USA Politics Thread
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: The Non-USA Politics Thread  (Read 14017 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2012, 01:11:49 PM »

Is it part of your political philosophy which led to this defeatism? A small individual cannot affect change at all...how sad. Would the world attention have turned toward China if that one man wearing the backpack had not stood in front of that tank column and a photographer not have taken the photo?

Since you can't actually come up with an example that involves only one person, I can assume the point is moot.

That being said, we might be quibbling over a definition of change. By change I mean, destroying the institution of slavery, giving women the vote, shifiting a country from totalitarian tyranny to participatory democracy, etc. These things cannot be done by one person alone - it takes an enormous effort carried out by many people. If you consider it nihilistic and cynical to highlight the fact that people get things done when they work together, that's fine but personally I disagree.

Quote
Would the world attention have turned toward China if that one man wearing the backpack had not stood in front of that tank column and a photographer not have taken the photo? So in essence you have the "small" efforts of two men whose names most folks don't even know bringing attention to something which would have been tanks running roughshod through a country.

Excuse me, but isn't somewhat problematic to believe that change occurred when "we" became active participants in the struggle in China? Jesus Christ, there were half a million dedicated activists involved in that struggle but you're saying that that doesn't count as leading to change because they didn't make people in the Western world aware of the problem? Again, this is a textbook example of Western self-centeredness to suggest that effective change can only occur once we take notice of it. Until that happens, the dedicated work of hundreds of thousands of people working together is meaningless. That "one man wearing the backpack" was part of a much larger struggle that involved many people who were dedicated to solving problems that were happening in their country. The "man in the backpack" along with the hundreds of thousands of other activists were taking matters into their own hands to create change for themselves in their community - they weren't trying to manufacture images so that the Western world could swoop in with their all important sympathy. Sorry if you think that I am dismissing this one man but your example serves to largely dismiss the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people involved in a popular struggle.

Quote
Just don't play the racism card to explain away some problems which should receive more attention.

When did I do that?

Quote
Then I guess according to your defeatist logic, all of the attention on Darfur, Tibet, other parts of Africa, China's human rights offenses and their abuses and persecution of groups like the Falun Gong...is it not worth it to call attention through public protests, speeches at the UN, etc.?

Of course it's worth it.

Quote
Tell Richard Gere, George Clooney, et al not to waste their time because they're small individuals who can't affect change.

I was unaware that they were working entirely by themselves without anybody's help.

Quote
I'm just curious why similar attention isn't brought out and the light shone on regions living under Islamic law where human rights abuses on a level with or equal to those happening in more publicized cases.

It's brought out all the time.

Quote
Are people in general who do not closely follow world affairs aware of what life in these Islamic-ruled countries is like? It's not "imperialistic" to suggest there is something wrong with societies that openly discriminate based on gender, sexuality, and religious beliefs and persecute violators with penalties including execution.

No, but it is imperialistic to believe that it is our responsibility to do something about it.

Quote
The racist charge is so old there is no glue left on it to stick to anything. In one way, you're correct, it isn't 40 years ago and people who care are more aware and less naive today to accept labels and baseless generalizations.

Since I didn't make a racist charge, we can put this one to bed.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 01:35:00 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2012, 01:18:59 PM »

Apart from all of that, it saddens me in a way to see some of those on the political side which is known for upholding freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of artists to produce and display art without censorship and codes of speech suggesting the filmmakers of this thing supposedly causing an uproar now calling for some arrest, investigation, or prosecution in the matter.

Such a call is nothing but hypocrisy. Period.

Again, who are you talking to?

Quote
If those suggesting these low-rent filmmakers be subject to charges of some kind, then I guess they were the same ones calling for censorship, banning, fines, arrests, etc in years past when various pieces of art, music, literature, etc were targeted and blamed for all kinds of maladies and criminal activities.

Who here is suggesting that?

Quote
Don't do that, don't defend all of those artists no matter their skill or experience, no matter the "quality" of their product...don't suggest freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom to dissent and disagree with accepted opinions...and then turn around and suggest a piece of sh*t low-budget film and its creators are responsible for the violent reactions of some and should be charged criminally as a result.

Saying what is perfectly true - that this film bears some responsibility for the violence that is currently occurring (as per their own admission) - is not synonymous with saying they "should be charged criminally as a result." If they were charged, I would defend them. Not that I care. I don't particularly think the issue of the film is that important. This whole conversation started because I merely offered a suggestion to you as to why people are focusing on the film and apparently even offering a suggestion is so offensive to you, that your response was to throw a tantrum in which you did nothing but ask me a series of questions based on groundless assumptions.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 01:22:26 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2012, 01:33:58 PM »

I don't recall there being a race of people called "Muslim", most often it's used to identify a set of religious beliefs, like "Christian", "Jewish", "Buddhist", etc.

An individual could accept the beliefs of a religion like Islam and therefore convert as a believer in and follower of that religion, therefore that individual would become a "Muslim".

I don't think it's possible to convert to another race.

So how is it possible to equate the term "anti-Muslim" with racism or race in general? 


I agree, the terms are tricky but I basically agree with Alan Johnson's analysis in World Affairs. He noted:

When any religion is treated as a fixed dogma, conceived in wholly negative terms as alien and threatening to “us,” and as reflecting the essence of its adherents, then the line between criticism of religious belief and racism can blur, and we may slide into excluding and denigrating an entire group of people.

To talk about Islam in this way — as some European commentators and politicians do — risks fostering what Alan Posener, replying to Pascal Bruckner, has called “a kind of xenophobia wrapped in religious terms.”
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2012, 02:11:09 PM »

I don't recall there being a race of people called "Muslim", most often it's used to identify a set of religious beliefs, like "Christian", "Jewish", "Buddhist", etc.

An individual could accept the beliefs of a religion like Islam and therefore convert as a believer in and follower of that religion, therefore that individual would become a "Muslim".

I don't think it's possible to convert to another race.

So how is it possible to equate the term "anti-Muslim" with racism or race in general?  




I agree, the terms are tricky but I basically agree with Alan Johnson's analysis in World Affairs. He noted:

When any religion is treated as a fixed dogma, conceived in wholly negative terms as alien and threatening to “us,” and as reflecting the essence of its adherents, then the line between criticism of religious belief and racism can blur, and we may slide into excluding and denigrating an entire group of people.

To talk about Islam in this way — as some European commentators and politicians do — risks fostering what Alan Posener, replying to Pascal Bruckner, has called “a kind of xenophobia wrapped in religious terms.”


I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense (bullsh*t, in other words) coming from Mr. Johnson, totally ignorant of not only facts but ignorant of human physiology and biology in general to suggest religion and race are in any way relative. It's fine to try to justify one's opinion but that notion is laughable, and I laugh it off instead of getting fired up over someone's convoluted attempt to redefine "race" as something other than a genetic trait people are born with and have *NO CHOICE* in the matter. Versus religion, which of course we are free to pick and choose which one to believe, if any at all.

I've seen some wild justifications for calling someone or something "racist" in the past, but that one is such a whopper I think it's near the top of my list of the most batsh*t-crazy things I've seen in a political discussion.  Smiley  Well, maybe it's up there with those parents of kids  who play a game of soccer where a score isn't kept and where every kid gets a championship trophy...not for winning, but just for showing up. Just suspend all common sense and men like Johnson and the non-score-keeping types make perfect sense.

You can't suspend common sense and believe all that, I hope...

But it was entertaining to hear a justification for hurling the tag of "racism" where it doesn't even fit a logical definition of that term. Ahh, the state of politics in 2012.



« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 02:13:37 PM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2012, 05:18:14 PM »

So long.
Logged
Paulos
Guest
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2012, 02:21:34 AM »

Jeez guys, give it up! Arguing about politics/political views is pointless, over the past few weeks in both this thread and the Romney thread have you managed to change each others viewpoints? No, you are never going to agree and you are both on the verge of getting personal, please stop.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2012, 08:46:20 AM »

Apart from all of that, it saddens me in a way to see some of those on the political side which is known for upholding freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of artists to produce and display art without censorship and codes of speech suggesting the filmmakers of this thing supposedly causing an uproar now calling for some arrest, investigation, or prosecution in the matter.

Such a call is nothing but hypocrisy. Period.

Again, who are you talking to?

Quote
If those suggesting these low-rent filmmakers be subject to charges of some kind, then I guess they were the same ones calling for censorship, banning, fines, arrests, etc in years past when various pieces of art, music, literature, etc were targeted and blamed for all kinds of maladies and criminal activities.

Who here is suggesting that?

Quote
Don't do that, don't defend all of those artists no matter their skill or experience, no matter the "quality" of their product...don't suggest freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom to dissent and disagree with accepted opinions...and then turn around and suggest a piece of sh*t low-budget film and its creators are responsible for the violent reactions of some and should be charged criminally as a result.

Saying what is perfectly true - that this film bears some responsibility for the violence that is currently occurring (as per their own admission) - is not synonymous with saying they "should be charged criminally as a result." If they were charged, I would defend them. Not that I care. I don't particularly think the issue of the film is that important. This whole conversation started because I merely offered a suggestion to you as to why people are focusing on the film and apparently even offering a suggestion is so offensive to you, that your response was to throw a tantrum in which you did nothing but ask me a series of questions based on groundless assumptions.

I was posting a general statement and not referring to anyone here - it came after hearing reports of a Penn professor who tweeted something about criminal charges and this "film" and it was trending a bit in some circles to suggest charges may be justified because of the violent reactions (a notion I still find both hypocritical and pathetic), and I commented on it.

The post was not directed at anyone or anything on this board, I was on my soapbox after hearing a radio report.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2012, 09:05:37 AM »

So long.

If that's the best conclusion to this, then it's a done deal. I don't want anyone to pack up and go or stop the back-and-forth, but at the same time I felt so strongly against reading what I saw as a justification from Mr. Johnson's statement of opinion for calling someone or something a racist that expected us, the observers, to suspend all factual definitions and previous standards of that term, including it's origins from the definition of "race" versus "religion", and be able to justify calling those critical of Islam "racists" because someone sees a parallel where there is none based in fact and on the very definition of the word.

Throwing the term "racist" at someone and having it stick is all too common, and in many cases it's a pure gutter-level response coming from anger rather than consideration of an opposing viewpoint. It's a tough label to remove once it's been applied, even if the charges are false or unwarranted. And it also lessens the impact and seriousness of the term when it is justifiably given to those individuals who do in fact deserve it.

If Alan Johnson wants to broaden the label even more, and justify labeling people and ideas even further to include those critical of a religion or its practices and followers "racist", there is no point in debating because all logic and facts are thrown out the window in favor of gut-level labeling and potential accusations of racism based on an opinion of what the definition of the word should be rather than what it actually is.

For the record, I was commenting on the statements of Alan Johnson reposted here, not on rockandroll personally or anyone else here, and what I said is what I still feel after reading those words. You cannot have a debate on a platform where a charge of racism can be justified by changing the very definition of that term. Only one side will win, and it's the side who chooses to redefine any word like that to fit their viewpoint.

That standard is impossible to meet or challenge if definitions of words can be changed that easily depending on the subject matter, I think Johnson is foolish for a suggestion like that.

Perhaps it is best to pack this one up and call it a day.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.004 seconds with 21 queries.