Are all generalizations automatically false just because they have a racial component? I'm not saying you can't find exceptions, or that some stereotypes are just plain wrong. However, calling a spade a spade is not something I have a problem with if this is just coming down to being "2003-style" politically correct. If my generalization does not fly, then feel free to cite examples where the contrary is evident. Don't just browbeat me, and say it is politically incorrect to "think" like that.
I didn't say that all generalizations were automatically false if they have a racial component. I said that most (all?) generalizations are false regardless of what they espouse. This one is particularly bad because of the racial component. I agree that calling a spade a spade is ok. But is that what you're doing here? If you can prove to me:
1) that the entire Arab world is united in their hatred of the US
and
2) that this hatred of the US translates into a universal disregard for human life
then I'll say that you are, in fact, calling a spade a spade. I don't think you can do that. And how did this turn into me having to prove something to you? You're the one who came out with the racist comment. You should be the one to defend it.
As an aside, it seems that somehow this anti-polical correctness thing has turned into a "hell no, I'm not going to be subject to fairness!! That's politically correct and therefore it must be wrong!"
Geez, now it's politically incorrect to acknowledge politically correctness.
No, not 'politically incorrect' just tired, cliched and typically ideological in the most inane and banal fashion . . . completely devoid of any real critical insight beyond the jargon terminology provided by the on-air right-wing pundit Du-jour
And how did this turn into me having to prove something to you? You're the one who came out with the racist comment. You should be the one to defend it.
I didn't ask you to prove it to me. I just asked for some examples to the contrary. To say the Coalition Forces are seen as an unwanted invader by the Arab community is fairly self-evident (with the obvious exception of a great deal of liberated Iraqis). Do you really need documentation on this??? I asked for some examples from your personal account of the situation because I'd really like to know. So far it seems you are simply intent to framing my comment as rascist and offering nothing else to the discussion. Please do contribute.
I actually agree with you . . . in fact it was my major point as to why we went about preparing and starting this war in the worst of all possible ways.
the Clod-footed diplomacy of Bush and gang was about as effective as filling fire hydrants with gasoline . . . . and, it showed there alterior motives, the absurd neo-colonialism of the Pax Americana project.
good in theory . . . if your writing science fiction!!
anyway, Im sure that you interpret the fact that the "Street" in most Arab countries have come to hate us as meaning something entirely different . . . heavens that you would ever consider agreement with a Quote*Liberal*Unquote
...and you were speaking of "just tired, cliched and typically ideological in the most inane and banal fashion"?...
If you agree, my apologies, but it simply wasn't evident to me within your last frothing-at-the-mouth post.
I was referring to the tired and often rabid use of the catch-phrase: "Politically-Correct"
this terms has been the favoriteof right-wing media pundits for decades: Rush, Will etc . . . it allows them to catagorize any sort of social-political concern into a neatly dismissable package . . . rarely even looking at the nuances, much less working through them . . .
...and when I quoted your "just tired, cliched and typically ideological in the most inane and banal fashion?...", I was actually referring to your post just above.
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
Geez, now it's politically incorrect to acknowledge politically correctness.
No, it's just when you have a weak argument you shouldn't try and weasle out of a discussion by crying wolf.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Are all generalizations automatically false just because they have a racial component? I'm not saying you can't find exceptions, or that some stereotypes are just plain wrong. However, calling a spade a spade is not something I have a problem with if this is just coming down to being "2003-style" politically correct. If my generalization does not fly, then feel free to cite examples where the contrary is evident. Don't just browbeat me, and say it is politically incorrect to "think" like that.
I didn't say that all generalizations were automatically false if they have a racial component. I said that most (all?) generalizations are false regardless of what they espouse. This one is particularly bad because of the racial component. I agree that calling a spade a spade is ok. But is that what you're doing here? If you can prove to me:
1) that the entire Arab world is united in their hatred of the US
and
2) that this hatred of the US translates into a universal disregard for human life
then I'll say that you are, in fact, calling a spade a spade. I don't think you can do that. And how did this turn into me having to prove something to you? You're the one who came out with the racist comment. You should be the one to defend it.
As an aside, it seems that somehow this anti-polical correctness thing has turned into a "hell no, I'm not going to be subject to fairness!! That's politically correct and therefore it must be wrong!"
Originally posted by Randycat99
Geez, now it's politically incorrect to acknowledge politically correctness.
No, not 'politically incorrect' just tired, cliched and typically ideological in the most inane and banal fashion . . . completely devoid of any real critical insight beyond the jargon terminology provided by the on-air right-wing pundit Du-jour
Originally posted by torifile
And how did this turn into me having to prove something to you? You're the one who came out with the racist comment. You should be the one to defend it.
I didn't ask you to prove it to me. I just asked for some examples to the contrary. To say the Coalition Forces are seen as an unwanted invader by the Arab community is fairly self-evident (with the obvious exception of a great deal of liberated Iraqis). Do you really need documentation on this??? I asked for some examples from your personal account of the situation because I'd really like to know. So far it seems you are simply intent to framing my comment as rascist and offering nothing else to the discussion. Please do contribute.
To the other "barking dogs"- the Bird.
the Clod-footed diplomacy of Bush and gang was about as effective as filling fire hydrants with gasoline . . . . and, it showed there alterior motives, the absurd neo-colonialism of the Pax Americana project.
good in theory . . . if your writing science fiction!!
anyway, Im sure that you interpret the fact that the "Street" in most Arab countries have come to hate us as meaning something entirely different . . . heavens that you would ever consider agreement with a Quote*Liberal*Unquote
If you agree, my apologies, but it simply wasn't evident to me within your last frothing-at-the-mouth post.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...and you were speaking of "just tired, cliched and typically ideological in the most inane and banal fashion"?...
If you agree, my apologies, but it simply wasn't evident to me within your last frothing-at-the-mouth post.
I was referring to the tired and often rabid use of the catch-phrase: "Politically-Correct"
this terms has been the favoriteof right-wing media pundits for decades: Rush, Will etc . . . it allows them to catagorize any sort of social-political concern into a neatly dismissable package . . . rarely even looking at the nuances, much less working through them . . .