# The tolerance canard



## Big Don (Oct 23, 2010)

*The tolerance canard*


*By David Harsanyi*
_The Denver Post_
Posted: 10/22/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
EXCERPT:




                 			 							 								 								 							 								 								 									 								 																                 			                 				                 				                 			No question. We're surrendering to religious  intolerance. Just not the imaginary religious intolerance many would  have us believe.
  After 9/11, we stressed the distinction between Muslims and extremist  Muslims who were driven by an ideological strain of orthodoxy that  prioritizes atomizing the infidel. But we all conceded that those  terrorists were Muslims, nonetheless. It's a fact.
  Today, even broaching the topic of religious affiliation can send  (almost all) the dolts on "The View" scattering for cover. To some  folks, any whiff of critical discussion on the religious angle is  tantamount to narrow-mindedness. And now, apparently, religious bigotry  includes the dissemination of truth. 
  Surely by now you've heard the              				             					             					             					             				 	                		                 				                 				                 			tale of liberal commentator Juan Williams, fired by  National Public Radio after conceding to Bill O'Reilly that Muslims  dressed in traditional garb on a airplane make him kind of "nervous" and  "worried." 
  "Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court,  I think this was just last week," as Williams went on to assert during a  broader conversation about _more_ tolerance. "He said the war with  Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't  think there's any way to get away from these facts."
  Of course there is. Ask some of the "tolerance"-pimping left-wing  groups like Think Progress for their instruction manual. Just throw  around the word bigotry. Chill conversation. Watch NPR                  			             					             					             				             				                 				                 				                 			capitulate and then watch journalists who value their  careers become increasingly uneasy about covering or discussing Islamic  radicalism, peaceful Islam  any Islam.
  This isn't exactly new. There are many books  a genre actually   that expound on the profound stupidity of religion and its followers. 

<<SNIP>>

If you can ever find the Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris ask her  about religion tolerance. Norris has reportedly gone "ghost" after  finding herself on an Islamic terror hit list for her insulting cartoon.  (Let me know when a journalist makes an atheist, Mormon or papal hit  list.) 
  Free speech didn't exactly work out that well for Molly.

<<SNIP>>
  Perhaps NPR can even take a few moments to explain to  American Muslims why they're thought of as children who can't handle the  slightest perceived politically incorrect comment.
END EXCERPT
Tolerance doesn't mean kowtowing to groups that scare you, at least it shouldn't...


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 24, 2010)

Okay, you want to keep posting crap like this, lets break it down...

Juan Williams said on national TV that he gets nervous when on an airplane with men dressed like Muslims because of 911.  First, the terrorist that hijacked those planes were not dressed in Muslim or any other ethnic garb.  Like most criminals, they wanted to blend in until they struck, so they were dressed like everyone else.  So his fear is based upon an ignorant assumption.  He would be better served by being fearful of anyone who DIDN'T stand out.  Second, contrary to his claim before he made the comment, having a preconcieved judgement about a person because of how they dress or look is indeed bigotry.  Third, he was already in hot water with NPR because of while on Fox, he and Fox intimidated that he represented NPR while making his comments.  He didn't and Fox no longer used NPR as a reference to Mr Williams when he was on thier network.  So Mr Williams was already not in good standing with his employer, then on national TV admitted to being an ignorant bigot.  Yeah, its a huge leap to think he might have been fired.  Or are you saying that no right wing organization would have fired an admitted ignorant bigot?

On another thread, Big Don, you were pretty passionate in your stance that the left should not judge the Tea Party as a whole on the racist signs and actions of a small minority of people at its rallies.  I actually agree with that.  You even say the left is hypocritical for its attitude.  However, now you make a post judging 1.8 billion Muslims for the actions of even a smaller minority of people sharing that faith.  That seems to fit the definition of hypocrit very well.

Yes, it is sad that people such a Molly Norris must live in fear because of the hatred of some ignorant Muslims.  Most Muslims probably don't even know her name, much less want to harm her.  Though I'm sure you didn't post that snippet in order to pass judgement on 1.8 billion people from the action of a small minority of those people did you?  Naw, you wouldn't do that, because that would be acting like the left you so clearly despise, right?

I'm sure your mom probably told you at some point that if a friend jumped of a bridge that doesn't mean you have to also.  Now you are willing to justify your hatred because someone you view as an enemy (extremist Muslims) is full of hate.  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  I'm not saying you have to love people different that yourself, but perhaps use the same standards you seem to want to hold others to make your own judgements.

Finally, why keep posting these articles by people that clearly are writing thier articles from a preconcieved bias?  The articles themselves just seem to be excercises in excuse making for views they know aren't right.  These people aren't acting right, so its okay if I do the same thing!  They don't strengthen your arguements and make it seem your reaching to find support for those arguements.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

YES, WE KNOW IT ISN'T ALL MUSLIMS.
However, cowering and kowtowing to the EXTREME MINORITY OF MUSLIMS THAT ARE RADICAL, is NOT the answer. 
Being an adult, being civilized, means being able to give and take honest criticism WITHOUT resorting to intimidation.
Screaming "It isn't all Muslims." and calling everyone who dares criticize the aforementioned TINY MINORITY of Muslims who are terrorists, bigot, doesn't do much good, does it?
From the article:


> Perhaps NPR can even take a few moments to explain to  American Muslims  why they're thought of as children who can't handle the  slightest  perceived politically incorrect comment.


Perhaps, you can take a few moments and explain...


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

btw, what intolerant, racist bastard said this:


> "There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street  and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around  and see somebody white and feel relieved."


You may be surprised.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> YES, WE KNOW IT ISN'T ALL MUSLIMS.
> However, cowering and kowtowing to the EXTREME MINORITY OF MUSLIMS THAT ARE RADICAL, is NOT the answer.


Well then, why exactly is it suddenly vital to have stuff like cartoons featuring Mohammed? It wasn't exactly on the top of anyone's list before 9-11 but now pissing off moderate Muslims seems to be job 1. 



> Being an adult, being civilized, means being able to give and take honest criticism WITHOUT resorting to intimidation.



Honest criticism? Really?



> Screaming "It isn't all Muslims." and calling everyone who dares criticize the aforementioned TINY MINORITY of Muslims who are terrorists, bigot, doesn't do much good, does it?



Which explains the whole ground zero mosque flap...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 24, 2010)

That link in your post #4 Don was a very interesting read; thank you.  

I had no idea that the educational circumstances of the poverty-trapped had improved so much since '70's.  It's certainly something that has not been trumpeted in the media (factual or fictional (tho' there have been some splendid 'role models' in the latter)).

The sad reflection that it gives is that the criminal problems that still arise from that portion of the population are now down to something else rather than lack of educational oppportunity (my guess would be the trade in illegal drugs altho that is probably reaching for 'too easy' an answer ).


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Well then, why exactly is it suddenly vital to have stuff like cartoons featuring Mohammed? It wasn't exactly on the top of anyone's list before 9-11 but now pissing off moderate Muslims seems to be job 1.


 But, Piss Christ is a legitimate artwork that it is wrong to criticize, that you call a Christian woman a terrorist for objecting to a picture of Christ giving a blow job, and yet hail any attempt to draw Mohammed in any form as wrong.





Marginal said:


> The lady is a terrorist.





> Honest criticism? Really?


Yes, really. The lady in Colorado didn't behead anyone, ala Theo Van Gogh...


> Which explains the whole ground zero mosque flap...


You do remember 9-11? When 19 self-avowed Muslims hijacked planes and used them as weapons? Don't you?
Why should Christians have to sit still when they are insulted, but, even the slightest hint that some Muslims might strap on vests and go BOOM makes Muslims exempt?
Penn Jillette:
*Are there any groups you wont go after?* And we  havent tacked Islam because we have families.
*Meaning, you wont attack Islam because youre afraid itll attack back *   Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free   society is that youre afraid to talk about itI cant think of  anything  more horrific.
Is Penn Jillette now some kind of Rightwing Christian bigot? I don't think so...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 24, 2010)

Steadily, gentlemen.  If we're resorting to 'shouting' this early in a thread then I don't hold out much hope for it.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Is Penn Jillette now some kind of Rightwing Christian bigot? I don't think so...


 
No. What he is is a 6'5" *chicken. :lfao:*

*Here ya go, a Mohammad cartoon, strait outta South Park:*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Tolerance doesn't mean kowtowing to groups that scare you, at least it shouldn't...



It doesn't.  But nothing about the firing of Juan Williams (with which I disagree, he should not have been fired for making such an inoffensive statement) had anything to do with intolerance.

What it appears to have had to do with was 'Political Correctness', in which one avoids controversial topics to avoid giving even the appearance of bias or insult.  I disagree with most of the tenets of Political Correctness.

By intentionally fudging the definition of 'tolerance' to make it appear to be something it is not, one may therefore attempt to justify one's own outrageous behavior.  It's not working.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

elder999 said:


> No. What he is is a 6'5" *chicken. :lfao:*


Who is truly afraid of Christian terrorists? I'm sure there are a few people who are, but, those who are afraid of Muslim terrorists are more likely to live in the real world.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It doesn't.  But nothing about the firing of Juan Williams (with which I disagree, he should not have been fired for making such an inoffensive statement) had anything to do with intolerance.
> 
> What it appears to have had to do with was 'Political Correctness', in which one avoids controversial topics to avoid giving even the appearance of bias or insult.  I disagree with most of the tenets of Political Correctness.
> 
> By intentionally fudging the definition of 'tolerance' to make it appear to be something it is not, one may therefore attempt to justify one's own outrageous behavior.  It's not working.


Isn't refusing to discuss one group's problem with violent extremists in their midst in the name of tolerance a bit revolting?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Who is truly afraid of Christian terrorists? I'm sure there are a few people who are, but, those who are afraid of Muslim terrorists are more likely to live in the real world.


 
I'm not afraid of Muslim terrorists.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Isn't refusing to discuss one group's problem with violent extremists in their midst in the name of tolerance a bit revolting?



Yes.  I have never advocated not talking about the problems inside any religion, including Islam.

On the other hand when one continually and intentionally conflates terrorists inside Islam with Islam by using terms such as *'they'* to describe Islam when one means *'the terrorists within Islam'*, and one is taken to task for it, hiding behind something altogether different and whining that one is being castigated for not being tolerant is a bit off-putting as well.

You've pitched the argument to go your way, but I don't accept the way you've slanted the board.  For example, you can of course criticize _"Piss Christ,"_ many did.  Very few called it great art, and most who defended it did so on the basis that art is speech, which the artist has a right to produce and display.  Even I, who found it disgusting, agree with the artist's right to produce it and the gallery's right to display it.  You have as much right to criticize it as the artist had to produce it.

An artist also has the right to draw cartoons of Mohammad and newspapers have a right to print them if they wish.  That is likewise protected speech.  People are free to criticize it if they wish as well.  Issuing death threats?  That's illegal, of course, as it should be.

You characterize the argument by stating things that are not true; that you cannot criticize 'Piss Christ'; obviously you can.  That you cannot publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously you can.  That you must accept death threats if you publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously such threats are criminal and not protected speech.

No definition of 'tolerance' says that you cannot criticize the things you do not like or that you are forced to accept things which are illegal in the name of fear or of not making another group upset or angry.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You characterize the argument by stating things that are not true; that you cannot criticize 'Piss Christ'; obviously you can.  That you cannot publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously you can.  That you must accept death threats if you publish cartoons of Mohammad; obviously such threats are criminal and not protected speech.



Bill, your wording is technically correct, so I'm going to correct the MEANING of Don's statement as you have written it to reflect the way *I* took it.

You cannot criticize 'Piss Christ' **Without a bunch of people coming out and decrying you for being a right wing christian moron who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and shut up because white hetero christian males have had it too good for too long and turnabout is fair play**

and 

You cannot publish cartoons of Mohammad **Without a bunch of people coming out and decrying you for being a right wing teabagging bigot who hates all of Islam for the actions of a few thousand radicals**

Obviously, you CAN criticize them.  What you can't do is make those criticisms, right or wrong, factual or mistakenly, without being demonized for it. 

Just look at any thread relating to Catholic Priests and Altar Boys, or Christians who think the Earth is 6000 years old... these are relatively small Minorities of their respective faiths, and yet the entire faith is called to task for it in those threads, with almost no one defending them...

Then look at any thread about Muslim terrorists, and everyone is up in arms because these are relatively small Minorities of their respective faiths, and it is wrong that the entire faith is called to task for it in those threads.

THAT'S what *I* believe Don was saying.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> THAT'S what *I* believe Don was saying.



Works for me.

It comes down to the so-called *'double-standard'*.  The belief, right or wrong, that I am prohibited from or criticized for behavior that is someone else is allowed to do or not criticized for doing, and that's not fair, and I'm upset about it.  I get it.

The world is full of double-standards, and they're unfair.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 24, 2010)

One extra thing to be borne in mind when it comes to this whole sorry issue is the concept of consequences and, maybe also, equivalences.

When it comes to criticising religion, I'll lambast the lot of you (viz all faiths) for believing in something imaginary that is an insult to the intelligence of mankind.  But I'll defend your right, in a notionally free society, to believe that thing for, as long as neither of us oppress the other with what we feel and say, we have to accept the consequences of our own actions.

Extending on from that tho, you're not free to do as you wish just because you say you act in the name of an invisible sky-being that created everything or some prophet who claimed that he spoke in the name of the aforesaid mythical being.  However, the loony-tunes who are causing all this hoo-haa and bloodshed do not live in a free-society; they grew up in a theocracy governed (as the West's major faith once was) by men who use hypocritcal religious arguments as levers to get people to do their all too non-divine bidding.  That is to say, there is not an equivalence between the positions that religious people in 'our' culture choose to take and the positions that those born under a 'less free' star have enforced upon them.

The trick when levelling criticism at anything is to use acurate terms.  So, for example, I try not tack a prefix of "Islamic" when I speak of the murdering scum that are carrying out terrorist acts whilst claiming to be of the Islamic faith.  Neither do I speak of the IRA as Catholic Terrorists, even tho' they were murdering scum who happened to be Catholic.  Their faith was not only irrelevant to me compared to what they did but it would also be insulting or embarassing to those Catholics who actually obey the Ten Commandments to be lumped in with such a group.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> The trick when levelling criticism at anything is to use acurate terms.  So, for example, I try not tack a prefix of "Islamic" when I speak of the murdering scum that are carrying out terrorist acts whilst claiming to be of the Islamic faith.  Neither do I speak of the IRA as Catholic Terrorists, even tho' they were murdering scum who happened to be Catholic.  Their faith was not only irrelevant to me compared to what they did but it would also be insulting or embarassing to those Catholics who actually obey the Ten Commandments to be lumped in with such a group.



The problem is with the logical _fallacy_.  If A infers B, then B infers A.  The terrorists who attacked the US and the UK were Islamic.  Therefore, Islamic people are terrorists.

Don has made it clear that he does NOT believe that all Muslims are terrorists.  However, many continually make the point that the terrorists who attacked us *ARE* Muslims.  When others have pointed out that this is a logical fallacy by using examples of Christians who have committed crimes, distinctions are drawn to attempt to demonstrate that no, when Christians commit atrocities, they are NOT representative of all Christians, but when Muslims commit atrocities, they fall into a different class that is both representative and not representative of all Islam.  At the same time.  That's a really interesting point of view.  One can't actually argue it, because it's nonsensical.

It's sad that so many horrible acts are committed in the name of any religion.  I believe it is a fair criticism to say that Islam has a serious problem right now with those extreme members of their faith who believe they have a mandate from their God to subjugate, hurt, or kill anyone else.  Those extremists threaten the entire modern world.

I think it is vital to understand who those people are and what groups they belong to, what beliefs they cleave to, in order to better defeat them.  I also believe it is important to not alienate those Muslims who do NOT cleave to those beliefs, to avoid doing the work of the terrorists for them and making moderates into extremists through hatred towards them.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 24, 2010)

Since the terrorists who attack us ARE Muslim is it not "natural" for people to then be looking at Muslims as potential attackers? Is that not what Mr. Williams was implying? It seems like natural human preservationist instinct.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

> --- In 1972 at the  			Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
> a. Olga Corbutt
> b. Sitting Bull
> c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
> ...


There is a reason police departments use profiling, it works more often than not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Since the terrorists who attack us ARE Muslim is it not "natural" for people to then be looking at Muslims as potential attackers?



Fear is natural and reasonable.

Acting on that fear is another subject.  While fear is an appropriate feeling to have, actions should be based upon knowledge and not simply fears.



> Is that not what Mr. Williams was implying? It seems like natural human preservationist instinct.



What Juan Williams was stating was quite reasonable.  I thought NPR was way out of line to dismiss him for those statements.

Juan Williams did not, however, advocate that Muslims be prohibited from dressing in traditional garb, that they be denied seats on airplanes, or that we should dislike Muslims because the sight of things which remind us of the terrorists who attacked us makes us afraid.  Fear is normal.  What is important is what we do when we feel fear.

Let's try a hypothetical.  Say you're walking away from a crowd of people and you get hit on the head with a thrown rock.  You turn towards the crowd and demand to know who threw it.  No one answers.  So you get some pals together and you attack the crowd with violence.  After all, if they are innocent, they should turn over the guilty party, otherwise it's clear they sympathize with the guilty party.

The problem, of course, is that very few in the crowd may know who threw the rock.  The rest may not even know a rock was thrown, let alone who threw it.  By holding them all responsible and attacking them, you may force them to defend themselves.  To you, this 'proves' that they are guilty.  But any reasonable person would defend themselves when attacked, especially if they are innocent.  As well, the innocent people in the crowd may find themselves on the side of the guilty parties, just to avoid being attacked by you and your friends.  Not only that, but you may not catch the guilty parties; they may slink away and leave you fighting with the people in the crowd who had nothing to do with the rock-throwing.  You and your friends may even lose; in which case the rock-throwers have managed to leverage their low-risk / high-reward hidden strategy into the complete destruction of you and your friends.  In other words, you did their work for them.

Does this sound at all familiar?  Sure, I'd be looking with fear at that crowd.  After all, a rock came from someone in that crowd, and it hurt me.  There could be another rock thrown at me at any moment.  I doubt I'd turn my back on them, that's for sure.  But I would think it advantageous to try to find out who threw the rock by other means.  Who is standing near rocks on the ground?  Who has dirty hands?  Who has a criminal history of throwing rocks or being members of groups who throw rocks?  Once I found out who threw the rock, I'd take steps to remove them as a threat to me ever again.  Fear of the entire crowd?  Yes.  Advocate attacking - or even hating - the entire crowd just because I didn't know who specifically threw the rock?  Counter-productive at best, dangerous at worst.  Certainly not an intelligent response, natural or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> There is a reason police departments use profiling, it works more often than not.



What does a Muslim look like?

What does a terrorist look like?

Profiling works great when you know what you are looking for and nothing else could match that description.

Otherwise it leads to the risk of misidentification of both the guilty and the innocent.

Any terrorist who looks like Osama bin Ladin can shave, cut their hair, dress in a suit or jeans and t-shirts and they still look like terrorists to you?   You might recall that even if we're talking about ONLY Muslims, there are 1.5 billion of them around the planet.  Every shade of skin, color of hair, and both occidental and asian eyes folds.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What does a Muslim look like?
> 
> What does a terrorist look like?
> 
> ...



I agree with you *but* Profiling isn't always based on Appearance.  

If you are looking for someone who can bypass sophisticated alarms and complex locking mechanisms, you might start looking at all the local Locksmiths and Alarm Installation techs.  That is a form of educational profiling.

If you are looking for an abortion clinic bomber, you might start looking at conservative Christians, using the idea of religious profiling. 

If you are looking for a thief who leaves behind Caifanes cassettes, you might start looking for a Hispanic criminal... using racial profiling.

In all of the above cases, you could still be wrong.  But it IS profiling and also a logical place to start looking in any of those crimes.  And those examples aren't necessarily based on appearance.  (Racial profiling most often is, it's true.)


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Juan Williams did not, however, advocate that Muslims be prohibited from dressing in traditional garb, that they be denied seats on airplanes, or that we should dislike Muslims because the sight of things which remind us of the terrorists who attacked us makes us afraid.



Who here has advocated that?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 24, 2010)

Racial Profiling is the logical way to focus investigatory resources. People hear "racial profiling" and knee jerk into thinking that means "lets pull over that (or ALL) black guy because he just HAS to be up to something". Thats not really what RP is all about. And avoiding the topic by strip searching the 90 yo Polish American great grandmother at the airport is plain stupidity.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Racial Profiling is the logical way to focus investigatory resources. People hear "racial profiling" and knee jerk into thinking that means "lets pull over that (or ALL) black guy because he just HAS to be up to something". Thats not really what RP is all about. And avoiding the topic by strip searching the 90 yo Polish American great grandmother at the airport is plain stupidity.



What will you say when we stop doing random searches, concentrate on people of Middle Eastern appearance, and the next attack comes from someone who doesn't have a Middle Eastern appearance?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2006/10/sec-061011-fbi01.htm

Racial profiling is logical only when your enemy is guaranteed to meet that profile.  If they know you are looking only at a particular race or skin color, and they can send operatives of a different race or skin color instead, what do you think they will do?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 24, 2010)

Race is one FACTOR in investigation. Who said anything about "appearance"? Someone from Chechnya or Bosnia should be looked at as well. Ask El Al screeners what their method of screening is.

Lets go to video:

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/01/video-how-israeli-airline-security.html


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 24, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Who here has advocated that?



I believe Don said:



> _"Since the terrorists who attack us ARE Muslim is it not "natural" for  people to then be looking at Muslims as potential attackers? Is that not  what Mr. Williams was implying? It seems like natural human  preservationist instinct."_



I replied that fear is natural. It would be quite natural to associate traditional Islamic dress with the terrorists who have been in the news wearing it.  Looking at Muslims (or blacks, Jews, etc) as 'potential attackers' is not natural, and not, IMHO, what Mr. Williams was implying.  Don was, though.

Saying something like _"I admit that I feel uneasy when I am in a bad part of town and I see a rough-looking black man walk purposefully towards me with an angry expression on his face"_ is not the same as saying _"it is natural to look at Blacks as potential attackers."_  Don wants those two disparate statements to be the same.  They're not.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 24, 2010)

You lost me there. I think thats exactly what Williams and Gates were implying. If they are not looked at as possible "attackers" what is there to be afraid of?? And since when is "being afraid" or "looking at someone as a potential attacker" considered "taking action" a la making them not wear traditional garb? People are going to be afraid of a religion that is in the spotlight for having people that yell Allahu Akbar!! and detonate/shoot. That goes with a particular religion. It's these terrorists who are painting their religion in a certain light. Terrorists in far larger numbers, and far better funded/organized than the odd Xtian clinic bomber that tends to be tossed out in comparison. Thats just the facts and there is going to be a response to it. I hope that the reaction is simply "unease" vs something that goes against our American values. I honestly do. My grandparents generation put Japanese Americans in internment camps. I don't think we will ever get to that point and that shows progress IMO.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe Don said:



Muslim is a religion, not a race or appearance.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 24, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Perhaps, you can take a few moments and explain...


 
Easy enough.  NPR didn't do what they did to protect Muslims.  They did what they did to protect thier image, like most companies would.  i think it it was some other comany that did this, based upon his previous interaction with the company that he worked for and then his coments, most of the people sqwauking about this wouldn't be.  However, it is NPR and so the right is going to use them as a whipping boy.  I honestly don't know if his comments were serious enough to warrant firing.  I can understand why he got fired though.  I also think it is the company's decision and it is based upon verifiable actions by the employee. 

I also love how you tried to put words in my mouth by saying he was a bastard while referencing my comments.  Notice I never called him a bastard?  That he made an ignorant and bigoted comment, yeah.  Seems that is going around a lot lately.  Never did I denigrate his parentage though.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 24, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Easy enough.  NPR didn't do what they did to protect Muslims.  They did what they did to protect thier image, like most companies would.  i think it it was some other comany that did this, based upon his previous interaction with the company that he worked for and then his coments, most of the people sqwauking about this wouldn't be.  However, it is NPR and so the right is going to use them as a whipping boy.  I honestly don't know if his comments were serious enough to warrant firing.  I can understand why he got fired though.  I also think it is the company's decision and it is based upon verifiable actions by the employee.
> 
> I also love how you tried to put words in my mouth by saying he was a bastard while referencing my comments.  Notice I never called him a bastard?  That he made an ignorant and bigoted comment, yeah.  Seems that is going around a lot lately.  Never did I denigrate his parentage though.


The bastard I referred to, is JESSE JACKSON. Thanks for showing you don't read the linked information, though...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Racial profiling is logical only when your enemy is *guaranteed *to meet that profile. If they know you are looking only at a particular race or skin color, and they can send operatives of a different race or skin color instead, what do you think they will do?


 
Not guaranteed, but likely.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 25, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> That he made an ignorant and bigoted comment, yeah.



I don't think Juan Williams made an ignorant or bigoted comment.  I listen to NPR somewhat regularly, even though I am a conservative, and I generally enjoy it.  I have enjoyed listening to Juan Williams on NPR.  Never heard him on FOX, as I don't watch TV news or news commentary shouting heads.  However, I find nothing wrong with his comments from what I've read.

I think NPR should not have fired him, but I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.  He appears to have landed on his feet, and life goes on.  NPR does what they do; they're a left-wing bastion, just as FOX is a right-wing bastion.  I will still listen to NPR on the radio in the mornings sometimes.  I'll still occasionally complain about their left-wing slant on things, but oh well.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 25, 2010)




----------



## crushing (Oct 25, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Juan Williams said on national TV...blah blah blah


 
NPR has already apologized a couple times for this poor decision.  Once for how they handled it and a second time that they did it during fundraising.

Mr. Williams was fired for appearing on Fox.  It was that simple.  The narrow minded bigots at NPR couldn't stand the thought of having their own 'black man' on Fox.  I don't really care for Fox and rarely watch it, but some very powerful people have an intense hatred for Fox.  NPR have many politically like minded folks that are key financial contributors and NPR has established that they will fire if a financial contributor doesn't like the story.  Before it was MoMA and D'Arcy.  This time it may be the Open Society Institute and Williams.  NPR won't bite the hands that feed them, but they will roll over and play fetch.

Anyway, on the O'Reilly program Mr. Williams admitted a personal discomfort (you call it bigotry).  He went on to say, and this is often purposefully left out of the reporting on the controversy, that his discomfort isn't rational and that of course not all Muslims are terrorists.  Woah!  What a bigot!!!!

NPR missed a great opportunity where they could really delve into this topic and find out why so many people, including many liberally minded people like Mr. Williams have this discomfort.  They already know that the government and media share the blame for the discomfort.  We have a lazy, but sensational media regurgitating whatever the government officials and politicians give them.  Because NPR are part of the media, and get a significant source of their financing from the government/politicans, they don't really want that.

It was the ministry of truth that fabricated the "MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO!!!", when it was neither.  It was also the media that made the "KORAN BURNING!!!!" by one guy in Florida an international superstory.  Fortunately, we will be put out of our misery soon as "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE KILLS US ALL!!!"


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 25, 2010)

Is there hypocrisy on NPR's part?  Of course.  After all, they still have Nina Totenberg on board, who publicly relished the idea that a conservative politican's grandchildren would get AIDS.  

In this case, though, I would think that it's more of an appeasement gesture to one of their biggest funders (the convicted felon, George Soros), who gave them close to 2 million dollars.  

In the end, though, Juan Williams is going to come out ahead, with even more exposure, and his career will greatly benefit from the sympathy from both sides of the aisle.


----------



## crushing (Oct 25, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Easy enough. NPR didn't do what they did to protect Muslims. They did what they did to *make some key financial contributors happy.*


 
Fixed it.


----------

