|
|
On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs.
There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment.
|
On October 18 2012 09:14 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves. Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends. And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations. I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response.
Yes, but it's also not a very convincing response, at least to many liberals or progressives.
Conservatives and progressives see racism and sexism very differently. Conservatives tend to only care about explicit racist or sexist beliefs. So they'll gladly look down on the kkk, neo-nazis, or the actions of the distant past as racist or sexist, but they're not willing to see racism or sexism as a particularly common thing in contemporary American society. Because, at the very least, to the extent that people have explicitly racist or sexist beliefs today they are often good at hiding them. [That said, there are still some socially acceptable things to say explicitly that many on the left find racist or sexist.]
Progressive, on the other hand, consider actions based on implicit biases or that create or are based in structural inequalities as racist. To them, you don't get to have a clean conscience just because you look inside yourself and don't find yourself saying that black people are inhuman. You have to actively try to be aware of and reduce the impact of your implicit biases and your privilege to not be a racist or sexist.
Having a bunch of friends from a stigmatized groups is fairly good evidence of not being racist in the conservative sense. But it's not remotely good evidence of not being evidence in the progressive sense, as numerous studies on implicit biases demonstrate.
|
On October 17 2012 10:42 xDaunt wrote:
This women thing is such a nothing topic. I like that Romney is going beyond it and talking about other things. Let's see if Obama does the same.
Today:
It is a nothing issue. Liberal women are going to be convinced that republicans are going to chain them to the kitchen regardless of what is actually said or proposed.
xDaunt. You sound sexist.
|
I bet most of you don't even know what the Lilly Ledbetter Act does. Go look it up. It is hilariously inconsequential given how much press it gets.
|
Here's a handy source or two on the Lilly Ledbetter Act that I'm reading through if you're interested.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 09:28 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs. There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment.
Oh, I know that, I was referring to something else (which frogrubdown answered for me). >_>
On October 18 2012 09:28 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:14 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves. Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends. And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations. I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response. Yes, but it's also not a very convincing response, at least to many liberals or progressives. Conservatives and progressives see racism and sexism very differently. Conservatives tend to only care about explicit racist or sexist beliefs. So they'll gladly look down on the kkk, neo-nazis, or the actions of the distant past as racist or sexist, but they're not willing to see racism or sexism as a particularly common thing in contemporary American society. Because, at the very least, to the extent that people have explicitly racist or sexist beliefs today they are often good at hiding them. [That said, there are still some socially acceptable things to say explicitly that many on the left find racist or sexist.] Progressive, on the other hand, consider actions based on implicit biases or that create or are based in structural inequalities as racist. To them, you don't get to have a clean conscience just because you look inside yourself and don't find yourself saying that black people are inhuman. You have to actively try to be aware of and reduce the impact of your implicit biases and your privilege to not be a racist or sexist. Having a bunch of friends from a stigmatized groups is fairly good evidence of not being racist in the conservative sense. But it's not remotely good evidence of not being evidence in the progressive sense, as numerous studies on implicit biases demonstrate.
Yeah, I understand that it's not good evidence; however, I can't see how that response itself elicits any hint of sexism. Know what I mean? In other words, I feel there's a bit of an over-reaction to the line "some of my best friends are women."
|
On October 18 2012 09:32 xDaunt wrote:
I bet most of you don't even know what the Lilly Ledbetter Act does. Go look it up. It is hilariously inconsequential given how much press it gets.
Don't bet on the ignorance of those who simply disagree with you. It refreshes the statute of limitations on filing a lawsuit involving an equality of payment dispute. So now every time you get a paycheck, it's another chance to dispute it.
It's simple, but very important.
|
On October 18 2012 09:32 xDaunt wrote:
I bet most of you don't even know what the Lilly Ledbetter Act does. Go look it up. It is hilariously inconsequential given how much press it gets.
xDaunt is actually right guys. It's not a landmark piece of legislation by any stretch of the imagination.
|
On October 18 2012 09:32 xDaunt wrote:
I bet most of you don't even know what the Lilly Ledbetter Act does. Go look it up. It is hilariously inconsequential given how much press it gets.
Ummm, I just posted bottom of last page about its inconsequential effects, so I don't see the need for your high-and-mighty attitude. It's a great law because it only has an effect when it's needed.
And yet Romney has failed to give a concrete endorsement of it. You and Romney say it "doesn't matter", and that all this is a non-issue... But to women, it does matter. It isn't an inconsequential law, because discrimination in the workplace does, in fact, still exist.
What's funny is my criticisms of Romney are earnest. I hope Romney attacks Obama on Libya (as the right-wing mouthpieces are encouraging him to do in their own hubris), even though I say he shouldn't. I hope Romney completely neglects talking about Lilly Ledbetter, even though I say he should.
Let Obama win. Romney's best chance -- the reason you elected him over people like Newt -- is that he can play the role of a moderate. He's also trying to please his base, while pleasing the more independent voters. He should drop this balancing act, and focus on the independent voter and make some actual progress in addressing these issues and elevating the discourse of the campaign.
But... he's listening to people like you. He's preferring to simply define himself and his policies as little as possible, by ignoring issues like Lilly Ledbetter, as if no opinion is actually needed. He's playing right into the characterization of Republicans that they're simply anti-Obama without any clear direction of their own -- and he's showing that he isn't independent.
Lilly Ledbetter is exactly the kind of issue that Romney could use to show he is not just a typical Republican, but is able to make his own decisions. So you want to ignore it, eh? Hm.
He wants us to think he's more centrist and practical than George W. Bush, but he has to parrot the Tea Party line that Obama's policies are extremely left-wing. He's playing all sides of the field, but isn't actually making any plays besides criticizing Obama. He's completely lacking substance and definition.
Asked about his tax policy, all Romney would say is he's cutting taxes for middle class. Well, so did Obama. But Romney is going to do it better somehow? Obviously, there are real differences between the two candidate's tax policies -- why doesn't Romney address those differences, instead of talking about middle-class tax cuts as if that's something new?
I hope he keeps it up.
|
Pointing out the scope of the Lilly Ledbetter Act as the final word on the differences between Romney and Obama's stances on women's rights is a huge oversimplification. It's just one of many facets of the same issue.
-Planned parenthood funding
-Discriminatory insurance policies
-Right to Choose
-Lilly Ledbetter Act
I agree the LLA is at the bottom of that list, but repeatedly saying that "this women thing is such a nothing topic" is totally absurd.
EDIT: some quotes:
Mitt Romney on June 18, 2011:
“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.” (National Review)
Mitt Romney on October 1, 2011:
"Absolutely." (Response when asked by Mike Huckabee whether he would support "life at conception" constitutional amendment like that of Mississippi.)
Mitt Romney on October 8, 2011:
"As president, I will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood." (Values Voter Summit)
|
On October 18 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:28 Leporello wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs. There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment. Oh, I know that, I was referring to something else (which frogrubdown answered for me). >_> Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:28 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 09:14 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves. Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends. And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations. I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response. Yes, but it's also not a very convincing response, at least to many liberals or progressives. Conservatives and progressives see racism and sexism very differently. Conservatives tend to only care about explicit racist or sexist beliefs. So they'll gladly look down on the kkk, neo-nazis, or the actions of the distant past as racist or sexist, but they're not willing to see racism or sexism as a particularly common thing in contemporary American society. Because, at the very least, to the extent that people have explicitly racist or sexist beliefs today they are often good at hiding them. [That said, there are still some socially acceptable things to say explicitly that many on the left find racist or sexist.] Progressive, on the other hand, consider actions based on implicit biases or that create or are based in structural inequalities as racist. To them, you don't get to have a clean conscience just because you look inside yourself and don't find yourself saying that black people are inhuman. You have to actively try to be aware of and reduce the impact of your implicit biases and your privilege to not be a racist or sexist. Having a bunch of friends from a stigmatized groups is fairly good evidence of not being racist in the conservative sense. But it's not remotely good evidence of not being evidence in the progressive sense, as numerous studies on implicit biases demonstrate. Yeah, I understand that it's not good evidence; however, I can't see how that response itself elicits any hint of sexism. Know what I mean? In other words, I feel there's a bit of an over-reaction to the line "some of my best friends are women."
I think the idea is that someone giving that response is implying that they think that having the friends is good evidence that they are not racist or sexist. So people conclude from their thinking that that they must not take implicit biases or structural inequality seriously, since if they did they'd recognize that the friendship thing isn't good evidence.
In short, it's not anything about the content of what's being said. It's what saying it is taken to imply about your attitudes.
|
On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts.
dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion
|
On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion
? It has everything to do with Islamic terrorism. Everything.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 09:45 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 09:28 Leporello wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs. There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment. Oh, I know that, I was referring to something else (which frogrubdown answered for me). >_> On October 18 2012 09:28 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 09:14 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves. Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends. And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations. I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response. Yes, but it's also not a very convincing response, at least to many liberals or progressives. Conservatives and progressives see racism and sexism very differently. Conservatives tend to only care about explicit racist or sexist beliefs. So they'll gladly look down on the kkk, neo-nazis, or the actions of the distant past as racist or sexist, but they're not willing to see racism or sexism as a particularly common thing in contemporary American society. Because, at the very least, to the extent that people have explicitly racist or sexist beliefs today they are often good at hiding them. [That said, there are still some socially acceptable things to say explicitly that many on the left find racist or sexist.] Progressive, on the other hand, consider actions based on implicit biases or that create or are based in structural inequalities as racist. To them, you don't get to have a clean conscience just because you look inside yourself and don't find yourself saying that black people are inhuman. You have to actively try to be aware of and reduce the impact of your implicit biases and your privilege to not be a racist or sexist. Having a bunch of friends from a stigmatized groups is fairly good evidence of not being racist in the conservative sense. But it's not remotely good evidence of not being evidence in the progressive sense, as numerous studies on implicit biases demonstrate. Yeah, I understand that it's not good evidence; however, I can't see how that response itself elicits any hint of sexism. Know what I mean? In other words, I feel there's a bit of an over-reaction to the line "some of my best friends are women." I think the idea is that someone giving that response is implying that they think that having the friends is good evidence that they are not racist or sexist. So people conclude from their thinking that that they must not take implicit biases or structural inequality seriously, since if they did they'd recognize that the friendship thing isn't good evidence. In short, it's not anything about the content of what's being said. It's what saying it is taken to imply about your attitudes.
I see, I understand, but still... If someone asked me if I was sexist, I think I'd call them an idiot and say that a lot of my friends are female. If they then take that as an implication of some inherent sexism, I'd find it incredibly stupid and unfair. *shrug*
|
On October 18 2012 09:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion ? It has everything to do with Islamic terrorism. Everything.
This is true, i just get mad when people act like all terrorism is islamic terrorism. Its just a personal thing but it gets to me
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 09:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion ? It has everything to do with Islamic terrorism. Everything.
Do you REALLY want to get into this again?
|
On October 18 2012 09:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:45 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 09:37 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 09:28 Leporello wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. The word is "placating". Romney's answer to the women's issue in this debate was textbook placating with no substance. He said nothing about Lily Ledbetter, nothing about Roe v. Wade, nothing about workplace discrimination. His answer was actually sort of subtly misogynist, because what he said was basically if the economy grows like he says it will, under his presidency, then even women will get jobs. There was a slight insinuation in his answer that women need a more robust economy than men in order to achieve equal employment, like that's just a natural thing. It wasn't his greatest moment. Oh, I know that, I was referring to something else (which frogrubdown answered for me). >_> On October 18 2012 09:28 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 09:14 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves. Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends. And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations. I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response. Yes, but it's also not a very convincing response, at least to many liberals or progressives. Conservatives and progressives see racism and sexism very differently. Conservatives tend to only care about explicit racist or sexist beliefs. So they'll gladly look down on the kkk, neo-nazis, or the actions of the distant past as racist or sexist, but they're not willing to see racism or sexism as a particularly common thing in contemporary American society. Because, at the very least, to the extent that people have explicitly racist or sexist beliefs today they are often good at hiding them. [That said, there are still some socially acceptable things to say explicitly that many on the left find racist or sexist.] Progressive, on the other hand, consider actions based on implicit biases or that create or are based in structural inequalities as racist. To them, you don't get to have a clean conscience just because you look inside yourself and don't find yourself saying that black people are inhuman. You have to actively try to be aware of and reduce the impact of your implicit biases and your privilege to not be a racist or sexist. Having a bunch of friends from a stigmatized groups is fairly good evidence of not being racist in the conservative sense. But it's not remotely good evidence of not being evidence in the progressive sense, as numerous studies on implicit biases demonstrate. Yeah, I understand that it's not good evidence; however, I can't see how that response itself elicits any hint of sexism. Know what I mean? In other words, I feel there's a bit of an over-reaction to the line "some of my best friends are women." I think the idea is that someone giving that response is implying that they think that having the friends is good evidence that they are not racist or sexist. So people conclude from their thinking that that they must not take implicit biases or structural inequality seriously, since if they did they'd recognize that the friendship thing isn't good evidence. In short, it's not anything about the content of what's being said. It's what saying it is taken to imply about your attitudes. I see, I understand, but still... If someone asked me if I was sexist, I think I'd call them an idiot and say that a lot of my friends are female. If they then take that as an implication of some inherent sexism, I'd find it incredibly stupid and unfair. *shrug*
Well, they'd take it as an implication that you only care about certain forms of sexism, not that you have more sexism than everyone else. Practically everyone has a ton of implicit biases (including those from groups the biases are against), and practically all males benefit from some male privileges. So it's not really a matter of how sexist they'd think you are; it's a matter of how much they'd think you care about sexism.
|
On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion
I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 10:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive.
Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism.
|
On October 18 2012 10:08 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 10:03 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 09:50 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 18 2012 05:36 JinDesu wrote:On October 18 2012 05:33 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2012 05:18 kmillz wrote:For those so adamantly trying to excuse Barack Obama's lack of identifying the Benghazi attacks as terrorism, I have one quote for you on September 25th: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Still convinced he thought it was an act of terror and not a violent protest? You realize that it could have been both be an act of terrorism and a reaction to the video, right? Nah. Terrorism is all about religious anger. That video was all about making religious people angry. Completely unrelated concepts. dumbest thing i have ever heard. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with religon, just because the terrorist are religious does not mean that terrorism has anything to do with religion I think he was being convenient with the language in an attempt at a bit of internet sarcasm. I enjoyed it at least. In any case, to say that religion and terrorism have nothing to do each other seems a bit......rash? For example, the writings and beliefs of the IRA share a great deal in common with many brands of Islamic extremism; both of their ideologies incorporate a great deal of divine inspiration and drive. Terrorism doesn't always have some link to religion. It's just this generation is severely plagued with religious terrorism that we miss out or forget the other bits of terrorism.
Oh sure, I'd never use the word always, terrorism can take on a multitude of forms. There exists a relationship in many cases nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
