- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
LMAO. You agreed with this:
So we agree on something after all. :thumbup:KELAMA said:
Politics and sig blocks
- Thread starter marcinek
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
- Messages
- 20,760
Political (or religious) stuff in sigs isn't that big of a thing IMO as long as we're not talking banners or obvious provocation. Phil's Hitchens sig was better IMO, but whatever.
I will say that I can certainly see how the quotes could be taken as offensive to any Muslim members here though (I assume we have some). Replace "Muslims" with "Jews" or "Christians" and I doubt the contention would've made it this far. Obviously one could give reasoning for inequality there, but it'd be kind of irrelevant in the context of a community based forum.
Just my opinion. No drama intended.
I will say that I can certainly see how the quotes could be taken as offensive to any Muslim members here though (I assume we have some). Replace "Muslims" with "Jews" or "Christians" and I doubt the contention would've made it this far. Obviously one could give reasoning for inequality there, but it'd be kind of irrelevant in the context of a community based forum.
Just my opinion. No drama intended.
I use the same test Kiah proposes: what if the term Jew, Christian or Black were substituted - would it be offensive then?
However, if something is patently true I think offensive is not the most important criterion.
Mohamed was the first islamist. A muslim can't be offended by that and if he or she is, sorry, it's a fair comment.
All Muslims are this or that, and something unwholesome besides....well, that would probably be offensive: es[pecially if it's something negative terrorism
"All Christians" would be offensive too, as in "all christians are simpletons, right wingers, less intelligent, cling to their guns..."
....hey, that's sounding mighty familiar to those who frequent PA or listen to Obama
However, if something is patently true I think offensive is not the most important criterion.
Mohamed was the first islamist. A muslim can't be offended by that and if he or she is, sorry, it's a fair comment.
All Muslims are this or that, and something unwholesome besides....well, that would probably be offensive: es[pecially if it's something negative terrorism
"All Christians" would be offensive too, as in "all christians are simpletons, right wingers, less intelligent, cling to their guns..."
....hey, that's sounding mighty familiar to those who frequent PA or listen to Obama
r8shell
Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 24,074
It's all up to the mods, of course, but I know I get along pretty well around here with just about everybody. Probably at least partially because we have no idea about each others political opinions.
"Moderate Christians are quiescent crusaders."
"Moderate Christians are quiescent crusaders."
I would think that'd the way it should be unless one chooses to venture into Political!
Nice "An X is just a quiescent Y." example, by the way. My examples were much more, how to say it...."illustrative" of my objections. Thought better of using them.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 20,194
Google Obama Bibles Guns Cling and you will have your answer.
Closer and closer to the Chasm.
Closer and closer to the Chasm.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
I don't know if you mean this to be analogous to my signature, if you do it's a major fail - quite apart from the fact that it isn't offensive, even if the analogy was accurate.
If I had posted "Moderate muslims are quiescent jihadis" then you would have a point. As it stands, it is - marcinek guessed it - a strawman.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
It figures it appeals to you. It's a strawman.I would think that'd the way it should be unless one chooses to venture into Political!
Nice "An X is just a quiescent Y." example, by the way.
You nailed it. It is not analogous to your signature, because "...it isn't offensive." Your words.
Obviously its ultimately up to Spark as to whether or not the statement is offensive and inflammatory, as many, including myself, have already mentioned. As the sites rules say about Racism/Bigotry/etc
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/faq.php?faq=faq_infractions_lists#faq_faq_infractions_racism
And if one argues that offending people of the Islamic faith is somehow OK here, there is still the fact that politics are supposed to stay in PA.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
Or what would happen at the mention of "quiescent Zionists"? Or "quiescent Nazis"? Or "quiescent single welfare moms" Or "quiescent Communists"?
If its all fair game, fine...just let us all know.
Can I use that? It's fabulous!
That would be insulting to many Muslims, you know. Not to Jews.
Quiescent means dormant. In context it does suggest something negative like jihadism. It could justifiably offend some people outside the PA. That's clear IMHO for whatever my opinion is worth. But may I ask why nobody else has complained?
It shouldn't be a biggie especially if Phill voluntarily changes it. Not my call, but maybe a suggestion. I'm a little afraid of the next one.
Abraham was the first Zionist. Actually, the first was G-d, but hey, close enough!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
Kudos for snipping a quote out of context. Your third form of fallacious arguing. I can see why people call you a troll.
Have many, including yourself, already mentioned that it's up to Spark, or have many, including yourself, already mentioned that the statement is offensive and inflammatory? With regards to the last, I think you're pretty much a crowd of one in that respect. I'm sure you feel like a lot to yourself. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that in fact no one agrees with your charge of racism, bigotry or what have you. Some tentatively feel that my signatures would be better excluded to PA. The mods that have expressed an opinion are in fact unconcerned.
Your strawman fu is decreasing in power. That was close but no cigar. Unless you are arguing for that, no one is.
Look. I know there's no way you'll let this go. It's what you do. But I don't mind. I have some spare time. So I'll fence with you a bit, until a mod tells me to change the signature, or I get tired of you.
Or you could come to PA. If you think you're ready for the Major League. Show us you can do more than just ankle biting.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
It could also mean more observant, which is how I think Steyn meant it. That is still a long way from jihad, which I might add is a duty of every muslim.
To me, a lot.
I'm kinda hoping that's a rhetorical question.
I am not one for catering to random sensibilities. No one has a right not to be offended. The mods of this forum have a right to manage this forum however they see fit. That includes telling me to alter the siggies.
I have a sense of humor, but if ordered to change it, I am not gonna push my luck that far.
I'm sure you will tire of being asked to confront your racist claims soon enough. They are only Muslims, right? Probably not many of them around here to be offended anyway.
As far as PA, if I want to hear you spout racism and "strawman" whenever you are questioned, apparently we all get to do that whenever you venture out of PA, so why bother.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,973
Not happening when you're not around.
Doesn't matter, they have you to get offended for them. Must be loads of groups and demographics you do the getting-offended for.
I'll tell you why: you get to explain why you think my siggies are racist (or whatever) and I get to explain why they're not. And other people will chime in, on either side, and we may never agree but we'll get past the silly name calling and being offended. Everything that can be said on the matter will be said.
It's what the grownups do if they have a beef.
- Status