Islam: What is your problem

Originally posted by FMF
[RJHinds] issues the most self-righteous, grinding, insulting, dehumanizing denunciations..

And yet, as you say, you aren't affected by his posts whatsoever. So.. your statement means 1 of the following:

1) his posts in fact are *not* as you describe, or
2) you think of yourself as vastly superior to the other readers; impervious to that which has a detrimental effect upon them

a statement cannot be "insulting" and "dehumanizing" if no one is insulted or dehumanized.

Originally posted by FMF
No, I'm talking about your resort to petty insults and straw men. I have no reason to question your commitment to freedom of speech and your condemnation of violence, as you well know. But if the broader prism through which Finnegan observes the issues being discussed here results in you mewling about "vilification" and "the mob" and "bullying" and "attempts to then I think you are not being a very effective advocate of anything coherent.

What broader prism is that fmf, you have not even read the thread have you, you simply choose your next straight man and play to the balcony regardless of what has actually been said, you are a sad individual, who do you believe your audience is? Are you trying to recruit finnegan as prefect, is it his avatar that you are drawn to? why are getting so upset and snippy?

Originally posted by sumydid
A statement cannot be "insulting" and "dehumanizing" if no one is insulted or dehumanized.

I don't think a Christian can denounce someone in a more fulsome and abject way than to claim that they are doing the work of Satan. RJHinds makes this accusation day in day out, thread after thread, and aims it at fellow Christians and non-Christians alike. The fact you and I might perhaps agree that RJHinds is a harmless, misanthropic blowhard, does not preclude us from commenting on what language and sentiments he directs at other members of the community.

Back in January, after Dasa's call for genocide of Muslim male adults, RJHinds very carefully positioned himself as broadly supportive of Dasa's aim [later claiming that the posts in question were 'jokes']. I think in this matter RJHinds was clearly trying to dehumanize hundreds and hundreds of millions of people around the world. Just recently RJHinds stated that he would accept genocide of Muslims under certain circumstances. What is not "dehumanizing" about blathering on about the mass murder of hundreds of millions of fellow humans?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
What broader prism is that fmf, you have not even read the thread have you, you simply choose your next straight man and play to the balcony regardless of what has actually been said, you are a sad individual, who do you believe your audience is? Are you trying to recruit finnegan as prefect, is it his avatar that you are drawn to? why are getting so upset and snippy?

This is just clumsy deflection, kevcvs57.

Originally posted by FMF
This is just clumsy deflection, kevcvs57.

No it is a perfectly natural reaction to your overly nasty characterization of my stance in the thread, it was me who first got accused of sexism, on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, and you do seem overly concerned about the interaction between finnegan and myself, in fact I would suggest, a lot more concerned than either of us, so I am entitled to speculate on what is driving your aggression on this matter.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No it is a perfectly natural reaction to your overly nasty characterization of my stance in the thread, it was me who first got accused of sexism, on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, and you do seem overly concerned about the interaction between finnegan and myself, in fact I would suggest, a lot more concerned than either of us, so I am entitled to speculate on what is driving your aggression on this matter.

More personal remarks from you. I said I found your stance on "vilification" hypocritical and told you why. The only motivation of mine in saying this is the fact that I found your stance on "vilification" hypocritical. If you find it "nasty", then that is a matter for you.

Originally posted by FMF
More personal remarks from you. I said I found your stance on "vilification" hypocritical and told you why. The only motivation of mine in saying this is the fact that I found your stance on "vilification" hypocritical. If you find it "nasty", then that is a matter for you.

Yeah Whatever.

Originally posted by sumydid
And yet, as you say, you aren't affected by his posts whatsoever. So.. your statement means 1 of the following:

1) his posts in fact are *not* as you describe, or
2) you think of yourself as vastly superior to the other readers; impervious to that which has a detrimental effect upon them

a statement cannot be "insulting" and "dehumanizing" if no one is insulted or dehumanized.

Or a third possibility is that he considers the posts insulting and dehumanising towards other people and not himself, but considers that it is worthwhile and desirable to point this out.

Let's consider a few scenarios. Sexist arguments and language are insulting and dehumanising towards women. In the first place, that makes it more difficult for women to participate in our discussion. They are more likely to simply walk away from the forum and not participate. In the second place, if others tolerate such abuse, even though they are not themselves the victims, then they can be considered at best to be bystanders and it is because so many people remain as bystanders that such oppressive behaviour is enabled to fester.

Any men on the site who take it on themselves to object and argue against sexist behaviour become in turn subject to abuse. An example of the type of snide backhanded remark is to describe them as arrogant, as in "you think of yourself as vastly superior..." If they keep arguing their corner, the abuse escalates.

Another scenario is the expression of islamaphobic prejudices, especially when associated with violent language. In a forum where (no surprises) muslims are not represented at all as far as I can see, then for non muslims to tolerate such expressions is, again, tantamount to endorsing it and providing a public space in which such offensive prejudice can fester unchallenged.

So without adding to the list, it is certainly appropriate to challenge insulting and dehumanising arguments on this forum even when as individuals we are not the direct targets. If that requires an element of arrogance or unpopularity then fine.

You might try it. If more people challenged offensive posts then maybe more people would find this forum a congenial space for better debates.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No it is a perfectly natural reaction to your overly nasty characterization of my stance in the thread, it was me who first got accused of sexism, on what I consider to be flimsy evidence, and you do seem overly concerned about the interaction between finnegan and myself, in fact I would suggest, a lot more concerned than either of us, so I am entitled to speculate on what is driving your aggression on this matter.

Your wounded innocence is entirely synthetic and plastic. If you find it so unpleasant to be accused of having made a sexist remark then what about responding in a more authentic way by assuring us that was not what you intended and moving on. If you actually do think that sexist behaviour is objectionable, then it would also be appropriate to assure us that you also disapprove of the stuff RJH has been posting in that vein. Getting into such a pretentious rage is just nonsensical. Get a grip.

Originally posted by finnegan
Or a third possibility is that he considers the posts insulting and dehumanising towards other people and not himself, but considers that it is worthwhile and desirable to point this out.

Let's consider a few scenarios. Sexist arguments and language are insulting and dehumanising towards women. In the first place, that makes it more difficult for women ...[text shortened]... sive posts then maybe more people would find this forum a congenial space for better debates.

"Any men on the site who take it on themselves to object and argue against sexist behaviour become in turn subject to abuse. An example of the type of snide backhanded remark is to describe them as arrogant, as in "you think of yourself as vastly superior..." If they keep arguing their corner, the abuse escalates."

Or a 4th possibility, A poster with delusions concerning their debating abilities gets so truculent when a fellow poster will not be brow beaten, that they drum up an accusation of sexism in the hope of demeaning the other poster and claim a hollow victory. My problem with this tactic is not the effect on the poster, but the possible devaluation of the anti sexist stance per se.

"Your wounded innocence is entirely synthetic and plastic. If you find it so unpleasant to be accused of having made a sexist remark then what about responding in a more authentic way by assuring us that was not what you intended and moving on. If you actually do think that sexist behaviour is objectionable, then it would also be appropriate to assure us that you also disapprove of the stuff RJH has been posting in that vein. Getting into such a pretentious rage is just nonsensical. Get a grip."

As one of the forums self appointed commissars you are still labouring under the delusion that:- A any of your fellow posters are required to exonerate themselves to your satisfaction, and B that any of your fellow posters give a toss about your self serving opinions concerning them or anything else. " An example of the type of snide backhanded remark is to describe them as arrogant, as in "you think of yourself as vastly superior..." So now, what may be a pertinent critique of your debating style is transformed into the modus operandi of the serial misogynist, LOL, try to be a bit less transparent.

So by all means continue with your 'Mutual Appreciation Society' debate, but this is my last post on the issue, because like the thread and unlike you, I have moved on, get a life.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
"Any men on the site who take it on themselves to object and argue against sexist behaviour become in turn subject to abuse. An example of the type of snide backhanded remark is to describe them as arrogant, as in "you think of yourself as vastly superior..." If they keep arguing their corner, the abuse escalates."

Or a 4th possibility, A poster with del ...[text shortened]... e, because like the thread and unlike you, I [b]have moved on, get a life.[/b]

Okay, that's a fourth possibility and you and I are not the ones to judge. We have at least set out what we think on the subject and not been silenced let alone browbeaten, so that's what forums are for, don't you agree?

Originally posted by finnegan
Okay, that's a fourth possibility and you and I are not the ones to judge. We have at least set out what we think on the subject and not been silenced let alone browbeaten, so that's what forums are for, don't you agree?

Yes I agree, especially if it means I can concentrate on debating posters with whom I differ significantly on substantive issues.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Yes I agree, especially if it means I can concentrate on debating posters with whom I differ significantly on substantive issues.

Not your last post on the issue then - was it?