BF2S Forums NPR analyst fired over Muslim comment

Probably the worst thing about this firing is that it discourages having a public dialogue on prejudices toward Muslims as a result of things like 9/11.  Instead, we just end up with Tea Partiers flipping their shit.

When a reasonable person like Williams makes a candid remark, people should engage him or her in order to better understand the origins of the prejudice involved so that it is possible to move forward from it.

Now that Juan has lost his job over it, there's a lot less incentive for people to be open about this sort of thing.  Prejudice toward Muslims goes back to just being the "elephant in the room" while we pretend like people's perceptions of Muslims shouldn't be any different after 9/11.

Turquoise wrote:

Probably the worst thing about this firing is that it discourages having a public dialogue on prejudices toward Muslims as a result of things like 9/11.  Instead, we just end up with Tea Partiers flipping their shit.

When a reasonable person like Williams makes a candid remark, people should engage him or her in order to better understand the origins of the prejudice involved so that it is possible to move forward from it.

Now that Juan has lost his job over it, there's a lot less incentive for people to be open about this sort of thing.  Prejudice toward Muslims goes back to just being the "elephant in the room" while we pretend like people's perceptions of Muslims shouldn't be any different after 9/11.

This is all true. It does, however, open a debate on those who benefit from the First Amendment trampling all over it. Yes, I realize it's only legally applicable to the government (NPR receives fed funding, so there may be some applicability here), but it's kind of like the NRA arguing against the tenets of the Second Amendment. When press organizations start firing people for"saying the wrong things" according to their "viewpoint", the first line of defense for the principles of the First Amendment starts down a slippery slope.

Not illegal, but wrong. In multiple ways.

I'm finding American liberals are some of the least tolerant people I've seen of late.

my team is winning


team i dont give a flying fuck and worry about my damn self

FEOS wrote:

burnzz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm finding American liberal s are some of the least tolerant people I've seen of late.

fixt.

there's no room for debate, negotiation, consensus building, reaching across the aisle, or even barter - it's all game where your 'team' has to win.

and it's destroying this country.

I meant what I wrote the first time. While there's certainly room for improvement on both sides of the political aisle, any disagreement with the liberal agenda in the US right now is met with cries of "racism" or "hate speech" or some other such nonsense in order to cut off any relevant discussion of the topic at hand. Facts have become irrelevant, emotions rule the debate.

It depends on the topic.  On this topic, liberals are often the intolerant ones.

On socialized medicine, it's more often conservatives.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I meant what I wrote the first time. While there's certainly room for improvement on both sides of the political aisle, any disagreement with the liberal agenda in the US right now is met with cries of "racism" or "hate speech" or some other such nonsense in order to cut off any relevant discussion of the topic at hand. Facts have become irrelevant, emotions rule the debate.

It depends on the topic.  On this topic, liberals are often the intolerant ones.

On socialized medicine, it's more often conservatives.

Socialized medicine is a proposed solution to an issue. That issue being health care reform. I would argue that the left in this country is remarkably intolerant of alternative views regarding that issue, even though both sides agree reform is required.

The intolerance I'm thinking of is how every time socialized medicine is brought up, a significant portion of the right screams "SOCIALISM EEEEEVVILLLL!"

I'm open to the idea of things like HSA's and removing barriers to interstate competition for healthcare, but there should also be an acknowledgement that there is nothing inherently evil about socialism.

FEOS wrote:

This is the emotion-based vice fact-based debate that drives me insane. One side cries, "SOCIALISM EVIL!" and the other side cries, "YOU WANT POOR PEOPLE TO DIE!". Both sies knowing, of course, that neither emotion-based position is anywhere close to accurate. All it does is detract from and prevent any real progress on the issue at hand, which requires dealing with facts and figures, not emotion.

Absolutely.  And yeah, what Grayson did with the "die quickly" rant was funny but it certainly didn't help the debate any at all.  He also most likely killed his chances of re-election as well.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

I'm glad you only considered his empty words and not his actions.

I must've missed that attack on Mecca. When did that happen? Got a link?

So... the Twin Towers are the equivalent of Mecca then? lol

No. Your clear implication was that the enemy WAS/IS Islam. The heart of the Islamic faith is Mecca. It has not been attacked. In fact, Coalition troops have risked their lives to protect Islamic holy sites, while Islamic fundamentalists have gone out of their way to put them at risk/destroy them.

Your position fails when compared to things like facts.

oug wrote:

I'm glad you have no arguments. Again.

erm actually read the thread.  i have made my points about the subject.  you on the other hand.....

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I must've missed that attack on Mecca. When did that happen? Got a link?

So... the Twin Towers are the equivalent of Mecca then? lol

no. Your clear implication was that the enemy WAS/IS Islam. The heart of the Islamic faith is Mecca. It has not been attacked. In fact, Coalition troops have risked theirblives to protect Islamic holy sites, while Islamic fundamentalists have gone out of their way to put them at risk/destroy them.

Your position fails when compared to things like facts.

he usually does fail

FEOS wrote:

burnzz wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm finding American liberal s are some of the least tolerant people I've seen of late.

fixt.

there's no room for debate, negotiation, consensus building, reaching across the aisle, or even barter - it's all game where your 'team' has to win.

and it's destroying this country.

I meant what I wrote the first time. While there's certainly room for improvement on both sides of the political aisle, any disagreement with the liberal agenda in the US right now is met with cries of "racism" or "hate speech" or some other such nonsense in order to cut off any relevant discussion of the topic at hand. Facts have become irrelevant, emotions rule the debate.

And anything proposed by liberals is met by cries of "socialism", "muslims" and "nazis" by the right. The right is in no way innocent of disrupting reasonable debate.

FEOS wrote:

No. Your clear implication was that the enemy WAS/IS Islam.

What?

My implication was that the entire western media has been propagading anti-muslim sentiments ever since 9/11 thus creating a distorted view of the people and the faith itself. Ergo it seemed - in a sense logical - for the man in question to feel threatened by the burka when boarding a plane, and that's why it seemed wrong to get fired simply because he expressed that feeling. A feeling for which I consider the media and the government responsible.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No. Your clear implication was that the enemy WAS/IS Islam.

What?

My implication was that the entire western media has been propagading anti-muslim sentiments ever since 9/11 thus creating a distorted view of the people and the faith itself. Ergo it seemed - in a sense logical - for the man in question to feel threatened by the burka when boarding a plane, and that's why it seemed wrong to get fired simply because he expressed that feeling. A feeling for which I consider the media and the government responsible.

It goes back and forth.  Mainstream media sensationalizes anything having to do with fanatical Muslims, while at the same time, people are condemned for stating their feelings that result from this.

Society is rather hypocritical in that regard.