Quote:


People choose to be a Muslim. People choose to be a doctor. If someone thinks less of you for that choice, it is completely different to someone thinking less of you because of the colour of your skin. Words have meaning remember?

Quote:


People do not choose to be sand negroes.

Quote:


I gave a perfectly clear explanation of this early in the thread Gandalf. Feel free to quote me. I am not of two minds. I am not of a mind either way, because I do not consider it necessary for racism to exist. And unlike you, I do not see it as forcing the broadening of the definition of racism, while excluding clear cases of racism in some circumstances.

Quote:


Read what I said Gandalf.

Quote:


Did not say that either. In fact it was my suggestion that you were a victim of it. You insisted you did not think of yourself as one.

Quote:


I think being labelled a sand negro is racism. I think being labelled a Muslim, a doctor, inbred, retarded, recessive etc is not racism. This is a very simple point I am making Gandalf. It is as if you equate racism with everything that is bad, therefor anyone telling you it is racism is saying it is good. I have spent 20 pages telling you what is racism and what is not, and it still has not dawned on you that I am talking about racism.

Quote:


You are when you say superiority is the deciding factor. If someone is motivated by greed to be racist, in the absence of any notions of superiority, then they are not racist according to you.

Quote:


You said it was the deciding factor for whether something is racist. Remember Gandalf - that word we are talking about - racism? If all else fails, check the thread title.

Quote:


And when it is not, it is not racist? Hence, wanting to kick non-whites out of England for purely historical reasons, or for greed, or out of fear of change, is not racist according to you.

Quote:


You can tell that by the way i specifically exclude superiority? Is this what your definition of racism has reduced you to - being incapable of giving a straight answer to a hypothetical question?

Quote:


And so you keep saying, on and on and on. How many times do I have to list the other plausible explanations before you stop filtering what people actually say through your definition of racism?

Quote:


Why not just say the white ones? This is pretty close to the same thing. Or do you now insist that people must absolutely have your tendency towards pedantry and political correctness so that they divide enatly according to your definition of racism?

If people said white for the same set of reasons, would you accept it as not racist because it fails your definition of racism, or would you insist that because they said white it must be racism (obviously), therefor their motivations automatically change to fit with your definition of racism? This is how absurd your argument has become Gandalf. You literally cannot accept the possibility of the existence of very plausible scenarios because it breaks your definition of racism. You literally have to reject reality and replace it with your own version that conforms to your stupid definition.

BTW, why is "white" racist, but "people of British Heritage" not racist? Is it because the British Heritage thing is a real definition and therefor based on truth, therefor it cannot be racist because you slipped falsehood into the definition of racism?

Aussie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:



But only Muslims kill each other for being the 'wrong kinda' Muslim.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 9:40pm:


People don't choose to be inbred and low intellect. Or have you forgotton already moses' reference to all male muslims being both - and thats what makes it racist?

This is why moses' bigotry towards muslims shouldn't be considered any different to calling all muslims 'sand negroes' in terms of being racist. And indeed we see you further down offering 'being born sand negro' as the critical factor in why 'sand negro' is racist. Yet you continue to insist that they are different - with no logical or coherent justification.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 9:40pm:


I'm not talking about what you consider is or isn't racism in this case - I'm asking specifically about why you think calling moses' statement 'racist' - his outrageous, bigoted and offensive statement about muslims, cheapens the experience of victims of "real" racism. Its one thing to say one bigoted statement is racist while another is not - its a whole other to claim that doing so somehow "cheapens" the victims of the "real" racism.

Which is why I asked at the very beginning about what, if any, form of bigotry you would call moses' statement - if not racist. What I was trying to get at is whether or not you are suggesting moses' statement is any more 'acceptable' than "real" racism, or whether in fact you consider it hate speech that is just as dangerous as "real" racism. And this talk about "cheapening" victims of racism seems to suggest that you may indeed consider it somehow, shall we say 'less serious' than "real" racism.

It would have been a good discussion. Unfortunately you just huffed and puffed about me "negotiating down" or some such nonsense. Shame.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 9:40pm:


When "non-whites" and "kicked out" is used in the same sentence, I literally can't understand the mental contortions involved that allows someone to claim with a straight face a) it may not be racism and b) it may not be an assertion of racial superiority.

Thats really all I can say on the matter.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:



People are angry and frustrated about Muslims, Gandalf. Had enough of the special pleading, the 'tiny minority/vast majority' pap year in year out as Muslims drive trucks into Western crowds, torture and murder concert goers, behead off-duty soldiers, etc, etc.
Every time there is a Muslim outrage the biggest noise you hear from Muslim is 'nuffin' to do wiv us' and then almost immediately the victimhood drive is on. Muslims cause the mayhem yet they are immediately pleading victim status.

Everyone has seen through that, has had enough of it. If the Muslims can claim collective victim status then they can also be collectively denounced, called imbeciles and arsecovering opportunists. Balance.

No Westerner is driving trucks into Muslim crows, Gandalf. No Westerner is bursting into a Muslim gathering in Paris or Sydney or London and torture and execute innocent Muslims. Stop the faux outrage and victim-pleading. You are very, very privileged and protected as a Muslim in the West.

Turn your attention to your coreligionists who are sending your reputation down the toilet every day. Westerners are peeved and call you names?? Aren't you HUGELY lucky compared to the Western victims of your coreligionists?

Aussie wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

How so?

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 6:10pm:

the Irish...its all very sad   to think this has been going on for hundreds of years....


makes sense to some.

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:


You know, Soren if what you said was true, why haven't the Christians been pilloried for the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland?  For the Rwanda Genocide?  For the Balkan Wars of the 1990s?  For the...

The point is, your cries about Muslims fail because intelligent people ask, "Well, where was he when?"   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 19^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:


Wasn't there a 100 years one as well?