An interesting comparison

Quote: Nareed

It bears noting I'm not reducing the whole immigration and refugee debates to racism out of convenience, nor to demonize anyone, nor due to notions of PC, nor even to score points. But rather because that's the way it looks. There's always some group singled out, and it's usually a poorly regarded group facing some prejudice. Be this group Italians, Mexicans, Arabs, Muslims, etc.

I also do not mean to imply anyone who is against more open immigration is racist. But the badly-conceived and articulated arguments, in particular the economic one, are rooted in racist notions even if these are not argued openly.

Also, there is no need to apologize for using the word "racism". I know, the response will often be: "Don't call me a racist, just because you don't like my opinion!" But that is not what you, or I, or others do. We call statments and opinions racist because they are racist. And the quality "racist" is something bad. It goes against our Western values, and we will not stand for it.

Quote: Canyonero

Also, there is no need to apologize for using the word "racism".

The only think I will say to that is that there is a difference between racism and bigotry. I think we are unlikely to see anyone argue that Muslims are racially inferior to non-Muslims. "Muslim" is not a race, for problem #1 with anyone thinking like that. Googling the word, we get this:

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I think we can expand that to just 'intolerance towards groups different from one's own' and still not claim the word 'bigotry' is misused.

But 'racism' is going to be the wrong charge against anything I've seen asserted in these threads, when possibly stepping over the line.

The racism charge is very powerful in this country so naturally it gets over-used. I'm used to it, but that doesn't mean it makes for good writing or discussion.

Quote: Canyonero

Also, there is no need to apologize for using the word "racism".

Lately it's considered politically incorrect to call out someone on racism, or any kind of bigotry, even when it's as glaringly obvious as a Vegas neon sign.

But some people do get swayed by the dressed-up arguments. the crime argument plays very well, even among a more cosmopolitan set who are definitely not racists or bigots.

I would definitely distinguish between a German and a German who identifies as a neo-Nazi, if you told me one group or the other were coming in droves to the U.S.

So, how do Muslims fit in? Personally I think, 1 billion is just too many to characterize successfully. They fight amongst themselves, that's how different they are.

It's also a mistake to treat every Christian as Fred Phelps, for instance.

Beliefs matter more than the person or group of people. Only a crazy person (IMO) wants to deal constantly with people who constantly differ in ideas and beliefs but look a lot like us. That's why most of us move away from our birth parents and get the hell out of the house. (j/k maybe)

I remember one of the first incidents I read about after 911, was some idiot shooting someone of the Sikh religion, because they saw someone with a turban on his head. Beliefs, not who your are, skin color, clothes, is what makes a real difference.

Quote: odiousgambit

"Muslim" is not a race,

But 'racism' is going to be the wrong charge against anything I've seen asserted in these threads, when possibly stepping over the line.

The racism charge is very powerful in this country so naturally it gets over-used. I'm used to it, but that doesn't mean it makes for good writing or discussion.

There are many definitions for racism, I propose this one from the Oxford dictionary:

Quote: Racism - Oxford dictionary

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

This was the easy part. Now for the hard part: What constitutes a race?

Iit is my observation that in the U.S. (based on American history?) the concept of race largely revovlves around physical features perceived as common to a group. I.e. skin color. Muslims are not a race in that sense, since in principle anybody can join that religion.
This view is reflected in the following definition:

Quote: Race - Oxford dictionary

one of the main groups that humans can be divided into according to their physical differences, for example the colour of their skin

However, there is a second defintion as well:

Quote: Race - Oxford dictionary

a group of people who share the same language, history, culture, etc.

Now, "Muslims" as they are lumped together in certain posts on this forum quite clearly fit that second defintion. (Which is also the defintion more prevalent in Europe. The "physical differences" definition really went out of fashion after 1945, I wonder why.) Going by that defintion it seems fair and accurate to me that any statements that describe "Muslims" as a homogenous group sharing a common culture that is inferior in several qualities to "non-muslims" are indeed racist.

I feel a good choice of words for your charge would be 'religious bigotry'

Maybe it is a US thing to wince at 'racism'. It really gets overused and it often is expected to shut down free speech.

Quote: rxwine

So, how do Muslims fit in? Personally I think, 1 billion is just too many to characterize successfully.

There is a very real problem with a very vocal portion who hold radical ideas. I'm not talking of the "Death to America!" variety, but those who observe so-called Sharia Law (*) and think they can, and should, apply it to everyone else as well.

For instance, when you read about cab drivers at airports won't take passengers who carry alcohol, or those in cities who won't carry someone with a dog. I recall a case a few years ago about Muslims who refused to use hand sanitizer when visiting at a hospital, because it contains alcohol.

Now, I don't know enough about Sharia Law to tell if the claim that a Muslim is forbidden to carry alcohol in his cab, or to use alcohol as a disinfectant has any basis in fact. But I do know there are Muslim doctors and surgeons all over the world at all levels of piety, and I can't believe many of them refuse to use a prevalent antiseptic agent like alcohol on religious grounds.

There is a great deal of institutional anti-Semitism in many majority Muslim countries, even when they are nominally secular. There's the whole female genital mutilation debacle, honor killings, deep misogyny, etc. that are documented to be prevalent in some Muslim countries. You get to see some of it in recent Muslim immigrants to the West as well.

But the surest way to turn more Muslims against you, is to treat them all equally as terrorists, religious fanatics, Jew-haters, women-haters and welfare leeches for good measure. I say they'll turn against you, because I don't think such contempt will be met either by meek acceptance or an eager desire to assimilate.

Quote: odiousgambit

Maybe it is a US thing to wince at 'racism'. It really gets overused and it often is expected to shut down free speech.

While I have not really spent much time abroad I have heard from people that do that the reaction in other places is not nearly what it is in the USA. Personally my experience is that when someone says "RACIST" they have no intelligent rebuttal to what is being said.

I also find it used by people who think that they or their favored person just cannot be doing anything wrong. I've had a few employees and seen a few coworkers pull this act. It becomes "the boy who cried wolf" thing.

Quote: Face

You could see AZD's misinformation, judge him for it, and hold a grudge. And by doing so, you'd miss a lot of value. Gun talk, DIY talk, whatever it happens to be. It would be your loss. You could also flip out on him. That puts you at risk of suspension, it causes divisiveness, and maybe some lurkers start thinking "just another wahoo on the warpath". Or you could just bring some facts to the table and have a civil debate. I just posted a correction to his post. AZD is a reasonable man, he can look it up himself. Should he do so, he again is reasonable, so I bet he would admit he missed the mark and would likely concede and post a different example to better illustrate his point. And then... we just move on. But in doing so, we just made a huge thing happen. Information is spread. People get educated. An understanding is met. Any hard feelings are squashed, and generally, a mutual respect is formed. As I've said before, AZD and I disagree on many things. But nearly all of them have been handled in just this fashion, and that's why (IMO) we get along so well. Even when we can't find common ground and end in disagreement, the way we conduct ourselves is more than enough positive to overshadow our disagreement.

For the first part, I did not see the correction though not for lack of looking so I have not responded. If a response is needed I will need it pointed out to me.

On the getting along and mutual respect thing, at the risk of sounding old-school the thing is we act like men and not children. Face and I are both able to make our points in a logical, fact-based way. Neither of us takes personal offense because the other disagrees. We attack the issue, not each other. Each subject is segregated in a strange way. We can be discussing a heated issue in one thread and the next minute virtues of Craftsman vs. Harbor Freight in the other. It is IMHO how proper gentlemen behave.

Heck, if we could teach married people this the divorce rate from Pittsburgh to Buffalo would collapse and we would be driving prime 1960s cars reconditioned with modern underpinnings. Make mine maybe a 1961 Thunderbird Sport Roadster?

Now, back to the "racism" thing. Here is why I will not simply accept "racist" as a reason for something. The reason is that it proves nothing. The person saying "racist" generally is afraid to judge a situation. If I make a post explaining the history of something and why it correlates to a modern thing I expect the rebuttal to be some reason why we should not judge by history.

For example, if I point out the issues muslims have historically had assimilating and violence that has happened then a proper response is to show that such a thing is the exception and not the rule. You cannot say, "it is racist to say that!" It shows nothing.

Likewise pointing out the nice, muslim family you knew is just an exception. To use my favorite example, if I see 10 guys jump off a porch and break their leg I am going to warn you of such. If you knew one guy who was a professional stuntman who you saw jump and do it safe does not change the fact that generally speaking if you do it you are going to break your leg.

There are other general statements that can easily be made on race. Whites are more likely to prefer country music to rap and blacks the opposite. Just because you work with one black guy who loves Hank Williams, Jr does not change this fact. Many can be found. Blacks smoke menthol cigarettes in higher numbers than whites. Your doctor is far more likely to be Jewish than Mexican. You can wear the blinders of "not being racist" all you like, facts are facts. Bet against it and I will over time clean you out same as if you made the Field Bet in craps and nothing else over and over.

So, anyone who wants to debate bring it, I welcome good discussion. And Face, as always, thanks for the kind words. I feel the same.