Specifically, when she accepts that said niggers have just as much a right to self-determination as she does. The very core of supremacism is the arrogation of the right to speak for everyone else.
James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
- Status
Specifically, when she accepts that said niggers have just as much a right to self-determination as she does. The very core of supremacism is the arrogation of the right to speak for everyone else.
And that sort of situation (along with the accompanying men's bathrooms) is exactly an example of the sort of unacceptable imposition of supremacism that is at issue in this thread, and which you keep attempting to apologize for.
In progressive settings, solutions for this are sought (unisex/ungendered bathrooms being an obvious one). To suggest that such assertions of superiority are simply some kind of unavoidable fact of the universe that we just have to tolerate, is to advocate conservative, supremacist relations - and in a particularly feeble way, at that. In reality, we don't have to impose gender requirements on bathroom usage in the first place, and therefor don't have to label and exclude those who don't fit cleanly into established gender norms.
Not at all, I am pretty clear that its my own opinion I am expressing here. To continue the bathroom analogy, I noticed that there was a Unisex bathroom on every floor of a department in graduate school. Since I have no desire to run into unzipped men urinating in gender neutral environments, I immediately looked for a womens bathroom. Surprisingly, there was also a womens bathroom just down the corridor from every unisex bathroom. Lunch room discussions revealed that none of the women use the unisex bathroom. So it doesn't really matter what the other position denotes, the unisex bathroom was effectively a bathroom for "not women" in practice.
That would only be "not at all" if your opinion didn't include the premise that the right to self-identification of various others doesn't bear respecting.
That retaining gender-delineated bathrooms fails to solve the problem of imposing gender delineations as such hardly goes against any point I've made.
And the usual role of the unisex bathroom is that it is for people that fall into both of the categories "not men" and "not women." When they're maintained alongside gender-segregated bathrooms, they represent an attempt at a "separate but equal" status for the ambiguously-gendered, not an erasure of the larger issue of imposed gender identity. Ideally, you maintain only unisex bathrooms, so that nobody is confronted with gender identity issues when using the facilities. In a situation where you have one unisex bathroom and one women's bathroom, you have indeed enshrined an unfair privilege to women. See?
But, again, what is the point of this analogy supposed to even be? Muslims get to impose a label of "not-Muslim" onto anybody they want, because the same thing is widely done with genders? I guess you were assuming that everyone is perfectly okay with the gender-identity impositions, and so this would pose some troubling double-standard for them? If so, you're pathetically ignorant of how gender identity issues are viewed by the types of people that are sensitive to such concerns as those at issue here.
The problem with sensitivity to issues of identities created as a result of collateral damages of other people having a philosophical position you are opposed to, is that it limits your choice in having a say in it. But you still have the option to opt out by not engaging in it. Its somewhat strange to engage in religious debates on Islam and then be offended for having your position recognised.
After all, one doesn't really need bathrooms if all you want to do is take a piss.
But, also:
What "equipment" you may have in your pants has little bearing on gender generally, not just in the case of bathroom usage. A "woman" is somebody who looks and acts like a woman. It's much like race: both are correlated with genetic factors, but not in any hard, fast way.
Note that "woman" is not the same thing as "female."
What "equipment" you may have in your pants has little bearing on gender generally, not just in the case of bathroom usage. A "woman" is somebody who looks and acts like a woman. It's much like race: both are correlated with genetic factors, but not in any hard, fast way.
Note that "woman" is not the same thing as "female."
No, it doesn't. The only thing limiting anyone's say in how they get labelled here is the determined efforts of people like you (and EmptyBallsackOfChi, etc.) to resist such demands for respect of self-identification, impose your own labels, and refuse any accountability for such. And the correct, productive response is to resist such on the basis of said sensitivity, thereby making it more and more difficult for supremacists to impose such labels. This works, visibly: instead of an environment where y'all are free to pick labels for everyone in accordance with supremacist ideations, we get one where you spend all your time and energy (unsuccessfully) defending your privilege to do such. The next time around, you'll either display more sensitivity, or see your attempt similarly derailed into criticism of your lack thereof. The power relations determining who gets to call who what, are thus established (to say nothing of the moderator actions that this has already triggered).
So, no problem to speak of, on my end. I'm getting all of the say I want. But your quote there would make a pretty good description of the problem that such sensitivity poses to the likes of yourself (with a few pronouns replaced as appropriate, of course).
So: "just give up and let us call you whatever we want." I'll pass, thanks. How about you opt out of defending such supremacism?
Again, emphatically not the issue. It's a question of having one's identity labeled, and position disrespected accordingly. Nothing strange at all about engaging in religious debates on Islam and then being offended when Muslim supremacists disrespect you on grounds of identity.
Note that "not-Muslim" is not a position. A "position" is some positive set of beliefs. For example, I could label you "incoherent." While that would indeed be an accurate enough description of your statements, it is not "your position." It is a description of you, and specifically a basis for demeaning your opinion.
Indeed, your posts are more than enough setting for as much piss-taking as anyone might care to do.
Hmm so if I recignise your position in this thread, it is supremacism because I recognise that you are responding to my statements? I don't think so. You have a right to your position, even if it is opposed to mine and pretending that your position does not exist does me less credit than recognising that it does. Atheism is no less a position for being a rejection of theism even if it is in response to it. The important point here is: do you recognise that you possess a position? Is it a valid position? Do you stand by your position?
Would you feel better if I stated that there is no such position as atheism and hence your arguments are irrelevant? Should I maintain that I recognise no opinions which oppose my beliefs? That no such positions exist?
Nope.
Although I notice how far out of your way you went to avoid recognizing my position in this thread, there. This is itself another form of disrespect: putting words into my mouth, rather than putting a label on my forehead.
It's a red flag when somebody feels the need to start a response with a rephrasing of somebody else's position. It's almost invariably a strawman - as it plainly is here. You should stop doing that. It doesn't impress anybody. Well, except as to your astounding lack of honor, and the irony that you'd do such exactly in the context of asserting recognition of my position.
If you want to avoid disrespecting people, then you let them speak for themselves, and identify them in the way that they wish to be identified. If you elect not to do one or both of those, you should expect a hostile response. Because you are disrespecting them. Is that really so mysterious?
Who do you think you're going to fool with this crap? The issue is respecting identity, not "position." Although, the latter is rapidly becoming an issue as well, what with the persistence in misrepresenting my position. This is like the third consecutive response to me premised on such a conflation, despite repeated, explicit corrections. Are you really that dense? Or do you think such inanity is "cute" or "funny" or something? If you do, well, joke's on you.
Anyway, my weekend awaits. But feel free to continue to insist on missing the point in my absense.
Bells
Staff member
Unless you are now a Muslim woman, I fail to see how you could be offended by my comments about a big bad Muslim devil woman....?
And don't worry about the big bad Muslim devil woman my lil Geoff Geoff, if she is offended, she is more than capable of spamming the report button.
irrelevant person with irrelevant identity unrelated to self said:
In that case, the best way to avoid misrepresenting your identity or position on any issue in Islam is to simply ignore it. Clearly, since your responses are in NO WAY connected to my identity or my beliefs/opinions/views etc about Islam but spring independently from some unknown source, they are largely irrelevant in and of themselves
/puts women only sign outside the bathroom door, shuts and locks it.
AHA!!! GOTCHA!
Don't know what for or how its relevant, but gotcha all the same.
The actual reason for unisex bathrooms probably has a lot to do with the fact that unisex bathrooms are cheaper.
How so? Urinating outdoors is much cheaper, if economics is a consideration
Well, quinnsong makes a good point. 'Kufr' are assigned all kinds of negative values. It would be extremely hard to argue that it's not a pejorative on this basis alone, without any other discussion; but there is other discussion.
actually it makes my point.
I am not for the generic non-Muslim alternative to kufr
It seems impossible to touch on parallels without them being pejorative. I wonder why that is. :shrug:
Subtle racial shot too. Sweet.
Possible.
Disagreed as written - but I see what you're doing.
And this is part of Maududi's overall synthesis, which he derives from the hadiths: one can't look into hearts to see which way the wind really blows. But is is this kind of group assignment on which he rests his fascist ideals about society; adherence to his order.
So, from that perspective: Gedanken sind frei. Und nur Gedanken. If he'd been in Germany in 1933 he'd have been happily goose-stepping his way along.
This is twice in the same thread that you've gone along on the whole demeaning momma bear crap. Do I do this to you? Nope. But, I suppose if you're feeling angry and scared and powerless, sometimes it helps to pick a scapegoat. Does it? Does it make you feel better?
Yes but there is little one can do to change the history that is described. What would you prefer to call those who tortured the Muslims for their beliefs in Mecca and Medina? Its like Americans in Abu Ghraib, it doesn't mean "Americans" is a slur just that its unavoidable to describe them as who they are when they go around torturing and killing people for their politics or religion. In fact, this is possibly why the word kufr originated in that context, it refers to people who not only rejected Islam, but did so violently.
Duh.
Generally, the expenses of building and maintaining two bathrooms are greater than the expenses of building and maintaining one (which is bigger than each of the smaller ones per se, but smaller than the two combined).
Er, actually some of the charges of duplicity and immorality are pretty specious and of dubious historicity. You're not saying you really believe all that mummery, are you?
Anwyay, it simply can't be used as an unavoidable basis for the persistence of this pejorative. There's plenty of the same nonsense in Christianity: yet, heathen is a recognizably offensive word, and should be avoided.
Edit: wait - "tortured them for their beliefs in Abu Ghraib"? Come on.
You mean, do I believe that the Prophet was forced to leave Mecca by the people in power? That those who supported him for his views against female infanticide, slavery, womens rights etc were tortured or driven away? Well it has been pointed out several times on the forum why some verses in the Quran are of the Meccan period and why many others [dealing with self defence against oppression etc] are from Medina. Is that mummery? Not according to most Muslim scholars - but perhaps you have some evidence against these theories?
First, what's their support from other, independent authors? :shrug:
Second, victors write the history.
Third, even those stories don't always paint Mohammed's actions in a positive light.
Short form: there's no justification for them. Should I label all Jews because Jesus had some problems with the Pharisees? No.
So you don't have any evidence? Never mind, anyway, if you read the Quran rather than google kufr, you will discover that most of the stories are not about Mohammed but about Moses. Muhammed is mentioned a total number of 4 times, while Moses is mentioned 124 times. So as you are still presumably Christian, I'll leave you to tell us about all those made up stories.
- Status