Some Republicans vote against anti-bigotry resolution.

[jj22]

“Blame Muslims collectively for terrorism” is a central tenet of the Trump-era GOP both in principle and policy. So it’s not like they could argue the point she was making. None of us disagee this is happening. Trump supporters/defenders and Republicans just think it’s good, while others (minorities who it tends to happen to far more frequently) don't.

That's the overall common sense summary of this "controversy". Omar is right, blaming a whole religion on a collective few, would be like blaming all Christians for the crusade. Or all Trump supporters being defined as terrorist because of the collective few who has committed more terrorist acts in last couple years then any other terror group.

If this isn't right for Christians, or Trump supporters, why is it right for Muslims? Or illegal immigrants who Trump and Republicans like to paint as rapist, drug dealers, and murderers.

Trump and Republicans like to paint people with broad brushes, but why are the people who fight against it happening to them (Christians, Trump supporters, White Americans who I guess should all be considered racists given the history) not standing up for it happening to others?

Omar was right, and if you disagree then you must also agree you are a terrorist and bigot (if you are a Trump supporter, or White). Or you are highlighting this unfortunate and disgraceful tactic.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2019, 09:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Can we go ahead and write the exact rules for what we have to say whenever we mention 9-11 so that none of us get accused of trivializing it.

Do we have to use the word "murder"?

Do we have to mention exactly how many people died?

Do we have to  include the word "muslim"?

Looks like this is going to be a huge issue going forward and I don't want to offend anyone by mentioning 9-11 without trivializing it.

And what about lying about what happened on 9-11 in order to score political points?  Is that as bad as not mentioning how many people were killed?  Or is that perfectly acceptable as long as it is spoken in a "straightforward" manner by a person who "says what he means" even if it is a total lie?

Maybe we could just use common sense.

All bias aside do you consider referring to 9-11 as "somebody did something" trivializing a catastrophe in which 3,000 Americans lost their lifes.

And you can also quit with the strawmen. Nobody here has suggested she say any of the 3 things you asked.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2019, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All bias aside do you consider referring to 9-11 as "somebody did something" trivializing a catastrophe in which 3,000 Americans lost their lifes.

No.  She was not talking about the 9-11 attacks at all.  Instead she was talking about the backlash and the effects on Muslims in America.

What if a German speaking to other Germans said "The things that happened during the Holocaust led to extreme limits on the German state after the war".  Was that person diminishing the Holocaust by just saying "things that happened"?

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2019, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you can also quit with the strawmen. Nobody here has suggested she say any of the 3 things you asked.

Then what exactly does she have to say?

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2019, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  She was not talking about the 9-11 attacks at all.  Instead she was talking about the backlash and the effects on Muslims in America.

What if a German speaking to other Germans said "The things that happened during the Holocaust led to extreme limits on the German state after the war".  Was that person diminishing the Holocaust by just saying "things that happened"?

Let's pretend just for a second when she was talking about the 9/11 attack in her speech she was talking about the 9/11 attacks. IF she were talking about them do you think referring to them as somebody did something would be trivializing it.

The way you phrased it, most likely not in personal conversation, but if they were giving a speech to a bunch of other Germans and said somebody did something to Jews during WWII; which caused Germans to be limited; then yes. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2019, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then what exactly does she have to say?

That's where we have to employ common sense. But I feel referring to it (or as you have asserted not referring to it) as somebody did something is trivializing one of the darkest days in our history. As usual we just disagree. 

[hollodero]

(04-16-2019, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All bias aside do you consider referring to 9-11 as "somebody did something" trivializing a catastrophe in which 3,000 Americans lost their lifes.

Though I have a hunch of what she was actually getting at, I consider that to be true. It seemed trivializing and especially regarding her background she should have chosen different words. I find it hard to argue against that.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2019, 06:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  But I feel referring to it (or as you have asserted not referring to it) 

I never asserted that that she did not refer to it.  What I said is that she was not talking about 9-11. 

She did not say "Oh let me tell you about 9-11.  It was just some people doing something to some people. that's all."  Instead she just referred to the events on 9-11 causing a backlash against Muslims in America.  She was not trying to make any expositive comment about 9-11.  Instead she was talking about the aftermath and its effects on Muslims in America.

Funny thing is that now this big stink has arisen no one dares just say "9-11" anymore.  Instead it has to be "one of the darkest days in our history" or "the worst terror attack ever on US soil" or "the day Muslims murdered over 3000 Americans".  If you don't believe me go look back through this thread.  everyone is afraid of "trivializing" 9-11 by just saying "9-11".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2019, 06:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Though I have a hunch of what she was actually getting at, I consider that to be true. It seemed trivializing and especially regarding her background she should have chosen different words. I find it hard to argue against that.

Other posters don't seem to be inhibited in such a manner.  I made a point earlier, which apparently confused some here, about the Holocaust being referred to as "some people did something to some people".  If anyone did this they would be, correctly, castigated, for minimizing what happened during the Holocaust.  What Omar said is no different.  Also, as I've already pointed out, this woman is far beyond getting the benefit of the doubt IMO.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2019, 07:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never asserted that that she did not refer to it.  What I said is that she was not talking about 9-11. 

She did not say "Oh let me tell you about 9-11.  It was just some people doing something to some people. that's all."  Instead she just referred to the events on 9-11 causing a backlash against Muslims in America.  She was not trying to make any expositive comment about 9-11.  Instead she was talking about the aftermath and its effects on Muslims in America.

Funny thing is that now this big stink has arisen no one dares just say "9-11" anymore.  Instead it has to be "one of the darkest days in our history" or "the worst terror attack ever on US soil" or "the day Muslims murdered over 3000 Americans".  If you don't believe me go look back through this thread.  everyone is afraid of "trivializing" 9-11 by just saying "9-11".

So.......do you or do you or do you not consider, referring to, talking about, discussing 9-11 (see what I did) in terms of "someone did something" to be trivializing the event? Why does everything have to be like pulling teeth? 

Maybe, just maybe trivializing the event made the backlash seems that much more unfounded.......Nah, that couldn't be it. she wasn't eben talking about it.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2019, 08:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other posters don't seem to be inhibited in such a manner.  I made a point earlier, which apparently confused some here, about the Holocaust being referred to as "some people did something to some people".  If anyone did this they would be, correctly, castigated, for minimizing what happened during the Holocaust.  What Omar said is no different.  Also, as I've already pointed out, this woman is far beyond getting the benefit of the doubt IMO.

Somebody did something DEC 7 1941. 

I think we actually refer to it as: "The Day somebody did something"

[*bfine32*]

Where my Freedom of the Press folks at:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocasio-cortez-backs-boycott-of-new-york-post-over-cover-attacking-ilhan-omar-214842479.html

Quote:In a Sunday interview with the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery,” the freshman New York congresswoman explained why she is endorsing a boycott of the paper organized by local Yemeni-American bodega owners, calling the Post’s attack on her friend Rep. Ilhan Omar “beyond the pale.”

Do we care this time if an elected official advocates banning a news outlet?

Personally, I've always had issue with it.

[Benton]

(04-17-2019, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Where my Freedom of the Press folks at:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocasio-cortez-backs-boycott-of-new-york-post-over-cover-attacking-ilhan-omar-214842479.html


Do we care this time if an elected official advocates banning a news outlet?

Personally, I've always had issue with it.

I didn't see where she was calling for banning a news outlet. She said it the front page was in poor taste, and agreed a boycott was warranted.

It was.

Do they have the right to run it? Sure. Was it most likely a partisan advertisement passed off as news? Yup.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2019, 12:20 AM)Benton Wrote: I didn't see where she was calling for banning a news outlet. She said it the front page was in poor taste.

It was.

Do they have the right to run it? Sure. Was it most likely a partisan advertisement passed off as news? Yup.

Didn't say she called for it; said she advocated "to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.) : to plead in favor of".

But your good with it in this case. So we disagree.

[Benton]

(04-17-2019, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't say she called for it; said she advocated "to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.) : to plead in favor of".

But your good with it in this case. So we disagree.

Advocate a ban and advocate a boycott are two different things.

I'm sure you understand the difference, but for those who don't, calling for a ban would be prohibiting free speech;calling for a boycott would be accepting that someone has the right to say something, but encouraging people not to listen.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2019, 12:44 AM)Benton Wrote: Advocate a ban and advocate a boycott are two different things.

I'm sure you understand the difference, but for those who don't, calling for a ban would be prohibiting free speech;calling for a boycott would be accepting that someone has the right to say something, but encouraging people not to listen.

First you had issue with word advocate and now it's ban. 

Boycott "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, dealing with, or participating in as an expression ofprotest or disfavor or as a means of coercion:"


So can we quit pulling teeth and say you're ok with an elected official urging the act of abstaining from using a public media because they don't like what it says?

[Benton]

(04-17-2019, 12:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So can we quit pulling teeth and say you're ok with an elected official urging the act of abstaining from using a public media because they don't like what it says?

It's not a public media. It's a privately held agency.

[GMDino]

(04-17-2019, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Where my Freedom of the Press folks at:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocasio-cortez-backs-boycott-of-new-york-post-over-cover-attacking-ilhan-omar-214842479.html


Do we care this time if an elected official advocates banning a news outlet?

Personally, I've always had issue with it.

(04-17-2019, 12:20 AM)Benton Wrote: I didn't see where she was calling for banning a news outlet. She said it the front page was in poor taste, and agreed a boycott was warranted.

It was.

Do they have the right to run it? Sure. Was it most likely a partisan advertisement passed off as news? Yup.

(04-17-2019, 12:44 AM)Benton Wrote: Advocate a ban and advocate a boycott are two different things.

I'm sure you understand the difference, but for those who don't, calling for a ban would be prohibiting free speech;calling for a boycott would be accepting that someone has the right to say something, but encouraging people not to listen.

(04-17-2019, 12:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: First you had issue with word advocate and now it's ban. 

Boycott "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, dealing with, or participating in as an expression ofprotest or disfavor or as a means of coercion:"


So can we quit pulling teeth and say you're ok with an elected official urging the act of abstaining from using a public media because they don't like what it says?

"okay with it"? Well, she didn't call them "the enemy of the people" but I'm still not in favor of it.  Even Obama didn't say for people to stop believing Fox news...he just said they were biased.  I am "okay" with an elected official (or anyone) pointing out that a business did something in poor taste (their personal opinion).

But as Benton pointed out you changed boycott to ban which has a different connotation.  "Banning" brings to mind images of forced closed down, book burning, etc. 

What did you think of the front page in question? (Free speech/freedom of the press aside).  Was it in poor taste?

[BmorePat87]

(04-16-2019, 09:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Can we go ahead and write the exact rules for what we have to say whenever we mention 9-11 so that none of us get accused of trivializing it.

Do we have to use the word "murder"?

Do we have to mention exactly how many people died?

Do we have to  include the word "muslim"?

Looks like this is going to be a huge issue going forward and I don't want to offend anyone by mentioning 9-11 without trivializing it.

And what about lying about what happened on 9-11 in order to score political points?  Is that as bad as not mentioning how many people were killed?  Or is that perfectly acceptable as long as it is spoken in a "straightforward" manner by a person who "says what he means" even if it is a total lie?

You continue to embarrass yourself by arguing straw men. I addressed this in a response to you that you subsequently ignored. I get that coming back 5 days later and making a big scenes seems like a better strategy to you than actually having a conversation that isn't intellectually lazy, but all it does is show the rest of us that your goal is to troll and not actually discuss. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-17-2019, 12:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: First you had issue with word advocate and now it's ban. 

Boycott "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, dealing with, or participating in as an expression ofprotest or disfavor or as a means of coercion:"


So can we quit pulling teeth and say you're ok with an elected official urging the act of abstaining from using a public media because they don't like what it says?

I have no issue with the cover, it expresses an opinion and doesn't call her any slurs, the boycott is shop owners refusing to sell the paper. She didn't personally say she would refuse to give any interviews or allow them access to any events she holds (though she may have done that in the past). I don't see supporting businesses refusing to sell papers as the same as trying to block journalists or news outlets from attending press conferences/briefings.