What happened to the thread where certain Muslims objected to the Nike shoe identification mark that they claimed was too close to the spelling of Allah? Why was it deleted?

This Board routinely allows discussion of issues related to other religions, including Christianity and the various sects associated with it, especially Mormonism, of course. This discussion often includes challenging religious sensitivities. Is discussion and criticism of Islam now off limits on the Board? Other than worry about offending Muslims, and perhaps retaliation, there was no substantive reason to remove that thread! If indeed this represents a new rule applied exclusively to Islam, you should add it to the list of rules, and at least be transparent about it.

As the thread evolved, the problem was not that another religion was being discussed, but that adherents of that religion were being characterized in ways which are not allowed here in regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion.

Isn't this entire response post off topic?

Alan XL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't this entire response post off topic?

No. This post restates, hopefully in easily understandable terms, some of the important rules and practices under which this board operates.

As circumstances arise, these rules and practices periodically need to be restated from time to time.

One question for you first: if this was such an innocent post, why did you feel the need to post anonymously? You normally don't.

This thread got pulled by one of the mods, not me, but I support their decision and I'll explain why I believe that the post was problematic. First, other than being related to religion, the post was off-topic: this was not about Mormonism or recovery therefrom.

Second, both the subject line and the text in post paint with a brush that is way too broad. The subject line was "Nike Offends Islam". Islam is a world religion that encompasses nearly a quarter of the world's population. Islam cannot be offended because it is not a human being and it has no feelings. Perhaps a better subject line would have been, "Some Muslim Extremists Offended by Sneaker Logo". That would at least have been accurate. I think most Muslims would agree that the outcry is silly.

Third, some of the responding posts were gleeful about offending Muslims. That's not very nice.

Look, this site is about recovery from Mormonism, which can (but doesn't have to) include recovery from Christianity and religion in general. It can get very rough and tumble about these topics, but that doesn't mean that we should start stereotyping religious people who have almost nothing to do the religious heritage that betrayed us. I don't believe that most in our community would be supportive of a post that stereotyped Hindus, so why should Islam be any different.

If people want to have have a discussion about the fanatical beliefs and practices of certain segments of Islam, I would have no problem with that as long as the conversation were thoughtful and adult, and as long as that conversation didn't devolve into stereotyping 1.8 billion people because of the actions of a fanatical few.

CZ (admin)

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/01/18/st
> oning-adulterers/

The figures cited in this article are from seven countries:

Lebanon, Turkey, and Indonesia [in which the majority of Muslims reject the penalties of stoning, cutting off the hands of thieves, and whippings]….

[and] Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Nigeria [in which the majority of Muslims are in favor of these penalties]. If you are saying that these four countries are representative of Muslims worldwide, this is incorrect.

In North America, there are 1,053,945 Muslims in Canada (about 3.2% of the total Canadian population--and Islam is the second-largest (Christianity is the first) religious segment of the Canadian populace.

In the United States, there are about 3.4 million Muslims in the American population (which is about 1.1% of the U.S. population). Were American Muslims asked these same questions about stoning, whipping, and cutting off the hands of thieves, the answers of those respondents to these same questions would be hovering at about 0% in the affirmative.

Muslims vary worldwide about as much as do Christians, and basing your conclusions on mostly Third World countries like Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, and (yes) Jordan [which is sad, given that their queen dowager, born: Lisa Halaby, was American born and raised before she converted to Islam in order to marry the then Jordanian king (who is now deceased)], has the effect of you asserting, falsely, that the world's poorest and least educated countries are representative of Islam as a whole in general, and in First World countries in particular.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2019 11:12PM by Tevai.

The survey of Muslims in Egypt is representative of Muslims in Egypt, etc. imo

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The survey of Muslims in Egypt is representative
> of Muslims in Egypt, etc. imo

Yes, but what is true in Egypt cannot then be extrapolated to cover the (accepted) fifty Muslim majority countries, let alone the 145 countries which are NOT Muslim majority.

That’s the etc. - the survey of Muslims in Indonesia is representative of Muslims in Indonesia, etc Saudi, Malaysia, southern Phillipines, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2019 11:56PM by jay.

My guess is that if the discussion were of the characteristics of certain groups of Moslems, it would not run afoul of the moderators.

Female genital mutilation is a real thing in certain parts of the world, as is the stoning of "sinners." Those are topics deserving of discussion. But when people start lumping together all Moslems or denigrating the religion generally, we are back in Mormon land with its binary description of the world.

I think for the current Nike issue, it's a case of the tail wagging the dog. A relatively small number of fanatics are claiming offense over something that is patently ridiculous. They will likely to get Nike to cave over this. It's yet another case where religious sensitivities are given undue influence and I think that is what bothers people.

“The Supreme Court in Pakistan upheld its decision to overturn Asia Bibi's conviction and death sentence.

Ms Bibi was convicted in 2010 for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammed and has been in solitary confinement for the past eight years.“ (Eight Years in solitary confinement).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/world/asia-bibi-pakistan-blasphemy-laws-a3981721.html%3famp


Pakistan population over 200 million.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/pakistan-population/

Your point?

It's open to interpretation.

Doesn't have to be a bad thing . . . though Tevai has me making inferences and drawing conclusions . . . (i think she tipped her hand)---- :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2019 03:31PM by jay.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I think we basically agree.

Thank you for cleaning it up. I am really tired of the anti Muslim stereotypes presented by some posters.To a lesser extent this applies to religion in general. All priests erectile rapists is a favorite of one poster and one example. It gets old and makes us look like a bunch of bigots.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for cleaning it up. I am really tired of
> the anti Muslim stereotypes presented by some
> posters.

Progress is being made (possibly). For example, the poster in question, according to CZ, usually posts with the same handle but chose in this instance to post anonymously. That’s cowardly.

But why the cowardice? I’m guessing shame motivated the cowardice. The poster knew the post was ridiculous on its face but wanted to “dig” at muslims anyway, lacking the courage of their conviction and so posting anonymously. That’s a guess.

At any rate, Islamophobia is still rampant, obviously, but those who suffer from it are less *proud* to argue for it openly than they once were.

Maybe I’m wearing rosy glasses, though.

Human

Concrete Zipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One question for you first: if this was such an
> innocent post, why did you feel the need to post
> anonymously? You normally don't.

I post as Anonymous Today depending upon my specific interest and knowledge of the subject matter. Here, I was only raising an issue in the news. There was no attempt to disparage Muslims or Islam per se. However, even if I had such an intent, are you telling me that such disparagement when applied to other religions is also summarily rejected? That is not my experience here.

> This thread got pulled by one of the mods, not me,
> but I support their decision and I'll explain why
> I believe that the post was problematic. First,
> other than being related to religion, the post was
> off-topic: this was not about Mormonism or
> recovery therefrom.

Really, Off topic? Since when are issues about religion and religions generally off topic on the Board? It certainly was not before you took over. This is a very lame excuse. This is a new policy; and an unfortunate one at that.

> Second, both the subject line and the text in post
> paint with a brush that is way too broad. The
> subject line was "Nike Offends Islam". Islam is a
> world religion that encompasses nearly a quarter
> of the world's population. Islam cannot be
> offended because it is not a human being and it
> has no feelings. Perhaps a better subject line
> would have been, "Some Muslim Extremists Offended
> by Sneaker Logo". That would at least have been
> accurate. I think most Muslims would agree that
> the outcry is silly.

COMMENT: This is ridiculous. If this is how you feel, it should have been a response to the post, not an excuse to eliminate the post.
>
> Third, some of the responding posts were gleeful
> about offending Muslims. That's not very nice.

O.K. If they crossed the line, then such responsive posts should have been eliminated. But again, such over-sensitivity is new to the Board, and frankly undermines the free expression that we were used to here.
>
> Look, this site is about recovery from Mormonism,
> which can (but doesn't have to) include recovery
> from Christianity and religion in general. It can
> get very rough and tumble about these topics, but
> that doesn't mean that we should start
> stereotyping religious people who have almost
> nothing to do the religious heritage that betrayed
> us. I don't believe that most in our community
> would be supportive of a post that stereotyped
> Hindus, so why should Islam be any different.

You are ruining the Board. Really, take a lesson from Eric K. There is a line to be set, I agree, but your line is interfering with the free expression that is necessary for "recovery" to take place. You don't think there is a relationship between Mormonism and Islam, and religion generally? If offensive stereotyping occurs then call people out for that--ON THE BOARD AND IN THE POST!

> If people want to have have a discussion about the
> fanatical beliefs and practices of certain
> segments of Islam, I would have no problem with
> that as long as the conversation were thoughtful
> and adult, and as long as that conversation didn't
> devolve into stereotyping 1.8 billion people
> because of the actions of a fanatical few.

To my mind you have proven otherwise. There is a lot of emotion on this Board for good reason. If it is O.K. to offend Mormonism, and Mormonism, it should be O.K. to offend Islam, Christianity, and atheism.
>
> CZ (admin)

NOW, ARE YOU GOING TO ELIMINATE THIS POST, TOO?

Autocorrect strikes again. Erectile??? Really?? I need to register so I can edit. This has to be a new low. AUTOCORRECT HATE ME!

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Autocorrect strikes again. Erectile??? Really?? I
> need to register so I can edit. This has to be a
> new low. AUTOCORRECT HATE ME!

I am laughing so hard there are tears coming from my eyes!

:D

Lol. I do need to figure out how to disable autocorrect and soon. I do have a suggestion or question though. Is it possible to remove the offending posts and leave the rest of the thread? Sometimes there are good things that get removed just because a few people gooff the rails. I don't know about this thread as I only read it at the beginning when there were a few posts. It was gone by the time I got back on the board. Maybe it wasn't salvageable.

Muslims are every bit as diverse as Christians, and their particular cultures reflect that. Just as many American Evangelical Christians call for the stoning of gays, many Muslims call for the same. The difference is that Americans live in what we believe to be a modern country, impervious to this kind of thought. Many Muslims live in the remote mountains of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan, often ruled by tribal leaders who are like the American Evangelicals. If you move on to Europe, US, Canada, etc., you find that Muslims love the sectarian laws as much as we say we do, and many--if not MOST--of our American medical specialists (neurology, neurosurgery, gastroenterology, microbiology, and all kinds of research fellows) are Muslim. In the states, it is unlikely that, if you're seeing a specialist because of some serious illness like cancer, not have contact with a Muslim specialist.

Christians got nothing on Muslims. Nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2019 12:43PM by cludgie.

Last night I posted a thread under an assumed name to facilitate "speaking as a man." --a piece about a homeless man trying to get a temple recommend.

It backfired, and was closed.

Anyway, "anonandangry" was me.


I apologize--no ridicule of homelessness was intended--only ridicule of Mormonism.

Least I be deemed a coward, I will happily disclose my regular moniker. I am Henry Bemis. But, it is wrong to call me Islamophobic. I am not. I just favor the free expression that has been the hallmark of this Board for years, and I see it slipping away. When Muslims' act ridiculous, it should be fair game to call them out on it; just as it is to call out Christians, atheists, and Mormons. After all, are we all Mormonaphobic because we criticize Mormonism and its leaders?

Throughout my participation, I have been an equal opportunity offender--including atheists, though I am one. The poster Human was one of my long time supporters for years, and my only friend on the Board--until Islam came up and his need to defend Islam butted up against my terse criticisms. From my point of view, the discussions I have participated in have been good, healthy and informative; but not always without offense. That is what I thought the Board was about.

This will be my last post; not that anyone cares. I have learned a lot here--even from my most trident antagonists. I have particularly benefited from the posts of Human, who has a keen intellect and perspective. I thank him for his contributions over the years to my understanding; particularly his knowledge of poetry and literature. My best to him personally, and to everyone else here. I have always thought that what holds us together is more important that what divides us.

Henry Bemis.

Henry, I for one, would hate to see you leave here.

"After all, are we all Mormonaphobic because we criticize Mormonism and its leaders?"

Of course not.

I think there is a little confusion on the part of people who want to be accepting of everyone. They rightly strive to accept people based on various physical characteristics and sexual preferences. I love that.

They conflate that type of acceptance with accepting the beliefs of people who adhere to an unenlightened dogma (Islam). Too bad.

I suspect we've seen the last of Henry. For some reason, I don't think he'll reconsider. Hope I'm wrong.

Well this has turned out rather unfortunately, eh Henry?


I don't agree with how you characterize our disagreement (my "need" to defend Islam, as you say, is something I have never done, not once), but since it isn't the point here, I won't argue about it.


I stand by my assessment: choosing to uncharacteristically use anonymity to post the post in question, now scrubbed, which you did, was cowardly, and may be an indication of being ashamed of the position. If not, why go anonymous? Why not simply stand by your position with your usual handle?


I stand by my comment because I, like you, strongly stand up for free expression. I stand up for free expression, here and everywhere, even in the face of vehement disagreement, because that is my post-mormon gift to myself. And you may have noticed, there are large chunks of my worldview that are quickly and consistently scrubbed from RfM, increasingly so. I'm probably the kind of poster that many, including admin, would love to see simply go away. And in large part, I have.

And lest this be misunderstood: I did not (and would not) 'stand up' for your posts out of friendship. I did so because I agreed with your posts and disagreed with your detractors.

Just the other day, had I a moment, I meant to vociferate against Cabbie for his weakling pretending that he didn't understand your post (on behaviourism, psychology, etc). It's one of the dumber rhetorical moves employed against you here, at this point pure laziness, from a list of other dumb rhetorical moves used against you over the years. Obviously you write with crystal clarity, which seems to bother those who find their points of view bested by your arguments.

Henry, DO NOT underrate your value to RfM. Without naysayers and underdogs to the 'party line', boards like RfM go flat, grow stale and finally become unprofitable. One of the largest reasons RfM hasn't become unprofitable, yet, to me anyway, is because you continue to post your thoughts and others continue to post against your thoughts, if they are able.


On a personal note: yes, we have an enormous disagreement about muslims and another enormous disagreement about Israel, the State. The later disagreement is notoriously difficult between friends, as I've said privately. But none of it affects my regard for you nor the enormous respect I have for your obvious abilities to argue your points, doggedly, even in the face of an one-line mob, which at times, especially in the freewheeling hey day of RfM, was the case. But again, I 'backed' you, when I did, because I agreed with you and disagreed with your detractors.


Okay, back to the main point: would you agree that it was at least a little bit weak to use a fake name to post that, in my opinion, lamentable Nike thing? Some part of you must have felt the thing at least a little bit silly, silly enough not to associate your real RfM name with, right?


I probably didn't communicate my enormous regard for you, Henry. But I hope you already know it.

Human

Found on the Home Page

Very Active and Compassionate Activity on the Recovery Board - 2018


NOT

Henry, I am a big fan. Please don't go.

Admission: I have basically left the board ---- with the exception to read Henry's potential posts and see what, in general, is being discussed.

I have found much greener pastures for my beliefs and 'truth' seeking and other interests.

I don't know if Henry has tried 'reddit' but it seems like a much more 'open' board with 'a buffet of offerings' to chose from!

Of course I would not be on the boards Henry would normally go on so I have no idea whether the 'scientific areas' get that much support. If not he can always come on some of the 'paranormal, etc.' boards where 'skeptics' come make some points and normally go.

Good luck on whatever you decide but your knowledge and opinions should be shared with others somewhere!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2019 06:41PM by spiritist.

It looks like Henry’s gone.

I guess I’m volunteering to step up and fill his shoes.

Can someone send me a reading list?

I hope he returns. He's always good for a thoughtful, lively, and often enlightening argument.

One problem with how this board is administered has to do with how the moderators deal with disrespectful posts. Rather than one or more posters calling someone a racist or a bigot or an islamophobic, how about other posters just respectfully ask questions to clarify what the other person is a actually saying (constructive dialogue)? You can always simply state that you disagree without needing to attack someone. When someone gives someone else a label and tries to prove them to be a terrible person as they have labeled them, that person who did that should go on suspension the first time and every time they do it. Their posting privileges here should be taken away for a few weeks to a month or more every time, no grace periods, no exceptions. Notorious repeat offenders should be banned completely. These suspensions should have nothing to do with the actual content of what is said except for the content that shows overt disrespect for others. Then let the moderators do the moderating (not certain self-assigned moderators who insist that their opinions prevail). To tar someone else with some label and then publicly bash them out of existence is a terrible, non-healing environment. It shouldn't be allowed here. Worse yet, those who do it, do it with impunity like it is their God-given right and duty to destroy the person because the person is a (put label here), when they couldn't be more wrong about that person. How can anyone be candid or any healing take place in such a brutal, dysfunctional environment? Ban the disrespect and enforce those rules every time without exception and only then can the objective discussions take place. People might even start apologizing when they step on others toes accidentally. Gees respect? What a concept?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 08:42AM by azsteve.

One example (and please let's not make this post have anything to do with anything political), is an off-topic post I made several months ago. The whole chain was off-topic. Every post there was off-topic. My post was no different. The moderators allowed this to go on for several dozen off-topic posts. Sometimes, a moderator will even toss-in their own off-topic comment. It was in this environment that I stated an opinion that someone else thought made me worthy of being blown-out because obviously to them I was a bad person who deserved to be publicly proven wrong and humiliated. And that is exactly what they did.

Please, no one here jump in with any politics after I state what happened. That is not my purpose here. Let's discuss only the issues of respect or lack of it, around what actually happened. In a post that was consistent with the entire thread, I stated that we need a wall along the southern US border. Oh my God, based on the responses from a few notorious individuals, you would have thought that I was Adolph Hitler himself. There was no constructive discussion after that, only labels and insults. The moderators cleaned-up the thread in a way that left me looking wrong and terrible, and that supported those who had shown absolute dis-respect. This happened on an position that (like it or not) has more traction than many people want to admit (right or wrong). So why not discuss it objectively, as long as we're all off-topic anyway? But that off-topic issue is not the.point of this post here. Let's stick to only the issues of respect. This forum is not managed responsibly when it comes to requiring that people treat others with respect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 09:20AM by azsteve.

What you seem to overlook is that not everyone here is white and delightsome. Some of us are from different races, or married to people of different races, or have children of different races, or friends of different races. The rules are written to acknowledge that fact.

If you post racist things, or go on political rants, you should expect to be challenged. There is nothing wrong with that. Your attacks on the "other" are in fact attacks on us, highly disrespectful attacks, and we have every right to respond in kind.

If at that point you feel picked upon, or misunderstood, you should feel free to use your words to explain your views more clearly. But you cannot reasonably expect the moderators to pretend that blatantly bigoted assertions are somehow respectable speech--or that you deserve protection from the free exchange of ideas.

Either your expressions stand up to examination--when you write about your personal history or your views of the church, they generally do--or those expressions will wilt when exposed to the light of day. That's the way it should be. RfM is not a nanny state.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 09:10PM by Lot's Wife.

The point of my post was to give context to what had happened previously, not to.re-state that political position.

those are very good points that I whole heartedly agree with. It's more important to get along than to be right. It's fine to put forth some controversial opinions but calling other people names shouldn't be tolerated.

aka 'anono this week'

Yet Another Grand Exit

I hope he comes back.

They usually do in a new guise.

His style of commentary is unique, so I don't think he could come back covertly. And I liked his style as well as his substance.

I didn't fully understand the Islamic stuff, but Henry always struck me as a solid man.

Okay here we go. I asked not to be called a racist and used one Comment from a previous post to make a point about how the disrespect propagates. So what happens? You do it once again (Lot's Wife). You attacked my post when I didn't name you at all. I have also asked you repeatedly to quit stalking my posts. I used one comment as an example of why I was attacked and you made all kinds of accusations against me as a result. I am not going to take the bait and defend that comment here because that will just fuel your further disrespect and insults, no matter what I actually say. There are other things in life that motive people other than racism and bigotry. You may want to try to understand them. Please try to see the good in what people say, no matter what pain you feel, which was not the intent of the comment that you attacked. We do not live in a nanny state here. But there should be respect and the moderators should prevent the kind of disrespect that you dish out, almost any time someone says something you don't agree with or that worse, that hurts your feelings based on the motives and labels that you assign (toxicly) to others. If we all act like wounded children and attack anything that makes us feel bad, no honest communications can happen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 09:51PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay here we go. I asked not to be called a racist
> and used one Comment from a previous post to make
> a point about how the disrespect propagates.

Your one example was a violation of board rules about racism. If you have to cite a violation and say that it should have been treated with respect--meaning not scrutinized--you are being unreasonable.


----------------
> So
> what happens? You do it once again (Lot's Wife).
> You attacked my post when I didn't name you at
> all.

Everyone knows when you are speaking about me. Your hiding your attacks behind an anonymous facade is pusillanimous.


-----------
> I have also asked yourepeatedly to quit
> stalking my posts.

Arguing with you is not "stalking." It is not realistic to attack others and then describe their reactions with that term. One could as easily, and more reasonably, ask that you refrain from stalking minorities and others whom you deem as "the other."


---------------

> I used one comment as an
> example of why I was attacked and you made all
> kinds of accusations against me as a result. I am
> not going to take the bait and defend that comment
> here because that will just fuel your further
> disrespect and insults, no matter what I actually
> say.

I responded not to intuited motives but to the words you actually used. Those words were a violation of board rules as well as highly disrespectful to people who ethnically or culturally different from you. Your demanding that those invidious sentiments be given deference is not realistic.


---------
> There are other things in life that motive
> people other than racism and bigotry.

Yes, although that fact does not deracinate obviously racist statements.


-----------------
> Please try to see the
> good in what people say, no matter what pain you
> feel which was not the intent of the comment you
> attacked.

Perhaps you should learn to consider what you are writing from the point of view of those whom you are attacking. No one is under any obligation to respect your inability to respect others.


--------------------
> We do not live in a nanny state here.
> But there should be respect and the moderators
> should prevent the kind of disrespect that you
> dish out, almost any time someone says something
> you don't agree with or that worse, hurt your
> feelings based on the motives and labels that you
> assign (toxicly) to others.

Yes, there should be respect. What that means, of course, is that you should stop insulting minorities and others whose political beliefs differ from yours. If you cannot exercise that restraint, then responses in kind are inevitable.


------------
> If we all act like
> wounded children and attack anything that makes us
> feel bad, no honest communications can happen.

I believe that it is you who have pleaded for the moderators' protection, who have threatened me on more than one occasion, and who denounce argument as "stalking." It is likewise you who have now launched three attacks on me under pseudo-anonymity as if hiding behind your mother's skirts.


--------------
You often write good things: the autobiographical accounts, the commentary on Mormonism, etc. I learn from those. But that does not mean that I will sit silently, like a frumpy old lady in relief society, when you deviate from the purposes of the board and attack people dissimilar to you.

If you do that, then you have no basis on which to avoid "honest communications" from others.

Really, all of this attributed to one guy, simply because he stated (and stands by)the position that we need a wall on the Southern border? Really? I guess that makes about half of the people in this country (the half that wants a wall) all be racists. Then of course many from the other party are statistically racists too. So a majority of Americans must then all be racists. Everything you (Lot's Wife) put in to your post came from one political assertion wherein no mention of race was even made. Either that or you take prejudice from one post and use it to color all comments from that person that you have put a label on, and unfairly judged. None of my posts have mentioned any race of people except to point out when some of them had been oppressed and mis-treated. You certainly don't need to be white but why not try to at least be delightsome? That is something anyone can do (even you... if you will). My example was not in violation of board rules anymore than every post in that same thread was a violation of the board rules. A moderator took part in that political discussion too.

Speaking of moderators, they often break the rules here as much as many of us do when they encourage political discussions that have no relation to Mormonism. So pleeease (Lot's Wife) don't try to justify your judgementalism and disrespect by claiming that someone who you attacked broke a rule and therefore you have a right to attack them. You are the only one doing the attacking. Most of us others are either in defense, or are stating non-attacking things that make you feel pain that the no one here is responsible for. Why not ask why a person feels as they do instead of attacking them? (Answer) Because your own pain caused by your own mis-interpreted messages infuriates your sensibilities. It has nothing to do with what the person intended to say. So you attack. You play dirty by saying things they didn't say and atteibuting those things to them, while offering counter attacks to things they didn't say as though they were the source of those vile things that you attributed to them. An honest person finds it difficult to function in that kind of toxic environment.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 10:47PM by azsteve.

At this point in the history of the United States of America, discussion of a wall on the southern border of the USA is, by itself, a political subject.

This has not necessarily been true in the past (I am a Californian, and where I am sitting right now used to be the property of the King of Spain, and later, the Republic of Mexico).

A wall along the southern border may well, at some point in the future, NOT be a political subject because circumstances and facts will have changed.

However: right now, today, and unless something untoward occurs, it IS a discussion of politics, and on a number of different sub-issues (more than most people, mainly those who do NOT live on the border, realize--and I DO fully understand that Arizona is also a border state).

Therefore, at this "moment" in time, discussion of this topic comes under the "No politics" rule of RfM.

The only way this would change is if CZ were to deem it an okay subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 10:44PM by Tevai.

To Tevai - this is not about a wall. Please don't try to cloud the real issue, which is a need to practice respect for others in this forum. We should all be allowed to state our beliefs without being viciously attacked and accused of things that have nothing to do with what the person posted. "The wall" in this case is only a metaphor for whatever a person posts, and is attacked for and attributed lies to because of their opinion. Please don't make it be more than that if your contribution here is to be an honest one.

You have posted many posts that are racist, sometimes in conjunction with advocacy of a wall and sometimes not. But it is hardly unreasonable to read attitudes you have often expressed into statements about related phenomena.

Your examples--both the statements about race and ethnicity and those about political candidates and their policies--are violations of board rules. I don't care much about the rules per se, but if you choose to contravene board guidelines you have no right to expect others to show greater deference to them.

As for the notion that I should not protest when others (meaning you) attack me and my family and my friends, I'm not sure what you are smoking but there is little chance of that. It is silly to act as if you are free to assail others, either specifically or ethnically, and that others must then show "respect" to you by not criticizing your umbrageous posts. I do not have the right to question you simply for contravening rules, but I surely am free to respond to your insults and threats by wielding Occam's razor to reveal the face under the metaphorical beard.

As for the notion that I should be "delightsome," thank you for your concern. I will give that suggestion every bit of the consideration it deserves.

Once again Lot's Wife, you played dirty. I have not said racist things nor have I criticized anyone based on their minority status. To say that I have is just a flat lie. There is no other way to classify what you are doing. If you and/or your family or friends violated the law to come to the US, I wouldn't know about it other than the obvious fact that you attack vigerously, any notion that anyone take any measures that would prevent such illegal entries. But you played dirty here when you bring-up race and assert that I have said anything racist. It is simply not true. I am a good person with a valid opposing opinion. You still need to show respect to me as a person. Feel free to ask questions and to respectfully disagree. But don't make false statements and attacks against me based on your own lies and assumptions. Be intellectually and morally fair. Be fair to those who read what you write and assume that I have posted somewhere else, terrible things that I wouldn't even think, much less write about.

Please everyone here. This discussion is not about the pros and cons of building a wall. Please don't make it about that. This post has nothing to do with a wall, other than my asserting my right to speak my opinion in the past (not here) about that issue, without vicious attacks being made against me that assert false information about me to others. This post is about the need (a need that should be enforced by the moderators) to post respectful things only. If Lot's Wife chooses to feel emotional pain over such honest debate when extremely mainstream thoughts are posted, there is nothing I can do about that. Regardless of her own emotional pain, she should play fair here and tell the truth about what others have and have not said. I wasn't trying to hide three times behind someone else's skirt either (as she asserts). As usual, it's a no-win game with her. I asked not to be stalked here by her. The last thing I wanted to do was to call her out by name and goad her on. Regardless of my attempts to not call her out, she calls herself out every time (in typical stalker fashion). I wish she would not respond to my posts at all as I have requested of her. She won't respect those requests and just keeps on attacking and lieing.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2019 11:54PM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again Lot's Wife, you played dirty. I have
> not said racist things. That is just a flat lie.

There are many here who have read what you have written and reached the same, or similar, conclusions.


---------------
> If you and/or your family or friends
> violated the law to come to the US, I wouldn't
> know about it other than the obvious fact that you
> attack vigerously, any notion that anyone take any
> measures that would prevent such illegal entries.

You know nothing about me, including my family background. What I have done on RfM is to stand up against bigots, racial and gender-based. I do respond vigorously to attacks on minorities (or in some cases majorities) and on women (and sometimes on men) and on religions (as opposed to subsets thereof). And I am happy, in egregious cases, to unpack the prejudices underlying assertions that other posters inaccurately contend are neutral.

As for my attitude towards the border, you are off base. I am wholeheartedly in favor of improvements in immigration procedures and border enforcement. But that has nothing to do with a "wall." Such a structure would be nothing more than an ineffective boondoggle if it had not been conceived in the cauldrons of racism. But so it was, and as such it is offensive to those who cherish traditional American values. Once that phallic symbol is behind us, a meaningful discussion of the border will become possible.


-----------------
> But you played dirty here when you bring-up race
> and assert that I have said anything racist. It is
> simply not true.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


----------------
> I am a good person with a valid
> opposing opinion. You still need to show respect
> to me as a person. Feel free to ask questions and
> to respectfully disagree.

You may well be a good person. When you write about non-political topics, that impression comes through fairly clearly. Yet I do not recall a single instance in which you have asked a question to clarify my views, a demand that you present to me without any demonstrated interest in behaving the same way. And again, I am under no obligation to respond respectfully to statements that are innately disrespectful.


----------------
> But don't make false
> statements and attacks against me based on your
> own lies and assumptions. Be intellectually and
> morally fair.

"False statements, "lies," and "intellectual and moral unfairness" seem like aggressive characterizations coming from someone who is asking for greater respect.


------------------
> Be fair to those who read what you
> write and assume that I have posted somewhere
> else, terrible things that I wouldn't even think,
> much less write about.

People here are adults. They are capable of reading what I write and discounting it as they feel necessary; they are capable of reading and remembering the things you have written. You can blame others' views on me if you wish, but that is a disservice to posters who are every bit my and your equal.


---------------
> This post is about the need (a need that
> should be enforced by the moderators) to post
> respectful things only.

This thread was not about you and your feelings about me. You hijacked it, as you have others, to attack me under the guise of pseudo-anonymity. If the moderators were going to eliminate gratuitous personal affronts, they might well have started with your posts.


-----------
> If Lot's Wife chooses to
> feel emotional pain over such honest debate when
> extremely mainstream thoughts are posted, there is
> nothing I can do about that.

Again, you presume to know me. Your posts do not cause me "emotional pain" although I do find some of them annoying and a few appalling. But I have faced more formidable foes in many times and places, so rest assured that you are not causing me discomfort. Also noteworthy, however, is your insistence that your views are "mainstream." Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant to the question of political debate on RfM.

Once again you are insisting that your "views are balanced, unbiased, and mainstream" no matter how extreme or offensive those views may be. Many of us can see through that. If you avoided messianic politics and veiled racism, you and I would probably agree on much more than we disagree.

Found on the Home Page

Very Active and Compassionate Activity on the Recovery Board - 2018


NOT

How 'childish' ---- this doesn't occur on 'adult' boards!!!

Is that they don't know they're being racist. Silly sausages.

I hope Henry returns ...