The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[garbon]

You saw his post from this morning right? Clearly he is if he is insisting that you can only use "Arabs" if you are talking about a "race" of people.

Wait... are you proposing to argue that Marty is not racist? Or merely that one of his posts could be interpreted as being not racist?

The latter is all I'm interested in here as by association, I'm being labeled racist too!

[LaCroix]

You saw his post from this morning right? Clearly he is if he is insisting that you can only use "Arabs" if you are talking about a "race" of people.

apparently, yeah. i briefly skimmed the post and didn't read further after noticing the two passages i quoted. 

(edit) now i know why agelastus abandoned british civility

[Martinus]

This thread is fun. 

[Malthus]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

That is the ultimate conclusion, right? Right?

[Martinus]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

That is the ultimate conclusion, right? Right?

Well, I know I'm racist and garbon agrees with me, so...

[Eddie Teach]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

Like all multi-racial people.

[garbon]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

That is the ultimate conclusion, right? Right?

[grumbler]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

That is the ultimate conclusion, right? Right?

The End of Languish theory?

[Agelastus]

Martinus might not have expressed his point in the fine, delicate manner that you so desire, but your bizarre semantics game to try and convince us all that he was making racist pronouncements fool no one.

I fail to see what's bizarre about it; Martinus' English is too good for him not to know that the terms he used were not synonyms of each other.

anyway, now that we've talked about our feelings, wanna return to the discussion? are you sticking with your misunderstanding of marti's post?

Do you have some sort of alert up for when you are quoted? It took me less than 60 seconds to reconsider and edit that post!

And since I am not misunderstanding Martinus' post in the least, of course I'm sticking with my understanding of it.

You saw his post from this morning right? Clearly he is if he is insisting that you can only use "Arabs" if you are talking about a "race" of people.

No, I am noting the obvious point that the three terms "Arab culture", "Islam" and "Arabs" are not synonyms for the same thing. That Martinus' English is too good for him not to understand that. And that therefore the racist comment against Arabs was deliberate and not accidental barring a specific denial from Martinus.

The latter is all I'm interested in here as by association, I'm being labeled racist too!

Just as the previously noted three terms are not synonyms, neither is "charitable" a synonym for "racist". 

Note which term I used.

[Agelastus]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

That is the ultimate conclusion, right? Right?

The End of Languish theory?

[Malthus]

The only thing I have learned from this thread is that Garbon is racist. 

That is the ultimate conclusion, right? Right?

The End of Languish theory?

[LaCroix]

Do you have some sort of alert up for when you are quoted? It took me less than 60 seconds to reconsider and edit that post!

And since I am not misunderstanding Martinus' post in the least, of course I'm sticking with my understanding of it.

No, I am noting the obvious point that the three terms "Arab culture", "Islam" and "Arabs" are not synonyms for the same thing. That Martinus' English is too good for him not to understand that. And that therefore the racist comment against Arabs was deliberate and not accidental barring a specific denial from Martinus.

to be fair, your edit and the original version mean the same thing. rather than actually say "you're an idiot," your edit says "refer back to the post that says you're an idiot." that's hardly being polite 

you are misunderstanding marti's post, though. "arab culture," and "islam" and "arabs" do not mean the same thing. however, you're the only one who seems to have been confused by marti's choice of words. garbon and i read marti's post and did not obsess over the literal definitions. this is because i naturally took into consideration the context of the post (and i assume garbon did as well). this is reading comprehension. in addition, there are times when an internet post is imperfect, either grammatically or in word usage.

i see nothing materially wrong with marti's use of the word "arab" as interchangeable for "arab culture" in this circumstance because it made sense with the rest of his post. when you isolate it, as you've done, then, yes, you are correct. but, that's kinda unfair and autistic.

[Jacob]

to be fair, your edit and the original version mean the same thing. rather than actually say "you're an idiot," your edit says "refer back to the post that says you're an idiot." that's hardly being polite 

you are misunderstanding marti's post, though. "arab culture," and "islam" and "arabs" do not mean the same thing. however, you're the only one who seems to have been confused by marti's choice of words. garbon and i read marti's post and did not obsess over the literal definitions. this is because i naturally took into consideration the context of the post (and i assume garbon did as well). this is reading comprehension. in addition, there are times when an internet post is imperfect, either grammatically or in word usage.

i see nothing materially wrong with marti's use of the word "arab" as interchangeable for "arab culture" in this circumstance because it made sense with the rest of his post. when you isolate it, as you've done, then, yes, you are correct. but, that's kinda unfair and autistic.

Not really.

I mean, you and garbon may understand it, but I don't think it's super clear whether it's "people of Arab descent", "Arab culture", or "Muslims" who are supposed to be particularly prone to violence. Being imprecise on that kind of stuff, when you know better, strikes me as a kind of racism.

I'd also say that attributing supposed high levels of violence (measured by what metrics?) to some inherent cultural, racial, or religious quality is a pretty inaccurate exercise; with the choice of evidence and favoured conclusion saying more about the values of the speaker than the people being spoken about.

I mean, one could make a credible argument that the current levels of violence in the Middle East are down to the consequences of imperialist and hegemonist policies and unequal economic systems, for example. The long history of outside powers using (and arming) local groups to fight proxy battles may have as much, if not more, to do with the violence we see as the in inherent cultural, religious, or "racial" qualities.

As for the metrics - are "Arabs" particularly more prone to violence compared to other people finding themselves under the same kind of political and economic pressures?

[LaCroix]

Not really.

I mean, you and garbon may understand it, but I don't think it's super clear whether it's "people of Arab descent", "Arab culture", or "Muslims" who are supposed to be particularly prone to violence. Being imprecise on that kind of stuff, when you know better, strikes me as a kind of racism.

did you read the conversation that led to marti's post, or are you looking back and examining marti's post after the fact - i.e., in isolation?

someone being imprecise with language, alone, has no bearing on racism.

i'm going to requote part of your post just to make it standout:

I'd also say that attributing supposed high levels of violence (measured by what metrics?) to some inherent cultural, racial, or religious quality is a pretty inaccurate exercise; with the choice of evidence and favoured conclusion saying more about the values of the speaker than the people being spoken about.

I mean, one could make a credible argument that the current levels of violence in the Middle East are down to the consequences of imperialist and hegemonist policies and unequal economic systems, for example. The long history of outside powers using (and arming) local groups to fight proxy battles may have as much, if not more, to do with the violence we see as the in inherent cultural, religious, or "racial" qualities.

this is exactly what marti was arguing. posters in this thread were trying to say islam was the cause of violence. marti was saying it isn't islam, rather it's the general circumstances in the middle east. you're attributing to marti what others were arguing. 

As for the metrics - are "Arabs" particularly more prone to violence compared to other people finding themselves under the same kind of political and economic pressures?

no, they're not. marti wasn't saying that either.

[Martinus]

In fact I observed on several occassions in this thread that at a point in the past, the roles were reversed, and the Arab culture was more advanced and civilised while the Western/Christian one was the primitive and barbaric one. 

It's funny how Agelastus - who is Islamophobic and was attacking the semantics of my post to discredit my argument - which is anti-Islamophobic - as racist was picked by Jacob as his pal in proving my defense of Islam (in itself ironic, as I do not hold a high opinion of any religion in general, especially that) is racist. 

Incidentally, "Arabs" are not a race - in fact it is even questionable as an ethnicity (if one wanted to make a biological point, one would use a "Semitic" descriptor - which would encompass not just Arabs but also Jews - and would be idiotic as well). So reading "Arabs" as anything but a descriptor of a culture in this context is really either a sign of stupidity or deliberate intellectual dishonesty.