Lash wrote:nimh wrote:Lash wrote:I did not say they were "justified"--quite sloppy and untruthful of you.
Quite right: you didn't say "justified stereotype", you said "earned stereotype". I don't see the difference myself, but whatever.
Lash wrote:The (earned) stereotype of a worker who "can't follow this job duty", or "that aspect of the job"
because of his religion, and he MUST pray five times a day. Does he have to take a ritualistic bath, too, after each prayer? You wanna hire one?? Their religion dictates they cannot accept someone of another religion--how does that work in the workplace? Their
(fundamentalist's) women are not allowed to benefit from equal rights--so the men will not subject themselves to secular law. How would you like Abdul throwing rocks at the female working beside him, or OK, maybe just calling her a whore, because of how she's dressed? These are VALID complaints by prospective employers. Can you imagine leading a sensitivity training session with some of these guys.
Everyone note the parenthetical explanation of "their"-- being
(fundamentalists).
Errrm ...
This was in fact how Lash prefaced her rant:
nimh wrote:The no-go status of these, what you call "Muslim" neighbourhoods, is definitely the underlying reason for the riots, but the no-go status, IMO, springs primarily from massive unemployment, disaffection with the majority society, police violence, gang culture, discrimination and even spatial separation from mainstream society - not from the "millet lifestyle".
Lash wrote:...and further down the chain is one of the leading reasons Muslims aggregate in millets, as well as why they aren't hired or accepted. The (earned) stereotype of a worker who "can't follow this job duty", or "that aspect of the job" because of his religion, and he MUST pray five times a day. [etc]
Note: the context was the riots in France and specifically, the largely minority-inhabited (in Lash-speak "Muslim") neighbourhoods, and Lash explained "one of the leading reasons Muslims [..] aren't hired or accepted" is the "earned stereotype" of how they demand to pray five times a day, throw rocks at female colleagues, etc. Clear enough, right?
As an answer to the question why there are "no-go" areas and where the riots came from, that was a ridiculous and bigoted angle.
Admittedly, about half a page down in her rant, Lash already did a double-take and added, in an afterthought: "Clarification: The Muslims discussed are more recent immigrants, who have eschewed assimilation, live in homogenous communities, and are fundamentalists."
This of course, as I pointed out afterwards, made the entire point she made unintelligible. How can the behaviour she describes be the explanation for the no-go, "Muslim" neighbourhoods and the riots, if it is not actually exhibited there? There
are no "homogenous communities" of "recent immigrants". How can it explain the riots if an overwhelming majority of both residents and even rioters themselves (based on the number of arrests, they were about 90%-French-born) don't fit the description? So that leaves jusr a spontaneous, irrelevant-sprung litany of crude stereotypes - which she's tried to wriggle out of since...
