Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs

Sofia wrote:

I do not see why this statement evokes the accusation of Nazi.

I did not accuse Stiessd of being a Nazi. That is ridiculous.

I said Nazi ideology has seen the same attempts at rationalizing the prejudice and finding factual basis for the distorted conclusions.

Sofia wrote:

I can understand people wanting to disagree with it, challenge it or argue about it--

That's all that is happening. Challenging it, discussing it and arguing about it.

Sofia wrote:

By all means, lets don't let the facts of what we've actually said get in the way of what we're talking about.

Sofia that was stupid. You know damn well that I'm not talking about the "facts" of what he said but rather the "facts" that he referenced.

Like I said, Hitler said many true things and many try to focus on that as well with the "was Hitler not right in saying.." as a methid to distract from the real issue of his prejudicial conslusions based upon those facts.

Brazil has jungle, such is fact. One can draw vastly different conclusions.

If one called Brazilians a bucnh of jungle bunnies and I took issue you'd probably race to the scene with "Is there not both jungle and bunnies in Brazil?"

Again, that would be a case of focusing on the factual element of a prejudice and ignoring that we are speaking fo prejudicial conclusion rather than the mere mention of geographical fact.

It's an insipid ploy.

If I say that Brazil has many jungles then the jungles in Brazil are the focus. If I use those jungles to try to stereotype Brazilians as primitive the fact that there are indeed jungles in Brazil is not the relevant issue.

Sofia wrote:

This is why I show up when these types of situations occur. People are too busy trying to read between the lines that we may as well not talk. Just show up, we'll look at how your dressed, ask you what you dad does for a living, and we'll figure out for you what you're thinking.

This is pure bullshit and it's contradictory. Here you are showing up and doing the same. None of us have a crystal ball with insight into one's thoughts and your every opinion must be based on the behavior and opinions that you are able to view.

This defense can be used by anyone, to use the favorite punch bag anyone who calls Hitler prejudiced is " figuring out what he is thinking".

It's a foolish defence.

Sofia wrote:

You decry the statement that there are some tribes in Africa?

I'm not interested in taking this to that level of stupidity. I never questioned the existence of tribes. I noted that there are also tribes in America and you are making this argument tedious and indipid.

Sofia wrote:

Do you decry the statistics of AIDS in Africa? But, you don't decry the statistics of AIDS in America?

Buy a point somewhere this gets stupider by the minute.

Sofia wrote:

How does circumstantial evidence propagate bigotry?

Because bigots use circumstantial evidence to support their bigotry and idiotic individuals drink it all up.

Using ccircumstantial evidence such as the higher crime rates of minorities bigots draw up lines of prejudice and then fools come along with the "but is not the crime rate higher for minorities?".

Sofia wrote:

It just seems like you want to muzzle certain facts, based on what group of people the facts are about.

It seems like you wnat to muzzle certain facts.

That is another insipid argument. I am discussing what I think about a crtain mentality and am trying to "muzzle" it no more than your defense of it is an attempt to "muzzle" the detractors. Cut out the silencing of speech bull crap. I ahve done no such thing and that silly argument can be applied to any circumstance in which someone disagrees.

Calling something bigoted is not "muzzling" it's an expression equal to the bigotry expressed and equal to the defense of the statement.

Your question is both stupid and unfair. Are you trying to "muzzle" those who find Steissd's mentality laden with prejudice?

Sofia wrote:

Political Correctness puts their brain on automatic pilot--no more independant thought takes place.

The stupid PC argument again? The defence of bigotry with the old PC trick is a better example of brainlessness. I have not once taken issue with anyone for political correctness or the lack thereof. this is YOUR stupid attempt to rewrite my argument along your terms.

I am not talking in terms of PC or not PC you are trying to hijack the argument and paint it along those lines.

Sofia wrote:

My complaint here was due to the Nazi reference. Thankfully, that was resolved. Then, Craven you cited my objection to the Nazi reference. Does that mean you agree with the Nazi reference?

Nazi references are loaded. Hellifino what Nazi reference you speak of.

My Nazi reference is in that even that vile of an ideology there are those who try to use circumstantial evidence to support prejudice. I think it's a relevant reference and it's inflammatory nature has to do with the infamous ideology.

See you are just "reading too much between the lines" and "figuring out what people are thinking" and complaining about a "poor choice of words" (quotes not verbatim). :-)

Sofia wrote:

And, would you show me what the author said in that small post that is bigoted?

Words are not bigoted, people are. Get real, this is getting more and more stupid. Rolling Eyes

Sofia wrote:

I do see 'unPC words'

Yes yes, the old PC saw. It's transparanet but carry on.

Sofia wrote:

Should we erace all the threads that have negative opinions about the state of Africa? Where does the censure stop?

This has gotten too stupid. No threads have been erased because of this. Now you are just swinging widly. What you yourself are doing is censure, which is not censorship.

It has nothing to do with simple "negative opinions". I have many negative opinions about Africa. I am speaking of bigotry. You keep trying to hijack the argument and make it an issue of politocal corretness and "negative opinions".

0 Replies

Here's the stats on HIV/AIDS in the USA. AIDS Statistics

At the end of the December 2001, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported approximately 362,827 persons in the United States living with AIDS.

Of these,

42% were in whites,
37% in blacks,
20% in Hispanics,
<1% in Asians and Pacific Islanders,
and <1% in American Indians and Alaska Natives;
Of the 282,250 men (of 13 years or older) who were living with AIDS

Here's steissd quote:
"Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda, and it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas."

What's wrong with steissd quote? Is it based on facts? I don't think so. So which "compatriot" was Bush talking about? c.i.

0 Replies

Sofia

I was just questioning the term "censored". Better: the way you used it.

'Censor' means (Merriam-Webster) "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable".
I don't think, discussing the use of words is any censoring.

I'm truely not speaking/writing very close to the American sense of PC, partly, because I don't know it, partly, because doesn't affect us here in Germany.

On the other site, we Germans don't know only censorship, but had to live for 12 years under a system (and those in Eastern Germany 45 more years).
During that time we learnt, what 'incorrect' speech can do with someone's mind and attitudes.

A speech like the Nazi's used will always get me up.

Quote:

We deserve to say what we think.

Yes, everyone.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I do not see why this statement evokes the accusation of Nazi.

and Craven said--
I did not accuse Stesssd of being a Nazi. That is ridiculous.
--------------------
Your writing is bad, but your reading really sucks.
If you'll read back--you will see my post, which you have based all this worthless talking on--was based on a member's inference that steissd was a Nazi.

This is what led me into this conversation.
-----------------------
If one called Brazilians a bucnh of jungle bunnies and I took issue you'd probably race to the scene with "Is there not both jungle and bunnies in Brazil?"

This was funny.
------------------------
I think Hitler was pretty damn clear as to what he was thinking.
-------------------------
Not to pick on the minorities, but using your statement, Craven--
Using ccircumstantial evidence such as the higher crime rates of minorities bigots draw up lines of prejudice and then fools come along with the "but is not the crime rate higher for minorities?".
So--we should turn our head when a fact doeasn't look so hot for the 'minorities'? See, Walter, he DOES want to stop keeping statistics when the results aren't PC.
------------------------
I DON'T WANT TO MUZZLE ANY FACTS. For who wants to muzzle--see the above. (It's Craven)
------------------------
Craven, you don't have to bring up PC for it to be the major player. You still haven't pointed to what you found so offensive in steissd's post.
------------------------
He say: Words are not bigoted, people are. Get real, this is getting more and more stupid.--because he be losin'.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Your writing is bad, but your reading really sucks.
If you'll read back--you will see my post, which you have based all this worthless talking on--was based on a member's inference that steissd was a Nazi.

Nobody called Steissd a Nazi. Walter made an inference that I could not nor would wish to defend. But using your logic we shouldn't read too much into it nor try to guess what Walter thinks. Rolling Eyes

Sofia wrote:

I think Hitler was pretty damn clear as to what he was thinking.

He didn't think he was a racist.

Sofia wrote:

So--we should turn our head when a fact doeasn't look so hot for the 'minorities'? See, Walter, he DOES want to stop keeping statistics when the results aren't PC.

Stop making up crap about me Sofia. i do not want to keep statistics "Muzzled". The high crime rate of minorities does not lead me to believe that minorities are inherently criminal. It leads me to believe that there is more poverty etc in the minority classes.

Others would be led to bigotry, with the jokes about a black abortion clinic being a "crime stopper". again you'd probably defend this with.

"Is not the black more often a criminal than a white? Why are we muzzling facts?"

That's shite. Circumstantial facts are used to try to validate things that they do not validate. Blacks have a higher rate of crime simple because of their social condition and there is nothing inherent to their race that is criminal.

I do not seek to quiet facts, I seek to call a stupid association between fact and unjustified bigotry what it is. You seek to quiet this. :-)

Sofia wrote:

I DON'T WANT TO MUZZLE ANY FACTS. For who wants to muzzle--see the above. (It's Craven)

Again, quict making shite up and quit trying to muzzle me. Rolling Eyes

This is still getting stupider. Disagreeing with your defence of bigotry is not "muzzling".

Sofia wrote:

Craven, you don't have to bring up PC for it to be the major player.

I did not bring up "PC" YOU did. Read up. Again, please stop making up crap and trying to use it as an argument.

Sofia wrote:

You still haven't pointed to what you found so offensive in steissd's post.

I find Steissd's bigotry offensive. I will cite his bigotry in a following post.

Sofia wrote:

He say: Words are not bigoted, people are. Get real, this is getting more and more stupid.--because he be losin'.

losing? Sofia, you are making this tedious and stupid. Words are not bigoted. People are. You have prodded me to illustrate why I think steissd is bigoted and I shall shortly.

Your defense is indeed stupid. You say that bigots are only those who admit to it.

The leaders of the KKK do not admit to it. They use the very arguments you ahve used here that some "PC" folk are afraid of the facts and trying to "muzzle" negativity.

0 Replies

I was wrong.
Your writing is much worse than your reading.
You said--Nobody called Steissd a Nazi. Walter made an inference that I could not nor would wish to defend.
I said--I know no one called steissd a Nazi--and I never said anyone did. I said it was inferred.

Craven said--
The high crime rate of minorities does not lead me to believe that minorities are inherently criminal. It leads me to believe that there is more poverty etc in the minority classes.
I say--worrying about what some dense people may make of statistical results is not a good reason to refute those statistics.
----
Sofia wrote:
I think Hitler was pretty damn clear as to what he was thinking.
and you said--
He didn't think he was a racist.
and I say he gave himself away when he started murdering Jews.

-----------------------------------------
Others would be led to bigotry, with the jokes about a black abortion clinic being a "crime stopper". again you'd probably defend this with.
-
Let's see--killing black (or any color) babies funny?....
That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. Reminds me of the Wayne Williams jokes at college--the ones about killing all the little black boys in Atlanta... I threw a fit over the jokes, lost two friends over it, and cleared my house during a party because of it. I 'offended' my boss and others, when I didn't laugh, or would leave the room at 'nigger' jokes, so I guess I don't go so neatly into this category. And, I think my teeth-bared attitude about racism may be one reason why I say whatever I goddamn well please, and don't take lightly anyone who doesn't know my personal reality re: racism, acting as though to be racially acceptable--I have to get in line with the lingo. Screw that.
--------------------------------------
Craven, you said--
The leaders of the KKK do not admit to it.
----
Of course they do.
-------------------------------------
You put this in quotes as if I said it-->"Is not the black more often a criminal than a white? I didn't say it.
------------------------------------
What was it about steissd's comment that causes you to say he is bigoted?

0 Replies

Steissd said: "Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda, and it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas."

Actually, Steissd appears to me to imply that BUSH is bigoted in that statement - I merely infer that Steissd agrees.

I think that believing that Americans have a higher level of morality and conscience than Ugandans (whether it be Bush and/or Steissd who hold the belief) is a pretty textbook case of bigotry - no? The holding of a negative generalized belief about a people based on nationality, colour, religion, gender, race or whatever?

This is leaving out what beliefs may or may not be implied by comments about jungles and savannas.

0 Replies

Or jungle Bunnies.

0 Replies

Removed by request.

0 Replies

I don't know a lot (nothing at all, to be serious) about jungle bunnies, but the savannah bunnies ... oh, oh, ho, ho! :wink:

0 Replies

Steissd said: "Mr. Bush believes that his compatriots have higher level of morality and conscience than the people in Uganda, and it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas."

Actually, Steissd appears to me to imply that BUSH is bigoted in that statement - I infer that Steissd agrees.
---------
<nodding> This is why my tail heated. steissd wasn't even voicing HIS OWN views, he was guessing Bush's. I would let steissd clear up whether or not he agreed with it... I certainly do agree with one part. Not the morality and conscience part--because I have no information to make any such statement--but this:
"it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas"
I agree with.

Does that mean I think all Ugandans are tribal? No. But educating Americans about safe sex is easier than educating tribal, rural Ugandans. Yes. It is proven by statistics. The statistics don't prove mean, hateful facts about these people--they only prove one thing-- AIDS is sweeping Africa, because they have not been educated about AIDS transmission--or they have rejected that education. Either scenario proves:

it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I was wrong.

I know.

Sofia wrote:

I said--I know no one called steissd a Nazi--and I never said anyone did. I said it was inferred.

No duh. and Steissd never SAID he hates all Arabs and Muslims. it is inferred. You insist that too much is being "read" into what he says and that his implications are just poor choices of words and then you use another implication as an argument.

This is the type of argument I call stupid.

Sofia wrote:

I say--worrying about what some dense people may make of statistical results is not a good reason to refute those statistics.

I am only doing the first part not the latter. I never sought to refute statistics here as none were presented.

Sofia wrote:

Sofia wrote:
I think Hitler was pretty damn clear as to what he was thinking.
and you said--
He didn't think he was a racist.
and I say he gave himself away when he started murdering Jews.[/qyote]

Yeah, makes you wish people didn't wait until then to decide whether he was a bigot or not huh?

Sofia wrote:
Let's see--killing black (or any color) babies funny?....
That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. Reminds me of the Wayne Williams jokes at college--the ones about killing all the little black boys in Atlanta... I threw a fit over the jokes, lost two friends over it, and cleared my house during a party because of it.

Yes and this is my point, I too have (in Texas) been thrown out of a moving automobile for expressing distaste for that thinking. but that is what I am talking about.

The leaders of the KKK do not publish those jokes. They publish crime statistics (which I have no qualm with) and seek to equate all blacks with a criminal nature. That is the essence of what Steissd does about Arabs and Muslims.

That he does not stoop that often to blatantly racist and tasteless humor means people are more liekly to defend his bigotry.

Sofia wrote:

Craven, you said--
The leaders of the KKK do not admit to it.
----
Of course they do.

some do some don't. The current Grand Dukes like to call themselves "brave" in the face of the "PC" society and do not think it's racist.

They ask questions like yours all the time, by focusing on the circumstancial facts they seek to make their racist conclusions acceptable as "fact".

Sofia wrote:
You put this in quotes as if I said it-->"Is not the black more often a criminal than a white? I didn't say it.

I never said you said it. It's similar to what is asked on many KKK sites. Like I said they try to use circumstantial facts to substantiate their racism.

Sofia wrote:
What was it about steissd's comment that causes you to say he is bigoted?

His history of bigotry and that i do not consider it accidental or a poor choice of words.

0 Replies

We weren't talking about Muslims.

So, it doesn't matter really what he says at this point. You've branded him, and he's guilty of complete bigotry in all cases?

I do think we have overstepped here--referencing all these mentions of a particular member. I hope you will erase it. No one should be held up and dissected like that, especially in their absence. I know it is a rule on the private boards. I wanted you to show me what he said in that post, that was so bigoted. I see now you hold everything someone says against them, and it biases you against everything they say in the future.

There was a time I was doing some serious shaping of my opinion about the Muslim faith. As I have said recently, I finally came to the conclusion I can't swipe at the entire Muslim faith. And, I'm not ashamed of the questions I had, or the opinions.

0 Replies

We were talking about prejudice and bigotry. "Muslims" was just an easy quick search.

Steissd is certainly not "branded". He is one of my favorite people here and if you get him to think about it he will not express bigotry at all. I should mention that I know of at least as many examples where Steissd makes it clear that he does not think it inherent to race and I consider them sincere because he even cites supporting examples. One that I remember off the top of my head is where he calls Africa socially retarded but includes the caveat that he does not think that it's inherent to the race and cites as an example that blacks in western cultures are not this way.

It does indeed matter what he says. He has posted some great posts that are the anti-thesis to bigotry and I respect him greatly for that and other posts.

I do not "hold it against him". I have prejudices and bigotry of my own to deal with. I must fight mine and I will opine when I see it elsewhere.

Yes, the sum of all parts is in this opinion. It's not just the one post that I cite. My contention is that the sum of all parts points to the conclusion I have drawn.

People change, you yourself said that you now do not generalize with the Muslim religion. But it does matter what he says. Often when I take issue with one of these comments he clarifies it in a way that precludes generalization and prejudice.

We all have prejudices to fight. I grew up hating blacks and homosexuals and have learned that i was wrong. I do not seek to demonize Steissd, and neither did the people who helped me see the bigotry I held demonize me.

I call him on this because he is intelligent and when asked directly he is reasonable. When people tell him that he came across as a bigot he rephrases it.

He has done so here, as nimh notes he removed the race card. The culture card is still there.

I repeatedly asserted that it was not those few words that led me to my opinion. You repeatedly asked for me to defend mine.

I have done so and it's no knock on Steissd. As I have said I used to be part of the lunatic fringe. The rabid racist and homophobe. I have also said that i think Steissd fights his bias when called on it. I have also said that in Steissd's location I might be prone to the same opinions.

When Steissd generalizes about race, culture and religion in certain ways I call him on it, only because I know it often makes him clarify his point in a way that is less biased. He lives in a place where the majority of the Arabs and Muslims hate him. I think it has translated into less than objective analysis of Muslims and Arabs but he is a reasonable man and when called on it he corrects his statements.

I'm not trying to "brand" him any more than I think my own prejudices brand me. We all have our bigotry and we all must fight it. Those who do not fight bigotry end up with more than their share of it.

I think steissd fights it. He has shown me a desire to remove bias that I admire.

When he posted a biased flash file that decried certain facts about arabs I noted that the flash map was depicting greater Isreal (in a spiel about how small Isreal is and how large arab nations are) and Steissd went so far as saying he'd contact the author and ask him t o change it.

In short, I liek steissd, I like that he is not an out and out bigot. When his comments come across that way he fixes them. In almost all of the examples above he rephrases when called on. When a generalizations slips by he fixes it and clearly notes that he does not think all Arabs and Muslims are evil and such. This is why I call him on it when he does those generalizations and I hope thsoe around me call me on mine (I ahve been called on one in the last two weeks).

0 Replies

Er, actually, Sofia - I confess I was being a tad ironical and such - perhaps in a would-be-cooling sort of way - I have almost no doubt that Steissd agrees with Mr Bush in his estimation of the Ugandans, because I have seen Steissd agree with so much else that Bush actually, or putatively, thinks.

I agree strongly with Craven's last paragraph: "I'm not trying to "brand" him any more than I think my own prejudices brand me. We all have our bigotry and we all must fight it. Those who do not fight bigotry end up with more than their share of it."

I think we do need to name bigotry as what it is - I hate it when people name mine - but I hope like hell they continue to do so.

0 Replies

Perhaps it would lessen contention if views rather than people were labeled as bigoted? 'Tis a nice point.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote: "There was a time I was doing some serious shaping of my opinion about the Muslim faith. As I have said recently, I finally came to the conclusion I can't swipe at the entire Muslim faith. And, I'm not ashamed of the questions I had, or the opinions."

I am interested in this comment of yours, Sofia. I suppose I can justify raising my interest here because it is a thread partly about interesting questions!

I can well understand that you are not ashamed of the questions. I am a little puzzled about feeling no shame about the opinions. I am not exactly saying that you SHOULD feel shame about opinions that, I infer, you now consider bioted - but I believe, however, irrationally, that one ought to feel SOMETHING about having held opinions that one has acknowledged are misguided in some way.

Do you feel the same about both questions and opinions? Or is there some difference? I ask this quite genuinely, as you have made me consider this.

Sofia wrote: "Does that mean I think all Ugandans are tribal? No. But educating Americans about safe sex is easier than educating tribal, rural Ugandans. Yes. It is proven by statistics. The statistics don't prove mean, hateful facts about these people--they only prove one thing-- AIDS is sweeping Africa, because they have not been educated about AIDS transmission--or they have rejected that education. Either scenario proves:

it is easier to convince Americans to abstain from risky sex than the tribesmen from jungles and savannas"

Actually, only one scenario SUGGESTS your conclusion - the scenario that they have rejected the education - the first scenario, that they have not been educated - tends against your conclusion.

0 Replies

Not sure quite when tribal turned from a description into a term of abuse....

0 Replies

I probably should keep my big mouth shut, but....

A lot of times, the way we interpret a statement from an individual is based on our opinion/notion/experience of that particular person. Maybe steissed said this in a purely harmless way - but like Craven, I could could not shake off the impression of bigotry in that statement.

Ever since I read on a thread (I cant remember where), him saying "I can avoid AIDS as long as I dont have sex with men", any such statement from him, reeks of bigotry for me.

I really really should have kept my big mouth shut....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Not sure quite when tribal turned from a description into a term of abuse....

Actually I don't think "tribal" to be an incorrect word per se. It's just the way you use it :wink:

0 Replies

Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know