Obama’s “Muslim Advisor” calls "the Turkish Khomeini" an "inspiration"

>2 Existanai:

I think it's grammatically an edge case from the perspective of the TOS, but I would encourage you to direct criticisms, however mild or severe, to a post or opinion, not a person.

I am personally fed up of logging in to LT to find post after post filled with scaremongering and what could potentially be termed hate speech. If you are accustomed to it, that's fine. I'm not.

4: Your hate speech threshhold seems set awfully low.

Yes, I am not surrounded by political conservatives.

6: Well, if you are just going to resort to non-sequiturs, then there's not much point discussing anything.

There is nothing to discuss. This forum has devolved to tabloid pablum with the use of bigger words.

8: Okay, explain exactly what you think is "hate speech" in the original post. Because you seem to have nothing but an undefined gripe that as of now makes no sense when looking at the original post.

I don't feel obligated to explain anything. We're all adults here and most of the participants have been around long enough to be exposed to the constant, fearmongering, denigrating and condescending generalizations about Islam and Muslims spread by Oakes, although he is hardly the only one doing so. Once again, this is close to your standard mode of discussion, at least from what I've witnessed in the Conservatives forum and in recent threads here on Pro and Con; it is probably too much to expect that you, personally, or certain others here, can grasp what is hateful about such broad and provocative statements; but it is apparent to those of us who do not regularly stoop to facetious and insulting insinuations.

10: So you got nothing then?

What do I need to have? The stupidity of the rants here speaks for itself. I'm not the one defending them.

Might I recommend taking a deep breath, E? As someone who generally agrees with you?

12: There's an old saying: When you have the facts, argue the facts, when you have the law, argue the law, when you have nothing, pound the table.

Thus far, you are just pounding the table.

The original post isn't one I agree with, but I completely fail to see how anything in it could be called "hate speech", or for that matter "fearmongering". The facts contained in the post are all true, and the conclusions drawn, while probably not entirely warranted, are neither overly dramatic or wildly overblown.

Jesse, I appreciate the intervention, but I want to point out that a) I haven't posted here as a regular in months because b) I've taken quite a few deep breaths. Honestly, it doesn't make any difference to me what kind of debates populate LT, but it is still rather tiresome and irritating to encounter thread after meaningless thread that is, in essence, trash, but dressed up to pose as something with serious intellectual import.

15: The only meaningless portions of this thread are the things you've inserted here with your contentless ranting.

>14 StormRaven:

In my experience, it takes approximately 50,000 words of discussion till a prejudiced and logically and factually disabled poster begins, not necessarily to see they are wrong, but to at least shut up long enough so that a new round of stupidity can commence on a different thread.

I can point out some very long threads on Political Conservatives and here on Pro and Con where posters have been completely blind to their own prejudices and in sheer denial of reality, but for some embarrassing reason found it necessary to soldier on repeating themselves mindlessly.

If that's the kind of discussion you are hoping for one more time - thanks, but I think I've had enough; I will, however, link to exactly the same kind of discussion elsewhere if you request it, and if you still fail to see the parallels, I won't be able to help you further.

15>

I am certain you absorb profoundly intellectual lessons from, er, "Jihad Watch".

And Oakes Spalding.

And sentences like " why does Obama’s “Muslim Advisor” support the “Turkish Khomeni”? .... Or is that it would be difficult to find a prominent Muslim authority or spokesperson who would have different views? (In fairness, the Bush Administration in it's attempt to "reach out" to moderate Muslims or Muslim groups in the United States perhaps confronted the same conundrum.)

In fact, this kind of superficial blather seems to be a substantial preoccupation for many.

However, as an analogy, no matter the readership and interest generated by tabloids, they remain just that - tabloids.

17: You've made specific claims, ranted and yelled about how the evil conservatives are out to spoil your LT, and refused to engage on the substance of anything. That's pounding the table.

And it makes your credibility really low. if you want to make a claim, be prepared to defend it. That's a pretty basic element of posting. No one made you jump into the thread. You decided to throw some crap around and then when you got called to back up your crap, you decided to get all huffy about doing so "because its been done before". And you are simply not going to be bothered to do anything other than hurl insults about.

Which begs the question as to why you decided to jump in the thread in the first place.

Unless you actually come up with something specific about the original post that is somehow actually "hate speech", I'm going to conclude that you just aren't a serious individual with anything to contribute.

Thank you for breaking the ice - I finally laughed.

18: Okay, show us some Muslim authority or spokesperson who would have different views. Show us that the source is mistaken, and the advisor didn't figuratively embrace a fairly distasteful Turkish radical. Demonstrate that the post is in error in some way.

Here's a clue: actual facts don't constitute hate speech, no matter how much you dislike them.

Here's a clue: "serious" individuals with "credibility" don't equate journalistic flourishes with fact.

As with all these debates that are more about group psychology than the alleged topic at hand, there are multiple layers at work:

1) the alleged facts and implicit perspective offered by a certain journalistic piece (in a typical story, there are a multitude of facts; for example, in reporting about the Israel-Palestine conflict, in one study, Israeli victims were found on average to have been overreported (i.e. over 100% of the actual count) whereas Palestinian victims were vastly underreported (about 33% or so of the actual body count).) The question of what makes a fact becomes an area of debate in itself. The "factuality" of a piece and its credibility then no longer rest on the verifiable numbers or statements it claims, but on the implicit perspective that guides the claims. To use a different example, one cannot deny that, relative to their population, the percentage of people from a Jewish background working in the media is disproportionately high; but why is this "fact" event relevant? It becomes so, if it is stated over and over, for odious reasons.

2) the inability of a reader to grasp such a perspective; or, alternately, their willingness/eagerness to do so. If a source is skewed towards one's perspective on the world, the credibility of the source and the truthfulness of its opinions is almost automatically legitimized.

3) the reference to implicit assumptions already existing in the world, in public discourse, which are assumed to be true without adequate discussion. For example, the meme that "Islam" needs reform; that millions of adherents of a faith are automatically assumed to be living in a backward state because of their faith; etc.

4) the build-up of an argument around such references, and the unstated fears, connotations, etc. that are set off by said memes. ("If we cannot speak to the Muslims rationally... and if terrorists are often Muslim... then we are going to be besieged by Muslim terrorists")

5) the insistence on "what is actually stated", as if people are so naive as to not know the difference between words, gesture and intent in everyday life. (Cf. public apologies...)

6) the question of "credibility" on inherently opinion-based issues; and the assumption that comprehensive perusals of news and internet sites, on a given topic, lends one authority on a topic; or alternately, the genuine authorities are those who constantly speak out on the topic, or have a long list of degrees and appointments that places their word and intent beyond doubt.

7) the assumption, by some, that a discussion based on these mounds of superficial knowledge actually lead to "serious" conclusions on "serious" issues that "affect us all" , without any direct experience or substantially verifiable knowledge of the affairs at hand.

Well, I could go on, but I think one has the general drift.

Obviously, this is just a small forum in a small corner of the vast internet universe. It's all irrelevant and we are all, in retrospect, 'posers'. However, that doesn't excuse or make equivalent every kind of intent or posting pattern.

Apart from the question of what is or isn't hate speech, as far as I can tell the advisory council's role is limited to this:

"The White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will be a resource for nonprofits and community organizations, both secular and faith based, looking for ways to make a bigger impact in their communities, learn their obligations under the law, cut through red tape, and make the most of what the federal government has to offer." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Additional-...

I don't see the "factual" relevance of Mogahed's views on anything outside of facilitating an effective interface between government agencies and faith-based community organizations. I also see no factual basis for describing her as Obama's "Muslim advisor", any more than it makes sense to describe Rabbi David N. Saperstein as Obama's "Jewish Advisor" or Rev. Jim Wallis as Obama's "Evangelical Christianity Advisor." This false characterization in the original post raises the question of the intent of the original post, which, if a generous interpretation is taken, involves a more narrow opinion on whether "Islam" can be reformed in relation to a disagreement between two individuals (Mogahed and Manji). A less generous interpretation would find the intent to be another flimsy effort to associate Obama with "extremism". The intellectual credibility of such efforts -- which are, unfortunately, all too common in the convervative blogosphere and punditocracy -- is more in question than Existanai's "credibility" (something #19 is in no position to judge), or his ability to accurately detect the perlocutionary effects of the content of original post.

#24. Thank you (not simply because of the reference to me, but for succinctly yet unassailably putting one more teapot-tempest to rest.)

Buncha fuckin' children.

>Oakes: I suggest next time you try to be more a) careful, and/or b) honest.

Is this some kind of veiled accusation or, worse, threat? I admit I don't set a high bar for civility but, Mr. Oakes Spalding, you cannot idly post such bullying statements on this forum, or any other.

I suggest, next time, you work on the tone of your posts.

And as far as the thread's original question is concerned, I think the matter is closed.

23: That's a nice long post. Too bad it is incoherent and has nothing to do with the original post.

For example, the over and under reporting of Israeli and Palestinian victims respectively is interesting, but has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

The statement that Islam needs to be reformed was made by Manji, a Muslim. Perhaps you should parse the posts you are describing as hate speech a little bit better before you run around hurling accusations.

The rest of your post is as contentless as posts can be, consisting of nothing more than unsupported innuendo and self-justifications. In point of fact, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: building a case based upon nothing more than your own biased viewpoint.

And one wonders why.

You say you stopped posting to LT because of posts that are "tabloid" like. Of course, one wonders why you had to eschew LT entirely because of posts on this forum. Pro and Con is one of a couple hundred forums on LT. If the posts in this forum are so difficult to deal with, there's plenty of other options.

Also, if the posts are not to your liking, start your own threads. Show us ignorant dunderheads what real issue based posts would look like.

No, instead you vanish, and then reappear only to hurl accusations of "hate speech" and "fearmongering" that turn out to be based on nothing whatsoever. If anything is dragging down the level of debate on this forum, it would be your posts.

Look, I generally agree that the original post made too much out of not a lot. On the other hand, it is always worthwhile to examine the individuals who members of the administration associate with, and the statements they make. When Trent Lott posthumously praised Strom Thurmond's 1950 presidential campaign, he was rightly and roundly criticized for it. When a presidential advisor is out saying glowing things about some pretty unpleasant people, one should question the wisdom of that person.

Now, the reason that this is not a huge deal is that a Presidential Advisor is a pretty minor position. They are more or less a dime a dozen in every White House, and don't actually have any power over policy, and most rarely, if ever, actually directly advise the President on anything (their advice is usually routed through the Chief of Staff or someone similar). But the White House needs to be cognizant of who it has on the payroll (so to speak) and distance itself from those who do foolish things. The administration hasn't, which calls into question their judgment just a little bit.

But when you run around using hysterical hyperbole and making big sweeping accusations, and then backing them up with little more than a wink and a nudge and a "everybody knows" statement, well, then you lose all credibility of any kind.

What are "equal negative rights"?

A man takes his computer to the repair shop because it won't start up. The technician explains the hard drive is faulty and needs replacement. The man yells that he doesn't care how hard his drive is, he just wants to use his computer. The technician tries explaining to the man that the two things are interconnected. The experience of using the computer is inextricable from the condition of the mechanical/electric parts. The man continues yelling that as far as he's concerned, he can't use his computer, and doesn't understand why the technician continues rambling about things called "hardware". The technician has better things to do, but tries to be patient. It's a system and if any one part goes wrong, the system itself becomes unusable, explains the technician. Idiot, yells the man, do you think I paid you to lecture me on technology - if you know so much, why didn't you become a professor instead - I've wasted an hour here and my computer still isn't working - and so on and so forth. Then the man stomps out the door satisfied, at least, that if his computer wasn't fixed, he at least got to express how he felt.

People are exposed to the news, to so-called facts, from birth; increasingly, it is the same with sophisticated technology. The constant exposure to the flashy and inviting surface of constantly evolving realms that surround us but which we don't fully understand drives a person to fall back on digestible pieces of information and popular guides. An emergent and previously unknown entity - whether it is a gadget or a complex, multi-faceted issue that would actually take years of education to understand at a comprehensive level - pushes some people to gain confidence and familiarity through a gradual increase in exposure, in particular routines and applications. The exposure and the routines typically remain at the level of the consumer.

However, the experience of being a consumer, of newfound confidence and a sense of ownership if not mastery, becomes valuable in itself. And the more it is valued, the more people strive to exaggerate and decorate their familiarity to stand out in a crowd. Mere information is not enough; they require a framework, a hierarchical set of values in which, for example, expensive equipment stands above inferior, commonly available items; or in which certain kinds of opinions are more valued than others. The titillation, jargon and platitudes offered by opinion-editorials, or reviews, become an excellent, frequently replenished source from which the consumer draws his or her authority.

In fact, the increase in consumerism itself is taken to be a kind of expertise. From this perspective, the editorial writer, or the reviewer, has an enviable position, much more than that of the politician or the engineer actually making decisions or compromises - because the former get to sample everything, whereas the latter are stuck with a particular, and usually dull and unenviable set of circumstances, demands and exigencies that all need to be met. Never mind that the former may not have any direct knowledge or understanding of the technological challenges or social complexities at hand. Never mind that the majority of people have no use for, and don't care about, the degree of consumerism to which the amateurs and the self-appointed experts take their enthusiasm. Never mind that they may be completely misdirected. The pleasure found in taking the experience of the consumer to its extreme is a goal in itself.

From this point of view, it is completely irrelevant whether or not the facts account for much; and if they do account for something, what exactly they account for, and how. So, initially, it is extremely relevant whether or not Obama has a "Muslim advisor" because apparently this is "factual" and "credible" and at the core of the debate; when this turns out to be garbage, the question becomes whether or not he has an advisor, and what the obligations or responsibilities of the latter are; and so it goes on. The controversy that is generated, and the ability of the participants in the debate to say something, anything, and to sound like experts while doing so - all of this has a more real-world consequence to the participants than the actual relationship between their words and ideas, and the world around them, because it extends the experience of the consumer. And when this little charade is pointed out for what it is, there is vituperation. But even the vituperation is satisfying because it allows the participant/consumer to continue seeking that specific pleasure they find in regurgitating and reliving the aura of the ultimate consumer, the expert, the one who has seen and done it all.

The consumer's experience is sacred; it should not be interrupted, because when it is, things get unpleasant. The confidence they have gradually accumulated should never be taken lightly. And that, ultimately, is why the man with the broken computer stomps out the door hurling his abuse - because who cares how the hell a computer works, the fact is he bought one, he owns it and he wants to use it now and no one should dare talk to him like he hasn't seen a computer before.

Try changing your preferred brand of cigar.

Okay, now we have it, Oakes supports (or would if he could) communism. Are we to assume that if you could you would support the Castro regime in Cuba? Are Cuban cigars more important to you than the freedom of the Cuban people?

35: So its all an evil media conspiracy?

41: And some people imagine themselves to be more informed than their fellows without much justification. Some of us, on the other hand, have much more than passing familiarity with politics as a result of having it be part of our jobs every day.

Which person in this conversation turns out to be carrying a rattle may surprise you.

I'm not here to exchange a little tit-for-tat with someone that cannot properly interpret a news article, a posting about it, or the replies in follow-up to the article. However, since StormRaven keeps clamouring for my attention let us summarize again what this so-called discussion is about:

1) an analyst/researcher in Muslim studies was recently appointed to advise Obama on faith-based partnerships for the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, created by George W. Bush in 2001, an organization which was previously exploited to funnel millions of dollars to religious supporters of the Bush administration. (Which, of course, doesn't cause many here to blink an eye.) The goal of the Office is apparently to provide social services through faith-based organizations to local communities. The researcher recently praised a similar and apparently effective social program undertaken by a Turkish Muslim group.

a) There are suspicions that the leader of the social movement, through his strain of Islamic teachings, wishes to reintroduce Islamic values into largely secular Turkey. b) On being confronted with this association, the advisor claimed she has seen no evidence for these suspicions.

2) The news article, and Oakes' posting, however, do not take this non-news event at face value. They also insinuate that i) Obama has an advisor on all things Islamic; ii) the advisor, and by extension, the "administration" (/Obama) frequently associate with/ admire Islamic teachers/leaders; iii) they don't care that these associations might be dubious and iv) though the advisor appears to be moderate or liberal, she may not be so because v) of these associations and because vi) Muslim culture itself is not generally moderate or liberal. By implication, vii) the administration itself may be showing some preference for radical Islam.

3) Apart from these insinuations, there are the sweeping, insulting statements and implications about 1 billion people - that they are incapable of thinking for themselves, that Islamic culture is in itself dangerous (which I don't entirely disagree with, except I think it is not necessarily more dangerous than a culture which gives rise to abortion-doctor killers and bloodthirsty politicians funded by religious groups), and that any kind of association with Islam - since it is currently, frequently associated in the popular mind with terrorism and repression - may lead to something dangerous, something threatening the stability and security of millions of people, those well-meaning, family-loving statistically average people that we all know, some of them prolific posters on internet forums who consider themselves pundits.

In the end, all these "facts" add up to a whole lot of nothing. As "facts", they are quite irrelevant. As pseudo-intellectual "analysis" and as controversy, of course, they are very substantial material. Hence, they appeal greatly to a crowd that delights in, essentially, gossip.

At no point did I claim that the original post in itself was, without qualification, hate speech. What is pretty clear is that I have encountered post after post here with similar insinuations, and that each of these posts, with their fearful, apocalyptic overtones could arguably be termed hate speech when considered as part of a collective message. And what is hate speech? It is nothing particularly unusual that comes with an emblem stamped across it. It is speech that tries to provoke or instigate fear, discrimination or hatred based on a person's gender, religion, ethnic background, etc. Which, I think, summarizes numerous posts by Oakes - and few others - quite well.

Also, quite irrelevant to the above, already irrelevant debate, I should point out a few things that I think point to further misunderstandings. A) My "hate speech" accusation has nothing to do with what Manji said in some interview about Islamic reform. B) I never said I had stopped posting on LT, or done so "because of this forum". I only said to Jesse that I had stopped posting here (i.e. on Pro and Con) as a regular. C) I mentioned over- and under-reporting as examples of "facts" used in the news, which, like the above article, do not actually tell us the whole story. The point of my analogy was that mere facts alone do not in themselves constitute information, a story, etc.; but if organizations want to present these facts in a particular way, then it says more about their motives than it does about what actually happened. In brief: so-called facts are not the whole picture.

Etc., etc.

Edited to remove some superfluous invective.

Oh, so your reference to hate speech was not in reference to any post in this thread, but rather in reference to threads in general? Sorry, that's a dog that just won't hunt. Its a nice attempt at covering your hind end, but simply not credible, especially given that you have spent most of your posts whining about the unspoken truths that you think are contained in other people's posts.

As to the various dark and evil things you attribute to the original post, note that the OP made clear that he didn't agree with the characterization of Mogahed as a "muslim advisor", but does point out that there appears to be a difficult issue involved in locating an actual liberal minded Muslim leader, a problem that those inside Islam (such as Manji) have noted. So, the terrible conspiracy to slant the facts seems to dissipate when subjected to actual review, unlike the version you have cooked up with half-baked imaginary claims as to what the OP "really" meant.

Thus far, there's no substance to your posts. You assert that there is a real truth out there, and those who don't see it are just foolish or possibly evil. But you have provided no actual substance with respect to anything relevant to this actual thread. One wonders why you chose this thread, since you have nothing at all to say about it. But I suspect you have nothing at all to say about anything if it requires you to back up your wild claims with a substantive argument.

Because you don't actually refute the claims made, or offer your own analysis, or any kind of actual substance. Instead you throw about code words like "hate speech" and "fearmongering" in an attempt to cut off debate. For someone who claims they want "real" debate, and not a "tabloid", you sure sound like a tabloid - devoid of substance on the issue at hand, hurling insults and invective, and generally offering nothing of any value to any discussion. Whining about how the discussion doesn't meet your lofty standards is not an argument. It is simply whining. Most people get over that before they leave grade school.

The OP, and particularly, the thread title, represents another (self-admitted, in this case) misrepresentation of the facts. The Gulen organization, described in one of the links as a “faith-based social movement” pushes for expanded religious rights in Turkey, an ostensibly secular state with a decidedly complex society, most of which are Muslims, some of which would like to see, as Muslims, a broader application of shari’a law in that society. I admittedly don’t know much about Fethullah Gulen (or why he deserves the Khomeini sobriquet, unless it simply serves the purpose of Jihad Watch to characterize him thusly), but if Mogahed wants to make reference to the humanitarian aid that his organization has contributed as an “inspiration”, I think it’s disingenuous to work that into the implication of the thread title, which can easily be interpreted as:

OBAMA’S WILD-EYED JIHADIST ADVISOR HAS BIG LOVE FOR THIS GUY WHO’S JUST LIKE KHOMEINI, AND WE ALL KNOW HOW NASTY THAT GUY WAS AND SO OBVIOUSLY OBAMA IS STILL PALLING AROUND WITH TERRORISTS

It wouldn’t be the first time that Oakes, who has admitted to being anti-Muslim (as well as anti- a lot of other things that don’t mesh well with his happy little Chestertonian universe), armed with some trusty little “factoids” from Jihad Watch (by the way, if you’d like some insights into the folks who read this crap, just peruse a few of the comments) and some generous and patient interpretation (for the slow-witted among us, presumably) has tried to stir the pot, only for his readers to discover that there’s really no story at all.

Well, anyway, it got Oakes some attention for a while, and got him quite excited to the extent that he had to go back and modify post 38 (you thought I didn't notice, didn't you?). At least more attention than his Jihad Watch alarmism has garnered him in the Political Conservative and Christianity groups, where - wisely and to their credit - no one will touch these posts with a ten foot pole. I hope that in the future, we knee jerk liberals (just kidding, E) will consider this before rising to the bait.

And by the way, can I start calling American right-wing evangelists who wish to influence the U.S. government in matters of abortion, evolution, and gay rights by means of “faith-based social movements” the “American Khomeinis”?

45> And by the way, can I start calling American right-wing evangelists who wish to influence the U.S. government in matters of abortion, evolution, and gay rights by means of “faith-based social movements” the “American Khomeinis”?

Yes you may! I believe they were called American Ayatollahs back when that was an winning political epitaph.

Since, apparently, there was no substance to my post/s, but apparently there is actually some substance to Oakes'/Storm's postings, let us try to discover where exactly this magical "substance" is (not to mention the "credibility", etc.)

1) Is Jihad Watch a reliable source?
2) Does the quoted "news article" (i.e. blog post) have anything newsworthy to report, besides the fact a so-called "Muslim advisor" praised a faith-based (Muslim) social movement which preaches, among other things, inter-faith understanding?
3) Is Mogahed Obama's Muslim advisor?
4) Is Güllen in fact the Turkish Khomeini?
5) Is there any reason to doubt Mogahed's credentials, or to paint her as a radical Muslim?
6) Does the "news article" (i.e. blog post) provide us with a reason to doubt the motives of the administration's social or international affairs policies?
7) Does Manji's belief that Islam needs reform translate to any alarming observations about Islam?
8) Does Mogahed's debate with Manji suggest she is aligned with radical Islam?
9) Are there any grounds for inferring that Obama and his administration may tacitly approve those who are potentially interested in reinvigorating Islam in a secular society (in the same way that the Bush administration constantly aided Christian fundamentalists?)
10) If all of the above are false, should one automatically infer the poster was simply hoodwinked, taken aback by misunderstandings or falsities, and had no motive except to pass on what he had "discovered"?

There is only one short and simple answer to each of the above questions: no.

But, as Storm insists, there is of course no subtext about Islam or Muslims, and there are no other motivations to the post. The post could not possibly be interpreted as hate speech either on its own, or as part of a repetitive message. Instead, there's a debate hidden in there. Something that provoked a discussion. Something "substantial" and certainly "credible". All objections that this is alarmist garbage are, in fact, alarmist garbage. Even if one can't locate a single newsworthy statement, an undistorted fact or honest, rational conclusion.

So, since there are no credible facts, statements or conclusions in either the article or the posting about it, I will take Storm and Oakes at their word and assume there is still some elusive "substance" to this discussion. I just want to know what it is - can it be pointed out to me? Let's hope "substance" didn't suddenly take a vacation.

(I would like to repeat, at this juncture, what I wrote earlier: it takes approximately 50,000 words of discussion till a prejudiced and logically and factually disabled poster begins, not necessarily to see they are wrong, but to at least shut up long enough so that a new round of stupidity can commence on a different thread.)

49

“…filled with blind venom and hatred …”

“…maliciously dishonest…”

“…at least half-crazy…”

“Are you just out and out freaking insane or what?”

So, do these comments qualify as ad hominem attacks?

My post #45 speculated on the motivations behind the OP. If these motivations are defensible as such, defend them. I take personal issue with the characterization of myself, and refer the matter to the site administrator.

By the way, if the cigar thing offends you so much, I'll be happy to delete it - of course opening myself to another accusation of being "maliciously dishonest".

I feel responsible in some way for lowering the tone of this thread. And for that, because it may have encouraged Oakes in some way to post abusively in messages 27 and 45, I would like to apologize to everyone reading, and especially Makifat and Theoria.

That said, I still feel there is no legitimate excuse for this thread. Oakes' constantly provocative and mindless (an appropriate usage of the term, I think, since it refers to a pattern of behaviour rather than a personal quality) posts are not a contribution but a nuisance. And I also feel that, if we have to maintain a certain degree of civility in these forums, it has to come from everyone equally - and besides me, that includes Oakes.

I was shaking out my shoes, by the way, and I think I found the "substance".

It was kinda fun too.

Please, don't call the FBI.

I feel responsible in some way for lowering the tone of this thread

#41 may have been a bit much.

Every so often I look in on this group to see if I am missing anything. I am not. I'm glad to stay in the Political Conservatives group, which does not descend to the viciousness, narcissism, snobbery, and mania on display here by a few members.

It would seem that Oakes made a provocative, legitimate post, but instead of rebutting the post, his opponents tried to destroy him. Oakes can take care of himself, as he has demonstrated repeatedly. But I cannot help thinking that Arctic, who founded this group, would be disappointed by the behavior of his fellow liberals.

I'm glad to stay in the Political Conservatives group, which does not descend to the viciousness, narcissism, snobbery, and mania on display here by a few members.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine why more people in the PC group aren't arguing against the whole Bin Laden "girley-boy" thing. It's called preaching to the choir.

I assume the gist of your meaning is that if we just stay in the groups where everyone thinks alike, everything will be fine.

Read the third sentence again.

I'm not gonna argue with you, deniro.

After the references to President Urkel, a few choice posts on bestiality, and the endless debates about who may have been bowing to who (whom?), I sort of lost interest in what's going on over there.

From the number of posts on the threads, it looks like most of the PoliCons have too. ;)

It suddenly occurs to me that I probably ought to recuse myself from this conversation for the time being.

>55 barney67:: It would seem that Oakes made a provocative, legitimate post

I see we have a third voter in favour of the "substance" or at least "legitimacy" of Oakes' post, which as Oakes himself summarized it "boils down to... 1. Obama is overly cozy with unsavory Islamofascists, or at least he is cozy to people who are sympathetic to unsavory Islamofascists. 2. There are very few “moderate” Muslims. This is a problem."

In reply, I would like to repeat my earlier question: since there are no credible facts, statements or conclusions in either the article or the posting about it, I will ... assume there is still some elusive "substance" to this discussion. I just want to know what it is - can it be pointed out to me?

>59 Makifat:: It suddenly occurs to me that I probably ought to recuse myself from this conversation for the time being.

Recently, I finished Ugrešić's wonderful collection of essays Thank You for Not Reading and as she correctly observed, one of the few resorts that we are increasingly left with - the louder the morons get, the more we are drowned out by noise and hectoring and the more expression itself becomes equivalent to a show of idiocy - is silence. Or, to make another analogy, it is perhaps better to grimace and turn away as the mob takes over the street, than attempt to shout over them encouraging reason (although, personally, I puzzle over whether this is the right thing to do, even if it is the wiser thing to do.)

:)

I think this bit should have been included in the first post.

#57, Deniro, You want me to break my word and take part in the PC group so you can hone your "viciousness, narcissism, snobbery, and mania" skills? As Makifat said, you guys preach to the choir over there. Where's the fun, or learning, in that? It was a circle jerk when I left and apparently it still is now.

If you guys are still following the Republican party line, you might want to take the conservative out of the group name. It's dishonest.

A reminder: ad hominem attacks are against the terms of use. Keep it about the content, not other members. I'm ready to start temporarily suspending accounts if this keeps up.

circle jerk

Wul, at least anyone can post in that group. They don't have to join to post...

Not that there's any requirement for actually joining the other group, mind you.

For anyone interested, we are attempting to re-write the past over here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/67072

Whoops, now it's over here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/67159

Slippery little booger, isn't it? (The thread, I mean.)

If this thread is going to move around in order to find a home that agrees with it, I'm outta here.