Blogger of Jared

39 Responses to “Another Diversity Dithering Disaster”

Amen brother! Pretty funny. Poor taste, but high society ads have never been a strong point of used car dealers. Anyone with “ears to hear” knows that “diversity” is really a code word for “you can be part of our club so long as you’re not a White, Republican, Christian, American. And if you were unfortunate enough to be born into this, the 21st Century’s lowest caste (because of course we’re still domineering and racist), then you must have “tolerance” toward everything non-white, non-conservative, immoral, and anti-American.

I’m not sure if making fun of jihadists helps. Actually maybe it does. This enemy is growing quickly and they are committed! America needs to understand sooner rather than later that they need to take a stand. When more people who speak up are shut up by the thought police, the attention emboldens the next wave of wise-guys. Eventually we come to serious recognition that while the honest in heart can come from every race, philosophy, religion, and nation; there are high shares among different combinations of those attributes that work to undermine the Right and declare war on the Righteous.

Of course most Muslims are not ready to take up arms against western society, but too many are sympathetic or at least apathetic to what is being done in their name. Why don’t more stand up? I had hoped that after 9-11 there may be huge numbers of Red-blooded American Muslims of Asian or Arab decent who would flood the FBI and CIA for jobs. With their cultural knowledge and traits they could infiltrate and help destroy the enemy. We all need to stand up, but they need to outshine us all precisely because this is their problem! Some probably did, but alas far fewer than should have. (Or if they did, the media only focuses on the whiners, which given the media’s track record could be possible).

I know if “fundamentalist Mormons from Bountiful” were sneaking around seeking to destroy Mayor Rocky Anderson and his pals, I’d quit my job tomorrow and put my life on the line as an inside informant. Lucky for me they probably wouldn’t pick me because they’d have about 10,000 others to choose from. I would fully understand the desire and need to profile, because obviously I would share a lot of traits with the perpetrators. “Go ahead, profile my day…and while you’re at it sign me up to help put a stop to this, because the sooner they’re gone, the sooner I and my people can regain the confidence of our neighbors.”

Like everyone, I used to give a free pass to the Muslims who were not the terrorists. Now I’m convinced there are major defects in that religion because so many adherents are too timid and weak to stand up against those who have hijacked their once good name. What good is religion if it doesn’t give you courage to stand up and defend the right, or even the ability to get reasonably close to identifying what is right? Far from sympathizing with our desire and even need for profiling and for their help, it seems the brand of courage most visible by Muslims in America is the courage to go on camera and complain for the 1,000th time that most in their community are “peace loving”, and so we are unduly picking on them if we don’t treat the 85 year old Kansas grandmother the same as a 21-year old male Pakastani student.

Come on Muslims! You are all part of the 2/3rds of the host of heaven privilaged to be in the second estate! Stand against the evil in your midst, or be prepared to live a life of suspicion! (Yeah, BoJ is a favorite hang-out for all my Muslim friends too).

Mike B.
www.latterdaylogic.com

Comment # 1 left by Mike B. on September 26th, 2006

I hate political correctness.

Has anybody read Fahreinheit 451? It’s an interesting dystopian novel showing what kind of thing could happen when people self-censor so much.

Comment # 2 left by Connor Boyack on September 26th, 2006

Anyone with “ears to hear” knows that “diversity” is really a code word for “you can be part of our club so long as you’re not a White, Republican, Christian, American.

So true, so true.

Connor:

I’ll have to look into F. 451.

Comment # 3 left by Wade on September 26th, 2006

I think this is quite an ironic and telling statement about those in the hippie PC crowd.

It think this statement is rather telling, in that you compartmentalize a group of people who think differently than yourself by labelling them stereotypically.

They have hijacked the word diversity and recast it to mean promotion of only those views they like. If they were honest about their love for diversity, they wouldn’t detest the diverse approach of making a parody of terrorism.

What in the world are you talking about? Do you think most people like making fun of other’s beliefs and parodizing the sacred terms of others? Terms like ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’ aren’t used solely by foaming-at-the-mouth crazed terrorists. There are a lot of fanatic mormon splinter groups that use terms like ‘endowment,’ ‘annoint,’ and ‘zion’.

I’m not exactly sure what the point of this post is… If you’re not for being “Politically Correct” or “Diverse” then argue it for what it is. I think the commerical is in bad taste, and wouldn’t want it aired anymore than I would a fertility clinic taking a jab at polygamy or a sprinkler system ad making light of Catholic baptisms.

Just because your hippies balked at this commercial doesn’t mean you need to fight the issue. The commercial is wrong.

@Mike

Wow, you’re just as bad as the pope. He labels them as violent murders, and you label them as timid weaklings. What in the crap are you talking about? These people are humble, peaceful people. Do you know any? What makes you think you have the right to label them as weak just because they don’t all rise up to stop crazed, violent extremists?

What have you done to help Christianity save face today? Have you taken up arms in the name of Christ this week? Have you personally lead any crusades into central Utah to exterminate the sects down there that give Mormonism a bad name? That is the most outrageous argument I’ve ever heard.

Do you think because there are terrorists that you have licence to “not give a free pass” to muslims? Do you honestly think that you have the right to treat an anonymous Arab differently because other Arabs misbehave?

– John, the disgusted hippie

Comment # 4 left by John on September 26th, 2006

So tell me Wade, are you Us or Them?
http://millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/09/26/us_vs_them

Comment # 5 left by Doc on September 26th, 2006

Hippie John:

My reference to “hippies” was supposed to come through as a very insincere and tongue-in-cheek comment. If you read about the incident, you would know those who opposed it were anything but “hippies”. You need to calm down my friend! Clearly the “jihad” and the “fatwa” made mention of in the commercial had NOTHING to do with the alleged sacred terms you make them out to be. If you knew anything about the commercial you would know it was an overt and obvious jab at TERRORISTS!

Sorry you don’t like my views. But you can’t say I didn’t warn you.

Comment # 6 left by Wade on September 26th, 2006

Clearly the “jihad” and the “fatwa” made mention of in the commercial had NOTHING to do with the alleged sacred terms you make them out to be.

Oh well yeah…. of course… clearly.

Huh?

They’re spelled rather similarly to the sacred terms I’m referencing, so one might be led to think that the two are closely related, if not identical.

How exactly are they different? What are you talking about? Do you think because some knee-jerk comedians use religious terms they aren’t related to the actual concepts and beliefs held by muslims?


If you knew anything about the commercial you would know it was an overt and obvious jab at TERRORISTS.


I’d like to know why you think I don’t know anything about this. Besides, “if you knew anything about x” really isn’t a constructive way to bring your point across.

I’m just working off what you’ve provided, for one:

“Our prices are lower than the evildoers’ every day. Just ask the Pope! Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies.”

Was the pope talking about muslims, or just terrorists?

Do only terrorists belive in the concept of fatwa, or is that all of islam, too?

It’s not just a jab at terrorists, it’s a jab at islam as well. Do you disagree?

Comment # 7 left by John on September 26th, 2006

It’s not just a jab at terrorists, it’s a jab at islam as well. Do you disagree?

Yes, I completely disagree. And that is exactly why we disagree: you seem to think the commercial was aimed at the legitimate usage of the real religious terms; but it seems clear to me that it was a tongue-in-cheek jab at terrorists who have hi-jacked a legitimate religion and its practices. And if you think poking fun at terrorists is intollerable, then we just have a fundamental disagreement. Sorry.

Comment # 8 left by Wade on September 26th, 2006

…it seems clear to me that it was a tongue-in-cheek jab at terrorists who have hi-jacked a legitimate religion and its practices.

Your quest for inner clarity has been achieved. It still makes absolutely no sense to me.

Sure the ad is poking fun at terrorists, but it uses things sacred to islam to do so. Terrorists have hijacked the religion to a point, so why allow others to trample on it? Somehow I don’t think this ad would be so funny if LDS terms were used rather than Islamic ones.

Think it would be funny to poke fun at Ted Bundy using mormon doctrinal phrases in order to sell your pest control? What’s the matter with poking fun at murderers?

Not all muslims are terrorists. This ad makes jabs using Islamic terms. That’s why it is wrong. This ad makes a light thing out of a serious topic. That is why people recognize it as insensitive and low class.

Comment # 9 left by John on September 26th, 2006

PS: There’s a difference between what the advertisers were shooting for, and what they accomplished.

Comment # 10 left by John on September 26th, 2006

John,

I can respect your view, I just don’t agree with it.� The purpose of my post was to point out the fact that those who claim they love diversity, actually don’t.� They have recast the word to mean only that which they approve of.� And don’t get me wrong, I don’t like diversity either; I’m simply pointing out their hi-jacking of the word “diversity”.

And to answer your question about the joke about Ted Bundy: yes, I think that would be pretty funny. But again, I’m just not overly sensitive about that kind of thing because I know it’s not a direct reflection on the Church and its official position! I guess I’m secure enough in my beliefs to get a laugh out of people who do stupid things.� Perhaps this is a fault of mine?� Either way, I think my point stands about the “diversity” crowd.

Comment # 11 left by Wade on September 26th, 2006

There’s a difference between what the advertisers were shooting for, and what they accomplished.

You’re right! And that’s why I wrote this post. They inadvertently accomplished something they never intended to, i.e., overly sensitive reactions from diversity elites who actually hate diversity so much they will unleash censorship campaigns to stifle that which they don’t agree with.

Comment # 12 left by Wade on September 26th, 2006

Well…
1st of all it wasn’t well thought out. Either the company forced the idea down their advertiser’s throats or the ad agency was a little short sighted. This kind of ad might reach a few people, bring them in to buy. Some people it will affect negative way. That’s never good. This can be a little polarizing.
2nd, I was watching the outdoor channel tonight (an episode on blasting mule deer in Wyoming… *smirk*) when they ran an ad showing two Amish men ditching their buggy and retrieving their quad motorcycle/ tractor thing. They met up with the rest of their “Radical” motor scooter gang and with other power tools and modern equipment built a barn. As I was watching that, bemused smile on my face, I thought that the Amish might not think it was funny. They know they have radicals, people who operate outside of fundamental teachings, but it paints all of them with the same big brush. So what if they never see it, feelings/ sensibilities could have been hurt. The rest of us thinking that’s secretly what they’re all like could have been established. Stereotypes reinforced. The terrorist add was in poor taste as was the Amish one and I can say if I heard an add for a company advertising deals for “Radical Mormon Polygamists” and come in for free wife Friday I would be offended. I’m not for censorship, let ‘em run it. It wasn’t the greatest idea.

Comment # 13 left by Okie on September 26th, 2006

Okie,

I see your point; and I actually can respect what John is trying to say too. But my point is not that the commercial was “high quality” or in “good taste” (although I find it rather funny). My point is that the “diversity” crowd weren’t opposed to the ad because of their love for diversity, they opposed it because it doesn’t fit their agenda and is “offensive” to some people! Since when is it okay to censor stuff that is subjectively offensive?

Free wife fridays would be pretty funny to me because I would never see it as an attack on my personal faith or beliefs. People in the U.S. are just far too sensitive now days.

Comment # 14 left by Wade on September 26th, 2006

@okie

Well said.

@wade

…
they opposed it because it doesn’t fit their agenda and is “offensive” …

This ad probably won’t fit in any agenda, so that’s kinda of a moot point, right? (except for individuals that share your type of humor. I dont think there are many political or religious groups that would endorse an ad that is as controversial as this one)

And yeah it’s obviously offensive to people… so…

What are you trying to say exactly?

I suppose people are sometimes oversenstive, but to make that argument in reference to this situation isn’t a good example. You can sure make that argument when talking about the rise in lawsuits, etc., but this ad is offensive to muslims and makes light of the killing these extremist terrorists do. I don’t think people are overreacting when someone steps on their religion or fallen comrades.

Comment # 15 left by John on September 27th, 2006

“I don’t think people are overreacting when someone steps on their religion or fallen comrades. ”

I do, and I am an oversensitive Mormon. Problem is, this isn’t about people upset about THEIR religion or fallen comrades (whatever that means). Its about people upset about something that ALL people should recognize as a parady. Bring on the Mormon paradies - I have seen plenty of them in ads and etc. actually - and you don’t see any complaints about them. In fact, those who do argue against them are usually called overreactive prudes. Mostly the argument is getting made that the Diversity crowd is hypocritical. They should believe in every person’s voice or no voice at all.

Comment # 16 left by Jettboy on September 27th, 2006

@jettboy

So it’s okay to parodize other’s religious beliefs and make light of dead people in order to sell cars? If that’s how you feel, that’s fine. I just think those sorts of jokes are crude and low class in every respect.

Here’s hoping you and Wade never get into advertising.

Comment # 17 left by John on September 27th, 2006

John,

How exactly does the commercial “make light of dead people”? You’re appealing to emotions here and I think most people can see right through it! And if you really do think the fatwa and jihad really are legitimate terms advocating killing and death of people, why is it bad to poke fun at those who actually believe in that? If those really are the religious beliefs of people, it is worth parodizing!

Comment # 18 left by Wade on September 27th, 2006

John:

I’ll say it once again: They claim their agenda is “diversity” but for some reason they just can’t be honest and say they don’t like diversity when diversity is “offensive” to them. In other words, their reasoning for censorship is not for “diversity reasons” like they claim. In short, this irritates me because it’s disingenuous; but no one cares. And that gets to my main problem with what people claim as “offensive”. Why isn’t Springtime for Hitler opposed as “offensive” to all Germans when the vast majority of Germans supported Hitler (answer this please)??? The answer is simple: most people can recognize the spoof/parody is not poking fun at Germans in general, only at Hitler specifically and Nazis in general. Likewise, people should be able to see this commercial as a spoof on terrorists, not on Islam! This is the point of my post; ironically, no one seems to get it.

Comment # 19 left by Wade on September 27th, 2006

@wade

….
How exactly does the commercial “make light of dead people”? You’re appealing to emotions here and I think most people can see right through it!
….

This is just my opinion, but making fun of terrorists and their holy war does make light of the work of death they do. If your son didn’t come back from Iraq or Afghanistan, I doubt you’d think lighthearted terrorist jokes were funny. Just my opinion, though. You seem to think making fun of murderers and religions is funny, but you asked why I thought that, so there it is.

Thanks for seeing right through my inept attempt to stir the emotions of the masses, by the way. Close one.

…
And if you really do think the fatwa and jihad really are legitimate terms advocating killing and death of people
…

I don’t. They are terms that are used by faithful, peaceful, good, non-terrorist muslims. A jihad often means the inner struggle against evil, and fatwa is a term that connotates righteous judgement.

…
why is it bad to poke fun at those who actually believe in that?
…

I dunno. It doesn’t strike you as insenstive to poke fun at Nazi Germany concentration camps, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11? Those are extremist situations, in some ways like extremist muslim warfare. I don’t suppose you would, though.

I’m going to drop this issue at this point, because your sense of humor is appalling to me, and I’m satisfied to leave it at that. If you don’t understand why I don’t think the ad is funny, I can deal with that.

…
This is the point of my post; ironically, no one seems to get it.
…

This might be in part due to the fact that your replies to my questions usually just tell me that the point is “clearly” obvious, apologies for me not liking your views, and explanations that only cite your personal opinion.

The reason people are citing “diversity” as a reason for not airing it, is because it also makes fun of muslims. You don’t seem to agree with this, but since no one is airing it, I’d imagine the stations might share my concern that it might cause good muslim citizens to feel excluded.

It seems to me that you’re against some sort of “diversity” agenda, which may be well founded in other situations, but in this one seems very misguided.

Comment # 20 left by John on September 27th, 2006

Whatever floats or doesn’t float your boat. Just don’t tell me how to float my boat or there are serious issues between us. At least, that is if freedom of speech really means anything beyond “I get to say what I do, but you don’t because I’m offended.”

That is what this boils down to really. Who holds the power of the “off” switch. It seems the diversity group does beyond what they should. If I had a radio station, I would give the guy free air just to support him and my lack of love for the Muslims period. Until they do something about the nutjobs that seem to have taken over their religion I have no respect for them as a whole. Too many are using Jihad and Fawta as a murderous term to believe it means anything beyond killing at this point. After all “niggardly” used to be a rather harmless term once. Oh wait, someone got fired for that. Ironically, it was the “diversity” group that made that possible.

Like the saying in copyright law: if you don’t hold stridently onto a term and let others use it without restraint, it no longer is yours to control. Instead, it becomes common property. The Muslims have lost the right to call their religion peaceful, and Jihad and Fawta as terms of respectful religious terms are no longer valid. And its not the “diversity” people’s obligation to do that, its the Muslim’s. And they seem to be doing a very poor job of it.

Comment # 21 left by Jettboy on September 27th, 2006

John, you said:
These people are humble, peaceful people. Do you know any? What makes you think you have the right to label them as weak just because they don’t all rise up to stop crazed, violent extremists?

Response:
My favorite co-worker who I work with more than anyone else is a Muslim from Pakistan who got a graduate degree from BYU (he chose BYU for similar values). He is indeed among the most humble, peaceful people I’ve ever known. He isn’t “taking up arms” against jihadists per say, but he also doesn’t like the attitude of so many other Muslims who seem more concerned about advertising their “peaceful credentials” than they are about denouncing radical jihadists.

All I’m saying is that there is a “time for war, and a time for peace”. We cannot have peace when jihadists insist on war. I believe we are all on earth to help expose our weaknesses and have chances to turn them to strengths. Being passive and a peacemaker is a strength in most settings, but other settings may require that we set our “don’t rock the boat” tendencies aside and have courage engage a sworn enemy not just physically, but philosophically too. Good people must “stand for something” before it gets out of control. The impression I’ve had is that while most Muslims disagree with jihadists, too many of the most visible spokesmen seem quick to side with the “Blame America First” crowd. And “most disagree” is unnerving, because it seems that just enough so fundamentally disagree with America’s assistance to Israel and other policies that in their hearts they may take sadistic pleasure in watching us stumble, and in years to come may endeavor to aid and abet the enemy.

John said: Wow, you’re just as bad as the pope. He labels them as violent murders…

Did the Pope do something wrong? Of course he did not label them all violent murderers. He labeled the violent murders, violent murderers; then the violent murderers murdered violently and vowed to murder him violently when they heard. He told the truth. More people need to call a spade a spade. If it brings on a war more quickly, so be it. When you’ve got one side having already attacked and “rallying even more Lamanites against the Nephites” then war is already underway and you’re better off dealing with it early.

Why did WWII result in 20 million plus lives? Because that generation tried too hard to appease a movement that was skillful at talking the talk just long enough to buy the time they needed to force German voices opposed to Nazism into the shadows and acquire weaponry. This is what is happening in radical Islam. If we say things that disclose the true colors of many, it may help the world wake up and accept more “colateral damage” while there is still time to save ourselves from losing entire cities and civil stability.

And importantly, Muslims opposed to jihadists need to courageously stand out in their communities or many impressionable minds will end up in the wrong camp.

Comment # 22 left by Mike B. on September 27th, 2006

@jettboy

….
Whatever floats or doesn’t float your boat. Just don’t tell me how to float my boat or there are serious issues between us. At least, that is if freedom of speech really means anything beyond “I get to say what I do, but you don’t because I’m offended.”
….

I didn’t tell you what to do - where exactly did I do that?

I told you how I feel about what you said. Does that offend you? You’re more than welcome to use freedom of speech to offend people, but don’t expect those offended individuals not to respond. You’re own “freedom of speech” logic holds for my opinions too.

….
If I had a radio station, I would give the guy free air just to support him and my lack of love for the Muslims period. Until they do something about the nutjobs that seem to have taken over their religion I have no respect for them as a whole.
….

Wow. I didn’t know people could think this way anymore. Please recognize this sort of thinking as ignorant bigotry. Just because a subset of muslims are bad, you think that gives you the right to treat them all unkindly? Its that sort of prejudiced logic that enslaves races and leads to genocides. Check your history books.

I’m glad you’ve taken it upon yourself to judge them. I’m sorry you don’t think they work hard enough to clear their bad name.

You are absolutely unbelievable. Your religious prejudice is appalling.

….
Too many are using Jihad and Fawta as a murderous term to believe it means anything beyond killing at this point. After all “niggardly” used to be a rather harmless term once. Oh wait, someone got fired for that. Ironically, it was the “diversity” group that made that possible.
….

You think it is appropriate to use that term? So it’s okay to use racial slurs in the workplace?

Oh, maybe if the evil “diversity” crowd is against something, you are for it. I see.

….
Like the saying in copyright law: if you don’t hold stridently onto a term and let others use it without restraint, it no longer is yours to control. Instead, it becomes common property. The Muslims have lost the right to call their religion peaceful, and Jihad and Fawta as terms of respectful religious terms are no longer valid. And its not the “diversity” people’s obligation to do that, its the Muslim’s. And they seem to be doing a very poor job of it.
….

Do you have any evidence that muslims don’t care and aren’t taking any action? Do you have any claim to facts, or are you just speaking from nothing?

Again, more prejudiced, fallacious, ignorant propaganda. So what exactly are you proposing that they do? If this issue is so black and white, so easy to start solving, I’d like to know why you haven’t published your ideas, because millions of people have been working on this problem for decades.

Hey, maybe I should rise up and kill extremist mormon sects in the area. They’re diluting sacred terms that I have ‘copyright’ to, and the only way to truly silence that sort of stuff is through physical violence. They will always be free to speak that is, until they are dead. Is that the kind of action you are arguing for?

Again, thanks for taking charge and passing broad judgement on people you are obviously prejudiced against. I’m not sure how that judgement can be fair, as you seem to think all muslims are apathetic and lazy, and you are willing to pay for airtime on national radio to proclaim your lack of love for them at large.

Comment # 23 left by John on September 28th, 2006

This is really going all over the place. As I see it, I believe it was a stupid ad that they have every right to run. Some group doesn’t like it? To bad. They offend somebody? Get over it. It’s their ad,they paid for it. They may make enemies. They may lose partners. If people decide to be offended, thats ok too. If they can find someone willing to air the ad, they should be allowed to run it and let the chips fall where they may. That’s why the word ‘consequences’ was invented.

Comment # 24 left by Okie on September 28th, 2006

Did you tell your good friend that you don’t think most of his comrades deserve a “free pass”, and that his religion is flawed because it isn’t motiviating enough?

*shrugs*

….
Did the Pope do something wrong? Of course he did not label them all violent murderers. He labeled the violent murders, violent murderers; then the violent murderers murdered violently and vowed to murder him violently when they heard. He told the truth. More people need to call a spade a spade. If it brings on a war more quickly, so be it.
….

Yay for war! That’s the answer! Its been working marvelously in Iraq!

Did he do something wrong? Yeah, pretty much. At one point, he quoted a remark made by Manuel II Paleologus that derided Islam:

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

If he wanted to talk about terrorists, then why is he quoting an emporer that basically says modern islam is nothing but inhuman violence and evil? I think there are probably a few muslims that honor Mohammed and don’t kill people. Just a few.

He wasn’t just referencing killers, he was referencing **anyone** who follows Mohammed. That’s what was wrong.

….
When you’ve got one side having already attacked and “rallying even more Lamanites against the Nephites” then war is already underway and you’re better off dealing with it early.
Why did WWII result in 20 million plus lives? Because that generation tried too hard to appease a movement that was skillful at talking the talk just long enough to buy the time they needed to force German voices opposed to Nazism into the shadows and acquire weaponry. This is what is happening in radical Islam. If we say things that disclose the true colors of many, it may help the world wake up and accept more “colateral damage” while there is still time to save ourselves from losing entire cities and civil stability.
….

Yeah, I say we shoulda used the nukes waaaay earlier because there was really no point in waiting until we were actually sure of what was going on, and what people’s intentions were. We’d also probably be really well off gassing repeated felons in prison because everyone knows they’ll just get in trouble again. Too much talking, not enough action. God should probably punish us for all the bad we’re ever going to do right now, before we do it.

Oh, and collateral damage… right. They have no right to kill innocent people, but we sure do. We can justify the deaths of innocent people, but they can’t. Somehow, if they do it on purpose that’s bad, but if we do it by “accident,” but knowing that it will probably happen, that’s okay.

And, what sort of “true colors” are you exposing, exactly? Is there something I’m not aware of here about muslims?

….
And importantly, Muslims opposed to jihadists need to courageously stand out in their communities or many impressionable minds will end up in the wrong camp.
….

Doesn’t this go without saying? Are you inferring that they don’t?

Comment # 25 left by John on September 28th, 2006

overly sensitive reactions from diversity elites who actually hate diversity so much they will unleash censorship campaigns to stifle that which they don’t agree with.

that was awesome!

Since when is it okay to censor stuff that is subjectively offensive?

when it’s on an lds blog or aggregator.

Comment # 26 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

Wade,
I think you make a strong case, not that the commercial was okay, but that censoring it was not.

Comment # 27 left by Doc on September 28th, 2006

sorry. my last comment was reckless trolling.

Comment # 28 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

FOR THE RECORD:

I don’t believe Islam is an inherently evil religion.

I don’t like people who hi-jack words to further their agenda. That’s all this post is about! Period. If those who claim they love diversity so much, really did love diverse opinions and views, they would never seek to censor anything. But they are often the first to unleash censorship campaigns.

And finally, as an individual, I DON’T LIKE DIVERSITY! I appreciate other people’s right to have their own views and opinions. But I don’t profess to think that their views are necessarily good just because their different. See my comments on this thread.

Comment # 29 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

This debate is highly entertaining. And I smell the same hypocrisy in this as most everyone else.

Comment # 30 left by Jon in Austin on September 28th, 2006

Thanks Jon!

Comment # 31 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

For the record,;
Niggardly is a word synonymous with stingy and miserly, and a niggard (noun) is a miser. They are both derived from the Old Norse verb nigla, meaning “to fuss about small matters”. (The English word “niggle” retains the original Norse meaning.) It is in no way a racial term and is in no way at all connected with similar sounding racial slurs.

Carry on.

Comment # 32 left by Thesaurus Rex on September 28th, 2006

Carry on indeed!

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson; very insightful!

Comment # 33 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

Wade,

You’re not a fan of diversity? Were you born to the British Royal Family?
I think diversity is pretty important. It’s a law of nature after all, diversity is what drives evolution. But you maybe were talking more about diversity of thought.
The problem with dismissing diversity is that you are in a position to dismiss it. Citizens of say… Stalinist Russia might have appreciated a little more diversity in their country. Especially since their dictator was…wrong .

Comment # 34 left by Ryan on September 28th, 2006

Ryan,

I think you may have misunderstood my position. If you go back and read my comments in Eric’s “Diversity is Overrated” thread, I think you’ll see what I mean.

In short, I am a supporter of diversity of opinion and thought, but I HATE diversity as an end. Those who love diversity as an end to be sought in itself have a belief that is in direct conflict with the reality that universal truths exist. The diversity elites who run censorship campaigns love diversity for diversity’s sake (or at least this is what they claim). My post was intended to point out that very few people actually do seek diversity as an end. That they were so willing to censor the commercial in the name of diversity was SO IRONIC to me that I couldn’t help but bring it to light. Can’t people see right through it???

A love of diversity is paramount to a belief in relativism.

It’s like somone who says there is no such thing as universal truth, all is relative. Such a person is so intoxicated with bad logic they fail to see that their statement is an assertion of a universal truth: namely that no truth exists. Do you see what I mean?

Comment # 35 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

I don’t.

First you argue that the commercial isn’t bad.

Then you talk about how you don’t like diversity.

Then you talked about how the diversity crowd is hypocritical because they only like diversity when it doesn’t offend them.

Then you talk about how you don’t mind diversity, just only when it’s diversity for the sake of diversity.

Maybe if you just stick to one point, we’ll have an idea of what you’re trying to say.

I think that the diversity crowd (whoever that really is) is wrong when they try to stop people who are talking about their own beliefs, but I don’t think they are wrong in trying to stop people who are talking badly about others’ beliefs.

Comment # 36 left by John on September 29th, 2006

John,

I’m sorry if you can’t see the logical connections between all of the points discussed on this thread. Unfortunately, I don’t write well and it’s hard for me to convey what I’m thinking. But I do think some have been able to get my point.

Finally, your view of diversity is not realistic:

I don’t think they are wrong in trying to stop people who are talking badly about others’ beliefs.

Others’ beliefs??? Come on, people’s legitimate beliefs clash ALL THE TIME! By talking about terrorism and the usage of “fatwa” and “jihad” by terrorists, I will absolutely possitively be quote-un-quote talking badly about others’ beliefs! THAT’S the problem; who gets to decide what is talking badly about someone’s beliefs?

Comment # 37 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006

Well, that’s a question we’ll leave to ethics. The question of what is good and bad has been asked since the beginning of time.I would imagine that we agree that God gets to decide what is good and bad, but he’s not always going to spell it out for us, and we need a way to explain our morals to others who don’t believe in Him anyway.

I dont’ think this is really a tough decision though: what most people call a “legitimate” system of beliefs usually includes basic principles of goodness and is less likely to be internally contradictive. Extremist muslim terrorist principles don’t fall into this category.

I do, however, think most people will say that terrorists are bad, and that islam is good. I’m going to guess you’ll agree with me, since you don’t think islam isn’t inherently evil.

So, in a way, the decision *has* been made for most people. Talk ill of the maxims of terror, speak good of islam.

Comment # 38 left by John on September 29th, 2006

wow !!
its very point of view.
Good post.
realy gj

thank you

Comment # 39 left by Coabolemomquarm on September 2nd, 2008

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail