"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in news:cp3o0g$rt$0@pita.alt.net:
>
>> Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
> news:cot1qd$g92$0@pita.alt.net:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> In article <1go5rcs.1h712vp1s8qhefN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>,
>> > > > >> John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> > > > >> >Chris Thompson <cthompson@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in
>> > > > >> >> news:cokmni$4h0$0@pita.alt.net:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > news:Xns95B154247508B2galopagosterrapincy@128.8.10.18...
>> > > > >> >> >> AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > > > >> >> >>
> news:slrncqn8t1.d1.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > (I still think Uncle Davey should stop referring to
> Muslims
>> > > > >> >> >> > as Muzzles, it's disrespectful and hateful).
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Agreed
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > When J. K. Rowling stops referring to non new age
>> > > > >> >> > people as 'Muggles' then I'll stop referring to
>> > > > >> >> > Islamists as
> "Muzzles". It
>> > > > >> >> > may not be as
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Um, Rowling is writing *fantasy*. Just to get that clear.
>> > > > >> >> And
>> > > > > "muggles"
>> > > > >> >> aren't "non new age people". They are fictitious people
>> > > > >> >> who
> are
>> > > > >> >> incapable of using magic.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >And Rowling has her characters make it perfectly clear it
>> > > > >> >is a
> term
>> > > > >> >of bigotry, ignorance and prejudice. So far, Davey, you're
> batting a
>> > > > >> >thousand, as the Anericans say.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Actually it is "mudblood" that is the term of bigotry,
>> > > > >> ignorance,
> and
>> > > > >> prejudice. "Muggle" is used by pretty much everyone in the
>> > > > >> books (even the highly enlightened Dumbledore) to describe
>> > > > >> non-magical folk.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank goodness somebody around here knows what they're
>> > > > > talking
> about
>> > > > > instead of shooting off at the mouth without having anything
>> > > > > in
> the
>> > > > > head to show for it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Uncle Davey
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Note that Alan was not *supporting* your behavior. He was
>> > > > correcting John Wilkins.
>> > >
>> > > And I still think that "Muggle" is a term of discrimination in
> Rowling's
>> > > wizard world. Mr Weasley's obsession with Muggle artifacts is
>> > > regarded by Wizards with disdain, remember? The fact that Muggle
>> > > parentage
> makes
>> > > Hermione a Mudblood is sufficient to support that interpretation.
>> >
>> > I think that this is beside the point. The people who support
>> > Voldemort
> want
>> > to destroy the Muggles, and the Order of the Phoenix want to help
>> > the Muggles, but they still call them Muggles. The pejorative term
>> > is "Mudbloods". No member of the Order of the Phoenix would refer
>> > to
> Hermione
>> > as a Mudblood, but they would call her a Muggle.
>>
>> Perhaps. It is, as we philosophers say, a term of privation - defined
>> in terms of what it is *not*. When Hagrid tells Harry he's a wizard,
>> he is defining him in terms of what he *is* - but calling all the
>> rest of the people "Muggles" is a privative definition.
>>
>> Such terms serve to mark the in-group from the out-group in social
>> discourse. Out-groups get discriminated against in law and
>> convention. It is, I believe, wrong.
>
> OK. You've convinced me. Now take it up with J.K., if indeed, she ever
> actually manages to finish another book, the ruddy slowcoach.
>
> I'm fed up of waiting for Book Six, I'm telling you. I may not even
> buy it now.
>
>> >
>> > Well, I'm not calling Muslims Muzbloods, I'm calling them
>> > Muzzlemanians,
> or
>> > Muzzles for short.
>>
>> It is a derogatory term, no matter how you spin it. None of these
>> terms are what they call themselves, and the closest I can get to it
>> in western use is "Musselman", which went out of favour in the
>> mid-19thC. And even then it was a term of derogation.
>
> It is the standard term of use for a Muslim in many European
> languages.
>
>>
>> "Muslim" is not derogatory. "Islamist" is not derogatory, although it
>> applies to a particular variety of Islamic supremism. So long as you
>> are accurate, there is no insult. But what you suggest is as
>> insulting as "cathos" for catholics or "protties" for Protestants.
>
> I've been called a Prod, or a Proddy by Catholic friends, and called
> them Roaming Cufflicks as well. I am on record (google if you don't
> believe me) for coining the term 'Looferan' for Lutherans. None of
> these caused any serious offence. Muzzlemanians should not cause any
> serious offence either, especially as they use muzzles with more
> frequency that most Lutherans I know use Loofahs.
>
>>Imagine how, if
>> you were at an ecumenical service, the local Catholic priest would be
>> received if he referred to hsi Protestant Christian brethren as
>> "protties"...
>
> I would never attend an ecumenical service.
>
> I don't attend meetings of worship for any reason than to worship the
> God I believe in, and that doesn't happen at ecumenical meetings.
>
>> >
>> > And sticks and stones and aircraft bashing into the sides of
>> > buildings
> can
>> > break my bones, but names can never hurt me.
>>
>> Davey! Where *do* you live? Of *course* names can hurt - they do
>> psychological harm to young children, they incite people to violence
>> and discrimination, and they cause reactions that can get violent in
>> turn. Calling your opponents derogatory names is what bigotry is
>> famous for.
>
> Well, that's just the sort of thing a tinny-opening prawn-barbying
> billabong bruce like yourself would say.
>
> Except you'd probably say it in a funny accent.
>
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > I also note that you make an unmarked snip in Alan's post.
>> > > > Let's
> just
>> > > > restore that, eh?
>> > > >
>> > > > ***START EXCISED MATERIAL***
>> > > > It doesn't make the mental gymnastics required to justify the
> behavior
>> > > > any less impressive, however. Bravo.
>> > > >
>> > > > Alan
>> > > > ***END***
>> > > >
>> > > > Kind of looks like Alan also thinks your behavior in this
>> > > > regard
> stinks.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just keep piling sleazy act upon sleazy act. I am sure some
>> > > > deity somewhere is keeping score.
>> >
>> > It's not sleazy to snip aspects that you are not speaking to, it is
>> > required.
>>
>> Only if you are not evading the point of the thread, or making
>> someone seem to say something they are not.
>
> Editing posts has definitely gone out of fashion round here. I don't
> complain, I was never any good at it.
>
> Uncle Davey
Note what I wrote. Editing posts is not a problem. Editing *without
marking* your edit definitely is a problem.
Especially, as John pointed out, if it is germane to the discussion. The
excised part I replaced was quite apropos to the topic, as it showed
Alan's feelings about the word usage.
I also am tired of waiting for JK to finish up.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
|
|