> "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.
What's this? The black lining legal brigade?
> 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.
I think she's losing her audience, and Dan Radcliffe is gonna be a middle
aged man by the time he gets out of school uniform.
Uncle Davey
|
|