quote: "Even more disturbing was the participation and encouragement of elected officials in promoting the hateful protest rally. Villa Park Councilwoman, Deborah Pauly, while addressing the crowd at the rally, appeared to threaten Muslim event-goers. Congressman Ed Royce (R-40), in a troubling trend of disparaging Islam and its followers, added fuel to the fire by encouraging protesters to continue on with their hate-mongering. The attendance of Congressman Gary Miller (R-42) was a clear surprise, since he previously has engaged with all constituents, including Muslims, toward a better America.
quote:In the afternoon, the event had the atmosphere of a July 4 picnic. Many brought lawn chairs and blankets, sang patriotic songs and tied red, white and blue bandanas on their dogs.
posted
Well, screaming 'Go Home!' like a banshee at people quietly walking past is a fantastic way to prove that you're the sane party in this situation. Horrible. It's rubbish when people use symbols of national pride to try to legitimize their own personal, nutty cause. But this happens everywhere.
This is not a reason to be ashamed of your country or to stop flying the flag. More people need to reclaim this stuff, which represents community and acceptance, back from these bullies.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have, and there has been quite a bit of stuff that has saddened me as of late but this is a particular low-point. Before, when Tea Party members rallied and expressed opinions and viewpoints that I disagreed with, I shrugged it off and said that they were a vocal minority. And if a Congressman or two showed up at the rally to try to rake in votes, I was fine with it. Before, when I saw protesters shouting clear hate speech and bigoted remarks on television I was fine with it. 'Just a few quacks' I would say.
This is something different though. This rally's mission was to target an Islamic organizations fundraiser to help raise money and awareness for homeless people. People from across the country came. Two Californian Congressmen showed up and gave speeches targeting multiculturalism and disparaging minority ideologies. A local councilwoman gave a speech that bordered on 'incite to violence'. And none of that got any further than the 6 o'clock evening news... The youtube video had less that 100,000 views.
So yes, I would consider this something to be ashamed about. The fact that State Congressmen can give speeches at hate rallies such as these and still have careers, and that stories such as these don't break into the mainstream media, shows that stories like these are beginning to become routine. And that is pretty shameful folks.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:everal people said they had sent out thousands of e-mails about the ICNA Relief USA fundraiser and encouraged people to show up for a pro-America rally.
A pro-America rally would have been nice, if a bit oddly placed and timed. I think this was an anti-Islam rally.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
REMEMBER: no matter how much of this crap we watch, it must still somehow be unfair to say that the tea party is problematically racist and hateful adur dur dur
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This Is Important, You Should Watch It of the Day: Last month, Tea Party members gathered outside an ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America)-sponsored charity event held to raise money for women’s shelters and hunger relief, and hurled racist epithets and bewildering ethnocentric remarks at the American-Muslim families entering the Yorba Linda Community Center. Several members of congress even showed up to express their support for the protesters and their message.
CAIR-California caught the whole nasty mess on tape, and uploaded the footage to YouTube.
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald comments:
I think what was most striking about that video is that the presence of small children didn’t give these anti-Muslim protesters even momentary pause; they just continued screeching their ugly invective while staring at 4-year-olds walking with their parents. People like that are so overflowing with hatred and resentments that the place where their humanity — their soul — is supposed to be has been drowned.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: REMEMBER: no matter how much of this crap we watch, it must still somehow be unfair to say that the tea party is problematically racist and hateful adur dur dur
Seems to me like this is similar to the attitude that the worst of the TP have. Replace "tea party" with "Islam Religion" and see what you get.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about pointing out that the tea party has a problem. This is reprehensible behavior that is part of a long established pattern, and I'd like to see people wave this off as an unrepresentative event which just happens to include congressmen weaved into the fray. That it's still somehow unfair to portray the tea party as having issues with anger, racism, and islamophobia.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those kind of generalizations are exactly what those at that rally are guilty of.
"Some Muslims blew up the WTC" => "Muslims in general are bad"
"Some TPers are racist Islamophobes" => "TPers in general are bad"
You think your generalization is better researched, or based on better data? I'm sure they feel the same way. In fact, if both generalizations are based on news coverage, I think that would make theirs more "well founded".
Anyways, I'm done with that point. Believe what you will, just like those guys at that rally. :-)
---
The congressmen bit really bothers me, too. I think it's fair to say that those involved are bigots.
Now, in future elections for these guys, I'd be comfortable in saying that anyone who votes from them is AT LEAST not horrified by their behaviour.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SwampJedi hit it right on the head. There are so many groups out there that get together and rally. They call themselves tea partiers, but the fact is that at most Tea Party rallies anyone spewing racism or holding up racist signs are pretty much shunned from the rest of the group.
Look at the Westboro Baptist church. I think they do horrible things. Do I judge every other Baptist congregation based on the actions of this particular group? I don't.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet, except for Foolish Took, who may not be a Tea Party person--but is a Christian Conservative, I don't see a lot of Tea Party people condemning these hate-mongering yelling and screaming fanatics.
Yet if you try to convince one of them that only a small fraction of Muslims are terrorists, they'll say "How come the supposedly moderate Muslims don't condemn the fanatics?"
The strength of the Tea Party is its big-tent open to interpretation, lack of formal leader structure. Yet it will be the racists, the corporate oligarchs, or the power-seekers who will fight to become that structure if those true Tea Party faithful don't fight them off.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think under other circumstances attacking people who make blanket accusations against the Tea Party is justifiable, here I just don't think that kind of argument is applicable. The local Tea Party organized this 'rally'. Their stated goal was to protest against this fundraiser.
This isn't some crazy nutjob holding a sign, it's an organized hate demonstration carried out by the Tea Party. It was big enough that state Congressman felt compelled enough to show up to it, and even speak at it, despite its overtly bigoted mission goal. You saw the video. It wasn't just a few people who showed up, it was a couple hundred. I really feel like a line was crossed here.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said it - "local Tea Party". We really can't generalize that past the people who organized/attended the event.
We quickly get to No True Scotsman territory with this.
Perhaps I should state outright: I sympathize with a lot of the TP ideals of smaller government (though I wouldn't call myself a TP member). However, I am outraged at what this collection of people have done, and want to see this type of behaviour stamped out.
I'm interested to see what the "national" TP people (e.g., Palin) are saying about this, if anything.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... It was big enough that state Congressman felt compelled enough to show up to it, and even speak at it, despite its overtly bigoted mission goal.
That's the line for me. When your own elected representative, that is supposed to represent all his/her constituents is actively encouraging hate against you, that's a very bad sign. Time to get out of dodge.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the beginning it says that a Rabbi David Eliezrie of Chabad sponsored the protest, I dont want to believe that a man so narrowly removed from a majority antisemetic America could stomach that let alone endorse it. I genuinly do not want to believe it.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... It was big enough that state Congressman felt compelled enough to show up to it, and even speak at it, despite its overtly bigoted mission goal.
That's the line for me. When your own elected representative, that is supposed to represent all his/her constituents is actively encouraging hate against you, that's a very bad sign. Time to get out of dodge.
Segregation wether it be defacto or dejure only leads to more hate and violence.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm interested to see what the "national" TP people (e.g., Palin) are saying about this, if anything.
Which sounds pretty important to me. If the "national" Tea Party people don't make efforts to correct this sort of behavior, or at least to disassociate the movement from it, then I think it fair to attribute it to Tea Party in general.
This also works for the comparison to Muslims, where there have been many efforts and statements to disassociate mainstream Muslims from the enemies of the US.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Segregation wether it be defacto or dejure only leads to more hate and violence.
I don't see it. What are they going to do? Throw shoes at your picture when you're gone? (Also, going to a place where this kind of thing doesn't happen != segregation, period)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm interested to see what the "national" TP people (e.g., Palin) are saying about this, if anything.
Which sounds pretty important to me. If the "national" Tea Party people don't make efforts to correct this sort of behavior, or at least to disassociate the movement from it, then I think it fair to attribute it to Tea Party in general.
This also works for the comparison to Muslims, where there have been many efforts and statements to disassociate mainstream Muslims from the enemies of the US.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. The decentralized nature of both groups makes it difficult, though.
Since Palin is such a remarkable, terrific orator, I'm going to assume that whatever she has to say about this will inspire all who hear.
Whether or not the "knuckle-dragger" TP image is true, I've long since decided to distance myself from the group. Perception is sometimes more important than reality.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are places in this country where it is still bad for your health to black, jewish, gay or any form of not white and christian. A large reason is because hate mongers were allowed little islands to raise more bigots until the whole town is built on hate, my mother just returned from a trip to Tennesee talking about a big KKK adorned flower pot and how the lady running the shop didnt understand why it never sells. Ignorance left to its own devices is never good and as long as these protesters are non-violent and these very tolerant and peaceful muslims endure the childish fits of fools than ignorance will not win.
Yes, dejure segregation does still exist and in many ways. In neighborhoods where it can be dangerous to be white and parents raise children to never trust the police, and pocket towns where license plates are announced on the local FM radio if parked outside a gay bar. We do it to ouselves and if these families run from the minor inconveniance of idiots acting like babboons then they will teach thier children to run from adversity instead of facing it and changing it.
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: You said it - "local Tea Party". We really can't generalize that past the people who organized/attended the event.
Even senators are present at this event and you still want to say that, eh? There's a severe limitation to what means are still available for the tea party to distance itself form these people.
You can't use True Scotsman. They're tea party members. And for how invariably shocked (shocked!) the larger populace of tea party reps are going to be, they are going to be forced to tread carefully, because the nature of their movement ensures that they don't want to protest too hard against islamophobics. Guess why.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could we dial back the outright aggression please? You can certainly call somebody out without resorting to name calling.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, let's just end the calling-me-out thing with him until he stops being so bizarre towards me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can't use True Scotsman. They're tea party members. And for how invariably shocked (shocked!) the larger populace of tea party reps are going to be, they are going to be forced to tread carefully, because the nature of their movement ensures that they don't want to protest too hard against islamophobics. Guess why.
I can actually imagine at least two reasons almost immediately without straining my imagination that don't include the TP at large being Islamaphobic as a whole, which appears to be the conclusion you're angling for.
Those reasons are bad reasons to be sure, but they're not as bad as 'Tea Party is Islamaphobic', either. No, what I would say, though, is that the Tea Party has a problem not manning up to American ideals by kicking these @#$*heads out the way they routinely and angrily demand other groups eject their 'fringe'...just like their opponents have a problem not, y'know, really sticking the Tea Party with this in an effective way.
There's really only one effective recipe for dealing with this kind of behavior, and that's not criticism from without: it's criticism from within. That is to say, y'all Christian Conservatives and Tea Party members (and those who sympathize and/or agree with some or most of the ideals, etc.) rather - to my mind - have an obligation to speak up, loudly, and denounce in unequivocal terms this kind of thing as shameful and unAmerican and not representative of you.
To kick `em straight out of the tent, in other words. Rather like the way the TP demands Muslims do all the time with regards to Islamic terrorists, in other words. Else be considered terrorists themselves. Before anyone misunderstands me, though, I'm not saying the TP are terrorists-what I am saying is that this whole 'we're decentralized, and look at what liberals are doing, and, and, and,' is worn out. Maybe that could fly when the TP was the upstart spunky new kid with bold new (well, not new really) ideas. But not anymore. We hear all about this mandate they've gotten, they helped Reps win the House, etc.
With that comes some responsibility, not, "Oh, that's not us." Not when the TP can use the same sort of tactics - attacking a 'fringe' and applying it to the whole - on other groups as a matter of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Knock it off Samp. You can disagree with someone and question their statements without being a sneering jackass.
edit: Samp edited after my comment. Initially all he had was "Even senators are present at this event and you still want to say that, eh?"
I would not have reacted that way to what he wrote now.
How do I edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post? You shouldn't have reacted that way for either post. Your estimation of what being a sneering jackass is wildly off. You can seriously quit with the calling out thing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can actually imagine at least two reasons almost immediately without straining my imagination that don't include the TP at large being Islamaphobic as a whole, which appears to be the conclusion you're angling for.
Those reasons are bad reasons to be sure, but they're not as bad as 'Tea Party is Islamaphobic', either.
I don't think that the tea party is a fundamentally islamaphobic movement, just like I don't think it's a fundamentally racist movement. I just say it has a problem with racist and islamophobic members, which is true. And the people who direct this movement or represent it as elected officials certainly probably don't like this notoriety and definitely don't want the movement to collapse due to negative perception, but at the same time, when they don't speak out enough against this, I think it's usually tactical due to the prevalence of this view and the fears of what happens when you openly de-legitimize it to them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do I edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post?
Seriously? You can edit a post for a period of time after it is posted (I think it's 10 minutes) without an edit tag showing up.
But, the thing I don't get is, you know what you posted. You know you went back later to edit it. I don't get why you are pretending that this didn't happen.
---
As I have said, the way you post here is a problem. There seemed to me to be a spill over from the way some people, yourself being a primary one, treated conservative trolls like malanthrop to other posters who disagreed with you, especially one's expressing conservative viewpoints. It may not be your intent or congruent with your experience here, but you often come off as a sneering jackass whose primary purpose of interaction here is to mock those people and viewpoints you disagree with and get a feeling of superiority. I'm far from the only person who has told you this, although, in most cases, as is usually the case for your type, you've dismissed this as their problem rather than yours.
This is especially damaging because I've seen other posters key in on this tone and the standard it sets as well as potentially valuable member of the community targets of yours and others' dismissive hostility either turn away from the site or take on a much more defensive or hostile style of interaction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was actually my point as well, in another thread. I don't want to get involved in the sneering jackass discussion, but tagging someone with the malanthrop card (even when they might not know who that is) isn't something that ought to be done quickly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AchillesHeel: I get where you're coming from. Considered in isolation, a place with more minorities should become tolerant faster than a place without. But the thing is, these places aren't really islands of hate that have recently grown into towns, rather they've probably been intolerant since the natives have been kicked out and have remained relatively intolerant while the zeitgeist drags them along, willingly or unwillingly. The War on Terror has brought the issue in focus, but this is only a stones-throw away from Japanese internment camp territory in geographic terms.
So considering a particular Muslim, they might tally up the risks (increasing hate crimes, chance of being stopped while driving brown, chance of systemic discrimination for jobs/children's schooling, change of being renditioned to a different country or Guantanimo for torture) against the benefits (moral high ground in educating people), and I would find it incredibly hard to blame them for not wanting to risk their family or themselves for the greater good of a particular region.
They might even be able to better influence the zeitgeist from somewhere else.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seriously? You can edit a post for a period of time after it is posted (I think it's 10 minutes) without an edit tag showing up.
But, the thing I don't get is, you know what you posted. You know you went back later to edit it. I don't get why you are pretending that this didn't happen.
This is a perfect example why you should quit trying to call me out, since you can expertly read into things I'm not doing. The reason why you don't understand why I'm pretending that didn't happen is because I'm not pretending that didn't happen. I'm asking you how I can edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post. This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is especially damaging because I've seen other posters key in on this tone and the standard it sets as well as potentially valuable member of the community targets of yours and others' dismissive hostility either turn away from the site or take on a much more defensive or hostile style of interaction.
Bolding mine.
Do I have to say I'm sorry I'm damaging enough to have made you call me a sneering jackass?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
The time stamps are close enough that he could have composed his reply while you were editing and posted it immediately after you posted your edit.
ETA: "Sneering jackass" is inappropriate in either case though. If you feel someone is acting out enough that you feel compelled to violate TOS in response then you should be whistling not posting.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty blatantly a violation of the TOS. I have no idea how you're supposed to argue that it's not.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also to note:
quote:This is especially damaging because I've seen other posters key in on this tone and the standard it sets as well as potentially valuable member of the community targets of yours and others' dismissive hostility either turn away from the site or take on a much more defensive or hostile style of interaction.
Bolding mine.
Do I have to say I'm sorry I'm damaging enough to have made you call me a sneering jackass?
Do you not get that this is part of what I'm talking about? I'm expressing a serious concern, which, again, I'm far from the only one to express to you. You may disagree with my perspective. We could discuss this productively or you may not feel like this would be worthwhile.
But what you are doing with it is trying to score points off of me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm asking you how I can edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post. This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
Edits less than 10 minutes after the initial post show no tags here; 10 or more and they do. The existence or lack or later posts is irrelevant.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But what you are doing with it is trying to score points off of me.
The point I score here is pointing out that you were uselessly, pointlessly antagonistic in response to my post, based on the way you interpreted it. Then, conveniently, there's this thing where what's wrong with the things that I post is that it results in the way in which you just acted. It's ridiculous. I'm going to point it out. You can assume I'm doing it to 'score points,' and even keep a tally for me or report on what my score is from week to week, because the whole 'scoring points' idea is so ridiculously irrelevant to me that I honestly don't care if it's your interpretation. I just assume it's a gooesy representation of trying to represent the fact that I indulge in disagreeing with people openly and undermining their arguments where and when I consider them weak, disagreeable, or even openly silly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm asking you how I can edit after your comment and not leave an edit note on my post. This is a genuine question because as far as I know you can't edit after someone else's post and not leave an edit tag.
Edits less than 10 minutes after the initial post show no tags here; 10 or more and they do. The existence or lack or later posts is irrelevant.
Ouch. That's amazing. And stupid!
I got to discover today yet another thing which amazes me about the fact that this easily hackable abandonware is still used for the forum architecture.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point I score here is pointing out that you were uselessly, pointlessly antagonistic in response to my post, based on the way you interpreted it. Then, conveniently, there's this thing where what's wrong with the things that I post is that it results in the way in which you just acted. It's ridiculous. I'm going to point it out.
I'm having problems following your logic here. Are you saying that I am acknowledging that my response was "useless, pointlessly antagonistic" and was using that as evidence that your behavior was prompting these responses? That doesn't sound internally consistent to me.
I'm fine with my statement. And the negativity in it was not a hostile response to your behavior towards me, but rather due to me judging it a fair description of your behavior here.
quote:because the whole 'scoring points' idea is so ridiculously irrelevant to me that I honestly don't care if it's your interpretation. I just assume it's a gooesy representation of trying to represent the fact that I indulge in disagreeing with people openly and undermining their arguments where and when I consider them weak, disagreeable, or even openly silly.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I pretty sure that there are many people here whose impression of you is much closer to mine than to yours. It may be your honest belief that you really are doing the latter - for all I know, you are completely doing the latter. But, again, I'm far from the only person who has openly said that you come across as more like the former.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
