Kay,

We generally only moderate posts when it is pointed out to us that they offend as we don't have the resources to check everything that is written on the site as it is written.

If you send me the reference to Almanac's use of the word "spastic" I will check it out.

Graham

To BOAZ_David, I accept your retraction and apology and thank you for it.

To kalweb: Yes, of course those terms are awful. I think you missed the point I was making, that anti-Muslim stereotypes and generalisations are very like those we are all so familiar with, such as those which degrade disabled people, Jews, indigenous and black people and so on. We all know where it leads when people start calling Jews "Yid" and Muslims "mossies", etc -- we saw it under Isabella's Inquisition and under Hitler's gas chambers. That is why I am so intractably opposed to John Stone's way of thinking. Please try to read what I wrote in context. I advocate zero tolerance to racism and intolerance and was showing how some others do not -- suggesting where it will surely lead. Without wishing to seem critical of you, I do think that most people would have seen the ironic and parodic style in which I wrote, but if I caused you offence, of course I regret it and apologise.

Graham Y

Almanac has apologied. That's enough.

Thank you.

Regards
Kay

To the moderator,
I wish you would let BOAZ_David out of the "sin bin" without delay. As a non-member of Mr Stone's Isabella Society, I don't care for the exclusion of people on account of their creed -- only malignant words and actions. And my former opponent, like all but a miniscule minority of Muslims, obviously doesn't fit the bill.

And sanity prevails.

I do not agree completely with either protagonist, however as Boaz accepts some of his suggestions were beyond the pale. However I feel that it is somewhat unnecessary to maintain his exile from this community, to err is human - to forgive divine.

I am certain (for once) that BD would agree with me on this point?

LET IM BACK ;)

Stereotyping, generalising and racist names are just awful, are they Almanac?

OK, lets examine those premises. Think “duck” and what comes to mind? A bird with a bill and webbed feet? You just stereotyped. Think “bird”. What is a bird? It can be anything from a pigeon, to an ostrich, to a penguin. But when you think “bird” you might think of something resembling a pigeon or a parrot. You just stereotyped again. Your stereotype of a duck or a bird may not be entirely accurate, but it does need to be. It is accurate enough to allow you to think.

Get it? People stereotype in order to think. Stereotyping is critical to thinking. Regardless of whether your imagined concept is of a boat, or a dog, or an Arab. Saying “don’t stereotype” is exactly the same as saying “don’t think.”

Now, generalising. If I were to say that Asian people valued education and were very hard workers, you would praise me for being so tolerant. But if I were to say that Lebanese tend to react violently in even trivial confrontations, you would say that I was a racist. But they are both generalisations. In other words, your attitude is a contradiction. You say it is OK to generalise positively, but by some application of doublethink, you regard negative generalisations as an evil transgression. Your position is illogical.

Now racist tags. Need I point out that while you claim that racist tags are awful, everybody does it. Even the “Westernised” Jews and “Orthodox’ Jews don’t think much of each other and call each other “Goyem’ and “Frankum”. Calling groups of people that you hold in contempt by nasty names is a cultural universal. Calling rednecks “bigots” is just as racist as calling Muslims “mossies”. Neither rednecks nor mossies are a “race”, but calling any despised group by a nasty name is exactly the same as calling negroes “niggers”. It all depends upon situational context. Calling negroes “niggers” is socially acceptable in KKK meetings, and calling rednecks “bigots” is socially acceptable in an Australian Democrats convention.