US Islamic in 20 years? Seems a little alarmist.

[nkb]

I don't think Bloomberg is under any illusion that there aren't plenty of New Yorkers and Americans who are xenophobic assholes.

With that statement, he is trying to appeal to people's sense of fairness and tolerance, in effect shaming them.

[magx01]

nkb wrote

I don't think Bloomberg is under any illusion that there aren't plenty of New Yorkers and Americans who are xenophobic assholes.

With that statement, he is trying to appeal to people's sense of fairness and tolerance, in effect shaming them.

Ya, he's pandering to their general sense of 'I'm a good person."

And I'm calling him out on it

[Kate]

magx01 wrote

BULLSHIT!! If they were who he's professing them to be, there wouldn't be this huge fucking controversy down there. The reason there is is because that's EXACTLY who they are.

Wha?

[Victus]

magx01 wrote

Ya, he's pandering to their general sense of 'I'm a good person."

And I'm calling him out on it

I'll at least give him credit for not going out against the mosque/community centre. In US politics it honestly wouldn't have been that strange to have the NYC mayor rail against whatever evil thing the strangely-named brown people are doing this week, as would his immediate predecessor.

[magx01]

Kate wrote

Wha?

He's saying that they're good, accepting, tolerant people, and I am saying the controversy itself is evidence that his proposition is not so.

Victus wrote

I'll at least give him credit for not going out against the mosque/community centre. In US politics it honestly wouldn't have been that strange to have the NYC mayor rail against whatever evil thing the strangely-named brown people are doing this week, as would his immediate predecessor.

True. Sad that we have to go out of our way to commend a politician for not being blatantly stupid, racist, bigoted, or ignorant in public in 2010 though....

Things are a bit better here, but not by much. One of the mayoral candidates for Toronto is openly homophobic.....*sigh* His opponent? Opnely gay. LMAO. I hope they gay guy kicks his ass. You can guess which side of the political spectrum each is on, I presume

[Philboid Studge]

magx01 wrote

He's saying that they're good, accepting, tolerant people, and I am saying the controversy itself is evidence that his proposition is not so.

Not exactly. 60% of New Yorkers are against the jizzlam center. Bloomberg knows that and is telling them that their bigotries are "untrue to the best part of [them]selves" as New Yorkers and Merkins.

That's not the same as saying NYers are "good, accepting, tolerant people." He's saying that even the intolerant people are betraying their own ideals (as freedom-loving jackasses).

So I call cockcheese on your calling bullshit.

[magx01]

Philboid Studge wrote

Not exactly. 60% of New Yorkers are against the jizzlam center. Bloomberg knows that and is telling them that their bigotries are "untrue to the best part of [them]selves" as New Yorkers and Merkins.

That's not the same as saying NYers are "good, accepting, tolerant people." He's saying that even the intolerant people are betraying their own ideals (as freedom-loving jackasses).

So I call cockcheese on your calling bullshit.

How can bigotry be untrue to the "best part of you?" That's like saying their best part is untrue to their bigotry. If they are bigots, then they are bigots, and clearly the majority are bigots. So, I call rooster nipple on your calling cockcheese on my callign bullshit.

[Philboid Studge]

mag this book has been useful to many Merkin parents, there's no reason it shouldn't help hosers as well:




(I call blumpkin on your calling rooster nipple on my calling cockcheese on your calling bullshit.)

[Christ Follower]

Because Republicans value a weak government more than they value tolerance and acceptance.

[Kate]

I call cockfire!!!!

[magx01]

Philboid.......

I concede. I crumble in the face of the almighty jpeg. Especially those that are of hilariously bad alarmist books.

Plus, I'm going to bed soon

[Irreligious]

magx01 wrote

How can bigotry be untrue to the "best part of you?" That's like saying their best part is untrue to their bigotry. If they are bigots, then they are bigots, and clearly the majority are bigots. So, I call rooster nipple on your calling cockcheese on my callign bullshit.

Being a bigot is not a static condition. With a bit of work, and/or clever persuasion, people can and do change their points of view. It happens more often than we're aware.

Bloomberg is cleverly trying to persuade these people to do the work.

[magx01]

Irreligious wrote

Bloomberg is cleverly trying to persuade these people to do the work.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you serious? If you're being serious, would you say that he's trying to guilt them into it? Or, perhaps, rather than guilting them, he's appealing to their positive self image (or maybe, rather than either/or, he's doing both)? If none of those, what would you say the pathway from his statement(s) to a "change of heart" would be?

See, the issue I have with this is as follows: He's essentially saying "come on guys, you're better than that." You're saying this is true, and I'm saying I don't see how? If they were better than that, they wouldn't currently be bigoted. I think "I'm better than this" sentiments are bullshit. I see them as a disconnect between someone's true nature and their perceptions of themselves. It's like a guy who hits his wife andf then chastises himself for it, telling himself (and her) that "that's not him, he doesn't, and would never, hit a woman, etc."

Well, guess what pal? It is you, you do, and just did, hit a woman. If that wasn't you, you wouldn't have done it.

I accept that bigotry is not a static condition. 100%. All I am saying is, at the moment in time where someone is currently bigoted, they can tell themselves all they want that they are better than that, but they aren't. Their conceptualization of themself tells them this, but the reality is that they are, at least currently, bigoted, which means it is in their nature to be a bigot, positive self image or not.

The proof is in the pudding, as they used to say

[Irreligious]

magx01 wrote

Are you being sarcastic, or are you serious?

I'm not being sarcastic at all.

magx01 wrote

If you're being serious, would you say that he's trying to guilt them into it? Or, perhaps, rather than guilting them, he's appealing to their positive self image (or maybe, rather than either/or, he's doing both)? If none of those, what would you say the pathway from his statement(s) to a "change of heart" would be?

Both. Guilt works on some, while others are more responsive to intellectual appeals. Bloomberg's tactic has the potential to work on both types. Emotionally and intellectually, he's attempting to get those 60 percent of New Yorkers in oppositon to the building of the mosque to see that their position is untenable if they take the idea of being good people seriously and claim to genuinely value fairness.

Of course, some people don't have well-developed consciences and others are too stupid to reason. There's not much anyone can do for such people. But Bloomberg is going out on a limb and presuming that they do not comprise the majority of that 60 percent of New Yorkers who are currently in opposition to the building of the mosque.

That's a generous presumption, perhaps, but it's also one that might yield fruit. Of course, there's no way to know if you don't put it to the test. How else do you do that without appealing to their "better" natures, if they're there at all to be prodded in these people.

Personally, I commend Bloomberg for giving it a try. Fewer and fewer public leaders these days dare to be so audacious and even fewer appear equipped to be so.

magx01 wrote

See, the issue I have with this is as follows: He's essentially saying "come on guys, you're better than that." You're saying this is true, and I'm saying I don't see how? If they were better than that, they wouldn't currently be bigoted. I think "I'm better than this" sentiments are bullshit. I see them as a disconnect between someone's true nature and their perceptions of themselves. It's like a guy who hits his wife andf then chastises himself for it, telling himself (and her) that "that's not him, he doesn't, and would never, hit a woman, etc."

Well, guess what pal? It is you, you do, and just did, hit a woman. If that wasn't you, you wouldn't have done it.

Even as a black man (and a gay man and an atheist), I would not compare most bigots to severely psychologically damaged wife-beaters. I've known too many formerly bigoted people who were able to change with a bit of prodding and appeals to their better nature because, underneath it all, they truly were better than that.

Sure, I've met plenty of the opposite type, too, and there is probably little hope for them. But how do you know who is who without engaging and challenging them? That's what Bloomberg is doing. And, again, I commend him for it.

magx01 wrote

I accept that bigotry is not a static condition. 100%. All I am saying is, at the moment in time where someone is currently bigoted, they can tell themselves all they want that they are better than that, but they aren't. Their conceptualization of themself tells them this, but the reality is that they are, at least currently, bigoted, which means it is in their nature to be a bigot, positive self image or not.

The proof is in the pudding, as they used to say

If you can get them to realize that they're not living up to their highest conceptualization of themselves, the point is moot. Once you've persuaded them to re-evaluate and change, it will be a demonstration that what you presumed was, indeed, true all along: They really were better than their prejudices.

I don't see how that's a problem.

[magx01]

Okay, consider me persuaded.

Nice post.