AreaSIX
You assumed she was muslim because she’s Iranian, I assumed she wasn’t because she was being bigoted against muslim women., which was the point of the article What you did is the equivalent of assuming Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Muslim because she’s Somali, ignoring that she’s made it her brand to vilify Islam.
Regarding the ridiculous comparison to gender: gender isn’t connected to nationality, which is the point we were discussing. Furthermore, I think most people would consider it reasonable to assume a person attacking trans people for being trans isn’t trans themselves. That you have trouble making this connection is the issue I have been criticizing all along.
Regarding what I comment on other people’s comments or don’t, you’re just reaching and it’s getting sad. It’s none of your business at all what I comment on, and no amount of nagging on your end has an impact on that decision. Either respond and defend your position or don’t. Beyond that is none of your business.
I did not change my tone in any of the comments I wrote, and it’s obvious to the people reading the exchange. It’s funny that you call it “returning to civility”, but whatever helps you cope I guess.
Do you have any other reason than the woman being Iranian for your remark that there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim? You don’t, so my comment stands. You decided that she being Iranian is a good reason to assume she’s Muslim, despite the article saying she was attacking Muslim women. We both know why, so stop clutching your pearls and have look at your own assumptions.
“ingrained in the middle eastern mentality”? I’d have a look at my own mentality if I was this comfortable generalizing several hundreds of millions of people like that. It seems like you have disdain for both victim and perpetrator irrespective of which in your mind is which, because they’re middle eastern. Weird.
Jfc, a media outlet asks a presidential campaign a question, and the answer from the official spokesperson is “your phone must be fucked up.” It’s amazing how fast standards seem to be unraveling within the US political system. Even random student groups have better judgement in their communication with the media, this is like a spokesperson for a shitty frat house talking to Mother Jones.
I don’t ‘hate’ you, you’re just a commenter on Lemmy. I pointed out the obvious bigotry in your assumption of the woman being Muslim because she’s Iranian, despite the article making it clear she was harassing Muslim women. And you have done absolutely zero to dispell that conclusion. Assuming that my criticism is ‘hate’ just makes it clear that you’re unwilling to examine your own ideas from a critical perspective. Criticizing the civility of my comments reinforces the same conclusion. I’ve been very matter of fact, criticizing the substance of what you’ve written. I haven’t made any personal attacks as far as I can see. But you just keep doing the holier than thou thing.
Pointing to other bigoted comments doesn’t change the bigotry in your assumption, it just points to even more bigoted assumptions. Yeah, yours is more nuanced, but a more nuanced bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.
Again, you assumed an Iranian woman is Muslim despite the article making it clear she was being bigoted against other muslim women. Ask yourself why you made that assumption if not because in your view, Iranian=muslim.
You literally wrote there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim herself. It’s still up there in your comment. If that’s not assuming then what is?
You do whatever you need to do. Again, it’s clear what I wrote and I stand by it. There’s nothing uncivil about what I wrote, that’s clear to all who read it. I don’t need one more opportunity, if you consider criticism and questioning of your ideas disrespectful, that’s your prerogative. So stop trying to threaten me into silence and do whatever you need to do in order to avoid examining your own biases.
As I wrote, I’m not arguing about the content of what he says, he’s imo one of the most awful human beings around. What I’m saying is he doesn’t seem to have lost a whole lot of his cognitive abilities as opposed to Biden. He spewed word salads loudly and forcefully the first time around, and he was elected based on that. The fact that the content of what he says is awful is a value judgement you and I make, to his supporters, him being awful is a feature they like, and him being able to be loud and forceful proves to them that he’s able to implement his awful agenda if elected. Joe on the other hand would be a repeat of the second Reagan term when he was just a demented old man being puppeteered by those around him. Now, one might even like what those around him want to do, but in an election you’re supposed to pretend that you’re choosing an executive, not a puppet to be controlled by an unelected cabinet. Trump on the other hand gives off a forceful air like you said, which is exactly what his supporters want to see.