user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I almost choked on my coffee then. 
They do say that what goes around comes around. 
Makes sense to me. Labels are dangerous.
I've been slapped with a lot of them since I've been on this site. Like 'liberal', 'bleeding-heart', 'hippie', disloyal to my country, uncaring about our fine people in the military, etc. It always surprises me how, when you express one or two views, you are put into a slot -- often with the most extreme of a group. I can't stand Bush and I'm pleased with the election results -- but that doesn't mean I am hate my country or that I dislike all conservatives.
by mojo on Sat Nov 11, 06 7:52am
[+]
minnie 
by mojo on Sat Nov 11, 06 7:52am
[+]
This from the person who plasters the site with anti-Islam ballots.
A little rich...
^ You see steel, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who lambast me for putting up factual news stories about muslims on the grounds that I am stereotyping (even though I never said "all muslims do X") and then go on to say "well all republicans are evil lying racists" etc.
You do see the hypocrisy don't you?
And I see crank, as usual, decided to make an unoriginal copy of this ballot. He, like you, failed to understand.
I wonder what it's like not to have the ability to come up with original ballot topics? I wouldn't know . . .
For instance: you can't stereotype all muslims as being terrorists. . . all republicans are child molestors.
Is that statement A) Hypocritical or B) not hypocritical?
Take your time . . .
I guess I should stop counting on people to understand nuance.
You seem to be getting a little defensive Herzog, is it maybe because you just shot yourself in the foot with this ballot.
Neocons rarely see hypocrisy in others but instead try to insinuate it on others.
Oh and it isnt a matter of putting up 'factual' ballots, we all do that on a variety of subjects.
One in three of your ballots are used solely to push an anti-Islamist viewpoint.
What is more worrying you are unashamed by your prejudice.
Not defensive steel, annoyed. And a little disappointed.
You are particularly bad about this. You will lash out in righteous fury everytime someone points out the fault of a muslim, but then have no problem stereotyping all conservatives.
Do you see the hypocrisy?
And if you feel any of my news articles were untrue, then please, state that on those ballots, or here if you like.
But if you can't disprove them then your claim here means that factual news is somehow anti-muslim. What if I were to complain about all the factual news stories that show republicans in a bad light, and claim it is simply just anti-conservatism? Would you agree and insist that people stop putting up facts that show republicans in a bad light, or would you say if the truth makes republicans look bad then they are the ones who should change?
Guess Herz didn't like my ballot option. It was nothing personal.
I do not 'lash out' as you put it, I just use balance.
There are bad people in the world, and Islam extremism is a factor, this is not in question.
What I do object to is the insinuation that the only 'good muslim is a dead muslim' manner to your ballots.
It is this blind adherence to seeing one side of a conflict that ends up in invasion, death, insurgeny and all the rest.
You may call my stance hypocrisy if you wish, but people who are not blinded by dogma try to find solutions that doesnt make us more of a target, causes more innocent bloodshed and tarnishes us for a generation.
Its the blindfolded attitude of the likes of Bush and Co and their supporters that make our society less bearable to live in.
^ it also didn't have anything to do with the question, hence "NONVALID". Rating it down wasn't personal either. Don't put up invalid options and I won't rate you down anymore.
" What I do object to is the insinuation that the only 'good muslim is a dead muslim' manner to your ballots. "
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Steel, please tell me where I called for the extermination of all muslims? Because you know what, I get the 'feeling' from your ballots that you'd like to kill off all the jews. Yep. No proof of this of course, but I do get that impression.
" It is this blind adherence to seeing one side of a conflict that ends up in invasion, death, insurgeny and all the rest."
Well that and the fact that they violated the terms set out by the peacetreaty they signed.
" You may call my stance hypocrisy if you wish, but people who are not blinded by dogma try to find solutions that doesnt make us more of a target, causes more innocent bloodshed and tarnishes us for a generation.
Its the blindfolded attitude of the likes of Bush and Co and their supporters that make our society less bearable to live in."
Right, strawman argument. I don't call you a hypocrite for whatever the hell you were talking about just then. I call you a hypocrite for condemning all criticism of muslims as 'unfair stereotyping', then proceeding to unfairly stereotype another group based on their beliefs. Is it hypocritical to say one thing and do another?
Herz, you made comments I didn't agree with on some of my ballots. I call that free speech. Don't get too upset.
If they speak with one voice, that is, sound as if they are reading a script or something, it's hard not to...If you've got more in common with someone or group than differences, you will be categorized as such...and no, it's not okay, but that's the way it is...
OK so amditting you are wrong sticks in your craw a bit Herzog, thats cool, Im not looking for you to 'convert' to my way of thinking.
What I do try to do, is put an alternative viewpoint, as not to do so would give the impression that Islam, Jew, Christian, Republican, Liberal and on and on, all sing from the same hymn sheet.
You hold views that I oppose, and I express them as well as I can, just because you disagree doesnt make them invalid.
Not all Jews are bad, only a minority are and some hold powerful position in the Israeli administration.
Not all Republicans are bad, but some hold views I find repugnant.
Not all Muslims are physcopathic murderers, but some of them corrupt their religion in the name of some pointless god figure.
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
As much as you would like no opposition to your views and have them unchallenged, I am afraid I cannot comply.
The conservatives, democrats, christians, muslims etc on this site are very much politically aware and will put their points across. Some will be eloquent and make a good argument, others will just hurl abuse and try to denegrate their opponent.
There are some 'left' leaning members on this site, who I find make their points in a derogatory way, and attack the balloteer and not the argument.
I am not comfortable with this sort of 'debate' and so rarely give out karma, unless the argument is compelling and not just a fight in the playground.
You and I have gone at it, over the years, but I cannot think of one time we have ever given the other bad karma, and at times we have given each other good karma.
You make some interesting points on many subjects, but on Islam, I feel you come at it in a way that just serves to paint the whole religion and de facto their followers with the same brush.
Stereotyping and blatant generalizations are a little childish I think. But let 'em do it, it just serves as a gauge.
Sky: you're trying to make yourself out to be some victim here. I didn't rate you down because I didn't like what you had to say, nor because I have some vendetta against you. It was because your ballot choice had nothing to do with the ballot question. Look at steel, he and I argue alot, but I've never rated him down (and vice versa), obviously it isn't a simple matter of differing opinions.
Save the comments for the comment section and avoid entering choices if you can't stick to the topic.
"OK so amditting you are wrong sticks in your craw a bit Herzog, thats cool, Im not looking for you to 'convert' to my way of thinking."
True I don't like to admit that I'm wrong, who does? But I'm not wrong here. I'm gauging the hypocrisy of this site and as the vast majority voted that it is ok to stereotype (but refused to attach their names to it) I'd say there is a great double standard here.
" As much as you would like no opposition to your views and have them unchallenged, I am afraid I cannot comply."
If I wanted my views unchallenged I'd put you, cathexis, mojo, widehead, etc on my ignore list. I don't, what does that tell you?
My point with this ballot was that there is a double standard on this site. People will claim to oppose stereotyping and generalizations, but will gladly go in for it if it is about people the left doesn't care for (as this site is mostly leftwing) such as christians, republicans, whites, males, etc. This is a blatant double standard. Look at cranks ripoff ballot: 100% of the voters decided that it is wrong to stereotype muslims, and here only 11% voted that it was to stereotype republicans. Hypocrisy anyone?
Actually I'm kind of glad cranky is so devoid of creativity. His 'parody' of my ballot actually went a long way towards proving my point.
I dont think stereotyping any group is helpful, I am sure conservatives put on their trousers on leg at a time too.
This site is more or less balanced to the left and right, but its easy to see why people may feel its more baised in one way or the other, if the ballots are partizan.
I dont understand people who block others from ballots, what is the point of coming to the site if you want everyone to agree with you, there are plenty of site that cater to the conservative and liberal bais.
So on this point I will concede, Herzog.
As to hypocrisy, you will probably find that those who agree most with a point of view will vote and those who dont will decline to vote.
Liberal minded people tend to vote more often on all ballots and will usually indicate their votes, but not always (sometimes people forget to tick the box, as I have been prone to do at times).
Incidently, Crankys ballot in my view was an attempt to point out that stereotyping works both ways.
I thought the topic had something to do with whether it's right to stereotype a large group of people with similar beliefs.
Mainly because the ballot title is "IS IT OK TO STEREOTYPE MILLIONS BASED ON THEIR SHARED BELIEFS?"
Cranky does go sterotype replublicans a lot, then claims others do it too much to Muslims
by aya on Sat Nov 11, 06 8:35pm
[+]
With reference to the comment "I didn't rate you down because I didn't like what you had to say, nor because I have some vendetta against you. It was because your ballot choice had nothing to do with the ballot question.", it sounds like a number of others had the same response as me to the wording of your ballot.
Voted : We should try not to generalize about groups.
That isn't appropriate at all. The same goes for generalising Democrats. It is generalised that they are anti-Iraq war, when in reality many supported it and continue to support American presence there.
A belated welcome, herzog, on your much- anticipated arrival to the Reality- Based Community.
In a perfect world, I'd chuckle and acknowledge that yes -- we should all take greater pains to be specific and not generalize our criticisms.
But after 6 years of rank abuse by elected Republican officials, even more years of bile- filled tirades by a plethora of Rightwing talk show hosts, and now your own apparent focus not on your own crimes in this area but in perceived hypocrisy in others ... I say "Suck it up, GOP Apologist." You can't deal in slime for so long without getting dirty yourself and you don't have the 'moral standing' for me to drum up much sympathy. 
^If only far-leftwing democrats could scrounge up the same criticism they levee at republicans every day and lay in to some of americas real enemies we wouldn't have these problems.
^So now you like my ballot option.
Voted : Yes it is ok
Sometimes it's perfectly all right to stereotype them dirty rats. Stereotyping can sometimes be quite accurate and useful.
Preemptive attacks when called for can also be very effective and important.
Experts can and do use stereotyping to accurately identify sources of danger and destruction, clues are far more telling than you might imagine..
|
|
