By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Completely agree about the media thing. I watch a lot of American news , mainly the bigger 3, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (I find them interesting, sad I know), and for as bad Fox's reputation for bias to republican, CNN/ MSNBC is equally, if not more so bias for democrats.
In the UK, Guardian has gone right (or us that left) off the deep end, the opposite pole of nuttiness as the Mail is on the right. Real news goes by the wayside of bias based opinion pieces.
Slighty off topic, It was sad to see Reuters top 5 stories earlier. Number 2 story, above the terrorist attack on the American policeman having his throat slashed at , and the bombing of the Mosul mosque, was a story about some Kardashian having a surrogate baby. Madness.
Have you seen the Guardian cartoon on social media today that the Mail/Sun are fuming about?
It's really not good that the Guardian is lowering itself to that level.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Anyone noticed that the likes of Trump, Robinson, Farage, Watson and Alex Jones whine like bitches when they are challenged, caught out or persecuted?
Like him or loathe him, Jeremy Corbyn has had the mother of all smear campaigns against him, been absolutely vilified by the press yet has not once whined or moaned about it.
I don't wholly disagree with a thing written. However semantics are important in defining people when boxing people. Islamophobia was coined to deliberately conflate both the ideal and the follower as admitted by those who created it in late 70s Iran, around the time you saw the shift of western influence out of the country to regress back to a more fundamental following of islam. It was used as a tool to shut down very real criticism of Islam by claiming bigotry all around to silence.
It is used in the context to close down discussion, pretty much like the term "racist" where the discussion is always shifted to a person defending themselves against a slur rather than continuing the discussion at hand.
I agree, there are people who hide their real views behind anti-islam, but semantically speaking, they are in fact anti-muslim. Also, some hide racist tendencies behind anti-muslim and anti-islamic views too.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Islamophobia as:
"Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims".
The term itself was coined in 1910 in French as 'Islamophobie' by Alain Quellien who used it to criticize French colonial administrators for their treatment of Moslem subjects.
The OED states that its first use in an English language publication was in 1923. It of course became popular coinage when the Runnymede Trust used it in the 1990s.
If it's essential to talk semantics (which as I said I think is a sideshow), I tend to turn to the OED rather than Sam Harris.
Completely agree about the media thing. I watch a lot of American news , mainly the bigger 3, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (I find them interesting, sad I know), and for as bad Fox's reputation for bias to republican, CNN/ MSNBC is equally, if not more so bias for democrats.
In the UK, Guardian has gone right (or us that left) off the deep end, the opposite pole of nuttiness as the Mail is on the right. Real news goes by the wayside of bias based opinion pieces.
Slighty off topic, It was sad to see Reuters top 5 stories earlier. Number 2 story, above the terrorist attack on the American policeman having his throat slashed at , and the bombing of the Mosul mosque, was a story about some Kardashian having a surrogate baby. Madness.
If you think The Guardian is as 'left' as The Mail is 'right' , you're not standing in the middle, however much you'd like to think you are.
Anyone noticed that the likes of Trump, Robinson, Farage, Watson and Alex Jones whine like bitches when they are challenged, caught out or persecuted?
Like him or loathe him, Jeremy Corbyn has had the mother of all smear campaigns against him, been absolutely vilified by the press yet has not once whined or moaned about it.
You can see who the real snowflakes are.
As much as I enjoy the odd meander down tinfoil alley, I'd suggest Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson be avoided like the plague, and/or preferably given the plague. 'Alternative' media my arse.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.
As much as I enjoy the odd meander down tinfoil alley, I'd suggest Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson be avoided like the plague, and/or preferably given the plague. 'Alternative' media my arse.
I quite like The One Show myself.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
"And then there’s Owen Jones. Owen has spent most of the last week trying to present the Conservative party as deliberately burning British citizens to death. His other major occupation of late has been presenting the DUP as the biggest threat to gay people since the last band of Christian conservatives he could find. He decided to share a tweet by someone called Matt Zarb-Cousin, who also called me a hate preacher. Yet whatever names I am called it remains my view that an ideology which would have both Owen and me hanged is worse than an ideology that could refuse to bake our wedding cakes".
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Islamophobia as:
"Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims".
The term itself was coined in 1910 in French as 'Islamophobie' by Alain Quellien who used it to criticize French colonial administrators for their treatment of Moslem subjects.
The OED states that its first use in an English language publication was in 1923. It of course became popular coinage when the Runnymede Trust used it in the 1990s.
If it's essential to talk semantics (which as I said I think is a sideshow), I tend to turn to the OED rather than Sam Harris.
[Post edited 22 Jun 2017 21:54]
I cede that it's original etymology was early 20th century. I also understand it's use in varying forms have been noted through 70's to 90's through the world. It popped up in several books and reports through the 80s also in the western world.
In its current form as the dictionary outlines, yes it was mid 90s it came about from Runnymede through letters initially and then as a report for its official introduction to English dictionaries.
Anyway this is a side show to my original point about the word, it conflates two things that need to be addressed seperately for honest debate to be had. Anti-islam: against an idea, anti-muslim: against followers. The word is used as a deliberate way to close down all meaningful discussion, and this is a junk word, meaningless when it comes to discussion/debate. It is used in meaningless context just like the use of "racist" often is. So as I said, I'm not arguing it's a word, just a ludicrous word to be taken seriously, especially in the context it is used a significant percentage of the time.
If you think The Guardian is as 'left' as The Mail is 'right' , you're not standing in the middle, however much you'd like to think you are.
I suppose it depends where your starting point is, if you lean left then the journey left isn't as far for someone to go left as it is right so your perception is altered. I find both opinion piece sides and and reporting styles to be way out from centre.
I'm not saying he's not right he's just got too much to say about must things these days.
He's an influential person so good on him for bringing attention to the rank hypocrisy. It's not mandatory to follow anyone on Twitter. If you don't like what he says you're one click away from relief.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.
It's about time that rag got a taste of its own medicine.
Theres been a bit of ridicule on twitter today because someone at the Mail said the paper issue is not connected to the mailonline issue,I'm not sure of the full story because I refuse point blank to read about it but being serious who buys the paper issue to keep it in circulation because in my family and friends I know of nobody?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
It's about time that rag got a taste of its own medicine. 
