Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,20:16)|
|Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 24 2011,23:18)|
|Quote (Louis @ Nov. 24 2011,09:49)|
The evidence I have of your shitty ally status is this: your own words. You frequently (and are doing so again here) mock people with legitimate complaints against the discriminatory status quo. I'm not outraged at the gelato guy's sign (nice straw man), I'm outraged that any such thing is apologised for in a civil society. Are you so soaked in apologising for oppression that you cannot see this tiny insignificant incident is a part of a greater pattern?
Sticking with just the sign thing, how do you consider this as part of a discriminatory status quo (if you do)?
Personally, I see it as a hot blooded reaction to a perceived personal attack. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
Ok this is quite simple. The two (hot blooded response and expression of discrimination/greater status quo) are not mutually exclusive.
Imagine the analogous sign in a white majority country:
"No people from the Million Man March are welcome in my WHITE shop".
However that sign came about I hope we'd both agree that it's a pretty clear example of a discriminatory sign...
Snipped for brevity.
I am just not seeing the comparison Louis. From what I have read, the guy was running a business when a convention came to town, he went to see what was going on and saw/heard his religion being mocked. That got him angry and so he put a sign up saying conventioneers where not welcome in his Christian shop.
I can't conect that with something like the "no blacks or Irish" signs you mentioned. It is more like the Muslim reaction to Mohamed cartoons (but far less serious) IMO.
Add to that, he acted in an angry state of mind, calmed down, saw he was wrong, took the sign down. Then when it was pointed out to him he apologised. I just can't get worked up about that. Certainly I don't equate it to racist signs. Had he put up a sign saying "no atheists" before they even came to town, then I would agree.