Can Muslims be as "Redneck" as White Southerners?

[Colonel Sanders]

That is a direct address to your words. Qualifying your prejudice by saying you reserve it for the deserving does not reduce the bigotry.

wouldn't it have been more likely he'd get it if you wrote "New York City!"?

NEW YORK CITY?!?!? (ancient reference to Pace Picante sauce commercial)

What's the difference between firing a shotgun in the air and shouting yeeeeehawwww!!! in an enthusiastic display of Great Whatever and firing an AK-47 in the air and shouting "Allahu Akbar!!!"

Objectively, not much.

They both ride around in the backs of pickup trucks.
They both love guns
They're both fundies

But let's face it, who would you rather hang out with on a hot Saturday night?

Things an ISIS party won't have:
Beer
Chicks...

And really, that's all you need.

An ISIS party? The sentence doesn't make any sense. It's like "armadillo rainforest."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Isn't ISIS basically a redneck Muslim cult?

I don't know about ISIS, but that's basically what the Taliban is and has always been.

Things an ISIS party won't have:
Beer
Chicks...

Well, they have chicks, but they're mainly sex slaves and underaged girls being held at gunpoint (and most of them belong to somebody).

So it's not "rednecks" in that case so much as "The Hills Have Eyes" crazy cannibal mutant people.

 

[Bronzeage]

I am a redneck, born of redneck parents and you say rednecks are ignorant southerners. You are perfectly free to your opinion that I am ignorant and there's no disputing that I do live in the south.

You nailed it.

I say the word redneck is defined that way by many.

I say nothing about your family I don't know in the least.

Your insatiable desire for victim hood is noted.

If that's the way it's defined by many, there's safety in numbers.

 

[untermensche]

I say the word redneck is defined that way by many.

I say nothing about your family I don't know in the least.

Your insatiable desire for victim hood is noted.

If that's the way it's defined by many, there's safety in numbers.

Safety from what?

Your desire to yammer and wail that your honor has been besmirched?

 

[whichphilosophy]

wouldn't it have been more likely he'd get it if you wrote "New York City!"?

NEW YORK CITY?!?!? (ancient reference to Pace Picante sauce commercial)

What's the difference between firing a shotgun in the air and shouting yeeeeehawwww!!! in an enthusiastic display of Great Whatever and firing an AK-47 in the air and shouting "Allahu Akbar!!!"

Objectively, not much.

They both ride around in the backs of pickup trucks.
They both love guns
They're both fundies

But let's face it, who would you rather hang out with on a hot Saturday night?

Things an ISIS party won't have:
Beer
Chicks...

And really, that's all you need.

An ISIS party? The sentence doesn't make any sense. It's like "armadillo rainforest."

Chicks. It seems that like any religious fanatic there is an obsession with sex. ISIS 'soldiers' buy and sell women cheaply using sex with non believers as a reason. I would not rule this happening with believers. However the average Muslim I have worked with since 1993 is not like that at all. ISIS is by far not representative of any average Muslim.

 

[Bronzeage]

If that's the way it's defined by many, there's safety in numbers.

Safety from what?

Your desire to yammer and wail that your honor has been besmirched?

You don't have that power. If you choose to hide behind the safety of the crowd, again, that is your choice. You say this is the opinion of many, but that does not validate your bigotry.

 

[untermensche]

Safety from what?

Your desire to yammer and wail that your honor has been besmirched?

You don't have that power. If you choose to hide behind the safety of the crowd, again, that is your choice. You say this is the opinion of many, but that does not validate your bigotry.

I have that bigotry of knowing definitions you don't like.

You don't have the power to change that.

 

[iolo]

They don't get respect for the things they say and do.

Not from where they were born.

And to me "redneck" means ignorant white Southerner.

Not white Southerner.

No man is bigoted in his own eyes, but has perfectly good reasons for his prejudices.

It seems every group needs someone to look down upon, if only to elevate themselves above rock bottom.

No, according to James Baldwin that is particularly American, and I think he was right. The States was full of immigrant and other groups who hung together for security and desperately needed 'Black' people to be inferior to build themselves up a little.

 

[iolo]

For some reason which has never been fully explained, or perhaps never fully explored, Rednecks remain the only ethnic group which may be maligned on this forum, without fear of sanction.

Because, sadly, Liberals don't really care about the values that they espouse. It has simply become my team versus your team. It's sickening. It's something straight out of Animal Farm.

I thought 'redneck' was American for 'ignorant racist shit'? Does it mean something else to Republicans, and if so why?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that if some of the people here can be honest with their answer to this question it will do a lot towards clearing deck as far as the discourse.

Most people are fucking stupid. That's just a fact of life. If we can't deal with it, we can't function in this world. The problem isn't rednecks or ISIS, so much as double standards. We commonly are blind to the idiocy of "our" side and point to the other's idiots horrified at their uniquely evil degree of evil. It's of course nothing but us normalizing and feeling safe with the familiar no matter how damn evil it is.

We just need to stop doing that. There's plenty that's wrong about the Islamic world. But they're not any more evil or stupid that we are. I think that's important to reconcile.

 

[iolo]

I think that if some of the people here can be honest with their answer to this question it will do a lot towards clearing deck as far as the discourse.

Most people are fucking stupid. That's just a fact of life. If we can't deal with it, we can't function in this world. The problem isn't rednecks or ISIS, so much as double standards. We commonly are blind to the idiocy of "our" side and point to the other's idiots horrified at their uniquely evil degree of evil. It's of course nothing but us normalizing and feeling safe with the familiar no matter how damn evil it is.

We just need to stop doing that. There's plenty that's wrong about the Islamic world. But they're not any more evil or stupid that we are. I think that's important to reconcile.

Right - but as a result of colonialism, a lot of Muslims are extremely old-fashioned. If we thought of them that way many issues would be much clearer, I think.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The difference is that rednecks are not given a free pass for their shit opinions.

And Muslims are?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Most people are fucking stupid. That's just a fact of life. If we can't deal with it, we can't function in this world. The problem isn't rednecks or ISIS, so much as double standards. We commonly are blind to the idiocy of "our" side and point to the other's idiots horrified at their uniquely evil degree of evil. It's of course nothing but us normalizing and feeling safe with the familiar no matter how damn evil it is.

We just need to stop doing that. There's plenty that's wrong about the Islamic world. But they're not any more evil or stupid that we are. I think that's important to reconcile.

Right - but as a result of colonialism, a lot of Muslims are extremely old-fashioned. If we thought of them that way many issues would be much clearer, I think.

I reject that. Western Imperialism in the Middle-East was a slight hiccup compared to the Ottoman imperialism. If you want to award blame I suggest putting it were it belongs. If you were talking about colonial impacts in Africa, India or South-East Asia you'd gotten my attention. But blaming the mess in the Middle-East on Western Imperialism is a bit of a stretch.

The Ottoman empire started out as being very liberal and progressive. They encouraged science, technology and new ideas. They swiftly and brutally crushed any hint of Islamic fundamentalism. Apart from calling themselves the Caliphate they were the nearest we could come to a Medieval secular state. They were way ahead of their time. And then in the 17'th century they dropped the ball. They became conservative, defensive and spent more time keeping what they had than making the Ottomanese thrive. By the time the Ottoman empire falls in the 20'th century, it's old regions are hopelessly backward and impoverished. I suggest awarding blame over here... where it belongs.

The problem with appearances of Islam is that most of the Islamic world was a part of the Ottoman empire. That created an image where the two were synonyms. They're not.

Muslims in India and Afghanistan. Are as conservative as they are as a reaction to colonial rule. They equated modernism with racism and corruption of moral values. That fundamentalist movement has it's roots in the Indian Sepoys rebellion.

I don't know enough about Indonesia to say anything informed about their version of Islam. But I suspect they've got their own spin on it due to whatever part Islam had in ridding themselves of Dutch supremacy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Can Muslims be as "Redneck" as White Southerners?



Yes.

 

[iolo]

Right - but as a result of colonialism, a lot of Muslims are extremely old-fashioned. If we thought of them that way many issues would be much clearer, I think.

I reject that. Western Imperialism in the Middle-East was a slight hiccup compared to the Ottoman imperialism. If you want to award blame I suggest putting it were it belongs. If you were talking about colonial impacts in Africa, India or South-East Asia you'd gotten my attention. But blaming the mess in the Middle-East on Western Imperialism is a bit of a stretch.

The Ottoman empire started out as being very liberal and progressive. They encouraged science, technology and new ideas. They swiftly and brutally crushed any hint of Islamic fundamentalism. Apart from calling themselves the Caliphate they were the nearest we could come to a Medieval secular state. They were way ahead of their time. And then in the 17'th century they dropped the ball. They became conservative, defensive and spent more time keeping what they had than making the Ottomanese thrive. By the time the Ottoman empire falls in the 20'th century, it's old regions are hopelessly backward and impoverished. I suggest awarding blame over here... where it belongs.

The problem with appearances of Islam is that most of the Islamic world was a part of the Ottoman empire. That created an image where the two were synonyms. They're not.

Muslims in India and Afghanistan. Are as conservative as they are as a reaction to colonial rule. They equated modernism with racism and corruption of moral values. That fundamentalist movement has it's roots in the Indian Sepoys rebellion.

I don't know enough about Indonesia to say anything informed about their version of Islam. But I suspect they've got their own spin on it due to whatever part Islam had in ridding themselves of Dutch supremacy.

Western colonialism, as you know, destroyed any hint of democracy wherever it raised its head (in Iran, for instance), and forced opinion to express itself through the Mosque, to which it had to adapt. Everywhere, colonialism pushed the population being thieved from back at least two generations. They are meant to be antiquely picturesque, like the Scottish Highlands.

 

[dismal]

I reject that. Western Imperialism in the Middle-East was a slight hiccup compared to the Ottoman imperialism. If you want to award blame I suggest putting it were it belongs. If you were talking about colonial impacts in Africa, India or South-East Asia you'd gotten my attention. But blaming the mess in the Middle-East on Western Imperialism is a bit of a stretch.

The Ottoman empire started out as being very liberal and progressive. They encouraged science, technology and new ideas. They swiftly and brutally crushed any hint of Islamic fundamentalism. Apart from calling themselves the Caliphate they were the nearest we could come to a Medieval secular state. They were way ahead of their time. And then in the 17'th century they dropped the ball. They became conservative, defensive and spent more time keeping what they had than making the Ottomanese thrive. By the time the Ottoman empire falls in the 20'th century, it's old regions are hopelessly backward and impoverished. I suggest awarding blame over here... where it belongs.

The problem with appearances of Islam is that most of the Islamic world was a part of the Ottoman empire. That created an image where the two were synonyms. They're not.

Muslims in India and Afghanistan. Are as conservative as they are as a reaction to colonial rule. They equated modernism with racism and corruption of moral values. That fundamentalist movement has it's roots in the Indian Sepoys rebellion.

I don't know enough about Indonesia to say anything informed about their version of Islam. But I suspect they've got their own spin on it due to whatever part Islam had in ridding themselves of Dutch supremacy.

Western colonialism, as you know, destroyed any hint of democracy wherever it raised its head (in Iran, for instance), and forced opinion to express itself through the Mosque, to which it had to adapt. Everywhere, colonialism pushed the population being thieved from back at least two generations. They are meant to be antiquely picturesque, like the Scottish Highlands.

Ah, that explains why your point seems so silly. You use the word "colonialism" to mean something other than what everyone else does.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I reject that. Western Imperialism in the Middle-East was a slight hiccup compared to the Ottoman imperialism. If you want to award blame I suggest putting it were it belongs. If you were talking about colonial impacts in Africa, India or South-East Asia you'd gotten my attention. But blaming the mess in the Middle-East on Western Imperialism is a bit of a stretch.

The Ottoman empire started out as being very liberal and progressive. They encouraged science, technology and new ideas. They swiftly and brutally crushed any hint of Islamic fundamentalism. Apart from calling themselves the Caliphate they were the nearest we could come to a Medieval secular state. They were way ahead of their time. And then in the 17'th century they dropped the ball. They became conservative, defensive and spent more time keeping what they had than making the Ottomanese thrive. By the time the Ottoman empire falls in the 20'th century, it's old regions are hopelessly backward and impoverished. I suggest awarding blame over here... where it belongs.

The problem with appearances of Islam is that most of the Islamic world was a part of the Ottoman empire. That created an image where the two were synonyms. They're not.

Muslims in India and Afghanistan. Are as conservative as they are as a reaction to colonial rule. They equated modernism with racism and corruption of moral values. That fundamentalist movement has it's roots in the Indian Sepoys rebellion.

I don't know enough about Indonesia to say anything informed about their version of Islam. But I suspect they've got their own spin on it due to whatever part Islam had in ridding themselves of Dutch supremacy.

Western colonialism, as you know, destroyed any hint of democracy wherever it raised its head (in Iran, for instance), and forced opinion to express itself through the Mosque, to which it had to adapt. Everywhere, colonialism pushed the population being thieved from back at least two generations. They are meant to be antiquely picturesque, like the Scottish Highlands.

Iran was never a colony of anyone. The British occupation during WWI doesn't count. As soon as the war was over they withdrew. It was temporary. Never intended to be a colony.

Maybe you're thinking of imperialism? Whether what USA is doing is building an empire or not is a matter of definition. But it certainly isn't colonialism.

USA is a "hegemonic" power. Maybe that's the word you are looking for?

 

[dismal]

Western colonialism, as you know, destroyed any hint of democracy wherever it raised its head (in Iran, for instance), and forced opinion to express itself through the Mosque, to which it had to adapt. Everywhere, colonialism pushed the population being thieved from back at least two generations. They are meant to be antiquely picturesque, like the Scottish Highlands.

Iran was never a colony of anyone. The British occupation during WWI doesn't count. As soon as the war was over they withdrew. It was temporary. Never intended to be a colony.

Maybe you're thinking of imperialism? Whether what USA is doing is building an empire or not is a matter of definition. But it certainly isn't colonialism.

USA is a "hegemonic" power. Maybe that's the word you are looking for?

"Imperialism", I think, would be the usual card to be played here. Perhaps his programming is starting to wear off.

 

[bilby]

Iran was never a colony of anyone. The British occupation during WWI doesn't count. As soon as the war was over they withdrew. It was temporary. Never intended to be a colony.

Maybe you're thinking of imperialism? Whether what USA is doing is building an empire or not is a matter of definition. But it certainly isn't colonialism.

USA is a "hegemonic" power. Maybe that's the word you are looking for?

"Imperialism", I think, would be the usual card to be played here. Perhaps his programming is starting to wear off.

Given their history, it is hardly a surprise that the Poms conflate imperialism and colonialism.

 

[arkirk]

"Imperialism", I think, would be the usual card to be played here. Perhaps his programming is starting to wear off.

Given their history, it is hardly a surprise that the Poms conflate imperialism and colonialism.

Of Muslims can be as redneck as white southerners. The women just move into the slot the slaves occupied in the antebellum South. I think Iolo's comments were apropos. Whenever you colonize a place you set the victims of that colonization back about 200 years. When the U.S. erected the green zone in Iraq, that was a colony. U.S. bases are a type of colony. They often pretend to merely be renters but in reality they are there to intimidate the local culture. There is no other reason for them to be there. You can play word games about this, but what the U.S. appears to have on its plate is maintaining full spectrum dominance, a concept not new and well understood in the Pentagon. The problem is that such a thing while the generals love the idea is unattainable and they will bankrupt this country trying to maintain world domination. In the meantime we drift backwards in our country in terms of education, welfare, health, and standard of living. That is the price all Americans are paying to keep our generals happy. We need to can about two thirds of them and stop this international charade.

We have at home projects to busy our people with and we should be working on them and not building trillion dollar weapons systems. All we are doing is forcing countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran, etc.etc. to drift back with us into the past mindsets with backward technologies and increasingly less efficient actual living technologies. Our philosophy is one that dismisses all the rednecks that came out of our trampling these peoples and impeding their progress for purposes of exploiting whatever can be stolen from them and taken by force.