Juan Williams - Way to go, NPR

[IBCoupe]

No? Would you assume it meant ALL women? Really?

Really. There's an Aryan Nation meeting, and someone shouts, "Jews are evil spawn from hell!" the most probable interpretation is that he meant Jews are evil spawn from hell!" You're crying out against adding "All" in front of that phrase and saying that inserting "Some" is far superior.

You say that it would be imbecilic to say "All," but you appear to have given up the assumption that someone who says "Muslims killed us on 9/11" is probably an imbecile.

[AppleBonker]

This ^

When making a broad generalization, it is far more important to specifically EXCLUDE something than to specifically INCLUDE something (because specifically including something would require writing a novel). The general interpretation is that your broad statement encompasses the whole of what you are talking about. Even people who are racist don't generally say "I hate ALL *x* people" they simply state "I hate *x* people".

When talking to people I say something like I love soup, except for clam chowder. This would mean I love all soup (though I didn't explicitly say that) with the exception of clam chowder. I would not, on the other hand, say I love soup if I only loved tomato soup (though the statement would still technically be accurate). Is there any way I can explain this more clearly?

[96Qowner]

Ok, let's go back to the beginning.

The drama queens on The View asked O'Reilly why he was against the New York mosque. O'Reilly said it was because Muslims killed us on 9-11. The drama queens walked off the stage because they heard him say ALL Muslims. He didn't, but that's what their beef was.

Juan Williams, on FOX, said that he's afraid on an airplane when he sees someone dressed in "Muslim garb" whatever that is. NPR's hair catches on fire and they terminate Juan's contract over the phone. They claim it's over his appearances on FOX, but they use his comment as justification to fire him. They heard ALL Muslims, even though he specifically referred to manner of dress and presentation -"first and foremost a Muslim".

Obama uses a loaded phrase and people hear "back ... of the bus", even though he didn't say that.

In all three cases, I would encourage people to listen to what a person actually says and not be so concerned with what YOU thought he said. It'll help keep your hair safe from ignition.

[AppleBonker]

Nope, I can't explain it more clearly. This is pointless. Clearly since you don't speak like a normal human, this conversation will not work.

[96Qowner]

There's an Aryan Nation meeting, and someone shouts, "Jews are evil spawn from hell!" the most probable interpretation is that he meant Jews are evil spawn from hell!" You're crying out against adding "All" in front of that phrase and saying that inserting "Some" is far superior.

You say that it would be imbecilic to say "All," but you appear to have given up the assumption that someone who says "Muslims killed us on 9/11" is probably an imbecile.

Now you're equating FOX news with an Aryan Nations meeting? I suppose you might be right, in that example. But they'd still be idiots, right? And there would be no point in responding to them, much less taking anything they said seriously, just as I said. It would be foolish to even suggest that they're bigoted, cause ... yeah, duh, that's the whole point.

If you're saying that O'Reilly is equivalent to an Aryan Nations member, ok then. But that doesn't give you a lot of credibility does it?

[96Qowner]

Apple, if you said you loved soup, I would not assume you meant that you love ALL soup. that doesn't make sense to you? I should assume you meant ALL?

If you say you hate soup, should I assume you actually meant to say ALL soup?

[AppleBonker]

Then what would you assume that meant? If you can't take that to mean I love all soup, it's a pretty meaningless statement, no? So why would I say it?

[96Qowner]

Then what would you assume that meant? If you can't take that to mean I love all soup, it's a pretty meaningless statement, no? So why would I say it?[

Exactly!!

That would be a meaningless statement. So, if I'm curious about what you really mean, I ask, "which soup?" If I want to think of you as a soup bigot, I don't bother even asking - just assume you meant ALL soup, and then shake my head in pure disgust.

[AppleBonker]

Yeah, conversations with you must be really rough on the person you're talking to. Feel free to interpret that statement in any illogical way you feel. I'm out.

[96Qowner]

Yeah, conversations with you must be really rough on the person you're talking to. Feel free to interpret that statement in any illogical way you feel. I'm out.

Sorry 'bout that. I interpreted that to mean that you think it's really rough on people who try to have a conversation with me. What did you actually mean to say?

[IBCoupe]

So you'd rather assume that his statement was absolutely useless and meaningless than assume he meant something by it and that something was stupid? Are you often in contact with people who speak words without intending them to have meaning?

Once again, Q, I'm gonna ask you to fill in the blank with something that doesn't lead to an implication of all Muslims:
"[Some] Muslims killed us on 9/11."
"What's the significance of that fact?"
"____________"

If you want, you can even forget the preceding: "Why are you opposed to the 'Ground Zero Mosque'?"

[AppleBonker]

Actually, IBC, I think he means that when he hears "I love soup" he interprets it as "I love at least one but maybe all soup" rather than "I love all soup". So he's actually reading words that aren't there too! He just chooses to read into it completely different from nearly every other sane being on this earth.

[96Qowner]

So you'd rather assume that his statement was absolutely useless and meaningless than assume he meant something by it and that something was stupid? Are you often in contact with people who speak words without intending them to have meaning?

Oh gawd, more often that you know, IB. People constantly have opinions about stuff they know nothing about. You must have noticed that yourself. They parrot stuff they've heard, without ever questioning it.

I assumed O'Reilly was referring to the terrorlst Muslims, not the entire worldwide population of Muslims, and I'm blown away that intelligent reasonable people thought he meant ALL Muslims. That would be absurd. I assumed Juan meant "scary-looking" Muslims, not ALL Muslims. I've listened to the opinions of both before - many opinions - hours and hours worth. There's nothing in either man's history to suggest that either is a bigot, so it would be foolish to think that one statement by either makes him one.

[IBCoupe]

I understood completely what Bill O'Reilly meant to say. As I've said repeatedly now, the sin isn't in what he meant to state, it's what his statement meant.

Please, humor me:
"Why are you opposed to the 'Ground Zero Mosque?'"
"Because Muslims killed us on 9/11?"
"What's the significance of that?"
"___________________________________________________________."

Go ahead. I am asserting that there's nothing he could say that answers the question, makes sense in the context of what he has already said, and simultaneously does not involve any kind of generalization about all Muslims or invoke some kind of collective guilt. You can prove me wrong right here, right now. Or you can continue to avoid this question that I've asked multiple times.

I'll help you out by coming up with a couple plausible responses:
"And so we should punish any Muslim we find; in this case by opposing the construction of what we think is a Mosque, though it isn't really."
"All Muslims agreed with it, so we shouldn't reward any of them."

[IBCoupe]

I assumed Juan meant "scary-looking" Muslims, not ALL Muslims.

Juan was very clear in who he meant: anyone identifying themselves by way of clothing as a Muslim. You don't need to assume anything, he didn't leave anything out. His statement was easily interpreted in context without adding anything. Why would you choose to insert words for him? He didn't say they were scary-looking.

[96Qowner]

IB, this has gone on for 4 pages now. Are we trying to understand anything? Or are we just debating?

We can skip the subject of the thread if you want, and we can rehash whether the mosque should be allowed, but I suspect it's already been argued and opinions are not likely to change. I don't think this particular Imam should be allowed to build the center there. I think there's no reason in the world not to locate it further away from the place where putrid perverted hate-filled wretches crashed two airliners and killed thousands of innocents in the name of Allah and the cause of Islam. It's just ... wrong.

Now if that Imam would like to speak of the scum the way I do, instead of explaining their rationale to we foolish, imperialistic, unenlightened Americans and encouraging us just to be more compassionate and understanding about it all, then maybe. Instead, he's been defiant and confrontational. *Bzzzt!* Wrong.

[96Qowner]

I assumed Juan meant "scary-looking" Muslims, not ALL Muslims.

Juan was very clear in who he meant: anyone identifying themselves by way of clothing as a Muslim. You don't need to assume anything, he didn't leave anything out. His statement was easily interpreted in context without adding anything. Why would you choose to insert words for him? He didn't say they were scary-looking.

Yep, he was afraid of people that he didn''t think looked scary - probably, sure, uh huh. ok.

Are you on record arguing that he's a bigot?

[AppleBonker]

Then what would you assume ["I love soup"] meant? If you can't take that to mean I love all soup, it's a pretty meaningless statement, no? So why would I say it?[

Exactly!!

That would be a meaningless statement. So, if I'm curious about what you really mean, I ask, "which soup?" If I want to think of you as a soup bigot, I don't bother even asking - just assume you meant ALL soup, and then shake my head in pure disgust.

Whoa, I get it now. This post made it all make sense. So when I say "I love soup" it is either a meaningless statement, or I'm a bigot.

So when O'Reilly says "Muslims killed us on 9/11" or JW says "I'm afraid of people who look like Muslims" the statements are either both meaningless, or the speakers are bigots. Correct?

Edit: clarified my quote replacing "that" with "["I love soup"]"

[AppleBonker]

Are you on record arguing that he's a bigot?

Nope, but by your crazy logic (see previous post) you might be.

[96Qowner]

Actually, IBC, I think he means that when he hears "I love soup" he interprets it as "I love at least one but maybe all soup" rather than "I love all soup". So he's actually reading words that aren't there too! He just chooses to read into it completely different from nearly every other sane being on this earth.

If someone calls me retarded (and even spells it with a d), am I to assume he means he thinks I'm retarded?

We DO have the responsibility to interpret what people say since words are only abstract symbols. If you want to think that O'Reilly and Williams are bigots, then you simply add ALL to Muslims, and voila, bigotry. It's easy to "misunderstand" and blame the speaker. Not terribly intelligent, but easy.

[AppleBonker]

If someone calls me retarded (and even spells it with a d), am I to assume he means he thinks I'm retarded?

Well, that sure as hell would make more sense than assuming he means you're a genius...

[IBCoupe]

It's just ... wrong.

You're getting closer to actually responding to my request. Thank you. Here, let me play out the next part?

"Why are you opposed to the 'Ground Zero Mosque?'"

Yep, he was afraid of people that he didn''t think looked scary - probably, sure, uh huh. ok.

He didn't say anything about scary Muslims. Stop assuming he means things he doesn't say, dude. He said he got nervous when people who identify themselves "first and foremost" as Muslims by dressing in "Muslim garb" get on a plane with him. He did not say he was afraid of "scary-looking" Muslims. You're trying to weasel your way out of the plain meaning of the words he used by suggesting that he meant to use words that he did not. Stop it. That's dishonest.

Are you on record arguing that he's a bigot?

I don't believe I've said anything of the sort. I'm not arguing anything about Juan Williams except the accurate reflection of what he said. You're trying to argue about whether Juan Williams is or is not a bigot, and I'm simply pointing out that his expressed internalized fear of people on airplanes wearing Muslim Garb might, in fact, cause one to be suspicious of his analysis of a controversial issue, which might, in fact, make him less valuable to the organization that pays him to analyze controversial issues.

[96Qowner]

... I'm simply pointing out that his expressed internalized fear of people on airplanes wearing Muslim Garb might, in fact, cause one to be suspicious of his analysis of a controversial issue, which might, in fact, make him less valuable to the organization that pays him to analyze controversial issues.

So, now it's your turn to explain why anyone would "be suspicious of his analysis of a controversial issue, which might, in fact, make him less valuable to the organization that pays him to analyze controversial issues."

Are you now not going to advocate for NPR's judgment? At the heart of the conflict is a judgment that what he said was intolerable in some manner. You've been suggesting that it is. If not, then why would anyone be the slightest bit upset about what he said? I'm not upset. I think it was TMI, not well-considered, raising issues that lead nowhere. But it was instructive. A Black man casually, without thinking about it, blurts out that he (fill in the quote any way you like).

BFD

[heliochrome85]

As much as I enjoy seeing IB worked out, i wish it was by someone who was adept at doing it. You sir, are capable of driving rational people to the edge of reason. That isnt something to be proud of.

I get all hot and bothered, and its fairly obvious in my posts. Given how neither Bonk nor IB, nor I could show you the errors of your thinking, its blindingly obvious that any further attempt on my part would be fruitless.

i hope someday you see the light. im sure as f*** not going to be the one to show you.

[AppleBonker]

96, I'm still interested in a response to this post:

juan-williams-way-to-go-npr-t512515-120.html#p5848322

I was legitimately asking if my assessment was correct.

[96Qowner]

As much as I enjoy seeing IB worked out, i wish it was by someone who was adept at doing it. You sir, are capable of driving rational people to the edge of reason. That isnt something to be proud of.

I get all hot and bothered, and its fairly obvious in my posts. Given how neither Bonk nor IB, nor I could show you the errors of your thinking, its blindingly obvious that any further attempt on my part would be fruitless.

i hope someday you see the light. im sure as f*** not going to be the one to show you.

There are respectful ways to speak to people and there are other ways. If that comment is what you want people to think of you, then fine.

Ditto.

But I'm very interested in your opinions when they part from partisan sound bites, whether you're interested in my opinion or not. Feel free to give your true opinion any time you wish. I will value it. It will instruct me. Or don't be the one to show me. It's always your choice.

You really think I'm giving IB a good workout? Thanks!

[heliochrome85]

i sleep very well at night with the way people think of me.

and for the record, no, i dont think you are giving him a good workout. you are being obstinate, and this place has no value in people like that.

[96Qowner]

96, I'm still interested in a response to this post:

juan-williams-way-to-go-npr-t512515-120.html#p5848322

I was legitimately asking if my assessment was correct.

The soup thing again? Its' an imperfect analogy, Apple. I tried to redo it but it doesn't hold up very well. It actually should be posed in the negative, as in "I hate soup." That's an irrational statement, isn't it? How can anyone hate ALL soup? Huh? What's to hate about soup? Or, you could say "soup makes me sick", therefore I won't eat it. Again, puzzlement. What about soup makes you sick? See, it just raises questions.

If there were such a thing as soup bigotry, and it was recognized as a deep personal flaw, I would be hesitant to immediately assume you were one of "them", unless I already had no respect for you and was delighted to label you as a bigot.

Does that answer your question?

[AppleBonker]

Yup, answers the question plenty clearly. So you don't think that JW or O'Reilly are bigots, but rather that they utter nonsensical statements. I can accept that answer. And you are correct that the analogy should've used the word "hate" rather than "love".

[96Qowner]

i sleep very well at night with the way people think of me.

and for the record, no, i dont think you are giving him a good workout. you are being obstinate, and this place has no value in people like that.

Aw, c'mon, chime in with your opinion of soup bigotry. Lend your wisdom to the discussion. You're making me think you're angry at me in particular. It's a forum. It's words. Nothing to get upset about, any more that you would get angry at a character in a book.