Belligerent Anti-Racism

A: What does Muslim-owned mean? - The Middle Ground

I think the author dissected the various issues very well.

It's clear from the writing that the issue of halal food is not a simple black and white case, and most non-Muslims don't know enough about the issues, so this is a pretty informative article with good points made.

Unfortunately, for people who wear racially tinted glasses all the time, the first thing that comes out of their mouth is to question people's intent.

B: that's very innocent statement but you have to clarify especially when in other posts you have passed racial judgements and insensitive remarks on minority. I can't see your post as defending the Muslims. Everyone here don't get it either. Most of them don't read it too. So your intent becomes questionable since I just had an argument with u on rscism a while ago. Please clarify that "brothers don't misunderstand when u come across this restaurant.." etc in the opening statement. Then yr intent is clear. I just feel you are misleading.

You see people bring in comparison to other religions too . It becomes a topic of religious debate. And possibly lead to haterad towards Muslims.

A: Your reply shows clearly who's the one with racial agenda. This post isn't even about defending Muslims. It's about a Muslim expressing interpretations of what halal means.

C: Surely we can have a rational discussion. Why should it lead to hatred against anyone?

A: Good question. I don't have the answer, though.

B: Your intentions are not true. I will have to point it out to you. If it is true you would have apologised for misleading the crowd.

A: Get a life, seriously.

B: Why? So that you can get away with whatever you said about minorities on line and no one would throw back at u?

I am having my life here. How about u? You got no other topic to discuss other than minority issues it seems? How about do something for Social Peace if not Social Justice? People like me could rest my thumbs rest assured you r a good citizen?

D: In what way did he mislead anyone by sharing an article about the differences between the signs that was written pretty damn factually by a Muslim?

B: U read some comments in defence? If one reads just the headliner it's being misinterpreted. A is opening a discussion inviting this. He is sort of manipulative . Unless u have been following his posts u can't tell from just one. D. U have to analyse where that person's ideas are coming from before u even "like" their posts. These people would put up information that could be offensive anyone time then will put up another one fr global view to show exactly opposite. This why they r trying to confuse everyone. So far Gabriel has been A's supporter. She and him are the on-line anti SWJs. But under SWJs close watch every post will be analysed. Never mind if you don't get it. Just keep a close tab on their posts and also comments.

D: I read the headline. I know their views. I know both the fellas are anti-SJW(and can't quite blame them, the way so many are) - although with Gabriel, it's less being anti-SJW and more just poking and prodding at all logic all the time.

Also, what is wrong with putting up stuff that's on opposite ends of the spectrum? This is why so many people have issue with SJW's, they expect everyone to just conform to one line of thought, and if you don't then you're baaad baad baad.

People aren't anywhere as simple or binary as that.

E: Actually, being able to understand and appreciate views from the opposite ends of a spectrum is called "being objective".

No one says you have to adopt contrasting views, but at least give them a fair chance to be evaluated and understood.

B: It's not simply as putting up. I wouldn't have any problems with it. But personally I want to know why always put up things on minority issues when he or she don't respect them? Luckily u read the whole thing but in this climate the headliner with such picture would only give anti Muslim feelings by most who scroll after reading the heading. If you can't support the Muslims openly or the minorities openly I simply don't think your "nice efforts" are appreciated. So I can't get past the feeling the intent is any good. D

A: Then why don't you criticise the Muslim writer's intent in writing such a potentially misleading article? Why am I being blamed?

A: E when people like A or Gabirial putts up info. You can't be all the time be objective. One gets defensive if it affects them . U can be objective if u are not affected. Freedom of expression with out responsibility to anticipate all sorts of response from all sorts of people is irresponsible. Knowing it's hurt someone knowingly or unknowingly requires an apology. That will reverse the others thinking from subjective to objective. Feeling subjective is not wrong. BTW. Feeling objective is not good all the time either.

D: How on earth does the headline give anti-Muslim feelings?!

A: So the problem at the end of the day, you don't need reason. Your suspicion is the gospel truth. If I call someone a witch, she must be one and therefore we must hunt her down and kill her.

D: And why are you blaming A for the headline when that's the news organisations "fault"?!

B: since u supported him by putting it up you have to do that. I don't have issues with the article. But issue is your intent. I rest my case here. May be in the future consider what people like me will shoot at - intentions. Bye for now.

D: You're shooting at intentions based on what you THINK they are - that's different from what the intentions ACTUALLY are.

And it's perfectly fine to try and ferret out what someone's intentions are, but there usually has to be more grounds to it than just "it's what I think".

B: that's my personal view to A. I am not suspecting your intentions here. So no problem if u want to say something else
I don't need to justify to u weather my assumption needs to.pass your test do I?

D: I don't care if you suspect my intentions or not.

But your assumption has led to you accusing someone of having a nefarious ulterior motive in posting an entirely neutral and informatonal news article. So no, it's not about passing my test, but the reasonable grounds test to ensure you don't wind up anyhow tekaning people for nothing, and thus getting taken less seriously - which is bad in the long run, especially when you do have salient points.

A: Lol. Basically she's saying she can call me racist and that's her entitlement to opinion, but if I call her racist, I have no such entitlement to opinion. It's only fair if she gets her way.

D: Shit like this is why people are so fucking extra skeptical when we do experience bad shit, I swear.

we have to work extra hard to prove something actually racist/bigoted happened to us cos of all the stupid rubbish that gets thrown around clouding up the issues.

B: that's exactly what A has been denying. That racism exists. That bigots don't live in Singapore. That since I defence my stance am a racist SWJ. So u can't get him or people like him to understand these things at all. U can't support a bigot just because he chose an article and claims his intent is good by not at all staying his intent clearly - giving room for misjudgedment. So what if he has been a senior here. That only shows no one seriously looked at his posts from different perspective. Don't worry about not being able to work hard to prove to racists/bigots. They will not understand you but they can be challenged to keep their feelings to themselves.

D: Actually, A hasn't denied either of those. I know this through my own discussions with him.

In fact, he's very discerning about racism, and has more than once come down on actual bigots and racists who've popped up on this forum.

A: For the very last time, and I have repeatedly written, racism exists but not everything is about race.

In fact this article perfectly illustrates my position because such a sign is not about race, but about deeper issues of what it means to be halal and the practicalities of getting MUIS certification.

But you have to keep on insisting my intention is to make it racially divisive. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not. That's how racial harmony is to you it seems.

D: You're the one assuming he's racist. You're the one assuming his intent. What if sharing a neutral article like this would have opened up the room for dialogue and changed his mind, if he were actually harbouring bigoted thoughts? Well done, you just shut down the conversation instead of building on the foundation the article gave. *applause*

B: D so your friendship has clouded your judgement. You are there needing to defend your friend. Well hope A understands that we offer friendship to everyone without bias. I hope when he said he is "race blind" he doesn't just assume it means accepting others regardless of race. It would also mean " I want homogeneity in Racial representation" . The latter sounded more accurate in my discussion. Yes if he had change of heart great! Let's see the changes in his next posts. Bye D. I need to do my full time job

A: Whatever la B. People called me anti-Semite for putting the Palestinian flag on my profile pic for almost a year. Now you call me a Chinese racist. I don't need to prove any thing to you.

B: I never said it. But was shocked when u responded like one.

A: [Quoting A critiquing the SAF uniform]: "what a racist you are??? Are u wearing that uniform? You better run naked back to where your ancestors came from cos that uniform is for the soldiers who is supposed to protect its people. You are a traitor in your racist" skin! Your comments I have been following too all these while Aaron. Silence is tolerance and there's last straw do you too."

F: What we can learn from all this is how a persecution complex can make a person behave in all sorts of belligerent ways to other people and think they are perfectly justified in doing so.

What's more interesting- we can observe how A insults the very people who put their blood and sweat into providing the very freedoms and security that she lives off to be able to spew her venom in the first place.

Apparently she thinks she is an arbiter of who deserves to wear the uniform or not, without having even walked a meter in their boots.