That is quite possibly the most offensive comment anyone has ever posted here since I started writing this blog eleven years ago. I have a policy of never deleting comments for editorial reasons, but your comment is making me reconsider.
I didn't call a strike on you for the ritual human sacrifice thing, but I'm calling one here. I have a low tolerance for unrepentant bigotry.
Ron, my apologies, I was not trying to set an offensiveness record.
Your reaction puzzles me a bit. 1. Is it the idiotic web site I linked to? I would agree I should have chosen a better reference. I've grown numb to anti-islam websites (they are all pretty much the same), but I could see how such a site would be offensive to someone who has not grown indifferent to them. 2. Or where you not aware of Sen. Durbin's nickname, "Turban Durbin"? He aquired this nickname after his speech on the Senate floor, June 14, 2005 (this is documented on his wikipedia page). The reaction is mostly summarized in this Washington Post article of June 22, 2005. The issue he raised is an important one, but he errered in how he tried to bring attention to it. Were you to search for his nickname via google, you would find many links [one of the top links is to a site called "www.publiusforum.com", but I'm not associated with the site].
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling here or not. It's hard for me to believe that someone as well educated as you seem to be can possible be this ignorant. But OK, I'll play it straight.
I was not aware of "Turban Durbin" but it doesn't change anything. Why a turban? Because it rhymes with Durbin? Why not Bourbon Durbin? The answer is in your own comment:
> I've grown numb to anti-islam websites
Turbans are an epithet employed by Islamophobes as an ethnic slur, and so "Turban Durbin" is supposed to mean something derogatory along the lines of: Dick Durbin sympathizes with Muslim, or maybe he *is* a Muslim, or some such nonsense. But the irony is that Muslims do not as a rule wear turbans. Sikhs wear turbans. Muslims and Sikhs are about as different as you can get. So using a turban as a slur reveals not only bigotry but also some rather appalling ignorance.
Since I seem to be in the business of pointing out the obvious today, imagine if the photo had been of NBC news identifying Barack Obama as a Republican instead of Dick Durbin. What's wrong with this picture? "He's not eating watermelon." Do you see why that would be offensive? (Except that the whole Sikh/Muslim confusion thing makes it more like, "He's not wearing a yarmulke" except that's not really offensive, merely stupid. The turban thing is both.)
Yes, obviously. I'm aware of the irony that it's Sikh's that wear turbans, but I didn't come up with the nickname.
> is supposed to mean something derogatory along the lines of: Dick Durbin
Yep, that's absolutely it's purpose - but more along the lines of treason, giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and being against our armed forces, and placing our armed forces in danger during a time of war. Directly related to, when he made the comments, that the american military was in active combat against muslim terrorists.
>Since I seem to be in the business of pointing out the obvious today, imagine if the photo had been of NBC news identifying Barack Obama as a Republican instead of Dick Durbin. What's wrong with this picture?
Your example is of course offensive (although it has some historical context that isn't present in the history of Durbin). However, it's the wrong answer to the question posed. The answer would be, "He's not on the golf course."
Yeah, you're converging, but you're still missing a very important point. "He's not on the golf course," is also offensive, but not out of bounds because it's only offensive to Dick Durbin, and he's a politician so he's fair game. The reason "Turban Durbin" is out of bounds is not because it's offensive to Dick Durbin, but because it's OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO WEAR TURBANS.
He's not wearing a turban.
ReplyDeleteThat is quite possibly the most offensive comment anyone has ever posted here since I started writing this blog eleven years ago. I have a policy of never deleting comments for editorial reasons, but your comment is making me reconsider.
ReplyDeleteI didn't call a strike on you for the ritual human sacrifice thing, but I'm calling one here. I have a low tolerance for unrepentant bigotry.
Ron, my apologies, I was not trying to set an offensiveness record.
ReplyDeleteYour reaction puzzles me a bit.
1. Is it the idiotic web site I linked to? I would agree I should have chosen a better reference. I've grown numb to anti-islam websites (they are all pretty much the same), but I could see how such a site would be offensive to someone who has not grown indifferent to them.
2. Or where you not aware of Sen. Durbin's nickname, "Turban Durbin"? He aquired this nickname after his speech on the Senate floor, June 14, 2005 (this is documented on his wikipedia page). The reaction is mostly summarized in this Washington Post article of June 22, 2005. The issue he raised is an important one, but he errered in how he tried to bring attention to it. Were you to search for his nickname via google, you would find many links [one of the top links is to a site called "www.publiusforum.com", but I'm not associated with the site].
Anyhow, I wasn't trying to yank your chain.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling here or not. It's hard for me to believe that someone as well educated as you seem to be can possible be this ignorant. But OK, I'll play it straight.
ReplyDeleteI was not aware of "Turban Durbin" but it doesn't change anything. Why a turban? Because it rhymes with Durbin? Why not Bourbon Durbin? The answer is in your own comment:
> I've grown numb to anti-islam websites
Turbans are an epithet employed by Islamophobes as an ethnic slur, and so "Turban Durbin" is supposed to mean something derogatory along the lines of: Dick Durbin sympathizes with Muslim, or maybe he *is* a Muslim, or some such nonsense. But the irony is that Muslims do not as a rule wear turbans. Sikhs wear turbans. Muslims and Sikhs are about as different as you can get. So using a turban as a slur reveals not only bigotry but also some rather appalling ignorance.
Since I seem to be in the business of pointing out the obvious today, imagine if the photo had been of NBC news identifying Barack Obama as a Republican instead of Dick Durbin. What's wrong with this picture? "He's not eating watermelon." Do you see why that would be offensive? (Except that the whole Sikh/Muslim confusion thing makes it more like, "He's not wearing a yarmulke" except that's not really offensive, merely stupid. The turban thing is both.)
>Because it rhymes with Durbin?
ReplyDeleteYes, obviously. I'm aware of the irony that it's Sikh's that wear turbans, but I didn't come up with the nickname.
> is supposed to mean something derogatory along the lines of: Dick Durbin
Yep, that's absolutely it's purpose - but more along the lines of treason, giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and being against our armed forces, and placing our armed forces in danger during a time of war. Directly related to, when he made the comments, that the american military was in active combat against muslim terrorists.
>Since I seem to be in the business of pointing out the obvious today, imagine if the photo had been of NBC news identifying Barack Obama as a Republican instead of Dick Durbin. What's wrong with this picture?
Your example is of course offensive (although it has some historical context that isn't present in the history of Durbin).
However, it's the wrong answer to the question posed. The answer would be, "He's not on the golf course."
Yeah, you're converging, but you're still missing a very important point. "He's not on the golf course," is also offensive, but not out of bounds because it's only offensive to Dick Durbin, and he's a politician so he's fair game. The reason "Turban Durbin" is out of bounds is not because it's offensive to Dick Durbin, but because it's OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE WHO WEAR TURBANS.
ReplyDelete