Moeen Ali racially abused

[sledger]

It's semantics really. It it's not racism and some other kind of prejudice/bigotry, is it 'better'?

No. But it still is racism.

 

[S.Kennedy]

The clue is in the word. Racism. Racist.

 

[Spark]

He either should have said it at that time or just kept quite. Saying things now doesn’t do any good to cricket. It only creates animosity between two teams and countries. That’s all I am saying.

I don’t think his lying.

"that's all i'm saying" having picked up the goalposts and run the length of the pitch with them

 

[stephen]

For it to be racist you'd have to assume the culprit would be just as liable to direct the insult at anyone of ''Asian appearance'', Virat Kohli, his own teammate Khawaja, etc etc. The insult is clearly directed at religion, i.e. creating an absolute association between Islamic piety and Islamic terrorism.

It's both. The comment is as much drawing on the physical appearance as anything else. The reason it wouldn't work against Kohli is because of the beard. If he was white and didn't have the beard, despite being a Muslim the insult wouldn't have made sense. Given that's the case it's absolutely racist.

But let's say your right and it's entirely anti- Islamic and not racist. Does that make it any better? He's still being associated with an international criminal simply because the criminal happens to abuse his religion to radicalize others into committing heinous crimes.

It's like calling a German person a Nazi. You don't do it because it's highly offensive because the beliefs and actions of Nazis are far from the person's beliefs and actions.

 

[sledger]

The idea that a statement can't be racist if it doesn't explicitly and directly reference someone's ethnicity is just so incredibly dire.

 

[S.Kennedy]

It's both. The comment is as much drawing on the physical appearance as anything else. The reason it wouldn't work against Kohli is because of the beard. If he was white and didn't have the beard, despite being a Muslim the insult wouldn't have made sense. Given that's the case it's absolutely racist.

But let's say your right and it's entirely anti- Islamic and not racist. Does that make it any better? He's still being associated with an international criminal simply because the criminal happens to abuse his religion to radicalize others into committing heinous crimes.

It's like calling a German person a Nazi. You don't do it because it's highly offensive because the beliefs and actions of Nazis are far from the person's beliefs and actions.

Straw man as I have never defended it. Virtually the first thing I said on the subject was that it is xenophobic.

 

[Spark]

The idea that a statement can't be racist if it doesn't explicitly and directly reference someone's ethnicity is just so incredibly dire.

i was going to point out "replace muslim with jew and see how it sounds" and then i remembered how many of that ilk would be completely unperturbed by that

 

[GIMH]

Stop the damn match

 

[stephen]

The reason I believe it's real is that calling Moeen a part-timer to insult him would be far too clever for the guy we think it is to have thought up.

 

[S.Kennedy]

It could be only racist if Islam was a racially defined religion, e.g. Judaism, Shintoism, but seeing as Islam encompasses Arabic, black, Caucasian (white-European), Persian, etc., that is impossible. Somebody of Moeen's appearance could just as easily belong to those racial groupings, and indeed does (as the briefest look on the internet will attest).

White people of similar appearance have been and will be attacked as being ''terrorists'' in the wake of September the 11th.

 

[sledger]

oh god somebody make it stop

 

[stephen]

Straw man as I have never defended it. Virtually the first thing I said on the subject was that it is xenophobic.

So then why are you arguing? Does the label applied to the particular statement make it any more or less offensive?

You can debate whether it was racist or xenophobic but whoever said it was being an offensive dick when he said it. Does the strict definition of the type of offensive it was matter so much?

 

[Spark]

oh god somebody make it stop

i mean i keep saying it but it does feel like talking to someone who has bought a dictionary for the first time and thinks it's an instant win button in an argument

even high school debaters don't descend to this level

 

[trundler]

How many racists differentiate between Arab, Subcontinental, and Persian though? They're all Muslim, brown and hence evil to them.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'll put it another way. If a white Muslim, say English, of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity and from a Christian background, with similar facial hair as Moeen was called ''Osama'' or something similar, would that be racist?

Islam is a proselytising religion much like Christianity. It does not have anything to do with race.

 

[S.Kennedy]

So then why are you arguing? Does the label applied to the particular statement make it any more or less offensive?

You can debate whether it was racist or xenophobic but whoever said it was being an offensive dick when he said it. Does the strict definition of the type of offensive it was matter so much?

Why let stupidity stand? You may as well be correct about this sort of stuff? You may as well?

 

[trundler]

That simply wouldn't happen though.

It has to do with race since the vast majority of its followers are Arab/South Asian/Persian.

 

[S.Kennedy]

That simply wouldn't happen though.

It has to do with race since the vast majority of its followers are Arab/South Asian/Persian.

78,056,000 Muslims in Nigeria? Would you freely associate black people with Islamic terrorism?

 

[S.Kennedy]

If it wasn't for Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours white-Europeans may have been Muslims.

 

[trundler]

There's over a billion and a half of them.