Day One of the Tour Draws to a Close
posted by Jon Cruz on December 27th, 2004
Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, Mike Bietz, and Doug Lieb
Day one of the two-day VBI Tour has completed, with hundreds of students participating in our prep sessions on the January/February resolution. (Individual venues are located in Des Moines, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, Oklahoma City, Orlando, San Jose, and Seattle.) We’re looking forward to working with our students once again tomorrow.
For those who were unable to attend the Tour but who are still looking to purchase a copy of the Victory Briefs topic handbook on the new resolution, worry not: you can obtain a copy through the Victory Briefs store!
Popularity: 1%
no more tag found, sorry
66 Responses to “Day One of the Tour Draws to a Close”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Tara Tedrow Wins Ohio Valley
- Work, Wit, and Wins: Wolfish
- Shyaam Subramanian Wins CPS
- Sam Kleiner is Auburn Champion
- Kunal Raygor is Alta Champion
- Day One of the Tour Draws to a Close
- "Flex Time": Reshaping the LD Round
- Tisha Vaidya Wins Isidore Newman
- Blake Registrants Thus Far
- Scarsdale Closes Out Hendrick Hudson
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 28th, 2004 10:34
Now in New York: Bietz appearing as the new American Taliban in his gap scarf and sweater.
Posted from: 12.223.28.68
December 28th, 2004 10:42
Anyone wearing a scarf on their head is in the Taliban. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculously offensive?
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
December 28th, 2004 12:43
no, you’re not.
Posted from: 205.188.116.203
December 28th, 2004 12:58
screw u
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
December 28th, 2004 13:40
please god not this again
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 15:35
i’m not trying to start a flame war or anything, but just considering the violence and harrassment people have experienced in the us in the last few years because of stereotypes about the appearance of middle eastern people/south asian people/anyone else arbitrarily lumped together as objects of the war on terror and their subsequent labeling as terrorists, i think ryan should think twice about making “jokes” involving those stereotypes
Posted from: 70.92.30.156
December 28th, 2004 15:37
Let’s change the subject and talk about: PIZZA! Pizza, pizza, pizza! Let’s all go to PIZZAMANIA!!
Posted from: 12.216.144.4
December 28th, 2004 15:57
obviously the “screw u” wasn’t actually me
I’m sorry that people are uncomfortable with flame wars. I understand they’re generally dumb, but I refuse to say that we shouldn’t accuse Ryan of being entirely inappropriate if he is (this has nothing specific to do with Ryan; if anyone is offensive like this, people should speak up). I agree entirely with Peter.
People who don’t want a “flame war” and try to change the subject to pizza and ACTIVELY let shit like this go untouched in a public forum are ignorant. I obviously don’t want to “start” anything either, but come on.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
December 28th, 2004 16:54
can you be offended less vocally plz? kthx.
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 17:33
dude, that’s just as bad as trying to change the subject (and maybe both commenters are just trolls or something)
obviously if people are complaining about someone being offensive, it’s because they hope that whatever’s offensive stops, or at least people are aware that they’re being offensive; criticizing a racist joke “less vocally,” then, is pointless
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 17:34
by the way, i think casey has to be the most impersonated person on this site; almost every thread i read has at least someone making believe to be her…
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 28th, 2004 17:49
This is absurd — everyone is putting focus on Bietz’s headscarf, but clearly the most identifying mark of an Islamic jihadist associated with the Taliban is the Gap sweater. This inconclusively proves that Bietz, and all of those wearing Gap sweaters, should be subject to increased police scrutiny, as Peter so brilliantly suggests, and even, if he continues his seditious activities, an all out “flame war” (whatever the hell that is).
CLEARLY, IT IS A JOKE, QUITE CLEARLY IT IS JUST A JOKE.
P.S. - Self-righteous and indignant “offense” taken is a poor substitute for a sense of humor.
Posted from: 24.221.155.169
December 28th, 2004 17:56
During a week when thousands of people died of catastrophic tsunamis, I find it ironic at best that everyone is getting stirred to action by what clearly was a JOKE that NO ONE was harmed by. Please, if you have the urge to take on evil in the world direct your attention away from what simply was Ryan trying to make a joke. A continuation to talk about how awful Ryan/his joke is will only show to me that these individuals are more interested in making themselves known in the debate community as those who are against ‘injustice’ rather than doing anything constructive. My point: it was a joke, if you want to do good in the world, direct your attention somewhere where it matters.
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
December 28th, 2004 17:58
pwn.
Posted from: 141.156.187.114
December 28th, 2004 18:33
Do you folks at least acknowledge that some stereotypes have become such caricatures that they’re a curiosity of pop culture rather than a racial/ethnic/etc slur?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it sure seems like Ryan poking fun at Bietz rather than trying to make a statement about Islam.
From the dumb blond –
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 18:38
uh, i have no idea who you are, but i’d like to think that i do devote a lot of time and attention to “take on evil somewhere it matters,” or at least somewhere besides threads like these.
but especially since being active and posting here aren’t mutually exclusive, i don’t why telling me to focus my attention elsewhere (fighting tsunamis, maybe) even makes sense as an apology for racist humor.
my point: jokes that play on stereotypes that are often used to label people as terrorists DO HARM PEOPLE, and we know this (not only) because of the countless number of cases where people have been harrassed and even beaten because of their appearance to others as being Muslim (in some cases, they weren’t even); there have been dozens of cases of such assaults in ny, and i’m sure elsewhere.
and by the way, since you don’t know who i am (at least i don’t think you do), saying that me (and others on the thread) are ‘just trying to show that we’re against oppresion’ is just dumb and baseless; it reminds me of the old Pat Buchanon line, when he says that any man who supports feminist movements (specifically, the fight for full coverage of abortions by health care) is just looking for a date. you’re pulling the same trick, trying to silence dissent about stereotypes by coming up with some ulterior motives.
racist jokes do harm people; they perpetuate stereotypes, and try to give discussion of them a legitimate outlet; waving your hands and saying it was just a joke doesn’t solve anything.
Posted from: 69.228.246.97
December 28th, 2004 18:39
Ok… first of all, I’m uncomfortable that some people automatically assume that “Taliban” is insulting. The only way I see legitimate offense is if one de facto leaps between “Taliban” and “terrorist,” a jump certainly unfair to Mr. Hamilton. There are Taliban who are terrorists and there are Americans who are terrorists but certainly the two words are not the same. I would further suggest that equating the two is far more offensive than Ryan’s rather lame attempt at humor.
Secondly, and more importantly, Ryan’s original posting does the precise opposite of what some have posited… because his comments cannot possibly be taken as his true thought, he, through sarcasm, condemns those stereotypes that we can all reject.
Posted from: 200.91.101.170
December 28th, 2004 18:54
Sorry to interrupt, but I’d like to address the concern brought up by Kleiner.
Regardless of the content of Ryan’s comment, saying that we should all focus on the tsunamis is a little absurd. Obviously people should do what they can to aid victims of such an unfortunate natural disaster, but I don’t think anyone is going to completely stop posting on a debate forum for weeks. You certainly haven’t.
Furthermore, greater injustices occurring in the world don’t deny other, more local problems (some of which may be easier to address currently).
Posted from: 24.214.98.75
December 28th, 2004 18:59
i am the 100th monkey! i am the law! i am a fan of strangers with candy! rawwwwwrrr!!
i’m pretty sure that this discussion is really pointless. if i think ryans post is offensive, then i dont need someone to remind me of that. if i don’t think its offensive, i dont think anyone saying that it is will make me change my mind.
i’m pretty sure that most readers of this site aren’t docile bodies that will suddenly become racist automatons as soon as someone makes a politically incorrect joke. conversely, if they are racist/hatz0rz, i’d be willing to bet that they probably wont suddenly stop because casey says that they should.
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 28th, 2004 19:01
Peter, Sam not knowing you doesn’t disqualify his opinion. Why you even bring it up is a mystery to me, but it certainly doesn’t lend any credence to the “ideas” you’re championing. What Sam is trying to communicate to you and others with the same opinion is that you’ll gladly point the finger and hurl the epithet racist at me — but in terms of social justice, you’re not heading over to Sri Lanka to dig half-dead foreigners out of rubble, you’re not even contemplating stopping buying the clothes that they make for a dime a day — so much for your iron grip on social justice.
Furthermore, my humor cannot even be characterized as racist, given that I called Bietz an American Taliban — a governmental affiliation qualified with a national one. Notice the lack of a racial qualifier or identifier.
What’s more — even if we are to take this to the more common-sensical level, the bias would be directed against people based on their religion (Islam) and not their racial composition — Afghanis are not Arabs, Arabs are not Uzbeks, but most of them are Muslim, so the next time you try and villify someone with you outrageous claims, atleast get whatever bullshit “otherization” device you’re using straight. I hate to drag him into this, but Bietz is of a Korean and European descent — so pretty much when you say racist what you really mean is not racist at all, right Peter?
The insinuation that any post made on the VBD (not racial, mind you) would at all lead people to attack Bietz (or anyone) for his supposed ethnicity (when what you really mean is his religion, but not really since he isn’t a Muslim) is perhaps the most absurd claim I have ever seen asserted. We’re all supposed to be of relatively high intelligent composition, and far be it from me to assume that people would be able to discern a HARMLESS joke from what others would have me believe is a derisive, mean-spirited, and bewilderingly “racist”.
I really hope that all of you sleep well at night — I was just trying to make an innocent joke, I did not mean for ultrasensitive people of a liberal mindset to go hogwild on what was CLEARLY, QUITE CLEARLY an innocent comment made. So really, if it’s worth this much to all of you that you prove to the world just what an individual of high moral composition you are — just have it, for Christ’s sake, it doesn’t mean that much to me — it’s not important, it’s not worth a “flame war,” people taking sides — it was seriously, just a joke. I hope you’re happy — I hope, Peter, Alex, Casey, that you now know in your head that you are the defenders of social justice everywhere, and that you believe that you have vanquished an evil “racist” and his horrible jokes.
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 19:02
(1) i see your point, but since ‘taliban’ was used to refer specifically to the government that sponsored/harbored terrorists (while ‘america’ is not used that way), people equate it with terrorism; when racists beat up a man because of what he is wearing, referencing the Taliban (which i remember being rhetoric that often surrounded the beatings), it’s hard to deny that the word has the same connation than america
(2) making a racist joke doesn’t mean you don’t think it’s true, so no
and it looks like from posts above that ryan wasn’t trying to be sarcastic about the stereotypes, but instead meant to “poke fun” at bietz, through the use of the stereotype.
if i’m watching kids in the hall or something, it’s clear that they’re being sarcastic about stereotypes, because they use humor to show cases when the stereotypes aren’t true, or outline the ridiculous inner logic that people use to justify stereotypes and whatever ideologies they’re used for; so i’m not saying that all jokes involving stereotypes are bad, but i thought that the particular joke ryan made was offensive.
Posted from: 63.226.208.128
December 28th, 2004 19:03
OH ISHT IRONY SOLVES!?
the performative protestor does not argue against the state, he mocks it. The protestor works at the margins of discourse utilizing puns and jokes and caricature to “expose” the limits of what is being said. Thus, performative resistance when considered as a critique does not need to tell us what is wrong, rather it reveals the existence of subjection where we had not previously seen it. […] performative resistance enables politics. Thus, the question is not should we resist… but rather what and how we should resist. […] deliberation must be theatrical. It is in the performance… that which cannot be argued for finds resistance… Chaloupka recognizes that: […] the oral histories of demonstrations… linger over the jokes and funny signs… more than the speeches and carefully coherent positions… the politics of deliberation must take account of the creative potential that resides in the performance of debate.
Posted from: 68.237.41.203
December 28th, 2004 19:12
I personally had a great time at the Tour in NY. The lectures were interesting and it was nice seeing everyone (or meeting them for the first time)- I’m looking forward to camp!!
Posted from: 70.92.30.156
December 28th, 2004 19:13
Ting Ting is trying to change the topic!!!! SHE IS IGNORANT!!!111!!1!!!1
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 19:18
ryan, i’m not sure how you’re reading my posts, but i’m not saying that people are going to attack mike…i’m saying that jokes involving stereotypes about people’s appearances and linking them to terrorists is bad, because it’s the same kind of stereotype used to justify attacks on people labeled as terrorists
and if you want to say that stereotypes about people who are labeled (as i mentioned, usually arbitrarily; what i’m saying is that they’re not drawn on religious lines, or racial lines, or really any lines; diverse people are lumped together as terrorists, even though there is no defining feature of all of them) by people in this country as ‘them’, or the group of people where terrorists come from (loosely, muslims, or sometimes people from the middle east or south asia), isn’t technically “racist,” but some other kind of stereotype, then fine
i’m not “hurling the racist epithet”…i’m not saying you’re a racist either; from what i know, you’re not; i’m just saying that apart from the intent of jokes that play on racial/ethnic/whatever stereotypes, the effect of the jokes can be bad, and they shouldn’t be used loosely
and about this whole “defenders of social justice thing”: i’m not sure why you assume that because i post on these boards, i think that that’s SUFFICIENT to defend social justice (w/e that means); i don’t
and personally, i’m a marxist, so i don’t think that not buying clothes even though the people who made them are exploited is actually a sufficient or even meaningful response to their oppression, which requires a more systematic solution; i am a member of and participate in a socialist organization to do my part to rectify that, and i don’t think that that’s THE solution, but that’s what i can do (going to save people in southeast asia is something i can’t)
Posted from: 24.252.88.120
December 28th, 2004 19:33
I hesitate when I see the term “racist” applied to Ryan’s comment…
I think Greg puts it best: Do you folks at least acknowledge that some stereotypes have become such caricatures that they’re a curiosity of pop culture rather than a racial/ethnic/etc slur?”
my answer: People only see that when it fits them. In this case, there are a lot of people waving the “Stereotypes bad” flag because it refers to an image/label that is commonly understood as linking to terrorism (an assumption that Andrew correctly critiques).
Yet it is funny to me when debaters as a whole yell about things like
elitism and racial stereotypes, EXCEPT when the stereotypes/caricatures themselves
fit into things that are commonly understood to be cool, acceptable and worth emulating.
I know this because of my 4 years in northern cali *shudder* I’d find people running anti stereotypes cases but then use words like “gay…nig…” and other derivatives I’d dare not repeat in casual conversation, and then claim they are about racial equality! (and once approached on it tell me that I’m “oversensitive” and that it’s just playing, and not
really get the performative contradiction, or worse, not even care) In my experience, it’s a struggle to get many people to throw the word “racist” at such behavior.
At least in this case, I value Ryan’s honesty above the hypocrisy of only using the
“stereotypes bad” rant when it refers to images/things that are uncomfortable, an error I see over and over again by so many people in the debate community.
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 28th, 2004 19:41
uh, except for it to be “hypocrisy” it’d have to be inconsistent, and since i’m not those northern cali people, i’m saying that stereotypes are bad (not just uncomfortable ones), especially when they’ve been used before to as an excuse for violence and harrassment
Posted from: 63.226.208.128
December 28th, 2004 20:04
THATS NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE IRONY SOLVENCY!!!1 OMG.
Posted from: 24.163.212.197
December 28th, 2004 20:07
Forums established for debate discourse are best served by a strict separation of stereotypes and assertions.
~ would debate discourse on ANYTHING be good?
~ assertions good for debate discourse
~ stereotypes provide examples
~ im bored
Posted from: 68.227.13.228
December 28th, 2004 20:22
I’m not looking to burn bridges here, but seriously- THIS IS THE REASON THAT PEOPLE HATE DEBATERS. GROW UP, GET A SENSE OF HUMOR, AND STOP THINKING PEOPLE CARE THAT YOU’RE “OFFENDED”. Only in the debate round does anybody care about the discourse on boards, ok? We’re all smart people here, in this community, and I think we can take a joke- a joke that I found quite funny- and I’m not afraid to admit it. It’s funny to comment upon social mores- indeed, were it not for the pervailing insecurity of Americans in relation to this situation (White Guilt?) then I think we could all sit back, laugh, and enjoy the show. I mean come on- how funny is it to think of Bietz as a terrorist!?!?!
Posted from: 68.237.41.203
December 28th, 2004 20:28
haha ok u win, indeed i was attempting to change the subject. however, i did truly have a great time at the Tour as well ;)
while i think that it is a moral triumph to be inditing those joke over the term “taliban”, ryan has explained that it wasn’t his intention to be mean-spirited. it is great that this lengthy discussion has developed because it has certainly raised awareness concerning the injustice… and the fact that so many have been responsive is a good sign. but i think that it is enough to have acknowledged this as an issue- and move on.
and i’m curious- how did the Tour go for others? any thoughts on Tour in general?
Posted from: 24.126.31.137
December 28th, 2004 20:57
“THIS IS THE REASON THAT PEOPLE HATE DEBATERS.”
hahahhahahahah so true!
Posted from: 12.216.144.4
December 28th, 2004 21:14
anyone who said “you shouldn’t care that much because:
1. it’s not that big a deal compared to tsunamis
2. people will see it as offensive or not and you can’t change their minds [hi Mangus]”
is ew. The first was already dealt with by Peter, I think, but the second one is ridiculous. If I think slavery is bad, do I just sit there and say nothing because people will either be for or against it no matter what I say? uhhhhh…
I really didn’t mean for this to become a huge deal, and I won’t lie I hate it when the debate gods fly down to explain that they are cooler than these arguments and everyone involved should get a life. However, I really would have appreciated a simple “I’m sorry I didn’t mean it like that” from Ryan rather than a “HOW DARE YOU SPEAK UP AND TRY TO PRETEND THAT YOU ARE A JUSTICE WARRIOR.” I never said that I am the hand of Justice coming to save people’s souls: I just said that it was really offensive to equate people who wear scarves on their heads with the Taliban (who may or may not be terrorists; that’s no the point. The point also wasn’t that Ryan was racist but just stereotyping). Please don’t make assumptions about my motives being other than what I put forth: that I didn’t like what Ryan said, found it offensive and wanted people to notice (EVEN if they would have anyways).
ps. if any comments were directed specifically at someone else (I didn’t read every comment in depth) and I interpreted it as a comment towards me, my apologies
Posted from: 66.195.56.35
December 28th, 2004 21:54
omg. i would like to point out that none of my scarves are from the gap…. just an fyi.
Posted from: 68.37.160.92
December 28th, 2004 22:05
go back and read the first two posts on this thread and tell me its not beyond stupid that that this forum garnered 32 more responses
max stevens is 100% right
flame wars are fun to read, but its a little nauseating that they always seem to involve the same people who just can’t get a grip
Posted from: 68.104.26.169
December 28th, 2004 22:59
“max stevens is 100% right”
Ironically, this is what my rebuttals boiled down to whenever I debated Mr. Stevens.
Ryan is a nice guy who made an observation in his own funny way. Like, it does kinda look like a headscarf.
I don’t see why the implication has to be that all people who wear headscarves are in the Taliban. Which is what seems to be the issue here. Not all Muslims wear headscarves, would it have been offensive to say “appearing as a Muslim-American”.
It is either make a joke and submit to some stereotype(which holds a grain of truth, some Muslims wear headscarves, some people in the Taliban wear headscarves), or don’t say anything at all.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
December 29th, 2004 00:31
i think it’s really sad that people think racism (again, i can’t prove that ryan’s comment was racist, but i have a good hunch) is something trivial and that being conscientious about it is “the reason everyone hates debaters”. obviously, we’re not going to get rid of racism entirely just by yelling at ryan, but if someone uses a slur or makes a joke that implicitly or explicitly puts down a minority group, i’m pretty comfortable telling them that they’re out of line. now, ryan’s joke might, in fact, not be racist. what i see here is still really disheartening because they seem to justify ignoring any racist comments, regardless of degree. if ryan got on here and said “man, bietz looks like a dirty dirty ay-rab with that scarf around his head”, i have a feeling that at least some people here would be telling us to “lighten up”. that just doesn’t seem right.
also, to answer berryhill’s response: i don’t think any of us are perfect about being racially conscious, but i know i’m going to make a good faith effort to call people on using the terms “nig” “silly nig” and “negro”, and if any of you hear me use those terms, feel free to give me shit or punch me or whatever.
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
December 29th, 2004 00:31
i think it’s really sad that people think racism (again, i can’t prove that ryan’s comment was racist, but i have a good hunch) is something trivial and that being conscientious about it is “the reason everyone hates debaters”. obviously, we’re not going to get rid of racism entirely just by yelling at ryan, but if someone uses a slur or makes a joke that implicitly or explicitly puts down a minority group, i’m pretty comfortable telling them that they’re out of line. now, ryan’s joke might, in fact, not be racist. what i see here is still really disheartening because they seem to justify ignoring any racist comments, regardless of degree. if ryan got on here and said “man, bietz looks like a dirty dirty ay-rab with that scarf around his head”, i have a feeling that at least some people here would be telling us to “lighten up”. that just doesn’t seem right.
also, to answer berryhill’s response: i don’t think any of us are perfect about being racially conscious, but i know i’m going to make a good faith effort to call people on using the terms “nig” “silly nig” and “negro”, and if any of you hear me use those terms, feel free to give me shit or punch me or whatever.
Posted from: 70.33.112.173
December 29th, 2004 00:32
this is remarkably silly
obviously the joke was that bietz had an article of clothing on that made him look like something that was very unbietz like….
if bietz had put on a nun’s robe it would have been equally funny because bietz would have looked like a really ridiculous nun
but of course i guess thats bad because not all nun’s wear robes and its bad to stereotype nuns
If ryan had said bietz looks like a terrorist i could see the objection because its linking the wearing of the headscarf to terrorism and not all terrorists fit into that implication. But, that wasn’t the case.
In fact it was cts and peter who first brought up the connection not ryan…why that link would be the first thing on their minds would be anybodies guess
but i mean if you want to make a big deal out of this you can give michael moore a call and head over to vegas, i’ve got some soapboxes ready for you…
better yet why don’t you entirely polarize any discussions deemed politically incorrect and shut out discussions of non-mainstream peoples from all forms of discussions entirely both politically and culturally…that’s cool too
Posted from: 70.33.112.173
December 29th, 2004 00:42
ryan’s joke might, in fact, not be racist. what i see here is still really disheartening because they seem to justify ignoring any racist comments, regardless of degree. if ryan got on here and said “man, bietz looks like a dirty dirty ay-rab with that scarf around his head”, i have a feeling that at least some people here would be telling us to “lighten up”. that just doesn’t seem right.
previously posted by asmitty
gosh, i’m glad that ryan didn’t say that because ya what you said would be racist
i mean let me get your post straight…
we should all take serious to ryan’s comment because you think it links to umm…an entirely different comment that ryan never made?
if you hear the word taliban and you can’t think of anything other then terrorist thats something thats wrong with you not ryan’s comment
Posted from: 204.210.37.132
December 29th, 2004 00:54
you’re misinterpreting what i said.
i’m saying that it’s still disappointing w/respect to the PEOPLE DEFENDING RYAN. the reason i say that is because the logic behind their defense of ryan isn’t specific to the fact that he made a mildly offensive or subtly racist joke, but would still apply even if ryan said something a lot more offensive. to take a sample of what people have said, the arguments that “we should be helping people in asia instead”, “making a big deal out of it isn’t going to make people less racist”, and “come on, it was just a joke, lighten up” would all still be relevant if ryan made a much more explicit and offensive joke.
to be honest, ryan’s joke might not have been that offensive. but given that it could be interpreted as being offensive, and WAS interpreted as being offensive, casey’s exactly right that the least ryan could do was apologize.
Posted from: 70.33.112.173
December 29th, 2004 01:12
no I didn’t misinterpret your comment at all
your comment asked the question of whether it was all right to be offended by something because it could be thought of meaning something else…
thats like saying its ok to beat up people who look at your mom funny because they could be thinking any number of things, 9 of which could be offense
look the fact that some people will automatically link words like taliban to terrorist is indictive that their modes of thinking are at their deepest levels shaped and effected by the political/cultural vehicles of otherization such as media/discourse that all of you are taking such stern rejections to
if you don’t believe that all taliban are terrorists then don’t believe it don’t try to be a rightious defender of justice by trying to see implicit links everywhere that only reify and reentrench dominant media-speak and social mores that is the central objection in all of these anti-ryan posts…
look if bietz wore antlers i would say look at bietz he looks like a reindeer and nobody would think twice about it
but if some liberal theorist suddenly decided to bash reindeer because they kill people lost in the tundra sometimes and also are entirely patriarchal when fighting for mates during breeding seasons people would for some reason have massive objections to reindeer comparisons…
does anybody else see anything wrong terribly wrong with this?
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 29th, 2004 03:00
This racist accusation has got to stop — at its most basic level, it is INCORRECT — the comment I made can IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM be construed to be RACIST — given that any stereotyping that may have occured was not based in RACIAL terms — it was based in governmental and nationalistic identifiers — I think that demonstrates that you’re willing to harp on an innocent comment and call it something that it is quite clearly not — and I challenge you, or anyone else, Alex, to show me where I once in this thread used a racially connected adjective –because it just didn’t happen — furthermore, I take acception to the “hunch” you get that my comment was racially motivated — I don’t make a habit out of talking to you, and even if you were to continue to inject meanings into my comments, the VERY MOST that anyone could say was “offensive” would come from IMPLICIT AND INDIRECT Islamic affiliations from the Taliban, an exclusive Islamic organization — I can’t be racist, DEFINITIONS GET IN THE WAY. On face, just by the language which you employ, you are mistaken, incorrect, wrong.
And even then, I didn’t make a value judgment/statement, rather, I correlated an image of a scarf placed on one’s head to a group of people that generally have hats that look like scarves on their heads (to be sure, google Taliban and see what the people in the most popular picture search result are wearing — I’m really not alone on this, despite what some may believe). There is NOTHING more than this, NOTHING, no racial slurs, no implicit or explicit “put downs” of ethnic groups — in fact, in the initial post, ethnicity, as I have stated exhaustively was never even covered, mentioned, I DIDN’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect an unsolicited apology out of me. If everytime someone said something that offended me (think of all the off-the-cuff remarks you’ve made about how stupid conservatives are, or how provincial religious folk can be, or about how you’ve got a “hunch” that I’m secretly plotting to re-segregate Nevada along invented racial lines) I’d have to make appointments in which people could apologize to me — I’ve already said that this has gone too far, and you’ve clearly made me regret making a joke from your witch-hunting, but all I was doing was making a joke — and it seems that there are only THREE PEOPLE who misinterpreted harmless humor to be some evil “racial” innuendo. You’re going out of your way to be offended, and that is absurd.
Posted from: 70.33.112.173
December 29th, 2004 03:22
I think it would be funny if you racially segregated nevada based on the shape of people’s ears with the qualifier of eyesight at time of segragation decision…
that would completely deconstruct all prior traditions of racism…
plus it would be extremely funny
I would of course only like people that had vulcan shaped ears and 10/20 eyesight
i’m exclusive like that
Posted from: 4.230.18.219
December 29th, 2004 07:17
im not so sure ryans a racist from that comment, although he probably is
but from his comments he certainly comes off like an asshole
Posted from: 66.93.17.219
December 29th, 2004 07:37
I hope that people are willing to also call out their “friends” when they choose to use racist language.
Of course this doesnt excuse anyone… just realize that your righteousness is much less righteous when you selectively let it slide…
Posted from: 66.93.17.219
December 29th, 2004 07:41
http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?t=14665&highlight=nig
http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?t=14436&highlight=nig
http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?t=14281&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=nig&start=25
http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?t=14181&highlight=nig
Posted from: 64.170.192.6
December 29th, 2004 12:59
Ryan…
Casey acknowledged that you’re not being racist. To quote:
“The point also wasn’t that Ryan was racist but just stereotyping”
You ARE stereotyping. That is a truism regarding your post. Man puts scarf on head = man is part of Taliban. The obvious implication that you were drawing was that Bietz looks like a terrorist because he’s wearing a scarf that makes him look Muslim. The stereotype (if not already obvious) is Muslim = Taliban. I don’t see how you can get around that.
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 29th, 2004 15:11
To the unidentified man calling me an what seems to be an asshole, I’m glad you feel comfortable assassinating my character from behind your shield of concealed identity — atleast those who call me a racist have the courage to identify themselves. The next time somebody calls you a racist, I’m sure you’ll be sending them flowers and chocolates, right?
“P. Rai,” you obviously didn’t read below Casey’s post, where Alex made two separate ones including the words racist, and I have never denied stereotyping — that’s fine — I’m sure you do it consistently in day to day life, I’m sure everyone who has posted does it, I’m sure they make off the cuff, crude comments about this or that. That’s all I’m saying — mine was harmless. What’s more — this stereotype was accurate. If you can show me a picture of identifiable members of the Taliban WITHOUT a headscarf on, I’d be more than happy to admit that perhaps my awful stereotype was perhaps sketchy. You and others assigned the label of terrorist to the Taliban, not me — so I think the syllogism of Taliban = Muslim = Terrorist is a little — untrue.
Whoever posted those links to people on Westman using the term “nig” is a Saint — I’m glad to see that moral indignation and self-righteous crusades against stereotyping is universal.
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 29th, 2004 15:16
Also, I have black friends. Clearly this puts me beyond the scope of questions about my racial preferences.
Posted from: 12.216.144.4
December 29th, 2004 15:56
I’ll separate myself from those calling Ryan racist because that’s not what I took issue with. I think Ryan adequately summed up my problem with his point (that he was stereotyping people) but then misses the point when he says it was harmless.
Here’s the problem with Ryan’s “show me someone in the Taliban who doesn’t wear a headscarf” attempt to avoid my being legitimately offended:
syllogisms work like this:
1. all beagles are dogs
2. snoopy is a beagle
3. therefore, snoopy is a dog.
so when Ryan says
1. —
2. Bietz is wearing a head scarf
3. therefore, Bietz is in the Taliban
we have to try to guess what his first premise was (implied).
Saying:
1. all people in the Taliban wear headscarves
2. Bietz is wearing a head scarf
3. therefore, Bietz is in the Taliban
doesn’t actually follow. That logic is more like this:
1. all beagles are dogs
2. snoopy is a dog
3. therefore snoopy is a beagle
SO it makes more sense that I interpreted his first premise as being:
1. all people who wear head scarves are in the Taliban
THEN his argument would actually follow a syllogism:
1. all people who wear head scarves are in the Taliban
2. Bietz is wearing a head scarf
3. Therefore, Bietz is in the Taliban
THAT FOLLOWS. it was not unreasonable for me (and others) to find offense then with this syllogism because it DOESN’T (as Ryan tries to argue it does) just imply that all people in the Taliban wear head scarves but the all people who wear head scarves are in the Taliban.
MILLIONS OF WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD WEAR THE HEAD SCARF BECAUSE THEY CONSIDER IT A NATURAL WAY TO FOLLOW THE KORAN’S INJUCTION TO MAINTAIN MODESTY. They are not in the Taliban.
PEOPLE WEARING TURBANS IN THE DESERT ARE TRYING TO AVOID GETTING SAND IN THEIR HAIR.
They also are not in the Taliban.
Anyone who is upset that I’m taking up webspace being offended by this implication:
I don’t care. I will continue to speak up when legitimately offended and back down when people explain to me that I misinterpreted something (eg. see the thread where I thought Peter [surprisingly agreeing with me here!] was being offensive about abortion. I took back my comment about being offended because he explained that he didn’t mean it that way). Since I AM legitimately offended by what Ryan said, stop telling me to care about tsunamis, stop telling me to not give debaters bad names, stop telling me that I should get a life and not post about stopping things that should be stopped.
Maybe there are bigger problems in the world. Maybe you should stop going online to argue that you’re better than me and don’t take up “silly flame wars” the way I do. If you don’t like flame wars, I advise not reading this thread anymore. I can’t help it if you can’t avoid clicking the “comments” link here.
Posted from: 12.216.144.4
December 29th, 2004 16:02
I apologize for saying that people wearing turbans are trying to avoid getting sand in their hair:
I meant that people who often wear cloth over their heads/faces in deserts are simply trying to avoid getting sand in their faces/hair. There are other reasons for wearing the turban specifically or other articles on one’s head (like baseball caps haha).
Either way, the point is people who wear things on their heads (this argument being about scarves specifically) are not necessarily in the Taliban.
Super sorry if the turban comment was somehow offensive (I have no specialized knowledge about Middle Eastern garments, so please don’t take my comments as my dictating people’s views, etc.).
Posted from: 68.104.26.169
December 29th, 2004 19:07
What if Ryan had just said that he resembles a muslim?
That would be stereotyping as well, and, honestly, there is a big enough anti-muslim sentiment in some parts of America and some people that you don’t have to be a Muslim and in the Taliban, you just have to be a Muslim to be labeled a terrorist.
Ryan could either have made a joke and included a stereotype (as jokes almost always do).
Or he could have said “He has a scarf on his head and that is funny.”
Or he just could have said nothing.
Sure the joke might have some sort of negative connotation with the word Taliban. It would have been worse if he had said terrorist and it would have been better if he had said muslim, but no matter what there is a stereotype happening that has, at some point, caused some harm in this country.
So, let’s give Ryan the benefit of the doubt and say he was just making a joke and meant no harm. If we take away his ability to make a joke every now and then I’m not sure he’s got enough personality to maintain mine, or anyone else’s interest for long.
I stated this before, but either Ryan could make a joke — which would almost certainly have to make some sort of stereotype — or Ryan could say nothing at all.
Posted from: 24.126.31.137
December 29th, 2004 19:41
“THEN his argument would actually follow a syllogism:
1. all people who wear head scarves are in the Taliban
2. Bietz is wearing a head scarf
3. Therefore, Bietz is in the Taliban”
I doubt you immediately thought of the syllogism when you read what Ryan. Rather, you looked for a reason to get after Ryan. I think that makes more sense. You probaby jumped to a conclusion and SOUGHT OUT the first premise rather than taking the joke for what it was. It may have been in bad taste, but I am surprised, using your logic, we all are not yelling at Max for saying that people hate debaters because they are too critical. Frankly, thats racist against debaters because not all debaters are like that. I am offended by his streotype of debaters.
The point is the stereotype WAS harmless. It only becomes a big deal when you want it to be a big deal. I’m sure your objection is a legitimate one, but humor and sarcasm has to make fun of someone. He didn’t make a value judgement (even if it was implied), so you were the one who jumped to that judgement. I think, as Andrew pointed out, someone had to make a connection, so you built up what Ryan said in order to critique him. That’s more harmful.
Posted from: 141.156.187.114
December 30th, 2004 00:09
Saying headscarf=taliban=terrorist is clearly false, and EVERYBODY KNOWS this stereotype is completely false. Invoking that stereotype isn’t any more a means of oppression than using dumb blond jokes around me - the stereotype is so off the wall that everybody knows it’s wrong, and has changed through pop culture to merely a laughable curiosity.
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 30th, 2004 11:37
“Saying headscarf=taliban=terrorist is clearly false, and EVERYBODY KNOWS this stereotype is completely false. Invoking that stereotype isn’t any more a means of oppression than using dumb blond jokes around me - the stereotype is so off the wall that everybody knows it’s wrong, and has changed through pop culture to merely a laughable curiosity.”
Laugh it up:
“An Indian-born cabby and members of his family were beaten, cursed and told, “Get out of here, bin Laden, go back to your country or we’ll kill you,” by three bigoted bullies outside their Queens apartment, law-enforcement sources said yesterday.
The cabby - a Sikh who wears a turban - his wife and a cousin were pummeled by the trio of thugs late Sunday night until a passing pizza deliveryman interceded and sent the attackers fleeing, family members told The Post.
[…]
When the two friends saw the returning cabby’s turquoise turban, they began cursing and threatening him and got out of the cab, sources said.
The wife, a special-education teacher, said her husband tried to explain he had nothing to do with terrorism. “He said, ‘We are from India, we are not that kind of person.’ ”
(BIAS BASH OUTRAGE IN QUEENS, ALISHA BERGER, JAMIE SCHRAM and MARSHA KRANES. New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Aug 5, 2003. pg. 009)
“Or Amrik Singh Chawla, a turbaned Sikh who was chased into a subway station by a group of young men who called him a “terrorist” and threatened to kill him.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/gen.hate.crimes/index.html
“Across the country, universities have become a focal point of anger directed against Arab-American, Muslim and Southeast Asian students in response to last week’s terror attacks against the United States.
Women students have been spat at and had their traditional hijab scarves pulled off. Male students have had turbans plucked from their heads or been targeted because of their beards.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/09/21/ec.campus.backlash/index.html
“Islamic groups have said Muslim women who observe hijab — dressing modestly and covering their hair — have become targets because of their dress and what is considered an obvious association with the Muslim faith.”
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/09/20/muslim.backlash/index.html
“I was scared. I heard so many cases that people were being harassed because they were wearing hijaab. Children were pulling the hijaab off and hurting them. I thought it would be better for me and my family not to wear it,” she said.
[ . . . ]
“They would be portrayed as a terrorist if they’re wearing it – ‘Muslims who wear a hijaab - they are bad,’” Nahid said.
http://news8austin.com/content/news_8_explores/islam_post_911/?ArID=125981&SecID=473
Posted from: 68.224.140.182
December 30th, 2004 12:54
Clearly, my (and others’) “racist” comments are the cause of the anti-Muslim sentiment after 24 of them flew two planes and perpetrated the largest terrorist attack in history. Well, somebody call the police, because Peter’s discovered the cause of hate crimes:
“Now in New York: Bietz appearing as the new American Taliban in his gap scarf and sweater.
Posted by Ryan Hamilton at December 28, 2004 10:34 AM”
Hate jokes :(
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
December 30th, 2004 13:06
my last post on the subject:
1. assuming that I’m out to get Ryan and am not truly offended (but can give really legitimate reasons for why I would be offended) is based in nothing
2. Peter was not saying that Ryan’s comment is what MADE people do hate crimes but rather that it reflects the sentiment and stereotyping that is at the root of hate crimes.
I wish people would stop attempting to twist what Peter and I are saying in order to attack our persons, “win” an argument or something, etc.
We have a good point. If anyone has a valid reason as to why we misinterpreted what Ryan said (I’ll grant that his motives were not to be stereotypical, sure, but the comment he made still was), then I will take this all back. Unfortunately, I’ve already explained the clear and obvious interpretation that both Peter and I (and others) took and why we interpreted the comment that way.
AT THE VERY LEAST it is a legitimate interpretation and thus Ryan STILL should apologize for having made a commment that could lead to such an interpretation (EVEN IF he never intended for that interpretation).
It is no longer important whether or not Ryan meant to stereotype people who wear scarves; what matters is that the way he made his “harmless” joke clearly upset people (and not just irrational people out to get Mr. Hamilton, I promise).
Posted from: 64.170.195.222
December 30th, 2004 15:35
who fucking cares if it was a harmless stereotype? the point was that it WAS a stereotype, that, as Peter points out, has caused alot of damage.
Stereotyping Muslims as Terrorists is dangerous. Hugh Gusterson writes,
“Metaphorical representations of racial minority groups as criminals, women, and children assimilate the relationship between the dominate race and the minority to other hierarchies of dominance within Western culture. They use the symbolic force of existing hierarchies—police over criminals, men over women, and adults over children—to buttress and construct the hierarchy of races, telling us that, like women, children, and criminals, racial minorities have their proper place….The discourse on race legitimates this system of domination while presenting the interests of the elites as natural….At the same time, these representations discursively construct a reality of inequality as members of both the dominant and subjugated groups are taught to believe that this socialized narrative is both true and inevitable.”
Now I know that Ryan is going to call me out and say that Gusterson only talks about racial minorities, but I’m confident that his analysis applies to religious/cultural minorities as well.
Casey’s right. Ryan said something offensive. When you say something offensive, and people call you on it, the proper response is to apologize, not to try and defend your statement.
What’s more offensive to me is Ryan’s attempts to defend his statement as “ok.” He says:
and I have never denied stereotyping — that’s fine — I’m sure you do it consistently in day to day life, I’m sure everyone who has posted does it, I’m sure they make off the cuff, crude comments about this or that. That’s all I’m saying — mine was harmless.
–Well, I think Peter’s post illustrates that your stereotype really isn’t harmless. But more importantly, I am shocked that you would say that stereotyping a religious group as being Terroristic is appropriate. Ryan continues:
What’s more — this stereotype was accurate. If you can show me a picture of identifiable members of the Taliban WITHOUT a headscarf on, I’d be more than happy to admit that perhaps my awful stereotype was perhaps sketchy.
–Your logic is backwards. You’re original claim was that because he was wearing a headscarf, he looks like he’s part of the Taliban. The logic you defend now is more like “because he’s in the Taliban, he’s wearing a headscarf,” a very different claim that the one you originally made. The logic that you’re original claim endorsed is equivalent to “Because the shape is a rectangle, it’s a square.” I hope I don’t need to dissect the problem with that one for you.
Posted from: 68.104.26.169
December 30th, 2004 15:56
I think we’ve reached a fundamental disagreement between the two sides over whether or not Ryan should apologize.
I think it’s obvious that Ryan didn’t mean any harm, or even to imply that a he looked like a terrorist.
Ryan did, however, make a stereotype. However, just as much as Ryan said Taliban and was stereotyping so would he have been had he said Muslim or Arab or anything that was a group identifier.
So here’s the problem: Ryan didn’t mean to say he was a terrorist, but the stereotype(and ALL OTHERS I LISTED) has been commonly used in the U.S.A. to label people as terrorists.
So the people posting here have fallen into two camps:
1: Ryan said something that has been used as a stereotype, and although he didn’t mean anything by it, should still apologize for being insensitive/ignorant/downright assholish(ok, so that was just one person).
2: Ryan said something that has been used as a stereotype. We understand that stereotypes can be used for harm, but in this case Ryan meant no harm and actually made a funny observation on a person’s appearance. He should not apologize because he meant nothing by it.
That’s how I see it. If you want to go further and try to determine which of those sides is “right” and whether or not people should be held accountable for other people’s actions, well, you’re more than welcome to.
Posted from: 66.87.88.5
December 30th, 2004 16:55
who cares?
Posted from: 68.124.46.54
December 30th, 2004 18:26
I admit that initially I didn’t take serious notice to Ryan’s comment but I can empathize with the expressed concerns. Even if the damage doesn’t appear significant, I think Ryan and the rest of us can recognize the seriousness of the larger issues. We probably shouldn’t use the terms “nig” or “gay” - or post lame jokes that border on racist. Let’s just agree to be better people.
Posted from: 68.192.150.150
December 30th, 2004 19:50
I especially love how detractors of ryan love to quote their own babble over and over again without addressing anything that anybody else has brought up regarding the issue.
Frankly, I just want one thing to be addressed, why is something offensive when one has to go above and beyond to find that thing offensive. Stereotypes only have meaning when you give them meaning..everything else is just funny.
Plus, I love the trivialization of narratives in order to point a finger at ryan…
those people actually died asshole and ryan’s not the cause
but then again quoting cards makes everything ok
Posted from: 68.237.211.240
December 30th, 2004 20:31
This is going to be my last post on this topic too, because it’s clear that some people are going to refuse to acknowledge that the stereotyping of Muslims — or those who appear according to sometimes ignorant people as Muslim — is a common problem, and has really bad effects; I don’t think continually posting here will be be enough to change their minds.
But some issues that “anon” wants to have addressed:
“Frankly, I just want one thing to be addressed, why is something offensive when one has to go above and beyond to find that thing offensive.”
No one has to add anything to the stereotype in the original “joke.” As already discussed, it’s an implication of a straightforward reading of the joke that people who wear headscarves are in the Taliban.
Ok, so some people will find that stereotype itself offensive, and at the very least, it’s untrue.
But where we need to go “above and beyond” the actual joke is when we look at the effect that similar (or the precise) stereotypes have had: in the news the past few years, i have seen numerous reports of attacks and harrassment based on this stereotype (either specicially about the Taliban, or more generally, terrorists).
If we want to know which stereotypes are harmful (which is often how we gauge how offensive they really are), we NEED to go beyond the original context of the stereotype, and look at where the stereotype is also used.
“Stereotypes only have meaning when you give them meaning..everything else is just funny.”
I don’t think this means anything. If we know that stereotypes are used in a certain way, and the result is violence and harrassment, we should avoid them. Even if Ryan didn’t mean to use his stereotype as a justification for violence (he obviously didn’t), the stereotype is often used that way as a matter of fact; and that makes any use of the stereotype problematic (and since it’s really no big deal to avoid it, we might as well).
“Plus, I love the trivialization of narratives in order to point a finger at ryan…
those people actually died asshole and ryan’s not the cause”
I guess you mean my posting of those articles (which is wierd, because no one died in the articles I posted).
I guess you haven’t read anything that’s been posted: no one is saying that Ryan is the cause of violence; but the fact the stereotype that he uses is also used in the inner logic of some to justify violence and harrassment is important, and, some of us are trying to argue, warrant the rejection of and refusal to use that stereotype.
I only posted those articles as a brief survey of cases where the stereotype in question proved to be far from “harmless fun.”
What really trivializes those cases of violence is the refusal to accept that sometimes stereotypes aren’t just meaningless fun, but carry with them histories of use in the justifications of horrible things.
Posted from: 64.170.193.246
January 1st, 2005 11:58
I’ll just leave it at:
I agree with Peter on everything… but in response to:
“but then again quoting cards makes everything ok”
…because obviously people write these books and essays for the sole purpose of debate rounds.
Posted from: 65.29.23.139
August 11th, 2005 14:19
This is the greatest thread of all time! I think we should start an entire website where people can become-offended by absolutely everything and try to force others to apolgize. Subversive or questionable humor is OFFENSIVE so for the love of whatever you find holy–and if you are an atheist please do not be offended by my use of part of this phrase which I fully intend to be non-offensive but if someone accidentally finds it offensive I promise I will apologize and buy them flowers and chocolate bonbons but if they are allergic to chocolates I will apologize for that too and but them peanut brittle but . . .
Shit. It’s a lost cause. I’m going to go cry into my Ani Difranco liner notes and eat a vegan raw foods dinner.