Post by pim on Mar 6, 2017 9:33:58 GMT 10
The last thing I want to do is blow a religion-bashing dog whistle on the Religion Board although I feel certain that the paleo atheist trolls have already pricked up their ears and even now are running this way salivating and with tongues lolling ready to hijack the thread. I realise that this is exactly what they will do and that this will make a productive exchange impossible. Nevertheless I begin this thread because I saw a very interesting article by a Muslim academic from La Trobe University in Melbourne which I wanted to share with any passing Martian who might also find it interesting. The author of this op ed piece is Yassir Morsi who is a lecturer in critical race and political theory. Clearly he's a political scientist. I won't c&p the whole article because it's easily accessible on the ABC website from the link. So I'll just put up the headline and the link.
But before I do that I anticipate that someone (probably one of the trolls but I don't care) will challenge the fact that I post this on the Religion Board and I hope they do challenge it because it highlights one of the shortcomings of the Religion Board which is its narrow focus. From the very beginning of this Religion Board X years ago nearly all the threads could be summed up as a slanging match about the existence/non-existence of God. I agree that inevitably a Religion Board will contain threads on that topic but to the exclusion of everything else? My main point in condemning the behaviour of the Trolling Threesome is that they don't allow threads on the Religion Board to be about anything else and that has in effect destroyed the viability of the Religion Board. In my view the damage is terminal and the Trolling Threesome aren’t going anywhere. They've taken over and they regard this board as Troll Heaven. Maybe one day a new board will arise on another forum and if so I hope it's not an exclusively "Religion" Board.
I actually think that an important part of the problem of the Religion Board is the spirit in which it was set up. It was set up with a view to letting " ... the battles (between the religious devout & the non-believers) begin". So conflict is factored into the very DNA of the Religion Board. In my view that was a serious mistake and ensures that interactions on the board will always be "battles" and never "discussions". Words matter! Who is the author of that mission statement anyway? Whoever it was don't give him a role in setting up any future dedicated Religion Board!
The article I'm about to give the link to is from the "Religion and Ethics" page of the ABC website and I like that title much better because it greatly broadens the scope of the types of threads that are possible which in turn might help take some of the wind out of the sails of the paleo atheist trolls. Because let's face it their sails are very full right now! Here's the link and the headline:
Framing Racism: Why SBS's #FU2Racism Doesn't Get Race Right
Yassir Morsi ABC Religion and Ethics 3 Mar 2017; Yassir Morsi is a lecturer in critical race and political theory at La Trobe University.
Two recent Australian documentaries on racism mistook symptoms for the cause, and turned people of colour into seekers of acceptance rather than full agents in pursuit of justice.
www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/03/03/4630302.htm
I was very pleased to come across this article, having spotted the "FU2Racism" posters in bus stops and on walls around town. My first reaction when I saw "FU2Racism" with the SBS logo was to think "Excuse me?!? Fuck You to Racism? I agree with the issue of fighting racism but do public broadcasters now view as OK the use of the F word in their promotional material?" In the event it stands for "Face Up to Racism" and is supposed to be a rallying cry for "progressives". But that didn't mollify me because of the deliberate ambiguity in FU2Racism. It's taking the low road when it's not necessary. And before anyone here defends the low road ambiguity in a slogan like FU2Racism just reflect on how we all applauded at Michelle Obama's ringing phrase: "When they go low, we go high". You can't have it both ways!
But before I do that I anticipate that someone (probably one of the trolls but I don't care) will challenge the fact that I post this on the Religion Board and I hope they do challenge it because it highlights one of the shortcomings of the Religion Board which is its narrow focus. From the very beginning of this Religion Board X years ago nearly all the threads could be summed up as a slanging match about the existence/non-existence of God. I agree that inevitably a Religion Board will contain threads on that topic but to the exclusion of everything else? My main point in condemning the behaviour of the Trolling Threesome is that they don't allow threads on the Religion Board to be about anything else and that has in effect destroyed the viability of the Religion Board. In my view the damage is terminal and the Trolling Threesome aren’t going anywhere. They've taken over and they regard this board as Troll Heaven. Maybe one day a new board will arise on another forum and if so I hope it's not an exclusively "Religion" Board.
I actually think that an important part of the problem of the Religion Board is the spirit in which it was set up. It was set up with a view to letting " ... the battles (between the religious devout & the non-believers) begin". So conflict is factored into the very DNA of the Religion Board. In my view that was a serious mistake and ensures that interactions on the board will always be "battles" and never "discussions". Words matter! Who is the author of that mission statement anyway? Whoever it was don't give him a role in setting up any future dedicated Religion Board!
The article I'm about to give the link to is from the "Religion and Ethics" page of the ABC website and I like that title much better because it greatly broadens the scope of the types of threads that are possible which in turn might help take some of the wind out of the sails of the paleo atheist trolls. Because let's face it their sails are very full right now! Here's the link and the headline:
Framing Racism: Why SBS's #FU2Racism Doesn't Get Race Right
Yassir Morsi ABC Religion and Ethics 3 Mar 2017; Yassir Morsi is a lecturer in critical race and political theory at La Trobe University.
Two recent Australian documentaries on racism mistook symptoms for the cause, and turned people of colour into seekers of acceptance rather than full agents in pursuit of justice.
www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/03/03/4630302.htm
I was very pleased to come across this article, having spotted the "FU2Racism" posters in bus stops and on walls around town. My first reaction when I saw "FU2Racism" with the SBS logo was to think "Excuse me?!? Fuck You to Racism? I agree with the issue of fighting racism but do public broadcasters now view as OK the use of the F word in their promotional material?" In the event it stands for "Face Up to Racism" and is supposed to be a rallying cry for "progressives". But that didn't mollify me because of the deliberate ambiguity in FU2Racism. It's taking the low road when it's not necessary. And before anyone here defends the low road ambiguity in a slogan like FU2Racism just reflect on how we all applauded at Michelle Obama's ringing phrase: "When they go low, we go high". You can't have it both ways!
