Xenophobe

[Truth Detector]

I think wanting more of any nationality is short sighted.

There are lots of Americans I wouldn't ever want to see race.

Why not ask for SPECIFIC drivers, if that's what you want. A field full of Ed Carpenters isn't going to sell anybody squat.

I promise you, if anybody could find 20 Americans that you'd have zero interest in watching race, it is the Izod IndyCar Series!



So skip asking for more Americans... ask for what you want by name... or else admit you really haven't thought much about it.

I think your suggestion is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Your ideas and thoughts appear to be completely devoid of intelligence and suggest that your parents were never married.*














There, see? I didn't have to resort to name calling.



* Just kidding to make a point.

[SoundMan360]

There is definitely an art to the TF insult game.

I come from a more direct place, I guess.

Got it FencePost?

[Truth Detector]

There is definitely an art to the TF insult game.

I come from a more direct place, I guess.

Got it FencePost?

[FTHurley]

I think your first sentence is not what you intended it to be.

The bolded part is what differentiates you from some of the others.

1.) Yes, a typo.
2.) Understood.

I will say that this particular knife cuts both ways. Too many people take criticism of their argument as a personal criticism, just as too many people assume malicious intent behind any argument that gets made.

[Truth Detector]

True. That's what makes the internet so lame/entertaining.

[doitagain]

Calling somebody a xenophobe or a chauvinist is name-calling.

How is it not?

Calling someone a xenophobe could be - but pointing out that their behavior could be interpreted as xenophobic is not.

This is exactly the same as we have treated the term "racist" here.

I'm talking about what you call a person.

Right - calling someone a xenophobe is wrong - well, 99% of the time, I'd say.

Pointing out that a behavior or comment could be xenophobic (or racist, or communist, or lberal, or progressive, or patriotic, or nationalistic, or a result of a basic human nature) - is not.

It's definitely overused. And abused

We banned r e d n e c k because it was purely pejorative. Isn't "xenophobe" a different case?

[window]

I do consider other extremely nationalistic people to be xenophobic, regardless of the group to which they're so devoted.

I used to REALLY dislike it when the Brazilians used to take over a whole section at the LBGP. And wave their flags. And gees if Helio or Emmo (or those other guys) won. But I got over it. Were they xenophobic? Or just jingoistic........../

[cpthornman]

Calling someone a xenophobe could be - but pointing out that their behavior could be interpreted as xenophobic is not.
Pointing out that a behavior or comment could be xenophobic (or racist, or communist, or lberal, or progressive, or patriotic, or nationalistic, or a result of a basic human nature) - is not.

And that is exactly how I used the word.

Here is the post in which I introduced the word in the topic:

According to Paff though they wouldn't have been as popular as an American doing the same.
For some reason he has this notion that everyone thinks like a xenophobe in this country.

[cpthornman]

Too many people take criticism of their argument as a personal criticism, just as too many people assume malicious intent behind any argument that gets made.

You couldn't be more right.

[hdolan]

I've been called both a homophobe and a xenophobe...I have no fear of either homosexuals or folks of foreign origin...I've also been called a racist...no need to go there again as my Grandson Emiliano can attest...of course, some folks here make accusations about me that they seem to have extreme difficulty in supporting with facts...then there is curmudgeon or r edn eck...considering those are generally used in absence of factual support to dismantle my position I wear the Titles with glee...

The latest, on this forum, is '..pompous know-it-all jerk...' evidently that is acceptable as it is in the same thread that DIA is trying so hard to demonstrate a point...

[Sleepcheap]

It shouldn't be - but that doesn't mean that the word would be banned. It accurately describes an actual behavior. It's not like "pussy" or "d-bag" or other, similarly pointless taunts.

I doubt many here are true xenophobes, but obviosuly some have comments or arguments that can be described as being more (or less) xenophobic than others.

There is probably a better term to use, in most cases. What would it be?

Furrindriverphobe?

[RS2]

.I have no fear of either homosexuals or folks of foreign origin....

If you have no fear of them then it seems you simply do not like them. For on this forum you have advocated shooting those who illegally cross the southern border in the back. You have also on these boards many times said that nuking large cities in the middle east would be just fine. Just to cut off the head as you put it.

[Ren Butler]

For on this forum you have advocated shooting those who illegally cross the southern border in the back.

And how does he believe foreigners should be treated when they enter the country legally?

For your supposition to be even a little fair, you must know the answer to that question. So, what did he say about that issue?

[RS2]

And how does he believe foreigners should be treated when they enter the country legally?

For your supposition to be even a little fair, you must know the answer to that question. So, what did he say about that issue?

After somebody goes on a public forum and says such a thing, it does not matter anything else what he has to say. To say publically say to a group of strangers that somebody should be murdered for crossing a border or just because they live in a Muslim country really shows what kind of person that must be behind the keyboard.

[Ren Butler]

To say publically say to a group of strangers that somebody should be murdered for crossing a border...

You see, you focused on the "foreigner" and completely dismissed the "illegal" in a weak effort to make your point and paint him in the worst possible light. That's so typical of people who throw around these types of allegations with so little care and self-control.

Now, his solution sounds completely irrational to me. But making the leap to allegations of xenophobia is your failure, not his.

You have to ask yourself whether you did that intentionally, or only subconsciously. Discovering the answer after honest introspection, you will learn a LOT about your own flaws and issues. Maybe you should deal with that before you worry so much about others.

[RS2]

You see, you focused on the "foreigner" and completely dismissed the "illegal" in a weak effort to make your point and paint him in the worst possible light.

Now, his solution sounds completely irrational to me. But making the leap to allegations of xenophobia is your failure, not his.

You have to ask yourself whether you did that intentionally, or only subconsciously. Discovering the answer after honest introspection, you will learn a LOT about your own flaws and issues. Maybe you should deal with that before you worry so much about others.

What? so somebody should get the death penalty for illegally crossing a border. You would have loved East Germany. And how can you be illegally crossing a border if you are not a foreigner?

[Ren Butler]

What? so somebody should get the daeth penalty for illegally crossing a border. You would have loved East Germany.

Are you seriously that blind?

WHAT I, REN, ACTUALLY SAID:

Now, his solution sounds completely irrational to me

Please actually read my posts before you respond to them. Otherwise, you're wasting both of our time.

That's two people whom you have directly and brutally misrepresented in the course of 15 minutes. Do you still expect us to listen to your judgment about the character of others after that kind of serious blunder?

[Ren Butler]

And how can you be illegally crossing a border if you are not a foreigner?

Now, you're asking a completely irrelevant question there.

The point is that foreigners can cross legally. If he doesn't have a problem with that, then he's not a xenophobe.

Got it?

[RS2]

Well I did not get past you first sentence with you saying I am focused on the foreigner and not the illegal. We are talking about somebody being killed and you write something so looney? I do not think it is me who is wasting time.

[Ren Butler]

Well I did not get past you first sentence with you saying I am focused on the foreigner and not the illegal. We are talking about somebody being killed and you write something so looney? I do not think it is me who is wasting time.

Wait, you didn't give me the respect of reading my entire, short post, and now you're saying that what I wrote was "looney?" Who does that? What kind of person responds like you just did?

I guess we're led to believe that maybe you didn't get past dolan's first sentence before you started assassinating his character. See the problem?

Now, regarding what you're calling looney: You're mistakenly focusing on the opposite of "foreigner" (non-foreigner) instead of the opposite of the key word "illegally" (legally) -- the word I specifically italicized because it was the key to my statement. I already explained how you wrongly flipped the question back at me:

The point is that foreigners can [also] cross legally. If he doesn't have a problem with that, then he's not a xenophobe.

Got it?

All I ask is that you learn from this lesson. We've all thrown around stupid comments and unwarranted allegations at one time or another. The key is to stop pushing the issue after somebody rightfully corrects us. It takes a big person to admit that he or she has spoken rashly and inappropriately. Do it. It doesn't even have to be public; just promise yourself that you'll do it. Sadly, I've had to do it more than once. But I did it.

[SoundMan360]

And how does he believe foreigners should be treated when they enter the country legally?

Wow.... I don't really think you meant to say this....

[doitagain]

I think he did. What's wrong with it?

Seems to be a lot of miscommunication going on here, and if I had to assume, it appears to be on behalf of prejudiced readers.

[SoundMan360]

Seriously?

Ignoring the "shooting" part, while later chiding the poster for ignoring the "illegal" part... that seems rational to you?

Does this read like a civil conversation to you? To me it's a great example of the type of behavior that shouldn't be tolerated here.

"it's how you say it"... right?

When a poster is telling another that they need to delve into their subconscious to express an opinion about Howard's comments, we've left the realm of pleasant conversation.

"prejudiced readers".... awesome....

[Ren Butler]

I think DIA and I are still missing your point.

I didn't ignore the "shooting" part at all. I said -- TWICE -- that it was irrational. To be more explicit, murder is one of the most significant sins in the eyes of Catholics like me. It's a brutal, heinous affront against God. Is that good enough for you?

Now, my question stands. How does he feel about foreigners in general? Does he welcome them legally to our country? Does he support a reasonable, legal path to citizenship? I'm sure he meets a lot of them, living in Texas; does he treat them with respect?

Those are the kinds of questions one must ask before branding somebody a "xenophobe." His comment about shooting illegals is unnecessarily extreme, but you must take illegality COMPLETELY OUT OF THE EQUATION to determine his real motives. Instead of assuming we know something based on limited information, when are people going to talk, and ask, and make an effort to really understand each other?

Any attempt to find controversy in these question is -- well, just an attempt to drum up controversy.



PS: Dolan might be a xenophobe. I have no idea. No better idea than I have about DIA, or SM, or RS2. But there's no way in hell I'm going to start hurling those types of slurs around without knowing a lot more about any of you.

Far be it from me to defend Dolan -- and that's NOT my point. I'm rejecting the nonsense that people so dangerously sling at each other. Our words have just as much danger of injuring as Dolan's.

The accuser in these cases very often ends up being the more loathsome person than the accused.

[SoundMan360]

some people would stop at "irrational".

I think you owe RS2 an apology.

[doitagain]

Seriously?

Ignoring the "shooting" part, while later chiding the poster for ignoring the "illegal" part... that seems rational to you?

Does this read like a civil conversation to you? To me it's a great example of the type of behavior that shouldn't be tolerated here.

"it's how you say it"... right?

When a poster is telling another that they need to delve into their subconscious to express an opinion about Howard's comments, we've left the realm of pleasant conversation.

"prejudiced readers".... awesome....

You're trying to say that any of us condone hdolan's comments, which is untrue. We're just being accurate. Violence, admittedly, pales the distinctions by comparison, but that's where the dialog went.

[doitagain]

some people would stop at "irrational".

I think you owe RS2 an apology.

For what?

He's the one who misunderstood what was plainly being said, and further tried to assign false accusations to others.

[Ren Butler]

some people would stop at "irrational".

But then again, some people, like me, want to understand the whole picture.

A lot of people here owe a lot of people apologies. But I sense that it's not going to happen.

I can't believe that my pleas for people to try harder to understand and hear each other are being so roundly rejected by a few. Well, it's the Interwebs, so I'm not that surprised...

[doitagain]

I'm going to close this so people can re-read and catch up.