Originally Posted by Search
There's two things going on here, in this portion of your response. One is that people in general hold highly intelligent people in high regard and give them the benefit of the doubt when they don't necessarily deserve it, and they don't have to be asked to do so. I'll buy that, I can agree with that without any reservation. The other thing though, is that highly intelligent and well-educated people generally believe themselves to be automatically exempt from any suspicion of prejudice. I do acknowledge that some of this exists, but I think it depends on the person and the situation. For one thing, it depends rather a lot on whether the person in question has gone through any meaningful interaction with the topic in a way that challenges them at all. From some of what I've seen personally and from a few things I've heard, there are quite a lot of people who go through life without being challenged or tested on this sort of topic in any meaningful way, so they think of themselves a pretty much okay even though they haven't put in any real work. For those who have been challenged and who have put in some work though, I think they're generally aware of what really matters, and this particular kind of person usually- although not always- try to produce something useful that is of value, and then argue for its value based on some real rationale instead of thinking that praise is going to be handed to them.
Putting tremendous time and effort into whatever a person produces does not mean that it is a worthy product.
This might not exactly relate to what I'm actually talking about. Maybe a little bit, like a tiny piece from the edge of your examples will just barely be relevant, but what's coming up here is not your strongest performance.
For example, right now, one of my female friends knows a man in Silicon Valley who quit his job to work on a startup that will include being able to play hide and seek geographically within an area. I don't think that's a worthy product, but I'm sure it will have buyers. There's a buyer for everything.
There isn't really a moral component to this, it's more of a good idea/bad idea scenario in the sense of what the free market will reward. I don't think I'm getting anything out of this example, but it's okay, one throwaway example is all right.
I'd also, for example, read a story about a man in California whose restaurant offers different types of water that have been collected from over the world and have different tastes, and that water is expensive in his restaurant; he'd done a lot of his research and spent much time actually investing and developing this type of availability for water in his restaurant; however, I still don't think it's a worthy product. I'm fine with the water that comes out of the filter in my fridge.
This is kind of the same thing. There's very little about either of these examples that really tracks at all. Hard work doesn't necessarily lead to success, okay that's fine. But do you know what happens when a guy with a startup, or a man in California with a business idea, try to get something going and then they fail? They will generally take advantage of some part of US bankruptcy law and start again. And on average, anyone in this line of work will not be able to achieve long-term financial success with one of these ideas until their third attempt or so. Everyone who goes through these sorts of things says they learn as much, or more, from their failures than they do from their successes. So let's say both of the men in these examples fail spectacularly; that's to be expected sometimes. It happens quite a lot, actually. Something about the idea, or the business model, or its execution. There's a lot of ways this can go wrong. But most people who are serious about this sort of thing will learn from their mistakes, start again and do better.
If there's any way in which this can relate to highly intelligent people who talk about sensitive yet important subject matter (including a wide range of people that you will call Islamophobes with or without good reason to do so), it is this. If they do screw up, they'll take some heat for it, they'll usually have something they can learn from it, and then they'll come back to the topic in a way that's different and better. If you are looking carefully at what someone's doing and they truly are not able to evolve in any discernible way, that might be a good reason to question if this person is truly a highly intelligent person.
I'm sure no one likes being told they are prejudiced; however, prejudice is prejudice, and I can't say I believe the calling out of a person who is prejudiced as prejudiced is something that should be avoided; in fact, I believe the quite opposite.
Ah, prejudice is prejudice. I just love tautologies. Prejudice, as far as I can tell, is defined as a preconceived notion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Of course it's valuable to point out Actual prejudice....if I may though, it's possible that you may have a bit of prejudice yourself. Specifically, against any non-Muslim who says something the least bit critical about Islam. I can tell you really enjoy throwing the Islamophobe term around, but your enjoyment is not a valid reason to bring it out. I'm not sure how much you agree with this sentiment, but I believe most intelligent people are willing to evolve their arguments if there is criticism that can be used in any sort of constructive way. From your end, you should focus on providing criticism that is actually of some value. I'm not sure if you're up to the task, but that is what you should be focused on.
Do keep in mind what the actual definition of prejudice is. Preconceived notion. Not based on reason or actual experience.
I have. I'm familiar with this.
To be honest, I was trying to be diplomatic. If you really want me to be honest and frank, I would tell you that I do in my mind characterize you often as an Islamophobic person; what I'd hoped when I'd pointed to you that you might have some Islamophobic attitudes is that you'd take some time to reflect on what I'd said instead on what those Islamophobic attitudes might be. However, you seem to eschew any type of introspection.
I think I'm okay with the introspection. I don't think you're very good at it though, and I don't think you're the best judge of how valuable your criticism is. On this particular topic, I think we could have reached a point of clarity, but I don't believe you've properly acknowledged the key points in what's come back to you in the course of this discussion.
Here, let me explain it to you. You brought up an example of something I said once, which you felt was Islamophobic. I'm assuming it was either the best example you could come up with, or the best of the readily available examples that you had on hand. In the course of explaining yourself, it became clear that you felt I was implying that Muslims can't handle TV shows that have supernatural themes.
Then I explained to you that I don't believe any such thing, I didn't say that and I didn't mean to imply it. This is something that you could stand to acknowledge at some point- you attempted to summarize and extrapolate on what I had said, you got it all wrong, and now you can get it right. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I can't be very sure that you want to get this right. I then explained what I actually meant. There was a particular series of things that were portrayed only in the last couple of episodes, at the back end of the 11th season of this show, which seem like they could trigger violence under the right circumstances. Based on plenty of evidence, and on the actual experience that people sometimes have with this sort of backlash, I reasoned that this could fit in with an established pattern. This line of reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the initially wrong interpretation that you took away from this, but despite all this you're basically saying Nah, you're still an Islamophobe. You just feel as if I am. This appears to be, quite literally, the only basis for your reasoning.
So take this opportunity to reason through this properly, or that is the type of conclusion that I'll be left with in the end.
For example, you said you'd failed that Implicit Bias Race IAT test and you felt bad and then got over it - well, I'm not surprised that that's what happened. By the way, the point of such tests I think is not to make you feel bad about yourself but to challenge you on discovering your unconscious biases that you might have developed and to change them if possible or at least become conscious in regards to these biases. Clearly, that's probably an unwise and probably impractical expectation in regards to some persons.
Unconscious bias isn't the same thing as prejudice or racism, this is something that's been widely acknowledged in academic material related to the study. The test is good for something- it allows me and just about everyone else to acknowledge and begin to explore some of the unconscious biases that do exist, then we know they're there and we're in a better position to check ourselves in the event that they might have some real world impact. I don't plan to retake the test on any kind of regular basis, but I might get back to it every once in awhile. I don't really expect to do all that much better with it though; for most people it seems to be fairly impossible.
For the purposes of why I in mind often characterize you as an Islamophobic person, let me refer to some characteristics of Islamophobia that were presented in a Runnymede Trust Report in 1991
- Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
- Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
- Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.
- It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
- Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
- Islam is a violent political ideology.
That's interesting. Good source.
So, an atheist when I'd become interested in Islam, I actually used to spend hours researching anti-Muslim sites and Islamophobic sites all the time while I was also learning about Islam from proper sources. So, what I found is that much of what is said about Islam is definitely never representative of either the religion or its adherents as whole, but the broadbrush and stereotypes and cherry-picking and quoting of various scholars whom most Muslims would probably never have even have heard has been useful to Islamophobic pundits to paint the picture that would develop an appetite and negative obsession with Islam and is embodied in attitudes as described above in the 1991 Report.
Hm. And after all this, you decided to become a Muslim. That's not usually how it goes.
So, yes, I'd say I obviously disagree with you and probably will keep on disagreeing with you.
You need some better reasons for doing so. And you also need to do a better job of assessing exactly what it is I'm saying, then make the appropriate adjustments in the event that you're completely wrong. Which, in this particular example, you spectacularly were. But no, don't acknowledge that, you're just going to keep on disagreeing.
No, I don't remember that. And I would ask you to quote me the post
in which I'd said such things because frankly I either think you're mixing me up with another person or attributing things to me which I've clearly never said for reasons on which I do not wish to speculate.
I did look for it, but I haven't been able to find the thread so far. It seems to have been a discursive tangent in the middle of a thread that didn't start out on that topic. I might find it later, but no luck so far. I have a feeling you may be right though, I probably mixed you up with another person.
Please note IB is not the first Muslim forum of which I've been part; there was a Muslim forum of which I'd been part and I've always maintained that extrajudicial violence is not the answer and also that Muslims should not use any said offense to create havoc. This has probably been a sticking point between and some Muslims whom I personally would be inclined to term either extremist or literalist that have consistently disagreed with me on this subject.
That is one of the nice things about you.
Yes, I do note your examples and I fail to see why they are representative of Islam or Muslims to you and how that justifies your throwaway remarks of only one example I'd given you; however, I am sure I could find more if I browsed your previous posts.
I didn't say it was representative of Islam or Muslims. I neither stated nor implied that Islam can be held responsible for this, and as I'm sure you've noticed, I have been known to say it very clearly when I think that's appropriate. All I said was that certain specific material in a couple of episodes, which I have described, seems like the sort of material that could trigger violence in certain Muslim communities. Is that true? Yes it is. Moving on.
Oh, no wait, I don't think we can move on yet. First we need to clarify whether this is representative of Islam. No it's not, it just happens to be something that can quite plausibly happen within some Islamic communities. Does that make the original assertion any less accurate? No it does not.
You're missing the point. The reason I'd pointed out a particular instance of what I felt was an example of an Islamophobic remark is not that you could justify to me why you think some Muslims somewhere have "triggers" but so you could see you have a bias in regards to how you think about Muslims outside of America.
Wow, this is just unbelievable. You pointed out an example and gave an explanation, but not in order to invite a dialogue, or a back and forth of any kind, you just wanted to show me my bias and accept my apology. You simply wanted to show me my prejudice and get me to admit that my opinions of Islam are preconceived and not based on reason or actual experience.
But then I show you exactly where your conclusions and extrapolations of what I said were wrong, and you've got nothing for me. You didn't want to hear that. Well, you'd better change you mind, because that's not how this works and that's not what is happening. I'm showing you that in this particular example, it's an accurate assessment that is fairly well reasoned, and now it's time for you to start being more reasonable than you had originally planned. If you can't do that, maybe you don't need to reply to this at all.
Tangentially, however, I'd like to mention that many Muslim countries whom you're pointing fingers at are actually third world countries and violence is a hub at any place of illiteracy;
That's a fair point, I don't usually see illiteracy placed at the center of focus but I suppose that could be well supported. That makes sense.
the fact that you think that violence is definitely from Islam
I did not say that. Understand this. Learn.
When I do hold Islam accountable, I make it pretty clear. I say things like "Islam, qua Islam" (you know exactly what that means). I use phrases like "held accountable" where Islam is concerned. I didn't do any of that with this particular thing. The only thing I said was that a certain outcome could plausibly happen in such a place, and that is true. The reasons you're giving are perfectly good, but you're not refuting anything that I have explicitly stated or obviously implied.
And conservatism is the consequence of illiteracy in those countries. For example, I notice that in Pakistan when Innocence of Muslims
had been released there had been vandalism and other things that are not from any teachings of mainstream Islam.
Okay, not a consequence of mainstream Islam....but getting back to the thing I said which you originally brought up, all I said was there are certain places where this sort of thing can happen. And that is true.
Not only that, these countries have consistently had a negative view of the West because of the things that the West does such as invasion, puppet government setups, drone strikes, proxy wars, and behind-the-scenes intervention, and also because the media in their countries demonizes the West;
This is a really wonderful example of "last but not least" in action.
I have already explained very clearly to you that you are justifying your attitude or beliefs about Muslim violence
Not exactly. I'm clarifying what I was saying in the first place, and telling you which things you are very clearly wrong in attributing to me. What we are left with is this: I identified a particular thing that seems like it could trigger violence. I also stated that there are some Muslim communities in which the conditions would be just about right in order for this thing to plausibly trigger a violent reaction. This is an accurate assessment of something real.
The potential trigger in question was not supernatural-themed TV shows in general. It was a particular series of potentially-offensive things that I have described repeatedly, in detail, so now you know.
Also, I neither stated nor implied that this is characteristic of mainstream Islam or a result of Islam qua Islam. I merely stated that there are places in this world where this is a thing. You've brought up illiteracy as a potential cause of ultra-conservatism and this type of violence, and that sounds good to me. Good call. I neither stated nor implied anything that would suggest a different conclusion.
and your remark was Islamophobic whether you like to see the words as such or not.
Your inability to properly engage with me does not have any real bearing on whether the remark is Islamophobic or not. You've brought up some very good points, but in other ways you're quite useless.
I'm sorry, but that's just how I perceive the words still;
I sincerely doubt that you feel any contrition in the slightest.
and I really don't think you've managed to acquit yourself by explaining to me why you think as you think.
I think I explained myself quite well. And you didn't really do anything with the follow-up that I gave you.
I disagree with that; and the reason is because you're again assuming that such material is not known or material to which Muslims in other countries are not exposed. This is of course not true. You have to realize that the intent as a matter of perception matters a lot. The supernatural show I'm sure you're talking about is probably somewhere on a satellite in Pakistan being broadcasted and there is no reaction because the Muslims would not probably perceive it as a slight against Islam, not to mention that the show being in English already narrows the audience who'll be able to watch and understand the show.
Think about this for a second. The average audience for this show within the US and Canada has averaged between 2.5 and 4 million viewers, depending on the season. Adjusting for DVR viewing and people who catch up within the next few weeks via the Internet (the CW has been making each episode available on their website after it airs, with ads of course), you can inflate those numbers by 30% or so. Which puts us at something like 5, maybe 6 million people in the Western Hemisphere that we can reasonably expect to be following this show from season to season. Now keep in mind, I've already told you that I really think just about any Muslim (outside of Iran and Saudi Arabia) could be expected to enjoy nearly 11 seasons of this show without any problems, but then right toward the end of season 11 we have this enormous development in the plot.
How many people in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia do you honestly think are following this show like that? How many do you think are even following the show in a cursory manner, to a point where they would be at all aware of what happened in the story and understand the general implications for the show as a whole? I'm going to guess a rather small number. Less than six figures, for sure. Less than five figures? Probably. Four figures? That's looking more likely.
Here's something that I think of as an appropriate analogy. Soccer (or as the rest of the world calls it, football) is not the most popular sport in North America. Yes there is some appetite for the sport, but it's rather selective. Viewership for soccer that's played in the US ranks behind two leagues from other countries that are higher quality. But if you really look at it just in terms of how much soccer is available to be watched, it's quite a lot. Especially if you have beIN Sports, along with the family of ESPN channels, FS1 and FS2....you can cover a lot of ground just with those, from England to Spain, Germany and Italy and France, Mexico too of course. Granted, there's one or two games on a good weekend where your viewership is going to crack a million (unless there's a really important tournament), but if you really put together a whole list, you might be looking at 35 to 40 different games that are televised on some tier of a satellite package. And almost all of those games are drawing less than 100,000 viewers, most of them way less than that.
When it comes to this show and the particular episodes in question, I would estimate that it's roughly analogous to an Empoli vs. Palermo football match being broadcast on beIN Sports. If you're not familiar with those teams or with the number of viewers that could be expected, neither are a lot of Americans, and that number's going to be somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand people. So, while acknowledging that it airs in such a way that it's available to way more people than that, this is going to be my estimate. Where this specific show and this specific episode is concerned, I'd estimate that among Muslims outside the Anglosphere, something like 5 to 10 thousand people saw this and were in a position to contextualize it in a way that made sense for what the show is. And I'd probably lean more in the direction of 5 thousand, I might even be willing to go lower than that.
Does that mean this material is relatively unknown, and that the vast majority of Muslims outside the Anglosphere don't know the first thing about it? Yes, that's what it means. Let me put it to you this way- right as Season 5 was about to start, there was a buildup to a major plot point that involved Lucifer. One of the stars of the show went on Twitter and, with the help of his Twitter followers and other fans of the show, was briefly able to get a Lucifer Is Coming type of hashtag to trend on Twitter. A handful of Supernatural fans saw this and were pleased. But the vast majority of people on Twitter had no idea what that was about, and some of them hit back with a God Is Already Here hashtag, enough for that to also trend. One of the people behind that, incidentally, was P Diddy. Because of that, the actor who put the Lucifer thing out there in the first place tried to get something else to trend, specifically #PDiddyIsAfraidOfHisTV. But by that point, Twitter shut the whole thing down and wasn't allowing any of these things to trend anymore.
That's how it happened in the Anglosphere. Even under the most favorable circumstances, and despite the fact that it's quite a good show and it's enjoyed the longest run for any show of this genre, it's got a niche following and it hasn't ever made big waves in the broader spectrum of pop culture. You look at shows like Friends, Seinfeld, Big Bang Theory, these are shows that can make the actual news, they can draw an audience over 20 million if something huge is happening, the characters and the people who play them are in the public's awareness in a bigger way than just the show. None of that is true of this show. I think it's pretty good, and I'm a part of the niche following, but this is what it is. Empoli vs. Palermo. Maybe 5,000 Muslims, outside the Anglosphere, will ever see this. Out of literally a billion and then some. That is the type of market penetration I am putting out there as my estimate.
You say quite a lot of people have seen this and are not bothered by it. I disagree. I think hardly anyone has seen this (within the parameters we're talking about), and I think that's the exact reason why no one has become upset.
No, actually, let's talk about the number 39 being supposedly offensive to Muslims. I have no idea where you are reading such rubbish.
Heh, that actually comes from Pakistan, if I'm remembering correctly. It seems to be a rather recent thing too, I remember seeing this story where a cab driver happened to have Cab 39, and now no one wants to ride in his cap. Random kids are even making fun of him.
Oh, okay, I finally found something about the origins of that. It originates in Afghanistan, although it seems to have spread more recently to Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_39
How about that, illiteracy and its role in the spread of rumors is mentioned here.
This seems like some cultural superstition to me and has absolutely zero scriptural basis in either the Quran or the Sunnah (prophetic tradition)
Yeah, you're absolutely correct. It also happens to be a cultural superstition that exists in just a couple of very-nearly exclusively Muslim communities. That's a fair description of the people who are going on about this, and it's a rather odd thing that some Muslims are doing. Not all Muslims, and not because of their religion, but it does happen to be just a certain group of Muslims and no one else.
I didn't know what it was that these South Asian Muslims were doing (and no, South Asia did not make them do it either, and I don't think it was written in their DNA). I said I didn't know what it was from the outset, but now I do. It's good to learn something new, and it's even more fun to do so while doubly and triply reassuring you that I am not implying something that I had very obviously not set out to imply to begin with.
Anyway, the point is that if Muslims have certain triggers, then you do too, and your trigger is Muslim violence. Am I right?
If Muslims have certain triggers, then that does not automatically mean I have triggers. I only have triggers if I actually have triggers. I think you're Search-ing for an opportunity to make a prejudicial statement, one which is not based on reason or actual experience.
Yes, I disagree and I've already explained above WHY.
Hm. Interesting. For the sake of full context, I posited that triggers predictably exist and can be identified as they pertain to certain Islamic societies. I asked if you disagree. You say Yes you disagree. And your idea of a thoughtful response is "Well if we have triggers, so do you."
What am I implying there? See, right there, I actually am implying something. This would be an acceptable place for you to draw some conclusions as to what I might be implying.
You do know that in Pakistan there is a craze for Indian television shows and movies, right? Sanjay Khan is an Indian Muslim producer of many Hindu religion-based shows about Hindu gods and goddesses like Jai Hanuman
Mm-Hmm. Okay. What about Allah? Any depictions of Allah going on there? How about Mohammed, is he a popular depiction? This is the sort of thing we're actually talking about, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by talking about things that are fundamentally different.
You do know that in the TV show Supernatural, a wide variety of Hindu gods and goddesses make an appearance or two in some episodes. Right? Just about every type of religion and/or mythology makes an appearance of some sort, we are talking about 11 seasons of material after all. And each season is generally 23 or 24 episodes, with 42 minutes of air time to fill. And yet it wasn't until God, the creator of the universe, made an on-camera appearance as God that I eventually started to think this particular portrayal might be deeply offensive to Muslims.
These shows were aired in Pakistan because Indian mainstream channels like Zee TV and Sony TV were watched there as well. Muslims, however, believe that God is One, not gods or goddesses, and there wasn't any kind of violence because these shows were just seen as representation of the Hindu paganism and not about Allah.
Very good, you've identified some things that are not triggers, and no one really thought they would be. At some point, would you be interested in returning to the topic of things that might, could, actually, be, triggers of violence? Maybe we could talk about some of the deeply offensive things that have, actually, in reality, been the very obvious triggers of Islamic violence. Do you want to select a few of those examples for me? Then maybe you'll be able to show me why this other thing I picked out does Not fall in that category. What makes it Different from the things that obviously Do trigger Islamic violence, or is it really quite similar to those things after all?
Go ahead, find some examples that you'd like to show me.
in my opinion are Khawarij
. While Muslims scholars are agreed by a consensus that Daesh are not a Caliphate and wrong to perpetrate terrorism in the name of Islam and are an enemy to Muslims, they have differed on whether Daesh are Muslims or not. Some have said that Daesh
; others have said that they are Khwaraij
while some others have said they are deviants. But I think that's a separate thread.
That's because you're making the wrong searches. However, I'm not going to here talk about the kinds of searches which would yield you the results about what is said about Islamophobia being not real. By the way, a number of famous figures in both liberal and right-wing circles have maintained this denial and they're not hard to find on Google if you know for whom and what you're looking.
I find it rather odd that I was able to find a couple of people who are very fringe, people that no one's ever heard of, but you're familiar with famous people who maintain this denial. Did they actually deny it, or do you believe they implied it? This is an important distinction, because I already know you're not very good at discerning what someone is truly implying once you've labeled them an Islamophobe. For all practical intents and purposes, when you (personally, just you) label someone that way, it seems like you give yourself permission to make up whatever you want about them and put words in their mouth as you see fit. It's quite dishonest, and if you were a bit closer to the deen, you'd see fit to exercise a bit more honesty.
I think you have a lot of negative assumptions about Muslims and Islam, and I think it may take us up to eternity to go through all of them and even then I don't know if we'll ever reach some kind of agreement.
It really would take forever, because when the words "Islamophobe" and "implication" get anywhere near each other in your mind, you just start making things up.
See, right there, I'm implying that my "negative assumptions" are a product of your imagination, and even as I'm telling you this you're refusing to listen because you still think of me as an Islamophobe. The part of your brain that handles critical thinking, and really should be taking my actual words into consideration right now, is scrubbing my actual contributions clean and then you replace it with whatever you want. Oh look, he said that visually depicting Allah in a negative way would be especially offensive to Muslims....he must be saying Muslims can't handle any kind of TV show in general. That's what you do.
So stop it and pay attention.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. There is no "Islamic state" as I actually or other Muslims understand it. And Daesh
is the only one who's claiming to be have an "Islamic State" and they have been rejected wholesale by Muslims all over the world.
"An Islamic state" is a term that's been in use since before the existence of Daesh, and it will continue to be in use once they're gone. It refers to any state in which the government is primarily based on the application of Sharia, so it might be an Islamic republic like with Pakistan or Afghanistan, or an Islamic kingdom, or....well, here's a map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...slam_World.svg
For the more specific term referencing the apocalyptic hate group in the Levant, find your way to the disambiguation link.
Besides, I've already explained violence in Islamic societies above in terms of the triggers you felt existed.
Okay, let me get this straight. Certain groups of people become predictably enraged and violent due to real or perceived offenses to their religious beliefs. But the main reason that they lose control is because they're mostly illiterate, and they also have legitimate grievances that have to do with US foreign policy, after all these things don't happen in a vacuum. And that means....triggers leading to violence don't exist?
When you form these ideas, do you ever say them out loud before you put them out there on the Internet? You have actually done exactly nothing that would demonstrate the non-existence of these triggers, which very obviously do exist. I have conceded the point that Islam is not the root cause of what happens, please notice that and also acknowledge that this thing does happen.
IB is a moderate forum; you're not going to have these triggers here from I understand of the members here. However, if you want to do a social experiment here to identify whether that is true or not, you're free to be my guest and do so as I couldn't care less to be honest one way or another.
Okay, I'll think about it.
By the way, you've utterly failed to prove that you don't have some Islamophobic attitudes, and I don't think it would be fruitful to converse further on this subject.
That's too bad. I could have done a lot better if you would have actually listened to me instead of inventing things that you think I've implied, and insisted on putting out fires that aren't there to begin with.
Frankly, you're not going to convince me unless you have some change in your attitude or behavior towards Muslims, which I'm not really sure you even want to change. So, I guess this is really what is known as an impasse in the English language.
I did more than enough to adequately explain myself, and you've been almost completely unreasonable. Not entirely, but it's been fairly consistent.
So now that you've given up and decided no more good can come of this, I suppose that means you'll reply back five or six more times before you're through. I'll be looking forward to that.