The "delighted Ashley has gone, but uncomfortable with Saudi ownership" thread

[Tiresias]

[80]

Losing track of what is and isn't racist here. So we shouldn't express distaste for Saudi Arabians but we can express distaste at people expressing affection for them?

 

Aimed more at the STM situation rather than these revelers for what it's worth...

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by 80

[Vinny Green Balls]

On 25/10/2023 at 07:09, TRon said:

 

I was on the boards when all that was going on, and I think it was more the way it was put across. It was along the lines of Fuck your (insert country) and fuck your (insert deity).

 

As I commented at the time, I usually agree with a lot of what STM posts, but there was no need for that.

agreed. But at the same time, a sincere apology is enough for me. I believe that STM's apology was a little bit more defiant than needed, as Ronson was reacting in the moment as well. If STM is sorry, which I believe he is, especially given that this was pretty much a one off in his time here, then Ronson should be afforded some benefit of the doubt for reacting the way he did in the moment. 

[STM]

1 minute ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

agreed. But at the same time, a sincere apology is enough for me. I believe that STM's apology was a little bit more defiant than needed, as Ronson was reacting in the moment as well. If STM is sorry, which I believe he is, especially given that this was pretty much a one off in his time here, then Ronson should be afforded some benefit of the doubt for reacting the way he did in the moment. 

 

I recognised wrong doing because I believe its the right thing to do.  I don't know Ronson at all, I hold no ill feeling or ill will toward him and hope he can see a genuine apology and move on. 

 

If we want a wider discussion about WHY I said what I said, I can certainly explain. It wouldn't excuse but it might shed light where I my thought process came from.

[Vinny Green Balls]

4 minutes ago, STM said:

 

I recognised wrong doing because I believe its the right thing to do.  I don't know Ronson at all, I hold no ill feeling or ill will toward him and hope he can see a genuine apology and move on. 

 

If we want a wider discussion about WHY I said what I said, I can certainly explain. It wouldn't excuse but it might shed light where I my thought process came from.

Don't think that's needed. You have a long history of being a top poster, We all say shit that doesn't fully represent what we mean sometimes.

[STM]

It went like this:

 

Saw a discussion on the subject of gambling.

 

Saw what I believed was a Saudi national jump on the subject.

 

My head told me that it was someone from Saudi about to tell us all about how Islam forbids gambling etc (which I was wrong to assume).

 

I allowed my assumption to taint my words and said what I said.

 

I detest religion. I detest the Saudi state but I detest intolerance and more over, a lack of discussion, which is where I made my mistake because I immediately became a hypocrite.

 

I was was also tinged with trying to be funny, i.e look how overtly rude I'm being. It didn't come off that way.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, STM said:

It went like this:

 

Saw a discussion on the subject of gambling.

 

Saw what I believed was a Saudi national jump on the subject.

 

My head told me that it was someone from Saudi about to tell us all about how Islam forbids gambling etc (which I was wrong to assume).

 

I allowed my assumption to taint my words and said what I said.

 

I detest religion. I detest the Saudi state but I detest intolerance and more over, a lack of discussion, which is where I made my mistake because I immediately became a hypocrite.

 

I was was also tinged with trying to be funny, i.e look how overtly rude I'm being. It didn't come off that way.

 

From memory, the poster started banging on about how gambling was the devil’s work etc.  It was put in crudely religious terms, and some people then seek offence at being called out on using religion to moralise at others.  I thought your response was to that. 

 

Honestly STM, I think it was one of those posts where the intent was obvious (to me), but the wording was indelicate.  I’m not having a go - every single one of us does this at some point, we make a point which afterwards we think could be worded better - if we were having a conversation in person, I doubt it would have spun off in the direction that it did.
 

The calls for a ban were utterly ridiculous.   

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

Losing track of what is and isn't racist here. So we shouldn't express distaste for Saudi Arabians but we can express distaste at people expressing affection for them?

 

Aimed more at the STM situation rather than these revelers for what it's worth...

 

 

 

‘We love you Saudi’ isn’t aimed at individuals, but at the govt of a nation state.  It isn’t the people of Saudi Arabia funding us - it’s the govt of KSA.  Criticism of the govt is not blanket criticism of an entire nation.  It is Saudi Arabians who are the primary victims of the oppressive Saudi state. 

[80]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

‘We love you Saudi’ isn’t aimed at individuals, but at the govt of a nation state.  It isn’t the people of Saudi Arabia funding us - it’s the govt of KSA.  Criticism of the govt is not blanket criticism of an entire nation.  It is Saudi Arabians who are the primary victims of the oppressive Saudi state. 

When they're singing and dancing with a couple of people specifically from Saudi Arabia, I don't think we're in a position to assume they're making carefully calculated political comment. Given the Arabians (Hejazians? Calling them Saudi is like naming us after the House of Windsor) are, at least to some extent, embracing associating with our region and it's drunk men and half dressed women, I find it striking that the response to overt warmth and odd couple cultural interface is greeted with  a chorus of  simply at the mention of the word Saudi. What else are they supposed to call them? Should they give these tourists the cold shoulder to avoid embarrassing easily embarrassed strangers on the internet? Or would that be a microaggression and a sign of Gammon mentality?

[Groundhog63]

10 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

‘We love you Saudi’ isn’t aimed at individuals, but at the govt of a nation state.  It isn’t the people of Saudi Arabia funding us - it’s the govt of KSA.  Criticism of the govt is not blanket criticism of an entire nation.  It is Saudi Arabians who are the primary victims of the oppressive Saudi state. 

Unless it's Israel, apparently. 

[Terrymac1966]

12 hours ago, STM said:

It went like this:

 

Saw a discussion on the subject of gambling.

 

Saw what I believed was a Saudi national jump on the subject.

 

My head told me that it was someone from Saudi about to tell us all about how Islam forbids gambling etc (which I was wrong to assume).

 

I allowed my assumption to taint my words and said what I said.

 

I detest religion. I detest the Saudi state but I detest intolerance and more over, a lack of discussion, which is where I made my mistake because I immediately became a hypocrite.

 

I was was also tinged with trying to be funny, i.e look how overtly rude I'm being. It didn't come off that way.

 

You detest religion and you detest intolerance...rightio

[Kid Icarus]

The clue is in your sentence like

[Hovagod]

9 hours ago, 80 said:

When they're singing and dancing with a couple of people specifically from Saudi Arabia, I don't think we're in a position to assume they're making carefully calculated political comment. Given the Arabians (Hejazians? Calling them Saudi is like naming us after the House of Windsor) are, at least to some extent, embracing associating with our region and it's drunk men and half dressed women, I find it striking that the response to overt warmth and odd couple cultural interface is greeted with  a chorus of  simply at the mention of the word Saudi. What else are they supposed to call them? Should they give these tourists the cold shoulder to avoid embarrassing easily embarrassed strangers on the internet? Or would that be a microaggression and a sign of Gammon mentality?

Come off it, mate

[STM]

1 hour ago, Terrymac1966 said:

You detest religion and you detest intolerance...rightio

 

Yep. Not hard to grasp. I'm not intolerant to religious people (normally of course). 

 

Edit: I suppose it's a fair point on reflection. All humans are intolerant to an extent. I'm intolerant towards violence for example.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by STM

[STM]

I think when someone talks about "intolerance", it goes without saying we are talking about intolerance meaning bigotry, racism and so on. 

 

Am I intolerant towards religion as a concept and organisation? I suppose I am, yes but I don't go abusing people coming out of church , thats the intolerance i was talking about.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by STM

[Chris_R]

I've had a similar argument on Twitter where someone said something to me along the lines of "How can you say you hate intolerance if you don't like racists or homophobes? HA!".

 

Some things it's right to not tolerate.

[STM]

It's like the use of the terms "racism" and "Islamaphobia".

 

I always understood them by there literal meanings:

 

Racism- A hatred or feeling of superiority over people of other races (as far as I'm aware there are only a few different races in humanity).

 

But as far as I can tell, Racism now has morphed into hatred of specific groups, nationalities or minority groups. I have no issue with either definition but interesting in its evolution.

 

And Islamophobia, I always understood to be an irrational fear of...., but it's now defined as a more wider hatred/intolerance.

 

I don't even remember what point I was making.  I suppose that parlance and language nuance has an effect of this discussion.

[Kid Icarus]

24 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

I've had a similar argument on Twitter where someone said something to me along the lines of "How can you say you hate intolerance if you don't like racists or homophobes? HA!".

 

Some things it's right to not tolerate.

 

The good old Paradox of Tolerance move.

[Superior Acuña]

33 minutes ago, STM said:

It's like the use of the terms "racism" and "Islamaphobia".

 

I always understood them by there literal meanings:

 

Racism- A hatred or feeling of superiority over people of other races (as far as I'm aware there are only a few different races in humanity).

 

But as far as I can tell, Racism now has morphed into hatred of specific groups, nationalities or minority groups. I have no issue with either definition but interesting in its evolution.

 

And Islamophobia, I always understood to be an irrational fear of...., but it's now defined as a more wider hatred/intolerance.

 

I don't even remember what point I was making.  I suppose that parlance and language nuance has an effect of this discussion.

 

Not having a go (and don't want to derail too much ) but the idea of 'there are only being a few races' is a highly outdated 19th century idea. You hear it proliferated so understandable its repeated. There are basically an infinite number of races, determined by how people are perceived and treated, cos it's not grounded in real biological categories.

 

Right i'm off again.

[STM]

1 minute ago, Superior Acuña said:

 

Not having a go (and don't want to derail too much ) but the idea of 'there are only being a few races' is a highly outdated 19th century idea. You hear it proliferated so understandable its repeated. There are basically an infinite number of races, determined by how people are perceived and treated, cos it's not grounded in real biological categories.

 

Right i'm off again.

 

It's something I have little real understanding of, that's why we talk and learn.

 

I'm no anthropologist but I presume all humans descend from Africa and I believe the area is called the "cradle of life", where the oldest discovered humanoid fossils where discovered. Happy to be corrected. ?

[TRon]

15 hours ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

agreed. But at the same time, a sincere apology is enough for me. I believe that STM's apology was a little bit more defiant than needed, as Ronson was reacting in the moment as well. If STM is sorry, which I believe he is, especially given that this was pretty much a one off in his time here, then Ronson should be afforded some benefit of the doubt for reacting the way he did in the moment. 

 

Has Ronson been banned?  He didn't say anything particularly abusive, from what I saw anyway. Maybe he's just decided he'd rather not be here for a while.

[STM]

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

It's something I have little real understanding of, that's why we talk and learn.

 

I'm no anthropologist but I presume all humans descend from Africa and I believe the area is called the "cradle of life", where the oldest discovered humanoid fossils where discovered. Happy to be corrected. ?

Yeah I made the cradle of life bit up. The rift Valley Ethiopia. 3.2 million years old, the oldest humanoid fossil. Mental.

[STM]

2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Has Ronson been banned?  He didn't say anything particularly abusive, from what I saw anyway. Maybe he's just decided he'd rather not be here for a while.

No, he liked a post of mine. Which was welcomed. Possibly taking a step back. 

[Erikse]

4 hours ago, STM said:

 

It's something I have little real understanding of, that's why we talk and learn.

 

I'm no anthropologist but I presume all humans descend from Africa and I believe the area is called the "cradle of life", where the oldest discovered humanoid fossils where discovered. Happy to be corrected. ?

 

This is a great discussion don't get me wrong, but this is a sentence I never expected to see in a thread about the Saudi ownership.

[Vinny Green Balls]

5 hours ago, TRon said:

 

Has Ronson been banned?  He didn't say anything particularly abusive, from what I saw anyway. Maybe he's just decided he'd rather not be here for a while.

Pretty sure he wasn’t. It was aimed at STM’s comments about him.