Hey Muslims, Lets Join the NRA. We Could Help Solve Gun Violence.

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Another week, another mass shooting. This time in Parkland, Florida. The location? A high school. The death toll? Seventeen.
Yet three little letters make gun control nearly impossible in the United States: NRA. So how do you stop a group that’s been dubbed the “the baddest force in politics”..............?

Well, I may have an outside-the-box solution that would not require any loss of life: Why don’t all of America’s Muslims just join the NRA? Yep, all of them. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

To read more:

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/17/nra-membership-muslim-florida-shooting/

Now some might ask why I posted this here, in the Religion Group. It is because some people have branded Islam as a religion of violence.

[ck4829]

1. You also don't hear about Muslims shooting up places and then being called mentally ill

Are they immune from mental illness or something? I propose we work with the Muslim American community to find a cure for mental illness, sounds a whole lot better than working with Putin to secure our computers, right?

[guillaumeb]

2. An excellent point.

For some reason, only white male supremacists have mental health issues that serve to excuse the fact that most mass killers are white, male, and conservative/supremacists.

[yallerdawg]

3. "I am the NRA."

Brilliant!

[guillaumeb]

5. Imagine this in an AD.

Immediate confiscation and buy backs.

Like when the Black Panthers paraded with guns. Only white supremacists are allowed to exercise their rights.

[trotsky]

4. "some people have branded Islam as a religion of violence"

Here?

Who?

[guillaumeb]

6. I did not say at DU.

As a careful reading would reveal.

[trotsky]

7. That's the problem, you weren't careful to say where you saw it.

You said:

"Now some might ask why I posted this here, in the Religion Group. It is because some people have branded Islam as a religion of violence."

Let's parse this: "here, in the Religion Group", followed by "because some people have branded..."

It's not surprising that some might interpret that as meaning it was "here, in the Religion Group" that you saw this "branding."

You should be more clear in your communication.

[guillaumeb]

8. Allow me to help you.

Islam is one of the 3 Abrahamic religions. Thus this post fits well into the guidelines for the group.

If you were unsure of the meaning of what I posted, I cannot help that, nor am I responsible for that.

If, for example, I had actually written that "some at DU have branded Islam as a religion of violence", I would understand your question even though I have seen such things written here prior to the revised TOS that were introduced. But I did not write that.

[trotsky]

9. You have ignored what I said.

I tried to honestly dialog with you, and point out what was confusing about your statement.

You have responded to me as if I am stupid, mentioning Islam as "one of the 3 Abrahamic religions." No shit.

I tried.

You insulted me.

I'm done with this thread. Have your precious last word.

[guillaumeb]

10. Okay.

[MineralMan]

11. I question why you posted something from The Intercept at all.

Goodbye.

[guillaumeb]

12. It was posted from Religion news.

Just like many here post things from FOX an other sites.

[MineralMan]

13. That's not where your link goes, guillaumeb.

Your link goes to The Intercept. Check again.

[guillaumeb]

14. It was an article that I found in the Religion News site.

You too can find it there.

[MineralMan]

15. Why didn't your link go there, then?

See, I'm just going by what you posted. So what's the Religion News link?

[guillaumeb]

16. Go to the RNS site.

Click on it.
You will see this article from another source.

And that is exactly what I did.

Edited to add:

https://religionnews.com/

[MineralMan]

17. Why would I think to do that, guillaumeb?

You provided a link in your post. You didn't mention religionnews.com. So, I clicked the link you provided and read the article.

Now, normally, I do not visit The Intercept, because of its ownership. Glenn Greenwald is just a terrible person, I think. But, I wanted to read the article, so I went there today.

I would not have guessed that you got there from religionnews.com, actually. Not that it matters, I suppose.

[guillaumeb]

18. I did not notice it when I posted it.

But the link will bring anyone to the RNS site, which links to many different sites for what it presents.

As to Greenwald, opinions are divided. Here is a link to one article:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/14/guardian-washington-post-pulitzer-nsa-revelations

[trotsky]

19. "opinions are divided"

Ah, the old "good people on both sides" nonsense. Good for you, gilly.

[guillaumeb]

23. Do you prefer another narrative?

Like theists=bad, or something like that? Or, are there actually good people on both sides?

[trotsky]

25. Glenn Greenwald.

You think he's a good dude.

MineralMan doesn't.

People can judge for themselves. You don't get to dictate whether this is "good news" or "bad news." Sorry.

[guillaumeb]

26. Another example of you arriving at conclusions based on "something".

Greenwald has done good work.

[trotsky]

27. You just aren't going to find a lot of Greenwald fans on DU, that's all.

Perhaps you could do a little research to find out why.

[yallerdawg]

20. "Links?"

It never cease to amaze me that "a link" can be so disturbing and contentious!

Terms Of Service:

Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures.

Members are expected to respect diversity and demonstrate an appropriate level of sensitivity when discussing related topics. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of bigoted intolerance are not permitted.

[MineralMan]

21. The Intercept has been a contentious topic on this website

for quite some time. It is often questioned when used as a source.

Why you posted that excerpt from the DU TOS, though, is beyond me, really. I've read it before.

[yallerdawg]

22. "Links" has been the most threatening TOS violation I have seen in Religion Group.

A "link" is a source to a point a DU'er wants to make in any group or forum - and if every other TOS rule is freakin' ignored HERE, then why is "the link" tossed out as if THIS is more significant than anything else?

[guillaumeb]

24. Posting that excerpt from the TOS is a reminder.

FOX is also used here as a source.

[yallerdawg]

29. "Evangelicals sell their souls for Trump" by Juan Williams.

Juan Williams is an author, and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.

Oh, he's OK. We like him.

[MineralMan]

32. What does that have to do with me?

And how does it relate to this discussion? Now, I'm even more confused.

[yallerdawg]

33. GB pointed out "Fox" is used as a source.

A recent OP here was from a longtime Fox analyst who says things we generally like.

Nobody complained about that.

Is your complaint about "The Intercept" related to the strategy of attacking the core racist/Islamophobic values of the NRA?

Or is it just attacking "the link" for something and someone completely unrelated? For some reason?

[MineralMan]

36. I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation.

It's just not making much sense, so it's probably best left where it is, I guess.

[MineralMan]

28. Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I commented on the source of a post and was told that it came from somewhere other than the link included in that post. And yet, I had clicked that link to read the article. The source of the article was a website that is a contentious topic here. Apparently, as was explained, the original poster hadn't noticed where the article was when he post it it here.

And you chimed in, accusing me of a TOS violation of some kind for asking about the source for an article quoted here. What am I to think of all that, I wonder?

The Intercept is a questionable source in many ways. You may not be aware of that. But, your odd posting of a TOS section was rather strange, really. I didn't break any rules. I just asked about the source that was used.

Bye, now.

[yallerdawg]

30. You disparaged "the link"...

as if that had something to do with the conversation right here and right now.

I find it to be a "technical" tactic to shut people up when you disagree with them.

'The Intercept' is not a TOS-described "rightwing publication."

[MineralMan]

31. The source of an article posted here can always be a point

of discussion. People discuss sources all the time on DU. I'm still confused by your quoting of a section of the TOS with regard to my conversation with guillaumeb. It still seems rather odd to me.

[yallerdawg]

34. I mention the TOS because I find the level of discourse here to be rather "edgy."

You mentioned someone had run you out of the Religious Group.

I'm certain it wasn't from their sterling argument.

[MineralMan]

35. Again, what you're saying makes no sense to me at all.

Edgy? Well, many conversations about religion can get a bit "edgy." I'm not sure where the DU TOS fits in there. I'm very sure that I did not violate anything in the TOS. I'm very familiar with it, too. Bringing the Terms of Service up in a thread is a very odd thing to do, I think. Nothing in this thread even comes close to violating the TOS.

If you think a post violates it, you can alert on that post and have a jury make a judgment about it. But the section of the TOS you quoted to me has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have said in this thread. Not in any way. Asking a question about a link used to lead to a complete article has nothing to do with that section.

"Edgy" discussions do not violate the TOS, either, whatever you mean my "edgy."

Further, I mentioned nothing about being "run out" of the Religion group in this thread, either. I don't know, but I think you may be confused in some way. I hope I've helped fix that for you.

I remain puzzled, I'm afraid.

[guillaumeb]

37. Not all of us are puzzled.

Some of us see patterns of behavior.

[MineralMan]

38. Patterns, eh?

What patterns, may I ask? Can you describe them for me?

[guillaumeb]

40. Better that you discover them for yourself.

This will allow more opportunity for growth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Is the NRA actually known for being particularly democratic in its operation?

Could 2.15 million Muslim adults actually take control of NRA policy in any way? Or would the management make sure that they continue to do the bidding of the gun and ammo manufacturers, and just benefit from membership fees thrown at them?

[guillaumeb]

41. I feel that the articel was meant to be a joke.

But your question is an excellent one. Is the NRA member-directed or is it a vehicle to funnel money to politicians?

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. I did wonder, but the argument seems to be put seriously

without much in the way of extra jokes added.

Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins recently wrote an article suggesting replacing diesel trains with steam, and people really couldn't work out if he was serious: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/diesel-steam-trains-rail-electricity . I tend, in both cases, to think the writers are serious, since neither has a track record of satire.