DU mentioned in WSJ

[sniffa]

In the Guardian, another crusading voice from the left on gay rights, foreign-affairs columnist Martin Woollacott lambastes Columbia's president Lee Bollinger for his "mean-spirited" remarks to the Iranian president, which he takes as an indication that "it is still difficult to suggest that Iran has arguments and interests worth considering on their merits." But again, no mention of Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude toward gays, much less its "merits." And on "progressive" Web sites like Democratic Underground, there are earnest debates about exactly what Mr. Ahmadinejad meant by the word "like," as if he were merely making an academic cultural comparison rather than denying the existence of an entire category of his own citizens.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119129023259045999.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


ahhhh, those were some good times here.

[NMMNG]

1. Indeed

:popcorn:

[EV_Ares]

2. Read that article and it completely misses the point of those such

as The Nation & DU. I cannot speak for The Nation nor those here at DU but I subscribe to The Nation and I read the posts here at DU and I don't see where most if anyone agree with Ahmadinejad on much. The WSJ takes this one thing and thinks I guess that we are all supposed to get hyped up and go to war with Iran. Since when was that opinion page of the WSJ concerned about gays.

The Nation as well as DU in most cases I think are only saying you just don't go to war and a dialog should at least be attempted. The students and most people in Iran do not approve of this guy as well.

The article takes one thing he says in his speech which was ridiculous and is trying to make like DU & The Nation and other progressive organizations approve of Iran and Ahmadinejad's policies. That was never the case.

[sniffa]

4. eh, i remember that day and the day after

some DUers were mind boggLing in their defense of iran due to "cuLture differences".

sure, we shouLd have a diaLogue, but you can't gLoss over the fact that they hang gays that don't exist there.

[EV_Ares]

5. You are 100% correct and my point as well. Myself as well as many on

here certainly are not defending stupid remarks like the one he made. What we are condemning is the Bush & Chaney drumbeat for more war and that comment does not warrant our approving war with Iran as all of their citizens are certainly not guilty of deserving such an atrocity like the Iraq citizens have had to endure under Bush. How many more does he want to kill?

What myself is saying is Iran is a very sophisticated country probably more-so than the others in that region and the students and most people are not enthralled with this regime and we should try diplomacy as should be done in all cases and also if we attack their country you are going to unite all the people against us and we will be hated instead of letting the Iranian people handle their situation with him internally.

[sniffa]

7. fair enough

many of us, were accused of wanting war with iran for daring to mention their treatment of gays, and his ridicuLous cLaim to not have gays in his country.

peopLe were tripping over each other to demand that gays march right down to the recruiters' office for daring to post pictures of gay iranian teens being strung up.

iran is a beautifuL, and ancient cuLture. but human rights, are human rights and shouLd never be swept under the rug for any reason.

[Wilber_Stool]

8. That is true, but

In the early eighties, when gay men began to die from a mysterious disease, no one cared. It wasn't until it appeared in the general population that something was done. How many thousands of men died because of the delay? Being 25 years ahead of the Iranians is nothing to be proud of.

[sniffa]

10. yeah, but what about the price of fish in portugaL?

[yardwork]

12. No I don't know what time it is.

[sniffa]

13. ...

:rofl:

[yardwork]

14. Yours was good too

:toast:

[sniffa]

16. thank you much

:hi:

[NMMNG]

17. It's a river in Egypt

Silly. :silly:

[angstlessk]

3. We went to war in Iraq and EVERY class of person is worse off than before.

Women, Jews, Christians, Gays, Shiite, Sunni and EVERY single person in Iraq is worse for our invasion. Is the WSJ saying we should invade Iran to save the gays??? this is a new twist for the conservo rag!

[Bluerthanblue]

6. word~

[yardwork]

11. The WSJ will say anything to promote their agenda.

Since when does the WSJ define the conversation on DU?

[NashVegas]

9. Oh Wow, Rupert Murdoch's WSJ is Mocking DU

Quelle horror and surprise.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Yeah, that was pretty accurate.

That was an embarrassing week.

[applegrove]

18. Some people falling into the enemie of my enemie is my friends trap. But

mostly people terrified to see the lead up to war with Iraq pattern forming about Iran. Amadineajad is just as bad as Bush if not worse.

[SidDithers]

19. Hey, you got your keyboard fixed!...

I'm gonna miss the capital L :hi:

Sid

Edit: nevermind, I was looking at the excerpt you posted. SiLLY me :)

[Duncan Grant]

20. kick (nt)

:kick:

[gateley]

21. From the excerpt in sniffa's post, I took WSJ to mean that we at DU got off

track by focusing on Ahmadinejad's WORDS rather than the issues:

...there are earnest debates about exactly what Mr. Ahmadinejad meant by the word "like," ...


Which one or two us sometimes do. Rarely.

[Chovexani]

22. If the shoe fits. (n/t)

[sniffa]

23. indeed

:hi:

[Emit]

24. Discussion on NPR addressed that "like" thing today

One of the callers brought up the "like" thing here at this NPR discussion today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1959763&mesg_id=1959763

The guest talks about how the language of affirmation in the West do not translate into Farsi, Arabic, etc. and our models can't be translated into other societies.

Sez it's definitely complex -- "so much of the debate that has been raging after President Ahmadinejad's comments have been so futile..."

It's worth a listen to for those who are interested in this subject. Discusses how the Western concept of the word "gay" cannot be applied, etc.