Episode 10 – “B ye Bye Yasir”
Synopsis: The Anglicans turn on Amaar after he injures Reverend Thorne in a charity prize fight. But when Nate’s plan to expose the minister’s fakery backfires, Amaar looks even worse. Meanwhile, after Rayyan is deluged with requests for housecalls, she puts her foot down, much to her patients’ dismay. And when Sarah pretends she is over her feud with her disapproving mother-in-law, a delighted Yasir plans to reunite the women.
Airing Monday January 4th 2009 !
How is Reverend Thorne injured? How does Nate plan on exposing the Reverend? Who is the patient that requests the housecalls? How will Sarah and her mother-in-law get along?
Little Experiences ... 
First to leave a comment.
What can I say. I guess this episode is supposed to take the sting away from the Christmas time punching out of an Anglican Reverend.
Well I guess any episode where there is no Jesus statues broken or Reverends pummeled is a good episode I guess these days.
I read the comments about how the last episode plays into the narrative that encourages homegrown Jihadists and while I don’t think it was intentional it really did fall into that.
Muslims are being treated unjust. The only way to rectify this is violence. While one can say this episode was meant to counteract some of the effects of the last I don’t think it did. I don’t know how any episode could.
Doesn’t Scott Brown support requiring people by law to obtain health insurance? That’s what the 2006 Massachutts health care law (signed in by Mitt Romney) requires and he says he supports that. All you have to do is check Scott Brown’s own website under Issues
Scott Brown seems like another politician who uses partisanship to get elected. I do not see him as the type to stand on principle if elected.
This kind of reminds me how conservatives were so excited about getting Arnold Schwarzenegger elected Governor in California. Well they aren’t too excited about him now are they?
Conservatives seem to be doomed to repeat history over and over again.
This episode was uneventful.
This kind of reminds me how conservatives were so excited about getting Arnold Schwarzenegger elected Governor in California.
My state, unfortunately, is the home of Hollywood. He was only elected because he’s an actor, and the common stereotype about the good people of the Southern Californian area around Hollywood is they’ve been tainted by superficiality. D: I live in the Bay Area (North) so I guess I wouldn’t really know and I fully condemn myself for taking a generalization as a truth and means to push blame–but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was them…
That was kind of an off subject post (perhaps an accident on the blogger’s part) but it is true that the Republicans were very excited to get him elected only for him to enact liberal public policies.
Those politicians are known as RINOS which stand for Republican in Name Only and is a big problem within the Republican party at this time.
One of the things that bothered me about Schwarzenegger is that right after the election he visited Austria (which of course was where he was born) and told the people there that in his heart he would always be Austrian. SO, we have an Governor of one of the biggest states in America who has loyalty to a foreign country! A Foreign Governor! Very bad.
Fortunately you in California have term limits for your governor so “He Won’t be Back”. Hasta la Vista to the governator, that liberal piece of trash.
And Thank God for the wisdom of the founders because of whom Schwarzenegger can’t do much more damage in US politics.
And now the sexual stuff.
I am not surprised.
Obviously I condemn it but this is what RINOS do. I hate them even more than Democrats.
I’m glad there’s a new episode today. This one felt like a rip-off after all that time. There was… no plot. Nothing happened.
I mean, nothing’s been happening, but it seemed in this episode there was even more… nothingness.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the show soon has no viewers at all.
BigFan says:
March 26, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Great final episode – I too was in tears with Rayyan!
Does anyone know when new Season 4 starts?
I just hope they develop the characters’ storylines further! My own ideas are:
1) Amar & Rayyan chemistry/romance increasing leading up to their perfect marriage. This MUST happen eventually otherwise there will be uproar!!!!
2) Fred Tupper to be more interested in becoming a Muslim via Fatima & Amar, but remain in a dilemma as to what his non-muslim friends will think.
3) Rev Duncan Magee & Amar get together agree to find similarities between the Bible & Quran – and share with it with the wider Mercy community. e.g. Jesus, Moses, Companions of the Cave, etc.,
4) Dippy Ann Mayor receives big planning application for Mercy’s “first purpose built mosque” – by Yasser of course!
5) Barbar holds Hajj Pilgrimage demo presentation for people interested in going to Mecca but struggles to follow the etiquettes from Amar (now that would be funny!)
6) During Ramadhan spiritual levels increasing, with temptations still an issue all round. With interesting debates over how people fast in extreme northerm hemisphere with 6 months day/night. Also Barbar takes a team out camping on last night of ramadhan to sight new moon for Eid, but see’s something else instead & get’s scared! Fred Tupper thinks it’s some satanic werewolf moon ritual they’re going on!
7) Barbar character becomes more hardcore Muslim to impress, but soon realises that love, peace, harmony is what what Islam really is by Amar
Love the two bickering Muslim married couple – a great addition to the Season 3. Let’s develop their characters more!
9) Fatima has debates with Barbar who questions source of her halal meat, after food poisoning outbreak. He offers to sacrifice meat by first buying sheep, goat & chickens and keeps them in the mosque yard!
10) Barbar’s planning application made for Azaan to transmitted over loud speakers 5 times a day. Trial is granted, but debates over who should do the first Azaan, and Fred Tupper’s reaction in Mercy during the Fajar Azaan!
11) Layla becoming interested in boys, but Barbar interfers by interrogating them first and then finds his own suitors for her!
I just hope the CBC writers/read this!
I want Fatima to become Mayor and cut the city government. Sarah isn’t even working for the Mayor anymore so her job won’t be threaten (though it would have made it more interesting had she still worked there). Sarah would be conflicted because Fatima would be running against her old friend. Of course the mayor’s old supporters have to support Fatima and so the mayor finds herself totally without support (except Sarah???) . In the end the mayor loses with no one voting for her (she herself forgets to vote).
Out of town Muslims come into Mercy to protest Wheat Week (they heard it was anti-Muslim). Will Mercy’s Muslims stand up against them.
Magee finally admits to Amaar that he is Homosexual which makes Amaar have to re-evaluate his friendship with him.
Thorne dies when a shelf full of books falls on him while making out with the librarian. No one but the Muslims (ironically) and the librarian show up at his funeral and Amaar has to speak at his eulogy. Well Fred kind of shows up afterward for the wake (free food).
Barber’s uncle comes to town but he has to turn him into authorities because, well he’s connected with terrorist. Sometimes when it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well it’s a duck and indeed there are foreigners out there like Baber’s uncle who does want to destroy Western society and we all need to keep that in mind.
The CBC comes to Mercy after finding out what a disproportionate amount of Muslims this small town has. They do interviews with all the characters there (MASH did something similar where a famous war correspondent did interviews with the doctors, etc.).
Layla becomes engaged to this young Muslim of Somali descent but he chooses instead to go back to his homeland (well actually he was born in Canada so why does he call Somalia his homeland) to train for Jihad.
Of course we all want Layla to ultimately go to medical school. Baber is disappointed because he wanted her to become an economics professor like himself.
A former Pastor at Mercy Anglican returns (I am talking about real old like he was Pastor at Mercy in the 1960s or 1970s) and McGee confronts him for molesting him when he was a child.
I want Layla to temporary become a Christian. It would be interesting to see how Baber would react.
“God is watching” a great line to the Rev. A lesson for us all
Episode 11 has been Uploaded 🙂
I have to wonder just how much further a show that had its main character punch out an Anglican Pastor on it’s Christmas episode go. It’s like the show has high a high for offensiveness.
It will either have to become even more offensive (and how do you do that) or anything else they do will just pale by comparison.
Season 6 Episode 9:
Amaar accidentally leads everyone to believe the new mosque is haunted, so Sarah suggests that he and Rayyan spend a night there to prove it isn’t. Thorne helps Baber overcome his irrational fear of Jinn while Nate goes to extreme lengths to ask Poppy out on a date.
Tonight.
I have never trusted a man who decided he wanted me on sight. Unless you’re friends first, the second he wants you everything coming out of him is contrived, calculated bullshit. Sometimes they say things they believe are unique or profound and proceed to muse about the stars and the universe, but it’s really just the equivalent of “I own a boat.”
In the most hilarious of circumstances, they’ll tell you they go hunting for sport on weekends (because isn’t that so manly?) and expect you to be impressed since they weren’t actually listening to what you were saying when you mentioned you were a vegetarian. (And Muslim, but most people don’t know hunting for anything other than necessity is against Islam.) And then there are the ones who really believe that women are attracted to jerks and try PUA techniques on you, like negs, only to find that it isn’t working.
I wouldn’t cancel out the possibility of love at first sight, because there’s no way I would know for everyone, and I like to believe and leave possibilities open, and I sort of think it’s heartless to cancel it out–but as there’s no means to decipher whether he’s genuine, there’s no reason to believe he is immediately when process is available.
Nate is sweet. When Poppy jokingly said ‘no’ he nodded like he understood and wasn’t about to harass her for an explanation or act like he was entitled to negotiation.
I’m surprised Baber didn’t bring a stack of Qur’ans with him to investigate the new mosque or practice various surahs as weaponry against the suspected jinn.
Also, this show has been failing the Bechdel test for a few episodes now, and I am not thrilled.
LOL Nahida, you sound so annoyed.
Well. It might also be partly because I have just now realized that good God I am twenty-one years old! and I’ve accomplished nothing. I’m still not entirely financially independent, I’m not going to have a house with a garden and large windows by the time I’m twenty-three, and after having been surrounded with people who’ve constantly told me that a BA in English is useless (which I did not appreciate) I’m very close to finding out whether or not they’re right. All my friends are travelling the world, or having kids, or getting married, and I don’t want to get married soon, but sometimes I want a baby which is downright absurd. Also I wish I were travelling with them. And my cousin, who is a year my senior, is living in Cheney, Washington, because she left her homestate (CA) and I haven’t. I mean, she hates the weather and everything, but she still WENT somewhere.
Anyway, Thorne was hilarious in this episode. I caught the meaning behind “I’ve been looking up jinn… I mean the spirit, not the–well, technically they’re both spirits” like five minutes after he said it.
“Who ya gunna call? Ghost Babers!!” I love the look on Thorne’s face as he’s trailing behind Baber.
You? The way you write, you’ll get by easy. You’re very eloquent. Your friends are probably traveling on their parents money. You can do it soon enough. Somehow I always pictured you married by 25, actually, but if that’s not what you want, but you still want a baby, you can always ask a friend for his required material.
I chuckled at Thorne’s “brother from a brown mother” thing at the same time that I was horrified.
Yeah this episode was actually kinda funny.
@ Casey: Heh, I wouldn’t want any man’s “material” unless I had feelings for him though, so that has a chance of not working out too well.
Last year I decided that if I had two daughters I would name them Isabelle and Sirena… and then it occurred to me that the girl from Twilight (Bella) might be named Isabelle. (Not sure, haven’t read the atrocious books.) I was indignant. =P I’ve always liked the name Isabelle, and now it was more or less ruined. I’ve informed my friends (who had a good laugh about how “Bella” was one of the most popular names to give daughters after Twilight) that if I have a daughter named Isabelle no one is allowed to call her Bella. I might just have to go with Isabeau–same meaning. (“God’s promise.”)
After hearing this song, Anna Rose is so tempting.
Anna Rose,
sleep well tonight.
The stars are dancing on the carpet of the sky.
Time to close
your wondering eyes
where I see the sleepiness creeping.
Anna Rose
it makes my heart smile
To know you give love so freely
Anna Rose
makes it worthwhile
your love makes me see things so clearly
How it grows
Heaven knows
Anna Rose
sleep well tonight.
Anna Rose
it’s time to dream.
I see that your imagination
knows no bounds
There it flows like
some magical stream
and carries you on its journey.
Anna Rose
makes my heart smile
to know you give love so freely.
Anna Rose
makes it worthwhile
your love makes me see things so clearly.
How it grows!
Heaven knows!
Anna Rose!
dream well tonight.
That’s GORGEOUS. Her voice is pristine.
I was named after my great aunt, who did some pretty amazing things.
Yeah, that’s a nice song.
I just realized something. Nahida said before that what’s considered beautiful is the “white” or European norm. She also said that she doesn’t fit that norm. But there’s consensus that she’s very beautiful. So isn’t she wrong?
No. First off, one or two “exceptions” doesn’t alleviate a systematic issue.
Secondly, they’re not really “exceptions.” I deviate from the Eurocentric beauty standard in ways that are considered acceptable; my eyes are much wider than the Eurocentric norm, for example, but this is considered an acceptable deviation. I have thick eyelashes and hair more abundant than the standard, and while I’ve been teased mercilessly for it, I know it’s preferred to having thinner hair.
There are other deviations (a wider nose for example) that are considered unacceptable.
However, sometimes an “acceptable” deviation is not deemed beautiful because the beholder believes it is beautiful in itself, but because s/he finds the concept beautiful, which is pretty much racist.
A friend of mine is frequently complimented on her dark skintone. Once, while I was with her, a woman passed and said, “You have such beautiful, smooth, ebony skin!” My friend thanked the woman, but then as she left turned to me and said, “But I bet she wouldn’t want to live with it.” There’s a history of oppression from which you cannot entirely separate the feature, so there’s an enormous chance that it is upheld as beautiful not genuinely but out of glamorization of this oppression and the pain it’s come to represent.
Women who identify as Asian also have this problem. There isn’t a feminist who doesn’t cringe when a man uses the phrase “beautiful Asian woman.” He is not talking about the features (the dark straight hair or the lean body type) he is talking about the cultural construct that is linked (quiet, subservient women)–neither of which are accurate enough to excuse using that phrase.
So when someone compliments my eyes or hair, I can’t be sure whether it s/he really thinks it’s beautiful or whether s/he is just fetishizing and exoticizing me. When a man tells me I’m beautiful, unless I trust him, I’m likely to be kind of pissed off wondering if he thinks I look like the sensationalized seductive harem girl–who, in the historical reality, was a sex slave. (Though, unless he specifically uses the word “exotic”, I’ll thank him anyway.)
Hey, Nahida, is this yours?
http://cordisectomy.wordpress.com/
You got an eye for what web design works. I would have made the URL of the site your name, though. Because it’s your work? What if someone wants to reprint something and doesn’t know the author?
Yeah, that’s mine. Thanks for the unsolicited advice. =P
I doubt it. It’s nothing serious, I just needed a place to keep all my mediocre crap. So I don’t think my name in the URL is necessary. Not to mention I can’t make it so easy to find my last name.
…medicore?
You spelled it wrong, Chris. =P No wonder you can’t find it in the dictionary.
me·di·o·cre [adjective]
of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate
Not what I meant, Nahida.
The last two episodes are called The Worst of Times (3/26) and The Best of Times (4/2).
They skipped a week again.
Seem to make for it in cheesy titles.
Last two episodes, as in final two episodes?
Yup. Sources say there are only 11 in this last season.
Season 6 Episode 10:
In the lead up to the series finale, Amaar reveals to Baber that he plans to be the Imam of the new Mosque. In turn, Baber revolts and forms a splinter Mosque. Meanwhile, Ann is distraught over Charles’ upcoming nuptials to a younger woman and comes up with a bizarre strategy to fight for her man. And Sarah attempts to rejoin the church choir, with fiery results.
Airs on Monday – 3/26/2012
Oh, the synopsis is out. I’ve lost so much interest that I’d rather read it than watch the episode. How petty Baber is acting! Appointing a permanent imam is an aberration, anyway–it is not Islamic to appoint any permanent clergy or establish hierarchy. The one who leads prayers is the most knowledgable, and while there can be a default this can change over the years based on the congregation, or even between prayers. “Traditionalists” aren’t traditional, but no surprise there. Oh Ann. No woman deserves a cheater. Why pursue him? Surely she can do better!
I used to be a choir girl. I miss it.
I don’t know about that, Nahida. The mayor’s corrupt and so is Charles. If he breaks her heart, she’ll deserve it.
Debbie, that is terrible. I would wish an enemy executed before I wished heartbreak upon him. The minute someone is capable of feeling heartbreak, xie doesn’t deserve it. It means xie’s capable of love, or of some quality of goodness. That’s it. You’ve broken into a conscience.
But perhaps if Ann were real I wouldn’t be so kind.
I wouldn’t trust Ann or Charles to remain faithful, just because of who they are. But who I am to judge? Whether there is any such thing as sincerity anymore is questionable. There are too many stratums of nonsense, manufactured facades, counterfeit labels, and people buying into an imaginary paradigm that supposedly dictates who someone is to the core, and all of these have become artificial “conditions” for affection.
If they’re both corrupt, at least Ann isn’t pretending.
I just hope she has her big girl panties on, and doesn’t care when Charles cheats on her.
I just saw it.
Oh, Sarah.
New episode airs tonight.
Second to last.
The truth about Muslims in Canada.
http://olehgirl.com/?p=10330
Nahida, Bea seems to have a point here.
What do you think?
http://olehgirl.com/?p=10330
Again, I am not the one who blame “All Muslims” but it does seem to be something that at least appeals to immigrant Muslims. Again, trying to get into the distinction between Islam the religion and the other cultural traditions of societies who just happen to be Muslims.
Season 6 Episode 10 Part I:
Only one part. That is 1 of 1.
Last episode coming up next week!!!!
Season 6, Episode 11 – SEASON FINALE + LAST EPISODE OF SHOW
In a series finale that lets Little Mosque on the Prairie live up to it’s namesake, Amaar prepares for the grand opening of the new Mosque, while trying to get Baber to end his boycott. Charles returns to Mercy with a plan to win Ann. Sarah reaffirms her Muslim faith; and, with Mercy Anglican burnt to a crisp, Thorne finds an unexpected new home for his congregation.
Monday Night.
Unexpected?
I predicted this from the very first episode. Let me guess. The new home for Mercy Anglican is Amaar’s Mosque.
Admittedly I didn’t think they would burn the church down. I thought the church would financial troubles and the Muslims buy the church from the Anglicans while still allowing the ever decreasing congregation to have a place to worship. But the concept is still the same, a reversal of roles.
Yep, I knew they were going to do that from the start.
I thought the church would have financial troubles and the Muslims would buy the church from the Anglicans.
But this is practically the same scenario I predicted from the very first episode.
I wonder if the Christians will be paying rent. It seems like the Muslims weren’t, or were paying really little.
And wow, Charles comes to Ann.
By the way, I haven’t expressed yet my offense at Sarah calling what she learned at Sunday School “Fairy Tales”. Sure they are fantastical tales but are they any more fantastical than Prophet Muhammad’s night journey to al-Masjid al-Aqsa.
It’s all a matter of belief of course but here again an attack against Christianity by the writers of this show.
This show can’t end sooner. But unfortunately ABC has just put on a show that attacks Christianity. So the mainstream media’s attack on Christianity continues.
?? That was just to show she didn’t believe in them. I don’t think it’d be offensive if she said the same thing about stuff Muslims believe. That’s what agnostics/atheists say.
But she didn’t. And that is the point.
Baber’s still at it.
Actually I thought Amaar was kind of wrong in his demands against Baber.
If there’s enough people in Mercy’s Islamic community to sustain two Mosques then what is wrong with having one Mosque with a barrier and all that practices Islam in Baber’s more conservative view and one that represents Amaar’s more liberal views in Islamic practices.
I believe Amaar was arrogant in his dealings with Baber, If Baber’s Mosque doesn’t bring in the people (as I think was kind of indicated) then it will naturally fade away but for Amaar to say my Mosque is better so close yours down, I just thought it was inappropriate.
Also, is it appropriate for him to name his Mosque after his wife. Sure his justification was that Rayyan isn’t only his wife’s name but also has a spiritual significance that fits with a Mosque, but come on in reality he did name his Mosque after his wife and I find that Arrogant as well.
But I am not a Muslim. So is it typical for an Imam to name a Mosque after a Family member?
Amaar didn’t tell Baber to shut his down. He just told him he’d be the imam of the mosque he was building. Baber was going out of his way not to call him that in that “so that would make you the builder of the new mosque” scene. Amaar said he intended to imam of the new mosque, and only wanted to make Thorne stop the boycott which is Baber actively opposing.
I thought it was very interesting how when Baber misplaced his glasses (on the top of his head) he immediately thought someone had wronged him by stealing them. That was his very first thought. It indicates how he feels about people in general.
I guess I am like that as well at times. Not saying I am going to change that in political situations though. If the Left is like that then I have to be like that as well.
We are all going to have to write our series final summations regarding Little Mosque in the Prairie. All and all did it portray the conflicts within Islam and within society correctly? Do you think the show fulfilled what it claimed to set out to do? Do you think the show has played a helpful role in our society?
I have some thoughts about that but I will wait until after the last episode to express them.
Can you believe that White Christian Lady burning down the Mosque like that!
She really hated those Muslims didn’t she. This is just the Latest in the epidemic of Mosques being destroyed throughout Canada by Racist White PEOPLE!
There MUST BE JUSTICE FOR THIS OUTRAGE!
I am offering a reward for the capture and punishment of this MURDEROUS CHRISTIAN WHITE RACIST SARAH!
We need to catch her, find some cross and nail her to it, poor gasoline on her and then set her aflame. We need to show her street justice because especially with her connection to the mayor we aren’t going to get justice any other way.
Does any one have this white racist Christian Sarah’s address so I can post it to twitter?
Also I am getting the name “Mercy Mosque” trademarked. And I am selling t-shirts to fundraise for my local candidate so we can defeat the Racist White Christian Mayor of this racist town of Mercy!
Where’s the “Mercy” to the Muslims of this Mercy community who has suffered such and attack by the Racist White Christians who control this hateful Town!
By the way, i have set up a website where people can post information they might have on where this White Christian Terrorist may be holding up at this current time.
Please go to the web site below:
http://killsarahcunningham.com
Also you will be given a opportunity to donate to the campaign to unseat the White Christian mayor of this town.
Also we have some clothing that you can purchase on behalf of our effort to bring attention to this outrage in the heart of Canada. Please consider buying a This is Mercy Mosque T Shirt. It has an image of Mercy Mosque set ablaze. You can also buy a T-Shirt with a photo of the White Racist Christian Sarah Cunningham with a bullseye over her!
Wow, Sarah commits a hate crime.
Have to admit didn’t see that one coming.
As-Salamu Alaykum, Brother Mo
Actually, while I appreciate your spirit, unfortunately we can not blame this on the infidels.
This woman, the one who burned the Mosque, she is the mother in law of a so called “Liberal” Imam who had just built a Mosque (without a barrier) in the community.
The Imam of the Mosque who was in the church was encouraging his members not to go to the new more liberal Mosque.
Right after that happened the Mosque burned. So indeed this was an attack on one of our Mosques but unfortunately not by the Christians.
So this was Muslim on Muslim violence?
Which were the more traditional ones? The ones who were planning to stay at the church or the ones who built the Mosque?
It seems like Akhem was saying that it was the “more moderate” Muslims who attacked the more “traditional” Muslims. I guess the woman who burned the place down was the mother in law of the Imam whose Mosque was being threatened by a boycott from the more “traditional” forces who supported the current Mosque.
Wow, you can sure see what “Moderate” means in Muslim terms.
I wonder if it had anything to do with the whole Sunni vs Shiite Issue in Islam?
It is really interesting how this whole story which was first presented to us by the news media as an Christian committing a hate crime seems to now be shown as Muslim vs Muslim violence. It really makes me worried about the immigration system in Canada. Look if the Muslims want to go to war with each other in their own countries that’s one matter but for them to spread that violence to North America then yeah, that’s our business. Perhaps we need to worry about our Northern Border as much as our Southern!
One thing I heard was this same church/mosque whatever it was there was a fire there like five years or so previously. I guess the damage was light then but it is just interesting that the place wasn’t a stranger to fire damage.
Who’s excited about the last episode!
We the members of the Canadian Agitators for Islam Relations (CAIR) demand that the Canadian Federal Government appoint a special prosecutor to look into this outrageous attack against a Mosque in Mercy, Saskatchewan. We are also forwarding a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Council urging them to look into this matter as well as the larger issue of violence directed against Muslims in Western Countries.
We are very concerned about the lack of response of local, provincial, and Federal officials in bringing the perpetrator of this crime to justice. A message must be sent that Canada has ZERO TOLERANCE for Crimes directed at religious minorities in their society.
Swift action is called for in a situation of this magnitude. The fact that a week has gone by without an arrest of the perpetrator is an extreme miscarriage of justice.
Sincerely,
CAIR.
I can’t believe you’re still at it. I’m glad she’s not coming back.
Actually this is a perfect example how the media could blow things out of proportion. We had the advantage of “being there” when it happened and of course we have known Sarah for six years. But of course the news media would just see “White Christian” burns down Mosque and would go with it. The small town of Mercy would be swapped with political activists and the news media overwhelming this small town’s police and governmental faculties.
Don’t say that it couldn’t happen since we have seen it so recently. And of course there are other “facts” that can be misconstrued which in my little scenario that I haven’t brought up.
It is really sad but this is the world we live in. Poor Sarah, she would be crucified (Not literally hopefully but this little situation would be totally blown into something it wasn’t).
I particularly liked that she got into a bar fight before this because that could totally be used to misconstrue what Sarah is really like. And how in real life “facts” would probably come out over time so each side would grab hold of the stuff that best serves their political ends. Not saying that my side wouldn’t do it too, but once you are thrown into the “game” you have to defend yourself. The issue no longer is about Sarah Cunningham or what happened really, but instead about people with agendas using this situation in their endless political battles.
Don’t worry.
I am planning to bring up the “other side” shortly.
I have focused on this side because this side would be what would get the most play and probably the initial play. But I will be fair enough to bring up the other side too.
That is what makes this situation so interesting as it can be spun in so many directions. And I can mostly use facts to do it too. I can also use assumptions and biases mixed in with these facts.
w/e Steve she was telling you exactly that and you weren’t listening. You’d do it even if the Left didnt, because Nahida didn’t and you said it was right anyway.
You know the type of person she is? Last month she ordered a book and they made a mistake and sent her Volume 3 instead of Volume 1. Then two days ago they emailed her and asked if they had sent her the wrong Volume, because they still had Vol 1 and were missing Vol 3. She replied that yes they had but she didn’t wanted to inconvenience them so she never said anything, and that she hopes she didn’t make more of a fuss because someone else hadn’t wanted 3 had they? She said she’d be happy to ship it back. They said yeah, someone else wanted it but they cancelled that order and they were so moved that she never complained they told her they’d ship her the one she needed and two more for free. She said no thanks, she’d pay for them.
Even after nearly 20 centuries of racial oppression that have just started turning with the last two, Steve is convinced the Left started it.
Nahida is playing “the game” whether she realizes it or not.
She is doing it when she brought up a supposed previous encounter with Zimmerman and a police officer. And of course that video which I posted how it was altered.
Unlike with Sarah, neither of us were there. Neither us know any of the people involved. But both of us have our baggage that effects how we view this situation. And that is not going to change.
She mentioned it in PASSING and then went into it when YOU picked it up because you acted like the Right wasn’t doing the same thing as the Left as far as giving the benefit of the doubt goes!
Think what you want.
The only way Nahida and Steve would ever get along is if they were the only two people on Earth.
Well that or if they treated it like a sanctuary.
By the way, while the news media hasn’t reported it, you know that hate crime in Canada, that “Mosque” that the white “Christian” woman burned down. I read recently on Worldnetdaily that it wasn’t even a Mosque. IT WAS ACTUALLY A CHURCH!
The church was allowing the Muslims use the space for their worship as they were building a Mosque for themselves and coincidence of coincidence the CHURCH burned right before their new Mosque was about to open.
And that White “Christian” lady. Guess what! She was the MOTHER OF LAW of the Muslim who was building that Mosque! Yeah, bet you didn’t see that on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN et al!
So, yeah this was a hate crime! A HATE CRIME AGAINST CHRISTIANS.
No wonder this woman wasn’t arrested. There’s no way they want the REAL TRUTH to come out here! Canadiastan is covering up this CHRISTIAN HATE CRIME!
I mean Hate Crime against Christians. This is exactly like how the Christians have basically been chased out of Iraq and are being prosecuted in Egypt after the so called “Arab Spring”.
But no, it’s not a hate crime when it is targeted against Christian.
All the talk about the place being a Mosque only to find out that it was really an Anglican Church! The News Media LIES! It lies in America! It lies in Canada.
And then to find out that the arsonist was actually the Mother of Law of the guy who was building the new Mosque! All that talk about her being a “Christian”!
BULL SHIT!
I’m really disappointed that the “minor” characters became minor… they completely abandoned any plot around Fatima.
Any Character who’s shown at the beginning credits can’t be considered “minor” but indeed you are correct. They did seem to completely abandon any plot around Fatima. I wanted her to run for Mayor.
Yes, Fatima was great.
SPOILERS TO FOLLOW
———————————————
———————————————–
————————————————
I was a bit disappointed that they brought back Leyla – why? Just to show her standing up to Baber? It was funny seeing his face when she mentioned acting school, but it really had nothing to do with anything.
And the bit at the end with the surprise announcement (I won’t say more) – that was totally superfluous.
http://www.theprovince.com/entertainment/Farewell+Little+Mosque+Prairie/6394640/story.html
That’s a nice piece.
There were a bunch of others that weren’t so complimentary, though.
Overall, the show was a nice idea, I liked a lot of it, didn’t ever really dislike it, and I enjoyed the run. But it was definitely time to close up shop.
BTW, I think this was by far the most skin Sitara Hewitt showed. I wonder why – though I don’t regret it!
Because since it was the last show they thought they could get away with having Sitara Hewitt show more skin.
One thing I liked about this show was how it minimized the sexual stuff. Oh you could sense they wanted to go that way from time to time, some innuendo from time to time but they absolutely felt constricted.
Authorities in Oakland have apprehended a student at Oikos University that they believe to be the gunman in the massacre that occurred early Monday. According to local network KTVU, the gunman walked into a classroom and opened fire at the college, which teaches medicine to students while emphasizing Christianity ideals.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-new-enhanced-video-seems-to-show-injuries-on-zimmermans-head/
NBC appears to have edited an excerpt of a phone call made by Trayvon Martin’s killer to portray him as a racist. The edited George Zimmerman says he thinks Martin is ‘up to no good’ just because he was black – but that’s not what he really said.
On Tuesday, NBC’s Today Show hosted by Ron Allen ran a segment of a phone conversation Zimmerman had with police shortly before killing Martin, as reported by Fox’s Hannity Show. NBC’s version of the phone call allegedly had Zimmerman say the following about Martin: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
But in reality the two sentences were separated by a question the 911 dispatcher asked. The original phone call transcript ran like this:
Zimmerman: “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
911 Dispatcher: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
If one compares the NBC version with the original transcript, it appears the channel jettisoned Zimmerman’s real explanation on why he thought Martin looked suspicious, and also got rid of the dispatcher’s question.
There is other evidence to show that the media is trying to portray this case as an archetypical hero-and-villain battle. The photos of Martin and Zimmerman that the media uses are actually dated and create a wrong impression of how both men looked at the time of their encounter. Martin’s picture, in which he appears to be an innocuous-looking smiling teenager, was taken several years ago. At the time of his death, Martin was a 6-foot tall teen with gold teeth who had been suspended from his school for carrying marijuana.
Zimmerman is also not the sturdy-looking man in an orange-colored jail uniform. That mugshot is seven years old, taken when Zimmerman was charged with assaulting an officer, though that charge was dropped. In a much more recent photo, Zimmerman appears leaner and sports a tie and a suit.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/zimmerman_and_ketman.html
Article Mentions Little Mosque on the Prairie.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/new-girl-a-show-so-nice-it-could-be-canadian/article2389582/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/goodbye-little-mosque-nice-idea-not-so-funny/article2387695/
Sorry, the first Globe and Mail link I posted had nothing to do with Little Mosque except a link to the Little Mosque article
http://playbackonline.ca/2012/03/30/is-little-mosque-on-the-prairie-headed-to-america/
http://www.toronto.com/article/719137–little-mosque-on-the-prairie-concept-was-bigger-than-the-show
Is Nahida really not commenting then? I’m still hoping she will. Even if she never liked the show, she’s the sentimental type. I would be surprised if she didn’t.
Who Cares? Better off without the feminazi whore. Don’t know why Steve would even talk to her.
They should have done an Episode with Fatima’s son! He never showed up again. Could have had a storyline about him coming to age. All his friends want to go drinking.
Pretty okay episode overall. It ended a little too perfectly. The new mosque in really nice.
Does the architecture of the Mosque fit with the general community? I can understand how citizens might feel like Mercy is being “taken over” when they see such a building. I am specifically referring to the Minarets in the design.
Gimme a break.
Final Episode of the Show: Season 6 Episode 11
Nahida has been such an important member of this forum we should at least get her concluding comments.
By the way, I called Layla’s Major (though she changed it because she wanted to go into acting). So technically I was wrong there but I was close.
And like I said, I called this whole Church in Mosque thing from day one of the show. Of course I thought because of the Church’s financial problems (due to and ever declining membership) the Muslims were going to buy the property from them yet allow the remaining Christians to have a space. Didn’t see the fire but again I did predict the whole role reversal thing.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kill-that-white-man-78-year-old-man-beaten-by-6-youths-in-alleged-racially-motivated-attack/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn-enhances-zimmerman-911-call-again-and-reporter-now-doubts-racial-slur-used/
Weirdly enough, more than the show, I’ll miss Nahida’s raging arguments with Steve. I mean I’ve been gawking at how things come up that were mentioned in the past and fit, or how they can still understand each other. I wonder how that even works. But it does, so maybe we’ll all be saved after all.
I won’t. I had a near stroke every time. It’s AMAZING the emotional strain Nahida can tolerate. Things were never level. She never was, and never could be, as violent as Steve. He’d want half the country executed for being liberals! For someone who’s spent so much time examining Hitler he certainly doesn’t seem to recognize that it’s the same as executing someone for their religion. Religion IS ideology. If Steve had the power he’d sentence her to death.
The rest of the story.
The part that most people won’t remember as they will just remember the initial headlines.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/iraqi-womans-deadly-beating-may-not-be-a-hate-crime-after-all/
All I heard through that whole thing was Steve and Nahida saying Augustana lyrics, “You don’t know me, you don’t even care. You don’t know me, you don’t wear my chains.”
You know that Mosque in Canada that was torched several weeks back. They didn’t press charges against the White Christian who did it! Canada should be ashamed!
Why DOESN’T she say goodbyes? I never understood people who don’t…
She is just upset about me. I said she was going to go away crying. And this is what I meant by that.
And by the way, she was wrong again. Remember how she said Zimmerman wasn’t injured.
Check here…
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/abc-shows-bloodied-image-of-zimmermans-head-on-night-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/
Nahida has been wrong about this from the beginning.
Let me get this straight. She mentioned Trayvon casually. You COULDN’T resist and had to zone in on it. When she reacted, you told her not to go off crying. So she stuck around. Then you told her you didn’t want her to comment on the case, and that you were glad she left.
Then you CONTINUED to talk about the case in her absence even though you told HER not to talk about it.
Now you’re saying she left because she’s “upset”? You TOLD her to leave.
Olly, she was actually about to comment this morning. As she opened her laptop Kelly ran up to her and pushed it closed and said, “Steve’s going on with his antics, you don’t want to see. You’d be disgusted.”
Nahida asked, “What antics?” And Kelly said, “He’s still talking about the case.” And Nahida said, “What, Zimmerman? No, he told me not to.” And Kelly said “yeah but he didn’t say HE wasn’t going to, and in fact while you were gone he even involved you by asking in response to one of my comments what you thought of it as he was putting on a show.” And Nahida said, “He wouldn’t do that. He wouldn’t say he doesn’t want to talk about it and then talk about it while he told me not to respond.” And Kelly said, “This is the guy who, when there was the incident in Norway, told you ‘Now you know how I felt on 9/11.'”
Nahida’s eyes went dark. That must have been painful for her to remember. Kelly apologized. And Nahida said, “No. It’s fine. I guess he’d rather talk to everyone else.” She looked like she was going to say “but me” but she didn’t. And then she added, “He did say he preferred talking to you.” And she laughed. (Not a happy laugh.) And Kelly said, “That wasn’t a compliment.” And Nahida smiled, crookedly, and she opened the laptop and worked on an essay for The Merchant of Venice.
Since you asked.
Oh. Well that stuff is on the other pages or a long way above, so she can still comment without seeing all that ridiculousness. I was just wondering in general about the type of person who doesn’t say goodbye. =P Cause I’ve known a few and never understood them. Anyway, I thought she wasn’t coming back for final comments cause she didn’t care about the show. What made her change her mind?
“The Merchant of Venice.”
Here’s a quote I remember from that play.
Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.
Steve.
I would say that’s ironic, but I’m not sure. =P
Nahida is… I don’t know how to describe it. She’s a really modern woman and at the same time she’s kind of…well she puts very profound value on ideals, ones that are abstract. That’s reality to her. Like, we always joke about how she’s so beautiful she can afford to be picky and she’ll probably go through three divorces, but in truth none of us can really imagine Nahida getting divorced.
I don’t know if that makes sense, but I’m pretty sure it’s the same reason. She needs significance.
So while she didn’t like the show, she put in too much time with Steve not to… honor completion. That’s why she was about to come finish it. I have to say I’m glad Kelly stopped her. Sometimes I worry the world will destroy Nahida. She’s so strong, but I still worry for some reason.
That sorta makes else. K well tell her to for the rest of us. She doesn’t have to review his comments… way beneath her. They’re not on this part of the page.
No. Sorry. I do love the girl. I’m not telling her to do anything. When I slipped and told Steve, she said it was because I was a neurology major. That was really nice of her, making it a compliment, a strength. Really, I’m autistic. When I notice something, sometimes I don’t register that I can’t just say it, that it’s not socially acceptable. She said I read her expression, but really it was Kelly. I was staring at her face and then Kelly said it first.
If she decides randomly, that’s something else. But doesn’t look like it.
LOL! WHAT was she wrong about? She never said HALF of what he said she did, didn’t make it about Zimmerman’s race, and if you remember her only point was how vicious Zimmerman supporters are in attacking a dead kid! Steve’s been declaring a victory since before it even started. He HAS to have one, that’s why he keeps saying she’s going to run off crying even though we all know that’s not what she did. He said she did even while she was still here!
Claiming a victory after silencing the other person… that’s so low. But he wasn’t listening anyway so I guess it wouldn’t have mattered. Kelly was right, it was getting better before Steve claimed she never appreciated his struggles and to his convenience told her not to answer that! She was making him soft and he hated it.
KelsShels, or Kels, only people who know me call me Kelly.
Also will everyone shut up? K thanks.
We have three weeks of classes before we’re moving at the end of them, and the woman she had arrangements with decided to stay in her homestate so she’ll be living alone and she’s planning that. If she were here she’d glance reproachfully at us petty mere mortals. =P So hush. let it go. It’s getting annoying. Not that I think I’ll be coming back here after I move anyway, I only ever do it using her laptop.. weirdest forum ever.
She never apologized for jumping to conclusions on Zimmerman. That I believe was her lowest moment. I really had thought she would have been better than that.
I thought she would have been as shocked as I was at how people were calling for his death.
Why would she apologize for what she said in your imagination?
W/e I’m not going to talk about this with you. You’re totally absurd. All Nahida said was that Zimmerman KILLED Travyon (which ISN’T jumping to conclusions because he DID) and that he wasn’t arrested and the Right attacked Trayvon. She ALREADY said people shouldn’t be calling for Zimmerman’s death, or did you skip over that too and assume you knew what “someone like her” would think too well and didn’t bother read? She NEVER called for Zimmerman’s death, but you had NO PROBLEM calling a dead kid a thug.
She didn’t even say he was white and you exploded on that like she did. And on top of that, I can’t believe you would have the nerve to say she should apologize when you have no idea what she thinks because YOU STOPPED HER FROM TALKING. Good, because you weren’t reading it anyway.
In her last comment she said it was a “finality” and so I don’t think she’s coming back anyway, but I’ll be sure to let her know you’re provoking again so that she definitely doesn’t. Leave her alone. The way you’re acting, saying you don’t want to hear it and then blaming her by accusing her of not apologizing when 1. you said you didn’t want her to talk about it and 2. you don’t even know what she thinks… I don’t even know what to call that.
Me: Were you going to back to Little Mosque?
Nahida: No, why?
Me: Good, Steve just said you should apologize for jumping to conclusions about Zimmerman.
Nahida: …
Me: I know right? Then he said you weren’t shocked people were calling for his death.
Nahida: Does Steve listen to me?
Me: Apparently not. Apparently HE wasn’t jumping to conclusions about Trayvon or anything. Or saying that the dead victim deserved to be trashed by the Right. Whereas you didn’t say anything about Zimmerman deserving death threats.
Nahida: Yes, I’m familiar with the exchange. Enough.
Me: I can’t believe–
Nahida: Kelly, STOP TALKING.
Me: Is this hurting you?
Nahida: Yes.
Me: Well maybe it doesn’t hurt you enough because you’re still nice to him!
Nahida: Kelly…
Me: He’s a hypocrite who holds you to higher standards than he holds himself! How SELFISH is that? Even when you’ve never stooped as low as him! NEARLY as much, but he says you did!
Nahida: He is not here, Kelly, and you will not speak with me of others in their absence. Backstabbing is a sin.
Me: Oh I’ll fix it and let him know.
I will not apologize for giving a dead child who can not defend himself the benefit of the doubt over the man who shot him, Steve.
Travyon’s family sent out a letter through change .org when Zimmerman was not arrested, petitioning for the arrest. I received it. They did NOT mention Zimmerman’s race EVEN ONCE in the letter. What would you have done, Steve? Would you have shut up about it? Went on with your life with your son shot and the killer free?
After Zimmerman refused to return his lawyer’s calls, he began collecting donations. And TRAYVON’s family is scheming to make money from the event? That MUST be why they’re talking about their son being shot, right? Not out of grief or anything. And because some random fanatics were miscategorizing Zimmerman as white, Trayvon deserved to be trashed entirely, with fake photographs of him circulating the Internet, slandered as a “thug”, and disparaged for being an average 17 year old kid?
Some freak chased down a kid, had a confrontation with him, and then was flooded with the sympathy of the Right because he was “standing his ground”—when HE chased after Trayvon? You STILL believe Trayvon pursued him after he supposedly walked back to his car, and not that Trayvon was attempting to fight back after he was bewildered that some stranger was following him? The murderer gets to stand his ground, but not the kid he was chasing?
I see who gets the benefit of the doubt from you.
I will not apologize for giving it to the victim. Saying Zimmerman shot Trayvon is not jumping to conclusions; it is reality. If Zimmerman didn’t shoot him—well, then Trayvon must be alive!
The ONLY time I jumped to a conclusion is when I said Zimmerman was racist, with the evidence provided (the audio was edited, but not the video); YOU jumped to conclusions DESPITE the evidence provided, and you are STILL jumping to conclusions now. Trayvon may have easily been the one protecting himself in self-defense, NOT Zimmerman. I don’t even care at this point: I only cared until he was finally arrested. It’s for the court now. I wanted uproar for the justice system to be recovered, and only for the justice system to be recovered, and now it is.
I never said Zimmerman was white, but you didn’t care. I never said I wasn’t shocked Zimmerman was receiving death threats, but you didn’t care. I said the Right was not giving Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, and the Left was, after YOU said the Left NEVER gives it to anyone. (You have to shoot someone to get it from the Right.) I said I was disgusted with the extent of this victim-blaming. Have you apologized for misconstruing my argument Steve? Speaking of “still haven’t apologized” since you brought it up: Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I must not know “your” culture (much less be a member of it) the first time I commented? Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I must have been a homegrown terrorist when I posted a link to Al Jazeera? Have you apologized for assuming the woman Herman Cain assaulted was a liar? Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I must hate men for posting an article by Gloria Steinem? Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I support Palestine only because I’m Muslim? Have you apologized for calling a roommate I had a slut because you jumped to the conclusion that she must have a certain lifestyle when she slept with TWO men her entire life? Have you apologized to Kelly for jumping to the conclusion that she must be a potential killer? Have you apologized to her for jumping to the conclusion that she must support Occupy and want to kill cops? Have you apologized for attacking my family, whom you’d never met? Have you apologized for expecting me to answer to everything the Left has ever done, when I have told you over and over again that I am not mainstream? Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I must have not known how you felt on 9/11? Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I must be insecure about my virginity every time I wrote about sex? Have you apologized for preaching to me about my own religion and referring to God as “Allah” in comments about gay rights because you jumped to the conclusion that I’m not American enough to relate fully to the English word?
We are not speaking Arabic.
I finally know the Right. This year with every legislative advancement women ever made under attack by conservative politicians. Protections against violence. Healthcare. Fair pay. Abortion was easier in 1978! At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if they finally did want they’ve mulled over in passing, and came for the vote.
You said this one issue would rip our nation apart. Well, it certainly did us, didn’t it? Because you couldn’t resist, and then you couldn’t let it go. You made several unrelated comments after I wrote the one mentioning Travyon, and THEN you “warned” me (*rolls eyes*)—the morning after! You saw the comment, didn’t say anything / talked about other things, and THEN had to write about what I should or shouldn’t dare say. You couldn’t help yourself. Or am I jumping to conclusions? You still can’t help yourself.
Maybe it was this issue for you, Steve, but it wasn’t this issue for me. It was everything above. And you know what? This issue still isn’t the end for me.
But it seems to be the end for you. So be it. Because I am tired. I am so, so tired, of answering for things I never said.
I wasn’t surprised there were death threats out there. What surprised me was how prominent the people were who were making the death threats and how just open they were with the death threats.
You never saw what a basic threat that is to our very way of life.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/think-you-know-george-zimmerman-this-new-timeline-could-change-the-perception/
As an American I couldn’t care less about Israel except to the extent it effects America. I am very pissed about those Americans, and yes I know they are mostly conservatives who put Israeli interests at a par our even above that of our own. That’s treason.
If Israel must be sacrificed to save America than I would do it in a moment. And it looks like that might be what will happen.
I believe that America can survive four more years of Obama, but Israel won’t. Voting for Obama signs Israel’s death warrant.
But I am willing to do it if it creates a back lash in America.
http://fora.tv/2008/07/23/Christian_Lander_Stuff_White_People_Like
I found this a very interesting video. Does any of this relate in any way to what we saw on LMOTP?
Here’s the first of three of the series but I found the last one most interesting. Though I learned more watching the Tudors.
Thanks Gene.
Yeah, that show did have a little to do with some of what Little Mosque raised.
It is so easy for us Americans to forget that this was a show about Canada. There’s a reason why Mercy Anglican was Mercy Anglican instead of some other denomination and I don’t think I even have full appreciation of that although it is easy to make American analogies.
After talking about the whole church burning from the whole “international incident” perspective there is a lot I want to talk about the church burning from another angle. How it burned I think was quite important. It was important that it was Sarah who burned it down and how she did it.
In the end perhaps the show is just showing the reality of the situation (in symbolic form sometimes) and perhaps that is why I could predict it’s ending on the first episode. For them to have done otherwise would not reflect reality. I didn’t predict the actual church burning though.
You know one thing that bothers me about the video, or I should say would bother me about this video, if I was British is at the end when they were showing the Hindu Worship in England.
It wasn’t the Hindu part of it but they did show Indian National Flags at the ceremony. That’s not religion. That’s NATIONALISM. That is showing your loyalty towards a foreign country!
It is just like what Sir Norman Tebbit, a British Politician, said when he observed a home game between the English Cricket team and the Pakistan (yeah I know India’s enemy) Cricket team.
He saw how people of Pakistani descent, and he wasn’t only referring to recent immigrants but people who were Third and Fourth generation British, how they were not cheering for the English team but the Pakistani team.
He thought gosh if these people don’t feel enough loyalty to their nationality to support them in sporting matches, how can they be really trusted as British for the larger stuff. He asks a reasonable question to these people. Are you still looking back from where you came from or where you are?”
Just to be fair, here is a Muslim’s reaction to the program.
http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/lifestyle/st-george-on-parade-1-3783627
Nahida is a total bitch like all attractive women. When her roommate said that, Steve should have made a mockery of it instantly. You know if the tables were turned she would have done the same!! Instead Steve admitted he thought she was beautiful! You know what they say, men admire, women judge.
Women admire attractive men. Perhaps you aren’t one of them
LOL!! Oh Daayyyyumm.
NAHIDA!!
You CAME!
Dear Olly, I can’t speak for the others whom you know as the same, but as wistful as it sounds I don’t say goodbyes because I believe in Eternity.
My abstention from saying goodbye is not, at least initially, a conscience manifestation of this belief. But I will say goodbyes provisionally, and when I suspect any kind of earthly permanence, I refrain altogether almost innately. And so here I write to you my intended last comment—the show is over, there is no purpose here—but if I never encounter you again, well our souls are immortal (if you would grace me with your sentiment in the chance that you don’t believe in souls, and forgive me for my presumptions.)
Very quickly, (I don’t have much time, excuse the rough writing) I’ve come away disappointed in the show: they’ve destroyed the potential dimensions of every character, except for Thorne, and still the writing regarding his tearful wedding ceremony was unoriginal and predictable. I loved Rose, and she didn’t show up once in the last season. Rayyan is nothing like she was, and even the Sarah who for a trip to China sabotaged her daughter’s vision was far more interesting than the lovable overly sensitive pushover she’s become. The old Sarah would have never tolerated the mayor’s debauchery without a fight that didn’t resort to incessant whining. With all its conflict and raised issues the first season harbored more promise than any of the recent.
I don’t like Amaar’s character. I never really did, but I dislike him more now. I found it unprecedented that Baber (and not Amaar, the religious leader) was the one who thought to invite Thorne to congregate at the new mosque, and only after Thorne mentioned transferring “to some God forsaken place like Toronto” (—which I didn’t at all understand. Is a church a building? There are still Christians in Mercy!
Would it be that Sarah burnt it down while Thorne was reverend? But surely he wouldn’t be held accountable for that? Though maybe for letting the insurance lapse.) Amaar should have offered to rebuild it at once! That was his home. Is nothing sacred to him? Even if he had no personal investment, surely he still would recognize it as his duty to his community as a Muslim? The new mosque is so beautiful… he might have easily afforded a church that was just as beautiful. With large windows, and indoor balconies on the second floor. Or perhaps the Christians would have preferred simplicity, or the semblance of their old church since it was so significant. Either way—whatever is beautiful for them. Of course, then there would be no story, because of the separation; anyway Amaar should have offered them both options. I would have very much liked the Christians to congregate at the mosque, but I would understand if they wanted a place of their own.
I found these episodes displaying Amaar’s piety grating for this very reason. Yes, it’s highly convenient to find inspiration from a chicken while you’re wandering around with no responsibility. Why did he even need a chicken to tell him to build a mosque? You would think that’s the most obvious thing in the world.
And how fast he was to consider the barrier! While not only is it an aberration, theologically unfounded, but it nullifies the prayers of everyone who prays behind it—deeming it sinful! (If you don’t know: when you walk in front of someone who is praying, their prayer is invalidated [because only God is to be before them]. To address this, Muslims place a pile of books or some kind of platform in the way so that anyone who wishes to pass in front of them while they pray must walk on the other side, rendering the prayer undisturbed. But in congregation, everyone prays together and delivers the prayer as a complete form, so the barrier severs half the congregation from praying with the imam, because it acts as that wall by virtue—same effect.) Baber isn’t religious at all and yet he upholds this aberration; —so typical that the most “traditional” of men aren’t at all traditional. He’s just an irrelevant sexist bigot, who’s simultaneously blasphemous by no coincidence. And of course Amaar doesn’t think of the religious aspect, he just approaches Baber as though it were politics! Entertaining inequality and desecration—and chickens are a sign indeed! You’re so spiritual Amaar! Did you happen to notice the church has burned to the ground?
Another thing that almost hurt me: those times Thorne wanted genuinely to apologize to Amaar, and until Rayyan’s prescription, Amaar was so callous. How would anyone have the heart? The writers trapped themselves; they needed Amaar to dismiss Thorne or he’d be too perfect. If they hadn’t made Thorne so ridiculously villainous in the first place this wouldn’t have happened. But they succumbed to deductive polarities. And ultimately cheap displays of piety.
Though I suspected Sarah would return to Islam, I found it so unusual she referred to Biblical stories as “fairytales”—at that point I wondered if she was agnostic, because the Qur’an has similar stories, and even Muslims who don’t take them literally (I do, but I know ones who don’t) still refer to them as “metaphors.” I would hope agnostics are respectful… it’s really an atheist thing (and in most cases understandably).
Ann looked nice; the dress flatters her figure.
Rayyan’s pregnant. How excessive. And insipidly predictable; I knew what she was going to say the minute she ran out of the shower. (Does she shower with a bra on? No woman has cleavage without a bra… even if she’s a D cup. But I guess television has different standards, through which they perpetuate unattainable beauty ideals; naturally, they had to make sure her running out of the shower was as unrealistic as possible.) Amaar’s reaction to the news was visibly forged. I mean, he’s an actor, but it’s visibly forged.
There, nothing monumental. I have to write about Ophelia; good luck to you! And please do visit me elsewhere on the internet Olly.
Nahida @ April 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm – LMFAO! I seriously wish I had that woman’s tongue.
Thorne mentioned transferring “to some God forsaken place like Toronto” (—which I didn’t at all understand.
Well it is supposed to be a comedy. Thorne (as well as Amaar) were both FROM TORONTO. He was a big city boy who really hated to have been placed in this back water hick town Mercy. For the first season (well I mean for the first season of Thorne) he really missed big city life but Magee said he would grow attached to Mercy and he was right.
All that statement was supposed to mean was merely that. It was the counter to what I am sure he said when he first got there about being transferred to some God forsaken place like Mercy (at least he wasn’t transferred to Wullerton).
You saw the same with Amaar. That was the real reason he insulted Wheat Week. It was his big city arrogance showing. He looked down condescendingly on small town events like that.
I am sure you realize this but Toronto for Canadians is like New York for Americans. Lots of New Yorkers wouldn’t want to live anywhere else with all the art and culture and all of that. But then again for many small town Americans they wouldn’t be caught dead in New York for all the crime and congestion and all of that.
So it was just the whole “City Mouse” “Country Mouse” conflict you see within most societies.
I believe that throughout the first season with Thorne he mentioned that he had hoped that if he did good in Mercy he would be transferred back to Toronto. So yeah, that statement was just to show how much Throne had changed in that regard.
No, I think she meant she didn’t understand why they would send him back.
Thank you Nahida for your comments.
It’s like I am seeing the other you again. The comments were so beautiful.
What you said about Amaar were right on target.
Back for a finality, because I’d neglected–in my comment to Olly–to address Steve at all, and considering all else, that’s cold,
(I apologize for taking up your time Steve in case the following is something that isn’t remotely significant to you)
Steve. There is only one of me, and I hope that you can accept this. Or, that if you don’t, you have the courtesy to recognize my right to define my nature without the imposition of your constraints. And if this toleration isn’t freely given (understandable; I am in no position to ask for what I haven’t earned), consider that I would never be so disrespectful as to override with my assessment something as intimate as the way you circumscribe your own existence.
Because I do respect you Steve. I might have… never said it, though you’ve told me the same more than once before. I imagine it must have been far easier for you to say, effortless, because that was all, and there was nothing behind it.
I know you believe things are black and white, and there are probably parts of me you would change.
But my… “philosophy”, is that seemingly polar principles are not independent exclusives—rather, I believe “dualistic contraries” exist within an internally differentiated dynamic unity. All aspects are interconnected in the entirety. In other words, you can’t change a part without changing the whole. If you alter the source of my political framework, you will find—perhaps to your displeasure, perhaps not—that ghostly changes appear where you did not wish them. I may startle at the sound of thunder (it’s lightning that startles me; isn’t that strange!), I may no longer valiantly investigate strange sounds beneath the stairs; I may be grimmer, or crueler.
Counter to this—because this belief is so intimate, being the paradigm by which I understand myself—when you pull me into fragments in which qualities of the whole are not enclosed in a single shard, it feels like a fundamental desecration. We are different in our approach; I understand fully that you demarcate with neither the desire nor intention to be in any way disrespectful or to erase my… conviction, (and I wouldn’t impose such an intimate strategorical* on you by suggesting you stop seeing yourself through this method of critique!) but it doesn’t translate with me, or sit comfortably, when you’re talking about me. It’s kind of like being measured by the degrees of Christianity or Judaism or another religion, when I’m Muslim.
And if you decide not and to toss this all out, well the show’s done so no opportunity for application anyway.
*I made up this word, just now. Nothing else would fit! “Design” and “strategy” are too much of fixed nouns than processes. I needed an active adjective that functions as a noun; that ending is used for some nouns… too tired to think of any right now. Because Hamlet is the WORST headache. What a whiney douchecanoe. The way he speaks to his mother is unacceptable.
Is everyone SURE Nahida is only 21?
Which play is your favorite, Nahida?
Her favorite Shakespeare play is Measure for Measure.
I certainty understand not having much time. I feel that I have a lot that I haven’t said about the show, thoughts that have been going through my mind that I haven’t had time to put onto this blog. First I promised the second half of the whole Mercy Mosque Burning becomes international news talk. I said I was going to be fair and show how my side would respond and I haven’t done that. Sorry. I have been very busy.
But apart from that, separate from that there is just so much that I have left unsaid. I don’t know if this show changed my views so much. I mean it is pretty bad when on the first episode you can pretty closely predict the last episode but it did give me food for thought.
One of the things I have been thinking about lately, and I know you might be surprised to hear this from me, but I do think there needs to be more minority characters on television in America. Not too many, I mean not out of proportion of their representation in our society but yeah I see the importance of such characters. I mean it is difficult because if one makes too much of an effort it becomes for the lack of a better word “preachy” or perhaps “token” or “fadish” or i don’t know if I have the right words there but it would like oh yeah here is another show with minority characters. it needs to seem natural, not forced.
But I know how I used to get excited when a show would be set in my home town or even near it. Cool I would think.
But to have a minority in a lead role I am sure it’s even more important than that. It would make the person think, yeah, I am part of this society. And if Little Mosque on the Prairie did that for some Muslims in Canada then that was a good thing.
Of course again, doing this in practice is tricky. While it is great for minorities to be able to relate to characters, the experiences can’t be so unrelated to the rest of us that it’s not of interest. You have the Preachy problem. If it seems forced then of course people would just see it as television’s version of “affirmative action”.
But to use a British example, How long did it take for the Doctor to have a Black Companion? He still haven’t had an East Indian companion though you did have Rani on the Sarah Jane Smith Adventures. But even me saying it, choosing companions on racial basis sound distasteful. It should come about naturally. But how?
So, I guess in the end I don’t know what I am saying. A forced effort I would oppose, but would it hurt every once in a while if the lead detective (not the partner) on the new cops show happens to be I don’t know Korean. As long as they didn’t rub the point in. And the thing is if they did it I bet the could market the show better in Korea. I remember that in Hong Kong they called the Green Hornet the “Kato show” because of course Bruce Lee was his partner. And the show was quite popular over there. But again, if Hollywood was to go overboard on this that wouldn’t be right either.
Someday perhaps society will be beyond this race thing. I see it in children. I have a friend who plays with Black children who has friends from Korea, and there is no special focus placed upon it It There is no stigma or any special attachment placed upon it. Nor should it be . I think will this continue for them as they grow, and I know sadly NO. I thought my generation could overcome race too, but it’s not to be. It will be with us for some time I guess.
I know this is a little off topic but what do you think about a Black Lady Guinevere? If you don’t know what I am talking about I am referring to the BBC show “Merlin”
And if her why no Indians in King Arthur’s Court? Or do I overestimate the current Indian population in the UK?
I know we have to be a little careful here because we are talking about the internal affairs of another country. not our own so it is rude to comment too much on it especially since we don’t have the perspective of being actual members of this society. But it is interesting to understand that we are not the only society under stress. Other societies have stresses as well.
Also, for actors of course these are jobs we are talking about. I can understand how tough it can be for them.
“I see it in children. I have a friend who plays with Black children who has friends from Korea, and there is no special focus placed upon it ”
Sorry it was late last night. I mean I have a friend WHOSE CHILDREN play with black children. Yeah, leaving out that key sentence made my friend sound pretty creepy.
And yeah, and they really don’t make any notice of race. They are all of the same social economic background and they are just friends that’s all.
Hope for the future? Perhaps, but I doubt it. I thought my generation was going to be the generation to end racism. Nope.
Off Topic but has anyone seen the series “The Palace”? Critics said it was too trashy and perhaps it was although I thought it raised some interesting questions without really taking sides. At least that was my perception of it but of course I don’t have anything invested in the British Monarchy one way or the other. I guess for the Brits it hit too close to home.
http://www.hulu.com/the-palace
This documentary is pretty good though.
Nahida I have a hard time believing this video. At 32 minutes into it they said that Christian end time prophesy is exactly the same as Muslim end time prophesy except who the Quoran says is the good guy the Bible says is the bad guy. They make, through comparing quote from both the Bible and the Quoran, Islam look like the tool of the anti-Christ.
Are they misinterpreting the Quoran?
Uhm. Okay, wow. So at 35:54 when they are talking about the Mahdi, the warrior who defeats the anti-Christ before Jesus (Isa) returns, and they are saying the Mahdi will rule from the same place (as the same person) from which the Christians say the anti-Christ will rule, they scan Chapter 8 in the Qur’an… which is talking about the Battle of Badr (a battle between Muslims and pagans that happened ages ago) and is completely irrelevant.
Before that, at 32 min, the man in the video did not quote from the Qur’an. He cited a “tradition” in which Muslims and Jews fight before Judgment Day, but did not give the source, though he insisted it was a well-rooted one. I’m sure it was well-rooted somewhere–no doubt, it was easy to find a “tradition” that repeated an old story of a war between Muslims and Jews (since they scanned an old story right as they said this and claimed it was talking about the future Judgment Day). I’m sure there are Muslims and Jews who believe this will happen before Judgment Day, possibly as a product of long tensions. Then like I said, after scanning the part of the Bible that I am assuming speaks of the anti-Christ since that is what they are talking about as they scan it, they scan Chapter 8 of the Qur’an. There was a disconnect between the obscure aforementioned “tradition” and these verses: when the camera scanned verses of the actual Qur’an (supposedly to back up this claim), they were not verses that told of the future as the speakers in the video, but of the past. The Battle of Badr, to be exact. The Muslims were not fighting Jews in that battle—they were fighting pagans. This was during a time when there was great persecution against Islam (the new religion, with few comparably converts), and the pagans were not holding true to their peace treaties. War was inevitable.
It’s not related to Judgment Day, though.
And THEN for some reason… they scan Chapter 27. Which is a really beautiful chapter. It has a lot of the stories: Moses, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (these are different from the ones in the Bible), and they scanned the end where it mentions Israel. Here is the (longer) passage toward the end:
God, who created the heavens and earth,
and sent down for you out of heaven water;
and We caused to grow therewith gardens full of loveliness
whose trees you could never grow.
Is there a god with God?
Nay, but they are a people who assign to God equals!
God, who made the earth a fixed place and set amidst it rivers
and appointed for it firm mountains and placed a partition between the two seas.
Is there a god with God?
Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.
God who answers the constrained, when the constrained calls unto God,
and removes the evil and appoints you to be successors in the earth.
Is there a god with God?
Little indeed do you remember.
God, who guides you in the shadows of the land and the sea
and looses the winds, bearing good tidings before God’s mercy.
Is there a god with God?
High exalted be God, above that which they associate!
Who originates creation, then brings it back again,
and provides you out of heaven and earth.
Is there a god with God?
Say: ‘Produce your proof, if you speak truly.’
Say: ‘None knows the Unseen in the heavens and earth except God.
And they are not aware when they shall be raised;
nay, but their knowledge fails as to the Hereafter;
nay, they are in doubt of it; nay, they are blind to it.
The unbelievers say, ‘What, when we are dust, and our fathers,
shall we indeed be brought forth?
We have been promised this, and our fathers before;
this is naught but the fairy-tales of the ancients.’
(Believers!) Say: ‘Journey in the land,
then behold how was the end of the sinners.
Do not sorrow for them, nor be thou straitened for what they devise.
They say, ‘When shall this promise come to pass, if you speak the truth?’
(Believers!) Say: ‘It may be that riding behind you already
is some part of that you seek to hasten on.
Surely God is bountiful to humankind;
but most of them are not thankful
Surely God knows what their hearts conceal,
and what they publish.
And not a thing is there hidden in heaven and earth
but it is in a Manifest Book.
Surely this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel
most of that concerning which they are at variance;
it is a guidance, and a mercy unto the believers.
Surely God will decide between them by God’s Judgment;
God is the All-mighty, the All-knowing.
You can see in bold that that’s the only time Israel is mentioned, and it says that the Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel, and that it corrects what “varies” among them: the books that have been changed through time. It says the Qur’an is a guidance and a mercy, and that God will judge between them (between the believers)—it is not referring to (only) the Jews, but everyone in that territory, as the children of that land, because they were all brought from Ibrahim (Abraham).
Still no religion is specified. In fact, in that passage it refers to “believers” and “unbelievers” according to the Signs of God they accept, and defines the “unbelievers” as those who are unthankful (for all the beauty of creation and heavenly gifts described earlier in the passage) as well as those who associate false gods with God (which is repeated.) A passing reference to the anti-Christ (who wished to be called God) and to other idolaters. It reads on,
So put thy trust in God; thou art upon the manifest truth.
Thou shalt not make the dead to hear,
neither shalt thou make the deaf to hear the call
when they turn about, retreating.
Thou shalt not guide the blind out of their error
neither shalt thou make any to hear,
save such as believe in Our signs,
and so surrender.
When the Word falls on them,
We shall bring forth for them out of the earth
a beast that shall speak unto them:
‘Humankind had no faith in Our signs.’
And that’s specifically the part that they showed in the video. Which is so strange. Because right before it, it’s… anti-war. (Don’t bother, because you will not make the blind see, you will not make the deaf hear, you will not make the disbelievers believe the Signs. Just put your trust in God.) The part about the beast was mentioned in the video, but it is speaking to the disbelievers… NOT the believers which the video claims… which in fact would make it CONSISTENT with Christianity (not the opposite). In fact WHILE THE GUY IS TALKING you can read what’s on the screen at 37:48, (Just pause it there)
And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the UNJUST)
We shall produce from the Earth a beast for face them (again, the unjust)
He will speak to them for that mankind did not believe in our signs.
Then he says right after, “So one the Islamic side Muslims are actually hoping to be marked with–”
Yeah, no.
Thank you Nahida.
I was very disappointed with the video.
I could have gone along with it if they merely stuck to Iranian leader wants nuclear war because HE believes in kooky 12th Imam stuff, but then the video went into trying to convince me that the kooky stuff was somehow real.
I believe our foreign policy regarding Israel is too tied into end time theology. We should treat Israel more like “just another foreign country”.
Very disappointed in Glenn Beck for putting on this video. Didn’t see much stuff there that was new or somehow shocking.
This is a very good documentary. You should watch this Nahida so you know who not to get involved with.
If you don’t get why I posted that thing about Joseph A. Columbo Sr. and the Italian American Civil Rights League, it was because he went around in the early 1970s saying that the Mafia didn’t exist. And people bought it. I remember an “All in the Family” episode where the point was that the Mafia doesn’t exist. They even had Frank Sinatra do a benefit concert for his organization
But of course the Mafia did exist. And Joseph A. Columbo Sr. was indeed a mobster!
Can’t help thinking about that whenever I see a CAIR spokesman on the air. Yeah, yeah, heard something similar from Joseph A. Columbo, Sr.
“All in the Family” episode where the point was that the Mafia doesn’t exist. They even had Frank Sinatra do a benefit concert for his organization.”
I don’t mean that Frank Sinatra was on “All in the Family” I mean that Frank Sinatra had a fundraiser for the “Italian-American Civil Rights League”.
The “All in the Family” episode was Archie wrote a letter to the editor about the Mafia. Some big Italian American came knocking on the door and let him know that there was no such thing as the Mafia. He told Archie that the FBI doesn’t use the word MAFIA but the word organized crime instead.
Of course Archie was scared shitless because he thinks the guy is a Mafia guy but actually he turned out to be a New York Cop instead (though what I have heard about NY cops in the 1970s there wasn’t much difference between them).
Point is that Norman Lear was trying to convince the nation that the Mafia didn’t exist. But it did! So it’s not the first time someone has tried to convince us that something didn’t exist that does. And I know that CAIR is just a cover for terrorists just like the “Italian American Civil Rights League” was really a cover for a mobster!
Poi
Point is that we have proof that CAIR really supports terrorism.
“Have you apologized for jumping to the conclusion that I support Palestine only because I’m Muslim? …”
Isn’t that really the only reason to do so?
Israel has given into practically every concession. They even had their own troops force their own people off their lands. And what do they get in return, MISSILES!
Look perhaps the Jews shouldn’t have settled in the land post WWII but of course if you read any comments from like foreign newspapers and such, for example RUSSIA (when the Russians post in English) you can see how much hatred there is for Jewish people. They needed land somewhere to call their own.
Mind you, I support Neither “Palestine” nor Israel.
I am an American. So as an American I support only what is in the best interests of AMERICA. I am an American FIRSTER and any American who isn’t is a traitor. See, I can criticize my own side.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lets-go-get-guns-occupy-portland-protesters-go-off-on-obscenity-laced-tirades-about-arming-themselves-spreading-disease-police-slave-catchers-after-being-denied-park-reentry/
Interracial marriage reaches all time high… will everyone in the world be mixed one day?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/25/us/us-census-interracial/index.html
The number of interracial couples in the United States has reached an all-time high, with one in every 10 American opposite-sex married couples saying they’re of mixed races, according to the most recent Census data released Wednesday.
There was an advertisement I saw the other day where this White Young Adult was helping his little sister (also an adult) by driving her and her friends somewhere and he said that he didn’t mind (because he found one of her friends siting in the backseat attractive). The woman was black. I mean very black. While for me yeah it takes a little getting used to, ultimately i think this is a good thing. After all love should transcend race. I am very glad this ad isn’t controversial as it would no doubt have been 30 years ago.
How is this news? I’m amazed at what passes for news these days. Can you believe there’s a article called The Death of the Blowjob and the Rise of Cunnilingus?
http://www.esquire.com/women/sex/death-of-the-blowjob-0412
Meanwhile in Africa…
^ I can’t tell if this guy’s a hipster, or just plain stupid.
If you want to know about Africa, I would recommend not reading Esquire for that information.
Which country anyway! I find it so annoying how people simply refer to “Africa” as an example of world suffering like it’s some expansive homogenous place.
Just like they do when they talk about “Native American spirituality” like it must all be the same, while glorifying how “chill and peaceful” it is. Fuck you. They are not your wise cultural teachers who exist solely for your enlightenment.
I vote stupid. And a pervert!
I wasn’t approving of it, I was just saying it isn’t news.
And come on. This woman basically admitted to fantasizing about you a few times… why isn’t THAT not okay?
NAHIDA IS AN EXAMPLE OF FEMINIST HYPOCRISY.
And, Steve, you’re supporting her.
She hates Western culture. She just admitted it in this post. She said she’d change it “As a Muslim woman”!!
What do you think, Steve? You were wrong about her. America will be Islamisized. By hateful feminists, what Irony. Let the Islamics come! That’ll teach American feminazis a lesson.
From this thread up here.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/21/race-on-tv-thumbs-down-for-acura-the-bachelor-thumbs-up-for-dodge.html
Well, great–I’m so glad women of color can now basque in the male gaze by the same standards as white women. *sarcasm*
I am not content with this. I really, really want to be. And I comment them for the step in the… right direction.
But it’s a right direction in a very wrong system.
In the end, it’s still the promise of attractive women that is selling the car, and not the women driving it. Men are the customer, and for women the commercial is just patronizing, assuring insight into the male gaze which is everywhere, all the time. “Don’t worry ladies (of color), we find YOU attractive too!” says the commercial. Yes, well thanks. But that’s really not what I needed.
This is inevitably what happens whenever there’s a feminist thread somewhere about large women, or women with small breasts, and men show up to declare how attractive they find these characteristics, as if to assure women we shouldn’t be so “insecure”, and these men just end up missing the point that they’re reinforcing a tradition of women being presented for judgment and rated on a scale of attractiveness. Or that we care about what they think and that our conversation was in anyway way revolving around it. It’s so entitled of them to believe their approval is what we’re after. The point isn’t that she’s perceived as unattractive, it’s that she is constantly conditioned to believe there is something wrong with her on this basis and it infringes on her well-being and often on her rights, reducing her value as a human being to her appearance. Finding someone who finds me attractive is the least of my problems.
My problem is that I won’t be taken seriously if I’m too pretty, that I won’t be hired if I’m not pretty enough, that if I’m an actress who’s busty I will always be cast as an airhead or “promiscuous”, that if I’m of color I’ll be cast as the sarcastic best friend, that if I’m of color and conventionally attractive I’ll be cast as an exotic version of the mysterious femme fatal and hypersexualized–but still a sidekick to the leading white actress, who will get married, and who is sexual in a “wholesome” way. It’s about “I’d fuck that, but I wouldn’t marry it.” It about blondes vs. burnettes and the imaginary war between them as painted by patriarchy. It’s about men hitting on redheads thinking they have fiery tempers and this is going to be a great ride. It’s about men referring to women by their hair color. It’s about women who are blonde and large-breasted getting kicked off of planes for an outfit that a less-blonde less-busty woman could have worn excusably. It’s about “she was raped? who would rape that thing?” and the simultaneous “she was raped because she’s sexy–she was asking for it!” My problem is the real ramifications of the system by which this commercial is constructed, a system that focuses on the male gaze and from there measures women’s worth. And assuring a woman that she’s attractive after all!! just plays into the larger structure.
I don’t care if random men I don’t even know find me attractive. I care when specific men find me attractive. If we want to talk about sexual self-esteem, that does wonders more. And because we’ve allowed that one aspect of sexual self-esteem to expand to artificially cover every other area of our lives and cater to masses of men instead of individuals, most people will never realize that satisfaction.
I commend* them, pardon.
Nahida, not so long ago people would have been outraged by this commercial.
Do you know the story about the first biracial kiss on American television?
Nahida, you still haven’t told me that how you feel about the BBC casting the role of Lady Guinevere as a person of color?
I haven’t seen that show to be able to tell.
I actually don’t watch many shows. =( I’ve been watching Lost Girl lately (a Canadian show), which I’m pretty crazy about. (You would not approve.) But I love main character. (She’s so kickass.) And the plot. And there are quite a few people of color in it, though the main characters are white.
And I know people would have been outraged by this commercial 30 years ago. But it just seems so mundane to me; interracial dating is kind of all I know. Just because of the demographics of where I live. (I grew up in Silicon Valley.) And for the exact same reason it’s personally all I’ve experienced… I don’t even think about it because it’s the norm. So the focus of the commercial for me was still that it ultimately falls into the same pattern. And if anything was striking it was that the women in it looked like “normal” women going to a normal place (like the airport or something as opposed to a Victoria’s Secret runway), which I very much appreciated.
How about the larger issue of Historical Dramas casting actors and actresses of color in roles that aren’t accurate for their race during the time period represented? Like for example have some of the roles of the nobles played by blacks.
In the end they are actors so just because they are of a certain race doesn’t mean the character they a playing is of that race.
Meh, people only freak out when a character they imagined as white turns out to be of color (like Rue in The Hunger Games.) Facebook was all a-Twitter with how Rue’s death wasn’t as sad because she was black.
No one had a problem with the Prince of Persia being white. And not… Persian.
I don’t care what people do in the name of accuracy. As long as they’re accurate… equally.
I don’t care if random men I don’t even know find me attractive. I care when specific men find me attractive. If we want to talk about sexual self-esteem, that does wonders more. And because we’ve allowed that one aspect of sexual self-esteem to expand to artificially cover every other area of our lives and cater to masses of men instead of individuals, most people will never realize that satisfaction.
On target.
Not at all surprised you like Lost Girl Nahida. All the magical creatures. And the female lead is VERY strong. Actually she kind of reminds me of you.
Demographics of where Nahida’s from in 2010:
47% White
32% Asian
26.9% Hispanic or Latino
12.4% Other (I’m assuming Nahida would place herself here)
4.9% two or more races
2.6% African American
0.7% Native American
0.4% Pacific Islander
Yeah, I can see why that’s the norm for her. Relatively high minority population. Silicon Valley is famous for the influx of South and East Asian engineers.
“White” is still the majority at 47% but that’s low compared to the country. Assuming people intermingle outside themselves, most people would date outside their race. Given that Nahida makes up less than 12.4% she would almost constantly be dating outside her race.
I saw a picture online a while ago of a protestor holding a sign that reads, “BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.” In front of it, a man and a woman kiss. They are visibly of different races.
Best photograph ever.
Only 1967 when interracial marriage was still banned (in 16 states!) until Loving v. Virginia. People I know where around before then!
Karen, Nahida doesn’t date.
Didn’t you see the second season of LMOTP?
Actually we used to do it the same way in America. I am talking about like over 100 years ago. You would have a “Gentleman Caller” and he would sit in the Parlor with you and your chaperon and drink lemonaide and stuff like that.
They also had a code language with flowers back then.
I think in many ways things were much nicer in Victorian Times.
http://nwod.org/wiki/index.php/Invictus_Floral_Code
Didn’t Nahida say she’s dated though?
Maybe she meant it differently.
That Western Whore is going to end up marrying a Christian! Or a JEW!! Immodest. She even said she would not make him convert!
…Everyone ignore Assef. I know him in real life.
He’s just pissed off that my hypothetical future Christian husband is a better Muslim than him.
Not to sound conceited (that’s the cue for Nahida’s about to say something conceited) every man who’s ever concerned himself with whom I’d choose as partner / accused me of lesbianism / called me a whore has always just been infuriated that I find him thoroughly unappealing.
Patriarchal exegesis has incorrectly concluded that Muslim men are allowed to marry Jewish and Christian women, but that Muslim women are not allowed to marry Jewish and Christian men without conversion. (Some) Muslim men become extremely defensive when this is challenged, and it is challenged easily, since it’s an interpretation that is the result of male debauchery rather than Qur’anic script. They want to prevent Muslim women from marrying outside the faith for their own “interests”.
I’m a strong enough woman to ensure my children are raised Muslim, and I’m a strong enough woman not to pressure my husband to convert and to allow him to worship as he pleases. Western whore.
It’s always the loudest ones that are the most obnoxious.
What an embarrassment to the good Muslim men we know.
You’re from Silicon Valley? Isn’t that the Valley? Do you talk like a Valley Girl, Nahida? Cause that’s totally not how I imagined you. Wow =)
LOL! Well, I can sound like a valley girl…
But the California “valley girl” / “surfer dude” stereotype is really a result of the craze in the 90s, and I was born in ’91 (so I was a little too young to be extensively aware of it.)
We mostly just sound like everyone else, at least now. Even idiosyncratic, characteristic words, like “hella”, have kind of died out. I don’t hear it nearly as often as when I was younger.
Twenty years before I was born the whole place was still apple orchards–covered in orchards. I wish I might have seen how that looked! Now it’s famously home to the most high-tech businesses in the nation–and the world. We were in the very midst of the dot-com bubble and the subsequent technological advancements. Brought to you by air-headed valley girls and surfer dudes. 😉
I always thought it was so funny that depictions of the valley girl in the media always involved tall, slim women with blonde hair and blue eyes, who played handball on the beach and were great at tennis. “Like, OMG, so totally fab at tennis!!” I don’t actually know anyone like that here… maybe that was the culture before I existed.
It made me feel kind of bad, actually. That they were always blonde with blue eyes.
It made me feel kind of bad, actually. That they were always blonde with blue eyes.
What? But you’re ridiculously pretty!
Or so I’ve heard anyway. =P Hadn’t seen a picture of you so I went to find one. This is you? http://thefatalfeminist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/nahida_21.png
Because then, yes, ridiculously pretty.
I can’t be pretty, I’m a woman of color. ;]
Really, though, that isn’t the point (again). And even if it were, I guess growing up every woman is conditioned to believe she wants every man on earth to think she’s pretty… and that was just absolutely unsatisfying for me. And tiresome and paranoid. I watched girls I knew endlessly occupy themselves with fixing their hair and makeup and clothes to the point of mental deterioration, afraid of the second they slip, suspicious of every comment and of every other woman. In the most dangerous moments I could feel myself coming closer to measuring my self-worth the same way, and that’s a bottomless hole of unattainability.
They’re searching in all the wrong places. They don’t need everyone. They just need particular individuals. Or at least I did. The first time a man I actually had feelings for told me he thinks I’m pretty he was amazed that I was surprised. “But men tell you that all the time,” he said, “so I didn’t think I had to.”
“I don’t care about men.”
I don’t. I realized it at that moment. Fifty men could tell me I’m beautiful, and it would never feel like this. That feeling of absolute fulfillment, that I experienced at that moment when he said it, was the very feeling of contentment that women endlessly search for from complete strangers, believing that consensus will bring it to them, and so of course–they never find it. And so they grow more and more distraught, going to extremes to maintain their appearances and guarantee that every single man on the planet will agree inarguably that they are attractive, because maybe, maybe then they’ll find satisfaction. And they’ll continue to feel empty, not because there aren’t enough men telling them they’re pretty but because the men who are saying they are pretty mean nothing to them.
Fools.
I’m gotten to the point at which, unless he means something to me or I respect and admire him greatly, I care so little whether a man finds me attractive that when strange men tell me (like on the street) that they think I’m pretty I find myself waiting for them to get to the point. It’s such a bizarre thing to say and expect a reaction, if you think about it. Like if he stopped me and said there are seven seas. Like seriously, I don’t care. It’s not the compliment–it’s the source.
“I think you’re pretty.”
“Yeah so?”
SO tempting to say that instead of “thank you.”
Men say things like this because they believe their opinions on women’s appearances matter. It’s more artificial entitlement. And women in turn believe men’s opinions on their appearances matter, and they determine their entire self-worth on it. In every other irrelevant area. Like work.
That’s the point. It doesn’t matter to me what beauty standards are perpetuated by the valley girl represented solely by blonde-haired blue-eyed women, but it matters the way these beauty standards are interpreted by society in the dynamics we create–and the rights on which they infringe.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41152?page=all
I have actually told people, “You bury me,” (in English) but not unless they know Arabic or they don’t understand.
I’ve fully appreciated la douleur exquise because of the literal translation (“exquisite pain”) but I never realized how beautiful “retrouvailles” really was… though I definitely noticed it missing from the English language. There were moments when I wrote in English and wanted to use it, but I couldn’t because it’s French and the person to whom I’m writing wouldn’t understand.
We need koi no yokan. I have had this thought before (“I don’t love you yet, but I get the sense I eventually will.”) That’s what I believe in, much more than love at first sight.
LOL someone’s upset.
And MRA. Unsurprising.
This explains why he was so concerned about the article he first posted!
I have a story! That is kind of related to the show. (Mild culture shock.)
In my mother’s culture, it is customary to bring gifts when visiting a friend or relative. By default, this is usually food, in the nicest dishes you own. My mother would place saran wrap over crystal plates and bowls containing her cooking and hand them to the host/ess.
When they finished what was inside (usually days later), the dishes would be returned to us, filled with gifts. My mother never visited without bringing anything, and she never sent things back without filling them.
Because my mother was very protective of me, I wasn’t allowed to visit anyone alone, which meant that until I was around fifteen I only visited within her circle of friends. (Some of them were Latina, or Vietnamese, but they appeared to share this custom, so my mother never knew the majority of the country didn’t practice it.) I was not happy about this. It meant I never got to see my actual friends outside of school.
Anyway at fifteen she finally caved and let me, and as I was leaving she came into the living room as I opened the door.
“Nahida!” she gasped, shocked. “Are you going empty-handed?”
“But Mom, they’re white.”
She looked aghast. “Nahida, that’s RACIST!”
I burst into laughter. “I don’t mean I’m not giving them anything because they’re white! I mean… they won’t be expecting anything because they’re white!”
“Oh.” Her expression cleared. “But will they take offense?” She said thoughtfully, “Maybe they will be offended, because they’ll think you’re saying they’re bad hosts.”
“I don’t think so.”
“Then take something in case. It is a nice gesture. I’ll cook something.”
She would cook for hours! “I have to go now.”
“Then some take flowers from the garden. The roses are fresh. And that way you won’t accidentally insult their cooking.”
The roses were fresh. When my mother grew flowers they were more radiant than when purchased, pristinely vibrant with sweet fragrance, every petal perfect. I admired them before clipping and arranging them into a bouquet.
My friend’s mother opened the door, and I lifted the bouquet to her. When she saw the flowers her expression changed to delight… and, to my confusion, amusement. “Oh! Are these for Jason?”
I froze.
I was holding red roses. I was visiting the home of parents of a person of the male variety. I forgot he was a boy!
“Oooh!” I breathed. “Oh, no, they’re for you! And your husband. For inviting me.” I blushed. “Jason’s a friend!” This was going terrific. “I mean he’s just a friend. He’s very nice though!” I added quickly. “He sits next to me in class! Sometimes I draw in the margins of his notes.” Nahida, shut up. “And he doesn’t mind. I mean, that’s not why we’re friends…” UGH! “I’m sorry, I forgot your son is a boy. But they’re really for you, for everyone who lives here.”
I actually just told her I forgot her son is a boy. Good God.
“Thank you, dear, they’re lovely!”
At this point Jason ran down the stairs, to my relief. His mother smiled at him. “Nahida brought us flowers! Isn’t that nice?”
“Cool,” he said. “Come on, I’m making a kite in the backyard.”
LOL!
That was really nice, Nahida. It’s nice reading about something between cultures that isn’t scary or a disaster.
You Leftists are a bunch of Thugs!
Yeah some day we might turn violent and then you will all go “Look the Right is violent too” but DAMN IT look at all we have dealt with before going violent. Forty/ Fifty years or more we have stayed practically nonviolent when we have suffered through crap like this.
Yeah, I kind of was wishing that these store owners/managers were exercising their 2nd amendment rights here!
BUT THE POINT IS THEY DIDN’T NOT NOW NOT YET!
But if they ever do you would act like we were violent all along won’t you!
DAMN YOU KELSHELS! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Of course I saw this BEFORE didn’t I!
Leftists never change!
From the Democratic Convention of 1968. To 1999 “Battle in Seattle” to Yesterdays “Battle in Seattle II” You have behaved violently over, and over and over again!
Someday, yeah we might hit the boiling point. DAMN YOU KELSHELS but look at all it took to do it!
FUCK YOU KELSHELS!
Oh, Nahida..,
You don’t know me, you don’t even care, oh yeah,
I say
You don’t know me, and you don’t wear my chains… oh yeah,
Twelve years apart yet hardly indistinguishable from each other!
FUCK YOU TOO.
And yeah, someday we might fight back! Fuck you then if you go about saying “well you are violent too”
I will never forget this!
They didn’t know who were doing it but oh, they had a profile didn’t they. It was OBVIOUSLY A WHITE MALE!
“The Washington DC-area sniper, who is most likely a white male in his thirties, may have recently been fired from or resigned from his job under contentious circumstances. It is conceivable that, like many sadistic personalities, the sniper had found a niche for himself in a job that naturally allowed him to make life difficult for others; that is, an occupation in which vengeful hostility, aggressive intent, and belligerent behaviors can be channeled into socially sanctioned spheres. Indeed, aggression may be so integral to his character that his hobbies, pastimes, and recreational activities convey a common theme of violence. Thus, in addition to a variety of firearms or other weapons, he may have a collection of books and videos about weapons and war. If employed in a supervisory capacity, he likely was inclined to make a public spectacle of intimidating, humiliating, and demeaning his subordinates, leaving no doubt as to whom was in charge. In this regard, he may have enjoyed a modicum of occupational success, though ultimately his threatening and belligerent manner or abuse of power was bound to backfire, resulting in his eventual dismissal or fall from grace. Domineering and controlling behaviors that previously enjoyed the imprimatur of social sanction consequently degenerated into vengeful acts directed against arbitrary victims
“We don’t want anyone to give up on the fact that it could be a white guy.”
That’s what Montgomery County Police Officer Derek Baliles, part of the Beltway sniper task force here, told WorldNetDaily last week.
Never mind that authorities knew that several witnesses at the Virginia Home Depot shooting described “dark-skinned” suspects, corroborating an earlier witness account of two “Hispanic” men leaving the scene of one of the Montgomery County shootings.
“Anybody could put makeup on” to look ethnic, Baliles argued in an attempt to discredit the consistent description of “dark-skinned” suspects.
Forty/ Fifty years or more we have stayed practically nonviolent when we have suffered through crap like this.
Who was racist, oppressive, and violent before then?
You been telling KelsShels and Nahida that they’re too young, and you think YOU’RE old enough to know who started the cycle?
Is THIS all it takes for you to think they’re coming after you.
There’s a reason the Right Wing loves the 50s. They were far from being the victims then.
Karen, our patience with being the victim is coming to an end.
You can COUNT on that!
Nahida, as I’m sure you know, the Right is responsible for McCarthyism and the Second KKK.
New Black Panthers aren’t violent for nothing.
There was nothing wrong with McCarthy.
If anything he UNDER ESTIMATED the level of Soviet infiltration into the American government.
We know this because in the 1990s after the Soviet Union fell we were allowed into the KGB’s OWN FILES.
We founded out what many of us pretty well figured out. The Left had LIED TO US. We were correct when we accused them!
Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev wrote a very detailed book refuting the Leftist Lies of the Previous TWO generations.
http://www.randomhouse.com/book/188114/the-haunted-wood-by-allen-weinstein-and-alexander-vassiliev
A Republican President called out the military to ensure that black children could go to a previously all white school. And of course almost 100 years earlier a Republican President ended slavery
The KKK were filled with Democrats. You think I have forgotten Senator Robert Byrd, may he rot in hell forever. Gosh it seemed like that monster would never die.
Republicans were not the Right Wing in Lincoln’s time, or during the Second KKK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Right#The_Second_Ku_Klux_Klan
You know US History, Nahida. And here Steve is going on about how it’s bizarre that they would suspect white people of crimes against minorities. Because that NEVER happened…
The DC Sniper turned out to be a Black Muslim with a Black accomplice .
The “experts” were WRONG!
Colonialism. Slavery. Want something recent?
James Byrd, Jr.
Mulugeta Seraw
Cornel Young, Jr.
Drop the act about how it never happens.
You bet it did, girl. And it was more organized than Occupy will ever be. It was GENOCIDE.
Karen,
Yes, I know US history, and all the genocide (and the aftershocks of it, and racism that still currents beneath our systems, which Conservatives aggressively deny exist) and have stated before that I find Steve’s aghast at the FBI suspecting a white person unfounded, exactly because of the victims you’ve listed, and more. They are experts for a reason: they have seen a wide array of cases. I’m disgusted that any right-winger would claim their own violence is justified; even if it were granted that they are the victims (which I do not readily extend on a systematic level, though I would on a local and individual one, particularly to Conservative women), it is exceptionally dishonest to neglect considering previous genocides against the demographics of which the Left is primarily composed, and draw the line of examination deliberately at 40 years ago. (Not even to mention how mendacious it is to claim that aforementioned president intended to end slavery, was socially Conservative, or that the older parties can be traced consistently to the current Left-Right hegemony when there is almost a complete overlap.)
On the other hand, I don’t think most Leftists even know what the fuck they’re talking about. I’ve attempted to have rational conversations with Occupiers and found it to be excruciating. They are mostly just loud and egregious, and have no conceivable direction. They are very angry, but they don’t know why they’re angry, which I believe is incredibly dangerous. This signals to me that they’ve stopped thinking. When I ask, they give me some vague explanation indicating some obscure enemy but neglect to pinpoint precise details, and when they do attempt to form an argument incorporating points, these are often grossly exaggerated. I understand why the lower class (to whom I currently belong) are outraged, but I don’t understand why their outrage is as misdirected as Steve’s intolerable constant explosions.
Laws discriminating against people of color were terminated peaceably; I don’t see why Occupy can’t use the same methods to solve the current class disparity. (This is partly why I see Steve’s justifications of violence as so enraging: if people can endure a century of slavery and still remain peaceful, and two centuries of severe systematic discrimination destroying their lives and still remain peaceful, you can fucking take a few knocks. Gimme a break.)
Normally I discount violent behaviors from the lower class, because of the frustrations from the lack of education, but this is the digital age of information, and that’s no longer an excuse. We don’t pay for university education; we pay for university degrees. We’re not illiterate peasants. We (meaning the lower class) have better ways of exposing corruption. And we (meaning Americans) may have reasons for violence, but never excuses.
I’d have liked to have been a lawyer. I can’t do that now. I’m on the dark side of an American Dream that doesn’t even exist for me.
But damn, I’m not going to BURN shit because of it.
On the other other hand (three hands!) it’s also apparent that Conservatives are stuck in time (during the time the Civil Rights movement disintegrated and people became violent [of course that’s only unjustifiable when THEY do it right?]) when the pendulant swung too far, and Conservatives don’t see the pendulant has swung back the other way, with the same rights threatened, particularly for women. No surprise—they’re the ones doing it. On top of everything else there’s a new rule that allows companies to deny credit cards to stay-at-home moms unless they have their husbands’ permission by not allowing a household income to be listed rather than a personal one. I don’t think Conservative politicians are truly representing the Conservatives in this country, I don’t think they are letting Conservative women speak, and whenever a Liberal man points this out I want to punch him in the face. Because we all know why he’s pointing it out. He doesn’t actually give a damn about Conservative women being able to speak, and as soon as they do he’ll call them all cunts. And then he’ll deny he’s a misogynist. No, he’s playing politics. And so are Conservative men pretending to be outraged when stay-at-home moms are attacked. God, it makes me so sick.
Yesterday I was reading the blog of a former Liberal who switched parties and decided she was a Conservative: the breaking point for her was when Barack Obama was elected instead of Hillary Clinton. She talked about how insulting that was, and how it was perceived as strange for her to “go against” her demographic (because she’s a black woman), and a lot of her posts have to do with the sexism faced by Conservative women, particularly Michele Bachmann. I can see why she was so angry; Barack Obama isn’t Liberal at all, he doesn’t represent what he should, and he isn’t nearly as qualified as Hillary Clinton. It should have been her. Anyway, the blogger talks about how she always sort of knew she was a Conservative, and the only issue for her that kept her identifying, as Liberal for so long is that she’s pro-choice, but she has a Conservative ideology on every other issue.
I liked reading her, and it reminded me again to separate Conservative politicians from people. I know I’m not Conservative, and it’s more than just being pro-choice for me: it’s gay marriage, it’s animal rights, it’s that I don’t want jobs shipped overseas, it’s extending maternity leave, it’s environmentalism, it’s birth control and domestic violence and fair pay, it’s everything. I simply don’t have a Conservative ideology. Not the one being advertised by Conservative politicians.
Perhaps it is arrogant of me to believe I know Conservatism better than Conservative politicians. Sometimes I’m weirdly convinced I could represent the Republican party better than their politicians. Or Liberals better than their politicians. Except for some key issues (like gay marriage) I don’t see the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Does Mitt Romney? Neither are Liberal nor Conservative, they’re just… politicians. In every pejorative sense of the word. Corporations have bought everyone.
I kind of like Megyn Kelly, especially when she told off that douchebag who criticized her for taking maternity leave. If I had a talkshow I would invite Megyn Kelly. I’d like discussing things with her. I think she’s inconsistent, and I’d like her to answer questions to explain the rationale behind the inconsistencies so that I could grasp a complete sense of her ideology. That would never happen with any current Liberal talkshow, because they’d all just attack her. Or say something embarrassing and irrelevant about her appearance.
Today at my university a student from China basically stood up and said that she was a Marxist in China, and she is still a Marxist now and believes Marxism is the best system. Right there in front of everyone I blurted, “Well then why didn’t you go to university in China?!” Everyone looked at me in shock.
I get it when people want their identity to be considered American (and it has a lot to do with who is or isn’t considered American based on race; I’m still frustrated that the hi’jab isn’t considered American when it is worn by American women) but when you have a problem with something that is integrated into the system of government of a country to the point where it is the structural definition of that country… why move to that country if you prefer the structure of your own? It’s one thing to reform your own country, but why make the effort to move to one just to change it back to the one you just left, a change that, unlike a personal expression of religion or culture, would affect everyone–when you weren’t even willing to live there yourself? She believes Marxism is the best system, yet she wasn’t willing to live in a Marxist system… the apex of hypocrisy. It reminds me of Muslims who advocate an interpretation of the Qur’an that means literally cutting off the hands of thieves, but wouldn’t want to live in a country where that’s actually practiced! So you believe an interpretation is correct that you wouldn’t even follow? Why call yourself Muslim? I can do it because I don’t accept the literal interpretation of that verse. (Hands/means is the same concept in classical Arabic; it actually says to cut off the means.)
And then Conservatives do shit like defending the woman who made the “no colored people” joke, and I know I’m definitely not a Conservative. That and every legislative attack on my sex and attempt to control my body. Gender trumps every other issue for me.
Anyway, I was waiting for Steve’s final thoughts on the show (since he said he was finished yet) but apparently he is, so I figure I should stop checking at this point, particularly considering his last words to me were “fuck you.” Bye Karen!
I can’t believe you wrote all that with a broken arm!
Call the fire department the next time a cat is stuck in a tree instead of trying to save it yourself.
The Left ARE what they accused us as being.
The Right took down the KKK.
Sorry, I haven’t finished my thoughts on the show yet. Lot has been going on in my life right now.
I hope you understand why I am so angry. Say someone came into your apartment and trashed it.
But, no this wasn’t the first time they trashed it. They trashed it last year as well (as you age you will be surprised at how “time flies” and how stuff particularly traumatic stuff seem like they happened “yesterday” kind of even when they happened a decade ago
So yeah, your apartment has been trashed but then someone tells you that well you trash other people’s houses all the time. Even though you never have.
Nahida, I will get to my FINAL thoughts of the show over time. I will try to do it over the next few weeks.
And Nahida, I care about you enough to tell you to PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM OCCUPY. I am glad you are not “in with them” but you can’t reason with them either. Conservatives have made this mistake for years. We thought we were under “disagreement” while we really were under attack. We thought that if they could just understand us. But the truth is they understood us way too well.
Oh, and I loved that you told that Chinese Student to “go back where she came from”. You are a true American Nahida, and I appreciate you standing up for this country. Too few of us do these days.
That’s not what she said. She wrote she said,”Why didn’t you go to university in China,” meaning she didn’t understand why she would come here from China to a new government just to bring her government with her.
And Nahida, I care about you enough
You said, “Fuck you.” Which she mentioned before she said she wasn’t checking. Do you know what that means?
Please don’t take the words too literal. You never do when a Leftist like Dan Savage uses them.
My anger was more directed at Kelshels than Nahida. And people like you and Karen.
But no, I don’t mean the words literally. They are swear words.
I don’t want to see Nahida killed by an Occupy protestor. And they are capable of it. They have stated that they want to turn the whole thing into another French Revolution and start chopping off heads.
In the days following 9-11 even though the Press wouldn’t often report such stories, here and there, from the Internet, Talk Radio, and such I would hear stories about people who cheered when they heard of the attack.
I am trying to remember the specifics, but I do remember something about some Chinese student who was in the United States who cheered when he heard of the attack.
Ah, here’s one about Chinese Journalists who were over here. Perhaps that is what I was remembering. For some reason I thought it was a Chinese student who like had some internship with the US government, but the details here sounds close to what I remembered.
http://www.atimes.com/china/CI19Ad02.html
Yeah, here’s what that sign should say
Asians, Latin@s and Blacks – we’ll sell you those cupcakes we made with your great-grandparents underpaid (or forced) labor at an inflated price you can’t afford not to pay.
Native Americans – Thanks for all the acres of land we stole from you to grow that wheat and sugar we used to make our racist cupcakes. Also, your cupcake may have smallpox and/or is located in Oklahoma
Whites – Free (your dad owns the bakery)
And no one was taking your words LITERALLY. The figurative of “fuck you” is that you don’t care. You can’t say that you do care right after.
“I don’t think Conservative politicians are truly representing the Conservatives in this country.”
Boy you speak the truth there, Nahida. I know that in a way you can never imagine.
I actually HOPE that Occupy attacks the Republican Convention. Kill everyone there. You would really be doing us a favor.
Nahida it was hard to tell since they were covered with black clothing, but why do you think the violence in Seattle was caused by people of color?
I think most of them were white.
So sorry, can’t say Occupy was violent because their Great Great Grandparents were slaves!
And even if that was the case, okay, then does that mean they should come over to your place and trash it?
“I’m disgusted that any right-winger would claim their own violence is justified;”
My own violence?
Hasn’t happened in my lifetime, nor has it happened in the previous generation to mine (as I do study history). Hell I criticize that generation for being “too polite”. I criticize them for being “ladies and gentlemen.
I am not saying it’s time to go violent either. Wouldn’t work right now.
Unless you are like Karen and are playing the game that all racist stuff is “conservative” (even though most of them were Democrats) I can’t think of any violence coming from my side except for perhaps the anti-abortion attacks but still those attacks are usually by individuals. I can’t think of any anti-abortion protests that ended in people smashing windows.
McVey had no support from the conservative movement, And by the way he wasn’t a Christian too.
So yet again, the Left LIES about us. Nothing new there.
(even though most of them were Democrats)
….if you study history, you would know, like Nahida said, these don’t relate to modern ideological labels. And you said before that democrat/republican is imaginary even though left/right is real.
Would you argue that the party freeing the slaves were Conservative?
They were a lot more conservative then than now.
They certainly weren’t liberals.
“And then Conservatives do shit like defending the woman who made the “no colored people” joke, and I know I’m definitely not a Conservative.”
Uh, I must have missed the outpouring of conservative support for this. Admittedly I haven’t watched or listened to much conservative stuff lately since a lot of them have Romney crap on, but still.
Now if you mean other University Students who are conservatives, well I guess you want me to attack youth again (gosh I still FEEL young). Look get it. You are so confined in a University setting with oppressive political correctness (aka Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism). And then someone does something that is SO POLITICALLY INCORRECT you just on a gut level feel the need to support something like that.
I think it was the wrong way to go. I thought it was unsophisticated and really not as directed as it needed to be, but yeah, especially for young people who aren’t experienced in such things I can see why they may feel a need to support it. I don’t think it should be supported but I understand where that feeling to knee jerk support it comes from, especially with the OVER REACTION coming from the other side, yeah, I can see why people would want to come to its support.
It is wrong to support a bad joke but perfectly okay to support “kill the pigs”?
Yeah. But “kill the pigs” is just a youthful mistake right. We can allow for youth making mistakes. I of course mean Leftist youth.
Conservative youth should be tarnished for life for their mistakes!
Sorry, I don’t agree with the joke, if asked I wouldn’t support the joke, but I do understand why many youths would given the environment they are forced to be in. But of course the Left never gives anyone the benefit of the doubt or second chances – except for themselves.
I think of Bill Ayers. The guy was fucking terrorist. But that that was all in his youth. We should give him a second chance. Let’s make him a Professor!
Dude. Glenn Beck was okay with it.
He’s not that young.
Well I will have to check into it. Leftists are famous for misquoting him, taking him out of context, and flat out lying about him.
And perhaps I don’t know the situation that well. I mean I guess I understand the point the joke was making. I just thought the joke was poor in making the point.
There’s certainly worse things in the world than that joke, such as the stuff I saw on Tuesday.
So, no I wouldn’t defend the joke but I can sure understand those who would.
Now the Affirmative Action Bake Sales, that’s something I really can get behind!
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4413086/stossel-sells-affirmative-action-priced-cupcakes
This is all I could find on it on the Blaze, and it doesn’t mention Beck one way or the other. I am not subscribed to GBTV so I can’t check there although perhaps there’s something on the free clips so I would have to look further.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/national-hindu-organization-demands-apology-from-college-campus-over-a-flyer/
Actually I regret that I have never participated in a Holi celebration as it looks very very fun so no, I don’t find the joke funny. And since it was done by a Wesleyan, nah, not going to waste political capital on her.
You can burn her on a stake for all I care. GO AHEAD! She seemed to be one of yours again.
By the way, I don’t know if Conservatives were defending her, or just said that people were overreacting. I think this sums it up.:
(the issue) whether the intentionally ironic flyer in question is meaningfully more racist than, say, the apparently completely non-ironic “eviction flyers” handed out to Jewish students at Florida Atlantic University.
But like I said, I am a fan of Holi. So, yeah, hang her! It would be another case of “Friendly Fire” on the part of the Left and I absolutely love it when they eat their own.
By the way, I don’t know if Conservatives were defending her, or just commenting that people were over reacting.
You know so often when this crap occurs it’s some Leftist who does it. Of course I don’t know this student but considering that she is a Wesleyan I am guessing she isn’t one of us.
Like I said, I love Holi and wish that someday I would have an opportunity to participate. I guess that would make me a “colour” then too if I ever get to.
So, no this actually offends me. She should be expelled. And I hope that someone kills her too. I love seeing the Left eat one of its own. It’s like on Hogan Heroes when they make some German General look like a spy so the Gestapo tortures and kills someone who in actuality is a loyal Nazi.
By the way, I just sent an email to the University demanding that they expel her. I know my one email alone won’t do it but I am hoping that many people are doing the same.
I have also posted this information to various Indian websites I am aware of. There’s hardly anything greater than religion to get an Indian really upset. They were really pissed at a joke that Jay Leno recently made regarding a Sikh Shrine. So they are already riled up. I am going to cc the emails to all Indian officials I can find.
I am sure that the University gets a lot of money from Indian Students. International students make up much of the revenue for Universities, especially private ones. So I can play off that.
http://www.wesleyan.edu
Thank you. This is a cause I can really get behind. We can totally destroy this girl’s life! Perhaps she will even commit suicide! We can only hope!
Those cupcakes are atrocious. Because they are incorrect.
Affirmative Action does not help minorities. It hurts them. Studies have compared the minority population in universities with Affirmative Action and universities without. Universities who admit students based solely on text scores and grades have a higher minority population.
The only people who benefit from Affirmative Action are WHITE women. http://www.theroot.com/views/real-affirmative-action-babies
Minorities come from cultures that emphasize rigorous studying.
So a woman like Nahida, who is pretty smart, might get shoved aside for a white woman, because they already have enough people of her race who scored high.
Nahida made a remark somewhere about having Affirmative Action for Conservative university professors. I couldn’t tell if she was joking or not.
I would be all for that. They are sure lacking in the University system.
Of course I am kind of joking. I will always believe that people should be judged on their qualifications. What they need to do is look into whether people are being denied jobs based on their political beliefs.
Though in a way an “affirmative action” system would kind of be justified. Not in denying people jobs but in giving people choices in what ideology to study under. Why in Public Universities (doesn’t apply in private Universities) should tax money go to promote only one viewpoint.
Give people options and then they would choose their professors based on the compatibility they feel with the professor’s ideology.
Conservatives are discouraged from applying to jobs in universities because there’s a perception it’s full of Liberals and makes a hostile environment.
Girls are discouraged from enrolling in math classes and becoming engineers because there is a perception it’s men’s work and makes a hostile environment. Same with people of color in jobs.
Steve’s hypocrisy in thinking AA is “kind of justified” where there is a suspicion that Conservatives are kept from jobs based on ideology, and not when women or people of color are kept from jobs based on sexist/racist presumptions is incredible.
I second “Go Figure” on the hypocrisy.
Anyway just emailed Nahida to clarify. She said it was a long time ago and she doesn’t remember the context of when she said it, but that everyone who is trying to figure out whether universities really have a liberal bias are asking the wrong question. The right question, she said, is “Why don’t Conservatives apply for these positions? What is discouraging them? And then address those factors. This is the same question asked about girls and math. They don’t believe they have enough energy for the fight.” Then she wrote, “There are subjects where qualification is the end. It doesn’t matter whether your mathematics professor is a Conservative or a Liberal, but it will affect your political science and history professors, and even your English professors. There are also certain fields that seemingly “naturally” attract Liberals over Conservatives–like sociology, which is the study of race and gender. Who would be interested in that? Liberals. I’ve only encountered Conservative professors in economics and business and ethics classes, and in one incident, in a literature class. This division of interests between Conservatives and Liberals isn’t inherent in their respective ideologies, but is cultivated by a perception that a certain ideology will relate to a certain field better. People think, why would a Conservative care about literature? They always want to defund the arts. But in truth when I disclose my major* to someone, I’ve discovered Conservatives tend to be more appreciative. This basically proves, as far as I’m concerned, that people are more influenced by how they’re perceived and where they believe they’ll be welcome, than pursuing their real interests. And it pushes Conservatives out of fields where they would otherwise find interest.”
*Nahida is a lit major.
But she’s taken all those classes?
I’m guessing not officially? From what I can tell professors tend to like her, so she probably met some outside her field. Did you know before she settled on English she almost majored in Astronomy? And she said over Twitter once that she was sitting in on a philosophy class while she waited for the classroom to empty for her next (English) one. The professors don’t seem to mind, and they even like it when she listens to their lectures while she waits.
Oh, and Bill Ayers has never renounced his youthful violent actions.
In an article published 9-11-2001 (yeah, coincidence but what a coincidence) he said that he wish he did more!
Steve, this is what Wikipedia says:
“Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.”
This is what I was taught in school. This is what Nahida was taught in school. That there was a switch. Can you explain how it’s wrong? Because I don’t see people who deny today that racism exists on a systematic level against people of color being the same ones to have ended slavery which was a systematic oppression.
You do know what “Wikipedia” is don’t you? I mean you know how stuff there gets created.
Yeah, you were taught lies in school. They lied to you. They lied to me in school too but not as bad as they are doing it today.
Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says it I guess it must be true.
That’s SARCASM if you missed it!
I’m back, because Kelly insisted.
It would be another case of “Friendly Fire” on the part of the Left and I absolutely love it when they eat their own.
It’s called holding people accountable for their own hypocrisies, Steve; which “your side” hardly ever does. (“Your side”–I despise this rhetoric and I’m picking it up from you.) A racist Liberal is worse than a racist Conservative. (The same way that an adulterous Conservative is worse than an adulterous Liberal.) You can’t champion certain ideals (whether they are of tolerance or family values) and expect them to be applied to everyone but yourself. And will you knock it off with people being killed and crap? No one’s killing anyone.
The sign isn’t offensive because you think Holi is fun. That is entirely irrelevant. (Is people attacked only offensive when you think the event is fun? Seriously, your mindset baffles me, that’s almost entitled.) I don’t think the church that no longer exists around ground zero should be rebuilt because I’m a fan of Christianity; I think it should be rebuilt because it was there first, and that is right. No, the sign is offensive because it makes light of a painful persecutory history following systematic enslavement, torture, and murder of masses of people. It doesn’t matter to what school event (Holi or otherwise) it was referring. The writing on the sign is not “overreacting.” It makes a simple request: stop making jokes at the expense of people of color. The joke she made does not exist in a vacuum: it is a build-up, a process, of constant remarks reminding people of color of their Otherness (and yes! they are worse from the Left than when they are from the Right! because of the hypocrisy) and that is why it sparked outraged: people are tired of these things always happening. Were the sign to target your demographic, from what I’ve seen of your reactions here, I’m sure you would have been doubly outraged, especially if it made light of a traumatic history and indescribable tragedy. And I would advise you not to tell people they’re being oversensitive about their ancestors being discriminated against and persecuted.
The sign wasn’t politically incorrect, it was RACIST. It tapped into a shameful history of racism. And the fact that Conservatives believe the issue is that it’s “politically incorrect” and seize this as an opportunity to bash political correctness, sheds light on what they believe political incorrectness is: racism–the speech of which they perpetually defend. The woman’s apology was genuine (and none of that slippery well you made me do it crap) so I stopped caring. I tend to stop caring about things pretty fast, I’ve noticed… people and their drama, it’s like high school never ends. Ever. EVER. You’re trying to get this girl to commit suicide. You’re fucking insane. You’re destructive, insincere, and acting in bad faith.
Bill, stop being such an asshat. (And stop acting like you don’t use Wikipedia, that’s such a Liberal thing to do… hilarious when Conservatives do the same shit and claim they’re different.) You know very well it isn’t just Wikipedia. It is in every textbook, everywhere. So unless either of you are willing to explain to me how it’s wrong (and I do intend to listen) I’m going to keep believing it’s right; that is not to say that I believe Conservatives today are in favor of slavery–that would be ludicrous, malicious, and unfair. And intellectually dishonest, as it would discount every cultural change between then and now. This is why I didn’t bother to do more than scrape the surface of the subject when it arose: which party was what ideology before Civil Rights is irrelevant to the responsibilities of contemporary people, who weren’t alive then.
This is what I was taught in school: The Democratic and Republican parties prior to the 1960s individually incorporated all of American liberal, conservative, and moderate aspects. In the Democratic party liberals were a minority, and in the Republican party conservatives were a minority. The Democrats, largely conservative, fought to conserve the tradition of the nation–which at the time included the system of slavery. The Republicans, largely liberal and thus challenging the status quo as revolutionaries, ended slavery (though not directly intended) and established laws protecting civil rights. In the 1960s, around 1964, there was a major realignment of the minority ideologies in each party, and the conservatives assumed a majority presence in the Republican party with the liberals assuming a majority in the Democratic party.
This is consistent with the ideological compasses of the contemporary Left (revolutionary, overthrowing oppressive systems) and of the contemporary Right (reactionary, conserving tradition.) Please tell me where I’ve made mistakes / been lied to.
The Democrat Party has always been the party of hate, intolerance, degeneration, etc.
The Republican party has at times been lame (like now) but the Democrat Party is just pure evil.
It’s the Stupid Party vs the Evil Party. And I know you haven’t ever seen the movie SpaceBalls but there’s a quote there that I have always taken to heart.
Dark Helmet: So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
There’s monsters out there. And the political party that the monsters use is the Democrats. You can see that throughout our history!
Where do you think the contemporary Left came from?
The so called “Progressive Movement” aka Marxism.
If you want to talk hypocrisy, Nahida, you got so upset about this yet you have yet to say anything about the Florida Atlantic University “eviction flyers” .
I haven’t HEARD of it, Steve. Hard to outraged about something you haven’t heard.
I’m also going to need a better explanation than that. Democrat/Republican isn’t the same as Left/Right and it’s not nearly as stable. May I have an ideological argument for why the Right would abandon conserving tradition and want to eliminate a system of slavery and implement laws protecting civil rights?
Because they were religious “kooks”.
But… religion was used to justify inhumanity (as religion is wont to be used to justify inhumanity) and in fact slaves were more often than not told that it was the will of God that they were obedient to their masters. Can I have something to read? Journal article showing religion was employed to eliminate slavery as rampantly as it was to endorse it? All I can find just tells of slaves forced to recite after their masters passages that “defended” slavery and promoted the “relationship” as benevolent one.
As rampantly and effectively I mean. An ideological aspect of the Right (religion or otherwise) needs to be a major factor in compelling its elimination, to credit the source of the change to the Right.
Alan Keyes does a good job explaining it.
http://www.keyesarchives.com
There were people who wanted to “compromise” on the slavery Issue.
But then you had that pesty Religious Right and darn it they just wouldn’t compromise!
Okay. Which one?
Wait, I think I found it.
This country was designed for a religious people.
You are right, without the religious aspect it just won’t work.
No, that wasn’t it. Where does he explain how the ideological compass of the Right, and Right-winged religious arguments, effectively led to the end of slavery?
Again, you are looking at the economics of the situation. Economically you can’t justify the end to slavery. Actually quite the opposite.
Only if you believe in God Given Rights could you justify ending slavery. Only if you believe a “Natural Law” could you say that of course government should not deny people of freedom like that.
You have to believe that Rights do not come from government but exists apart from that.
And it’s one of those things I think a lot of people these days don’t understand. During the argument over slavery and whether it should be abolished, one of the great points that used to be made by the pro-slavery people, when they were trying to appear benign and everything–as if it wasn’t all about greed and exploitation of other human beings for profit–well, then they would want to say, well, it was really also best for the slaves, see, because if slaves were freed, then they would suffer terribly and ultimately they would be extinct, because they wouldn’t be able to take care of themselves. That was the argument that was made.
But this was an argument made by religious people, Steve. That it was the will of God that slaves were “take care of.” (And in fact it reminds me of a certain strand of Muslims who say the same things about women.)
I have no doubt that there were religious people arguing for the end of slavery on the basis that it was against their religion according to their interpretations (slavery is a blasphemous system, if Christianity can be interpreted as Islam, because humans can only submit to God and not other humans) but when religious people advocate for that kind of change they are rarely heard over so-called ‘fundamentalists’ who tend to be violently assertive. So while I will extend the benefit of the doubt that religion was used to reject slavery as well as endorse it, I see no evidence to believe that religion is what caused it to end, or that the religious Right employed these arguments to end slavery more effectively over the revolutionary Left–especially considering every argument regarding slavery during that time I’ve seen employing religion is arguing for it, and not against. It couldn’t have been the cause of the abolishment. The abolishment was not even intentional, which it would have to be, if religion was fully incorporated as the primary reason.
I have no doubt that something like religion was needed to abolish slavery completely (an economic justification is nonexistent) but there is no reason to believe it wasn’t secular morality, arguments that didn’t depend on religion, the kind that the revolutionary Left tends to make. You know, with all the annoying atheists who brag about how they don’t need religion for morals. =P The very purpose of the Left is constructed for this: to change through secular arguments. The Right would have had great resistance from within itself, because of the purpose of conserving tradition and the religious arguments employed in the favor of slavery.
Slavery is wrong, because of PRECISELY what was said in our Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Sorry the word Men was used there, but at that time men in the plural also could and in this case did includes Women. It’s still that way in the Spanish language (and probably French and Italian but I just took Spanish).
But who believes such stuff today? Only conservatives. And unfortunately it was the 20th Century that eroded our belief. During World War II and I think even back to World War I they talked about fighting for “Democracy”. What the Fuck? Democracy? Democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep voting over what’s for dinner. Only with the understanding that there’s something out there called UNALIENABLE Rights do you get a government where stuff like slavery can be unjustified!
When Benjamin Franklin was asked coming out of the Constitutional Convention, what form of government does this new country now have. He said A REPUBLIC if you can keep it. And we did keep it, well until the early 20th century.
There’s two documents all Americans should read. And yes they should read BOTH. One is the Federalist Papers, but the other is the ANTI Federalist papers. The sad truth is that the fears of the Anti-Federalists in many cases have been realized.
Steve, that’s a secular argument, not a religious one. It may have been derived from an initially religious concept (what isn’t?) but doesn’t depend on it and is universally applicable in nature. That only brings us back to the Founding Fathers, who were Liberal (in the classical sense, not the contemporary one.) But that’s just it, contemporary conservatives aren’t acting very Classical Liberal.
But who believes such stuff today? Only conservatives.
Where? The ones overturning fair pay and telling me what to do with my uterus?
And unfortunately it was the 20th Century that eroded our belief.
Steve, if you’ve acknowledged that the beliefs changed do you still deny the party realignment? If you believe that Classical Liberalism has strayed (according to what the textbooks say it left its party in the early 60s), where do you think it went? Where do you think the contemporary Left came from? I’m asking you, genuinely, because from what I can see it was an eruption to re-secure what was slipping (and do you see it differently?) And with these rights under attack again, all I see is conservatism–which claims to have supposedly been derived of Classical Liberalism–at the head of the attacks.
You can say that those are just your politicians, but the truth is that your party is so severely fragmented it’s eroding within itself. (Why the hell were you all ignoring Ron Paul? I don’t agree with the guy on some stuff but he was the closest thing you’d have had to save you, if just a little. He would have at least done something about every fucking thing from standing on grass to selling lemonade being illegal.) You’ve offered politicians that are an embarrassment to both parties, that don’t reflect Conservative ideals at all. If Ronald Reagan ran on the ballot today–he’d lose!
I don’t understand why you continue to support an ideology that has lost its meaning and has betrayed its foundation. (I imagine it must be very lonely.) And you can say the Left is malicious unlike the Right all you want, but from what I can see from your behavior, you’ve only ever proven to me otherwise. Over, and over, and over again Steve. And you know when you’ve done it. (I suppose it’s what the Left would have done? Take some responsibility.) And you’re doing it now. Leave the girl alone. She’s done nothing to you personally (and she’s not a public figure). No one HERE has either. But that doesn’t matter to you, you really believe every individual you take out is a vengeful swipe at an unjust system, even if you have to join what you see as destruction and contribute to taking the nation down in its entirety in the name of a political opponent, which is so incredibly dishonest. I would never stoop that low, impersonating the ideology of someone else. What’s the real difference between me and her? You don’t really want me to not be killed Steve, you don’t care, which you came right out and said as you were posting Occupy videos in Seattle.
Well I’m done with your constant promises not to do it again Steve. I won’t count on you being humane anymore. I’m leaving. You can pretend I went to go fuck myself.
“Why the hell were you all ignoring Ron Paul?”
You will never get me justifying the Republican Party. Look I was in it. I know how corrupt it is. It sickens me.
I got disillusioned with it during the 1990s. It’s one of the main reasons why I didn’t get involved with the Tea Party. I thought it would end up the same way it did in the 1990s. I don’t mind making mistakes but I don’t like making the same mistakes over and over.
And unfortunately I was right. Didn’t want to be. But I am rarely if ever wrong about such things.
I “want” Obama to win this year. Hell, we have been gearing up for this all my life. Let’s just bring it on!
And no, I don’t want you to die Nahida. Stay away from Occupy. Keep your head down. I think we are going to see something this year that neither of us have seen in either of our lifetimes. Maybe even worse than the 1960s.
Nahida. Sorry, I was too busy destroying a person’s life to respond in full to your question. The American anti-slavery movement was a religious movement.
Here is something I found on the History channel web page. I hope it helps.
The goal of the abolitionist movement was the immediate emancipation of all slaves and the end of racial discrimination and segregation. Advocating for immediate emancipation distinguished abolitionists from more moderate anti-slavery advocates who argued for gradual emancipation, and from free-soil activists who sought to restrict slavery to existing areas and prevent its spread further west. Radical abolitionism was partly fueled by the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening, which prompted many people to advocate for emancipation on religious grounds. Abolitionist ideas became increasingly prominent in Northern churches and politics beginning in the 1830s, which contributed to the regional animosity between North and South leading up to the Civil War.
Steve, you have no idea what you’ve just done.
Not the “fuck you” part. She forgave you for that even before you said it. She saw your Occupy comments and her lower eyelashes glimmered a little. When she wiped it I realized it was tears. I thought I knew the reason for them, but she surprised me. “Oh poor thing!” she sighed, “I hope he isn’t hurt. I wish I could ask him, but it would probably make him angrier. Because he thinks I’m the enemy. So it’s like if I punched him in the stomach and then asked if he’s okay. I can’t comfort him because we’re not friends he said, I have to keep reminding myself, it would only provoke him.”
And I said “WTF you’re thinking of him after he said THAT? after he said fuck you?” And she said, “Lily, people are destroying things in the name of our ideology. Even if we disagree with their actions but are being held accountable, what is the feminist thing to do?” And I said, “The immediate victim comes first before the defense, and what they say out of the first moments of anger is human and excused.” And she repeated “Yes. The immediate victim comes first before the defense, and what they say out of the first moments of anger is human and excused.”
And then she saw Karen’s comments and said, “Why are people talking about the KKK? Ah shit, I have to say something, I can’t have people talking to him like that after shit around his city is broken.” And I said, “But slavery was defended by conservative democrats.” And she said, “I know, but that’s not relevant, Lily. That’s a really douchey thing to bring up. Here, we can talk about history and how it contributes to modern violence without assigning modern ideologies to history.”
Anyway, so no, it wasn’t the “fuck you” part.
It was the dishonesty. It was for doing something in the name of an ideology you don’t belong to and blaming it for what you say. HER ideology. The one she’s trying to reclaim. You were framing her. her values, her efforts to erode racism gently. She thought you were joking at first. But you WERE joking. You were making a joke of something that seriously hurt her, something she believes doesn’t belong in polite society. You were taking it to a violent extreme and misconstruing it, and you were blaming it on the Left.
Now she’s convinced that there are conservatives trying to discredit liberal ideology by pretending to be liberals.
You have no idea. What you’ve just done.
Don’t bother talking to her. Because she said she’s not coming back.
Oh, I think I emailed the right Indian official.
I got an email back saying he was going to look into the situation PERSONALLY!
Want to bet she gets expelled by the weekend!
Oh, yeah, they are pissed. Just got another response back!
Sometimes I am so good I surprise even myself.
Wouldn’t want to be that girl right now!
She messed with 1 billion people. Wow!
Just think, Nahida if it wasn’t for you I would have never heard of this.
Thank you.
Nahida did you know that in 2010-11, 103,895 Indian students took admission in US universities?
One of the Indian officials I emailed just e-mailed me back with that little factoid.
I didn’t know that.
I bet President Roth knew that. If not he soon will. I am talking about the President of Wesleyan University.
Nahida, I want to sincerely thank you for informing me about this situation. I haven’t had such fun in such time. I doubt this girl is going to graduate!
This is pissing them off more than even the whole Jay Leno joke using the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India thing. And they were pretty pissed about this.
I am kind of getting why the Left loves destroying lives. It can be fun.
Wow.I just emailed President Roth again (using another email address) and it got bounced back with the message Mailbox Full.
How can the mailbox of the President of an University get full? How many emails does it take for that to happen? Perhaps he just had it temporary turned off.
They are really vilifying her in the Indian blogs. It’s great.
Just think, had you never told me about her I would have never known and would have never been able to do this.
By the way you said that she wasn’t a public figure. Not true. We are all public figures now. You, me, Sarah (if she was real) each and every one of us can become a public figure in the blink of an eye.
Andy Warhol said that in the future we would all be famous for 15 minutes. I wonder if he fully comprehended how true this would become. Now is this girl’s 15 minutes which is long enough to destroy her life forever.
I don’t know about everything said here by most of it is the truth.
What the Fuck? Most of it is true?
I saw this happen live on television. I knew people in Seattle who I talked to afterwards to confirm this happened.
All of it indeed happened!
Just like what they did in 1999. I actually worked downtown back then.
Cute, real cute.
Most all of us know Alex Jones is a conspiracy kook. He has no credibility.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/media-and-police-ignore-savage-beating-of-two-white-reporters/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/200-jewish-students-receive-eviction-notices-from-pro-palestinian-activists-at-florida-university/
Yeah I changed my mind. I’m glad it’s over.
I didn’t think Steve could go any lower than telling her he hopes she’s raped… but wow. And just when she was making a real effort to understand him.
Conservatives have proven who they are. I’m done reading here.
BTW remember when Steve told Nahida the violent comments on the blaze were Liberals impersonating Conservatives? LOL guess we know where THAT idea came from… Wow, this really does prove everything. No proof of Steve’s claim, but proof of the exact opposite.
My favorite part is where he tries to blame Nahida for telling him about the girl. She’s too smart for that.
Projecting AND shifting blame. I finally believe what they’ve always said about the Right.
He does hope she dies. He already tried to destroy her. No one tries to guilt a person they care about like that.
Lily! Lily, are you or KelsShels still here? I tried emailing Nahida because I thought it was so nice that she was trying to understand, and I wanted her to continue the discussion cause it was interesting… But she said she’s really not coming back after that, no matter who asks?!
I REALLY liked her. =(
Hi. Yeah, Laura, sorry. She’s in a state of shock.
He completely destroyed her trust. Like, she seriously thought he was joking and kept giving him a chance to suddenly say something like “JUST KIDDING NAHIDA but that’s what the Left would have done” or something else Steve-like. If you see her comments there are little warnings saying it’s not funny. (She doesn’t usually use the words “you’re fucking insane” lightly.) But he kept pushing and she realized he was serious. He was really trying to discredit the validity of her discomfort with the sign by pretending he was from her ideology and basically framing her for anything that happened to that woman. And then saying it was her fault because she told him. Like he was previously living under a rock or something.
So now she can’t believe anything he says. She said that if he really believed this woman’s life would be destroyed he wouldn’t have had to do that. He would have just let the process take its course. But he was afraid it wouldn’t, because the woman’s apology was so sincere and even invited people to talk to her about it and she didn’t blame the other side (the kind of apology you never got from Limbaugh) the woman said she deserved the criticism, so Steve was afraid it wouldn’t happen because he’s been lying about the Left. He needed to frame her.
Someone with one mentality can’t have an ideology of another mentality. Because the ideology is a RESULT of that mentality. It’s how the ideology is founded. Steve isn’t acting Liberal. He’s acting Conservative. And Nahida has been Liberal this whole time. By ideology AND mentality. That was a nice little game he played, crediting what he thought was “the good part” of her to Conservatives.
Anyway, yeah, she’s in a state of shock. I guess Steve kept pushing because she’s taken it so many times, and he thought she’d continue to take it, but he should be the first to know her type. That one day you just wake up and she’s really gone.
No, I am acting liberal.
The conservative response was, if anything, to protect that girl.
I figured, why? She is obviously a Leftist herself. That University is noted to be Leftists. Practically all Universities are Leftist in nature, but this University had a reputation of being EVEN MORE leftist than that. One doesn’t go to a school with that kind of reputation without themselves being Leftist in nature.
Conservatives I am afraid to say are a bunch of wimps. Typically they “don’t want to make a scene”. They don’t want to be perceived of being “impolite”. Now this is slowly changing especially with the younger generations. Push someone long enough and they are going to eventually push back.
Conservatives can learn a lot from the Left. After all the Left have been the winners and if you can’t adapt some of your enemies tactics to your own use, then you will continue to lose.
And too much is at stake for us to just resign ourselves to perpetual defeat.
Why should Limbaugh apologize. Why should I pay for that girl’s birth control?
Why don’t you make a list. What other stuff should you be allowed to force others to pay for?
The Conservative response was not to protect that girl. The Conservative response was OH MY GOD LIBERALS SAID IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE THOSE POLITICALLY CORRECT BASTARDS!! RACISM IS FREE SPEECH!!
Because NO ONE is allowed to say that something is racist anymore. We MUST be out to kill you!! If we call you out on something that’s insensitive it’s because WE WANT YOU TO DIE.
And we’re the ones assumings things.
STFU. God I’m so glad Nahida’s left.
Don’t you know racism doesn’t exist?
That’s why we have a white Conservative speaking for people of color by pretending to be one.
Too bad that girl was a Liberal, since Conservatives only scream about racism if you assure them they’re not racist by calling yourself a Conservative.
Kind of like how they are with women. “We’ll only give you rights if you vote for us.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/theyve-fked-us-all-shocking-review-of-occupy-progressive-anarchist-training-manuals/
So how exactly is anarchy the extreme on the Left? I thought it was the Right?
The extreme from Left to Right being Socialism to Anarchy? Looks like it’s just a bunch of radical kooks from either side.
Sally, that’s because half the people at Occupy are Conservatives pretending to be Liberals!
I’m so sorry for Nahida. Poor kid really thought he was being honest…
I knew it was coming. Didn’t bother say anything.
Look at Steve linking something and claiming it’s something else. One of the people there compared what she did to an incident with the BBC earlier this month. Oh really. Where’s the comparison?
You have been lied to in College. If you haven’t figured it out your college professors are mostly Leftists
Well, I wasn’t making the comparison, but basically it was a general “the West is attacking us” comparison that the poster made. The West wants to insult and tear down anything and everything that is Indian. From Jay Leno, to the BBC, to that girl at that American University.
“They are doing this because they fear India’s rise as a world power and their own decline. It’s their colonial mindset at work.”
Pretty standard stuff. You know the blather that the Left always puts out.
But boy does it rile up the people on the blog.
Another poster said he actually attends that University and has a class with the girl. I guess she wasn’t in class this morning.
I have never said the Left isn’t anything but effective that’s for sure. I love seeing them eat one of their own. With a little help of course. I have studied them for decades so it is really easy for me to play their game. They have taught me well.
I responded.
You are so right about those damn Americans. There are many universities even in America that Indians can go to instead of Wesleyan University.
The University hates us Indians but they seem to love our money don’t they!
We need to stop allowing ourselves to be walked all over. We are better than this . We need to give Wesleyan University an ultimatum. Either you expel that woman or we will just boycott you! Anything less than expelling her would be proof of Wesleyan University racism and hatred against Indians!
I’m not IN college, you twit.
Give it a rest. We’ve seen what you’ve done. Go tell Hannity you’ll pay for his Viagra. And then go call women whores.
Bigot.
“They are doing this because they fear India’s rise as a world power and their own decline. It’s their colonial mindset at work.”
A Conservative said it. Probably Steve himself. What an idiot.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/
I have been reading the India blogs about this and they are still going strong.
One of the people there compared what she did to an incident with the BBC earlier this month.
http://indiawest.com/news/3958-bbc-apologizes-for-calling-holi-filthy-in-web-site-caption.html
Obama’s campaign slogan has communist roots.
Check out the video. Beck uses images of Occupy Seattle.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
Sarah was known to be a Muslim the time she burnt down a building that was known to be a church.
This is what Steve’s little episode should have looked like, first with Conservatives shouting A church was burnt and no one cared!! IF IT WERE A MOSQUE THAT WAS BURNT DOWN EVERYONE WOULD SAY IT WAS A HATE CRIME!!
And then Liberals saying, Well there was also a mosque inside…
And then Conservatives saying THEY DIDN’T REBUILD THAT CHURCH BUT THEY BUILT A MOSQUE ON THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS BURNED DOWN
And then Liberals saying, No it’s around the same area… it’s not on the site. Also there was a mosque in that church that was burned too!
And Conservatives saying YOU HATE CANADA!!
Yeah, I haven’t quite finished that yet. And I think I was being fair and honest about how my side would have handled it.
But no, you have the order wrong. You would FIRST have a week and a half or so of WHITE CHRISTIAN BURNS DOWN MOSQUE. But then as “facts” about Sarah comes out and it keeps on conflicting with the narrative the media wants to portray then the media will stop reporting the story.
And then YEAH, IT’S OUR TURN. Hey, this was actually a CHURCH that got burned down, and THAT’S why she hasn’t been arrested for a hate crime. And then the big news – SHE IS RELATED TO THE LOCAL IMAM.
Sorry, but this was after the Press blamed all of Christianity and the white Race for a “Mosque” burning down. And then to find out that it was really a church that burned, no we couldn’t help ourselves. And could you blame us?
And yeah, in some quarters, it would get even worse. Sarah “pretended” to be a Christian in order to gain the Christians trust PRECISELY to be able to burn down the church.
Did you hear, right after she burned down the church she converted back to Islam? What, was that about? Mission Accomplished! No need for the facade now. Those Christians – WHAT SUCKERS!
About this time you would have someone trying to calm the situation down. We really shouldn’t have blown this all out of proportion and made it something larger than it really is. This was the act of ONE INDIVIDUAL. One clearly insane individual. We shouldn’t be going around blaming a larger community for the act of one person. Look, she was a troubled individual who was known to get into bar fights. She was obviously mad that the Christians wouldn’t let her join the choir so she did burn the place down. Yes, it is wrong that because she has a in with local authorities and they haven’t arrested her, but don’t make it out to be some big Christian vs Muslim thing. It’s just the act of one insane person.
I am sorry I haven’t finished this yet. I have been busy with other things but I will try to get to it.
I know how your side would have handled it.
YOU would have started it. You would have said exactly what I wrote. You’re STILL saying what I wrote about the mosque in NY. YOU started that, and you’re STILL GOING.
No, I am acting liberal.
No, NAHIDA was acting Liberal. BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT SHE IS.
We’re Liberals, and YOU SAID WE WANTED THAT GIRL KILLED EVEN WHEN NO ONE HERE WAS SAYING IT. All we said was that we disapproved and YOU TOOK IT OVER THE TOP to try and invalidate that position. You want racism.
You know I was the one who asked her to come back and try to figure out what you were saying, to give you a fair chance to explain why you think it was the Right that ended slavery if we were indeed taught wrong in school. You couldn’t do it. She was practically babying you for arguments. (“May I have an ideological argument? Can I have something to read? No religion was mostly used to defend slavery…”) You trying to take away fair pay and regulate our reproductive freedoms, and you’re saying you would have ended slavery? You claim you believe the sign was inappropriate but you would discredit that position by going to an extreme? Gimme a break.
I NEVER supported Occupy, NEVER wanted police officers killed, and NEVER accused you of anything that time you exploded at Nahida for MISREADING something I wrote, because YOU jumped to conclusions despite the TRUTH of what I said being RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
And we’re the ones.
You’re acting EXACTLY Conservative. And you’ve proved it.
That’s all.
co-signed.
YOU would have started it.
No, the Leftist Press would have started it with all their headlines about the White Christian Woman who burned down the Mosque.
We would just be playing defense here. And we would be legitimately outraged. I mean all this crap about it being a hate crime against Muslims only to find out that it was actually a church! And the arsonist was the Mother in Law of an Imam!
Yeah, a “Christian hate crime”? Sorry, that Narrative has fallen apart.
Hate crime AGAINST Christians! That is what the Mercy CHURCH burning was! The press portrayed it the exact OPPOSITE of what it really was.
Yet no charges against this arsonist for her hate crimes. Figures. It’s not a hate crime when Christians are attacked.
Isn’t it interesting. Ever since we found out that it was actually a church and that the arsonist was the Mother In law to the local Imam we haven’t heard much of this story, hmm!
Ah! Story didn’t fit your narrative about it being some White Christian lady attacking a Mosque and you just go away liberal press Huh!
Remember how you heard about this “Mosque” in Canada being burned nonstop, for what two weeks, and all of a sudden NOTHING!
And to the best of my knowledge this woman has still not been charged. I guess when the authorities realized it was a church and not a mosque that she burned down they just went, nope, no hate crime here!
Because we all know when a Muslim attacks a Christian it’s never a hate crime!
Sarah was known to be a Muslim the time she burnt down a building that was known to be a church.
That is the problem I have with this case. I have heard so many seemingly contradictory things about this arsonist, I don’t know what to believe.
On the one hand I heard she was really a Muslim. But then I heard that she auditioned for the Church choir and was rejected.
Perhaps that’s why she burned it down. Those Damn intolerant Christians not allowing a Muslim to sing in their choir! How dare they reject her from being part of their CHRISTIAN choir just because she was a Muslim.
Hey, that’s religious discrimination, isn’t it? The church had to pay!
Maybe she was like Rev. Ann Holmes Redding.
And then Liberals saying, Well there was also a mosque inside…
Yup. Everytime in the NY Mosque debate when Liberals point out that Muslims died too we’re accused of hating American.
And then Conservatives saying THEY DIDN’T REBUILD THAT CHURCH BUT THEY BUILT A MOSQUE ON THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS BURNED DOWN
And then Liberals saying, No it’s around the same area… it’s not on the site. Also there was a mosque in that church that was burned too!
And Conservatives saying YOU HATE CANADA!!
Exactly right.
You can “finish” on your own Steve. You won’t have us for an audience. Kelly and I are as done as Nahida.
And then Liberals saying, Well there was also a mosque inside…
It was the RIVAL Mosque to the one that her Son in Law ran.
There was a conflict going on between the two Mosques!
This was not an attack directed at Christians. They just got caught in the middle.
Her Son In Law used to be Imam of that mosque but the Muslims there fired him.
I guess I could see how that would make him mad of his former Mosque.
You mean the Mosque that his mother in law burned down, yeah it does seem to me that this was obviously an attack against the Mosque in the building.
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=21140647&topic_id=24584158
Wow that video above proves that the Left is evil and that it has been evil throughout our history.
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=21127303&topic_id=24584158
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20858649&topic_id=24584158
This is an issue they never had the guts to deal with on LMOTP.
She won’t even reply to me anymore. =( All I have from her is the first one, where she wrote, “He openly admitted the sign was unsophisticated and problematic, yet continued to invalidate this position with severe intemperance, preferring to destroy everything and frame someone else than acknowledge a point or concede. This makes my efforts to reach an honest conclusion or genuine understanding a waste of time. Everything he said was a deliberate lie; I know that now. I can recognize when someone insists on measuring goodness that he hasn’t got, and thus has lost the ability for measurement. I can’t tolerate unabashed dishonesty, and, as he expresses no genuine regret, can not extend any mercy. I will not exist in such an absurd state. But you’re free to disclose that I think he’s a despicable human being, and feel the soupy disgust in my stomach.”
Guess i’m done too =/ bye everyone
Yeah, she won’t reply to me either. The last I have is this, where after I emailed her she wrote back, “He won’t shut up, no matter who tells him it’s not like that how many times. He was so malicious trying to provoke me, he made me want to commit suicide. I wanted to throw a knife into myself so I wouldn’t have to put up with his constant douchebaggery.”
And I said, “Well why didn’t you tell him that? I mean, he might have stopped if you told him that…”
And Nahida said, “Pride.”
That’s all I’ve got. She won’t even answer anymore, I guess that’s really over.
I want to add her on facebook… but it’s not linked anywhere? Where did other people find it?
You can’t. Unless you know her first AND last name. You can find it, but no one’s going to flat out tell you, because she purposely makes you have to search.
Also I think she only adds people she knows… idunno, haven’t tried.
I don’t know how to hint it without making it obvious for any passing fool! I think someone mentioned before all pieces about her identity fall in chilling coincidence. It’s almost legendary.
This might help you a little:
Her first and last names alliterate. Together they sound musical, and feminine.
Her last name is the same number of letters as the ordered Chapter in the Qur’an after which it was named.
Her middle initial tempted Eve. The name wields a ruling power.
But yeah btw she only adds people she knows. Otherwise you can only subscribe to the public updates.
Wanna know something freakier? Her first name “Nahida” – means both “Elated” (by Heaven) and “uprising”.
That’s not true anymore. I mean it used to, in the old language. But now it just means “beautiful.” It translates literally to “buxom” or “swollen-breasted.”
None of that is surprising. Names are predetermined in Paradise. It is known.
I guess that girl didn’t attend class again today.
I think she must have been expelled.
I saw Nahida on the slutwalk in October! She was wearing a fitted black dress that ended mid-thigh and high heels. (She has amazing legs!) I wanted to come say hi but figured that would be weird. xD She was holding a sign that said “Still Not Asking For It” (was expecting something original from her…) I wish I got a picture.
Some guy took the opportunity to read the sign, look her up and down, and say “DAMN but I am!” She glared at him with a killer look…
Ugh what a dumbass.
There are two rape cultures in the United States. The one perpetuated by Liberal men, and the one perpetuated by Conservative men:
Conservative men’s rape culture:
–virginity as commodity
–reproductive servitude
–women owned as (private) property (by one man at a time)
Liberal men’s rape culture:
–sexuality as commodity
–no connection between sex and reproduction (“male centric”)
–women are common (public) property, owned by all men as shared common property
(of course these are exaggerated “not all Liberal/Conservative men” disclaimer)
and then
Conservative woman’s solution (or the radical feminist solution; “difference feminism”)
–sex is private (if made public it WILL be exploited by men)
–keep prostitution illegal (will keep women from sexual abuse)
–against the slutwalk (it reinforces woman as the sex class)
Liberal woman’s solution (or the sex-positive feminist solution; “equality feminism”)
–recognize that men can be raped too (shift the sex class off women)
–make prostitution legal (can then be regulated to prevent rape)
–for the slutwalk (the important message cannot be lost to men’s interpretation)
of course these intersect; Nahida is an example. She accepts the first two premises of Conservative women (radical/difference feminism) but accepts the last premise of Liberal women (sex-positive/equality feminism) that the slutwalk has a vital message.
I found Occupy clips from a city where I think the girls are from (since Nahida said Silicon Valley). It looks tame. They get along with the officers. Steve has been posting only the violent bits.
STEVE ISN’T POINTING OUT HER BIGGEST HYPOCRISY.
OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE IT ISN’T HYPOCRISY AND HE’S FINE WITH IT.
Give it a rest dude. Wtf is your problem anyway. Stay the hell out of it, you creep. The only person who has a right to say anything on that matter is Steve.
So yeah NOT YOUR BUSINESS.
What would that be? I thought I was pretty good at pointing out her hypocrisy.
That she’s a radical feminist who’s told off men countless times for making unwanted advances on women YET SHE ADMITTED TO FANTASIZING ABOUT YOU!
That’s not…hypocrisy.
Or even your business.
Hey, Steve, did you make this guy your advisor?
What would that be?
RTelier is the guy you were ignoring before.
I thought Lilly made that up.
I thought Lily and Kelly were making fun of her.
Yes, that would indeed be hypocritical. She even talks about the “Male Gaze”. Well sorry, some women are just attractive and men can’t help but look for a moment. That doesn’t even mean that the male is interested, just that he appreciates beauty.
I guess it depends on the length of time and the type of gaze.
But yeah, that would be hypocritical of her. She doesn’t even know me.
Many of the things Nahida talks about I agree with. I don’t think that a woman’s worth should be based solely on her sexuality and like if she isn’t a virgin that means she is worthless. As sins go I find it a relatively small one (I am talking about out of wedlock of course) and especially if it was forced upon her. That shouldn’t destroy who she is. Now of course a woman shouldn’t go around having a lot of sex but neither should a man. But again, no one is perfect, and just like some people smoke we shouldn’t condemn a woman’s very essence because of that.
But then again, sometimes I wonder if some of this is just human nature and we can never get above it. I hate that a woman is still in the 21st century judged mainly on her looks, but perhaps that is how we are genetically built.
One of the things I find very hypocritical is that it is only sexual harassment if a woman doesn’t find the guy attractive.
Of course I believe sexuality should remain entirely out of the workplace but women often use the threat of sexual harassment as the “atomic bomb” to threaten co-workers.
Isn’t it funny, and sad, that as soon as Nahida leaves, Steve always forgets who she is. And how very kind she was, and how profusely she apologized, how modest she was, and he even forgets the details of her feminism that he agreed with. Because if you were paying attention that if true it actually isn’t hypocritical. She has said countless times, along the lines of “Think what you want about someone, find whoever you want attractive, just don’t involve them when they don’t want you to and infringe on their rights.” And she never did.
I’m very glad Nahida left in a fit of rage and isn’t here to see you say that Steve, because I’m sure it would have hurt her immensely.
I’m debating whether to email her and tell her…
Tell her that Steve said nothing to her about it when she was here apologizing to him nonstop for what Lily said, but that he commented on it behind her back?
She’d want to know the truth, probably. But I think it’ll be better if you didn’t tell her. It’ll hurt her more if you did than if you didn’t, since she’s not coming back here so she’d never know. The woman is gorgeous from what I’ve seen of photos, and people are always spiteful because of it. They think they can be harsher because they assume pretty women must have confidence through the roof, but the way Nahida was apologizing to Steve and thanking him for tolerating this and not judging (I think she called him “merciful”)… she’s got too gentle of a heart, I don’t think she could take it.
Yes, that would indeed be hypocritical. She even talks about the “Male Gaze”. Well sorry, some women are just attractive and men can’t help but look for a moment. That doesn’t even mean that the male is interested, just that he appreciates beauty.
Okay. Wow. I won’t even touch on the other absurd stuff Steve said, but Steve did you miss it when Nahida made this comment?!
In any place it’s the difference between looking and leering. I don’t mind being looked at. A brief glance, a sideways stare, is acceptable and excusable, as opposed to lecherous gawking. As long as they aren’t leering, and as long as they stay the hell out of my way. (ie Don’t think they’re entitled to anything, my time or an insufferable conversation.) Without objectification or entitlement, there is in fact a tasteful way to look. Finding someone sexually appealing is not the same as objectifying them (seriously WHERE did this misconception come from?): the objectifying happens when you stop seeing them as human, and part of the way this is demonstrated is–as Cece mentioned–that you don’t listen when they tell you to stop, because you are entitling your desires over theirs: over their own desires, comfort, or space. You think you’re more human than they are, because they’ve become an object.
She said it here:
“Go Figure”, so even overlooking that she would be incredibly hurt he’s already way off….
…think I’ll go email her and tell her what Steve said. “Go Figure” is right, she’d want the truth even if it crushes her.
She wasn’t really fantasizing about me. She doesn’t know me. She was just fantasizing about “a male” and put my name on it.
So, how can I be offended when it wasn’t me she was fantasizing about.
There does seem to be two Nahida’s. The “snow flake” and the political Nahida. I realize they are the same person but still it is hard to attack her politically when it hurts her personally.
She says I don’t care, but I do. But still I can’t let that get in the way of my politics.
Here is something Steve doesn’t understand, and continuously forgets:
Nahida is extremely intelligent. She’s almost incomparably intelligent. So smart, in fact, that I’m betting people start taking it for granted. They always agree with her, and she never feels challenged. If they disagree, the disagreement is solved almost instantly.
She met Steve when she was 15. He was very kind to her then (not like he is now), but he almost always disagreed. He used to politely disagree, without exploding at her. And he was one of the few people who challenged her intellectually. And he was righteous, and she believed he had strong values. By 19, she was enamored.
She never told him. For various reasons. Steve said one of them. That it wasn’t really him. The other reasons are feminism (it is against her feminist ideology to make what she calls “uninvited advances” so she never did it, THAT, RTelier, is why she’s not a hypocrite) Islam (the most obvious) and plain respect for Steve (he said he can’t be friends with anyone of a different ideology, she probably applied that to everything else as well and feminism kept her from pushing boundaries.) She probably never took her desires seriously anyway, because, again, it wasn’t really him. So she stayed quietly enamored, and went her way without “disturbing” him.
And then, of course, Steve said the things he did. I can’t imagine how that must have made her feel, but I’m guessing everything was three times more hurtful because of this…
Here Nahida’s feminism comes through again. She doesn’t ask him to consider being kinder than he would with anyone else because of what he’d become for her, because that would be “infringing on his rights”. It would be entitling herself to something she wasn’t entitled to. You know, that stuff she always says. That is once again why she is not hypocritical. She did not conduct herself in any way that she would not have expected from a man.
The only good thing that came out of the terrible things Steve said, is that it made her stop.
But we all know what type of person Nahida is. She can’t fantasize about someone without at some level still caring. So it continued to hurt and amaze her whenever he exploded angrily, more than it would if it was anyone else saying those things to her. And because she’s written before about how attached she becomes to people who she’s given her time to, I’m also guessing she believed that Steve was still the person she knew when she was 15, and he had been kind. She was probably hoping that would come to the surface again. And then, finally, she stopped hoping.
On a different note…
So, how can I be offended when it wasn’t me she was fantasizing about.
Are you saying if it WAS you, you would be offended?
Olly I hope you haven’t emailed her yet. There’s no reason to when Steve hasn’t actually said anything… Like Go Figure said “She has a gentle heart.”
Well he did. He said it was hypocritical when it wasn’t. To RTelier of all people. Nahida was behaving respectfully about it exactly how she says people should behave. I mean, even when that person Gabby asked she said “Sorry but that’s an intrusive question” because she values these things as private and discreet.
Anyway, sorry, the damage is done. I sent it. Not sure if she read it though. She hasn’t been replying to things lately.
LMFAO YES Hope it kills her.
I guess I wouldn’t be offended either way.
She has always acted respectfully to me even when I didn’t deserve it. I guess she wasn’t being hypocritical.
Nahida is a very kind person. She is probably one of the kindest people I have come across (although I have come across others). A snowflake right, although there’s another term I would use. In the end people like Nahida scare me because they are just way too good for this world.
That said though, she needs to wait before she reacts in cases such as that whole “coloured sign” case and the Zimerman case. She needs to understand that there might be more to the story than the press has been telling or at the very least it may be an over reaction.
Quite honestly I don’t know how to respond to Nahida anymore. If I engage her in rhetorical combat then I hurt her feelings which I don’t want to do, but if I don’t engage her in rhetorical combat I am not being true to myself either.
There’s a couple of things that she said in her recent posts that do concern me (apart from the politics) and I have been wondering how to approach her on that. She seems to be coming out of college with a lot of fear. I certainly understand that because that is how I came out of college but in her case she has so much going for her she need not be afraid like I was.
You know you can disagree with her without being disagreeable. You used to do it, from what people say. And she does it with you.
She didn’t even react to the sign like you made it seem. She just said it was inappropriate. I know you’re White, but you must know how it must feel to see a sign like that. Especially for Nahida, who is constantly trying to convince other White feminists that she is not oppressed by Islam, and Muslim women that they are not incompatible with Westernness. Can’t she make a benign remark about it without you exploding? You know if that sign happened on her campus she would have never even said anything about it. Maybe she’d write about it later, without names. But in the moment it would have just hurt her, and she would have probably just taken it down and replaced it with an appropriate one.
Anyway I sent her a follow up (she still didn’t reply to the last one… I hope not because it hurt her) with your comment because it was nice and should fix any damage.
Nahida has replied.
“I am only glad he isn’t offended.
When Steve was talking about hate crimes, he mentioned saying to a friend of his that he [the friend] must be happier knowing his friend wasn’t killed in a hate crime. It was kind of a cruel thing to say, as Steve himself acknowledged. And that is something Steve said to a friend. A friend! …So I can only imagine what he must say to people who aren’t his friends.
Steve is different from me in nature. My friends teased me mercilessly (“Nahida, do you ever lose things in your hair?” “You’re getting a literature degree? I’d like a caramel latte please.” “Nahida it’s raining—grab a hi’jab.”), but we were never so dark with each other as to make light of traumatic events. Maybe that is how Steve survives. And maybe I have been very, very inconsiderate, and very cruel, to impose on this survival mechanism. I realized this, when he told me that about his friend.
I keep wondering where he went, the Steve I knew before, the one who was kinder, and it’s occurred to me that maybe he said the same things when I was 15, but they went right over my head. I did notice things as the years passed. Commenting on how he’d wish for the end of Thorne’s character, Steve described a scenario in which a bookshelf would fall on the Reverend as he is making out with the librarian, thus ending Thorne’s life. I remember this startled me. I was perturbed, in fact, that Steve could so casually suggest such a thing; the juxtaposition of a state as endearing as a kiss with the horror of a falling bookshelf crushing that person to death… was to me the encroachment of something sacred. So Steve’s a little rougher—what’s it to me? Why should he define inviolability by my standards? Oh, how arrogant I’ve been! It disturbed me because Thorne was a real person to me… but why should he be real to Steve?
I’m the type of person who can only be dark or rough with the security of affection, or else it’s just perplexing and utterly unamusing. When Steve says things like that to me, I’m convinced it’s coming from someone who hates me, and not a place of affection, so it’s utterly unendurable. I might insist that what Steve employs as a survival mechanism impedes fundamentally on my own well-being (words like “whore” etc.), because his trauma is directly opposed to mine, but with what entitlement could I possibly ask him to consider such a thing? I am neither one he considers a friend, nor his religious leader, to righteously enforce a definition and culture of decency. I am only a citizen of his country—thus he owes me no kindness, only the observation of my rights, on which he does not infringe. And as long as Steve can take what he dishes out, and acknowledges he has no right to my entertainment, he cannot be wrong.
I for one will maintain as much kindness as I can muster, but that is my own decision, and I would be arrogant to expect it of him. I can only pray he forgives me.”
It wasn’t a friend. It was just someone I was talking to on the Internet.
“When Steve was talking about hate crimes, he mentioned saying to a friend of his that he [the friend] must be happier knowing his friend wasn’t killed in a hate crime”
Wasn’t a friend. Just someone I was talking to over the internet one night.
As for Thorne, sorry, he was never real to me. Just someone they threw in half way into the show to attack Christians (because they thought if they became more “edgy” they would attract more of an audience).
Of course my favorite way to have gotten rid of him was a take off on how they brought Bobby Ewing back to Dallas (yeah I know, before your time). The whole last season was just a dream (or now I guess he was on two whole season, that can all be a dream). McGee never left (not that I am any particular fan of McGee but compared to Thorne.
Actually I guess Thorne was on a total of three seasons?
If there was a point where the show “jumped the sharp” introducing Thorne into the mix was certainly it.
LOL I thought you said he was a friend too.
Wow I did NOT see that coming…
Is anyone else amazed that Nahida always finds a way to criticize herself?
Everyone has their theories about Nahida…
I was very alarmed when Olly sent her that email. I was afraid she wouldn’t know how to react. Heck, I wouldn’t. What’s the proper way to react to that? But she always knows what to say… Natural gracefulness, I guess.
“Everyone has their theories about Nahida…”
I have a theory about Nahida. She stays up late into the night. And then she tears up all the work she did because it isn’t perfect. She really likes pencil skirts, but she can’t wear them because she’s Muslim. Maybe she sleeps until noon. Maybe she likes animals more than people, like that one writer dude who’s name I forgot. Maybe her mother raised her right. Maybe the best thing her mother did was not to raise her at all. Maybe Nahida was just made like that. And with all that… somehow BAM! The world has Nahida.
A second message:
“Olly, I glazed over it in your email before, but did you say Steve made some absurd allegation that it’s only sexual harassment if the man is attractive? If so, kindly inform him that attractiveness is subjective, monumentally throwing off the merits of his claim, and that the point isn’t the attractiveness of the man but whether his advances are invited; otherwise the focus is inaccurately shifted from the discomfort of the woman to the criteria of her attraction. There is no explanation required for “No.” If he persists after that, it is sexual harassment, regardless of whether or not he is attractive, and regardless of her reasons for saying “no”. To pose the question of whether or not the man is attractive is to speculate irrelevantly on the reason the woman refused. And that she would naturally be receptive to the advances of some men over others, just as a man would be receptive to the advances of some women over others, is not hypocritical. I told an annoyingly persistent MRA in a way all MRAs can understand: in terms of cupcakes. The fact that I would eat a vanilla cupcake, but not a chocolate cupcake, is not hypocrisy. (He jokingly replied it was racism. Ha. Lame.)
I might not care if a certain man says something sexual to me, but that doesn’t mean every other man on Earth gets to do the same thing without me feeling creeped out, uncomfortable and harassed, and thinking it’s fucking weird. If a man isn’t sure if his advances would be well received, or if he doesn’t TRUST the woman and believes she will misinterpret him without a fair chance to back off, he shouldn’t be making those advances. The first time he says something I’d grudgingly give him a pass (unless he’s a stranger)—stuff happens, he thought it was welcome, whatever. But he can’t continue. How he looks is irrelevant to the consequences of my decision. That’s just for me.
Likewise, if I hit on/ flirt with/ attempt to seduce a man (which I shouldn’t be doing unless I know he won’t mind), and he tells me to stop—I had BETTER stop. If I do proceed continue after that against his will, it is sexual harassment. His reasons are none of my business. He owes me no explanation. And I do not have the right to say Well if THAT woman (who is more/less attractive) flirted with you, you wouldn’t be uncomfortable. That choice is his (private) right.”
Well, DOES Nahida lose things in her hair? =P
And most importantly, sexual harassment is not an expression of attraction but a practise of power
I said it seems to only be sexual harassment when a man ISN’T attractive.
But I guess that’s the problem with getting stuff third hand.
By the way, this is a great piece about Obama.
Oh that’s my bad. I told her “IS” instead of “ISN’T” but I mistyped. Anyway her reply works either way.
I wrote her, “BTW, I mistyped – Steve said ISN’T. It’s sexual harassment when the man ISN’T attractive.”
“I would have said the same thing.”
yeah
Most women don’t even report sexual harassment.
You know, Steve, when Nahida was sixteen years old (and she was really, REALLY innocent when she was sixteen) there was this guy had a crush on her. He was sort of the mischievous type, always playing harmless tricks on people… the type to start throwing cake at a birthday party and everyone laughs and has a good time. He was a funny guy. Anyway, he really liked her, but she was really innocent, and really righteous (she describes herself as having been unbearably preachy then), and two years later at 18 when he asked her out she rejected him, but he told her he had been absolutely infatuated. Anyway, before that, when they were sixteen, he thought it would be really funny to give her a CD and tell her that it was a movie she had wanted to see (Pygmalion). So Nahida comes home, pops the CD into the computer, and it turns out to be pornography.
Nahida was ENRAGED, as you can image. She stormed back to him, and when she confronted him he was laughing—until he realized she was furious. And I mean FURIOUS. He apologized over and over. She didn’t speak to him for months. Though ultimately, she forgave him.
Of course, Nahida didn’t report it. But if they had both been over eighteen, that would have counted as sexual harassment. But he was sixteen, so it wouldn’t have counted (nor should it.) And of course if she had been 16 and he had been 18 it would have probably been considered a sex crime.
When I asked her if she would have reported it if they’d both been eighteen, Nahida said No. “He didn’t do it to intimidate me or as an exercise of power of anything,” she told me. “So it’s not sexual harassment. And he was so sorry he almost cried. He only meant to play a joke; he really thought it would be fucking hilarious. It was reckless of him, if anything, but nothing remotely close to deserving criminal punishment. I never even told anyone. He was punished enough when I wouldn’t speak to him.”
That should have been reported.
And the guy should have been jailed.
Nahida should have been more than upset. That would be a case of justified anger.
Funny how she let him get away with a TRULY unforgivable, repulsive act while she gets upset about a stupid sign.
By the way, I found out last week that the girl was indeed expelled. Well at least she didn’t return to class for finals.
So, yeah her life has been destroyed over a stupid sign. Good. I actually like the Holi celebration. I hope to experience it someday.
Most conservatives are not as ruthless as I am. YET. I think some of the younger ones are beginning to be.
“and really righteous (she describes herself as having been unbearably preachy then)”
No, she wasn’t then. She is far more now.
She has become a Liberal reactionary.
I blame the University.
.”..and really righteous (she describes herself as having been unbearably preachy then).” She wasn’t really preachy back then. She became really Preachy especially over the University years. And she started using all these terms that real people (people outside of an academic environment) don’t use.
Steve, you idiot. Did you miss where I wrote that she was OUTRAGED at what he did? Just like she disapproved of the Holi joke. But she didn’t do anything IN EITHER INSTANCE. You’re the one who took it over the top!!
I’ve just decided I’m not going to bother with you. But fyi, SANDRA FLUKE (you know, the girl Limbaugh called a whore) came out attacking Hustler, and so did Planned Parenthood. And I had NEVER heard Nahida scream so loud, not even with Limbaugh. And that was over the phone. I wonder how her rage looked in real life. She talked about sending a letter to that woman tell her she hopes she sues for defamation of character.
Funny how she let him get away with a TRULY unforgivable, repulsive act while she gets upset about a stupid sign.
Um. What Sarah said. She got upset about BOTH. She wasn’t even that upset about the sign. You just said she was. She only mentioned it. She even said that after the girl apologized she didn’t care anymore, whereas she didn’t talk to that guy for MONTHS.
And the Hustler thing. Oh man. You shouldve seen her Twitter feed. I remember she linked something about it, and I went to look for it again (wanted to show someone), but found she went back and deleted all her tweets because they were PACKED with cuss words. She does cuss sometimes on Twitter but it was nothing compared to her reaction to what Hustler did to S.E. Cupp. Some guy tweeted her back that they did the same thing to Bill Maher so it wasn’t that bad and she EXPLODED at him, going on about how he better “shut up, check his privilege before she slaps him back in his place” because his penis prevents him from having any idea as to how DIFFERENT it is for a woman and how SPECIFICALLY different it is for S.E. Cupp. (That’s probably why she deleted the tweets too, these ones were violent and after she calmed down she probably regretted being so harsh.) I can’t explain it as well as her, but she said something about how the focus on S.E. Cupp’s political views used to attack her sexually for the purpose of intimidation is sexual harrassment, in a way that’s completely different than what Hustler did to Maher. She said it in a way more detailed and eloquent than that but you get the idea.
Anyway, I’m amazed that you’re assuming you know things about her when she hasn’t even said anything? You always do that. She only mentioned the Holi thing and you act like she wanted the girl expelled. She wasn’t even the one who brought up Limbaugh, she just started talking about him after you said he was right to call Fluke a whore in reply to KelsShels mentioning she was angry. Yet you’re always assuming that if she doesn’t talk about something with YOU it means she doesn’t care (even if she does it somewhere else.) Seriously, is she supposed to come bitching to YOU about everything, or else it doesn’t count?
Like you even said she was being hypocritical with the letters telling Jewish students to leave, but she just didn’t bring it up. That doesn’t mean she didn’t disapprove. she’s usually not the first to bring things up, even when they’re related to her side being outraged, or she just does it casually and you’re the one who totally explodes…
I don’t believe Nahida was preachy then either. And I don’t think she’s preachy now. YOU just think she’s preachy now, because back when I was here I remember you used to LISTEN to her, but now you don’t. You just assume things now, and you think because she doesn’t talk about every subject in the world she’s on the opposite side, so you think she’s preachy. She can’t be preachy, because she’s NOT EVEN HERE. I think that alone shows who has the issues.
Did you finish watching the rest of the show that you missed, Farah?
LOL yeah it sucked..=/
Actually not surprised this show never aired in the US like they said it would. Competing with comedies like “New Girl” and “How I Met Your Mother”? No way it would rate high enough.
Nahida should have been more than upset. That would be a case of justified anger.
But Steve! We all know Nahida is just a bitchy feminist who’s only upset because she didn’t find him attractive!
Don’t tell her what she should or shouldn’t have done. You have NO IDEA what it’s like to report sexual harassment, especially as a 16 year old girl. She’s a very good person, so I’m guessing a big part of why she didn’t is because she didn’t want to make a scene or get someone in trouble who just made the same stupid mistakes all teenage boys make. (Because GOD teenage boys are dumb. They have high strength and no brains – a dangerous combination.) But hell, if that was me there would be another, more selfish reason. Reporting sexual harassment is HELL. This is what could have happened if Nahida had reported it. His friends will back him up immediately. They’ll spread rumors about her, saying that she asked for it, or that it was just a joke and she needs to stop being so uptight. They’ll make jokes about what they could do to her to force her to “loosen up.” They will do everything they can to scare her. And to make her believe it was her fault. And they will tell her she’s only upset because she doesn’t find him attractive. They’ll tell the school she slept with half of them.
Nahida probably didn’t even think of that. She might think of it now, because she’s more an experienced feminist, but I doubt she thought of it when she was 16. Instead the reason she didn’t report it because she was the silent, immovable type, a little haughty and yeah, preachy. She was too religious to tell anyone – she would consider it gossip. You think it was an accident he gave her that CD? Sure he thought it was just a joke, but why play it on HER of all people? It’s because he knew she was so religious. That’s why it would be SO FUN. And the moron had a crush on her. But she was totally unattainable. So he thought, just a joke, and one that would bring her down. She wouldn’t be so high and mighty and above him if she caught a glimpse of that!
Look at this picture of her, Steve. http://thefatalfeminist.com/2012/05/14/finals/
She’s studying, or daydreaming (she jokes about spacing out in the post.) Looks angelic, doesn’t she? Looks like there should be a fucking halo over her head. She’s so pretty. In that pure, regal way. She’s wearing white. She studies like she’s praying, with her hands clasped. Look at that smile. And that’s her recently, imagine that freakin angel at 16. And that makes her the perfect target, for the whole damn world. Who’s like that anymore? How DARE she.
Olly, why are you defending her so much? I mean, she’s really great, and she’s beyond forgiving seeing what jackass Steve is, but she’s not like a saint or anything.
Because last year I had feelings for a man other than my husband. And Nahida stopped me from cheating.
She told me to tell my husband that I had feelings for my coworker, but that I would never do anything and I loved him and wanted to be with him. She said this would create a stronger bond of trust and cooperation between us, because now after I came home from work my husband would ask what happened. And I wouldn’t cheat because I was so moved he cared. And she saved my marriage.
Communists in the White House,
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=21259419&topic_id=24584158
Um. Wth.
Trolls. They’ve always been around here. Just ignore ’em.
Heh. I watched the first couple of season of this show, and then I lost interest and skipped about three. Decided to look it up again. Looks like it got worse!
lol yeah it’s pretty bad… I watched this show after divorcing my now ex husband after finding out he cheated. Right after that episode with Sarah (the Sarah in the show) almost cheating, strangely enough. Then of course she and Yassir are divorced anyway…
Hey wasn’t this show supposed to air in the US or something? There was talk of it for a long time. Whatever happened to that?
Random question, but how does Nahida pronounce her name?
What the Left did this month was beyond ugly.
Yet, Nadiha didn’t get upset.
I think it is shameful what Nahida has become.
Just another Leftist Reactionary.
I blame the University experience..
YOU WANT A WAR! YOU REALLY WANT A WAR!
If we get violent (we haven’t yet) just remember all it took!
And it ain’t even the Long Hot Summer yet!
We ain’t seen anything yet…
Is Nahida a hypocrite?
I think so.
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=21698217&topic_id=24584158
I am afraid you are right here. Nahida is selective in her outrage.
Well at least we destroyed that women with her damn Holi joke.
Talking about being selective in outrage. When you have “Hate Crimes” some people’s deaths aren’t as worth as much as others.
Here’s a tribute to the “worthless”.
Not deserving of outrage?
The war has begun!
Keep your heads down. This isn’t like you have ever seen in your lifetime.