4 ms·

It's the same tired argument with a new skin. Headline: "McDonalds refuses to hire blacks for being inferior". Reality: A racist shift store manager of a sing

It's the same tired argument with a new skin. Headline: "McDonalds refuses to hire blacks for being inferior". Reality: A racist shift store manager of a single store owned by an absentee franchiser is caught discriminating in his hiring practices and promptly fired. Is the headline misleading? It's a factual statement that a McDonalds in the context described above did do exactly what they were accused of. So back on point, yes it was a Muslim ban and no it wasn't a ban on Muslims. Both sides are trying to frame it for maximum affect and the result is we grow further divided as a people.

wattt 10y ago
80% of the world's Muslims were still permitted in during the ban.
- purple-again 10y ago
  That's what "no it wasn't a Muslim ban" is saying. You can not have a rational discussion on the topic without first agreeing to the context of the words. I hope you understand the other side of the argument is just as correct and valid. Any subset of a group (5% of Muslims, a single McDonalds store) can still be referred to by the group moniker (Muslims, McDonalds) without it being a false statement. Hence "yes it was a ban on Muslims". Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order.
  - mercer 10y ago
    > Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order. Which of course benefits the writers of (news) articles, furthering the profit-driven media circle-jerk. Surely one step in the right direction would be to simply avoid terms that apparently 'both sides' interpret differently? But then that would attract fewer eyeballs :-/.

wattt 10y ago

80% of the world's Muslims were still permitted in during the ban.

purple-again 10y ago
That's what "no it wasn't a Muslim ban" is saying. You can not have a rational discussion on the topic without first agreeing to the context of the words. I hope you understand the other side of the argument is just as correct and valid. Any subset of a group (5% of Muslims, a single McDonalds store) can still be referred to by the group moniker (Muslims, McDonalds) without it being a false statement. Hence "yes it was a ban on Muslims". Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order.
- mercer 10y ago
  > Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order. Which of course benefits the writers of (news) articles, furthering the profit-driven media circle-jerk. Surely one step in the right direction would be to simply avoid terms that apparently 'both sides' interpret differently? But then that would attract fewer eyeballs :-/.