5 ms·
80% of the world's Muslims were still permitted in during the ban.
by wattt 10y ago
80% of the world's Muslims were still permitted in during the ban.
- purple-again 10y agoThat'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 :-/.