5 ms·
Islamophobic?! It obviously wasn’t islamophobic enough. What an inversion of meaning. They should have just said “offensive and hurtful to Muslims” and left
by 2devnull 4y ago
Islamophobic?!
It obviously wasn’t islamophobic enough. What an inversion of meaning.
They should have just said “offensive and hurtful to Muslims” and left it at that. They can complain, but they don’t get to change the meaning of language.
- KyeRussell 4y agoYou are…over a decade late to that fight.
- toomim 4y agoI expect the term "phobic" to revert to its original meaning over the next 40 years, especially if we continue to call out the hypocrisy in its usage.
- johnchristopher 4y agoIt's pet peeve of mine to regularly declare in conversations that words don't mean anything anymore. Sometimes I am charitable and concede that they mean to the person speaking them whatever they are feeling.
- MiguelX413 4y agoSemantic shift is natural and inevitable.
- toomim 4y agoThe term "phobos" is from Ancient Greek, and has been an integral part of our language for at least 3,000 years. That's a lot more staying power than the recent 5-year trend.
- MiguelX413 4y agoIt's dishonest to call it a recent 5-year trend.
- MiguelX413 4y agoφόβος (phóbos) also meant “awe” or “reverance”
- klyrs 4y agoThe term xenophobia has been in use since the 1800s, I'm curious why you'd pick 40 years for that deadline...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- toomim 4y agoXenophobia uses the "phobia" suffix correctly.
- toomim 4y agoYeah, no kidding. "Phobic" means a fear or aversion to something. Showing a picture of islam's founder is the opposite of islamaphobic.
- Wowfunhappy 4y agoThe problem is that many interpretations of Islam (aiui) strictly forbid showing depictions of Muhammad. So I think the argument would be he's trying to force Muslims out of his class, or some such. (To be clear, I still think an art history professor should be able to show whatever artwork they want.)
- zaphirplane 4y agoIt something that offends a very large group of people with clear reasoning even if you disagree with the reasoning. I don’t understand why people find the need to poke that. I kind of understand society can’t ban images of say owls because say the bla people find it offensive But we do find it distasteful to refer to certain groups of people with names that THEY find offensive even when the majority of the globe don’t really get the offensive association
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago>It something that offends a very large group of people with clear reasoning even if you disagree with the reasoning. I don’t understand why people find the need to poke that. This wasn't some sort of general education seminar that went out of its way to bring up a controversial issue. It was an Art History class. To suggest that an art history professor should be somehow constrained in showing historical art , to adults, in a college class because some people might find it offensive is frankly absurd. The fact that the college would choose to expel the art historian who showed this historical art in an art class rather than those who were offended because of their primitive religious beliefs is a perfect encapsulation of the intellectual rot that has infected "Western society".
- zaphirplane 4y agoI’m pretty sure if I randomly picked a decade over the last 4000 years and a culture the odds are fairly low to land on that. It’s disingenuous to suggest this is important to art class because simply there is nothing notable about the drawing, what is notable is the subject and the controversy. At best an average art lecturer wants to make statements about censorship they can do it on their dime in their own medium. the worst is, let’s leave that.