NYTimes' Religious Double Standard

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
A truly amazing breakthrough! A big business considers something other than the all mighty dollar. Of course the Right has a problem with this.
 
William Gaatjes

William Gaatjes

Lifer
May 11, 2008
22,729
1,487
126
45cb31e5-fd0c-4183-a403-d2441c570bca.jpg
 
1prophet

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
senseamp said:
Pretty much. But NYTimes didn't create this world. They are just doing the most responsible thing given that's the way the world is.
Click to expand...


Maybe if Theo van Gogh, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner did the most responsible thing given the way the world is or was (during their time) they would still be alive, after all who is willing to die for their beliefs except for a zealot.
 
P

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
1prophet said:
Maybe if Theo van Gogh, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner did the most responsible thing given the way the world is or was (during their time) they would still be alive, after all who is willing to die for their beliefs except for a zealot.
Click to expand...

Chaney, Goodman, van Gogh, & Schwerner were doing the right thing. The bigots who murdered them were the zealots.
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
What's going to happen down the line if only the most violent religion is protected from criticism?
 
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,542
33,092
136
According to right it is ok to bash Muslims. Remember the Islamic community center 4 blocks from ground zero??
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Heh. Maybe the NYT didn't want to act as a venue for Pamela Geller to troll the world...

Which is what she's been doing all along, likely making a lot of money doing it, like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Breitbart & the rest...

I feel like I'm feeding the trolls even posting in this thread.
 
xBiffx

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
HomerJS said:
According to right it is ok to bash Muslims. Remember the Islamic community center 4 blocks from ground zero??
Click to expand...

So by asking that they show some decency its now called bashing. I see. You must be a subscriber. Also, it was much more that just the right asking for them to be considerate.
 
S

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
xBiffx said:
So by asking that they show some decency its now called bashing. I see. You must be a subscriber. Also, it was much more that just the right asking for them to be considerate.
Click to expand...

There was a mosque IN the trade center.. having one any distance away has no relevance to 9/11.
 
R

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Am I the only person who read the two ads and thought they didn't really sound all that comparable? Fox News (heh, big surprise) and many people on here were quick to claim the NYT was employing a "double standard", apparently based entirely on the idea that the ads were IDENTICAL except for the religion being bashed. And while I'm sure it's convenient to certain agendas to see things that way, actually READING the ads instead of hearing what we want to hear suggests something else.

The anti-Catholic one suggests the church is involved in sex scandals and coverups and that Catholic schools indoctrinate students to be "obedient" adults. The anti-Muslim one suggests Islam menaces freedom, murders non-Muslim and claims Mohammad's teachings were vengeful, hateful and violent.

Now, neither of those ads is what I would call complimentary to the religion in question. But are the people getting their panties in a twist over the "hypocrisy" REALLY claiming they can't see a difference between those two ads beyond the religions involved? Really?
 
R

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
xBiffx said:
So by asking that they show some decency its now called bashing. I see. You must be a subscriber. Also, it was much more that just the right asking for them to be considerate.
Click to expand...

It's only "decency" if you equate all Muslims with terrorists.
 
P

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
Rainsford said:
It's only "decency" if you equate all Muslims with terrorists.
Click to expand...
Does "All Muslims are terrorists" = "All Catholic priests are pedophiles" ?

Which statement has a higher percentage of truth?


There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, how many are terrorists?


There are approximately 400,000 Catholic priests in the world, how many are pedophiles?
 
Nintendesert

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Of course it's not ok to bash Muslims, unlike Catholics or Christians on a whole, Muslims have shown in places like Demark they are willing to kill to protect their beliefs. Christians are not. So for the NYTimes they are of course going to pick on the religion that isn't going to blow up their offices or cut the heads off their editors. It's just common sense.
 
P

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
Never heard of the Crusades, or the Inquisition?


Or those Christians who murder physicians because they provide legal abortion services?
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
R

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
preCRT said:
Does "All Muslims are terrorists" = "All Catholic priests are pedophiles" ?

Which statement has a higher percentage of truth?


There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, how many are terrorists?


There are approximately 400,000 Catholic priests in the world, how many are pedophiles?
Click to expand...

Neither, there is a group of American who feels they can hide behind freedom of press and incite conflicts with twisted facts and lies to support their agenda.

Yeah Muslims happen to take their religion seriously and certain Muslim reacts stronger to those attacks than others. But those fvcked up groups who only want to incite conflicts share as much, if not more responsibility in causing all the conflicts we see in this world.
 
William Gaatjes

William Gaatjes

Lifer
May 11, 2008
22,729
1,487
126
rchiu said:
Neither, there is a group of American who feels they can hide behind freedom of press and incite conflicts with twisted facts and lies to support their agenda.

Yeah Muslims happen to take their religion seriously and certain Muslim reacts stronger to those attacks than others. But those fvcked up groups who only want to incite conflicts share as much, if not more responsibility in causing all the conflicts we see in this world.
Click to expand...

True...

Individuals with extreme views (Rigid in thinking) can choose to be a constructive force to society or to be a destructive force. It is their choice to not accept their mental short comings and force the world around them to change because of selfish desires and failure to adapt.
It is all about balance. It is the price for overall flexibility of the human race.
Terrorists and extremists are always mentally unstable. And some even by choice...

In what kind of world do we live in where we have to accept violence only because we refuse to stand up against it ?
Regardless of religion, most people want to go to bed in the night and sleep peacefully. And to wake up in the morning with a smile knowing that the children are save and that there still will be a save school. A plate of food... A save home...
 
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,934
8,519
136
HumblePie said:
There is no fairness here needed. This isn't a government run agency. This is a business with the right to refuse anything they don't want to do.

Even still the article stated that they would be willing to run the ad once US troops were out of danger of facing flak and possibly death from the ad. I find that more telling as they are NOT willing to put peoples lives at risk by running an advertisement which may do so. To me that shows integrity that they consider other things. To me this whole thing smells like a setup. If they run the ad then they get bashed for putting the lives of American troops in extra jeopardy. If they don't run it then they are bashed for being hypocrites among other things.

Again, the article even states they are not "refusing" to run the advertisement at all. They are just not running it right now. They are willing to run it later.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. The person requesting the ad knew how the NYT would react to it and got what he/she was expecting.

Too, there is this circumstance where it's much easier to criticize a religion that we tacitly claim as "our own" vs one that is "foreign" or, like Islam, a religion that involves a subsect of extremists who claim to do the bidding of their God through terrorism. This introduces a certain sensitivity that must be considered, wholly unlike that of criticizing "our own" Christian brethren and church leaders of child molesting, political shenanigans, etc.
 
Atreus21

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Rainsford said:
Now, neither of those ads is what I would call complimentary to the religion in question. But are the people getting their panties in a twist over the "hypocrisy" REALLY claiming they can't see a difference between those two ads beyond the religions involved? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes. Precisely that. The ads are not identical, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the Times is following a pattern of attacking religions they dislike, and protecting those they do (or are afraid of). So they claim that the Times is anti-catholic and pro-islam (or anti-pissing-off-muslims) is not so baseless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom