Asking Muslims To Condemn ISIS Is Offensive, Writes Columnist: Internet Goes Crazy

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Asking Muslims To Condemn ISIS Is Offensive, Writes Columnist: Internet Goes Crazy

<img width="665" height="385" src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ISIS-Should-Not-Be-Condemned-Columnist-States-665x385.jpg" data-attID="1560219" class="single-leader wp-post-image" alt="ISIS: Don&#039;t Ask Muslims To Condemn, It&#039;s Offensive" />

Asking Muslims to condemn ISIS, or the Islamic State, is “offensive,” writes columnist Eli Talbert for The Pitt, a student newspaper at the University of Pittsburgh.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the piece published on Thursday, Talbert asserted that pressuring Muslims to condemn ISIS is “highly problematic for a number of reasons, not to mention that it probably stems from Islamophobia.”

“The public and Obama’s blatant hostility toward Islam is especially evident when one examines the treatment of other groups,” Talbert notes. “After all, we don’t call on Christians, Democrats or Republicans to disavow radical members of their group. That is, unless one of them makes a statement that is seriously nonsensical and in bad taste, such as Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ comment that drew condemnation from all across the Republican party — including from the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.”

“Why can’t Muslims feel free to refuse to condemn ISIS? I’m sure that, even given the horrible nature of Todd Akin’s comments, a Republican could have refused to condemn him based on the fact that Akin doesn’t represent all Republicans. Similarly, I bet the Pope could refuse to condemn pedophiliac priests because that would imply that pedophilia is the norm for the priesthood. Why are people singling out Islam?”

Talbert’s views instigated a furor on the web, particularly on Reddit. To the point that “we don’t call on Christians, Democrats or Republicans to disavow radical members of their group,” one commenter took issue.

“We absolutely do, as he gave an example of in the next f***ing sentence.”

Following that same thread, another commenter drew out the non sequitur comparisons.

“Making bad statements= condemn / Beheading civilians and having sex slaves= don’t condemn”

“I feel bad for this kid,” wrote another. “His writing is f***ing terrible, he must be a freshman. Even if he doesn’t change his views, I hope he’ll look back and be embarrassed at how awkward his writing was.”

“I feel bad for him too,” wrote a fourth. “This is the kind of thing that gets your internet history, movements and known associates monitored.”

After the piece blew up online, the Pitt News received such an outpouring of anger that it updated the page today with the following note.

“Trigger Warning: This is satirical.”

So, breathe a little easier readers in knowing that Eli Talbert apparently doesn’t believe the full diatribe linked above. However, the fact that so many responded to it in the way they did goes to show that today’s audiences would not be surprised to read something like this as legitimate.

In fact, recently a spokesperson for a moderate Islam group flatly refused to answer the question of whether ISIS beheadings were wrong on Australian television.

That was legitimate. He even called the question “offensive.”

Do you think asking Muslims to condemn ISIS is offensive? Is there a double standard as Talbert alluded to?

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1560168/asking-muslims-to-condemn-isis-is-offensive-writes-columnist-internet-goes-crazy/#ctD30ia2xoEAA8Px.99

[Darnell 8,478]

ah, Satire !

[Pooky 3,784]

Trigger Warning: This is satirical.

So, was the piece written as satire, or was the claim made to distance the publication from the sentiments expressed?

As we see on this site, there are those who read a satirical piece and believe its content, either because they are less adept at spotting satire, didn't check the source, or simply hadn't had enough coffee when they read the piece. Is claiming a piece as satire, when a similar situation has already occurred in real life, as mentioned further on in the OP, even legitimate?

Satire is defined as "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

When it stops being funny, is it still satire?

[Dakine10 5,452]

So, was the piece written as satire, or was the claim made to distance the publication from the sentiments expressed?

As we see on this site, there are those who read a satirical piece and believe its content, either because they are less adept at spotting satire, didn't check the source, or simply hadn't had enough coffee when they read the piece. Is claiming a piece as satire, when a similar situation has already occurred in real life, as mentioned further on in the OP, even legitimate?

Satire is defined as "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

When it stops being funny, is it still satire?

Yes, if it still uses irony, exaggeration or ridicule.

Otherwise no.

Seems like satire is getting too subtle nowadays. We probably need to bring back to slapstick.

[Darnell 8,478]

Many op ed pieces in the regular newspapers written as satire, not using humor, since I started reading as a child.

So, ya, humor not required for a piece to be satirical.

[Dakine10 5,452]

In fact, recently a spokesperson for a moderate Islam group flatly refused to answer the question of whether ISIS beheadings were wrong on Australian television.

That was legitimate. He even called the question “offensive.”

I wish she would have let him answer the question at least.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

So, was the piece written as satire, or was the claim made to distance the publication from the sentiments expressed?

As we see on this site, there are those who read a satirical piece and believe its content, either because they are less adept at spotting satire, didn't check the source, or simply hadn't had enough coffee when they read the piece. Is claiming a piece as satire, when a similar situation has already occurred in real life, as mentioned further on in the OP, even legitimate?

Satire is defined as "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

When it stops being funny, is it still satire?

There was nothing humorous at all. You know these news agencies have to clean up behind themselves.

[Pooky 3,784]

Yes, if it still uses irony, exaggeration or ridicule.

Otherwise no.

Seems like satire is getting too subtle nowadays. We probably need to bring back to slapstick.

Many op ed pieces in the regular newspapers written as satire, not using humor, since I started reading as a child.

So, ya, humor not required for a piece to be satirical.

I was referring more to the end product than the means of delivery. Satire should amuse, to be effective. What happens when it stops being amusing?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I wish she would have let him answer the question at least.

Yes, but if the person replied no they don't agree with beheading, what would this have proved?

There are born again Jesus that marry little underage girls and live in Secs here in Texas. Why should I go on TV and denounce this? Because I'm a Christian and they claim they are?

[Dakine10 5,452]

I was referring more to the end product than the means of delivery. Satire should amuse, to be effective. What happens when it stops being amusing?

It's bad satire.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Yes, but if the person replied no they don't agree with beheading, what would this have proved?

There are born again Jesus that marry little underage girls and live in Secs here in Texas. Why should I go on TV and denounce this? Because I'm a Christian and they claim they are?

He agreed to the interview and she asked the question. So he should answer the question and she should let him. I don't know his full answer because she didn't let him answer and now the article portrays it as not answering. Common and silly media tactic to get the answer in the frame you want.

I agree there was no point to the whole thing. I have the same sentiment most time's I turn on a TV, which is not very often. It's a waste of electrons.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

He agreed to the interview and she asked the question. So he should answer the question and she should let him. I don't know his full answer because she didn't let him answer and now the article portrays it as not answering. Common and silly media tactic to get the answer in the frame you want.

I agree there was no point to the whole thing. I have the same sentiment most time's I turn on a TV, which is not very often. It's a waste of electrons.

He agreed but no matter what he said it would have been turned around anyway. You can't change years of embedded, forced ideology.

[Darnell 8,478]

I was referring more to the end product than the means of delivery. Satire should amuse, to be effective. What happens when it stops being amusing?

when i was a child (back in the day)

then it was easily wadded up (that newspaper sheet)

and used for toilet paper.

See ? That rag WAS effective, even as toilet paper...