.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Murph.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Murph:854783"][QUOTE="orgymf@work:854762"][QUOTE="brian_dc:854760"]and I'm just saying the reason it's not comparable is because people are upset that these kids were willfully given names that were known to be associated to pariahs. Whereas, Obama was given a stock Muslim name that later became associated to an asshole.[/QUOTE] regardless of the reasons, the names, and the time frames, neither is more ridiculous than the other.[/QUOTE] So, just because both names can elicit some sort of negative response means they are both equally "ridiculous?" Well first off, that negates motivation, which is an essential choice when looking at this from a categorical stance. ie, why the NAMING, not the NAME is ridiculous. Obviously, the father of Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation is more ridiculous, based on hindsight and common knowledge alone. Secondly, I agree that some people could be put off by both, as someone whose family member has died at the hands of extremist Islam probably has some emotion tied to the same vein as someone who went through or lost family to the Holocaust. But, to be critical and not fall to supposition, Hussein is, as Brian said, a stock name, and therefore anyone tying a particular worth to that name as being historically significant and therefore a signifier of intent/agenda is biased, as it denotes a culture, not a political agenda. The name Adolf Hitler is subscribed not just in a German context, but in a National Socialist context. The name is, therefore, no longer part of the same bland cultural narrative that a name like Hussein, or my name, Murphy, is part of: it becomes part of the troubling with proper names and the basic understanding of history and identity as rational (I don't want to get into a political debate about Nazism compared to other ideals...its not about that, its about the role of one person in a party who was essentially immoral). Even if the dad just wanted the name because "no one else would do it" the name is more ridiculous in its fracturing from social norm (as if Obama's middle name was "Saddamn Hussein" or "King Hussein" denoting a particular connotation). Which means, in closing, that conception, even if popular or a majority, is not static and ground. While the names may be troubling to some, or exalted to others, a proper name, assuming a prior identity, is more ridiculous than a cultural name, regardless of the historical figure's perceived role as "good" or "bad" (which is a binary I hate to use because it is limiting and subjective) because it elicts a more particular response. Just because some people don't reason the same way, does not make the rest of us buy into cop out philosophy. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.011 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][