Tea Parties, Glenn Beck protest Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Great America

Don't make me bop you!

You can bop me...but you can't Mmmmbop me!

Methink said:
Can somebody point out the racist generalizations Beck made? I've searched the article...I'm not finding it.

"Come to our yak park. The rides are so wild, your kids will be yacking at our yak park, the Yemeni yak! Don't talk back! That would be great! We'll have a jingle: Yemeni yak, don't talk back. I'm opening it in the sands of Saudi Arabia."

Is that black and white enough for you? Negative stereotypes like that are incredibly offensive, on par with generalizing that black folks are criminals and Jews are cheap.

And if Beck weren't stupid enough, keep in mind that he's talking about a group largely composed of Americans, not people living in the Middle East. Same goes for the nonsense around the proposed Islamic center in NYC. Mayor Bloomberg said something I can really get behind today (reinforcing my point that I wish the smart Republicans would wake up), that some might discriminate against people of certain faiths or prohibit them to worship in certain places, but that's not how we roll in the United States. It's ridiculous that people are flag waving against the very thing it stands for.

You mean freedom of religion is guaranteed by our constitution? What will all the tea party members do???

Check out the discussion on Six Flags Facebook page. It's interesting. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8696281132&topic=16207

That just makes me sad.

Jeff said:

Methink said:
Can somebody point out the racist generalizations Beck made? I've searched the article...I'm not finding it.

"Come to our yak park. The rides are so wild, your kids will be yacking at our yak park, the Yemeni yak! Don't talk back! That would be great! We'll have a jingle: Yemeni yak, don't talk back. I'm opening it in the sands of Saudi Arabia."

Is that black and white enough for you? Negative stereotypes like that are incredibly offensive, on par with generalizing that black folks are criminals and Jews are cheap.

I think you're taking that out of context. He was saying that he wouldn't be able to do something like that. Then he goes on to say that it would be in bad taste to have an American day over in the middle east at a water park on the day we invaded Iraq. He may be making bad points and comparisons, but I don't think he's said anything racist or insensitive.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43242/?ck=1

Note: I'm not a Glen Beck fan.

FYI ICNA-NJ is having "Great Muslim Adventure Day" on 10 September 2010 at SFGAdv. They have 9/11 surrounded watch out.

http://6flags.icnanj.org/

The people on that Facebook page make me sad as well. After growing up in the desegregated Cleveland schools, and not thinking anything of people different from me, I've been disappointed with every new view of the world. In the suburbs it was black people, in college it was gay people and Hindus, in professional work it was women (yeah, in 1996 even), and now in the Internet age, the very technology that enables limitless information, it's basically everyone.

I suppose if I didn't already know that, we wouldn't be having this thread.

Wow. That FB thread really is disgusting (diguesting?).

I too have difficulty understanding the leap from "Yak" to Racist. Doesn't Yak mean "to puke."? We get the argument.

Saying the word Yak = racist/KKK

Denying a woman a right to speak because her voice is sexually seductive = none of our business/private

No inconsistencies in response thresholds there...

Beck used Yak as in the animal and to vomit. That you can't read it and see that he was making a negative statement about a group of people is kind of sad. It isn't simply the use of the word yak, in fact, it isn't the use of that word at all. It's the context behind the whole of what he is saying.

Denying a woman a right to speak because her voice is sexually seductive = none of our business/private

It really is sad that you keep bringing that up. Again, just because we're saying they have the right to thier religious beliefs doesn't mean we agree with their beliefs. What about professed Christian churches that don't allow women to speak based on the bible passage about women keeping silent? The belief they hold is something they have the right to, they're not forcefully taking away someone's rights, as the person who is giving up their right (in this case, the women) do so themselves.

You should read my post in response to the yak comment 5 posts above yours. I think if you read the entire transcript it really isn't being racist.

Edit: I don't agree with him I just don't think he's the evil hateful man everyone makes him out to be.

I did read it. And I didn't say it was racist, per se, but I think the negative context behind what he said is still there. He may have been saying that it was in bad taste to have a whatever kind of day 'over there', but that still isn't the point. What freedoms they have over there (or don't have) aren't what is being discussed.

In America, this kind of even is allowed. The people going really aren't doing it to give us all the finger. What Beck was saying, though, was that if we went over there and had something similiar, with the INTENT of offending (because he seriously believes the people here have the intent to offend) has a negative connotation behind it.

^^We'll have to agree to disagree. It's insensitive at the VERY least - but it speaks more directly to the heart of the speaker.

Just to clarify - Lisa Lampanelli can use the terms "Casino Indian" and "Slurpee Indian" in her show and people are generally OK with it because her actions tell the true story, that her heart is in the right place. No matter what language Beck uses, you can tell he's suffering from Grinch disease - a heart two sizes too small.

edited to clarify it was in response to BD, not Tek...

Further edited to note that the mosque near Ground Zero has been approved. So, NY residents, those closest to the actual terror attacks, seem to "get it". You don't condemn an entire religion for the actions of a few.

Exactly, gator. It reminds me of the whole 'chink' debate that came up with Sarah Silverman. The intent behind her joke was to make fun of how silly racism is, even if the guy who got offended didn't get that. Beck's intent was insensitive and derogatory.

And before Methink says anything, yes, I may find not allowing women to speak insensitive and derogatory, but again, people have the choice of what religion they want to follow. If they want to submit to that, then more power to them.

Going circles here Tek. We realize that many want to dissect every word Glen Beck utters and reach as far as we can to label him a bigot. This reminds me of the Banshee/Mantis fiasco (coaster reference). Going from Yak to racist is a leap for a lot of us. We read the context...and see a guy trying to be funny.

I have never in my life known the Yak was an offensive word. It is an animal or vomit. I think reasonable minds can assume Glen Beck thought of Yak as I (and many others) do. Can anybody find me a linked source where the term "Yak" has EVER gotten anybody in trouble or labeled a racist? It might be there...but I have doubts.

To reach and try and make this racist is laughable to me. It smells of political agendas and hypocrisy when combined with the fact that there is zero intellectual curiosity from those labeling Beck a racist to determine the context and actions of the ICNA. The opposite is true. The one poster (besides me) interested in the ICNA is doing everything she can to give ICNA a pass on their behaviors...up to linking their own website as evidence of their purity.

Going from disallowing a women a right to speak because of her "sexual" voice is nary a hop to outright sexism. Yet we want to ignore. Is there any context that would make this any other than a sexist ACTION (not word).

Beck clearly says:

• Today. Muslim day for a whole week, I don't really care.

His only contention is that holding the event on 9/12 is in poor taste. There is not and never was an attempt by Beck to stop anybody from going to a park. And from that we got...

Lets cut pretenses here Tek. Jeff posted this article and the response above because he does not like Glen Beck or Glen's politics. That is it. There is no reasonable person who could believe that the word "Yak" (animal, puke, a catchy tune) is worthy of the characterization Jeff makes in the above quote. At the absolute absurd worst...Yak might have been a poor word choice. Upon this first response, which is totally ostentatious...those who agree with Jeff and dislike Glen Beck piled on. You have every right to do so.

But don't hide behind the guise that your underlying principles are bigotry and rooting out its sources. Or at least don't try and do so and not expect others to call you out for such hypocrisy. Those who argue your side have consistently given ICNA a pass on their bigoted actions under the guise of privacy rights while simultaneously labeling Glen Beck to worst of terms for saying "Yakity Yak."

Those who do such are taking a firm political (not principled) stance. They pick and choose which individuals/groups are worthy of having their real or imagined bigotries illuminated. Unfortunately for Glen Beck, his politics don't align with the majority on this thread.

That is the reality of this thread...you don't need to agree.

Methink said:
Going from Yak to racist is a leap for a lot of us.

Says the guy writing hundreds of words parsing out Beck's statements and ignoring their context all in order to show that Beck really ain't that bad a guy.

rollergator said:

No matter what language Beck uses, you can tell he's suffering from Grinch disease - a heart two sizes too small.

So you can see no situation where holding the event on Sept. 12th could be a bit insensitive?

Methink said:

The one poster (besides me) interested in the ICNA is doing everything she can to give ICNA a pass on their behaviors...up to linking their own website as evidence of their purity.

I am not looking to give ICNA a pass on anything. I am looking to try to understand them and what they are doing before I accuse them of anything. That's something you don't seem willing to do.

And the irony of that is that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse "everyone" on this board of doing: accusing someone of something without all of the information.

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.