You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]sgx1913160 points
5 points
5 points
(+5|-0)
ago
Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.
Definition of peculiar:
1 : characteristic of only one person, group, or thing : distinctive
2 : different from the usual or normal
Those things they say not to describe as peculiar absolutely are. It's not even a value judgement. Anyone who considers themselves a "journalist" should have enough respect for the English language that they don't redefine it for political reasons, or they should quit their job and go work in PR.
The same goes for using "Makkah" over "Mecca" because apparently the American Muslim Council likes it more. I have never seen "Makkah" before and the first search hit is to the wikipedia page on Mecca. Unless their entire audience is the body of the American Muslim Council, maybe they should use the same word that everyone already knows and uses, instead of the one that makes the American Muslim Council happy. Unless they want to admit that that's their priority above actually making their writing understandable by their audience.
The same goes for complaining about "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim Extremist". If there is a terrorist who is Islamic, that is an Islamic terrorist. If they think admitting the existence of one Islamic terrorist means that all Muslims are terrorists, then A)that is not how language works, and B) shouldn't the same thing apply to "white supremacist" or "radical anti-abortionist", which they demand the use of further up the page? It's a broad descriptor followed by a modifier. "Islamic/white", "Terrorist/supremacist". By the reasoning that "Islamic terrorist" apparently makes people think all Muslims are Islamic terrorists, wouldn't "White Supremacist" make these same people think all whites are white supremacists? Or does this reasoning only apply to non-whites, perhaps?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] sgx191316 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Definition of peculiar:
Those things they say not to describe as peculiar absolutely are. It's not even a value judgement. Anyone who considers themselves a "journalist" should have enough respect for the English language that they don't redefine it for political reasons, or they should quit their job and go work in PR.
The same goes for using "Makkah" over "Mecca" because apparently the American Muslim Council likes it more. I have never seen "Makkah" before and the first search hit is to the wikipedia page on Mecca. Unless their entire audience is the body of the American Muslim Council, maybe they should use the same word that everyone already knows and uses, instead of the one that makes the American Muslim Council happy. Unless they want to admit that that's their priority above actually making their writing understandable by their audience.
The same goes for complaining about "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim Extremist". If there is a terrorist who is Islamic, that is an Islamic terrorist. If they think admitting the existence of one Islamic terrorist means that all Muslims are terrorists, then A)that is not how language works, and B) shouldn't the same thing apply to "white supremacist" or "radical anti-abortionist", which they demand the use of further up the page? It's a broad descriptor followed by a modifier. "Islamic/white", "Terrorist/supremacist". By the reasoning that "Islamic terrorist" apparently makes people think all Muslims are Islamic terrorists, wouldn't "White Supremacist" make these same people think all whites are white supremacists? Or does this reasoning only apply to non-whites, perhaps?