A brilliant take on the Regressive Left

[Mac1958]

Holy crap, this lady constantly blows my mind. I used to say I had three favorite thinkers - Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Sam Harris and Camille Paglia - but I have to change it to four.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an incredibly brave woman who is fighting for a modern Islamic Reformation, and is (not at all coincidentally) under regular attacks from the Regressives as a result.

Here, she and honest liberal Dave Rubin (former member of The Young Turks) discuss the behaviors of the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

At 6:14, she says: "It used to be the Left that would take up the defense of the weak. And now, unfortunately, we live in a time when it is the Left that has decided to define weak units as groups and not as individuals."

Brilliant, brave lady.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't defend Islam. That must mean I'm not a "regressive". I'm so relieved.

 

[Pete7469]

Surely you're aware that the libturds use moose limbs as political pawns. They WANT terror attacks to happen, so that when some deranged fucker retaliates and shoots a Hindu 7-Eleven clerk they can condemn the islamophobic country we live in that they hate.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't defend Islam. That must mean I'm not a "regressive". I'm so relieved.

No, you're a fucking retard.

The fact you promote marxist dogma and support sociopaths like that meat puppet faggot obozo is what makes you a regressive. The reason you do that is because you're a fucking retard.

 

[Mac1958]

Surely you're aware that the libturds use moose limbs as political pawns. They WANT terror attacks to happen, so that when some deranged fucker retaliates and shoots a Hindu 7-Eleven clerk they can condemn the islamophobic country we live in that they hate.

I think there is an element of that in the big picture.

Remember, in the Oppressor/Oppressed template they apply to virtually all relationships, America is the Oppressor.
.

 

[gipper]

I don't defend Islam. That must mean I'm not a "regressive". I'm so relieved.

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

 

[Pete7469]

I don't defend Islam. That must mean I'm not a "regressive". I'm so relieved.

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

He's stupid too, and proves it with every post.

 

[Pogo]

the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

 

[Mac1958]

the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

 

[TheOldSchool]

In this country, it is conservatives who fight for rules from the Islamic religion to be implemented by law. Terrorists hate the U.S. because we exercise rights that have been won by liberals.

Defending innocent Muslims in the U.S. from open discrimination is not the same as defending the religion of Islam.

 

[Pogo]

the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Nope, not interested, and I already know half those people anyway.

I'm asking you to establish your premise for the thread. The rest comes after that.

 

[Mac1958]

the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Nope, not interested. I'm asking you to establish your premise. The rest comes after that.

As I suspected.

This is why I don't burn time playing that game.
.

 

[Pogo]

In this country, it is conservatives who fight for rules from the Islamic religion to be implemented by law. Terrorists hate the U.S. because we exercise rights that have been won by liberals.

Defending innocent Muslims in the U.S. from open discrimination is not the same as defending the religion of Islam.

Zackly. Defending the First Amendment has nothing to do with defending, or even interest in, any particular religion.

On the other hand there are those who knuckledrag among us who try to propose that "Islam isn't a religion" as a way to circumvent that Constitutional inconvenience. A "Get Out of Your Own Constitution Free" card so to speak. And that, we can readily provide examples for.

 

[Pogo]

the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Nope, not interested. I'm asking you to establish your premise. The rest comes after that.

As I suspected.

This is why I don't burn time playing that game.
.

Then you have no premise, and therefore no starting point.

 

[Mac1958]

the Regressive Left, and why they are motivated to constantly defend the most anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom religion on the face of the earth.

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Nope, not interested. I'm asking you to establish your premise. The rest comes after that.

As I suspected.

This is why I don't burn time playing that game.
.

Then you have no premise, and therefore no starting point.

Great thanks. I'll side with Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among others.

Oh, and Maajid Nawaz, the brave man and former Islamist, an honest liberal Brit risking his life fighting today for an Islamic Reformation, who coined the term "Regressive Left".

Thank goodness I require neither your understanding nor your approval.

But thanks for checking in!
.

 

[Pogo]

Got any examples? Links?

What do political "left" or "right" have to do with religions?

If you're really curious, go on to YouTube and enter "regressive left" and Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, among others, and you'll find wealth of examples, debates and opinions.

I've done my own looking, now you can do it. If you're really curious.
.

Nope, not interested. I'm asking you to establish your premise. The rest comes after that.

As I suspected.

This is why I don't burn time playing that game.
.

Then you have no premise, and therefore no starting point.

Great thanks. I'll side with Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among others.

Oh, and Maajid Nawaz, the brave man and former Islamist, an honest liberal Brit risking his life fighting today for an Islamic Reformation, who coined the term "Regressive Left".

Thank goodness I require neither your understanding nor your approval.

But thanks for checking in!
.

And thank you for checking out.


Premise = starting point on which the argument is built. Without the premise --- there's no argument.

 

[Mac1958]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

 

[SeaGal]

Her concept of the intent of 1A is spot on...as is her assessment of free speech as practiced here in the US. The Bernie-Trump comparison was a good example.

It's easier to craft well intentioned boxes for groups of people than it is to respect those individuals who choose to climb out and go a different way. The vitriol directed toward women and minorities who reject the 'stereotypes' of the Regressive Left is any thing but representative of the classic Liberal Way.

I very much agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's statement (paraphrased) - the government must never be allowed to enact laws where some ideas cannot be criticized.

 

[Pogo]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked characteristic of some victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

So tell us, which one of us is "playing games"? Or to perhaps put it unkindly --- which one is the Yellow team?

 

[Mac1958]

No. You are a regressive. You prove it every day.

They don't like this topic, so they play games.

Happens all the time.
.

Here's how it works, speaking of "games".

Yesterday I happened to be in a restaurant where the big screen TV was showing the Little League World Series. The two teams were --- whoever they were. "Red and yellow". One of the batters, I don't remember which team but let's say it was Yellow, hit a ground ball to deep third and beat the throw at first. But the ump called him out. I immediately chirped that the kid was safe (and upon video review the ump was indeed overruled).

---------- That doesn't make me a "defender of the Yellow team". That's just articulating what the reality is. Literally nothing more complex than that.

Now see post #10. Same thing; defending the rules (Constitution) is in no way the equivalent of defending some cherrypicked victim of its abuse.

Absent any example to the contrary, that's the false equivalence we have to assume you're making. That's why I asked for an example, and you don't have one.

You'll notice in one post I said "if you're curious". Twice. I said that because I know this game. There is nothing I can say, no example I can provide, that will be "good enough". One of the many games both ends play, one of the many similarities of the two ends.

Part of the reason I gave you the names I did was because those are all honest, decent liberals so that you can't deflect by attacking them personally.

All the examples, context and premises you need can be found by viewing the videos I described. More than you could ever need.

But, as YOU SAID in post 41, you're "not interested". Somehow I knew that.
.