A Muslim Brit nails it again on the New Zealand attack

[Mac1958]

The Regressives have spent all their energy on this thread attacking the messenger(s).

Which only solidifies my opinions. All I have to do is sit back and watch.

 

[Tehon]

The Regressives have spent all their energy on this thread attacking the messenger(s).

Which only solidifies my opinions. All I have to do is sit back and watch.

Interesting.

You view any attempt at clarification as an attack on your own beliefs.

 

[Tehon]

Hey Dogmaphobe, are you trying to "silence the debate", as Tehon is claiming?

Or maybe he's trying to put us on the defensive.

Well, it's one of the two.
.

He was asked directly to discuss the idea of liberalism.

For my efforts to have a dialogue I was called a trained monkey.

 

[Mac1958]

I've been expressing my opinion from post 1.

Perhaps you might consider asking others here to stop denigrating, as well.

And maybe stop denigrating Nawaz and address his point.

Looking forward to it.
.

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Read this thread. There are plenty of examples if you choose to see them.

Read a thread after the next jihadist atrocity. You'll see Regressives doing their standard deflect/pivot/attack routine, away from the atrocity. You'll see them trying to attack the messenger, as we're also seeing on this thread. You might even be treated to one of them bringing up the Crusades, which is one of my favorite comic goodies.

Read a thread in which the religion is criticized to any degree. You'll see someone screaming ISLAMOPHOBE or RACIST in an attempt to change the subject and put the target on the defensive.

Read a thread that discusses Christianity. You'll see those same people launching the most vicious personal attacks possible, in an act of hypocrisy that borders on amazing.

Read or listen to any conversation that includes a Regressive. They are loving and tolerant and open-minded regarding the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet, and completely intolerant about the largest religion in this country.

Or maybe you won't notice any of it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Interesting. You view any attempt at clarification as an attack on your own beliefs.

Another straw man.

I'm beginning to see how you "debate".
.

 

[Tehon]

I'm not denigrating Nawaz, I said he was right on this message.

And yet, I feel as though you've lumped me in with terrorist extremists for expressing a viewpoint that is not in lockstep with Nawaz's viewpoint. You think that because I have a differing opinion I am aiding and abetting Muslim extremists.

That's extreme. And is not meant to foster dialogue and in fact does the opposite. You use the term regressive left as a weapon. If you recognize how using the term islamaphobia silences debate, why can't you recognize this as its equal?

You may "feel" that I've lumped you in with terrorist extremists, but I am not. As I said in Post 512, "they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors."

Aligning yourself with them is different from working with them. It's clear you have shared enemies. That's what that means.

I don't use the term "Regressive Left" as a weapon. That is a direct quote from Mr. Nawaz, the man who coined the term. It's a term that has been adopted and advanced by other liberals, such as Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

I don't need you to agree with me. I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone else) of anything. I know better. I'm just belching out my little opinion, and people are reacting. That's life.
.

So you are not at all interested in having a dialogue. Only in casting aspersions that you feel no need to defend.

You feel that you are the sole arbiter of defining Western liberal values. You feel comfortable with it because you have heard others speak of them.

Yet, I am supposedly the trained monkey.

I am willing to have this debate. You and Dogmaphobe are the ones trying to silence the debate.

I will leave you with this quote from Nawaz, one more time. Maybe it will begin to sink in.

"Let us continue to debate all the hot issues in defiance. But in doing so there is one principle I would ask that we all remember: just as no idea should be above scrutiny, no person should be beneath dignity. If this line between critiquing ideas and seeking to humiliate people is not drawn clearly, any one of us could become the next Chelsea Clinton."

Well, there are some nice straw men. You sure do complain about me a lot. As for me, I'm happy to defend your right to say anything you want.

My interest is in behaviors and motivations. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything on this topic.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.
.

To align means to be in agreement with. You have previously defined this agreement in terms of foreign policy. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean it in terms of religious doctrine? Something else?

Read this thread. There are plenty of examples if you choose to see them.

Read a thread after the next jihadist atrocity. You'll see Regressives doing their standard deflect/pivot/attack routine, away from the atrocity. You'll see them trying to attack the messenger, as we're also seeing on this thread. You might even be treated to one of them bringing up the Crusades, which is one of my favorite comic treats.

Read a thread in which the religion is criticized to any degree. You'll see someone screaming ISLAMOPHOBE or RACIST in an attempt to change the subject and put the target on the defensive.

Read a thread that discusses Christianity. You'll see those same people launching the most vicious personal attacks possible, in an act of hypocrisy that borders on amazing.

Or maybe you won't notice any of it.
.

I don't deny it exists.

I'm not doing it however.

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

 

[Tehon]

Interesting. You view any attempt at clarification as an attack on your own beliefs.

Another straw man.

I'm beginning to see how you "debate".
.

You didn't address my questions. Questions meant to foster an honest discussion.

 

[JoeB131]

Clearly there's some self-loathing involved. This has to be strong - they're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. And then, of course, you'll see the same people saying vicious things about Christians.

There's a serious and profound disconnect here.

If Christians were on the other side of the planet, I'd wouldn't be worried about them, either. It's when they try to impose their backwards-ass bronze age beliefs on the rest of us I worry.

You see, we actually have to travel to the other side of the world to have a beef with Muslims, which we do because the Zionists and Oil Companies control our foreign policy. But it's not like anyone you care about is going to come back in a box, without limbs or with PTSD.

 

[Mac1958]

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

 

[SweetSue92]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

 

[SweetSue92]

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

Mac no one needs attention from you.

Try, really try, to understand that. It's not like a favor you pass out.

 

[Mac1958]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

And now, here it comes from the Right.

I do love it when the first line of my sig is illustrated so vividly.
.

 

[JoeB131]

So I'll say it again: They're willing to align themselves with, protect and defend people who so powerfully represent and implement so many blatantly anti-liberal and anti-Western characteristics and behaviors. Anti-Liberal and Anti-Western. Are you really trying to deny this? Are you not reading this thread, for example?

Why deny it. The problem is, when you wrap up IMPERIALISM in nice words, it's still fucking Imperialism.

Yes, they are against IMPERIALIST Characteristics. Just because we think women dressing like sluts and having abortions is okay, doesn't mean they should. And we shouldn't be over their imposing our views, or using their views as an excuse to exploit THEIR resources.

Again, it's an old game... declare someone a "barbarian", invade his country, inflict horrible misery on him, blame him when he fights back. Extra bonus points if they aren't white.

We did this 50 years ago in Vietnam and 100 years ago in the Philippines and we STILL haven't learned our fucking lesson.

 

[Tehon]

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

There is no straw man. I am simply asking for clarification so we can continue this discussion.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.

Why do you feel threatened by me asking you to clarify in what way you see the left as being in agreement with militant Islam?

 

[Mac1958]

Gawd, I'm good.

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

There is no straw man. I am simply asking for clarification so we can continue this discussion.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.

Why do you feel threatened by me asking you to clarify in what way you see the left as being in agreement with militant Islam?

You say there is no straw man, then you say I feel threatened.

Same post.

You people literally can't help yourselves. Another example of my point.
.

 

[SweetSue92]

I quote Maajid Nawaz regularly here. He is the liberal Muslim Brit who coined the term "Regressive Left", horrified by the way many on the Left make a bad situation worse by coddling the worst elements of Islam in the West. Mr. Nawaz can see both sides of this issue. I know being able to see both sides of an issue is not considered a good thing here.

He risks his life every day, pushing for reform of his beloved religion. He was assaulted, again, just the other day (I suspect he'll be attacked here, too - that's how they operate). Here's his take on the predictable madness that has followed the New Zealand attack.

The New Zealand Mosque Massacre Blame Game Is Out of Control

LONDON—The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.

But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. Few have come under fiercer assault than my friend and collaborator in dialogue, Sam Harris. The following spectacle has been incredibly unedifying.

Of course, inflammatory anti-Muslim language must be condemned by us all, and many anti-Muslim provocateurs should take a hard look at themselves after New Zealand, just as we must condemn inflammatory Islamist and far-left language. That is different, though, from trying to silence an entire policy concern like Western foreign policy or opposing immigration and critiquing Islam respectively. Only the extremists wish to shut down debate. And so it is crucial that we do not respond to far-right extremism in such a way that we inadvertently empower extremists from other ends of the political spectrum. Terrorists prefer the bullet to the ballot. Let us not become pawns in their game.
.

Being able to see both sides doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
I don't like seeing anyone attacking innocent Muslims....but I also cannot handle the whining Muslims who feel they were personally attacked when they live 8000 miles away from the attack, and try to use this typically Islamic martyrdom complex to claim the right to attack others.

Mac is locked into the third ideology--he can "see both sides" and therefore calls down curses on both sides while sitting on his high and mighty mountain in Switzerland, believing he is more evolved that the rest of us, who cannot see both sides. Apparently.

It's funny.

And now, here it comes from the Right.

I do love it when the first line of my sig is illustrated so vividly.
.

You're very juvenile in your approach. You're like one of my first grade students who says to another "Don't look at me!" but as soon as someone does, just for speaking, says, "Made you look, made you look!!!"

This is repellent even to first graders, by the way.

 

[Tehon]

Gawd, I'm good.

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

There is no straw man. I am simply asking for clarification so we can continue this discussion.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.

Why do you feel threatened by me asking you to clarify in what way you see the left as being in agreement with militant Islam?

You say there is no straw man, then you say I feel threatened.

Same post.

You people literally can't help yourselves. Another example of my point.
.

You said I was putting you on the defensive!!!!!

Why would feel that way if you didn't feel threatened?

 

[SweetSue92]

Gawd, I'm good.

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

There is no straw man. I am simply asking for clarification so we can continue this discussion.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.

Why do you feel threatened by me asking you to clarify in what way you see the left as being in agreement with militant Islam?

You say there is no straw man, then you say I feel threatened.

Same post.

You people literally can't help yourselves. Another example of my point.
.

And another one.

Maturity level: Six years old

 

[SweetSue92]

Gawd, I'm good.

I am trying to have an honest dialogue here.

You are? What I see you doing is tossing out multiple straw man arguments, whining and trying to put me on the defensive.

This is why I have given up trying to "debate" here, but you kept complaining so much I thought I'd show you some attention.
.

There is no straw man. I am simply asking for clarification so we can continue this discussion.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

I'd love to talk about that, if you'd be willing to offer some ideas.

Why do you feel threatened by me asking you to clarify in what way you see the left as being in agreement with militant Islam?

You say there is no straw man, then you say I feel threatened.

Same post.

You people literally can't help yourselves. Another example of my point.
.

You said I was putting you on the defensive!!!!!

Why would feel that way if you didn't feel threatened?

He's not nearly so clever as he thinks. Every time someone pays the least little bit of attention to him, he thinks we're OBSESSED

It's rather sad when you think about it

 

[JoeB131]

More so than any other major religion at this time (although the Catholics sure are up there), it's a religion in need of serious reform.

Even if some refuse to admit it for their own ideological, hypocritical reasons.

When people stop believing in sky fairies, that's a reform.

All getting along and pretending you don't hate each other at the Interfaith Pancake Breakfast isn't a reform.

And on this topic, I'm fascinated to find out why supposed "liberals" have chosen to align themselves with the most illiberal, authoritarian religion on the planet.

It's been explained to you multiple times. We consider imperialism the greater evil. What they do in their own countries is not our problem. If anything our policies have made the problem WORSE. We armed Bin Laden, we've took out the modern secularists during the Cold War because they thought "socialism" might be cool to try. We continue to bankroll the Saudis and protect them.

And some imperialist tool like Nawaz looking for a rub on the head doesn't impress anyone.