The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Coyote]

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

Are they?

In what way?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Silencing debate". Good gawd.


.
.

Oh, I have sure seen plenty of that.



......but it was those criticizing Islam who were silenced.

 

[LoneLaugher]

"Silencing debate". Good gawd.


.
.

Oh, I have sure seen plenty of that.



......but it was those criticizing Islam who were silenced.

Islam sucks and Allah was a cocksucker.

 

[Norman]

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

Are they?

In what way?

Watch an episode of the young turks or any of your favored regressive sources.

 

[Tehon]

Do you agree with him that the US is a regressive nation that allies with the most repressive regime in the world and state sponsor of the most radical ideology on the planet. Will you condemn US foreign policy and give up cheap oil to keep in line with your theory about regressivism? You are an honest liberal, no?

First of all, I'm a left-leaning independent. I have absolutely no interest in being associated with either whacked-out end.

You're doing precisely, perfectly, the type of deflection that is the point of the thread, and I do appreciate that. Of course, there have been so many examples already that I didn't really need any more.

If you want to discuss this topic, start a thread and invite me. I'm never at a loss for an opinion. This thread is about the behaviors of the Regressive Left, which were discussed in the OP.
.

I am on topic. It is perfectly acceptable to see where lines are drawn as it relates to regressivism. Besides you are the one who chided for someone to discuss Mr. Nawaz. Do you or do you not now want to discuss his thoughts on regressive leftism?

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

It is not moot to me because you are attempting to do the same thing that you accuse regressive leftists of doing.... silencing debate.

You brought up Mr. Nawaz and promoted his definition of regressive leftist. I am pointing out that his definition condemns all of America as being regressive. How is this out of bounds.

Do you still believe in his definition of regressive leftist?

"Silencing debate"?

Am I threatening your career? Am I stopping you from posting somehow? Have I started a petition to shut you down? Am I shouting you down? Do you any roadblocks in the highway or protest marches? Have you heard from my lawyer? Am I intimidating you from posting? I even invited you to start a freaking thread and I'd contribute. Maybe you missed that.

"Silencing debate". Good gawd.

I brought up Nawaz for one (1) reason and (1) reason only: Because, as one of their standard tactics, the Regressive Lefties here focused more on the term "Regressive" than on the actual thread topic in a transparent and dishonest attempt to deflect from thread. I was accused of not knowing what the term meant, and I was accused of avoiding providing a definition, all because these people are just this side of genetically incapable of just being honest. In other words, I was rubbing their nose in their own dishonesty. I love doing that to liars.

The thread topic is as I described. Deflections notwithstanding. The term "Regressive" is not the point, and I strongly suspect you know that.
.
.

"Silencing debate"?

Yes, silencing debate. Your hero Sam Harris discusses how using the term islamaphobia acts in a way to silence people. The term regressive leftist is its equal.

I brought up Nawaz for one (1) reason and (1) reason only: Because, as one of their standard tactics, the Regressive Lefties here focused more on the term "Regressive" than on the actual thread topic in a transparent and dishonest attempt to deflect from thread. I was accused of not knowing what the term meant, and I was accused of avoiding providing a definition, all because these people are just this side of genetically incapable of just being honest.

Regressive is used disparagingly, no? Your intent was not to have a debate, it was to flame and pat yourself on the back when you got a reaction that you were looking for.

You asked multiple times for a discussion on Nawaz's comments and now that you have been obliged you want to pretend it is off topic. Honest liberal huh. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Gee. You guys sure do seem to know a lot about liberals. This is all very helpful.

Earlier, I tried to bring up the two very most influential liberal political philosophers of the last two centuries, and not only were people completely ignorant of their names, they were quite belligerent and demonstrative about remaining that way. They were actually proud of knowing nothing.

You people don't WANT to know what liberalism entails, as your shared ignorance provides your unity.

Heaven forbid that somebody might actually learn a little something and run the risk of being booted from the herd.

 

[Coyote]

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

Are they?

In what way?

Watch an episode of the young turks or any of your favored regressive sources.

Can't answer the question? It wasn't that difficult. Regressive rightwingers seem to have trouble answering simple questions.

 

[Coyote]

Gee. You guys sure do seem to know a lot about liberals. This is all very helpful.

Earlier, I tried to bring up the two very most influential liberal political philosophers of the last two centuries, and not only were people completely ignorant of their names, they were quite belligerent and demonstrative about remaining that way. They were actually proud of knowing nothing.

You people don't WANT to know what liberalism entails, as your shared ignorance provides your unity.

Heaven forbid that somebody might actually learn a little something and run the risk of being booted from the herd.

I don't think you are necessarily the source for information on all things liberal...just saying.

 

[Norman]

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

Are they?

In what way?

Watch an episode of the young turks or any of your favored regressive sources.

Can't answer the question? It wasn't that difficult. Regressive rightwingers seem to have trouble answering simple questions.

Except I did. Just because it requires some effort from you, doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. Don't you watch these channels all day anyway?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Agreed, but I do think there is still a very healthy amount of traditional liberals, at least I hope so.

These people are illiberal, a distortion.
.

I hang out with liberals.

But, of course, those I hang out with are well educated. Any mention of J.S. Mill or John Rawls, and there is understanding instead of a bunch of belligerent and childish sticking of the fingers in the ear with a "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah"

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Gee. You guys sure do seem to know a lot about liberals. This is all very helpful.

Earlier, I tried to bring up the two very most influential liberal political philosophers of the last two centuries, and not only were people completely ignorant of their names, they were quite belligerent and demonstrative about remaining that way. They were actually proud of knowing nothing.

You people don't WANT to know what liberalism entails, as your shared ignorance provides your unity.

Heaven forbid that somebody might actually learn a little something and run the risk of being booted from the herd.

I don't think you are necessarily the source for information on all things liberal...just saying.

You hate liberalism with such a passion, I could point you to all the liberal philosophers in the world and you would still choose the murder of Jews as your fall back position.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gee. You guys sure do seem to know a lot about liberals. This is all very helpful.

Earlier, I tried to bring up the two very most influential liberal political philosophers of the last two centuries, and not only were people completely ignorant of their names, they were quite belligerent and demonstrative about remaining that way. They were actually proud of knowing nothing.

You people don't WANT to know what liberalism entails, as your shared ignorance provides your unity.

Heaven forbid that somebody might actually learn a little something and run the risk of being booted from the herd.

Dude. Nobody wants to know who you think is or was an important liberal philosopher. You are making false accusations here. You dropping names of historical figures doesn't change that.

 

[Coyote]

Gee. You guys sure do seem to know a lot about liberals. This is all very helpful.

Earlier, I tried to bring up the two very most influential liberal political philosophers of the last two centuries, and not only were people completely ignorant of their names, they were quite belligerent and demonstrative about remaining that way. They were actually proud of knowing nothing.

You people don't WANT to know what liberalism entails, as your shared ignorance provides your unity.

Heaven forbid that somebody might actually learn a little something and run the risk of being booted from the herd.

I don't think you are necessarily the source for information on all things liberal...just saying.

You hate liberalism with such a passion, I could point you to all the liberal philosophers in the world and you would still choose the murder of Jews as your fall back position.

Like I said, I don't think you are necessarily the source for information on all things liberal...you are better off sticking to emulating your hero. Electrocuted any dogs lately?

You're version of "liberal" includes a whole lot of hate for innocent people based only on their religion. Liberals I admire were the people who fight against that mindset and see people deserving of rights regardless of skin color, gender orientation or religion. They weren't talking heads.

So like I said, I don't think much of you as source for what is or is not liberal.

 

[Coyote]

Thread topic, in a nutshell: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

If the term "Regressive" bothers you, we can use this: Why is the American Left more tolerant of Islam than Christianity?

There are liberals who agree with me that this is the case. If you don't agree, then the question should be moot to you.
.

Are they?

In what way?

Watch an episode of the young turks or any of your favored regressive sources.

Can't answer the question? It wasn't that difficult. Regressive rightwingers seem to have trouble answering simple questions.

Except I did. Just because it requires some effort from you, doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. Don't you watch these channels all day anyway?

Nope. I don't have cable. And I don't get most tv channels.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Electrocuted any dogs lately?

.

You are utterly beneath contempt.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Dude. Nobody wants to know who you think is or was an important liberal philosopher. You are making false accusations here. You dropping names of historical figures doesn't change that.

Ignorance is strength to you, though.

Others prefer knowledge and understanding.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I just looked up the Rawls guy. I had never heard the name before. The dude published his great work in 1971. How the fuck can anyone say he is the most influential liberal political philosopher?

Talk about hoity-toity elitest bullshit.

You and your lib friends talk Rawls and play trivia? My ass.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Dude. Nobody wants to know who you think is or was an important liberal philosopher. You are making false accusations here. You dropping names of historical figures doesn't change that.

Ignorance is strength to you, though.

Others prefer knowledge and understanding.

I'm knowledgable enough, pal. You are just arrogant.

 

[Papageorgio]

No Matter HOW many times it is pointed out to these lunkheads that Islam represents the very antithesis of liberalism...

The same as all religion.

And here, the Christians are the problem, not the Muslims. That's over there and honestly none of our business.

Until they cause a 9/11 type event, then is it our business?

 

[Tehon]

I just looked up the Rawls guy. I had never heard the name before. The dude published his great work in 1971. How the fuck can anyone say he is the most influential liberal political philosopher?

Talk about hoity-youth elitest bullshit.

You and your lib friends talk Rawls and play trivia? My ass.

Ask him to discuss Kazanistan, Rawl's imagined Islamic society.