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

[Mac1958]

One basic question: Why is the Regressive Left more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity? - and they go completely nuts.

Do they really think this stuff is not obvious? Do they really think this is the first time the question has come up?

This has been amazing.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes....amazing.

 

[Kondor3]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

The ghosts of a thousand years of brave Englishmen are shaking their heads and laughing at their descendants...

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

 

[LoneLaugher]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

 

[NYcarbineer]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

The ghosts of a thousand years of brave Englishmen are shaking their heads and laughing at their descendants...

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

See? Contrary to MacChic's rants, it's his conservative pals that are the true bigots when it comes to Islam.

 

[Kondor3]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

That's eleven-and-a-half percent too much... the cancer continues to metastasize.

 

[LoneLaugher]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

That's eleven-and-a-half percent too much... the cancer continues to metastasize.

You aren't much for that "freedom of religion" thing, are ya?

 

[Kondor3]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

The ghosts of a thousand years of brave Englishmen are shaking their heads and laughing at their descendants...

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

See? Contrary to MacChic's rants, it's his conservative pals that are the true bigots when it comes to Islam.

Nothing bigoted about calling an intolerant, misogynistic, primitive warrior religion (Islam) to be an intolerant, misogynistic, primitive warrior religion.

That's called Truth.

Something that LibTards tend to gloss over, when it proves inconvenient to their idiotic multi-culti agenda.

 

[Kondor3]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

That's eleven-and-a-half percent too much... the cancer continues to metastasize.

You aren't much for that "freedom of religion" thing, are ya?

Au contraire... I'm all for freedom of every religion... wake me up when Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and Buddhist temples are allowed in Saudi Arabia, eh?

I"m all for freedom of religion, for every religion which provides reciprocal tolerance; not for those which do not.

Especially for a religion whose Founder and Core Tenets call for death to Nonbelievers, and when such Tenets are still currently operative throughout much of its domains.

 

[LoneLaugher]

MacChic's colossal meltdown, all over the fact that London elected a Muslim mayor.

Best meltdown ever, all things considered.

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

That's eleven-and-a-half percent too much... the cancer continues to metastasize.

You aren't much for that "freedom of religion" thing, are ya?

Au contraire... I'm all for freedom of every religion... wake me up when Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and Buddhist temples are allowed in Saudi Arabia, eh?

I"m all for freedom of religion, for every religion which provides reciprocal tolerance; not for those which do not.

We are talking about London. A place which has freedom of religion. A feature which makes it better, in my view, than Saudi Arabia in this respect.

Now...when you can show that Mulsims in London have denied Christians and Jews in London their religious freedom, you might have something to discuss.

Reciprocal tolerance exists....in nations where religious freedom reigns. Like ours....and England.

Isn't that awesome!

 

[Kondor3]

Given that the transition from London to Londonistan has been underway for decades, that should have come as a surprise to no one.

Perhaps, if the Brits still owned a pair, and had more meltdowns, they would not now be living in Londonistan.

Suckered into the Multicultural Trap, and largely unaware of it - or lacking the balls to do anything about it - until it was far too late.

Cowards.

Fools.

Welcome to your consequences.

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

That's eleven-and-a-half percent too much... the cancer continues to metastasize.

You aren't much for that "freedom of religion" thing, are ya?

Au contraire... I'm all for freedom of every religion... wake me up when Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and Buddhist temples are allowed in Saudi Arabia, eh?

I"m all for freedom of religion, for every religion which provides reciprocal tolerance; not for those which do not.

We are talking about London. A place which has freedom of religion. A feature which makes it better, in my view, than Saudi Arabia in this respect.

Now...when you can show that Mulsims in London have denied Christians and Jews in London their religious freedom, you might have something to discuss.

Reciprocal tolerance exists....in nations where religious freedom reigns. Like ours....and England.

Isn't that awesome!

You're a fool... trying to convince other fools that the Neanderthal with the blade at their throat isn't really a Neanderthal with a blade at their throat.

You'll make some headway with other fools, but not with sane, sensible people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The best way to bring about religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is as yet undiscovered. However, I can say with certainty that ending religious freedom in London or here.....is NOT going to accomplish that goal.

Ya dumb shit.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Nice try.

You said that I tried to silence debate. I bolded it in red, above.

Here is what YOU SAID: you are attempting to do the same thing that you accuse regressive leftists of doing.... silencing debate. And now you try to say you meant Sam Harris?

Just another attempt to deflect by lying and trying to put me on the defensive that failed.

What is wrong with you people?
.

No, I'm not saying I meant Sam Harris. I'm using his statements, which you promote as truth, to show you why I claimed the term "regressive leftist" silences debate. Surely even you can see the hypocrisy. So I am not deflecting, I am trying to give you my perspective on this issue. It is you who is trying to squash any thoughts that do not conform to your bias.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There has been some kind of trigger that sent them over the edge on this thread. I don't know if it's the use of the term "Regressive", or if they think this is the first time this obvious question has been asked, or because they're dealing with people who aren't conservative but who still point out what they're doing, or the fact that we've provided so many examples. I dunno. Maybe some combination therein.

Obviously they don't like being exposed for their behaviors, but it's not like this is the first time the question has been asked, by any means.

But they're on this thing like catnip, and they can't let go.
.

It's almost as if they are trying to prove everything said is true.

Here, I mention a couple of Liberal political philosophers that every high school student should know, and they react to the mere mention of learning what liberalism is with such hostility and determined ignorance as to represent little more than an unruly mob.

They are proud of their ignorance and are just as fiercely resistant to the very notion of learning as the most backwards bible-thumping right wingers. Just watching the venom they drip in unison at the mere mention of the actual basis for liberalism , it is obvious that they have no interest in knowing what is liberal and what is not.

Like fascists, the only thing that motivates them is sounding exactly alike.

 

[Mac1958]

There has been some kind of trigger that sent them over the edge on this thread. I don't know if it's the use of the term "Regressive", or if they think this is the first time this obvious question has been asked, or because they're dealing with people who aren't conservative but who still point out what they're doing, or the fact that we've provided so many examples. I dunno. Maybe some combination therein.

Obviously they don't like being exposed for their behaviors, but it's not like this is the first time the question has been asked, by any means.

But they're on this thing like catnip, and they can't let go.
.

It's almost as if they are trying to prove everything said is true.

Here, I mention a couple of Liberal political philosophers that every high school student should know, and they react to the mere mention of learning what liberalism is with such hostility and determined ignorance as to represent little more than an unruly mob.

They are proud of their ignorance and are just as fiercely resistant to the very notion of learning as the most backwards bible-thumping right wingers. Just watching the venom they drip in unison at the mere mention of the actual basis for liberalism and it is obvious that they have no interest in knowing what is liberal and what is not.

Like fascists, the only thing that motivates them is sounding exactly alike.

Regarding the question posed by the thread, some interesting answers have been provided.

I'm struck by one thing Mr. Nawaz said: "They believe they're engaged in a war, and the reason you sometimes see duplicity in their statements is that they genuinely believe it's an ideological war, so it's necessary to even engage in propaganda to defeat this bigger evil."

He has been on their side in the past and saw what they are doing from the inside. He knows them, and that's what they hate. He knows how dishonest they're willing to be to "defeat this bigger evil".
.

 

[Mac1958]

Muslims represent about 12.5% of the population of London.

That's eleven-and-a-half percent too much... the cancer continues to metastasize.

You aren't much for that "freedom of religion" thing, are ya?

Au contraire... I'm all for freedom of every religion... wake me up when Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and Buddhist temples are allowed in Saudi Arabia, eh?

I"m all for freedom of religion, for every religion which provides reciprocal tolerance; not for those which do not.

We are talking about London. A place which has freedom of religion. A feature which makes it better, in my view, than Saudi Arabia in this respect.

Now...when you can show that Mulsims in London have denied Christians and Jews in London their religious freedom, you might have something to discuss.

Reciprocal tolerance exists....in nations where religious freedom reigns. Like ours....and England.

Isn't that awesome!

You're a fool... trying to convince other fools that the Neanderthal with the blade at their throat isn't really a Neanderthal with a blade at their throat.

You'll make some headway with other fools, but not with sane, sensible people.

Most of this thread has been Regressive Leftists trying to reassure each other how wrong I am.

I don't know what the point of their posts is outside of that. I don't know what they think they're accomplishing with all this leg-humping.

.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The ignorant and stupid individuals who toss about the words liberal and conservative do not know what such terms mean.

The "conserve" part of he word conservative has to do with conserving various social institutions, cultural mores and power structures. Conservatives place a higher value on social order than social justice. Liberalism, on the other hand, involves a greater willingness to promote social justice, even at the risk of upsetting the social order.

Since Islam is a rigid political as well as religious system -- an all-encompassing way of life that goes well beyond mere "religion -- and since it acts to freeze all social values at a 14th century level -- it is a profoundly conservative ideology. Stupid and ignorant people do not want to understand that because knowledge is just too scary to these frightened children.

Women's second class status is codified into the very fabric of Islam. How any self-proclaimed liberal could fail to see how Islam is such a powerful force preventing social justice is beyond me. The truth of the matter as this thread exposes, is that these are not liberals here. They have made that abundantly clear and continue to do so.

 

[Mac1958]

See? Contrary to MacChic's rants, it's his conservative pals that are the true bigots when it comes to Islam.

Look at this one. He illustrates two of my points in one short sentence.

He defends Islam and completely ignores how bigoted Regressive Leftists are against Christianity. It doesn't even register with him.

This is part of their natural thought process, and they don't see how they keep providing more and more examples. Amazing to watch.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I'm not saying I meant Sam Harris. I'm using his statements, which you promote as truth, to show you why I claimed the term "regressive leftist" silences debate. Surely even you can see the hypocrisy. So I am not deflecting, I am trying to give you my perspective on this issue. It is you who is trying to squash any thoughts that do not conform to your bias.

Well, in Britain, it has become so bad that they sacrifice their children quite willingly to Muslim rape gangs rather than run the risk of being called racist, bigot or Islamophobe.

It's not so much that those running interference for this activity are silencing people directly (other than when they have power at website or other media to do so). It's just that the general level of abuse any thinking person must endure by the mob intent on running the interference for them is so great that a generalized sense of intimidation prevails to the point people are unwilling to challenge them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The best way to bring about religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is as yet undiscovered. However, I can say with certainty that ending religious freedom in London or here.....is NOT going to accomplish that goal.

Ya dumb shit.

Please point out when anybody here has suggested ending religious freedom?

Now, this is certainly the objective of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of Muslims, including those spreading at an alarming rate through London, but who has said there should be no religious freedom?

If you wish religious freedom, shouldn't you be siding with those who believe in it rather than those who don't?