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

[Valerie]

I have provided DOZENS of examples. Somehow you "didn't see" them, liar.

no you haven't...

 

[Mac1958]

gawd

 

[Valerie]

this Admin is FRANTICALLY trying to avoid a "christian muslim" war by demanding the term "radical Islamic terrorists" not BE USED.

it's called international humanitarian diplomacy...

should Christianity and all Christians be forced to claim responsibility for Westboro Baptist psychotics...?

 

[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.

True.

It will get lots of us dead.

Which is why you-and-yours are being pushed back onto the sidelines again, this year.

Pushed where? Again?

Kondor is correct. This purposeful AVOIDANCE of the Radical Jihadist threat has ALREADY gotten too many people killed. We've already told you how this Admin is FRANTICALLY trying to avoid a "christian muslim" war by demanding the term "radical Islamic terrorists" not BE USED. By calling ISIS "the JV team" to RATIONALIZE his lack of outrage and reaction. By insisting that ISIS poses no existential to the US. By RE-injecting us into Iraq, Libya, Syria, NOW the Sinai and other theatres of Muslim carnage way too late. By forcing a fictional tale about the Ft Hood shootings being a "workplace violence" issue.. Need me to go on??

And a Vice Prez who recently lectured college grads to get USED TO a borderless world in an attempt to take a whack at Trump's equally despicable suggestions. Seems WE don't anyone speaking common and reason on the issue.

No leadership AT ALL on this issue. Just deflection, dithering or demagoguery.. You partisans need to clear the decks.

You use too many words.

No the decision not to use "radical Islamic terrorism" is a sound decision based on sound advice from diplomats and military leaders. The rest of your post is crap.

 

[Valerie]

only really really dense people parrot that "radical Islamic terrorists" squawking talking point.

 

[LoneLaugher]

this Admin is FRANTICALLY trying to avoid a "christian muslim" war by demanding the term "radical Islamic terrorists" not BE USED.

it's called international humanitarian diplomacy...

should Christianity and all Christians be forced to claim responsibility for Westboro Baptist psychotics...?

Oh look! You just did it again! You just showed more tolerance for Islam than for Christianity!!!!! Weeeeeeeee!

I know because you mentioned Christianity.

 

[Valerie]

i am Christian. these posters are idiots... God bless 'em.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

it's called international humanitarian diplomacy...

?

and ISIS is just SO diplomatic.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

gawd

Orwell must be rolling in his grave at all this newspeak.

 

[Mac1958]

gawd

Orwell must be rolling in his grave at all this newspeak.

I have to admit, a certain part of me is wondering if they're just fooling around. This stuff is so blatant that a normal person wouldn't be presenting it as honest.

I'm also giving consideration to claiming that one of them made some horrific statement, i.e., they're glad the towers came down, just so I can play the same game with them. Just say anything, and then avoid proving it.

I also wonder if these people are anywhere near this immature in real life.
.

 

[ChrisL]

I sure don't welcome more religious extremists into our secular society. I just don't trust them. Doesn't matter if they are Christians, Muslims or whatever they refer to themselves as.

 

[Coyote]

I think it is cute when the uneducated use the term "rwnj" to describe people who support the views of liberals like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. What's next in this little Orwellian world of the uneducated -- calling somebody who supports the work of George Will a Communist?

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I think some of them see it, and it might even make them vaguely uncomfortable. For example, when they find themselves making excuses for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion.
However, remain in lockstep they must, so they can't/won't back down and therefore find themselves having to employ false equivalances and reductio ad absurdums galore, to both safe face, and to insinuate those in opposition are bigots, racists and islamophobes, who therefore they have an alterior motive, whos word is dirt, and who are (hopefully), discredited.
I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

The irony is thick in your postings and massive "agree's" you throw onto your buddy's...just saying....but let's take this one statement and try to verify how truthful it is.

Who here has made EXCUSES for aspects of Islam that go against the principles of universal human rights and women's rights, the very rights they are supposed to champion?

Some specific examples would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll assume you and your buddies are just as childish as the ones you accuse.

 

[Coyote]

I think it is cute when the uneducated use the term "rwnj" to describe people who support the views of liberals like Sam Harris and Bill Maher. What's next in this little Orwellian world of the uneducated -- calling somebody who supports the work of George Will a Communist?

The shallow, simplistic, binary thinking of hardcore partisan ideologues.

If you're not a LWNJ, you must be a RWNJ. And vice versa.

But I am convinced they don't even see it.
.

I suspect some wouldn't behave like this in RL if faced with someone attempting to discuss where Islam and women's rights, for example, diverge, at least I hope so. In fact, we have an example in this thread where coyote is amicable and even in agreement with flacc, but virulently disagrees and mock funnies other posters when they express exactly the same concerns. Go figure.

Might be, because unlike you and your cronies, he isn't condemning the entire religion and all Muslims. A nuance that makes all the difference between bigotry or xenophbia, and legitimate concern for terrorism.

You have a problem with mocking....? Then....why do you, even in the CDZ? At least try to be consistent.

 

[Valerie]

"Meanwhile, a group of people - the Regressive Left - a group all too happy to attack the misdeeds of another religion (Christianity, obviously) in absolutely every possible way, at absolutely every opportunity...


...are bending over backwards to be defensive and so very tolerant of the first religion."




fact is, there is no response to this op that wacky mac wouldn't have gone hysterical and delusional over...

 

[Valerie]

let's talk about what it means for a political group to attack the misdeeds of a religion...

 

[Jack4jill]

re·gres·sive
rəˈɡresiv/
adjective
adjective: regressive
1.
becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood"

left·ist
ˈleftəst/
noun
noun: leftist; plural noun: leftists; adjective: leftist

1. 1.
   a person who supports the political views or policies of the left.

adjective
adjective: leftist

1. 1.
   supportive of the political views or policies of the left.
   "leftist radicals"

Another one who needs an education.

Here's a group of HONEST lefties to explain the term to you. Again:

In your words, please?

 

[Jack4jill]

let's talk about what it means for a political group to attack the misdeeds of a religion...

Religion is like a big hungry dog, never trust it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You have a problem with mocking....? Then....why do you, even in the CDZ? At least try to be consistent.

I brought up mocking in the CDZ in a thread of its own, and you were right there to support your use of it.

 

[Coyote]

You have a problem with mocking....? Then....why do you, even in the CDZ? At least try to be consistent.

I brought up mocking in the CDZ in a thread of its own, and you were right there to support your use of it.

Are you Tilly? I could have sworn she was a she.

 

[Mac1958]

re·gres·sive
rəˈɡresiv/
adjective
adjective: regressive
1.
becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.
"the regressive, infantile wish for the perfect parent of early childhood"

left·ist
ˈleftəst/
noun
noun: leftist; plural noun: leftists; adjective: leftist

1. 1.
   a person who supports the political views or policies of the left.

adjective
adjective: leftist

1. 1.
   supportive of the political views or policies of the left.
   "leftist radicals"

Another one who needs an education.

Here's a group of HONEST lefties to explain the term to you. Again:

In your words, please?

You asked for a definition, and I gave you three, all by liberals.

If a non-Regressive Leftist provides a definition, it won't be "good enough". I know how this game is played by wingers on both ends.

You now have your definition(s). Now you can no longer claim to not know. You're welcome.
.