Jump to content

The Regressive Left


Clarke
 Share

Recommended Posts

What is the regressive left?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

 

The regressive left (also sometimes referred to as regressive liberals) is a political epithet used to negatively characterize a section of left-wing politics which is accused of paradoxically holding reactionary views due to tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies (such as extremist Islamism) for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

 
Within the specific context of multiculturalism, British anti-Islamism activist Maajid Nawaz used the term in 2012 in his memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism[note 1] to describe "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in the United Kingdom who naïvely and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. In a 2015 video presentation on the Internet forum Big Think, Nawaz elaborated on the meaning of the term, saying that it describes "a section of the left" that has, in his opinion, "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities ... for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles".
 
Among well-known political and social commentators, political talk-show hosts such as Bill Maher and Dave Rubin, as well as New Atheist writers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have discussed the concept numerous times.

 

 

Its goes with saying there is an infestation of a few regressive leftists here. Logically speaking only really people that have a western culture can be regressives as anyone from a backwards culture hasn't regressived, most of the regressive sounding voices such as Kemal and others are from backward cultures.

Regressive leftists usually are on social media sites such as Facebook, tumbler and places like buzzfeed which is one of homes of the regressive. Arguably most of the media is regressive, however its unfair since they probably cuck themselves as well in order to appeal to everyone, if you answer only to money then principles and logic are secondary. That's why you can't also believe the stupid things celebrities and other famous people say, they have no balls as they care only about their career obviously which is fair. 

 

Ultimately the regressive left and the left in general is an oppressive regime against intelligence and liberal voices who argue reason rather than emotion. They would rather burn the house than to admit how wrong they're, in some cases regressive women who have being raped protect the identity of their attacker, that is essentially the regressive left summed up. 

 

Discuss what the regressive left means to you.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 5

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discuss what the regressive left means to you.

 

I consider the regressive left as those that think they're all oppressed by white males, get offended over everything, think that gender is a social construct, think the man has no say in abortion, force companies to hire women in higher positions, etc.

  • Upvote 2

putin-trump-sig_zps657urhx9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called "white man's burden" and it's nothing new. It's like criticizing a dude at McDonald's, that's paid $7.25, for !@#$ing up your order (again, every time). As an egalitarian, you expect and forgive shit from cretins. We create a shitty environment for minorities, and we are the !@#$ for excusing their reaction to said shit? If everyone were on equal ground, then we could judge them equally. But, they arent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called "white man's burden" and it's nothing new. It's like criticizing a dude at McDonald's, that's paid $7.25, for !@#$ up your order (again, every time). As an egalitarian, you expect and forgive shit from cretins. We create a shitty environment for minorities, and we are the !@#$ for excusing their reaction to said shit? If everyone were on equal ground, then we could judge them equally. But, they arent.

 

Sometimes i feel like those who do not succeed think they're at a disadvantage because they thought that they were at a disadvantage from the begining, making them actually have a disadvantage.

 

Placebo effect, too damn strong.

  • Upvote 2
Icwalk.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first bit in the quote does it pretty much, but I'd add that for all their tarring of people as massive racists over the tiniest things that they are pretty big racists themselves (passive racism mostly). Not just in the prevalent !@#$ white people attitude they have (which they dismiss as racism against white people is impossible yo), but in that they have no respect at all for minorities, especially blacks. Black people are like children to them, they have no responsibility for themselves and if they do something wrong it's always big daddy white man's fault... somehow. So in they come, the mighty whitey wo/man to defend the poor defenseless minorities from all the evil racists, unaware of the irony of it all.

 

It's called "white man's burden" and it's nothing new. It's like criticizing a dude at McDonald's, that's paid $7.25, for !@#$ up your order (again, every time). As an egalitarian, you expect and forgive shit from cretins. We create a shitty environment for minorities, and we are the !@#$ for excusing their reaction to said shit? If everyone were on equal ground, then we could judge them equally. But, they arent.

 

Regale us more about how minorities are lesser. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes i feel like those who do not succeed think they're at a disadvantage because they thought that they were at a disadvantage from the begining, making them actually have a disadvantage.

 

Placebo effect, too damn strong.

There are real disadvantages to racism, generational poverty, and living in the environment those produce. Sure, those can be overcome. And, it's no one's fault but their own if they don't as it's their responsibility alone. But, situations others cause, beyond their control, make it harder than it needs to be. Having no sympathy for that is a bit dickish.

 

Regale us more about how minorities are lesser.

How did you arrive at that, Roz? I suggested they have more challenges that a suburban white kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regressive leftists are authoritarians who want to install a 1984 style dystopia to make sure everyone is "equal" and no one is "offended"... except for straight white men who will become the new underclass.  Contradictory but as we have "privilege" and are "oppressors" so we must pay for past crimes and be lesser than all "marginalized groups". 

 

Scary when I think about it, Trigglypuff shown in a post above is only the tip of a very large iceburg.

  • Upvote 2

There are no men like me, there is only me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone hear an echo (echo echo echo...)

 

I think there is a marked difference between accepting religious freedom and supporting Islamism. I obviously don't support radical Islamism in any form and I am quite critical of Islam as both a religion and a philosophy, but I don't believe the solution to radical islam is to group all muslims together as "the problem" and look for "a solution" as some people on this board advocate.

 

*Omg it's a regressive lefty he doesn't want to exterminate the Muslims!*

  • Upvote 2

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one solution - the final solution

Are you indirectly advocating for a genocide of all Muslims?

<&Partisan> EAT THE SHIT

<blacklabel> lol @ ever caring about how much you matter in some dumbass nation simulation browser game. what a !@#$in pathetic waste of life

iZHAsgV.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone hear an echo (echo echo echo...)

 

I think there is a marked difference between accepting religious freedom and supporting Islamism. I obviously don't support radical Islamism in any form and I am quite critical of Islam as both a religion and a philosophy, but I don't believe the solution to radical islam is to group all muslims together as "the problem" and look for "a solution" as some people on this board advocate.

 

*Omg it's a regressive lefty he doesn't want to exterminate the Muslims!*

 

I can't speak for others in this thread (frankly I don't want to, no offense guys but some of you are a little nutty), but I've never stated all muslims are the problem. The problem is SOME muslims, a much larger amount then you seem to want to realise, And the issue is how can you tell the difference between which muslims are "radical" and which aren't. It's one thing to support muslims already existing in western countries (as long as they are citizens, I have no issues with that), but when it comes to immigration, that is an entirely different issue.

 

Let me pose to you scenarios.

 

Scenario 1: Allow muslims into western countries, accept them with open arms, despite their worldviews being VERY different from ours. As a result, a small portion of the muslims we allow into our countries are terrorists or even just people who agree with the actions of these terrorists. This small portion of muslims who happen to be terrorists, coordinate and execute a terrorist attack. People die.

 

Scenario 2: No muslims allowed into the country. This means some people who aren't necessarily bad or "radical" aren't allowed into the country. But as a result, none of these individuals are able to execute an attack.

 

Comparing the two scenarios, which one is worse? The one where citizens of whatever western country you apply this example to die, or the one where they don't?

 

Sure you can make some valid counter-arguments. We still have homegrown terrorists. But homegrown terrorists would still exist in either scenario.

 

So here is my proposition to you then, What is the 3rd Scenario? Believe me, I recognize the option we support is "nuclear" but I've yet to see anyone actually provide a more effective alternative, that can be implemented immediately and we can be sure it will work.

 

As far as Islam as a religion, Islams worldview isn't the same as a christian worldview. People try to paint radical islamists are an isolated group when in reality, a "moderate muslim" isn't comparable to a "moderate christian".

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering my country (the UK) has 2.7 million Muslims (five percent of the population) I don't think "closing the borders" is going to do much good. In addition, our worst Muslim terrorist attack (2005 London bombings) were carried out by three people from Yorkshire and one guy born in Jamaica - which is hardly an Islamic hotspot. Closing the borders doesn't do anything to stop terrorism. I would argue that the much more antagonistic attitude taken by France for example has served to isolate Muslim communities and encourage radicalisation. Whilst I agree radical islam should be challenged at every opportunity, extending this to ordinary Muslims creates more terrorists than it stops.

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering my country (the UK) has 2.7 million Muslims (five percent of the population) I don't think "closing the borders" is going to do much good. In addition, our worst Muslim terrorist attack (2005 London bombings) were carried out by three people from Yorkshire and one guy born in Jamaica - which is hardly an Islamic hotspot. Closing the borders doesn't do anything to stop terrorism. I would argue that the much more antagonistic attitude taken by France for example has served to isolate Muslim communities and encourage radicalisation. Whilst I agree radical islam should be challenged at every opportunity, extending this to ordinary Muslims creates more terrorists than it stops.

 

You didn't really respond to my points.

 

Closing the borders isn't going to eliminate terrorism. I'm not claiming that. Closing the border will reduce the numbers of potential terrorists coming into the country. You can't really argue with that point, and since you didn't attempt to I assume we are agreement on that.

 

So my next point would be, if closing the borders on muslims is enough to "radicalize" the "moderate muslims", then how moderate are they really?

 

You haven't proposed any alternatives. Where is the third scenario I asked you to devise? The lack of response suggests either:

 

A: You don't have another solution, and are just disagreeing with that one.

B: You didn't read or rather skimmed through what I said and that is why you haven't addressed it.

C: You are content with how things currently are, and don't think we need a different solution.

D: None of the above, in which case you should better explain your position. 

Edited by Sketchy

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll address your point directly. I do not think that closing the borders to Muslims will reduce the chances of terrorism in the UK. It will decrease the chances of a terrorist entering the UK.

 

However, as stated the risk of antagonising almost 3 million citizens by treating them as potential terrorists far outweighs any benefit from blocking new immigration.

 

With regard to your point that they must be radical anyway if they would become Islamists following a border closure, this is not true. A case in point would be Irish terrorism. In the UK we Had IRA terror attacks for decades and many more people were killed than in all the Muslim attacks together. After the good Friday agreement this mostly stopped. I'm sure you wouldn't suggest we should close the borders to the Irish in case they suddenly radicalise and start blowing stuff up again. The fact is that when you isolate and attack a group, whichever group that is, you create a situation where violent rebellion is more likely. That is true whether the group are Muslim shop workers at Tesco, Irish dock workers, or whatever group you care to name.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you arrive at that, Roz? I suggested they have more challenges that a suburban white kid.

 

So a black kid is naturally in a lesser state than the white one? What about those white kids in the poor minority areas? What about the black kids in the rich areas? How's their challenges? There are problems in countries yes, but they are not "black" or whatever problems. They are problems of the poor and should be addressed as such. High crime is derived mostly from being crammed in rotting poor communities, something that affects everybody regardless of race. Broken families happens due to values that have been lost in regards to family, something that is cultural and not racial and something that hits the poorest hardest again. Not being in jobs is because jobs have been bled out of the country by the rich and any jobs that have replaced them are for better off people and not those who lost the jobs to begin with. Again, another issue that effects the poor not a race. 

 

Can anyone hear an echo (echo echo echo...)

 

I think there is a marked difference between accepting religious freedom and supporting Islamism. I obviously don't support radical Islamism in any form and I am quite critical of Islam as both a religion and a philosophy, but I don't believe the solution to radical islam is to group all muslims together as "the problem" and look for "a solution" as some people on this board advocate.

 

*Omg it's a regressive lefty he doesn't want to exterminate the Muslims!*

 

Jumps straight to extermination. I have myself only ever advocated integration, reduction of immigration, and protection of minorities within Islam (women, children, apostates) to shove them in a positive direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll address your point directly. I do not think that closing the borders to Muslims will reduce the chances of terrorism in the UK. It will decrease the chances of a terrorist entering the UK.

 

However, as stated the risk of antagonising almost 3 million citizens by treating them as potential terrorists far outweighs any benefit from blocking new immigration.

 

With regard to your point that they must be radical anyway if they would become Islamists following a border closure, this is not true. A case in point would be Irish terrorism. In the UK we Had IRA terror attacks for decades and many more people were killed than in all the Muslim attacks together. After the good Friday agreement this mostly stopped. I'm sure you wouldn't suggest we should close the borders to the Irish in case they suddenly radicalise and start blowing stuff up again. The fact is that when you isolate and attack a group, whichever group that is, you create a situation where violent rebellion is more likely. That is true whether the group are Muslim shop workers at Tesco, Irish dock workers, or whatever group you care to name.

 

I disagree with that analogy. The supposed differences between radical muslims and moderate muslims are their belief system. People claim moderate muslims are just as peaceful and tolerant as any other religion, so how can the action a country closing borders to that group radicalize them? Are you saying that if you close borders, these peoples beliefs will fundamentally change?

 

Will they be pissed off? Probably sure. But if they respect the country they live in they'll accept they reasoning behind the decision instead of blowing shit up.

 

And you still haven't addressed my key point.

 

What is the alternative? If you don't agree with what we believe, what is your alternate and more effective solution? To keep going as we are? What is it?

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you misanalyse their reason for radicalisation. Islam as a religious movement is quite old, but the modern concept of Islamism is a recent trend. Therefore it is not logical to equate the two or see all muslims as potential Islamists.

 

What I said in my post is that any group can become radicalised. I used the example of northern Irish catholics who became radicalised in an environment where they were treated as second class citizens for many years. A small minority became radicalised and began attacking the UK. When the peace process emerged they stopped. I ask you again, would your solution be to close the borders to the Irish?

 

Most of the radical Muslims, including 3/4 of the suicide bombers in London, were not particularly religious. They didn't know the Koran, one had a gf who he slept with, one drank.

 

Radical islam is for the most part (in the West at least) a political movement which emerged from Muslims as a group, rather than islam as a religion. This matter is confused because they often use islam as their justification.

 

The solution is twofold. Firstly to monitor and track potential terrorist cells as we do already. Secondly to address the root cause that leads people towards extremism. That is especially important due to large Muslim populations in the West.

 

Immigrant communities have issues of isolation, lack of integration, poverty, poor educational attainment, poor job prospects, linguistic barriers, cultural barriers. In addition there are currently issues due to the bombing campaigns in the middle east and the unsettlement there which is largely blamed on the USA and more widely the west.

 

Both sets of issues can be handled in different ways.

 

I can't imagine a situation where closing the borders would achieve anything except to further demonise and isolate communities.

  • Upvote 4

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Troubles were not a religious conflict. It was an aspect in the matter as most on one side were one religion and on the other another religion, but they did not become radicals because Catholicism or Protestantism. They became radicals because of perceived ethnic differences, and Nationalism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you misanalyse their reason for radicalisation. Islam as a religious movement is quite old, but the modern concept of Islamism is a recent trend. Therefore it is not logical to equate the two or see all muslims as potential Islamists.

Very recent.

 

caliph_gif.jpg

 

Do you believe the pyramids were built by aliens as well? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Bony. The OP shouldn't categorize the regressive left with the left in general. In my humble opinion, leftist/liberals are considerably less dissatisfied, but still wishing to change the system significantly. Liberals share a belief in the equality, intelligence, and competence of people. People on the left of the political spectrum revere political liberty, social change, human equality, and human rights.

 

I think regressive left are those individuals who have biased views on Islam and tend to defend any criticism towards Islam as a religion for the sake of multiculturalism. They're also known as Islam apologists. They seem to ignore the fact that Islam is no different than Christianity, an idea that have been rejected/opposed by the vast-majority of liberals.

Edited by Luckynako
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Bony. The OP shouldn't categorize the regressive left with the left in general. In my humble opinion, leftist/liberals are considerably less dissatisfied, but still wishing to change the system significantly. Liberals share a belief in the equality, intelligence, and competence of people. People on the left of the political spectrum revere political liberty, social change, human equality, and human rights.

 

I think regressive left are those individuals who have biased views on Islam and tend to defend any criticism towards Islam as a religion for the sake of multiculturalism. They're also known as Islam apologists. They seem to ignore the fact that Islam is no different than Christianity, an idea that have been long rejected/opposed by the vast-majority of liberals.

THIS!!!!

 

I agree. I'm a liberal, and these regressive liberals are ruining the Liberal name

  • Upvote 3

PoJQyFJ.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS!!!!

 

I agree. I'm a liberal, and these regressive liberals are ruining the Liberal name

 

Hello fellow liberal. I also find myself leaning towards left since I believe in those things I've mentioned above. 

 

Unfortunately, it's not only those Islam apologists whom I would define as regressive left. But also those feminazi, I think they're pursuing for woman's superiority over men instead of achieving a gender equality itself. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.