Jump to content
Clarke

The Regressive Left

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Yeah, poverty affects all races. As I've said before, there are more (by number not proportion) poor whites than blacks. Racism isn't a causation of white poverty, tho.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 find it rather disturbing every time I see an argument that if you make Muslims mad then some will try to kill you.  Doesn't make me feel that safe at all if "criticizing Islam or Muslims" causes terrorism.  The problem isn't with the criticism but the thin skinned nature of the criticized.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, poverty affects all races. As I've said before, there are more (by number not proportion) poor whites than blacks. Racism isn't a causation of white poverty, tho.

 

And it is for blacks? It's true there is a higher proportion of them in these troubles but I don't believe equating it to "racism" is fair nor useful. If I had to say what it really comes down to on why there are more of them by proportion that are poor, criminal, and so forth it would be their sub culture. It has all the negative problems the main culture has but amplified. So they commit more crimes and get arrested more as a result which isn't exactly good when they later have to find a job. Education is also an issue of course but considering affirmative action (odd that a racist policy is what is served up as a solution) has given all of zero so that certainly isn't the way to fix the problem. It's very simple to say it's just racism and even more affirmative action of some sort will fix things but I disagree. 

 

I find it rather disturbing every time I see an argument that if you make Muslims mad then some will try to kill you.  Doesn't make me feel that safe at all if "criticizing Islam or Muslims" causes terrorism.  The problem isn't with the criticism but the thin skinned nature of the criticized.

 

I actually disagree with this. It's true there are Muslim hustlers who play up the "we're very offended over minor things" bit, however they'd be utterly irrelevant if the Regressives/Liberals/so forth didn't throw a fit every time a tiny bit of criticism goes towards Muslims. So I'd say it's the regressives who are thin skinned and some of the nastier Muslims take advantage. Take them out of the equation and I'm sure we'd find Muslims perfectly reasonable and those in the west would quickly start moving to a far more liberal stance on things as Conservative Muslims will no longer have their white knights to protect them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually disagree with this. It's true there are Muslim hustlers who play up the "we're very offended over minor things" bit, however they'd be utterly irrelevant if the Regressives/Liberals/so forth didn't throw a fit every time a tiny bit of criticism goes towards Muslims. So I'd say it's the regressives who are thin skinned and some of the nastier Muslims take advantage. Take them out of the equation and I'm sure we'd find Muslims perfectly reasonable and those in the west would quickly start moving to a far more liberal stance on things as Conservative Muslims will no longer have their white knights to protect them. 

Well I don't really think its Muslims themselves who use this ridiculous line for the most part no.  It is the regressive left who spouts this nonsense for the most part, got to use this line of reasoning as a way to censor those who would criticize Islam.  Regressives need to reflexively protect anyone outside of the cis white male category after all so of course Muslims will fall under the "dindu nuffin" in all circumstances.  I actually see them as a sort of vanguard of the Muslims, they give the actions of the Islamists and terrorists cover by decrying everything that comes even close to criticism as "islamophobic".  I'm less optimistic about the Muslims themselves though, rather frightening numbers support suicide bombing, Sharia law, outlawing homosexuality, subjugating women etc.  Not just Muslims in Pakistan either but British Muslims.  I do not have much confidence in assimilation especially with the insane European idea of multiculturalism.  Not a coincidence that rapes and all other crimes are going up in the past couple years.  Of course that brings us back to the regressives giving them cover by actually covering up their crimes out of fear of sparking bigotry.  As an American it makes me rather relieved that I'm away from this insanity... at least for now.

 

Maybe not directly relevant but I need an excuse to post this so here ;)

 

Edited by Jaime Lannister
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't really think its Muslims themselves who use this ridiculous line for the most part no.  It is the regressive left who spouts this nonsense for the most part, got to use this line of reasoning as a way to censor those who would criticize Islam.  Regressives need to reflexively protect anyone outside of the cis white male category after all so of course Muslims will fall under the "dindu nuffin" in all circumstances.  I actually see them as a sort of vanguard of the Muslims, they give the actions of the Islamists and terrorists cover by decrying everything that comes even close to criticism as "islamophobic".  I'm less optimistic about the Muslims themselves though, rather frightening numbers support suicide bombing, Sharia law, outlawing homosexuality, subjugating women etc.  Not just Muslims in Pakistan either but British Muslims.  I do not have much confidence in assimilation especially with the insane European idea of multiculturalism.  Not a coincidence that rapes and all other crimes are going up in the past couple years.  Of course that brings us back to the regressives giving them cover by actually covering up their crimes out of fear of sparking bigotry.  As an American it makes me rather relieved that I'm away from this insanity... at least for now.

 

I agree with you on the cover bit certainly.

 

Remove their white knights from the equation and bring down the ridiculous multiculturalism and we'll be golden I'm confident. It's certainly true a lot of Muslims hold very nasty views but thats because they can safely hold them due to their white knights. Take their protection away and the Conservative Muslims will quickly lose power as other Muslims either simply become (well reveal themselves really) more liberal or leave the faith outright, something most are not quite able to do right now. I've tried to raise the plight of apostates up here several times but people like Spite surprise surprise immediately come in to defend Muslims which is how it goes in RL too. When the faith is allowed to bleed in numbers heavily (and it would if the white knights didn't protect it) those left will have to try and modernise to survive and they and those who have left the faith will integrate into the nationalities of the country at last. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS!!!!

 

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

^ this

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on the cover bit certainly.

 

Remove their white knights from the equation and bring down the ridiculous multiculturalism and we'll be golden I'm confident. It's certainly true a lot of Muslims hold very nasty views but thats because they can safely hold them due to their white knights. Take their protection away and the Conservative Muslims will quickly lose power as other Muslims either simply become (well reveal themselves really) more liberal or leave the faith outright, something most are not quite able to do right now. I've tried to raise the plight of apostates up here several times but people like Spite surprise surprise immediately come in to defend Muslims which is how it goes in RL too. When the faith is allowed to bleed in numbers heavily (and it would if the white knights didn't protect it) those left will have to try and modernise to survive and they and those who have left the faith will integrate into the nationalities of the country at last. 

I can agree with this, if Muslims were held to the same standards as everyone else than they wouldn't be able to maintain such beliefs as modern law wouldn't allow it and without their regressive left defenders this would be much easier.  Would certainly be a boon for Muslims themselves who will be able to assimilate into mainstream culture without such strong backlash from within their own insular community.  I'm not sure if regressives will be sent into retreat anytime soon though, if anything they are growing stronger especially in universities.  I think it will take a few more tragedies to occur before the people finally stir and kick these types out of power without concern of being called a bigot.  Hopefully.

Edited by Jaime Lannister
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with this, if Muslims were held to the same standards as everyone else than they wouldn't be able to maintain such beliefs as modern law wouldn't allow it and without their regressive left defenders this would be much easier.  Would certainly be a boon for Muslims themselves who will be able to assimilate into mainstream culture without such strong backlash from within their own insular community.  I'm not sure if regressives will be sent into retreat anytime soon though, if anything they are growing stronger especially in universities.  I think it will take a few more tragedies to occur before the people finally stir and kick these types out of power without concern of being called a bigot.  Hopefully.

 

I'm hopeful for the future myself and we're very much in agreement on this.

 

Regressives are able to get away with it because politicians are either in agreement with them or too cowardly to oppose them. Trump is the talked about one right now but Le Pen and Wilders for a couple of other names are also significant. All three will laugh off any whining from the regressive camp and successes in those countries will no doubt translate to increased support for similar parties/politicians in other states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@OP

You really shouldn't categorize the regressive left with "the left in general."

The issue is the regressive left is backed up by the left, ultimately to take down the regressives you can't cut off their head because their head has no logic and will spew out nonsense endlessly. The only way to take it out is to remove its support structures. 
That doesn't mean abusing blissfully ignorant leftists about the error of their ways, it can be actually quite easy to red pill them as long as they can think critically. 

 

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.

 

 

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. 

Being Regressive is more than just about Islam, its a lot about being unequal in race and sex which is the not liberal at all. The issue arises when the general left supports those unequal views on race, sex and religion and others. Being on the left and being liberal don't go hand in hand even for most people on the left, they most likely have some regressive view that adds to the problem. The left evidently isn't about intelligence since it blocks intelligent conversations almost everywhere except certain places on the internet. 

 

An example of normal leftist is not understanding why blacks in America are arrested more for minor crimes since logic and intelligence has abandoned them, they call racism when it can in fact be explained very simply with clear and precise logic.

Black people commit serious crimes more frequently based on the portion of the population they represent and thus criminals are monitored more in those areas resulting in the catching of more minor crimes.

Issues like that is part of the problem with the left, they have a poor use of logic. 

Edited by Lightning

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Alright, but the question remains: Who let the regressive left into the clubhouse in the first place? And why has it taken "safe spaces," "trigger warnings," "speech codes," and "islam apologists" before anyone actually spoke up about the problem? If we're honest, the truth is that, "the left in general" embraced those same ideas until it figured out that it wasn't politically viable at this point in time. If there was no blowback against "the regressive left" then why should anyone believe that, "the left in general," would still be rejecting it after embracing and trumpeting it for the past twenty years?

 

Perhaps "the left in general" just didn't recognize the wolves in sheep's clothing. God knows the alt-right has fallen over for Trump in much the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is the regressive left is backed up by the left, ultimately to take down the regressives you can't cut off their head because their head has no logic and will spew out nonsense endlessly. The only way to take it out is to remove its support structures. 

That doesn't mean abusing blissfully ignorant leftists about the error of their ways, it can be actually quite easy to red pill them as long as they can think critically. 

 

Being Regressive is more than just about Islam, its a lot about being unequal in race and sex which is the not liberal at all. The issue arises when the general left supports those unequal views on race, sex and religion and others. Being on the left and being liberal don't go hand in hand even for most people on the left, they most likely have some regressive view that adds to the problem. The left evidently isn't about intelligence since it blocks intelligent conversations almost everywhere except certain places on the internet. 

 

An example of normal leftist is not understanding why blacks in America are arrested more for minor crimes since logic and intelligence has abandoned them, they call racism when it can in fact be explained very simply with clear and precise logic.

Black people commit serious crimes more frequently based on the portion of the population they represent and thus criminals are monitored more in those areas resulting in the catching of more minor crimes.

Issues like that is part of the problem with the left, they have a poor use of logic. 

 

POLICE KILLINGS OF UNARMED AMERICANS
A study by a University of California, Davis professor found “evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average.†Additionally, the analysis found that “there is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.â€
 
HOW POLICE DETERMINE WHOM TO STOP
The Department of Justice’s investigation into the behavior of police in Ferguson, Missouri, found “a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law.†The scathing report found that the department was targeting black residents and treating them as revenue streams for the city by striving to continually increase the money brought in through fees and fines. “Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority,†the report’s authors wrote. “They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence.â€
 
“African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search,†the authors wrote. Nearly 90 percent of documented uses of force by the Ferguson Police Department were used on African-Americans, and every documented use of a police canine bite involved African-Americans.

 

RACE AND THE USE OF NONLETHAL FORCE

A 2016 study by a team of professors from U.C.L.A., Harvard, Portland State University, and Boston University analyzed suspects’ booking photographs for phenotypical signs of whiteness to test the following hypothesis: “the Whiter one appears, the more the suspect will be protected from police force.†Their findings: “police used less force with highly stereotypical Whites, and this protective effect was stronger than the effect for non-Whites.â€

 

WHEN OFF-DUTY OFFICERS ARE KILLED BY POLICE

A 2010 governor’s task force examining police-on-police shootings found even black and Latino police officers face a greater risk of being killed by police. In cases of mistaken identity, 9 out of the 10 off-duty officers killed by other officers in the United States since 1982 were black or Latino. “Inherent or [subconscious] racial bias plays a role in ‘shoot/don’t-shoot’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities,†the report found.

 

FINDINGS ON THE USE OF HANDCUFFS
A Stanford study of police practices in Oakland, California, found that officers were disproportionally handcuffing blacks. “Regardless of the area of the city, disproportionate treatment by race was similar and the raw totals were stunning,†according to a Washington Post summary of the findings. The Post continues: “2,890 African Americans handcuffed but not arrested in a 13-month period, while only 193 whites were cuffed. When Oakland officers pulled over a vehicle but didn’t arrest anyone, 72 white people were handcuffed, while 1,466 African Americans were restrained.†The researchers also found significant differences in the way officers spoke to African Americans: “Using only the words an officer uses during a traffic stop, we can predict whether that [officer] is talking to a black person or a white person†with 66 percent accuracy.

 

In a nutshell, I think Americans need to acknowledge the problems within their police forces before jumping into a conclusion and saying or/and giving further arguments on this issue. Americans could only fix the problems and offer solutions regarding this issue if they had succeeded to acknowledge the root of the problems itself. Otherwise, Americans would only be debating the same old issue without any real progress been made in the meantime. 

 

Alright, but the question remains: Who let the regressive left into the clubhouse in the first place? And why has it taken "safe spaces," "trigger warnings," "speech codes," and "islam apologists" before anyone actually spoke up about the problem? If we're honest, the truth is that, "the left in general" embraced those same ideas until it figured out that it wasn't politically viable at this point in time. If there was no blowback against "the regressive left" then why should anyone believe that, "the left in general," would still be rejecting it after embracing and trumpeting it for the past twenty years?

 

Perhaps "the left in general" just didn't recognize the wolves in sheep's clothing. God knows the alt-right has fallen over for Trump in much the same way.

 

Let's say there will always be "the misguided" individuals in each group. And the regressive left are the ones of them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very recent.

 

caliph_gif.jpg

 

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

 

As Big Brother said, this is largely irrelevant. The Caliphate weren't islamists, they were a Muslim Empire. Islamism as a political doctrine has it's ideological roots in wahabbism and didn't emerge as a major political force until the time of the Taliban & Islamic revolution in Iran.

 

I find it rather disturbing every time I see an argument that if you make Muslims mad then some will try to kill you.  Doesn't make me feel that safe at all if "criticizing Islam or Muslims" causes terrorism.  The problem isn't with the criticism but the thin skinned nature of the criticized.

 

I think if you make any group mad enough they will try to fight back, and a minority of that fighting will be violent. Of course the more you shit on any particular group, the more likely they are to fight back, leading right up to violent rebellion. All those civil wars in history usually started with a disaffected group in society or some sort of massive societal conflict which couldn't be resolved diplomatically. Solution is to be diplomatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think if you make any group mad enough they will try to fight back, and a minority of that fighting will be violent. Of course the more you shit on any particular group, the more likely they are to fight back, leading right up to violent rebellion. All those civil wars in history usually started with a disaffected group in society or some sort of massive societal conflict which couldn't be resolved diplomatically. Solution is to be diplomatic.

As we can clearly see with all the recent Christian Fundamentalists all around the world blowing up government and social institutions.

We cannot deny that Christianity is a punching bag for many people and nations, but I do not see people getting butchered for putting Jesus in a comic strip or disproving the belief, or let alone rejecting the belief. Even putting American Christianity aside, the faith is very tame today in its apologetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

POLICE KILLINGS OF UNARMED AMERICANS
A study by a University of California, Davis professor found “evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average.†Additionally, the analysis found that “there is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates.â€
 
HOW POLICE DETERMINE WHOM TO STOP
The Department of Justice’s investigation into the behavior of police in Ferguson, Missouri, found “a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law.†The scathing report found that the department was targeting black residents and treating them as revenue streams for the city by striving to continually increase the money brought in through fees and fines. “Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority,†the report’s authors wrote. “They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence.â€
 
“African Americans are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops even after controlling for non-race based variables such as the reason the vehicle stop was initiated, but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search,†the authors wrote. Nearly 90 percent of documented uses of force by the Ferguson Police Department were used on African-Americans, and every documented use of a police canine bite involved African-Americans.

 

RACE AND THE USE OF NONLETHAL FORCE

A 2016 study by a team of professors from U.C.L.A., Harvard, Portland State University, and Boston University analyzed suspects’ booking photographs for phenotypical signs of whiteness to test the following hypothesis: “the Whiter one appears, the more the suspect will be protected from police force.†Their findings: “police used less force with highly stereotypical Whites, and this protective effect was stronger than the effect for non-Whites.â€

 

WHEN OFF-DUTY OFFICERS ARE KILLED BY POLICE

A 2010 governor’s task force examining police-on-police shootings found even black and Latino police officers face a greater risk of being killed by police. In cases of mistaken identity, 9 out of the 10 off-duty officers killed by other officers in the United States since 1982 were black or Latino. “Inherent or [subconscious] racial bias plays a role in ‘shoot/don’t-shoot’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities,†the report found.

 

FINDINGS ON THE USE OF HANDCUFFS
A Stanford study of police practices in Oakland, California, found that officers were disproportionally handcuffing blacks. “Regardless of the area of the city, disproportionate treatment by race was similar and the raw totals were stunning,†according to a Washington Post summary of the findings. The Post continues: “2,890 African Americans handcuffed but not arrested in a 13-month period, while only 193 whites were cuffed. When Oakland officers pulled over a vehicle but didn’t arrest anyone, 72 white people were handcuffed, while 1,466 African Americans were restrained.†The researchers also found significant differences in the way officers spoke to African Americans: “Using only the words an officer uses during a traffic stop, we can predict whether that [officer] is talking to a black person or a white person†with 66 percent accuracy.

 

In a nutshell, I think Americans need to acknowledge the problems within their police forces before jumping into a conclusion and saying or/and giving further arguments on this issue. Americans could only fix the problems and offer solutions regarding this issue if they had succeeded to acknowledge the root of the problems itself. Otherwise, Americans would only be debating the same old issue without any real progress been made in the meantime. 

 

 

None of them points really answered that logic which explains itself quite well. Additionally I recall white Americans are killed at higher rate than blacks based on the amount that is criminal involved so white criminals are more likely to be killed. You can't really expect the fact that blacks commit crimes at a much greater rate and thus reap the rewards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we can clearly see with all the recent Christian Fundamentalists all around the world blowing up government and social institutions.

We cannot deny that Christianity is a punching bag for many people and nations, but I do not see people getting butchered for putting Jesus in a comic strip or disproving the belief, or let alone rejecting the belief. Even putting American Christianity aside, the faith is very tame today in its apologetics.

 

In the West Christians are the majority and a privileged majority, with a history of dominance and power behind them. In countries where Christians have historically been a discriminated minority they do have a history of armed rebellion against the majority. If you don't recognise that I suggest you go look it up.

With regard to the putting Jesus in a comic, that's comparing apples with oranges. In Islam making images of the prophet is very bad. In Christianity there is no such prohibition against creating images of Jesus.

 

It is all in context too - a cartoon in itself isn't going to piss anyone off (including 99% of muslims). But against a background of widespread discrimination, it can come across as kicking a man when he's down. I think nobody would think that the kind of pictures produced about japanese people in ww2 or blacks before that are acceptable anymore, so there is a history of cartoons being banned. Examples:

Seuss02.jpg

hqdefault.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the West Christians are the majority and a privileged majority, with a history of dominance and power behind them.

Privileged how?

 

 

In countries where Christians have historically been a discriminated minority they do have a history of armed rebellion against the majority. If you don't recognise that I suggest you go look it up.

I don't even know where to begin on that, can you give maybe 5 examples. 

 

 

With regard to the putting Jesus in a comic, that's comparing apples with oranges. In Islam making images of the prophet is very bad. In Christianity there is no such prohibition against creating images of Jesus.

I doubt Christianity would have allowed the mocking of Jesus or God, you certainly can't use their names in vain so its no entirely different. The major different is one religion has massive amount of inbreds with low IQ's that will kill you for doing so.

 

 

It is all in context too - a cartoon in itself isn't going to piss anyone off (including 99% of muslims). But against a background of widespread discrimination, it can come across as kicking a man when he's down. I think nobody would think that the kind of pictures produced about japanese people in ww2 or blacks before that are acceptable anymore, so there is a history of cartoons being banned. Examples:

 

Lol discrimination, Muslims are getting it too easy. They have control of dozens of shit countries their religion makes crap and no one bats and eye but god save us if a few feel oppressed in the west because their death cult is rubbing people the wrong way when it produces inbred gangs of rapists and murders. 

Edited by Lightning
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the West Christians are the majority and a privileged majority, with a history of dominance and power behind them. In countries where Christians have historically been a discriminated minority they do have a history of armed rebellion against the majority. If you don't recognise that I suggest you go look it up.

With regard to the putting Jesus in a comic, that's comparing apples with oranges. In Islam making images of the prophet is very bad. In Christianity there is no such prohibition against creating images of Jesus.

 

It is all in context too - a cartoon in itself isn't going to piss anyone off (including 99% of muslims). But against a background of widespread discrimination, it can come across as kicking a man when he's down. I think nobody would think that the kind of pictures produced about japanese people in ww2 or blacks before that are acceptable anymore, so there is a history of cartoons being banned. Examples:

I was using the Cartoon comment generally as something construed in the Islamic faith which is an absurdity. Bill Maher explains a solid defense of where many stand:

 

Now yes, you do have a point about historical Christianity and terrorism, risen rebellion. However in the last two hundred years it is miniscule compared to other religious resistance.

But, in one case, I completely agree with lumping the KKK up to their loss of relevance by the majority in the 1930's as a Christian terrorist organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't waste your words on a kid with the emotional maturity of a fetus, Spite.

Your country is included on that crap list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically Islam has tried to invade Europe and did invade and take over North Africa and the middle east, your "rebellion" could be considered merely reclaiming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the West Christians are the majority and a privileged majority, with a history of dominance and power behind them. In countries where Christians have historically been a discriminated minority they do have a history of armed rebellion against the majority. If you don't recognise that I suggest you go look it up.

With regard to the putting Jesus in a comic, that's comparing apples with oranges. In Islam making images of the prophet is very bad. In Christianity there is no such prohibition against creating images of Jesus.

 

It is all in context too - a cartoon in itself isn't going to piss anyone off (including 99% of muslims). But against a background of widespread discrimination, it can come across as kicking a man when he's down. I think nobody would think that the kind of pictures produced about japanese people in ww2 or blacks before that are acceptable anymore, so there is a history of cartoons being banned. Examples:

 

Incorrect. Nationals are the so called privileged majority, not Christians. These days large parts (if not majority) of said Nationals in western countries are Atheists even so trying to make the two synonymous is bunk.

 

This ain't the middle ages. What a religion sees as bad is and should be quite irrelevant and you know this but will only allow it for Islam quite clearly. You may call that tolerance, but I call it fear. 

 

"Widespread discrimination"? Is Islam treated like Christianity and made fun off in the mainstream? Does Islam's apostates get given protection like Christianity's? We can go on. 

Edited by Rozalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your country is included on that crap list. 

 

If you were born in any of those countries with the same mindset, you would be one of the Allahusnackbar-spouting Islamofascists with all this hatred for people who are not like you.

 

On the other hand, I do consider Turkey crappy myself, and see Islam (along with all other religions) diseases that mankind must eventually outgrow. This doesn't mean, however, that I will turn a blind eye to ethnic fascists generalizing the crimes of a few to millions, and calling innocent people "gangs of murderers and rapists."

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.