Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Political Correctness

117 replies to this topic
SophistiKat
  • SophistiKat

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2016
  • Switzerland

#31

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:54 AM

China murders tens of thousands of Falun Gong prisoners...

 

It begs the question why so much time and effort is dedicated to addressing moral and ethical ills perpetrated in Muslim societies when the same ills prepeated elsewhere are roundly ignored.

Because those same moral and ethical ills are brought into Europe thanks to migration.  :rol:

Cologne on New Year's Eve, anyone?

 

Also, the Chinese government isn't using religious scripture or divinity to justify persecution.

They just do what all communist regimes have done > brutal suppression of those who feel they threaten the Party's monopoly of power.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#32

Posted 08 August 2016 - 11:44 AM

It happened again last week after that Somali stabbed 5 people in London.

Sorry, but this just ridiculous. Absolutely no evidence exists to corroborate the assertion that this incident had anything to do with Islamic extremism. We don't even know if the perpetrator was a Muslim; you've just assumed he is because he's of Somali heritage.

Comments like this are a perfect demonstration of the double standards employed by people of your political persuasion. It's perfectly acceptable, in your eyes, to label an event as a religiously motivated attack even when there is literally not a scrap of empirical evidence to corroborate this; yet anyone who dares suggest there might be a better explanation is instantly dismissed as "PC police". It's hilarious, because about three posts ago I described this exact behaviour; abandoning logic, rationality and empiricism to engage in pathetic attempts to try and discredit people who object to your poisonous narrative on the grounds of its complete lack of factual accuracy.

Sorry, but it's blinkered, hypocritical groupthink wankery and extreme cognitive bias.
 

Basically authorities deploy all efforts to distance jihad from its native ties to islam itself.

This is laughable fantasy. Huge swathes of the mainstream press and political figures in fact do the exact opposite, address the issue of extremism solely as a religious phenomenon without any understanding of contextual factors or the fact that Islamism is inherently- in fact, by definition- as much a political movement as it is a religious one.
 

But an Austrian psychiatrist finally calls them out on this issue:

Wow, the opinion of one Austrian man as represented by a right-wing media outlet. I'm converted!

Because those same moral and ethical ills are brought into Europe thanks to migration.

Way to totally miss the point I was making. I can't think of a single moral or ethical ill apparently imported by Muslims which doesn't already exist in Western societies. Can you?
 

Also, the Chinese government isn't using religious scripture or divinity to justify persecution.

And? Surely it doesn't matter how these actions are justified, just that they take place?

They just do what all communist regimes have done

China isn't Communist.

As an aside, please learn to use the edit button rather than double posting.
  • Tchuck likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#33

Posted 08 August 2016 - 03:00 PM

 

Basically authorities deploy all efforts to distance jihad from its native ties to islam itself.

 

This is laughable fantasy. Huge swathes of the mainstream press and political figures in fact do the exact opposite, address the issue of extremism solely as a religious phenomenon without any understanding of contextual factors or the fact that Islamism is inherently- in fact, by definition- as much a political movement as it is a religious one.

 

The mainstream press has found a way to circumvent the issue by redefenining 'terrorist' as 'Islamic extremist'. Because 'terrorist' has started meaning 'Islamic extremist' they don't need to mention Islam at all. And in more recent cases we found the media sometimes also cares more about race than religion, branding any 'violent Middle Easterner' as a terrorist. 

 

But when there is a white terrorist, like the person who murdered Jo Cox, Karst Tates who drove his car into a group of people on Queens Day, and many others, they don't get called terrorists. They get called 'murderers'. But these are details our right wing friends seem to systematically miss.

  • Tchuck and sivispacem like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#34

Posted 08 August 2016 - 03:14 PM

Too right; funny to see how everyone stopped referring to the Munich mass shooting as a terrorist attack once it became publicly known that the killer idolised Anders Brevhik.

Right after those same media outlets had begun inferring it was an Islamist terrorist attack after they found out he was Iranian too.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#35

Posted 08 August 2016 - 03:43 PM

I think the largest joke here is, again, there's no 'PC movement' or centralized 'PC police' department. 'Political Correctness' is a tool used to shame idiots and bigots. It is a tool wielded by all manner of pundits and speakers; there's no single agenda to object to.

Aside from just generally not being a massive dink, adhering to your local PC norms is a handy way to be kind to those around you. If you want to run around abusing language, like equating terrorism to 'islamism' or whatever, that's your idiotic prerogative. But when you are - rightly - called out for this idiocy, don't blame 'political correctness'. That's a diversion you're using to avoid addressing the criticism.

Political correctness is just a pop culture derogatory label for what we should all aim for - decency. Do some people bend over backwards in an effort to be decent? Yes. Does this undermine the concept of decency? Of course not.

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#36

Posted 08 August 2016 - 04:56 PM

There is no middle ground, Otter. If you are not the first to cry Islamic terrorism whenever something like this happens, you are in bed with the terrorist.

While I realise I am creating a strawman, I just object to the whole suggestion of ignoring an investigation into the perpetrators. Mental illness could definitely be an explanation for a lot of these attacks, particular those in the West that involve at most one person. In one way or another.

But when an attack occurs, there is no reward for being the first to cry 'Islamic terrorism'. So why bother?

ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#37

Posted 08 August 2016 - 05:01 PM

 

Do you think that criticizing the poor treatment of women or of the killing of gays in Islamic societies is controversial?

No, but I think criticising Islamic societies for these actions when they're also prevalent outside of the Islamic world and don't go unchallenged by the critic there is pretty absurd. It's hardly some kind of exceptionalism, so why the emphasis on Islam as a root cause? It's pretty typical for people to use rights issues as a vehicle to attack Islam whilst maintaining a wilful ignorance to the same issues elsewhere.

I mean, everyone rants and raves about the treatment of religious minorities in Islamist societies but decide to selectively ignore the fact China murders tens of thousands of Falun Gong prisoners a year simply so they can harvest their organs. Attempting to hold Islamic societies to a set of ethical tenets that you refuse to apply elsewhere is pure hypocrisy.

It depends on what you're talking about. It's true that there are other places in the world (e.g. Uganda) where homosexuals are treated poorly or even killed for instance but things like murdering apostates is pretty much unique to Islamic societies (or disproportionately prevalent there) and done for religious motives.

 

Which is a problem that's contained there and there's probably nothing we can do about it. Islamism and terrorism are spreading and actually harming the rest of the world. I think Harris' ultimate concern is about terrorist regimes getting their hands on long range nuclear weapons. This changes everything because clearly these people are not only not afraid to die but they think it's an honor to die in defense of their faith.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#38

Posted 08 August 2016 - 05:10 PM

The concept of a "terrorist regime" is oxymoronic. A regime requires a state, and states cannot be terrorists by most definitions.

Murders because of accused apostasy or other religious factors are not at all unique to Islam. They occur frequently in Christian sub-Saharan African states under the guise of attacks on witches, and also take place in poor states of India. Particular as part of the wider rural conflict between Hindus and Sikhs.

I also think you dramatically overestimate the amount of violence related to apostasy which takes place in the wider Muslim world. And how much of the alleged "apostasy" is simply a justification for tribal or family conflict.

ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#39

Posted 08 August 2016 - 05:25 PM

Tell that to Chomsky. You can replace the word "regime" with organization then.

 

I kinda already acknowledged that. I think that the reason people tend to focus more on Islam is that these other places you mention don't tend to produce suicidal maniacs that are a threat for the rest of the world. I guess in a way it is selfish to be more concerned about something that might immediately affect you but it is also increasingly more relevant given the frequency of these attacks. Also, if you're a public figure chances are that you put yourself at a much greater risk for criticizing Islam than any other religion no matter where you live in the world. Widespread outrage among Muslims regarding religious cartoons or parodies is also disproportionate.


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#40

Posted 08 August 2016 - 05:29 PM

Considering that 'state terrorism' is a term, I suppose there are some oxymoron terms that try to describe something rather unusual in the easiest way possible. After all, isn't language here to serve humans rather than itself?

Regardless, something like ISIS is more like a proto-state, whose primary source of authority is fear, intimidation and - well - terrorist acts. Not really the recipe for a regime to last for a long time. I think history has some evidence for this.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#41

Posted 08 August 2016 - 06:01 PM

The US does recognize "state sponsors of international terrorism", but it is true the US definition excludes states themselves from being terrorist. So states can be 'sponsors of terrorism' but not actually 'terrorist'.


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#42

Posted 08 August 2016 - 06:04 PM

So what do we call it when a state's military deliberately and knowingly attack non-military targets?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#43

Posted 08 August 2016 - 06:10 PM

Tell that to Chomsky.

Gladly, given he's not exactly an expert on the subject.
 

I think that the reason people tend to focus more on Islam is that these other places you mention don't tend to produce suicidal maniacs that are a threat for the rest of the world.

That's neither here nor there, really. Radical Islamism is a violent political ideology loosely related to Islam, in the same way that the Christian Identity movement is a violent political ideology loosely related to Christianity. Regressively boiling down discussion to whose got the biggest body count rather misses the point; if you're going to do thst, you might as well declare war on drunk drivers and wasps.
 

it is also increasingly more relevant given the frequency of these attacks.

This is not quite true. In France, where we've seen the majority of recent incidents, the frequency violence being perpetrated still doesn't come close to that perpetrated by Islamist groups seeking to strike back at the imperial powers fighting popular resistance in Algeria. More generally, this isn't close to the level of violence perpetrated across wider Europe by Marxist-Leninist urban guerrillas or by right-wing parallel state organisations set up by Gladio. Or for that matter Irish Republicanism and the overspill of that sectarian conflict.

In the cases of Belgium and France it is rather a case of chickens coming home to roost. Both have a sordid history with North African descended citizens and migrants; rounding them into effective ghettos, institutionalised discrimination, grinding poverty, police harassment. Given their social and economic circumstances the high levels of radicalisation are far from surprising.

As an aside, don't even get me started on Switzerland. They didn't even have women's suffrage until 1991. People talk about sexist policies in the Islamic world...
 

Widespread outrage among Muslims regarding religious cartoons or parodies is also disproportionate.

It's disproportionate from a Western cultural perspective, but entirely expected to anyone whose actually spent time studying Islamic culture. The absence of any Islamic enlightenment, which is at least partially down to historical imperialism, plays a significant part in this, as does the relative poverty of most Muslim majority countries. It's no coincidence that the wealthiest and economically liberal Muslim states don't seem to be exporters or sufferers of these problems to anything like the degrees that poorer, economically authoritarian ones are.
 

So what do we call it when a state's military deliberately and knowingly attack non-military targets?

A war crime? Technically, that's what it is. Terrorism cannot be a war crime as terrorists are not bound by the laws of war, due to not being states.
  • Tchuck and ΣΓ like this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#44

Posted 08 August 2016 - 06:23 PM

So what do we call it when a state's military deliberately and knowingly attack non-military targets?

A war crime or a crime against humanity.


Sir Michael
  • Sir Michael

    Taking a break.

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2013
  • United-States

#45

Posted 08 August 2016 - 09:41 PM Edited by Sir Michael, 08 August 2016 - 09:41 PM.

@Svip, those are war crimes. After WWII, attacking cities, towns, villages, and any situation where civilians are victims of immoral acts would be considered a war crime. Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter goes into detail about these scenarios:

 

 

ARTICLE 6

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. 
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:


(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.  Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

© Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, 14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

 

Going off those definitions, a number of those airstrikes in Syria, the hospitals especially, can fit into 6(b) and/or 6(c ). I'm not aware of any trials happening, so I'm assuming the attacks were claimed to be militarily strategic and brushed off as "collateral damage."


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#46

Posted 08 August 2016 - 09:44 PM Edited by El Diablo, 08 August 2016 - 09:51 PM.

so this thread is completely off topic...

you might as well merge every post after the OP into the existing Middle East thread.

 

we're not discussing the concept of political correctness.

we're arguing semantics of Islam. again.

 

I'm just going to ignore everything above me and take this back to the topic of PC.
because it's starting to get where we can't have it both ways. for instance, sexual violence against women? evil, heinous, no laughing matter, no rape jokes, blah blah blah. sexual violence against men? hilarious! they probably deserved it! men are pigs!

 

 

can't have it both ways, ladies.

sometimes I feel like political correctness is actually hurting our ability to have objective debates on very sensitive topics like race and sexuality. I think people need to be able to call a Spade a Spade in public space without the fear of being fired or being forced to apologize. but lately the world has gotten so hyper offensive, people feel like they have the right to not be offended... which of course is not a right. people overhear something that offends them - even if they're not the target audience - and assume they have the right to complain and protest.

 

Liberals do this a lot with certain topics.

we shoot ourselves in the foot too often, striving for perfection (which is impossible) instead of harmony. we call out someone for tripping up and saying "fag" when there was clearly nothing malicious behind the use of the word. language is a living and breathing thing. it is not static and denotations are constantly evolving. the language police are hurting our national discourse and it's usually coming more from the fringe Left than the Right.

  • Eutyphro, Carbonox, Triple Vacuum Seal and 5 others like this

SophistiKat
  • SophistiKat

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2016
  • Switzerland

#47

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:06 PM

Political correctness is just a pop culture derogatory label for what we should all aim for - decency. Do some people bend over backwards in an effort to be decent? Yes. Does this undermine the concept of decency? Of course not.

I don't know if you're engaging in propaganda or you're just another otter that's been brainwashed by socialism.

 

It's actually an insult to decency to equate it to political correctness. 

There is nothing decent about political correctness:

How the language police are perverting liberalism

 

Keep in mind this is a LIBERAL speaking out against PC culture.

To resume, in case you lack the willingness or time to read the article, he highlights the encroachment of "social justice" obsession into the realms of journalism and academia/science.

PC is, at its core, a way to paint the world in terms that don’t tell the whole story. It shifts words around to make sure there are victims or dangers depending on the needs of the narrative.

 

Bonus material:

“I don’t like words that hide the truth. I don’t like words that conceal reality. I don’t like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. ‘Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation.”George Carlin

  • MakeAmericaGreatAgain likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#48

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:14 PM

I don't agree with otters idea that we should all self evidently adhere to 'decency'. Decency is incredibly subjective. Some fundamentalist Muslims think it it is indecent for a woman to drive a car. In a free society people should accept that others might say or do things that offend them, that they find indecent. As long as the way you are expressing yourself doesn't directly cause violence or some other type of concrete damage then you should be free to do so. Sometimes it is important that powerful institutions or ideologies are ridiculed in an indecent way. That's the role of comedians in our society.

So decency is not a fair standard. What is a fair standard is that damaging the interests of others by discrimination is not oke. Political correctness though is a real thing. For any power group in society there is a range of truths that they rather not hear. And people in positions of power censor themselves not to tell such truths. It's just sad political correctness as an issue has been hijacked by groups that are bigoted.


SophistiKat
  • SophistiKat

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2016
  • Switzerland

#49

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:32 PM

we call out someone for tripping up and saying "fag" when there was clearly nothing malicious behind the use of the word.

Of course the hetero male sees no harm in saying fag, there's just so much affection in that word.

We also can't accuse Paula Deen of malicious intent when she used that very tender term: n*gger.

 

Cut the crap, Devil. 

If someone enjoys employing racial or homophobic slurs, they're clearly racist/homophobic, and it's their right to hold that position, but they shouldn't try to shrug it behind pathetic excuses or comedy.

  • MakeAmericaGreatAgain likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#50

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:49 PM

sorry for the pun but it's not that black and white.

 

someone who employs a racial epithet might do so for a variety of reasons in different context.

it doesn't "clearly" make them anything.

 

grow up.

  • Bartleby and Mr. Fartenhate like this

SophistiKat
  • SophistiKat

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2016
  • Switzerland

#51

Posted 08 August 2016 - 11:13 PM

Learn how to read. I stated "if someone ENJOYS employing slurs"...

There aren't that many situations where the use of a racial epithet would be deemed acceptable.

  • MakeAmericaGreatAgain likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#52

Posted 08 August 2016 - 11:18 PM

You can't first cite George Carlin and then go on to argue against offensive language. Pick a f*cking side.

  • Mr. Fartenhate likes this

SophistiKat
  • SophistiKat

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2016
  • Switzerland

#53

Posted 08 August 2016 - 11:35 PM Edited by SophistiKat, 08 August 2016 - 11:37 PM.

As I said earlier, I'm not denying one's right to make use of offensive words. 

But at the same time I can't just accept for that same person to try to ennoble racial slurs under the guise of comedy or whatever.

  • MakeAmericaGreatAgain likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Aruba

#54

Posted 08 August 2016 - 11:49 PM

 

But at the same time I can't just accept for that same person to try to ennoble racial slurs under the guise of comedy or whatever.

 

Says the guy who just called me a goatf*cker because he thought I was a muslim. Jesus, you are such an immense dumbass.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#55

Posted 09 August 2016 - 12:52 AM

There aren't that many situations where the use of a racial epithet would be deemed acceptable.

deemed acceptable by who??

 

have you ever seen stand up comedy?

have you ever watched a rated R movie?

have you ever listened to uncensored music?

have you ever had a drink with some friends and just talked off the cuff?

 

political correctness has its place up to a point. it's part of decency, part etiquette.

but there's plenty of situations in which people discuss social or racial issues that don't require being politically correct. I know plenty of black people who - for instance - hate the term African American and would much rather just be called black. but I wouldn't begrudge a black person who preferred to be called African American. it shouldn't be a big deal either way.

 

we're not talking about the obvious cases.

we're not talking about someone yelling "n*gger" or physically beating up a gay person. we all know when someone is clearly in the wrong. we all know when someone is being an overt bigot. but this isn't where the discussion lies. the discussion lies between those obvious situations. we need to apply a lot more patience to the gray areas and look more carefully at the contexts.

  • Eutyphro, Triple Vacuum Seal, Mr. Fartenhate and 1 other like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#56

Posted 09 August 2016 - 01:10 AM

Sophistrycat, did you deliberately ignore my initial sentiment? That 'PC' is a label that any f*ckwit can apply to a situation he feels, not a 'movement' with any agency behind it whatsoever?

 

It's futile to argue against 'PC' because it's a boogeyman. A strawman. A political cartoon of a raging lefty college kid. It's sidestepping one's sh*tty behavior without addressing the harm. It's using 'political correctness' as a euphemism, to invoke your Carlin quote there.

 

 

 

...oh. Just saw you were temp banned for being a racist fool in another thread. Well, PC run amok, I tell you. ;)

  • sivispacem and Mr. Fartenhate like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#57

Posted 09 August 2016 - 01:52 AM

Regardless, something like ISIS is more like a proto-state, whose primary source of authority is fear, intimidation and - well - terrorist acts. Not really the recipe for a regime to last for a long time. I think history has some evidence for this.

A proto-state is indeed a gang of thugs terrorising everyone. This is how all states come about if they don't develop independently from a tribal society.


Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#58

Posted 09 August 2016 - 02:29 AM Edited by Melchior, 09 August 2016 - 02:30 AM.

people feel like they have the right to not be offended... which of course is not a right. people overhear something that offends them - even if they're not the target audience - and assume they have the right to complain and protest.

I don't get the use of the term 'offended.' I'm offended by how historians treat the Middle Ages, I'm offended by the Japanese having Western weddings and speaking gibberish English because they think it's cool. Public figures with destructive politics are completely different. I'd see Rush Limbaugh put up against the wall and shot, not because he offends me. 

 

EDIT: double post woops

  • El Diablo and Eris like this

Piggsy pls
  • Piggsy pls

    pls

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2013
  • United-States

#59

Posted 09 August 2016 - 11:46 PM

See, my problem with the anti-PC crowd is that many of them cry when anyone disputes their dumbass opinions. They literally do the exact same thing they complain about others doing; just as calling someone a bigot is an easy way out of a discussion/debate, the same is true for calling someone an SJW.

Your right to have an opinion does not also mean you have the right to not be challenged.
  • Melchior, gta dad, Mr. Fartenhate and 1 other like this

Zook
  • Zook

    Banter

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008
  • United-Kingdom

#60

Posted 17 August 2016 - 06:03 PM

The great irony is, of course, that the counterproductive views and actions of these kinds of people are to a great degree what drives Islamic extremism. It's hardly a secret that societies in which Muslims are ostracised, rounded up into ghettos, subject to police harassment and denied job opportunities are those that have the biggest problems with extremism- just look at France.

 

Do you know anywhere I can read more on the experience and treatment of Muslims in France and the link to extremism?

Thank you ;)

  • sivispacem likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users