TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- There's no racist like a liberal racist
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

There's no racist like a liberal racist

The guy in the video gets it. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes liberal racism, or progressive racism, as he calls it.

Especially this paragraph.

"To summarise the "progressive" position (without the juvenile insults): "All religions have fundamentalists, and all are equally reprehensible. Singling out Islam is the same as attacking all Muslims, and that's racist. Yes, I know that technically Islam is not a race, but I've chosen to believe that your views are driven by an underlying hatred of brown-skinned people, for which I have no evidence, but I sense it from your tone, which I find unhelpful, and therefore racist in intent, so you are a racist and you ought to be arrested, la la-la la-la." Or words to that effect."

quote:

One of the few certainties in this life is that if you criticise the religion of special needs you will be called a racist by people who know perfectly well that you're not, but who don't care. These people are called "progressives". A "progressive" is what happens when a liberal goes bad. So bad, in fact, and so desperate are they to assume that you're a racist that if they can't find any evidence of it, they will actually accuse you of disguising your racism by not talking about it. I wish I was joking. Believe me, I'm not. Personally, I can stand being called ugly names by people whose opinions I don't respect but it must be hard for victims of genuine racism to see such an important word soiled and devalued like this but that is the "progressive" way. We know this now. We've learned it the hard way. We know that "progressives" occupy the high moral ground where the end always justifies the means, and, as they've shown us time and again, there is literally no limit to how low they're prepared to sink in asserting their lofty moral superiority. No lie is too great, no slur too egregious, and if not for double standards, they wouldn't have any standards. So, when they throw the word "racist" at those of us who criticise Islam, we know there's no point in arguing with them about definitions because we know they're not remotely interested in whether the word is appropriate, only in whether it will stick, and in how much damage it will do. You see, in "progressive" hands, the word "racist" has become the verbal equivalent of a chemical weapon, or a dum-dum bullet, used spitefully, disproportionately, as a first resort, and without the slightest justification. To summarise the "progressive" position (without the juvenile insults): "All religions have fundamentalists, and all are equally reprehensible. Singling out Islam is the same as attacking all Muslims, and that's racist. Yes, I know that technically Islam is not a race, but I've chosen to believe that your views are driven by an underlying hatred of brown-skinned people, for which I have no evidence, but I sense it from your tone, which I find unhelpful, and therefore racist in intent, so you are a racist and you ought to be arrested, la la-la la-la." Or words to that effect. But, you know it seems to me that the people who constantly invoke skin colour for no reason, as "progressives" do to the point of obsession, are the ones who actually have a problem with it. They see racism everywhere because they're riddled with it themselves. The patronising racism of lower expectations for non-white people is very "progressive", and has been allowed to permeate western society like an insidious slime. You can't pick up a copy of the Guardian newspaper without getting it all over your fingers. And this kind of racism gives Islam a free pass by default (and with it the misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism explicitly endorsed by Islam) because, and only because, it's a religion followed mainly by brown-skinned people. It's the brown skin that makes all the difference. "Progressives" measure a person first and foremost by the colour of their skin, and it's the brown skin that gets Islam a free pass it doesn't deserve from racists. Contrast the way "progressive" racists treat Mormons, whose beliefs are equally batshit crazy, but they'll happily condemn and ridicule them in a way they wouldn't dream of doing to Muslims and the reason is entirely to do with skin colour, as it usually is with genuine racists. You see, "progressives" don't really believe that non-white people are equal, or are capable of being equal on their own merits, but only in the way that a handicap golfer is equal - artificially. They justify this racism in historical terms that no longer exist, thus condemning non-white people to carry around the values of the past forever, and to always need compensating for the colour of their skin, which "progressives" regard as a kind of residual disability, because they're racists. Traditional liberal guilt is something we're all familiar with, and, even if we don't agree with it, we can sympathise, we can respect it as part and parcel of being civilised. But "progressives" have taken this to a whole new level, an almost religious level of toxic self-hatred, of ideological self-flagellation, a kind of Original Sin of being born into the First World, for which "progressives" can never forgive themselves, or anyone else. To the "progressive" mentality, we are all imperialist oppressors in the West, whether we want to be or not, and everything wrong with the world is our fault by default. So, when a bunch of hysterical Muslims throw a violent public tantrum because they've chosen to be offended by some ridiculous trifle, the default "progressive" racist response is to look around for any excuse not to hold them to account for their behaviour, and to find somebody to blame and call a racist for provoking them. "Progressive" journalists are eager to explain away Islamic atrocities in political or economic terms while carefully ignoring the poisonous religious beliefs that actually drive them because those poisonous beliefs make the brown people look bad, and that's terribly racist. An Islamic terrorist can stand in the street soaked in blood, quoting the Koran as justification and "progressives" won't hear it because they've decided his real motivation is hostility to western imperialism, which means we can take the blame again, thank goodness. Otherwise we'd be racists. Patronising brown-skinned people in this way is what "progressives" are all about. It's the fundamental difference between a "progressive" and a genuine liberal. It's what turns the wine to vinegar. You know, I've always had time for genuine liberals because I can see that they're motivated by a sense of decency so I can still respect them even when we disagree. But there's nothing liberal or decent about the "progressive" mentality which has shown itself to be just so morally corrupt, malodorous, and downright dishonourable that on the rare occasions I find myself agreeing with a "progressive" it's like shaking hands with a leper. And it's more than apt that these wretched people have so thoroughly taken ownership of the word "racist", what's left of it, because nobody, but nobody, wears it better. Peace, and happy racism.

lol wut?

I love this guy.

Uh I call myself a progressive and I equally chastise extremism in all forms, especially religious extremism. Doesn't matter if you are white, black, brown, yellow, or red. If you are saying/doing stupid insane shit in the name of religion then I'll consider you an idiot.

That being said there are compounding factors. There is such a thing as white privilege in the US and most western European nations, and when people hide behind the mask of religious intolerance while being white it just comes across far more petty than when someone from a religion predominately followed by people of color do also. Religious intolerance and racism often go hand in hand.

Basically? Hate everyone equally or hate no one.

So basically the crux of his argument is that racist is just something that's used as bullshit rhetoric, and then throughout the rest of his video he uses bullshit rhetoric.

"A "progressive" is what happens when a liberal goes bad."
No. Somehow I don't think you can define the difference between a progressive and a liberal (the type of liberal he's refering to wasn't specified either) in a single line like that. Let alone that line.

"You can't pick up a copy of the Guardian newspaper without getting it all over your fingers. And this kind of racism gives Islam a free pass by default (and with it the misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism explicitly endorsed by Islam) because, and only because, it's a religion followed mainly by brown-skinned people."
While maybe they might go a bit soft on it sometimes, it's more a matter of they're not in the same style as bullshit tabloids who think that the opinion of some radical cleric representing the views of 1% of the islamic population is actually news. Some of the deliberately contrarian pieces can be a bit bullshit though, no more than any other paper is but just in a different way.

" Singling out Islam is the same as attacking all Muslims, and that's racist. Yes, I know that technically Islam is not a race, but I've chosen to believe that your views are driven by an underlying hatred of brown-skinned people, for which I have no evidence, but I sense it from your tone, which I find unhelpful, and therefore racist in intent, so you are a racist and you ought to be arrested, la la-la la-la." Or words to that effect."
Taking people who actually say stupid crap like that seriously (and yes there's going to be some who do say that) doesn't make him look good it just means he's too much of a cretin to understand political movements properly. It'd be like quoting a feminist who says "all sex is rape" and then going on about how bad that makes all feminism look.

"Contrast the way "progressive" racists treat Mormons, whose beliefs are equally batshit crazy, but they'll happily condemn and ridicule them in a way they wouldn't dream of doing to Muslims and the reason is entirely to do with skin colour, as it usually is with genuine racists."
There are many ways in which the general views on those two groups is different and therefore the debate is different. For one mormons aren't viewed as general scapegoats in the same way that muslims are. They aren't generally viewed as a massive domineering threat either. This makes the assumptions in any debate involving either Islam or Mormonism fundamentally different.

Overall, some points in his argument aren't too bad but his detailed analysis is really not worth the time. I do agree that the knee jerk reaction to anyone criticizing Islam can be a bit extreme at times but his explanations for why are just false.

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherby That being said there are compounding factors. There is such a thing as white privilege in the US and most western European nations, and when people hide behind the mask of religious intolerance while being white it just comes across far more petty than when someone from a religion predominately followed by people of color do also. Religious intolerance and racism often go hand in hand.

Indeed. In many cases it's simply a matter of certain sections of the population who are particularly predisposed to this sortof racism seeing a culture that's different and then proceeding to demonize everything about that cultural because they're ignorant. At the same time as they view the language as "stupid" they view the religion as stupid and a threat. It's not always that way though.

I quit reading after rheteric.

quote:

Originally posted by Dykes_on_Jay I quit reading after rheteric.

Retrick?

quote:

Originally posted by de+

I used to think no one could be worse at promoting atheism than Richard Dawkins. Then this guy on Youtube came along

You're fortunate that in this case the term liberal doesn't have a neo prefix. Otherwise you might have to look something up on google jay.

I quit reading after posted by psyhell.

I'll take that as a compliment about the complexity of my posts.

Psyshell is an uncle tom

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I used to think no one could be worse at promoting atheism than Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins already has an answer for you.

quote:

Lira I�m an athiest but you make me ashamed to be an athiest.

quote:

Dawkins Oh dear, you�ve got me there. Devastating arguments, no come-back.

There is apparently a deep discomfort whenever Islam is criticized, which you don't see for other religions. Many would love to simply muzzle criticism of Islam. Yet these reactions show that criticism of Islam is all the more necessary.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins face a storm of rage whenever they dare to criticize Islam. Their responses (below) are great and say all that's really necessary, but their detractors are probably too clueless to comprehend them.

Response to controversy by Sam Harris

Calm reflections after a storm in a teacup by Richard Dawkins

honestly what do people expect to accomplish by posting this kind of video?

"oh look at me i'm exposing them for who they really are. and i'm so enlightened and forward thinking"


no one gives a shit.


don't most people just get tired of the back and forth pointlessness of trying to make people think like them whichever side they land on? just believe what you want to believe and enjoy life.

Showed this to my sister.

She turned into bitch mode and said "THANKS FOR WHITESPLAINING RACISM!"

"aren't you whitesplaining racism?"

"No! $@)(#@*)( %#)@"

quote:

Originally posted by de+ Dawkins already has an answer for you.

Except...

• Neither did I say I was embarrassed (I'm not);
  
• Nor did I put forth an argument;
  
• Also, it's theology, theism, and atheist, as this radical comes from the Greek word theos. If I ever say I'm embarrassed to be an "athiest", it won't be because of my irreligiosity

quote:

Originally posted by BTG Showed this to my sister. She turned into bitch mode and said "THANKS FOR WHITESPLAINING RACISM!"

Ah yes. This is very common as well

"OK, you aren�t a racist at all, but you are a bigot, giving needless hurt and offence"




How can the assertion of undeniable facts be bigotry? Should we refrain from stating uncomfortable facts for fear of giving hurt and offence? I don't think so.

There is a difference between a religion and religious ideology and the people who follow that religion. I'm not saying anything at all about all muslims. When I criticise islam, I'm criticising a religious ideology. I've criticised christianity too, especially Catholicism and the Catholic Church but the fact that there are some things that the Church has said, or even interpretations of the bible, which I don't like doesn't mean that all christians believe those things either. Attacking religions, any religion, is fair game but attacking followers of that religion just for being followers is not. For some reason though, it's only when one criticises islam that you are accused of attacking muslims for being muslims by the so-called liberals and "progressives", you are generally not accused of attacking christians for being christians if you criticise christianity (except perhaps by few fundamentalist christians but most christians don't accuse you of that).

quote:

Originally posted by de+ How can the assertion of undeniable facts be bigotry?

Through consequent intolerance of those facts?

The problem here is the vague generalisation of this whole discourse, with no real examples cited. Yes, some liberals are overly-sensitive about criticism towards Islam which can be attributed to white liberal guilt, but that doesn't mean every liberal or progressive complaint of racism is unfounded. A lot of people who say "I'm not racist, I'm just telling the truth" are actually being very racist, or at least bigoted and prejudiced. It all depends on the specific argument being put forward and the specific cry of "racism!" being made. Anyone who feels the need to blanket-dismiss any accusations of racism is probably a bit of an intolerant cunt.

For anyone who hasn't been around a few years, I'd like to point out that PKC used to be a big fan of this guy. It seems like so far he's been a bit too embarssed to post however .

quote:

Originally posted by de+ Ah yes. This is very common as well "OK, you aren�t a racist at all, but you are a bigot, giving needless hurt and offence"

That's all very nice and all but that's quite clearly not what the video said.

quote:

Originally posted by de+ by the so-called liberals and "progressives",

In fact, this line here suggests that you have a quite different view of what at least one of those two terms means to pat in the video. Get a clue please.

Look, all these bigots and racist white motherfukers only talk that shit in front of their friends or in a setting or facility where they feel safe. I used to hear that bullshit in my old job when I used to live in the Midwest in redneck Michigan. None of those pussies got balls to call a black man a ******, I've seen it said once in the Bronx, and seen this white boy get stomped the fuck out with a bunch of his teeth on the pavement.I know its different everywhere else but you talk that shit like in certain cities like NY, Chicago, Detroit, Philly and so on.. You can get killed and that's real talk.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J A lot of people who say "I'm not racist, I'm just telling the truth are actually being very racist"

The point is that the people who criticize Islam are generally not interested in skin colour. But the people who accuse them of racism often are. I don�t think skin colour has the slightest bearing on anything at all, whereas it is highly probable that childhood education in a particular religion does. Educational systems that teach boys only memorization of one particular book, and teach girls nothing at all, breed intolerance.

quote:

Anyone who feels the need to blanket-dismiss any accusations of racism is probably a bit of an intolerant cunt.

That makes no sense. If i accuse you of being a racist and you dismiss it. Are you then an intolerant cunt.?

quote:

Originally posted by de+ Ah yes. This is very common as well "OK, you aren�t a racist at all, but you are a bigot, giving needless hurt and offence"

Who was this responding to? You're not allowed to invoke Stephen Fry while vaguely cobbling together strawmen.

And if your complaint is genuinely that not all religions are effectively criticized equally (...ok?) then you're clearly ignoring the fact that not a single one of them exists in a vacuum. Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world, and its aggregation (sects notwithstanding) encompasses a wealth -for lack of a better word- of developing nations.

I like Pat Condell a lot, but neither he nor I shall ever truly know what it is to be an immigrant in race, culture, and nationality. 'Why don't Muslims react the same way to adversity as Christians do?' Well they're fucking different people from fucking discrete hegemonies, for starters. Most everything else has to do with burgeoning naturalization and subsequent economic inequality; add a little deity jizz to the mix and you're bound to make a stout cocktail for cray.

This is not at all to excuse Islam for its many trespasses. Any culture that interprets its sacred books as jurisprudence is going to have plenty to answer for from any adequately enlightened society. But the whole 'I could not possibly be a racist because what I am saying is apodictic!' is beyond dull.

quote:

Originally posted by de+ The point is that the people who criticize Islam are generally not interested in skin colour. But the people who accuse them of racism often are.

Those are two very large and very inaccurate generalisations. There's a hell of a lot of people who are anti-Islamic, and empirically speaking a lot of those people are blatantly racist. And since we even have the buzzword "Islamophobia" now, a fair percentage of those arguing back aren't even using the term "racism". It's a broad canvass of opinion with many different variations on the theme. Your eagerness to play down the sins of one side and play up those of the other is disconcerting.

But really, it strikes me that your whole point boils down to a fairly pedantic definition of "racism" - that it must concern skin colour. The whole idea of a "race" is fairly arbitrary and constructed, and it could easily be argued that the cultural formulation of a given "race" revolves as much around culture and religion as it does physical appearance. Which is why a lot of people use "racist" quite loosely to describe many forms of bigotry and discrimination against those with differing cultural/ethnic backgrounds. So triumphantly bellowing "Ah, but Islam is a religion not a race, therefore you must be projecting and I win I win I win!" is a most flimsy and sophist rebuke.

quote:

That makes no sense. If i accuse you of being a racist and you dismiss it. Are you then an intolerant cunt.?

No, because that isn't a blanket dismissal. If you make a specific objection of racism towards a particular opinion of mine I would address it point-by-point. I wouldn't sweep up you and everyone with a vaguely similar political ideology into some tortured category and come up with a shitty dollar-book Freud explanation for your objection based on a feeble piece of semantic hair-splitting.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.