|
There's no racist like a liberal racist
|
View this Thread in Original format
| de+ |
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 bat 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. |
|
|
|
| Weatherby |
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 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. |
|
|
| Psyshell |
So basically the crux of his argument is that racist is just something that's used as bull rhetoric, and then throughout the rest of his video he uses bull 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 bull 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 bull 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 bat 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. |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| I quit reading after rheteric. |
|
|
| Lira |
| 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 :( |
|
|
| Psyshell |
| 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. |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| I quit reading after posted by psyhell. |
|
|
| Psyshell |
| I'll take that as a compliment about the complexity of my posts. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| Psyshell is an uncle tom |
|
|
| de+ |
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
