It is so Orwellian to claim nothing Orwellian happens.
It is so Orwellian to claim nothing Orwellian happens.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
Ironically, were Orwell around today he could probably make a solid run as an authoritarian dictator himself, given how many idiots cling to his novels like scripture while failing completely to understand their basic premise.
Your question is irrelevant, your true question is how you can exert your feeling of superiority in your chosen faith over others by pointing out the flaws of their religion while conveniently ignoring those in your own. In the probably likely event you are an atheist then you are, by the nature of your question, likely a religious atheist possibly of a militant sort. Either way the question you pose is rethoric and not meant to be answered.
Not really.
What's happening is that the aristocrats control the media. The aristocrats greatest fear is the middle class and poor rising up to overthrow them. So they use the media to pit the middle class vs the poor. A common tactic is to highlight any instances of racism or intolerance found in the middle class in order to smear their character. Meanwhile, they avoid highlight this among the aristocrats. This gives the false impression that the aristocrats are just better people in general and divert the anger of the poor towards the middle class instead of the aristocrats.
So when happens is the poor (rightfully) start out by being angry at the aristocrats for being left behind. Instead of fixing the problem, the aristocrats use the media to create straw men like Archie Bunker. And then the poor watch TV until they hate Bunker and by get duped into hating the middle class. Then the aristocrats hand themselves awards for creating the straw man of Archie Bunker because it successfully confused the poor into hating some other segment of society.
If you pay attention long enough to politics, you begin to notice that opinions get you ostracized only if they begin to lead people to not hate the middle class. All middle class values and symbols are redefined as racist and hateful, and they try to make the middle class feel shame.
This has actually been going on for centuries. Its how the aristocrats stay in power.
rich: (hauls wheelbarrows of money to the bank)
poor: I'm getting nowhere in life and the rich have it all! not fair!
rich: the middle class is racist! You should watch the Colbert Report. That will show you who to hate!
poor: huh?
( watches colbert report )
poor: I'm voting for the aristocrats! the middle class is evil!!!
rich: yes! (hauls wheelbarrows of money to the bank).
Last edited by Grummgug; 2016-08-23 at 07:32 AM.
Where do you get sedition?
Regardless, they were not punished for sedition.
Yes, Right-wing though is said to be illegal, No Orwellian overtones here no."Also, do not distance themselves with such a group precisely by the refugees. The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background. "
No it isnt.
The question was:Which is simple, you cant.How do you express dissapproval with certain Islam commandments without resorting to derogatory aggressive manner?
Questioning someone's deeply held beliefs will hurt that person.
There is no way to avoid being superior (because you are telling them they are wrong).
You cant avoid offending them (because you are telling them they are wrong).
You cant avoid being 'aggressive' (because you are telling them they are wrong).
"Religous" i guess, some atheists think they must preach their atheism and force it on others, that they must be on a constant jihad/crusade/something war against the idea of belief, knitpick in every little detail of other peoples beliefs as if somehow other peoples beliefs invalidates their non belief in a god or pantheon.
- - - Updated - - -
Your definition of coward is lacking.
I am however rude as you correctly assess which was counter to intent. I appologize
Funny.
Ok admittedly i am doing in a way what others are doing here
A subset of atheists act in a certain way and claim atheism is the reason and i take that at face value and descibe them as religious atheists (because dogmatic is boring)
It is no different than those who see a subset of Muslims acting in a certain way claiming Islam as the reason and take that as a quality of Islam.
Reason Western Nations are becoming more Orwellian is due to Terrorisim.
Now Country spy agencies check communications from a lot of individuals who may pose a risk to the country.
And this is where I agree with Trumpy in checking out Muslim people from certain Arab countries .
If we dont check out certain people thoroughly as they enter the country, and they start to do silly terrorist things.
Then our liberties will further erode.
Denying the Holocaust should not be against the law - that's the entire point. It's an opinion, and to be countered by facts and reason, not jail.
To jail someone for an opinion is the point of the post, the west is becoming more Orwellian. Clearly that is true.
- - - Updated - - -
Have you actually read the arguments, weighed them up against the opposing arguments, then rejected them?
I suspect not.
Difference being that you won't find much, if any, resistance to atheist subcategories. That "subset acting in a certain way" is the antitheists.
Whereas attempts to corner on subsets of Islam "acting in a certain way" are met with every kind of excuse:
Radical Islam: why would you want to stress on Islam? radicals are bad in every faith.
Jihadists: Jihad only means struggle; it's a normal thing.
ISIS: they're not true Muslims, despite them and other members of the faith identifying them as such
So, in the face of people who refuse to sub-categorize, it's treated as a blob. Thus we get the "religion of peace" bit as both a way to erase their sins, and a way to mock the dishonesty (btw, that forbidden here, which is hilarious). Or they request Muslims being granularly scrutinized down to the individual; which is radically stupid: because their condition of Muslim-hood is a community thing.
While, yes, some Muslims are prosecuted for the mischief of others, and there's a significant amount of xenophobia, this level of protection is borderline absurd.
And very much Orwelian in that it pretends to direct behaviour through language, in the same manner that the Minitrue revisioned history, or the Minipax ensured that words of violence stopped having meaning: the party puts forth the idea that constant war is waged and understood as a means to protect the peace (because war elicits patriotic sentiment, a national devotion, which keep the people in check, and peaceful).
But yes, other than that resistance to analysis, it's no different. The irony should not escape anyone: equating Islam with violence is just as Orwelian.
Last edited by nextormento; 2016-08-23 at 09:55 AM.
In other words the regressive left has failed and now its time for tears.
So lets blame the big bad establishment
There is the sad paradox of a world which is more and more sensitive about being politically correct, almost to the point of ridicule, yet does not wish to acknowledge or to respect believers’ faith in God