Does the Alt-Right event exist? Or just Clinton fiction?

[Karamaru]

Islam gets treated with kid gloves and the lefties undying solidarity with them, above all other constituencies is rather disturbing IMHO.

Wich is odd considering Islam is politically really far right wing.

But we should really study Islam as a political science rather than a religious one.

[JohnBrown1917]

Wich is odd considering Islam is politically really far right wing.

But we should really study Islam as a political science rather than a religious one.

Its not like islam has multiple sects or anything.

- - - Updated - - -

So how long untill people in this thread start claiming Europa also has sharia zones?

[RickJamesLich]

Wich is odd considering Islam is politically really far right wing.

But we should really study Islam as a political science rather than a religious one.

The left has to appeal to minorities, even if the minorities point of view does not align with theirs. That's how they get their votes.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on issues. Both sides like to ignore facts that would turn the news article into what it really happend. Let's remember how most "cop kills black person" stories get reported in the mainstream liberal news outlets: demonizing the cop, interview with the deceased's mother that tells everyone "he was a good boy", ignoring the ongoing inquery and or verdict, etc.

Pratisan news are like your personal singer, they sing to you what you want to hear because you pay them. If you hate cops and think they murder black suspects because of racism you will read liberal media articles. If you think the there is a white genocide in US you read right-wing media. And so on...smart people read them both and know when to ignore a propaganda piece and when the article is valid.

Endus isn't Hell Boy, but if he was, those two bumps on his head wouldn't be from him shaving down his horns. Rather they'd be from the champagne bottles that people have been banging on his head this entire thread lol.

[Endus]

The left has to appeal to minorities, even if the minorities point of view does not align with theirs. That's how they get their votes.

This is malarkey.

To pick a specific issue, let's consider Saudi Arabia. They're a Muslim nation. Nobody on "the left" (as if that were a hive mind, or something, no less) feels any need to give Saudi Arabia a "pass" on human rights abuses, or the like. We take serious issue with them. But that's an issue with the political leadership of that specific country. If you want to talk about Iran, same deal.

Nobody has any issue with that. When you start claiming that all Muslims are part of some global conspiracy to take over "the West", you're just engaging in ludicrous hate speech, and it's no different in any appreciable respect from antisemitic arguments about Zionist control of the world. Or when you take the views of terrorists, and claim that they're inherently Muslim and all Muslims secretly believe that. Or whatever. That is what we take issue with.

Not because we're "left-wing". Because prejudice is irrational and wrongheaded.

[Deleted]

Holy fuck that guy looks hilarious.

[Deleted]

@Djalil - the reports still show crimes increasing though, which was the point.

Sharia courts existing and becoming more numerous was the point, I tried to concede early that the extent of their influence isn't well understood and by understood I mean actually investigated - the review in that article is still to come I believe.

With regards to censorship, I think we must concede that any real criticism of it is unlikely to come from within due to that nature of what we're discussing, so third party reviews must be considered. Which is what I tried to provide there, the first provides first hand experience in it, the second shows actual incidents of it occurring in a 'live feed' manner with sources on each, the last was just to illustrate how quickly the media will lambaste people trying to critically inspect Islam which I think is arguably indirect censorship though admittedly a weak one it's not something I think we should brush aside.

Crimes increase as population increases.
Sharia courts with no legal power are basically a club of lads doing stuff.
I don't see the link between what you posted and censorship. Bill maher is free to speak his extreme mind freely, and so are others. There are all sorts of media for everyone. Gatestone institute still talks, and so does... I don't know whatever similar rubbish but on the opposite side is called.
We don't need a third party telling us there is or isnt censorship. There is no censorship.

[Theodarzna]

Its not like islam has multiple sects or anything.

- - - Updated - - -

So how long untill people in this thread start claiming Europa also has sharia zones?

Perhaps, but let us ask, why are so many of the worlds nation states that have Islamic majorities also have the sharia as a fully endorsed legal code by the state?

- - - Updated - - -

Wich is odd considering Islam is politically really far right wing.

But we should really study Islam as a political science rather than a religious one.

It absolutely should be.

After all, their prophet wasn't just some desert mystic, he rules as an earthly King and had descendants.

[Nirya]

Crimes increase as population increases.

It would do you good to stop lying. An increase in crime through just population increase should follow a curve that's proportional to the population increase. What is however seen is a non-proportional increase that exceeds the expected increase if it was just a population increase. It points to that many more of those that are coming are criminals than among the natives.

[RickJamesLich]

This is malarkey.

To pick a specific issue, let's consider Saudi Arabia. They're a Muslim nation. Nobody on "the left" (as if that were a hive mind, or something, no less) feels any need to give Saudi Arabia a "pass" on human rights abuses, or the like. We take serious issue with them. But that's an issue with the political leadership of that specific country. If you want to talk about Iran, same deal.

Nobody has any issue with that. When you start claiming that all Muslims are part of some global conspiracy to take over "the West", you're just engaging in ludicrous hate speech, and it's no different in any appreciable respect from antisemitic arguments about Zionist control of the world. Or when you take the views of terrorists, and claim that they're inherently Muslim and all Muslims secretly believe that. Or whatever. That is what we take issue with.

Not because we're "left-wing". Because prejudice is irrational and wrongheaded.

We don't need to go any further than Hillary Clinton to see clear as day examples, from "We must bring them to heel" to now taking aim at the cops. She voted for the secure fence act (hundreds of miles of fencing along our borders), but now is against "the wall" lol. Maybe because of the cost of the concrete? I dunno.

As for muslims themselves I think it's pretty clear that only a very very small percentage of people think they are trying to "take over the West". Rather people are concerned about bringing them in to the US because of the rampant human rights issues being committed. Human rights violations that we rarely hear from the left on. Nobody thinks all muslims for example want to kill gay people, but we see it is a regular custom in many areas of the world and is perfectly legal, and don't think we should introduce this type of ideology to America, even if it's only in small doses.

If prejudice is irrational and wrong headed, why are we only seeing the left criticize one demographic in regards to this? I'm assuming it must be the invalid train of thought that "only white males are prejudice" - is it not?

[Deleted]

What also needs to be mentioned is that Islamic adherents uniquely will try to murder you for criticizing their religion.

The actor who played Jesus in Passion of the Christ does not need police protection, But if Ben Afleck played Muhammad in a movie? He would probably be dead in a year.

Why would he be dead in a year?

[BannedForViews]

This is malarkey.

To pick a specific issue, let's consider Saudi Arabia. They're a Muslim nation. Nobody on "the left" (as if that were a hive mind, or something, no less) feels any need to give Saudi Arabia a "pass" on human rights abuses, or the like. We take serious issue with them. But that's an issue with the political leadership of that specific country. If you want to talk about Iran, same deal.

Nobody has any issue with that. When you start claiming that all Muslims are part of some global conspiracy to take over "the West", you're just engaging in ludicrous hate speech, and it's no different in any appreciable respect from antisemitic arguments about Zionist control of the world. Or when you take the views of terrorists, and claim that they're inherently Muslim and all Muslims secretly believe that. Or whatever. That is what we take issue with.

Not because we're "left-wing". Because prejudice is irrational and wrongheaded.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/05/ir...ca-and-israel/

Iran actually does want to take over the West.

[nextormento]

I like how they are a hivemind but not us.

[Spectral]

Why would he be dead in a year?

Muslims have a habit of trying to kill people that depict the prophet in art. I suppose this could be thwarted by security, but one would expect a depiction of Muhammad to be met with the Rushdie, Westergaard, or Theo Van Gogh treatment.

[JohnBrown1917]

Perhaps, but let us ask, why are so many of the worlds nation states that have Islamic majorities also have the sharia as a fully endorsed legal code by the state?

I don't know, or care.

[Spectral]

I don't know, or care.

It is an impolite thing to think about, let alone mention, so I can see why you'd take that position.

[Deleted]

Muslims have a habit of trying to kill people that depict the prophet in art. I suppose this could be thwarted by security, but one would expect a depiction of Muhammad to be met with the Rushdie, Westergaard, or Theo Van Gogh treatment.

I find that the kind of stereotypical scaremongering characteristic of this group.

[Spectral]

I find that the kind of stereotypical scaremongering characteristic of this group.

These are all words I recognize, but I'm not able to parse this as anything other than a feeble whine.

[Wulfey]

I hope someone posted this earlier, but the Alt-Right definitelly exists. Here are some comments by Trump's campaign chief / CEO of Breitbart:

"We're the platform for the alt-right," Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago. Under Bannon's leadership, the site has plunged into the fever swamps of conservatism, cheering white nationalist groups as an "eclectic mix of renegades," accusing President Barack Obama of importing "more hating Muslims," and waging an incessant war against the purveyors of "political correctness."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...breitbart-news

[Deleted]

These are all words I recognize, but I'm not able to parse this as anything other than a feeble whine.

You don't think the claim "the actor that will interpret Mohammed will be dead in a year", is pure scaremongering?
Curios.

[Endus]

As for muslims themselves I think it's pretty clear that only a very very small percentage of people think they are trying to "take over the West". Rather people are concerned about bringing them in to the US because of the rampant human rights issues being committed. Human rights violations that we rarely hear from the left on.

For two complementary reasons, among others;

1> People on the left are talking about those issues, and working to resolve them, but you don't hear about them because you're not actually trying to look into whether or not they are, and you're just presuming the silence you generate by plugging your ears is ACTUAL silence.

2> For the most part, we're talking about things that most people agree about. So it's like asking why people aren't debating whether or not child porn is a problem or not. Of course it is. That lack of debate doesn't mean it's not a concern, it means it's not disputed that it's a concern.

Case in point; here's Hillary Clinton supporting a push for women's rights in Saudi Arabia; https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...female-drivers You just don't see this bandied around, because it's not a big newsmaker; the big issue there was that she didn't want to create an international incident by officially backing this push as a representative of the USA, because that would be seen as the USA sowing sedition in a foreign country or the like. There was never any surprise that she supported that cause.

If prejudice is irrational and wrong headed, why are we only seeing the left criticize one demographic in regards to this? I'm assuming it must be the invalid train of thought that "only white males are prejudice" - is it not?

Again, this is you self-selecting what you're looking at. Unless the "demographic" that you're describing is, with regards to anti-Muslim rhetoric, the "demographic" of islamophobes.

I'll freely criticize Bill Maher's positions on Islam (and Christianity, for that matter), and have many times just here on these forums. It doesn't matter that he self-describes as a "liberal" or whatever. You're inventing this idea that this is partisan out of nothing. Islamophobia and such shouldn't be a partisan dividing line. It shouldn't be accepted by either platform. Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided to, over the past 16 years or so, lean towards that in their own platform and rhetoric. In general, at least; there are individuals within the Republican Party and certainly Republican voters who don't share those particular views.