Why the alt-left is a problem, too

[Derived Absurdity]

lmao

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/ ... -a-problem

[Cassius Clay]

Not well-written(it's basically written for people who already think it's a problem), but there is a real issue that needs to be unpacked. I'm less comfortable with the rhetorical power of "alt-left" now that alt-right basically equals Nazi...but there is a significant, insidious, self-sabotaging portion of the Left that is cultish in it's strict adherence to theory(seeming to lack humanity and real-world common sense), that values blind/inhuman collectivism, and/or not as committed to human/civil rights as they may pretend to be. And because of that, they are often useful-fucking-idiots for the far-right. And as long as seemingly decent Leftists keep smugly denying the existence of these assholes, or keep disingenuously pretending criticism of the "alt-left" is meant for all the Left(or that it is merely "centrist" false equivalence, when the argument is much more nuanced than that), then they are guilty of also being useful idiots by not holding their fellow "Leftists" accountable and providing cover to a destructive segment of the Left.

This kind of shit is "alt-left": http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... /#comments

This article is filled with all kinds of fucked up analysis and assertions, but one of the fundamental patterns I've noticed in this type of thinking is the belief that the collective goal is more important than an individual's humanity/freedom/choice. That whenever there is a conflict between "theory" and an individual's rights/humanity, that theory should take priority...that it's okay to throw the individual under the bus for "the cause". For example, she doesn't respect a transgender person's right to choose when she perceives it as reinforcing the "gender binary". The arrogance of that. These type of people need to be purged.

[Anakin McFly]

One thing that always strikes me abut those type of articles is that while the huge controversial thing they're describing isn't necessarily transphobic (just cisnormative), their analysis, strawpeople arguments and conclusions definitely are.

and holy shit:

There are boys who are born with male reproductive organs but whose bodies cannot absorb androgen (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), a male sex hormone similar to testosterone. Their bodies convert the androgen into estrogen, and so when puberty hits, these young boys can often grow breasts. In these cases, sex-reassignment surgeries, mastectomies, and hormone treatments make obvious sense.

Androgen is not 'similar to testosterone', it's an umbrella term for male sex hormones including testosterone. People with AIS have female gender identities far more often than male. In cases of complete AIS, they identify as girls almost 100% of the time. Their bodies develop phenotypically and anatomically female (the only 'male reproductive organs' they have are undeveloped testes, not penii), they look completely like girls, are raised as girls, are hormonally female, and often look and behave more feminine than average due to the complete absence of testosterone. These are super girly girls who go through their lives assuming they're just late bloomers until they go for a fertility test and break down crying because their doctor tells them they're "really a man". To refer to these as "young boys" and suggest that it makes "obvious sense" for those people to then undergo sexual reassignment surgery to male - while withholding it from trans men who actually desire it - makes me want to smash things.

Not to mention that the whole point of AIS is that they can't process testosterone, which makes hormone treatments completely useless. wtf is this person.

That was when I gave up reading that article.

My problem is less with placing the collective goal over people (I think there may be situations where that's tough but justified - e.g. if sacrificing one will save a thousand lives), but the fact that the theory her goal is based on is completely wrong, and whatever small vague benefits may be obtained fall far short of the extreme harm incurred.

[Anakin McFly]

Came across this article claiming that hoop earrings are cultural appropriation: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ropriation

This is honestly the very first time I've heard of that, or that hoop earrings are seen as 'ethnic'; is this something that's common knowledge in the US?

I'm also wondering if there is ever moral justification for not adhering to requests from marginalized groups. On one hand if people say something is offensive, it's not right to keep doing that or insist it's not offensive if you're part of the privileged group, but at the same time it feels there should be a line (you can't please everyone, requests may be contradictory, etc), especially when it comes to complaints not shared by most members of that group who may not even be aware something could be offensive. (But if it's indeed common knowledge that hoop earrings are a black/brown women thing, that's a separate matter.)

[phe_de]

Came across this article claiming that hoop earrings are cultural appropriation: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ropriation

Wow.
If I wore earrings, I'd consider wearing hoop earrings right now, just to piss Martinez off.
And I'm also visualizing throwing old Samsung smartphones and tablets at her.

That might be a waste of smartphones and tablets; but allowing people who complain about cultural appropriation to breathe might be a waste of oxygen.

Just kidding about the last part. Without those complainers the world would be less amusing.

[Cassius Clay]

One thing that always strikes me abut those type of articles

Didn't realize you were Canadian.

Came across this article claiming that hoop earrings are cultural appropriation: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ropriation

This is honestly the very first time I've heard of that, or that hoop earrings are seen as 'ethnic'; is this something that's common knowledge in the US?

I'm also wondering if there is ever moral justification for not adhering to requests from marginalized groups. On one hand if people say something is offensive, it's not right to keep doing that or insist it's not offensive if you're part of the privileged group, but at the same time it feels there should be a line (you can't please everyone, requests may be contradictory, etc), especially when it comes to complaints not shared by most members of that group who may not even be aware something could be offensive. (But if it's indeed common knowledge that hoop earrings are a black/brown women thing, that's a separate matter.)

I want to clarify what seems to be a common misconception aboot what "alt-left" means. I suspect you may have posted this article here because you see it as a possible example of an extreme leftist position. Alt-left doesn't merely mean extreme* Left. I have no issue with radical/extreme Leftists...or radical feminists or whatever. But, there are certain inconsistencies, attitudes and patterns of thought/belief that are specific to "alt-leftists". Extreme anti-Americanism is one of these attitudes...not every alt-leftist necessarily has that attitude, but it's a common one that overlaps/works in tandem with other alt-left attitudes. There's a quote I like that goes something like: "to be a nationalist is to blindly believe your country is the greatest, to be a patriot is to believe it should be better and work for it." Alt-leftists often seem to prefer that America burn to the ground, rather than work to change it: "the US is always wrong no matter what...so there's no reason to fight for it in a battle for it's soul and direction...just let it burn. And Julian Assange, the white supremacist, rapist coward can do no wrong in his quest to take down the US." Bernie bros and beckys are alt-left to me(or, at least, useful idiots for the alt-left) because, even though they may not have explicit anti-American attitudes, they will throw a tantrum and let everything burn to the ground because they didn't get to take over the Dem party, or get everything they wanted. So, you have these clusters of attitudes/beliefs that aren't all identical, but they overlap or work together to form this alt-left rot. You know who else is self-destructive enough to let America burn to the ground in order to get their way? Right-wing jackasses that elected Trump and his cabinet...and the GOP that's willing to risk selling America out for their agendas.

There's a somewhat prominent, internet Leftist named Jason Unruhe that I started paying close attention to a couple years back because I was seeing some very weird shit from him and his followers. It was this motherfucker that began to open my eyes to this dangerous, seemingly unchallenged growing rot on the Left. He had a lot of typical Leftist critique of US imperialism, capitalism, and police racism that I obviously agreed with. But he also whined a lot about "identity politics" getting in the way of Leftist progress because it was "divisive". And I would often see racist shit go unchallenged in the comments of his videos. He initially supported BLM, but eventually turned against it because he claimed it had been co-opted by capitalist interests or some shit...sounding very similar to right-wing conspiracy theories involving George Soros. Over time, I noticed he was getting bolder and bolder about his anti-identity politics stance, due to the support he was getting from his racist, leftist followers....he started straight up making anti-identity politics videos that sounded like racist dogwhistles. But, back to my original point about anti-Americanism...I realized this dude was a ghoul when he posted a video celebrating 9/11(which, apparently, he does every year)...and his followers love it. Because, since the US has caused a lot of death and suffering in the world, it's completely fine to celebrate the death and suffering of US citizens. "The cause" is more important than human life. And of course this ghoul promoted the ridiculous notion that Hillary and Trump were no different because capitalism. Because cultish commitment to anti-capitalism is all that matters.

Anyway, I may use this thread to begin listing and giving examples, as they come to me, of the common attitudes/beliefs that define the alt-left. Because that shit is somewhat difficult to pin down, especially when you're trying to explain it to disingenuous people who arrogantly act like gatekeepers of the Left and are more interested in protecting the Leftist brand/image than to be honest about a real problem in their ranks. And that's why I'm starting to take issue with the broader "Left"(not in theory, but in practice...which is another important distinction they dishonestly conflate)...because many treat leftism as if it's a core identity...rather than just political beliefs and values...so they take any criticism of the left very personally and derail potentially important critiques.

* In fact, "centrists" are often useful idiots themselves for the right...when they critique "extremism" for it's own sake and draw false equivalences(or claim radical/extreme demands make the right wingers more extreme in response). That is a legitimate critique leftists have of centrists, but a lot of them a currently using that critique dishonestly.

[Anakin McFly]

I'll be in Canada visiting/retrieving my brother in April, so this is practice!

Because, since the US has caused a lot of death and suffering in the world, it's completely fine to celebrate the death and suffering of US citizens.

Ah, okay. Those people.

[Derived Absurdity]

Wow, my ears are burning so much right now. So how much of of all this do you think applies to me specifically? 'Cause I generally agree with everything you said, but I want to expand on some of it and I don't really want to do that without knowing first exactly what your position when it comes to me is here.

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah...cool your ears down. I'd say most doesn't apply to you.

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, since you called me a brocialist recently, I don't think that assumption was unwarranted.

Also, "most", lol. What does, then?

[Cassius Clay]

The part where you want Americans dead...

Edit: To clarify something(and maybe this isn't a relevant distinction), I didn't outright call you a brocialist...it's more like you're flirting with brocialism...even though you've criticized it. Which is part of my frustrating with the broader left. The Left generally isn't "alt-left"...but there's a lot of flirting going on. The rot from the alt-left is seeping out.

[Derived Absurdity]

oh

[Cassius Clay]

Recently saw a leftist insist that you can be on the left even if you hate blacks/gays/women/etc...as long as you believe everyone deserves equal rights. That's alt-left bs. But, I suspect that there are many on the broader left who secretly believe this on some level(or lack introspection because they haven't been challenged on these beliefs). That's why it seems part of the goal is to form a broader coalition and reach out to racists/sexist/homophobes. Because class is the priority. But, they fail to appreciate that they will push minorities away as they reach out to hateful people...they are basically prioritizing the hateful over minorities.

And I'm starting to feel like there are a lot of "leftists" who are in it for the "us vs them" tribalism of it...like it's a fucking adventure. And they want to reach out to racists because it's like they paternalistically see themselves as Neo in the matrix waking up the plugged in sheeple by showing them the truth...reaching out to the racist sheep and showing them the light. But they're too dumb or arrogant to consider that the racist WWC are actually Cypher in the matrix: they don't want to wake up and they will fuck everything up to get back in. When a major part of your sense of self-esteem is built on a lie of racial superiority...it's going to be very difficult to get you to abandon that and form an anti-capitalist coalition with truth-tellers.

The other thing is that I suspect a lot of white leftists and liberals see themselves in the racists on the right. That's why they keep framing them in an absurdly sympathetic light, and why they believe they can be reached(and because they have racist family and friends). It's 2017 and white, left twitter is still having debates over "ironic" bigotry. A prominent, racist, white leftist dude has been tweeting a lot a racist and offensive shit "ironically" for years and is just now getting called on it. Turns out that many respected internet "leftists" are friendly with this asshole. Lots of leftist people jumped to his defense..and a lot of alt-right folks did the same. A leftist woman made a very powerful point: basically saying "you people can't even stand up to your own friends/family and hold them accountable, yet you fantasize about revolution." And there it is...I would rather have white people challenging their racist friends and family, rather than playing at revolution by trying to build a fucked up coalition...reaching out to racist strangers. They can't even STAND UP TO THEIR OWN FUCKING FAMILIES...yet they want to do revolution. It's a fucking game to these people. And they have the balls to mock some Dems for trying to make incremental progress wherever they can. Thinking about this fills me with pure rage....I'm terribly vexed.

[Anakin McFly]

Recently saw a leftist insist that you can be on the left even if you hate blacks/gays/women/etc...as long as you believe everyone deserves equal rights. That's alt-left bs.

I've seen a version of this along the lines of: it's okay if you have prejudices as long as you make it a point not to act on them, and/or work for equal rights regardless. It's a similar principle as "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"; this would be "I may not like people like you, but I'll fight for your rights and your freedom to live with dignity". While this obviously isn't the best, I think there's some value in it as an interim solution given how hard it can be to eradicate one's long-held prejudices. Beliefs are hard to change overnight, but actions are much more malleable and can eventually influence beliefs.

[Cassius Clay]

It's not about policing people's inner worlds. I don't have a problem with people acknowledging their bigotry as long as their working on it. The point is that you don't get to use anti-black racial abuse, but claim you're an ally because you believe in my rights. You don't get to revel in your bigotry while claiming to fight for my rights. It's duplicitous and toxic. I will build no coalition with such people.

[Anakin McFly]

Yeah, that's different. I agree there.

[vnufeld]

The other thing is that I suspect a lot of white leftists and liberals see themselves in the racists on the right. That's why they keep framing them in an absurdly sympathetic light, and why they believe they can be reached(and because they have racist family and friends). It's 2017 and white, left twitter is still having debates over "ironic" bigotry.

I think I'm glad I haven't been a part of that part of the left-wing community. As far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as ironic bigotry. There's only bigotry.

[Cassius Clay]

Few more issues with the alt/white/asshole/whateveryouwannacallit left:

1) One of my strongest-held political principles is following the lead of the marginalized. Many seem to really struggle with this notion for some reason. But if you understand enough about oppression and intersectionality it really shouldn't be that hard of a thing to understand and value. Here's a recent article that touches on the importance of that principle: https://qz.com/946482/maxine-waters-is- ... -to-power/. That's something the arrogant white left doesn't seem to give a fuck about. Many seem to have absolutely no issue with talking down to women and minorities...people they claim to be fighting for. Libs, dems, and "centrists" do similar shit...but I hold socialists to a higher standard. And that's partly because they hold themselves to a higher standard. They see themselves as so much better than white dems, yet they really aren't any better when it come to issues other than anti-capitalism. And in some ways, they are worse because this arrogance. I've seen more humility from white, left-leaning dems than from white socialists...in regards to the principle of following the lead of the marginalized. What's more insidious is that I believe many pretend to follow this principle, but it's only when it's convenient. What they're really doing is only listening to POC when they happen to already agree with them, and they will shamelessly use POCs as shields to derail criticism. Those fucks at Jacobin(who call themselves "the leading voice of the Left" or some shit) are frequently guilty of this. They rail against "identity politics" and "intersectionality", but then the irony is lost on them as they use the most cynical version of identity politics to hide from criticism. This exact thing just happened a couple weeks ago with them. They tweeted out some anti-intersectionality and identity politics bullshit(that it undermines class struggle), and then when criticized they would claim, as a defense, that a WOC said it...so it must be ok. Identity politics is apparently ok when they want to exploit it in the most cynically tokenistic way.

2) There is a lot of unchecked white-saviorism/paternalism on the Left(and not just the "alt-left"). A lot of leftist assholes arrogantly see themselves as these benevolent actors who have everything all figured out and need to save all these poor idiots who don't realize they've been tricked. They completely undermine the agency and accountability of voters. I think people, for the most part, understand what they're voting for. People vote for candidates that best represent their interests. Just because a decision appears irrational, doesn't mean the decider has no idea what he/she is doing or has been "tricked"....white supremacy is irrational. People who voted for Trump knowingly voted for sexism, racism and nationalism...and they were willing to risk losing crucial social/health services. That's how important the former is to them. I've seen Trump voters worried about losing healthcare and other crucial services claim they would still vote for him again. These people haven't been "tricked". If they have, it's willful. And you aren't helping anyone by not holding them accountable. So, right-wing idiots vote for fascism/racism because it's what they want, and black people and other minorities see what's happening a vote against it. These are groups of people who know exactly what they're voting for...it's really that simple. But a lot of socialists prefer a fantasy narrative that requires a lack of agency of voters. Because they same type of people who undermine the agency and makes excuses for WWC Trump supporters, also claim that black voters only vote dem because they basically don't know any better. According to certain socialists, voters seem to have no idea what they're doing and don't know what's in their best interests. Any political philosophy that promotes this kind of paternalistic bs needs to die in a fire.

3) Human rights as an organizing principle is more crucial than organizing around anti-capitalism. Human rights can encapsulates anti-capitalism, but not vice versa. Alt-left fuckers don't get this....or more likely don't care.

[Derived Absurdity]

So it's obvious that your idea of "alt-left" is entirely different from the one used by centrists and Dems (the people who invented the term). Yours is about anyone who calls themselves leftists and yet doesn't sincerely stand up for basic leftist principles or who are basically assholes in other ways (tankies, TERFs, brocialists, accelerationists, etc). Which is good. But the term started as an empty slur used by centrist Dems to slander anyone who didn't fall in line completely behind Hillary and label anyone who was even slightly to her left as literally equivalent to the white supremacist right, which is why I was so hostile to the term and anyone who used it. I've even heard it used to describe anyone who planned on voting for Hillary while still disliking her. You're not even allowed to dislike Hillary without being compared to white supremacists by these people. It was an odious display of gatekeeping, a way of keeping out of respectable discourse any viewpoint even slightly left-of-center. It was disgusting. It went beyond false equivalencies and holding up "the center" as a magical neutral plane of opinion, as bad as that would have been; it was self-serving propaganda designed to close off the left as a viable position to hold.

So I am more than happy to pinpoint attitudes and behaviors among self-described leftists that need to be spotlighted and ruthlessly purged, I'm just not going to use centrists' fucked up propagandistic terms to do it with. Scrub out the cancer like Jason Unruhe, Jacobin, brocialists, Jill Stein, Michael Tracey, Chapo Trap House, Samantha Bee, Glenn Greenwald, Doug Henwood, Diana Johnstone, "antifa" assholes, and other similar pieces of shit. Leave only those who actually give a shit about humanity, liberation, freedom, truth and all that other good stuff left.

[Cassius Clay]

We are superficially in agreement. But there's something much deeper here. The Left has a deeper problem than a few groups of assholes that need to be purged.

[Derived Absurdity]

I think Michael Tracey might be my new favorite person.

[Cassius Clay]

Isn't he still in a coma from the vicious uppercut he received from an 80-year-old woman?

[Derived Absurdity]

Here is his "statement", lol:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBbfWigUMAEhh7n.jpg:large" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Literally more embarrassing than a Trump tweet.

Twitter is amazing:

https://twitter.com/theshrillest/status ... 2455265280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cassius Clay]

Laci Green is the latest victim of horseshoe theory.

[Derived Absurdity]

Never liked her anyway. Didn't really know much about her but I never particularly liked what I saw. Was she really all that great?

[Gendo]

I've seen both of Laci's recent videos, and I really don't get what the issue is. It doesn't sound to me like she's changed her position or beliefs in the least. She's still a feminist, etc. All she said was that there are some feminists that take things too extreme and make feminism look bad; and that it can be worth trying to have a dialog with those on the other side rather than just shouting them down and ignoring them. Nothing about actually changing her views.

[Cassius Clay]

Laci has lost her damn mind. She has joined the dark side. Some have speculated that she is more far gone than she is letting on, and I'm inclined to agree...based on how she's been interacting with sjws on social media. I wasn't that familiar with her. I used to be into the atheist community on youtube (which was partly how I became an atheist), and that's when I first heard her name. When the elevator thing with Rebecca Watson happened, it split the atheist community in two. Many revealed themselves to be reactionary fucks, while others went the "sjw" route. Laci was part of the latter group...promoting her brand as a sex positive feminist. That's pretty much all I knew about her, but she seems to have a transphobic history. And many familiar with this history are not that surprised by all this. While she claims to still be a feminist, it really seems like she's embracing white, terf feminism. Check out a dude name captain andy on youtube for a decent breakdown. I think a lady named chrisiousity has one too.

She's also kind of doing that thing where she's shifting right and blaming leftists for being too extreme. Which is a giant red flag. When I've had issues leftists, it's never made me want to run to the right.

[Anakin McFly]

Found this: https://rantt.com/the-alt-left-and-alt- ... 768670bb27

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, as expected from the title, that was a pretty stupid article. Why did you post it?

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah, I didn't finish it, but it's not a good article. It's a bunch of lazy generalizations and false-equivalences. My criticism of the "alt-left" has never been to say that there is something inherently wrong with the far left...or that being "extreme" is automatically bad. My criticism comes from a place of "the left needs to be made better" because some of the loudest voices on the left say/do stupid shit(due to poor race analysis, poor judgement, "purity" hubris, tribalism, some differing values, and unexamined whiteness)....it was never "the left is bad".

[phe_de]

Found this: https://rantt.com/the-alt-left-and-alt- ... 768670bb27

Not a bad article.

The horseshoe theory is popular in Europe. For good reason.
I feel reminded of a cartoon made during Desert Storm, about a young man who goes to an anti-war rally, and is so fed up with the political slogans that in the end he carries a sign saying "Linke und rechte Meinungsmacher raus!" (Leftist and rightist demagogues get out). Especially some anti-Israel slogans from the left were eerily similar to anti-Jewish propaganda from the Nazis.

The latter is adressed in the following article.
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/curt- ... de-quotes/

EDIT: Guess I picked a questionable source. Sorry about that.

[BruceSmith78]

Curt Scilling has never been right, about anything.

[phe_de]

Curt Scilling has never been right, about anything.

It's possible that I don't agree with Curt Schilling or Courtney Kirchoff on plenty of issues.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[CashRules]

Curt Scilling has never been right, about anything.

Curt Schilling -

1) Homophobe
2) Creationist
3) Trump Supporter

He should be beat with a baseball bat.

[Anakin McFly]

@DA - I didn't like its generalizations and equating of the two sides but I liked how it explained some of the similar rhetoric I've seen from both sides, particularly with the racism, and how that white supremacist who murdered two people on the Oregon train was a Bernie supporter who'd oscillated between him and Trump.

I'd planned to just quote bits, but then I got lazy.

[Cassius Clay]

*mask-slipping intensifies*

[Cassius Clay]

Fun fact: that Steven Crowder fuck voiced one of the characters on the pbs show 'Arthur'. Ruined 'Arthur' for me forever.

And there's definitely very coded anti-Semitism on the Left(which is one of the first things I noticed in regards to my issue with certain leftists), but we need to be able to use our big-boy brains and critical thinking to distinguish that from anti-Israel politics. There's overlap, but there's an important difference. Almost similar to how anti-Islam rhetoric isn't necessarily bigoted, but usually is...and how we have to use critical-thinking to spot the difference(or to at least be wary). Because you don't want to make the mistake of allying yourself with bigots...or sharing around links from websites created by bigoted lunatics . Which is a mistake you will keep making when you lack good discernment, and naively treat every position as equally valid. Because the thing about right-wing bigots is that they rarely ever come out and say what they're all about...they frame all their bigotry is euphemistic/respectable language. They rely very much on respectability and being validated. Which is why centrists are useful idiots for them because centrists have such a hard-on for respectability.

[Derived Absurdity]

@DA - I didn't like its generalizations and equating of the two sides but I liked how it explained some of the similar rhetoric I've seen from both sides, particularly with the racism, and how that white supremacist who murdered two people on the Oregon train was a Bernie supporter who'd oscillated between him and Trump.

I'd planned to just quote bits, but then I got lazy.

Of course when you have two political factions with broad dissatisfactions with the status quo you're going to see some superficial similarities. But there's nothing meaningfully similar between Sanders fans and Trump fans. Even their rejection of the status quo doesn't count because the two groups have radically different ideas of what the "status quo" even is and what they're dissatisfied about. (To simplify, for Bernie people it's economics and for Trump people it's culture.)

Yes, you have Bernie people who considered Trump the lesser evil in the election. But a greater proportion of Bernie voters voted for Hillary in the election than Hillary voters voted for Obama in 2008. These people are not numerous enough to be cast as representative of anything.

Yeah, the racism from Bernie fans was repulsive, that was clear ever since the Black Lives Matter thing, but there's been some repulsive racism from white Hillary fans too. I don't consider that to mean anything more than "white people are often racist, no matter what political candidate they support." I don't understand how the rhetoric from Bernie fans is bad enough or powerful enough to justify inventing an entirely new label with which to slander them.

[Cassius Clay]

Nah, there was something particularly vitriolic and cultish about the racism from Bernie stans...especially while arrogantly insisting to have the moral highground. Too many women(especially black women) were hit with online harassment campaigns for daring to challenge Bernie. There was, and still is, a weird entitlement. And I know Hillary-bots also exist.

[phe_de]

*mask-slipping intensifies*

*Cowardly non-mentioning of what mask is supposedly slipping persists*

[Cassius Clay]

Lol you posted a link to a right-wing lunatic's website, you moron.

[phe_de]

Lol you posted a link to a right-wing lunatic's website.

I know. I was lazy last night and picked the first source that seemed to support my point.

I know that more respectable sources exist, and have found some in the meantime; but they are in German.

So what mask is supposedly slipping?

[Cassius Clay]

The mask of zorro

[phe_de]

Ok.

[Cassius Clay]

To be as straightforward as possible: I think you have some anti-Islam sentiments bordering on bigotry. I'm not sure if you're a useful-idiot for bigots or a bigot yourself...you're likely a little bit of both. Because naive centrists(in love with "both sides" respectability) are often indistinguishable from bigots...because bigots hide their bigotry within "respectability"....and end up allying with and getting defended by naive centrists. So, it's really fitting that you would "lazily" post a link to a right-wing website because it agrees with you.

The whole "mask-slipping" thing is a joke about that. I don't know why that's not already clear to you.

[phe_de]

To be as straightforward as possible: I think you have some anti-Islam sentiments bordering on bigotry. I'm not sure if you're a useful-idiot for bigots or a bigot yourself...you're likely a little bit of both. Because naive centrists(in love with "both sides" respectability) are often indistinguishable from bigots...because bigots hide their bigotry within "respectability"....and end up allying with and getting defended by naive centrists. So, it's really fitting that you would "lazily" post a link to a right-wing website because it agrees with you.

The whole "mask-slipping" thing is a joke about that. I don't know why that's not already clear to you.

I suspected you'd say something of this sort.
I wasn't sure and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt; give you the opportunity to show that you are not as narrow-minded as I thought; but you removed these doubts. Which I think is a pity; you don't seem to be stupid. But I believe you are young.
But don't worry: You are not alone in your narrow-mindedness. I've been called an "Islam apologist" on the IMDB2 board; the poster who did so is even more narrow-minded than you. Or at least was; they self-deleted. And I believe the poster in question was far less intelligent than you.

Being called a "centrist" should be taken as a compliment. Especially from narrow-minded people. Not wearing ideological glasses and judging opinions on a case by case basis helps not falling prey to prejudice (or "common sense", as you love to call it).
Because I don't like ideology, I don't like extremism; be it religious or political. I believe there's something to the saying that "If you're not an idealist at age 20 you have no heart, and if you're still an idealist at age 40 you have no brains". I turned 50 last week.

A priori, all opinions are equally valid; it's only when evidence for or against opinions shows up that the validity of opinions change.
The opinions "The Earth is 6.000 years old" and "The Earth is 4,5 billion years old" are not equally valid. The latter has evidence on its side.
Just like the opinions "The Moon landing was a hoax" and "The Moon landing took place" are not equally valid; the latter also has more evidence on its side.
I use scientific facts as example, because very controversial opinions are "Global warming is a hoax" and "Global warming is real". I believe the evidence for the latter is stronger.

And to get back to the subject: The opinion "Islamists and Nazis have a lot in common" is valid and supported by evidence.
Here's a less questionable link than the one I posted before.
http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-03/total ... propaganda

I don't subscribe to the Zeit, but to the EMMA; a German feminist magazine edited by Alice Schwarzer. She also has something to say on the matter.
http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/artikel/go ... anz-318143

[Cassius Clay]

Yes, you are so open-minded that you require no ideological framework to make sense of the world. You just assess situations with an empty mind. It's not intellectual laziness, it's wisdom. And you are very wise because you're a much older gentleman than I.

[Cassius Clay]

And do you really think it's really controversial to say that Nazis and Isis are similar types of pure evil?

[phe_de]

Yes, you are so open-minded that you require no ideological framework to make sense of the world. It's not intellectual laziness, it's wisdom. And you are very wise because you're a much older gentleman than I.

Good to see you agree.

And do you really think it's really controversial to say that Nazis and Isis are similar types of pure evil?

If, when people say it, others tell them they have "anti-Islam sentiments bordering on bigotry", then yes. A bit.

[Cassius Clay]

Like I said, can't tell if you're an idiot or a bigot..result is the same either way.

But I say that because you do things like obtusely respond with "Islam is not a race" when someone calls an Islamophobe racist. And you awkwardly shoehorn Islam into convos where it has no relevance. These are called red flags. It suggests you have some weird agenda there. It's quite reasonable to find these occurrences suspicious...and you're not helping suspicions when you use right-wing websites as sources. So if you really aren't a bigot, you might have to come to terms with the unfortunate conclusion that you're an idiot.