|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2017 03:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. you can just ask here; what issue do you want sorted out? assuming i'm sufficiently leftist for ya (or you provide a set of leftist axioms to work with)
This is answered in the post above, but there are a few others I guess.
You often hear things like (and this is a quote, but I can't remember who from)
"Whiteness is a social construct"
This stuff usually takes the form of an assertion, rather than a position that's backed up by any evidence. Social constructivism as a theory of knowledge is absolutely horrible, its full of logical errors and holes and is usually applied wrongly by those who use it. Yet in social justice circles, it serves pretty much as the basis for every position on race, gender and just about everything else.
The issue here I would want sorting out would be WHY should I believe in this radical, counter-intuitive epistemology when there is absolutely no evidence for it?
It seems like the foundation is there simply to serve the specific political views, rather than because it is the most sensible foundation.
|
On December 10 2017 03:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:01 kollin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:45 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:34 kollin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its so fucking easy to get sucked into the conservative area of Youtube (Rubin, Peterson, Crowder etc.).
Why isn't there a leftist version? I've seen some contrapoints videos that are really good, but can anyone recommend any other channels doing good leftist stuff?
Is it a matter of funding why there is such a difference in quality and interesting content, or am I just missing it all?
I think the left has a much more credible and established intellectual base that doesn't need to use YouTube. I don't agree. I mean if it was true that the left doesn't need to use Youtube there wouldn't be such a surge in right wing views. The right has found a way to disguise their opinions as liberalism ('classic' liberals), while the left is getting a reputation as shrieking children. To me, the left's intellectual base has become eroded to the point where it needs some fresh thought. The epistemology of the left (ie all knowledge is socially constructed) is only taken as fact by those on the left and they often don't seem to realize that it doesn't really chime with how most people (let's say most white people) experience reality. It seems to me that although the left likes to think that they have a more credible intellectual base, they are becoming easier and easier to ridicule, and its playing into the hands of the Rubin/Shapiro crowd. PS thanks for the suggestions everyone I guess I've got alot of Youtube to watch now :D edit: it could be that I am cartoonishly exaggerating the social constructionist views of the left but I don't think so. Its not something that often gets discussed across political lines so its hard to determine the exact philosophy behind the politics. The left might need to use YouTube, but you didn't ask if the left needs to do that. Right-wing YouTube pseudo-intellectuals such as Peterson are just that - pseudo-intellectuals, and so they're forced to use YouTube because no other media platform wants them. YouTube suits this because you get to control the content that you put out entirely, and so shape your image exactly as you want it. I don't think the left has a reputation as 'shrieking children' amongst anyone except people who consume a lot of right-wing YouTube, and while I think your criticism of the left as focusing too much on social construction is valid, the reason I think it's valid is because eminent, respected, intellectual writers on the left - such as Richard Rorty - have made the same point. I can't think of one figure on the right who has the same kind of intellectual reputation, and this reflects in the fact that most of the intellectual icons of the modern right are found on YouTube. I think in some ways you may as well ask why there's no such thing as a leftist Fox, or a leftist Daily Mail - they're kind of a contradiction in terms. Maybe this is the heart of the issue of modern politics. The battlefield of the left is not the battlefield of the right. The right talk to people about their views using publicly available channels, the left use meeting rooms and universities. So the political battle has become about which battlefield is more legitimate, rather than which views are more sensible. So you have one group advancing their position by trying to get people fired, while the other is whipping up massive amounts of false outrage on social media. One group is trying to limit what can be said in public with hate speech legislation (rightly or wrongly) and the other group obviously wants their freedom to keep preaching. You can see why the right has the advantage in an era where people have instant access to media.
I think it's more that the left came to dominate the traditional institutions of elevated public discourse - the traditional broadsheet media as well as academia. As a result, the right was forced to hop onto alternative forms of media - radio talkshow, eventually the internet - because it is much easier to find a mass audience on these platforms, and control exactly what this audience is exposed to. Both talkshow hosts and youtubers never have to talk to, or expose their audience to, anything they don't want to. Given the enormous loss of public faith in traditional institutions such as the media and academia, I don't think that it's surprising that the right seem more prevalent on youtube, simply because operating outside traditional media has been their modus operandi for years.
|
On December 10 2017 03:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:17 Nebuchad wrote:On December 10 2017 03:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:59 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. Just as the right is so eager to discuss problems wit their own ideology? There is an opposite side for that. Also, I am curious to which holes you are talking about, Europe is doing fine, and even the right over here is leftist by US standards regarding many issues. TBH Islam is probably the most confounding issue for the left. Much of the Middle East conforms to an extremely right wing version of Islam, and yet those on the left wing in Europe act as though they have a duty to protect that right wing system. If you go a little behind the talking point that the left is protecting the rightwing system, you will see that it makes no sense. First because you're not going to be able to show evidence of the left protecting Middle Eastern radical regimes, and second because you will see the opposite: attempts to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, for example, because they're not quite the good guys, will always come from the left and be denied by the right. What happens is that those commentators will use the defense of refugees and of individuals that exists on the left and use how close those two ideas are in the minds of most people to give you the impression that the left defends the saudi regime. It doesn't. I was talking in a more general sense, not inferring that the left is literally propping up right wing regimes in the middle east. The biggest question I have is this: Why does it make more sense to campaign for women's rights at home than it does to campaign for them in the middle east, where women are often so badly treated that they are victims of human rights violations every single day? The other question would be as to why people who point this out end up ostracized by the left and often end up put in the category of 'just another islamophobe'. It doesn't make "more sense", both just make sense. Typically it's going to be easier for you to fix the problems that are closest to you, and typically you'll hear more about attempts to fix the problems that are close to you. That there are bigger problems elsewhere is not a reason not to do stuff about the problems that are here, which is in most cases the fallacious argument that the people who get called out in those situations are trying to make.
It isn't just not doing anything about problems elsewhere that I have issue with. Its the fact that when people DO try and protect women abroad by calling for reforms in conservative muslim circles, they are labelled as islamophobes and right wing extremists.
The left (by proxy in this case of the SPLC https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists ) is actively acting against the interests of women in the middle east.
|
On December 10 2017 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. you can just ask here; what issue do you want sorted out? assuming i'm sufficiently leftist for ya (or you provide a set of leftist axioms to work with) This is answered in the post above, but there are a few others I guess. You often hear things like (and this is a quote, but I can't remember who from) "Whiteness is a social construct" This stuff usually takes the form of an assertion, rather than a position that's backed up by any evidence. Social constructivism as a theory of knowledge is absolutely horrible, its full of logical errors and holes and is usually applied wrongly by those who use it. Yet in social justice circles, it serves pretty much as the basis for every position on race, gender and just about everything else. The issue here I would want sorting out would be WHY should I believe in this radical, counter-intuitive epistemology when there is absolutely no evidence for it? It seems like the foundation is there simply to serve the specific political views, rather than because it is the most sensible foundation.
The idea of race being a social construct is that it is social and cultural factors that influence the behavioural patterns of different races, rather than genetic or more broadly biological factors. So, for example, those that see any correlation between race and IQ as causal would in fact be misattributing the causal relationship. It is not a particularly controversial theory if you take the time to understand it, but those on the right absolutely love appealing to people's inherent emotional reactions to statements such as these, because it works in favour of their agenda to do so.
|
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east.
|
On December 10 2017 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:25 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 02:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 02:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Also wanted to add that the amount of comments under leftist youtube videos that are like "Holy shit six months ago I was a rightwinger buying all of Sargon's talking points, thanks [x] for making me see that it was all bullshit" is proof enough that the left should seek to be bigger on youtube than they are now. People don't get the views they get in a vacuum, they forge them. The time they forge those views is going to be their teens, and a ton of people nowadays spend their teen years on Youtube. You might want to be there and do stuff. Exactly. I've been taking the Peterson/Harris medicine for a long time now but only because there aren't really many intellectual alternatives creating interesting/in depth talking points from a left wing perspective. For me personally, that's where my heart is politically but there's logical holes on the leftist system that no-one is dedicating enough time to sorting out. I'd like to see a channel where people really take on the most difficult points for the left in a sensible, rational way. you can just ask here; what issue do you want sorted out? assuming i'm sufficiently leftist for ya (or you provide a set of leftist axioms to work with) This is answered in the post above, but there are a few others I guess. You often hear things like (and this is a quote, but I can't remember who from) "Whiteness is a social construct" This stuff usually takes the form of an assertion, rather than a position that's backed up by any evidence. Social constructivism as a theory of knowledge is absolutely horrible, its full of logical errors and holes and is usually applied wrongly by those who use it. Yet in social justice circles, it serves pretty much as the basis for every position on race, gender and just about everything else. The issue here I would want sorting out would be WHY should I believe in this radical, counter-intuitive epistemology when there is absolutely no evidence for it? It seems like the foundation is there simply to serve the specific political views, rather than because it is the most sensible foundation.
it looks like the question in the post above prior was already correctly answered.
i'm not familiar with social constructivism as a term; so maybe i'm not left enough for what you're looking for. (also still no sure where you are, you seem fairly right-wing to me).
i'm more of a center-left person.
it quite possibly is a lousy foundation. and there's lots of idiots on ALL sides who misuse/poorly understand the actual underlying theories.
there is a real sense of course that "whiteness" is a social definition, and who qualifies has changed substantially over time.
it often feels like you're consuming a bunch of the right-leaning media that focus on the crazy left. but maybe I just don' tget out enough these days.
edit: on the posted linke to SPLC, you need to remove the ")" at the end to fix the link. it also has nothin gobviousyly problematic in it, so you'll need to be more specific.
|
On December 10 2017 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east.
Because on that list are:
a) anti-muslim extremists
b) normal people calling for support for liberal muslim movements in the middle east.
The problem is, there is this idea now that we must protect muslims at home from any kind of questioning based on their faith. I can see why this is a good idea, its a very current issue and muslims should be free from discrimination just the same as everyone else. I can even see why we should be more active in protecting muslims domestically, they are obviously the target of an awful lot of hatred, most of it racist.
The problem is when you have someone like Maajid Nawaz appearing on that list. He is a radio talk show host on a mainstream radio station in the UK who heads up the Quilliam foundation. He is actively promoting reform in islam because of the right wing political nature of islam in the middle east. This was a step too far for the SPLC (the biggest human rights law group in the US) so they designated him an extremist.
This is an extreme version of something that typically happens in these discussions. If you talk about the treatment of women in the middle east you should be instantly judged a feminist, not a racist.
|
On December 10 2017 03:44 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east. Because on that list are: a) anti-muslim extremists b) normal people calling for support for liberal muslim movements in the middle east. The problem is, there is this idea now that we must protect muslims at home from any kind of questioning based on their faith. I can see why this is a good idea, its a very current issue and muslims should be free from discrimination just the same as everyone else. I can even see why we should be more active in protecting muslims domestically, they are obviously the target of an awful lot of hatred, most of it racist. The problem is when you have someone like Maajid Nawaz appearing on that list. He is a radio talk show host on a mainstream radio station in the UK who heads up the Quilliam foundation. He is actively promoting reform in islam because of the right wing political nature of islam in the middle east. This was a step too far for the SPLC (the biggest human rights law group in the US) so they designated him an extremist. This is an extreme version of something that typically happens in these discussions. If you talk about the treatment of women in the middle east you should be instantly judged a feminist, not a racist.
and what do you say to the SPLC's listed objections regarding him?
it sounds more like you for some reason like him, so you have trouble having a bad opinion of him, and therefore the "other" side is wrong, rather than considering that you might be.
you didn't attack the articles ACTUAL listed objections to Nawaz (which I just read), you attacked a strawman description of them (or a description you somehow decided was correct from entirely elsewhere, which is hence unsourced relative to us, who only read what you've linked), which means you weren't lookin very carefully at the underlyin article in the first place.
go reread the actual objections they have to him and address them. rather than addressing somethin entirely separate.
i'd also still like to know how you self-classify on the right/left spectrum.
|
On December 10 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east. Because on that list are: a) anti-muslim extremists b) normal people calling for support for liberal muslim movements in the middle east. The problem is, there is this idea now that we must protect muslims at home from any kind of questioning based on their faith. I can see why this is a good idea, its a very current issue and muslims should be free from discrimination just the same as everyone else. I can even see why we should be more active in protecting muslims domestically, they are obviously the target of an awful lot of hatred, most of it racist. The problem is when you have someone like Maajid Nawaz appearing on that list. He is a radio talk show host on a mainstream radio station in the UK who heads up the Quilliam foundation. He is actively promoting reform in islam because of the right wing political nature of islam in the middle east. This was a step too far for the SPLC (the biggest human rights law group in the US) so they designated him an extremist. This is an extreme version of something that typically happens in these discussions. If you talk about the treatment of women in the middle east you should be instantly judged a feminist, not a racist. and what do you say to the SPLC's listed objections regarding him? it sounds more like you for some reason like him, so you have trouble having a bad opinion of him, and therefore the "other" side is wrong, rather than considering that you might be. you didn't attack the articles ACTUAL listed objections to Nawaz (which I just read), you attacked a strawman description of them (or a description you somehow decided was correct from entirely elsewhere, which is hence unsourced relative to us, who only read what you've linked), which means you weren't lookin very carefully at the underlyin article in the first place. go reread the actual objections they have to him and address them. rather than addressing somethin entirely separate.
I have read it. None of their objections to him are anything like valid in slightest bit.
His foundation has expressed that sometimes when people who aren't guilty of crimes yet are spied on, it could be justified.
Nawaz tweeted a picture of Muhammad
Nawaz said "academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists." (this is a cast iron fact, just look at the debacle over extremist muslim schools in the UK, its a real thing, which had massive consequences).
I don't get why any of these 'criticisms' amount to him being a right wing islamophobic extremist.
They all point to the same thing I was saying. He is calling for a reform of the most right wing, brutal versions of islam, and his is being labelled an islamophobe and an extremist for it.
On the left/right spectrum I'm mostly very left leaning, although I don't conform to the usual left wing stuff very much,
I voted for Corbyn in the UK (probably one of the most leftwing candidates in Europe recently).
I am a socialist through and through.
|
I thought it was commonly accepted that the Quilliam fundation was a fraud. My understanding is that it's funded by american rightwing organizations and even the british government doesn't want to hear from them because they've been giving them nonsense information when they did in the past, am I mistaken?
Nawaz as a person, in my mind, occupies the space of people who talk to conservatives about them muslims and what we should do about them and what the left isn't doing. Certainly not the space of a reformist.
|
On December 10 2017 03:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 03:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The link goes 404, even though I googled the article and got the exact same link for some reason.
You're going to have to make the totality of the argument here cause I don't exactly know how a list of anti-muslim extremists is going to actively harm the women in the middle east. Because on that list are: a) anti-muslim extremists b) normal people calling for support for liberal muslim movements in the middle east. The problem is, there is this idea now that we must protect muslims at home from any kind of questioning based on their faith. I can see why this is a good idea, its a very current issue and muslims should be free from discrimination just the same as everyone else. I can even see why we should be more active in protecting muslims domestically, they are obviously the target of an awful lot of hatred, most of it racist. The problem is when you have someone like Maajid Nawaz appearing on that list. He is a radio talk show host on a mainstream radio station in the UK who heads up the Quilliam foundation. He is actively promoting reform in islam because of the right wing political nature of islam in the middle east. This was a step too far for the SPLC (the biggest human rights law group in the US) so they designated him an extremist. This is an extreme version of something that typically happens in these discussions. If you talk about the treatment of women in the middle east you should be instantly judged a feminist, not a racist. and what do you say to the SPLC's listed objections regarding him? it sounds more like you for some reason like him, so you have trouble having a bad opinion of him, and therefore the "other" side is wrong, rather than considering that you might be. you didn't attack the articles ACTUAL listed objections to Nawaz (which I just read), you attacked a strawman description of them (or a description you somehow decided was correct from entirely elsewhere, which is hence unsourced relative to us, who only read what you've linked), which means you weren't lookin very carefully at the underlyin article in the first place. go reread the actual objections they have to him and address them. rather than addressing somethin entirely separate. Nawaz said "academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists." (this is a cast iron fact, just look at the debacle over extremist muslim schools in the UK, its a real thing, which had massive consequences).
Faith schools promoting extremist values (of which there are and have been many Christian and Jewish ones) is categorically not the same thing as an infiltration of academic institutions, and you play into the agenda of the right by accepting lazy conflations like this.
|
On December 10 2017 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I thought it was commonly accepted that the Quilliam fundation was a fraud. My understanding is that it's funded by american rightwing organizations and even the british government doesn't want to hear from them because they've been giving them nonsense information when they did in the past, am I mistaken?
They have been attacked in the past as a fraud by the English Defence League and the SPLC.
That pretty much tells you what you need to know.
This particular tangent is a bit OT in the US politics thread i suppose.
|
On December 10 2017 04:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I thought it was commonly accepted that the Quilliam fundation was a fraud. My understanding is that it's funded by american rightwing organizations and even the british government doesn't want to hear from them because they've been giving them nonsense information when they did in the past, am I mistaken? They have been attacked in the past as a fraud by the English Defence League and the SPLC. That pretty much tells you what you need to know. This particular tangent is a bit OT in the US politics thread i suppose.
We can drop it if you want but no, it doesn't tell me what I need to know at all.
|
On December 10 2017 04:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I thought it was commonly accepted that the Quilliam fundation was a fraud. My understanding is that it's funded by american rightwing organizations and even the british government doesn't want to hear from them because they've been giving them nonsense information when they did in the past, am I mistaken? They have been attacked in the past as a fraud by the English Defence League and the SPLC. That pretty much tells you what you need to know.
that they are in fact a fraud?
that's what it tells me.
what conclusion are you reaching from it?
PS will respond to your other post a bit later;
|
On December 10 2017 04:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I thought it was commonly accepted that the Quilliam fundation was a fraud. My understanding is that it's funded by american rightwing organizations and even the british government doesn't want to hear from them because they've been giving them nonsense information when they did in the past, am I mistaken? They have been attacked in the past as a fraud by the English Defence League and the SPLC. That pretty much tells you what you need to know. that they are in fact a fraud? that's what it tells me. what conclusion are you reaching from it? PS will respond to your other post a bit later;
That if Hitler and Stalin are against something it might be worth listening to.
|
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson?
|
On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson?
Only if you buy the propaganda.
What actually happened is this:
Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave.
They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy.
If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha.
|
On December 10 2017 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:05 zlefin wrote:On December 10 2017 04:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 10 2017 04:01 Nebuchad wrote:
I thought it was commonly accepted that the Quilliam fundation was a fraud. My understanding is that it's funded by american rightwing organizations and even the british government doesn't want to hear from them because they've been giving them nonsense information when they did in the past, am I mistaken? They have been attacked in the past as a fraud by the English Defence League and the SPLC. That pretty much tells you what you need to know. that they are in fact a fraud? that's what it tells me. what conclusion are you reaching from it? PS will respond to your other post a bit later; That if Hitler and Stalin are against something it might be worth listening to.
if you're equatin the SPLC (which i'm familiar with and I know isn't THAT bad) to hitler or stalin, then there's something very off with your assessments. why do you have such a low opinion of the SPLC?
as an aermican I know a fair bit about them, and on the whole they do pretty good work, and have been around a long time, so there's clear information on them. there's certainly no way you should be classifying them THAT poorly.
i'm not familiar with that English defence league.
|
On December 10 2017 04:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson? Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy. If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha.
So Robinson initially wanted ties with that fundation cause he perceived that they were anti-islam enough for him, but eventually after some time he found out that he was mistaken?
I don't really expect muslims to follow the reform of Nawaz if someone like Robinson needs some time to figure out that he doesn't hate muslims as much as he does.
And that's in your version that is the most favorable for Nawaz. I certainly can believe less savory versions, especially if my memory is correct on what I brought up earlier about the american rightwing groups behind Quilliam and what the british government thinks of their intel.
|
On December 10 2017 04:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2017 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:
Isn't it also the Quilliam fundation that had this ridiculous stunt with Tommy Robinson? Only if you buy the propaganda. What actually happened is this: Quilliam effectively ended the right wing group of hooligans known as the EDL (basically a group of thugs who went around the country targeting muslims and attacking them with weapons etc.) by convincing their leader to leave. They then fell out with Robinson because they weren't anti-islamic enough for him so he claimed it was all just a weird ploy. If you believe that I suppose there's no hope haha.
well, the SPLC (who is quite outside Britain, and has less in the game to be biased over), notes that:
"One of Nawaz’s biggest purported coups was getting anti-Muslim extremist Tommy Robinson to quit as head of the violence-prone English Defence League, trumpeting his departure at a press conference. But Robinson later said Quilliam had paid him some 8,000 British pounds to allow Nawaz to take credit for what he already planned to do. "
it sounds like you're believing what ou want to believe, rather than going where the evidence leads you.
I, having looked into none of this before, see some back and forth, and a relatively outside credible organization (the SPLC) making a note on it. I conclude that I don' thave enough information, but that Nawaz does seem shady. the british gov't did drop their contract after all, which is not the sign of a highly productive intelligence asset.
the way you respond to someone questioning it makes it seem like you bought into a conspiracy theory, and then are mockin gpeople who doubt it. it's a fairly common phenomenon, but that's really what it feels like to me. you're tenaciously holding onto that belief, and the belief in Nawaz being correct, and twisting everything around to maintain that belief, rather than seriously consider that Nawaz is wrong, and is just a poser trying to make a name for himself. If another source says something bad about Nawaz, do you reflexively then dislike/distrust the source?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
