- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why Are SJW's and Feminists Largely Silent Regarding Muslim Violence?
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:33 pm to mahdragonz
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:33 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Christianity is just as extreme as Islam.
wut
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:33 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
Two words.
Cru. Sades.
That'll be the comeback.
I don't give a shite about a war that happened over a thousand years ago. We're talking about modern times in present day and there is no debate whatsoever to be had about Islam being the most extreme religion in existence and thus the scourge of the Earth.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:35 pm to KCT
quote:
Where y'at, SWJ's?
hypocrisy
[hi-pok-ruh-see]
noun, plural hypocrisies.
1.a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
Examples for hypocrisy
It's this type of one sided hypocrisy that gets nobody anywhere.
Clearly this is more than hypocrisy; it is sheer nonsense.
Stubbing out hypocrisy is a good cause.
Origin Expand
1175-1225; Middle English ipocrisie < Old French < Late Latin hypocrisis < Greek hypókrisis play acting, equivalent to hypokri´(nesthai) to play a part, explain (hypo- hypo- + kri´nein to distinguish, separate) + -sis -sis; h- (reintroduced in 16th century) < Latin and Greek
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:40 pm to KCT
I get your point, and it's salient to a degree, but I kinda feel like demanding condemnations like this is a bit of a cheap shot.
I'm certain if asked they would condemn violence against women in Islamic states just as they would in Western ones. But their battles are closer to home. It's kinda like asking why Republicans are largely silent regarding the existence of a massive welfare state in Europe or political repressions in China; sure, we don't like it, and we speak out about it sometimes, but it's just not directly our problem to combat, and people pushing us to make some kind of point against it feels... insincere somehow. Like they're distracting from the discourse by demanding some condemnation of something not immediately relevant to the issues we care about here at home.
I'd rather just not play the condemnation game, because it turns so quickly into a massive gotcha mess on both sides in lieu of real discussion.
Now, where I think there's a salient point to be had is in comparing the condemnation at home to condemnation abroad, and there's something to it. Forgive me if I don't find Romney's binders-full-of-women comment particularly upsetting, y'know? Not that we should rest on our laurels in being better than most of the world in treating women well, but if that's the worst we're doing, I'm not feeling especially bad about where we're at.
But let's please not play this condemnation game, it mostly exists to distract from discussion about the issues themselves and the values underlying solutions to those issues.
I'm certain if asked they would condemn violence against women in Islamic states just as they would in Western ones. But their battles are closer to home. It's kinda like asking why Republicans are largely silent regarding the existence of a massive welfare state in Europe or political repressions in China; sure, we don't like it, and we speak out about it sometimes, but it's just not directly our problem to combat, and people pushing us to make some kind of point against it feels... insincere somehow. Like they're distracting from the discourse by demanding some condemnation of something not immediately relevant to the issues we care about here at home.
I'd rather just not play the condemnation game, because it turns so quickly into a massive gotcha mess on both sides in lieu of real discussion.
Now, where I think there's a salient point to be had is in comparing the condemnation at home to condemnation abroad, and there's something to it. Forgive me if I don't find Romney's binders-full-of-women comment particularly upsetting, y'know? Not that we should rest on our laurels in being better than most of the world in treating women well, but if that's the worst we're doing, I'm not feeling especially bad about where we're at.
But let's please not play this condemnation game, it mostly exists to distract from discussion about the issues themselves and the values underlying solutions to those issues.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 7:59 pm to Eden
First of all, I'm not demanding that anybody condemn anything. I'm simply pointing out that these people, by and large, wouldn't condemn Muslim violence even if their lives depended on it.
Secondly, we're talking about people who generally don't need much of a grievance, real or imagined, in order to protest, denounce, boycott, etc. Hence, the reason why I'm asking why their regular modus operandi flies out the window when it comes to this epidemic of Muslim violence that we see being perpetrated all over the world.
But, I guess I'll stop before boosie thinks I'm slandering his neighbor again.
Secondly, we're talking about people who generally don't need much of a grievance, real or imagined, in order to protest, denounce, boycott, etc. Hence, the reason why I'm asking why their regular modus operandi flies out the window when it comes to this epidemic of Muslim violence that we see being perpetrated all over the world.
But, I guess I'll stop before boosie thinks I'm slandering his neighbor again.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 8:27 pm to Eden
quote:
It's kinda like asking why Republicans are largely silent regarding the existence of a massive welfare state in Europe or political repressions in China;
You obviously don't talk to many educated Republicans, I guess?
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:24 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
Some Christians believe that not allowing a woman to exercise control over her own body -like in cases of abortion - is ok.
Christianity is just as extreme as Islam.
Just when you think stupidity has peaked.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 9:26 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
You obviously don't talk to many educated Republicans, I guess?
I do. They talk about it, but the platform isn't "We hate the European welfare state!" or "We hate Chinese human rights abuses!" Instead it's "We need to do XYZ to avoid going down the path of Europe/China." The focus isn't on condemning countries abroad but on ensuring our domestic policies prevent us from becoming them. In the same light it makes sense that feminists wouldn't raise a huge ruckus over violence against women in the Middle East; they would be concerned with making sure we don't go down the path the Middle East did, and since we aren't in any realistic threat of doing so, there's just nothing to say.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 10:14 pm to KCT
quote:
Not only do the SJW types almost never condemn atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, oftentimes they bend over backwards with some sort of insane logic in an attempt to absolve Islam of any responsibility whatsoever.
Jesus Christ you're an idiot.
Religions don't kill people, people kill people.
Oh and everyone "condemns" this kind of violence.
Posted on 12/16/14 at 10:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Have you always applied this same standard when you've talked about or listened to someone talk about Nazi Germany? Did you differentiate between average citizens in Nazi Germany and the brutal Germans every time you talked about them or made mention or allusion to them?
Are you willing to admit there is a difference between a Muslim who will blow himself up on a bus to kill whomever in the name of Islam versus the pediatric oncologist I know from Syria who lives down the street and has a wonderful family and is just an incredibly nice man who also happens to be a Muslim?
If you can admit there is a difference there, then we can have a discussion. If you lump those two people together simply because they identify loosely with the same religion, then I don't think a conversation would be fruitful.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 4:23 am to arcalades
quote:Actually it would be to differentiate Nazi's from the SS.
Have you always applied this same standard when you've talked about or listened to someone talk about Nazi Germany? Did you differentiate between average citizens in Nazi Germany and the brutal Germans every time you talked about them or made mention or allusion to them?
Which is analogous to the "not every muslim" tactic. Most Nazi's knew absolutely nothing of the genocide, and likely would have been mortified.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 5:53 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Jesus Christ you're an idiot. Religions don't kill people, people kill people.
I thought guns killed people???
Posted on 12/17/14 at 8:03 am to Eden
quote:
quote: You obviously don't talk to many educated Republicans, I guess? I do. They talk about it, but the platform isn't "We hate the European welfare state!" or "We hate Chinese human rights abuses!" Instead it's "We need to do XYZ to avoid going down the path of Europe/China." The focus isn't on condemning countries abroad but on ensuring our domestic policies prevent us from becoming them. In the same light it makes sense that feminists wouldn't raise a huge ruckus over violence against women in the Middle East; they would be concerned with making sure we don't go down the path the Middle East did, and since we aren't in any realistic threat of doing so, there's just nothing to say.
It's not just the hypocrisy of the left and Feminist about Muslim violence in the middle east. It's Muslim violence in the U.S. as well. The presidants constant refusal to call any act by a Muslim in the U.S. terrorism no matter how gruesome or obvious the signs that their was religious ideology or terror acts at work.
Furthermore, it's the left and specifically feminist silence or in some instances outright defense of Muslims groups domestically despite the negative treatment of women and women's rights documented in multiple middle eastern and predominately Muslim majority nations.It's comes off a bit hypocritical and inconsistant when viewed through the prism of how the left attacks republicans every presidential campaign (war on women) for example.
This post was edited on 12/17/14 at 8:08 am
Posted on 12/17/14 at 8:06 am to bigbowe80
Nowhere else except TD have I ever seen the phrase SJW
Posted on 12/17/14 at 8:07 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
You must not visit many other sites. Social Justice Warrior is a pretty common term online.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 8:10 am to Scruffy
No don't read other sites that much except sports. Nobody in every day conversation says this around here. Maybe young kids I guess (I'll ask my 23 year old son).
But understand the concept, esp in New York City where I am.
But understand the concept, esp in New York City where I am.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 8:18 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Oh and everyone "condemns" this kind of violence.
Yes of course.
I think the proper question is why leftists in general will go out of their way to point out that all Muslims dont blow themselves up yet would never bother to do the same for Christians when something like Westboro Church comes up. And even then, the notion of equating someone picketing a funeral with beheading children is absurd yet here we are in another apology fest.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 8:51 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:What about guns? Do guns kill people or do people still kill people in that scenario?
Religions don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 9:54 am to bigbowe80
quote:
It's Muslim violence in the U.S. as well.
Examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I can't personally recall any instances of Muslim violence against women in the US that feminists didn't condemn. If anything I tend to find they overstep and find examples that aren't there.
quote:
Furthermore, it's the left and specifically feminist silence or in some instances outright defense of Muslims groups domestically despite the negative treatment of women and women's rights documented in multiple middle eastern and predominately Muslim majority nations.
Well, since Muslim groups domestically generally aren't responsible for violence in Islamic nations abroad - but, as your post demonstrates, they're blamed for it anyway - I don't really see where you're coming from here. Christians in the US aren't to blame for Christian radicals in the Central African Republic slaughtering people, why would Muslims in the US be to blame for Muslim radicals in the Middle East slaughtering people? I don't see the inconsistency in showing enough nuance not to categorize nearly three million people in the US by the most radical elements of a shared faith.
quote:
It's comes off a bit hypocritical and inconsistant when viewed through the prism of how the left attacks republicans every presidential campaign (war on women) for example.
This I agree with 100%, but I think we should do the right thing in this situation by not stooping to their stupid childish blame game. Look at how Gardner won Colorado as one example of it working if that worries you, but honestly even if it doesn't win elections all the time, we should be better than this. It's why, for example, I don't want the people behind the Sony emails making racist jokes fired; sure, leftists called for others' jobs for the same thing, but I don't want people getting fired for making racist comments, so even though there's a lot of schadenfreude-driven amusement at the prospect of employment termination being turned back at them, I can't support it to get the world I want to see.
Posted on 12/17/14 at 10:10 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
JEAUXBLEAUX
What about POTUS?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News