LogFAQs > #879724385

Glass_Phantom posted...

MARKINGRAM22 posted...

Saying the attack in Orlando was an attack on gays, not mentioning the perpetrator, not mentioning Islam and the homophobic ideology in it and using mean comments about gay people from westerners Is certainly "regressive."

And yet many other articles on the same website have mentioned the perpetrator. This article didn't deny any of that! It only offered another lens through which to view the attack -- as a terrorist act against women and girls.

Ah, but let me connect the dots -- being overly-concerned with the perspectives of women and girls is a SJW-ish thing to do, and SJW = "regressive," right? =(

The irony is, here you are, guilty of what so many in the same arena as you accuse regressives of doing... Shutting down any alternate viewpoints that don't hew to your preferred context for the world.

And truthfully, looking at your posts, looking at your signature, I don't believe you're motivated at all by respect for the victims and their memory, or even respect for the truth of what happened. I think your motivations are anger and hatred -- hatred toward Islam, and anger towards its 1.2 billion adherents, 99.9999% of whom had nothing to do with this and will never commit a terrorist act in their life. These are not healthy emotions for you to have, and they don't count toward the "good" side of your ledger. I pray for your sake that you will find the wisdom to let go these radical notions which you appear to be afflicted by. Perhaps you weren't always like this, but this forum only made you that way; I know from psychology that when you are in a group that defines itself by its opinions, as the members of this forum do, then people naturally have a tendency to become more and more polarized over time -- and individuals such as yourself will try to conform to what the group mandates. Please, for your sake and for the betterment of our world, turn away from that hate.

1. I explained my mix up, which I think looks more than credible considering how similar Salon and Slates articles are. I agree with the information and commentary on those articles for the most part.

2. Saying

being overly-concerned with the perspectives of women and girls is a SJW-ish thing to do

Is just complete horseshit. Has nothing to do with any argument I made. My issue is it completely ignores Islam and makes examples of western sexist assholes on twitters, as if that is what was behind the attacks. Which is untrue, and even the idea that the terrorist particularly targeted women is completely unsubstantiated...why would I care about calling a terrorist sexist to begin with. I will take Islam and all religion to task for sexism from stoning women for being raped to adam and even propaganda.

3. How is debating, expressing and arguing view points shutting down? That is complete bs. It is literally the opposite of that.

4. My sig? Really? That is my sig cause it was a baseless attack and characterization ViperGTS looked foolish over and even stepped back from. Much like you are doing. Not to mention how sickening it is to act like I don't care about the victims, cause I criticize Islam. How pathetic. No where have I expressed hate for individual Muslims, but illiberal ideals in Islam where women are slaves, gays are imprisoned and murdered, and violence is common place.

So maybe you can put on your big boy pants next time, not create a strawman, and actually respond to the argument or view points that are presented. If I hated Muslims I would be taking about a Muslim ban, not interacting with Muslim people, not be anti intervention, etc. I just won't bury my head and ignore the treatment of people under Islam including the groups the left treats as pets like gays, women, and trans people.
---

"That man practices Islam. Are you happy he was taken out since according to you he believes what terrorists do?" -VipaGTS to me