- Joined
- Jun 1, 2016
- Messages
- 2,897
- Reaction score
- 159
It's not a secret that the extreme-left and the extreme-right are two faces of the same coin.
When he named Soros a humanitarian he lost me though.
Neither are present in this debate.
It's not a secret that the extreme-left and the extreme-right are two faces of the same coin.
When he named Soros a humanitarian he lost me though.
Also, encase you werent aware, he debated Dr Peterson recently. The audio of the debate isnt great and the audience is a major pain with their constant clapping but still, its a long deep debate with "respectable" disagreement which we need more of.
Why do you feel that her tweets need to include references to Christians? Also what is "Islamic supremacy" ?
This is where the miscommunication starts.
Supporting religious freedom is not the same as supporting the tenets of a specific religion. Supporting your friends and neighbors who come from a specific background is not the same as offering blind support for all others who come from that background.
In many cases, people misconstrue (often intentionally it seems) the messages sent about Islam, immigration, etc. I’ve seen it repeatedly on this forum, and I’ve seen it extended well into the realm of cable news.
I'm not Christian and grew up giving religious folk shit. Even as a leftie growing up I think we have crossed the point of decency here imho.
I think any quasi decent human being or quasi intelligent person can look at Hilary and Obama's tweets referring to the bombing in Sri Lanka as Easter worshippers and understand the narrative has gone over board.
I think Obama and Hilary have political teams that write their stuff so I dont have some image of all these lefties doing this on purpose and laughing. However, when you cant even say RIP to Christians but easily bring up the non sense talking points of Islam and white supremacy then you have some real problems.
Lastly what I will say is this. I am Armenian born in Iran (I mention this ad nauseum here sorry). For my people, Islam stands for something very different. We had a genocide in the name of Islam. Islam is a dirty religion through and through. There is no reason for me to accept this cowardly narrative that they are victims.
Tell that to the 1.5 million Armenians killed in the name of Sharia
I tried listening to him but had to turn it off after 10 seconds. It sounded like he was choking on his own tongue.
This is EXACTLY right nac386 and that's the distinction that many (un)willingly do want to accept. I honestly think sometimes it's a lack of intelligence that prevents certain groups of understanding this. It's not about blindly supporting something like Islamistic ideology. In fact, on the contrary you can fight against (religous) extremism and the dangers of religious indoctrination and still realise that many people within a system of faith are not that. If human rights were only extended to someone who shared your skin color, demography and theism/atheism then that would defeat the entire purpose.This is where the miscommunication starts.
Supporting religious freedom is not the same as supporting the tenets of a specific religion. Supporting your friends and neighbors who come from a specific background is not the same as offering blind support for all others who come from that background.
In many cases, people misconstrue (often intentionally it seems) the messages sent about Islam, immigration, etc. I’ve seen it repeatedly on this forum, and I’ve seen it extended well into the realm of cable news.
This is EXACTLY right nac386 and that's the distinction that many (un)willingly do want to accept. I honestly think sometimes it's a lack of intelligence that prevents certain groups of understanding this. It's not about blindly supporting something like Islamistic ideology. In fact, on the contrary you can fight against (religous) extremism and the dangers of religious indoctrination and still realise that many people within a system of faith are not that. If human rights were only extended to someone who shared your skin color, demography and theism/atheism then that would defeat the entire purpose.
I'm not a Christian either and I don't particularly support Christianity, however I would never dream of that letting me cast judgement on every single person coming from a majority Christian country, or wanting to brand them and ban them, or worse.
Here's a really good video going into some of the faulty logic Peterson expressed during the debate:
Been listening to him lately and I appreciate the holistic picture he paints about the refugee crisis, Islam etc. His answers seem to align much more with PC police are the death of the left.
What I dont understand is why some of the people here who like him so much are still not listening to what he's saying bout hypersensitivity as it pertains to discussing how Islam and the West cannot coexist. He also underlines that the idea that Islam is in the mess they are in is not only because of the West but also they don't believe in human rights.
Am I missing something here? This guy seems more aligned with my ideologies than lefties. Hopefully this guy catches on more because I respect any one listening to some one like this way more than any moron listening to the view or Rachel Maddow.
Wow. Zizek dismantled Peterson's nonsense and exposes him for the fraud he always was. Peterson has made a career filling white guy's ears on the horrors of Marxism and evils of communism but it's clear early on that Peterson is a fellow traveler in philosophy/politcial theory and has had never read a anything ever written by Marx himself prior to the debate.
Wow. Zizek dismantled Peterson's nonsense and exposes him for the fraud he always was. Peterson has made a career filling white guy's ears on the horrors of Marxism and evils of communism but it's clear early on that Peterson is a fellow traveler in philosophy/politcial theory and has had never read a anything ever written by Marx himself prior to the debate.
That coked up nitwit didnt dismantle anything other than the inside of his nose and the threads on his shirt he kept pulling at...half of his rebuttals were based on the idea that real communism was never tried before.
And its "history" that filled "intelligent" peoples heads with the horrors of marxism and communism...skin color has nothing to do with it. Thanks for injecting identity politics in this though since there wasnt enough horseshit already.
He's right. Marx and Engels were extremely pro free speech. Tell me which communist regime allowed free speech?
Peterson is the official philosopher of white guys under 40 with mild education and no actual investment in political theory.
Carl Marx is not being debated. Marxism, Socialism and Communism is...as in those that took some of his teachings and created something with it...and you asking which Communist regime allowed free speech is rather funny as it just points out how you didnt even understand the entire debate.
So no wonder you think Zizeks made Peterson look bad...lol...jesus.
Comments like this prove that low-brow morons hate him. Tell me oh wise one, where was this great vote that took place that nominated Peterson the "official" philosopher by said age group...let me guess, you are a snowflake soy eating feminist right.
Who is Carl Marx?
Zizek eviscerated Peterson.