EU

[doublename]

Edit

[auxien]

 

To equate anyone other than murderers with murderers is insulting. If you don't understand why, I'm not going to bother trying to explain it so don't even ask.

This is incorrect, obviously any murder deserves the brunt of the responsibility for any act, but what about those that facilitated the act? From the bomb maker that designs the suicide vest to the ignorant and hateful preacher that calls for death to apostates, infidels, blasphemers, etc. The only question is where you draw the line, to what degree do you apportion the blame in each instance. There is nothing insulting to anyone who is not part of the problem in criticising those who are.

Jev didn't say anyone was somewhat responsible, or partly to blame, or any lesser degree. She in fact said only that these people, people who are trying not to start up witch trials or inquisitions, are to blame for war and genocide. Literally, go back and look at her words. She didn't even equate them as being on equal ground with those who may actually be committing genocide, her wording specifically said that these people, of which I am one, are to blame. That wording could be read to be that he thinks they are the ONLY ones to blame, but I don't think she meant that. As she brings up constantly, English isn't her native language.

[auxien]

 

 

 

You are overgeneralizing Alco and since I agree with him on this point, me, and many, many others.

Are you now seriously using quantity as an argument? But yeah, unfortunately, your camp has quite an influence in the world today if that is what you tried to point out. That is true.

...these camps (this is a REALLY bad word choice coming from you ma'am)

In my language "camp" is a word with many meanings. One of them is defining a group of people sharing the same opinions and interests usually in the context of comparing them to another "camp" (in political debates etc.) I don't know what other word I should use in English. Maybe "a group" would be more fitting? Feel free to correct me. As I said numerous times before, I am not native and my English is basic. But I think you get the idea. No need to be triggered.

People do not easily fit into three placements, it's just not reality miss Jev.

The camps (groups) are quite wide - mainly the middle one consisting of many different attitudes. Read it again. Of course there is a gradual transition between them all (thus "somewhere around the naivety camp"). I will make sure I have a fancy graph next time...

As to the rest of your post, I believe that you are wrong. To equate anyone other than murderers with murderers is insulting.

So if a government decides to create a policy that will unintentionally and indirectly cause millions of deaths they will not be responsible for it even in the slightest? Even if they were warned about it beforehand?

I wasn't using quantity as an argument, my argument was in the sentence afterwards. Genius.

 

We're conversing in English, so yes, you using the term camp is a bad idea. Groups is perfectly fine please and thank you ma'am.

 

The grey areas are not my interest, that could be discussed forever. You made a black and white statement, where a group of people are the ones responsible for genocide and war. I'm saying that that statement is incorrect and insulting. Don't walk your words back, stick by what you said or admit that you were wrong. Hell you can claim that it was all cause you're conversing in English and no one can ban you for that.

[caze]

 

 

my parody post is making fun of sam harris specifically who i think generally embodies the kind of rhetoric on this issue here on teh 'tmm. caze and limpy for example explicitly consider his analyses to be correct. for some of the specific language i was mocking:

 

http://bennorton.com/sam-harris-and-fascism/

 

it's amusing to me that sam harris fans consistently make no effort to grapple with these kinds of statements and not only overlook them but will deliberately deny that they express what he really means. caze & limpy have already resorted to the "he didn't say that/ you don't understand what he means" line earlier itt and now caze has called my parody of his actual language "strawmen."

 

it is a shame that popular culture has a such a poverty of real minds out there sharing compelling and rich insights but what can you expect really?

it's not amusing that despite repeatedly being shown that your views on Harris are complete nonsense based on farcical distortions of what he has said, you seem completely incapable of learning the truth. it's not amusing, it's sad. poor alco. it's a shame that popular leftist culture is so morally bankrupt and dishonest that this is the best we can expect from otherwise intelligent and liberal people.

 

yes of course, "farcical distortions," and not, say, his actual words.

 

the use of his actual words doesn't preclude farcical distortions.

 

look, watch me do it:

 

Alcofribas: mohammed is a proper piece of shit

[caze]

 

 

To equate anyone other than murderers with murderers is insulting. If you don't understand why, I'm not going to bother trying to explain it so don't even ask.

This is incorrect, obviously any murder deserves the brunt of the responsibility for any act, but what about those that facilitated the act? From the bomb maker that designs the suicide vest to the ignorant and hateful preacher that calls for death to apostates, infidels, blasphemers, etc. The only question is where you draw the line, to what degree do you apportion the blame in each instance. There is nothing insulting to anyone who is not part of the problem in criticising those who are.

 

Jev didn't say anyone was somewhat responsible, or partly to blame, or any lesser degree. She in fact said only that these people, people who are trying not to start up witch trials or inquisitions, are to blame for war and genocide. Literally, go back and look at her words. She didn't even equate them as being on equal ground with those who may actually be committing genocide, her wording specifically said that these people, of which I am one, are to blame. That wording could be read to be that he thinks they are the ONLY ones to blame, but I don't think she meant that. As she brings up constantly, English isn't her native language.

 

1) I'm pretty sure Jev has given up on the ruse that he's transgender, so you don't have to call him her.

 

2) I haven't read any of Jev's posts in this thread over the last number of pages.

[Schlitze]

Jev has going round in circles like a dog chasing his tail for months. I think he finds comfort in the familiarity of that. He just keeps going. He has stock answers, like that travesty of a reply he came up with in response to being told using the word camp is not advisable. Clearly rattled that his tail chasing routine is under threat he becomes evasive, he can't answer, so offers a stock answer, skirting the issue, then justifies it using poor English as an excuse. He is a very coy calculating man, still refusing to explain why he pretended to be a woman living on Christmas Island when he filled out his profile upon registering. He was an old man living in Poland.

This gives the greatest insight into the calculating mindset of this man. He wants you to engage with him on his terms in a repetitive cycle of futility.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

 

my parody post is making fun of sam harris specifically who i think generally embodies the kind of rhetoric on this issue here on teh 'tmm. caze and limpy for example explicitly consider his analyses to be correct. for some of the specific language i was mocking:

 

http://bennorton.com/sam-harris-and-fascism/

 

it's amusing to me that sam harris fans consistently make no effort to grapple with these kinds of statements and not only overlook them but will deliberately deny that they express what he really means. caze & limpy have already resorted to the "he didn't say that/ you don't understand what he means" line earlier itt and now caze has called my parody of his actual language "strawmen."

 

it is a shame that popular culture has a such a poverty of real minds out there sharing compelling and rich insights but what can you expect really?

it's not amusing that despite repeatedly being shown that your views on Harris are complete nonsense based on farcical distortions of what he has said, you seem completely incapable of learning the truth. it's not amusing, it's sad. poor alco. it's a shame that popular leftist culture is so morally bankrupt and dishonest that this is the best we can expect from otherwise intelligent and liberal people.

yes of course, "farcical distortions," and not, say, his actual words.

the use of his actual words doesn't preclude farcical distortions.

 

look, watch me do it:

 

Alcofribas: mohammed is a proper piece of shit

so does not actually believe those things? Islam is not the mother load of bad ideas? we are not at war with Islam? we should not profile people who look Muslim? he does not agree with Ben Carson's evaluation of the Islamic threat to western civilization? he does not agree with fascists on the topic of islam? etc etc ad naseaum.

 

the most charitable assessment is then that he is an ignoramus who cannot speak properly.

[auxien]

 

 

 

 

 

To equate anyone other than murderers with murderers is insulting. If you don't understand why, I'm not going to bother trying to explain it so don't even ask.

This is incorrect, obviously any murder deserves the brunt of the responsibility for any act, but what about those that facilitated the act? From the bomb maker that designs the suicide vest to the ignorant and hateful preacher that calls for death to apostates, infidels, blasphemers, etc. The only question is where you draw the line, to what degree do you apportion the blame in each instance. There is nothing insulting to anyone who is not part of the problem in criticising those who are.

Jev didn't say anyone was somewhat responsible, or partly to blame, or any lesser degree. She in fact said only that these people, people who are trying not to start up witch trials or inquisitions, are to blame for war and genocide. Literally, go back and look at her words. She didn't even equate them as being on equal ground with those who may actually be committing genocide, her wording specifically said that these people, of which I am one, are to blame. That wording could be read to be that he thinks they are the ONLY ones to blame, but I don't think she meant that. As she brings up constantly, English isn't her native language.

1) I'm pretty sure Jev has given up on the ruse that he's transgender, so you don't have to call him her.

 

2) I haven't read any of Jev's posts in this thread over the last number of pages.

1) I know, I'm just an asshole.

 

2) That explains why you took my words, in reply to Jev, out of context.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

 

 

my parody post is making fun of sam harris specifically who i think generally embodies the kind of rhetoric on this issue here on teh 'tmm. caze and limpy for example explicitly consider his analyses to be correct. for some of the specific language i was mocking:

 

http://bennorton.com/sam-harris-and-fascism/

 

it's amusing to me that sam harris fans consistently make no effort to grapple with these kinds of statements and not only overlook them but will deliberately deny that they express what he really means. caze & limpy have already resorted to the "he didn't say that/ you don't understand what he means" line earlier itt and now caze has called my parody of his actual language "strawmen."

 

it is a shame that popular culture has a such a poverty of real minds out there sharing compelling and rich insights but what can you expect really?

it's not amusing that despite repeatedly being shown that your views on Harris are complete nonsense based on farcical distortions of what he has said, you seem completely incapable of learning the truth. it's not amusing, it's sad. poor alco. it's a shame that popular leftist culture is so morally bankrupt and dishonest that this is the best we can expect from otherwise intelligent and liberal people.

yes of course, "farcical distortions," and not, say, his actual words.

the use of his actual words doesn't preclude farcical distortions.

 

look, watch me do it:

 

Alcofribas: mohammed is a proper piece of shit

so he does not actually believe those things? Islam is not the mother load of bad ideas? we are not at war with Islam? we should not profile people who look Muslim? he does not agree with Ben Carson's evaluation of the Islamic threat to western civilization? he does not agree with fascists on the topic of islam? etc etc ad naseaum.

 

the most charitable assessment is then that he is an ignoramus who cannot speak properly.

 

Your attempt to defend him required you to deliberately portray the opposite meaning to my words then was obviously meant. If that's all you've got to defend harris with maybe you might want to reconsider your understanding of him.

Sorry, effed up the quote

[auxien]

 

 

Jev has going round in circles like a dog chasing his tail for months. I think he finds comfort in the familiarity of that. He just keeps going. He has stock answers, like that travesty of a reply he came up with in response to being told using the word camp is not advisable. Clearly rattled that his tail chasing routine is under threat he becomes evasive, he can't answer, so offers a stock answer, skirting the issue, then justifies it using poor English as an excuse. He is a very coy calculating man, still refusing to explain why he pretended to be a woman living on Christmas Island when he filled out his profile upon registering. He was an old man living in Poland.

This gives the greatest insight into the calculating mindset of this man. He wants you to engage with him on his terms in a repetitive cycle of futility.

Agreed. I'm just pissy enough this week to not be able to ignore his trademark, and sadly simple, bait. Misery loves company.

[Alcofribas]

auxien, my dude. let's go do some genocide tonight. meet @ ClubAlco 9pm

[chenGOD]

auxien, my dude. let's go do some genocide tonight. meet @ ClubAlco 9pm

 

I can't get no love? Is it cause I'm a globalist?

[Alcofribas]

 

auxien, my dude. let's go do some genocide tonight. meet @ ClubAlco 9pm

I can't get no love? Is it cause I'm a globalist?

my sincerest apologies, i presumed you would be there as per usual. you are the most esteemed member of the camp after after all! btw last week you left your copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the Clubhouse and i let Corbyn borrow it. he says he'll be around this eve but my understanding is that he's abandoned all principalled activity in order to devote himself to Pokemon Go.

 

don't forget to bring all your citations.

[Lane Visitor]

Observing religion can be a good thing, in moderation.

 

The more rigorous and extreme levels people take it to, the less it becomes balanced with practicality.

 

The less balanced with practicality it is, the more it becomes pointless in that it begins to disrupt human progress, intellect, etc.

 

When it gets to the point of intentionally killing innocents/non-believers in the name of said religion, that's when the practice and observation of said religion has fully reached dangerous status (beyond just pointless or disruptive).

 

How bout this, just to level the playing field:

 

All religions, holy texts, prophets, etc in a vacuum give followers the potential to use it for evil. Just look at the barbarism and savagery of holy wars, forced conversions, sacrifices, etc etc.

 

A. Literal followers of the New/Old Testament that carries out above actions in the name of Christianity: Radical / Christian Fundamentalist

 

B. Literal followers of the Old Testament that carries out above actions in the name of Judaism: Jewish Extremist / Fundamentalist

 

C. Literal followers of the Quran that carries out above actions in the name of Islam: Islamic Extremist / Radical Muslim

 

Why should C. be labeled any different, and have to be treated any differently? Why should one have to walk around in circles afraid to label it as such (like on this forum)? And further why should we be sensitive to war-hawk natured right wing, conservative, hardline schools of thought that have stolen and politicized Islam and taken it away from moderation and the center? Is it just because we are privileged white westerners who have drinken the cool-aid that says any people that aren't 1st world and westerners are somehow oppressed-by-default and therefore should be protected from language that segments them into any particular group, even if said radical group is committed to killing all people who are not in their group?

 

What kind of asshats have we become?

 

Admit it to yourselves that there are corrupt oppressive forces all around the world, that use politics, religion, social norms as a way to gain control over their infrastructures and governments. It's not just the American and European politicians, or the white Western male that has tendency to commit evil/be greedy/corrupt/oppressive. The East/Middle East is not immune to the same strands of human capability to commit evil and corruption. Get that narrative that says otherwise out of your bloodstream, because it is a lie.

[Guest WNS000]

 

 

You are overgeneralizing Alco and since I agree with him on this point, me, and many, many others.

Are you now seriously using quantity as an argument? But yeah, unfortunately, your camp has quite an influence in the world today if that is what you tried to point out. That is true.

...these camps (this is a REALLY bad word choice coming from you ma'am)

In my language "camp" is a word with many meanings. One of them is defining a group of people sharing the same opinions and interests usually in the context of comparing them to another "camp" (in political debates etc.) I don't know what other word I should use in English. Maybe "a group" would be more fitting? Feel free to correct me. As I said numerous times before, I am not native and my English is basic. But I think you get the idea. No need to be triggered.

People do not easily fit into three placements, it's just not reality miss Jev.

The camps (groups) are quite wide - mainly the middle one consisting of many different attitudes. Read it again. Of course there is a gradual transition between them all (thus "somewhere around the naivety camp"). I will make sure I have a fancy graph next time...

As to the rest of your post, I believe that you are wrong. To equate anyone other than murderers with murderers is insulting.

So if a government decides to create a policy that will unintentionally and indirectly cause millions of deaths they will not be responsible for it even in the slightest? Even if they were warned about it beforehand?

I wasn't using quantity as an argument, my argument was in the sentence afterwards. Genius.

 

We're conversing in English, so yes, you using the term camp is a bad idea. Groups is perfectly fine please and thank you ma'am.

 

The grey areas are not my interest, that could be discussed forever. You made a black and white statement, where a group of people are the ones responsible for genocide and war. I'm saying that that statement is incorrect and insulting. Don't walk your words back, stick by what you said or admit that you were wrong. Hell you can claim that it was all cause you're conversing in English and no one can ban you for that.

 

 

Auxien, you are right, maybe I should clear it up a bit:

 

I blame both extreme groups for worsening the issue. Both groups. I blame bigots and racists and I also blame naive people. If the shit hits the fan, the guilt will be distributed between the both extreme groups and between people actually committing the injustice/atrocities. Of course, and I should have written it more clearly before, the people not committing the atrocities themselves will be less guilty than the rest but they will have their share of responsibility for the conflict. Hopefully this is more clear now.

[Guest WNS000]

he does not agree with fascists on the topic of islam?

 

Alco, the tape loop.

 

 

the most charitable assessment is then that he is an ignoramus who cannot speak properly.

 

At least he can read.

[cwmbrancity]

this thread would read more succinctly if all the words were pronounced in the dulcet London tones of Pete & Dud

 

[chenGOD]

 

 

auxien, my dude. let's go do some genocide tonight. meet @ ClubAlco 9pm

I can't get no love? Is it cause I'm a globalist?

my sincerest apologies, i presumed you would be there as per usual. you are the most esteemed member of the camp after after all! btw last week you left your copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the Clubhouse and i let Corbyn borrow it. he says he'll be around this eve but my understanding is that he's abandoned all principalled activity in order to devote himself to Pokemon Go.

 

don't forget to bring all your citations.

Excellent excellent. I was wondering where I had left the damned thing.

I'm advocating for a Pokemon Go subforum now. Quite the entertainment.

 

I've got some lovely new citations.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

 

auxien, my dude. let's go do some genocide tonight. meet @ ClubAlco 9pm

I can't get no love? Is it cause I'm a globalist?

my sincerest apologies, i presumed you would be there as per usual. you are the most esteemed member of the camp after after all! btw last week you left your copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at the Clubhouse and i let Corbyn borrow it. he says he'll be around this eve but my understanding is that he's abandoned all principalled activity in order to devote himself to Pokemon Go.

 

don't forget to bring all your citations.

Excellent excellent. I was wondering where I had left the damned thing.

I'm advocating for a Pokemon Go subforum now. Quite the entertainment.

 

I've got some lovely new citations.

I saw a craigslist ad where some guy was offering his services here in Chicago: for $25/hr he'd drive anyone around to find Pokemon. I lolled

[caze]

so does not actually believe those things?

mostly not, as is obvious from the context if you're capable of independent thought.

 

Islam is not the mother load of bad ideas?

he clarified his comments on this one afterwards, 'a motherlode of bad ideas' is what he should have said, important difference between 'a' and 'the'. he's spot on really, a shit ton of bad ideas in there, just like the old testament and most other religious texts. religions are at their best (least worst) when they disregard the ideas contained in their religious texts.

 

we are not at war with Islam?

sort of: 'This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. The only reason Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to us is because the fundamentals of Islam are a threat to us.'

 

I don't fully agree with his stance on this one precisely, but he's not far off. Islam isn't doomed to fundamentalist literalism for all time because of the Koran, it's only certain current readings of the text that are problematic. this is just splitting hairs though, given the current situation we're dealing with.

 

we should not profile people who look Muslim?

yes, but when you realise that this includes pretty much every man on the planet (including you, me, jews, french people, spanish people, italians, Sam Harris, etc.), it's obviously not racial profiling - I've pointed this out to you before, short memory?

 

he does not agree with Ben Carson's evaluation of the Islamic threat to western civilization?

he called Carson a 'dangerously deluded religious imbecile', 'the fact that he (was) a candidate for president is a scandal', spot on IMO. 'threat to western civilization'? only under the understanding given above, once (if) Islam loses it's current considerable movement of literalist fuckbags, I imagine he'd change his tune. he obviously doesn't believe western civilization is threatened by secular minded reformist muslims, he would also believe it would be threatened by dominionist christians if they ever got themselves in a position to do any real damage.

 

he does not agree with fascists on the topic of islam?

he laments the fact that fascists are closer to the truth on this issue than the people he generally agrees with on most all other issues. he recognises the fact that fascists are dicks, he is not in the slightest, teeniest, bit a fascist.

 

the most charitable assessment is then that he is an ignoramus who cannot speak properly.

nope, it's all very clear and easy to understand as long as you remove you head from the arse of the far left groupthink machine, you also have to actually read what he writes, and not the nonsense smear stories that are churned out by various morons online.

 

 

apologies to those who get triggered by all the Sam Harris talk, but as long as Alco keeps bringing up his dumb smears, I'll keep knocking them down.

[auxien]

 

 

 

You are overgeneralizing Alco and since I agree with him on this point, me, and many, many others.

Are you now seriously using quantity as an argument? But yeah, unfortunately, your camp has quite an influence in the world today if that is what you tried to point out. That is true.

...these camps (this is a REALLY bad word choice coming from you ma'am)

In my language "camp" is a word with many meanings. One of them is defining a group of people sharing the same opinions and interests usually in the context of comparing them to another "camp" (in political debates etc.) I don't know what other word I should use in English. Maybe "a group" would be more fitting? Feel free to correct me. As I said numerous times before, I am not native and my English is basic. But I think you get the idea. No need to be triggered.

People do not easily fit into three placements, it's just not reality miss Jev.

The camps (groups) are quite wide - mainly the middle one consisting of many different attitudes. Read it again. Of course there is a gradual transition between them all (thus "somewhere around the naivety camp"). I will make sure I have a fancy graph next time...

As to the rest of your post, I believe that you are wrong. To equate anyone other than murderers with murderers is insulting.

So if a government decides to create a policy that will unintentionally and indirectly cause millions of deaths they will not be responsible for it even in the slightest? Even if they were warned about it beforehand?

I wasn't using quantity as an argument, my argument was in the sentence afterwards. Genius.

 

We're conversing in English, so yes, you using the term camp is a bad idea. Groups is perfectly fine please and thank you ma'am.

 

The grey areas are not my interest, that could be discussed forever. You made a black and white statement, where a group of people are the ones responsible for genocide and war. I'm saying that that statement is incorrect and insulting. Don't walk your words back, stick by what you said or admit that you were wrong. Hell you can claim that it was all cause you're conversing in English and no one can ban you for that.

 

 

Auxien, you are right, maybe I should clear it up a bit:

 

I blame both extreme groups for worsening the issue. Both groups. I blame bigots and racists and I also blame naive people. If the shit hits the fan, the guilt will be distributed between the both extreme groups and between people actually committing the injustice/atrocities. Of course, and I should have written it more clearly before, the people not committing the atrocities themselves will be less guilty than the rest but they will have their share of responsibility for the conflict. Hopefully this is more clear now.

 

 

Thank you Jev. Though there is plenty of blame to go around, but I'm not interested in that discussion on which I certainly disagree with you and many others. I only took issue with the wide blanket statement. Everyone have fun, carry on my wayward sons, there'll be peace when you are done, lay your weary heads to rest, don't you cry no more

[Amen Warrior]

Who was the guy that was calling muslims muselmen, like not as a joke? Can we have that nutcase back?

[Alcofribas]

 

so does not actually believe those things?

mostly not, as is obvious from the context if you're capable of independent thought.

 

Islam is not the mother load of bad ideas?

he clarified his comments on this one afterwards, 'a motherlode of bad ideas' is what he should have said, important difference between 'a' and 'the'. he's spot on really, a shit ton of bad ideas in there, just like the old testament and most other religious texts. religions are at their best (least worst) when they disregard the ideas contained in their religious texts.

 

we are not at war with Islam?

sort of: 'This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. The only reason Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to us is because the fundamentals of Islam are a threat to us.'

 

I don't fully agree with his stance on this one precisely, but he's not far off. Islam isn't doomed to fundamentalist literalism for all time because of the Koran, it's only certain current readings of the text that are problematic. this is just splitting hairs though, given the current situation we're dealing with.

 

we should not profile people who look Muslim?

yes, but when you realise that this includes pretty much every man on the planet (including you, me, jews, french people, spanish people, italians, Sam Harris, etc.), it's obviously not racial profiling - I've pointed this out to you before, short memory?

 

he does not agree with Ben Carson's evaluation of the Islamic threat to western civilization?

he called Carson a 'dangerously deluded religious imbecile', 'the fact that he (was) a candidate for president is a scandal', spot on IMO. 'threat to western civilization'? only under the understanding given above, once (if) Islam loses it's current considerable movement of literalist fuckbags, I imagine he'd change his tune. he obviously doesn't believe western civilization is threatened by secular minded reformist muslims, he would also believe it would be threatened by dominionist christians if they ever got themselves in a position to do any real damage.

 

he does not agree with fascists on the topic of islam?

he laments the fact that fascists are closer to the truth on this issue than the people he generally agrees with on most all other issues. he recognises the fact that fascists are dicks, he is not in the slightest, teeniest, bit a fascist.

 

the most charitable assessment is then that he is an ignoramus who cannot speak properly.

nope, it's all very clear and easy to understand as long as you remove you head from the arse of the far left groupthink machine, you also have to actually read what he writes, and not the nonsense smear stories that are churned out by various morons online.

 

 

apologies to those who get triggered by all the Sam Harris talk, but as long as Alco keeps bringing up his dumb smears, I'll keep knocking them down.

it's odd that you think these contexts have some kind of "knocking down" effect.

 

so, Harris says "we are at war with Islam." But not "all Islam." Just the Islam "prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran." Oh. Cool story. So when he says "we are at war with Islam" he means we're not at war with Islam, just those Muslims that take the Koran literally. not Islam per se. Fucking deep.

 

So we should definitely profile people who look Muslim. But this means "every man on the planet." Genuine lol there. So yes, profile people who look Muslim. Definitely. But literally everyone looks Muslim. So he's just saying profile everyone. Incredible concept.

 

He publicly proclaims he would pick Carson over Chomsky as potus (lol, another deep insight). But it's a scandal that Carson was a candidate. He's an "imbecile" but he's a more apt candidate than Chomsky, who is not a politician or a presidential candidate but is an intellectual and activist. Incredible, fascinating commentary.

 

He thinks in popular western discourse fascists speak "most sensibly" about Islam. But he just means compared to pc liberals, fascists are less unreasonable. It's a shame liberals are not as sensible as fascist bc fascists are totes dicks and stuff. it's not his fault they're right. it's hard to even poke fun at this nonsense, man. it's so fucking stupid.

 

if you want to champion this guy be my guest, but itt you've done nothing but soften his deliberately proactive claims into inane trivialities (which bizarrely strike you as intelligent).

[caze]

Who was the guy that was calling muslims muselmen, like not as a joke? Can we have that nutcase back?

That's just the actual term for them in many languages (french and german for example), it's not some kind of racial epithet.

[Alcofribas]

 

Who was the guy that was calling muslims muselmen, like not as a joke? Can we have that nutcase back?

That's just the actual term for them in many languages (french and german for example), it's not some kind of racial epithet.

I typically call them "arabesques" or "jinn" imo