[redcarpet]

These are all good things when they happen to Nazis.

When it happens to you I'll cheer then as I do now.

Punching Richard Spencer worked wonderfully, btw. Nazis have no coherent ideology other than the worship of power and the use of that power to punish people they deem inferior, weak, and degenerate while simultaneously being a strong, sinister threat to their existence. It is not even internally coherent in the way it perceives its enemies.

Richard Spencer's entire venture was doomed because he was a soft-palmed and effete college boy trying to evangelize to the lumpenprole who despise him, but it sure as fuck ended his doomed effort a lot faster. It demonstrated weakness and, because Spencer had no actual policy behind him besides "fuck non-whites but I say it with college talk" his fans left him.

Punch Nazis. It works.





You have defended a nazi who drove a car into a crowd of people for 250+ cumulative pages and called the murderer's victim, Heather Heyer, a fat stupid bitch IIRC.

The fact that you're either physically or mentally incapable of leaving your home doesn't change the fact that you are a white supremacist with a horribly misaligned moral compass.

And as the statistics show us, white supremacists commit the most terror. So I wouldn't puff up the harmless part. There's no telling when you might go lone wolf.

Words aren't harmless either. Violent rhetoric can and DOES lead to violence. Wars are waged non-violently overwhelmingly by propaganda & war production...…...I though everybody knew that!

[Drlee]

The victims of oppression have ZERO obligation to “tolerate and accept” the perpetrators and enablers of that oppression, and as a matter of fact, they should be actively intolerant and unaccepting.

Correct. And they should use every legal method at their disposal to discourage them including firing these Nazi's. When did we invent the notion that not only does one have free speech rights but also the right to be free from consequences for what they say?

If I had an employee who was publicly espousing a Nazi point of view I would fire her. I would forbid, in a business I own, any political speech I find unacceptable.

So here is the deal. I think that if a baker does not want to make a cake for a same sex wedding because he/she is offended by it, they should not make it. At the same time, if they employ someone who insists on forwarding a gay agenda (whatever that may mean) while in their place of business, they should be allowed to prohibit that behavior. BUT. They should not be allowed to fire someone for being gay.

WRT this particular congresswoman. I am surprised that those on the left accept that we have someone in congress who openly displays the trappings of the oppression of women. They whine and snivel about anyone carrying or quoting the Bible but let these women embody a misogynist agenda.

I can't give her a pass on making careless statements. She has a degree in political science and was a Huber Humphrey Fellow. Unless she wishes to claim to be an educated idiot, she has to own this one.

[Pants-of-dog]

WRT this particular congresswoman. I am surprised that those on the left accept that we have someone in congress who openly displays the trappings of the oppression of women. They whine and snivel about anyone carrying or quoting the Bible but let these women embody a misogynist agenda.

It would be incorrect to assume that Islam is inherently misogynistic. Like Christianity, Islam is a diverse group of beliefs.

Much like we do not dismiss all trappings of Christianity simply because many Christians are racists, we should not dismiss all Muslim symbols simply because of the misogyny of some Muslims.

Unless you can provide evidence of misogyny on the part of Ms. Omar, this seems like the same generalisation you personally get offended by when it is applied to Christianity.

[maz]

Words aren't harmless either. Violent rhetoric can and DOES lead to violence. Wars are waged non-violently overwhelmingly by propaganda & war production...…...I though everybody knew that!

But you don't seem to think that Rep. Omar's call for Muslims to get into people's faces and make them feel uncomfortable won't lead to violence?

[Pants-of-dog]

Not as much as Trump’s call for US conservatives to get in the faces of Muslims, Mexicans, the press, trans people and make them feel marginalised again.

I Say this because Trump’s rhetoric has already led to violence while Ms. Omar’s has not.

[maz]

Has the president ever called for his supporters to get in people's faces and make them feel uncomfortable? Or to confront political opponents in restaurants and other public places and tell them that they are not welcome anymore?

[Pants-of-dog]

Has the president ever called for his supporters to get in people's faces and make them feel uncomfortable? Or to confront political opponents in restaurants and other public places and tell them that they are not welcome anymore?

Probably.

Regardless of his exact words, he has already caused violence.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3102652

[maz]

I scanned the paper and did not see an instance where the president directly called on his supporters or anyone else to attack someone based on skin color, religion preference or orifice or whatever.

You do however have major networks directly calling for violence. You have politicians directly calling for people to get in other people's faces to make them feel uncomfortable. You have people defending the calls for violence because they agree with violence when it is perpetrated against someone that they disagree with.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you think bad words are more harmful than actual violence, feel free.

[maz]

If you think bad words are more harmful than actual violence, feel free.

It seems that you are saying is that the president’s words, which does not directly call for violence causes violence while a major broadcast network using the public airwaves to literally call for violence cannot possibly cause violence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Trump's words have already caused violence. This is a fact.

If you are condemning Ms. Omar because her words might cause violence, then logically you should condemn Trump even more.

[Drlee]

Unless you can provide evidence of misogyny on the part of Ms. Omar, this seems like the same generalisation you personally get offended by when it is applied to Christianity.

Provide evidence?


She wears the evidence. Get a grip.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since a piece of cloth is not an act of misogyny, then I will assume you have no evidence.

[Drlee]

Since a piece of cloth is not an act of misogyny, then I will assume you have no evidence.

That would be an idiotic assumption.

A piece of cloth is often a very strong statement.





I dislike pieces of cloth that represent the oppression or marginalization of anyone.

[Pants-of-dog]

That would be an idiotic assumption.

A piece of cloth is often a very strong statement.





I dislike pieces of cloth that represent the oppression or marginalization of anyone.

I know of others who would agree with you.



Like yourself, these people believe a piece of cloth symbolises oppression.

And like yourself, your fellow Abrahamic conservatives may think that everyone who sports a symbol also supports the oppression it symbolises.

They, of course, are not correct. Not everyone who celebrates the US flag supports the oppression that is often associated with the flag.

Much like you are not correct that everyone who wears a Muslim headscarf supports the oppression of women.

[Drlee]

Like yourself, these people believe a piece of cloth symbolises oppression.

And like yourself, your fellow Abrahamic conservatives may think that everyone who sports a symbol also supports the oppression it symbolises.

They, of course, are not correct. Not everyone who celebrates the US flag supports the oppression that is often associated with the flag.

Much like you are not correct that everyone who wears a Muslim headscarf supports the oppression of women.

Very lame attempt. Try again.

al-Islam.org:

Men, whether they confess it or not, are slaves of lust and desire.

• Hijab protects women from such men; it symbolizes that she has been sanctified to one man only and is off-limit to all others.

Aljazeera: Iran arrests 29 women for not wearing hijab in protests.

In this regard Allah says in Sura An Nur verse 31:-

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.

From the above verse, the law has been clearly established that Muslim women must cover her entire self properly, which also includes the covering of the head (which is commonly referred to by Muslims as wearing the hijab).

In Sura Ahzab, Allah says, ‘O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their outer garments around them’ (33:59).

Here, the Prophet(SAS) has been ordered by Allah to tell his wives, daughters and all the believing women to cover themselves with their outer garments, which also includes the head.

With respect to the Sunnah, it is authentically reported that the Prophet (SAS) said, ‘when a woman reaches puberty, no part of her body should remain uncovered except the face and the hand up to the wrist joint’. (Mishkaat). It is narrated that once Asma, the sister of Aisha (RA) came before the Prophet (SAS) in a thin dress which revealed her body. The Prophet (SAS) turned his eyes away and said,

Oh Asma! When a woman reaches puberty, it is not lawful that any part of her body be seen, except this and this, and then pointed to his face and the palms of his hands’. (Mishkaat).

From the above quotations, it can be clearly seen that ‘wearing the hijab’ is compulsory upon a Muslim woman since it is a direct command from Allah, and that of the Prophet (SAS). Seeing that it is a clear order in Islam, it means that if a woman does not observe the hijab, she would be considered as being openly disobedient to Allah and His Rasool (SAS). This act of disobedience on her part is indeed a grave sin, and brings about the severe punishment from Allah in a manner He sees fit.

In most of the Arab world it is not women who choose to wear the Hajib. To maintain that it is a choice is just stupid.

[Pants-of-dog]

Very lame attempt. Try again.

Since you have no rebuttal, I think it worked quite well.

And I will happily try again:

You are making a logical error.

Your error is to assume that the hijab is inherently misogynist because you believe it is. This is a fallacy, just as the Muslims who believe the US flag is inherently imperialist and anti-Muslim.

In most of the Arab world it is not women who choose to wear the Hajib. To maintain that it is a choice is just stupid.

Since I never claimed this was the case, I will ignore this strawman.

Please note that Ms. Omar does not live in the Arab world.

Do you think sheitels are misogynist? What about the prayer coverings of Amish women?

[SpecialOlympian]

WRT this particular congresswoman. I am surprised that those on the left accept that we have someone in congress who openly displays the trappings of the oppression of women. They whine and snivel about anyone carrying or quoting the Bible but let these women embody a misogynist agenda.

Ilhan is married and, given the fact that she's a sitting congresswoman, is obviously not being oppressed by her husband. The fact that she wears a shawl doesn't change the fact that she has agency and has exercised it.

Also there are plenty of Christian sects that make it very clear what the role of a woman is in a relationship.

Similarly, I don't see anyone bitching about married Orthodox Jewish women having to wear wigs or shawls because other men aren't allowed to see their hair. Or Mormon women at Brigham Young University or Evangelical women at Bob Jones being prohibited from wearing pants.

In fact, you could question a lot of people who bitch about Muslims about what their views on women are and, aside from the dress code, they would agree on a lot of things with fundamentalist Muslims. Self-proclaimed Western Chauvinists agree with fundamentalist Muslims a lot more than they disagree with them when it comes to gender roles and the expectations of women.

[Hindsite]

When a reporter in Minnesota asked President Trump about Ilhan Omar's comments, he said the following:
“Look, she’s been very disrespectful to this country. She’s been very disrespectful, frankly, to Israel. She is somebody that doesn’t really understand life real life,” President Trump began.

“It’s unfortunate,” President Trump continued. “She’s got a way about her that’s very, very bad, I think, for our country. I think she’s extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country.”

[Drlee]

Similarly, I don't see anyone bitching about married Orthodox Jewish women having to wear wigs or shawls because other men aren't allowed to see their hair. Or Mormon women at Brigham Young University or Evangelical women at Bob Jones being prohibited from wearing pants.

On the contrary. Many people do. You just witnessed POD trying to make the same 'two wrongs make a right' argument.

But since you choose to mention those examples then join with me in condemning them. I will point out however that there are no Mormon countries where women are beaten for not wearing their garments. Girls at Bob Jones University disgracefully sell their sisters down the river. But do note SO that evangelical women went for Trump in huge numbers. So did Mormon women. It is about time that we condemned the shit out of their own misogyny.

Why is it that you and POD do not see the absurdity in your position. You are both far left by US standards. Own it. Stand up. Condemn all of these things.

If people want to make religious choices that is fine. They can make them. But I do not have to endorse their decision.