[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

1 - [For those who pretend to be left-wing but continue to perpetuate stereotypes of given arbitrary groups of people] It is important to break down the fallacious logic of '[x] belongs to a religious group', '[y] belongs to same religious group AND has committed murderous acts' and 'THEREFORE [x] = [y]. {For Ned's benefit: [x] == [y]}

the mayor of rotterdam is a sunni and the son of an imam and he's fucking awesome. he's probably a target now-- may they never get him.

Originally Posted by Glice

2 - Lookup 'racialisation' {Residents of the United States or those territories which recognise American English, look up 'racialization'}

yes, this is where it can get tricky, isn't it? because on the one hand, the extremists don't exist in a vacuum, and on the other hand, a great many muslims are against them, like that awesome mayor of rotterdam.

but why discuss this, when it's easier to throw a tantrum?

Originally Posted by Glice

3 - The protection of minorities is imperative. cf the song 'strange fruit' or whatever makes you feel comfortable

the protection of some minorities. minorities that i'm against: pedophiles (they need help but i won't defend their "right" to fuck children), murderers, al qaeda sleepers.

i once counter-picketed a phelps demonstration (they were in my campus shitting on someone) but i never felt the divine right to go and execute the assholes, thank fuck. still, there are points of struggle in every society.

Originally Posted by Glice

4 - The material dialectic. Look it up.

*snort*

hegelian myths

Originally Posted by Glice

5 - I get that some of you feel there is a direct correlation between 'freedom of speech' and 'saying what you want' - maybe investigate the notion that that isn't actually the case in most territories, and think about why the United Kingdom has never preserved 'freedom of speech' but has preserved the litigious rights to criminalise people on the basis of propagating prejudicious or otherwise offensive speech [And we'll ignore that that those litigious acts are badly practised].

france has its own laws regarding speech and charlie hebdo journalists have been sued and fired ("sacked" in your province) over antisemitism charges. don't like the cartoons--take them to court.

Originally Posted by Glice

6 - Does anyone ask why we preserve the 'freedom of speech' of those who chose to exercise that freedom of speech in the mode of prejudicious and stereotypical cartoons which contribute little more than what is effectively repeating Shylock?

as you said, rules vary by territory. are you discussing france?

Originally Posted by Glice

7 - Yes, religion is a dick. So are any given number of ways of understanding the world. Do you know any atheists who are awful humans? If the answer is no, find some, and then ask yourself whether it's their religion or lack of religion which makes them reprehensible.

traditionally, in christian nations, moral reprehensibility has been attributed to "godlessness", but some statistical studies i can't quote right now have found that atheists are on average more moral than the religious. that i suspect has to do with the fact that an atheist would have to actually grapple with moral questions rather than claim absolute knowledge of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Glice

8 - Do you think morally or ethically? If the latter, perhaps you might want to consider the defense of minorities regardless of their opinions. A racist in a wheelchair doesn't deserve to made to feel inhuman because their legs are irregular. If morality, then read the fuck up on it.

are you talking about a specific variety of morality and ethics? or are you talking in absolute terms? because i'd like to know if you're asking for everyone to share in your morality. casuistically speaking, i'd have to find out who is the racist and what he's doing to see what is justified. e.g., can you bring up charles krauthammer's wheelchair when discussing his warmongering propaganda which could get millions killed?

Originally Posted by Glice

9 - I find you all entirely disgusting.

last i recall that's how you felt about eggs. i like eggs!

Originally Posted by Glice

Bizarrely, those of you who haven't even begun to interrogate your human disgrace are somehow more defensible than those of you who profess 'radical-than-thou'.

i don't know about disgrace. everyone has some. i've never seen you analyze your own. in maoist fashion you should perform a self-criticism first.

Originally Posted by Glice

Post-script[ish] - I know, I'm standing as a moral arbiter.

of your own world, yes. who else is going to do it?

Originally Posted by Glice

I don't believe any of you will read this,

and yet you wrote it

Originally Posted by Glice

I don't believe any of you are even left wing,

is there an intrinsic goodness in any form of "wingness"?

Originally Posted by Glice

I don't care about your moronic ripostes

and yet here we are

Originally Posted by Glice

and I totally don't want to enter into anything like a dialogue with you.

but still you wrote

Originally Posted by Glice

If you want to sincerely ask questions

of whom? and why?

Originally Posted by Glice

and be polite about it, go ahead and PM but you won't, because you're criminally moronic.

alternatively, if you perform a self-criticism, you might realize that you're being dogmatic and your histrionics make you terrible at persuasion

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Those are all good points

some of those are points, but you're way too generous