Political Correctness

[G.T.Ace]

Well thank heavens we all won't just be beating rocks together anymore now that you've showed up.

You're welcome.

Not to try and give any information to a guy who has mastered all levels of political understanding, but uptight mothers and the ultra-religious aren't the only ones who feel that others have no right to offend their sensibilities.

I didn't say that and it's actually okay not wanting to be offended, the question is more why are you offended.
This is going into a territory I am not interested in discussing here though.

That's not what you originally said when you claimed only 1 side gets offended, but ok then.

Yeah I admit it was exaggerated, sorry.

 

[mustafur]

Where did I do this? This is exactly my point.
China mixes socialist economics with capitalism, but seeing how huge for example the wealth gap is and how conservative the country is, it can't be called communist or leftist. They use some left-wing ideas and twist their own horrible political concept out of it, but to be fair, this is how most countries work. Anyway, the way they treat their people, the way their democracy shrinks day by day and the way they act regarding territories makes it clear that they're not a left leaning nation.

The idea being, you can be right leaning with complete liberal social policy or left leaning with complete authoritarianism or even the other way around.

Under what your saying you are fusing two different things social and economic policy to say X is left and Y is right, it's bollocks and shows you have little insight into what your talking about here.

 

[G.T.Ace]

The idea being, you can be right leaning with complete liberal social policy or left leaning with complete authoritarianism or even the other way around.

You can't.
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on 'ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism', while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on 'notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism'.[14]

Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[15][16] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[17] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[18][19] Movements for racial equality[20] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[21]

Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians,[22] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[23] fascists,[24] reactionaries and traditionalists.

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[25] Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists".[26] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism and right-wing populism).[27] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[28]

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are sociological and philosophical terms used to categorize tendencies in left-wing politics otherwise commonly attributed to the ideology of fascism. Fascism has historically been considered a far-right ideology. Since fascism, by Umberto Eco's definition, is incompatible with many tenets of Marxism, left-wing fascism is not considered a far-left ideology.

 

[mustafur]

You can't.
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on 'ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism', while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on 'notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism'.[14]

Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[15][16] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[17] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[18][19] Movements for racial equality[20] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[21]

Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians,[22] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[23] fascists,[24] reactionaries and traditionalists.

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[25] Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists".[26] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism and right-wing populism).[27] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[28]

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are sociological and philosophical terms used to categorize tendencies in left-wing politics otherwise commonly attributed to the ideology of fascism. Fascism has historically been considered a far-right ideology. Since fascism, by Umberto Eco's definition, is incompatible with many tenets of Marxism, left-wing fascism is not considered a far-left ideology.

Think again, Facism is just a Form of Authoritarian, Not the form of Authoritarian, call it what ever you want but Authoritarian most certainly can fit with Left Policies, such as forced equality, and Right leaning Libertarians kind of exist, which would conflict with basically everything you have said.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Think again, Facism is just a Form of Authoritarian, Not the form of Authoritarian, call it what ever you want but Authoritarian most certainly can fit with Left Policies, such as forced equality, and Right leaning Libertarians kind of exist, which would conflict with basically everything you have said.

This is just a model used from a single website without any proper source.
Do really want to place this over the general consensus?

 

[Tornado]

We should all strive for the level of political education on display here. Then we too can say "nuh uh" and Copy-Paste an entire Wikipedia page as a response.

I didn't say that

I didn't say you did. I was answering a question you asked.

and it's actually okay not wanting to be offended

Which is quite a bit different from people thinking they have a right to not be offended; which I know people on the left of the spectrum express to be true because I've seen it on this forum.


I chose my words quite deliberately, thank you very much.

This is going into a territory I am not interested in discussing here though.

But of course. Far be it from me to drag you into a discussion about freedom of speech concerns you were already having in a thread about political correctness.

This is just a model used from a single website without any proper source.

I'm seeing quite a few sources, and indications that the idea behind that chart has been around for 50 years now. And mot to argue too much with the consensus of... you... but you mean that same website you just copied an entire page from and had linked to once before?

 

[Dobermann92]

The far left doesn't want to ban free speech, where are you getting this from?
By the way, your chart is already off, because totalitarianism doesn't work on the left. The extreme left version would be anarchism, which is the opposite. You're accusing me of using a black and white fallacy, while you see things much too naive.
Stalinists and Maoists banned religion for example, yet they were still not left. They also weren't communists even if they called themself that.
Totalitarianism and fascism are both right-wing.

This whole topic is for that, under the term political correctness the far-left wants to ban free speech and control what you can say, there are plenty of cases about this. Like for example:
https://www.thenational.ae/world/eu...t-the-european-court-of-human-rights-1.784583
You can see that the Court argued that "religious feelings should be protected" which is against the principles of free speech in my opinion, because it forbids to criticize any religion.
The term "protecting feelings" is one of the basis of the far-left ideology. (safe spaces, trigger warnings, apologizing constantly for things you didn't mean to do, etc.)

Stalin and Mao were communists, you can argue that communism isn't a left-wing ideology, but they used the principles of communism to an extent. Maybe it wasn't pure communism because of the personality cult they've used, but the core was the same.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This whole topic is for that, under the term political correctness the far-left wants to ban free speech and control what you can say

"Political Correctness" is made up - nobody uses it doctrinally.

Some radical forces on left and right want to ban free speech - that's a given. The way you presented it makes it seem as if it's a left-only thing.

This whole topic is for that, under the term political correctness the far-left wants to ban free speech and control what you can say, there are plenty of cases about this. Like for example:
https://www.thenational.ae/world/eu...t-the-european-court-of-human-rights-1.784583

You're misunderstanding the judgement - it upheld her freedom of speech and found it unviolated. You're confusing freedom to speak with freedom from consequence.

 

[G.T.Ace]

The term "protecting feelings" is one of the basis of the far-left ideology. (safe spaces, trigger warnings, apologizing constantly for things you didn't mean to do, etc.)

I don't see what is so wrong about this, especially trigger warnings to help mentally ill people.

Stalin and Mao were communists, you can argue that communism isn't a left-wing ideology, but they used the principles of communism to an extent. Maybe it wasn't pure communism because of the personality cult they've used, but the core was the same.

Communism is left, my issue is that neither Stalin nor Mao actually used "proper" communism and both slipped into fascism.
Some economic values from communism were used, but both also used nationalistic, racist and classist policies.
Especially the last one contradicts communism.

On the other hand I do think that actual communism is utopian, because people simply don't work that way.
Not to mention that it also has its downsides, like every political idea. The whole system is also incredibly complex, too complex.

 

[Dobermann92]

"Political Correctness" is made up - nobody uses it doctrinally.

Some radical forces on left and right want to ban free speech - that's a given. The way you presented it makes it seem as if it's a left-only thing.



You're misunderstanding the judgement - it upheld her freedom of speech and found it unviolated. You're confusing freedom to speak with freedom from consequence.

It isn't a left wing only thing, but nowadays it is mostly the far-left who does it.

So you cannot say Mohamed was a pedophile even though he married a 6 year old child? Facts can be harsh, but you cannot fine somebody saying them! Also she said it at a private lecture, not on a big platform in the middle of the street. This is the violation of the free speech. I don't take the Court's "argument" as an unbiased opinion.

A very good video on it:

​

 

[TenEightyOne]

It isn't a left wing only thing, but nowadays it is mostly the far-left who does it.

Prove it. That's going to be quite some source.

So you cannot say Mohamed was a pedophile even though he married a 6 year old child?

It would seem at best silly to compare modern standards to over a thousand years ago, also it's hadith that the marriage was consumated at menarche, not at 6. Given that modern developed countries such as the US still allow consumation of such marriages it seems odd to call out a marriage from 1400 years ago without campaigning on the same platform for girls that are still alive. The courts took the context of that message from a far-right activist against the context of their party's record of incitement and judged on that.

I'm not sure why you think a private lecture differs from being on the street, the comments were made and they were reported. Her freedom to make those comments was never in doubt and was not violated. There is no guaranteed freedom from consequence, and that's as it should be.

 

[UKMikey]

Breitbart hatchet men John Nolte and Mike "Pizzagate" Cernovich orchestrating a campaign to dig up decade old joke tweets by Guardians Of The Galaxy movie director and vocal Trump critic James Gunn in order to get him sacked as revenge for Roseanne Barr sounds like the right indulging in political correctness tactics to me. Maybe it doesn't count because it was done in completely bad faith. I doubt they were offended by the tweets.

 

[Dobermann92]

It would seem at best silly to compare modern standards to over a thousand years ago, also it's hadith that the marriage was consumated at menarche, not at 6. Given that modern developed countries such as the US still allow consumation of such marriages it seems odd to call out a marriage from 1400 years ago without campaigning on the same platform for girls that are still alive. The courts took the context of that message from a far-right activist against the context of their party's record of incitement and judged on that.

I'm not sure why you think a private lecture differs from being on the street, the comments were made and they were reported. Her freedom to make those comments was never in doubt and was not violated. There is no guaranteed freedom from consequence, and that's as it should be.

So you are a moral relativist, I see. So the death penalty was fine back then because that was the norm? Or is it okay in the US in the states that allows it? My opinion about it that it isn't and I have to point that out. Female genital mutilation is fine then because that is the norm in t islamic countries?
People are using their holy book to advocate barbaric things all the time, in Saudi-Arabia for example you can legally marry a child if shehe is a female.

Far-right activism is nothing to do with it. I would defend the right of free speech of a neo-nazi even though I don't like them at all. Of course there are limits for example advocating for violence against a certain group of people, but this woman just said the truth about what is in the Quran. If we are fining people about the truth then what is next? In a more concrete example: the Earth is a globe (geoid) but if a flat-earther reports me saying this in public because I hurt the feelings of them then I should pay a fine because what i've said even though it is the truth?

As for the proving of the far-left censorship I would advise you to watch videos about it on the youtube channels TheQuartering and Appabend or search for any non-biased online journalist site for sources on the topic. There is the issue with Shirrako for example, who was banned from youtube (later he got his account back) because far-left activists falsely flagged his videos about punching a feminist in the face and other videos in Red Dead Redemption 2. I can provide you with more information on the topic, but only in PM, because this isn't really fit the topic of political correctness.

 

[TexRex]

Well, apart from the obvious one of Atheists.

It's the holiday season and included among those observed is New Year's, which seems to me about as secular as a widely observed occasion (given that it's tied to a calendar date itself and not a supposed event such as the birth of "Christ") can get.

I could certainly see people with depression having issues with it.

Admittedly, I can imagine that as well, and that hadn't occurred to me.

Oh, you don't have anyone to spend the holidays with? Here, let me cram that fact down your throat!

Thar's where it bumps for me again, because it's a gesture of well-wishing that happens to invoke the holiday season (or one specific holiday, as the case may be) rather than a direct assertion that it is the holiday season (or one specific holiday, as the case may be) with a positive adjective tacked into the front.

Of course that isn't to say that some won't focus more on the holiday/season than the gesture itself, and I'm sympathetic to issues that cause one to do this, be they due to a chemical imbalance or external stimuli, but the notion that one should withhold the gesture on the off chance that the recipient(s) may be coping with these issues is...well...ridiculous.

The difference is, everyone experiences mornings, afternoon's and nights.

And those gestures of well-wishing work year-round as a result.

This time of year, however, there isn't room to swing a dead cat without hitting something implemented to celebrate the holidays. You may not observe them and you may not reap specific benefits from them, but you most definitely experience them.

You are my source (unless you're not actually an accepting person).

I'm not familiar with this supposed "accepting person" of which you speak--I imagine it's a cross between a pegasus and a chimera--but I know for danged sure I'm not one and I'd hope nobody thinks I make an effort to pass myself off as one. Are there things of which I'm accepting? Sure, but being accepting of some things does not an "accepting person" make.

Edit: In addition, one individual (even one who exhibits the behavior alluded to) certainly doesn't constitute the "usual". I'd also like an example of my having mocked something of which I was apparently accepting.

Granted, every post you make is mocking an ridiculing, so why should this topic be any different?

Pity you opted to make such a statement while responding to two separate posts that weren't as indicated.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As for the proving of the far-left censorship I would advise you to watch videos about it on the youtube channels TheQuartering and Appabend or search for any non-biased online journalist site for sources on the topic. There is the issue with Shirrako for example, who was banned from youtube (later he got his account back) because far-left activists falsely flagged his videos about punching a feminist in the face and other videos in Red Dead Redemption 2. I can provide you with more information on the topic, but only in PM, because this isn't really fit the topic of political correctness.

FYI there was a discussion on this forum about the Shirrako incident:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-on-youtube-for-a-rdr2-gameplay-video.383106/

 

[UKMikey]

As for the proving of the far-left censorship I would advise you to watch videos about it on the youtube channels TheQuartering and Appabend or search for any non-biased online journalist site for sources on the topic.

Let me guess: you can tell if they're not biased, depending on whether or not they agree with your point of view.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As for the proving of the far-left censorship I would advise you to watch videos about it on the youtube channels TheQuartering and Appabend or search for any non-biased online journalist site for sources on the topic.

Firstly it's up to you to provide a better source than telling people to go and find a source. Secondly there isn't a question that some far-left entities impose censorship - your claim was that "it is mostly the far left who do it".

Source required.

 

[Dobermann92]

Let me guess: you can tell if they're not biased, depending on whether or not they agree with your point of view.

Not really. If they use facts in their articles, they are not biased. But then there is a problem for some of you: what is a fact? From the Cambridge English dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact
"Something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information: "

Kotaku and Polygon are for example heavily biased because they use the social justice propaganda in their articles and they have been caught lying on several occasion.

Firstly it's up to you to provide a better source than telling people to go and find a source. Secondly there isn't a question that some far-left entities impose censorship - your claim was that "it is mostly the far left who do it".

Source required.

I said one source, I'll update this post today with more. I have a feeling though that you won't accept any of it no matter what I post. Post me this many (or at least 5) article or video of the right doing the censorship. I can post many more of the far-left doing it.

Sony headquaters moving to California causing censorship:

Spoiler

Superchat bans:

Spoiler

Patreon deplatforming of Sargon of Akkad over saying several non-pc words:

Spoiler

"Game journalists" defending chinese censorship in Rainbow Six Siege:

Spoiler

Richard Dawkins event cancelled:

Spoiler

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ncelled-over-his-abusive-speech-against-islam
btw this is a great video from him on the regressive left:

Sex robot convention cancelled over Steve Bannon guest speaker slot: (notice that Steve Bannon caused the outrage, isn't the sex robots, so you can't say it was the right who was against this event)

Spoiler

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/79684...n-cancelled-steve-bannon-campaigners-protest/

Bloomberg article on free speech:

Spoiler

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-05/free-speech-divides-the-left-and-the-right

Souther Poverty Law Center declaring Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-muslim(sic!) extremist:

Spoiler

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not really. If they use facts in their articles, they are not biased. But then there is a problem for some of you: what is a fact? From the Cambridge English dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact
"Something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information: "

Kotaku and Polygon are for example heavily biased because they use the social justice propaganda in their articles and they have been caught lying on several occasion.

So you start avoiding finding a source which proves your claim that most suppression of speech freedoms comes from the far left by starting an argument about what a fact is? Not a great start, especially when you start combining editorial bias with and understanding of free speech. Editorial bias is surely a definition of free speech? And guess what... you can issue facts and be biased! Hitler loved small children and classical music. Fact.

I said one source, I'll update this post today with more. I have a feeling though that you won't accept any of it no matter what I post. Post me this many (or at least 5) article or video of the right doing the censorship. I can post many more of the far-left doing it.

I wouldn't post videos as a source, I wouldn't expect anybody to have to sit through something in real-time to find out something that I could just have written.

Sony headquaters moving to California causing censorship:

Spoiler

Superchat bans:

Spoiler

Patreon deplatforming of Sargon of Akkad over saying several non-pc words:

Spoiler

"Game journalists" defending chinese censorship in Rainbow Six Siege:

Spoiler

Richard Dawkins event cancelled:

Spoiler

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ncelled-over-his-abusive-speech-against-islam
btw this is a great video from him on the regressive left:

Sex robot convention cancelled over Steve Bannon guest speaker slot: (notice that Steve Bannon caused the outrage, isn't the sex robots, so you can't say it was the right who was against this event)

Spoiler

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/79684...n-cancelled-steve-bannon-campaigners-protest/

Bloomberg article on free speech:

Spoiler

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-05/free-speech-divides-the-left-and-the-right

Souther Poverty Law Center declaring Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-muslim(sic!) extremist:

Spoiler

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/

Oh, right.

How about you summarise those... and try to start with the one that shows the far-left are the source of most of the suppression of free speech. Also try to look for ones that aren't a cessation of publication by private bodies - from a glance at the titles above that's what all of those are, and again they're an example of the exercising of free speech.

You might also look up Quilliam and their activities to see why some muslim communities in the UK are very uncomfortable with their 'moderate' approach to islaamic integration, and understandably so.

Finally you might want to read a bit more about what free speech actually is, you seem unclear and it's as if you think it might be a right for anybody to say anything they like through whichever medium they wish. It isn't like that.

 

[Dobermann92]

So you start avoiding finding a source which proves your claim that most suppression of speech freedoms comes from the far left by starting an argument about what a fact is? Not a great start, especially when you start combining editorial bias with and understanding of free speech. Editorial bias is surely a definition of free speech? And guess what... you can issue facts and be biased! Hitler loved small children and classical music. Fact.



I wouldn't post videos as a source, I wouldn't expect anybody to have to sit through something in real-time to find out something that I could just have written.



Oh, right.

How about you summarise those... and try to start with the one that shows the far-left are the source of most of the suppression of free speech. Also try to look for ones that aren't a cessation of publication by private bodies - from a glance at the titles above that's what all of those are, and again they're an example of the exercising of free speech.

You might also look up Quilliam and their activities to see why some muslim communities in the UK are very uncomfortable with their 'moderate' approach to islaamic integration, and understandably so.

Finally you might want to read a bit more about what free speech actually is, you seem unclear and it's as if you think it might be a right for anybody to say anything they like through whichever medium they wish. It isn't like that.

I didn't started to avoid finding a source, I answered to the other guy. You are just telling me what I've predicted you will do. Please get a degree in philosophy, law, english literature, journalism, etc. to have a point...oh wait you don't have to. if you don't have the time to sit through my sources then you don't have time to read academic papers too because you know they are tend to be around 50-100 pages long.

So are you saying that easier to integrate fundamentalist islamic people than moderates? Where is the proof of that? Where is the proof of the problems with Quilliam? Please link your sources

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't started to avoid finding a source, I answered to the other guy. You are just telling me what I've predicted you will do. Please get a degree in philosophy, law, english literature, journalism, etc. to have a point...oh wait you don't have to. if you don't have the time to sit through my sources then you don't have time to read academic papers too because you know they are tend to be around 50-100 pages long.

You haven't read a lot of academic papers then - there are perfectly good ones with far fewer than ten pages. I do have degrees, I'm not sure how that's relevant though, most people should be able to get most of the meaning from a five-page paper in under two minutes.

For videos you could do as most do and summarise the key points you took away?

So are you saying that easier to integrate fundamentalist islamic people than moderates?

I can't tell what you mean from that?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Where is the proof of the problems with Quilliam? Please link your sources

https://medium.com/insurge-intellig...ojan-horse-in-britain-bdb40f7d1867#.er8t39to5

 

[UKMikey]

I wasn't familiar with the concept of the regressive left so I did some research.

Here's an article that describes how the #regressiveleft hashtag has mutated from a crticism of Islamist supporters to cover anything the "anti-SJW" section of the internet doesn't like.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...rise-of-the-regressiveleft-hashtag#.tf71OEVY1

In the following video, David Pakman explains that "regressive left" doesn't mean that the entire left is regressive despite the tendencies of bigoted people to use it as an ad hominem attack on all liberals.



Perhaps these articles are biased because they don't contain the right kind of facts but it'd be ironic given the current discussion on how the majority of censorship is of "far left" origin if the phrase is being used by right-wing elements as a catch-all term to shut conversation down as the article and video both assert.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wasn't familiar with the concept of the regressive left so I did some research.

Here's an article that describes how the #regressiveleft hashtag has mutated from a crticism of Islamist supporters to cover anything the "anti-SJW" section of the internet doesn't like.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...rise-of-the-regressiveleft-hashtag#.tf71OEVY1

In the following video, David Pakman explains that "regressive left" doesn't mean that the entire left is regressive despite the tendencies of bigoted people to use it as an ad hominem attack on all liberals.



Perhaps these articles are biased because they don't contain the right kind of facts but it'd be ironic given the current discussion on how the majority of censorship is of "far left" origin if the phrase is being used by right-wing elements as a catch-all term to shut conversation down as the article and video both assert.

Another stellar piece of journalism from Buzzfeed who uses the same broad brush they decry, by adopting the "alt-right" label to characterize what they perceive as the opposite side of the argument.

 

[mustafur]

From my knowledge the "regressive left" refers to the left wing individuals who hate free speech in favour of a policy that supports their view of the world in a quest to ban things they find offensive, its not a blanket term to describe all left wing individuals.

The less Divisive term would be the "Authotarian left".

You have to have your head in the sand if you don't think this exists, alot of libertarians see them as the lefts version of the evangelical right.

 

[zzz_pt]

The regressive leftist is someone who lives in a western country and, among other dumb things, celebrates / supports the "World Hijab Day", inviting everyone to wear a headscarf in "support" of muslim women around the world, while at the same time completely ignores muslim women in Iran (and other places) taking a stand against the compulsory headscarf, throwing them away in public (risking their own lives).

 

[G.T.Ace]

Another stellar piece of journalism from Buzzfeed who uses the same broad brush they decry, by adopting the "alt-right" label to characterize what they perceive as the opposite side of the argument.

Great job dancing around the argument.

 

[UKMikey]

Another stellar piece of journalism from Buzzfeed who uses the same broad brush they decry, by adopting the "alt-right" label to characterize what they perceive as the opposite side of the argument.

What's broad-brush about the term "alt-right"? Neither the article or the video you ignored seem to be saying that all right wingers behave in this way.

You have to have your head in the sand if you don't think this exists, alot of libertarians see them as the lefts version of the evangelical right.

In that case it's a good thing that nobody was arguing that people like that don't exist. At any rate, regardless of your example it sounds like the term has mutated as described above.

The regressive leftist is someone who lives in a western country and, among other dumb things, celebrates / supports the "World Hijab Day", inviting everyone to wear a headscarf in "support" of muslim women around the world, while at the same time completely ignores muslim women in Iran (and other places) taking a stand against the compulsory headscarf, throwing them away in public (risking their own lives).

The wikipedia article I linked was pretty clear. The implication was that if you don't buy the 20% figure then you're a wilfully blind regressive lefty. Nothing to do with headscarves was mentioned.

 

[zzz_pt]

The wikipedia article I linked was pretty clear. The implication was that if you don't buy the 20% figure then you're a wilfully blind regressive lefty. Nothing to do with headscarves was mentioned.

I wasn't replying to your post. I always quote or cite the people I'm replying to.
Since the term "regressive" came up and I was reading about an article about the WHD, I posted something related to it.

I have no idea what wiki page you're talking about either. I haven't found a link on this thread.

 

[UKMikey]

I wasn't replying to your post. I always quote or cite the people I'm replying to.
Since the term "regressive" came up and I was reading about an article about the WHD, I posted something related to it.

I have no idea what wiki page you're talking about either. I haven't found a link on this thread.

That's my fault. This thread kind of collided with the Islam thread so I referred to a post on the other thread by mistake.