Son, you are out of your league.
Do you know anything about the history of the Democratic party? Anything?
Think harder before you post a smug-ass reply.
P.S. I warned you about the word “progressive” tripping you up. And you know Wilson was a huge racist, right?
I’m patiently waiting for you to condemn the killing of puppies.
Why do you hate puppies so much that you haven’t condemned this?
There is quite a variety of double standards, plenty to go around, for sure.
“Liberals: ISIS has nothing to do with Islam.
Conservatives: Planned Parenthood shooting had nothing to do with Christianity.
Me: you are both wrong.” -Faisal Saeed Al Mutar
Yes. That’s rather the point.
If you think “progressive” and “racist” are somehow mutually exclusive, then you’re rather ignorant of your 20th century history.
Anyone who says this is incorrect. Thank Kdapt no one here is doing so.
I do, and I have. Don’t kill puppies, people.
The point here is the double standard: mainstream groups like CAIR are quick to defend Muslim American victims only when the incidents can serve the purpose of advancing their narrative: that America is racist and Islamophobic, and that Muslims are primarily victims. A true civil rights defense of Muslim Americans, based on principal rather than politics, has to acknowledge that the biggest challenges and threats facing people born Muslim come not from America at large, but from Muslims themselves, and the intolerant culture that dominates their insular communities. This is especially true for people who are born into Muslim families but also happen to be women, homosexual, progressive, atheist, and/or non-traditional in some way.
So we have a Muslim boy arrested, and promptly released, after bringing a package to school that looks suspiciously like a “movie bomb”, and CAIR is at his house the next day holding a press conference in his yard. In Missouri a Muslim girl is dragged by her hair from school for not wearing hijab, by a member of her own family. Where is the press conference and invitation to the White House for this victim? A single emailed threat is enough for CAIR to issue a press release calling for State and Federal intervention, but a child dragged from school by her hair for being a non-compliant Muslim female doesn’t even show up on their radar apparently, not when the perpetrator is Muslim, and the social code he is violently enforcing is endorsed by CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood progenitors.
So, the devout former Missou prof will be done for child abuse and the Planned Parenthood shooter will get life - minimum. All’s well and good in the punishment arena.
Problem with the terrorist label, especially going into an election year, is politics. Numerous politicians have wasted no time jumping on the terrorist label bandwagon in the Dear case. Never let a sensational attention-getter go to waste!
So how can we redefine terrorism for maximum political leverage? :rolleyes:
Do you think so? I don’t know. Imagine if, instead of a fellow Muslim dragging a 14 year old girl her from school by her hair, slapping her, and throwing her into a car, as punishment for being a Muslim not wearing a hijab, a non-Muslim male had grabbed and dragged a female Muslim child by her hair for being* a Muslim woman who was wearing a hijab*. Do you really think that the perpetrator would be walking around free on $4500 bond? And don’t you think that victim, instead of a few mentions on local news and right wing blogs, would be getting widespread vocal support, not just from Muslim Americans, but from Americans generally? I ask anyone who can see this double standard to help me to understand why it exists. Why is the abuse of Muslims less acknowledged and more tolerated when the abuser is a Muslim (and the victim a woman or girl)?
How the hell did a thread about a terrorist attack by a U.S. citizen on a health facility turn into some weird anti-Islam/pro-KKK Their Terrorism is Worse than Mine thread, in which some one actually claims that referencing the original point is a “red herring”?
Is violence against women so insignificant to you all that you can’t even allow others to discuss it?
The guy was her father. No politicking needed. We’re all about family in this country, dont’cha know?! And don’t dare question ANYTHING religiously motivated - that’s off limits.
[/remove tongue from cheek]
I didn’t say they were.
But let’s back up.
Progressives - then or now - are usually not racist. As I suspected, I think your problem is you think Democrat = progressive/liberal. Wrong.
In the 1920s, progressive still meant someone who wanted government reform, etc. Not really liberal or conservative, but fitting in with both. In our day, it means liberal, but Democrats in the 1920s were hardly all liberal. A huge swath of the Democratic party was from the “Solid South,” which was controlled almost entirely by Democrats from the end of Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Movement. Are you saying all those southern Democrats were a bunch of liberals?
No, I don’t believe that you have before now.
About time! Now why do you hate nuns? I’ve never heard you condemn beating up nuns. How dare you!
There is no double standard, because failing to condemn something is not the same thing as approving of it. As I demonstrated above.
Yes. How many were killed at women’s health care facilities? Because that’s the original point of this thread.
I should probably stop here …
Yeah, I should have stopped there.
Why don’t focus on the actual OP, rather than your own opinion? boffking did not propose that Islamic terrorist are insignificant or less effective than our home grown ones, s/he proposed that the Colorado shootings were an act of terrorism. You agreed. Fine.
You just called the original premise of the thread a red herring.
Think about that for a while.
Yeah, I get that you think that; you’ve been real clear about that.
So what?
Maybe we need a refresher:
Double standards are illustrated by patterns of behavior. Like right-wing Christians criticizing the rhetoric that inspires Islamist terrorists, while spreading rhetoric that inspires terrorism against women’s health clinics. Also, self appointed Muslim “civil rights” groups who actively and vocally defend Muslims only when the persons accused of abusing them is non-Muslim, when so much of the abuse of the civil rights of Muslims is perpetrated by other Muslims.
I note that you have a pattern of behavior of never condemning the senseless slaughter of baby chicks. Why do you hate baby chicks?
You know, I should have also invoked the laugh test. Try to say it out loud: “progressive Klansman.” Try not to laugh.
Your post is a stupid dodge, congrats.
It wasn’t a dodge at all. I was making my point, again, since it didn’t seem to sink in the first time.
No matter how you try to phrase it, including “pattern of behavior,” you can’t assume someone approves of something just because they didn’t condemn it, and they don’t owe you condemnation of anything. Better?
If they owe anyone, it’s the girl who was pulled by her hair from school for not wearing hijab, not me. They made her the implicit promise of support when they represented themselves as a civil rights group for Muslim Americans, and made a habit of intervening on much more trivial matters, such as a Muslim womansupposedly being denied a canof coke on a flight, or a kid being arrested for bringing a sketchy science project to school.
For your stupid example to not be stupid I would have had to represent myself as some sort of advocate for birds or chickens or whatever and quickly and consistently held press conferences on their behalf, while ignoring some large subset of victims chosen with obvious political intent related to the identity of their aggressors.
Again, there are a variety of double standards at play around these issues, plenty to go around.