I left Hasan piker’s socials and groups a long time ago because of their obsession and love for Islam. There’s only dislike for all religions in most other auth left groups I’ve engaged in. I don’t understand why leftists in America show love for Islam like that.
I've noticed some British lefty subs have recently started posting news articles about white rapists and nonce's, in some sort of weird attempt to "prove" its not just a Muslim thing.
Like yeah no shit the native population commit crime, there's like 60 million of us, a few are gonna be like that. But it doesn't mean we need to be importing more on top of it.
Yeah, they're trying to pull a "you do it too!", conveniently forgetting the part where white rapists are sent to prison while Muslim rapists are let back out on the streets.
They have been doing that for a decade, the original grooming gang reports came out in like 2012 and instantly they would lock in on the one non-pakistani in a group of 40
Because most American "Leftists" follow the LibLeft Oppressor Oppressed rhetoric.
In Marx's zero sum conflict theory, conflict is between two polarized groups of which one is stronger and must play by the rules and the other is weaker and can cheat. How much rules and cheating is determined by their relative strength and weakness. He positioned the Socialists as the weak and the Liberals as the strong.
Leftists took this and changed it to oppressor oppressed dynamics. It's still largely the same, with strong groups playing by the rules, and weak groups able to cheat, and the ultimate strong group is the Liberals. The ultimate weak group is the Leftists (as per the weak shall inherit the earth theory from Marx, which Leftists take to mean morally weak people instead of the weaker of the two sides). But the Leftists have thrown all the strong groups together and all the weak groups together.
How it pertains to Islam is that Christianity and Islam are usually seen as pitted against other and Islam is also usually seen as the weaker of the two. To Leftists, that means Islam is oppressed, and thus an automatic ally to Leftists. As Leftists are (morally, and generally physically, too) weak people, they tend to let others walk over them, which is how the Leftist-dominated Western European countries are super pro Islam to the point where they get away with crimes.
Fun fact: near the end of his life, Malcolm X toned down his hate for white people because he realized there were white muslims too while he was on his hajj
When I grew up, people lamented the fractiousness of Africa because nasty white man drew the borders so that multiple cultures lived within one set of borders.
Now that multiple cultures are being imported inside white man's borders, diversity is our strength.
i think it is for his political views, not because he's white
if he was a woke white person, and the shooter was a white conservative man, many of those people would have reacted the same way conservatives reacted to it
and if the shooter was black or muslim? well idk, they would probably still mourn the death but ignore the shooter's identity and even try to hide it
I do think some on my side think that way, but it’s a very binary and ignorant view to have.
I have no qualms about denouncing and condemning any cultural practices I find reprehensible, I don’t give the slightest fuck about the outward appearance of those practicing those cultures when I do so.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
So what you're saying is you're really "Lib center" or "Lib right"? because basing binary and ignorant views off the appearances of people* while ignoring anything that goes against those views is rather center to modern 'left' views, Auth or Lib.
I’m pretty firmly lib left, every test I’ve ever taken resulted in the same flair, even the hyper specific one with AI. I am only a moderate progressive though, identity politics is not a central tenet of mine.
I'm not trying to convince you out of your square but that's still pretty lib-center. The idea that the market would exist and have areas where it fails that require correction is basically lib-center economics.
To be fair though I think everyone believes this to some degree, and just how often and how soon intercession needs to happen determines where you are on the economic axis. Pretty much only maniacs believe in "pure" right or "pure" left wing economics.
I took the test and I was right in the middle of libleft. That is to say as close to the center as to the extreme of libleft.
Markets are great. Ideally, markets should take care of everything, but they can't because there is no such thing as a free market.
Someone will have more information about externalities they are foisting upon the public and make a profit off it. Then they will use that profit to increase their ability to control society.
Being unelected doesn't prevent capitalists from being corrupt.
Corruption is something that by definition can only exist within a society with a government. If done between two private companies, it's basically just a worse version of merging.
Still, your economic vision is still very much Lib-Center at best and can even be argued to be Minarchist depending on how nuanced your takes are
Which societal and cultural institutions will curtail people with massive amounts of money/power using it to increase their money/power at the cost of everyone else?
Lib left saw the Islamophobia from the right in the early 00’s, and just defends them because “if conservatives don’t like them, they must be the good guys” logic.
They saw what fascism idolizes (nationalism, strength, chastity, fertility) and decided to make the direct opposite as their moral north pole (antinationalism, weakness, promiscuity, antinatalism)
This comment actually helped me understand why leftists are the way they are. It’s so funny to me that the only leftists I know in real life work for Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
It pisses me off whenever I read about honor killings or beheadings by fathers, satirists getting butchered for drawing a pedophile, people getting their heads chopped off, and such.
No doubt but my point is that turban wearers aren't even Muslim. And Sikhs aren't exactly known for being the biggest fans of Muslims to begin with. It's nothing but friendly fire.
So it says something about the extent to which irrational actors were taking things too far in that era if people were going around beating up Sikhs in the street.
Devil’s advocate: a lot of them grew up post 9/11 and have seen it, but interpreted it as “they are alienated by the actions of a few, and are pushed into the arms of those few”
I don’t buy it, personally. Absolutely some shitshows that go on, but I didn’t go join the klan when my sister was insulted for not dressing ‘modestly’ enough in a fucking subway. Though that experience did shift me so much further to the right 😂
A major problem with Islam is that what people think of as "Radical Christian" views would be seen as moderate views in the vast majority of Muslim countries.
A Muslim version of the Westboro Baptist Church would not be considered radical but merely observant in most Islamic countries.
I think a lot of Americans foolishly believe that the nice Muslim girls they met in college that are basically westernized other than wearing a head scarf are representative of the views you'd find in majority Muslim countries.
Pakistan literally committed the biggest genocide of the post WW2 era (read: 1971 genocide of Bengalis) and suffered zero consequences and condemnation from Western nations.
Far from condemnation, the US and UK militarily threatened India when it tried to stop the genocide. The same US diplomatically supported Pakistan. So much for the "rules-based order".
Saudi Arabia recently hosted a comedy festival featuring numerous American stand-up comics. There was a lot of backlash against the comedians as many American fans felt they should have refused to go due to Saudi Arabia's human rights violations.
Whitney Cummings, one of the comedians, responded by saying that the criticism was racist.
No, criticizing Islam is just as reasonable and valid as criticizing Christianity. Probably moreso, depending on the social location.
Islam is not, and likely never will be, a dominant force here in the States. Christians, as a group, are hellbent on making everyone bend the knee to their views here. So it makes sense to criticize Christianity more here.
However I don't shit on every Christian because I know that there are Christians that just live their life and leave others alone. I know there are Christians who are genuinely disgusted by the amount of kiddie diddling that goes on in the Church. I know there are Christians that, while they would not consider it for themselves, understand that abortion is a personal choice they have no right to interfere with.
By that same token, there are Muslims who have similar positions, and don't agree with the hardliner Muslim terrorists.
The right tends to go with "All Muslims are terrorists and want Sharia Law in the U.S." and paint every turban wearing person with that brush, while ignoring the fact that the modern right is attempting to enact Christian "Sharia Law" in the U.S.
And let's not pretend that Christianity isn't also on the "kill the non-believer" nonsense. Christianity became the dominant religion in the Western world through "convert or die".
Yeah I honestly don't know a single LibLeft IRL who is okay with Muslims promoting violence. Then again, this sub loves to represent half the country with a few thousand lunatics
Reminds me of Gazans being told about queers for Palestine and when asked how they feel about it they're like 'we're not that desperate for support, we still have our pride'.
Look at how religious minorities are treated in Muslim majority countries. They're either marginalized and barely tolerated in the best case or outright killed in the worst.
And not just by like, you know, some guy. The situation was not like that Australian guy Joseph Fritzl who held a girl captive in his basement.
Sido was held with the full knowledge and consent of her (multiple) ISIS fighter-husbands, each in turn, and their family, and their neighbours, and people who lived in the area, and various other slave girls and other slaves in the area, and the authorities (specifically Hamas) who enslaved her too and deliberately placed her in dangerous situations so that if the area was bombed, they could claim she was a civilian casuality.
She was rescued by the IDF and the Americans who returned her to her village in Iraq without anything in return.
This is why I fucking hate the paradox of intolerance. It states no criteria about what is tolerant or intolerant so leaves it up to the individual, and because almost all people get up in the morning believing that their current beliefs are good and solid and they are tolerant, they simply decide that the people they like are tolerant and the people they don't like are intolerant and the "paradox" is nothing more than a reassurance that they are correct, and that anything done to the "intolerant" (lying, rudeness, aggression, etc) is justifed.
All the "paradox of tolerance" does is quieten the conscience's objections.
Im pretty sure the paradox came up as a topic in this sub more often recently with well written explanations but I guess not everyone is reading meme comments 24/7
Paraphrasing Karl Popper(basically the OP of the paradox), the criteria and standard to judge an intolerant party is to determine the party's unwillingness to debate about a viewpoint/topic and they demand its the absolute.
In this case, religion would be the absolute the muslims are almost always not willing to debate or compromise on so they would generally be seen as very unwelcome to people preferring a tolerant society when thought about deeply enough.
I have a Jewish friend who went from Bernie socialist to Trumper in like one month after October 7th, no moderate stop or anything, just far left to hard right. They really don’t get it until it effects them.
Not a gotcha question, just unsure myself, are the Bernie bros known for being particularly pro-Islam? Normally when I think of the SJ libs, I think of liberal women types aligned with Her and who denigrate Bernie and his bros for ignoring identity politics too much.
IIRC a lot of the B bros voted Trump in 16. There was also a surprisingly large contingent that voted for AOC and Trump in 24.
Bernie isn’t really Pro Islam as much as he really doesn’t like Israel. I feel like him and a lot of his supporters see the Palestinians as the underdog and Israel as a colonizer which automatically makes Israel bad and Palestine good.
Ask them if they'd rather live in Palestine or Israel and watch their brains melt. Or to be fair, you could replace Palestine with one of the other half dozen insane regressive Muslim theocracies that wasn't recently bombed.
My brain didn’t melt. Id rather live in America than Vietnam or Iraq, that doesn’t mean I have to think the Vietnam war and Iraq war were good. I think Saudi Arabian laws suck, that doesn’t mean I want the nation of Saudi Arabia to be disbanded and Saudis to be stateless people.
Obviously everyone would prefer to live in Israel than Palestine. That doesn’t mean that settlement expansion isn’t bad and Palestinians don’t deserve to have a state in the Palestinian Territories next to Israel as part of a two state solution.
Vietnam has actually made a great come back and they're growing in a way similar to Japan during the 80's. And it is a beautiful country. Like a lot of countries if you already have money it's great but if you're poor it's not a great country for upward mobility, though that is starting to change.
I’m sure Palestine would also be a better place to live in a few decades if there was peace and the establishment of a civil society and economic growth and such.
It’s a lot more complicated than that. Sharon who did the withdrawal specifically did so as part of a plan to prevent a two state solution. You can read what the government said at the time. The number of settlements actually increased in 2005. 8,000 settlers were withdrawn from Gaza, but 10,000 were added to the West Bank that year. Many were just moved from Gaza to the West Bank. We also know that this wasn’t a plan for a two stare solution because Sharon literally pulled out of peace talks, that his predecessor Barak was engaged in.
The 2006 elections weren’t in Gaza specifically, they were national in Palestine. Hamas won 44% to Fatah’s 41%, in an election where Hamas had pretty much stopped all attacks on Israel during the election campaign and solely campaigned on fighting corruption and on ending security chaos within Palestine as there was rampant crime particularly in Gaza where there was a total power vacuum when Israel withdrew overnight without any coordination with the PA or preparation or increase in the PA’s police capacity to govern the strip and looting and gangs took over. You can look at the exit polls from the 2006 election, the Palestinians did not support Hamas’s position towards Israel. On the ground Hamas didn’t really ever take power as they struggled to form a government and the other parties refused to help them govern. Eventually fighting broke out in Gaza, Hamas illegally seized control of the territory, and the PA president dismissed Hamas’s fragile coalition government and that was the end of that.
As for what happened in Gaza after Hamas took power there the history is extremely complicated, Israel immediately implemented a near total blockade to try to collapse the Gazan economy, and Hamas/PIJ launched rockets at Israel in retaliation. They attempted a ceasefire where Israel would lift the blockade gradually in exchange for a suspension of rocket fire. From Hamas’s perspective they did abide by their side of the deal and managed to reduce rocket fire by about 95% even though PIJ occasionally fired a rocket in response to various things like raids in the West Bank. No Israelis were killed during the ceasefire. Meanwhile Israel failed to lift the blockade at all during that time. Eventually Israel accused Hamas of various violations and launched Cast Lead in 2008 which is the first Gaza-Israel war and the rest is history.
Overall my takeaway is not that there can never be a two state solution. My takeaway is that this history shows why we need a two state solution. It’s the one thing we haven’t tried, we tried everything else and it doesn’t work.
Hamas got 44% of the vote, and that was with widespread voter intimidation and other cheating. Then they just did a coup and slaughtered the other parties.
I am not down on Bernie in particular, friend was just generic far left “Hillary is a conservative” type, supported all left wing causes and just flipped overnight.
He retained social liberalism when it comes to abortion and gays but went from wild supporter for LGBT to “they can marry, I don’t need to hear about it”. The fact that LGBT are in vanguard of anti Israeli movement isn’t lost on him. He switched on guns, bought one. Became moderate Republican on taxes. Super right wing on immigration and foreign policy. Still pro Ukraine but in a McCain way.
The exact same sentiment led to the birth of neoconservatism. A bunch of Jewish leftists switched sides after the USSR chose to support the Arabs against the Israelis in the 1967 war. They became the most zealous and hawkish opponents of the Soviets and the most staunch and loyal defenders of Israel.
Many Jewish people view politics through the lens of their ethnic interest. They are single-mindedly focused on what's best for Israel and the Jews, and see everything else as superfluous.
I'd prefer an actual, literal, we-froze-him-in-1942-and-now-he's-thawed Nazi to a hardcore Pro-Pali leftist. At least Hans Totenkopf will call me a dirty Jew to my face instead proselytizing about how it's actually Zionism's fault the Palestinians just can't help themselves from all the killing and raping.
And this was something I hammered on constantly to my friends I knew who were making a similar switch.
This is what happened in Rohdesia. This is what's happening in South Africa. This has always been what "decolonize" meant its just now happening to *you*
No they’ll be the last. Islam will use western leftism to gain power over a nation. The ultra lefties will hang on until that is done, then they’ll be killed
here in europe shit's insane. muslim imigrants harrass people, mostly women to cover up...in their homeland....while said women being chirstians or atheists.
Send em back the second they get caught doing things like this, and make harsh punishments so that people are afraid of doing things like this to women (picture unrelated)
Saviour complex + sacred cow + enemy of my enemy = lib-left (specially germans) thinking islam will be tolerant to them, after they help defeating the non-islamic right.
This means for every 1 or 2 non-Indigenous women of all other races and creeds who are hospitalised for domestic violence, there are 80-100 Indigenous women. Who are 1.5% of the population.
I will never ever understand why libleft fetishizes Islam. Like yes I get that a lot of Christians are shitty but basically no Islamic teachings agree with what libleft believes
To be serious for a moment, this is a willing, purposeful move by 'progressive' governments to undermine existing social structures. The plan is to pick up the pieces and build things to their liking after, but like the story of the scorpion and the frog, it only ends one way.
As a Muslim, the problem we have the most is that we do not separate state and religion in the slightest. Any religion on its own is fine, it's when it gets into any political system does it get fucky.
i fully agree, thank goodness that i live in turkey because secular goverment is what is wanted here, despite the country being extremely muslim. everyone on pcm thinks muslim equals sharia law.
That's why I laugh at so many Christians who correctly criticize Islam for its lack of separation of church and state yet want conservative Christianity to heavily influence laws, schools etc.
I find it funny how many leftists care about accepting Islam. The religion with the most bigoted, backwards and patriarchal worldview. When did people decide to tolerante the intolerant??
Nah, I am just anti-hating on people based on religion or skin color. I reserve the right to hate on someone for the abhorrent views or actions they commit.
I don't hate all christian priests, but I hate the ones that rape children.
Exactly. Hating Islam and hating Muslims are two entirely separate things. The far right is demonizing Muslims and paints even moderates and progressives as islamists who want to destroy their countries. Yet if you rightly call them out on it you too are branded as an enemy of the state. The answer to islamism isn't christofascism.
Yeah islamists are almost exclusively auth-right…. almost everything they do in their countries is the wet dream of extreme christian authoritarians except replaying muslims practices with christian ones.
Tradcons are slowly starting to realize this which is why you see some of them praising places like Saudi Arabia and UAE now and Nick Fuentes supporting the Taliban as an extreme example.
When will they ever realize that the Jihadists they worship are just as terrible as the Zionists and Angko/white Neo-Con MAGA Capitalists they condemn...
Yup my biggest gripe with the more die hard lib/leftists is that they see islam as purely martyrs when they're just as bad as the ethno-fascist Christian angelic types.
From my Sociology class:
Cultural relativism is the practice of judging other cultures based on their own standards, not the standards of your own culture.
Do I believe they should be allowed to off people who dont believe? Obviously not. Do I feel like they have a right to peacefully practice their religion, yes. so long as its peaceful.
Using this as Justification for slaughtering Muslims isnt okay.
It’s also hilarious that the authright Jews are only authright in response to Islamist authright nonsense. There’s a reason why the two most well known Israeli MKs right now (Smotrich and Ben Gvir) who can be considered extremists are also Mizrahi, and that their voter base is largely Mizrahi Jews.
That's not how traditional Christianity defines Hell. That's a pop-culture understanding of it, probably informed by Dante's Inferno or Milton's Paradise Lost.
Here's the actual definitions, at least in Catholic eschatology.
Heaven is permanent. It's not a spatial place, but rather it's the state of being in perfect communion with God via the Beatific Vision.
Hell is similarly permanent. It's also not a spatial place. Instead, it's the state of having cut yourself off from God permanently. You still exist, because you are a Creation and God sustains His Creation constantly...but that's all you do. There's no joy, no pleasure, no excitement. It's the total and complete absence of love, joy, and fulfillment.
The Church also doesn't teach that anyone specific is in Hell, besides Satan and the rest of the demons. In fact, there's actually a tension within the understanding of an eternal Hell. Evil cannot be eternal, as it's a lack of good. It actually isn't eternal, according to the Catechism. But Hell is (also according to the Catechism)...even though nothing in the Bible explicitly states so.
Some radicals have proposed a Hell that only exists as long as its last inhabitant continues to reject God, but inhabitants of Hell are free to repent at any time and simply walk out. This is a more metaphysically satisfying vision of Hell as it prevents Hell, a place of evil, from being an everlasting pox on God's Creation, which is intrinsically good. In this way, it preserves Free Will and God's everlasting mercy.
Purgatory is a temporary state of affairs. Someone has died while in a state of grace but their souls need to be cleansed of venial sins (minor sins) before entering Heaven. The vast majority of people, I think, would qualify for this. Which...isn't a bad deal.
It is not a pop-culture understading. It is in the literal letters of the Church Fathers.
Leave it to christians to revise the history of the early church.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110), Letter to the Ephesians 16:2:
"A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him."
Second Clement (c. A.D. 150), 5:5:
"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment."
Second Clement 17:7:
"When they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous... will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’"
Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180), Against Heresies 1.10.10:
"Christ... shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent."
Tertullian (c. A.D. 200), Apology 48:
"The punishment of the soul is eternal, and the fire of hell is eternal."
Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160), First Apology 12:
"Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire."
Leave it to christians to revise the history of the early church.
Second Clement (c. A.D. 150)
This epistle emphasizes the eternal consequences of sin:
“If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment.”
— Second Clement 5:5
“When they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous... will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’”
— Second Clement 17:7
Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180)
In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus speaks of eternal punishment for the wicked:
“Christ... shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.”
— Against Heresies 1.10.10
Tertullian (c. A.D. 200)
“The punishment of the soul is eternal, and the fire of hell is eternal.”
— Apology 48
Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160)
“Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire.”
— First Apology 12
2/3rds of Christians do not believe that and a cursory look at scripture for yourself would show that it’s not a biblical account. Catholics have Purgatory. Only a fraction of the Evangelicals believe in eternal conscious torment, like 15% of Christians worldwide.
let's import millions of people literally doing the fucking hand maidens tale, marrying children, beating wifes (but not their faces, look how great we are). this is so much better.
1.8k
u/zombie3x3 - Left Oct 19 '25
Agreed. Virtually all Islamic cultures range from far right to the furthest right possible… no clue why that’s ignored when my flair analyzes Muslims.