DISCUSSION - Breaking news: multiple explosions In Brussels

Oh hey I wonder what's going on in the thread

*clicks display Cal post*

Cal wrote:I'm not worried if Moggy and dan and all the others put me on ignore - that's their loss.

Cal wrote:I'd be happy to engage in discussion with them.

Cal wrote:The [DISCUSSION] system is an anti-free speech, authoritarian means to censor out the 'wrong' opinions and control the conversation and it should be rejected by anyone who stands for free speech and opinion and that's why I won't participate in such a regressive system.

Still a deluded bigot then. Carry on!

Preezy wrote:What do you mean by "regressive", Cal?

Asking Cal the meaning of words is always a bad move mate. :lol:

Moggy wrote:
Preezy wrote:What do you mean by "regressive", Cal?

Asking Cal the meaning of words is always a bad move mate.

it was a request borne of genuine interest, I've seen him use it more times today than I've ever seen throughout the rest of my (admittedly sheltered and plush) existence, and I just have no idea what he means by it. I understand the word regression, but in this context (i.e. rambling political postulating) it just looks like a filler word or something.

Preezy wrote:What do you mean by "regressive", Cal?

The regressive left is a political epithet used to negatively characterize a section of leftists who are accused of holding politically regressive views (as opposed to progressive views) by tolerating illiberal principles and ideology for the sake of multiculturalism.[1][2] The implications of the term are controversial and contested, and as such its recognition and adoption have been limited.

Within the specific context of multiculturalism, British liberal activist Maajid Nawaz used the term in 2012 in his memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism[note 1] to describe "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in Great Britain who naively and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. In a 2015 video presentation on the Internet forum Big Think, Nawaz elaborated on the meaning of the term, saying that it describes "a section of the left" that has, in his opinion, "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities [...] for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles".[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

It was originally coined by a British Muslim. Funny old world, eh?

Cal wrote:
Preezy wrote:What do you mean by "regressive", Cal?

The regressive left is a political epithet used to negatively characterize a section of leftists who are accused of holding politically regressive views (as opposed to progressive views) by tolerating illiberal principles and ideology for the sake of multiculturalism.[1][2] The implications of the term are controversial and contested, and as such its recognition and adoption have been limited.

Within the specific context of multiculturalism, British liberal activist Maajid Nawaz used the term in 2012 in his memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism[note 1] to describe "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in Great Britain who naively and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. In a 2015 video presentation on the Internet forum Big Think, Nawaz elaborated on the meaning of the term, saying that it describes "a section of the left" that has, in his opinion, "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities [...] for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles".[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

It was originally coined by a British Muslim. Funny old world, eh?

Well there you go, thanks for explaining Cal. At least I now know that I am not a regressive. Win!

The irony is that nobody is doing that (i.e. posting in a 'regressive left' fashion as per the description of 'regressive left' just posted)

And yet the same bigots and shitposters cling to that definition to decry well-thought out, elaborate, complex posts on the subject matter

Yet when those same shitposters, oh I dunno, say it's OK to infringe the human rights of muslims because some muslims are terrorists

When that behaviour is (accurately) called out as racism

"don't bother; the regressive left will call you "waaycist", "bigoted", anything to propogate their agenda and divert you from the facts

all the while europe slowly dies because it's not doing exactly what we say so let's vote out of the 'experiment' "

beyond parody - and well worth ignoring.

Cya!

PunBuck McSquintil wrote:The irony is that nobody is doing that (i.e. posting in a 'regressive left' fashion as per the description of 'regressive left' just posted)

And yet the same bigots and shitposters cling to that definition to decry well-thought out, elaborate, complex posts on the subject matter

Yet when those same shitposters, oh I dunno, say it's OK to infringe the human rights of muslims because some muslims are terrorists

When that behaviour is (accurately) called out as racism

"don't bother; the regressive left will call you "waaycist", "bigoted", anything to propogate their agenda and divert you from the facts

all the while europe slowly dies because it's not doing exactly what we say so let's vote out of the 'experiment' "

beyond parody - and well worth ignoring.

Cya!

I know he says he's put me on ignore but still he deserves a response.

PunBuck McSquintil wrote:Yet when those same shitposters, oh I dunno, say it's OK to infringe the human rights of muslims because some muslims are terrorists

See, it's this kind of misrepresentation that chills. Is it deliberate or just careless? It's certainly not accurate. I've never promoted the abuse of human rights to muslims 'because some muslims are terrorists' - or for any other reason. I've never promoted abusing the human rights of anyone, muslim or not. It's just a plain invention.

Saying Europe needs to get proper, meaningful control of its borders is not promoting human rights abuses: it's asking for existing EU law to be acted upon. Suggesting that we turn back migrants is not abusing their human rights: it's acting in the best interest of the populations of those countries to whom they wish to migrate. You might disagree: that's fine, but don't make stuff up.

Of course, for mischief-makers, the leap from fairly, humanely and firmly tackling the migrant crisis to being cast as machine-gun-toting Neo-Nazis is just a casual hashtag away, but until we can rationally and without personal insults, misdirection and misrepresentation discuss the necessary measures to contain (or at least attempt to contain) a growing catastrophe absolutely nobody benefits from the situation.

PunBuck McSquintil wrote:beyond parody

Agreed. There is some level of irony in this topic, tolerance towards certain groups of people, but not certain posters.

Death's Head wrote:
PunBuck McSquintil wrote:beyond parody

Agreed. There is some level of irony in this topic, tolerance towards certain groups of people, but not certain posters.

You mean posters like Nick whose idea to solve extremism is to put surveillance in every mosque?

Or posters like Cal who insults everyone constantly and never backs up his opinions?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am willing to have a civil debate with anybody. Except Cal as it's utterly pointless to have a conversation with somebody that ignores most of your points.

I wasn't the one throwing out insults (Nick calling me dense or Cal calling everyone regressive for instance). I don't really care about being called a name but you're having a laugh if you think the abuse and intolerance is only coming from one side.

Moggy wrote:I don't really care about being called a name but you're having a laugh if you think the abuse and intolerance is only coming from one side.

I wasn't picking on anyone with my comment, just found the whole thing kind of amusing. Although I would imagine that if I was Cal I would feel I was facing a certain level of cyber bullying.

Cal wrote:
PunBuck McSquintil wrote:Yet when those same shitposters, oh I dunno, say it's OK to infringe the human rights of muslims because some muslims are terrorists

See, it's this kind of misrepresentation that chills. Is it deliberate or just careless? It's certainly not accurate. I've never promoted the abuse of human rights to muslims 'because some muslims are terrorists' - or for any other reason. I've never promoted abusing the human rights of anyone, muslim or not. It's just a plain invention.

World doesn't revolve around you, Cal:

t:explosions-at-brussels-airport?f=7&start=66

NickSCFC wrote:Put up state surveillance in all mosques [...] Like the majority of people in Europe I'm not a Muslim, so I have no problem with solutions that curtail their freedoms while maintaining mine.

So, not a plain invention, then, because Nick said it. In this very thread. Follow the link if you think I've invented it.

Death's Head wrote:There is some level of irony in this topic, tolerance towards certain groups of people, but not certain posters.

I am unwilling to tolerate racism. If you want to consider that ironic then fair enough.
I'd suggest it's more ironic that these particular posters, whose views I would consider extreme, have just spent several pages criticising the so-called "regressive left" (which I am apparently part of) for being too tolerant of extremists, and now you're suggesting I'm intolerant by openly stating that I do not tolerant their extreme views and admitting to putting them on ignore. It's not relevant, but pointing it out made me feel clever. Simper.

PunBuck McSquintil wrote:I'm intolerant by openly stating that I do not tolerant their extreme views

I find that offensive. Expect some kind of bomb response.

Death's Head wrote:
Moggy wrote:I don't really care about being called a name but you're having a laugh if you think the abuse and intolerance is only coming from one side.

I wasn't picking on anyone with my comment, just found the whole thing kind of amusing. Although I would imagine that if I was Cal I would feel I was facing a certain level of cyber bullying.

He might feel that way, but it's hard to have sympathy when he is demonising over a billion people based solely on their religion. Oh wait, he doesn't demonise them, just the religion they believe in. Well that's ok then.

Death's Head wrote:
PunBuck McSquintil wrote:I'm intolerant by openly stating that I do not tolerant their extreme views

I find that offensive. Expect some kind of bomb response.

Death's Head wrote:
PunBuck McSquintil wrote:I'm intolerant by openly stating that I do not tolerant their extreme views

I find that offensive. Expect some kind of bomb response.

Seems fair. I done goofed. How embarrassing.

That should of course have read I do not tolerate their extreme views

BBC1 tonight at 9PM have an hour long Panorama episode on Islamic State network operations in Europe and the Intelligence Agencies efforts to battle it.

Looks like quite the failure from the Belgium authorities on this one...

One of the Brussels bombers was arrested in Turkey and deported back to Belgium in June with a warning that he was a militant, it has sensationally been revealed.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Ibrahim El Bakraoui, who yesterday blew himself up at Brussels Airport, was arrested in Gaziantep in southern Turkey close to the Syrian border last summer. Officials said he was deported to Holland before being passed back over to Belgium.

The president said Belgian authorities had failed to confirm the suspect's links to terrorism 'despite our warnings that he was a foreign fighter'.

The revelation came as it was dramatically revealed this evening that the identity of the 'Man in White', who was previously thought to be explosives expert Najim Laachraoui, remains a mystery. He is now Europe's most wanted man and a major international manhunt to find him remains ongoing.

http://www.dailyfail.co.uk/news/article ... z43l6zc2A3

Moggy wrote:
Death's Head wrote:
Moggy wrote:I don't really care about being called a name but you're having a laugh if you think the abuse and intolerance is only coming from one side.

I wasn't picking on anyone with my comment, just found the whole thing kind of amusing. Although I would imagine that if I was Cal I would feel I was facing a certain level of cyber bullying.

He might feel that way, but it's hard to have sympathy when he is demonising over a billion people based solely on their religion. Oh wait, he doesn't demonise them, just the religion they believe in. Well that's ok then.

How many times do I have to explain this? I criticise Islam, which is a religious ideology. I do not 'demonise' the people that believe in it: I criticise the belief and demonise its most virulent expressions and prejudices.

You're on ignore, no point quoting me.

Cal wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Death's Head wrote:
Moggy wrote:I don't really care about being called a name but you're having a laugh if you think the abuse and intolerance is only coming from one side.

I wasn't picking on anyone with my comment, just found the whole thing kind of amusing. Although I would imagine that if I was Cal I would feel I was facing a certain level of cyber bullying.

He might feel that way, but it's hard to have sympathy when he is demonising over a billion people based solely on their religion. Oh wait, he doesn't demonise them, just the religion they believe in. Well that's ok then.

How many times do I have to explain this? I criticise Islam, which is a religious ideology. I do not 'demonise' the people that believe in it: I criticise the belief and demonise its most virulent expressions and prejudices.

So, er, what boats were you exactly talking about stopping and turning around? The ones carrying copies of the Quran to Waterstones?

DISCUSSION - Breaking news: multiple explosions In Brussels

Who is online

Affiliates