Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 21 of 23     «   Prev   18   19   20   21   22   23   Next
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #301 
Nothing the Family Research Council have said has put anyone's life and property in danger. On the other hand, the lies of the SPLC have done precisely that.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #302 
The lies of the Family Research Council will undoubtedly have caused psychological damage to gay teenagers, will certainly have harmed their acceptance by family and peers, and very likely have been a factor in suicides, also in homophobic assaults. That an unfortunately unbalanced person attacked the FRC's offices and injured one staff member is very regrettable, but happily the injury was not serious. The entirely accurate characterisation of the FRC by the SPLC was the proximate cause, but they had done right by listing the FRC as they did and were not responsible for someone else's stupid reaction to the listing.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #303 
I'm not sure this belongs here, but it does centre on a particular strain of left-liberal ideology. What was obvious has been made clear in a new report: the police in Rotherham knew o, but ignored, child abuse for fear of stoking racial tensions:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7901731/Police-chief-admitted-force-ignored-sex-abuse-grooming-gangs-30-years.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

At this point, though, I think there's at least 11 different towns and cities where this kind of thing occurred. In at least some of them too, I believe the police turned away to a degree. Even the reporting is still somewhat sanitising. It wasn't Asian gangs. There were very few Hindus or Sikhs involved. It was overwhelming Muslims, mostly of Pakistan descent. It's amazing how downplayed this scandal still is, across the West. Can we imagine what would be the case if the ethnicities were reversed?

Apparently, Nazil Afwaz, the former Chief Crown Prosecutor involved in some of the inquiries after the scandal broke, told Radio 4 that the Home Office, under Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith, circulated a memo that these girls were to be treated like adults, who had made the informed decisions to go off with these men.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #304 
Whether it is Iran, Africa or things like grooming gangs, the common thread is they are the fruits of a disastrous 20th Century left-liberal ideology represented by Ted Kennedy, Pierre Trudeau, Jimmy Carter, Jeremy Thorpe, the Clintons, Obama, Macron, etc.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #305 
Members of the so called squad are now dealing in actual blood-libels:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rashida-tlaib-irresponsibly-spreads-anti-semitic-blood-libel

The mainstream media will ignore this, of course, and bizarrely try to paint the strongly philo-semitic Trump as an anti-semite. Will the SPLC have anything to say?
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #306 
Excellent news. Let more lawsuits against the SPLC come

https://www.theepochtimes.com/conservative-groups-suit-against-southern-poverty-law-center-to-go-ahead_3218120.html
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #307 
The American Freedom Law Center was founded and is headed by David Yerushalmi, a very nasty piece of work from the sounds of him. He has a long record of filing lawsuits, and an all but unbroken record of losing them. We shall see whether he maintains his record this time, which I expect he will.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #308 
In other words, you're falling for the SPLC line of defaming decent American men and women. Just like those defamed as "extremists" like Brigitte Gabriel, Ryan Mauro, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, etc.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #309 
Which I expect they all are but I'm not going to spoil my lunch looking them up. Yerushalmi was quite enough unpleasantness for one day.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #310 
Well, he certainly seems to have hardline views on Islam, which I don't necessarily share, but I am not completely sure why such views are beyond the pale. As noted above, I actually find it strange how philo-Islamic many left-liberals and social liberals are. It doesn't really make sense. I recall even hearing about the writer for some new comic book film who described herself as both a feminist and an admirer of Islam and Iran (presumably the contemporary regime). I don't see why all anti-Islamic views are necessarily beyond the pale. I don't say I necessarily agree with them, but it seems an acceptable interpretation of the history and documents to say Mohammed was a warlord, that he taught subjection of unbelievers, second-class status of women, etc. You can disagree with this, and I do, but it is hardly a completely unsupportable interpretation of the evidence, and it should be met with detailed refutation, not pearl-clutching and shrill denunciations, without any real knowledge of Islam and its history. This is what you get from the SPLC and its ilk.

The other points against this fellow in the Wiki seem to rely on a few quotes, begging for context, gathered by disreputable outlets, like the SPLC. I think intellectual honesty demands we suspend judgement about them without looking into it further.

Astoundingly, the SPLC has nothing analysing the comments of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar about Jews, though they have pieces portraying them as victims of anti-Muslim bigotry, including trying to link this to Trump. Or that's all I could find. I am truly amazed. Who would have you wouldn't get a fully rounded perspective from such a reputable organisation?



Edit: the same even goes for Linda Sarsour, an obvious vicious anti-semite, well-respected on the America left and now a Bernie Sanders surrogate, yet the only pieces they have on her (tellingly from 2017 and not afterwards) are about anti-Muslim bigotry. They even include defences of her. A worthy outlet indeed!
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #311 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Well, he certainly seems to have hardline views on Islam, which I don't necessarily share, but I am not completely sure why such views are beyond the pale. As noted above, I actually find it strange how philo-Islamic many left-liberals and social liberals are. It doesn't really make sense. I recall even hearing about the writer for some new comic book film who described herself as both a feminist and an admirer of Islam and Iran (presumably the contemporary regime). I don't see why all anti-Islamic views are necessarily beyond the pale. I don't say I necessarily agree with them, but it seems an acceptable interpretation of the history and documents to say Mohammed was a warlord, that he taught subjection of unbelievers, second-class status of women, etc. You can disagree with this, and I do, but it is hardly a completely unsupportable interpretation of the evidence, and it should be met with detailed refutation, not pearl-clutching and shrill denunciations, without any real knowledge of Islam and its history. This is what you get from the SPLC and its ilk.


The Left's fascination with Islam has roots in its focusing on race issues and decolonisation since World War II, with Islam being politicised and cast as a "progressive" and "liberating" force. It should also be worth noting that China and the Soviet Union were not socially liberal, but were willing to use "progressive" causes to undermine the West. When you see the propaganda on Qatar's Al-Jazeera network you see exactly the same thing.

The triangle of the Left, Islamists and the Nation of Islam might not seem to make sense beyond them being anti-American and anti-Western. After all, the NOI is not recognised by most Muslims as genuinely Islamic at all, and its social policies are far removed from the Left.


Quote:
The other points against this fellow in the Wiki seem to rely on a few quotes, begging for context, gathered by disreputable outlets, like the SPLC. I think intellectual honesty demands we suspend judgement about them without looking into it further.

Astoundingly, the SPLC has nothing analysing the comments of Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar about Jews, though they have pieces portraying them as victims of anti-Muslim bigotry, including trying to link this to Trump. Or that's all I could find. I am truly amazed. Who would have you wouldn't get a fully rounded perspective from such a reputable organisation?

Edit: the same even goes for Linda Sarsour, an obvious vicious anti-semite, well-respected on the America left and now a Bernie Sanders surrogate, yet the only pieces they have on her (tellingly from 2017 and not afterwards) are about anti-Muslim bigotry. They even include defences of her. A worthy outlet indeed!


The SPLC has basically covered for Linda Sarsour, but curiously overlook Sarsour's admiration for Louis Farrakhan. See above.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #312 
https://pjmedia.com/trending/scandal-plagued-splc-turns-to-amnesty-international-for-a-new-president/


Amnesty International has a dodgy reputation as it is, obscuring legitimate human rights concerns under the cloak of woke leftism. Human Rights Watch is just as bad.
 
For the SPLC, the appointment of a new president and CEO is more symbolic than anything. It won't change a thing as the organisation is basically a corporation profiting from industrial scale defamation.
 
What's most astonishing is how the SPLC's internal issues were no secret in Montgomery, Alabama - the local paper actually reported about it. Yet the national media continues to treat the SPLC as though it were a credible source.
 
The American Far Right, as it exists, is organisationally weak and politically impotent. It poses no threat. I think even people inside the SPLC must know this somehow. But they needed to exaggerate it, purely for fundraising. Which is also why they needed to expand its list of targets with its "hate groups" list to slander so many people.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #313 
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-splcs-fall-from-grace-how-a-civil-rights-group-became-a-threat-to-free-speech/

Pretty fair except that I think the SPLC never was any "good". Sure, they took legal action against extremist groups, which were in any case weak and unpopular. But everyone in Alabama knew for decades what sort of person Morris Dees really is.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #314 
It's interesting to see the left eat itself:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982837/How-hated-man-internet-writes-Graham-Linehan.html

It's latest plank - trans-activism - is often so insane that even otherwise reliable woke folks, like Rowling or Linehan, are having issues with it. I would question what he says about being the most hated man. He does say the internet, so he might mostly have Twitter in mind, but outside that cesspool, I bet most Brits are more in agreement with him than the hardline trans-activist.*

* Again the point of both Linehan and me is not that we shouldn't treat people with Gender Dysphoria with respect.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #315 
Well they even turned on Germaine Greer for it as well...
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.