|
Post by evileeyore on Oct 2, 2019 3:04:13 GMT
"Islam" is not a ding an sich which has meaning outside of a specific cultural and temporal context. Of course not. The concept has meaning within the framing of the statement itself. And are you honestly trying to argue that you don't understand what is meant by "Islam is right about women"? Are you that daft?
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 2, 2019 10:39:55 GMT
"Islam" is not a ding an sich which has meaning outside of a specific cultural and temporal context. Of course not. The concept has meaning within the framing of the statement itself. And are you honestly trying to argue that you don't understand what is meant by "Islam is right about women"? Are you that daft? Explain it to us if it is that simple. You seem to know what it means.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Oct 2, 2019 11:10:28 GMT
Explain it to us if it is that simple. You seem to know what it means. I already did. But I'll explain it again for the slow crowd since you asked: Islam in many countries, the countries of origin for the religion, treat women like slaves, and sometimes worse than slaves. Intersectional Feminism refuses to challenge this because, despite ostensibly being about feminism. This is two-fold, one "oppressed brown people" can never be wrong, and two cultural relativity says "all cultures are equal" so you're not allowed to question the pedopiliac, goat fucking, women enslaving, gay bashing cultures of the world. So, the statement "Islam is right about women†" is a paradox. Islam (as it is written and the extremes practiced in muslim countries) is not 'right about women', it's very wrong. But... speaking out against Islam is wrong by Intersectionalist standards, even if it's in defence in of women (which is why intersectional feminists refuse to speak out against those practices). So, if you can't speak out against Islam, then the statement is correct, Islam is right about women. but the statement isn't correct, so, how does a modern bigoted Liberal deal with this? (They try to pretend the statement is somehow calling out all muslims everywhere, not just the Islamists in oppressive muslim countries.)
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 2, 2019 13:38:19 GMT
the pedopiliac, goat fucking Here is that islamophobia that show your true racist colours. It takes away all your credibility. If you had any to being with. Attack the meaning of racism and islamophobe all you want, I won't bite. You're just a racist dick. Fuck you, you hateful shit. The world needs less of your type.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Oct 2, 2019 18:25:46 GMT
And are you honestly trying to argue that you don't understand what is meant by "Islam is right about women"? Are you that daft? I understand what you are trying to communicate, the problem is that it would have carried more weight as an "ironic device" if you'd written Wahabbi fundamentalists are right about women.
If "Islam" is the subject of this sentence - it seems to be - then this makes no sense. Islam is not a independent force, capable of effecting action in the world.
By subordinating other referents - culture, social class, language, ethnos, nationality etc. - to a supercategory "Islam," all you are doing is feeding the theocratic fiction that these other referents are subordinate to Islam.
Well done. That's just what the Caliphate/Wahabbis/Boko Haram want. It helps them radicalize more people when they can get Westerners to think in simplistic terms.
If you mean Mohammed was a pedo, my answer is that Mohammed is a literary character and if you want to believe a bunch of uncorroborated theological stories which can't be dated to earlier than the 9th century, then that's on you.
If you mean all Muslims are pedos, then no.
If you mean many Muslims in positions of religious authority within their communities are pedos, I would say show me your evidence, and it won't surprise me. This is hardly unique to "Islam," though.
This does you no credit, and makes me inclined to believe that you are a bigot.
If you wanted to draw attention to Islamists in oppressive regimes, perhaps you should have drawn attention to Islamists in oppressive regimes.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Oct 2, 2019 23:27:16 GMT
I understand what you are trying to communicate... Good, then no further discussion needs to take place. Right? Right... you clearly didn't understand the meaning behind the statement. I snipped all the rest of your goal post moving. The statement is meant to show that the way Intersectional Feminism treats problematic groups of people as being non-problematic because of it's cross-purpose drives is actually harmful to one of it's stated goal tenants, that is 'feminism'. I mean it's right there in the name. Now, if like me, you're willing to say that Intersectional Feminism is to Feminism as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to Democracy...
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Oct 3, 2019 0:54:54 GMT
That doesn’t seem very charitable. Or hospitable – I am a guest, here, after all. Are you trying to shut me down?
Well, yes I did. It’s not very nuanced.
(Italics mine.)
Yes. That’s unfortunate, because it deals with certain category errors, sweeping generalizations which you make, false predicates which you evidently bring to Islam, and your casual use of terms such as “goat fucker.”
My question to you, is what are you trying to accomplish here? What’s the point?
|
|
|
Post by Scarbonac on Oct 3, 2019 1:31:02 GMT
And just what is that supposed to mean, anyway? You know exactly what I mean. Nope. Islam doesn- oh, some fucker stole my answer before I knew I was gunna make it. My version would've been less erudite, but, there you go. I was riffing off my earlier "Christianity isn't a monolith" post, you dim fuckmarten. As was this stupid sign prank, and make no mistake, it's a simple prank, not some truthbomb laid down on the Liberal Establishment. "Cognitive". The word you unsuccessfully tried to use is "cognitive".* Your syntax stinks, too. I was almost gunna let that one slide, as it could be a mere transposition problem, but fuck you, that's not even a word.* The buzzwords are strong in this one. *If you're gunna use the catchphrases, you should at leas use the right ones, and spellcheck.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 3, 2019 10:09:34 GMT
Show Nazieyore's racism and poof, he is gone.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Oct 3, 2019 10:15:45 GMT
Show Nazieyore's racism and poof, he is gone. Wait, are you funning or can you really not see EE's latest posts? The latter sounds hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 3, 2019 10:34:06 GMT
Show Nazieyore's racism and poof, he is gone. Wait, are you funning or can you really not see EE's latest posts? The latter sounds hilarious. The last posts are the Nazi, libtard, scarbo, me, you. My best guess is you're lying again.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Oct 3, 2019 10:51:41 GMT
My question to you, is what are you trying to accomplish here? What’s the point? Ahem, to quote myself: The statement is meant to show that the way Intersectional Feminism treats problematic groups of people as being non-problematic because of it's cross-purpose drives is actually harmful to one of it's stated goal tenants, that is 'feminism'. I mean, even kzach could understand this if he were capable of honest discussion. Show Nazieyore's racism and poof, he is gone. Wait, are you funning or can you really not see EE's latest posts? The latter sounds hilarious. His tiny mind has finally snapped.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 3, 2019 15:08:49 GMT
if he were capable of honest discussion. If honesty is important, admit you're racist.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 7, 2019 2:19:33 GMT
Nailbunny is either a provocateur or has gone full on batshit right wing nutjob. I'm not sure which at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Scarbonac on Oct 7, 2019 20:32:57 GMT
My shekels are on provocateur, but I enjoy yelling at him anyway.
|
|