Explain to me Holla Forums.
Why are those that are the furthest to the left, with the strongest opposition to conservatism, also the most staunch defenders of islam?
The only explanation i can think of is that they don't see muslims as the active agents as they see (white) conservatives, with muslims only having identity, with identity being holy.
liberals are not left wing.
definding Islam as a religious doctrine is wholly different from arguing against Imperialism in the middle east.
Read Zizek famalam.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
All religion is shit.
I have only one question: is this contagious?
Communists are even worse offenders than liberals, compare the stances of Europe's communist parties on islam with those of europe's liberal parties.
And they are still more occupied with right-wing fringe movements consisting of basement dwellers than with islam, only opposing it to maintain a semblance consistency.
When you demonize the opposition, you'll use them as a standard to compare yourself against, which will lead to attempting to be the complete opposite of them.
Putin said Islam is closer than Catholicism to Russia,though.
And Russia is one of the most tradfag countries there
Tbh any communist worth their salt ought to know that Islam like all religion is a reactionary opiate of the masses. That being said, there is a difference between criticizing the ideology and being unecessarily hostile to Muslims minding their own business. The left's "defence of Islam" is usually centered around the latter concept. They're defending the people, not the religion.
Hey guys who was it that invaded Afghanistan in the 80s
That's the usual defence, islam is shit because religion is shit but someone following an ideology that is therefor opposed shouldn't be treated aggressively. This leniency isn't granted to others, of whom the positions that communists attack them for are present in much larger magnitude in islam. Still, islam isn't given the same opposition, islam is staunchly defended, with it's criticism only being a standard statement to maintain consistency.
Russia exists in another ideological dimension.
holy shit it's been awhile since I've seen some bugerland cuckservative propaganda as spicy as the OP
Socialist only defend islam in the sense that right wingers seem to think that islam is the root of all of their troubles with socialists then replying that treating muslims like shit won't fix anything and that they should be left alone. It's nothing but a distraction that people can't look away from for even a second.
...
...
They're not. Mainstream "left wing" and "right wing" politics are nothing but spats over wedge issues.
In this case, the difference between the left and liberals is that the former recognize Islam as a reactionary spook but understand religion's role in society and don't hold it against all individuals; the latter are concerned with identity oppression and thus validate literally anything unpopular.
In the sense that all opposition towards those communists are sympathetic to is scapegoating.
There is this detachment from muslims and islam, that isn't applied to those who are the active objects of hatred, even though objectively, there is no such distinction.
Sage ffs
Everything can be said to have a role in society, so why isn't that position of sympathy granted to others?
Could you repeat this with a few more words so it's not jumbled?
The positions adhered to by conservatives and right-wingers are responded to by leftists with active opposition, combativenes and personal hostility. When however, those same faults that are seen in conservatives are present in islam, on a much greater magnitude even, they solicit no such response. Islam is actively defended and the only awnser given when presented with this inconsistency being along the lines of "all religion is bad, islam just has a role in society", which doesn't awnser the question why this leniency of judgement isn't given to others to whom the same logic can be applied.
I would say that this is because muslims belong to another ideological dimension and they are therefor subconsiously classed as lacking the necessary agency to possess guilt.
The question could then also be asked: why aren't right-wingers more positive about islam? To which I would give the same awnser.
fug :DDDDDD
Let me guess, must be something along the lines of "Why are straight white males not treated the same as Muslims by the Left?" Or in other words the why is the Left: #Not all Muslims but #All White men. Remember where you are user, the left = SJW for the biggest part of the site userbase.
That's what i understand at least.
There's a difference between thinking Islam is a happy wonderful religion and countering reactionaries on their bullshit about muh muslimes taking over the world and replacing muh freedom with shariahs :DDD
It doesn't help that the shit being said about Muslims is the same shit that has been said about Jews for centuries now, so needless to say we all know what game you're trying to play and we're not falling for it. Link related: loonwatch.com
So islam is fine, because they aren't taking over. Shouldn't this logic then, also be applied to KKK?
That's…not even close to what I was getting at.
Read it again faggot: we're not interested in defending Islam, the religion. What we're interested in is debunking bullshit reactionary propaganda.
user, again, liberals are literally not leftists. They are just slightly right of center and are generally quite content with capitalism.
Isn't islam, exactly that?
Compared to other reactionaries in burgerstan, muslims have almost zero political power. There's literally no need for me to spend time and resources countering them when Fox News watchers, Breitbart junkies, and alt-right faggots are literally everywhere in Middle America.
Let me put it this way. Eating shit is bad because it's unsanitary and could kill you. This sort of behavior is counter-productive in any society. But it's very rare, and political ideologues are pretending that roving bands of ape men are shoving turds down people's throats.
saying that you're wrong, doesn't mean we're on the other's side.
its just mean that you're wrong
Which would mean that such hostility should solely be reserved for those with great power. The alt-right isn't among those. CAIR has much more sway than Holla Forums and it's offshoots.
I lack the anal fixation to understand this metaphor.
What is not said is as much part of an ideology, as what is said.
The alt-right are just teenage memers. The entire neoconservative establishment stokes hatred of Muslims to legitimize constant US presence in Islamic countries.
you're just being disingenuous at this point
Holla Forumstard are only able to see the world in binary.
they're deeply autistic and have a cartoonishly simplistic world view.
they also lack political an historical knowledge.
99% of them never read a book, and the one who did read mein kampf
What the fuck are you talking about? Neoconservatives have spent the last decade insisting that the problem is simply radical Islam, and that ordinary Muslims dindu nuffin.
Look at how most mainstream conservatives turned on Trump over the Kizir Khan mess (His son died in Iraqistan fighting for ARE FREEDOMS ;__;)
It's nothing but dog whistle politics. Many of them in congress would support jew-badging them or universal background check blocks for them. Liberal political correctness is a tiny bump in the road.
That's just not true. Neoconservatives are largely positive about islam and the alt-right is as much of a boogeyman to them as they are to this place.
Because pointing out the disperancies between the claimed ideological map, and the actual ideological map is cartoonish binary thinking.
Muslims/islam fall into the protected class system, which means that all criticism of them is akin to blood libel.
I mean it really depends when and where. For example, pre-Obama Fox was usually in line with the Bush administration's distinguishing between the ordinary Muslims and terrorists, but after Obama…wew. They gave people like Pamela Geller a platform to speak on, and had a fucking meltdown over the whole Ground-Zero-mosque-that-wasn't-really-at-Ground-Zero.
And that's just the mainstream conservative outlet. American conservative bloggers have been ranting and raving about "creeping Shariah" for some time now, constantly stoking the flames since 2010 to the point that someone like Donald Trump was able to come along and use the hysteria to his advantage.
…but the staunch advocates of imperialist war aren't lying when they say they have no ill will against the victims.
Criticizing an idea and criticizing a person are two entirely different things. If everyone who claimed to be part of a religion was fully ideologically engrossed in it, the Western world would still be in literal dark ages.
Ah yes, everyone's a racist, the only reason Republicans don't support [policy] is because they've got a burning hateboner for [blacks/women/muslims].
You're confusing the base for the leaders - practically every major GOP politician criticised Trump's proposed Muslim ban.
To be fair all those terrorist attacks in Europe probably didn't help
leftypol everyone!
I don't think many leftists are hostile to any other religion groups more or less than they are hostile to muslims. However, many of the left are as staunchly opposed to the Muslim right as much as the Christian/western right. You don't see leftists defending ISIS or al-qaeda outside of a few spergs who go on about muh "anti-imperialism".
This is correct, but it's besides the point in the sense that I never denied this, nor does my argument imply the opposite.
The idea of islam isn't criticised, and when it is, it always done in general statements such as "all religion is bad", as a mild disclaimer to keep consistency. This isn't expanded to other people with opposing ideologies, who are treated with active hostility. Nor is this merely a case of them having power, since it are the most powerless of them that receive the most scorn from leftists.
With the difference being that you don't defend the non-terrorist elements of the native right as moderates in a positive contrast.
I believe you may be referring to the reactionary SJW types?
I would also like to remind you, the more classical left, which is people who are browsing and posting on this board are usually more concerned with class Well, let's face it, their more concerned with taking bait, and subsequently having to explain out positions a fiftieth fucking time. This thread being no exception. While a few other will point out the pure ideology is truly is. Stirnerites especially. Although yes, they don't just consider Islam a spook. What a shock. Also, there are christian commies here as well. Though you should know that.
There are actual leftists going out and fighting ISIS right now, like in Rojava, as well as, in the more vague western definition of leftist, such as the bananaman and a few others, are happy to lay the rhetorical smack-down on the ideology. In the mainstream, of course the criticism of it, along with other things, is generally generally rush hush. You can thank neoliberal political correctness for that. Even Zizek, who is a communist, talks about how dangerous PC is.
pls no bully. I made this post tired and a little drunkish. Hope it's not too shit tier.
SJW's are by and large marxists, this place thanks it's to existence to that.
It's not that I deny that you are theoretically opposed to islam, because opium and spooks. It's that I note the disperancy between the theory and the actuality of criticism, opposition and hostility. The main enemy, the personal, active enemy, apart from big, abstract capitalism, are righ-wingers/conservatives and even liberals, while the ideology of islam is much greater and objectively much more contradictory.
I argue that this is a consequence of the same mechanism as the sunni-shia hostility, it's the closeness that warrants the hostility, the sharing of the map, the territority to fight over. The closeness allows a personal dimension that just isn't there with islam.
Mods, can we start deleting or bumplocking all those "Islam" and "Feminism" threads?
They are pointless baits.
Please.
I agree. They are both shit.
In what way?
Straw man.
Because they worship mun constitution more. Politicians don't actually care about any ideology most of the time, at least in the US.
"I know this blue haired obese woman shouldn't be accusing random men of raping black women, but that slavery probably didn't help."
SJWs are just a bunch of liberal faggots whose main goal is to just achieve "capitalism with a human face", Marx would spit in their faces if he was alive to see them.
READ A FUCKING BOOK.
islam is a spook, it is literally just christianity in every single sense and does nothing but promote sectarianism. you are blind if you don't see this.
christians and muslims are the same
This is just ridiculous, though. Just because a demographic complains about something happening doesn't mean it is not happening. If anything, Islamic ideology is blamed for literally anything bad that happens anywhere with a non-negligible Muslim population, and random hacks like that fat fuck Robert Spencer are somehow viewed as experts on the matter instead of actual Islamic scholars.
lolno, they consider Marx a "dead white dude" or whatever.
Islam is more dangerous, but this is ironically because it is less stupid and knows how to keep a message consistent. Christianity is retarded enough that most subjective interpretations of it are not technically wrong
Would we hypothetically defend western Christians if they faced socio-economic ostracism like Muslims do? I think most would, regardless of whether or not the majority of these groups have fundamentalist beliefs or not. It's a matter of separating people from the ideas in their heads and protecting the dignity of the individual. I do think that social conservatism among minority groups should be more openly critiqued among the Left however.
lmao under what criteria?
In the way that pretty much everywhere online marxist outlet hates this place.
Like how geologists are viewed as experts on the matter of creationism instead of actual creationists.
If anything, "socio-economic ostracism" is mainly practiced by muslims themselves. The "separating of people and ideas" isn't extended to others whose ideas you don't share.
Is this supposed to make a mockery of my point? As a historical and anthropological discipline, theology is a perfectly legitimate field. No shit a geologist isn't going to understand it in a complex and old religion.
Just because something isn't intellectually valuable by its own merit, doesn't mean you are a massive faggot for pretending to understand it when you do not.
Who knows capitalism better, you, or capitalist ideologues?
I'm no expert by any means, but do I pretend otherwise? No.
You do pretend to know better than them, or you wouldn't be a communist.
No, actually, I don't assume everyone who disagrees with me is a moron. Speak for yourself.
I never said you did. I say that you being a communist directly puts you at odds with the theologians of capitalism.
It's fallacious to assume that the proponents of a certain ideology, are correct about the ideology they espouse. Islamic theologians are no exception.
Thing is, even the retards in the Austrian School know what private property is and why it requires a state to exist, basic things like that. Marxist and continuing critique is not based on any morals or definitions or philosophies of life, it takes the same assumptions used by them to contend capitalism and superior and demonstrates how capitalism itself fails to fulfill them.
Not my fault ancaps are Americans that don't read books.
Shady Businessman pls
Neither is any other religion. Most communists just follow the general guideline of religion is bad, they're all equally shit so why would we single any of them out?
Christianity is actually criticized even less than Islam is since there is a prominent communist streak in Christian thought, and there is a long tradition of Christian leftists.
This is messy, lets start from the beginning
In my mind, the difference is that a religion does not tell you as much as you'd think about how a person thinks and what there ideals are.
It is possible to have a broad range of political opinion within a religious group, even if many of those opinion appear to, at face value, contradict the tenets of the religion.
When Islam manifests itself politically, as in controlling rights of certain groups, or islamism, or whatever, then I oppose it, but those positions can not actually be presupposed of any particular muslims. I am friends with a few leftist ones.
So I don't oppose muslims by definition.
Right Conservatives are different because they are by de facto a political position. there are no leftist right conservatives, therefore I can oppose them by definition.
This religion become cancer once it seek political influence.
so do all religions.
Isn't OP's picture ironic given that Trump is the one talking about building a wall?
Oh, fuck forgot "!" after This. Time to sleep.
The marxist vision of capitalism is fundamentally different from that espoused by capitalist ideologues. The argument that muslim theologians know islam better than it's opponents, could therefor just as well be applied to the communist critique of capitalism.
Ancaps are the logical conclusion of the austrian school.
While your description of islam and how it relates to politics doesn't explain the supportive silence towards the more vile aspects of islam, it does pretty accurately explain the differentation between right-left ideology, and religious ideology.
People are not one-dimensional representations of their religion/ideology, and therefor a muslim is first seen as a person, rather than a representation of islam. I'm not claiming that they should be seen as pure representations, what I have been addressing in this thread is the position of islam in leftist ideology and it's inconsistency with the paradigm that is claimed by leftists.
For example, the leftist critique of conservatism, a conservatism that is present much stronger in islam, isn't extended to islam. An example of this is the leftist rage surrounding petty things like girls and boys being given different clothes, with those very same people then being the most staunch defenders of islam.
Right-wingers and left-wingers are indeed intrinsically opposed in their ideological dimension, it is therefor not as much a matter of distance between ideological tenets, but of the frictions of their closeness, that creates the hostility. This to me, explains the paradox that is so often addressed by right-wingers.
HOW CAN YOU BE THIS RETARDED ABOUT THE WORLD'S LARGEST RELIGION.
The only way you could think this is if you have literally zero knowledge of Christian theology. For a people constantly spouting "Read a Book", you don't seem to be very knowledgeable.
*exeunt orthodox christfag*
Defending religion, especially one that's overtly imperialist, is pretty much the opposite of leftism. It's not enough to say you are a leftist - you have to act consistently with the ideas. Liberals are not leftist, also.
Stalin would have gulaged all of them, moderate or not. If you aren't willing to piss on a copy of the Koran in public you should hang tbqh
sage