Talk:Regressive left/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 October 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Does the regressive left stereotype muslims much like as islamophobes do?[edit]

Kenan Malik has some essays about the problems of multiculturalism, including how so-called antiracists sterotype muslims as conservative or nothing but muslims. [This one] shows an interesting quote from Toger Seidenfaden, who says that muslims who aren't offended by Muhammed caricatures aren't real muslims. (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"muslims who aren't offended by Muhammed caricatures aren't real muslims." Hehe, doing the Salafi's work for them. However, I rarely see this type of sterotype. What I usually see is Westerners treating Islam as a monolithic block. The racists think all Muslims are barbarians, and the regressives think Islam is the best thing to ever happen to humanity. While I can understand the racist position, the regressive position is contradictory. I always think, if Islam is so great, why don't you convert to it??? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Regressive leftists don't actually like Islam. They only support it because they oppose whatever the Right wants. Basically, reactionaries, but against the the right instead of the left. CorruptUser (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That may very well explain the origins of the regressive left, but I have seen many young Westerners embrace apologist nonsense regarding Islam itself. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's anti-establishment credibility. Aka, "virtue signaling". They are doing it to sound like they are more knowledgeable, kinder, egalitarian, etc than thou. CorruptUser (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Care to post any examples, or is beating up strawmen all day long the only thing you guy can do? Typhoon (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't pretend you live in a bubble Typhoon. Even I have talked to Western SJW types on FB and such who are convinced Islam is the best thing ever despite having never read a translated Qur'an, much less any orginal Islamic texts. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"I promise my strawmen exist" says Aeonian.
Do you get tired of it? Pretending you're the height of neutrality? Or do you just have an infinite intellectual dishonesty to turn towards conversations?
Your argument is by anecdote, and in spite of that extremely low threshold of evidence you're using, it's not even a true anecdote. You haven't seen anyone besides Muslims say Islam is the best thing ever, because why the fuck would they? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen things as absurd as this, actually. You've raised a very good question tho - if Islam is so great, why don't the SJWs convert? I've brought this up myself. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The same reason why modern Stalin fanboys don't wanna have lived in Stalin's empire.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't ever encountered people Aeonian has brought up but I have wondered this about MRAs who complain about "western women" not wanting to live in Saudia Arabia.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you saying they wanted Western women to live like women in the KSA? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Care to post any examples, or is beating up strawmen all day long the only thing you guy can do? —Typhoon
Well, since you asked, there is a certain group whose official slogan is "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"Wikipedia, and I have seen people here defend them regardless. CorruptUser (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
When you give Typhoon source, the response is that they are not good enough. A "good" source is defined as one which agrees with Typhoon's preconceived beliefs. It's little surprise she supports the theists, is it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, you yourself are a bit extreme. I'm mostly annoyed that here we have trouble admitting that SJW's and Regressive Leftists exist at all, and that there's a hatchet job on Maajid Nawaz and Harris. Harris is a dick, but not everything he says is wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well Harris has made some truly disgusting comments and has handwaved atrocities the US has done.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 02:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
But of course that doesn't make Harris regressive, according to Aeonian's definition. Typhoon (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say, his example is a Muslim asserting that Islam is a good thing. Not an "SJW" as he likes to describe it. A Muslim, asserting their own faith is good. Dishonesty all the way down. Lord Aeonian, I'm challenging you to admit what you posted actually was. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the context, if that is correct then you're right. The problem is that I have encountered these individuals very often in discussions about Islam with never Muslim Westerners, and I find it hard to believe you and Typhoon have not. If my experiences are not good evidence for you, so be it, I'm not trying to add them to the article. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if you included even us in your examples, considering how liberally you throw that term at people on Reddit. Suffice to say, I have no doubt that many of your "regressives" are only guilty of disagreeing with your strain of ultra anti-theism.Typhoon (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh. You were actually conciliatory about the point. Wasn't expecting that. Um. Thanks. I hope it helps reframe this debate a bit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice try Typhoon, but no one here is a regressive - not even you. From the definition of the term, it refers to those who actively defend reactionary ideologies for ostensibly "progressive" reasons. But I've never actually seen you defend such idealogies, although you apparently can't stand the fact that there are some people who do. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Percy has a problem[edit]

At RationalWiki, when we're not sysops, we usually talkpage our thoughts before taking a chainsaw to established articles. You clearly had some things on your mind about the content of the article, so please, provide some discussion here. If they are resonable, you will win support for your edits. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, could you do this before rushing to revert my edits? Thanks. Now, I already voiced my problems in the summary, and I'm sure you have read them, so what's your problem? Typhoon (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that you cut 1.9k content with "Pretty rich to add Greenwald when he considers political labels to be bullshit, and refuses to identify himself with to be left or right[.] Please post a newssite source instead of blogs. From her own words it appears that her words were taken out of their context." Maybe that you cut a picture w/o any reason? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe because Aeonian was trying to turn this woman into the face of the "regressive leftism"? Disgusting. Typhoon (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Weasaloid changed FCP's topic title on the Gamergate page without having it reverted or complaints made about the change.
Since I believe in being fair and equal and all that, if Weasloid can change FCP's (a mod, even) topic title without complaint, then Typhoon can certainly change yours without complaint. Good for the goose, good for the gander, and all that.
Unless, of course, you believe you should be arrogated special privileges that others don't have, including FCP. In which case, I think that should honestly be discussed as a matter of policy, don't you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

Page protected 1 day.

Primary warriors Kugel and Typh both desysopped, deuautopatrolled for 1 day.

Apologies. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, when will the page be open to edits again? I noticed that the Greenwald thing somehow is still up and, while I can understand why it should be there, its pretty misleading as written. AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Shit, can someone else be allowed to edit this page?! Jeez, I've been trying to get a point into the Greenwald section since it really is out of context written as is and with all this Rationalwiki editor war bullshit, I can't get jack shit into editing this page! Jeez!!! AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Revered Black Percy Whom, Like God, Will Not Be Mocked, Is So Heartily Offended[edit]

I've put the title back to what he originally put. Bit of a thin-skinned fellow, but these egotists often are.
I like to imagine it like this - "How dare Typhoon change my topic title! *fume, fume* How dare she! Harumph! I put that little cunt-bitch in her proper place! *fume, fume* I will not be mocked! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED BY THAT CUNT BITCH FEMJAY TYPHOON!" *fume, fume, cue immense complaining about how persecuted he is by Typhoon and how she VEXES him and how she SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED or PROPERLY BROUGHT TO HEEL like the CUNT-BITCH SHOULD BE*
I mean, really, what else can one envision from such thin-skinned self-importance? I mean, the temper! The cries of persecution! The aggrieved complaints!
I honestly have to feel sorry for such a man that can take so little joshing. I wonder if he backhands people at parties who have the temerity to disagree with him? Poor fellow! --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is this even Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ignore him, he's just being edgy again.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 12:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing edgy about this. Nothing hipsterish at all.
You do have the oddest ideas. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Just my envisionment of how the Revered views Typhoon, is all. I would have thought that plain to the veriest tyro. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Business as Usual, Then[edit]

Just for the record-keeping. It seems the article turned upside down, as usual. Despite that the term grew out of parts of the left dissatisfied with other leftists, the article — of course — begins the Usage section with alleged conservative use, where — of course — is now also the emphasis. The conservative section mentions some New Atheists, another checkbox in the bingo scorecard, and it claims Richard Dawkins held “far-right attitudes” and astonishingly is even “justifying premptive wars”. I'm not even sure the other two fit the description, but with Dawkins it's outright bizarre (yet, in my view, typical for the RW, famous for such fantastic rubbish). They can endorse Democrats, say, all day, or make their career on pissing off Christians (that is by extension, Republicans) — no, because reality-challenged editors RW think otherwise, they become “far-right”. You could not make it up. Citations are only needed once in the following section, supposedly the place for some legitimate criticism. What kind of things need citation? Basic knowledge on, what a surprise, postmodernism. Strange, where that always comes up. What a sheer happenstance. Accidentially, and also out of pure coincidence, Typhoon, Castaigne etc prevent that reality might taint the article. Maybe make an edit war, and then a Coop Case. Depending on who it is, Queex, Castaigne, Typhoon, Hipocrite, Gerard etc will either be against or in favour of some consequences. FCP plays the headless chicken with some attempt of solving the situation, rinse and repeat. Ironically, you have produced a bona fide regressive article denying regressive attitudes, just like as it is in the other cases. Just for the record. Go on. play your roles as usual ~ Aneris 02:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Aneris. We've heard it all before. Go forth, the Slymepit awaits your usual wallowing. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kugel and Joris[edit]

OK, let's discuss this.
Can you please explain, in a few sentences, why Aeonian's opinion is right, and why Typhoon's reasons are absolutely wrong? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, but Arisboch isn't interested in any of this, he's here only to bully people. Typhoon (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
We have alien junkie mercenaries? SO COOL!!--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that Kugel is not interested in actually discussing things.
Ah well. At least -I- operated in good faith, even if he is incapable. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop this edit block bullshit now[edit]

When can we start to edit this page again? I'm sick of not being able to edit this page (esp. the Greenwald section) since there's quite a bit of out-of-context shit that's still up there. Is there a way to remove the block? AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


How long after the block ends can I finally be allowed to edit? Do I have to restate my objections to using Greenwald and Kumar again and again? Typhoon (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Joris simply means to say that you're forbidden to edit it ever, even if he refuses to admit it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have engaged in explaining my position both here and the edit summaries. And all I received is mindless reverting just because it's an edit made by me. When Fuzzy locked this page nowhere was written that there's some topic ban on me. I find it incredible that RationalWiki is now helping the alt-right to smear Kumar. Typhoon (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Watching a persecution complex-fueled circle jerk sprinkled with Jonanism ("EVERYONE DISAGREEING WITH ME IS ALT-RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!111ONEELEVENONE") is lotsa fun. Please continue (*reaches for popcorn and schorle*).--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 17:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 17:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Take Mona's edits, replace "Zionists" and the like with "alt-right" and you're pretty close to Typhoon's.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 17:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned the alt-right because they're literally the one who's been spreading misinformation about Kumar, including the picture used in this article.

As a scholar of media studies, Deepa Kumar knew her tweet comparing the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Islamic State (ISIS) was provocative. But the tweet, posted in March, didn’t stir up much controversy until recently, when it resurfaced on far-right blogs and on Fox News. Now Kumar, an associate professor at Rutgers University, is being flooded with hate mail and even violent threats. And unlike several others scholars who’ve been slammed in recent media reports for their controversial tweets, Kumar is speaking out against coverage she says is unfair.

“This is not the only case of a professor being targeted by Fox News and by the right -- in fact, there’s a long history here of trying to silence and intimidate faculty who have dissenting opinions on the U.S. government and policies in the Middle East,” Kumar said in an interview. “The only way to push back and defend myself is to be public about it.”


As to why her tweet is coming to light now, Kumar said she was involved in a June conference for critical terrorism studies scholars that attracted lots of negative attention in the blogosphere. A slide from Kumar’s presentation, which she said was taken out of context, has been circulating since. And earlier this month, the far-right college life website SoCawlege published a piece on Kumar and her Twitter history.

You guy's are not paying attention to anything I write and are now going full into trolling. Typhoon (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Poisoning the well won't save this edit.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 18:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Dude, you're the one who's dismissing Kumar's words when they go against your beliefs. You demand to see her presentation as proof, but are completely fine to take the smearing of her as a "regressive" without any proof. Typhoon (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the proof for that is this photo of hers.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 18:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
And Kumar has already repeatedly stated that this photo was intentionally misrepresented. The words on that single photo presentation are only titles, ripped out of their context. And when I cited Kumars explanation of what she meant, you went on to imply that she's lying. It's extremely dishonest to use one out-of-context photo in order to paint a person, especially when said person repeatedly stresses that her views are being misrepresented in that photo. Kumar wrote entire books detailing her views, yet you cling onto one photo to base your opinions on her. Typhoon (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph about her does mention her saying it, so I don't quite understand, where the problem is. It's not as if I protested against mentioning her response to the critique of her conference, right (and if I did, I changed my mind. Like good ol Konrad Adeneur said: "It's not if anyone can prevent me from smartening up over night")? by all means, do insert the Twitter posts of hers.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 19:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 19:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come on. She's still used as a poster boy for a "regressive leftists", including an attempt to make her the lead picture for this article even though this label was slapped on her as a result of an intentional misinterpretation of an out-of-context photo. The current use of her as an "example" is absurd, when she clearly ISN'T an example. Not when we actually try to understand what she was talking about, not when we actually listen to her repeated explanations on twitter. Right now the paragraphs is all about a silly outrage that went nowhere after things were explained by Kumar, so any continuous labeling of her as a "regressive leftists" is only made by intentionally ignoring everything she has said on the topic. Typhoon (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph handles all that rather fairly and includes her response to the criticism. I don't see, where the devil the problem is.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 20:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 20:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that she is still treated as an example when she clearly isn't one. It's like if we added Orwell to a list of conservatives, then added a sentence at the end that he's not actually a conservative. Why do you fight so hard to keep her in the article for fallacious reasons? Typhoon (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
They ain't fallacious... And George Orwell's stuff isn't hiding behind a paywall.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have to say I'm tilting towards Typhoon on the issue if Kumar. The only documentation is one photo of a slide without any other context supplied. Even looking at the slide itself, an interpretation that Kumar is targetting all ex-Muslims would seem jarring, considering the phrase 'native informers' and the right wingers in the other two categories. This lends credence to Kumar's defense as it seems to match a line of thought that got her in the crosshairs of Fox in the link supplied. The Islam bashing has indeed been supported by such ex-Muslim 'native informers' as Ayaan Hirsi Ali who is probably the kind of wing nut Kumar is (not so) subtly placing in the triangle alongside neocons and Christian fundies. Ending the mention of her with a pat line about Kumar disputing the allegations against her fo being racist or trying to keep ex-Muslims in the closet at least gives me the impression that her protestations are somehow just spin and are not to be taken at face value. I really don't see Kumar as a good example, unless a far more solid piece of evidence than a snapshot of a single slide can be produced. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not tilting towards any particular editor here, but I'm tilting towards Typhoon's sources in this case. Kumar seems to be an excellent example - of a person who was mistakenly touted as a poster child for (the otherwise very real and debunk-worthy) illiberal left. The same goes with Greenwald. I mean, there are tons of actual illiberal leftists out there to fry in the article. Greenwald and Kumar just aren't good examples of anything but mistaken identity (in this case). In other words, what ScepticWombat said. My two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The examples were added because Typhoon insists the regressive left is not "very real and debunk-worthy" unless solid examples were given. So, if you find the examples here unsatisfactory, and feel there are examples of "tons of actual illiberal (sic, illiberal left is different) leftists," why don't you add them to the page? Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Kumar has said that when she talked about "native informants" she meant people like Ayann Hirsi Ali. From Kumar's facebook:

The islamophobe and native informant Ayan Hirsi Ali has yet another book out called "Heretic." She was on the Daily Show promoting it, and said: “If you look at 70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible,” the usual kind of nonsense peddled by the Right which is completely fabricated (especially if you look at the 1.3 million people the US has killed in just Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan). Please read Max Blumenthal's excellent exposé of this lie (as well as of Hirsi Ali's numerous other lies) it makes for a very satisfying read. Well done Max!

Typhoon (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, it's really telling what Ali's response was when Max emailed her:

Instead of responding to my question about her statistic, Hirsi Ali’s AHA Foundation forwarded my email query to the Washington Free Beacon, a right-wing publication with its own history of Islamophobic tall tales and hoaxes. In a currently un-bylined article about the query, the Free Beacon accused me of anti-Semitism.

Typhoon (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Good links, thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, even after this long talk, even after we established that the photo was completely taken out of context; Kugelschreiber (aka coop banned user Arisboch) continues to reinsert the smear as a lead image for the article. Typhoon (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved them to the part of the article talking about her.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing specific people[edit]

This seems to be the main argument so far. I think this is the same issue we had with the inverse stopped clock when it became cluttered with a bunch of people editors respected but took issue with a stance they held. I think it is for the best that we don't use anyone as an example and just use general statements like "people who handwave war crimes" or "people who are apologists for X fundamentalists".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 22:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That was how the page was before; I added the example section because the same zealots said that there were "no examples" and thus the regressive left is imaginary, ISIS are not real Muslims, and Islam invented women's rights. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I get that which but citing specific people is a slippery slope towards endless edit warring, bloated pages, and hurt feelings. The page must concentrate on the concept itself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the first revisions of the article, from when I first wrote it, you'll see that it just defines the regressive left with no one to name and shame. But Typhoon couldn't handle that, and immeditaely complained I couldn't give examples. So, now I'm providing examples, and they're upset about it because it contradicts their pre-determined conclusions about this subject. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not criticising you, only the direction of the article. I understand why you are citing specific people, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 04:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Handwaving war crimes? So Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are Regressive Leftists now? CorruptUser (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Back-up Chomsky and Zinn have handwaved war crimes? If they have then that position would be regressive. I was personally thinking of Harris.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 01:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
From our article on Howard Zinn.
Hence, while A People's History serves as a good starting point for learning about the seedy underbelly of American history, it is at best highly incomplete and, taken as a whole, grossly inaccurate. One particular point of concern is that Zinn, in his inversion of heroes and villains, does some whitewashing of his own. One example is, as mentioned before, the positive portrayal of Ho Chi Minh; he positively cites a report that Ho had "eliminated landlord domination," without mentioning that he had done it by mass slaughter of the landlords. Noam Chomsky has been similarly criticized for this omission. Another example of whitewashing is his treatment of the European colonization of the Americas. Having determined that the Europeans were the only oppressive imperialistic villains, he had little but praise for the social organization of American Indian societies. This required that he whitewash the oppressive behavior of the Aztec Empire, including the mass ritual sacrifices that took, by conservative estimates, hundreds of thousands of lives.
So do you consider these two to be regressive or not? CorruptUser (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I did say in my above statements that any positions that they hold that involves handwaving human right abuses would be regressive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 02:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The section on Maryam Namazie is a confused mess. It's not stated & is far from clear who here is being identified as the Regressive Left - presumably not any of the people involved in this incident (namely Maryam Namazie, the Goldsmiths ASH Society & Islamic Society) - and the Guardian article quoted at length as a response to the incident actually dates from two months before Namazie spoke at Goldsmiths. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The regressive left in this incident is presumably the feminist clubs and secular/liberal groups (the latter of which aren't mentioned) which supported ISOC's ban on Namazie. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
And who's accusing them of "regressive leftism"? The alt-right twitter mob that doesn't actually care about leftism, and is only out to fuel their persecution complex? Namazie is a curious case, since she herself fits the "regressive leftist" label, considering how she paints with a broad brush ALL muslims, as I referenced in this article. Typhoon (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
That section should be deleted or moved to the Maryam Namazie article. First quote is the Isoc condemning Namazie; second quote is Namazie condemning the Isoc; third quote is a columnist criticising Namazie. Whatever point is supposed to be made about so-called regressive leftists is obscure & tangential. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The selection should be purged, the original section was short and expressed who did what very clearly. Unfortunately it turns out the "more examples!" crowd doesn't actually like examples when they disagree with their preconceived conclusions, and so the section was bastardized into it's current form, which revolves around a rambling quote from the Guardian calling Namazie a hypocrite. The more you know :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's more like you're incapable of providing examples that aren't based on lies, half-truths or angry overreaction. Typhoon (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Far from "expressing who did what very clearly" it contains most of the same dubious (& in some case outright false) statements as the current version & still says nothing about the regressive left. Let's just get rid of it. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, there isn't a single example you couldn't somehow tar as "lies, half-truths or angry overreaction," apparently in order of how supported it is. It's an arbitrarily and vague standard. Much like the theists you defend, you have a preconceived belief and will find ways to dismiss any evidence against it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The section could be short and understandable, but one Typhoon would feel so maligned if Namazie didn't have a 3000byte quote criticizing her. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

More examples[edit]

The Goldsmiths Student Union seems to be a legitimate example of the regressive left (the islamist society they were defending has defended death penalty for apostasy). Also, One Law For All has a document about the pro-islamist positions of British politicians such as George GallowayHere it is31.208.109.182 (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC). I have also heard accusations that Islamophobia Watch defends islamism, though I don't know any specifics. (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: they invited a speaker who advocated death penalty for apostasy. Sorry for being imprecise. (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Add it in. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You know, I'm all for abolishing the death penalty, but historically treason and heresy have often invoked some manner of capital punishment. Is unilaterally condemning and ostracizing anyone who possesses some of these non-modern-humanitarian views as well as those who defend the former's rights really the best way to move forward? (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. If someone thinks that leaving a religion should be punished by the state or anyone else at all, he deserves a big fuck you in the face.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
And I'm sure they'll all jump aboard the humanitarianism-train after that big (metaphorical) fucking in the face... In the real world, it doesn't matter what people deserve, only what methods are effective. (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
So "methods that are effective" would be advocating for executions using the gas chamber over execution using a firing squad? There are good ways to convince people to disavow their beliefs but compromising on issues that violate human rights will only make things worse.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 16:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
By methods I was actually referring to methods effective in moving people into being more humanitarian. Throwing fuckyous at people, as Kugel suggests, doesn't sound like it'll sway anyone. But since you bring it up, one could argue the case that there's no rational reason why gas chambers, guillotines or firing squads can't be legitimate methods of execution, there are only emotional-historical reasons. In fact, some of these much-maligned methods could actually be more humane to the to-be-executed. And perhaps when gas chambers and guillotines are revealed as the more humane methods of execution, people will finally realize how horrific the death penalty really is, no matter the method. (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
So killing people as a form of "shock therapy" is the best way to convince them that execution is wrong.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Uh, no, bringing more injustice into the world isn't how you go about eliminating injustice. There's plenty footage of already extant injustice either way, if you want to shock people into behaving civilized. (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
.236, you'd be amazed at how many people think repeating the mistakes of the Soviets is a good way to fight religion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Partly because some communists adhere to their ideology through the same blind faith as which typifies the religious (blasphemously so) and partly because many people find appeal in the strongman's authoritarian approach. Any ideology which is not believed with burning fervor and enforced with an iron fist has not earned its right to exist, or something. But personally, my aim is not to fight religion but to redeem it. ;) (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you misunderstood me though. I wasn't referring to Marxist-Leninists, I was referring to anti-theists in general, though there is certainly some overlap. Regardless of the type of government/economic system they like, I have seen a great deal of people advocate for the state to take harsh actions against believers. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Goldsmiths Students' Union is a legitimate example of regressive left because... they have a policy of getting students' consent to be filmed? Every university and every SU has that policy. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP got it confused, or didn't present it well. The problem wasn't the GSU, but rather the Goldsmith Feminist Society, which sided with the Islamist group to silence Namazie. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't find a better desciption on Namazie's blog. Thank you for giving better sources. I considered mentioning that the islamists condoned the assassination campaign against atheists in Bangladesh (though not clearly enough for their friends to notice) but I couldn't find a source so again thank you for giving a source confirming it. (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries, the Muslim student group also tweeted afterwards that they were disgusted the Feminist Society was supporting them, since they're feminists and such. The regressives and SJWs live in an entirely separate reality. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Still obsessing over "regressive leftists" and "SJWs"? Typhoon (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
You never took up my offer to come to the KSA :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Lord Aeonian, you're putting me in the untenable and very awkward position of (narrowly) agreeing with Typhoon. She is a gender-uber-alles tribalist, and I totally don't respect her. But your tripe about UK Muslims rejecting a feminist society per se, and usage of "SJW" and "regressives" is just that -- tripe.---Mona- (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The regressive left refers to those who defend this nonsense for no other reason than because Muslims are "oppressed." The Feminist Society which sided with the Islamist group against Namazie cited those very concepts. It is clearly an example of the regressive left. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me LA, but "nonsense" is this: "...the Muslim student group also tweeted afterwards that they were disgusted the Feminist Society was supporting them, since they're feminists and such." And this: "The regressives and SJWs live in an entirely separate reality." Do you have any support for the former claim?---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I do have support for the incident, but the point of my comment was that the regressive left is siding with people who are completely opposed to progressive values - however, the regressives claim this is false, and fundamentalist groups are indeed progressive. This is why I said they live in a "separate reality." It seems you were confused as to what I was trying to say, the actions of the Islamist group are unrelated to the regressive left, but they do illustrate its absurdity. The Feminist Society's original reaction is the regressive left. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any evidence that a Muslim student group in the UK is disgusted with some group simply because they're feminist. Yes, that student union hosted a talk in which two Muslim women elaborated on the theme that Islam is better for women than feminism. There are many Islams, and they were not defending such things as, say, the Saudis ban on women driving. Many Christian groups, both Catholic and Protestant, also have taken, and still take, the position that "true feminism" is located in Church teaching or the Bible. That this is so does not mean that, e.g., the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings in 19th century America, or the British vis-a-vis the Irish Republicans, were right. That this is so doesn't change that progressives properly allied with Catholics against Nativists and the Brits.
I certainly do not support any of the Abrahamic faiths' notions of what is good for women, but I also have no conflict, at all, in strongly opposing those who would discriminate against, and demonize, members of any of those three faiths. Especially with regard to Muslims, in the West it is far more important to stand against anti-Muslim animus than to focus primarily on those Western Muslims who hold what you and I consider retrograde views on gender or sexual orientation. They're entitled to those views and to voluntarily abide by them. Finally, my position is what I understand to also be the position of those you and others dismiss as "SJWs" and the "regressive left" where Muslims are concerned.---Mona- (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand what this whole section is about? Perhaps you should watch the actual video of the events, in which Namazie delivered a calm lecture and was heckled by unruly Islamists. Anyone sane would have sided with Namazie - a Muslim faculty member chastises one of the problematic Muslim students in the video - and the Feminist Society had absolutely no reason to side with the Islamists. They did so only because of the regressive mantra that Muslims can do no wrong. But what surprises me most is your statement;
Especially with regard to Muslims, in the West it is far more important to stand against anti-Muslim animus than to focus primarily on those Western Muslims who hold what you and I consider retrograde views on gender or sexual orientation.
Let's look at the definition of regressive left, from this very article:
The regressive left...describe[s] a perceived segment of the left which ignores reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance.
That is exactly what you're saying. You're saying we just ignore their abhorrent views. Pray tell Mona, why can't we fight all reactionaries? Or are you afraid that would border on anti-theism regarding the Abrahamic faiths (let's be honest, it probably would)? And this is why a part of me wants to say the regressive left are, somehow, non-religious pro-religion people more than misguided progressives. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The regressive left is never promoting the rights of Christian bigots, and believe me there is discrimination against Mormons, Catholics and Jehova's Witnesses in some places. So no, I disagree about them being "non-religious pro-religion people". It's about going against the status quo or establishing some sort of holier than though credentials, not about promoting rights in general. CorruptUser (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Aeonian, our article also sates this:

For the relativist progressive, there are three possible courses—they can abandon relativism and advocate for change in all groups, at the potential risk of placing undue pressure on disadvantaged groups; they can reserve their criticisms for the dominant group alone by employing a tactical form of relativism which only applies to marginalized groups, that is, to not "punch down";

I am not a relativist. I do, however, generally advocate not punching down. Before I am a secularist, before I am an atheist, before anything else in my worldview, I am a civil libertarian. And my primary concern is my own Western nation of the United States. Far, FAR more harm is done to individuals and their civil liberties as a consequence of demonization of them and their religion than some Western Muslims do harm by dint of their retrograde theology. The First Amendment, the Fourth, both are under tremendous assault because of irrational fear of Muslims and the latitude politicians and courts thus give to law enforcement.

Then there is foreign policy. How many hundreds of thousands of Muslims are we going to kill with sanctions, how many with democracy bombs and drones?

As between civil liberties at home and bombing the fuck out of Muslims overseas on the one hand, and on the other some Muslims in the UK or U.S. who think (as do some Catholics and Bible-thumpers) that their sacred text is better than feminism & etc., I am infinitely more concerned about the former.---Mona- (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

But your reasoning apparently rests on a false dichotomy: "As between civil liberties at home and bombing the fuck out of Muslims overseas on the one hand, and on the other some Muslims in the UK or U.S. who think (as do some Catholics and Bible-thumpers) that their sacred text is better than feminism"
That's nonsense. We both know almost all of the arguments against Christianity apply against Islam anyway. It seems we're on two different levels here. I'm saying voices like Maryam Namazie need to be heard and supported by the West. That's very different from saying Muslims should be bombed or whatever your dichotomy seems to rest on. But again, it seems to me - and you've confirmed this yourself - that you would much rather have religious people just change their views instead of abandoning the fairy tales all together. So, from that perspective, I can see why pressure on religion wouldn't sit well with you. That's also why you seem to think that it's a choice between embracing Islam and nuking the Middle East. There is no room for education or other forms of non-violent anti-theism (such as Namazie's activism) in there because you don't want it - as we established on your talk page. Oh well. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I wish I was establishing a false dichotomy, but that's not what is at issue here. It's not about dichotomies. It's about politics and sociological realities. Marginalized, despised groups are at great risk for civil liberties encroachments. Making a group into Other renders them, at best, invisible to the citizenry when politicians want to bomb them, put them in Gitmo, or imprison them for what in any other group would be considered protected political speech. Namazie no doubt holds and promotes many justified criticisms of Islam, not different from the kind of angry analysis I did of Catholicism back in the day. But I was not operating in Northern Ireland, where my rage at Catholicism necessarily gave aid and comfort to bigots and oppressors. Had I been, I would have proceeded quite differently, and so too do I think Namazie should proceed with greater care.---Mona- (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
But the "don't punch down" narrative is myopic and fails to account for the fact that there is no where for someone like Namazie to punch up at Islam. If she came to my country, she'd be killed. I can say the same for many others. In the Protestant Reformation, why did critics of both sides go to the other's lands? Was it just so they could encourage hate of minorities? No, it was because they would be killed otherwise. Myself and others in my position are so concerned about the regressive left because of how myopic it is - you said it yourself: "my primary concern is my own Western nation of the United States." That's great, good for you, but people like Namazie have no where else to go. When you say Islam has to be dealt with with kilt clothes in the West - when there are few other places to even discuss it - because of Western politics it's basically saying "got mine, fuck you" to everyone else. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"it's basically saying "got mine, fuck you" to everyone else." Not. At. All. Protecting civil liberties for all -- including Muslims -- in the U.S., and not bombing Muslims to all hell overseas, is not a parochial, tribal interest. It's about as universalist a position as it gets -- while at the same time endorsing that the individual is the unit of moral analysis int terms of civil liberties. Namazie and other ex-Muslims who see anti-Muslim, Wesern secularists as their friends are making a huge, huge mistake. She is also a Westerner, is she not? Well, if we are going to be a culture of freedom, tolerance and respect for the civil liberties of all, we simply cannot run demonization campaigns against vulnerable minorities. It is her allying herself with the forces of demonization, and not taking care to make clear that hers is an intra-family argument, that is all so wrong. And the "regressives" are absolutely correct not to support that. You indicate she could not say what she does in your country, and perhaps you cannot say precisely which one that is, but I know that is true in many Muslim-majority nations. I strongly support internal movements to change that, and international pressure to make those changes. But what does it gain you to have fellow Arabs (or Persians) scape-goated in Western countries?---Mona- (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the key difference is that I am an anti-theist. I think the religious should be able to do as they please, but I certainly don't think the state should ignore it. I believe the libertarian approach that, as you say, "the individual is the unit of moral analysis" is a fundamentally flawed analysis which does not recognize the social nature of things like religion. I believe that these systems should be given freedom and tolerance, but I don't think it should be respected. And, in many ways, we agree. Would you say that racist attitudes should be respected? I fully agree that the West should oppose racism against West Asians, but, again, the difference is I think the West should also oppose religion and such as well. If Namazie wants to step on some toes, let her. Stone Age beliefs deserve no respect or protection. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Stone Age? Be fair. The Abrahamic religions formed in the aftermath of the Bronze Age Collapse. CorruptUser (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
CorruptUser, you're wasting your time. Aeonian will continue saying "stone age" because he learned it on Reddit from other fedora-tipping atheists. Typhoon (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Pity, because the actual history is rather interesting. So you have a group of Semites with various beliefs and practices. One of which is the whole baby sacrifice thing. Bronze Age Collapse occurs, climate change, etc, it's basically the apocalypse and half of the cities are burnt to the ground. One of the things outlawed is the baby killing. Sounds like a good thing? Not exactly. Getting rid of the infant sacrifice was less "holy shit this is horrific" and more "we are constantly under attack we need more soldiers". And of course if you don't have someone attacking you, you have too many people and need to get rid of them anyway, so the place became a pit of constant warfare. Eventually the tribes unite, and the pantheon is basically the Fertility Goddess, Ashera, the Creator God, El, and the God of War, Yahweh. Yeah that's right, the god we are all supposed to worship is the god of war. Ashera gets dropped, and El and Yahweh eventually merge. Fast forward a few millenia, and you have Muhammed. Why am I going here? Well, at this time the baby sacrifice had returned to the middle east. Muhammed outlaws this... and almost immediately conquers the Arab peninsula, and his followers amass an army large enough to conquer all the way from Morocco to Pakistan.
This should provide ample warning of what would happen if the Dominionists take over and ban condoms and abortions.CorruptUser (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. Got some sources for that, though? (talk) 17:29, 11 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Which do you want sources on? YahwehWikipedia and Late Bronze Age collapseWikipedia. Infanticide in Arabia. A bit more history of infanticide. BBC on Infanticide. Not sure what else you need, there's a lot there. CorruptUser (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Some of the epithets you ascribe to the gods seem a bit off (Ashera was the consort of El and mother of gods, but Baal was the god of fertility (and thunderstorms), for example) and that it was just those three that filled the pantheon seems very minimalistic. The main thing though is whether you have some reading material on the effect (lack of) birth control has on a religions' political and military strength. (talk) 01:30, 12 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Oh no, the pantheon was just as rich and varied as the Greek pantheon, and it's likely at least one of the gods (Adonis) moved from the Semitic pantheon to the Greek one. The Phoenicians, or really the Tyrians ("Phoenicia" is the Greek name for them) were the dominant power on the Mediterranean until being crippled by the Persians and then the Greeks, with Rome delivering the final blow. Notably, Carthage (the center of the "empire") practiced a very egalitarian form of baby killing; whenever there was a crisis the leaders had to kill one of their family. Supposedly, according to the Roman records.
As for the main thrust, well, look at any other modern day religion where the families have 8-9 kids each; there are 300,000 Amish now but only 5,000 a century ago, so just imagine what 2116 will look like (and that's WITH people leaving the faith but virtually no one joining). It should be pretty obvious that having large families makes it significantly easier to spread a religion to future generations, and more importantly, provides a very big incentive to conquer your neighbors for farmland. During the Early Muslim conquestsWikipedia, the Muslims didn't just conquer the territory but brought in families and entire tribes into the land, which was a sign there was overpopulation in Arabia in the decades after conversion to Islam. You know, in the decades after banning infanticide. Usually the conquerers displaced the nobles and would marry local women with only a few families moving into the conquered territory (think 1066 and the Norman conquest of England). CorruptUser (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Whatcha saying, Aeonian? Stone Age religion is best religion. Babbling shit while smoking weed next to a fire? Sign me up. Really though, animism and shamanism are pretty harmless as far as religions go. Admittedly, the size of the Stone Age societies they're typically associated with might have something to do with that too. (talk) 17:08, 11 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
I like Rastafarianism myself :D Also, nice to see Typhoon had to misinterpret a joke to poke at me. Obviously a religion like Islam was established long after the stone age, but when you can't address someone's points, you try and nitpick. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


Here is a starting example for commentary on the Regressive Left. Just in case people here still deny they are a thing. More could be collected here.

~ Aneris 21:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They already know it's a real thing, they just deny it. Funny how no one has taken up my offer to come see a Sharia compliant state yet. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Do not use a photo of her as a target for internet vigilantism.[edit]

Targeted for Tweets

As a scholar of media studies, Deepa Kumar knew her tweet comparing the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Islamic State (ISIS) was provocative. But the tweet, posted in March, didn’t stir up much controversy until recently, when it resurfaced on far-right blogs and on Fox News. Now Kumar, an associate professor at Rutgers University, is being flooded with hate mail and even violent threats. And unlike several others scholars who’ve been slammed in recent media reports for their controversial tweets, Kumar is speaking out against coverage she says is unfair.

“This is not the only case of a professor being targeted by Fox News and by the right -- in fact, there’s a long history here of trying to silence and intimidate faculty who have dissenting opinions on the U.S. government and policies in the Middle East,” Kumar said in an interview. “The only way to push back and defend myself is to be public about it.”


As to why her tweet is coming to light now, Kumar said she was involved in a June conference for critical terrorism studies scholars that attracted lots of negative attention in the blogosphere. A slide from Kumar’s presentation, which she said was taken out of context, has been circulating since. And earlier this month, the far-right college life website SoCawlege published a piece on Kumar and her Twitter history.

Aeonian, being a redditor who unironically calls people "SJWs", has reached for this far-right smear to add it as his example of a "regressive leftists". His example is bullshit, an out of context quote that Aeonian even promoted to be the lead image for this article. Typhoon (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, Kugelschreiber has opted to edit war over the article, instead of responding to me on this talkpage. Remember this next time when he complains in coop about edit warring. Typhoon (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I answered you in the edit comments. You claimed stuff being out of context, but didn't provide the context and neither did this article of yours. Kinda reminds me of religious apologists claiming, that verses from their holey scriptures sounding nasty are all taken outta context.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 17:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The context is her presentation, which no one who's complaining abotu her has bothered to watch. Kumar herself said it was taken out of context, and I'll take her word over the word of an angry twitter mob, as should anyone who uses logic. Kumar is the victim of the same tactic employed by Gamergators against Anita; rip out one sentence out of an entire presentation and use it as a weapon against the target. Anita was called "not a gamer" for that, and now Kumar is being labeled as a "regressive leftists". It's a blatant smear. Typhoon (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
OK you do that, but why should we take her word at face value? Just cause you seem to agree with her or don't like the concept of "Regressive left"? You talk about context and but can't provide one when asked.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 17:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Why should we take her word? Because it's HER word that is being misinterpreted. Have you seen her presentation? No? Then you have no idea what she was talking about on it. That one image is all that the angry twitter mob is using to harass her. None of them bothered to hear an explanation from her. Not even you. This is all a gamergate-tier smear using the same methods used against Anita. Typhoon (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because some people claim her being a victim of a "hate campaign" doesn't mean we have to take her words for face value. Neither you nor that article you linked actually provided the context.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 18:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
"Some people claimed"?! Her abuse is well documented by herself, but then again you know literally nothing about her, not even her opinions or the content of her presentation. As I already said, her presentation, that people like you ignore, is the context. The burden of proof is on the people smearing her with out-of-context nonsense. You're insistent on treating her words about her own opinions as untruthful write having no problem with believing in the picture of her painted by twitter mobs internet vigilantist. Typhoon (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, then link her presentation. Let us all see the context!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 18:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I already linked it as the very first thing in this section, but since you insist on not paying any attention, here's a direct link from the article. And here's her book about which her presentation was about. If you read it you'll see for yourself that she was smeared by the twitter mob. But you won't read it. I'm sure of that. Typhoon (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I won't read it, cause it's fucking paywalled (you think, I'm gonna pay 30 greenbacks plus taxes for a book just to win an argument on the net??).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I would. So you should. If it's good for me, it's good for you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Why should I blow money on that shit, just cause you claim you would??--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 10:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 10:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to declare yourself inferior to me, that's your business. If you're not willing to pay to play, though, then there's no reason not to disregard your argument out of hand. You have no skin in the game. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Then walk the walk: Buy the book and upload the context.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 15:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 15:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have bought it, have read it - and upload the context? What do you mean by that? If you are referring to scanning or otherwise copying the pages outright and putting them online, I must refuse. I don't do copyvio. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, and why should anyone have to believe you (and quoting it would be no copyright violation, it'd be fair use AFAIK)?--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 15:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 15:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Just going to point out that hiding behind a paywall is no argument at all. The burden of proof is clearly on the person making the claim. The burden isn't on others who want to verify said claim. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If you consider this a "burden", then I have a lot to say about how poors need to spend more time tending to their affairs then posting on the internet. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Kugelschreiber, if you want to state that I am a liar and everything I state should be disbelieved, then just say so. You've already stated that Typhoon is a liar about this, so what's one more person?
And no, posting a whole article up is not "fair use" by any legal definition of the word. Come on, this is basic knowledge. Fair use, however, is the abstract, which is as follows - The far right in the United States has ratcheted up anti-Muslim racism in the twenty-first century. However, they are not alone in creating and circulating the discourses of Islamophobia. In this paper, I set out to situate the far right, who I call the ‘new McCarthyites’, within the broader context in which they operate. I argue that they are part of a larger matrix of Islamophobia which includes the liberal establishment. I start with a concrete case study of the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ controversy, in order to demonstrate how various discourses of Islamophobia co-exist and fuel one another. I contend that even while the new McCarthyites were responsible for the hysteria generated, their arguments were enabled by liberals/realists. I then unpack the various agents who make up a coalition of the new McCarthyites and outline how they propagate their troglodyte racism. Finally, I offer a matrix that illustrates where Islamophobic ideologies are produced and how they are circulated in the mainstream. Such a structural analysis necessarily decenters the mainstream media since the media are one set of institutions, among others, that serve both as conduit and creator of anti-Muslim racism.
Considering that this is a known peer-reviewed academic journal in the field that you can't pay to publish, and that said academic article has been cited in several other papers - and yes, you should know this, because you can Google it, RTFM and all that - I'm not sure what you're looking for here.
Let's simplify the issue. You maintain that Kumar was lying when she says her speech was taken out of context, correct? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I maintain, that we have no source proving her words being taken out of context except a paywalled doorstopper (and fuck your Internet tough guy bullshit about paying to read it (which I don't believe you did yourself)).--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 16:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 16:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
And do you also maintain that we should trust Aeonian's interpretation over the author's statements? If so, I'm curious as to why, considering his unreliability and known Slymepitter biases.
Also, I don't know what "tough guy" talk you're referring to. I didn't say to pay and read it or I'd punch you or knife you or whatever. Tough guy talk has to have an actual threat component in it. If you can't afford to get the article, then say that you're a poor and be done with it. There's no shame in being a poor. Most of the world are poors. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Both of you (and everybody else who does the same thing), edit commentaries aren't for having a discussion, that's what the talkpage is for. (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to delete most of the Gamergate page as well; after all, the Gamergators say they're a ethics movement, and according to Typhoon, we should their word for it when they say they're being "misinterpreted." And besides, all this abuse is out of context!!! Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your notorious bias is showing. You might want to curb that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Aeonian, I've just explained in this section how the attacks on Kumar mirror the attacks Anita. This IS a gamergate-tier style smear. Typhoon (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Just in case of Anita, people can link to her stuff, cause it's available free of charge on Youtube, IIRC. Kumar's stuff is only available to those, who pay 30 USD with taxes and I don't think, that many people here are willing to do it. Paywalled sources are generally frowned upon on this wiki and The Other Wiki.--The Kigel (talk) (mail) (block) 15:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 15:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This is silly. The burden of proof is on the other side to prove that her presentation fit the "regressive left" label. They can't do that, and instead concentrate on one photo of one sentence that they project their own biased opinions on it. Kumar has stated many times who she was describing. Typhoon (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne & Dawkins[edit]

Jerry Coyne continually criticises what he calls the regressive left. I suspect he overlooks that western feminists can do more to improve western society than we can to convince Muslims they're wrong. I agree with Coyne that ignoring problems women face in repressive cultures like Islam is wrong. I feel though that feminists should focus where we can be effective. Dawkins also weighed in over Natazie, There’s nothing misguided about the left’s concern for Muslims.

I can't tell the motivation of men like Coyne and Dawkins but I fear redirecting feminist campaigning away from western problems would help western men who want to hold onto power in western societies. It's not about what they may or may not have wanted to do. It's about the likely effects of their actions. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not even wrong. It is not even true that Dawkins wanted to redirect anything. This comes when people believe in fairytales. We had to deal with accommodationists before. There was also a proper "accommodationist war". Regressives shot to the top accommodationist position in recent years with their Islam accommodationism, starting with Dear Muslima. SJWs/Regressives however themselves redefine the "conflict" as about their favourite gender-race-war nonsense, since this is their ideology. Imbeciles believe them. ~ Aneris 14:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand about people like you is why you think it's either/or. It's either Western feminists fight Christian-based Western misogyny or Islamic misogyny. Why not do both? Are Western feminists tired or something? Do they only care about Western women and only pretend to care about anyone else? Makes one wonder. Edit: I should say do they only care about white women, not western women. The events in question are in the West, so the Muslims are technically "Westerners." Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, those who use the term "regressive left" want to focus on Islam to the extent of anything else; see Sam Harris as a good example. If Roosh's "rape on private property is legal" proposal were made law in the USA, people like Harris, Nugent, Aneris, etc. would just say "Well, those are white women first world problems. It's NOTHING like the evils experienced by women in Islamic countries! You have no right to complain, you got the vote." --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Which is utter rubbish, but you posted this anyway only to make a list of names you don't like, and correlate this with Roosh. The oldest SJW trick in the book. Especially rich when it comes from the abuser-paedophile-nazi faction (Nyberg, Shanley etc) to which you belong. ~ Aneris 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, I absolutely believe it's true. I especially believe that you, Aneris, is a (not very covert) MRA and a follower of both Roosh and Chateau Heartiste, which comes from your Slymepit wallowings. I think Michael Nugent would side with Roosh due to his hate of PZ Myers. I believe that Sam Harris wouldn't give a shit since he's so obsessed with the Great Brown Peril.
And last I checked, Nyberg and Shanley are SJWs, not a staunch conservative like myself. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Cool story, though everyone knows that you are trolling. Other people can just peruse what I think on twitter for example (@Aneris23). I'm a Discordian leftist, obviously. Besides, the Slymepit usually makes fun of the usual MRA. There are two or three who sympathize with the that side, and they like Ally Fogg and Karen Straughan. Of course, I am completely against identity politics. It's interesting that you bring Michael Nugent up. He and their organisation also do good feminist work. By your admittedly idiotic reasoning, PZ Myers and the RationalWiki are Pro-Lifers then (RW repeats PZ's unsubstantiated claims, there you go). ~ Aneris 05:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in the West but I use the term whenever Western leftists pander to reactionary groups just because they're minorities in the West. For instance, I once saw a pamphlet distributed at some US university claiming that Mormons and Catholics were 'oppressed' and, oddly, separate from Christians; as a resort students shouldn't criticize those religions. The idea of a Western left which drops its scoial convictions whenever a minority group enters the stage is very valuable and certainly a reality. Lord Aeonian (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That pamphlet would have come from a very right-wing Protestant group, as many Protestants, including Southern Baptists, do not believe that Mormons and Catholics are actual Christians. See the anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic sections of SBC bookstores. Thus, the argument follows, criticizing them as Christians is a null idea since they are actually Satanists or pagans, depending on which direction the argument goes. As for being oppressed, I wouldn't say that they are today - unless you're listening to Romney or Barnhardt or somebody - but anti-Mormonism and anti-Catholicism was a thing up until the 1960s. --Castaigne2 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it was a "SJW" pamphlet. In case you missed what I said, it was saying Catholics and Mormons are oppressed and thus their beliefs shouldn't be criticized. It was certainly not anti-Catholic or anti-Mormon. The pamphet had several sections, that the was the religious section. Note that Muslims, Sikhs, and other religions were listed along with Catholics and Mormons as oppressed in that section. The other sections were things like race and similar issues, I don't remember what they were. I think one was English speakers vs non-English speakers, and there may have been a socio-economic section. The general theme was wealthy "WASP" type people oppress everyone else. I tried to look for it just now, but I couldn't come up with it. Lord Aeonian (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Catholics and Mormons were oppressed in the USA, previously, having the same status most Jews did previous to the 1960s. Some maintain they still are today. However, I agree that most of all that was eliminated during the JFK administration, though you will still find such prejudice in the Deep South. Catholics, for instance, are reputed to worship Mary and sacrifice babies on the altar, you know. See Jack Chick for some of the common beliefs that Baptists have about Catholics.
I should note that when Romney was up for contention in 2012, there were a number of conservatives on Free Republic who refused to support him. Their reasoning was that once Romney was President, he would declare the USA to be Deseret entire and unleash the Mormon army to force conversions. So there still seems to be some prejudice there amongst the evangelist populations.
Since you're not a Westerner, you probably are (like many people outside of North America) unaware of the particular prejudices that crop up in normal Americana. For instance, did you know that most people in the Deep South don't understand (and don't care) the difference between Sikhs and Muslims? To most, they're all "brown towelheads" and deserve the same treatment. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There are many issues I am not aware of, but attacks on Sikhs as 'Muslims' is somewhat well known. It also happens in the UK. The problem is that the racists don't really care about Islam, but are just racist; thus Sikhs, Hindus, etc are attacked. This is why I don't believe 'Islamophobia' exists in the West. Ironically, the "Islamophobe" users would have a stronger case in India, where Hindu-Muslim tensions flair and are certainly not influenced by race, only by religion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the racists don't really care about Islam, but are just racist; thus Sikhs, Hindus, etc are attacked.- Aeonian
Maybe over there in Europe or wherever you are. Here in the States, the reason Sikhs and Hindus and the like get attacked is because a majority of Americans are too stupid to know the difference. They just think anyone wearing "towel-ly" clothing is a Muslim, because that's what the Muslims do. If they were Hindu or Sikh, they'd just be wearing regular (Western) clothing like everyone else! "Thas what that thar Hindoo down't gas pump do." Only "Muslamics" wear native dress. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
And it doesn't get into the "sophisticated" arguments that the Trump intelligentsia use, such as Islam not being a religion but a political system of conquest and thus not eligible for 1st Amendment rights. Guys like Walid Shoebat? Islamophobes. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, then consider this - do these people know anything about Islam? Have they read the Qur'an with a tafsir? Read any of the ahadith? Do they even know what a hadith is, and why the Sunnah is important? We both know they don't. So can you really claim they're Islamophobic? Your comments on clothing are BS because from what I've seen anyone who looks Desi or Arab - regardless of dress - gets hate for being "Muslim." It's almost as if these people think "Muslim" is a race - which, ding ding, is exactly what I think they do. It's just racism. They can say it's about "Islam" but when they don't know anything about Islam and treat "Islam" like a race it reveals the fact that it's racism hiding behind concerns over Islam. Or, in other words, just racism. Edit: I would also add that religions are indeed a political system. The Christ-worshipers in the US are even a recognized political coalition. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Why does it have to be either-or? Of course racial animus is a large part of what animates Islamophobia, but, especially among conservative Christians, it's not the only thing. They can't quote the Quran from memory, but they know that Islam is not Christianity, and hence they're heathens who believe the wrong religion, and therefore a Problem™. As pointed out above, compare with the distrust evangelical Protestants have of non-evangelical Christians, whom they consider Not True Christians™, and also frequently baby-sacrificing undercover Satanists. They also think, due to their ignorance, that all Arabs are Muslim. Other religions, such as Hindusism and Buddhism, also are on the receiving end of discrimination in the U.S., just not quite as much because they're not the boogeyman that Islam currently is. Hindu temples getting denied building permits is a thing that happens with relative frequency in the U.S. ("They're idol-worshippers!") People who hate others for not being like them generally tend not to, if you will, discriminate too much about what they hate others for. Anything will do, because the important thing is that they're an Other, and not One of Us. --Ymir (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but with the exception of the fact that Islam is not Christianity, you just reinforced my point. Xenophobia hiding behind a concern about Islam isn't "Islamophobia," it's just xenophobia. Lord Aeonian (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Misquoting Sam Harris in End of Faith[edit]

In the article Sam Harris is quoted as supporting killing people based on their beliefs, which appears to be a rather outrageous claim when taken out of context. When I read the actual passage in the End of Faith p. 52-53, it is clear that the author of the article has failed to put the claim in its necessary context. Sam Harris essentially articulated a version of the would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler thought experiment, which is qualitatively different from "killing people based on their beliefs". For purposes of clarity, imagine a hostage situation where a hostage taker threatens to shoot his hostage. The hostage taker is yet to murder anyone, but he promises he will and he is holding a loaded gun against the head of a member of his hostage. Most people would favor measures to liberate at least one member of the hostage at the expense of the life of the hostage taker. In such a case, killing the hostage taker, is technically an act of murder based on the hostage taker's presumptive beliefs, and it's not a very extraordinary position to hold. Sam Harris, in the End of Faith, specifies that there are scenarios when people who hold certain unalterable beliefs, and who "cannot be caught", can justifiably be killed. And just as in the hostage example, such a position is not an extraordinary position. However, wanting to kill people based on their beliefs absent any intervening variables or circumstances is highly extraordinary, but it is not the position Sam Harris holds. Nothing Sam Harris says in the End of Faith can be appropriately summarized with simply "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" without providing necessary context. — Unsigned, by: / talk 00:55, 22 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Good points, though you cannot hope for improvement. This stuff is all over the place, also see Sam Harris. You can either start edit-warring, which is a waste of time and which will change nothing. Or you can adjust your expectations and tell other people to also adjust their expecations about the RationalWiki. ~ Aneris 14:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The same dumb joke over and over.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 17:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. I often find some people misrepresenting Harris's views on some things. He's not pro-war, unlike some people's claims. PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Sam Harris essentially articulated a version of the would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler thought experiment"
Typhoon (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
That's the best you can do? Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The interesting (rhetorical) question is, why is Sam Harris view, misrepresented or not, in the article at all? The answer is, of course, everything here is tendentious and even an article supposedly about his opponents is used to push the agenda (which goes into the opposite direction, hence the squirming and edit warring on this article). The idiotic “joke” Percy posted above is of course also utter hogwash, since Harris is a liberal, too. He's just not a intersectional critical race theorist, regressive or their supporter (unlike PZ Myers, say) and hence an enemy, as per “with us or against us” doctrine. The truth is, the RW itself is regressive. ~ Aneris 22:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Why can't you ever be right for once? You often come close to it...only to say something stupid. RW is not "regressive." In the regressive worldview, criticisms of any minority groups (minority = minority in the West, since they're ignorant Euro-centrists) is intolerable because of intersectionality. Presumably the homosexuals, non-Muslims, and other oppressed groups in Muslim societies would experience more inersectional oppression that the average Muslim, but the regressives don't think that far into the issue. Anyway, RW, by contrast, airs criticisms of Islam in the relevant articles, and we can also see large amounts of criticism against groups such as black supremeicts, "tankies," etc, groups which are sacred, if not fully justified, in the SJW worldview. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I do think that RW is a little too SJW, often siding with 3rd-wave feminists without asking any questions. PBfreespace (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Depends on the topic. The articles about actual SJW things, like the term "SJW" itself, are obviously tilted that way. But when you look at the actual articles about things like the Health at every size nonsense, Afrocentrism, Islam, etc, you see debunking and criticism. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
.Though there's core regressive stuff, too, like FGM apologia. Also, I consider SJWs and Regressives as slightly different, but with a large overlap. The reason why other subjects exist is a matter of legacy or focus. Many Regressives also are occasionally critical of Islam if the context is detached enough from politics. ~ Aneris 01:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The regressives and SJWs are very different, though the argument could be made that one is a subset of the other. The regressives are obviously heavily influenced by the SJW worldview, but they also have a distinct methodology which always produces predictable reactions. The SJWs, by contrast, are much more of a wild card and the term "SJW" can encompass a great variance of viewpoints. There are also "SJWs" who entirely circumnavigate the central idea of the regressive left, which is to avoid all criticism of minority groups because of intersectionality. SJWs who are mainly focused on issues within their own (minority) community, and call out the attitudes of that community aggressively, avoid the regressive pitfall; although in many cases such people may not be SJWs at all. In my experience both SJWs and regressives tend to be moderately wealthy non-minorities themselves. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
So we changing it or nah? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs