Democrats Refuse to Say "Radical Islam"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Proof I am butthurt about anything and prove I said any of this, or more lies like you lie about everything else? Also your long winded posts are incredibly boring and don't add up to anything, mind trimming the fat? Liar.

Well, you're complaining about people not using the term radical islam.

Quotage from you right here in this thread:
"Since when did calling radical islam become over generalizing in your opinion Digi?

Are you really going to agree with a ignoramus that now the word "radical" is not politically correct and that saying radical is generalizing,"

So, there you go, you're both complaining on the topic and insulting people who disagree with you for doing so. That looks pretty butthurt to me.

I don't know why you go, "prove I'm X!" about stuff you're actively visibly doing, and then do again just a few posts later. And you got pretty angry when you were called out on doing it.

It doesn't work very well to accuse me of lying for doing something... while it's, y'know, right there that you're doing it 🙂

It's like you don't quite get how calling people out works. When someone calls you on something, you go, "Hah, I can turn the tables by asking them to prove it!"... only not realizing that if you're actually doing it and it takes zero effort to point that out, it simply makes you look defensive and paranoid.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh please, I have to go back and find them now. I bet Rob will admit to talking about African Christian Radicals..

Every time Christians in Africa was brought up, you dismissed it on the grounds of Africa not counting, somehow. So sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Rob you know and I know you will admit we have had many arguments over talking about Radical Christianity, and how it is almost completely irrelevant. At least vouch for the conversations we have had. Even Obama has criticized christianity and compared islam to the crusades..

I'm not disagreeing that Christianity comes under scrutiny and that we do talk about Christian extremists. But we almost never use "Radical Christianity" in the way people want to use "Radical Islam". And when I say "we" I mean both on KMC and the media and politicians.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob you know and I know you will admit we have had many arguments over talking about Radical Christianity, and how it is almost completely irrelevant.

Again, if you live in the US, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack by them than you are a terrorist attack from Muslims.

If you're so afraid of Muslims, why aren't you more afraid of these groups?

And/or if you're not afraid of these groups, why don't you become less afraid of Muslims?

I recommend the latter.

Except of course I don't think I've ever used the words "Radical Christianity". When I brought up the atrocities that happen in Africa, it was to point out that religion can be used to do awful things, not just Islam.

Originally posted by Q99
Again, if you live in the US, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack by them than you are a terrorist attack from Muslims.

If you're so afraid of Muslims, why aren't you more afraid of these groups?

And/or if you're not afraid of these groups, why don't you become less afraid of Muslims?

I recommend the latter.

Another useless irrelevant snipe that has nothing to do with what I said, are you looking for me to get mad again for blatantly lying and misrepresenting posts? Keep your opinions to yourself if you can't stay on topic. Prove I ever said I was afraid of muslims. I might as well report you for trolling.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course I don't think I've ever used the words "Radical Christianity". When I brought up the atrocities that happen in Africa, it was to point out that religion can be used to do awful things, not just Islam.

At least we agree we discussed it. Thanks.

Yeah, but not in the way it relates to the topic between you and B42.

Im mearly brining up the fact that people not just you, this includes Obama trying to find relevance to christianity by bringing up the crusades and things like it. When its is barely relevant.

Originally posted by Q99
Well, you're complaining about people not using the term radical islam.

Quotage from you right here in this thread:
"Since when did calling radical islam become over generalizing in your opinion Digi?

Are you really going to agree with a ignoramus that now the word "radical" is not politically correct and that saying radical is generalizing,"

So, there you go, you're both complaining on the topic and insulting people who disagree with you for doing so. That looks pretty butthurt to me.

I don't know why you go, "prove I'm X!" about stuff you're actively visibly doing, and then do again just a few posts later. And you got pretty angry when you were called out on doing it.

It doesn't work very well to accuse me of lying for doing something... while it's, y'know, right there that you're doing it 🙂

It's like you don't quite get how calling people out works. When someone calls you on something, you go, "Hah, I can turn the tables by asking them to prove it!"... only not realizing that if you're actually doing it and it takes zero effort to point that out, it simply makes you look defensive and paranoid.

Reported for continued baiting/antagonizing after warning from mod.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You misstate the pragmatic reason though. You are implying that the "pragmatic reason" is scoring points with voters as a career politician. When really the "pragmatic reason" is not letting our enemies use our words as recruitment tools while simultaneously pushing away allies.

The way you phrase it you make it seem like it's just stupid PC bullshit, or something, when it's actual a prudent tactic in the fight against Daesh.

as long as westerners are in muslim countries with armies and shit, there is going to be that undertone of the "clash of civilizations" in the minds of many middle eastern muslims and western christians alike. sure, we should stress that this isn't the case. hence why attacking "islam" with the same kind of broad brush that many liberal atheists often attack "christianity" is counter productive in this regard.

so if the argument is that we shouldn't say we're at war with radical islam, i agree we shouldn't say that. because there are many radical islamic countries that we cooperate with and/or i would like us to try to cooperate with, such as saudi arabia, iran, pakistan, etc. so we should be accurate about who we're at war with an who we're not... that level of diplomacy necessary. and especially when it comes to public speakers.

but for the rest of us... for liberals to refer to "radical islam" as a problem or even as a source for the terror we're fighting.. there really isn't a problem to me. i mean there are a lot of people in saudi arabia who are silently pleased with ISIS just because they are sunni wahhabi muslims like themselves. yet we do try to maintain good relations with saudi arabia... which is a radical islamic state. but the connection is clear and apparent. acting in denial won't win the respect of people who don't like us, it just makes us look foolish and easily deceived.

when it comes to self-censorship... i could be wrong but im getting the impression that theres some sort of campaign specifically not to use that term for political reasons. it's not self-censorship to choose a different term you like better... but it starts to seem that way when we have to have a big collective discussion about why not to use a term that is admittedly accurate.

and in regard to speaking about the worldwide problem with different sects of the muslim religion... "radical islam" is about as accurate a term as i can think of.

i mean when we talk about the radical right wing groups that are on the rise in this country, we have no problem branding them as such. nor should we. just acknowledging which strain of extremism the extremists in question are representing does not imply in any was that it's us vs all muslims or us vs all right wingers. it is actually sort of condescending to suggest so. like the people in question are too stupid to make the distinction.

also... with regard to the whole "isis wants to be called radical muslims so we should call them daesh instead"

could care less what they want. you think you're winning some victory there? you're just indulging them more than you need to. the second you start asking "what would isis want" when choosing your words you are granting them a symbolic victory. as far as im concerned, if they call themselves the islamic state then that's who they are. let them fly that flag, chop off as many heads as they want, and let people in that region associate the terror that they bring with the islamic state. then let them decide whether the islamic state is something they want to keep around.

I just don't see the fuss over calling it "Radical Islam" when just calling it "lslamic Extremism" paints more or less the same picture while also getting across the fact that it's not the entire religion that is the problem.

Especially when to me an "extremist" sounds worse then a "radical".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im mearly brining up the fact that people not just you, this includes Obama trying to find relevance to christianity by bringing up the crusades and things like it. When its is barely relevant.

Ok, you convinced me, they're radical Islamist and I'm going to say it every chance I get.

i honestly don't see much difference between the two terms... radial islam doesn't refer to the entire islamic religion any more than islamic extremism does. if you interpret it as the entire religion of islam has gone radical, then you're just misunderstanding the term. it's referring to the radical portion of islam. but any policing of language is a bit irksome to me in general.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ok, you convinced me, they're radical Islamist and I'm going to say it every chance I get.

😂

Originally posted by red g jacks
i honestly don't see much difference between the two terms... radial islam doesn't refer to the entire islamic religion any more than islamic extremism does. if you interpret it as the entire religion of islam has gone radical, then you're just misunderstanding the term. it's referring to the radical portion of islam. but any policing of language is a bit irksome to me in general.

👆

It's fine to call ISIS "Daesh", but it's not when you call Muslim extremists "radical Muslims."

That does seem to be correct though, calling this "Radical Islam" doesn't even suggest it means all of Islam.

So I'm not even sure what the issue is.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but any policing of language is a bit irksome to me in general.

I assume it bothers you then that right wing politicians and media want to compel Democratic politicians to use the term "Radical Islam"?