How right-wingers shut down debate

MARLM-PSSSS is my acronym for the debate-ending names liberals are called by conservatives.

If you disagree with the right, you are one or all of the following -- a Muslim apologist, regressive, leftist, multiculturalist, pedophile supporter, socialist, SJW, snowflake.

Hahahahahahaha

Isn't it funny how after years of leftie/liberal/progressives crying sixhirb at anyone and everyone who dared to question the imposition of their agenda... that they are now trying to claim to be the victim of 'reverse sixhirb'...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Isn't it funny how after years of leftie/liberal/progressives crying sixhirb at anyone and everyone who dared to question the imposition of their agenda... that they are now trying to claim to be the victim of 'reverse sixhirb'...!!!???

Just occurred to me that you dipshits never did realize you do the exact same thing, so I thought I'd nudge you along ... !!!!!!

Tommy's kneejerk and reactionary post is a perfect example in support of the O/P  !!!

Tommy is so messed up in what supposedly passes for some kind of reasoning in his addled brainspace,  that he still can't get past his ridiculous and largely irrelevent misuse of those typical American Repub'/Teabagger/alt.right insult terms, such as  "leftie liberal progressives.... imposition of agendas...".

Despite being knocked down, ridiculed and disproven on here so many times, he still keeps on rolling out those real big words when he clearly doesn't even know their proper meanings..

Is "socialist" an insult then?

Raggamuffin wrote:Is "socialist" an insult then?

It is the way y'all use it

Raggamuffin wrote:Is "socialist" an insult then?

There's a lot lost in translation on this site, with the Americans and the British. Maybe in Britlandia, socialist isn't considered an insult, but it was used against Obama for a very long time by people who you'd realize didn't even understand the meaning of the word. Or that we have a bunch of popular, successful socialist programs even in the U.S.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is "socialist" an insult then?

There's a lot lost in translation on this site, with the Americans and the British. Maybe in Britlandia, socialist isn't considered an insult, but it was used against Obama for a very long time by people who you'd realize didn't even understand the meaning of the word. Or that we have a bunch of popular, successful socialist programs even in the U.S.

I think that someone in the UK might jokingly refer to someone as a "socialist" as a sort of insult, but it would be in a light-hearted manner.

Ben Reilly wrote:MARLM-PSSSS is my acronym for the debate-ending names liberals are called by conservatives.

If you disagree with the right, you are one or all of the following -- a Muslim apologist, regressive, leftist, multiculturalist, pedophile supporter, socialist, SJW, snowflake.

And this differs from 'left wingers' shutting down debate by labelling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi or a fascist how exactly?

Indeed, the Regressive left are the worst at shutting down any debate.
Look at the Riots over Milo speaking?
He maybe a self loathing homosexual and his views appalling, that though does not mean he should be subjected to such violence?
If anything its those on the left that stifle Free Speech

Any "insults" that are thrown at lefties are nothing compared to the insults that are thrown by lefties. Calling someone a nazi is much worse than calling someone a "multiculturalist" - don't you think?

Raggamuffin wrote:Any "insults" that are thrown at lefties are nothing compared to the insults that are thrown by lefties. Calling someone a nazi is much worse than calling someone a "multiculturalist" - don't you think?

No. Calling someone a multiculturalist implies they are just as big a part of a potential hurt to the planet as calling someone a Nazi is, on the basis of the meaning behind the insult.

I have been told that my belief in multiculturalism will destroy Western civilization. Don't you think that affects me?

Thorin wrote:Indeed, the Regressive left are the worst at shutting down any debate.
Look at the Riots over Milo speaking?
He maybe a self loathing homosexual and his views appalling, that though does not mean he should be subjected to such violence?
If anything its those on the left that stifle Free Speech

But the thing is, I would never lay a hand on him, nor would most liberals. Yet you decide to define me by the actions of violent people, despite the fact that I am a non-violent person to the core.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:Indeed, the Regressive left are the worst at shutting down any debate.
Look at the Riots over Milo speaking?
He maybe a self loathing homosexual and his views appalling, that though does not mean he should be subjected to such violence?
If anything its those on the left that stifle Free Speech

But the thing is, I would never lay a hand on him, nor would most liberals. Yet you decide to define me by the actions of violent people, despite the fact that I am a non-violent person to the core.

I did say the Regressive left, who are Illiberal's.
So where did I define you above by the actions of violent people?
There is a problem on the left that you should be standing up to also, those who defend or make excuses for poor beliefs.
I.E. Any religious ideologies. Its fine to defend people for the rights to beliefs from discrimination.
Its wrong to defend actual beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others.

You're still taking a small minority of the left and using it to define the goddamn 70-year-old lady from Texas who was protesting Trump over the weekend.

If you're just going to nut-pick, we'll always have division and acrimony.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Any "insults" that are thrown at lefties are nothing compared to the insults that are thrown by lefties. Calling someone a nazi is much worse than calling someone a "multiculturalist" - don't you think?

No. Calling someone a multiculturalist implies they are just as big a part of a potential hurt to the planet as calling someone a Nazi is, on the basis of the meaning behind the insult.

I have been told that my belief in multiculturalism will destroy Western civilization. Don't you think that affects me?

Can you show an example by a Multicultural system of Government, that has committed mass genocide?
They are not even comparable.
One is a view expressed hypothetically of multiculturalism could do.
The other is comparing people to those who did commit mass genocide
They do this to justify and normalizing hating people

Ben Reilly wrote:You're still taking a small minority of the left and using it to define the goddamn 70-year-old lady from Texas who was protesting Trump over the weekend.

If you're just going to nut-pick, we'll always have division and acrimony.

I would hardly class them as small.
The defense of Linda Sarsour by many of the left. Who has defended practices in Saudi Arabia and Sharia law, is just one of many examples

Ben Reilly wrote:

Yes I posted this already, he also rightly speaks out on many of the left who cease to be Liberal and are Illiberal and regressive.
He also has been denied to be speak by those on the left.
Another fine example of the left shutting down those they do not like

And because he had Milo on TV.


Bill Maher to Guest Who Canceled Because Of Breitbart Editor: We Lose Elections Because Of These Anti-Free Speech Antics.



Grab some popcorn because while most conservatives ignore comedian Bill Maher—he’s invited Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to be interviewed on his show tonight. Yiannopoulos is no stranger to controversy. His latest trip on the lecture circuit was met with violence at UC Berkley, where a leftist mob shut down the event. The incident quickly became violent with fires being set, while other leftists engaged in the destruction of property. The FBI is now investigating the protests.




On tonight’s broadcast of Real Time, Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill was slated to be a guest, but decided to cancel over Maher booking Milo. Scahill said that he disagrees with Maher about his views on Islam, noting that the latter's views ventures into vitriol. Nevertheless, he felt that Real Time provides a genuine platform for debate and discussion, “but Milo Yiannopoulos is many bridges too far.”


“There is no value in debating him,” wrote Scahill in a statement. “Yiannopoulos’ appearance could also be used to incite violence against immigrants, transgender people, and others at a time when the Trump administration is already seeking to formalize a war against some of the most vulnerable people in our society.” So, Scahill was triggered and he decided to bow out. That’s his right, but Maher defended his booking decision, saying that his views on Islam aren’t vitriolic and it’s these types of anti-free speech antics that cost liberals lost the election (via Entertainment Weekly):

“My comments on Islam have never veered into vitriol,” Maher replied in a statement obtained by EW. “Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.”

Real Time with Bill Maher airs on HBO at 10 P.M.


It could be anti-climatic. You never know with Milo, but at least Maher is a liberal who can admit that there’s a problem with radical Islam—and that liberals should embrace free speech and expression, instead of running to the safe space. It’s because of these antics that Maher feels voters look at liberals and think of them as emasculated husbands. He’s not wrong.





https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/17/bill-maher-to-guest-who-canceled-because-of-milo-we-lose-elections-because-of-these-antifree-speech-antics-n2287100

This is why those rpoclaiming to be Liberal, should be condemning these Illiberal's.



[ltr][size=18][url=https://popup.taboola.com/en/?template=colorbox&utm_source=townhallmedia-townhall&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=thumbnails-a:Below Article Thumbnails:][/url][/ltr][/size]

You're raging against a handful of college students at one university, man!

Ben Reilly wrote:You're raging against a handful of college students at one university, man!

No I am not Ben, as you well know.
Countless on the left have for example defended Linda Sarsour and cast Bill as an Islamophobe
Where even worse you are downplaying this problem.
I speak out against those on both the left and the Right, who are problematic.

Oh and for the record, there are those on the right also that try to shut down the debate.

Well my feelings are hurt when people say that mermaids aren't real.

Of course Mermaids exist,  eddie...

They look like this :

http://thewebsiteofeverything.com/animals/mammals/Sirenia/

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Of course Mermaids exist,  eddie...

They look like this :

http://thewebsiteofeverything.com/animals/mammals/Sirenia/

Nooooo they look beautiful and they play musical water-flutes and tempt sailors to their deaths.....

eddie wrote:Well my feelings are hurt when people say that mermaids aren't real.

I saw a film about a mermaid years ago. She was beautiful, a young man looked after her and inevitably fell in love with her.
I think she ended up eating him.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Well my feelings are hurt when people say that mermaids aren't real.

I saw a film about a mermaid years ago. She was beautiful, a young man looked after her and inevitably fell in love with her.
I think she ended up eating him.

What a great life! Fuck him then have dinner

Hmmm...are you part black widow spider by any chance?

Syl wrote:Hmmm...are you part black widow spider by any chance?

we've derailed the thread and you're gonna get in trouble if you don't stop chitter chattering.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Hmmm...are you part black widow spider by any chance?

we've derailed the thread and you're gonna get in trouble if you don't stop chitter chattering.

Just proving that you don't have to be a right winger to shut down debate.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Hmmm...are you part black widow spider by any chance?

we've derailed the thread and you're gonna get in trouble if you don't stop chitter chattering.

Just proving that you don't have to be a right winger to shut down debate.

Hahahahahahahaha clever girl

Raggamuffin wrote:Is "socialist" an insult then?

It is in conservative America.  In Europe there are many socialist and quasi-socialist regimes, but in America they never had the population density to create the kinds of interactive problems that lead to socialist organization.  Socialism is just an advancement on democracy...Marx is merely an advancement on John Locke (compare their theories of labor).

Socialism evolved because Europe was 'closing-in' on itself, thus inviting socialist answers.  Socialism is the predominate answer to limited goods, and increasingly limiting production. At the same time as Europe was experiencing confinement, America was going through its endless frontier period.  This atrophied America's entrance into socialism simply because a 'closed-in' American could simply pull up stakes and move to the next territory or state...and many did.  

Then, along came Churchill's hated communism, and a new attitude born of the Cold War overtook the connotation of socialism in America.  People dropped any attempt to analyze or understand it, and it became simply the enemy.  The disfavor of socialism in America is one reason, for example, why America has no national healthcare system when all of the nations have passed that mark long ago...it's called socialized medicine, after all, using the hated term.

Socialism has enjoyed a renaissance in America of late.  Bernie Sanders was a most popular political figure, who fancied himself a socialist.  This is one of the many pieces of evidence indicating that the American population is moving leftward at breakneck speed.

The right wingers are more extreme than they ever have been, They are hate-empowered by the Nazi they elected President. They feel they can say or do anything now and get away with it. It's a liberal's duty to shut them down to save our country.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Any "insults" that are thrown at lefties are nothing compared to the insults that are thrown by lefties. Calling someone a nazi is much worse than calling someone a "multiculturalist" - don't you think?

No. Calling someone a multiculturalist implies they are just as big a part of a potential hurt to the planet as calling someone a Nazi is, on the basis of the meaning behind the insult.

I have been told that my belief in multiculturalism will destroy Western civilization. Don't you think that affects me?

Calling someone a nazi implies that they would kill loads of people if they could - I think that's worse.

http://news.sky.com/story/hate-figure-richard-spencer-dreams-of-a-50-year-us-immigrant-crackdown-10770296

HEIL TRUMP.HEIL TRUMP.

With right arms raised.
. It happened 80 years ago. 
Trump is the new Hitler..

You Right Whingers should just show some pride in your beliefs like us Lefties do..

I am Proudly a Multiculturalist, (I would not think it was an insult at all)
So Rags now your turn
tell us how you are Proudly a Nazi.
Embrace what your political beliefs are
And follow the bouncing ball if everyone thought like you,
what happens... oh yeah Millions DIE !!!!!

That fact your too shortsighted or senile to see the issues with what you state doesn't stop the reality of there consequences.

There is some truth in that /\

Thorin wrote:

This is a concern. While some prominent Muslims do make it clear they do support all equal rights (like Maajid Nawaz and Mehdi Hasan) and I have gotten to know a few who have no issue with those groups- it is still a fact there is conflict between Islamic groups and the rights of women, gay people and those of other faiths.

It is also a problem, as this cartoon raises, when some liberals totally brush over the fact that this is a problem. Far more of a problem, in fact, than that of the Republicans. I think this should be brought into the open at every opportunity. I am totally in support of treating those of all faiths equally (while being allowed to mock their faiths too ). But we must be able to openly criticize views not fitting in with advanced social attitudes.

More of the same leftie twaddle here on this thread... if you are against mass immigration then you must be a racist and therefore a Nazi etc...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

No. Calling someone a multiculturalist implies they are just as big a part of a potential hurt to the planet as calling someone a Nazi is, on the basis of the meaning behind the insult.

I have been told that my belief in multiculturalism will destroy Western civilization. Don't you think that affects me?

Calling someone a nazi implies that they would kill loads of people if they could - I think that's worse.

Of course it is - but it's the ultimate insult and that's why it is thrown about .

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

This is a concern. While some prominent Muslims do make it clear they do support all equal rights (like Maajid Nawaz and Mehdi Hasan) and I have gotten to know a few who have no issue with those groups- it is still a fact there is conflict between Islamic groups and the rights of women, gay people and those of other faiths.

It is also a problem, as this cartoon raises, when some liberals totally brush over the fact that this is a problem. Far more of a problem, in fact, than that of the Republicans. I think this should be brought into the open at every opportunity. I am totally in support of treating those of all faiths equally (while being allowed to mock their faiths too ). But we must be able to openly criticize views not fitting in with advanced social attitudes.

Indeed Eilzel and the reality, is those with say Wahhabist views, are Ultra-conservative, more RW, than the Tea Party. Which Liberal should be speaking out on. Hence my point on those defending Linda Sarsour. Who has defended Saudi law. All beliefs should be open to criticism and ridicule. You defend people from prejudice and discrimination. What some of the religious need to understand, is their beliefs, are open to being challenged, just like any form of belief.

Can't call a Muslim 'sexist/homophobe' etc... that would be 'islamaphobic' and 'racist'...

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

This is a concern. While some prominent Muslims do make it clear they do support all equal rights (like Maajid Nawaz and Mehdi Hasan) and I have gotten to know a few who have no issue with those groups- it is still a fact there is conflict between Islamic groups and the rights of women, gay people and those of other faiths.

It is also a problem, as this cartoon raises, when some liberals totally brush over the fact that this is a problem. Far more of a problem, in fact, than that of the Republicans. I think this should be brought into the open at every opportunity. I am totally in support of treating those of all faiths equally (while being allowed to mock their faiths too ). But we must be able to openly criticize views not fitting in with advanced social attitudes.

Indeed Eilzel and the reality, is those with say Wahhabist views, are Ultra-conservative, more RW, than the Tea Party. Which Liberal should be speaking out on. Hence my point on those defending Linda Sarsour. Who has defended Saudi law. All beliefs should be open to criticism and ridicule. You defend people from prejudice and discrimination. What some of the religious need to understand, is their beliefs, are open to being challenged, just like any form of belief.

It is a criticism I'd like to see more if tbh. Otherwise some on ths Left begin to look like hypocrites.

the issue is Islamophobs greatly increase the number of Muslims with said ultra conservative views. they do ridiculous things like say Aussie children cant wear headscarves because it some how oppresses women in Saudi Arabia. they project their crusade onto everyone, while failing to take into account the local issues that the Saudi(and many others) will point out should be fixed first.

Also IF As is the case with the vast majority of Whabbist they are literal Uneducated hillshepherds there are far greater issues with the validity of their opinions..
TO equate a westerner that has had the privileges of western education and values with a 3rd world citizen with limited education and raised with non-secular religious values is a false comparison. On is the product of necessity dictated by the circumstances of their birth the other has actively CHOOSEN to be uneducated or the product of child abuse by individuals that have CHOOSEN to prevent the education of their children.

veya_victaous wrote:the issue is Islamophobs greatly increase the number of Muslims with said ultra conservative views. they do ridiculous things like say Aussie children cant wear headscarves because it some how oppresses women in Saudi Arabia. they project their crusade onto everyone, while failing to take into account the local issues that the Saudi(and many others) will point out should be fixed first.

Also IF As is the case with the vast majority of Whabbist they are literal Uneducated hillshepherds there are far greater issues with the validity of their opinions..
TO  equate a westerner that has had the privileges of western education and values with a 3rd world citizen with limited education and raised with non-secular religious values is a false comparison. On is the product of necessity dictated by the circumstances of their birth the other has actively CHOOSEN to be uneducated or the product of child abuse by individuals that have CHOOSEN to prevent the education of their children.

What a load of rubbish.
You are saying and blaming people being rightly critical of of the headscarf now makes Muslims ultra conservative and not Islam schools of thought?
Are you kidding me?
Seriously?
Its that kind of poor apologist nonsense of bad ideas, that people are speaking about here.
The Hijab, is a symbol of oppression, as women and girls are forced to wear.
Its not even Islamic, but cultural and adopted into Islam.
There is no verse in the Quran that speaks of women having to cover their hair.

I mean the whole concept in regards to the covering up of women, is claimed to be to prevent women being molested and sexually assaulted. Which is absolute bollocks, as women are raped not because of what they wear. I mean when you think about this, either this Quranic deity is an idiot. That he has created such an imperfection in men. That women now have to suffer this flawed design and have to cover up, because of the incompetence of this deity, as they maybe raped. Even though it does nothing to stop women being sexually assaulted and raped. Or this Quranic deity is pure evil and has deliberately designed men this way, who supposedly cannot control their sexual lust and that women are at faukt for this. Thus vastly increasing the suffering of women. Making them wrongly believe that covering themselves up. Will protect them from rape and sexual assault. Not only is he deceiving Muslim women with this lie, but blaming them, for his own deliberate design.

You are even insulting all Muslims, claiming they cannot take criticism and that upon receiving criticism, turns then ultra conservative. Do you even realise how poorly you are claiming Muslims themselves are and denying them any responsibilities, for their own beliefs?

Stop making bullshit excuses for bad ideas

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Indeed Eilzel and the reality, is those with say Wahhabist views, are Ultra-conservative, more RW, than the Tea Party. Which Liberal should be speaking out on. Hence my point on those defending Linda Sarsour. Who has defended Saudi law. All beliefs should be open to criticism and ridicule. You defend people from prejudice and discrimination. What some of the religious need to understand, is their beliefs, are open to being challenged, just like any form of belief.

It is a criticism I'd like to see more if tbh. Otherwise some on ths Left begin to look like hypocrites.

Well apparently if I was to be hypothetically for arguments sake critical of homosexuals. This would vastly increase the chances of you having ultra conservative views apparently?
Considering you are testament, to that claim being the biggest load of nonsense going. As you hold Liberal and left views and have been on the receiving end of far worse than criticism. Proves your point right on hypocrisy. I mean talk about offering any person on the Far Right an excuse for their views. They are not responsible for them. As they not at fault apparently for believing Far Right ideology. Its now because they are unable to take criticism of their beliefs.

Then mind boggles mate and the poor apologist nonsense I read these days

You can't just lump everybody together. I've been critical of the ultra-conservative wing of Islam since the Taleban destroyed those Buddha mountain carvings in the late 90s.

But all anybody seems to do is equate my defense of the basic human rights of Muslims with support of the most far-right extremist Islamic beliefs.

Sorry, but I refuse to descend into the world of stupid talk where everyone from the same ill-defined group must believe the same things. Every single individual has a different take on the world, regardless of where they're from or what they were raised to believe.