Political Hypocrisy - Is it real?

You said feminists and LGBT groups supporting Islam, so I asked you for examples of feminists and LGBT groups supporting the tenets of Islam.

You've asked for very specific examples, because you don't want to count the broad ones I can supply you with. Why don't people holding up sign at rallies count? Because you know those people are out there. LGBT for Islam is out there. Feminists for Islam are out there. You know this already though.

You're basically saying you want to see a feminist giving a Ted Talk supporting the tenets of Islam, or feminists supporting Islam doesn't exist. You've fixed the game. I've already explained that ignorance and hypocrisy go hand in hand, so you're not going to find a feminist defending the tenets of Islam in any great detail, because its simply impossible. What you will find, are feminists denying that the oppression of women in the vast majority of Islamic countries, has anything to do with the "true interpretation of Islam.

And please distinguish between supporting religious freedom and supporting the tenets of a specific religion.

You can't really have one without the other. It's hard to say:

"I'm a feminist and support religious freedom, even if that religion oppresses the people I'm fighting for."

...without looking like a complete doughnut.

I want to see an example of somebody supporting women's rights, and then supporting the subjugation of women by Muslims.

You want a very specific example, because you know that in a broader sense it exists. I've covered your rigging of the game.

For such a common talking point there should be lots of examples of this.

There are many forms. You will only accept 1% of them as proof it exists though.

As much as you want to deny it, feminists, and lets just say Liberals in general, supporting the right to religious freedom for religions that are in direct conflict with their ideology is one big contradiction.

There's a reason you don't see "LGBT for Neo Nazi's" in support of free speech, if you want to try to twist this into some debate about Liberals fighting for constitutional rights, and not simply people blindly supporting causes their political alliance has told them to.
 
Also after 17 years in the military I left early instead of retiring out at 20 and now have VA Benefits in the form of Disability and health care due to my Combat Tours. Yet I am a conservative and hate all things state run welfare. Am I a hypocrite?

Not in this case. Just because we voted for a different set of rules doesn't mean there's anything wrong with playing by the ones forced upon us.
 
You've asked for very specific examples, because you don't want to count the broad ones I can supply you with. Why don't people holding up sign at rallies count? Because you know those people are out there. LGBT for Islam is out there. Feminists for Islam are out there. You know this already though.

So what it sounds like, is that you guys saw a person holding a sign at a rally, and have concocted an entire talking point around that person or few people. A talking point used regularly, but the best evidence you have to support it is a person you saw at a rally holding a sign? You really don't see how ridiculous that is? Do you want me to find some people holding insane signs at conservative rallies and then tell you what you and the rest of the right think based on those people? Probably not, since it's just a few dumbasses. Or maybe I'll just deliberatively misinterpret a few signs, and pretend they actually mean something that they may not mean?

There is a reason I asked for a specific example, and not a random image of somebody with a sign. The sign does not flesh out that opinion at all. The sign likely meant that they are against banning people based on their religion. That is not synonymous with supporting the tenets of a religion. Those are two different things, and that is not a complicated thing to recognize.

Somehow though, probably through memes, since that is the go-to propaganda tactic these days, internet guys on the right seem genuinely convinced that feminists support the tenets of Islam, but none of them can show any examples of that. People really need to start thinking for themselves or we are all in serious trouble.
 
So what it sounds like, is that you guys saw a person holding a sign at a rally

I'm talking about the entire contradictory Liberal stance on Islam.

"One person at a rally"..."likely meant"...LOL.
 
I'm talking about the entire contradictory Liberal stance on Islam.

"One person at a rally"...LOL.

What is the contradictory stance? You have not done a good job explaining this at all.
 
What is the contradictory stance? You have not done a good job explaining this at all.

Being pro-Islam along with being pro-feminist/pro-LGBT.

You're obviously gonna just keep talking in circles, so whatever. I just hope that if you see a Christian at a neo-Nazi rally, you lend them the same courtesy and understand that the Christian is not a complete hypocrite, and is just fighting for their right to free speech.
 
Being pro-Islam along with being pro-feminist/pro-LGBT.

You're obviously gonna just keep talking in circles, so whatever. I just hope that if you see a Christian at a neo-Nazi rally, you lend them the same courtesy and understand that the Christian is not a complete hypocrite, and is just fighting for their right to free speech.

What does pro-Islam mean? This is where you are not explaining yourself at all. I suspect you are not explaining yourself here because that is where your argument falls apart.

And did you just equate a Muslim with a neo-Nazi? Lol.
 
Victims? That's a very ethnocentric view bordering on plain bigotry.

@Leagon assured me that FGM does not turn women into "victims", but instead is a cultural act of female empowerment, whereby the women performing said mutilations are asserting their sense of agency by being the ones doing the procedure.

So FGM should not be looked at as harming women, depriving them of sexual pleasure, or as a form of reproductive control by males who need to secure their property, but as a cultural beacon of female independence and freedom.

Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

Or it makes perfect sense if you actually study the subject and don't just spout things you've heard on TV, as these researchers did, which is the argument I was advancing:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279917825_Cultural_Suppression_of_Female_Sexuality

I think FGM is horrible, I just don't think men should be blamed for it. I also think that people who willingly and freely practice something should be free to do so. I know nuanced arguments that are based on research and aren't simply regurgitated talking points fr TV personalities can be hard to follow, but your misrepresentation does less to portray my views as absurd and more to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
 
You've asked for very specific examples, because you don't want to count the broad ones I can supply you with. Why don't people holding up sign at rallies count? Because you know those people are out there. LGBT for Islam is out there. Feminists for Islam are out there. You know this already though.

You're basically saying you want to see a feminist giving a Ted Talk supporting the tenets of Islam, or feminists supporting Islam doesn't exist. You've fixed the game. I've already explained that ignorance and hypocrisy go hand in hand, so you're not going to find a feminist defending the tenets of Islam in any great detail, because its simply impossible. What you will find, are feminists denying that the oppression of women in the vast majority of Islamic countries, has anything to do with the "true interpretation of Islam.



You can't really have one without the other. It's hard to say:

"I'm a feminist and support religious freedom, even if that religion oppresses the people I'm fighting for."

...without looking like a complete doughnut.



You want a very specific example, because you know that in a broader sense it exists. I've covered your rigging of the game.



There are many forms. You will only accept 1% of them as proof it exists though.

As much as you want to deny it, feminists, and lets just say Liberals in general, supporting the right to religious freedom for religions that are in direct conflict with their ideology is one big contradiction.

There's a reason you don't see "LGBT for Neo Nazi's" in support of free speech, if you want to try to twist this into some debate about Liberals fighting for constitutional rights, and not simply people blindly supporting causes their political alliance has told them to.


This is a very long way to say "I can't support what I said."
 
What does pro-Islam mean? This is where you are not explaining yourself at all. I suspect you are not explaining yourself here because that is where your argument falls apart.

And did you just equate a Muslim with a neo-Nazi? Lol.

In his mind Pro Islam means you believe people have the right to be Muslim lol
 
Or it makes perfect sense if you actually study the subject and don't just spout things you've heard on TV, as these researchers did, which is the argument I was advancing:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279917825_Cultural_Suppression_of_Female_Sexuality

I think FGM is horrible, I just don't think men should be blamed for it. I also think that people who willingly and freely practice something should be free to do so. I know nuanced arguments that are based on research and aren't simply regurgitated talking points fr TV personalities can be hard to follow, but your misrepresentation does less to portray my views as absurd and more to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

The bolded is hilariously obtuse. That's the hardcore relativism that amuses the fuck out of me, the "willing" practice of things like FGM. Oddly this is where environmental conditions disappear, and the "will" to partake in obvious self-detriment comes into play.

Thank you for the post.
 
That would be obviously hypocritical, but I've never seen a feminists or LGBT activists come out to defend the tenants of Islam.

Do you have an example of this? I'm not asking for a picture of an anonymous somebody at a rally somewhere holding a sign, I'm talking about an actual feminist or LGBT activist speaking in favor of the tenants of Islam?

I feel like that point is brought up a lot, but nobody ever responds when I ask for an example.
Was that chick who organized the women's march not a feminist and a Muslim?
 
The bolded is hilariously obtuse. That's the hardcore relativism that amuses the fuck out of me, the "willing" practice of things like FGM. Oddly this is where environmental conditions disappear, and the "will" to partake in obvious self-detriment comes into play.

Thank you for the post.

America has among the highest obesity, alcoholism, and opiod addiction rates in the world. Fatty, processed foods, alcohol, and many opiods are are legal. Your understanding of "obvious self-detriment" is myopic.
 
None of the OP sounded like hypocrisy to me.
 
America has among the highest obesity, alcoholism, and opiod addiction rates in the world. Fatty, processed foods, alcohol, and many opiods are are legal. Your understanding of "obvious self-detriment" is myopic.

I understand the painkiller example is tricky (an actually nuanced issue), but the obese American has a choice and means to change his diet, stop drinking, or seek help with addiction.

A Somalian 12 year old doesn't have that luxury. She gets "empowered" by undergoing FGM. You can't opt out of this obvious self-detriment, no matter how "nuanced" your just-so story to rationalize it is.
 
So what it sounds like, is that you guys saw a person holding a sign at a rally, and have concocted an entire talking point around that person or few people. A talking point used regularly, but the best evidence you have to support it is a person you saw at a rally holding a sign? You really don't see how ridiculous that is? Do you want me to find some people holding insane signs at conservative rallies and then tell you what you and the rest of the right think based on those people? Probably not, since it's just a few dumbasses. Or maybe I'll just deliberatively misinterpret a few signs, and pretend they actually mean something that they may not mean?

There is a reason I asked for a specific example, and not a random image of somebody with a sign. The sign does not flesh out that opinion at all. The sign likely meant that they are against banning people based on their religion. That is not synonymous with supporting the tenets of a religion. Those are two different things, and that is not a complicated thing to recognize.

Somehow though, probably through memes, since that is the go-to propaganda tactic these days, internet guys on the right seem genuinely convinced that feminists support the tenets of Islam, but none of them can show any examples of that. People really need to start thinking for themselves or we are all in serious trouble.

It took 15 seconds to google Feminist hypocrisy on Islam.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/24...ntity-politics-epitomize-feminisms-hypocrisy/
 
I understand the painkiller example is tricky (an actually nuanced issue), but the obese diabetic American has a choice and means to change his diet, stop drinking, or seek help with addiction.

A Somalian 12 year old doesn't have that luxury. She gets "empowered" by undergoing FGM. You can't opt out of this obvious self-detriment, no matter how "nuanced" your just-so story to rationalize it is.

Children can't "opt out" of anything. They eat the food their parents give them. They take the medication their parents tell them to take. They follow the cultural norms they are expected to follow. You think all those future school shooters who are currently 8 years old and being loaded up on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants on a daily basis are less victimized than a girl who has her clit removed? Even if you still believe that a moment of crude surgical pain is more severe than decades of chemical alteration, can you at least see how this is more complicated than it appears and that maybe the people mutilating their daughters' bodies are just as well meaning as the people mutilating their sons' minds and that human behavior is more complicated than "we make sense and everyone else is a savage"?

Can you also see how some cultures are very comfortable with temporary, explicit physical suffering and others are more comfortable with prolonged, hidden psychological suffering and how this preference is mirrored in everything from our prison systems (incarceration vs. corporal punishment) to medication (easy to swallow, life-long prescriptions vs. bitter, temporary home remedies) and how these preferences may be reflective of the living conditions of the people and the challenges they expect to face in life (a relatively stable life that slowly degrades toward death vs. a life punctuated by frequent bouts of clamity in the form of war and natural disaster that can end brutally at any moment)?

Can you see why people spend thousands and thousands of hours studying this shit and writing papers that nobody reads (like the one I linked to that i'm positive you didn't) instead of just looking at people who think differently and condeming their way of life?
 
Last edited:
Children can't "opt out" of anything. They eat the food their parents give them. They take the medication their parents tell them to take. They follow the cultural norms they are expected to follow. You think all those future school shooters who are currently 8 years old and being loaded up on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants on a daily basis are less victimized than a girl who has her clit removed? Even if you still believe that a moment of crude surgical pain is more severe than decades of chemical alteration, can you at least see how this is more complicated than it appears and that maybe the people mutilating their daughters' bodies are just as well meaning as the people mutilating their sons' minds and that human behavior is more complicated than "we make sense and everyone else is a savage"?

Can you also see how some cultures are very comfortable with temporary, explicit physical suffering and others are more comfortable with prolonged, hidden psychological suffering and how this preference is mirrored in everything from our prison systems (incarceration vs. corporal punishment) to medication (easy to swallow, life-long prescriptions vs. bitter, temporary home remedies) and how these preferences may be reflective of the living conditions of the people and the challenges they expect to face in life (a relatively stable life that slowly degrades toward death vs. a life punctuated by frequent bouts of clamity in the form of war and natural disaster that can end brutally at any moment)?

Can you see why people spend thousands and thousands of hours studying this shit and writing papers that nobody reads (like the one I linked to that i'm positive you didn't) instead of just looking at people who think differently and condeming their way of life?

I can't access the text, only the abstract.

Those are great questions that are difficult to study. And I'm not saying mutilating girls out of sexual pleasure doesn't serve a perceived purpose, although I wonder, since you read the text, what well-meaning reason do parents have for subjecting their daughters to that?

It's just odd that an obvious mechanism of mate guarding akin to a chastity belt, that is also oddly correlated with high rates of rape and violence against women, is being rationalized as a "willing" cultural practice as opposed to being condemned as another manifestation of oppressive patriarchy.
 
I can't access the text, only the abstract.

Those are great questions that are difficult to study. And I'm not saying mutilating girls out of sexual pleasure doesn't serve a perceived purpose, although I wonder, since you read the text, what well-meaning reason do parents have for subjecting their daughters to that?

It's just odd that an obvious mechanism of mate guarding akin to a chastity belt, that is also oddly correlated with high rates of rape and violence against women, is being rationalized as a "willing" cultural practice as opposed to being condemned as another manifestation of oppressive patriarchy.

There's a pdf of the entire study online if you search for the title.

The article makes it clear that fgm is largely a practice done by and for women. The men have no say. Women do it to their daughters who do it to their daughters who do it to their daughters. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of the men in those cultures are against the practice.

There is also a good deal of research about the benefits to societies when females are more selective with their mates. Both to males and females, but women, especially, benefit from driving up the scarcity of sex. In resource scarce environments, which the vast majority of places that practice fgm are, finding a well off husband isn't just a luxury, it can radically change the conditions of a family for GENERATIONS. If all of the women in a location are less willing to have sex, either the men have to offer more to get what they want or only the wealthy men will be able to get wives. Either way, that means women who grew up as dirt poor root farmers can marry into a situation where their kids and grandkids are likely to get educations and own businesses. It can take a family from the most extreme forms of poverty to a relatively first world life in just a couple generations. Of course, if one woman breaks the pact, the price of sex drops and the whole system fails and everyone remains in poverty. Which is why the people enforcing fgm typically don't fuck around.

^I don't remember if the above paragraph is discussed specifically in that study or if I'm drawing on other sources, but that is one explanation that's out there. I read that thing years ago, so I don't remember all the details.

The overall point is that you shouldn't assume that an entire village of people are just fuckin retards and cut off their daughters' clits for no reason. You think they just like watching their daughters bleed and cry? Even animals don't like to see their kids in pain. When I see a bizarre practice from another culture, or even just another person, I first try to imagine the logic that goes into it. Most of the time, their choice makes sense in context. Dismissing people is easy. Understanding them takes work.
 
Back
Top