There's no racist like a liberal racist

[bleeding heart]

Still true, too, after 'many times'. Another fine example of Pat's 'theory' being spot-on...thanks.

Uh...no. Pat is allowed his opinion. As are you.

Uh...yeah. No one ever suggested that he wasn't "allowed his opinion."

[bleeding heart]

I do not understand what this means. Can you please rephrase things in an intelligible way?

???

I said, and you quoted,

the theory is a pat reaction, and is monumentally ridiculous.

That's a perfectly lucid sentence. If you cannot comprehend it, then I suggest you take your own advice about "learn[ing] reading comprehension."

Well then I guess Pat Condell suffers from heterosexual guilt cause he strongly supports gay rights and condemns Islam. *sarcasm*

Just so. The logic escapes him.

No, you misunderstand the video completely. Pat is criticizing a group of people that he identifies as progressive (under his definition of progressive, not the Orwellian progressive definition of progressive). He isn't criticizing all those who self identify as progressive, only those that fit his definition.

Then it's your explanation that is remiss, as you mischaracterize the Great Man. You said,

He distinguishes very much between 'liberal' and 'progressive' (likes liberals, dislikes progressives)

That's all progressives. Irritating as it may be, words have meanings which can be sussed out.

More specifically, he is criticizing those who try to silence him when he criticizes Islam (specifically islamic misogeny, treatment of apostates, treatment of kaffir, barbaric practices such as severing of limbs, desire to silence free expression), especially when they call him a racist islamophobe.

Well, I certainly agree that the "racism" card is thrown around too promiscuously (as Pat Condell does, inhabiting the same unreasonable realm as his ideological enemies).

So, I agree with that trite truism that has been summoned a million times by lots of people...including myself.

Whether or not he is a racist or an Islamaphobe, I couldn't personally say.

Pat mentions that many so called progressives are more than willing to criticize Mormonism, but never dare criticize Islam and identifies the reason as their inherent racism for not wanting to criticize the religion of 'brown people'.

I think the first point has some real truth to it (though far better said elsewhere, like I've noted); while the second is a type of cheap pop psychology, similar to that practiced by those with whom he disagrees.

Why he disagrees, when he indulges in the same spirited method of indiscriminate hyperbole, is anyone's guess. I won't use his method of speculating wildly.

I would like to see your evidence that Pat suggests that all those that disagree with him are racists. Or is that merely self-projecting progressivism?

Is that a genuine question? If so, the answer is: nope.

It isn't a tit for tat thing, or a joke. He is criticizing the group of people that he identifies as progressive for being racist; as well as criticizes their use of ad hominem attacks and Orwellian language. It's a valid criticism

Well then hell, that's simple and meaningless.

I could talk about the political Right's support for genocide and their propensity for all sorts of psychological ills...and when called on it, point out that I'm using my OWN definition of "conservative," so they need not get their panties in such a bunch over my rank generalizations and pretence to the nuances of the discipline of psychology.

I could point out that mainstream liberals often as not support outright mass murder, so long as the "correct" team is on the murderous side...and then protest that I'm only speaking of MY specific definition of "liberals."

But I prefer not to do so...because it's one part dishonest argument, and the other part a colossal waste of time.

And, as you are underscoring, it brings out the debate pedants.

Pat Condell has many videos, some criticizing islam, some criticising christianity, some criticizing other religions, some criticizing the EU, some criticizing progressivism, some criticizing multiculturalism, etc. What is your point? Who should he criticize that he isn't criticizing?

Again, didn't you earlier berate me for "reading comprehension" problems?

I made no assertion remotely related to what you're saying here.

What I said, by way of suggestion, was that if you want somewhat similar arguments made by people with actual intellects (and far stronger arguments) you'd be better summoning someone like the late Christopher Hitchens than the knuckledragger on display in that particular video.

I have a lot of disagreements with Hitchens, but at least he was intelligent, and skilled at argument.

I occupy a moral high ground over racists, sure. But I do not occupy a moral high ground over all those who disagree with me.

You misunderstand, which I see is your habit.

You are plainly invoking a moral high ground over me...because you view your own argument as morally superior.

I hasten to add that I don't mind, as that's not abnormal in heated debates; and I'm not nearly so delicately sensitive about such matters as is dear Mr. Condell.

But the point is, you are therefore implying that I'm a racist.

Not by my logic; but by your own formulation.

Do you really think you want to go there? What purpose do you suppose it will serve?

Edited October 21, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Charles Anthony]

Ladies and gentlemen,

This thread is locked because this is one more example of a horrible attempt to start a discussion.

Anybody with a genuine desire to stimulate honest discussion and debate over this same topic is free to start a new thread. I hope you do a better job than this one. Feel free to copy-paste anything that you wrote in this thread if you wish. I will likely delete this thread later.

Ch. A.