Are the left being brainwashed by Islam?? - Mod warning in OP

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yes, they were accepted into the fold after the initial application, which by any definition means 'invited'

When you say "by any definition", you mean, of course, "by nobody's definition"?

FA Hayek wrote: »

and then given the boot because they as women had different beliefs. So, it was not a pro - woman's march, it was a pro-choice march, but marketed as some all inclusive march for all women when in fact it was from the outset intolerant from the get go to people with differing views.

You seem to be fine with this intolerance.

I'm fine with the organisers being entirely clear on their positions, and including women in the marches who shared some, if not all, those positions. Sounds pretty tolerant to me. I'm also fine with calling a women's march, a, eh, women's march.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPjpMS8lbao/

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

When you say "by any definition", you mean, of course, "by nobody's definition"?

By definition, it means applying for a role, being accepted, then when there is an outcry being booted out of it, which is then hailed as a victory.

I'm fine with the organisers being entirely clear on their positions, and including women in the marches who shared some, if not all, those positions. Sounds pretty tolerant to me. I'm also fine with calling a women's march, a, eh, women's march.

Being entirely clear as in accepting a pro-life womens groups into the fold, then rejecting them and then doubling down on what being a woman is i.e having the same beliefs and politics.

It is a woman's march so long as you agree with all the positions the organisers have. In other words it is a pro-choice march, not a woman's march. There is a contradiction inherit in the title. Not all women are pro-choice, hence if you exclude these people then you have no right to call it a woman's march.

This is what the left do all the time. They co-opt labels and brands and tell people the 'correct' way to think, vote, speak about issues. If you are pro-life, you are not welcome at the woman's march, even though you may be a woman and a feminist. Odd that! So tolerant.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

By definition, it means applying for a role, being accepted, then when there is an outcry being booted out of it, which is then hailed as a victory.

And when was the invite issued again? Your definition is at odds with the definition everyone else is familiar with. Almost as if it's an 'alternative fact'.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Being entirely clear as in accepting a pro-life womens groups into the fold, then rejecting them and then doubling down on what being a woman is i.e having the same beliefs and politics.

It is a woman's march so long as you agree with all the positions the organisers have. In other words it is a pro-choice march, not a woman's march. There is a contradiction inherit in the title. Not all women are pro-choice, hence if you exclude these people then you have no right to call it a woman's march.

This is what the left do all the time. They co-opt labels and brands and tell people the 'correct' way to think, vote, speak about issues. If you are pro-life, you are not welcome at the woman's march, even though you may be a woman and a feminist. Odd that! So tolerant.

The organisers did accept pro-life women into the march. They just didn't allow groups that don't share their core tenets to be partner organisations. Since there were undoubtedly pro-life women on the marches, protesting the raft of other shared concerns highlighted by the marches, it's rather blinkered to call them pro-choice marches - they were much bigger than that.Quite how women marching are supposed to be 'co-opting' the label of, eh, women marching, is something you'll have to refine, because it's currently sounding a tad desperate.

And once again - as we see above, the women of the group that was refused partner status have made clear that they were welcomed into the march. So forgive my sceptism regarding your personal perspective.

AnGaelach

Help!!!! wrote: »

One of the organizer's of the women's march - Linda Sarsour - is pro sharia law but she tweets about how credit cards & loans would be interest free under sharia law & not that women would be second class citizens again.

I've long been under the impression that the women don't actually care about being second-class citizens or not, they want someone to dominate them. If you asked them to describe their ideal man, it wouldn't be "average height, rimmed glasses, skinny and effeminate" it's always "tall, strong" and other such traits. The only people willing to dominate them like they want, are the ones who already dominate women at home.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've long been under the impression that the women don't actually care about being second-class citizens or not, they want someone to dominate them.

I find it hard to believe that anyone under such an impression actually knows any women.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

The organisers did accept pro-life women into the march. They just didn't allow groups that don't share their core tenets to be partner organisations. .

That is basically saying there are two classes of women, whereby women who had pro-life views are treated as second class women, on these marches. There is an overt authoritarian 'offical' way to be a woman, anything else you will be treated as second class.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

That is basically saying there are two classes of women, whereby women who had pro-life views are treated as second class women, on these marches. There is an overt authoritarian 'offical' way to be a woman, anything else you will be treated as second class.

It's saying nothing more than organisations that aren't aligned with the core tenets of the march organisers cannot be partner organisations. The rest is your own invention.

marienbad

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've long been under the impression that the women don't actually care about being second-class citizens or not, they want someone to dominate them. If you asked them to describe their ideal man, it wouldn't be "average height, rimmed glasses, skinny and effeminate" it's always "tall, strong" and other such traits. The only people willing to dominate them like they want, are the ones who already dominate women at home.

I take it this is a pisstake AnGaelach ?

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

It's saying nothing more than organisations that aren't aligned with the core tenets of the march organisers cannot be partner organisations. The rest is your own invention.

The core tenets. Love it. You make it sound like a church, which it is of course. The church of the progressives, where everyone is loved and welcomed, until of course you have a belief that is not shared, then of course you are a heretic, an outcast not invited into the fold to be sent off to hell to atone for your sin of not being pro-choice.

Yes, very religious and church like.

It is clear that pro-life women were treated like second class citizens in this march.

A recent poll found that 44% of American women are pro-life compared to 55% who are pro-choice, thereby the 'core tenants' of these organisers wilfully and deliberately left out 44% of females from having a say in their march.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20171023_Knights_of_Columbus_Marist_Poll_Abortion_Tables_January_2017_(2).pdf

How can people honestly say this was really a pro-womans march where almost half of all women were deliberately left out in the cold and not welcomed to participate. They do not represent all women, far far from it, so why pretend to do so? Vanity? Ego? Hubris? Boredom? Lack of self respect?

KingBrian2

Liberals are really silly and i'll tell you why. They are all for hating Trump because of his disgraceful behaviour towards women, minorities different religions and all that fair enough but on the issue of Islam when anyone brings up the incompatibility of Islam with the modern world we get silence which ties directly back to OP. Hillary Clinton took a far more unprincipled stance going into the election than Trump as did many liberals. To put it mildly they defend the indefensible so instead of putting pressure on President Trump to disengage from relations with Saudi Arabia they keep going for the jugular they keep going after Trump himself. According to them which is strange Trump is worse than Saudi Arabia and their Wahhabi teachings. That situation is just ludicrous and harms the entire planet.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

The core tenets. Love it. You make it sound like a church, which it is of course. The church of the progressives, where everyone is loved and welcomed, until of course you have a belief that is not shared, then of course you are a heretic, an outcast not invited into the fold to be sent off to hell to atone for your sin of not being pro-choice.

Yes, very religious and church like.

It is clear that pro-life women were treated like second class citizens in this march.

A recent poll found that 44% of American women are pro-life compared to 55% who are pro-choice, thereby the 'core tenants' of these organisers wilfully and deliberately left out 44% of females from having a say in their march.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20171023_Knights_of_Columbus_Marist_Poll_Abortion_Tables_January_2017_(2).pdf

How can people honestly say this was really a pro-womans march where almost half of all women were deliberately left out in the cold and not welcomed to participate. They do not represent all women, far far from it, so why pretend to do so? Vanity? Ego? Hubris? Boredom? Lack of self respect?

Millions of women marched, on the women's march. I'd say they're not too worried about your concerns about the legitimacy of calling a women's march, a, eh, women's march.

KingBrian2

Are we going to see a march on Valentine's Day that's what i want to know.

MRnotlob606

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Liberals are really silly and i'll tell you why. They are all for hating Trump because of his disgraceful behaviour towards women, minorities different religions and all that fair enough but on the issue of Islam when anyone brings up the incompatibility of Islam with the modern world we get silence which ties directly back to OP. Hillary Clinton took a far more unprincipled stance going into the election than Trump as did many liberals. To put it mildly they defend the indefensible so instead of putting pressure on President Trump to disengage from relations with Saudi Arabia they keep going for the jugular they keep going after Trump himself. According to them which is strange Trump is worse than Saudi Arabia and their Wahhabi teachings. That situation is just ludicrous and harms the entire planet.

What's this ****e about liberals? All I see is liberals, liberals, liberals, as if its used the same way in Irish political discourse. In fact the most conservative party in the Dáil, Fine Gael would be seen as liberal compared to the republican party. Trump's stance on Islam is perhaps one of the most counter-intuitive policies in American History.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Millions of women marched, on the women's march. I'd say they're not too worried about your concerns about the legitimacy of calling a women's march, a, eh, women's march.

Millions of women (who hold a particular view point and excluded other women) held a march. They don't represent all women as much as BLM matters group represent all black people or Islamists represent all Muslims.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Millions of women (who hold a particular view point and excluded other women)

Except they didn't (remember?)

KingBrian2

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

What's this ****e about liberals? All I see is liberals, liberals, liberals, as if its used the same way in Irish political discourse. In fact the most conservative party in the Dáil, Fine Gael would be seen as liberal compared to the republican party. Trump's stance on Islam is perhaps one of the most counter-intuitive policies in American History.

The Republican party dates back to the American Civil War the party of Lincoln. FG dates back to the 40's the party of W. T. Cosgrave. Their parties have not kept up with the pace of change in the world.