Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

TCD students cheer islamist Asghar Bukhari and his defence of the Charlie Hebdo k

1246

Comments



  • walshyn93 wrote: »
    Islamists need to weaken right wing politics in the west to succeed. Lefties have a political interest in that. They're useful idiots.

    Also, lefties like to argue that social problems are the result of conservative (fiscal, military, social) policy. So do Muslims. They make unnaturally comfortable bedfellows. For now.

    So odd that lefties seem to give muslims a get out of jail free card with regards their rampant vocal homophobia misogyny and racism




  • Paz-CCFC wrote: »
    How did he know they were "mainly liberals"? Wouldn't cheering a far right opinion suggest that they were right wing?

    Most likely not. Go on tumblr and you'll see nothing a muslim does is wrong if its in the name of islam.. liberals stopped a gay pride parade from going through a muslim neighbourhood in sweden as it would offend the muslims. Thats the kind of people we're talking about here




  • It always amazes me that the Progressive Left cosy up to Islamists who, on the basis of their speeches and writings, decry a lot of the freedoms that the Left espouse. Anti-Gay, Anti-Women, Anti-Free Choice.

    Why would anyone on the Left support that?

    To rub the Rights nose in diversity? To use lslamists as a weapon to undermine the State?

    And then we have the right claiming the Islamists arent liberal enough to live here.

    Everyone else has to be PC except for themselves.
    This is a big site. Was anybody who posts here there? I don't trust O'Neill at all.


    Probably not. These events usually dont fill a lecture hall so we're looking at less than 100 people attending with being optimistic.




  • I think the term now used is 'far left progressives', they are not liberals and it's an insult to a genuine liberal to label them as such.




  • Which is more likely.
    The entire student body of Tcd have become ISIS supporters
    Or
    A hack wind up merchant wrote an article to wind people up?


  • Advertisement


  • You're making a huge stretch from students and student/college debates, all the way up to public policy - there is pretty much nothing to show a significant connection there at all.

    It really is just a few crackpots, in a tiny minority of college's, that just receive hyper-intensive attention, because the Internet makes it easy to hype-up tiny events (especially if there's money thrown at that effort) that are completely insignificant in the large scale of things, and are not actually representative of colleges or students as a whole.

    What does have a significant effect on public policy? Money - including from the same groups influencing what is taught in college (the real dangers to free speech and range of education - not the students who are victims of that) - when those same groups lobby/influence/corrupt government.

    It's pretty obvious that right-leaning publications just try to blow the whole crackpot-students issue way out of proportion, to distract from the actual corruption of college/teaching and politics, from right-wing-dominated economic/financial/banking/business sources.

    Considering graduates of Trinity, in particlar members of debating societies will make up a significant proportion of future senior civil servants and politicians I'd say there is a well established connection between current students and future public policy. Too obvious for me to even outline that connection in my original post.




  • 20Cent wrote: »
    Which is more likely.
    The entire student body of Tcd have become ISIS supporters
    Or
    A hack wind up merchant wrote an article to wind people up?

    The first one.




  • 20Cent wrote: »
    Which is more likely.
    The entire student body of Tcd have become ISIS supporters
    Or
    A hack wind up merchant wrote an article to wind people up?
    Who suggested that?




  • And then we have the right claiming the Islamists arent liberal enough to live here.

    Everyone else has to be PC except for themselves.

    They're right because Islamists are proponents of political Islam, they want a country's laws to be based on Islamic laws.




  • walshyn93 wrote: »
    Considering graduates of Trinity, in particlar members of debating societies will make up a significant proportion of future senior civil servants and politicians I'd say there is a well established connection between current students and future public policy. Too obvious for me to even outline that connection in my original post.
    Sorry but "it's obvious shurly" isn't an argument that establishes any more of a connection there.


  • Advertisement


  • Its definitely censorship by the institution

    I don't see how?

    If Trinity didn't book him, they would not be stopping the public from listening to him. They can listen to what he has to say at a different venue.

    Similarly, if Richie Kavanagh wanted to headline Slane, and the organizers refused, they would not be censoring him or his music. They'd simply be saying "people can listen to your crap somewhere else, just not here".

    No suppression of speech there.




  • As someone who was actually at the debate, allow me to say a two things.

    1. Brendan O'Neill came across as a complete arse, and as the first speaker done nothing to endear the audience to the proposition. He was slimy and actually insulting. But rather than actually saying something and it being insulting, he was being insulting for the sake of it, because he could. To be honest, I would say that he turned quite a few against the motion.

    2. Asghar Bukhari was not cheered when he was talking about the murders, rather Brendan O'Neill interrupted him a few times and he was shushed and shouted at for interrupting and "order" was shouted. And O'Neill took no points of order from anyone when he was making his speech, so should not have the audacity to expect his to be taken. Bukhari obviously was applauded at the end of his speech as courtesy dictates.

    To even suggest that we cheered for the murders at Charlie Hebdo is ridiculous, and really shouldn't warrant a defence saying that we did not, O'Neill's column is nothing but oppourtinistic, reactionary tripe.




  • mdudy wrote: »
    As someone who was actually at the debate....
    Do you know if it was recorded by any chance?




  • Do you know if it was recorded by any chance?

    As far as I'm aware, it wasn't.




  • I wondered what the deal with all the beard growing was.




  • mdudy wrote: »
    As someone who was actually at the debate, allow me to say a two things.

    1. Brendan O'Neill came across as a complete arse, and as the first speaker done nothing to endear the audience to the proposition. He was slimy and actually insulting. But rather than actually saying something and it being insulting, he was being insulting for the sake of it, because he could. To be honest, I would say that he turned quite a few against the motion.

    2. Asghar Bukhari was not cheered when he was talking about the murders, rather Brendan O'Neill interrupted him a few times and he was shushed and shouted at for interrupting and "order" was shouted. And O'Neill took no points of order from anyone when he was making his speech, so should not have the audacity to expect his to be taken. Bukhari obviously was applauded at the end of his speech as courtesy dictates.

    To even suggest that we cheered for the murders at Charlie Hebdo is ridiculous, and really shouldn't warrant a defence saying that we did not, O'Neill's column is nothing but oppourtinistic, reactionary tripe.

    so what society hosted the debate?




  • The Phil




  • [quote="Bulbous Salutation;97245381Students tend to be a bunch of arseholes. This type of stuff isn't the type of thing that left-wing students would have appeased even 15 years ago when I was a student. It's disturbing, but you'd hope to put it down to most students being arseholes.[/quote]

    Did you graduate from being an arsehole?




  • TCD students left-wing? I haff to laff. Ha. Ha.




  • Sorry but "it's obvious shurly" isn't an argument that establishes any more of a connection there.

    I had already mentioned that they would be future politicians in a previous post. I have done more than state that it was obvious in the post you quoted. And your petty nitpicking adds nothing to the discussion. Nor does it detract from the strength of my argument.


  • Advertisement


  • feargale wrote: »
    Did you graduate from being an arsehole?

    We are a bunch of arseholes to be fair. The ones who deny it are the biggest arseholes.




  • mdudy wrote: »
    As someone who was actually at the debate, allow me to say a two things.

    1. Brendan O'Neill came across as a complete arse, and as the first speaker done nothing to endear the audience to the proposition. He was slimy and actually insulting. But rather than actually saying something and it being insulting, he was being insulting for the sake of it, because he could. To be honest, I would say that he turned quite a few against the motion.

    2. Asghar Bukhari was not cheered when he was talking about the murders, rather Brendan O'Neill interrupted him a few times and he was shushed and shouted at for interrupting and "order" was shouted. And O'Neill took no points of order from anyone when he was making his speech, so should not have the audacity to expect his to be taken. Bukhari obviously was applauded at the end of his speech as courtesy dictates.

    To even suggest that we cheered for the murders at Charlie Hebdo is ridiculous, and really shouldn't warrant a defence saying that we did not, O'Neill's column is nothing but oppourtinistic, reactionary tripe.

    Did anyone actually shout "shame"?




  • Import billions of people from the scummiest, most backward countries in the world, they said.

    It'll do Europe good, they said.




  • Nobblecock wrote: »
    Import billions of people from the scummiest, most backward countries in the world, they said.

    It'll do Europe good, thay said.

    I'll never vote for Fine Gael again.




  • I'll never vote for Fine Gael again.

    What has that got to do with it?




  • walshyn93 wrote: »
    We are a bunch of arseholes to be fair. The ones who deny it are the biggest arseholes.

    Some students are idiots. So are some of their elders whose idiocy has far wider ranging implications. But many students are balanced young people and it's unfair to tar them with the same brush as the attention seeking baboons.




  • Martial9 wrote: »
    TCD students cheer islamist Asghar Bukhari and his defence of the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris


    But the audience at last night’s debate was not part of any cynical, self-styled community group. They were young. They were mainly liberals. They were pretty cool. Some were painfully PC. And yet some of them — a significant chunk of them — cheered Bukhari’s explanation for the Charlie killers’ actions, and applauded his suggestion that my question must have been motivated by racism.
    During my speech, students had hollered ‘Shame! Shame!’ when I suggested that Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ should not be banned on campuses. And yet they listened intently, with soft, understanding, patronising liberal smiles on their faces, as Bukhari implied that Charlie Hebdo brought its massacre on itself. This is how screwed-up the culture on Western campuses has become: I was jeered for suggesting we shouldn’t ban pop songs; Bukhari was cheered for suggesting journalists who mock Muhammad cannot be surprised if someone later blows their heads off.
    It provided a glimpse into the inhumanity of political correctness. The PC gang always claim they’re just being nice; it’s just ‘institutionalised politeness’, they say. Yet at Trinity last night I saw where today’s intolerance of offence and obsession with Safe Spacing minorities from difficult ideas can lead: to an agreeable nod of the head when it is suggested that it’s understandable when poor, victimised Muslims murder those who offended them.

    I didn't think that we had this sort of bollocks festering here, bar a few head the balls. It is worrying that this sort of stuff is gaining traction in our universities.


    Overly PC people are the antithesis of cool actually.




  • Omackeral wrote: »
    Overly PC people are the antithesis of cool actually.

    No, the antithesis of cool is people who say "overly". You always imagine them in a doggy-smelling tweed jacket over a windowpane check Vyella shirt and buff cords, shaking their Irish Independent in rage.




  • Ha I'm sure these people would give the same due time to a Christian group like the KKK. :P Shouting right on and all that.


  • Advertisement


  • Of course, it all depends what they were cheering and applauding. If they were agreeing with statements about the brutality of the US invasions, of Guantanamo, etc, that's perfectly right.


Advertisement