Left wingers seem as bad as right wingers

[secureyourbook]

I’ve seen so many people this last week who see themselves as such “right on” virtuous people posting the most horrible things on social media.

One replied to a post about Charlie Kirk, it was basically a “sorry not sorry” post because he’s so hateful. When asked by someone if she’s actually seen any of his debates she said she didn’t need to, the facts are there that he was basically a fascist who incites violence. FWIW I’ve watched several of his videos since seeing her post today and seen nothing that suggests this, even though I don’t agree with his opinion on many things (but apparently he’s doing it in code, whatever that means)

Another friend was ranting about the protest in London and using really horrible terms to describe people that went. I hate what the flags have come to represent, and I don’t doubt that there were many thugs there just wanting to stir up hate. Surely though, describing all who went to the protest as the same (basically they’re all thick as shit racist hooligans) is no better than someone describing all immigrants as benefit chasing potential rapists (or insert any other racist stereotype)

Am I missing something? Or is it considered acceptable to make sweeping generalisations as long as you’re on the left side of the political spectrum?

To be fair, they couldn’t quite get him on rape but a civil case for sexual assault but we’re talking about the guy that puts it out there in plain sight with his ‘grab her by the pussies talk’ and partying with Epstein. So yeah - I judge anyone that supports him, I mean WTF, of course I do!

My fundamental objection to Trump and his allies, is that they tried to overthrow democracy in 2020 (and, I suspect, worse is to come on that front).

Living in a democracy means that, a lot of the time, you'll be ruled by governments you profoundly object to. If Trump was "only" the politician whose platform I liked the least, I could tolerate support for him more. The fact that if he (and folks like Kirk) got/get their way, would mean and end to democracy in the US itself, is intolerable.

That his supporters then have the nerve to present themselves as free speech defenders and alike, and against political violence, is offensive to anyone with a basic understanding of democratic principles.

And yes, he's also been a resounding failure at policy level and is a truly pathetic and disgusting man.

I have little doubt he is a child rapist.

I am in the UK. I was thinking of my own location where the library was demolished and the bookshop only sells new books.

Fewer people read books. If more read books they would not be available so cheaply. It was not my intention to imply that libraries sold books. What I meant to say was that people read less books and do not go to the library as much.

Charity shops can be very choosy about the books they accept.

I must write out 500 times: ''you must address a subject properly and not expect all to know what you mean.''

Oh got it, I’m guilty of that at times too!

If all the accusations on here were true, the politicians you hate would have gone long ago by the sheer weight of evidence.

I don't know how the Democrats can get rid of Trump. It seems he can do anything he likes. Obviously if the Americans didn't like him, they should have changed the rules of government in the Constitution which allows him autonomy, or at least stand up and say what part of the Constitution he is breaking, if he is.

Until then, they will have to wait until the next election, because one of his faults is that he will not listen to anyone but himself. What does he dream about I wonder?

In UK the electorate are influenced by good things on offer. The majority of seats were won by the labour party by deceit and the first past the post system of voting we have in UK. What has happened since shows a disappointed and disillusioned electorate. Posters on here think it is just the opposition voters. It is not. Labour voters are reacting against the government of their choosing by voting elsewhere in local elections or not at all.

The PM is repeatedly showing that he is not fit to govern. He appoints people to positions of trust who cannot be trusted. He overrides the channels he is supposed to consult before appointing friends. He has taken bribes - freebies - from supporters who will call in the card sooner or later, which makes the country uneasy.

The British balance of payments is crumbling further and further. Government spending is such that it exceeds income. Everyone surely known what happens when they spend more than their income. No country should have to put up with a government which does that. How far leftism and rightism comes into the equation is really in the minds of people who just don't like to see what is happening now. The labour government waves as many union flags as anyone else. The fundamentalists among them probably wave whatever flag gives them the most friends or votes.

I have not heard anyone from any party say they want to kill minorities. I have not heard anyone in the government say they 'welcome all alien migrants' either. In fact, the PM insists he is doing his level best to get rid of the problem and send them back whence they come. He stands with the union flag: does that make him on a par with what is euphemistically described on here as 'fascist' or is that title reserved for anyone who isn't the mouthpiece of extremism?

The UN building has the flags of all nations displayed. They represent the countries and the nationalist members they come from.

Waving the national flag is a sense of pride. It is not to be taken as a sign of anything other than allegiance to the Crown. Every British citizen has the right to show the union flag - the right way up of course. Every Englishman/person has the right to show pride in the English flag of St. George, just as every Scot has a right to show the flag of St. Andrew, and the Welsh, the dragon.

It is their right. This is a Christian country and we have flags honouring our Saints. I suspect that those who are against the displaying of our flags are more against Christianity than nationalism, only people cannot say that, can they, because that would be attacking an ancient religion, so instead the unbelievers make up words like 'fascist' 'left wing' 'right wing' because they sound better to them than ''Down with Christianity''.

I am sure all yous can hardly wait to condemn that. Do I care? Who are you to rail against Britain? Who are you to rail against my faith? Who are you to say that British nationals, British Christians, are killing muslims?

Our Government system has no place for misguided idiots who rail and rant against British way of life. It cannot be changed as easily as you think, no matter how many insults you sling. MPs of all colours and creeds still have to declare loyalty to the Crown, which itself swears an oath to Defend the Anglican Faith. The King can only tolerate other faiths. He cannot be crowned unless he vows to the Christian faith of the Anglican Church.

All your rantings and ravings cannot change that.

The Opposition parties are there to debate against the Government. That is their position. If His Majesty's Loyal Opposition were not there Britain would not be a democracy. It is the duty of the Opposition to bring down the Government. That is their function. They have a duty to the electorate to do that, and to ensure that the government of the day is acting according to the laws.

If we don't like the government, as opposed to their doing something wrong, we can vote them out at the next election.

They were all socialists

Isis has issued a horrific threat to Britain as it urged its followers to attack "Jews, Christians and their allies".
A spokesman for the Islamic State, Abu Hudhaifa al-Ansari, encouraged supporters to pursue individuals of the two faiths throughout America, Europe "and the world".

The message, titled "O Zealous Monotheists", outlines multiple methods for carrying out assaults.
They include explosive devices, firearms, bladed weapons and vehicles as instruments of attack.

I agree. They are brainwashed and parrot their ideology without thinking.

What, then, do you make of this latest from ISIS?

"Isis has issued a horrific threat to Britain as it urged its followers to attack "Jews, Christians and their allies".
A spokesman for the Islamic State, Abu Hudhaifa al-Ansari, encouraged supporters to pursue individuals of the two faiths throughout America, Europe "and the world".

The message, titled "O Zealous Monotheists", outlines multiple methods for carrying out assaults.
They include explosive devices, firearms, bladed weapons and vehicles as instruments of attack."

Now that, is fascism.

The Right like foot binding and circumcision.
The Left like chickpeas.

ISIS's tactics and ideology align more closely with religious extremism than fascist totalitarianism.
You misunderstand fascism. Here is the sign from the US Holocaust memorial museum to help you understand what it actually is

You say "the US holocaust museum"

Has this come to the attention of the orange orangutan yet?

And how many of these statements can be ticked?

In terms of US politics we think that fascism is the likely outcome of this lurch to the right. Some might argue that has already happened.

I think ISIS maps on to fascism pretty closely. It merely replaces the nation state with the Ummah. It's totalitarian, scorning democracy and bases laws on an all compassing guide to life. It despises and oppresses women.

Islam has historically been close to fascist Germany, not only harbouring Nazi war criminals, but using their expertise in interrogation, propaganda and ethnic cleansing.
It's unwise to expect a repeat of Hitler - it will come in a different guise.

Yes ISIS shares totalitarian traits like oppression of women, rejection of democracy and use of propaganda and violence.
However it's fundamentally a theocratic movement driven by faith-based hatred, not nationalism. Calling it religious extremism or jihadist terrorism is more accurate and helps understand how to fight it.
Fascism tends to orientate around a cult of personality, around a leader often incorporating elements like corporatism and racial nationalism. ISIS, by contrast, rejects modern nation-states in favour of a borderless caliphate governed by a strict interpretation of Islamic law. Their violence is framed through religious eschatology.
They do have similar traits but Religious crusaders like Isis, although brutal and authoritarian, are not fascists. They base their claim to superiority on access to divine revelation rather than ethnic or national identity. Isis welcomes converts, unlike the Nazis, who did not allow Jews to escape death camps by joining them.
I would argue that both movements are deeply concerning. I’m not quite sure why ISIS was brought into this thread unless to pivot to an anti Muslim sentiment.

Don't you think that phrases like ''demonising muslims' and 'Britons killing muslims' might be why the ISIS leader has threatened Britain?

You have no evidence of that, just stirring up the pot.

They are both extremists. They set people's teeth on edge.

Don't tell me I misunderstand Fascism. You do not know me. Why would you say that on the strength of my disgust at the ISIS threat?

You read stupid American adverts designed to turn people's minds against government and tell me I don't understand what fascism is???

That is America, not Britain. They are hysterically trying to convince everyone that Republicans are fascists, because in their minds they don't like that the American Constitution allows their president to be a dictator.

That is not Britain.

Most likely ISIS supporters are reading on threads like this that Britain is killing muslims, demonising them.

When that was relayed to Putin that Russian citizens in other countries were being threatened, demonised, killed, it gave Putin the excuse he needed to invade other countries, like Ukraine, to protect the interests of expat Russians there who had reported they were under threat. The same happened in the Balkans.

Two years ago Putin announced conscription and tens of thousands of Russians fled to Georgia, no doubt settling in one place near the Russian border. Wait a while, and Putin might well invade on the pretext of 'ensuring the well being of Russians in Georgia''. It is how he works.

ISIS might well do the same. After all, we don't know who the boat people are do we?

I didn’t say “Britons killing Muslims”? The fact that you brought ISIS into this thread is evidence in and of itself that Muslims are being targeted, otherwise why bring it up? Do you think Islam indistinguishable to ISIS?
And honestly no, me (or anyone else) who SAYS that Muslims are being targeted is not why ISIS is threatening Britain 😂😂 frankly that’s absurd. The UK’s role in the Gaza conflict (or indeed the ACTIONS of the far right towards Muslims are) is far more likely to exacerbate tensions than me calling them out!

?
Religious eschatology refers to a religion's teachings, beliefs, and ideas about death, the afterlife, and the end of the world or "end times". While the term originates from the Greek word for "last," it encompasses various aspects, including individual judgment after death, the resurrection of the dead, a final Day of Judgment, and the ultimate fate of the world, such as a Messianic age or a new heaven and earth. Different religions and denominations have distinct beliefs regarding the specifics of these events

Islamic extremist group leaders are those who want to be in power and create a stricter type of Islam in the hope of convincing muslims that theirs' is the only true way. Christian cults do the same, but are more easily got rid of.

After the last fall of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, there was a broadcast on TV of interviews with Russian muslim mothers trying desperately to get their daughters back, but were refused. They explained that they had sent their daughters there because they were promised a stricter type of muslim teaching and they would not be influenced by western decadence.(today the Taliban banned the internet for the same reason). Those Russian mothers said they had sent their daughters there because they were also promised that their daughters would marry the leaders. It wasn't just Russia. Muslim girls who were considered out of control in other countries were sent to ISIS hoping the new Islam would be better for them.

Muslims in countries where Islamic extremism exists understand these new controls even less than other religions do. They have centuries of Islam running through their DNA and I think it is harder for them to understand than we think.

These Islamic extremists want power over people, as simple as that. The only way they think they can get that is through violence. The ordinary muslims are also victims. The problem is that we cannot identify them, and ordinary muslims are loath to point them out to security people.

Lefties buzz off windmills.

I brought it up because the announcement was made yesterday. What do you call a 'race of like minded people of one creed whose leader puts out a directive to kill anyone of a certain race or creed?

That is the latest threat to Christians and Jews and their followers, followed by suggestions on how to kill them.

You know all about labelling people, what would you call that?

Is it absurd though? It was a suggestion I made, because groups like ISIS, Boko Haram , Islamic Jihad have in the past given that as a reason for their killing people.

You are very defensive of islam. That does not mean it is right for you to defend Islamic extremists. They are no respecter of persons. They will kill muslim and Christian alike if it suits their purpose. Boko Haram have started border raids and kidnapping young girls for their harems. Assad killed muslims, Iran kills muslims, Taliban kills muslims. If British muslims are being threatened, then it is more likely they are killed by other muslims and atheists than Christians.

Be sure that when you are defending muslims, you are defending the right muslims and not those under the spell of violent leaders.

I brought up ISIS because their leader posted the threat to Britain last night. I would not have brought it up for any other reason. Shooting the messenger is not usually a good idea until you know what the message is and who sent it.

Read the post, which was copied word for word, and tell me what you think about that, not about my reaction to it.

Hitler routed out all the Jews and others because he did not want them to live in Germany with the 'pure Aryan' race. He was called a fascist.

What do you call the ISIS leader who did the same, threatened to rid the world of Jews, Christians, and their followers?

I've been around mumsnet long enough to know its pointless trying to have a conversation with llizzie.