Liberalism Explained

[RLLD 4,143]

Quote

In 2015, many liberal residents in Hamtramck, Michigan, celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council.

This week many of those same residents watched in dismay as a now fully Muslim and socially conservative city council passed legislation banning Pride flags from being flown on city property that had – like many others being flown around the country – been intended to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community.

‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags

They were so proud of their virtuosity and moral game play......and never stopped for a moment to think about what they had done, and the implications of it.....until it came back to bite them.  

[RLLD 4,143]

Quote

“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”

[RLLD 4,143]

Quote

Their talking points mirror those made elsewhere: some Hamtramck Muslims say they simply want to protect children, and gay people should “keep it in their home”.

Ruh-Rohhhh......they said they were protecting childrreennnnn

[seafoam1 2,804]

Excellent. 

[The Real timschochet 6,448]

I see no contradiction in celebrating Muslims winning elections here, as a sign of our diversity, and still deploring anti-gay attitudes. 

[seafoam1 2,804]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I see no contradiction in celebrating Muslims winning elections here, as a sign of our diversity, and still deploring anti-gay attitudes. 

[RLLD 4,143]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I see no contradiction in celebrating Muslims winning elections here, as a sign of our diversity, and still deploring anti-gay attitudes. 

Well, at least the people who live there recognized the mistake they made   

[The Real timschochet 6,448]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Well, at least the people who live there recognized the mistake they made   

Should they have voted for religious Christians who would have delivered the same result? 

[seafoam1 2,804]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Should they have voted for religious Christians who would have delivered the same result? 

[RLLD 4,143]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Should they have voted for religious Christians who would have delivered the same result? 

They should have voted for the best people.   They should have voted for those who espoused American ideals and culture.

Instead, they sought to virtue signal.  They clearly thought that Islam was compatible with western culture and freedom, and they learned the truth....which is that Islam is NOT compatible with western culture and freedom.

They stupidly sought to feel good about themselves that they were helping some oppressed group.....which was false since NO ONE is oppressing muslims.... and in the process shot themselves in the foot...... 

Well, at least maybe they developed a little wisdom from it.

[weepaws 3,157]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

They should have voted for the best people.   They should have voted for those who espoused American ideals and culture.

Instead, they sought to virtue signal.  They clearly thought that Islam was compatible with western culture and freedom, and they learned the truth....which is that Islam is NOT compatible with western culture and freedom.

They stupidly sought to feel good about themselves that they were helping some oppressed group.....which was false since NO ONE is oppressing muslims.... and in the process shot themselves in the foot...... 

Well, at least maybe they developed a little wisdom from it.

Winner. 

[jonmx 2,424]

26 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Should they have voted for religious Christians who would have delivered the same result? 

 

It was religious Christians who did more to liberate the world than anyone else.  Mainstream Christian values support freedom of choice.   Mainstream Muslim values support a theocracy.    Certainly there are evangelicals who would support a theocracy, but it was Christians fleeing persecution and freedom to worship that was the backbone of this country. 

[The Real timschochet 6,448]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

 

It was religious Christians who did more to liberate the world than anyone else.  Mainstream Christian values support freedom of choice.   Mainstream Muslim values support a theocracy.    Certainly there are evangelicals who would support a theocracy, but it was Christians fleeing persecution and freedom to worship that was the backbone of this country. 

I agree with this, it’s generally true. But it’s not true in terms of attitudes towards gays and trans. 

[The Real timschochet 6,448]

17 minutes ago, RLLD said:

They should have voted for the best people.   They should have voted for those who espoused American ideals and culture.

Instead, they sought to virtue signal.  They clearly thought that Islam was compatible with western culture and freedom, and they learned the truth....which is that Islam is NOT compatible with western culture and freedom.

They stupidly sought to feel good about themselves that they were helping some oppressed group.....which was false since NO ONE is oppressing muslims.... and in the process shot themselves in the foot...... 

Well, at least maybe they developed a little wisdom from it.

The problem with this whole theory is that when it comes specifically to homosexuality there really isn’t much of a difference. If freedom for gay people was my primary concern I would hesitate equally to vote for a religious Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. I would prefer a socially liberal atheist. But if that wasn’t a choice I would have to decide on other factors. 
 

You continue to treat virtue signaling as if it was some kind of bad thing but that’s only true if one rejects the virtue being signaled. I don’t. 

[seafoam1 2,804]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem with this whole theory is that when it comes specifically to homosexuality there really isn’t much of a difference. If freedom for gay people was my primary concern I would hesitate equally to vote for a religious Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. I would prefer a socially liberal atheist. But if that wasn’t a choice I would have to decide on other factors. 

[RLLD 4,143]

14 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem with this whole theory is that when it comes specifically to homosexuality there really isn’t much of a difference. If freedom for gay people was my primary concern I would hesitate equally to vote for a religious Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. I would prefer a socially liberal atheist. But if that wasn’t a choice I would have to decide on other factors. 
 

You continue to treat virtue signaling as if it was some kind of bad thing but that’s only true if one rejects the virtue being signaled. I don’t. 

Virtue signaling is a bad thing.  This example helps make that point.

The best PEOPLE should have been placed on that school board, regardless of religion or skin color or any other non-relevant factors.  And when you elevate virtue signaling above good decisions the outcomes might not be as good....

[weepaws 3,157]

41 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I agree with this, it’s generally true. But it’s not true in terms of attitudes towards gays and trans. 

What’ is the Christian attitude towards gays and trans, I can’t wait to see this? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

22 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Virtue signaling is a bad thing.  This example helps make that point.

The best PEOPLE should have been placed on that school board, regardless of religion or skin color or any other non-relevant factors.  And when you elevate virtue signaling above good decisions the outcomes might not be as good....

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp by some.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,853]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

Ruh-Rohhhh......they said they were protecting childrreennnnn

They're not wrong.  LGBTQ...whatever, is not something we should be promoting or celebrating.  We've had an entire generation as proof that these are choices, not "natural" like they've been telling us.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,853]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

Well, at least the people who live there recognized the mistake they made   

Tim can say that because he doesn't live there and doesn't affect him.  It's the NIMBY effect.  As long as the liberal policies affect others, they're good.  Once it starts affecting them, then its OMG!!!

[weepaws 3,157]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

They're not wrong.  LGBTQ...whatever, is not something we should be promoting or celebrating.  We've had an entire generation as proof that these are choices, not "natural" like they've been telling us.  

You sure that muslims protect children? 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,853]

3 minutes ago, weepaws said:

You sure that muslims protect children? 

I do believe that most Muslims love their kids so, yes, I do believe that most want to protect children.  The fundamentalist Muslims and Hamas-supporting Muslims - no.

[Strike 5,219]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

I agree with this, it’s generally true. But it’s not true in terms of attitudes towards gays and trans. 

So can you show me one city in America where it's illegal to fly a Gay thingy on a flagpole?  Because we have many communities that lean heavily Christian and I've never heard of one banning LGBT sh*t, at least not since I've been an adult.  So, as usual, you're FOS.

[Strike 5,219]

20 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

They're not wrong.  LGBTQ...whatever, is not something we should be promoting or celebrating.  We've had an entire generation as proof that these are choices, not "natural" like they've been telling us.  

That's all well and good, but there's a difference between "promoting" and "excluding."  We should treat them exactly the SAME as we treat other groups.  If we let other groups fly a flag we should let the gays.  If we don't let other groups then we shouldn't let the gays. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,853]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

That's all well and good, but there's a difference between "promoting" and "excluding."  We should treat them exactly the SAME as we treat other groups.  If we let other groups fly a flag we should let the gays.  If we don't let other groups then we shouldn't let the gays. 

LGBTQ goes DIRECTLY against the #1 prime directive which is propagation of the species.  It's behavior we definitely should not be encouraging, celebrating or promoting.

This isn't about exclusion, it's about not promoting harmful behavior or catering to mental illness.

[weepaws 3,157]

39 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I do believe that most Muslims love their kids so, yes, I do believe that most want to protect children.  The fundamentalist Muslims and Hamas-supporting Muslims - no.

I’m not so sure   

Christians arrested in Mauritania for holding a baptism ceremony, this ceremony outraged muslims.  Those loving muslims, I wouldn’t and don’t trust muslims.  

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

41 minutes ago, weepaws said:

I’m not so sure   

Christians arrested in Mauritania for holding a baptism ceremony, this ceremony outraged muslims.  Those loving muslims, I wouldn’t and don’t trust muslims.  

That's pretty racist, bro. And not Christianlike.

[Engorgeous George 2,152]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem with this whole theory is that when it comes specifically to homosexuality there really isn’t much of a difference. If freedom for gay people was my primary concern I would hesitate equally to vote for a religious Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. I would prefer a socially liberal atheist. But if that wasn’t a choice I would have to decide on other factors. 
 

You continue to treat virtue signaling as if it was some kind of bad thing but that’s only true if one rejects the virtue being signaled. I don’t. 

Who, I wonder, decides if a stance is virtuous or arroganct self-righteous stupidity?

[The Real timschochet 6,448]

24 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Who, I wonder, decides if a stance is virtuous or arroganct self-righteous stupidity?

Me! 

[MLCKAA 547]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I agree with this, it’s generally true. But it’s not true in terms of attitudes towards gays and trans. 

Depends.  The Christianists (like Islamists) enjoy cherry-picking verses to politicize the Bible and support their positions.  Christians just espouse love.  I’m a Christian with a gay daughter and I think about her sexuality very sparingly.

[The Real timschochet 6,448]

3 minutes ago, MLCKAA said:

Depends.  The Christianists (like Islamists) enjoy cherry-picking verses to politicize the Bible and support their positions.  Christians just espouse love.  I’m a Christian with a gay daughter and I think about her sexuality very sparingly.

Correct. I didn’t mean to say all Christians. Some are stricter than others of course. But that’s true of Muslims as well. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,960]

Why didn’t  they ask them beforehand? I’m sure they would have told them. But they didn’t. See, they were the ones bestowing their grace on the downtrodden. Well, who they viewed as the downtrodden.  The Muslims don’t see themselves as such, so it doesn’t work. The Muslims look down on you. 

[RLLD 4,143]

16 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

That's pretty racist, bro. And not Christianlike.

Nope, wrong lib-label......you were supposed to toss out the "Islamaphobic" one here....Muslim is not a "race"......common mistake when trying to shoot down the person rather than the idea....

[Pimpadeaux 2,404]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

Nope, wrong lib-label......you were supposed to toss out the "Islamaphobic" one here....Muslim is not a "race"......common mistake when trying to shoot down the person rather than the idea....

It's racist to paint a group of people with a particular religious belief as untrustworthy.

[Strike 5,219]

23 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It's racist to paint a group of people with a particular religious belief as untrustworthy.

Another good example of liberalism.  When a word that you want to use to denigrate your opposition doesn't fit, simply misuse the word and/or try to redefine it.   Keep them coming Rusty!!!!

[Hardcore troubadour 14,960]

29 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It's racist to paint a group of people with a particular religious belief as untrustworthy.

How about a political belief? Is that ok ? 

[squistion 1,960]

24 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It's racist to paint a group of people with a particular religious belief as untrustworthy.

Technically, he is right, but it does seem form of bigotry that is akin to or similar to racism.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,853]

11 minutes ago, squistion said:

Technically, he is right, but it does seem form of bigotry that is akin to or similar to racism.

You guys should know.  You're the racists and you consistently and obediently continue to vote for the party of racism - the Democrat Party.

Own it.  It's all yours.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

When virtue signaling and stupidity collide.  

Reminds me of the time the Huffington Post bragged on Twitter about its “diversity”.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

I will always cherish the Huffington Post for that.  Easily my all-time favorite tweet.  The comments are hilarious.

”British teeth”