nicemango-feed - Tumblr blog

[nicemango-feed]

IDW Halloween Cards

Happy Halloween Folks! 

(I'll add the rest below the blogpost)

I thought I’d have some fun with IDW/Classical Liberal Halloween cards. There's so many more I could have done, but alas...I didn't have that much time. If you want to join in the fun...make one and tweet it to me @nicemangos :) 

Anyway - a clarification for the pedants: I use the terms IDW/Classical Lib to describe them, their dogmatic fans and the figures who hover around them....the Quillette, 'But what about anti-white racism' types...

...So it's not limited to the amazing bigbrained peeps mentioned in Bari Weiss' LOL-worthy article (featuring pictures of them jerking off trees or hiding in bushes)....you know the one i'm talking about. 

Why is it important to mock this pretentious circle-jerk as often as possible, you ask? I'll give you a quick rundown, even though I could write a bit on each central figure here, I just don't have the time to delve in that deep at the moment. 

Simply put though, its because they're pushing some dangerous ideas and providing cover for dangerous people. In a new, repackaged & polished format this isn't immediately recognizable to some.

They're driven by a strongly anti-left agenda, while often simultaneously claiming they are on the left ...or at least ‘not right wing’ (though they do have their more open RW types like Ben Shapiro/JBP, but I believe even Peterson has denied being a conservative), 

It's this dishonesty and attempt to mask what they're really pushing for that concerns me. 

I find it's almost better to deal with an open right wing, anti-immigrant type than to deal with a sophist covering their tracks every step of the way, leaving room for plausible deniability, while being an apologist for similar issues. 

In this era of a resurgent far-right and rising hate crimes.... this 'totally-not-right-wing' crew still focus their energies on the left while downplaying the dangers of the far right. 

Anything random campus SJWs do will be an outrage and indicative of the 'rot on the left'... but when it comes down to calling out Milo Yiannopolous, even after he's exposed for being a pedophilia apologist...there will be excuses.... deflections - even if it means pointing the finger at fictional plays and then realizing that your example is ridiculous. 

There will be reminders that Milo was smart and charismatic (they'll say they are no fans, of course!)...but even in the face of him defending sex with minors there will be 'he doesn't deserve this... let's wish him well and hope he can leverage his charm into a new life' type apologetics.   

I remember this too. Cringe. I genuinely don't understand how u can have this attitude towards some of the worst ppl around, but feminists and campus sjws just don't get that kind of sympathy and understanding. https://t.co/U3WkJ0SwUE pic.twitter.com/zcNjk0CiwP

— Eiynah --- (@NiceMangos) January 12, 2018

Or at best, they'll say Milo can't be far right because he's gay and flamboyant, Jewish and has a black boyfriend . They'll dismiss him as a mere troll...justify his outrage at the 'liberal media bias'...and complain about his Twitter Ban. Or defend him using Breitbart articles. 

They'll be happy to threaten to quit Patreon over banning White identitarian Lauren Southern...meanwhile portraying her to their massive audiences as a mere 'conservative journalist'.  When it comes time to call her out, or state a solid opinion on an obvious extremist like Robert Spencer or... Tommy Robinson - if it's not blatant apologetics (like Rubin's where he literally positions Tommy as *Extremely Moderate*,

Rubin says Tommy Robinson strikes him as "extremely moderate". Tommy Robinson confirmed for The New Center™ pic.twitter.com/rm7rem1y15

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) March 2, 2017

...the best you'll get is a shrug and a claim that they 'just don't know enough' to make a judgement on him (while they retweet flawed defences of him).

Even in the wake of serious incidents like more than a dozen pipe bombs being mailed to Trump’s critics their priorities do not shift from the dangers of sjws and The Left.  They will minimize RW terror threats even, referring to them as "minor events"/a few malicious jerks...

Once again the press gets gamed, giving saturation coverage and agonized commentary to a minor event. It's not major news that a country of 325m has a few malicious jerks who (correctly) anticipate 15 minutes of notoriety with a vindictive stunt. https://t.co/zXnBJXCqdB

— Steven Pinker (@sapinker) October 25, 2018

But compare that with the wording you often see about The Left, 'Devouring it's Children' .. oh nooo: 

If not that, there's a general AllLivesMatter-ification, that really endears them and makes them very useful to the far right

I did a more detailed thread on Pinker here

Another Amazing take in response to the Pipe bombs was telling people we shouldn't make it 'costly to consider conspiracy' FFS

You kicked up a lot of dust, tried to tie me to Trump, to Alex Jones and to various claims that I've never made, but in the end you avoid my only point: If we make it costly to consider conspiracy, we hand power to those who would conspire, placing the honorable at their mercy. https://t.co/dvB1Mi6pg5

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) October 26, 2018

Only the most Rational takes from the IDW, I tell ya. And while we're on the topic of conspiracies...who can forget the classic Rubin moment, when he claimed there's a necessary space for Infowars:

Dave Rubin says there's a "necessary space" for Infowars because mainstream media is bad pic.twitter.com/k9o1HW62nX

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) April 17, 2017

------

Those that follow this cheerful group closely, know full well how often they whitewash troubling views/figures ...or delete criticism of them if it happens to come up. 

It’s about joining hands with those radicalizing young men, with those who fear monger about immigrants, and the whiteness levels of London being too low (aka the far right conspiracy of 'white genocide') - its about giving these things more credibility in the mainstream, and helping to justify and rationalize people’s bigotries while making big bucks. 

It’s about amplifying the "#metoo has gone too far" message, about how women have it better and if they don't have power it's because they don't want to have more power,

  Support for publications like Quillette who publish garbage that’s indistinguishable from salafist mullahs at times, is not hard to come by in these 'Dark 'intellectual' parts of the web'.

What these IDW-type RationalSkeptic movements are about is pushing back against those who want equality, and those who want to minimize racism and sexism. 

It's about the maintenance of social hierarchies and the status quo. 

They often find a token minority person to champion 'controversial' views, so they can serve as a shield from criticism and accusations of bigotry. 

It’s also about proclaiming ....loudly... how identity politics is bad, but using identity politics at the drop of a hat when it suits you. 

Its about criticizing people who use the word racist, but using it happily yourself whenever it suits you. 

Casually accusing groups of people of having the intellectual and moral integrity of the KKK even, 

There you go. Sam Harris compares Salon and Vox journalists to the KKK. pic.twitter.com/hc6hRtmxFc

— IDW Misrepresenter (@aiizavva) June 15, 2018

It’s about discrediting the media as Rubin does with his Infowars support and CNN/MSM hate, and about discrediting entire educational fields too (Peterson has declared entire fields of study 'corrupt' because of postmodern neo marxism)... all the while, these heroes pat themselves on the back for being the Rational ones ...having 'tough conversations' and tolerating differing views (while tossing out lawsuit threats like halloween candy, of course).

It's about downplaying actual sieg heiling white supremacists while claiming that the term Nazi has lost meaning. 

I mean it's exhausting just pointing out the endless contradictions, holes and dangers of such self-important groups. 

These are the threats we recognized in islamist sanitizers posing as progressive...*immediately* in ‘skeptic circles’ but unfortunately...this crew has managed to convince many 'Rational', atheist-skeptic types that re-energizing conversations around ‘race science’, traditional gender roles, and anti trans sentiment from a ‘respectable, 'this is just science/rationality' angle is indeed ‘real liberalism’. 

So....this, dear readers, is a very quick rundown of why I think it’s incredibly important to mock and expose this group pushing alt lite/right adjacent talking points into the mainstream. Especially in today's political climate. 

This is where the real threat of literal regressiveness lies, currently - and I think we should do our part to push back.

Now that that's out of the way....here are some lighthearted Halloween cards, meant to be viewed with that perspective in mind (all that for 4 illustrations, I know! I've just had a lot I needed to get off my chest about this subject for a while):

 ---- A huge thanks to all my patrons who support my work. Without you, this isn't possible. These kinds of blogposts take forever to compile. If you enjoy this or my podcast, please consider supporting via Patreon A shoutout to new-ish Patrons who are owed a mention on the blog: Mish, Karl N, Shakhthi, Ernst & Margeaux. You guys r the best!

from Nice Mangos https://ift.tt/2Qe5JRX via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Waking Up to Issues in the Atheist Scene

Not long ago, similar emails to the one I'll share below were only sent to me by Muslims questioning their faith, scripture and double standards, etc.  I still get those, and power to the people breaking away from religion.  Such emails still fill my heart with joy because despite the accusations of 'taqqiya' that I get, I am no fan of religion. I just happen to be of muslim background and vocally against anti-muslim sentiment, so you know how it goes.  I remember how freeing it was to realize you're no longer tied down by an obligation to please a god that never seems satisfied, and one that doesn't seem consistent either.  Now, in addition to the 'questioning religion' emails, I get quite a lot from people questioning the double standards, the rightward shifting priorities, leaders, shady associations with the alt right/lite, etc. within movement atheism (a movement many deny exists at all, to avoid criticism).  Of course it's not at all the same as questioning ancient ideology forced upon you since childhood - you can unclench your buttocks, haters...I'm not drawing an equivalence. BUT...there's still something about it that feels a little regressive and cult-like. The blind faith, dogmatism, tribalism, homophobia, sexism, sexual abuse and harassment, transphobia - and often, what boils down to a refusal to question leaders. All these things, that make so many movement atheists smug because they regularly assume and *loudly* declare that they're above it all, are present within their own circles too. 

Read full transcript here 

These same blindspots and/or bigotries are mocked when describing 'those backwards regressive theists', but they still exist in the post-religion communities and online spaces I find myself increasingly reluctantly a part of. 

I mean, there are several atheist accounts dedicated to sharing empty platitudes about how amazing and Rational/Logical being an Atheist is. Here's a sample:

You'll often see people in the atheist scene who are obviously biased to the right declare how 'non-tribal' they are. Or how they are the 'Last Liberal' ...*cringe* I know, I know....

*** For me personally...after leaving Islam and finding others like myself online, I thought I had finally found a place to belong, a place where people shared my values.  I could't have been more wrong.  "Atheism", as many twitter pedants point out when faced with any criticism of the community or leaders, means nothing more than a lack of belief in god.  So naturally, one would find that people from all over the political spectrum can be atheists.  What one would not expect however, is that the online movement that has developed ...would be biased strongly against the left, progressives, feminism - with many of it's prominent leaders signal boosting right leaning talking points or rightwing talking heads much of the time. 

Brain grenade because logic - get it? It's genius...and so so subtle. 

Before moving on, let's just quickly revisit who Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson are...  Doug is the sweet guy you see in the clip below, who thinks even if the nicest asylum seekers are taken in...their currently unborn children ...in the future... mayyyyy...some day...you know, become terrorists. 

We could take in the 'nicest' asylum seekers, 'but their son could be a suicide bomber': @DouglasKMurray on second-generation terrorists pic.twitter.com/3yMHLjF2aj

— The Bolt Report (@theboltreport) May 29, 2017

He's also the lovely fellow who worries about declining whiteness levels of London. 

And who's Jordan Peterson? Well he's the noted intellectual who complained in a chat with Camille Paglia about how men can't control 'crazy' women because they aren't allowed to physically fight them.  He's the guy who isn't sure if men and women can work together, and who thinks women who wear makeup/high heels to work but expect not to be harassed are hypocrites. 

Jordan Peterson is not sure if men and women can work together in the workplace pic.twitter.com/GmqiVoL4lv

— PeterNorway (@classiclib3ral) February 8, 2018

(clip via @classiclb3ral)

More recently, Peterson is also the guy who thinks that 'enforced monogamy' is a reasonable and not totally unhinged thing to suggest. 

But above isn't the only time he's suggested something as fucking horrendous as that. 

So...all around, lovely gentlemen. Who wouldn't want to have multiple events with them and signal boost and promote them...right?  *** The Atheist movement (that does not exist) has a distinct culture, distinct talking points, has centred and rallied around the same causes, socialized at the same conferences and supported the same atheist/humanist groups....it has clearly appointed top-tier authorities and leaders, who's words are often treated as infallible by the most devoted...no matter how contradictory.  Hmm...it all sounds so familiar. Its amusing to see people tie themselves into knots trying to defend some of the stuff out there.  The latest embarrassment was a rather hilarious piece on these self dubbed members of the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW) featuring a bunch of anti-left figures with at least two prominent atheists in the group (Rubin/Harris).  How they agreed to pose for a photoshoot where they were told to stand creepily in the bushes I do not know. But it was incredibly entertaining.  The term IDW was thoroughly mocked (as any self congratulatory bullshit should be), as were the members. 

(click to enlarge)

Mockery aside though, It's quite depressing that movement Atheism has turned into such a joke. I valued it so much once.  This unraveling of the movement and it's leaders has been tough to come to terms with. Especially for those of us who have already done this bit before...wrestled our beliefs, questioned respected leaders, lost community for it, and so on. I had noticed a troubling turn 2-3 years ago. The questions in my mind became harder and harder to ignore when Rubin arrived on scene. He really brought the hypocrisies to the surface.  My personal, recent last straw was the treatment of the Krauss thing generally among movement leaders....and the Ezra Klein/Harris convo, the utterly obvious flaws in thinking. That was really it for me. No looking back and hoping former heroes come to their senses.  But anyway, the point of this blog post was to share one of several emails i've received in the past couple of weeks with the same theme. If you have a story like this to tell, email away! (nicemangosDOTblogATgmailDOTcom) I'm so glad more and more people are Waking Up and recognizing that something's not right here. It's starting to feel a bit less lonely on the left side of movement atheism.  ***  Here's the brief email:  About two years ago I heard your podcast with Harris and it was a defining moment. 

Harris had taken the place of a hero. Your criticisms made me defensive and dismissive but I couldn't help carry them with me after that and notice Rubin, Saad, and so on. 

Peterson came along and I felt strange. When did dubious messianic preachers become the cool new thing the kids are into? 

I watched Bill Maher have this unremarkable chickenhawk cult leader in the making on his show unquestioned, unchallenged, and that's when you popped into my head for the first time in a long time. 

When I went to see what you were up to, I was really happy to see you were still active, and having conversations about the alt-right in movement atheism. 

I'm really thankful I'm not blind to these problems as they unfold, that I'm not in denial, not falsely convincing myself of my rationality while being a hypocrite. 

That was largely provoked by you and a few lines of criticism. Thanks,

-J

***

Thank you to all my wonderful Patrons who make this work possible. 

If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon here.

from Nice Mangos https://ift.tt/2KBz3OM via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Jordan Peterson - His Strange Atheist Bedfellows & His War on Cathy Newman

Over the last week or so, I’ve watched this Cathy Newman/Channel 4 saga unfold. It took twists and turns that were quite surprising to me, but shouldn’t have been - especially considering the recent trend of Movement Atheism to join hands with almost anyone that is sufficiently anti-left or anti-feminist. Even if that means allying with a Christian fundie snake oil salesman they themselves would have laughed out the room a few years ago. I mean just take a look at this short clip below, wtaf is this nonsense?

(clip via TMM)

As we see the rise of the Cult of Jordan Peterson, we also see the rise of I-love-Jesus atheism. Douglas Murray is a good example of that...though, he's been one long before Peterson arrived on the scene, to be fair. He's a hispter Jesus Atheist. 

Murray is embraced wholeheartedly by the increasingly rightward shifting atheist scene for his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim stances (going so far as to worry about the future children Muslim asylum seekers may have, *possibly* growing up to become extremists even if their parents weren't) 

We could take in the 'nicest' asylum seekers, 'but their son could be a suicide bomber': @DouglasKMurray on second-generation terrorists pic.twitter.com/3yMHLjF2aj

— The Bolt Report (@theboltreport) May 29, 2017

“We could take in two asylum seekers, who might be the nicest most pro-British people ever, but their son might turn out to be a suicide bomber" - Douglas Murray

"But what levels, after all's said and done, do the celebrants of diversity want to get to? What is their ideal target figure? Is a ceiling of 25 per cent white Britons in London — or the country at large — optimal? Or would it be 10 per cent? Or none at all? A final, and perhaps harder, question: how — given the concatenation of claims against them — might "white Britons" ever acceptably argue, let alone complain, about such unspecified or unspecifiable odds?"  - Also Doug Murray 

You'll never believe who Doug is a big fan of: 

He's consistently been an excellent judge of character though, so we should *totally* trust him on this one...his other judgements have been So. Spot. On... especially regarding Trump.  -___-

***

Anyway, aside from I-Iove-Jesus-atheism (which is still some form of atheism), Peterson is also having the effect of stirring the embers of religion...in the hearts of some 'atheists' (being anti-left is a powerful uniting force). Perhaps some lost lambs needed a father-figure like JBP in their lives, to yell basic shit at them, shit that my grandma gave away for free...like 'clean your room!' 'Sort yourself out!'...they needed someone to lead them toward god's warm and loving embrace. Yay!

screenshot via @classiclib3ral

After this recent Channel 4 interview, we've seen a flood of predictable 'contrarian' thinkpieces pouring out in defence of this newly emerged hero...one who dares to challenge 'leftist orthodoxy', by sharing ‘truths’ that no one else will tell you. 'Truths' like, how women just don’t WANT powerful positions, (no really, I've watched lectures of his where he, a top earner on Patreon making over 60K $ A MONTH, spends a lot of time deterring women from wanting power positions. He talks about how awful and complicated being rich is, how it can make you (women) unravel) about how the gender pay gap can be explained away because women are choosing lower paying careers, what they need in order to be happy is marriage and babies, ok? Also, there is no systemic discrimination, you silly emotional, brainwashed neo-marxist sjws! 

"The more I see women in particular, they hit 35-40 …and they’re not married…and they don’t have kids…and they are not happy. Cuz what the hell are you gonna do from the time you’re 40 till the time you’re 80?! You got no family… you got no relationships? What are you gonna do?! Go run your company?!!! Yeah well… if you’re 1 in a 1000 that will satisfy you.” - an actual JBP quote. 

“each sex has it’s own unfairness to deal with, but to think of that as a consequence of the social structure….come on really?!" - also an actual JBP quote (from the lecture linked above)

Anyway, amidst those thinkpieces...shared by the most popular anti-left (but still clinging to leftist status) figureheads,  there is a wave of outraged culty fanbases coming together, speaking out in unison against this shrill harpy of a woman who dared to have an adversarial interview with Peterson. 

The ones with a bit of self-awareness and self-respect will never admit to being sympathetic to Peterson’s views (kind of like they did with Milo)...and so will phrase their disgust at this interview more along the lines of, “I’m no Peterson fan BUT, all he did was say true things while she aggressively strawmanned him.”

How dare she assume *this man* could be saying sexist things????

I honestly had to watch the interview 3 times to see if maybe I had missed something the first two times, and no, I still don’t understand where the hate and rage towards Cathy are coming from. 

Why are people SO upset that she didn’t perform to their liking (people who claim to be 'for equality & progress')? I don't get it...She was pretty standardly 'meh' I thought. Not great at grilling him, sure. But at least she tried to take on this shifty charlatan. I see it as I would if someone was imperfect in grilling someone like Mo Ansar, like sure they made some mistakes...but even attempting to expose someone like that is good (Though, I don't think Mo is remotely as rich, powerful or influential as Peterson...so not nearly as dangerous).

Why the full blown outrage? I mean, I understand where it’s coming from with people who are openly anti-left and anti-feminist, people who think diversity is a codeword for white genocide…people who think theres a leftist cultural marxist conspiracy to compel them to use non-binary pronouns, or some garbage like that - But I really don’t understand what so-called sophisticated thinkers & non far-right lunatics are doing lowering themselves to defend Peterson in any way whatsoever. 

There could have been a perfectly fair and measured critique, where people kept in sight who Peterson actually is; 

--An extremist thats radicalizing many young people every day, and making big bucks off it--

A man with ideas so regressive that they're sure to set us back a few decades, if they gain enough influence. His explanation here for accusations of sex assault is not to first find fault with the perpetrators of the assault, but to blame the idea that sex is no longer enshrined in marriage (not like marital rape ever happens or anything, never mind that many of the accused are MARRIED). I mean, I'm no stranger to hearing such garbage, I did grow up in Saudi Arabia, as a woman. 

I just don't expect to hear this nonsense being embraced so gleefully by people outside of a blatantly misogynistic theocracy.

Like any Salafist preacher in Saudi, JBP doesn't like the idea of casual sex. Quelle Surprise.

In this now disproportionately notorious Channel 4 interview he remained cool and calm is all. That is not to be confused with performing well or having decent ideas...or speaking 'truths'. 

He could have performed in any way and his sycophantic followers would have perceived it exactly how they do now. In their eyes he would have 'won' regardless. 

The harassment Cathy received from this misogynistic fanbase was mentioned in several publications. At first, even causing Peterson to tell his fans:

If you're threatening her, stop. Try to be civilized in your criticism. It was words. Words, people, words. Remember those? "C4 calls in security experts after presenter suffers online abuse." https://t.co/z4UAVOSYuO

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 19, 2018

Don't let it fool you though, Peterson often engages in this kind of performative condemnation, of the alt right, or of misogynistic harassment...when he feels the mainstream media are on to him. But it isn't long before he shows his hand. 

He continued to post criticism of Cathy right after telling people to stop threatening her, which is not something you'd do if you were genuinely concerned about her being targeted. 

He then soon went on to do another interview where he started off obsessively complaining about her...and the apparent 'spin' that was being created, that she was some kind of planned feminist martyr, because this was a sort of ...I dunno face saving tactic, because she had received so much criticism. He said the criticism was being spun as harassment. 

So first he says stop threatening her, then he expresses regret for saying that and now is discrediting that it could be harassment or threats at all. That faux-concern didn't take long to unravel at all...

If that wasn't tasteless enough for you - he even dogwhistled to his followers through this other interview by saying,

29:30: "I was reviewing maybe 10-11 of these newspaper articles that had played this twisty game and accused me of like, siccing my internet trolls on poor hapless journalists and I thought --this was the dark part of me-- the shadow part thought, If I wanted to sic my internet trolls on channel 4 then there'd be nothing but broken windows and riots, and then there's a little part of me that thinks... wouldn't that be fun"

This man is dangerous, and he's clearly on some power trip. 

If a future interviewer ever tried to press him on this statement and say something like 'wow what an irresponsible thing to say after a channel had to call in extra security because of your fanbase' - he'd most definitely hide behind semantics, as he always does...and say something like, "Oh I wasn't signalling that they should do that, I was saying that that's the dark part of my thoughts, something everyone experiences...everyone has dark thoughts...but obviously I believe we should control those. So I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting what I was saying there" - Meanwhile, his followers would get enraged again that someone dared 'misrepresent' him, and again he'd get away with putting out troubling statements.

The idea that media coverage of Cathy Newman's post-interview harassment is part of a leftist conspiracy to portray Peterson’s poor fanbase as misogynistic is ludicrous beyond belief. Not like his own ideas could set the tone for his fanbase, and how people perceive them. It's got to be a conspiracy. 

Consider his chat with Camille Paglia which an article from Chatelaine puts as:

"Peterson said that men can’t control “crazy women” because men aren’t allowed to physically fight women. “I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me,” he said. “The parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is."

"He adds that men unwilling to throw a punch are contemptible. “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect.”"

"...talking to Paglia, he laments that his own socialization prevents him from taking a swing at a lady. Referring to a woman who accused him of being a Nazi, he said, “I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.” It’s hard to decide which is creepier: Is it the suggestion, in Peterson’s rueful tone, that he’s kind of bummed out about the fact that he can’t hit women? Or is it the implication, if you were to follow his argument to its conclusion, that because women can’t be hit, they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in civil discourse with men at all?"

***

Regarding the Cathy Newman interview though, let's not forget who the real victim in all of this was - Jordan B Peterson, of course. 

Not only did Cathy treat Peterson unfairly (even though confrontational interviews like this are not uncommon in Britain, I hear), but it was actually HER Feminist fanbase that threatened and abused HIM. 

And who was reporting on that, huh? Only one noble MRA blog (there might be another, but I haven't found it yet). 

We mustn't laugh....they could be a reliable source, we shouldn't jump to conclusions.... 

Ok..I checked their twitter account and it's full of great stuff like Retweets of Breitbart's Raheem Kassam, Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson. See? Perfectly reasonable account. 

Daily mail, on the other hand, was reporting on how Cathy received extreme harassment and death threats. But we're all aware that the Daily Mail is known for it’s far left, radical feminist bias right? Everyone but the MRA blogs have been infected...it's why you've got to go straight to these sources for REAL information without a cultural marxist bias.

Speaking of cultural marxism and postmodernism corrupting things, here's Peterson the free speech activist calling for entire fields of study to be shut down because he deems them corrupt. Fields like 'English Literature'. Totally normal professor. 

Well that escalated quickly. pic.twitter.com/6Y9qBhSco4

— CyberViolence [HC] (@CyberHarm) November 11, 2017

(clip via @cyberharm)

***

In all seriousness though, not everyone who jumped into this social media debate knew the backstory of Jordan B Peterson. I’m not faulting them for being unfamiliar with his views - and there are some fair criticisms to be made of Cathy’s interview but it just wouldn’t be the hill I’d die on when a swarm of far-right MRA types are already descending upon her. It just seemed wrong to pile on in the middle of all that. 

***

In the past, many on the left became complacent with the progress we’d made. We never could have imagined that these stone-age ideas about traditional gender roles, race etc. would aggressively claw their way back into the public square like this.

These regressive ideas we thought we'd put to bed, come again in the form of various new-media far-right commentators like Milo, PJW, Molyneux, etc…who spend their time decrying victimhood culture on the left that portrays women, PoC as ‘victims’ of some systemic discrimination. Though this far rightwingery isn't all new...it's just that Fox News has more friends now - friends with influence among young people. 

These uncucked heroes turn our attention to who the real victims are - White men (especially conservative) brave enough to take a stand against victimhood culture are the most victimized group of all. 

Peterson actually *weeps* in this clip about how some poor men have it real hard. Not the first time I've seen him cry for his causes either.

Funny, because he certainly doesn't have that kind of compassion for women. Maybe, just maaaybe..Cathy Newman sensed something off about his views. 

***

However, now that there’s some distance I’d like to point out that Cathy was indeed a bit ill-prepared for the interview. 

Exceptionally so? Nah, nothing outside of what I’d expect from mainstream journalists trying to grapple with the slippery tactics and sophistry of the new far right. That's how we get clueless 'Nazi next door' type articles. They aren’t in the trenches of youtube comments daily, hearing the arguments against every possible reasonable position that most of us took for granted. Unless they specifically research this or are personally targeted...they aren’t usually dealing with or studying crypto rightwingery, that hates more than anything to be called right-wing. Such free-speech warriors (who will sue you if you so much as suggest they are associated with the right or far right) cultivate a specific image, with a veneer of credibility that only thrives if the waters are murky on this…incredibly murky.  

Could some mainstream journalists be better on this? Yes, absolutely... as the far-right updates it's tactics, they should too. Especially if they want to have conversations where these types are held accountable for their positions.

I cringed when I heard Cathy's point about Free Speech. 

"Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?"

That was really a gift to the Peterson trolls. I thought it was pretty basic understanding among journalists that the freedom to offend was an important one. I for one would love to hold on to my freedom to offend conservatives from around the world. As Peterson rightfully said, Cathy was benefitting from the freedom to offend Peterson at that very moment (hate to agree with Pete, but hey).

What I didn’t understand was the proportion of the anger. Yes that one bit was terrible...but say that and move on. Ultimately she attempted to do a good thing (at least to her best ability) by trying to expose Peterson for what a caveman he is.

Now I’m not a fan of Cathy Newman, I had no idea who she was before this whole thing. I have no emotional investment in her as a person. I just think the harassment and outraged articles calling her interview a 'catastrophe' are ridiculously out of proportion with how mediocre the interview seemed to me. It was nothing out of the ordinary - what they refer to her doing as 'strawmanning' Peterson, is her just trying to cut past his bullshit flowery language to make some sense of what his points actually are for her audience. Which he of course masterfully sidesteps because vagueness is his game, so he can’t actually be pinned to his vile positions if you don't have enough information on him. It reminded me of good ol' fashioned atheists trying to get a theist to acknowledge that a certain bit of scripture is violent or misogynistic. If you've played that game, you've seen the semantics dodges, you've seen the 'you're taking it out of context' accusations. This was just more of that. A pity many atheists fell for it though. 

I will say that Cathy barely scratched the surface with the things she could have pinned him on. His sexist tradlife ideas are shit but there are better ways to expose him. Firstly, I’d have asked about his posing with a Pepe flag and a white nationalist…

Then about his friendly appearance on a neo-nazi podcast, with a host that has advocated violence towards people residing ‘illegally’ in her fantasy ethnostate. 

He should have been asked this especially in the context of how he himself deplatformed (now) open ethnonationalist Faith Goldy from one of his Free Speech events, for going on a Daily Stormer (Nazi) associated podcast and not questioning them sufficiently about their beliefs. If that was something he judged Goldy on, surely he could see that he himself hasn't always met those standards. 

Peterson who is also a staunch defender of people fired for their unpopular views can’t get others fired quick enough (those he doesn't align with ideologically, that is). 

(As ridiculous & unhelpful as her tactics are, had this been blatant discrimination towards a PoC, Peterson's tune would be entirely different). 

He who complains about the left not tolerating differing opinions, reacts this way when confronted with an opinion he disagrees with. When...Infowars...is criticized. 

After holding him to account on his most blatant contradictions and hypocrisies, Cathy could have gone into his more absurd viewpoints where he considers Disney’s Frozen to be propaganda, simply because Elsa didn't need a man to succeed. How very dare she get by on her own. 

Talk about fragility and snowflakery...being upset by Disney movies....tsk. 

(click to enlarge)

Or she could have questioned him about a chat where he doesn't quite grasp the concept of consent, with 'race realist' and known misogynist Stefan Molyneux (who also has theories about movies like Star Wars being anti white, white genocide propaganda) 

how the hell can you have free sexual expression and also not rape people pic.twitter.com/AWM0gu7rHR

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) February 13, 2017

-----

But then again, it wouldn’t really have mattered what she said to be honest…because his fans would have been furious with her regardless. She had the audacity to be combative with the great Peterson. This is a cult like following, no jokes. 

(click to enlarge)

Had she made him look properly foolish with excellent points, they would have been twice as enraged and felt twice as victimized by the postmodern neo-marxists who are always out to get them. *sob*

***

I have had many discussions with 'moderate' Petersonites, where they start fairly reasonably. It's almost as if they're reading from a script. First, they'll say they aren’t *at all* fans of Peterson (they just happen to agree with and defend everything he says and vehemently disagree with the critic). Then they jump to the fact that they are in disbelief that you could find anything particularly alarming about him at all...or that you could find him even remotely 'right wing' (there's that crypto rightwingery again). They demand that you back up your claims that he’s right wing… and from here on, it really doesn’t matter what you say. 

You could show his friendly appearances with neo-nazis, his proud posing with pepe (hate symbol) flags & white nationalists, his naziesque conspiracy theories about cultural marxism being everywhere. His conservative views on sex and gender roles, his love of sharing far-right media, none of that matters. They can explain everything away with a "Oh he meant it metaphorically" or "You haven’t seen his *entire body of work* otherwise you’d know he isn’t right wing, he was doing that ironically to piss off leftist SJWs like you", the excuses are endless. And that is why this brand of right wingers enjoys vagueness so much, because it gives them plausible deniability. 

Now, I’m sure there are some lectures by Peterson that aren’t far-right..but that doesn’t excuse him for times his views overlap with alt-right talking points, his alt-right associations and it certainly doesn’t excuse his free speech hypocrisies….when he is every bit a screaming, sniffling, unable to tolerate differing opinions, wanting to get people fired 'SJW' as the people he projects this stuff on to - except his idea of social justice is upholding the status quo…so SQW to be precise. 

He is what he hates. And his dogpiling fans are exactly the intolerant bunch they claim the left are. 

----

Thank you to my patrons who make this work possible. 

If you enjoy my work please consider supporting it via Patreon. If you'd like to see more deep dives on alt right/lite figures, more support could certainly go a long way in creating time for such projects.

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2nuEsgL via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

On Aziz Ansari: Let's Set the bar Higher than 'Not Rape'

I've had a hard time getting myself to sit down and write about this. I've procrastinated for days, always finding something else to do, other than think about this blogpost....or the Twitterhate writing about this subject could bring, from the antis and 'Rational Centrists' - who are usually...you know... *totally*  believably moderate and Center in their politics.  It's sad that we live in a world where being a feminist or simply a woman speaking up about sexual harassment/abuse/coercion/inappropriateness is a controversial position on the internet.  Many tend to be more concerned about the careers of the accused being DESTROYED than what the victim might have gone through, and how their lives might have been affected. And, all this in a world where a self professed sexual predator was elected to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world. 

His career seems fine, so far. 

***

There are so many thoughts buzzing around in my head...things that I’m recalling, that I’d rather not. I'm reluctantly combing through my relevant memories, because these #MeToo stories cause them all to surface. Those experiences in uni, on a packed bus, at work...with a boss creepily running his finger down my neck, bare shoulder and along my ear... (was it my fault for wearing an off shoulder top?) are all coming back to me. Another experience comes to mind, one with a doctor responsible for putting me under before a surgery - who leaned in and called me 'sexy'...as I lay there on the operating table about to be knocked out cold.  I clench my jaw just thinking about it. There are so many ways that behaviour can be sexually inappropriate, a whole spectrum exists. It's not always as black and white as rape vs. not rape, attack vs. no attack...it doesn't actually have to be an 'attack' to violate someone. And some very important, oft-neglected conversations lie in those grey areas.  The thing that bothers me most about the discussion revolving around #MeToo, other than those trying to discredit the whole movement as some sort of hysterical, puritanical sex panic/witch hunt, is the binary thinking - That either this movement is perfection, impossibly unflawed....or that it is unfair and worth delegitimizing entirely... 'angry women' apparently now hold a lot of 'power' over some potentially innocent men that will get caught up in this. Will somebody please think of the accused men?!!

Sigh. If I were Aziz, I'd honestly cringe at the kinds of things being written in my defense.

(Click to enlarge) Interestingly. the writer of the above piece defending Aziz is also the author of this gem. "Having so many choices, Caitlin Flanagan maintains, has torn women away from what many of them want most: to raise a family and run a household. "  I bet this is on Peterson's reading list.

The attempts to discredit a general conversation about sexual behaviour that crosses the line, takes me back to my experiences with conservative opinions in Saudi and Pakistan.  While of course not at all comparable in the power they wield over dissenters or the degree of blatant misogyny...the underlying distaste for women having these conversations, reminds me of what I've seen in the other countries I've lived in. There are definitely some common themes, harder to ignore in these Trumpian times, as the better packaging comes undone.   However, despite some fierce criticisms, a very important discussion has opened up. And I for one am pleased to see the walls of silence come crumbling down, inspiring women around the globe, including in my motherland, Pakistan. As difficult as these conversations are, they need to be had. Finally…finally, women are being heard on this. Finally the grey areas are up for discussion...

There's this ridiculous idea that if it’s not a Harvey Weinstein level of abuse then it’s basically not worth criticizing. 

Firstly, I haven't seen anyone equate Aziz to Weinstein, and secondly why the fuck isn't something less than that worth talking about? The complaint isn't that it just wasn't romantic enough ffs. 

I'd even say the behaviours and incidents that are not on the worse end of the spectrum are probably personally relevant to more people.

It might be hard to come to terms with for some  -- especially those who are now having to question their own past actions -- but lets face it, sexual mores change, evolve and have *always* done so. 

This isn't some new thing sprung upon us by the 'spoiled, shrill, unreasonable, sjw' feminists of this decade. 

Once upon a time in popular media, Pepe le Pew's courting tactics were considered acceptable for children to view, hilarious even. 

Now, we know better. 

*** 

Many things can simultaneously be true in regard to this story & #MeToo, this is what most of the pushback doesn't get:

1) Of course it is in no way comparable to Weinstein, and 'Grace' from the story isn't saying that it is. 

2) It still paints a concerning picture.

3) The Babe article was done irresponsibly, it's focus on irrelevant minute details like the wine, etc. were damaging to the story.

4) It still started an important conversation.

5) Just because it isn't rape or about workplace harassment, doesn't mean it can't be included in #MeToo.

6) Criticizing people who are less than serial rapists doesn't mean it's a witchhunt. 

7) Yes there are bad takes happening in #MeToo, some blanketly throwing men under the bus. That is unavoidable in a conversation where literally anyone and everyone is chiming in. We should call those out too.

8) Some bad takes do not discredit all of #MeToo.

***

There are already many people like Christina Sommers, who will defend Milo at his worst, 

Now deleted whataboutery deflecting from criticism of milo making comments about real ppl, actual consent. Not a play. 

But are waiting to jump at the slightest chance to discredit this entire movement, 

Not well reported but definitely not 'baseless', even he did not deny any of it. 

The skeptosphere in particular has been painfully swamped with praise for the ‘brave women’ who speak out against #MeToo (because of course),

Not to mention this very article laid out that the 'brave woman' being praised also defended Roman Polanski. Then I was also linked to this, and it seemed he engaged and didn't deny defending someone who was jailed for paying underage sex workers. :(

There are takes involving the revolting hashtag #MeNeither (yes that's really a hashtag dedicated to people who haven't been sexually abused talking about flaunting how they haven't in the faces of those who have), that frankly strike me as reminiscent of women who insist that because *they* had a choice around the hijab and niqab, that those things are not oppressive. We have plenty such women in Pakistan and Saudi, so many of these systems would not have thrived so long without the help of women who have a case of internalized sexism. Their western counterparts are now more openly flaunting their positions, in this absurd Petersonian era of the Skeptosphere. I mean #TradLife is a meme that exists now and isn't laughed out of existence. 

Yes yes unbunch your undies, I repeat, I know Saudi Arabia is worse and much more oppressive, and that women in Pakistan have a way tougher battle for rights ahead of them than western women do. I’ve heard that dismissing tactic enough times. 

There can exist similarities with differing degrees of intensity. 

But just imagine #MeNeither being used to oppose a hashtag where women were speaking up about religiously motivated abuse and mutilation like FGM. These same #MeNeither skeptics would see it for the disgusting minimization that it is. 

Aside from all this, there are also the deeply disappointing 'maybe Sandusky [convicted serial child rapist] is innocent' takes by Jerry Coyne and in Skeptic magazine. Jerry also expressed sympathy for poor Milo after his whole pedophilia scandal. 

Before I am accused of taking it 'out of context' let me just say here's a link to the whole piece read it and cringe for yourself. 

The great Skeptic magazine also wrote a glowing review of Milo's book after this whole scandal. 

There are endless examples of concerning attitudes on this subject among 'skeptics' (see Amos Yee & the number of people that stepped up to defend or minimize Sargon tweeting 'I wouldn't even rape you', those that applauded it at an atheist/skeptic conference) ...but that's a separate blogpost in itself. 

Back to this story now;

This story hurt. 

Aziz Ansari cuts deep, he’s a successful brown Muslim comedian…such success in hollywood is rare for brown people. I have been rooting for him from the start. I grew up longing to see faces like mine on TV...and now...there he was. Oh Aziz 

:(

He’s a non traditional secular guy too who makes shows about his complicated relationship with his parents religious expectations, about the first time he snuck off with his cousin to have some pork. 

There is so much that deeply and personally resonates with me. He's repping secular people of muslim background in a not anti-muslim way...which is just so rare and so important. It really hurts to see him criticized like this, and it hurts to read about how he conducted himself.

I don't criticize him lightly or easily, but even I can see that some criticism is warranted. 

It also hurts because conservative muslims have already long attacked him with garbage takes like ‘hollywood only accepts secular muslims’ 

Really now. Hollywood only accepts secular Muslims? 

 ....And now they're using this story to say that it was his secularism or westernization that are to blame. Which is such rubbish - as if traditional muslim men who have clung to their religiosity and culture do not mistreat women..as if men directly from the old country do not mistreat women. 

I am so sick of people injecting their terrible agendas into #MeToo…be it anti-feminist, anti-western, anti-left, anti-porn, anti-casual sex....This isn't about any of those things...It's about sexual abuse and misconduct in whatever forms it may occur. 

This isn't hard.

On the flip side of anti-secular I've also seen pathetic anti-Muslim takes. 

Right, I suppose it was Cosby, Weinstein, Louis CK, Spacey & James Franco's Muslim upbringing that caused them to behave this way...I mean, obviously there are some religious hypocrites, sexually repressed who act out this way. But Aziz's story clearly isn't to do with his being of Muslim background. I forget which hadith says, 'demand a blowjob in the first 10 mins of a date'. 

I’ve also seen embarrassing ex-muslim takes, bringing Mohammed, (the prophet) into this whole thing? I mean why… this conversation is about people that...at the very least, have recently existed? 

Are we going to bring Henry VIII into it too? This is such foolishness, and such a stretch to find a way to drag Islam into it. Why do they insist on making Islam criticism so cringeworthy? Islam certainly has some terrible beliefs surrounding treatment of women, most Abrahamic religions do. But when you're grasping at straws like this and inserting mohammed into conversations like #MeToo , it just makes your criticism appear silly.  

A better way would be to call out people who use religion/Islam to justify things like child marriage or sexual abuse today.. that would be relevant… unlike dragging Mo in all the way from 7th century Arabia. 

As for the anti left takes... OH MAH GAWD THE HYSTERICAL LEFT IS ON A WITCHHUNT AGAIN *eyeroll*....Yes absolutely there are some extreme takes on the left that make me cringe. Just the other day I saw one with like 25K retweets saying that men should act like their name could be on a list. I don’t think that preemptively instilling fear in innocent people is the right lesson to take from this at all. 

Then there was someone I encountered who claimed that STEM was immoral because Krauss tweeted that disappointing article. I mean, come on...what a ridiculous conclusion. 

I’m happy to call those views out without dismissing the whole of #MeToo. 

What I’m tired of seeing (particularly in the skeptosphere) are people who’ve not uttered a peep in support of women speaking out against predators but as soon as they get the opportunity to tweet an article questioning #MeToo, they’ll be all over that. 

(click to enlarge) An screenshot from an actual article Michael Shermer tweeted out about #MeToo - apparently the voices of women who have had enjoyable sexual experiences are missing from #MeToo...well no shit. 

***

Aziz’s case was a good way to see who’s just looking to delegitimize this entire conversation and who's willing to acknowledge the flaws in the Babe article... while also saying, "this is something we need to discuss, as we are currently redefining and renegotiating the boundaries of appropriate sexual behaviour. That is literally the point of this. Remember, at one time marital rape was not acknowledged...these boundaries continue to shift as culture shifts - and to be clear, I'm not saying this case was rape.

What makes Aziz’s case especially worthy of criticism is the context that he literally wrote a book on the nuances of modern dating,

"In Modern Romance, Ansari combines his irreverent humor with cutting-edge social science to give us an unforgettable tour of our new romantic world." 

And let's remember that some of these cases have only surfaced because the women involved saw these men shamelessly flaunting a #TimesUp pin after having treated them in this way.

Aziz has often used feminism in his comedy, has talked about being a feminist and encouraged people to use the word. It's perfectly fair to call him on his unfeminist behaviour.

Some of what was detailed in that ‘Babe’ piece was pretty horrifying, I can't even believe this is up for debate or being characterized as her wanting him to be a 'mindreader'. 

She physically removed her hand from his dick 5-7 times….she said she pulled away... went limp and stopped moving her mouth, she told him she didn’t want to feel forced…when he asked about sex she said 'next time'...

What about this is confusing or unclear? What part requires mindreading? What has made people behave so viciously towards Grace...the fact that it wasn't rape? Come on...is that where we are as a society? Our bar should be set well above 'not rape'. 

He's a celebrity she has admired, it could easily have been intimidating for her when he started undressing her so immediately. She understandably needed a moment to process wtf was happening. She gave him enough cues to stop and he didn't...until she stood up and said no yet again. Even after all that he tried to kiss her again, reached to try and unbutton her pants again. Can a woman not expect to sit at a first-time date's house without getting felt up and kissed constantly? 

He doesn’t seem to have denied any of the things she’s listed, just that it was interpreted differently by him. And he might be right, he may not have even noticed doing anything wrong...Which is what’s appalling, this is the conversation that hasn’t happened properly.  Now is the time people are going to speak up about boundaries in the bedroom. 

Some responses to this were so cruel, so vicious...it was hard to even look. 

  The victim blaming in relation to this case is just everywhere…the articles I’ve seen are unbelievable. How are we *still* having these discussions. Some of it perhaps, can be explained by a generational difference in perception. There's this idea that younger feminists are not tough enough, spoiled even. Feminists back in the day were fighting the 'real' fight, this is just shallow frivolous stuff now. 

I mean of course there are some ridiculous fringe views in feminism too, but these are exaggerated to try and discredit the whole of it. 

Being taken seriously when demanding progress has been a struggle for each generation. 

Sarcasm Font:

Worry not, silly Regressives...everything is *great* now, feminism has achieved it's goals and therefore has become unnecessary - Because things are not *as* bad as they once were, because women are now seen as 'equal under the law'.... there's no problem. Kind of like how racism is over too. Especially post-Obama, there has been no racism in the US ever again. You know where they need feminism? In those other countries, those people over there don't know how to treat women. Us in the glorious West thankfully have it all worked out. 

***

In seriousness though, one of the best responses I've seen to an accusation (not a perfectly comparable situation but one that is also 'not rape') is from Dan Harmon of the show Community who recorded a heartfelt apology on his podcast. 

Here’s a weird one for you: Last week, I called out my former boss @danharmon for sexual harassment, and today I’m going to ask you to listen to his podcast. https://t.co/BEZAWH787V

— Megan Ganz (@meganganz) January 11, 2018

Now Grace’s critics might also look at this situation and see something that required no apology, but in my opinion his words did a lot of good. It set a great example for something like this to be done again. 

Megan Ganz was a writer on the show that he had feelings for which soon became incredibly uncomfortable for her. Here are some quotes from his recorded apology below, which I think are especially significant in this climate. Too many people still insist that anything less than rape or Harvey Weinstein isn't worth discussing.

He made sure to tell his audience that attacking her or revictimizing her would do him no favours. 

He used language like “Attracted to a writer I had power over” 

“Ran the risk of undercutting her faith in her talent”

"I did the cowardly easiest laziest thing you could do with feelings like that, not dealing with them..and in not dealing with them I made everybody else deal with them. I made her deal with them. I was flirty, creepy, everything other than being overt enough to constitute betraying your live in girlfriend to whom you’re going home to every night."

He acknowledges, that he stopped short of doing anything obvious enough to constitute open betrayal and it was still a problem. And how everyone else, especially her…had to deal with that because he wouldn’t.

"….telling myself and anybody that threatened to confront me with it, that if you thought what I was doing was creepy or flirty or unprofessional, its because you were the sexist…”

Sounds familiar re: how the skeptosphere treats racism/sexism, It’s you who is the real sexist if you think women are victims. It’s you who is the real racist if you complain about racism. 

(Interestingly it’s also like the twisted logic you hear a lot ex hijabis mention, how they once justified the modesty garment to themselves; "Women who don't wear hijabs are slaves to society/the patriarchy, who mould themselves according to the will of men." "Hijabs are liberating, feminist…a means of freeing yourself from the male gaze, from scrutiny over appearance, etc, if you don't wear one you are actually the oppressed one"… but no one really buys that kind of thinking deep down inside.. do they?)

Back to Dan Harmon though, note the subtlety he captures here:

"Its not as if this person didn’t repeatedly communicate to me the idea that what I was doing was divesting her of a recourse to integrity.. I just didn’t hear it. It didn’t profit me to hear it."

Aziz Ansari could benefit from thinking along these lines. What he did may have been within the bounds of legality…but it was most certainly not ok. As someone who is a celebrity you’ve got to be aware of the sway you have over others. He must have sensed some of her signals of not being on board...I mean she literally said at one point, "I don't want to feel forced" but it didn’t benefit him to really pick up on them and adjust his behaviour accordingly. 

This line in particular struck me:

“I want it to sound relatively unremarkable to you because that’s the danger” - its really wonderful to hear someone acknowledge this...a man-person, even.  There are so many of these 'unremarkable' experiences happening in bedrooms, at workplaces that cross the lines...we need to start talking about those, and how we've normalized this kind of thing. 

"I wanted to teach her a lesson, if she didn’t like being liked in that way”

Good on him, for acknowledging he felt that way.

"I crushed on her and resented her for not reciprocating it, and the entire time I was the one writing her paycheques ….treated her cruelly. Things I would have never done if she was male."

"I lied to myself the entire time about it, I lost my job, I ruined my show and I damaged her internal compass…and I moved on."  [emphasis mine]

I imagine this is an effect Aziz might have had on Grace as well, and it would be good of him to acknowledge it in the storm that is being unleashed on her. Her internal compass must be all over the place right now... second guessing herself for creating this cyclone of hate.

Yes we know Aziz isn't a monstrous rapist, but still this account does not paint him in a good light. It would be incredible to hear something like Dan Harmon's apology coming from him...something heartfelt, with no excuses. Something that calls out the articles and people hating on her. But that's usually not how things are handled in these situations, so I won't hold my breath. Harmon said he went against legal advice to talk about this openly. 

Anyway, those are my meandering, rambly thoughts on the matter. Thanks for sticking around to read them. 

I hope that we can soon stop shaming Grace, and have more productive conversations around sexual misconduct that is 'not rape'. I hope we can hold people to a higher standard in the bedroom than just 'but it wasn't illegal'. I hope that the terrible op-eds saying spare Aziz from criticism because he is brown-skinned will stop. 

--------------

Thanks to my Patrons who make this work possible. If you enjoy my work please consider supporting here. With your help I can do so much more. 

Shoutout to my newest Patrons: Andrew, Anthony, Gary, Fabio, Daniel, Ryan, Antonia, Bahman, Rodney, William, Jason, Maii & Larry. 

Without you this isn't possible. 

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2rk6a5a via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

About that NYT Nazi Article...

Remember when we didn't need to discuss Nazis all the time? Like...back in the day...early 2016-2015. Good times, those were :( So what's this big fuss over the New York Times Nazi Article? What's got everyone so upset? Are the Regressive Leftists being regressive again? God why can't they tolerate different ideas... Did these lefty cucks really think an article would push people into being Nazis? ------ *deep sigh* ---Well--- ...While there were some (I didn't see too many tbh) people going overboard and calling the NYT a literal Nazi Sympathizing paper (like come on, I don't actually think they have a secret Nazi agenda), there were a lot of other good reasons to be disappointed with this article. I'm wary of both ends of this too, carelessly throwing around the term Nazi *and* being overly defensive/underusing the term Nazi, even when it CLEARLY applies. There are people who have accused me of being a 'Nazi sympathizer' because I have been critical of the hijab and niqab as a woman who had to live through 'modesty' enforced by the state in Saudi Arabia. You bet your ass I'm going to be critical...and it's not at all for the same xenophobic fear-mongering reasons most far-righters hate muslims/hijabs in this current climate....And then, there's the other side, where I'm surrounded by supposed 'Rational Skeptic' thinkers who are so 'anti-left' that downplaying Nazis is kind of their embarrassing trademark now. They will literally argue that someone shouting 'Heil Hitler' at a white nationalist speech is "not a Nazi" - because they aren't time-traveling from Nazi era Germany, you see...so technically they can't be Nazis.

Wtf? I thought there were no nazis any more. http://pic.twitter.com/oGZBTTxq3Z

— ＣＨＲＩＳＴＭＡＳ ＩＳ ＣＯＭＩＮＧ🎄 (@Neobabylon2) November 7, 2017

(clip via @neobabylon2)

Some are simply so anti-Muslim that it serves their interest to downplay Nazis in a way that would be better suited to The Onion. 

There are great intellectual Atheist takes that will put the swastika and Star of David in the same category, and when someone politely explains why that's an issue they will double down and insist that Judaism is *worse* than Nazism actually....

There are tons of examples of this type of ignorant nonsense from Rational Skeptics in the online Atheist scene. If you were to go by some of these commentator's timelines...there is apparently *no* problem with a rise of (neo) Nazis in Trumpian America. It's all just leftist hysteria. According to them, time is best spent arguing against those who refer to Richard Spencer as a Nazi....because he's not a time traveler... *eyeroll* So while I agree, that there are definitely people who overuse the term, I'm also increasingly frustrated by people who downplay the danger of the far-right, who insist Nazis don't exist at all today, who pretend like this is still some fringe issue and not a growing movement with a President who has has created a welcoming space for them. The rest of us, as reasonable humans, should try and exist between these two incredibly stupid and toxic extremes. And with this article, it seemed that NYT was sort of playing the tune of the 'Nazi downplayers'... ----- Let me jump right into why I think the piece was not well received....In fact it was so badly received that the editor had to chime in and explain wtf they were thinking. How the NYT put it in their headline, "Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond" is a fairly accurate description of most of the criticism. So while not literally Nazi sympathizing, but *normalizing* a Nazi sympathizer....I think that's fair...a case can be made for this article doing exactly that, whether it intended to or not. There's also the fact that the writer of this now notorious piece also wrote an additional piece about how he knew it was missing something, and how he could 'feel the failure' because he didn't get to the heart of why this Nazi turned to his vile belief system. It read like an excuse, something else to pin the colossal failure of this article on, other than the awfulness of the piece itself. I can tell he had enough to write a better piece on this very subject just by reading what he put out. And come on, if you're writing to explain your article and saying you could feel the failure, then I think you've conceded that it was pretty bad. On top of that, there were also factual errors:

The @nytimes "Nazi next door" article appears to have basic factual problems, too https://t.co/EKGTsvemJn http://pic.twitter.com/fpRvrVpA6X

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) November 27, 2017

So much went wrong here. --And it's not that I don't understand what was being attempted. I know this kind of piece, and it can indeed be done very well...the juxtaposition of horrific genocidal beliefs with mundane snippets of everyday existence. There is something to that contrast for sure...but there has to be an actual, proper contrast for that to work. It won't work if it's heavy on the minor details of what everyone was wearing and eating but glosses over the, ya know...genocidal beliefs part. That's when it becomes lopsided..and people start to wonder wtf you were even trying to do, if not a cushy profile? There also has to come a point where the article serves a purpose beyond describing what the nazis were wearing/eating/having on their wedding registry. It should inform us in some way? Tell us something about the movement and radicalization process...other than making the Nazi grievances seem legit. "His faith in mainstream solutions slipped as he toured the country with one of the metal bands. “I got to see people who were genuinely hurting,” he said. “We played coast to coast, but specifically places in Appalachia, and a lot of the Eastern Seaboard had really been hurt.”" This type of article done properly, delves into the extremist's beliefs and frames them in a way that no borderline-nazis reading, could mistake for free promotion. It lets the subject hang himself by his own words, so to speak... but it doesn't jump immediately from him saying *Hitler was chill* to sympathetically telling his story about how society is not fair to him, and what his dream fascist-utopia would look like...punctuated with cute details about Cherry pie tattoos and wedding planning. I mean yeah, of course I understand the need to humanize evil, and to show us that it doesn't come in the shape of an unrelatable monster, it can live, breathe and walk amongst us in the form of our neighbours, coworkers, teachers, friends, etc. That's an important message...it's just that this article failed to deliver it. There is a line between 'humanize' and 'sanitize'...the same line exists between whether one is journalistically exploring an extremist subject or providing a glossy advert for them. This is the difference between Louis Theroux and Dave Rubin (alt-right propagandist) for example. Louis can explore all manner of disturbing extremist subjects but people don't assume he is sympathetic to them because of the way he frames those stories. Dave on the other hand enters his interviews with a clear agenda of wanting the extremists to present their best side, while talking shit about The Left with them. Now, I don't think this NYT piece was like Dave Rubin sanitizing 'migrants are cockroaches' 'we need a final solution' Katie Hopkins bad....There was better intent behind it and it just didn't work out, I want to make that clear. Dave's is an intentional sanitization, this was a poor job of framing the article which resulted in what appeared to be a normalizing effect. When you are trying to show that evil exists among us and goes to Applebee's just like us...then actually position the piece in that way. Then the absurdity of combining white supremacist ideology with a causal turkey sandwich will perhaps even be entertaining. But the key is you make it clear that you are trying to demonstrate how banal evil can be... If done well, this kind of piece can be very effective. The 'banality of evil' genre isn't a write off...but you've got to get the tone right. Don't approach Nazism as if it's a mere cultural curiosity. Don't do it in a way that it serves no purpose other than simply boosting a white supremacist signal out into the world...on a popular, respected mainstream outlet - Because *that* could potentially embolden more borderline white nationalists in this particular white power-y climate....they'll see that they're getting such a fuzzy profile which isn't really demonizing them at all. One that's in fact helping to mainstreamize them! See guys, their hopes and dreams are just like ours! They have muffin tins on their wedding registries! They talk about having kids too! Aww... Nazis *love* mainstream media coverage, so at least try to do it in a way that makes them not love it? “I love mainstream liberals. Those are my favorite journalists.” - Richard Spencer  If you're going to give someone space to say 'Hitler was chill' ffs, the next paragraph better be something to balance that and signal to others like him that this ideology is not tolerated. The shiny new Nazism of 2017 isn't some rare ornament that you can report on in a detached manner...it's a pretty urgent issue we're facing in the west, lives have been lost. Pieces on this subject without a sense of urgency or a sense of purpose will cause people to question the motives of such a project. Picture this same type of article featuring a Jihadist or an Islamist.. the same people whining that The Left wants audiences spoonfed basic facts like 'Nazis are bad' would themselves be outraged. Not an exact comparison, but this situation reminds me of the time a ridiculous Asim Qureshi of CAGE referred to ISIS murderer Jihadi John as 'a beautiful man', and people were rightfully appalled. Now obviously he wasn't referring to the ISIS version of the guy as beautiful, but rather the guy he knew in the past. But *still* wtf was he thinking saying that about a beheader? Similarly, its not that people need to be spoonfed the position that Nazis are bad, but they are just appalled that someone with genocidal beliefs and sympathies for a monster like Hitler can be portrayed in such a soft lens. People are understandably sensitive about how vile ideologies and their adherents are portrayed. You just can't be downplaying this kind of thing....The Asim Qureshi thing was a sentence, but imagine the outrage if he was profiling a Jihadi for a known publication...and he focused on his wedding plans, and on the fact that he didn't see himself as a jihadist, just someone fighting for freedom for his family, the kinds of sandwiches they shared and didn't address the elephant in the room, that woah those are some very fucked up and dangerous beliefs. The most upsetting thing to people is that this story ran in a climate where nazis are becoming emboldened by the day. Where the US president is inspiring them and is unable to properly condemn them. This article came across cold and with no comment on the victims of this ideology. Despite mentioning Charlottesville, there was no sympathy for Heather Heyer. They literally included a link to where you can purchase a swastika armband ffs. WHYYY.

'Facepalm' doesn't quite cut it. 

Now, I personally enjoy the use of absurd and comedic tactics to combat extremism, It's why I liked the real housewives of ISIS skit...it's why I enjoy Contrapoints' channel, especially her older videos involving bedazzling swastikas on her chest....it's why we've done two episodes together on a strangely specific topic like 'Fascist Fashion'. I absolutely think theres a way to talk about a Nazi's food preferences and make it valuable and entertaining. But it has to add something, it has to have a point...and the point can't just be detailing the kinds of sandwiches they eat. The article seems incomplete...like there could have been a useful point made afterwards but there just wasn't and the writer stopped at minor food details. Ok, so he eats at Applebee's and? This could have been a piece about the tactics they use to mainstreamize their views and almost appear normie, but it wasn't. Heck this could have even been a piece about how Nazis consume the same pop culture as us and the cognitive dissonance behind that... it could have been a 'how to spot signs'....but instead it really served no purpose at all. ----- Here are some excerpts from the piece that I found particularly cringeworthy:

I mean look at how it starts off, painting them as any other sweet couple with a wedding registry at Target, people who bake muffins and slice pineapples.....and? AND wouldn't mind some ethnic cleansing of non-white people....how about adding that? 

Then there was this gem....like...what...?

 O___O 

I had to check a couple of times to make sure I wasn't missing some quotation marks or something...because, did the writer really write that himself? Is that his opinion? Or is he sharing what he thinks the subject of his profile feels like? It's all too vague and blurry to be reassuring that it's not the writer himself saying that, "it can FEEL toxic to openly identify as a far right extremist" - What do you mean it can FEEL toxic? It is toxic, it's fucking extremism...  

What is he trying to do there, I don't know tbh....Aww poor white nationalist is having a hard time coming out of the closet because the horrible environment is too toxic for him to be his genuine self. Ffs. 

So here we start with how polite and 'low-key' he is, aww....he's literally the Nazi sympathizer next door...what a 'wholesome' image. And then we actually hear a tiny sprinkling of his vile views...almost as if they slipped in by accident to ruin his nazi-next-door image. No worries, the writer jumps straight to his cutesie cherry pie pop-culture tattoos because we can't dwell on the uncomfortable vile beliefs too long for some reason...

Here, again with the fucking manners. He's a fucking Nazi who thinks white people are superior to other races and Hitler wasn't so bad....that's not very polite is it now? 

It just seems odd to give him space to spout this anti semitic conspiracy on such a large platform without adding a remark or two, or at least a mildly disapproving adjective somewhere. 

See how harmless and non-racist he is? He's even having mixed-race couples at his wedding. 

--How about you don't add that right after talking about how he says he's not a white supremacist?--

People trying to split hairs between white nationalist and white supremacist should really be challenged on that at the very least if they are being given such a large platform. 

I don't know maybe it's just me but you've got to inject some expression or commentary as a writer when your subject is engaging in holocaust denial and saying Hitler was 'chill'. In a documentary profiling extremists perhaps the interviewer can rely on facial expressions or just a tense awkward atmosphere... to convey appropriate framing. But in an article if all we get is cold detached reporting and obsessive detail on nazi eating habits, people are not going to take it well. 

And it ends on a note of them sharing their hopes and dreams like any other couple (exactly how it began), woven badly with a quick mention of Charlottesville. And what. is. with. the. food. obsession. in. this. article? Turkey sandwiches, muffin pans, Applebees, Pasta. What a normal year 2017 has been. ----- A huge thanks to Patrons who make this work possible. If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon here. 

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2kcfc0B via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Free Speech Activists Deplatform Speaker From Free Speech Event - Not The Onion

This post could alternatively be titled: *Anti Free Speech Regressive SJWs Silence Dissenting Thinker At FREE SPEECH EVENT* The irony here is really something. Gad Saad & Jordan Peterson were on a Free Speech panel last weekend, (at an event that was previously cancelled) where this time they actually justified having someone uninvited, de-platformed even, from a SACRED... 'FREE SPEECH EVENT'. I mean you know these guys right? (Please note there were two other people on stage who I don't really know much about so I will keep this post about my faves, JBP and The Gadfather, yes he really calls himself that)

I mean ...really....this is pretty much ALL they talk about.

In a hilariously hypocritical twist these Politically Correct Regressives were trying to justify silencing a 'different viewpoint' just last weekend.

Nevermind the person they uninvited was probably well worth uninviting (in my cucked leftist opinion) as she was the Rebel Media 'Journalist' Faith Goldy who appeared on the  Neo Nazi Daily Stormer affiliated Podcast after Charlottesville. But what do I know,  I'm not the one constantly advocating for & promoting alt right/light figures. It's especially rich coming from them because Saad has on more than one occasion promoted White Genociders such as this person (who also happens to be a holocaust denier, suprise surprise):

Click to enlarge. Read full story here 

And Jordan Peterson has himself had a friendly chat on a Neo Nazi podcast about 'Western Civilization' with a person who advocates for using violence to remove non-whites from her future fantasy ethnostate:

Host of that show is another extreme race & IQ obsessive wanting to deport non-whites. http://pic.twitter.com/QF00K9Tr3d

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) March 12, 2017

How do people with such associations and endorsements think they get off for disinviting someone for associating with better known Nazis/White Nationalists? Speaking of 'guilt by association', you'll never guess what Gad had to say about Faith Goldy:

Image from 'Free Bird Media' video - another outlet that appears to be White Nationalist/Alt Right friendly as the host himself claims he does associate with those types of people and doesn't appreciate getting thrown under the bus by Gad. 

 Well well well, in this situation...Gad thinks you are who you hang around with ...that doesn't mean good things for him now, does it - as someone who's literally called a holocaust denier a "Viking Heroine". Or is this standard selectively applied?

After basically begging for Infowars-Paul's approval Gad makes a weak joke about how people want to punish him for associating with people like PJW who does, by the way, also spout white genocide stuff. He had to make the joke himself you see because no one was that outraged in that moment, so he has to kind of perform the outrage to fulfill his desire for victimhood. 

Here, once again Gad disapproves of 'guilt by association' ....when it's applied to him. 

Now, let's take a look at their explanation for deplatforming Goldy,

Image from Free Bird Media. Watch the full clip here

First point I'd like to make is, that it's disturbing how softly they all tiptoe around someone they themselves just mentioned was on a Neo-Nazi affiliated Podcast after the Charlottesville tragedy. None of the panelists are able to disavow her. 

Instead it goes something like this;

Peterson: I know Faith, I don’t believe that she’s a reprehensible person (after knowing of and saying he watched her appearance on a Daily Stormer related show, which he himself didn't find acceptable to the point that he's having to justify to a full room why he, the free speech hero is de-platforming someone.) 

Peterson: ....She was associating with people who’s views she should have questioned. (Well, that's putting it mildly, Dr P.)

Peterson goes on to talk about how she should have asked some hard questions but then immediately backtracks and starts making excuses for why she didn’t challenge any views on the nazi podcast. You know who else went on a nazi podcast and didn't ask any really tough questions right? Jordan Peterson himself. In fact he's criticizing, leftist, postmodernists, "neo-marxists" in most of that conversation and even claims to the *neo-Nazi woman* he's conversing with that "their aim is to shake the foundations of western civilization to the core" - just imagine sitting with a Nazi and dumping on leftists as destroying western civilization, then going on to deplatform someone else for appearing on a nazi podcast while not asking tough questions. The hypocrisy is astounding.  

Now back to the video where he's explaining why they deplatformed Faith Goldy: 

Peterson:  ....its more difficult than you might think when you’re facing people , even if u don’t believe them, to be rude enough to challenge them. 

Just take a minute to let that sink in… JBP who is furious with liberals, postmodernists and SJWs all the time, thinks its hard to be rude enough to challenge ppl on a nazi podcast. 

You can see what his priorities are.

“...that’s not so easy, especially if you’re an agreeable person” continues Jordan 

The panelists go on to blame it on the fact that she’s a journalist and that she didn’t do her job as a journalist…lol

...as they sit next to Gad Saad who’s done a glossy softball interview with several white genociders and even a holocaust denier.

Gad says in his explanation to the audience, “…there is also a pragmatism right, you may decide you’re all for freedom of speech BUTTTTT [emphasis mine] that doesn’t mean that you invite to the dinner party someone who’s views you don’t agree with… (isn't this pretty much what people's argument has been against shutting you and your selective free-speech friends down in the past?)

And then he immediately softens the blow by jumping to “I..I’m not saying that was the case with Goldy” [Yeah heaven forbid Gad, that you do the decent thing and come out against her views openly, without hesitation, at the first go after knowing she went on Daily Stormer related media for a friendly conversation.]

Here's Gad on Free Speech when it's not being applied to people *he* wants de-platformed:

Oh - looks like we have some new 'enemies of reason', and 'intellectual terrorists' in town. 

Image from: http://ift.tt/2yUqFEQ

Guess him an his pals are fascist castratos, by this standard....because guess who used a but clause. 

Sounds like you, wanting someone de-platformed from a Free Speech event, Gad.

“So the fact that you might for some event decide to disassociate from that person doesn’t suggest that you are being hypocritical to freedom of speech” —— LOL except you’ve literally been outraged at people about this same thing before…you hypocrite!! You didn't just personally disassociate from her, you wanted her de-platformed from a free speech event. 

And here's Jordan, unable to stand for his own actions...."I didn't say we were correct". Let's face it, these guys were a mess. Maybe now they will think about why it is that people don't want to associate with them, for 'pragmatic' reasons... or with Milo. 

Anyway, their own rightwing fans weren't having it:

"Aryan Soul" was very upset indeed. 

And then of course there were the mutual fans, upset that there was any tension between these lovely people at all. 

Gad soon released another video on his channel explaining his side of what went down, excuses, excuses. By this time he'd been experiencing some hate from Daily Stormer-friendly Faith Goldy's fans so he wasn't quite as soft, but note that this change didn't come from principle, it came from Faith Goldy's fans personally attacking Gad with vile, unacceptable anti-Semitic comments. The fact she went on Daily Stormer related media still had him tiptoeing around whether he disagreed with her views or what kind of person she is. 

The Youtube comments on his video ranged from his disheartened anti-sjw fans depicting him as a buzzword using SJW to being just disgustingly bigoted.

Gad shared some of these anti semitic comments on Twitter and they truly were horrific. 

Seeing the corner he'd backed himself into by palling around with and sucking up to white genociders, white nationalists, holocaust deniers and general alt lite/right figures, made me feel quite sad for the man who had in the past instigated pile-ons on me, and tweeted angrily about me for days for just pointing out his evident shady associations...."for pragmatic reasons", you know. 

On twitter people pointed this out to him repeatedly. I wonder how that made him feel...I wonder if he actually gave it some thought, the fact that he was propping up and associating with people who would drop him the second he stopped being useful to them.

No matter how hard he panders...Gad won't ever be welcome in the ethnostate as a Jewish immigrant from the Middle East. I sincerely hope he thinks about the consequences of his actions in light of this incident.

Gad's own views about Muslim Refugees aren't so non-bigoted either, maybe some self-reflection can happen after this?

He views 25K refugees being allowed into Canada as 'collective suicide' - especially strange coming from someone who has describes himself as a refugee.

Because you know....refugees = automatic anti-Semite, cuz Muslim. That's not bigoted at all...its interesting that his anger was directed always at refugees for potential anti-semitism, but never once directed at the many far right figures he's promoted. 

I wonder how he's feeling about "right-wing extremists" right about now. It's in quotes because...you know...right wing extremism is not a real thing, right? 

Will Gad and Peterson reflect on their own associations and others wanting to 'pragmatically disassociate' from their types of viewpoints now? Or will they go on as if none of this happened and they are still the Free Speech Warriors they claim to be? 

Hopefully people will start to see through their many hypocrisies and double standards, but maybe that's a lot to ask of alt-right/lite friendly audiences. I mean some of these fans willingly refer to themselves as "Gadfellas" and make religious artwork for Peterson....which he tweets unironically of course. 

Totally normal Rational Skepticism. 

****

If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon here. Say what you will about fans of right wing youtubers and podcasters, but one thing they do well is support the voices and causes they care about. There are thousands of you who listen to my show and read my posts, but very few of those actually help to make sure the work continues. If even a fraction pledged just $1, I would be able to do much more.

A huge thanks to all my Patrons who make this work possible. And a shoutout to the newest ones, Greg D., Anthony R, H.S, Graham, Joey, Michaela. 

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2ySMmow via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Qasim Rashid's Tasteless Independent Piece about Sex Abuse

I was appalled to see this article on Twitter the other day. I don't even have the words to express how tacky and distasteful this is.  As the far-right rises in the West, I find myself more interested in pushing back against that (since it's more of an urgent issue impacting our day to day existence here).....than constantly criticizing Islam in a climate where Muslims are singled out, generalized and targeted.  Nuanced and legitimate criticisms are lost anyway nowadays, to fear-mongering about Mooz-lums raping their way across the globe to secretly instill Shariah.  But then there comes a situation where you just have to rebut something as stupid and insensitive as the article above...with all you've got. Hopefully, my rebuttal won't get lost with ignorant takes like: "Islam is worse than Nazism" or "90% of Muslims are ticking time-bombs"... ..so here goes:   With all the overuse and false accusations of "Regressive Left" floating around atheist twitter, its hard for an actual left-leaning person to recall a time when this term had meaning and referred to an actual problem. Well, this article is a great reminder on how the left can utterly fail in the way it deals with the topic of Islam. I can't believe such an article was approved and put out by such a well known publication. What were they thinking? Who is making these decisions? I mean...they may come from the perspective that they're doing this to offset the increasing anti-muslim bigotry, to normalize Muslims in a political climate where they become dehumanized more and more each day....but they can't seem to comprehend that defending Muslims can be separated from championing Islam. Before seeing this one, I came across quite a few tasteless takes regarding the awful Weinstein scandal. It seemed everywhere I looked someone was hijacking it to further their own agenda. A few standard "Oh you think Weinstein is bad, but what about Islam...that's way worse!!" type takes from ex-muslims that I've become used to seeing....and cringing at. Oh you think the alt right/white nationalism/nazism is bad? What about ISLAM - it's way worse!!" It seems, that some are incapable of discussing anything other than that one topic (which makes it all the more off-putting for me). There's a time and a place....there's a way to acknowledge multiple problems without minimizing the suffering of Weinstein's victims. This isn't to say, of course that when the conversation is turned towards sexual abuse that we cannot also bring up other forms that people often let slide.... especially when religion gets a pass on everything. I saw some Saudi feminists bring up some important points about how migrant domestic workers are assaulted on an everyday basis in Saudi society by privileged Saudi men...who get away with it. But they didn't do the, "Oh you think Weinstein is bad? Well Saudi men can be WAY worse" thing....where they bring the other topic to light only by minimizing the harm that Weinstein did. That is the difference.....one that many 'but what about Islam' types don't understand. "Yes we have similar problems too which we need to discuss" is a whole lot different from "Oh, Pfft, this? It's nothing compared to the cause *I've* dedicated *my* life to. And you know what, no one's perfect we're all likely to fall into that trap accidentally sometimes... but the ones who have a distinct repeated pattern of constantly being unable to address any issue without the added, "but what about Islam/The left" have become incredibly unhelpful voices. ...Speaking of unhelpful and cringeworthy voices though..I have to say Qasim Rashid, the author of the Independent piece is one of the worst I've encountered on this issue. The 'but what about Islam' takes are bad, but fuck....using a sex scandal to spread religious propaganda, to *proselytize*.... is a whole new level of scummy. Not only is it scummy but he goes about it in the most dishonest way. Yes we should absolutely encourage liberal, progressive interpretations of Islam. I find it incredibly unhelpful when people hold every liberal muslim to an 'ISIS purity test', that basically no one passes...and therefore the only 'real' muslims are the extremists. That is not a good approach. But, when it comes to more progressive interpretations of religion there are those who acknowledge the plurality and plausibility of multiple interpretations. They admit that some verses are just not ok by today's values. People like Qasim however will argue that everyone else has it wrong... they've misinterpreted and HE somehow has the correct interpretation. They cherry pick without acknowledging they are cherry picking, unlike more honest reformists who openly say that cherry picking is the path forward. Like all the Abrahamic religions, obviously...Islam too is full of contradictory crap er...stuff. So naturally you can pick a bunch of things that sound alright, or you can pick a bunch of things that sound barbaric. But if you really want to look at the whole picture you can't ignore either...both anti-muslims and apologists for scripture like to ignore the aspect convenient to their narrative and push the other. "Islam is PURE EVIL" or "Islam is PERFECT and PEACEFUL and FEMINIST" .... there are some pretty vile, murderous, misogynistic, hateful things in there...certainly some of that is 'evil'....but there are some alright bits that are cherry picked by modern progressive muslims, which makes most of them peaceful. 'Perfect', it certainly is not...'feminist'...nope. Be wary of anyone claiming either of those. I mean its absurd on the face of it...morals from centuries ago are simply not going to work today. If you try to claim they are *perfect* for today, then you're endorsing or twisting some pretty awful shit. Anyway.... *Cracks knuckles* Lets get into it....this fuckin' article. What a crock of shit. "My advocacy is informed not just by the law, but by strategies detailed in Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example to pre-empt sexual abuse." Almost spit my beverage all over my keyboard...thanks for that Qasim. Would Mo's example pre-empt sexual abuse here?

From Sahih Bukhari

Slavery too....if defined by scripture is permissible in Islam....and slaves were to accept that owners are allowed to sleep with them at will. As stated in Quran 33:50

Obviously this is not a practice any decent Muslim would endorse today, but if you want to go by Mo's example...then it's worth mentioning. It would be one thing to make some excuse about it being a different time....and the example not measuring up by today's values... but if you are going to literally say a sex slave owner's values are what can prevent sexual abuse....I'm going to have a thing or two to say. Yes such slavery predates Islam, and so continued under Islam...I am not a fan of people using archaic texts to define an entire diverse group by today. So no this is not for you far-righters who paint all muslims as pedophilic rapists. What about this strategy detailed in the Quran, 4:34

Does making men in charge, commanding women to be obedient, and giving permission to 'strike them' also pre-empt sexual abuse?

***

I have to say I cringe a little while I'm picking out these verses to debunk this idiotic article, because I'm all too used to seeing how anti-muslims use these to dehumanize and generalize Muslims who may not even be aware of such verses. I know many like myself were taught curated versions of scripture. Religion is full of this kind of nonsense.... slavery, stoning babies, virgins...killing people who disobey...fathers ok-ing rape of their daughters for a few $$. Islam is certainly not alone in this, so think twice before painting Muslims with a broad brush. I cannot say that enough, especially in the Trumpian era.

***

"Let’s start by understanding two facts. First, a woman’s attire, alcohol intake, marital status, and education level do not contribute to sexual abuse – abusive men do. Second, sexual abuse doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every level of society – social norms, media, and Government – is complicit in promoting the rape culture that perpetuates sexual abuse." "Social norms demonise a woman for speaking out, victim-blaming her by asking what she was wearing, whether she gave signals inviting abuse, or asking why she didn’t speak up sooner." Very good Qasim...I'm glad you pointed out that a woman's attire doesn't matter. But the Quran (24:31) seems to disagree,

Here it tells believing women not to flaunt their assets, and even wrap a portion of their headscarves/outer garments over their chests. Clearly a woman's attire mattered to Allah, and therefore Mo quite a bit. (24:60) only postmenstrual woman are allowed to cast out their 'outer garments' even then being careful not to display any 'adornment':

So Qasim, when you talk about social norms demonizing a woman, victim-blaming her by asking her what she was wearing....perhaps look honestly at the things you yourself recommended to 'pre-empt' sexual abuse. Laughable really. Don't even get me started on the punishments Islam prescribes someone for adultery...so I'm pretty sure marital status matters too. You're right when you say every level of society can be complicit in promoting a culture that perpetuates abuse....but you conveniently miss out religion - old value systems that simply didn't classify abuse in the same way we do now. If you want to be a women's advocate, how about not preaching a misogynistic religion to them while they open up about their painful abuse experiences. "state laws only punish the actor once the act is completed, they don’t prevent the act in the first place. This scenario plays out repeatedly worldwide, whether we’re discussing “revenge porn”, gender based violence, or sexual harassment in the workplace.

This is where Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example provide a solution that no state truly can. "

What the fuck, dude. What are you even trying to say here? While you're right that banning cat calling won't work, and that it isn't preventative... what's your solution? Islam and Mohammed? Are you for fucking real right now? Are you saying that being fearful of some god that would burn you for eternity and that following in the footsteps of a prophet who's example isn't known for his fair treatment of women, who owned slaves...and consummated with a child is what will prevent sex abuse better than modern man-made law?!  Right because religious people NEVER sexually abuse anyone....if only they had had access to the teachings if Islam and the example of Mo. It's embarrassing really, to even debunk this.

Read story here

"Yes, Islam implores accountability to the creator, but rather than preach empty dogmatic theories, Islam instead prescribes a proven secular model." What are you even on about? Accountability to the creator? How old are you... how well has that worked to prevent religious people from sexually abusing people or committing any crimes? Secular model? What? "Thus, the Quran 4:2 first establishes men and women as equal beings. Chapter 4:20 then forbids men from forcing a woman to act against her will, thereby ensuring women maintain autonomy and self-determination. " Now, just because theres some contradictory more benign seeming stuff in there... doesn't mean you can ignore the wife beating verse (4:34), where aside from the 'strike them' nastiness...it literally says this: "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other" Or how about the women are your farmland... plough them however you like (just don't do anal tut tut) verse (2:223)?

I mean, I hate to put on my "let me point out all the awful verses in the Quran/Hadith" hat right now, because I know the alt/far-right loves that stuff and uses it to stir hatred for whole groups which include people like me and my family. But in the face of this tasteless absurdity, I cannot remain silent. I can only hope I put enough "I dislike anti-muslims" caveats in here that it prevents them from latching on to this particular piece. I'm not alone in feeling that my criticism of Islam is sort of stifled at the moment because it's too easily hijacked by bigots, anyone with a shred of decency is feeling that right now.

Anyway, back to this unfckingbelievably ridiculous piece. I honestly can't wrap my head around how awful it is..and what kind of person you'd have to be to write something like this, especially in the midst of a high profile hollywood sex scandal. "Here..... stop fussing about this sex scandal...and listen to all the good things about MY religion, one that has a bad reputation for it's treatment of women" ....Oh ok @ssh*le.  -___- Aaand it gets a whole lot worse than I imagined. Qasim actually links to a previous even more nauseating piece he did about THE WIFE BEATING VERSE FFS, where it's a bunch of the most pathetic and weak twisted apologetics for 4:34, and it's actually titled: "The Islamic Solution to *stop* Domestic Violence" [emphasis mine] I can't....I have to take a break.....I walk away from the computer, pour a drink, take a breath. Alright, I'm back...What was I saying? Oh yeah... His fucking *solution* is the verse that says men are in charge of women and you can strike them. THAT, to him is pre-empting domestic violence.. because by making men in charge it gives them some responsibilities and shit. He's thrilled it doesn't go straight to beating....this is a good thing apparently....An 'anger management strategy' - what the actual fuck is wrong with this guy and how is he allowed to pump this shit out in mainstream liberal publications like Huffpo and Independent?? And I quote, from the Huffpo piece, "Pre-emptive deterrence is the key. And this precisely is the wisdom behind verse 4:34 to decrease and stop violence against women. The verse in its totality describes a process of restraint, anger management and reformation." 'Wisdom' he says...About an infantilizing, abusive verse that clearly doesn't hold women in high regard. Just because it doesn't jump straight to the beating, it's a process of restraint. Fucking hell. "Employed effectively, these two steps help reconcile the vast majority of domestic disputes. Should the first two steps fail, however, the Quran allows — never commands — men to consider the third step, translated as “to chastise them.” Look, it *allows* --- it doesn't *command* you to 'chastise' your wife. (since the beating isn't compulsory...that makes it totally ok) Firstly Qasim, slick replacement of strike with 'chastise'. Secondly, obviously this is only for the rarest of times...for when the first two infantilizing and humiliating methods don't work on her (that totally excuses the fact that u can resort to ..you know... beating her) If the first two steps don't sort out your domestic dispute, it's because you didn't employ these perfect strategies 'effectively'.... Of course then his article delves into semantic bullshit about how the word for strike isn't actually that. Nothing I haven't heard before...but I haven't come across anyone with the audacity to argue they are progressive *and* suggest the wife beating verse as a goddamn *solution* to domestic violence. There are many Muslims who genuinely acknowledge that this verse is not palatable today....Qasim is not one of them. He would rather twist it to say it means the opposite of what it says in mainstream interpretations of the Quran. He'd rather appear dishonest in front of anyone who knows anything about Islam. This doesn't help Muslims, or their reputation...quite the opposite in fact. So I sincerely don't understand why left leaning publications put out stuff like this. All this does is breathe fire into anti-muslim movements. It energizes them, gives them something to rally around.

***

Sorry I went off into a rabbit hole there for a bit, so enough about the horrid Huffpo piece, and back on to the horrid Independent one....where were we... "And when it comes to the Islamic concept of Hijab, it is men who are first commanded to never gawk at women, and instead guard their private parts and chastity, regardless of how women choose to dress – pre-empting sexual abuse." I just love how he selectively points to the male requirements for modesty, saying that it tells men to lower their gaze... but he completely skips over the modesty requirements for women. You know, what hijab is literally KNOWN for? Slut-shaming women into covering head to toe and holding them responsible for provoking lust....no mention of the double standards about what men are required to do vs women. Of course men are commanded first because the whole Quran refers only to men directly (with a couple of exceptions)...when it refers to women it is in third person or via men..."tell your women/wives" type stuff. The Quran isn't some great feminist book, it puts men first because it only talks to *them* directly. "Accordingly, the Prophet Muhammad by example demonstrated that the burden of modesty, respect, and combating abuse of women rests on men. Indeed, men must take the lead in stopping such sexual abuse." Oh COME ON, the guy who married a six year old and had slaves? I really hate to sound like a broken record here... but Qasim is being one, so I need to keep repeating the obvious. "After all, while the Quran obliges women to dress modestly as a covenant with God, Islam prescribes no punishment whatsoever for women who choose to dress otherwise." Oh yeah totally, it's just an afterthought that the Quran obliges women to dress modestly...nothing to do with placing the blame on them for enticing men. Oh and the Quran doesn't describe the details of Salaat/prayer either....so I guess that must not be Islamic either. Here's a verse specifically commanding the wives of the prophet to stay home and not display themselves if they want to be 'purified' (funny thing is, this is one of like 2 or so verses that directly address women, and it's to tell them to not put themselves on display! Imagine that.)

O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.

And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.

And 33:59 spells it out clearly, women of the believers....cover yourselves so you aren't abused.

Just because the book hasn't specifically prescribed a beating in *this* situation... (I mean... a lot could be covered under 'disobedient wives') - doesn't mean that the general climate of "stay at home, do not put yourselves on display... or else you won't be pure" crap isn't pressuring women with the threat of hellfire.

"women in Islam rise to the rank of legal scholars, warriors, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists while lovingly embracing identities as mothers and housewives.

Weinstein is a symptom of the greater disease of arrogance, unaccountability, societal apathy, and from men who knew of the abuse but did nothing. Islam and Prophet Muhammad provide a practical solution."

Oh ffs, a man who ok-ed wife beating and keeping them at home, married a child and thought women could be owned as slaves does NOT provide a practical solution to sexual abuse. You're an embarrassment Qasim. 

So shameless...

"Together, we can employ a proven Islamic model that will stop this madness, and re-invoke gender equity today in America, and the world."

Who is he preaching to? How did the Independent let this happen, this is like a lecture you'd hear at Islamic Sunday School....does no one understand that this kind of horrific dishonesty, easily debunked....does nothing to help muslims. 

It's a real shame this man gets a platform like this. I'll say again, who approved this and what were they thinking? Who is the audience they hoped to reach with "together lets employ an Islamic model to stop sexual abuse"? This is some bullshit 'religious right' propaganda....get it together Independent. 

I'm all out of facepalms. I think that's all I got for today. 

***

Thanks to my wonderful Patrons who make this work possible. Your support means a lot to me. 

If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting via Patreon

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2zxZP67 via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Forbidden Intersectionality: Liberal + (Ex) Muslim

Some of you may have seen my interview on Cracked recently. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak on a larger platform. Below is a blogpost thats basically an extension of my thoughts from there: ------- Being of Muslim background in the West right now...in this Trumpian, 'rising far right' era is tough enough as it is....but being a secular, non-religious person of Muslim background is a whole other level of fucked up at the moment... So many of us thought there weren't others like us, questioning Islam, questioning conservatism in our communities...because these things just aren't talked about. The risks are too great especially if you're living in a Muslim majority country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (the two places I've lived). And when, through the internet, we found each other....us secular/agnostic/atheist types of Muslim background were just so relieved that there were others...that there was a growing voice for us...that we banded together on something that doesn't tell you much about a person's values: rejecting/challenging religion. Now...as the political climate changes in the West, we see the cracks in the ex/reformist Muslim movement more obviously than ever. There are those of us who were coming at it from the angle of opposing conservatism, rightwingery whatever form it may take, and others who were specifically only opposing Islam. As a result the people who prioritize opposing Islam alone, are happy now to side with the Western right. Some even going as far as joining anti-Muslim movements, the alt-right, supporting Trump, etc. Back in the old country, expressing doubt about religion or challenging cultural boundaries can mean serious consequences. At the very least resulting in alienation and being ostracized, disowned, ex communicated (we are not free from this consequence in the West either) ....and at worst it means things like blasphemy accusations, death.  So I do understand where the anger and bitterness some have is coming from (I don't excuse it, but I can see what created it). This taboo and loneliness surrounding Islamic apostasy is also why finding others simply to align with you on this one thing feels so big, that almost nothing else matters.

However, as more and more of us come out and express ourselves, we begin to see the diversity among Islam's apostates too. Still we are often lumped in as one, and even at times put on an unnecessary pedestal in the western atheist scene when discussing Islam. I hate to be the one to say it, but ex-Muslims can be wrong in their assessments and opinions of Islam too, like anyone else. And if they are allying with the Dave Rubin's and Kekistanis of this world then it's increasingly important to see beyond the 'ex Muslim = they're infallible when it comes to speaking about Islam' view. Ex-Muslims too can overshoot in their criticism or overreact, tainting a movement that began with thoughtful critique.

Yes the stigma and risks that come with apostasy in Islam are high and frightening. I'm a living example of how high the stakes are, I have to work under a pseudonym to feel safe. But at the same time, it's important to keep in mind that things aren't always that intolerant and there are all types of people in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too, people who are struggling to be heard - further silencing them with generalizations is not only unjust but also counterproductive if reducing extremism is the goal. Liberal, accepting-of-apostasy Muslim families do exist there, but sadly in small numbers. It is voices from those minorities that need to be empowered...but so rarely are. Instead, the narrative that Muslims are always conservative rules the airwaves in the West, be it left or right leaning media. Yes...there are crazy mullahs saying ridiculous, vile, intolerant things (often focused on by the right) ....and yes there are hijabi women who need our solidarity (often focused on by the left), but Muslim existence isn't limited to these simple caricatures - yet most representation of them is (and no, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between vile intolerant mullahs and peaceful conservative Muslim women who wear a headscarf). It's been incredibly hard to break that mould...and the few instances of people trying to represent the more secular, liberal types of Muslim existence are met with a huge amount of resistance from all across the political spectrum. I mean....we already have so much to deal with from within the community, that tacking on these external battles, simply for a foothold... for a place to say "I'm here, and I exist"...are disheartening and exhausting. As if dealing with angry Mullah’s against fun and freedom wasn’t hard enough! Image from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7IpMIhR6Yg

The left, the right, Muslims and non Muslims too, can all be hurdles for secular, liberal and progressive Muslims.

This is so incredibly untrue, as secular, liberal portrayals of Muslims are onlyjust starting to break through into the mainstream. While we have a wholehost of characters that play the token religious character, or 'the terrorist', etc. 

There's really no winning as a 'secular Muslim'.

People want to shove you into a box with extremists and nothing will stop them.

"Why don't Muslims tolerate apostasy, it's outrageous!" - well here's a Muslim woman

expressing support for people who have left the faith, and this is what she has to hear.

Why Don't Muslims fight for LGBT rights? Some do. And when it's not the western far right trying to get them to adhere to a literalist interpretation of Islam, it's a Muslim right-winger who wants to drag them back.

Muslims lie. There you have it. Because lying is totally unique to Muslims.

There really is no winning. As a liberal+Muslim, someone always turns up

to either discredit that you're truly liberal or that you're truly Muslim.

And thus, 'Forbidden intersectionality'. 

---------

As an ex-Muslim, I still very much consider myself a part of the Muslim community - like any secular Jew or Christian would consider themselves connected through culture, shared history, family, holidays, etc. Never before has my need to identify and stand in solidarity with the Muslim community felt more pronounced, than in a time Muslim registries and Muslim bans are casually being spoken of in mainstream discourse. 

This is truly terrifying for anyone of Muslim background. 

When it comes to things like the registry or being barred from entering the US, I don’t think secular, non-believer status matters. And when it comes to hate crimes, I'm pretty sure no one will bother checking how devout you are, either.

In fact, there have been many victims of anti-Muslim hate crime that just happened to have brown skin, or weren’t even remotely Muslim. 

All this certainly complicates things for those of us from within who do have legitimate critiques of the community and of Islamic fundamentalism. How do we demand progress in a political climate rife with anti-Muslim sentiment?

Battling Homophobia in a Muslim context

The orthodoxy Islam still commands worldwide in its adherents is unmatched by most other mainstream religions in the 21st century. For example the countries that still carry a potential death penalty for homosexuality are largely Muslim. 

Three years ago I wrote and illustrated an anti-homophobia children’s book set in Pakistan, called My Chacha (uncle) is Gay (you can get a copy here).

As I mentioned in my Cracked interview,

"I was delighted when it got picked up by some schools in the Toronto area and was used as a resource for The Day of Pink (which is an anti bullying initiative)."

The book was read out in classrooms and assemblies, and the response was incredibly supportive at first. Then, as parents 'discovered' that not only were their children read an LGBT-positive book *gasssp* ...but were read one set in Pakistan, the outrage began. 

Many claimed it was an assault on their religion, and a misrepresentation of it. Some said I was attacking the moral fibre of the ‘Muslim family', I received countless death and rape threats. Some referred to me as Wajb ul Qatal - 'worthy of killing’, they wished STD’s and Sharia punishments of being 'stoned to death' upon my *fictional* character Chacha.

This went on for quite some time. 

The most amusing comments called me 'Satan’s daughter' or compared my children's book's evilness -evels to that of Salman Rushdie’s notorious Satanic Verses! I am not worthy, but I’ll take the compliment with pride. In Toronto a radio show broadcasted calls from angry parents, punctuated with a few obligatory calls from people defending the book. Some parents threatened to sue the school board, and predictably the LGBT supporting liberal school board backed away from such a book. It was never used in an official capacity again. There were warnings being circulated on Islamic sites that people should protect their children from corruption, as they too could be exposed to this gay-turning, soul-sucking 15 line picture book.

As I said on Cracked, "Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) published a blog post claiming that the school board was the one bullying parents into teaching their kids about LGBT diversity. I was branded an ‘Islamophobe’ and that was it - a resource that many children/teachers enjoyed and found useful was no longer available." When Muslim communities have problems with integration or accepting values like being LGBT positive, the way to tackle that would be precisely through such resources. But often in the face of accusations of Islamophobia even books about love and tolerance are tossed out as controversial. It's the kids who lose out the most. Just recently, a conservative Islamic lecturer discovered my book and posted about it's 'evil agenda', sending a fresh new batch of threats and haters my way.

Click to enlarge

On the other side of this battle right wing non-Muslims accused me of trying to ‘sanitize homophobia’ in Islam and said that nice gay uncles like this simply didn’t exist in Pakistan, that I was painting a rosy picture of what it was like to be gay in a Muslim country, that Chacha would have been stoned to death in reality. I mean…it was a fictional children’s book, thus obviously simplified to a great degree. It's incredibly frustrating that If ever people from the Muslim world are challenging things and pushing boundaries the Western right often wants to pull them back to standards that Islamists would be proud of. 

For one side I was an Islamophobe, for the other a sanitizer of Sharia. And that pretty much encapsulates what it's like to discuss Islam as a liberal (ex) Muslim nowadays, caught between a rock and a hard place. 

It's like walking a tightrope...you point out there's homophobia in Muslim culture and you risk that being grabbed and used by people who want to ban Muslims.

What do you do, when stuck at this impossible junction... Being liberal and Muslim is unacceptable...invisible even.

Image from Cracked.com

It simply doesn't fit the narrative - but being liberal and ex muslim is also an overlap that many days, seems unmaintainable.

Often, you are not accepted by fellow liberals in the west (because Islamophobic) or you're not accepted by those who are interested in critiques of Islam because those circles are increasingly becoming anti-sjw, anti-feminist, anti-left...

Having few and mild opinions about the Western far-right is appreciated by many in the audience that will inevitably be drawn to you for your criticism of Islam. They usually tell you to stfu about Trump ...and accuse you of Taqqiya (an obscure concept in Islam which I only heard about in the West) if you don't, because they want to get to the 'good stuff'...the part where you confirm their ideas about generalizing Muslim immigrants, and act as a shield from accusations of bigotry.

My small patreon $ goes up when i criticize islam and goes down when I don't. This is an incredibly depressing view.

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) September 6, 2017

We-ell thats not gonna happen with me....and I can't seem to keep quiet about Dave Rubin and Gad Saad, Peterson, Shermer...I certainly won't be going on Breitbart or Rebel Media to talk about how there's no place for Islam on the planet. So.....that leaves me walking a rather lonely path....and as you can read in my tweet above, often has me wondering what my place is in all this. If it's even worth it to try and counter the avalanche of bs, that seems to be coming from within the ex-Muslim movement...bs like, 'Islam can't be reformed', 'there's no place for it on the planet', 'Islam is worse than Nazism.' I mean, at this point the discussion really seems to have left the grown up table.

The Term Islamophobia Adds to the Confusion The waters are so muddied, that the term really does more harm than good. Allowing any criticism of Islamic fundamentalism, homophobia, etc. to be labelled as 'Islamophobia', gives right wing fundamentalist Muslims a chance to shield the religion from valid criticism. It's essentially the same thing as right wing Christians trying to shield their religion from criticism. Think of the absurdity of the 'War on Christmas' to get a feel for how 'Islamophobia' sounds to us. That's why I prefer the more precise term, 'anti-Muslim bigotry'. The problem is not theological criticisms of Islam or criticisms of literalist interpretations, it is the generalizations, hatred and fear-mongering around Muslims. Seeing the confusion surrounding this, the Western far-right swoops in to claim that "Islamophobia" isn't real even when its being used to describe blatant anti-Muslim bigotry. The cries of "Islam is not a race", while technically true...ring hollow in a climate where brown people are targeted based on their skin colour and appearance. And thus the cycle of confusion continues.

As anti-muslim sentiment skyrockets, the emboldened far-right uses this opportunity to gain more support. As the Western far right lashes out at Muslims, the Muslim far-right uses that opportunity to also gain more support. And the rest of us, are well and truly fucked by them both. The Hijab Debate

The Hijab is a hot topic, both within Muslim circles and outside. Well-meaning Western liberals tend to overcompensate in their desire to make Muslims feel accepted and can end up championing conservatism from our communities. This is particularly tricky now, because Muslim women are in actuality being attacked for their modesty garments. So in the West, it's not exactly on the same footing as opposing something like a Christian purity ball or virginity pledge - though it largely comes from the same place and regard for women. As a woman who grew up in a theocracy, Saudi Arabia, I was forced to wear modesty garments by the state and have encountered "morality police" on several occasions. I have seen them hit my mother's ankle with a cane for letting her headscarf slip. The memories are not pleasant. So...for me, it's rather distasteful to see the constant celebration of modesty garb. It leaves me feeling very isolated from my fellow liberals, who I assumed would stand with me in opposing body-shaming of women in my culture too. Simultaneously, I can understand that it has become hard to oppose a garment that is causing women to be targeted. My personal solution to this is that I stand in solidarity with hijab and niqab wearing Muslims when it comes to bigots singling them out because they are visibly Muslim. But I still vehemently oppose the concept of a requirement for women to cover up so as not to invoke lust. Both things can and should be done together. One can show solidarity with hijabis without championing the hijab as some great symbol of liberation, which it clearly isn't, as many Muslim girls and women continue to be forced into modesty against their will. The Media gives little coverage to Muslims who don't 'Look like Muslims' There is so much noise around supporting the hijab that non hijabi Muslim women are drowned out. This results in a very one dimensional coverage, that yet again perpetuates the stereotype that 'Muslim' is synonymous with 'conservative Muslim'. Even Playboy Magazine isn't immune to this and had to get in on the hijab celebration! Another example of this misguided support is the Shepard Fairey poster from the Women's March.

An admittedly powerful, iconic poster of a woman in a US flag hijab was displayed as part of a series. It was seen as a symbol of resistance, as the 'anti-Trump'. But it's hard for women like me to get behind one form of conservative symbolism to oppose another form of conservatism. So I created some artwork accompanied by a short audio message explaining that we do indeed need to show solidarity with hijabi Muslim women, but perhaps this wasn't the best method since there are many connotations to such a garment, not all positive. 

Despite my clearly liberal sentiments and disclaimers that it was not to be used by people spreading hate towards Muslims, despite my opposition to Trump expressed in the audio message the post was widely retweeted by Trump fan accounts as well.

It seems there's almost nothing we can do to prevent this.

Either you suffer in silence under the homophobic, misogynistic Islamic far-right, or you risk emboldening the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant Western one. 

In fact both LGBT and women's rights in Islamic countries are causes appropriated by the Western far-right now. In Alt-Right/Lite circles, you'll see gay rights used as a white nationalist tactic, it's deeply concerning and sinister that an ideology so troubling can be dressed up as 'human rights'.

They use these things as a cudgel, a mere pretext to bash Muslims with.

The trick is to express a faux-concern over these things not being up to par in the Islamic world, while having little regard for the same in your own part of the world. I cannot tell you how many Western anti-feminists champion women's rights when it comes to Islam, but will callously tell Western rape victims that they are privileged because at least they don't live under Sharia. 

Difficult Dualities

Whether it's accusations of Islamophobia or fears of emboldening anti-Muslim hate, either way, we are silenced. Just like any culture we too should be able to criticize our own, without being branded sell-outs, traitors or Islamophobes.

Except there is one problem.

In this complex political climate there *is* an actual loss of credibility too, which I covered in my interview;

"As more and more Muslim Reformers/Ex Muslims either get on the Trump Train, defend the Muslim Ban or join the Alt Right."

And on the left, secular, liberal Muslims continue to not be adequately represented. This tips the scales massively towards high-visibility of right-wing critics of Islam. 

Well known Ex-Muslim Breitbart Editor, Raheem Kassam, has said things like "If Merkel took a million rapey migrants, Hillary will take 20 million"

We also have the 'red-pilled' ex-Muslim types, who believe no Muslims are peaceful.

Now I as an ex-Muslim can tell you, that this is not representative of *all* ex-Muslims obviously, and there are many compassionate, progressive people among us. But the movement has taken an undeniable rightward turn without many denouncing the bad actors that are nudging the movement further towards Pepe. 

This is definitely not what I signed up for. 

YouTube shows that regularly feature alt right/lite figures will also court ex and reformist Muslims to come and criticize Islam from their platforms. 

When you go on Breitbart, or Rebel Media to criticize Islam - how can you complain that the Left won't take your voice seriously.

Credibility is a two way street. 

I would urge my fellow liberals to not champion Islamic conservatism and I would urge my fellow ex-Muslims to not prove critics of the ex-Muslim and Islamic reform movements correct by allying with the Western right and supporting/downplaying things like the Muslim Ban. 

This rightward shift of Islam critics has even produced a Trump-supporting, anti-multiculturalism Imam, would you believe it?  

2017, what a year!

The Imam once put out an 11-step plan to crack down on Wahhabism, a literalist and harsh interpretation of Islam. It sounds reasonable in theory, but reads more like an authoritarian plan to put ordinary Muslims under strict surveillance. Australian media has dubbed him the 'Fake Sheikh' 

 ABC states,

 "...Unsurprisingly, Tawhidi's tales about Sunni Muslims' shadowy plot to instate Caliphate have been enthusiastically embraced by the far-Right, including Reclaim Australia. Perhaps less expected is the extent to which Tawhidi himself has courted such groups. In the lead-up to last year's federal election, he made offerings of roses to roadside anti-Muslim Liberty Alliance and One Nation posters, as if the face of Pauline Hanson belonged not to Australia's most recognisable anti-Islam campaigner, but a titian-haired deity."

He throws around terms like 'Fake News' and 'Lying Left' - reminiscent of Trump himself. 

It's no surprise the term 'red-pilled Muslim' is also seen in comments from his fans. I honestly never thought I'd see that combination of words, but 2017 is full of surprises. 

I hope that one day, just like Sam Bee or The Daily Show, progressive Muslims can earnestly push for change without getting lumped in with or enticed by those with an anti-Muslim agenda. 

Islam is not a monolith, neither are its adherents nor its critics. Just like Islam can be interpreted and practised in a million different ways so too can criticism of it come from different angles and politics. It's important to be aware of the general Trump-era anti-Muslim climate, but its also important not to erase the few secular, liberal and progressive Muslims that exist. 

Recognize that people in my position are fighting a battle against bigotry from all angles. 

------------ A huge thanks to all my Patrons who make this work possible! To those who's support for me doesn't depend upon how much I criticize Islam and Islam alone, those who signed up recently, and to those who have been there for a while....your support and encouragement mean so much!  If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon 

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2w8YDI4 via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Female Shariah Judges: Women Oppressing Women, that's Feminism!

The other day I came across this atrocious, laughable satire-like Al Jazeera piece which framed a female shariah judge handing out punishments to women for adultery and shit as “feminist”. 

Yes, you read that right. 

h/t @peppermint

------

'Female', 'empowered' and 'Islamic law' are words that simply do not go together, unless you’re hardcore into mental gymnastics, sort of like the alt-right #TradLife women who think REAL women’s empowerment is to free them from the shackles of feminism where they have to work, so they can stay home and raise babies and do laundry (which is real freedom).  [Not that there's anything wrong with that if you choose it, but there is something wrong with shitting on women who work outside the home]

a future for children is more important than your stupid career. 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦🤰🏻💕 #motherhood #feminism #whitegenocide #family #tradlife http://pic.twitter.com/onMvO5VeFW

— Emily Dawson (@EmilyDawsons) May 27, 2017

I make these comparisons to the alt right so my fellow lefties who often (out of good intent to protect marginalized minorities) slip into romanticizing conservative Islam, can recognize this form of dishonest rightwingery too. Conservative Islam is just the stauncher, stricter sibling of Western conservatism. It deserves no protection and is a roadblock to progress, just like the far-right is in the West. Shielding the Islamic right from criticism and standing up against anti-muslim bigotry are two different things entirely...and the quicker the left can understand how to separate the two, the better equipped we will be to combat the Western far-right who exploit the left's confusion and weakness on this. 

To see how it feels watching Shariah sanitized or Islamic Conservatism glamourized if you are from a Muslim background, check out these videos below. They are vile, disgusting and backwards. So too is Islamic religious law that places women beneath men, that orders them to dress modestly lest they 'invoke lust'. 

It's the same kind of nonsense as these clips...keep that in mind when reading the next 'burqa is empowering' 'mohammed was a feminist' article. Those are our #TradLife women.

"women must be removed from political power" (although still of course backs Le Pen) in order to "reestablish a fierce & strong patriarchy". http://pic.twitter.com/veGhSMX0c3

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) February 14, 2017

women "sell out their people" & only way to get them "in line" is "public humiliation", so women welcoming refugees need a "public beating". http://pic.twitter.com/YaHrMZWNEE

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) February 15, 2017

(clips via @vinikako)

Anyway, enough of this great friend and ally of Rubin...back to the Al Jazeera piece. 

The article states,

"One day she could be sentencing an offender to be CANED for breaking Islamic law, the next could see her giving a man permission to take a second wife. Islamic law enforcers are not often credited with being feminist pioneers, but Judge Nenney fits both those descriptions.” (emphasis mine)

Are you fucking kidding me? How is this a real quote…one day you’re granting permission to cane women for not being modest enough, and another you’re granting a guy permission to add women to his marriage-harem, luxuries that are not afforded to women….and somehow you are a fucking *feminist pioneer*? 

So...because you’re a woman who got a job as a judge....to help further oppress women under a disgustingly patriarchal religious system of governance…putting all that nasty stuff aside and focusing on the fact that you know…you got this 'high powered job' in a 'male dominated industry', obviously means you’re a feminist shattering stereotypes - this is very much from the Rubin playbook. 

“Putting aside the content of his tweet” - surely you have seen Rubin's commentary where he asks to disregard the content of the atrocious thing in question, as he goes on to defend or downplay it in some way. 

Shariah-fauxminism is just a deeper shade of what PJW of Infowars peddles when he thinks ‘blocking' Marine le Pen is un-feminist. Let that sink in.

So-called "feminists" are trying to block people voting for a woman. She would be the first female president of France. Let that sink in. http://pic.twitter.com/dUM89QAbCQ

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 23, 2017

As if women HAVE to be on board with Marine le Pen's vile politics simply because she's a woman. Isn't PJW a critic of 'sjw' identity politics? I guess its ok to use the stupidest and simplest form of ID politics if it suits your far right agenda. 

Yet another critic of 'Identity politics' is seen engaging in it here:

In an interview with an anti-Semite who likes David Duke & Farrakhan ... Rubin calls liberals racists. http://pic.twitter.com/Y0HLA1hN0Y

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) April 6, 2017

(Clip via @vinikako)

Rubin claims liberals are *racist* for not liking Ben Carson (riiiight because the only reason they don’t like him must be his race - never mind the guy Rubin is actually speaking with here is a guy who blames slavery on blacks and says the Jews chose the holocaust. This is a guy who goes on David Duke's show to say vile things about Jews. And the 'real racism' that Rubin spots in all of this is liberals not accepting Ben Carson....because of his race. 

It's the same shallow twisted logic…from far-right apologists everywhere. They don’t really care about gender or racial equality but like to pretend they do. They appropriate the language of feminism and racial equality to use it for their own means. I've seen this before with Islamists, and I see this now with Rubin and other panderers to the alt right/lite.

I have a long, lonely road ahead of me convincing fellow atheists that lean right, that PJW, Rubin, are advocating for the same bullshit that so many call out in right-wing muslims…and I have to simultaneously convince my fellow lefties that yes even though muslims are an increasingly persecuted minority, and we should stand against anti-muslim bigots every step of the way…that letting this kind of bs slide just fuels the fires of hate. 

It's crazy the Al Jazeera piece describes this shariah judge as a feminist pioneer right? Surely all my fellow skeptics can see that! Well, guess how Rubin describes this guy Sotomayor, this friend of David Duke.....“A black man challenging stereotypes". *facepalm* doesn't quite cover it, eh? 

Rubin himself would be happy to point out the stupidity of the Al Jazeera article, as would many of his fans...but point out the same ridiculousness on their side and you will promptly be shunned as a 'regressive' intolerant of 'diverse viewpoints'.  

"a black man challenging stereotypes" is a hilarious way to describe Tommy Sotomayor http://pic.twitter.com/mZjG4qqDhz

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) April 14, 2017

---

Drawing these parallels is important because it helps show the bad reasoning, similarities and flaws on both sides of the coin here. In both cases its people pandering to the far-right, and masquerading as ‘liberal’ …hijacking the language of liberals to push a far-right agenda. Be it Islamic or Western, it's the same BS in varying degrees.

It’s important also to point out both, so the story isn’t hijack-able by either side's conservatives. And with the rise of the far-right in the West, it’s important to show that these things are mirror images and given power, can be dangerous even here, in the West. 

----

Now, back to the article in question: 

"She made history in Malaysia last year when she was appointed one of the first two female Syariah (shariah) High Court judges in this Muslim-majority nation.”

Woweee, she made HISTORY, she’s just a woman challenging stereotypes…right Rubin? 

"And the 42-year-old mother of three doesn't shy away from imposing the harshest punishments prescribed by Islamic law.”

Look at this badass mommy of the year here….she isn’t shy or meek like people expect Muslim women to be….in fact she imposes some of the HARSHEST shariah punishments, hows that for bold and assertive? Hmph and they say Muslim women are subservient and oppressed. Here she is, oppressing the fuck out of others….and you’re gonna tell me she isn’t empowered. Puh-leez. 

"When I'm on the bench, I'm not a woman, I'm not a man. I'm a judge," she says. "I need to deal with the case fair and firm, to follow the law, no bias.”

You hear that? She’s fair and UNbiased…if you don’t count the 7th century anti-woman bias inherent to shariah. 

And here’s something for you naysayers who don’t believe Malaysia is a hub of progress in the Islamic world;

"In Malaysia, more women are pursuing careers in the Islamic justice system, from judges and lawyers to court mediators.”

——

I mean for fucks sake…is this not something directly out of the handmaid’s tale? ...Where women are taking charge in roles that insure the subservience of women, and are being hailed as some weird-ass, backwards feminist icons for it? Fml. 

What is even the point of highlighting this:

"Malaysia appointed its first two female Syariah (shariah) judges in 2010. Now, 27 of the country's 160 Islamic court judges are women.”

——

Shariah judges are there to help beat women into submission, quite literally… having more women participate in this isn’t a fucking feminist achievement to be proud of. 

"Other countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan also have female Islamic law judges, however, some religious scholars argue that Islamic law does not allow women to hold the position.”

You see? See how progressive Malaysia is? 

"We feel that it's extremely important for the courts to have a balance in terms of gender because a lot of the issues involve women. So we need some level of balance in the way in which they deliver justice and also gender sensitisation of the justice system.”

Oh fuck me. 

The level of pretzel brain it takes to think that a gender balance in people 'fucking women over' is a good thing is beyond me. You know, the morality police industry is far too male-dominated, we really need some gender balance among those who whip women for immodesty.   -___-

"Judge Nenney also hears "khalwat" cases, an Islamic offence where unmarried men and women are found together in "close proximity".

She says in the most serious cases, she sentences offenders to six strokes of the cane, a 5,000 ringgit fine ($1,166) and a one-month jail term.

Some critics have suggested that female judges may favour women, but Judge Nenney denies being more sympathetic towards women."

How very ‘feminist’ indeed. Nothing says feminist like corporal punishment for close proximity to the opposite sex. It would be funny as an Onion piece, but in reality it’s just sad.  

Oh look at this women’s advocate here, how very noble, 

"Judge Nenney is hopeful that the rising number of female judges will help change the perception that Syariah courts do no treat women fairly.”

"She says her female clients often find it less difficult to appear before a female judge and court officials.”

Hmm yeah I know when I’m being sentenced to a caning i’d rather receive the sentence from a woman than a man. #YayFeminism

"She is studying both Islamic and civil law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, but has already decided to pursue a career in Islamic law because she says civil law is "man-made law”.

When you truly believe in 'the cause', you might even help lay down some core laws, and then wonder why the men get all the power and credit, and you yourself end up being mistreated in the end, because woman.... Well you were a part of making that happen...

"To me, it was quite difficult to reach this position. I needed to compete with the male officers," she says. "But it's not about gender now, it's about your qualification."

Ah...true egalitarianism...Nice. Do check out this warm, feel good success story about a struggling woman who finally achieved respect and equality.

——

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #14171a; background-color: #e6ecf0} p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 14.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #14171a} p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Georgia} p.p9 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 14.4px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Georgia} p.p10 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 14.4px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Georgia; min-height: 21.0px} p.p11 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} span.s2 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #9e4a2f} span.s3 {font: 13.0px Helvetica}

A huge thanks to all my patrons, who make it possible for me to spend time on work like this. 

If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting via Patreon here - with your help I can do much more! Special shoutout to new $10 Patrons: Andrew, Debra, Maria, Kyle & Sean

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2vk1iKQ via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Professor Jordan Peterson: Charlatan Conservative Christian Perpetually Paranoid about Pronouns & Postmodernism

Trigger Warning: If you don't like feminists or leftists, avert your eyes. This could be upsetting.

***

I ran a little contest for the title on Twitter, while there were so many great suggestions

Well, an anagram of Jordan B Peterson is desert banjo porn

— Martin (@NataliasDad) July 28, 2017

Kermit the Monologue

— Liam van der Spek (@SpekOfTheDevil) July 28, 2017

Misunderstanding Bill C-16 for $55,000 a month

— JD-800 (@thejd800) July 28, 2017

"Old Man Yells at Cloud: the Jordan Peterson Story"

— brane bzkl (@Buzzkill_AOC) July 28, 2017

I went for the wayyy too long alliteration angle, since I felt it captured the essence of his nonsense best.. 

He's so verbose I can't narrow down 11 paragraphs about NESTING into a title

— Paul City (@RealPaulCity) July 28, 2017

Shout out to @somestingray for inspiring that! 

professor peterson’s postmodern paranoia

— Ray (@SomeStingray) July 28, 2017

-----

Pic From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awot-d8U9Cc

Ah...Jordan B. Peterson - I remember a time when I had no idea who that was, and my life was better for it.

Who is this guy? Well...For those unfamiliar he is a ‘controversial’ conservative university professor, in my own progressive city *sigh*....at University of Toronto.

He's your average conservative Christian, with an added dose of hardcore gobbledygook with the audacity to criticize postmodernists for the same. Step aside Deepak Chopra! There's a new snake oil salesman in town. And this time he's smuggling in extreme conservatism AND atheists love him. Apparently one of the *most requested* guests of all time on Sam Harris' podcast!

Why is 2017 like this. Nothing makes sense anymore. 

jordan b peterson: a looney twist on the old school Christian conservative

— peppermint (@strengthgentle) July 28, 2017

Gosh, remember when the atheist scene used to ridicule charlatans like Deepak instead of embrace them as some of our favourite intellectuals simply because they ‘trigger’ libtards, and dump on trans ppl, ‘the left’ and feminism - all the favourite bogeymen of the internet atheist movement! ...resulting in this strange alliance with a man who literally brought himself to tears while reading his own essay which mentioned ‘a loss of faith’. 

Goddammit, make atheism great again. 

It really amazes me that he criticizes flowery 'postmodernist' language for much of the same type of nonsense that comes out of his own mouth. He rose to fame last year when he had an unbelievable temper tantrum about Ontario’s bill c-16 somehow taking away his freedoms by protecting trans people from discrimination. He’s been shown  to be misrepresenting the law, but his popularity only grows in this climate where facts hold little value, and anything of substance is dubbed 'fake news'.

Peterson has no qualms associating with people on the far far right...he even appeared on a nazi's podcast. A woman who has literally advocated violence against people of colour refusing to leave the hypothetical ethnostate. 

Host of that show is another extreme race & IQ obsessive wanting to deport non-whites. http://pic.twitter.com/QF00K9Tr3d

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) March 12, 2017

He may very well not be aware of all her views, but googling someone or looking at their social media is the least you can do before appearing on their show and lending them your legitimacy as a professor. If you are this blinded by your hatred of the left that you're going on Nazi shows to talk about 'Western Civilization'...you probably should not be teaching kids. 

As a critic of leftist mumbo-jumbo, its funny he describes the average university class as a postmodern neo-marxist indoctrination cult (h/t @somestingray). He wants to start his own online university scarily enough...He plans to 'cut off the supply to people running the indoctrination cults', i.e., universities. And don't you worry... he's working on a way to differentiate between 'post modern course content' and 'classical course content'.

In a time where mainstream media institutions are being discredited by right wing nutjobs, so too are educational institutions. Now, hold on to your kekistani undies, i’m not saying there aren’t ever crazy instances on campus, I’m not saying never criticize universities or The Left. There’s plenty to criticize... but there’s no proportionality….this response, as in...idolizing Jordan Peterson the guy who’s somehow repackaged old school conservatism as something new and hip…as an antidote to 'the left gone wild, drunk on the power of premarital sex, immorality, independent career women and loss of faith'…I mean come on...I've heard this shit before...

I grew up in Saudi Arabia. 

Just check this rulebook for men he wrote a few yrs ago. (h/t @21logician) 

It’s full on insanity.

And spare me the obvious - 'these are metaphors'… yes I know he’s not calling for literal child sacrifice. 

Still crazy. 

Build the crystal palace. O-kay then. 

Look I consulted with my ancestral spirits…and they warned me not to watch Jordan Peterson content…but silly lady-brain of mine.. didn’t listen. So here we are. 

Now I’m trying to compile as much of JBP’s bs into one blogpost as I can tolerate sifting through in one sitting. For someone sooooo upset about his free speech allegedly being taken away over bill c-16, he certainly doesn’t extend that courtesy to other groups. 

Here he is in 2011 discussing how atheists aren’t an oppressed or excluded group in the west, perhaps even dominant, and how he’s not a fan of atheist advertising. An Ad on a bus pissed him off ffs, meanwhile calling people what they want to be called is a violation of his rights.  Full video of his ad chat here 

Jordan Peterson on pro-atheism billboards. This would be a good topic for discussion @SamHarrisOrg http://pic.twitter.com/JQdhfvgyo8

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 28, 2016

Why maybe Dawkins *should* be oppressed he said. Jeez Jordan, why so angry?

maybe @RichardDawkins should be oppressed @jordanbpeterson http://pic.twitter.com/MiaGNIosA3

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 28, 2016

"If you don’t have any faith in an ultimate authority that says life is sacred, what’s to stop you from mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can…."  That's real original Jordan. 

Jordan Peterson talking about Stalin's lack of religion. This is as feisty as Canadian TV gets I think http://pic.twitter.com/gzzpDcfXVj

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 27, 2016

Here’s some more laughable god stuff:

Proof itself, of any sort, is impossible, without an axiom (as Godel proved). Thus faith in God is a prerequisite for all proof.

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) November 26, 2013

To think of how popular he is among atheists cracks me up (and makes me sad). This anti-left stuff in the era of the rise of the right...sure makes for some strange bedfellows. 

In his two hour conversation with Sam Harris he couldn’t really define 'truth'. He is basically the religious conservative version of what he criticizes re:postmodernism. Dislikes the pronoun Xir because apparently thats just leftist nonsense….but can’t decide on what truth means. 

Just a quick glance at his Twitter timeline will show that he posts bs memes of his own gibberish quotes..and people love it! 

I honestly can’t understand…has the human population become this dumbed down? Is this reflective of a failure of our education systems?…that people hear a string of multi-syllabic words and are immediately wowed/lulled into some sort of illusion that they are smarter than they thought? His fans also have a habit of saying “but you haven’t heard ALL his lectures… if you had, what he was saying would make sense” - come on. Surely something of his has to be able to stand on it’s own. 

I mean what the fuck does this mean?

one last meme before bed http://pic.twitter.com/KQQkPTRYAq

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) July 25, 2017

To be fair though, somehow I guess it's possible you've stuck to his .. I dunno..mythology, psychology lectures which are supposed to be better....but still, how are you unaware of his crazy side? The side that's made him rich and famous? 

Peterson is a top earner on Patreon making over 55K *a month* (remember this number) last time I checked…which he’s planning to use to launch an online university, to influence more young minds into his way of thinking. 

I just googled him right now and came across a reddit thread asking whether he was a prophet, because he’s turning Western Civilization back to Christianity….FFS.. this guy’s following is legitimately creepy. 

This is the person who thinks college SJWs are bad, but is upset that Disney’s Frozen is *propaganda*… 

Why...you ask? 

Because it showed that two female characters did not need a man to be successful. (h/t @21logician) 

Heaven forbid we indoctrinate our kids into evil-leftist-feminist-cultural-marxist-postmodernism. 

Shameful Disney…don’t you know that all female characters should need a MAN….that’s how God intended it after all. 

No wonder he’s spooked by the Trans Agenda of jailing him for mistakenly saying the wrong pronoun some day. Poor guy. 

This man is in charge of teaching young minds. And with his own online postmodernism-proof university he will be more influential than before, 'radicalizing' more people. Alarming. 

***

He also has some very disturbing ideas about sex. In his mind the left encourages ‘sexual predation’ by saying that sex is for pleasure and you can have it when you want…we should allow any form of sexual expression and not discriminate against any of them. But at the SAME TIME they want to jail men who make unwanted sexual advances. 

Yes Peterson, its called consent. We can have free sexual expression and consent simultaneously .. this isn’t hard. 

how the hell can you have free sexual expression and also not rape people http://pic.twitter.com/AWM0gu7rHR

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) February 13, 2017

And who's he discussing this with? None other than Stefan Molyneux - known extreme misogynist who blames women for all evil in the world, crazy conspiracist and racist. 

This isn’t the first time i’ve heard Peterson rail against casual sex. If I close my eyes, It’s almost like I’m back in Saudi Arabia. 

everything is so fucking melodramatic with this dude. if you don't do sex and procreation his way you're getting ENSLAVED @jordanbpeterson http://pic.twitter.com/lawOmTOxlm

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) December 18, 2016

***

Which brings me to the JBP lecture clip I watched, that all this build up is for:

What. The. Fuck. Did I just see/hear, and what decade am I in… one can forget they exist in 2017 and not 1950 while listening to Peterson. The fact he’s giving lectures like this to young people and they aren’t laughing him out of the room, means that there are some real regressive people out there who want to take us back in time, and hey guess what.. these ones aren’t on the left. 

It's horrifying how popular he is. 

So the video is posted, not by him but some other YT user (called biased asshole lol) and titled “Peterson on Western Women”. 

I’m already gritting my teeth, I hit play… despite the warning from my ancestral spirits, and my crystal palace is crumbling before me, letting the howling winds in. I offer myself to god as a sacrifice...but alas, it's too late. 

At the start of his talk, there’s the obligatory mention of declining birthrates of course, civilization is failing because women are working more procreating less. This is the stuff that endears him to the #TradLife Alt Right nutters. 

This is the woman from his Western Civilization podcast appearance.

(screenshot via @vinikako)

(screenshot via @vinikako)

This young mom is the face of Mormonism's Hateful Alt Right. Full article here

Next in the lecture, Peterson questions why women would want positions of power at all. I’m paraphrasing here, 

‘ladies... trust me you don’t want these powerful positions, men are crazy to have ‘em in the first place… but you know how men are lulz….crazy hardworking and competitive. You also don’t want powerful positions because extra money doesn’t help, and billion dollar corporations are reaaaally complicated to run ok? There are lawsuits, and you have to travel a lot. & shit Just…trust me ladies u don’t wanna get involved in this mess.”

7:29 (now this is an actual quote I’m no longer paraphrasing) he continues on to deter women from wanting positions of power 

“If you’re half crazy and you have a lot of money, you’re going to be crazy a lot faster I can tell you, because it frees you from all sorts of constraints”

[some weak excuse abt how lottery winners are unhappy and if u are prone to a drug problem, then the money will just speed it up]

THIS IS ONE OF PATREON’S TOP EARNERS FFS. What business does he have telling women that money is no good and will just make you crazy. He makes 55K a fucking month. 

This shit continues:

7:46 “being broke stops you from dying if you’re a cocaine addict” ok JBP ..lol...you’re realllllly trying hard to stop women from having careers here. 

7:56 “If somebody dumped an infinite amount of money on you what makes you think you wouldn’t unravel completely?”  - is he describing himself? 

(Click to enlarge)

9:30 “The older I get the more I understand marriage and family are of primary importance” - yeah ok.. I think we get it. #TradLife

9:32 - "The more I see women in particular, they hit 35-40 …and they’re not married…and they don’t have kids…and they are not happy. Cuz what the hell are you gonna do from the time you’re 40 till the time you’re 80?! You got no family… you got no relationships? What are you gonna do?! Go run your company?!!! Yeah well… if you’re 1 in a 1000 that will satisfy you.”

LMAO Peterson, you nutjob. If someone just says this shit in Urdu or Arabic, it will be no different than the mullahs who are afraid of women being empowered and independent. More polished sure, but he is a professor at one of Toronto’s best universities after all. This is an embarrassment. I mean, he should be far off from Mullah-rhetoric, not spouting essentially polished versions of the anti-woman turds that come out of their mouths. Having babies isn’t the only thing that gives women meaning, purpose or happiness in their lives, you absolute dinosaur. And there are other forms of relationships out there. My dad is way more progressive than you, and I’m certain he’s a lot older..heck so is my granddad. 

The idea that running a company would be satisfying to a woman...as opposed to raising children is simply unfathomable to him, no wonder he spends his time freaking out about this (and pronouns) in 2017 because he’s unable to adjust to modernity. I got news, there are other things women do aside from having kids. They are complete human beings even without kids….imagine that! 

I mean this is some serious insecurity around women succeeding. And lets not forget his bullet points for men:

Hmm. 

***

11:22 - Then we get into the “yeah women have it rough but you do live 8 years longer, so thats not trivial…TESTOSTERONE IS KILLING MEN.” (emphasis mine)

“Men do almost all the dangerous jobs and outside work. There’s lots of reasons that men get paid more than women that have *nothing to do with prejudice*” - ok by this point in the video I’m laugh-crying. This is so ridiculous….

“each sex has it’s own unfairness to deal with, but to think of that as a consequence of the social structure….come on really?!"

*lolz guys…there’s plenty of injustice to go around, men do all the hard work around here, why do you whiny women think its some sort of systemic thing, sexism is a leftist cultural marxist myth* 

The video ends on note of JBP saying there’s no gratitude for how far we’ve come because we aren’t outside all day lifting rocks and shit. I kid you not. 

Sexism isn’t real because bad things happen to everyone, and we are no longer lifting rocks. So quit yer whining cultural marxist feminists….do what you were actually put here to do and fulfill your life’s role, make some babies…otherwise what are you even doing with your life. Money sucks (for you), positions of power are way too hard (for you ladies). K thanks bye. Donate to my patreon. 

Lecture summed up right there. (Ok he didn't actually plug his patreon there)

According to his logic he should be grateful about how privileged he is to earn so much and be a professor and quit *his* whining about cultural marxism and postmodernist SJWs...because you know, he's not out there lifting rocks and shit. 

*The Truth* about Jordan Peterson is...he's full of shit and he's dangerously bridging the gap between the far right and the mainstream...and young people are falling for it. 

----

Thank you to my Patrons who make this work possible. Truly, truly appreciated. 

If you'd like to support my work you can do so here via Patreon  

It's no Peterson level gold plated patreon, but if you want to counter people like that, do consider supporting content creators who push back against this stuff, there aren't many and they need your support. Say what you will about right wingers, but they definitely $upport their people in combatting the evil leftist agenda. 

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #9e4a2f} span.s2 {text-decoration: underline} span.s3 {color: #000000}

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2hagTda via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Canada 150

Before immigrating to Canada, I never really felt attached to a particular land. I didn’t grow up having a sense of nationality to anchor my identity to. My parents left my motherland, Pakistan, long ago. They birthed and raised us in another country (Saudi Arabia) that made sure to tell us we were outsiders, that our rights differed greatly from ‘real Saudis’, and that even being born there didn’t change that. 

We existed in a sort of limbo. Though my siblings and I visited Pakistan frequently - being raised elsewhere left us feeling like aliens in our country of origin. Our upbringing in westernized Saudi compounds for expats...left us neither here nor there. There was nowhere we actually felt like we belonged, and this is a story you’ll hear from many third culture kids of the South Asian diaspora, especially those who found themselves in the Middle East. 

Canada gave us a place to put down roots. We were *home*….We felt welcomed, and part of a beautiful, inclusive & diverse culture. 

In this polarized political climate the importance of this inclusivity is heightened. 

I’ve never been one to feel overly nationalistic, since I’ve never really had a strong national identity before. But when I hear the Canadian anthem, I confess to tearing up almost every time…because finally…I’m home.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px}

My illustrations below are a nod to the immigrant experience. So many wonderful communities make up Canada today - that’s what makes it truly special. With the rise of the alt right, the far right…especially in Canada, with anti immigrant sentiment growing & the hysteria around Bill C-16, I feel it’s important to stress themes of diversity and inclusivity.

This took days of drawing, hope you enjoy viewing as much as I did making! 💙

I felt that each of the characters deserved a bit of individual attention! So here they are:

--------------------------------------------

If you'd like to order prints of any of these illustrations, pls contact me via email 

nicemangosDOTblogATgmailDOTcom

-----------------------------------

A huge thanks to all my patrons, who make it possible for me to spend time on creative projects like this. 

If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting via Patreon here - with your help I can do much more!

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2tBCCQM via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Thoughts on Manchester Attack....& Responses that Just aren't Helping

The Manchester terror attack broke my heart, as each and every terror attack does. It chilled me to my core…again. 

Image from CNN.com

With the frequency of these attacks, it’s hard to process them all and properly mourn the loss before your attention is diverted to yet another tragedy. 

During the time I finished up this very blog post, I heard of deadly attacks in Baghdad and Kabul. It's hard, so hard to take it all in and grasp the magnitude of loss around the world. 

My thoughts are with all those who have suffered. 

----

The Manchester attack targeted children while they were out having fun, enjoying music, enjoying life... 

Image from here

It’s those very freedoms that terrorists hate, they abhor those who don’t live in the same ideological cages as them. 

I sit here and try to absorb all the fragmented commentary coming from all angles, trying to make sense of this, trying to understand how we can change it for the better. How do we stop this from happening? I don’t know.. because the terrorists motivations seem to lie in a tangled web of things, parts of which each side wants to deny. The most obvious of those is extreme blind faith in an ideology they consider to be infallible.  

I look around me, and see there’s nothing new here…

The left though well intentioned, nor the right, theists, nor atheists - no one is hitting notes (on this subject) that deeply resonate with me anymore. It’s pretty much the same tired commentary, the same motions we go through after each terror attack. 

“Islam is evil”

“”Nothing to do with Islam”

“Muslims must do more” 

“Muslims should not have to apologize for something they have nothing to do with” 

“Islam is war”

“Islam is peace” 

“Its all about foreign policy”

“Its all about religion” 

We really have to do better than this, because neither side on this issue is getting through to the other. Just screaming at each other till we’re blue in the face isn’t going to accomplish anything. 

It’s obvious this is a problem that needs to be addressed, denying links to Islam as people shout Allahu-akbar and take lives just doesn't suffice. It’s not helping anyone, least of all muslims. 

This isn’t to say that how all muslims practice Islam is hateful, divisive and dangerous...but we must acknowledge that some extreme muslims do take it this far, if we want to start solving this. Of course every community has it’s extremists..but Islam does have a lot more Westboro Baptist equivalents …and too many who are even more extreme than Westboro level.

There is a fundamentalism problem coming directly from the rigid orthodoxy that Islam commands in the 21st century. Our communities can certainly do more to promote diversity and inclusivity…we do fall short there, we’ve got to own it…only then can we begin to tackle it.

All that said though, here’s another thing thats not cutting it; Laying the blame on all Muslims collectively. 

This is like me saying portland, Quebec, NYC - white supremacist murders all by you white people. Its just not right to lump innocent people of the same demographic with violent savages who murder people. 

In this case in particular, it’s not fair to say Muslims could have, or should have done more as a community…as the bomber, Salman Abedi had been reported to authorities multiple times. There are mixed reports about him being banned from his mosque, so I'm not sure about that. But mosques can always do more to try and root out extremism. 

Full story here

With a frightening surge in white supremacist and anti-muslim attacks in this Trumpian era, the polarization amongst us is growing at such an alarming rate...I fear we’ll end up at a point where we have to pick a side between nazis and jihadis. Already people seem to think you can’t care about both…each team trying to emphasize the horrors of ‘the other side’ while trying to downplay or deny the horrors that come from people within their communities. 

Full story here

Full story here

We’ve got to do better, all of us. Looking inwards, is important for all communities, self-critique is how we improve.

——

The post terror attack scenario, is sadly our reality more and more often…around the globe. I understand its a moment of panic, anger, high emotion. People aren’t always thinking clearly on any side of the debate. But we have to do better, it’s the only way we can beat this monster. The one thing they want is to divide, disrupt and create chaos, sow hatred... in the days, weeks, months after…it’s something we should not let them have. 

There are a lot different types of counterproductive behaviour that emerge right after a terror attack, I feel we can make an already horrendous, painful situation a little more bearable if we refrain from this type of behaviour: 

'The Nothing to do with Islam’ chorus - I get it, it’s a reflex to distance either yourself (if you’re muslim) or an already persecuted minority from the worst, most violent people among them. But as all the liberal/muslim defenders of the religion will tell you, Islam is not a monolith. There are many people, majority of muslims in fact who manage to ignore or ‘re-interpret’ the same verses that drive the terrorists to kill. Why then does it all of a sudden become a monolith with boundaries that exclude terrorists when convenient? You simply cannot deny that those verses too come from the same religion. Just a different interpretation…if you start defining ISIS as ‘not real muslims’ you are playing their game. This is essentially what they do to dehumanize muslims that aren’t living up to their barbaric 7th century standards. The defensiveness and the desperation to distance terrorists from the religion that they themselves claim inspires them, makes defenders appear intellectually dishonest or in deep denial. In order to see the whole picture we cannot keep hiding from the fact that religion has a major role to play in religious extremism. There is hatred of music, hatred of women, of LGBT, of non-muslims coming from Islamic scripture, and theres no way you can modernize, reform or improve things if you at the very least don’t acknowledge that this problem exists. Fine…say this is not how you read it, but you can’t deny that the raw material exists for others to interpret in more violent ways. 

Sharing selective out of context Quran quotes guy - Nope. If you think you can share selective positive quotes, then don’t forget that people can and will rightfully share selective violent quotes to counter that too. This just looks like dishonesty or incomplete knowledge (which is also an issue, as many muslims are taught a curated version of scripture and often in a language they don't understand, I honestly didn’t know the existence of some of these verses till I did some research on my own…and hence, ‘ex-muslim’... 

I’ll make the same point for those who randomly share selective violent Quran quotes in the aftermath of a terror attack…not as a rebuttal to anyone denying violence in scripture…but just putting it out there that ..’look the scripture is violent… this scripture ALL muslims live by is dangerous” - no, this isn’t the time or place for that. I wholeheartedly agree…the scripture is vile, violent and all that. But tying ordinary muslims to these violent words when they may not fully be aware of its meanings, or even know of its existence is just in poor taste when they will likely already face a backlash of anti-muslim sentiment after an Islamic terror attack. I would say at other times, absolutely share this stuff, make muslims aware that this is what it says, and ask them to question if they’d really endorse this stuff. But RIGHT after a terror attack? Not a good idea imo. The bible has some vile violent verses too…we’ve just reached a point where many people don’t take it literally, and I hope we get there for Islam too…but if thats the goal tying *muslims in general* to violent verses in ancient scripture post-terror attack is harmful and counterproductive. 

Reminder, for the 'but what about Islam' types, I'm not sharing this to deny or shift blame from the fact that the Quran has equally violent, abhorrent verses that do inspire such horrors. But just to demonstrate that it is not uniquely evil, it is just unique in how seriously it is still taken today by many...unfortunately. 

Being blindly narrative driven without any regard for the truth - whether on the left or right, all muslims bad or all muslims good. This can take the vicious Nazi-esque Katie Hopkins form (far more dangerous and sinister of course), or it can take a well-intentioned but dishonest form from a magazine trying to portray muslims in a good light. You might be well intentioned but if you knowingly lie about things (see Cosmo screenshots below), ultimately you’re doing more harm to Muslims than you are good, and also providing fodder to the far right…who will find it easier to dismiss positive stories about muslims because of things like this.  

So they seem to know it's a Sikh person at this point...

How then...does this dishonest headline get printed? I mean there might very well be muslim Taxi drivers doing this as well, but juxtaposing it with this picture of a Sikh man, is really misleading!

Jump to Islamophobia concerns community leader - usually a guy being interviewed on TV who actually barely says two words about the horror of this attack before turning it around and making it about him and his community. Come on dude, priorities…yes there will likely be an anti-muslim backlash…i feel you…I get your concerns, I think anyone of muslim background shares those…generally people with brown skin might be fearful, as some non muslims have been killed as well in anti-muslim attacks. So i get it, legitimate concern….but in the aftermath of an attack, the first thing on your mind shouldn’t be the impact this will have on you…have some sympathy for the victims, for the horror their families will be dealing with.  

Similarly, on the fliplside theres the 'You can only care about one thing at a time' person - To this individual if you are concerned about a woman’s hijab being violently ripped off at the same time as the attack, you clearly have no regard for the victims of this brutal attack. This seems absurd to me. You can simultaneously express concern for both…because both harm innocent people. To assume there is no real violence being committed against perceived muslims is deeply foolish or deeply sinister…this isn’t about a few mean words hurled at muslims. This is about pregnant women being kicked till they lose their babies, this is about innocent people being killed. Their lives are no less valuable than those who went to the concert. You can and should express concern about both, of course one of these is not a large scale terrorist attack so one is more pressing and urgent, but this doesn’t mean that anyone expressing concern for both cares any less about the victims of the actual bombing. It just means they are looking at the bigger picture and concerned both about longer term as well as immediate effects. Sad this has to be explained, but there are many 'skeptical takes' out this week saying the victims of the bombing take a backseat if u care about anti-muslim sentiment rising during this attack. Its not one or the other, this is tribalism, plain and simple. And until we stop making it about us vs. them…and see that it is a cyclical problem where hate feeds hate...and that far right anti-muslim hate also fans the fires of Islamism, we won’t be able to combat it. 

The niqabi who decides to wear a grenade t-shirt on TV - ok this is rather specific…but i’m referring to a real fucking person who thought it was a good idea to be on TV and be interviewed about radicalization in the muslim community while wearing a black t-shirt that spells love in fucking *weapons*. 

At first i thought it was a photoshop job.. but sadly not...See video here

What kind of a person thinks thats a fucking good idea..? I mean of course Tommy Robinson was all over that. I don’t think it necessarily says anything about her sympathies or affiliations, as it appears to be a widely available 

t-shirt, 

but I mean the optics of this on a hipster kid and on a niqabi talking about extremism on TV after an *islamic* *terror* *attack* are completely different. Of course people are going to draw conclusions about what she was thinking. It might very well be that she foolishly thought it was a good ironic msg about peace, love and being anti violence or something…but fuck...it does not come across like that. Terrible terrible idea. NOT HELPING. 

'Hashtag Terror attack you say?!...Buy my books because I generally talk about Islam & stuff' person - 

Seriously...don’t be that person…don’t plug your non-specific stuff using a terror attack that took many lives. Of course some content is genuinely helpful and some content has been created as a specific response or commentary to this attack. That’s not what i’m talking about… it’s perfectly ok and also necessary for us to have access to different commentary and viewpoints after an attack. It’s how we process and form our opinions. This very piece is that… I’m talking about unrelated things that people are plugging using the hashtag and all. Don’t do that. That’s really in poor taste. 

Projecting negative intent on anyone that’s visibly muslim - Don’t be like Molyneux, probably a good rule in general.

(This is from the London attack, but the point remains.)

Whining about how people express their grief - Im sorry but people cope in different ways... are you that miserable of a person that you cannot let people heal in the ways that suit them? Coming together in groups, singing, feeling part of a community can feel powerful....and unite us at a time we feel so helpless otherwise. It can make us feel like we're doing something at least. Expressing ourselves through music and song is one of the things jihadis hate... its why they attack concert halls ffs. Don't be the guy that piles on to that. "Liberals just sing while the terrorists bomb us" - right cuz the singing is how they specifically plan to combat bombing. Liberals would go to battle ISIS armed with Jon Lennon songs I'm sure. 

I mean can people seriously have a problem with this kind of thing?

Goosebumps! The amazing moment Manchester crowd joins in with woman singing Oasis - Don't Look Back in Anger after minutes silence http://pic.twitter.com/Cw4mOq8yde

— Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 25, 2017

Is this not a valid & beautiful unifying, powerful response to human suffering? I don't understand the pettiness...

But What about [Name other Tragedy] - This isn't a contest, human suffering isn't a contest, please don't try to negate one tragedy by saying another deserves more attention. Yes some things get more air time than others, sometimes because it's closer to home, other times because of some aspects of the story. I wish i knew how to insure that all tragedies got equal attention, but this doesn't happen in the real world...so please don't take away from other horrific acts because the one you're talking about got less coverage. 

----

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} li.li1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #9e4a2f} span.s2 {color: #000000} span.s3 {text-decoration: underline} ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal}

I’m sure there’s a ton of more examples of unhelpful behaviour… feel free to add your observations too, in the comments below. But I just felt I had to put this out there after seeing so many cringeworthy takes, making an already tragic situation worse. 

----

Thanks to those who support my work. New Patrons and old. Much love to you all. If you'd like to support my work you can do so here

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2qAABmV via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

The Beast of Blasphemy Takes Another

Mashal Khan…

A young bright-eyed Mass Comm. student at Abdul Wali Khan University, who called himself a Humanist…was shot and beaten…his body was still being beaten after it had stopped moving. 

I made the mistake of clicking on one of the blurry videos circulating. It's something I can't ever unsee. 

Mashal is one of the latest victims of Pakistani religious extremism. My heart breaks…every time. And every time it’s harder to pick up the pieces and move on.

  There have been so many victims, taken by the same monster…the same darkness that resides in too many Pakistani hearts.

It’s time to ask ourselves, how many amongst us think ‘blasphemy’ is a crime…

It’s time to *really* ask what the state’s contributions are to creating an atmosphere ripe with hatred, intolerance and extremism... 

Full story here

In a land where diversity is not accepted, where we have to denounce Ahmedi’s before we can even get a passport…

From the blog. Yes this is what we have to sign to get a #Pakistani passport. In this century. http://pic.twitter.com/P5JgENmpF9

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) June 18, 2015

In a land where ‘blasphemy’ is officially a crime, punishable by death or imprisonment…don't you see...?

The seeds for this are sown already.

Where politicians simply questioning the blasphemy law are murdered again and again…

(articles linked above)

Their murderers celebrated by thousands of people. 

Full story here

Funerals like Mashal’s empty, Imams refuse to lead the funeral prayer…

Full story here

And in stark contrast murderer's funerals are heavily attended, mourned, showered with rose petals

full story here

This is what Pakistan has become. This is what it’s viewed as on the global stage.

Youtube stars snuffed out, Singers murdered..journalists attacked…children slaughtered…all at the hands of these religious extremists who’s thirst for religiosity is never quenched. They threatened the now late singer turned preacher/evangelist  Junaid Jamshed too. 

Full story here

*He*...a right wing Islamic preacher fled the country amidst accusations of blasphemy. 

No one is immune, no one is safe…there is no legitimate reason for this law to exist. It can be used against anyone, any time. Even it's supporters…like Junaid Jamshed were not safe from having it thrown back in their face. 

A warning to all those who support blasphemy punishments now…this can and will come for you too. 

All this happens in an environment where the Prime minister himself supports blasphemy punishments. And then we act shocked…"how did this happen?" We say… come on… you know how this happened.  

There are now rumours that these accusations of blasphemy were purposely floated about Mashal Khan to silence his criticism of university admin. I don’t know how true this is, but sadly it wouldn’t surprise me. 

Do read this thread on how the false accusations against #MashalKhan were just a means of silencing his rightful criticism of Uni admin https://t.co/gVIo50iAbR

— Dr. Naveed Alvi (@Nav_Derm) April 17, 2017

***

What chance does someone like Mashal have when these charges are brought against him, when it’s so easy to whip up a furious mob intoxicated on religion in Pak-istan, ’the land of the pure'. 

It doesn’t even matter if those charges are true or false. That is completely irrelevant, but sadly it’s been a huge part of this story. Well intentioned people…desperately trying to prove Mashal was a non-blasphemer, a pious ‘good Muslim’, in who’s dorm room they found prayer mats, and other religious items. 

Things I found in #Mashal Khan's room today: 1. Prayer Mat (Jai Namaz) 2. Quran-e-Pak 3. Picture of 4 Quls 4. A picture of Surah-e-Rehman

— Mansoor Ali Khan (@_Mansoor_Ali) April 15, 2017

Buying into this ‘good Muslim/bad Muslim’ dichotomy is where the problem begins in the first place. Why can’t we be a people that leave matters of religion in the private sphere, why can we not tolerate even slight differences in opinion? Why do words and questions fill so many with murderous fucking rage? Why can’t we teach our children to celebrate our differences? 

And…whats wrong with blasphemy? If you believe in an all powerful god, then he should not need you to stomp out the life of anyone who so much as breathes a word questioning that god’s prescriptions. Can he not withstand even minor scrutiny, this all powerful god? 

We have to ask questions to progress, we have to stop glorifying religion. Dial it waaaay down…Pakistan exists perpetually on a tipping point. It tips every day…and innocent lives are lost. That’s on us - it’s time to speak out, throw your hat in the ring, make your mark��do your part for a liberal and tolerant Pakistan. Speak up for minorities, speak out against injustice.

I’m sure that poor, dear Mashal was a good Muslim…all the evidence points to it. But I wish we lived in a world where this just. didn’t. matter. to Pakistanis. People who are not following Islam the way you want them to are also good people, so are people who don’t follow it at all, and so are people of each and every minority faith that exists in Pakistan. In fact the worst people you will find in Pakistan are those who think there is only one rigid way to follow religion, and that is their way, coincidentally. Those are the one’s who try to police the thoughts and words of others. 

Everyone has a right to exist in safety…it’s sad that this even has to be said, no one should be murdered or punished over words and differences in opinion. 

Pakistan is the country that produced Malala, but it is also the country with the harshest rejections for her. 

If Pakistan wants to exist in an increasingly globalized world in the 21st century, where different opinions and sources of information are at our fingertips, its going to have to pull itself out of this sinkhole of extremism, otherwise it will continue to fail. 

That’s an effect on all it’s people collectively. 

It’s time to rid ourselves of the mindset that thinks a backwards blasphemy law should exist, it’s hurting us all. 

I have seen another argument floating around Pakistani Twitter that disturbs me. It’s the “Blasphemy laws are being misused/manipulated against innocents” - No. That’s garbage…there’s no legitimate way to use a blasphemy law. Blasphemy is as simple as ‘a difference in opinion’. If you use this argument you are indirectly condoning some instances of punishment for people with differing opinions on religion. 

Some day you could be that person, depending on the group judging you. 

We are all Mashal Khan, because that could be any one of us..no matter how religious you think you are, it’s not enough to satisfy insatiable blasphemy laws.

We are all Salman Taseer

We are all Asia Bibi (not killed, but imprisoned)

We are all Shahbaz Bhatti

We are all Sabeen Mahmood

Do not forget these names. 

***

Important to remember: yes, while those who have killed people like Mashal Khan and Salman Taseer are Muslim, often the victims too are Muslim. It is voices like theirs we must fight for. Those who generalize and demonize Muslims are not doing that, In fact they are part of the problem. 

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px}

From a western, ex-muslim Pakistani-Canadian perspective like mine…it’s getting harder and harder to have this conversation on an international level, because there’s always some who will jump on our voices and use them to cast our own loved ones in a bad light. I feel like i’m forever walking a tightrope. Call out illiberalism on all sides, abandon tribalism so we can have these conversations honestly. 

***

A huge thanks to my patrons who make this work possible. 

If you enjoy my work and would like to support, you can do so here

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2oKt94k via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

A Foot in Both Worlds: How it feels to see the Suffering of Muslim women used to Undermine Feminism in the West

If you're on atheist Twitter, you've probably heard the terrifying and heartbreaking tale of Dina Ali, a young Saudi woman, trying to escape an abusive family...on her way to Australia to seek asylum, but stopped in the Philippines and hauled back to danger by male relatives. I have seen many good people rally behind this worthy cause. I hope creating all this noise will be of some use and we can help her find freedom somehow. At least her family knows there are people looking out for her and want accountability. I can only hope, that one day women in the place I grew up, Saudi Arabia, will have the freedom to move and travel as they please. Please use the hashtag #SaveDinaAli to continue making noise about this, and to keep the pressure up.

A Saudi Arabian woman says she was stopped at a Philippines airport ... and that her life would be in danger if she returned home. http://pic.twitter.com/4BCEwkYpyh

— AJ+ (@ajplus) April 12, 2017

****

What else can we do besides making noise? I know it feels like you're helpless and oceans away. But sometimes campaigning and distributing information to those who simply don't know about the situation, is invaluable... The topic of anything relating to Islam is fraught with baggage in the current global climate. People who were reluctant to touch this subject before, will be even more reluctant now. If we, as liberals, actually want valid critiques to be heard on a wider scale, this is the time to build bridges with the mainstream left - who control most mainstream, credible media. If you care for the rights of Muslim women, this is the time to vocally oppose anti-Muslim sentiment, anti-immigrant/anti-migrant sentiment, so that when and if such women get a chance to leave...they don't continue to suffer. Honestly, in the Islam-critical scene, I don't see enough of that. One thing that makes this situation even worse is people using this instance to dump on, discredit and minimize the struggles of Western feminists as a whole. It's wrong on many levels, but its also just strategically flawed and counterproductive. Granted, many Western feminists may not be aware of the struggles of women in Islamic theocracies - and may indeed view the subject through a Western lens. I myself have been a critic of this time and time again....on specific topics like hijab for example.

From a previous post, you can see the full thing here

There are definitely some *specific* instances where the response of Western feminists can be criticized. And I'm perfectly happy to do that when its relevant - but what I'm seeing a lot of now is a blanket condemnation of Western feminism as a whole.

Sure yeah, no other issues here in the west for women. 

(click to enlarge) Not to mention there are western feminists supporting, reporting and creating awareness on this very topic.

Well no, you don't have to dump on Western feminists to highlight the suffering of Saudi women. It would be far more effective if you raised awareness about it on it's own...as it's a very worthy cause. Should not be used as a tool to score cheap points. "To create controversy" ? so there's a desire to purposefully create controversy by dragging others down? Am I misunderstanding something?

Here's just one example of a Western feminist drawing national attention to a problem like FGM. Of course much more can be done, but this will be achieved through bridging the gaps in understanding, not through alienating Western feminists.

Why are Western feminists viewed as privileged? Well, because Western feminists do not live under Sharia, and aren't being held captive by a male guardianship system. What a privilege!

They aren't being stoned to death...so their struggles aren't real. Trivial non-issues. 

right, because being liked by everyone is the biggest problem Western feminists have

Who's saying they are comparable? I know I'm not...yet this is a response to me.

Now of course, theres no comparison between the types of struggles faced in the West and those under Islamic theocracy. But who, other than anti-feminist types are equating the two? Women saying "we should be heard too" isn't equating or saying they are comparable. This is another manifestation of the "But what about Islam" nonsense - nothing else can ever be criticized, thanks Islam. :/ What a divisive way to look at things. Identity politics being used by anti-sjw type critics of such things. 1) Western feminist? Bah...you don't have problems. 2) Also, (white) privilege isn't real, and oppression olympics are stupid. < Same people, probably.

Who was equating here? Not me... 'disrespect first-world feminists' :(

Ok maybe not all these types deny the existence of 'privilege', especially when it suits them:

Truly a disgusting and unhelpful way to look at things. Not a single Saudi woman is helped with this attitude. 

****

Sure Sharia is THE worst for women...but this is not to say that Western feminism as a whole is frivolous and silly. Don't give me the tired crap about manspreading as if that's what the whole movement is based on. I've heard more anti-feminists obsess over manspreading than feminists. Yes there have been some silly instances, which I have no issue with criticizing....but that is not representative of the whole of Western feminism. By this standard every woman who escapes life in a theocracy and moves to the West...and wants to continue fighting for her rights even in the West, against Western misogynists...is now just engaging in trivial BS. So basically: 'we'll have your back till you leave sharia...after that, you're a joke, your concerns are non-issues.'   Free speech is a major topic of concern in our circles, but this 'anti-Western-feminist' argument can be used there too. If it's not sharia-level bad, it's not worth worrying about I guess...total non-issue:

****

I can't describe how awful it is to see this as someone with one foot in both worlds. To see women's suffering being used against women in other contexts. I've been forced to veil in the past, but this doesn't mean I won't care about workplace sexual harassment in a Toronto office. Stop using the pain of women abused under Islamic regimes to undermine feminists in the West. Women's rights and the fight for those rights extends across the globe. Women are not pawns to pit against each other in some stupid imagined rivalry. I have spent roughly half my life in the West and half of it in the East...in a theocracy. I can tell you that even though there isn't morality police here, women's problems are not magically erased. Women are still struggling for equality all over the world, to different degrees obviously (yes, calm down, not equating). If you care for women's rights, and aren't just interested in weaponizing the *idea* of women's rights to express your hatred for Islam...then you should care about those rights everywhere. Islam can be criticized without throwing Western feminists under the bus. Some may seem reluctant to criticize Islam now, and boy...minimizing their struggles will definitely change their minds! Most importantly, this approach is a disservice to people like Dina Ali, if Muslim women's rights are continued to be seen as a cause hijacked by anti-feminists, right-wingers, etc. to undermine progress and women's rights in their own parts of the world...these critiques and calls to action will never fully resonate with the mainstream...they will always be a taboo topic to touch, they will always be tainted by associations with those seen as having illiberal views in a Western context. And this is why ex-muslims in the West like me...and women who continue to exist under sharia, often feel like we are shouting into the wind. How can any of us be heard like this? So...how do we help women like Dina? We talk about these issues...without using her heartbreaking situation to undermine others.

****

Here are some examples of the battles Western feminism is facing today...for those who think it's just non-issues:

Full story here

Full story here

Full story here

Full story here

Full story here

Full story here

Full story here

Full story here 

Full story here

And all this continues in a climate where alt-right sexism/misogyny is becoming hip, trendy and acceptable in a way it hasn't been in decades...In a climate where a self-professed sexual predator is sitting in the most powerful position in the world. Accusations of sexual assault certainly didn't damage his 'career'.

Full story here

We are in a time, where it's acceptable to say women should be taken out of positions of political power, "we need to establish a fierce and strong patriarchy". This is not some obscure alt-right woman btw, this is someone praised as an ally by our very own leading atheist figure, Dave Rubin.

"women must be removed from political power" (although still of course backs Le Pen) in order to "reestablish a fierce & strong patriarchy". http://pic.twitter.com/veGhSMX0c3

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) February 14, 2017

So Rubin goes on a podcast with an alt-right Trump fan called "libtard America" & praises them as an "ally" producing "good stuff". http://pic.twitter.com/P1Mx6CSRhV

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) February 1, 2017

****

Somewhere along the way, many crossed over from rightfully criticizing the left for dealing with Islam-related topics poorly, to opposing every liberal left value...feminism, diversity, standing up for minorities, trans rights, etc. How did we get here? :(

------------------------------------------ Thanks to all my Patrons, new and old....you make my work possible. If you enjoy my regressive feminist cuckery, please consider supporting here. from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2pvcgd6 via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Not Oppressed Enough : Being the Wrong kind of Ex-Muslim

For those asking over the past few days, wtf happened to start these mob attacks on me: Well...I'm not entirely sure, because they sort of came out of the blue. There's a general rift in left-leaning atheists and right-leaning atheists. And 'right-leaning' is seen as some sort of slur, when it's just an observation based on the politics coming from some of these types. If you're anti-left on everything, and rarely ever anti-right...it says something. Especially today.  This split continues to become more pronounced in these times of the rise of the far right. While lefties are looking to focus some of their criticism there, others are trying to resist and silence that criticism. 

Basically a few days ago, some dude I had never heard of, called @FuriousFossa was upset that I tweeted about not knowing what Taqiya was till I got on twitter. Despite growing up in Saudi. Because this didn't confirm his previously held beliefs, what good are ex-muslims if they can't confirm your bullshit views?!  Then, someone upset him further by saying that people using that term while criticizing Islam are usually bigots. OMFG the B word!! We have to be extra PC with that word, so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of the anti-PC, anti-sjw crowd, why can't everyone know that!! 

And I'd agree, people insisting on using that word are usually pretty loony...(as was proven in this case).  I've got news, Muslims can lie without any special religious permission. Just like any other theist.  This isn't a widespread muslim conspiracy to deceive people. It's a niche concept that most aren't even aware of. And I mean, there's just so much actual terrible stuff that is commonly practiced  in Islam (polygyny for one) to criticize anyway, there's little reason to cling defensively to obscure things like Taqiya.  Here's another ex-muslim perspective on this: 

Fossa was also upset I wrote something (to someone else, not him) about how pointing to ISIS is a great whataboutery tactic for apologists of the western right. Just point to ISIS, it'll always be worse, and you're off the hook. 

That's it two strikes for me, and he decided he wanted to disprove my entire background and lived experience. This way, you know, once I was totally discredited...at least he'd know I was wrong about the concept of Taqiya, and he was right!  Trying to prove me dishonest, after being upset I didn't confirm his views on a dishonesty concept in Islam....almost like...trying to prove me a taqiya-er. How taqiya-esque.  

It got me accusations of deflecting away from the obvious point that ISIS is worse (which i'm sure I've said myself roughly about 9465 times. I just don't feel the need to utter it every time... with literally any other criticism of anything other than Islam. 

It also got me accusations of trying to deflect from criticism of Islam. Lol. 

Yeah. I'm sure it does take a little more than a bio, maybe like years and years of work of criticizing Islam, that are useless now apparently because I also criticize the Western right. These criticisms can't get any less intelligent, honestly. 

*** Then...of course, Lalo - always on the lookout for jumping on any criticism of me, Joined in and helped to float the conspiracy theories to a larger audience (who knows why - I've barely interacted with the guy in ages...he's still always infuriated with me). And then Yasmine, who, it seems, had it out for me since we had a private falling out during Gad's last unhinged meltdown at me. 

#TheTriggering of @gadsaad http://pic.twitter.com/F2ifbm3UcB

— Armchair Critic (@JoelRDodd) December 2, 2016

Because she, as my friend, publicly tweeted how those attacking me, and me were equally 'embarrassing' or something. I tried to privately discuss it with her, she deleted her tweet I believe, but it was clear she wasn't too sympathetic to the attacks on me because, she tweeted I was equally at fault..and because I criticized Gad/Rubin's far-right associations in the first place. People she clearly considered allies. I was pretty disappointed and put off, but my reaction was not to go out and slander her. I just silently disengaged and went about doing my own thing, which still included criticizing Gad and Rubin's shady associations.  Of course, silly me. I didn't learn or keep my mouth shut after the last round of baseless attacks. Lalo even tried circulating the 'she's not a real ex-muslim' thing that time, but I think it got lost in Gad's endless stream of hate.

Then months later, this happened. This time Lalo got more traction.  *** The Nitty Gritty Gather round peeps, I’m gonna share a really absurd tale about supposed ex-muslim allies, supposed critics of sjw style 'oppression olympics' and sjw ideological purity tests…but who are now furious because an ex-muslim they disagree with ideologically/politically in their minds was not oppressed ENOUGH. 

A fellow ex-muslim, that I have personally promoted, jumped in happily to weigh-in on the drama and attempt to negate my lived experience by claiming I just *dabbled in oppression*, haven’t truly experienced it or anything… My life was like a 5 star resort apparently...and everyone else seems to be a good judge on what kind of life I had in sharia-land.

I wasn’t oppressed enough in Saudi fucking Arabia…This is a *real* objection raised by some, including a fellow ex-Muslim. 

Let that sink in.

It's not even by people I actively debate or disagree with…but people I have little to no interaction with. They don’t understand the first thing about life in Saudi, none of them have lived there.. but are telling others far and wide what my life experience was like. They are giddy from having ‘exposed’ me, caught me out in some lie about the duality of life in Saudi Arabia as an expat. They've been working hard for this one. 

Oh my. 

Whatever will I do now. They’re on to me.  

Not like I’ve podcasted about the duality of life in Saudi here, here, here, or here….and not like i’ve specifically addressed this strange juxtaposition in articles myself or anything. I have never claimed to be the most oppressed person in Saudi Arabia, quite the opposite in fact. I have always talked about being lucky to have the kind of life I did there. But, despite that...my life certainly wasn't free from the application of Sharia law, from standard Islamic theocracy regulations, that were just absorbed into my life as 'normal' because I knew little else. 

Yet - They have clipped some audio, from *my own show*…that I do *publicly*…to demonstrate how ‘dishonest’ and contradictory i’ve been. 

Great question indeed. Maybe try checking out the work of the person you're accusing, your question might be addressed in the very episode you're clipping. 

(let me come out and say now that I’ve lived in both Saudi and Pakistan, lest they do some other genius clip about my ‘contradictions’ ..sometimes you will hear me talking about going to school in Saudi, sometimes you will hear me talking about going to school in Pakistan. It’s because both are true… not because I’m a secret spy or Taqiyya-er who can’t keep her lies straight) 

This is almost too easy to mock and ridicule, I feel embarrassed for them, I do, and I’d normally just ignore insignificant people.. but they keep going on and on. They keep being told how wrong they are at each turn too. Brutal. But they’ve backed themselves into a corner now… the only thing they can do is double down and lash out at me…Not admit they made a mistake or something, and were wrong to accuse me based on zero evidence. That would be the decent thing to do.  

A lovely summary from the detached-from-reality point of view, calling me an insult to women and ex-muslims suffering under sharia, this was posted on lalo's public thread. 

I imagine this will only get crazier as their rage grows…because they cannot discredit me based on things I’ve been entirely honest about. Since I'm the wrong kind of ex-muslim, I do not get the charitableness anonymous ex-muslim accounts they don’t have issues with get. 

Mostly, people on both ends have an issue with me because I refuse to pick a team. I think criticizing both Islamic far right and western far right is important. And I think in Trumpian times, Its vital to focus *some* of my critique on the western right and its apologists. When that toxic stuff overlaps with criticism of Islam, it does nothing but muddy the waters, and hold back valid criticisms from resonating with the mainstream. ***

Know this:

I do not exist to confirm any narratives. 

I occasionally deviate from my appointed role as provider of anti-Islam masturbatory material. 

I exist simultaneously as an ex-muslim woman who grew up under Shariah (that’s right I said it again), who will harshly criticize Islam when relevant, as an expat from Saudi who will tell you that in some bubbles life in Saudi was pretty secular at times, and as a *Western* liberal feminist. So I will have critiques of western sexism and misogyny too. And I will speak up against anyone pitting different aspects of my identity against one another. Do not use sharia to silence western feminists, and do not use western perspectives to silence women who speak up about hijab, etc. This is whataboutery. Women everywhere should want to better their situation. We are far from perfect equality even in the west.

I am happy to criticize feminism when it goes off the rails, but I do not buy into the “feminists are the real sexists” bullshit, or the western feminists should stfu because they aren’t getting stoned to death. 

Anyway, I will have happy memories of my childhood in a secular compound in saudi…I will have tales of women bathing topless at my compound pool…and I will also have tales of being forced into a black bag against my will because of the ‘Muttawas' or morality police as we called them. I will have tales of having a great secular education, and I will have tales of horror where I, only a child, saw my mom’s ankles hit by a muttawa’s cane because her headscarf slipped in the market. I will have tales of being shepherded quite literally with sticks by morality police in Mecca who herd the women hastily into a segregated prayer area for women. I will have tales of being pushed to the ground and almost trampled because of the morality police forcefully segregating us in Mecca. I will have a story or two about running…being chased by muttawas as they yell behind me for my headscarf slipping…of narrowly making it into a car that was driven for me (because I did not have the right to drive)…and of the muttawas catching up, and grabbing on in vain to a little bit of black fabric as our car sped off and it slipped through their hands. I will have such stories of escaping the morality police in the street.. and of feeling fear, and… of feeling comfort ...that for some hours I had a compound to go home to…and to shed the black cloaks that I wasn’t given a choice on. A reverse amish compound as I’ve literally referred to it before. 

I encompass all those identities and I’ve repeatedly, honestly explored them with my audience…I’ve pointed to the absurd duality. Yet the savage internet mobs who hate me (which only used to consist of islamists at one point..but now they are fewer than the rabid western right wing apologists) have portrayed this as some great shady conspiracy. Some incredible contradictory set of stories that simply cannot be consolidated. 

It must be that I’m lying about one or the other. 

“Either you grew up on a compound, or either you grew up in sharia - which is it” — heaven forbid they put some thought into it and realize, well… oh…it can actually be both! Imagine that. 

Cue fellow ex Muslim, previous guest of my show Yasmine to jump in and cast further doubt. She posts an ad for the most extravagant compound in the entire country, and projects that onto my experience. My compound was nothing like Aramco, it was incredibly small and modest in comparison, but thats irrelevant, even if it were Aramco I'd have to experience Sharia every time I left. My life was not better than the life of most Canadians because I was still forced into a black bag against my will, pretty much every day. Morality police and their canes were a regular sight, I had few rights as a woman. But sure, please go out of your way to discredit my lived experience. Why they did this appalling thing, and insisted on it even after being told how it could be both...is beyond me.

Real classy. 

Lol, cuz growing up in Saudi in a compound is TOTALLY like vacationing in the nicest hotel in Havana for a few months. 

 Cue random person who just isn't satisfied:

Not good enough apparently.

Still not good enough.

"I don't like what Ali had to say so I'm going to fill in my own details despite never having lived in Saudi or knowing anything about life there." "Eiynah barely left the compound, went to school on the compound" Umm, No. Actually I left the compound every day, to go *to* school. I just love that details about my life are authoritatively being discussed, without any actual knowledge, ffs. Yes I barely ever had a real conversation with a Saudi, I've talked about this several times. It doesn't mean I didn't speak to Saudis on a daily basis in the markets, and shops, etc. It just means I never actually had the chance to know a Saudi national closely and have a proper conversation with them because we were kept segregated. Something I have discussed repeatedly. 

Not even multiple corroborations of this reality are convincing enough. No no, everyone who says this is lying, but these random internet people who know nothing about life in Saudi, are here to 'non-Saudi-splain' to me that my experience is inauthentic, that I’m an embarrassment to women who *really* live under sharia. I'm just an imposter, who lived under sharia but also had access to a community pool. So you know, discrediting my story is fair game. I also had air-conditioning. The luxuries I’ve been hiding from you all. 

This is the same group of people mind you, that get upset when people try to discredit Ayaan Hirsi Ali's lived experience of being a victim of FGM. But because I don't fit the mould they'd like me to, and also will criticize people within the islam-critical scene. You can make comics to mock and laugh at my life experience. 

Minus the *face* covering, both those pictures were my reality actually.

No amount of refutations of the lies put out there about me are enough. Surely anyone with a shred of principle would object to random false accusations being used to smear someone. I mean these ‘principled' types are out in droves when  someone slightly misrepresents Richard Spencer the nazi or Milo. “I don’t agree with their ideas but” just doesn’t extend over to ‘the wrong kind of ex muslim’ I guess. 

----Worse still…Yasmine, once a friend…someone who’s had a terrible experience under Islam no doubt.. I would never discredit her experience despite her vicious attacks on me, She’s someone I empathized with, with all my heart.. But somehow she has it out for me because I’m, you know,  a shit disturber who derails from *only* criticism of islam, by having a problem with fellow atheists when they promote rape apologists or… white genociders… why can’t i just keep my head down and perform the role that is laid out for me as an ex muslim? Criticize islam, thats it. ----

This is especially funny because the example of loony he uses is someone normalized, legitimized and promoted by..none other than the person he's defending. Also what is up with the weird mentions of "loyalty", like if you've disagreed with me on Rubin, no need to be "loyal", just be honest. I won't respect that view, but it's better than dishonesty.  

Yeah its totally mental and a delusion of grandeur to expect someone like Rubin who claims they are liberal to not promote rape apologists, like they've done nothing wrong...or white genociders. This is a convenient strawman of my position on Rubin, used repeatedly. I don't care if he aligns with me on every single thing, I enjoy some of Sam Harris' work, I don't agree with him on everything (as you might have noticed on my episode with him). I enjoy some of Maajid Nawaz's work...I don't agree with him on a lot, since he is an adherent of religion and I'm not. Heck, I don't think I agree with anyone on everything. But I do expect people to at least not look the other way on *rape* apologetics, White Genocide, Islamism...important values like that matter to me. they aren't some tiny, nitpicky details. For some people , I guess opposing *only* Islamism is important. (Oh, and not like I'm currently being targeted for a difference of opinion).   Ah, the lack of self-awareness. 

pic: via @vinikako

@NiceMangos @AkiMuthali It struck me as I was writing it that the people who've been going after you lately seem to want to establish an orthodoxy for ex muslims.

— Lefty Conspirator (@NoKnownFuture) March 31, 2017

Whatever mine and Yasmine's differences on Rubin were...was no reason to jump on the Lalo bandwagon to openly try to discredit my entire existence with no evidence. To post tasteless memes about me trying on some oppression, just dabbling in it for fun. 

A) "Dabbling in oppression." What kind of person do you have to be to say that sort of thing- and without any intimate knowledge of the person who's life you're talking about. B) It's not all about passports, but yes to a great degree, people in Saudi are valued more in the workplace depending on their passport - another thing I've talked about on my podcast. However, when living in Saudi I had a total, bottom-rung, treated like garbage Pakistani passport, not a Canadian one. Wrong again on all counts. C) I hope you don't ever criticize concepts of white privilege or PoC being romanticized, because that doesn't come close to this level of "oppression olympics".  It's just so so callous, can't wrap my head around this.

I’m at a loss for words, honestly. I wouldn't have expected stooping to this level. Though, things got a bit weird with her after Trump won, she was overly defensive about criticism of Trump voters. Since then, I’ve seen her compare DNC/Keith Ellison situation to Nazi Germany… in this TRUMP ERA

 … I’ve seen her rejoice at the GOP winning….

I'm sorry but "I'm so glad GOP won" isn't a liberal sentiment, even if in response to Linda Sarsour, who's basically the flip-side of the problem to Rubin. Another sanitizer, downplayer, legitmizer of another far-right. But somehow calling out this version of far-right apologist is ok!

 … I’ve seen her downplay the inhumane 'Muslim ban' that separated families. That could have potentially prevented people like her, from escaping the ME when they needed to. The idea that people around the world could be upset at the principle, despite a lack of their personal involvement... why is that so hard to grasp? 

  I'm happy to call out Linda Sarsour for this. But this is the same issue I take with Dave Rubin, he is masquerading as a liberal or at least pushing / doing apologetics for right wing conservativism, imo - And some people obviously prefer if you call out only *one* side of this. But sadly not only do they prefer it, they go after you in mobs, and try to discredit your entire being for speaking up on both.

My concerns of the easy slide to the right are pretty self evident. This is something ex-muslims are particularly vulnerable to, I myself have been courted by the right. But actively resisting it in the face of rising popularity isn’t something everyone can do. It's why I'm not too bothered about popularity. I'll happily take being less popular and more consistent. 

Anyhow, she’s used this whole dumping on me process to tag Rubin in a tweet…and whaddaya know… get a spot on the Rubin Report, as I had predicted! Prove me right, that’ll show me!

***

I guess it means that there’s not many of my views that they can effectively argue against if my critics have to resort to weird conspiracy bullshit about me not really being who I say I am. 

Imagine how stupid and risky it would be to make claims about being an ex-muslim from Saudi growing up under sharia and then to do a podcast series talking with people who lived there for real (unlike me)… about the details of life there. Why would I put myself in that situation? And if I wanted to make up my story, why not make up full oppression to the worst degree. Why this better compound life? 

@NiceMangos @AkiMuthali @SurlyCripple @StrictlySid unless you've lived under locally-sourced artisanal sharia, I don't want to hear from you

— Martin Mannion (@NataliasDad) March 30, 2017

Lalo know’s that I’ve seen my mother hit by morality police, he knows these experiences but still wants to question and delegitimize. These are the same people so disgusted (rightfully so) when Greenwald misrepresents Sam Harris. How are these guys any better I ask? If we cannot have standards simply because someone is Islam-critical, then we are no better than the Greenwald's we so love to criticize.

#NotShariahEnough 

Lets remember what’s really important here though... I am not oppressed enough. I am just pretending to be because it’s hip.

Thanks Yasmine! 

So being forced to wear a hijab can be oppressive even in Canada (I agree). But being forced to do so by the state in Saudi is just 'dabbling in oppression'...like life in a 5 star resort! 

It's baffling, it is.

But the only ongoing beef this crew has with me is over a difference of opinion on someone like Rubin or Douglas murray. Inevitably, if you probe their criticisms of me they end up around the fact that I don’t like Douglas Murray, that I had the audacity to have Sam on my show and do something other than talk about what we already agree on (yes, Islam sucks), that I had the audacity to ask Sam his views on or make him aware of what other prominent atheists are doing, that I shouldn’t criticize Rubin (no matter how much evidence I have) - It’s petty to go after bad actors on this side apparently. But its incredibly noble to go after Werleman, or Reza Aslan or Linda Sarsour or Glenn Greenwald. 

Opposing bad ideas& apologists for people with bad ideas consistently is ‘tribal’ & ‘petty’. Picking a side and avoiding self-criticism is truly rational. Heck if I thought that way, I’d never have left Islam.  (But have I really? how will we ever know?)

Yup, its the left that can’t tolerate dissenting views. Meanwhile Lalo blocked me long ago for having a conversation on MY podcast, with someone entirely unrelated.. whom he claimed to not even know… sure never mind it was known anti-muslim conspiracist who thinks Maajid Nawaz behaves like an Islamist. And Obama may have been a secret muslim. My questioning Robert Spencer so deeply offended Lalo, the champion of tolerance and rationality… 

lol.

And remember, I'm the one supposedly with 'mental' 'delusions of grandeur' about people having to align 100% to my views for me to like them.

Now we’re at a point where the desperation to discredit me for wrongthink is so evident… my criticism of Rubin, Gad and co is based only on what they actually say or do, observable facts, I am happy to provide proof for any allegations of them promoting far-righters or even to talk to them, but none of these Classical Liberals wish to engage with the actual criticism, and none of them want to talk to me.… So - in retaliation for my evidence based criticism I get smears based on nothing…and some onlookers think this is a tit for tat. It’s being framed absurdly, as an equivalence. Which I will object to every time.

Lol, I'm the monster for objecting to what Rubin does. Not Rubin, for promoting rape apologists.

And, this is the passionate defense Rubin gets..that doesn't even engage with the criticism of him. It's not who he has on, but how he talks to them.

Yes, my cunt-like overreaction after days of being dragged through the mud, consisted of me simply saying its 'bullshit' to equate me with the people smearing me. And not to tag me in such tweets again.

Imagine if someone you considered a friend and ally suddenly interjected themselves into a public smear campaign about you, simply to put out a false equivalence to tens of thousands of followers.And basically say, 'its not my problem'...so they're all cool. Well, I guess it'll be #NotYourBeef next time someone is slandering Ayaan, as well. I mean of course, if someone finds themselves caught in an awkward position, theres the option of just steering clear and not involving yourself. Which I'd totally respect. But if you're going to publicly say they're A-Ok after what they did to me, then I will always object. #WhatACunt, couldn't even graciously accept a respectful equation between people lying about me, and me.

I'll say this again, I’m criticizing someone who is promoting far-righters in an environment ripe with hate crimes (very much the flip of what Linda Sarsour does with Sharia/Saudi Arabia, etc.)…There’s a legitimate reason to do this… this is not about hating someone personally. It's as necessary imo, as this very group of people think their criticisms of Cenk, Reza, Linda, CJ Werleman are.

The attacks on me are however are just pure hate…disagree with my actual views any time. I'd welcome honest disagreement, but don’t lie about me ffs. As Lalo says:

The Irony. 

If I respond and defend myself against such baseless accusations I’m accused of being the petty one who just won’t shut up and let people spread lies about me. Ugh Eiynah….why so petty? Why can’t you just let people say hateful ridiculous stuff about you? The other 'petty fight' she's referring to below, is the previous Gad meltdown. Which consisted of days of him bashing me as an 'anonymous troll', 'Queen of anti-semites', 'plumpy pineapples'...because Jerry Coyne posted a pretty mild (evidence-based) comment of mine about Gad and Rubin promoting far right people like Tommy Robinson, PJW of Infowars. His meltdown is documented in this thread.

Anyhoo, I wanted to make note of this instance for just how crazy hypocritical it has been. Who knows where we’ll go from here…this is the ‘community' that supposedly values evidence but has few issues with the guy who legitimizes Infowars while crying that mainstream media are fake. This is the community that is constantly, (rightfully) upset at Ayaan being silenced for her harshly critical views on Islam, but won't really care if some from within are trying to silence ex-muslim views on the internal problem of legitimizing western far-righters. If you care about ex-muslims and muslim women's rights so much...you should technically care if the people potentially mistreating them are muslims or western far righters.

On paper many will have the correct answer to opposing the right wing hijack of criticism of Islam, but putting that into practice, gets met with resistance and character assassinations as you can see. 

They call themselves ex-muslim allies. Nope… just when ex-muslims stick to criticism of Islam, and serve a purpose… 

They are bothered by my anonymity now.. but had no issues with it for years when I mostly just criticized Islam. (They have no issues with more agreeable ex muslim accounts either). Now, I'm this 'divisive' person who won’t stfu about the Western right, when hitler salutes are in existence again. Let's stick to the important facts though, it's the left that's always at fault.  Misrepresenting even people like Richard Spencer. He's not a white supremacist, silly lefties, he's a white nationalist.

Rubin and Lauren Southern talk about how Spencer isn't really a white supremacist and no one knows the arguments against white nationalism http://pic.twitter.com/h0y06Uur4T

— Tom Bloke (@21logician) March 2, 2017

***

There are many offshoots to this attack on me too… so many ppl with all this rage uniting against me … its really rather sweet that everyone came together like this to pile on total lies, false equivalences between me and my smearers.

Right, I'd LOVE to see evidence of this. I once long ago said that mocking muslims as dirty for eating with their hands, is not a legitimate criticism of Islam. This borders on some real weird bigoted territory. And this woman has obsessively stalked my twitter ever since, despite being blocked.

I'm sure she has no troubling views or anything.

Lol, in this instance its not her, but others are clearly using it to get her on yet another wonderful, totally liberal show with no history of far right support.

Staunch A (from above screenshot) has residual anger for me, because I wrote a blogpost calling out an anti-migrant publication she worked for. Run by the guy who tweets this stuff:

According to Yasmine I smear everyone, even though she participated in smearing and discrediting *me* completely uninstigated. To them smearing is simply when other people object to their lies. When people defend themselves... its an attack. Ok then.

This is truly some detached-from-reality, totally lacking self-awareness stuff. A) Smear someone, sling mud. B) Post tasteless memes negating their lived experience, because u don't like their views C) Accuse them of being intolerant of differing opinions D) Accuse them of smearing *everyone* & mud-slinging, when they defend themselves. E) Say you're the victim in all this. F) yes the only reason i'm speaking up about her now in the middle of a smear campaign is because she's more popular than me. That must be it.

***

If I emotionally distance myself from this cyber-flogging for my crime of blaspheming against Gad/Rubin/Murray its actually a fascinating case study of in-group out-group politics... and hardcore tribalism from people who are claiming to reject tribalism. 

All they can do is think critically about pre-approved opponents Reza or CJ werleman, Cenk, Greenwald, Sarsour… if someone in their perceived in-group has the exact same tactics they’ll go out of their way to demonize anyone calling that out...

Charges against me

I said Yasmine was pandering to the Right and said she was an opportunist for using this specific instance to get airtime on Rubin. - provable through her own tweets, fb posts. Like seriously…she can go around discrediting my entire existence, post memes about me dabbling in oppression to be cool or something, and I can’t even in response point to actual behaviour I’ve observed, that might explain why out of the blue she chose to do this? As someone who promoted her, I think I can safely say she used me and my platform and publicly discarded me when she had no more use for me. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of ex-muslim would say ‘she dabbled in oppression’ about another. 

I criticize Rubin, Gad and Douglas Murray - only ever based on what they actually say/endorse..not on personal attacks. Though Dave and Gad have tried to retaliate via personal attacks. I welcome disagreement with my views, and have offered to speak to them many times. But they avoid engaging with my actual criticisms and avoid discussion.

I say Dave and Gad pander to the right - how is this even controversial? "Mr. Why I left the left, let me work with Dennis Prager on how shitty the left is", and "Mr. 'Trump has the superior position on Islam', and 'let me get Geert Wilders on my show to piss of Eiynah'"

I’m divisive - sure only as divisive as anyone pointing out Islamism is bad and apologists for it are bad. 

I deflect from criticism of Islam - um.. nope? Have u seen my work? I just object to people using Islam to deflect from criticism of the western right. 

I haven’t been oppressed enough. - Lol 

I have not had as hard a life as people who didn’t live in a compound in Saudi - agreed. Never claimed that I did, in fact always have made this distinction, if u only took the time to look into my work, listen to my conversations with Saudi women.

My claim of growing up under sharia is untrue - Nope. 

I once said to someone in a Tweet i’ve only personally *met* about 3 niqabis - so i must not know much about oppression/Sharia. Er, no. Having personally *met* and sat down with very few niqabis doesn’t mean i didn’t grow up around them, go on the bus with them every day, see them in the market all around me, see them in every waiting room, community gathering etc, etc. I personally don’t have such a religious family, and we don’t personally know such extreme religious people. I’ve met a handful, and its really uncomfortable talking to people in a black mask. I’ve lived around them my whole life though, and probably had many insignificant interactions with them. But no, I just don’t *know* many is all. 

My ex muslim story is so dubious that even EXMNA had to reject me - Nope. Refuted. But not retracted, by Mr. Honesty himself. 

It was mean of me not to graciously accept Michael Sherlock’s public false equivalence of people who smear me and me, right in the eye of that storm. I said that’s bullshit, so its understandable he jumped to “You are the monster u revile” “You are a crazy cernovich conspiracist about Rubin” (yeah ok if u think cernovich is crazy, then u should have no problem with the fact that i think Rubin normalizing cernovich’s craziness, is crazy) and then “cunt” x 2. - I’ll say it again…what an asshole thing to do to a friend…I have not known Michael to be like this, so I’m wondering if he was abducted by aliens or something ? Or if my criticism of Rubin had been building up as some sort of anger towards me? I don't know.

I’ve said before that in Saudi many of us weren’t aware of the extent of how barbaric some of the punishments were - like of course we heard about public beheadings and those rumours circulated, they weren’t publicly discussed or acknowledged in detail because…as any idiot would know, life in Saudi Arabia is a heavily censored in many ways. One of the most censored and silenced topics is the violation of human rights in Saudi. This doesn’t mean I have no experience living under sharia, it means this is one of the effects of living under sharia ffs. Information is kept from you in an Orwellian way. #NotShariaEnough indeed. Where else do you live under fear of morality police, think sneaking around with alcohol (moonshine) as a teenager could lead to death or deportation, where else are you forced into black bags without your consent? Where else do you live life as a woman knowing you are a second class citizen. That if you are potentially raped, there is no real recourse. Where else could you  experience morality police canes? 

I once said this to a guy in very frustrating conversation, where not even this was as bad as sjws to him.   

which is presented by my critics as me saying all people who like or have been on Dave's show are fans of white supremacy and rape apologetics. Now if you actually read what I said, it says…”if you don’t have a problem with the promotion of those things” , clearly.. you’d be a Rubin fan… this is pretty self explanatory I think. But by now you’ve seen my critics aren’t very smart at all. Dave Rubin demonstrably promotes white genociders (a white supremacist conspiracy theory that builds fear about interracial 'breeding') and rape apologists unchallenged, laughed Mike Cernovich's rape apologetics off as 'Rattling Cages' ffs. This is one of the main criticisms against him. If thats fine with someone, or they are happy to look the other way because he serves some other agenda of crushing the evil SJWs who run the world…. then why would they NOT be a Dave Rubin fan? If you can overlook these things, yeah you'd be a Rubin fan. Im sure many people are Rubin fans just out of ignorance though, who aren't aware of the bigger picture or details of the kinds of people he's promoting, because he doesn't present these troubling guests accurately. In fact he presents them in the best light possible, as allies. But if you know, and don't find it to be a problem that's troubling. 

I hate that Dave Rubin talks to controversial people - No. I’d be fine with his exact same guest list if he simply challenged these guests on some of their disturbing views, or if he at least made his audience aware of why these people are controversial in the first place. Instead it’s a nodfest. This is very harmful, especially in this political climate. And has visibly made the atheist scene toxic and overlap hugely with infowars /alt-lite/alt-right audiences. I actually really enjoyed David Pakman's interview with Richard Spencer. He did what Rubin pretends to. 

I am somehow upset with Yasmine because she's more popular than me..haha. It certainly couldn't be that I decided I will no longer be silent about things I've observed about her, only *after* she contributed to negating my entire life story. Because those things might help to explain why she went after me like this. Also, last I checked I had quite a lot more followers, undoubtedly she'll get more if she goes the Rubin/Gad/Lalo route..but it hasn't happened just yet...so that too, is just false. I also said she was pandering to the soft right, not that she is right wing. 

Ok but with Brilliant arguments like this, they definitely got me here:  

Clearly this is a contest between Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and Dave Rubin. Because Jihadis will always be the worst, undoubtedly (and we come full circle from how this started with Fossa being angry 'I deflect from Islam')…I guess worrying about the rise of far right hate and extremism in the West where many of us critics of Islam live, is just silly and frivolous. Not like the US has stepped few decades back in the past months or anything. Nothing to see here. Promoting white genociders and anti-feminists should proceed as normal. 

Sadly this is the state of self proclaimed liberal twitter atheists, they resort to fox news tactics. And I'm not supposed to notice there's a problem. 

Why can’t I just pick a team and stfu with all this inconvenient in-group criticism. It’s tribal *not* to. Such a smeary cunt-monster cuck, Eiynah. And I bet you haven't learned your lesson yet, about staying silent on these things. I bet you think the resistance to this shows just how important this topic is to discuss. No ideas above scrutiny, freedom of speech, etc.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} li.li1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal}

How about now? Will you be quiet now? --- Nope. ----------------- Thanks to those who stuck by me during the smear campaign. Thanks to those who are real friends, and thanks to those who support my work. New Patrons and old. Much love to you all. If you'd like to support my work you can do so here

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2n8HTwi via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Empowering Islamists under Trumpism

Apart from the glaring, 'handing ISIS a great recruiting tool' effect,  there are many other ways in which Islamists are being empowered in this climate. So many people exist on the edge of extremism, and Trump will tip them over & convince them, that yes they are at war with the West. 

Trump's "Muslim ban" will be counterproductive to keeping America safe and assist with terrorist recruitment https://t.co/thgTsW5pHh

— David Pakman (@dpakman) February 1, 2017

This chaotic, potentially dangerous, and inhumane ‘muslim ban’ (which The White House is now saying isn’t a ban, after calling it a ban themselves on multiple occasions)...has many consequences…some of them obviously horrific…separating families, handcuffing children & generally creating chaos around the world - But other effects are less obvious, less noticeable...and can slip under our radars. 

It's important to keep an eye out for those. 

Donald Trump's White House says 5-year-old boy was 'handcuffed' because he was a 'security threat' https://t.co/bbVEFQ5GvK

— The Independent (@Independent) January 31, 2017

.@jaketapper with a remarkable 2-minute fact-check on @PressSec http://pic.twitter.com/GGjQ21GMUb

— Nolan D. McCaskill (@NolanDMcCaskill) January 31, 2017

*

Islam is Being Held in Higher Regard Each Day

Amidst all the false accusations of ‘Islamophobia' even when people of muslim background would raise their voices to mildly critique something like misogyny or homophobia in their own communities….there were some people spouting legitimate anti muslim bigotry, right alongside them… 

Unfortunately, that has boiled over.

The resistance to allow open discussion of Islam, caused a massive failure to address grievances with Islamic extremism.

This left the floor open for the right to swoop in and fear monger, campaign from an angle of xenophobia…it couldn’t be more obvious than in a time like this. Where muslims are being singled out by the fucking president of the United States...and banned. 

This is a time where innocent muslims were shot while peacefully practising their faith, by a far-right, deranged Trump and Marine Le Pen supporter. People’s hijabs are being ripped off in the street, we hear of such stories more and more. The emboldened bigotry vibe seems infectious - people who were always slightly sympathetic, are more and more comfortable sharing their feelings now.  

What do right wing nationalists want exactly? What does Trump want? If he really hates muslims, he's achieving the opposite of making them a widely detested group.

Artwork by Shepard Fairey

This Sunday, mosques around the UK will open their doors to their neighbours. Find out how to get involved here > https://t.co/GtG0WS44jI http://pic.twitter.com/QTlRubE7tW

— Ben & Jerry's UK (@benandjerrysUK) February 2, 2017

In fact, he’s doing an excellent job of victimizing them to such a degree that Islam/Muslims are being held in higher and higher regard each day. Its becoming 'the anti Trump', the symbol of defiance…to a problematic degree actually. The pendulum always swings too far.  It swung too far right in opposition of the left's defensiveness around Islam, and now it is swinging further in favour of islam. There are reactionaries on either side - and their pendulums are a' swingin'.  The reasoned voices will become increasingly invisible. 

I try not to be hyperbolic, but on my worst days I fear we’re headed to a place where the polarization won’t stop till it gets to 'Nazis vs. Jihadists'

But that apocalyptic scenario is a whole other blogpost in itself. 

*

Muddying The Water 

Now, I’m a long time critic of hijab and Islamic modesty garb - but I come at it as a person who cares about equality, feminism, minority rights…compassion, and someone who truly wants the best for the Muslim community. I just feel the best would be a move towards secularism, a dismantling of orthodoxy and a shedding of its most patriarchal misogynistic symbols...and honest open conversation. 

From a previous post - artwork by yours truly

From a previous post - artwork by yours truly

There are also others who jump on this hijab-critical bandwagon, and because of them, we can almost never have a baggage-free and clear discussion about what an awful practice it really is. Those people are the xenophobes - who hate it because it’s different, its 'of the other'. They are not concerned with women’s rights…especially not with the rights of Muslims, be they men or women. They make that plain as day, repeatedly by participating in far-right, nativist movements, immigrant demonization, support for Trumpian bans…but they don’t hesitate to use “muslim women” as a point scoring technique in their displays of faux-minism. 

From a Pegida Rally in Birmingham in 2016 Image from here

Astounding hypocrisy from an anti immigrant far-righter who doesn't care a bit about Saudi women.. only uses them. http://pic.twitter.com/rASvGmW8Mx

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) February 1, 2017

Anne Marie Waters, co heads Pegida UK with 'white genocide' lunatic, Paul Weston and ex leader of the far right group EDL, Tommy Robinson. 

< ppl who legitimately hate immigrants using hijab-criticism to further hatred is what makes ppl want to glorify hijabs.

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) February 1, 2017

You may have seen these faux-minists come out in response to the hugely successful women’s march protest. Their caring about muslim women is limited to furthering their own agenda, and pointing the finger away from any feminist efforts in the west. 

These obscurantists continuously fall prey to the fallacy of relative privation, or “not as bad as” fallacy…. a silencing tactic commonly used by people on the right to minimize fights for equality in the West. Be they women’s rights, trans rights, whatever..

"Oh feminists in the West think its ok to parade around in silly pussy hats and protest? They have it so good here… what about women in the Middle East? They are being caned for immodesty, stoned for adultery. *Those* are the women you should be fighting for." 

All this is, is basically trying to shame those who want to better their situation here. 

I cannot stress this enough: Just because things are worse in Saudi Arabia, doesn’t mean we in the West cannot also fight for betterment on our scale. 

This is called progress. 

There will always be something worse to point to.

The islamic right also uses this tactic.. 

"Oh you think Islam is bad? Islam fought for women's rights...You should have seen what they were doing before Islam, burying girl babies. Be thankful you don’t have it as bad, and appreciate how far we’ve come." 

In Pakistan I always heard, "Why are you complaining about Pakistan… at least we don’t have morality police and enforced burqas like Saudi Arabia." 

One I often hear from fellow atheists is:

"Oh you pathetic bleeding heart liberals, fighting for trans rights? Here you are arguing about what pronouns to use while ISIS is throwing gay people off buildings. " 

From Trump Supporters:

"Oh you think Pence is bad? They *kill* gays in Saudi Arabia! "

"Oh you think Trump’s Muslim ban is bad? What about Saudi Arabia not letting any non Muslims into Mecca? What about THAT ban?" 

Hey #Saudi! When will you lift your BAN on non-Muslims even entering ONE step in Mecca? Exit ramp: for non-Muslims. #NoBanNoWall http://pic.twitter.com/0svuAQIsLg

— Asra Q. Nomani (@AsraNomani) January 27, 2017

Hey Iran! How about lifting your BAN against the entry of women like @NaziPaiki @Fide_chess who don't cover their hair? #NoBanNoWall

— Asra Q. Nomani (@AsraNomani) January 27, 2017

"Oh hindu nationalist extremists are bad? They only rarely kill ppl for eating beef, at least they aren’t suicide bombers."

and my personal favourite: “Oh you think Trump is bad, at least he’s better than Mohammed"

Yes, congrats he’s better than a 7th century desert warlord who married a child. His values as president of the US in 2017 are better than those in 7th century arabia…what a high bar you have! 

Not to mention, Isis is pretty much a gift to extremists and apologists of far-right movements everywhere. It’s the worst thing of our times, something they can always, always point to that they are better than… 

This is what people do when they don’t want to address the thing in question. 

The left has it’s versions of  'not as bad as' too, the same way it has it’s versions of faux-minists, like those who champion the hijab carelessly as a feminist symbol, or those who think Sharia apologist Sarsour was a good pick to lead the Women's march. 

And I’m sure we’ve all fallen prey to this fallacy at some point or another - but the levels of this I’m seeing on the right nowadays are astronomical, its a running theme not an occasional slip. Panicked flailing attempts at diverting attention from the total mess that Trump's created. 

There’s even a whole new type of 'stealth right' movement that insists its on the left….they insist they are not fans of Trump or Milo… but they spend unimaginable amounts of time defending these people they supposedly dislike, they spend a disproportionate amount of time criticizing those who oppose these people…(but i swear, they don’t like them or anything).  

"I don't like Trump, (I just ALWAYS oppose those who oppose him)" - I see you. 👁️👁️

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) February 1, 2017

@alexmassie It's a whole new punditry genre. "People who are embarrassed to admit they like Trump so instead attack people who don't."

— Hugo Rifkind (@hugorifkind) January 31, 2017

(As for Milo protests and Nazi punches: for the record I’m against violence, and find it to be an ineffective tactic, one that sets a worrying precedent for people who others may perceive as ‘dangerous’. If we leave it up to the public to decide who’s dangerous, some will get it terribly wrong. And ‘dangerous' is subjective too..to a hardcore theist, there’s nothing more dangerous than a charming, well spoken atheist who dismantles the terrible ideas so revered in holy books. This is a slippery slope that could effect ex-muslims, atheists, satanists…muslims even. This also fuels Milo’s fire, gives him more publicity, more support. I think that creative campaigns to peacefully and wittily protest his appearances would be more effective. 

So yes I feel all that, but I am also not compelled do defend him or Richard Spencer for days on end on social media, nor would I be compelled to defend or shed any tears over Anjem Choudary, if he got punched).

*

Ripe climate for Islamists to frame Criticism as Victimization

Non muddied water and clear distinctions/discussions are important now..more than ever. If you retweet, promote or associate with far-right critics of Islam, you are damaging this discussion, and making it harder. 

This climate of genuine muslim victimization is a time when extremists sneak in their rhetoric and leverage the situation for their benefit. Since the Muslim ban I have seen Islamists tweeting furiously against anyone critical of hijabs or any security or safety bans on modesty garb, like in the airport. This is being framed as further ‘victimization' of an already victimized group. 

Yes...Trump is victimizing muslims, we must strongly condemn and oppose it. 

But Islamism is an ongoing problem, allowing face coverings in places others are not allowed to cover should not be framed as part of this victimization. 

Hijabs on children should not be crept into the mainstream discussion as 'acceptable', just because, Trump is victimizing Muslims. 

Two things at once, Trump is an anti muslim bigot, hijabs on kids are also wrong. 

Trump is an anti muslim bigot, but that doesn’t mean that everything to do with Islam is automatically amazing and should be free from criticism. 

Two things at once.

Christian homophobia sucks, so does Muslim homophobia - and we still have a long way to go with rights for LGBT Muslims. Don’t let Islamists frame legitimate criticism in this time, as unfair scrutiny. 

There are more events now, being organized for people to wear the hijab 'in solidarity'… the hijab is a garment mostly used to oppress women in the Muslim world. 

There are kids events, card-making marathons  “to islam” "with love” ...cringe....cringe...cringe

I am 10000% for solidarity with muslims, but this is turning into fetishization of a religion. And one that commands more orthodoxy than other major present day ones.

Imagine this happening over Christianity…it’s just as cringeworthy to liberals of Muslim background who are struggling and fighting for change. 

No one has the right to take your modesty from you. Supporting sisters who are being forced to give up their right to cover #IStand4Hijab http://pic.twitter.com/XpUwaZGtVo

— Mufti Ismail Menk (@muftimenk) January 17, 2017

Of course you stand for hijab, your goal *is* to keep women covered and less visible in the public sphere, ffs. 

You know how people in the west laugh at this christian persecution complex, mostly because there is no persecution whatsoever…*but* imagine if in an environment where Christians were legitimately being mistreated, people like Ken Ham swept in to push creationism in schools … free from scrutiny. And if you pushed back, you were automatically 'piling on'. Or if Westboro baptist wanted to push their nasty hateful agendas under the cover of Christian persecution. 

Be wary, is all I’m saying. Stand with muslims, yes...but don’t let anyone tell you Islam is above criticism. More important now, for us to take this discussion in a liberal direction, rather than let the far right own it. Maybe we can start chipping away at their hate, with better alternatives. 

There are more countries and communities that force niqab, but gay bashing cleric mufti menk decides to ignore that. #WorldHijabDay2017 http://pic.twitter.com/HQV3aXjGeQ

— zeeshan (@zeeshxlifex) February 1, 2017

I’m all for women having the right to choose their modesty coverings if they truly have a choice and they want to perpetuate this practice, but the disproportionate focus on women’s right TO wear something that majority of women wearing it in the world get forced into, is in incredibly bad taste…its preventing liberals from muslim backgrounds from gaining the same equality for women that has been won in the west.

Today we celebrate a woman's right to wear the hijab! #WorldHijabDay #RightToCover #IStand4Hijab #Hijabi #WomensRights #No2H8 http://pic.twitter.com/SvqlMUE8xl

— Faith Matters (@FaithMattersUK) February 1, 2017

How cute! #worldhijabday #istand4hijab http://pic.twitter.com/W1NAby9x9D

— World HijabDay (@WorldHijabDay) January 20, 2017

Dressing children up in hijab is essentially sexualizing children. Something liberals in the muslim world have fought consistently against. It’s a garment meant to ‘protect women from the lust of men’ what sort of message are we glorifying here…

Privileged to have been appointed Ambassador for Gibraltar for World Hijab Day. Watch this space 😉 #WorldHijabDay #IStand4Hijab http://pic.twitter.com/MewQsZsbLV

— Nadia Esserti (@NadzE00) January 19, 2017

imagine how this message sounds to someone who has had run ins with morality police, who have enforced this type of modesty…here we are, in the West... promoting campaigns that are telling people to ‘cover up for a day’, akin to 'try this chastity belt for a day.' 

----

Don't let 'anti-Trump' become synonymous with 'Islam is awesome', similarly... don't let Islam-critical perspectives be conflated with pro-Trump illiberal, intolerant ones. We must open another door, for liberal, compassionate critique of Islam as any other religion.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2jGZdqv via IFTTT

[nicemango-feed]

Down with the Left-Right Binary

The following is a guest post by Jason Liggi, it doesn't reflect my views exactly... I've been feeling more united and connected with the left than ever, since Trump has been elected. Of course the left is as flawed as it was pre Trump, but having the right in power shows me just how many values I do share with the left. That said, I can completely relate to feeling this way, I've been there myself. So I thought this was a great piece to share for those who may be feeling unanchored in these turbulent times. 

Read Jason's other guest blog 'The Alt Right's Dangerous Pseudo Rationalism' here

-Eiynah

------------------------

I have a confession: I'm politically non-binary. Actually, it's more than that. I don't fit anywhere on the binary spectrum. I'm a third political gender.

I imagine already you've got Jordan Peterson's voice in your head, balking. "Something, something, neo-Marxist agenda". Binaries are the natural way of things, right? You can't just make up a new thing. I can't demand you identify me as a "Xeiberal" or a "Zirservative". Stop trying to control language!

I always found it strange that, when it comes to politics, we place ourselves on a spectrum between a binary: communism (the left) and fascism (the right). The “party of movement” (freedom, equality, human rights, progress), and the “party of order” (tradition, nationalism, order).

There’s a history behind this, of course, and it’s served a purpose. The first usages of this concept came during the French Revolution, when the National Assembly divided itself, with the supporters of the king to the right, and the supporters of the revolution to the left. The world over, every democratic society generally organizes itself along these lines. It makes sense, if you think about it: the people that value freedom and equality, generally favour human rights and progress over tradition and nationalism, and vice versa for those that value tradition and nationalism. Those people organize into groups and it generally seems to be a fairly even split, and the electorate tends to gravitate between one and the other.

These are vague categories: the Republican party of the US is right-wing, Trump’s administration are also right-wing, but they don’t really seem to like each other much. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both left-wing, but again, don’t often see eye to eye on much (and nor do their supporters).

Recently, to an increasing degree, I’ve been feeling like this isn't making much sense to me.

People in this position often call themselves centrist, but I also feel like I have to stay away from that now after Glenn Beck and Dave Rubin had a conversation about creating a “new centre”. That’s not a centre that I want to be anywhere near. Sorry, Dave, but if you're buddying up with Mike Cernovich in your new club, I'm not showing up to the meetings.

Here is what the "new center" looks like according to Dave Rubin ... cc @Alex__Katz @21logician @NiceMangos http://pic.twitter.com/veyRenuYoS

— Nikolashvili (@ViniKako) January 19, 2017

Beyond parody. If 'Glenn Beck' is included in the 'new center' that's Genghis Khan's political spectrum you're using. 😂😂 http://pic.twitter.com/9jCiiT7LRK

— Secular Talk (@KyleKulinski) February 1, 2017

I don’t know where this leaves me. Who is my tribe going to be? What shall I think?

Well, I think that the West has a moral responsibility to help refugees that are fleeing war-zones and have nowhere to go, but I support comprehensive vetting for immigrants in this climate (although I wonder how we can make this more comprehensive. I’m disgusted by Trump instituting a ban that includes permanent residents of the USA, or immigrants that have already been vetted, but I don’t agree with people who peddle statistics about how you’re more likely to be killed by a lawnmower than a refugee as if they’ve just made a knock-out argument.

I think we should be doing everything we can at the moment to criticize the right-wing, and focus our attacks on them, in order to protect minorities that are under threat, especially Muslims. But I also don’t want to throw my weight behind people that glorify the hijab as a symbol of feminism and political dissent when many women across the globe are literally forced to wear it. I fully supported the Women’s March, but also felt disturbed by a Sharia apologist like Linda Sarsour leading it.

I don’t think we should punch Nazis, but I also don’t think we should spend a whole lot of effort defending them.

Trump has to be the focus right now, because he’s in power. No-one is accidentally going to defend minorities so hard that they put Islamists in power. We have to throw all of our energy into backing the people that need it the most right now, and those are the people being separated from their families and detained at airports. These are the people being murdered by right-wing, Trump-supporting nutcases in mosques in Quebec.

But even though I’m attacking the right, I don’t feel like I’m on the left. And I’m definitely not in the centre if Dave Rubin and Glenn Beck are there. 

I know I'm not the first person to challenge this binary, not by far, but right now I'm trying to find somewhere solid to stand, and I'm hoping there are others out there that feel the same.

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2kWy0QD via IFTTT