Posted: May 01, 2016 4:49 pm
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Matthew Shute wrote:At considerable risk to herself, Ayaan Hirsi Ali actually stands up and speaks up for liberal values, in direct opposition to theocrats and regressive religious dogmas, unlike the smug pseudo-liberal imbeciles who want to call her an "Islamophobe" for doing so.
Yeah, that's why she told us to vote Harper.
Her basic reasoning:
- can.png (11.91 KiB) Viewed 4280 times
...which, since radical Islam is the greatest threat to liberal values on the planet, she preferred over a candidate who once said that calling honour killing "barbaric" sets the wrong tone.
I sort of see her point.
She's really not very liberal.
Can you actually name any illiberal or anti-liberal positions she holds? Or are you going to use innuendo and guilt by association? Such as...
She made her name in the US working for a neocon think tank.
You're aware she worked there because left wing organisations abandoned her, right? Instead of saying where she worked, can you give a specific example of a "neocon" view she has, that you object to? Or is throwing the guilt by association fallacy around sufficient to debunk her?
It's a false assumption that, because she's critical of Islam, she's particularly liberal.
She actually supports liberal principles like freedom of expression, against the theocratic assault upon these principles.
She's not.
Why? Because of these vapid points you've made? Nobody is arguing she's the perfect human or the ultimate embodiment of liberalism. She is, however, doing more to defend the values of liberalism than those who're jumping over themselves to capitulate to the attack upon these values, mostly by vilifying anyone who attempts it. The pseudo-liberals crying about "Islamophobia" because she's opposing a religion in the process.
She is an impressive person in many respects. Her politics aren't particularly liberal though.
Yes, you've asserted this several times in a row now. Any examples of illiberal or anti-liberal principles she endorses?
People constantly whine that she's picked on by regressive liberal white people in the western world for criticising Islam but a lot of the criticism of her I see is perfectly reasonable and isn't reactionary defense of Islam and Muslims.
FFS, have you seen the kind of vilification aimed at her on a daily basis, denouncing her as "vermin" and so on?
It's criticism of her neoconservatism and tunnel vision on a lot of issues and dismissiveness towards complaints re: less extreme examples of discrimination.
Any examples of any of these "neocon" views she constantly espouses? Or are you going to settle for the guilt by association fallacy?
Why people are so fucking quick to white knight for her, insisting criticism of her is all dumb, I don't know.
From what I've seen, she's for the most part a voice of sanity and clarity constantly being smeared by people with a fraction of the intellect and an even smaller fraction of the courage she has. If dismissing those who support her and show solidarity as "white knights" is supposed to make them back off and not say anything in her defence, well, think again.
She's an adult human being who says really smart and really dumb things, worthy or being viewed through a critical lens. She's not made of glass.
Straw men for the pyre, eh? Obviously she's not above criticism. Who said she was? I said she actually defends liberal principles against the religious assault upon them, risking her life to do so, unlike the gaggle of comfortable dimwits who want to shout her down for doing so. And, yes, obviously she's a tough person. If she wasn't so courageous, she wouldn't go anywhere near the topics she does. Your point is what? Does that mean I can't ridicule spineless "critics" who just want her to shut up about Islam?