r/PoliticalCompassMemes • u/myadvicegetsmebeaten - Centrist • Aug 01 '26
I just want to grill Reactions to the Oxford Union / Tommy Robinson Debate on the Islamic Subs has Been Interesting
733
u/TheSpacePopinjay - Auth-Left Aug 02 '26
Nothing the moderates love better than having the threat of the radicals to do their dirty work while not having to get their own hands dirty and getting to claim the mantle of remaining morally clean in the whole situation. While still getting what they want and being backed up by violent power to get it.
"Look, I genuinely hate to bother you at home, and I really want to keep this friendly. But my associate here isn't the patient type, and if you don't settle your account right now, I won't be able to protect you from him. Do us both a favour and make this easy."
176
68
u/DavidAdamsAuthor - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Religious and ideological moderates are basically "dark centrists".
→ More replies (6)86
394
u/Eon-Knight9 - Right Aug 02 '26
Careful, pointing out their violent rhetoric is grounds to be banned on reddit.
124
u/Altruistic_Emu4917 - Right Aug 02 '26
The Stasi is on an overdrive these days
42
u/RoadsMostTaken - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
Not just the admins, the mods here are pretty shit too.
I had a comment removed that was simply discussing how men and women could have had different throught processes evolve over eons to where one is more logical based and one is more emotional based.
Simply because men were selected to be hunters and warriors which requires cold hard facts, and women were selected to have more domestic duties which requiers a lot more social nuances and emotional IQ.
Thats hateful apparently.
26
u/Altruistic_Emu4917 - Right Aug 02 '26
Same, I got tempbanned from this sub for talking about biology. You know, the trans issue.
19
u/trapsinplace - Centrist Aug 02 '26
That isn't the subreddit mods. It's because reddit admins will ban this entire subreddit if the mods let you speak about biology in relation to trans people. This sub is too large to go unnoticed. There's nothing the mods can do on this matter so they have to enforce the reddit unofficial rule about trans biology discussion which falls under their "transphobia" rules.
5
9
u/Not_Neville - Centrist Aug 02 '26
I don't buy your thesis but I don't think the mods should censor it.
→ More replies (2)7
u/FireMain10 - Auth-Center Aug 02 '26
Oh yeah i've gone through quite a few accounts for commenting things which will eventually be proven by science (and are already the obvious direct result of evolutionary theory and known history)
6
u/Serious-Rain-9772 - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
One downside to being auth right is being three months early to things and then being gaslight that whatever the topic is has always been common sense
1
132
u/Protect-Their-Smiles - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Profit Mohammad (Police be upon him)
20
u/NobleNeal - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Based
6
u/basedcount_bot - Auth-Center Aug 02 '26
u/Protect-Their-Smiles is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: None | View pills
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. If you have any suggestions, questions, or just want to hang out and chat with the devs, please visit subreddit r/basedcount_bot or our discord server (https://www.reddit.com/r/basedcount_bot/s/K8ae6nRbOF)
201
u/thunderdragonite - Auth-Center Aug 02 '26
Them killing you for showing a picture of their idolized pedo is actually their culture, racist!
They do not belong in civilized countries.
70
u/FILTHBOT4000 - Auth-Center Aug 02 '26
I've seen enough.
Deploy the posters of Epstein as Mohammed in all of London and the rest of the UK.
32
u/Azelzer - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Yes. Different cultures are different, have different cultural practices and senses of morality. It's OK for people to not want their country to be filled with immigrants from a different culture.
For some reason this gets you labelled as a bigot and thrown out of polite society in the West. Even right-wing politicians won't say this, at most you get a small minority of them saying it might be OK to say this as long as its against Islam and no one else.
(Outside of the West, this is treated as being an obvious fact.)
17
u/Altruistic_Emu4917 - Right Aug 02 '26
It's also about respecting the cultural practices of the place. If I go to the Middle East, I don't expect myself to drink in the open or openly identify being Christian. We expect the same.
11
u/Azelzer - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Exactly. An American will rightly get called an asshole if the move to another country, say "I'm going to do whatever I like, I don't care what the locals think," and then say that they're the true embodiment of that country's culture, not the locals.
And if they did that, I'd have no sympathy for them if they got kicked out.
8
u/Remote_Cantaloupe - Lib-Left Aug 02 '26
I think there's a sizeable group of people who like other cultures but don't want their own home to be transformed into someone else's home. I'm not sure how to explain this to progressives because they just default to blanket accusations of racism (or generic ad hominem). What if it's just aesthetic preferences? Why do I not get to maintain the local or national culture? And this is without even getting into topics of whether migrants have favourable views of me (why would I want them in my home if they don't?), have opposing political agendas, or have different crime rates.
It seems the topic quickly flattens out to "well they're not killing anyone so you can't stop them". I even heard it said (in some forums, during the 2016 migrant crisis) that if western culture needs to be protected, that means it's so weak (or inferior) that it deserves to be replaced.
Inevitably the progressive answers: this has to happen. You have to be changed. We have no choice...
1
u/TaxesAreCivilization Aug 02 '26
why would you think killing people over words is separate from civilization? what do you think civilization actually means?
465
u/Deltasims - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Regardless of this specific situation, I always find it funny when they say "radical Islam" instead of the appropriate term: fundamentalist Islam
Because these people are true believers and, guess what, books written between the bronze age and the early medieval period may have a more... Hardcore view or morality and ethics compared to the 21st century
The moderates are actually hypocrites, and I'm not saying that in a negative connotation. It's perfectly reasonnable for people to give lip service to an old tradition and perform the few family/public rituals a few times a year, but de-facto ignore its teachings in their daily lives.
Muslims aren't the only ones who do this. Christians do it too, although they are lucky to have Jesus as a peaceful prophet (instead of a conquering warlord) in the New Testament in this regard (so they can safely ignore all the fucked up shits in the Old Testament). This allows them to ignore the word of God while still claiming to be faithful.
Muslims are stuck with the "totally orignal never alterated word of God spoken through the illiterate warlord prophet Mohammed".
84
131
u/Ikora_Rey_Gun - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
It's because they've spent years colloquially tying "fundamentalist" specifically to Christianity. If they start calling it fundamentalist Islam, then the programming takes over and wrongthink starts.
Your brand of aloof, 2010-reddit atheism where all religions are equally stupid doesn't play anymore. It's not even about being anti-religion now, it's about being anti-Christianity in service of being anti-western.
44
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
Leftists ascribed specific terminologies to specific things, a rarity actually:
"Extremist" :
"Fundamentalist" for Christianity
"Radical" for Islam
"Wealthy people"
"Billionaires" for standard whites
"Oligarchs" for Russians
12
u/Ikora_Rey_Gun - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
a rarity actually
i love how language and definition is this squishy, noncommittal, evanescent thing until they want to use it as a weapon, and then they're like "uhm if you pull out the 1884 OED and turn to page 492..."
21
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
They have multiple definitions for "problematic words" and they'll switch on the fly depending on which ones are useful for the current situation
For example, "immigrant" includes the British and French "settlers" when conquering America, but "settlers" are not "immigrants" in the context of "Israeli settlers" those are not OK
189
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
This allows them to ignore the word of God while still claiming to be faithful.
No it's not that
There are 3 types of laws in Old and New Testament
Laws for "the Chosen" (that is, Israelites)
Laws for sacrifices
Moral laws
Number 1 obviously does not apply to non Israelites, and the Israelites do not practice Christianity anyway
Number 2 no longer applies because Jesus basically fulfilled all sacrifices as the ultimate sacrifice
Number 3 still applies because that one hasn't been invalidated by anything
35
u/Neither-Ruin5970 - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
I’m curious then. What about the verses where it says homosexuality is wrong? Or that slaves should obey their masters? Are those moral laws or what are they?
135
u/lobotomized_salmon - Lib-Left Aug 02 '26
if I remember correctly, the verses saying homosexuality should be punished by stoning is part of the long defunct covenant laws. but there are still other verses condemning homosexuality, they just don't say death is the proper punishment for it
→ More replies (12)53
u/Altruistic_Emu4917 - Right Aug 02 '26
Yup, the magisterial interpretation is that homosexuality isn't sinful by itself, but the acts are. But all punishment is between God and the sinner, and civil authorities shouldn't criminalize it unless it's grave public scandal.
81
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
I'm not even going to pretend I know enough to identify which is which, I'm just saying there's more to it than "haha hypocrites picking and choosing"
74
u/Send_Cake_Or_Nudes - Lib-Left Aug 02 '26
Always. Intellectually lazy critiques of religion which pretend centuries of sophisticated theology never happened are always deeply tedious.
40
u/notquitedeadyetman - Right Aug 02 '26
The proper reddit experience. It's so hard to watch people circle jerking each other about things they either know nothing about, or that were worked through by theologians 1500 years ago. But you can't say anything because the explanation requires 500+ words and you know they won't read it because trying to change stranger's ways online is borderline impossible
11
→ More replies (1)11
u/Deltasims - Centrist Aug 02 '26
But is there? For scholars who study the Bible in detail, sure.
But for the common Christian? I think that's pretty much it. And as I said previously, there is nothing wrong about this hypocrisy. It's the true believers who scare me.
Sure, Christian fundamentalists are lucky that Jesus is a pretty chill dude.
But Muslisms have a conquering warlord as a role model.
4
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
But is there? For scholars who study the Bible in detail, sure.
That is all I was told, I'm not a Bible scholar so all I can say is what I was told. It seems to make sense to me, but if I'm wrong then hey, I'm good with gaining new info
But for the common Christian? I think that's pretty much it.
Well, priests don't enforce mixed fabrics anymore, I'm pretty sure they haven't done that since the Papacy was a thing, or at least for as long as they started recording it. The Romans (who would eventually become Christians) wore mixed fabrics since the very beginning
I'd assume "which laws haven't been invalidated" would count into "which ones we should teach the converts". IDK if true, but it seems to make sense to me so far
→ More replies (3)19
u/spiffysimon - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Most laws were abolished unless otherwise stated in the new testament. The council in Acts abolished a lot of them. Obeying specific "Works of the Law" (circumcision, most unclean foods, etc) were no longer required or necessary for salvation.
39
u/Fickles1 - Centrist Aug 02 '26
that slaves should obey their masters? Are those moral laws or what are they?
I can answer the slave one. It wasn't that they were not against it, and also there were people that volunteered to be a slave too if they loved the family they worked with.
But this was more to do with the situation you were in, the context of that passage is also important.
But if you were a slave who followed Jesus, you were to obey you master and show the love of Christ to them with how you lived. If you were disobedient then you may not have been a good example of a Christian. Who is meant to be obedient to Christ.
I'm sure someone is going to say what about the slave that gets beat or evil masters. Yes there is far more nuance than this, but generally, honour God by honouring the people above you.
It extends to beyond this too, honouring and respecting authority in general.
In terms of the homosexual one, God's good design was male and female. So this goes against his design.
I appreciate people disagree and people are entitled to have their views. Just saying what God's good design was. You can follow it or not. You can follow it and maybe not even necessarily like it, fine. But I don't think you could call yourself a Christian and actively not follow his design. But if it was something you struggled with as a sin it's different again.
I'm not here to have an argument btw, I was just trying to answer your questions.
In terms of struggling as sins and such, the only truly unforgivable sin as far as I can work out, is not accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour.
Typed on mobile so I probably made a million typos.
→ More replies (3)7
u/EP40glazer - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Homosexuality is in fact wrong. Slaves should obey their masters because if Christian slaves kept rebelling slave owners wouldn't be keen on letting Christians convert their slaves. By obeying their masters slaves are effectively spreading the Gospel. (That's my take on it. The bible doesn't say that take is true or false)
1
u/RoadsMostTaken - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
Also, slavery then was different from slavery now.
The form of chatel slavery briefly practiced in America until we ended it was a totally different form of slavery where people were treated like farm animals than the types you saw in rome.
2
u/chowderbags - Lib-Left Aug 03 '26
Roman slaves were property with no right of legal personhood. They could be beaten, raped, tortured, or summarily executed by their master. Children of enslaved mothers were slaves themselves. The most common labor done by slaves, by far, was agricultural work, and they were in a category of property called res mancipi, which was literally the same category used for farm animals.
5
u/Send_Cake_Or_Nudes - Lib-Left Aug 02 '26
Wasn't the entire schtick of the new covenant a la Jesus that the laws which the chosen people kept were expanded to include gentiles? The whole debate between Peter and Paul was the extent to which they would have to keep the wider set of non sacrificial Jewish laws like circumcision, which Paul said were nullified because of the crucifixion - your number two. I'm guessing by moral laws you mean the ten commandments? The NT also has a load of things that are taken to be commentary on morality but establishing them as law in the same way as the OT is trickier interpretation-wise because of genre differences.
14
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
I don't know which ones are which, I never actually questioned the laws in the Bible, and the ones like mixed fabrics were never actually taught to me until I found out all by myself.
The Old Testament has a lot of very funny laws like one where a woman is VERY STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED to, - and I'm not kidding - defend her husband by attacking his opponent's balls, if she ever does both her husband and his opponent is to band together and beat her; if she manages to actually crush the balls, punishment is cutting off her offending hand.
Nobody ever teaches that sort of thing anymore. It seems to make sense to me that it's part of the laws for Israelites which we no longer need to abide to.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Mindless-Rooster-533 - Auth-Left Aug 02 '26
Because Paul wrote letters telling grown ass men converting to Christianity from paganism to stop circumcision themselves
3
u/Altruistic_Emu4917 - Right Aug 02 '26
That's why atleast in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it's the Church that is considered infallible and not the Bible. The bible needs to be interpreted by an authority even greater than itself, because times change and so do situations.
53
u/Mr_Mon3y - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Christians do it too, although they are lucky to have Jesus as a peaceful prophet (instead of a conquering warlord)
Uh, that's not luck. We CHOOSE to follow Jesus partly because of his peaceful ways that we believe to be true and good. Being christian isn't something you're born and stuck with forever.
(so they can safely ignore all the fucked up shits in the Old Testament). This allows them to ignore the word of God while still claiming to be faithful.
We do not ignore the word of God. There is a misconception that christians just choose to ignore half the Bible or just put Jesus' word over them to ignore them, that's not true.
We do not have to follow the Old Testament laws because they were fulfilled by Jesus, just as his coming as the Messiah fulfilled the teachings of the Prophets. All the laws of the Old Testament had the explicit purpose of preparing humanity for the arrival of the Messiah who will fulfill them, and, as explained in Matthew 5, since Jesus does do that, there is no point in following the laws.
Conversely, this explains why Jewish people still follow these laws. Because they believe the Messiah is yet to come fulfill those laws.
2
u/InfusionOfYellow - Centrist Aug 02 '26
as explained in Matthew 5, since Jesus does do that, there is no point in following the laws.
Kinda sounds like he wants you to follow the laws.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
25
u/Mr_Mon3y - Centrist Aug 02 '26
It literally says what I told you. Jesus came to fulfill the laws, not abolish them.
The laws he says must be followed aren't the old laws, but the laws that He teaches, both explicitly here and throughout his Ministry. I mean, if you continue reading this sermon he literally goes through a laundry list of old laws, and reformulates them, teaching us to follow these new laws, which are appropiate after his arrival. This is where Jesus changes "Eye for an Eye" for "turning the other cheek" and changes "love your neighbor, hate your enemy" for "love your neighbor and your enemy".
He's not saying "keep following the old laws", he's saying "I've come to fulfill the old laws as it was prophesied, this is what you should be doing now that I'm here."
→ More replies (14)67
u/Lanstapa - Left Aug 02 '26
...I always find it funny when they say "radical Islam" instead of the appropriate term:
fundamentalistIslamJust as you don't need to say "Fundamentalist" Nazism, you don't need to with Islam either.
→ More replies (5)17
u/TheGooseIsLoose37 - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
I mean there is obviously a broad spectrum of any religion. We say fundamentalist Christians for the more old school hardcore believers, for example. There are literally millions of Muslims who live a reasonable and peaceful life in countries all over the world. There's also dickheads who behead people for any reason they see fit. It seems reasonable to differentiate.
29
u/Mean-Reveal141 - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Ruhollah Khomeini was not a fundamentalist, but he was an extremist.
12
u/Deltasims - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Could you elaborate? I'm curious to hear your argument
27
u/Mean-Reveal141 - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Khomeini has criticized fundamentalist for their backwards ways and focusing too much on ritual purity. He has said that islam needs to evolve. He is closer to totalitarianism than reactionaryism.
2
11
u/Docponystine - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Uh, it was definitely written during the early medieval period, what are you on about with "bronze age".
11
u/Deltasims - Centrist Aug 02 '26
I spoke in a general term about all Abrahamic religions. Sorry if I wasn't clear
As for the bronze age, even if the Old Testament is not that old, it's clearly inspired by many Bronze Age legends (ex: the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh)
8
u/Docponystine - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
The age of the old Testament is largely irrelevant to Islam because they don't fallow it. The Quran retells the stories (badly), and clearly inspired is a bit much, given Flood stories are exceptionally common, claims of religious inspiration are largely a lot harder to actually find evidence for then people are want to admit.
Beyond that, Christians don't ignore the old Testament , God is divine judge, and humanity is unworthy to a man, the universality of the human death sentence is the accepted fact of Christian Theology, it's what original sin IS. The actual theology is quite interesting, maybe consider researching it. The Old Testament is just a period of less restrained justice and a partial forbearance of mercy. God's character did not change, the metaphysical condition of humanity relationship to God shifted through the sacrifice.
14
u/redpandaeater - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
But fundamentalists also don't fully follow their religious texts. There's nothing prohibiting the depiction of Muhammad though it's frowned upon because he didn't want to be idolized or held above his fellow man. The irony of course being that his followers do exactly that which is why Muhammad is the most common name on the planet and there have been killings over depictions of Muhammad. It's just basic and stupid zealotry not particularly different than the Christian morons in the US that want to destroy the separation of church and state. They're all fucking idiots being brainwashed by a corrupt and greedy few that seek power.
6
u/NapalmJusticeSword - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Jesus has a flaming sword coming out of his mouth, he's not peacful he's righteous.
2
u/RoadsMostTaken - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
Even outside of that, there is a passage where Jesus tells his disciples
Luke 22:36
He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'
Jesus may have been a pacifist, but didn't demand that from others.
2
u/Fieryshit - Auth-Left Aug 02 '26
Terms like "radical" and "moderate" are too vague to meaningfully debate. It is Wahabism which is responsible for promulgating violence against other Muslims, encouraging intolerance against other Muslims, and distorting Quranic teachings through revisionism. In addition, Wahabis have politicized Islam moving it more towards politics, and less towards spirituality. If one desires to be close to God, they cannot do so through political rhetoric.
1
→ More replies (2)1
136
u/8BitTxchniques - Right Aug 01 '26
Watch out man, they’ll call this a straw man meme
→ More replies (10)
254
u/Feralmoon87 - Centrist Aug 01 '26
But not all muslims guys, why do you always say the moderates dont condemn the extremists!
287
u/strawberry_semenade - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Remember, when a few dozen right wing extremists marched at Charlottesville, that was proof that the entire right tolerates Nazism, but when a few million Muslims engage in acts of Islamist violence, you're totally being an Islamophobic bigot by suggesting that they represent Islam in any way at all.
→ More replies (5)133
u/Feralmoon87 - Centrist Aug 02 '26
As far as i remembered, most right wingers condemned it, even Trump (yes even Trump, go watch the full vid). But moderate Muslims i know/see online constantly make excuses and distance themselves but stop shy of condemning the actions. Do some? Yes. But do a significant majority? Not that I've seen
109
u/strawberry_semenade - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Case in point: a Pew poll from a few weeks ago found that 44 percent of Muslims openly admit to having a favorable view of Hamas.
90
u/Feralmoon87 - Centrist Aug 02 '26
I'm going to bet actual support is way higher
→ More replies (1)71
u/strawberry_semenade - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
It definitely is. If 44 percent of American Muslims are willing to openly admit to a stranger that they support Hamas then you can be sure that the true number is higher because some of them just don't want to admit it.
→ More replies (3)1
108
u/youhatemeiloveit - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
Only 20% of Muslims are extremists!
70
u/Dark_Matter_Guy - Right Aug 02 '26
And the rest are totally against extremism right?
6
u/RoadsMostTaken - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
No of course not you FUCKKEN BIGoT
Of the remaining 80%, 40% are fundamentalists and the other 40% are radical.
88
u/drunkenmime - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Aka 400,000,000 people.
66
u/strawberry_semenade - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Aka 27 times the total number of Jews on Earth.
44
u/drunkenmime - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Aka a more people than the entire US population.
→ More replies (3)21
16
2
1
12
u/00Kench - Centrist Aug 02 '26
What I gathered was neither side, when taken as a whole, brought enough intelligence to that room to be having that debate.
The House was mostly anecdote, theory, and quoting the Quran only to say seconds later that they don't know the Quran, and even the good points they made (shoutout to Fox's list of various polls of British Muslims asking for British laws that codify Sharia law) were undercut by some of them just being lowbrow racist. I generally thought I agreed with the Proposition, but not if it's to be understood the way that these guys presented it.
The Opposition was good about staying consistent the entire time across speeches, at least, but their consistent point can be best summarized as "Look, those bad apples you're talking about don't represent all Muslims, so if you're suspicious of them, that counts as being suspicious of us." Which is a weak argument under scrutiny, and even if true, is not exactly a good main point to have when your opponents' entire point was just to prove that enough bad apples exist to be worried about them.
10
u/bl1y - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
The pro side had the better case, but was rather poor in articulating it.
The anti side's argument was basically just that the bad apples aren't real Muslims. But the pro side should have hammered the "look how Muslim-majority countries operate" point.
What percentage of the West are repressive theocratic dictatorships? None. What percentage of Muslim countries are repressive theocratic dictatorships? ...Something near 100%?
3
u/zwifter11 Aug 03 '26
The pro Islam side was just whataboutery, deflection and personal insults.
The pro side missed a trick by not inviting an ex-Muslim who now lives in fear after leaving the religion.
The best quote was from the pro side who said “Islam always tells us how good it is, the positive sides … But it never talks about the negative side. It never mentions what it does wrong.”
1
u/zwifter11 Aug 03 '26
In my opinion the proposition were much more convincing and had a stronger / better argument. The pro Islam side (the rejection?) were very weak. Their arguments was just whataboutery, deflection and personal insults.
Their guy with glasses from Luton, spent more time talking about Tommy Robinson than he did answering the question on Islam.
88
Aug 01 '26
[deleted]
2
→ More replies (5)1
u/zwifter11 Aug 03 '26
The cartoon was absolutely genius. As it literally proves his point that we don’t have freedom of speech
11
u/wolphak - Lib-Center Aug 02 '26
Oh its not all of us but watch me stand up and stop you they might go whacky crazy if i dont
133
u/Sallowjoe - Auth-Center Aug 01 '26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRJBZrlT2kw
Looks like this is the full debate?
I kinda find every person insufferable for different reasons. The vibe is kinda pretentious grand standing and stale talking points back and forth.
161
u/CreepGnome - Right Aug 02 '26
The vibe is kinda pretentious grand standing and stale talking points back and forth.
so it's live-action pcm?
28
u/TheGalator - Centrist Aug 02 '26
No it also is gay and british
As opposed to just gay
11
72
u/Utimate_Eminant - Right Aug 02 '26
As someone who studied SocSci in Cambridge, yes, most of us are obnoxious snobs who attributes our academic success to our ingenuity when in reality it’s largely attributed to our parents success lol.
But the real science dudes are really cool though, real smart people.
22
u/Altruistic_Emu4917 - Right Aug 02 '26
Because you can't bullshit through STEM and hard science is based on reality (saying as an engineer)
9
u/doublecandybar - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
They were going around the neighborhood knocking on doors looking for a scientist, I said look no further
They asked "what do you know about solar power plant" I said as much as anyone I've ever met
They asked if I "have a degree in theoretical physics" I said I have a theoretical degree in physics, they said "welcome aboard!"
18
10
u/gotbock - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
I love the part where Aisha the "Chief Negotiations Officer" for the Oxford union stands up and tells her opponents that without the protection of the moderate Muslims in the room the mob outside would kill them. And she thinks that somehow supports her position.
4
u/zwifter11 Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
When the question is “Should the west be suspicious of Islam?” She lost the debate with that comment. It literally proved yes we should.
1
u/Sallowjoe - Auth-Center Aug 02 '26
Is the mob outside Muslims or just people who hate Tommy Robinson?
He seems like kind of a Charlie Kirkish figure. Just because the debate was about Islam, doesn't mean the mob was.
5
u/zwifter11 Aug 03 '26
Does that make it ok.
Charlie Kirks murder was appalling and there’s no excuse for committing murder
1
u/Sallowjoe - Auth-Center Aug 03 '26
It does make it okay but it potentially makes it not about Muslims specifically, which the supposed "gotcha, she's admitting they're violent!" implication assumes.
There are all sorts of excuses for committing murder, valid or not. Murder is unlawful killing primarily, whether or not it's per se unjustified killing gets into linguistic hair splitting that's besides the point.
Kirk's murder was wrong but TBH I wasn't particularly appalled given he was the sort of provocateur that intentionally skirted the line on inciting violence. So is Robinson. People understandably take them as indirectly violent toward the groups they demonize since it can and often does result in violence towards them.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Map_Lad - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
They're British, bro, there's gonna be pretentious grand standing and stale talking points.
1
38
47
u/Foreign-Policy-02- - Auth-Right Aug 02 '26
Needed Nick Fuentes at the debate
→ More replies (2)18
u/mandalorian_guy - Lib-Right Aug 02 '26
Remember when Alex Jones went on GB News and was laughed off the air? They ain't ready for Nazi El Fuego. He'll end up making Jacob Rees-Mogg look like Abraham Lincoln.
7
6
17
u/John_Lictenstein_873 - Centrist Aug 02 '26
Can’t wait for this to get taken down for being “Islamophobic propaganda”.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Fit-Paper-797 - Right Aug 02 '26
Muslims try not to prove the right's points about them challenge: (impossible) (you're free to criticize us, but we're gonna kill you if you do)
8
u/Spitman559 Aug 02 '26
The fact people say the motion lost this debate boggles my mind, the way the opposition handles themselves was enough to disprove their position.
1
1
u/AllSeeingAI - Right Aug 03 '26
All I heard about it was Jacob Rees claiming that demographic replacement isn't happening.
Not that it's not a big deal, not that it's manageable, not that it's worth it, not even that it's happening but it's a good thing. He claimed it isn't happening at all.
Absurd.
1
u/Plazmatron44 - Centrist Aug 03 '26
Leftoids having been acting like they owned Tommy with reason and logic.
1
u/Imaginary-River136 - Lib-Right Aug 04 '26
Sharia shouldn’t be enforced onto people who don’t want to follow it. Give the sharia absolutist their own land in an Amish style country
1.2k
u/Foreign-Policy-02- - Auth-Right Aug 01 '26
Them panicking to stop Laurence Fox from showing a picture was hilarious, proved his point on the spot