Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Muslim Teacher Told "Go Hang Yourself"


nucklehead

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

You need to be careful with your words here.  I know some people here disagree, but Islam is a religion with many different sects and Islamism is a modern, theocratic ideology also with many different sects.  Now I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Islamic person, so in this instance I recommend you use "Muslim", for precision's sake.

 

Please clarify.  Are you advocating a return to ideological sectarianism?  Because that is the 20th century in a nutshell.  Two world wars and a Cold War.  I'm generalizing here, but there was a dominant ideology in the West, and those who did not conform were labeled communists.  That time is past.  The millenials are ideologically dead.

 

Oxymoron lol 'Modern theocratic ideology'. The first word in that descriptor is invalidated by the next two.

 

Also, where the hell do you get 'advocating ideological sectarianism' from suggesting that we discuss ideas?

 

News flash: Reasoned criticism of belief structures DOES NOT equal ideological division or oppression of individuals. I am able to separate concepts and ideas from people. 

 

The 'dominant ideology' in the West these days is extreme tolerance for dangerous ideas such as 'social justice'. It will be those people who will subjugate the rest of the West for not conforming to them, not the other way around.

 

As for millennials being 'ideologically dead' I am not sure what you mean. Thousands of them have cultural Marxist ideology beaten into their heads in colleges, universities and even high schools across North America and Europe. There are consequences for those who disagree, which is shameful for 'places of learning'

 

So can you give me an answer as to why its ok to criticize the ideas of some people but not others? 

 

Do you advocate for different rights and responsibilities for individuals based on their  skin color or religion? If so, how do you justify it without actively being bigoted?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Toews, be honest with yourself, Racism, as cited in your curiously-limited, categorical racism references are not only tedious, but revealingly narrow, so an honest discussion on Racism with you won't happen until you can admit through what lens, you approach the issue of Racism.

 

 

You are going to have to qualify your statements if we are to have an actual discussion. Quote the relevant parts of any posts I have made so I can understand what you are actually getting at. The impression I am getting at this point is that you are being intentionally vague. Every time I ask for clarification you become evasive. It simply makes me think that you don't actually have a point or a counterargument to my posts. Its also why I think you asked for my race so you could discredit my views without actually addressing them.

 

I will gladly admit I am wrong if you can provide more substance than the rather flimsy accusations you have made about me in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

 

Oxymoron lol 'Modern theocratic ideology'. The first word in that descriptor is invalidated by the next two.

 

Also, where the hell do you get 'advocating ideological sectarianism' from suggesting that we discuss ideas?

 

News flash: Reasoned criticism of belief structures DOES NOT equal ideological division or oppression of individuals. I am able to separate concepts and ideas from people. 

 

The 'dominant ideology' in the West these days is extreme tolerance for dangerous ideas such as 'social justice'. It will be those people who will subjugate the rest of the West for not conforming to them, not the other way around.

 

As for millennials being 'ideologically dead' I am not sure what you mean. Thousands of them have cultural Marxist ideology beaten into their heads in colleges, universities and even high schools across North America and Europe. There are consequences for those who disagree, which is shameful for 'places of learning'

 

So can you give me an answer as to why its ok to criticize the ideas of some people but not others? 

 

Do you advocate for different rights and responsibilities for individuals based on their  skin color or religion? If so, how do you justify it without actively being bigoted?

There are consequences for intolerance not dissent. As long as your ideas don't come from a place of hatred, people are willing to listen. Unfortunately much of the regressive right is incapable of this which is why they continue to feel silenced. Colleges, universities and schools are simply trying to make sure that a learning institution is free from prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Toews said:

There are consequences for intolerance not dissent. As long as your ideas don't come from a place of hatred, people are willing to listen. Unfortunately much of the regressive right is incapable of this which is why they continue to feel silenced. Colleges, universities and schools are simply trying to make sure that a learning institution is free from prejudice.

 

In free society, academia has an obligation to allow the free exchange of ideas, their acts of censorship violates this. These places are not ( and cannot) be prejudice free, prejudice and bias are part of human nature and cannot be exterminated.

 

Furthermore, in free society, no one group or individual should have the right to decide which ideas should be discussed and which ones should not.

 

You state that the 'regressive right' (never heard that term before, who are they?) are incapable of making arguments that don't come from 'a place of hatred'. When I read that, I see a flimsy attempt to discredit a viewpoint without directly addressing the ideas presented.

 

Are you able to address and refute ideas rather than making excuses for censorship in the name of hurt feelings? 

 

Why should we allow schools to intercede on our behalf to decide for us which ideas are acceptable and which are not? 

 

When our handcuff our ability to have a reasoned discussion by accusing those who oppose our arguments as being full of hatred/homo/islamo/xenophobia, it shows me that the argument against those viewpoints cannot stand on their own merit.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Toews said:

There are consequences for intolerance not dissent. As long as your ideas don't come from a place of hatred, people are willing to listen. Unfortunately much of the regressive right is incapable of this which is why they continue to feel silenced. Colleges, universities and schools are simply trying to make sure that a learning institution is free from prejudice.

 

That's not true at all.... as long your ideas don't disagree or offend, people are willing to listen... if they do disagree, they are labeled as coming from a place o hatred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mustapha said:

 

In free society, academia has an obligation to allow the free exchange of ideas, their acts of censorship violates this. These places are not ( and cannot) be prejudice free, prejudice and bias are part of human nature and cannot be exterminated.

 

Furthermore, in free society, no one group or individual should have the right to decide which ideas should be discussed and which ones should not.

 

You state that the 'regressive right' (never heard that term before, who are they?) are incapable of making arguments that don't come from 'a place of hatred'. When I read that, I see a flimsy attempt to discredit a viewpoint without directly addressing the ideas presented.

 

Are you able to address and refute ideas rather than making excuses for censorship in the name of hurt feelings? 

 

Why should we allow schools to intercede on our behalf to decide for us which ideas are acceptable and which are not? 

 

When our handcuff our ability to have a reasoned discussion by accusing those who oppose our arguments as being full of hatred/homo/islamo/xenophobia, it shows me that the argument against those viewpoints cannot stand on their own merit.

A academic institution has a right to protect its students from bigotry, racism and prejudice. These institutions want to provide a safe environment for students to pursue academics. When you agree to join any academic institution you agree to follow their code of conduct. This code of conduct is designed to foster the kind of environment that the university desires. They set the rules, and if you disagree with said rules then you have every right to pursue an alternate means of education. I see nothing wrong with this, no one is forcing you to attend these institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dral said:

That's not true at all.... as long your ideas don't disagree or offend, people are willing to listen... if they do disagree, they are labeled as coming from a place o hatred

There are a few irrational people who will choose to see the worst in everything. All you can do is defend your position and hope that they understand where you are coming from.

 

Similarly there are those whose views are influenced by their hatred. Again all you can do is defend your position and hopefully get them to see how wrong they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toews said:

There are consequences for intolerance not dissent. As long as your ideas don't come from a place of hatred, people are willing to listen. Unfortunately much of the regressive right is incapable of this which is why they continue to feel silenced. Colleges, universities and schools are simply trying to make sure that a learning institution is free from prejudice.

 

The defeat of the PC culture came just in the nick of time.....phew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Toews said:

There are a few irrational people who will choose to see the worst in everything. All you can do is defend your position and hope that they understand where you are coming from.

 

Similarly there are those whose views are influenced by their hatred. Again all you can do is defend your position and hopefully get them to see how wrong they are.

 

There's more then just a few... and they are very loud and too often being pandered too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toews said:

A academic institution has a right to protect its students from bigotry, racism and prejudice. These institutions want to provide a safe environment for students to pursue academics. When you agree to join any academic institution you agree to follow their code of conduct. This code of conduct is designed to foster the kind of environment that the university desires. They set the rules, and if you disagree with said rules then you have every right to pursue an alternate means of education. I see nothing wrong with this, no one is forcing you to attend these institutions.

 

Gibberish. If an institution cannot allow the reasonable discussion of all points of view, it does not deserve to be considered 'academic'. 

 

To silence those who oppose you rather than engage and refute them via logical debate is intellectual cowardice. The Socratic method is a requirement of higher learning. There is no education without it, only indoctrination. 

 

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech"

-Benjamin Franklin

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mustapha said:

 

Gibberish. If an institution cannot allow the reasonable discussion of all points of view, it does not deserve to be considered 'academic'. 

 

To silence those who oppose you rather than engage and refute them via logical debate is intellectual cowardice. The Socratic method is a requirement of higher learning. There is no education without it, only indoctrination. 

 

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech"

-Benjamin Franklin

 

 

 

 

So I have a question for you, if I go to an academic institution and state that that the emancipation proclamation was a mistake. Should I be able to express this point of view even though it is incendiary? You have to draw the line at some point and say something like this is not acceptable. Some people just aren't interested in having a "reasonable discussion" or a "logical debate". This isn't "intellectual cowardice" as much as it is self-preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toews said:

So I have a question for you, if I go to an academic institution and state that that the emancipation proclamation was a mistake. Should I be able to express this point of view even though it is incendiary? You have to draw the line at some point and say something like this is not acceptable. Some people just aren't interested in having a "reasonable discussion" or a "logical debate". This isn't "intellectual cowardice" as much as it is self-preservation.

 

So the only ideas that should be expressed are ones that aren't incendiary and that you agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ And yes, I think Mustapha is saying it's ok to be able to say "Free the slaves was a bad idea".... why? Because then you can actually have a discussion about it, and ask questions and debate and come to reasoned conclusions that it wasn't such a bad idea at all...

 

How are you supposed to change peoples minds if you can't have a real conversation about a certain topic? If you don't have an open forum to discuss things that are taboo, things can only get worse...

 

 

 

Why do you think Trump won in the first place? 'Cause Merica is racist!'

No, because people had some real concerns about HRC and any time people tried to bring them up they got called racist or sexist... because there was no discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toews said:

So I have a question for you, if I go to an academic institution and state that that the emancipation proclamation was a mistake. Should I be able to express this point of view even though it is incendiary? You have to draw the line at some point and say something like this is not acceptable. Some people just aren't interested in having a "reasonable discussion" or a "logical debate". This isn't "intellectual cowardice" as much as it is self-preservation.

 

The hallmark of civilized society is to be able to examine any argument and apply a critical evaluation to test its merit. This is how we separate good arguments from poor ones and form new understandings. 

 

It's been present in the halls of philosophy since at least the time of Socrates and is the core principle behind education. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mustapha said:

 

Oxymoron lol 'Modern theocratic ideology'. The first word in that descriptor is invalidated by the next two.

 

Also, where the hell do you get 'advocating ideological sectarianism' from suggesting that we discuss ideas?

 

News flash: Reasoned criticism of belief structures DOES NOT equal ideological division or oppression of individuals. I am able to separate concepts and ideas from people. 

 

The 'dominant ideology' in the West these days is extreme tolerance for dangerous ideas such as 'social justice'. It will be those people who will subjugate the rest of the West for not conforming to them, not the other way around.

 

As for millennials being 'ideologically dead' I am not sure what you mean. Thousands of them have cultural Marxist ideology beaten into their heads in colleges, universities and even high schools across North America and Europe. There are consequences for those who disagree, which is shameful for 'places of learning'

 

So can you give me an answer as to why its ok to criticize the ideas of some people but not others? 

 

Do you advocate for different rights and responsibilities for individuals based on their  skin color or religion? If so, how do you justify it without actively being bigoted?

Say what you want about Islamism.  Say what you want about a concept you've clearly never examined.  Islamism is, whether you like it or not, a VERY recent revivalist movement.  Look up the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ayatollah Khomeini - why they did what they did and why they succeeded.  Read the works of Sayyid Qutb to better understand the motivations behind modern Islamism.  They rejected the secular model of Egypt and the pro-Western model of Iran, opting for a politicized form of Islam.  It is inherently third-worldist that rejects any postcolonial foreign influence.

 

Our teacher in question... is probably just your average Muslim woman.  Just trying to get by in life like everyone else, no anti-Western political worldview or anything like that.  She has the freedom of religion and deserves that protection.  That's it.

 

You are not sure what I mean when I say millennials are ideologically dead.  Why are you pointing the finger at university liberal arts students?  Do you honestly think a whole generation is carrying degrees with disciplines like gender studies, history or sociology?  No.  We as a whole do not leave school as ideologically charged as you think (ask a business or science student how communist they are).  But millennials are proportionally underrepresented in elections on a consistent basis.  They are apathetic, and in my opinion stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like anti-muslim sentiment has been high in the US long before Trump, at the very least going back to 9/11. The US fighting countless wars, wasting trillions of dollars, and killing thousands of US soldiers in foreign quagmires in the middle east certainly didn't help things. Nor did the inevitable backlashes that occurred due to these excursions back at home on US soil. Trump probably galvanized the hatred in this election, and did whatever it took to get the requisite votes to win. It seems he's moving toward the centre of the political spectrum at a pretty fast pace though.

 

I'd put a bit of the blame on him, but I don't think the majority of it is deserved. I think it's just a racist prick using the politically polarized atmosphere as an opportunity to spout his BS (or hers, but let's face it, it was probably a guy). I hope they catch him and expel him for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Say what you want about Islamism.  Say what you want about a concept you've clearly never examined.  Islamism is, whether you like it or not, a VERY recent revivalist movement.  Look up the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ayatollah Khomeini - why they did what they did and why they succeeded.  Read the works of Sayyid Qutb to better understand the motivations behind modern Islamism.  They rejected the secular model of Egypt and the pro-Western model of Iran, opting for a politicized form of Islam.  It is inherently third-worldist that rejects any postcolonial foreign influence.

 

Our teacher in question... is probably just your average Muslim woman.  Just trying to get by in life like everyone else, no anti-Western political worldview or anything like that.  She has the freedom of religion and deserves that protection.  That's it.

 

You are not sure what I mean when I say millennials are ideologically dead.  Why are you pointing the finger at university liberal arts students?  Do you honestly think a whole generation is carrying degrees with disciplines like gender studies, history or sociology?  No.  We as a whole do not leave school as ideologically charged as you think (ask a business or science student how communist they are).  But millennials are proportionally underrepresented in elections on a consistent basis.  They are apathetic, and in my opinion stupid.

 

I have no arguments against your point of Islamist revivalism. I just think using the word 'modern' implies progress, when we both know it has become more fundamental in nature. I made this point in a previous post. 

 

I am not going to make any assumptions about the teacher, positive or negative. What the student did was wrong, and I don't advocate that behaviour toward anyone.

 

Your final point is where we disagree. You are incorrect in assuming that it's only the 'gender studies'  crowd that are indoctrinated, when the reality is every student is exposed to that nonsense as more of that content becomes required to graduate,  regardless of the discipline they take.

 

I don't mind the idea of social justice being introduced alongside other schools of thought in let's say Philosophy,   but it is permeating beyond the classroom and into the social atmosphere of college campuses en masse.

 

Furthermore, it is being introduced to children in the primary school system much in the same way religious education was done in the past. 

 

Dont believe me? There's a link to the ATA guide in this article. The concept of privilege, safe spaces, the progressive stack. It's all there. 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/teachers-union-official-call-students-comrade-instead-of-boys-or-girls/

 

While there may be apathy among young individuals today, eventually they will be the leaders and organizers of society. Their ideology will be reflected onto society as they come into power. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

 

I have no arguments against your point of Islamist revivalism. I just think using the word 'modern' implies progress, when we both know it has become more fundamental in nature. I made this point in a previous post. 

 

I am not going to make any assumptions about the teacher, positive or negative. What the student did was wrong, and I don't advocate that behaviour toward anyone.

 

Your final point is where we disagree. You are incorrect in assuming that it's only the 'gender studies'  crowd that are indoctrinated, when the reality is every student is exposed to that nonsense as more of that content becomes required to graduate,  regardless of the discipline they take.

 

I don't mind the idea of social justice being introduced alongside other schools of thought in let's say Philosophy,   but it is permeating beyond the classroom and into the social atmosphere of college campuses en masse.

 

Furthermore, it is being introduced to children in the primary school system much in the same way religious education was done in the past. 

 

Dont believe me? There's a link to the ATA guide in this article. The concept of privilege, safe spaces, the progressive stack. It's all there. 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/teachers-union-official-call-students-comrade-instead-of-boys-or-girls/

 

While there may be apathy among young individuals today, eventually they will be the leaders and organizers of society. Their ideology will be reflected onto society as they come into power. 

 

 

 

All I gotta say to this is.

 

ima man, man.  Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

Furthermore, it is being introduced to children in the primary school system much in the same way religious education was done in the past. 

 

Dont believe me? There's a link to the ATA guide in this article. The concept of privilege, safe spaces, the progressive stack. It's all there. 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/teachers-union-official-call-students-comrade-instead-of-boys-or-girls/

 

Gender unicorn my ass.  In primary school we wore flea protectors to protect ourselves from girl fleas. We were in no position to make decisions about our future sexuality.  Sexuality should not be introduced to pre-pubescent children by teaching lame brains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...