This Derby, Kansas, Principal Showed Teachers a Video on White Privilege, Then Had to Apologize - "A Kansas principal was reportedly forced to apologize by the local school board for simply showing a video about white privilege to faculty members. In January, Principal Tim Hamblin shared with Derby High School staff a video from Dr. Joy DeGruy, a Black author who detailed her experiences with racism and white privilege, KMUW Wichita reported. The girls basketball team had watched the video after a racist incident in 2021, and Hamblin wanted teachers to know more about what their students had watched, according to the report. But after a complaint about the video, the principal was forced to apologize—not to the students on the basketball team, but to staff members."
Of course, if she had showed them a video opposing the left wing agenda, she'd have to resign
Meme - Sam Ashworth-Hayes: "The LARP that white people are just itching to inflict violence against minorities does not stand up well to the constant stream of horrific crimes committed by migrant communities against their hosts."
"Homicide in England and Wales by ethnicity, 2023-25. Principal suspects convicted of homicide, by victim-suspect ethnic appearance
White victim, black suspect *73 suspects*
Black victim, white suspect *16 suspects*
White victim, Asian suspect *20 suspects*
Asian victim, white suspect *18 suspects*
White victim, Mixed suspect *19 suspects*
Mixed victim, white suspect *10 suspects*
White victim, Other suspect *9 suspects*
Other victim, white suspect *5 suspects*"
Bushra Shaikh @Bushra1Shaikh: "Dropped my son off at Reading Festival today, but not before having a conversation I desperately wish I didn't have to have with my child. He's visibly Brown. He's Muslim. And in the current climate, that can carry risks never want him to have to think about..."
Meme - "RANDOM GIRL YOU SEE ON TV FOR 0.5 SECONDS *pretty blonde Sara Smith at Ole Miss Rebels season opener against Louisville Cardinals on Sunday, September 6 2026, in Nashville*
WHAT HOLLYWOOD IS SHOVING DOWN OUR THROATS *Zendaya*"
Meme - Soyjak: "YOU THINK THAT CHARACTER IS UGLY? WELL NOW IM THINKING ABOUT YOU MASTERBATING!"
Keywords: THINKING ABOUT YOU MASTURBATING
Meme - "I see we have learned nothing from the horrific Islamophobia of the early 2000s. Not surprising since MAGA lunacy is in full effect in the US"
"As a member of a large Muslim Iranian family and as a Democrat, Muslims are horrible people behind closed doors. They are very racist, classist, elitist, and violent."
Meme - End Wokeness @EndWokeness: "None of these are based on real people with real accomplishments"
*6 statues of black women: Lady in Blue by Tschabalala Self, Grounded in the Stars by Thomas J. Price, Time Unfolding by Thomas J. Price, Moments Contained by Thomas J Price, Ancient Feelings by Thomas J Price, As Sounds Turn to Noise by Thomas J. Price*
Meme - "MUSLIM CONQUEST BATTLES
*many from Southern France across Southern Europe and all over the Middle East and North Africa*
*pleased Muslims*
CRUSADE BATTLES
*A few in Turkey and modern Syria and Israel*
Crusader: THE AGGRESSION WILL STOP CHRIST IS KING
*upset Muslim*"
The Be Kind brigade should be ashamed of themselves - "Cast your mind back to February. If you remember the 2026 Bafta Film Awards ceremony that took place, it will be because John Davidson, who suffers from Tourette’s syndrome, shouted out the N-word just as two black actors, Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo, stood up to present an award. An almighty row ensued. Amid the disruption, Jordan and Lindo kept calm and carried on while host Alan Cumming explained to television viewers that people with Tourette’s have no control over their language, before adding: “We apologise if you were offended.” Afterwards, Davidson, the executive producer and inspiration behind the film I Swear, said he was “deeply mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics to be intentional or to carry any meaning”. That should have been the end of the matter. But of course, it wasn’t... Having concluded that Davidson was not disabled but racist, what happened next was perhaps inevitable. If Davidson “can’t control the slurs he says, he should watch from a separate area, not in the main audience”, declared Allison Wiltz, who describes herself as a “Black womanist scholar with a PhD.” Demanding segregation was now legitimate, as long as those to be kept apart were disabled. Sadly, it seems as if these ignorant grievance-mongers have won. I Swear has now been nominated for seven Bafta Scotland awards while one of its stars is up for an Audience Award. Deservedly so. For those who have not seen it, the film is a powerful portrayal of Davidson’s experience living with Tourette’s in the 1980s and 90s. Only, Davidson will not be in the audience in Glasgow next month. He will be kept apart, segregated from the main event, in a room set aside just for him and a few friends and family members, where he will watch the ceremony via a video link... The irony of people misunderstanding Davidson’s condition, taking offence at his outbursts, and then excluding him from their social circle is that this is precisely the kind of behaviour he portrays in his film. I Swear shows the devastating consequences those with Tourette’s suffer as a result of their involuntary shouted profanities, verbal tics, and erratic hand movements. Far from revealing their unconscious thoughts, Tourette’s sufferers act out the things they least want to say or do. We see Davidson get told off at home, bullied at school, in trouble with the police, struggling to find a job and unable to hold down a relationship. It is no exaggeration to say that Tourette’s has made his life a misery; he deserves sympathy, not punishment. To continue the crusade against him now is cruel indeed. A further irony is that those who led the charge against Davidson, and are now presumably congratulating themselves on his planned segregation, are those who most vocally champion the importance of diversity and inclusion. Their actions reveal that not all identity groups are considered equally deserving. When it comes to hierarchies of victimhood and oppression, race trumps disability. The right of people not to hear racial slurs far outweighs the rights of people with disabilities to be included."
The "kindness", "empathy" and "tolerance" squad are remarkably cruel and vicious. Of course, many of these people proclaim that they are "neurodivergent" and thus need special treatment
Mass Debaters | Facebook - "Islamists have shown a sharp understanding of Western leftist psychology and have exploited it with considerable success. They recognise that large sections of the progressive left are driven less by consistent principle than by emotion, identity, and a hunger for moral self regard. The result is selective solidarity that advances Islamist narratives while ignoring or downplaying far bloodier realities elsewhere, and while dismissing repeated exposures of fabricated material. The left’s emotional core is a simplified story of oppressor and oppressed. Colonialism, racism, and Western power are cast as the root of almost every injustice. Islamists feed this frame by presenting themselves as the authentic voice of the downtrodden. In the Israel/ Palestine conflict they supply a ready made script of indiginous resistance. Western activists, eager to signal virtue, adopt it wholesale. Documented cases of staged or misleading footage are routinely ignored. Accounts claiming to report live from Gaza have been shown, via location data and IP tracking, to be operating from Pakistan and other distant countries. Videos have circulated in which supposed casualties rise and walk once cameras appear to stop, or in which the same children appear in repeated scenes with identical editorial errors that expose the staging. This occurs on a large scale. When famine claims were loudly promoted, then challenged by detaled figures showing the projections did not match mortality or malnutrition data, the outrage was quietly dropped rather than corrected with equal volume. The pattern serves the narrative, so inconvenient facts are sidelined. The same selectivity appears with the Iranian regime, whose repression of women, gays and dissidents draws far softer criticism than comparable systems elsewhere, and with Islamist massacres where literally thousands of innocents have been, and continue tonbe, slughtered in Nigeria and the Sahel that recieve minimal sustained attention because they do not fit the preferred story of Western guilt. This dynamic is sustained by ego and group identity. People who are egotistical and narcissistic find leftist ideology extremely enticing precisely because it allows them to grandstand about their own moral superiority while giving free rein to their inner nastiness. They can pose as compassionate champions of the oppressed in public while directing vile, aggressive rhetoric, personal attacks, and open hatred at anyone who questions the script, all without self reflection or criticism from others on the left. Look at any social media post on these topics and it becomes extremely clear who descends into the most nasty, abusive comments. It is consistently those who have adopted the ideology as a vehicle for self elevation. The grandstanding and the aggression are two sides of the same coin. Islamists and their supporters understand this weakness perfectly and exploit it to advance their own ends."
Matt Alexander on X - "After being fired for our Christian beliefs, we are now under investigation by the Ontario College of Teachers. My wife and I were fired from teaching for refusing to CELEBRATE LGBTQ with children. This marks a new chapter in the lawfare waged against us. It's time for Canada to uphold fundamental Charter Rights of ALL Canadians. We're thankful to have the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms and Charter Advocates Canada in our corner. LOST FREEDOM FILES # 2026"
John Carter on X - ""All professionals agree with woke, so woke is good."
"These professionals don't, though."
"We just revoked their certifications for not agreeing with woke. All professionals agree with woke, so woke is good.""
Students For Liberty | Facebook - "The field was long dominated by a myth. Postwar anthropology, inspired by Rousseau and Marx, held that "savages" were peaceful and cooperative. Violence, hierarchy, and inequality were supposed to be diseases of civilization, invented by property, colonization, and markets. Abolish those, and the natural harmony of man would return. Then a kid from rural Michigan went to check. In 1964, Napoleon Chagnon, one of twelve children from a poor family in Port Austin, traveled to the Venezuela–Brazil border. He went to live with the Yanomamö, roughly 20,000 people scattered across the Amazon rainforest, largely untouched by the state, by markets, or by modernity. He would return nearly thirty times over the next three decades. His 1968 book, Yanomamö: The Fierce People, sold nearly a million copies and was translated into fifteen languages. But this is what he actually found: Raids between villages were routine. Infanticide was common. Women were regularly abducted and traded after violent conflict. Headmen, as a rule, were killers. Chagnon mapped Yanomamö genealogies using early computer methods, learned the language, and lived inside the villages for months at a stretch. The data was not hearsay. A particular finding broke the field. In a 1988 paper in Science, Chagnon documented that the unokais, men who had killed in raids, had on average more wives and more surviving offspring than non-violent men of the same age. In a state of nature, violence was being reproductively selected for. The Rousseauian premise ran backwards. If violence, hierarchy, and inequality were what civilization produces, they should be rare where civilization is absent. Chagnon found the opposite. Where the state, the market, and modern institutions had never arrived, up to 30% of adult male deaths were violent. The men who killed were the men whose lineages survived. In the modern United States that figure is under 1%. The reaction was immediate. Marshall Sahlins, one of Chagnon's former graduate teachers at Michigan, turned on him. Terence Turner and Leslie Sponsel circulated a warning to the American Anthropological Association (AAA) describing "an anthropological heart of darkness beyond the imagining of even a Joseph Conrad, though not, perhaps, a Joseph Mengele." Salesian missionaries in the region joined the coalition. What Chagnon had found could not be answered on its merits, so the man who found it became the target instead. Then came the book that ended him. In 2000, journalist Patrick Tierney published Darkness in El Dorado. He accused Chagnon of triggering a measles epidemic through vaccine experimentation, arming rival factions to stage conflicts on film, cooking his data, and behaving as "a war criminal or even a genocidaire." The New Yorker ran Tierney's companion article the same month. Chagnon's career effectively ended before any serious investigation reached a verdict. But every serious charge eventually collapsed. The vaccine complied with WHO protocols. The measles epidemic predated Chagnon's arrival. Venezuelan physicians, the Rockefeller Foundation, the University of Michigan, the American Society of Human Genetics, and the U.S. Department of Health each investigated. Each reached the same verdict: no crime, no cover-up, no fraud. Jane Hill, who chaired the AAA's own inquiry, wrote privately that Tierney's book was "a piece of sleaze, that's all there is to it." The AAA task force issued its own report in 2002 anyway, condemning Chagnon for prioritizing his research over the Yanomamö. Raymond Hames had already resigned from the panel mid-inquiry, and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, a National Academy of Sciences member, quit the AAA in protest. Three years later, the AAA membership voted to rescind the report. In 2012, Chagnon was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. The following year, Sahlins resigned from the Academy over it. The noble savage myth outlived the twentieth century's political movements. Today it powers the decolonial framework that dominates the humanities and much of political discourse. The claim is unchanged: violence, hierarchy, and inequality are artifacts of property, civilization, and colonization, and would vanish once those were abolished. Three decades of Chagnon's evidence showed the claim was wrong. In the absence of the institutions the utopians wanted to destroy, human beings behaved more violently than within them. The discipline that could not answer his data answered his character instead. That is what an intellectual monoculture does when evidence contradicts its premises. It goes after whoever brought the evidence."
Rock Solid on X - ">scene where the anime girls literally say “Merry Christmas”
>the localizer still writes out “Happy Holidays”
We literally do not hate Localizers enough"
Meme - "Concerns raised over access to UK Biobank data after 'race scientists' claims. Expert says any suggestion of Human Diversity Foundation accessing sensitive data could affect public trust in science"
Psychic intelligence officer Carl Jenkins from Starship Troopers touching NPC (as bug): "IT'S AFRAID"
They're afraid of the truth getting out and the public finding out "the science" was a lie. Of course those who expose the truth are the villains and not those who politicise science
Meme - *Chart showing transatlantic slave trade flows*
*Most going to Brazil, then the Arabian Peninsula, then the Caribbean, then North Africa, then the India Ocean*
*Tiny Minority going to the US labelled evil racism*
Meme - *2 old men in Black Flag and Minor Threat t-shirts*
Old Man 1: "What Turned Punk Rock Into Retarded Marxist Bullshit?"
Old Man 2: "CONSUMERISM. PRETTY IRONIC, HUH?"
3 young punks with Antifa, BLM, Communist hammer and sickle, Red star, RAN, ACAB, Eat the Rich logos, black leather jackers and blue/purple hair, pimples, piercings and partially shaved heads thinking: "CONFORMITY IS REBELLION"
Nathan Roberts on X - "Everyone needs to do reading on the “Rural Purge” of the 60’s and 70’s Almost every TV show highlighting rural, family friendly life was cancelled almost overnight, despite extremely high ratings. Why? Because television executives HATED everything they stood for-Portraying rural, Christian, white, heterosexual families and towns as happy and idyllic. Instead, they preferred to show dysfunction, filth, and confusion. It worked."
Denying the English ethnicity exists does nothing for social cohesion - spiked - "Whether Englishness is an ethnicity or a national identity has been a hot topic online for months. How did we get here? There is no doubt that England has experienced massive forms of cultural and demographic change in recent times. When I was growing up in the 1990s and 2000s, the question of who was English was not at the forefront of British political discourse. Immigration levels were relatively low and while society was diversifying, it was doing so slowly. At that point, there was not a single city or town where the white British ethnic group was in the minority... Coming from an academic background and specialising in social cohesion, I believe that a denial of a titular ethnicity in England is not only unhelpful for community relations – it is also absurd and historically illiterate. The English date back to the Germanic tribes, such as Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, who settled in southern Britain and fused with the somewhat ‘Romanised’ Celtic Britons who had inhabited England since at least the Iron Age. These ethnic groups came collectively to be known as the Anglo-Saxons. The unification of their kingdoms under Athelstan created the sovereign state of England in 927 AD. The Anglo-Saxons forged England’s cultural, linguistic, institutional and economic development. England’s history as an established nation did not start in 1945. Nor is it a land of immigrants the way that the United States is. Anyone peddling such divisive myths is not doing the country any favours. This is not to say that Englishness should be viewed in purely racial and ancestral terms. There can be room for a civic and cultural English identity that people from different walks of life can integrate into. This should be centred on English traditions, history, ritual and custom – on personal liberty, politeness and a strong sense of fair play. We should celebrate integration success stories – where ethnic-minority people feel a deep sense of pride in being culturally attached to England and are steeped in the nation’s traditional civic life. But all of this should sit under an overarching recognition that there is an ethnic English majority. Surely, there must be one, because without it there would be no ethnic minorities?"
The Imperial War Museum is ashamed of Britain’s heroes - spiked - "The Imperial War Museum in London was founded on 5 March 1917, during the First World War. Its purpose was to ensure that the ‘efforts and sacrifices’ of soldiers from Britain and the Empire would not be lost to posterity. Today, the very same institution is abandoning this pledge. ‘Contemporary audiences’, we are told by a consultancy firm hired by the museum, no longer relate to the sacrifices of those who fought in the First and Second World Wars. As a result, the Imperial War Museum will focus on conflicts ‘within many of our visitors’ living memory’. Apparently, the heroism shown by the people of Britain in the great struggles of the 20th century has little relevance for the young. Why? Because it happened in the past. A report published to justify the rebrand draws attention to a ‘growing number of people with no connection to someone who lived through the First or Second World Wars’. It seems that those running the Imperial War Museum don’t understand what the purpose of a museum is. Visitors to the British Museum don’t have a living connection to the Elgin Marbles, the Bayeux Tapestry or the Rosetta Stone. Does that mean that these objects should be sent into storage and replaced with a decommissioned train from the London Underground? Present-day objects from ‘living memory’ are not what people go to history museums to see. The fact that many of us no longer have a direct connection with those who fought in the First and Second World Wars is the very reason why the Imperial War Museum is necessary. It is particularly important because so much of what they achieved continues to live on in our world, although we are apt to forget it. The museum is there to preserve this connection, not sever it. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the main motive driving this rebranding exercise is an aversion to the values that informed the museum’s founding; namely, valour, courage and patriotism. It has been evident for some time that these values have lost their meaning in the eyes of the museum’s management. The fact that those running a war museum are unable to grasp that peoples and nations go to war for a reason – to fight for something – underpins their approach to their museum’s own collections. This clearly drove its decision in 2014 to rid the museum’s atrium of serious military hardware. This exhibition, which included tanks, planes, guns and a Polaris missile – all located at the heart of the museum – had to go because apparently the management did not wish to ‘glamourise’ war. Last year, the museum shut down the Lord Ashcroft Gallery, which held the world’s largest collection of Victoria Crosses. The decision to rid the museum of its impressive collection of Victoria Crosses makes perfect sense for an institution committed to de-militarising its exhibits. After all, the Victoria Cross is the highest and most prestigious award in the British decorations system, given to those who have demonstrated ‘extreme bravery in the presence of the enemy’. For the Imperial War Museum’s management, the values symbolised by the Victoria Cross are anathema. But then this is hardly a surprise. Britain’s cultural elites as a whole all tend to see courage, patriotism and other military virtues as deeply unattractive. From their standpoint, the indifference of young people to the great wars of the early 20th century is positive. It shows that Britain is leaving behind a past they deem shameful. Indeed, it’s a past they have waged a war on, mainly through the education system. Schools and universities constantly warn young people to be wary of taking pride in their nation’s history. Moreover, they are told that many of Britain’s historical heroes – such as Winston Churchill – were not only deeply flawed characters, but hardly better than war criminals. It should not come as a shock that a recent survey showed that just six per cent of the public would fight for Britain if it faced an imminent invasion. Torn away from the achievements of their ancestors, it is not surprising that many young people find little meaning in their national story. Rather than seeing this detachment from the past as a problem, a serious museum would do its best to cultivate a sense of historical continuity. Instead of patronising young people with ‘relevant’ and ‘accessible’ exhibits, the Imperial War Museum should challenge them to take their nation’s story seriously."
Left wingers keep going on about "empathy", but believe that people have none. They certainly don't
Meme - Hot Takes Nobody Asked For: "she is a bishop in the united methodist church."
"WE ARE ALL MUSLIMS"
Charlie Walsham on X - "It was really interesting listening to Christine Ockrent on Radio 4’s 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑾𝒐𝒓𝒍𝒅 𝒂𝒕 𝑶𝒏𝒆 this lunchtime. Ockrent, one of France’s best-known broadcasters, said of the street protests there: “You have the Hamas factor, which indeed is playing in all our democracies, and even in the UK, where you have had huge demonstrations, and violent ones. And we are on the eve of the October the 7th anniversaries of the massacres in Israel. And so I think the Hamas factor has politicised this very young generation.” Sarah Montague interrupted: “You say the Hamas factor. Do you mean the pro-Palestinian factor, which is how I think it would be characterised here?” Ockrent replied: “Yes, you’re correct, but it’s factual to say the pro-Hamas, and that is fairly obvious in the various organisations that are supporting these movements.” Montague was, of course, doing her job by challenging Ockrent’s assertion. But Ockrent touched on an extremely uncomfortable truth that I don’t think the BBC, much of the progressive left or indeed large parts of the political establishment have remotely come to terms with. We have a radicalised generation of young people who have been fed a succession of ideological orthodoxies and encouraged to regard them not as arguments to be tested, but as moral truths that only bad people question. Gender identity is supposedly more meaningful than biological reality. Israel is supposedly the most evil country on earth. Western civilisation is uniquely wicked. Colonialism explains almost everything. And in the ugliest manifestation of this worldview, Hamas terrorists who murdered, raped and kidnapped civilians can somehow be recast as brave anti-colonial “resistance fighters”. No, obviously not every young person believes this nonsense. But enough do for it to have become a serious cultural and political phenomenon. And changing demographics in Britain and France are plainly part of this story. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Countries can absorb enormous demographic change only if there remains sufficient agreement about the values, laws and institutions holding the country together. Importing millions of people from societies with radically different religious, cultural and political assumptions was always going to have consequences. The idea that everybody would simply arrive, adopt the prevailing liberal democratic consensus and that nothing fundamental would change was itself a kind of utopianism. Use your eyes and ears. Look at what is happening on the streets of European cities. Listen to what people are chanting. Look at the flags. Look at the glorification of people and movements whose values are profoundly hostile to the liberal societies in which their supporters are demonstrating. It is no good pretending this isn’t happening because acknowledging it makes people uncomfortable. We have a clash of cultures playing itself out on the streets of Europe. We also have a clash of realities between generations - although the insanity is certainly not confined to the young, as the Green Party has demonstrated spectacularly this week. And I see remarkably little evidence that any of this is going to improve. The question is how much worse things have to get before politicians of every political hue acknowledge the obvious: a nation cannot indefinitely function as a collection of mutually antagonistic identity groups occupying the same geographical space. Countries need borders, yes. But they also need a shared conception of citizenship. Shared institutions. Shared obligations. Shared democratic norms. And enough common values for people of radically different backgrounds to regard one another as members of the same national community. Multiculturalism without integration eventually becomes fragmentation. And when a society loses the things that bind it together, we shouldn’t be surprised when it starts coming apart."
Tyson Zahner | Facebook - "If you spend any time discussing politics or culture with progressives online, you've probably noticed a frustrating pattern. It usually doesn’t matter how much data you present, or how many facts, or how much evidence. You can walk through airtight logic step by step. But if any of that is irrefutable or uncomfortable to them, their feelings override it all. They stop arguing the topic and start diagnosing you:
"You're not willing to listen."
"You need to educate yourself."
"You have a blind spot."
"You just want to prove your point."
Thomas Sowell explained this decades ago in The Vision of the Anointed. He observed that progressives don't see political disagreements as debates between people weighing evidence and trade-offs differently. They see them as contests between the enlightened and the ignorant, the virtuous and the malevolent. If you disagree, there are only two possible explanations in their framework: you don't understand, or you don't care. The possibility that you fully understood their argument and still concluded they were wrong simply doesn't exist in their mental model. That's why the phrases are so predictable (and so common from topic to topic and even person to person). They aren't arguments. They're diagnoses. You aren't someone who examined all the evidence and simply came to a different conclusion. No, you're a patient exhibiting symptoms of ignorance or hatred. Jonathan Haidt (a progressive, himself) actually tested this. In his excellent book, The Righteous Mind, he surveyed thousands of Americans across the political spectrum and asked them to answer moral questions as if they were their political opponents. Conservatives and moderates consistently predicted how liberals would answer. Liberals were the worst at predicting how conservatives think. And the way they failed was pretty revealing. They overwhelmingly assumed conservative positions were driven by selfishness, cruelty, or ignorance rather than by genuinely different moral priorities. In other words, conservatives understand the left's arguments. The left usually cannot even accurately describe the right's arguments. And yet they're the ones telling us to "educate ourselves." Once you understand this framework, their phrases start to translate themselves:
• "Educate yourself" means "Read the sources I agree with until you reach my conclusion."
• "You just want to prove your point" means "Your facts are dismantling my position and I need you to stop."
• "You're not willing to listen" means "How could anyone possibly disagree with me or see the world differently than I do?”
• "You have a blind spot" means "I can't find your error, but you must be wrong because you disagree with me."
• "You don't want to understand" means "In my framework, understanding and agreement are the same thing."
• "It's not my job to educate you" means "I don't have a counterargument but I need to exit without admitting that."
Notice what every single one of these phrases has in common. Not one of them is an argument. Not one presents evidence. Not one identifies a specific factual error. They all treat your disagreement as a symptom to be explained rather than a position to be engaged. Which is why I’ve found the fastest way to cut through this is to simply ask one short question that forces them to apply their own standard consistently. For example, when someone called me a bigot yesterday for criticizing Islamic ideology, all I had to ask was: "Is it also bigotry to criticize Christian nationalism?" And he disappeared. He had no other choice… He either had to apply his own definition of bigotry consistently and say yes (which means he and everyone he agrees with needs to stop doing it). Or he has to say no, which means his standard is selectively applied, or go silent, which tells the audience everything they need to know. Now I want to be clear. I'm not saying every progressive engages this way. I’ve engaged with plenty of people on the left who can engage honestly and substantively. But this pattern is common enough, and predictable enough, that two of the most respected social scientists in the country (Haidt, being a progressive himself) wrote entire books about it. So if you find yourself frustrated by these kinds of responses, just recognize, they’re designed to frustrate you. These phrases don't exist to advance a conversation. They exist to end one. They give the person using them permission to walk away feeling morally superior without ever having to address the substance of what you said. Listen, I'm 100% open to having my mind changed. Bring me evidence I haven't seen. Show me data that contradicts what I've presented. Point out a logical flaw I missed. I'll engage it seriously. But telling me I need to "educate myself" as your mic drop moment before you exit (all because I weighed your argument against the evidence and found it wanting) isn't a counterargument. It's just a way for you to pretend to be superior as you surrender."
Left wingers who boast about how much "empathy" they have have no idea why people might disagree with them
Mary Pezzulo on X - "Christian Twitter really thinks that portraying Christ as a carnivorous beast with notoriously smelly urine who sleeps 23 hours a day and steals meat from hyaenas is beautiful sacred art, but having Christ portrayed by a woman is sacrilege. That's their opinion of women."
Coffee-Art-Moomin James on X - "Aslan isn't literally a biological lion. He's the socratic ideal of what a lion represents to 20th century British children. This is actually what a lack of media literacy looks like"
"Media literacy" just means pushing the left wing agenda
Police were lectured about Farage in Islamophobia talk - "Police officers were lectured about Nigel Farage in a publicly funded talk about Islamophobia, The Telegraph can reveal. Officers at a hate crime conference attended training sessions that compared the Reform UK leader’s opinions, specifically his doubts about young Muslims’ ability to subscribe to British values, to a racially aggravated offence. The North Yorkshire Police officers were asked to consider the “harm” done by Mr Farage, and then told that the politician would be “locked up” if he were similarly critical of Jewish people. The lecture was part of a training programme titled Project Unity, which The Telegraph understands has also been presented to students, council staff and civil servants responsible for the counter-extremism Prevent programme. It also took issue with criticism of pro-Palestine “hate marches” levelled by “people like Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick” – both Reform MPs – and concerns about Muslim integration raised by Matthew Goodwin, a former Reform parliamentary candidate. Police have been repeatedly criticised for failing to adopt a sufficiently robust stance on Islamism and anti-Semitic abuse. Last week, Policy Exchange, a Right-wing think tank, revealed that the National Association of Muslim Police had published papers defending Hamas and describing terms such as “Islamist” as Islamophobic. The Project Unity training was delivered by Abbas Najib, a former police officer and now the chief executive of Better Communities Bradford, a charity. Since 2019, the charity has received £490,000 in public funding from the National Lottery Communities Fund, including a £35,000 grant to roll out Project Unity, which covers training sessions that include “media and political narratives” and “myths and misconceptions about Islam”... Attendees were shown a 2024 interview with Mr Farage in which he warned that “growing numbers of people do not subscribe to British values”, going on to say that this cohort included Muslims and attendees of pro-Palestine marches in London. The Reform leader then cited a survey published by the Henry Jackson Society that found 46 per cent of British Muslims supported Hamas. After that, attendees were asked to “think about the relationship” between Mr Farage’s statements and a hate crime offence that took place in 2024. They were shown footage of a man racially abusing a Muslim bus driver. They were then told to “draw your own conclusions” about the Reform leader, and asked to “think about whether this commentary has any influence on something like this”... The lecture made the case that Muslim values are compatible with British values, in particular the official list pulled together under David Cameron’s government, which included a belief in democracy, the rule of law, respect and tolerance, and individual liberty. Written material that accompanied the training also claimed that women were not oppressed by the stipulations of Islam. The session also said pro-Palestine marches were “protesting genocide”, and Mr Najib complained that they were labelled “hate marches” by “mainstream, high-profile politicians” such as “Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, Michael Gove”. One of Mr Jenrick’s most prominent interventions about the issue came before his defection to Reform. Then in the Conservative Party, Mr Jenrick raised concerns about members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group that hopes to establish a global caliphate, chanting “jihad, jihad” close to one of the marches in 2023... The training also defended immigration more broadly, and claimed that “Muslims, the immigrant, the brown person” were scapegoated for a flatlining economy, when it was in fact “the rich”. The training – which is targeted at authorities handling hate crimes and counter-radicalisation – can be revealed after concern about the application of the law by police forces across the UK. Earlier this year, Stephen Gray, a retired police officer, was fined for sharing posts online that were critical of Islam."
If you criticise Hamas, that's anti-Muslim hatred and you need to be jailed
Left wingers mock people who call the UK a Muslim state, even though they have blasphemy laws for Islam and politicians court the Muslim vote
David J Harris Jr on X - "🚨BREAKING: A retired British police officer has been convicted and fined for sharing a meme. The post said: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9-year-old!” Stephen Gray, 65, spent 30 years as a police officer. He said the meme was satirical and meant to spark debate about child marriage. A judge ruled it “grossly offensive.” He now has a criminal record."
@realDianaWest on X - "Solzhenitsyn was a WWII Red Army soldier when Soviet authorities read a joke about Stalin in a letter he had written to a friend. Solzhenitsyn was arrested, stripped of his rank and sent to Gulag for 8 years. Are we there yet?"
When you live in a Muslim country, you can't make jokes referencing Islam
2001 Live on X - "In Peterborough, England, 17-year-old Ross Parker is murdered by a gang of 10 Muslim Pakistanis who were seeking a white male to attack."
rosbifenthusiast on X - "British Muslims work themselves into tearful histrionic frenzy about post 9/11 racism when the reality under Blair was endless indulgence and a desperate government and media effort to distract from cases like this"
