What it means to be Regressive? An exchange between Paddy and Walter on lies, the Left, terrorism and Owen Jones

Walter: As usual, Owen Jones making excuses for Islam.

Paddy: When did he make an excuse for ‘Islam’? Did you watch the video?

 

Walter: Both in this video and in his little outburst on Sky.

Whenever a heinous act of terror is committed by a member of the “Religion of Peace” in the name of the “Religion of Peace”, the reaction of people like Jones is to explain away why it has no link to Islam. In the aftermath of the last Islamic attack, people like him were doing such things overtly. In this case he does covertly through omission of the fact that this was an Islamic attack.

As Douglas Murray has stated on Twitter regarding Jones’ outburst: “I’m sorry for Owen Jones. I would also feel guilty if I’d spent my life covering for the ideology that just killed 50 LGBT people.”

Bore who joined in momentarily: Owen Jones have written several articles on the Guardian defending terrorists attacks like Charlie Hebdo.

 

Paddy: Find one sentence he has written that defends terrorist attacks. One.

 

Walter: He defends it by distancing terrorist attacks from Islam and by blaming the causes on us.

 

Paddy: So, to get this straight: he defends terrorist attacks through distancing them from a religion and blaming the cause on ‘us’ – whatever that means?

Too vague to be considered stupid.

 

Walter: He distances the motivations for the attacks from the religion and blames, when he can, the causes on us. Us being our country/society. I thought that was rather clear-cut.

 

Paddy: So “he distances the motivations for the attacks from the religion”?

The motivation of committing terrorist attacks from ‘the religion’? Which religion? The religion of El Salvadorian death squads, Nigerian secret police officers, American drone operators… whom and what? You’re going to have to be more expansive here. Your hypothesis that terrorist attacks stem from ‘the religion’ needs a little more meat.

“Blames, when he can, the causes on us”

One sentence. Quote to me one sentence where Owen Jones has blamed ‘us’ .

“I thought that was rather clear-cut.”

Considering both our society and country is made up of people adhering to many, many different religions, no, your dichotomy is not clear. Not at all.

I’m getting the distinct impression that you’re not used having your beliefs questioned.

 

Walter: The religion I’m referring to is Islam. As before, I was under the impression that was obvious due to my previous mention of it.

I’m very use to my beliefs being challenged, not entirely sure what made you

think I wasn’t; perhaps you will elaborate?

 

Paddy: I must admit I had two implicit reasons for asking what you meant by ‘the religion’:

1. The highlight that if you are to consider a terrorist attacker’s religion a significant motivation, then surely you have to apply that standard universally?

2. To imply that your knowledge of global affairs is… somewhat lacking. I doubt you spend nearly as much time applying your empty analysis to the other terrorists I mention.

“I’m very use to my beliefs being challenged, not entirely sure what made you think I wasn’t; perhaps you will elaborate?”

Well, for a start you’ve ignored two of my challenges entirely.

 

Walter: 1.) I consider a terrorist attacker’s religion a motivation, when they cite their religion as a motivation for the attack. Because of that I am therefore forced to assume that the religion itself has something to do with the attacks. When you take account of the regularity of the attacks, and the overall history of the religion, I come to that conclusion even sooner. How do I apply that universally? It’s rather easy to be honest.

2.) When taking account of 1.), do I really need to explain why I don’t think Christianity in general has something to do with, Nigerian secret police officers, or Salvadoran Death Squads? P.S it’s not ‘El Savadorian’.

I haven’t ignored your challenges, I didn’t answer them because they were flawed; that should be obvious after this comment.

 

Paddy: 1. Okay, well this isn’t where you started was it? The problem was “Islam” and not an individual’s claim to a rather extreme version of it. You were treating Islam a monolithic hive-mind and now, you’re not.

Says a lot really.

2. Well, in fact religion was – and is – employed regularly as a justification by the death squads of Latin America. If we are to believe religion is a driving factor because someone says so, traditional Catholicism has taken the lives of millions in the last 50 years.

“I haven’t ignored your challenges, I didn’t answer them because they were flawed; that should be obvious after this comment.”

Not at all. Yet again: let’s have a look at where you started (this is trying): Islam is the cause of terrorism, which Owen Jones is defending, and instead blaming on ‘us’.

One sentence, all I’ve asked: when has Owen Jones done that?

This isn’t a flawed challenge, it’s an inconvenient one.

 

Walter: 1.) Please read the comment again.

The fact that you’re not reading my comments properly is not surprising.

2.) Your attempted rebuttal does not respond to the arguments posed to the previous question. Probably because you haven’t read what I’ve written properly.

Your challenge is flawed because you don’t understand the argument.

 

Paddy: 1 and 2 are pointless and you know it.

What is your argument? As I have shown (and hopefully you have now seen), it has changed in one case: ‘Islam’ to individual followers of that religion.

And in the other – Jones’ blaming of ‘us’ – totally and deliberately unsubstantiated.

 

Walter: It hasn’t changed in the slightest, I’ve just had to elaborate upon it.

So I shall make it very clear to you:

The attack was clearly motivated by the attacker’s religion: Islam.

The regularity of the attacks by adherents of this religion demonstrates that there is a problem with that religion.

The completely unique nature and history of that religion demonstrates that this problem is long in its existence and has not sprung up out of the blue or from the fecking ether.

It is therefore completely and utterly incomparable to all the other arguments you’ve tried to present.

 

Paddy: Nuance and any understanding of political theory obviously allude you. It’s either that or you’re incredibly dishonest.

And either way, you’re a waste of my time.

 

Note from Paddy: The next moron who says “regressive left” in my presence is getting stabbed in the eyes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *