Saturday’s attack on Zafar Iqbal in the northern city of Sylhet was just the latest in a series of stabbings of secular or atheist authors and bloggers in Muslim-majority Bangladesh.
Iqbal, a long-standing champion of free speech and secularism, remains in stable condition in hospital where he is being treated for stab wounds to his head.
Police detained 21-year-old Faizul Hasan, a former Islamic seminary student, and were investigating any ties to radical groups.
Colonel Ali Haider Azad Ahmed from the Rapid Action Battalion police unit said Hasan told investigators it was “his duty as a Muslim to resist those who work against Islam”.
“He has said Dr Zafar Iqbal was an enemy of Islam,” Ahmed said.
More recent reports say Iqbal survived his attack and is out of danger.
According to Wikipedia (the source of all vaguely accurate knowledge), “Iqbal is known for his stance against Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh and has spearheaded criticism of its leaders, several of whom are undergoing trial at the International Crimes Tribunal for their role in the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971.”
Alas, he’s not in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database under either Zafar Iqbal or his birth name of Muhammed Zafar Iqbal, which suggests none of his extensive Bengali language works have been translated into English.
He also evidently had one of his works turned into “a full-length 3D animated film,” which turns out to be about the quality of early Machinima efforts:
Seems like a successful guy. That, and being a prominent atheist, is enough to get you on the radical Islam death list…
Here’s a mirror of a Pat Condell video that so hit home at Google they yanked it after a couple of hours:
This video is for all you feminists who work in social media, especially the ones at YouTube. But first I’d like to talk briefly, if I may, about censorship. Because it’s amazing to me how quickly YouTube went from “broadcast yourself” to “stifle yourself or be terminated.” It seems there’s no longer any pretense that the tolerance and diversity crowd have any tolerance for diversity of opinion, and now they’re openly censoring political views they disapprove of. It’s happening so often and to so many people that the words “YouTube” and “censorship” now go together like “Islamic” and “terrorism,” or “migrant” and “rape,” or “Marxist” and “dictatorship.”
Also:
“The people who work at YouTube don’t have any problem with violence against women as long as it’s Islamic.”
He goes on to talk about YouTube’s persistent censoring of videos about the widespread epidemic of rapes carried out by Islamic men across Europe, including a video from Poland’s government.
He also calls men who work at Google “dickless wonders.” That might have done it.
And here’s Condell’s YouTube video about YouTube censoring his YouTube video about YouTube censoring videos.
Newman questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their biology. “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.”
Newman misdirected: “Well, I’m very glad I’ve put you on the spot.” But Peterson pursued: “Well, you get my point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”
Newman had no answer. Point to Peterson.
But despite Peterson’s obvious logic, the Left refuses to concede this particular point. Any statement — any statement — must be gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, according to the Left, but on the basis of whether such truth is likely to offend — or, at least, whether such truth is likely to offend groups the Left perceives as victimized. According to the Left, any and all truth must take a back seat to “your truth,” so long as you claim minority status in any way.
Scott Adams says Newman is suffering from cognitive dissonance
Those more familiar with Social Justice Warrior tactics saw that Newman is just exhibiting two classic SJW traits: They always lie, and they always double down.
Here’s a video that picks up Newman’s tell that she’s about to lie about what Peterson said: “You’re saying…”
Ultimately, does it matter whether Social justice Warriors are lying by intent, or because their viewpoint is so warped that they can no longer perceive the world clearly?
Conor Friedersdorf examines a terrible malady: those who suffer from Social justice Warrior of the ears, a more extreme example of “liberal of hearing.” This example features British journalist Cathy Newman interviewing Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist. “First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.”
Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.
“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.
“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”
“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.
“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”
The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”
The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:
Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.
Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.
Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?
Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––
The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.
Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.
This is what Social Justice Warriors in general, and radical feminists in particular, do. They start with the assumption that they’re good, and anyone who objects to their Social Justice Warrior positions is obviously evil, and thus must be made to repent of their heresy or else be destroyed. Any attempt at a more nuanced position that strays from Social Justice Warrior dogma is just a dodge by the evil person meant to obscure their fundamental sexist/racist/Islamophobic/etc. beliefs and avoid repenting of their unwillingness to “check their privilege.” Forget investigating their stated position; that’s just a smokescreen for their evil. They must confess their sins.
Here’s the video of the interview.
Some Twitter reactions:
Jordan Peterson: "DNA exists."
Cathy Newman: "So you're saying you support the forced eugenic sterilization of everyone with an IQ below 130?"
Here we go folks, Cathy Newman got crushed on broadcast TV and they re-framing her being laughed at for it as "Vicious Misogynistic Abuse."
This is how the media will go after Peterson, you can bet your ass they'll try to never allow him on TV again. He destroyed them. pic.twitter.com/k0IppwIJPU
— ☢S.C.R.U.M.P. – Call of Bants (@CheekiScrump) January 20, 2018
Mindlessly spouting SJW talking points doesn't work very well when you're debating someone who has thought the issues through https://t.co/FKsYq1Ja2Z
Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign just put out an ad hitting Democrats over crimes committed by illegal aliens:
A few thoughts:
Has any President ever launched a reelection ad three years before his term is up?
Or used it to hit members of the opposing party over a then-contentious issue?
Either polling or Trump’s gut tells him that this is a deeply unpopular issue for Democrats, and I think he’s right. In the current shutdown fight, Democrats have chosen illegal aliens over American citizens, and they need to pay the political price for it.
Rick Perry used this issue effectively in his 2010 gubernatorial reelection campaign against Democrat Bill White. In that ad, a Houston police officer talked about how her husband (another police officer) had been killed by a multi-arrested illegal alien while White, Houston’s mayor at the time, was touting Houston as a “sanctuary city.”
My suspicion is that Democrats will get clobbered in this fight. We’ll see…
Here’s another case where CNN assembled a focus group, in this case Democrats from Youngstown, Ohio who voted for Donald Trump the Candidate in 2016, and are shocked to discover that they think Donald Trump the President is doing a great job.
A few takeaways:
They think he’s doing a great job on the economy and see signs of economic improvement, even though Youngstown itself isn’t booming.
They agree with Trump on immigration.
They like that Trump keeps tweeting, given how the media lies about him.
“Hate speech is free speech that hurts people’s feelings. It’s illegal in Britain because we don’t have a First Amendment to protect us from this kind of arbitrary police state law and the police, for reasons best known to themselves, pay special attention to Internet hate speech. They’re always telling us how seriously they take it. It’s almost as if they prioritize it over real crime for some kind of ideological reason, because it seems they’re all over social media combing out thought criminals like head lice.”
“It seems that you’re as likely to be arrested in Britain today for being abusive on Twitter as you are for gang raping a child. Maybe even more so.”
Also this:
“Recently on Channel 4 News we heard that the grooming gangs in Rotherham are still operating openly for all to see, including the police. And they wonder why they’re losing trust and respect.”
The Religion of Peace and the UK progressive thought police organization “Common Purpose” puts in an appearance as well.
Condell also has a rant called “A Word To The Criminal Migrant.” Unfortunately, due to the oppressive atmosphere of progressive censorship, YouTube has made it so that I can no longer embed it here, so click on that as well.
