[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^No one is "defending or tolerating" them. Some are suggesting that their behaviour is not truly religiously motivated, or that this is ancillary to the true reasons for what they do.

Originally Posted by Itse

This discussion has been had in the New American Politics thread, and I'm not really interested in going through it again. We're not going to suddenly agree on this.

I don't think we are, no. You obfuscate what seems perfectly obvious to me. If you hand me what clearly appears to me to be a cat, and tell me, "that's not a cat", there's nowhere for the conversation to go, really.

First of all, a weak man fallacy. Taking the worst examples of certain behavior and taking them as representatives of the whole issue is poor argumentation.

Wait, what? He is a representative of the issue. I never said everyone is exactly like him. In fact, I said "varying degrees".

Second, I did not make a generalized claim that any and all such comments in all contexts are okay. I simply said that no, I don't think Crumpy-Gunt in this thread is an actual problem.

That's a fair reply. To be clear, are you saying then that your comment to the effect that there's no problem because I'm here and can continue to speak, and people can read my words and judge for themselves, can't be extended beyond this specific context, and in others wouldn't hold true?

Third, considering how worried you claim to be about "smears", maybe you should try doint it less yourself? You know, all those constant attempts at put downs. It's genuinely quite toxic.

Put downs or insults aren't "smears". The way you use language makes me wonder if you actually understand what my complaint is. It's not just being mean or snarky. It's dishonesty. A person can be downright nasty to other people without misrepresenting them. They're separate issues.

The point of a discussion for you is the possibility of defeating someones position?

The point is to understand and amend those positions, not to defeat them. Convergence is the point, basically. Like I say, in the context of arguing whether a cat is a cat, there's not much discussion to be had.

Plus the height of the SJW crusades seems to be pretty much over already. A couple of years ago I might have agreed with you that they are a big problem, but there's really a lot less of it already.

The past year has been the worst of it on this continent, actually, but I'm willing to be optimistic that it's on the decline. But that's largely because people did treat it like a big enough deal to get upset about it and say, "no, this is dumb".

And again, when I look around I see a huge amount of discussion and "politically incorrect" opinions. How many threads are there right now where people are saying that Islam in itself is a problem? How exactly has that debate been chilled at all by this supposed monster of "regressive left"?

And you'll have people like Crumpy-Gunt, or rather less obvious or inflammatory versions of him, calling those people misogynist racist bigots in an attempt to shut them up. Some will ignore them or tell them to go #### themselves. Others will see this, determine that it's not worth dealing with that hassle and not wanting to have to explain to people that they're not racist, and will prefer to not say anything and remain quiet.

That's the chilling effect, to be clear. I'm explaining what we're talking about here, not trying to convince you of its existence as I don't think you're inclined to believe things that don't align with your world view, as you've just established by once again obfuscating the link between Islamic doctrine and jihadism and martyrdom as practiced by some Muslims.

EDIT: Ah, hell. I've dragged myself right into a discussion that's going exactly as badly as I expected. I'm done. PM me if you actually want to discuss this stuff and think there's a point to it, I kind of don't think anyone really does.