Liberal tactics: From twisting the truth to doxing

[Love Mountain]

An anonymous accusation, that a (probably) 12 year old said something to another 12 year old counts as "hate rising"?
LOL.

No it doesn't and they never said it. It was used as an anecdotal example in the same way that you post headlines as if they are indicative of "crime rising". You're welcome to peruse individual stories or their statistics.

The only thing they can be accused of is being unapologetically liberal in the information they publish. In the same way that Breibart is unapologetically Conservative.

Yeah, I think there is a slight difference between an 18 year old kid singing something with a video game company to make afew bucks, and a person who wishes to be a career teacher and applies for a job, in a Catholic School of all places. Like I said, and you agreed, if there was a clause in the contract that violated any laws, then it would have been illegal to so much as hand it out to the employee. THEREFORE the contract did NOT violate any law.
Furthermore, the employee (Griffin) was well aware of the clause:



http://www.holyghostprep.org/page.cfm?p=1411&newsid=662

Stop hiding behind it. Many people sign contracts that are not legitimate and thus non-binding. You're acting as if having your name on something creates an unbreakable bond. That's fiction.

By the way, even if he wasn't if the contract does not hold any illegal clauses no party has the right to say that it hadn't read it after signing it. But you are being a typical liberal. "I sign anything, and then either say I didn't know what I was signing, or attempt to go back on my signature in any other way". Liberals are not too big on taking responsibility.

If a contract is not lawful, intentionally deceitful, or ethically questionable, it won't hold up in court and all parties know it. The only reason it's in there is so employers and dumb conservatives can say, "See? It was in there he should've read it." That's not how law works. But thanks for coming.

The excerpts from nj.gov you bring are therefore irrelevant to the issue we are discussing here, since the Catholic Schools were obviously well within their rights to request that the contracts be signed by the employees. The fact that this is a 2013 case, and there isn't a court ruling supporting what you say (ie a decision against the Catholic School) is proof of the above.

It's still ongoing.

http://www.northjersey.com/story/new...suit/95449950/
Dec. 14, 2016

Superior Court Judge Lisa Perez Friscia ruled Aug. 31 that the case should proceed to the discovery phase.

"Only after discovery is complete can the court review each claim to determine whether the ministerial exception grounded in the First Amendment applies and whether defendants' actions are exempt under the NJ LAD," Friscia said.The defendants then made a second attempt to have the lawsuit tossed in October that was also denied by Friscia. Westrick could not be reached late Wednesday night for comment.

Keep fighting it only makes my side look better. The fact that you're defending somebody being fired because they're gay just reveals more of the ed-up agenda and the sort of witch-hunting that the alt-right engages in.

[chriscase]

Please constrain your attacks to the content of posts and avoid statements about site members.

[The spartan]

I'm goign to need a refference for that. Yoru agenda is known so I cannot simply take your word.

Reference what? You were the one stating it was accepted that BLM was a racist group. You never backed that up.

And you can disagree with the direction a movement took by comparing it with the KKK.

That's the point. You are using a less accurate term to make the story seem more friendly to your narrative of SJWs gone mad. Specifically, he was fired for comparing BLM to the KKK (I haven't actually verified the story so maybe not), but you want to label that as the more vague term 'disagreement'. That way, when you share this story, you can trick people with the term 'disagreement' so that they might think that the professor was fired for simply not agreeing with BLM messages, which he wasn't. See the immorality here?

[Love Mountain]

That's the point. You are using a less accurate term to make the story seem more friendly to your narrative of SJWs gone mad. Specifically, he was fired for comparing BLM to the KKK (I haven't actually verified the story so maybe not), but you want to label that as the more vague term 'disagreement'. That way, when you share this story, you can trick people with the term 'disagreement' so that they might think that the professor was fired for simply not agreeing with BLM messages, which he wasn't. See the immorality here?

To be honest Spartan I'm against firing the professor regardless. You cannot fire an employee for what he/she does outside of work. It's ridiculous.

[Infidel144]

The only thing they can be accused of is being unapologetically liberal in the information they publish..

What is SPLC source for Maajid Nawaz being an anti-muslim extremist?

[Love Mountain]

What is SPLC source for Maajid Nawaz being an anti-muslim extremist?

Why are you asking for a source on an opinion piece?

[jockmcplop]

SPLC put Maajid Nawaz on what is the leftist equivalent of a hitlist. That sort of action is completely against the idea of proper debate, and shows the left at its worst. Nawaz, no matter what else you want to say about him, is someone who will engage with anyone and try to talk problems and disagreements out.
To put him on a list of extremists is to completely, utterly misunderstand the meaning of extremism.

[ioannis76]

I would like to than Sukiyama, at this point, for bringing SPLC to my attention (no irony).
Reference to such sites is EXACTLY the point of this thread.

btw, this is from post 116:

BECAUSE THEY CITE THEIR EVIDENCE.

this is from post 125:

Why are you asking for a source on an opinion piece?

Both refer to SPLC, and both come from the same member (Sukiyama).

[Harith]

To put him on a list of extremists is to completely, utterly misunderstand the meaning of extremism.

On the contrary, it is to objectively characterize him from an extremist who went from hating one group of people to hating another, now in the name of secularism and liberalism.

Most of it is self-interest though, there are only so many jobs that accept someone with a criminal history.

[jockmcplop]

On the contrary, it is to objectively characterize him from an extremist who went from hating one group of people to hating another, now in the name of secularism and liberalism.

Most of it is self-interest though, there are only so many jobs that accept someone with a criminal history.

How are you defining 'hate' and how are you relating that to extremism? Nawaz doesn't 'hate' any group as far as I can see, except maybe jihadis. Who doesn't hate jihadis? Everyone else he speaks about with respect and with an analytical, conversational style.
To be objective, you have to define each term in a way that most people would agree with. I don't see any possible way you could define Nawaz as an extremist, any more than you could Richar Dawkins.

PS your ad hominem attack on him is typical of the sort of thing the SPLC is trying to encourage with this list. Its rather counter productive if you don't mind me saying. He actually has a very prestigious job and has advised high ranking politicians on social policy. Whatever happened to reasoned debate using facts and intelligent discussion?
The SPLC is guilty of exactly the same thing I was complaining at the OP for earlier in the thread. They call Nawaz an extremist and instead of discussing and debating the issue they simply keep attacking him rather than his arguments.

[Harith]

PS your ad hominem attack on him is typical of the sort of thing the SPLC is trying to encourage with this list. Its rather counter productive if you don't mind me saying. He actually has a very prestigious job and has advised high ranking politicians on social policy. Whatever happened to reasoned debate using facts and intelligent discussion?

I don't reason with criminals. I do not mind criticism and I value freedom of speech. I only refuse to listen to one group of people, criminals. If you want to believe and "have intelligent discussion" with these brand of people then knock yourself out. I'm not having any of it.

And just for the record, I do not mind Bill Maher and the lot in case you think I'm sort of bleeding heart liberal or whatever.

[The spartan]

To be honest Spartan I'm against firing the professor regardless. You cannot fire an employee for what he/she does outside of work. It's ridiculous.

I was never trying to express approval at that professor's firing, merely that Settra was re-framing the story in a dangerous way.

I don't reason with criminals. I do not mind criticism and I value freedom of speech. I only refuse to listen to one group of people, criminals. If you want to believe and "have intelligent discussion" with these brand of people then knock yourself out. I'm not having any of it.

And just for the record, I do not mind Bill Maher and the lot in case you think I'm sort of bleeding heart liberal or whatever.

You know "criminal" is a huge and generalized category, right? MLK Jr. was a criminal, for example. A criminal is just anyone convicted of a crime, they could even be innocent but still count in the category of "criminal".

[jockmcplop]

I don't reason with criminals. I do not mind criticism and I value freedom of speech. I only refuse to listen to one group of people, criminals. If you want to believe and "have intelligent discussion" with these brand of people then knock yourself out. I'm not having any of it.

And just for the record, I do not mind Bill Maher and the lot in case you think I'm sort of bleeding heart liberal or whatever.

OK well I don't personally choose when or when not to use reason. Reason is how we progress as a society.
You've clearly shown your true colours. You define someone as a criminal and refuse to reason or discuss anything with them at your own behest, and therefore you argument is, in this case, the exact argument of the type an extremist you falsely characterize Nawaz as would use.

[Harith]

You know "criminal" is a huge and generalized category, right? MLK Jr. was a criminal, for example. A criminal is just anyone convicted of a crime, they could even be innocent but still count in the category of "criminal".

Nope, MLK had legitimate goals of achieving equality for Black Americans through peaceful measures. His buddies weren't plotting to kill innocent people because they were white.

You've clearly shown your true colours. You define someone as a criminal and refuse to reason or discuss anything with them at your own behest, and therefore you argument is, in this case, the exact argument of the type an extremist you falsely characterize Nawaz as would use.

Yes, I'm an extremist when it comes to dealing with criminals who have plotted in the past, and maybe even implemented, violent attacks against innocent people because they weren't "muslim enough" or "infidels" and the "true muslims will got to heaven anyway". And lets not talk about him and his fellow thugs praising suicide bombers who do this:

Around 55 people were killed in Iraq in attacks on Saturday that targeted a Shi'ite Muslim gathering, a police check-point and the family of a Sunni paramilitary leader opposed to Islamic State, according to security and medical sources.

[The spartan]

Nope, MLK had legitimate goals of achieving equality for Black Americans through peaceful measures. His buddies weren't plotting to kill innocent people because they were white.

Oh, so you are just using some non-real definition of 'criminal' then. That must make things confusing for you.

[Infidel144]

Yes, I'm an extremist when it comes to dealing with criminals who have plotted in the past, and maybe even implemented, violent attacks against innocent people because they weren't "muslim enough" or "infidels" and the "true muslims will got to heaven anyway". And lets not talk about him and his fellow thugs praising suicide bombers who do this:

Odd, I seem to recall you offering some sort of praise for Nawaz, previously, I think in contraindication to Choudary. Perhaps I mis-remember and it was just setekh and/or bigdaddy?
I don't see any mention of Nawaz in that article praising that suicide attack.
So how exactly is Nawaz (a muslim reformist who has disavowed his radical past, last I checked) an 'anti-muslim extremist?

[Love Mountain]

SPLC put Maajid Nawaz on what is the leftist equivalent of a hitlist. That sort of action is completely against the idea of proper debate, and shows the left at its worst. Nawaz, no matter what else you want to say about him, is someone who will engage with anyone and try to talk problems and disagreements out.
To put him on a list of extremists is to completely, utterly misunderstand the meaning of extremism.

SPLC is not a news publication. It is a website with agenda that tracks extremism and I agree they are overzealous in their work and I don't agree with everything they print out. That said, they are pretty rigorous with providing links in their tracker of "hate events". The fact that they interpret Maajid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist is regrettable, but I'm not particularly concerned. SPLC is not a state-sanctioned body, merely a far-left liberal source that publishes useful statistics.

On the contrary, it is to objectively characterize him from an extremist who went from hating one group of people to hating another, now in the name of secularism and liberalism.

Most of it is self-interest though, there are only so many jobs that accept someone with a criminal history.

Meh, I wouldn't label Nawaz as extremist anything. He's a Muslim with an irrational hate of scripture who tends to argue that any violence by Muslims is the result of Islamic radicalism(instead of you know, poverty and crime). He also smears anyone who disagrees with him as a "regressive leftist" even though he's clearly center-right to center-left on politics. In short, he's a normal person who has his share of the limelight because he's a radical anti-radical Muslim (what a weird combination). I personally think he's an idiot with a few good points, he's probably smarter than me though.

I would like to than Sukiyama, at this point, for bringing SPLC to my attention (no irony).
Reference to such sites is EXACTLY the point of this thread.

btw, this is from post 116:


this is from post 125:


Both refer to SPLC, and both come from the same member (Sukiyama).

I'm glad you've jumped from discussing leftist witch-hunts in universities to denying that right-wingers can do anything wrong. Simply proves my point. You shift topics and move goalposts when you start losing your cool.

[Infidel144]

SPLC is not a news publication.

Excellent. SPLC is thus a 'fake news' publication.
Anything they publish is subject to being dismissed out of hand. So it is spoken*, so it is done.

*(er... written)

[Harith]

Odd, I seem to recall you offering some sort of praise for Nawaz, previously, I think in contraindication to Choudary. Perhaps I mis-remember and it was just setekh and/or bigdaddy?

It's most certainly not me because this is the first time I've commented on either two. Probably bigdaddy because he once derided choudary.

I don't see any mention of Nawaz in that article praising that suicide attack.

I was making the point that he, previously, and his comrades at hizb al tahrir glorify such cowardly acts.

So how exactly is Nawaz (a muslim reformist who has disavowed his radical past, last I checked) an 'anti-muslim extremist?

He, throughout his speeches and opinions, insinuates and purposefully convolutes his vile past with us and our religion. Because of him (his past as 'jihadi-wannabe' and present as a 'muslim reformer'), I have to pay the price of (possibly) being under surveillance, registered, quarantined, questioned or even outright expelled. He is often a mouthpiece for many anti-muslims to demonize normal people going about their lives.

His narratives are that of far-righters (ironic that his latest article is on the Daily Beast) and he often insinuates that real muslims are terrorists and, other times, propagates the notion of the 'white man burden' to civilize us.

I’m A Muslim Reformer. Why Am I Being Smeared as an ‘Anti-Muslim Extremist’?

In a monumental failure of comprehension, the SPLC have conflated my challenge to Islamist theocracy among my fellow Muslims with somehow being “anti-Muslim.” The regressive left is now in the business of issuing fatwas against Muslim reformers.

ISIS has called this “eliminating the gray zone.” We reforming liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims who sit between Muslim and anti-Muslim bigots disrupt the narrative of both these extremes. It is no surprise then that as well as being attacked by Islamists, I have been labelled a closet jihadist by people like Glenn Beck on Fox News, and on various other anti-Muslim online platforms. Imagine for a moment how besieged we reformers feel.

Meh, I wouldn't label Nawaz as extremist anything. He's a Muslim with an irrational hate of scripture who tends to argue that any violence by Muslims is the result of Islamic radicalism(instead of you know, poverty and crime). He also smears anyone who disagrees with him as a "regressive leftist" even though he's clearly center-right to center-left on politics. In short, he's a normal person who has his share of the limelight because he's a radical anti-radical Muslim (what a weird combination). I personally think he's an idiot with a few good points, he's probably smarter than me though.

I don't mind if he testifies as an ex-jihadi wannabe/ sympathiser. Heck, I don't mind if he testifies to governments as a Pakistani or Muslim. However, he is making money out of muslim hate and the current wave of anti-muslim sentiment and feeding talking points such people/ groups.

If people/ governments want an expert, there are plenty of good ones to choose from like Fawaz Gerges, Patrick Cockburn or any scholar from the god damn middle east centers in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale or whatever.

[Copperknickers II]

Meh, I wouldn't label Nawaz as extremist anything. He's a Muslim with an irrational hate of scripture who tends to argue that any violence by Muslims is the result of Islamic radicalism(instead of you know, poverty and crime). He also smears anyone who disagrees with him as a "regressive leftist" even though he's clearly center-right to center-left on politics. In short, he's a normal person who has his share of the limelight because he's a radical anti-radical Muslim (what a weird combination).

I'd have said being a Muslim and being anti-extremism is the opposite of a weird combination, it's the perfect description of the average Muslim. Granted there's a big minority of Muslims who are pro-violence, in addition to the tiny minority who are willing to commit violence. But most Muslims live in places like Turkey, Bangladesh and Indonesia and have no interest in Islamic extremism (unless you count observing sharia law and opposing Israel as extremism. But they don't support IS or Al-Qaeda is what I mean).