4 ms·

That's really a bad example to choose. There's a huge portion of America that would completely disagree with the idea that "any muting or regulating of a perso

by Qz 16y ago

That's really a bad example to choose. There's a huge portion of America that would completely disagree with the idea that "any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong". Western progressivism wants to liberate and break what they perceive as Islamic oppression. This is a gross oversimplification of the conflict, to the point of being false and misleading. "West" vs "Islam" had very little to do with 'freedom' vs 'oppression' and if you ask people in islamic countries why they oppose the west, you'll find that many if not most of them consider the West to be the oppressors.

lionhearted 16y ago
> That's really a bad example to choose. There's a huge portion of America that would completely disagree with the idea that "any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong". Right, that's why I said "Western progressives," as opposed to other people who live in the Western world who aren't progressive. > This is a gross oversimplification of the conflict It wasn't a description of the entire conflict, just one aspect of why people don't get along. > if you ask people in islamic countries why they oppose the west, you'll find that many if not most of them consider the West to be the oppressors. The vast majority of Muslims who oppose the West do believe that Western society is destructive/corrosive to traditional Muslim values. There's other things too - in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the borders of the new Middle Eastern states were drawn without paying attention to traditional loyalties. That's why modern day Iraq is mixed Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. More goes into than what I wrote down - it's just one illustrative aspect of why there's conflict between two groups - Western progressives and traditional Muslims - that won't get along. That's not the whole story, but it is a true story.
- kloncks 16y ago
  I think his point was that Western progressives don't even get along with all of the population of the West, let alone "traditional Muslims". In this country, we're divided along such an issue and we have HUGE areas/pockets that no one could dare describe as "progressive".

by Qz 16y ago

lionhearted 16y ago

> That's really a bad example to choose. There's a huge portion of America that would completely disagree with the idea that "any muting or regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong". Right, that's why I said "Western progressives," as opposed to other people who live in the Western world who aren't progressive. > This is a gross oversimplification of the conflict It wasn't a description of the entire conflict, just one aspect of why people don't get along. > if you ask people in islamic countries why they oppose the west, you'll find that many if not most of them consider the West to be the oppressors. The vast majority of Muslims who oppose the West do believe that Western society is destructive/corrosive to traditional Muslim values. There's other things too - in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the borders of the new Middle Eastern states were drawn without paying attention to traditional loyalties. That's why modern day Iraq is mixed Kurd, Sunni, and Shia. More goes into than what I wrote down - it's just one illustrative aspect of why there's conflict between two groups - Western progressives and traditional Muslims - that won't get along. That's not the whole story, but it is a true story.

kloncks 16y ago
I think his point was that Western progressives don't even get along with all of the population of the West, let alone "traditional Muslims". In this country, we're divided along such an issue and we have HUGE areas/pockets that no one could dare describe as "progressive".