You must log in or # to comment.
It must be liberating to be that fucking stupid, honestly
I am very removedant. You won’t catch me on fire anytime soon
Nazis are only racist if they’re also Muslims.
I am very intelligent.
and only communist nazis are fascist
vanilla nazis are peachy
I’ve put out a few fires in my day
hit it with the ol’ upside down pot.
That’s damn right, ain’t no way I am catching on fire
Are they saying it’s easy for us to put out fires?
FYI that word and the ableist word have the same root. “To r*tard” something literally means “to delay or impede the progress of”.
Musicians are familiar with the word in Italian.
Edit: Ah, @Jacobo_Villa_Lobos@hexbear.net beat me to it.
hell with a thick enough french accent it just means “delay”
With an Italian accent, composers tell musicians to slow down on sheet music
I am soft and warm like a blanket
It really do be feeling like 2003 all over again with the rampant socially acceptable islamophobia.
Except the difference is the Zohran is popular here in NY and there’s massive opposition to this racist bullshit this time
I don’t live far from new york, I might just have to move if this guy is really all that he says that he is.
And Red Scare propaganda.
It’s almost refreshing to see them suggest that communism is mostly not racist.
Islamism
Islam. It’s just called Islam, you nincompoop. This is like saying “Christiantism” or “Jewishism.” Who am I kidding? They probably confused Hinduism with Islam and instead of trying to figure it out, combined them.
It isn’t. It’s just that we have a special word for muslim theocracy in a way we don’t have for jewish theocratic rule. “Islamism” is not “Islam” in the same way that your average protestant isn’t a dominionist.
The irony of the usage of the term is not that it doesn’t describe a real political tendency (It does), but that it tends to be used by the west most when the American government is in the throes of dominionists. Christian Nationalism, Dominion Theology, Seven Mountains Theology, Christian Reconstructionism, and to an extent political Mormonism are all roughly equivalent to Islamism and all of them have had a large amount of sway on the republican party and its governing the last 30 years.
Correcting myself here to say that Christian Reconstructionism is probably closer to Salafism but that gets conflated with Islamism anyway.
This person is a horrible, orientalizing racist, but “Islamism” in this context is basically a shorthand for “Islamic theocracy,” isn’t not just a confused way of saying “Muslim.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
So ISIS, for example, are extremely Islamist, and the Taliban are as well. That is much less true of the overall factions opposing Israel in relation to the genocide, though they will inevitably have members and segments who are straightforwardly Islamist (as you have in most militant movements with mostly-very-religious membership).
(“Christianism” is sometimes used in the corresponding way, though it has other terms like christo-fascism or Catholicism to refer to it by depending on the specifics).
To set out my case further, I rest my argument on four main contentions:
- The colonial history of the words ‘pan-Islamism’ and ‘Islamism’ is inextricably tied to the notion of a threat that requires a security response.
- The contemporary popular use of the word ‘Islamism’ is nearly always tied to militancy, extremism and violence, and so cannot be rescued from within academia. The evocation of the word presents images of violence. Unlike words such as ‘Muslim’, which may now be regarded in the West as evoking similar fears, ‘Islamism’ operates as a hydra, where it is simultaneously violent and meaningless in its operation. Violent, in the impact it can have, meaningless in the amorphous nature of its use.
- That within the framing of the global War on Terror, the accusation of ‘Islamism’ in itself draws heightened suspicion and surveillance, leading to many forms of violence enacted by the state. Similar to the framing of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslim, ‘Islamism’ carries a significant degree of academic cover that operates outside of its ubiquitous significance – academic use cannot rescue the way the word has been politically instrumentalised.
- It presupposes that only certain forms of faith-based political expression are ‘Islamist’. I make this point to suggest that quietist expressions of faith within the political realm, are no less political in their maintenance of political authority – indeed these positions are often used to uphold that authority.
From: The case against “Islamism”
So yes, it is a confused way of saying “Muslim” and is deliberately used by colonizers to ‘other’ the politics outside of the Imperial Core. It’s the same as when people say “I’m only against illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants.” Except it’s accepted among the “left” because of ISIS being reactionary and 9/11.
I don’t see what the actual argument is. Either you want religious law to be the law of the land or you don’t. Either you aren’t secularist or you are. Are you upset about “Islamism” being the word instead of “theocrat”?
Are you upset about “Islamism” being the word instead of “theocrat”?
Yes lol. They won’t use “Muslim” because they’d rightly be called out as Islamophobic. They won’t use “theocratic” because it applies to zionists and Christians. So they made up a new word to other people. You have whiteys pearl clutching over “jihadists,” when “jihad” is just the Arabic word for “struggle.”
This shit is why Palestinians are being killed while liberals blame Hamas, instead of blaming Isreal. Or US adventurism for the rise of ISIS and the Taliban. Or European colonialism for poverty throughout the Middle East.
The issue is that’s not really an argument against Islamism being a valid term, it’s just saying that it gets weaponized by Islamophobes.
I also think it’s strange to say that “jihad” is not ideologically distinct from the generic concept of “struggle” because the word can be translated to “struggle”. That’s not how language works either, it’s a specific term with theological meaning. It would likewise be totally valid to use, to pick an arbitrary, the Mandarin word for “struggle” to connote the meaning of the term as Mao used it (which is not entirely different from jihad but clearly distinct from the generic term “struggle”).
The closest to a Catholic specific version of Christian Nationalism is Integralism, and that has luckily had basically no influence in the US. Whenever USAian Catholics have had power and wished to wield a theocratic cudgel they have tended to go for protestant dominion theology.
“Christianism” is sometimes used in the corresponding way
I have literally never heard that. Not once. Christian theocracy has a million words for it and is subdivided into its various tendencies in a way we don’t do for Islamic theocracy, as a result we don’t tend to use words like “Christianism”.
Edit: changed America to USA. Because obviously America is more than the US
You can see people use the term that way if you put it into a search engine. I was just noting that specific word because the person I was responding to proposed it as a hypothetical nonsense word while they were misunderstanding what Islamism was.
You kinda don’t, most of the things you do get about “Christianism” as an ideology is about how we don’t use it in the same way we use “Islamism”, and also like a single blog that mentions it. People don’t really say “Christianism”, they say something else.
Christianity and Judaism are both words.
I really hope that some day, these sorts of people will actually need to face consequences for the thing they say and do. If the worst people possible actually felt the repercussions of the stupid shit they say, they would say a hell of a lot less stupid shit.
Well this is a pathetic display of confident ignorance. I hope they don’t have any institutional power.
Somehow that makes it worse because these people are closer to being in charge than we are
Nothing makes me more furious than seeing these disgusting corn-syrup-swilling dipshits think they’re smart.
Venn Diagrams are sooooo fucking stupid. Absolute worst way to compare information. Do one of those graphs with Xs and checkmark at least. No one in history has ever conveyed anything useful with a Venn diagram. Seriously, John Venn…what the fuck is this? Like maybe elementary school students could benefit from this but no one else should need comparative information put into cute little bubbles. There is a fucking graphical limit to how much complexity they can display cause the circles get too small to write in. Absolutely asinine.
