Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The two Mainstreams dovetail -- part 3


The longtime Jihad Watch commenter (and member of the "Rabbit Pack" there), one "PRCS", figured prominently in part 1 and part 2 because I was using him as an example.

From my years on Jihad Watch comments (before I was banned yet again a few months ago), PRCS became well known to me to epitomize the Counter-Jihad Softy who affects an oh-so tough stance on Islam.

When, back in October of last year, under the nickname "voegelinian", I tried to illuminate some sense out of his comments in a Jihad Watch comments field, and I pointed out the excruciatingly relevant problem of our inability to determine, adequately for our ongoing safety, which Muslims are dangerous and which are harmless (conceding that the latter category exists), including Muslims anywhere on Allah's green earth (including America, for Muslims once they are in America do not suddenly become magically delicious and moderate), PRCS took my breath away with this response:

PRCS quoted me, when I argued that because of this inability of ours (which stems in great part from dealing rationally with Islamic taqiyya) we need to assume that the problem “…obviously translates to All Muslims.”

Then he replied:
No, it does not. You do recall the “All American Muslim” television program, eh?

PRCS, a stalwart veteran of the Counter-Jihad and stout critic of Islam, actually typed that out with a straight face.  He actually sincerely believes the deceitful propaganda of shows like All American Muslim.

And if that isn't bad enough, only one of the other Jihad Watch regulars, one "gravenimage", including the best among them, the "Rabbit Pack", bothered to take him to task for this egregious naiveté (whether she did so adequately, we shall find out in part 4).

Anyway, par for the course, the busiest beaver among the Rabbit Pack ("Angemon"), proceeded to attack me instead, popping up like an Energizer Bunny whenever I was busy responding to PRCS.  And meanwhile, gravenimage ignored Angemon's attacks on me, and only deigned to respond when I parenthetically included her name amongst the others whom I was critiquing along with PRCS.

Such as:

  • PRCS says
    October 16, 2015 at 9:45 pm

    [quoting me:] "When or where did I ever say I don't know that?"

    -- which was my response to PRCS when he said:  "You know full well that the dreaded A word is an unprovable opinion" (the dreaded A word being, "All Muslims" about which I've written many times) -- PRCS went on to say:

    As you really can't read other people's minds, and if you really do know that, then stop making references to it.

    And I proceeded to unpack the problem:

    This reaction by PRCS is not addressing my response, in which I argued that —

    “The point is that assumptions contrary to the A word are also unprovable opinions. bolstered only by a reliance upon superficial data and a studious avoidance of the problem of taqiyya.”

    — which means that those who are asserting the contrary which presumes a viable existence of harmless Muslims are also assuming mind-reading. A problem of 1.3 billion people belonging to a culture that endangers us in horrific ways (along with the problem of taqiyya) cannot avoid the mind-reading assumption. The point then pivots to which side we err on: caution in order to protect our society, or generosity in order to avoid being “bigoted”. The Counter-Jihad Softies (PRCS, Mirren, Angemon, gravenminage, Wellington, et al.) consistently and obtusely (not to mention outrageously given the mountains of data they are aware of reported here on Jihad Watch over the years) defend the latter.
Angemon proceeded to attack me two more times, and gravenimage continued to ignore his attacks on me (as she always did over months and months, ignoring literally hundreds of attacks by her friend and peer, Angemon, on my position on the problem of Islam).  Meanwhile, she took the time out to chide me for mentioning her and the rest of her peers as being more or less Softies.

Speaking of gravenimage, I mentioned that she was the only one of the Jihad Watch regulars who bothered to critique PRCS.  But did her responses to PRCS really get to the heart of the matter -- our inability to tell the difference between harmless and dangerous Muslims?

We shall find out in part 4.

No comments: