The reason for this is that nowhere in Islam is there talk about the “condition” of the jihadis’ “heart,” or if he’s “right” with God. Allah is not God: he is not interested in “hearts and minds” but in fighters and swords. So long as his fighters proclaim the shahada—“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”—and fight under the banner of Islam, they can take, plunder, murder, and rape the infidels; and if they die doing so, they are assured paradise.
According to their [Muslims’] doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the [Mongol] powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens.
— Marco Polo
Alamo Drafthouse is in a bit of a pickle here. New York City law strictly prohibits them from discriminating by gender:
In fact, New York City prohibits even advertising women-only events, meaning that Alamo is already in violation of the law.
This is what led to the Manchester Arena bombing. Mayor Burnham sold out the police. The police sold out the people. The authorities were chasing Islamophobia when they should have been fighting Islamic terror.
Certainly it is a worthy thing to study ways to provide security and resilience for our cities. However, if you start with an unchallenged belief in imaginary global warming, you are going to end up making things worse. Substituting wind or solar power for conventional power plants does not provide greater energy security, for obvious reasons. Worrying about fashionable, imaginary water shortages distracts from real urban problems such as crime or broken families. Worrying about food security is fairly comical given the obesity epidemic.
Source: Articles: Academic Global Warming Advocates and the Power of Incoherent Jargon
The problem is, when Sue, Solórzano, and other critical race researchers reject “Eurocentric epistemologies” and “objectivity” they reject the methodology and standards of modern science (e.g., use of a comparison group, sufficient sample size, unbiased questions, replicability of results, use of modern statistical analysis). Instead, critical race theorists value “experiential knowledge” (e.g., the narrative). Such storytelling enables the implementation of a highly politicized agenda and places a social change agenda above objective social science research. It also makes it significantly easier to “prove” the prevalence of microaggressions on campus.
Most important, the critical race paradigm logically and unreflectively results in a one-way analysis pervasive in these studies, which all start with this premise: that microaggressions can only be perceived by non-whites but are only committed by whites. In other words, whites’ perceptions are invalid.
Source: The Pseudo-Science of Microaggressions | National Association of Scholars
Consider the charm of a sexbot. She will be not only beautiful, indeed perfect, but perfectly beautiful just as you want her to be. She will have an “Off” button.
Off button? Sold!
Source: Sally Cone Hits the Dating Scene: Kind of Weird, but Maybe…. | Fred On Everything
