| | Obviously, there is NO logic to not subjecting everyone to the same security protocol if it is a reasonable protocol. And to not pat down or body scan women in Muslim garb, when that is said to be what is needed for everyone, would be a violation of the security.
And with progressives there has to be an absence of fundamental logic (the positions just don't allow for it) so it makes sense that emotion starts to fill in where there should be reason.
Taking a look at the emotional level, I often sense fear of violence among progressives that I don't among others. Yet, if you move one step further ideologically you are talking to Marxists who are okay with violent revolution. And logically, the far left uses more threats of violence to control their millions of regulations. Doesn't make sense, does it?
But back to that fear... I think there is great fear of offending people among many progressives and it is weird because they put people into categories - those they are afraid to offend and those that they disdain. Progressives use the race card - it is one of their heavy-duty, go-to, last resort, weapons AND they fear offending anyone who can claim racial minority status. Clearly a strong emotional link between those. Fear of offending minorities, maybe even a fear of minorities, and a fear of violence.
Despite all the fears, which have to be kept hidden, the progressives feel a deep ideological bond to their chosen classes (minorities, the poor, and the oppressed). Relative to what John was asking, the Muslims are seen as oppressed victims of the colonial powers. It won't be understood as a logical position... only an emotional tendency that we have try to find ways to describe.
I also sense a strong need among progressives to be liked by those that are considered among the in-group (by whatever fuzzy intuition they use to measure what is 'in.')
|
|
Fly with Dignity
