Muzzies always lie to make themselves seem more popular
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
Y'know the "preaching to the choir" phrase is basically shorthand for wasting time right? And that's the best case scenario.You're not harming the cause because everyone here is on the same page already, if it was anywhere else it'd be actively counterproductive. Laziness is habit forming, so I assume if you do it here you're going to do it elsewhere.
I actually care about eventually fixing this, so either I suggest corrections, or again the best case scenario is hoping you just never try to talk to normies like that if you're just going to half ass it with lazy gotchas. It's not pretentious to have an ideal and to stick to it instead of folding the first time someone bitches about you caring too much like an insecure teenager, it's just having principles.
To answer your rhetorical that you apparently thought were self evident but really aren't: Who wore the wimple? Basically every marriageable age woman in 12th century Britain, not just nuns. What did the bible say? Most couldn't even fucking read it, they were told about it at church and the priests then said the same thing the muzzies do now about temptation and modesty. The similarities are there, not just superficially but several centuries removed, and the more effective response is pointing what 12th century Britons thought of Muslims if they're going to say the British back then were wiser, not semantics about who's name for a headscarf is better.
Is this somewhere else? Do you understand the difference between what the queen is wearing and a hijab as well as how european religions and christianity view habits and such clothing different from how muslims view the hijab? And do you understand how clothing trends from the fucking 12th century aren't really relevant anymore to the modern christian clothing choices?
IF the answer to this is yes, then you're just being a pretentious ass trying to go BUT ACHUALLY. You are literally arguing when you know how it's different so I'm not sure how you want to pretend you're not being obnoxious
You're arguing with a near century old photograph, calling it modern clothing is a hell of a stretch. I think you've got lost in whatever concept you thought up in your head, this is about using native historical precedent as a pretext for invasion.
Pretending the precedent doesn't exist is a dumb, easily disproven move. Contextualising it in "fuck off warmonger pedos, we have an even longer historical context of saying that too" is the right one.
If you think a century is too old but you want to bring up the 12th century in comparison, how disingenuous are you?
The precedent being what? People wore head dresses and loose baggy robes in history? And that's good enough to be compared to modern hijabs
I'm not the one claiming either of those are modern, in fact I've been explicit that I'm talking about historical context. It's not disingenuous to look at history as a whole, and very clearly label which time period you're talking about, rather than being myopically focused on only one period or mislabeling things as modern.
I swear it's like whenever you get half an inkling of something that sounds like a gotcha you latch on like a dog and jump to post some snarky reply before even finishing the thought process and checking it makes sense. Like I said, laziness is habit forming, even in basic logic error checking.