Probably the pursuit of some weird brand of "Equality" which only applies to a predefined set of people. They'll promote a tyrannical theology from the middle east before they will promote american nationalism because the former exclusively includes "muh brown people". It's the same reason why Islam is instantly defended after murdering of 50 members of the LGBT community in an act of cold blooded unbridled hatred, and yet Christianity is nationally ridiculed for refusing to bake a cake for two members of the LGBT community.
Convincing yourself that all people regardless of their religion and culture will all be able to get along with enough "progressiveness" is some serious mental gymnastics in itself. Middle Eastern culture and Western culture conflict at the fundamental level, we have polar opposite values.
i actually already replied to qwepir, but i'll be more specific for this. (this may not be as much a reply to rally as it is a general input to the question) it is about equality, naturally, because that's the basis of liberalism, but equality can take a lot of different forms. so to keep things simple let's just say that, when i'm referring to "equality" here, what i really mean is that all people are treated fairly and given equal value and treatment in society. i'm sure i don't have to convince anyone that social equality is important, but obviously some people (liberals) value it more than others. people might make it seem really complicated because of how arguments play out, but in reality they're driven by very simple values and biases that change what they believe to be important for their comfort and well-being.
it wouldn't ever be primarily about ideology. it's not about promoting or supporting islam or its tenets, nor supporting the actions and policies of any government, individual, or organization. it's also not necessarily about being "inclusive," "getting along," or any fairytale touchy-feely nonsense. in truth, it's about what people see as fair and just. liberals don't defend muslims because they like islam, or because they're oblivious to the facts of the world right now (that terrorist organizations are using islam as a vehicle and tool for their agendas, as a way to unify people under a common label towards a common goal), it's because shunning any group is a direct, immediate threat to social equality. if we somehow completely excluded muslims from our society, would we be safer? that's very possible, and it makes sense. would that be right? would it be fair? depends on who you ask. many say that it's justified because it's for our benefit, because it promotes our own national security, and that'd obviously be true and valid enough. it is justifiable if you believe it to be fair, and believe it to be just. if your priorities lie more so in self-preservation and order, you'll naturally reach the conclusion that the ends justify the means because personal safety in this case is more important than the treatment of others, because too much damage has been inflicted and too much more seems possible to take that risk. the reason why liberals disagree is that they're
personally willing to give up order because exclusiveness naturally encourages and reinforces stigma and prejudice that fuels long-lasting social inequality, which they do not want to risk and do not want to encourage. this has very little to do with race or religion on a basic level, and everything to do with defending the rights of individuals to be treated with due process and humanity.
there's no argument here that this is a better way to think, only as best an explanation as i could think of. these differences occur because of differences in how people weigh their values. i'm guilty of neglecting to acknowledge this even in this thread. i've said that the only reason why people are negative towards muslims is because of fear, and that it's as simple as that, which is to imply some kind of immature irrationality or just a failure to think thoroughly enough to prevent their attitudes. of course, this is intolerant and unfair, and a lazy conclusion drawn because i simply don't share the same mindset and priorities. people are rational, and reach their conclusions based on evaluations of their own feelings and what matters to them, and it's not always possible to know what those factors are, but they're always there.
This is a Yahoo news report so I would be a little skeptical of it but it seems legitimate so far
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html
Among other things, the most important parts of the article are:
- The shooter was a regular at the nightclub and often drank there, coming once or twice a month for at least 3 years.
- The shooter used several homoloveual dating apps and allegedly asked one of his male colleagues out.
- The shooter said he was affiliated with several different groups such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and CIA.
It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
very strange. something must've happened to make him flip the Heck out in that case
