What the fuck is going wrong with people's moral priorities on the left-of-centre?

It's not a left issue, it's an "I'm an impressionable person who has been fooled to fight for a stupid cause" issue.

It's not a left issue

No, there's a broader issue at play here when it comes to issues of our morality vs that of other people and I'm noticing it most among secular liberals.

Groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are simply products of failed American policy; Hamas isn't a terrorist organisation; Mohammed wasn't a warlord; Islam is peaceful; terrorists aren't really Islamic. All obviously false platitudes, and I only ever hear them said by liberals and progressives.

It unnerves me that the people I'm most in tune with on these issues are on the religious right.

It saddens me to be lumped in with those people

To some extent, as a secularist and something of a libertarian, it also irritates me to sometimes be associated with these people.

That being said, when you take the political establishment by itself the problem actually runs across party lines. Like George Bush's proclamations about "Islam is a religion of peace" following 9/11. Beautiful politics; factually incorrect.

Left has had a pretty solid hold on education and youth vote for a while now. Naturally you're going to see more impressionable radicals coming out on that side of the spectrum. Probably an over correction from conservatives dominating politics around the 80s-90s. Tends to work like a pendulum for each generation.

We had some study come out recently here in the states that basically found college student now are the least racist, sexist, homophobic in years, but value free speech much less and are much more likely to close themselves off to differing viewpoints.

Brainwashed by biased sources. Their emotions were stirred and now they can't tell the difference between fact and crap.

It's much harder to sway someone who's been filled with so much poison that they can only spit out poison.

At least history classes are stressing the importance of understanding a biased source. Well in the schools around me, at least.

SJWs drive me insane.

Everything i learned in history class from middle school to college stated you have freedom of political speech.
Not "I can say anything i want and not expect any consequences because freedom".
Which is normally used to excused disgusting behavior as seen in the OP. Though i have no idea how Europe works and if people can literally walk around saying whatever they want thinking it to be fine.

I understand ISIS has a chance of developing in Europe but fail to see why he would instantly jump to ISIS rather than other well known and documented hate groups which have been problematic for decades. Which is why banning the joining of groups terrorist or otherwise may send off red flags. Especially since there are wanton terrorist who just want to see everyone and thing burn, which ISIS seems to be from everything i've seen;  and terrorist groups fighting for a legitimate cause (in their view along with those who support them) which normally is freedom of oppression.


The American patriots were one such group though they did blame acts on others to escape reprimands (natives).
If such a law did go in place it could ironically set the sparks for terrorist groups who feel they are being oppressed.

All in all this is just mental spitting. I haven't the slightest idea of Europe as a whole or how the system truly works their. ISIS should be stopped,no doubt. But waging all out war on Terrorist groups hasn't worked well for the last 20 years,perhaps a more feasible and effective way should be sought.

Somehow I'm guessing my Halo Archive beef wasn't entirely unfounded.

There is no legitimate cause that excuses terrorist tactics. If you are targeting civilians (hence the terrorism aspect) your group is illegal with good reason. Any one attempting to join it is clearly not mentally stable or fit for society and should be arrested. If that results in more terrorism the answer is not to capitulate to extremists.

To compare the american revolutionaries to islamist terrorist groups is a pretty big false equivalency as well. This is not a 'well its just different perspectives' type of issue. 

I understand ISIS has a chance of developing in Europe but fail to see why he would instantly jump to ISIS rather than other well known and documented hate groups which have been problematic for decades. Which is why banning the joining of groups terrorist or otherwise may send off red flags. Especially since there are wanton terrorist who just want to see everyone and thing burn, which ISIS seems to be from everything i've seen;  and terrorist groups fighting for a legitimate cause (in their view along with those who support them) which normally is freedom of oppression.

This paragraph makes no sense.