Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
Problem is that any dialogue now is retrospectively spun into something it never was to suit whatever agenda people want. Look at the Cathy Newman/Peterson thing. A rational conversation in which he examines ideas rationally and rightly refused to be tarred with ideas or opinions he's never held or espoused (leading to her receiving some legitimate ridicule) becomes 'Evil alt-right trolls attack female presenter'. Everything is now weaponised in order to suit an agenda and further polarise opinion. Debate and discussion therefore become redundant and nobody changes anybody's mind.

There's nothing else for it. We're just going to have to start shooting these people.
Ever seen that Mehdi Hassan chap debate Islam and its role in terrorism, or something similar?

It's mental. The audiences (British and non-British) seem to love him but when you examine his arguments he has only two. One, since 99.99% of Muslims don't blow themselves up any argument that ties terrorism to Islam is invalid and an example of racial bias and two, whataboutery.

My favourite was his response to someone who pointed out how barbaric it was that the Koran encourages beheading people under certain conditions. Mehdi replied and I paraphrase 'you are aware that our allies Saudi Arabia allow beheading'.

The British audience applauded him for that one.