> For one that it clearly has an agenda [0],

There's nothing wrong with that.

> the other one being that I'm very skeptical of any outlet that goes through quite an effort to hide who's behind it.

You and I use an anonymous account here on this forum too. This doesn't prevent the things we're saying from being judged on their own merit.

> "Does nothing but quote the Quran", sure. Amazing how we seem to be looking at two totally different websites because over here it most certainly does not look like the site is only "quoting the Quran and Hadiths". Maybe it's my censored German Internet?

Are you referring to their claim that islamic terrorism is overrepresented in the terror statistics? There are other sources that corrobate that. [1]

> I don't even know where to start with this. But sure, I'll go with "Kony invented his own religion" and none of his acts had anything to do with abusing the Christian faith. Do you realize it's exactly that kind of narrative framing which says a lot about your own position? When Kony goes around with his "Lord's Resistance Army" that's a completely "made up religion" and has no relation at all to Christianity,

Agreed, there is nothing in the Christian gospel justifying any kind of violence, let alone Kony's war crimes. The founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, was all about radical non-violence.

> but when ISIS goes around beheading people "that's Islam!".

True. The Quran and the Hadith are full of calls to slaughter "infidels". Dying during jihad is one of the only two things that guarantees access to Paradise after death [2]. The other one is migrating in the name of Allah [3].

> You are, once again, not reading your own sources:

Yes I did.

> "'Cultural Marxism" in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society."

I think I indicated already that I'm not too happy with the term "cultural marxism". Then again, I don't buy the epithet of "conspiracy theory" neither. I'm OK with quoting sources that I disagree with, BTW.

I think there is a totalitarian trend going on where people get into professional trouble for freely discussing ideas in a scientific manner. James Damore [4] and Lindsay Shepherd [5] are two recent examples of this.

> If that's not good enough you then you might want to check out the RationalWiki on that particular topic, they have a dedicated article about "cultural Marxism" that goes into more details [1].

RationalWiki is anything but rational and the page you cite is a perfect example. By quoting thedailystormer.com and then making fun of it you can make just about any point.

> As opposed to dramatizing the situation

Well the thing is, the events were not dramatized at all during the first 4 days of January 2016. They were kept silent. Without the (at that time) uncensored social media we would still be in the dark about it today. That's an important thing to keep in mind the next time you rail against all the fake news that keeps popping into your view.

> by claiming that Muslims go on drunken raping sprees in the thousands because "that's just the thing they do"?

Again, you're making a strawman of my argument. My point is that sexual slavery of non-muslim women is described as justified in the Quran and the Hadith. In many muslim countries these scriptures are the foundation of all morality since 1400 years, so this mentality is deeply ingrained.

> A vast number of incidents from that evening, which have been dramatized as "outrageous", are common occurrences during New Year's Eve, like all that outrage over "Refugees shooting people with fireworks". Stuff like that has been happening for as long as New Year's Eve and fireworks have been around, but when "brown people" shoot others with fireworks that's suddenly especially bad and a whole new level of danger.

I'm not the one talking about fireworks. You keep bringing up that subject. Which is strange because it is a quaint topic in the face of the mass sexual assault that was happening at the same time.

> That "wild claim" is literally the second paragraph of the article...

Sure, there is a footnote to a NYT account from 2005, where supporters of one political party were mobbing and assaulting women. But to conclude that this must be a government tactic to intimidate women is beyound me. And it's - if you think of it - a ridiculous idea. Does the Egyptian government really have that many secret agents to pull off such a thing? What about the other men that see it happening? And why do they only intimidate women? Why don't they intimidate the male political opponents too? And do they ask the women about their political views first before they sexually assault them? Questions ... questions ...

> And what might that "problem" be? How Muslims are just "culturally incompatible with Western Values"

No the problem is that Islam is incompatible with Western values. The ideology of the Quran violates just about any human right imaginable.

You seem to confuse criticism of Islam with racism towards Muslims. They are not the same thing. Just as criticism of National Socialism isn't the same as racism towards Germans. Or criticism of Maoism is not being racist towards the Chinese.

> even tho we literally have millions upon millions of peaceful and productive counterexamples?

It's a good thing that millions of European Muslims are peaceful and productive. This will make the de-islamisation of Europe all the more attainable. After all, the de-nazification of Germany after WWII was a resounding success too. And the end of communism in the Soviet Union went largely peacefully too. As was the transition away from Maoism in China.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in...

[2] https://quran.com/4/74

[3] https://quran.com/4/100

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

[5] https://www.therecord.com/news-story/7923200-wlu-censures-gr...