Ali A. Rizvi’s Response To A Question Is A Thing Of Beauty

image

Ali A Rizvi is an ex-Muslim writer and friend of The Godless Spellchecker Podcast. Some guy asked him the following question on Twitter:

image

 

Ali’s 11 part response is truly a thing of beauty:

 

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

George Orwell Article

image

image

I’m no expert but I believe this is where ‘microphone’ meets ‘gravity’. This is what separates a liberal activist from a regressive leftist. One has solid ideas on how to improve a situation – the other is only interested in tearing into The West.

It’s with a sort of tragic amusement that I bring you the following attempt to argue for the progressive LGBT credentials of…Iran:

image

Of course, what he fails to mention is that this is due to gay people being forced to undergo transgender operations by the establishment in an effort to ‘cure’ Iran’s gay ‘problem’. It seems it’s a matter of ‘convert or die’. Sound familiar?

Stephen Knight is host of The #GSPodcast. You can listen to The Godless Spellchecker Podcast here, and support it by becoming a patron here.

8 comments

  • Werleman is just an agitator & best left ignored

  • What’s people’s take on Wherleman’s sincerity? On the one hand, it seems incredible to consider that he *could* be totally sincere. But is this just because the reality we percieve is so at odds with what *he* sees that it’s almost impossible for us to imagine someone in his position really believing the nonesense he espouses? I live with a guy who believes that Yogi’s can attain magical powers once they reach enlightment. I find this view to be (and this is some achievement!) *more* preposterous than the tosh touted by Wherleman, but he is a bright guy, and I don’t doubt his sincerity for one second. Which, I guess, suggests that it is at least *possible* that Wherleman really does mean the supremely silly things that he says.

    On the other hand, there is also the fact that he’s a proven serial plagiarist to consider. Perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt to someone with such manifestly low journalistic standards would be an exercise in naivety.

    Thoughts?

    • I think it starts with dishonesty & opportunism – a career change because he couldn’t compete in the ‘intelligent criticism of religion’ sphere. Then he seems to have indulged in some very poor thinking – possibly Chomsky inspired -and almost convinced himself that he’s right. Then it seems to be a case of dishonest tactics & hyperbole in an attempt to hold onto his untenable positions. To what degree it’s dishonesty and what degree it’s sincere bad thinking is hard to know. Taking his plagiarism and other misrepresentations into account I’d say he’s mostly a dishonest opportunist hack and part deluded weirdo.

      • “I’d say he’s mostly a dishonest opportunist hack and part deluded weirdo.”

        I agree that’s it’s impossible to know the relative contributions of dishonest opportunism and serious confusion to Wherleman’s apparent views, but I think your final sumisation is probably the best conclusion we can reach with the available evidence. Nicely put, and thanks for responding!

      • I think you hit the nail on the head. He appears to be chasing the $$, looking for a niche where the argument is weak and trying to get his voice heard. Of course, he just adds to the cacophony of blather. Give it another year and he’ll be appearing on another stage with a slightly altered agenda.

  • Slow. Deliberate. Clap.

  • Pingback: Iran’s forcible “sex-reassignment” surgery for gays « Why Evolution Is True

  • Ali definitely dropped the mic on that fool. And the funniest thing was that it looked like CJ wasn’t expecting an answer.

Leave a Reply to Peter Stanley Cancel reply