this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
538 readers
222 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes lol. They won't use "Muslim" because they'd rightly be called out as Islamophobic. They won't use "theocratic" because it applies to zionists and Christians. So they made up a new word to other people. You have whiteys pearl clutching over "jihadists," when "jihad" is just the Arabic word for "struggle."
This shit is why Palestinians are being killed while liberals blame Hamas, instead of blaming Isreal. Or US adventurism for the rise of ISIS and the Taliban. Or European colonialism for poverty throughout the Middle East.
The issue is that's not really an argument against Islamism being a valid term, it's just saying that it gets weaponized by Islamophobes.
I also think it's strange to say that "jihad" is not ideologically distinct from the generic concept of "struggle" because the word can be translated to "struggle". That's not how language works either, it's a specific term with theological meaning. It would likewise be totally valid to use, to pick an arbitrary, the Mandarin word for "struggle" to connote the meaning of the term as Mao used it (which is not entirely different from jihad but clearly distinct from the generic term "struggle").