Dumbest activist ever: Linda Sarsour

September 25, 2017 • 10:30 am

Yes, this is a genuine tweet on Muslim activist Linda Sarsour‘s feed, but in case she takes it down—and really, she should have already—I’ve also provided a screenshot.

Rumor has it Sarsour wants to run for office, perhaps even winding up in Congress. Right now, though, she’s even more ignorant than Trump (I almost wrote “Turnip!) Now what point do you suppose Sarsour is trying to make here? My guess is that she’s trying to denigrate Trump by saying that the North Koreans he hates really do like their country, as they’re not trying to immigrate to the U.S.

Oh and “smh” means “shaking my head.”

The proper response to her tweet, of course, is “THEY CAN’T!”

Below is the screenshot for when she comes to her senses and deep-sixes the tweet above.

58 thoughts on “Dumbest activist ever: Linda Sarsour”

    1. Because Trump is adding North Korea to it, in an attempt to make it seem like it’s not really a Muslim ban, even though the addition of North Korea will have zero effect, precisely because North Koreans really can’t come here currently even if they wanted to.

        1. I feel like a lot of people, when reading the original tweet, were in BobTerrace’s situation where they didn’t see any obvious connection between the Muslim ban an North Korea and therefore thought she was saying something 180 degrees from what she was. I read it as obviously a response to Trump adding North Korea to the ban, a good response at that (pointing out that it’s still clearly a Muslim ban even if you include North Korea), and was shocked at the responses to it who saw it as praising North Korea.

        2. Looks to be a revisionist face saving attempt on Linda’s part. She has a history of stupid and offensive tweets so default assumption is that Jerry was correct about the original tweet.

          1. Even though news of North Korea being added to the travel ban dropped mere hours before this tweet? I feel it’s obviously a response to Trump’s lame attempt to reframe it as something other than a Muslim ban, when it clearly still is one.

          2. It does not have to be one or the other.

            It can be an attempted dig at Trump while still being incredibly insensitive toward, and/or ignorant of (most likely and), the incredible suffering and oppression of the North Korean people.

          4. The connection doesn’t matter. The tweet was either extremely insensitive given the oppression that North Koreans live under, or extremely ignorant of that oppression.

          5. I get that impression, too.

            If she had been being sarcastic, she would’ve included something that highlights *why* they aren’t lining up in droves. Like: “I wonder why that is?”

            At least, I would’ve.

      2. He’s also added Venezuela to the list. Because of all those Venezuelan terrorists who’ve been attacking us, I suppose.

        1. But not even Venezuelan citizens – just government officials. Another attempt to block almost no additional people but be able to claim it’s no longer a Muslim ban.

    2. Because for people like her, words are about creating a feeling, not about having a clear meaning. It’s very much like the post at Sensuous Curmudgeon this morning, wherein we see David Klinghoffer at the DI throwing around the words communism and Darwinism just for their affective connotations.

    3. I took it as there’s never been a muslim ban in NK. Of course, there are no muslims, and no religion, beyond the existing thanatocracy (to borrow Hitchens’ word for it).

  2. Sarsour became famous only because the Democratic Party thinks that hijabs are a cultural symbol of “religious freedom” instead of a symbol of religious oppression. Sarsour herself acknowledged that before she put on her hijab nobody care about her.

    She’s a Salafi-friendly promoter of muslim identity politics and a massive attention whore.

    She’s not too different from Trump, actually. Just substitute muslim identity politics with white evangelical/Southern identity politics and a hjiab with a MAGA hat and you get Trump’s 2016 campaign.

    1. “The Democratic Party thinks that hijabs are a cultural symbol of “religious freedom.”

      Wow, that’s quite an over-reaching generalization, despite what you may have heard (or not heard) in congressional hearings.

    2. absolutely. Sarsour is nothing if not a shameless self promoting opportunist who happily admits the hijab is a necessary bit of costume to claim person of colour status. Her holding out Saudi Arabia as a bastion of womens rights solely because of 10 weeks paid mat leave for the few women able to find drivers to get them to and from whatever work is available and her declaration that Zionists can’t be feminists but by inference that Islamists like herself can are other sterling examples of Sarsour’s idiocy.

    1. twitter is meant for soundbites that get likes without thought but even here it’s quite ridiculous lol.

      I think it has to do with a growing hatred (mostly self-hatred) for America. Perhaps an extreme example but I was talking to the communist club on my campus a week ago and they were unironically pro-north korea.

      1. Since Kim Jong-un took over the leadership there has been almost no mention of communism there. The focus now is on him as “Dear Leader” and seeing him as a living god. Communism is being quietly removed from the consciousness of the people.

      2. Pro North Korea.

        This just goes to show that many people’s political beliefs are hopelessly superficial, based mostly on tribalistic impulses, and not adopted because of deep, informed consideration.

  4. I saw that tweet this morning as well. So exceptionally ridiculous, I though her Twitter was hacked.

    Unfortunately, this actually seems to be a common sentiment of the far, far left: the DPRK isn’t really bad, it’s just propaganda coming from (I guess) the US and South Korea.

    I mean, pick up a book or watch a news report. There are so many good examples on what life is like there.

    1. ah saw your comment too late but this is literally what the communist club at my university believes. We engaged in discussion for about 2 hours (mostly NOT on communism but their related beliefs) and although I was willing to extend the benefit of the doubt for his cited stats of X and Y he was incapable of accepting I might possibly be right about anything. He even accepted a nearby person’s insertion that a male birth control pill existed before the female birth control pill (I asked for clarification and they did mean publicly available for use and effective) and when I came back the next day with a simple correction (this was trivially easy to fact check) he dismissed me with “I don’t believe that and don’t want to continue the conversation”. They live in some kind of bubble immune to counter-points or intellectual honesty.

      1. > They live in some kind of bubble immune to counter-points or intellectual honesty.

        They have a home with the creationists if communism doesn’t work out for them.

      2. One of the things that is most noticeable is the size of the people. The average height of North Koreans is several centimetres less than South Koreans. Since it’s a factor that affects everybody, it can’t be dismissed by Communists.

        Also, as long as Kim weighs about double the average citizen, he cannot be called a “communist” leader. He appears to have access to a lot more food than his comrades.

        1. IIRC, there was a Hitchens article about the DPRK titled something to the effect of “A Nation of Racist Dwarves”.

        2. Yeah, but the communist leaders in Russia had access to a lot more food than the regular Russian communist as well.

          Authoritarianism seems to work that way no matter what the ideology.

          1. Kim’s generals seem to be just as painfully thin as everyone else, but I could be noticing what I want to.

            A YouTube video I watched a couple of days ago by a reliable channel (can’t remember which) made the point that there’s never been a true communist country. All countries called that are actually socialist and countries like China and Vietnam that have had a lot of economic success in recent years are doing it by reducing the amount of socialism.

            The video was USian, so although it admitted that things like government provided roads and schools were socialist, it didn’t admit that virtually all services provided by government are essentially socialist. We’re all just at different points on the same spectrum.

          2. Sure but I think a “true communist country” is as impossible as a “true anarcho-capitalist” society. Both systems are built on flawed models of humanity. Humans aren’t perfect and those who want power will take advantage of the vacuum that will be present. For communists, this will be whatever authorities control distribution and for anarcho-capitalists this will be whoever has the most resources + willingness to violates the non-aggression principle (NAP).

            BTW virtually everything violates this principle (burning wood, for example).

          4. Given that the final step for achieving pure communism is to do away with government I think you are 100% correct that it could never happen. In any group of humans no power vacuum will be left unexploited for very long.

            And pure, final stage communism sounds very much like anarchy

  6. Well of course they aren’t lining up in droves – lines are orderly, droves are not – its’ a contradiction in terms.

  8. I’m far from a Sarsour fan but I wonder if she was being ironic? Sort of suggesting that Trump’s ban of North Koreans is ridiculous because they can’t come to the US anyway.

    2. I think you are correct on this. I already heard it from someone on the TV this morning. Hey Trumpy…they can come here anyway. I hope he has Antartica on the list as well, we are really getting mobbed from there.

  10. I took it as refering to the (valid) argument often made against socialism apologists / capitalism critics: lots of people flee from socialist to capitalist countries, but virtually none the other way round.

    In any case: epic fail by Linda.

  11. Her point was obvious to me: there’s no sense in banning North Koreans since they can’t leave anyway, so the only reason North Korea was added to the list was so Trump could pretend it’s not a Muslim ban. Which is exactly right, and is the same reason North Korea was included in Bush’s asinine “Axis of Evil” years ago.

    (I see that Sarsour herself explained this moments after sending that first tweet: “North Korea was added to the list of banned countries when Trump should know they can’t leave freely. That was my point.”)

    I’m surprised anyone would have read this any other way, but it just shows how easy it is to allow one’s ideology to become ideological blinders.

    1. I agree. The key word is the first “are”. If Coyne’s reading were correct the phrase “would be”. That’s how you would try to make a claim that life in NK isn’t so bad, and in that formulation her comment would be a brain-dead howler. But the way you’d criticize Trump for adding NK to the ban is by noting that there are not in fact any — it’s a phantom menace. And that’s what she did.
      Consider also the thashtag. It isn’t about NK or anything except the travel ban.

      1. You are correct.

        Trump’s travel ban is aimed squarely at banning Muslims like the guy who tried to kill dozens of people on the Tube two weeks ago, or the guy who came from Libya to Britain to kill 22 and injure 250 at a pop concert in Manchester.

        It has nothing to do with preventing North Koreans travelling to America.

    2. You do see, don’t you, that her “clarification” was added not “moments” after the first tweet, as you say, but MORE TWELVE HOURS LATER, AFTER SHE’D BEEN CALLED OUT MULTIPLE TIMES. If she meant to clarify her statement, why wait so long? I suspect somebody told her how to respond.

      First tweet: 9:03 PM – Sep 24, 2017
      Second tweet: 9:27 AM – 25 Sep 2017

      As for your rude comment about being blinded by ideology, you have no firm grounds to say that Sarsour was merely being snarky; all I can say is that you’re a sanctimonious git.

      As for Craw’s comment, remember there are limits to Twitter characters AND Sarsour’s English isn’t often great (note “in the droves”). I’m not convinced that Sam is right, but I am convinced, from his last two lines, that he’s a sanctimonious git. It would again be easy to say something like this without the rude snark.

      1. I agree with the observations about Sarsour’s writing. Still I do think that if Sarsour were making a conditional point she’d use conditional language. As I just did.

        I freely concede this is not dispositive, but I think it the reading most consistent with the actual phrasing and more importantly with the principle of charity in interpretation.

        1. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that Sarsour meant something else, but I’m not willing to simply accept that–or believe what she says.

          As for charity of interpretation, well, her history shows me that she doesn’t deserve that consideration.

  12. I’ve checked.

    There is still a religiously based Muslim travel bans.

    Non-Muslims are banned from travelling to Mecca or Medina.

    I will keep you updated when this Muslim travel ban is lifted.

  13. Remember folks, if you mock or criticise Linda Sarsour, then the regressive left get all offended and triggered, and accuse you of being one of those horrible “centrists”.

    Or worse.

  14. Adding North Koreans and Venezuelans to the travel ban makes it clear it’s not about security, it’s just about vindictiveness and political posturing.

    It’s just too bad for any North Koreans who do manage to escape. Though I suppose one could engage snark mode and ask why anyone who’s just escaped from one country with a batshit-insane Dear Leader would want to settle in another one. 😉

    cr

  15. Doesn’t she realise North Koreans can’t even fold a newspaper with a shot of Kim on the front without getting jailed? Dimbo.

  16. Linda Sarsour has said that Ayaan Hirsi Ali should have her vagina removed and that Ali doesn’t deserve to be a woman (Ali is an FGM victim, so I suppose Sarsour wants to finish the job). She has promoted violence against Israel and promoted the “goodness” in Sharia Law. She has said SO many ignorant things in the past, why would this surprise anyone?

    And the ACLU stands with Linda Sarsour! That’s the day the ACLU lost my continued donations.

    There are people on the left worthy of support. Sarsour is not one of them.

Comments are closed.