Problem is people equate Muslims as individuals with Islam as a whole.

So for example this Shamima Begum story. You would be surprised how many far/dissident right people think she should be allowed back in the country. My own reasoning is that since she was under the age of 18 when she left the country then she should be seen as a victim. A day over, and let her rot in hell but we have a law of majority, and as such it should be respected. Many of the girls who were victims of the grooming gangs were under the age of 18 and afforded their, quite rightly, victim status based on that fact.

What I cannot abide is the hypocrisy (although to be fair we are all guilty of it in one way or the other). So the Left literally ignored the plight of those kids in terms of the grooming gang because they did not want to offend their sensibilities/promotion hopes (never ignore that venality) around the risk of being labeled racist. Even aided and abetted those scumbags to do what they did. And many on the Right call for Begums head for the crime of being a kid who got conned. For me, two sides of the same coin.

Now I will openly admit that I do not believe Islam is compatible with the West. We are literally civilisational enemies with Islam seeking to conquer us, by force, on several occassions. And that is a battle we are in at the moment. But in terms of individual Muslims? No. Completely different. I have zero problems in being amicable and civil with Muslims of my acquaintance. Even have a few as good friends. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK are here because our Establishment, without asking us, allowed them in.

It is that Establishment that is my primary foe. Because until we defeat that, then nothing else can happen.

Fourthly, you will always have problems when a sector of the community puts their religion above the wants of the law; the multicultural society is no longer a stable one at that juncture.

The issue is a lack of foresight and pragmatism.

The modern left seem driven by idealism and emotion. Some of these activist types even campaign for conflicting causes.

Totally irrational.

I think those are more reasonable criticisms of the left in general, certainly that people can be more idealistic than pragmatic, but that's a long way from suggesting someone is mentally unstable.

I think generally the way most on here describe 'the left' is not at all reflective of your average left-wing person, and they really describe a fairly 'extreme' version of left-wing politics and attempt to extrapolate that to represent 'the left' as a whole - this stuff about people 'absorbing propaganda to the fibre of their existence' and being addicted to virtue signalling - it's a tiny minority of loud activists who that applies to, but your average left-leaning 30-something Londoner... it's just as much nonsense to them as it is to you.

Because a newspaper finds some nonsense gender story from the University of Sussex or similar and tells us 'THIS IS WHAT LABOUR WANTS, THIS IS WHAT THE LEFT WANT' it does not make it true.

An ability to be hypocritical and support conflicting ideas is not remotely unique to either side.

Probably true of most people. A few years ago LBC used to have a spokesman on from, I think, the Muslim Council who would be wheeled out to counter the more extreme views expressed in some quarters. He ended up saying - if you wanted a view on the Christian church you wouldn't ask the head of the Ku Klux Klan so no, we don't all agree with what they say.

I disagree on both.

Ask the majority of transgender people if they think that activism on their behalf is a positive development.

Football racism was hardly seen other than abroad before Sky started their virtue signalling nonsense.
Since it has been dialled back, racism in football has now returned to previous levels. Virtually non existent.