So what if a horrible, racist, ultra-right-wing woman were raped?

[Goblinmonger]

Would we be victim blaming her like we are with Geller?

I have no love for Geller. Zero. She's a horrible fucking person. Her racism and Islamaphobia are reprehensible.

That being said, someone tried to kill her and people like her because she was drawing pictures of their prophet. And FAR too many people on DU are blaming the victim here because she was a horrible fucking racist.

You wouldn't do that if someone attempted to rape her. Why are you doing it because someone tried to kill her?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Hypocrisy on DU? Surely not... N.T.

[Goblinmonger]

4. I know. Color me shocked.

Someday I'll learn that I should never be surprised at what I read on a progressive web site.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Most of the clocks here are stopped at roughly the right time. Don't mistake that for ticking. N.T.

[Jim Lane]

50. What a great line! You're absolutely right. (n/t)

[shenmue]

2. Okay

[tkmorris]

3. When you're right, you're right

And you are.

[Goblinmonger]

5. Thanks. I'll admit I'm not always right.

But I'm pretty confidant on this one.

[Cerridwen]

6. Rape isn't something you invite...regardless of what r/wers would have you believe.

And while I'm at it: abortion clinics and women's health clinics that provide abortion are built to provide legal medical services.

Equating either of the above to a conscious act of provocation by a well-paid and professional provocateur is a false equivalency.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Getting shot at because you are drawing cartoon, though.

That's clearly invited?

[Cerridwen]

70. What are you replying to?

It's not my post.

I pointed out that people who equate abortion clinics and medical services to provocation are using a false equivalency.

What are you replying to?

[PeaceNikki]

12. The equivalency is that there are no non-violent offensive actions that justify a violent reaction.

None.

Offensive actions are only offensive to people who find them offensive. We can expect people to sometimes be offended by our words or actions but, in a fucking SANE society, we should NEVER expect harm or death for non-violent expression.

Never. Not about religion, sexuality, choices, anything.

There are hoards of people who are SERIOUSLY OFFENDED if I walk into an abortion clinic. They consider it murder and my action an attack on their religion, beliefs and society.

The whole idea of it being "something you invite" is hogwash. These are grown sentient thinking human beings.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. Great post

A point I tried to make earlier as well.

If we're going to say that people taking part in Constitutionally protected behavior are asking to be shot if someone is offended, we're in big trouble.

[hifiguy]

44. Excellent post.

[freshwest]

59. +1. 'These are grown sentient thinking human beings.' And there are better choices than killing. n/t

[REP]

69. Can you stop being sensible? :-)

As usual, agree 100%

[Cerridwen]

71. Same question for you.

What are you replying to?

Again, I said that anyone who equates abortion clinics and medical centers as providing provocation for violence are using a false equivalency.

[snooper2]

8. The analogy I saw was this-

People are saying-


She has a right to say her hate speech but if she gets shot she should expect it since fundies get pissed off-

compare to repukes who would say-

She has a right to go to the bar late at night in a mini dress but if she gets drunk and raped she should have expected it-

[lame54]

9. there was little chance of her getting attacked...

certainly less than those who attended
they were her (potential) martyrs

[theboss]

24. Can we address how insane it is that ANYONE was at risk for being attacked?

This was literally a cartoon level of bigotry.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Then everyone would want the rapist arrested, just like everyone wanted the shooters arrested.

The fact that Gellar was engaged in hosting a despicable hate convention is beside the point. She's still a 'horrible fucking person' for what she does, and she doesn't get any sort of 'pass' on being labeled a 'horrible fucking person' just because somebody tried to kill her.

Saying that in no way 'justifies' or 'excuses' the attack on her.

[LanternWaste]

13. She successfully baited the lowest common denominators-- which is not blaming anyone.

I don't think observing her intolerance and her bigotry is equivalent to blaming her for anything other than being intolerant and a bigot.

She successfully baited the lowest common denominators-- observing as such is not blaming anyone.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Seems like it is excusing them.

They were baiting.
She was wearing slutty clothing.

Sounds a lot the same to me.

[Snotcicles]

15. Do you feel the same way about that preacher that went to Dearborn Mi to burn the Koran? nt

[Goblinmonger]

16. Yup. He has freedom of speech for that, too.

Defending people you agree with is easy. Defending the free speech rights of those you find repulsive is the true test.

[Snotcicles]

19. So you don't think a Florida Preacher traveling to the most

heavily Muslim populated area in the country, to burn a Koran was not done to provoke.
You don't see that as baiting?

[Goblinmonger]

22. It's still protected.

He can do that. It's called making a point. A point I really don't agree with at all, but if you aren't going to defend free speech because you don't like the point being made and because the act is shocking, then you aren't really defending free speech.

And it seems like you are pretty close to saying that if he did burn that book in a Muslim area, that the outcome of violence is a foregone conclusion. How about they just don't fucking attack him? Seems like a better plan and one most Muslims would agree with. Though you hint differently.

[Snotcicles]

28. No my point was you were equating "baiting" to "a women wearing slutty clothes".

There is a difference.

[Skittles]

72. it is unbelievable they cannot see the difference

I find it absolutely sickening

[theboss]

26. Of course it was baiting. And my response is, So what?

It's baiting to burn an American flag. It's baiting for Madonna to do whatever Madonna does at any given moment.

Baiting is protected speech.

[Oktober]

54. Sure it was provoking... So what?

Folks who get irritated because we mock their particular sky daddy don't deserve respect in the first place.

[LanternWaste]

48. nor does calling that same free speech irresponsible negate its original freedom

"Defending the free speech rights of those you find repulsive is the true test."

Nor does calling that same free speech irresponsible negate its original freedom, nor does the observation that she used her forum to bait. And it worked. Effectively.

[Dr. Strange]

57. I do.

And the same about Andres Serrano.

[LanternWaste]

46. Rational observation however, forces us to conclude that of the two, the meter, the intent and the c

"Sounds a lot the same to me...." Merely because it validates your pre-existing premise predicated ion a faulty equivalency.

Rational observation however, forces us to conclude that of the two, the meter, the intent and the colloquials are quite different indeed... as that rational mind sees the relevant difference between assigning blame and mere observation.

Though I realize the convenience of closing one's eyes to a relevant and precise set of differences to better assist in righteous proclamations of support for free speech whilst implying that those who do not share that precise position do not.

[Snotcicles]

56. Yep, if you say "I'm not surprized, I saw that coming" you are victim blaming. nt

[AngryAmish]

55. go away, baitin'

[Half-Century Man]

17. What if a woman trolled rapists, gave out her address, and waited with a shotgun?

I do understand you wanting to present your question in the starkest possible terms to exemplify your argument. I hate being forced to respond in kind to a horrible example. But the counterpoint is important.

Human beings died in a baited trap. A trap set with hatred. Baited with hatred, Sprung with hatred. Resulting in an increase of hatred. I have no sympathy for the victims of the trap or the setters of the trap. Both got their desired out come; the attackers achieved martyrdom, and the event holders got to shoot someone legally.
My sympathy is with the rest of the world who are forced to deal with harvest of hatred.

Rape is a violent crime of dominance, preceded only by murder in villainy. To be coerced into even hinting theoretical rapists deserved some small sympathy made my fingers hurt.

[Goblinmonger]

20. I don't care if she walked naked through a frat house

or whatever bizarre scenario you want to create.

She shouldn't be raped and we shouldn't blame the victim. Know how your rapist trolling woman doesn't get raped--DON'T RAPE HER BECAUSE RAPING IS BAD. Sweet fuck. In your scenario you actually want someone to say "well, she had it coming"? Jesus.

And this hateful racist bigots didn't deserve to be shot at and potentially killed because they were exercising their free speech.

And it made your fingers hurt because you know the analogy is spot on and the only way around it is to somehow indicate "she had it coming." Defending the free speech rights of those you find repulsive is a pretty good test of how much you cherish free speech.

[FLPanhandle]

27. +1

That was an insulting post and I'm glad you called him on it.

[Half-Century Man]

43. No woman should ever be raped or murdered.

No way, shape, or form.
Your point is very well made and presented.
She was uninjured. But, all isn't good. Two people died, and in spite of them being undesirable; they were people.

The two attackers choose to bring guns instead of protest signs.
Ms. Geller choose to hire a squad of militarized heavily armed goons to provide security.
Ms Geller widely advertised an event designed to enrage low hanging fruit.
Gunfire happened. All participants were pleased.

I am arguing the entire situation is bad; I'm not blaming anyone. Or maybe I'm damning the whole thing.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Geller's not the victim here.

She was not harmed. A security guard was. Not sure if he was a member of Geller's group or just a contract hire.

Geller wanted this to happen to justify her pre-existing position. Two fools took the bait.

That's a far call from a woman being raped, since the very definition of rape precludes the victim wanting it to happen to her.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Her group as a whole were attacked.

If they were successful, some would have been killed.

That is ALL on the attackers. NONE of it is on the victims or potential victims. Free speech is a protected right.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. If the organizers of the event set it up to provoke the likelihood of such an attack...

....and the point of the provocation is to merely justify their own pre-existing self-serving beliefs, they do share some responsibility as to any resulting injury or death.

The people organizing this event were not actually interested in free speech or expression. They wanted there to be a scene. That's reckless behavior.

[Goblinmonger]

25. How about

DON'T TRY TO KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE DRAWING PICTURES OF YOUR PROPHET!

But they were doing it on purpose!

DON'T CARE!

But they were doing it to be mean!

DON'T CARE!

But they were doing it to make us look bad!

NICE JOB MAKING THEIR POINT, ASSHATS!

Ick. You go ahead victim blaming. Personally, I have to take a hot shower.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. Again, Pam Geller's not the victim.

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The security guard who got shot is, but she most certainly isn't.

[melman]

75. "Maybe the security who got shot is"

Maybe. That says a lot.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. Rhetorical flourish. Fixed for you.

Happy?

[phil89]

76. "Maybe" the guard who got shot

is a victim? That whooosh you hear is your credibility flying out the window. Or was he part of the baiting and therefore to blame?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

78. See post 77.

But go ahead and lecture me about my credibility.

[theboss]

30. They share no responsibility except in the vaguest moral sense

Which is a weird position to take if you are somehow trying to undercut the moral responsibility of the religious fanatics who responded violently.

[darkangel218]

31. She could have been harmed though.

I obviously don't support her nonsense, but she had the freedom to say whatever she wants, as long as she doesn't directly threat or harm anyone.

She was a target.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. If she was a target, she was a willing one.

Unfortunately, others were not and therein lies her selfish recklessness.

If she held the event wanting there to be violence, she was in fact threatening harm to others, even if she wasn't the direct agent.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. Nope.

She's not the girl wearing a short dress who was raped.

She's the girl who thinks a man is a rapist and lures him in and voluntarily has sex with him, and then afterwards claims she was raped so she can prove to the world he's a rapist. And who knows, maybe the guy was in fact a rapist, but that doesn't make her his victim.

[theboss]

45. She was voluntarily shot at?

That's a unique interpretation.

(And I know that she specifically was not shot at. I'm just making a point).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

47. Well, she personally wasn't.

Her event was, and that's what she wanted to happen. That's why she held the event. It had nothing to do with the First Amendment because she doesn't actually respect the First Amendment.

[theboss]

49. When Larry Flynt was shot by an anti-porn fanatic, was he asking for it?

Screw it.

Let's go there.

Was MLK asking for it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. Yes, MLK was totally asking for it.

Because the entire civil rights movement was about making white people look as bad and as violent as possible.


if you haven't figured that one out.

[theboss]

52. Actually, it sort of was

MLK launched a major campaign in to integrate housing in Chicago and was thoroughly defeated by Mayor Daley.

Why because Daley marched with him. Daley gave him awards at the end of marches. Daley fined the hell out of the slumlords in the buildings MLK lived in. Daley told his police that if they touched a hair on MLK's head, they would have hell to pay. Daley made vague promises to clean up slums. And then he simply out-waited MLK and did nothing.

Anyplace MLK did not encounter violent resistance, he struggled to achieve any victories.

He won the victories he did because images of white police officers beating the shit out of black grandmothers moved people to action.

[oberliner]

60. By drawing pictures?

That's what we're talking about here. Drawing pictures.

If a group of deranged Republicans decided to kill anyone who wrote anything that they deemed to be offensive to Republicans, would DU be responsible for provoking their attacks?

[Jesus Malverde]

68. +1

[darkangel218]

41. "If she was a target, she was a willing one."

You can't possibly be serious.

Do you know that there are xtain fundies out there, ready to take things to the next level.. You can't possibly protect the attempted murderers over free speech/cartoon drawing.

[Rex]

32. 'That being said'...usually means you are trying to link two things that have no relationship.

It is pathetic that you use rape as your tool to get people to agree with you. Geller was not raped nor was she shot or injured. Fail.

[Snotcicles]

40. +1.

[Scootaloo]

33. Gellar was 100% unharmed

More than that, she got the reaction she wanted and now has public forum to air her hate speech.

Gellar isn't a victim. The guard who got shot is a victim, and the police officers who had to kill the two guys can be considered victims. Gellar and her compatriots spent the entire time smirking and tweeting about how right they were all along.

She is not culpable for the decisions of the two idiots, but your attempt to equate her to a victim of rape is simply a sign that you maybe don't have much understanding for people who have actually been raped.

[Iggo]

34. What happened to Geller?

[Warpy]

36. Geller is what she is.

My ire is reserved for the school system that sponsored her bile. What the hell were they thinking? Hate should never have any sort of official sanction.

Also, she was in little danger. She was guarded to the max and the two yahoos who showed up were dressed like central casting Jihadists with Kevlar and Big Ugly Guns.

Also, freedom of speech is not absolute. Oh, she'll never be arrested for spewing her bile and that's what freedom of speech means. However, going out of your way to goad other human beings is not a smart thing to do. Lots of them will try to hit back.

I have no sympathy for Geller in this. I have no sympathy for the idiots who showed up to defend Islam from cartoons and got shot before they could shoot anybody else.

[Skittles]

38. I absolutely agree

Pam Geller being cast as a victim - on DU
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/opinions/moghul-texas-shooting-gellar/index.html

[cui bono]

63. I agree. And I think the rape analogy isn't appropriate.

Geller wanted a response and prepared for it. Rape victims do not want to be assaulted.

[Goblinmonger]

64. so she asked for it?

Had it coming?

[cui bono]

67. Not what I agreed to at all.

Where did I say she "had it coming"?

She definitely was attempting to provoke and it worked. She probably did it to prove a point as to how horrible the "other" religion is. Why was she so heavily guarded?

Your rape analogy just doesn't apply here. She was not a victim.

[Tom Ripley]

53. Pamela Geller is NOT a victim

[DiverDave]

58. Dude, thats sick

of course I wouldn't want to see anyone raped OR murdered.

All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.

Clarence Darrow

Some attribute that general saying to Mark Twain, but he never said it.

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." That quote, attributed to Mark Twain, popped up in a lot of places yesterday, as some people found themselves struggling with their feelings after the death of Osama bin Laden. If you're against killing on principle, but still no great fan of bin Laden, the Twain quote might have seemed perfectly suited to the occasion.

Just one problem: Twain never said it. In fact, no one ever said it in precisely that form. Matt Blum at Wired has the fact-check: the quotation actually comes from Clarence Darrow, the lawyer of Scopes Trial fame. Here's a fuller version of the quote, which appears in Darrow's 1932 work The Story of My Life


http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/05/mark-twain-didnt-say-thing-about-obituaries/37279/

[joeybee12]

61. Effing ridiculous post...

Nobody is doing that...,they are simply pointing out that she doesn't give a rat's a*8 about free speech, she wanted to provoke, and if innocent people died, fine with her...pathetic

[Goblinmonger]

65. even those that don't care about free speech

Still have the protections.

Do you have any source that she wanted innocent people to die? Or didn't care?

The people at her event should not be blamed. Ever.

[Skittles]

73. that sails right over their heads

they just do NOT get it

[99Forever]

62. Did this mythical "horrible, racist, ultra-right-wing woman"...

...very publically attempt to goad her attacker(s) into the rape?

[Goblinmonger]

66. so there is a scenario

Where a woman could be asking for it?

[99Forever]

74. Hey, it's your sick, dispicable analogy.

Why the fuck are you questioning me?