Resurrecting an old thread: You are ultimately responsible for how you react to offensive shit...

[Humanist_Activist]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Is it really so difficult to not use violence or threaten to use violence in response to ridicule?[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I ask this in all seriousness considering the responses that have been discussed about both Charlie Hebdo and other incidences. It seems that to some people on this board actually think violence is a proper, expected and/or predictable response to someones speech towards them or one of their sacred cows. Here's a big fat clue, its not. Is there a huge rash of fist fights that I'm not aware of, that people get into? I've been in one actual fight, and I certainly didn't start it, and I lost badly. I was 16 years old then, 20 years ago, haven't been in a fight, or even close to one since.

I got over entertaining revenge fantasies after my teenage years, I grew up. If someone ridicules me today, it either rolls off my back or I respond in kind, but I certainly would never use violence unless I was threatened with imminent harm, or people around me are. This seems to be common sense to me, my rights to respond to whatever you do ends at your nose, to put it both literally and metaphorically.

I think people are confusing their feelings with their reactions, feelings you sometimes have very little control over, but your reactions you do have control over. When someone makes fun of your mom, it is perfectly normal to feel white hot rage about that, you may even want to clock the asshole who said the offensive thing. What isn't normal is you actually punching the asshole, and you don't need to justify your feelings by reacting badly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6102788

Yes, I'm referencing my own post, and I'll emphasize this, I don't give a flying fuck what the content of someones speech is unless its to call for imminent violence or danger to others. Geller's speech does not meet that qualification. How soon do people forget that Draw Muhammad Day isn't even her idea? There is no excuse, no justification, no understanding of acts of violence that aren't in self defense. It doesn't matter if its because someone insulted your religion or your mom, if you throw so much as a punch, that's your fault for acting like a fucking 2 year old.

[Scootaloo]

1. "Is it really so difficult to not use violence or threaten to use violence in response to ridicule?"

Judging from how the overwhelming vast majority of people, Muslims very much included, manage to very successfully avoid doing so at any point in their lives...

But you know, two idiots who act like idiots, and suddenly it's a civilization-scale crisis that needs a couple hundred dense speeches full of cumbersome rhetoric that tries to pretend like it's not wrapping those two yobs around 1.7 billion human beings.

[NutmegYankee]

2. Many people miss the point that the attackers were not goaded like a bull with a red cape.

They knew that scoring a devastating attack on this event would seen as a major ISIS victory and pursued that goal. They chose the event for the press it would generate, though I'm sure they thought they'd be more successful.

[delrem]

5. You're good at channelling.

Does all your channelling work out so well for you?

[delrem]

3. It gives me a fucking headache.

OK, I'll take some painkillers.
Now, where were we in the "War on Islamic Terror"?

[Unvanguard]

7. I think you're misinterpreting the target of criticism.

It's not about Muslims or any supposed civilizational threat they pose. It's the suggestion (which you do hear voiced fairly often, even though it remains a minority view) that offensive speech that sometimes provokes violence should be censored or suppressed.

I think the more important risk these sorts of attacks pose is their potential to enable Islamophobia and foolish and immoral wars abroad, and I try to make my rhetoric reflect that priority. But I don't think it's improper to remind people that the responsibility for violence lies with the violent and not with the people who are targeted (whatever we might think of their behavior on other grounds).

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Did I say it was a civilization-scale crisis, fuck no, and frankly I'm more disturbed by...

those who attempt to justify or empathize with such actions than the actions themselves. Its inconsistent with a society where people are supposed to at least pretend to get along.

[Scootaloo]

11. I'm judging the response, not you personally

See, the thing is... every day, people in this nation are killed and assaulted for shit they say. We're in agreement that this is stupid, and reprehensible. But there is no torrent of dolorous tome-sized posts when Joe-Bob and Cletus stab Merle to death for shit-talking missus Cletus.

There is no dense, gristly rhetoric to chew through, no self-congratulatory "we love freedom; they don't!" nonsense, none of this garbage. And yet, these killings happen with great frequency, for the simple reason that there are stupid, irrational people who respond to words with violence. In fact it seems to be the leading cause for murder in this country.

but they pass below the radar. They are recognized as inconsequential dumbfucks with impulse control problems. They are tried and locked up, or sometimes killed in police shootouts, and we shrug and go "well, that's what happens when you try to commit murder."

Unless they are Muslims. And then it's a crisis. And then there needs to be endless reams of "discussion" that traverse the entire fucking globe, and fifteen hundred years of history, all to hash out two idiots in Texas who got themselves killed during an attempted murder. Texas has a murder rate of 4.3, and I somehow doubt these two guys are behind it all.

It's not that these guys were justified, it's just that the response to them is... more than a little absurd, when placed in perspective.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. I don't see this as confined to Muslims, and it does take on a different characteristic than...

personal feuds alone do. Its impersonal and can be more dangerous. Gay bashing is a common example, and I do view that as a societal crisis, particularly in schools, harassment, physical assault, even murders occur, and most the perpetrators of those things are Christians. Yet, unless its really obvious or done by a large group(Anti-gay day), it hardly makes a bleep on the news.

You are the one making this about Muslims alone, and while the perception of these things is that Muslims perpetuate it more, that's not true nationally, generally because they only take up a small percentage of the population.

ON EDIT: I will, however, take a step back and say that the content of certain ideas can influence behavior, so, for example, many of the ideas of the Bible and Koran that call for the death penalty for things such as apostasy, blasphemy, etc. can make believers in said religions more likely to commit such acts.

[Scootaloo]

13. Well, that's the only occasion that this response manifests on DU

Similarly the only time some DU'ers seem to get up in arms about the fist amendment, is in case of islamophobes (whose right to free speech is, rather prominently not in question.) When called on this, you will see them post the same rhetoric about the Klan or the Phelps bunch or whoever. However it comes out the same as a racist saying "I don't care if you're white, black, yellow, or pink-with-purple-polka-dots!" Yeah, they actually do care, quite a lot, because they never actually seem to post these long diatribes when it's actually the Klan or whoever pulling some shit.

I'm talking about Muslims, becauseyou are making this OP in response to two Muslims, citing another OP you made when it was two other Muslims, amid a flood of such posts in response to the same. Posts that simply do not appear unless it is Muslims.

Really, don't stumble around acting as if you have no idea what i'm talking about.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Actually the OP I made initially was in response to a post about one girl...

beating another for the "crime" of the other girl taunting her dead sister. Did that deserve a beat down? I don't think so, but I made it more about Charlie Hebdo, because that cooled down a little bit by that time. I find far too many people are too willing to excuse violent behavior because they believe the victims "had it coming".

[JaneyVee]

4. Geller calls for violence against Muslims nearly every day.

[bravenak]

6. Yes, she does.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. That's an argument for prosecution. n/t

[oberliner]

10. Examples?

Can you provide one or two of her calls for violence against Muslims?