Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:22 PM May 2015

No, the shootings are in no way excusable

and yes, depicting someone's deity or spiritual leader in a disrespectful manner - with the intention of inciting their outrage - is considered privileged and legal in the west... So is poking a grizzly bear with a sharp stick or banging your neighbor's wife. It may be legal, but they're bad ideas. I think we need to remember that while we cherish our 1st amendment freedoms, it's folly to assume everyone else does. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, have a nasty habit of projecting their "values", for better or worse, onto the world. Matter of fact, we feel justified in decimating your country until you "get with the program". What is simply speech to us, may be spiritual or psychic violence to others. This Geller wretch was well in her rights, but out of her fucking mind.

84 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No, the shootings are in no way excusable (Original Post) whatchamacallit May 2015 OP
beheading non believers is also considered the right thing to do in certain religions nt msongs May 2015 #1
Forcing children to do without medical care or medicine is also the "right thing to do", Fred Sanders May 2015 #2
+1 n/t markpkessinger May 2015 #43
+1 n/t markpkessinger May 2015 #43
Our close allies, the Saudis, seem to think it's the right thing to do for practically any transgression whatchamacallit May 2015 #3
Depends on how much... MellowDem May 2015 #6
Maybe you think the Klan should exercise their rights whatchamacallit May 2015 #7
I think they can... MellowDem May 2015 #12
No be "brave", if that's how you want to characterize Geller's provocation, whatchamacallit May 2015 #14
Geller's not responsible... MellowDem May 2015 #20
Question itcfish May 2015 #26
Two... MellowDem May 2015 #28
Maybe I think they have the right to do so, GGJohn May 2015 #65
Trump agrees with you... MellowDem May 2015 #4
Of course you do whatchamacallit May 2015 #5
No, I was raised conservative Christian... MellowDem May 2015 #8
Well that explains a lot whatchamacallit May 2015 #11
can't yelled if good nature snark... MellowDem May 2015 #13
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves? whatchamacallit May 2015 #16
Can't tell MellowDem May 2015 #18
Nor do I. She's a savvy individual, and knows precisely which bottom-feeders will accept the bait LanternWaste May 2015 #9
And an analog clock frozen at 1:49 will be correct twice a day. nt Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #10
Should have stopped with your title... Oktober May 2015 #15
Haha whatchamacallit May 2015 #17
Thanks... Oktober May 2015 #25
Of course. Because everything is black and white, right? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #19
She's a victim... MellowDem May 2015 #21
Bullshit whatchamacallit May 2015 #23
Even if she did... MellowDem May 2015 #27
Geller's not a victim. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #32
If violence is never an excuse... MellowDem May 2015 #34
She's no more a victim than you or me. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #38
Because violence is never an excuse... MellowDem May 2015 #40
That's an insane hypothetical. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #41
It illustrates my point perfectly... MellowDem May 2015 #45
Do you think that security guard wanted to be shot? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #49
It's not like the body guard didn't know the risk... MellowDem May 2015 #56
Bear with me for a second here. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #70
Not for this wrong... MellowDem May 2015 #83
If she knowingly and intentionally contributed to the violence and actually sought that result.... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #84
Why does it matter what her motivation was again? Oktober May 2015 #24
She wanted violence, and violence she got. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #33
In short... You think that words and 'incitement' are enough to justify violence... Oktober May 2015 #35
In short, you just strawmanned me. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #39
I knew a guy who knocked the shit out of his wife... Oktober May 2015 #47
We're talking about Pam Geller here. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #48
Keep on digging... Oktober May 2015 #52
Can you please explain to me what exactly you think I'm trying to justify here? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #53
In the sense that her organization was attacked... Oktober May 2015 #54
It should be noted that Geller's group *organized* the event. She herself was not a participant. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #69
You are clinging to some very odd notions... Oktober May 2015 #71
Will you please give it up with the whole "short skirt" analogy? That's a non-starter. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #72
Just because you don't like her... Oktober May 2015 #73
Did the ACLU/NAACP/Code Pink/whatever want to see a violent response that placed people in danger? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #74
You keep saying it... Oktober May 2015 #75
Do you honestly believe Pam Geller is all about First Amendment? Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #76
You are all over the place... Oktober May 2015 #77
If she's claiming victimhood status--and guess what, she is--it does motivate her. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #78
Look... Oktober May 2015 #80
Gotcha Cartman. nt Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #81
Agreed. PeaceNikki May 2015 #22
I think Geller was playing off the response to the Charlie Hebdo incident, Maedhros May 2015 #29
They do - there's more room to debate because Geller is such a reprehensible person el_bryanto May 2015 #30
Indeed. n/t whatchamacallit May 2015 #31
Agree totally. NanceGreggs May 2015 #36
I am pleased whatchamacallit May 2015 #37
Nuance is for the few, apparently. nt Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #50
This happened in the US cemaphonic May 2015 #42
It is not an American tradition to insult and vilify an entire other religion, is it? Free speech Fred Sanders May 2015 #46
Actually it IS a new American tradition guillaumeb May 2015 #51
Bears are animals with no control over their behavior BlueStater May 2015 #55
Respectfully disagree mariuma May 2015 #57
Right melman May 2015 #58
Grizzlies are wild animals. Codeine May 2015 #59
Comprehension fail whatchamacallit May 2015 #63
Having an abortion clinic inspires bombers. Codeine May 2015 #64
People seriously don't understand metaphors. nt Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #66
OP summary: why defend universal freedoms? who are we to blame intolerance? Yorktown May 2015 #60
truly hoping this is sarcasm... mariuma May 2015 #61
Thanks for the love, yes, it was sarcasm. Yorktown May 2015 #62
What projecting on the world? It was in fucking Texas. CBGLuthier May 2015 #67
I was going to post the same thing. Coventina May 2015 #82
You're right about the cultural differences but... randome May 2015 #68
You are aware that we are not living in Saudi Arabia? Arugula Latte May 2015 #79

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
2. Forcing children to do without medical care or medicine is also the "right thing to do",
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:34 PM
May 2015

whatever that means, in some certain religions.

The use of broad stroke paint brushes is easy.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
3. Our close allies, the Saudis, seem to think it's the right thing to do for practically any transgression
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:36 PM
May 2015

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

The point, that you're determined to miss, is that until the world has a uniform set of beliefs and values, some amount of respect and discretion is advisable.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
6. Depends on how much...
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:48 PM
May 2015

You want fear (aka respect and discretion) to rule people's choices on if they speak out.

I don't think hosting a private event at a conference center in the U.S. should be second guessed because of fear.

I don't think religious beliefs deserve any automatic respect. They're just another idea to discuss. I get that people will not speak out in order to stay alive, but that's fear, not any respect of the belief system.

Some people think risking their lives for what they believe in is worth it, and your advice of exercising discretion comes off as cowardly in that case.

I think the real issue that needs to be dealt with are the bad ideas, not making sure people who criticize ideas give proper respect and deference to the most powerful and privileged religions.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
12. I think they can...
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:02 PM
May 2015

And I wouldn't find it dumb if they did so, because I don't think not speaking out in order to avoid violence is necessarily smart. I would find their reasoning pretty dumb though.

If you think it's dumb to hold events that offend certain groups of people because you think violence is guaranteed, then you must have a low respect for said group and also may not have your priorities straight.

It's reasonable that some people don't voice opinions because they'll be killed, but I don't think it's dumb to voice an opinion when there is a risk, depending on what a person values. Staying silent is giving in to threats of violence and bullying, your admonition seems to be just that, stating that people should not be so forthright with their opinions, lest they get killed. It's a sweet think to be concerned for I guess, I just think that trading freedom for safety isn't a good idea long run.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
14. No be "brave", if that's how you want to characterize Geller's provocation,
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:08 PM
May 2015

but responsibly weigh the consequences and be prepared to reap what you sow.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
20. Geller's not responsible...
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:36 PM
May 2015

The shooters are. Sure, she'll have to deal with the consequences, but she's not responsible for violent behavior of others, that's just straight up victim blaming, and it's the exact same reasoning used to blame rape victims for rape.

itcfish

(1,828 posts)
26. Question
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:42 PM
May 2015

Sorry, now matter where I look, I find all different answers. How many people died in that shooting or seriously injured in Texas???

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
28. Two...
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:46 PM
May 2015

But just the people killed aren't the only victims, as we've seen many times with other terror acts.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
65. Maybe I think they have the right to do so,
Wed May 6, 2015, 08:57 AM
May 2015

and I have the right to roundly condemn them without using violence.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
4. Trump agrees with you...
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:41 PM
May 2015

I don't find Geller dumb for putting on this event, I think people who are offended by her to have dumb reasons for being offended, and I find Geller's own worldview to be dumb in many ways.

I find the idea of spiritual and psychic violence as a result of criticizing or insulting beliefs to be completely stupid, and only respected by many because of the immense power and privilege of religion.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
8. No, I was raised conservative Christian...
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:55 PM
May 2015

and was immersed in conservative Christian culture when I was young. Ideas are ideas. Culture isn't a defense of an idea. Many try to make it so, imposing ideas by sheer force of societal pressure to conform, religion being a good example of this.

If another culture doesn't agree with me, that's OK, but I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to claim that I think a certain way because of my culture, as if that's saying anything at all. I have reasons as to why I have the values I do.

These reasons cans be debated and discussed. Lots of religion can't be by its very nature.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
9. Nor do I. She's a savvy individual, and knows precisely which bottom-feeders will accept the bait
Tue May 5, 2015, 02:55 PM
May 2015

"I don't find Geller dumb for putting on this event..."

Nor do I. She's a savvy individual, and knows precisely which bottom-feeders will accept the bait from her hands, knows exactly where the fish are to bait, and may now play victim to make even more money.

Though I find her intolerant and bigoted (putting on the event doesn't imply that though, merely illustrates it), she's certainly not dumb.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
19. Of course. Because everything is black and white, right?
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:33 PM
May 2015

And pointing out Ms. Geller's (who is not a victim) ultimate motivations (which wasn't free speech) constitutes "victim blaming".

Gotcha.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
21. She's a victim...
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:38 PM
May 2015

Doesn't matter what her intent was for using offensive language, violence is never an excuse, and as such, people who get attacked for being offensive are always victims and are never responsible.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
27. Even if she did...
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:44 PM
May 2015

She's still a victim, and it's still not her fault. That's what trying to kill bigots because they're offensive does. It's not good for the PR.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
32. Geller's not a victim.
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:06 PM
May 2015

She wasn't shot, she wasn't injured, she wasn't killed. I'm not sure if she was even there at the time of the shooting.

Plus if her whole purpose of organizing this event was to provoke people to the point of violence--and I believe that to be the case--in no way does she deserve to be called a victim for an intended consequence.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
34. If violence is never an excuse...
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:15 PM
May 2015

Then she is a victim, we don't require groups targeted by terrorists not to be victims because they weren't physically injured.

If violence is never an excuse then she's a victim, can't have it both ways.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
38. She's no more a victim than you or me.
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:30 PM
May 2015

She wasn't shot and as far as I know she wasn't shot at.

Plus she intentionally set up the situation to play out as it did. How on earth does that entitle her to claim victim status?

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
40. Because violence is never an excuse...
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:54 PM
May 2015

If a woman walks naked through a drunken frat party, hoping someone will sexually assault her so she can expose the rape culture of frats, and somebody attempts to assault her, guess what, she's a victim.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
41. That's an insane hypothetical.
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:57 PM
May 2015

And that would negate the very definition of rape, given that rape is by its very nature non-consensual.

People who are raped don't want to be raped.

And again, that's an insane hypothetical.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
45. It illustrates my point perfectly...
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:24 PM
May 2015

Many people think Geller is insane, so what? You're using the exact same reasoning as those who blame victims of rape.

It's not rape in that situation, they don't want to be raped, they want the attempt made. That's what many have said of Geller, if you believe it, but im pointing out that whether she was hoping for a response or not is completely irrelevant.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
49. Do you think that security guard wanted to be shot?
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:53 PM
May 2015

Is it right that Pam Geller put the lives of others at risk for some sort of bloody "gotcha" moment against Muslims?

That's extreme reckless behavior to play with the safety and well-being of others so that one can justify their personal positions.

And no, she's not the victim.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
56. It's not like the body guard didn't know the risk...
Tue May 5, 2015, 08:55 PM
May 2015

I don't see why you would blame Geller though, it was definitely the shooter's fault.

Again, if violence is never an excuse, of course she's a victim for being the target of violence. Doesn't matter of the person hoped to provoke a violent response for some other ended, if all it takes is their offensive speech, it's not an excuse.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
70. Bear with me for a second here.
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:34 AM
May 2015

1. The two shooters acted criminally, violently and inexcusably by reacting violently to an act that was merely a personal expression, no matter how offensive to their beliefs. They bear responsibility--primary responsibility at that--for their inexcusable actions that injured another person.

And...

2. Pam Geller acted unethically, recklessly and inexcusably by intentionally organizing an event she knew had the likelihood of provoking a violent response just so she could self-servingly justify her pre-existing beliefs to the world. And by intentionally setting up this situation while desiring the intended result, she placed not just the lives of the willing participants at risk, but the lives of third parties (such as the security guard) at risk for her own selfish gain. She too bears some responsibility for her inexcusable actions in intentionally creating a situation she knew could result in death or injury to innocent life.

The two statements above are not mutually exclusive. You do realize that, right?

It is completely possible for more than one party to share responsibility for a wrong. It happens all the time. It shouldn't be that hard for you to grasp that concept.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
83. Not for this wrong...
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:53 AM
May 2015

You can say Geller is unethical etc., but she can share no blame for violence if violence is always inexcusable. She didn't commit violence. You can't blame the victim, you can't blame the person who was attacked for offense IF violence is inexcusable. Otherwise, you ARE excusing violence, you're qualifying it.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
84. If she knowingly and intentionally contributed to the violence and actually sought that result....
Wed May 6, 2015, 12:17 PM
May 2015

....she shares some degree of responsibility with the perpetrators themselves.

That's excusing nothing from the perpetrators. It merely is understanding a better picture of the situation.

And again, Pam Geller was not attacked and she was not the victim. So my assignment of partial blame to her is not excusing the violence.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
24. Why does it matter what her motivation was again?
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:41 PM
May 2015

There is nothing that her organization can say, draw, distribute or advertise that justifies, explains or excuses violence.

The jellyfish who bend over backwards while they try are the same folks who say that rioters were pushed to commit their crimes by whatever the theme of the day is.

Does she have to be shot at personally to be a victim? Is a child from Sandy Hook, who didn't personally take fire, not a victim?

What are your standards here because they seem to be inconsistent and all over the place.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
33. She wanted violence, and violence she got.
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:08 PM
May 2015

The security guard who was injured was a victim. Pam Geller was not.

And I'm sure a kid at Sandy Hook who witnessed the shooting wasn't someone who encouraged Adam Lanza to go to the school.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
35. In short... You think that words and 'incitement' are enough to justify violence...
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:16 PM
May 2015

She was askin' for it.... Ammiright?

You really don't understand that no matter what Geller says, there is no excuse for violence.

Her motivation doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if she said something nasty about their moms or their long dead prophet.

No excuse...

No exceptions...

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
39. In short, you just strawmanned me.
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:32 PM
May 2015

She didn't get "it."

The security guard on the scene got "it."

She got to go on TV and shamelessly compare herself to Rosa Parks and say the things she was itching to say in the first place and wrap herself in the First Amendment even though she demonstrably hates the First Amendment.

I repeat, Pam Geller is not the victim here.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
47. I knew a guy who knocked the shit out of his wife...
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:34 PM
May 2015

Let me tell you, she was a real harpy too. Always nagging and complaining and nothing is ever good enough. Preachy too..

One day she said something and the guy just snapped and cold cocked her.

In this scenario you are protecting the husband because the wife was such a pain in the ass and the rest of the world is saying that there is no reason to strike your wife.

No matter what she says...

Get out of the stone age....

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
48. We're talking about Pam Geller here.
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:45 PM
May 2015

Pam Geller who was not shot at, was not injured, was not killed.

She's not the victim, dude.

She's not in the hospital or in a grave. She's smiling on Fox News comparing herself to Rosa Parks and how this incident shows that the US is at war with Islam.

Nothing that you've said is remotely close to where Geller's at.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
52. Keep on digging...
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:03 PM
May 2015

I'm sure you'll hit a justification sooner or later...

It could be Satan himself (which would be quite a feat) and the point would stand.

No exceptions...

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
53. Can you please explain to me what exactly you think I'm trying to justify here?
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:09 PM
May 2015

If you think I'm trying to justify the two idiots who shot the security guard over the cartoon, you're sorely mistaken. There's no justification for that.

All I'm saying here is that Pam Geller herself is precluded from claiming victimhood status. Are you disagreeing with me on that point?

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
54. In the sense that her organization was attacked...
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:30 PM
May 2015

Likely because of what Pam Geller said...

The goal of the shooters was to use violence to intimidate and keep others from utilizing speech that they disagreed with. As the leader of that group, she is absolutely a victim.

It isn't even a question...

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
69. It should be noted that Geller's group *organized* the event. She herself was not a participant.
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:19 AM
May 2015

I could see if one of the participants in the contest had been shot and injured or killed. It could then be argued that such an individual was a victim of his or her free speech expression. But that didn't happen, either.

The only personal physically impacted (other than the two now deceased attackers themselves) was neither an organizer or a participant in the event, but rather a contracted third party.

Now, Geller and her ilk as organizers of the event knew what they were doing. While they billed it as a "free speech event" it in fact had a very narrow subject and group of people they sought to provoke. This wasn't some free speech extravaganza free for all where artists were encouraged to take on whatever sacred cow they so choose (religious, secular, political, historical, cultural, etc.). This was a "Draw Mohammed" event that was organized right after the Charlie Hedbo attacks. They knew the type of reaction they might expect, they knew that reaction could endanger the general public, and yet they recklessly choose to do it anyways.

You're absolutely right, though. It isn't even a question. Geller is in no way, shape or form the "victim" here.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
71. You are clinging to some very odd notions...
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:35 AM
May 2015

Among them the idea that her 'motivation' is somehow relevent to the conversation or that she might get your 'victim' approval if she was an equal opportunity hater.

They knew the type of reaction they might expect, they knew that reaction could endanger the general public, and yet they recklessly choose to do it anyways


This sums it up. They exercised their rights completely and legally and you have a problem with that. What else should we not do because violent thugs might 'endanger the general public'?

Abortions? Protests? Short skirts?

Are we just kow towing to the groups who threaten violence?

You so deep in the hypcrisy forest you can't even see it...

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
72. Will you please give it up with the whole "short skirt" analogy? That's a non-starter.
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:49 AM
May 2015

A woman who wears a short skirt doesn't wear a short skirt because she wants to be raped. She wears it because she thinks she looks good in it. No one wants to be raped. The very definition of rape precludes a victim wanting to be raped.

Here, you have a person who intentionally set up a scenario where she either knew or should have known could have ended violently. And perhaps if the danger was only to the willing participants in the contest and the general public was shielded from any harm, fine. But you had an innocent third party injured. You could have had innocent bystanders injured. And for what? So that Pam Geller could gleefully go on Fox News and compare herself to Rosa Parks and claim she's doing it all for the First Amendment.

Ask yourself this: A victim needs to have lost something. What exactly has Pam Geller lost? Nothing. She got exactly the result she set out to get. And she got lots and lots of media attention for her cause.

Please explain to me in what universe that qualifies her as a "victim".

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
73. Just because you don't like her...
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:55 AM
May 2015

Doens't mean that she has to meet some higher and loftier set of standards.

Swap the groups and instead of Geller's group it was the ACLU or NAACP or Code Pink or whatever you want.

They got loud, they said that their opposition was full of liars and miscreants. Really got em riled up and that group of right wing wackadoddles decides to blow up an office or take shots at an event.

The goal of shooting or blowing up a specific person is secondary to the fear and intimidation they are trying to create. They don't want those groups to keep doing what they are doing and believe that using violence this one time will stop them in the future.

It's classic terrorism.

That doesn't mean that the local chapter president of that group who was blown up or shot at has to be physically present and in danger. The primary threat was against their organization as a sign that future speech will result in more violence so shut the hell up.

That's why they are a victim and your obvious hatred of Pam Geller has blinded you to logic and ethics.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
74. Did the ACLU/NAACP/Code Pink/whatever want to see a violent response that placed people in danger?
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:05 AM
May 2015

If so, then they share some responsibility in their actions. Sure. Provide me a real life example of that happening, and if it is analogous to what Geller has done, I'll gladly assign them responsibility.

Trust me, I'm holding Geller to the same standard that I would hold anyone else.

No one individual should place the safety of the general public at risk for their own self-serving goals. No one. Kobayashi Maru, right?

So no. Pam Geller is not the victim. Perhaps she is not responsible to the point of criminal responsibility, but she bears some responsibility and you are pathetic if you are buying her "I'm a victim of Free Speech" spiel.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
75. You keep saying it...
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:10 AM
May 2015

... and I just can't comprehend how an American (or any ethical person) can give up a fundamental right so easily.

No one individual should place the safety of the general public at risk for their own self-serving goals


This is why we can't communicate. I am incapable of understanding that level of fear and acquiescence to violent criminals.

You've just given up and whatever the whackjobs want is what they get because they might do something scary......

It's just so... cowardly.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
76. Do you honestly believe Pam Geller is all about First Amendment?
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:21 AM
May 2015

Do you honestly think that's what's driving her here?

Pam Geller doesn't give a shit about the First Amendment. Not a single shit.

She did not do this for the First Amendment.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
77. You are all over the place...
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:24 AM
May 2015

... and keep bringing this up.

It does not matter what her motivation was.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,129 posts)
78. If she's claiming victimhood status--and guess what, she is--it does motivate her.
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:25 AM
May 2015

Perhaps her actions might not rise to the level of criminal incitement, but they sure as hell eliminate any chance of her playing the victim card here.

 

Oktober

(1,488 posts)
80. Look...
Wed May 6, 2015, 11:27 AM
May 2015

You seem to be stuck in some sort of loop so slap yourself on the back and come back when you have something to say that you haven't already mashed out a few times already.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
29. I think Geller was playing off the response to the Charlie Hebdo incident,
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:48 PM
May 2015

hoping to turn anti-Islamic bigotry into heroism.

Glenn Greenwald addresses the Hebdo incident here (http://www.salon.com/2015/05/05/it%E2%80%99s_pure_authoritarianism_glenn_greenwald_exposes_the_link_between_baltimores_uprising_and_the_nsa/) and I think some of the same sentiment applies to Geller's latest stunt:

You’ve written a lot about the controversy over the PEN “Freedom of Expression Courage Award” being given to Charlie Hebdo, which has inspired a lot of writers to speak out in opposition. Why do you think this story is so important?

It’s actually kind of a complex issue. I think any decent person is torn by the fact that what happened to the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists is obviously vile and repugnant. They are obviously people who were exercising what should be their right of free speech … and they were killed because of it. And that’s a bad and dangerous thing.

On the other hand, the way in which that incident was seized on was designed, I think, to bolster a very tribalistic and dangerous narrative, which is that we in the West are the advanced, progressive, enlightened people and there are these kind of marauding hordes, who are primitive and violent and threatening to all things decent, called “Muslims” or “radical Islam.” And this incident was seized on to bolster that narrative as kind of propagandistically and powerfully as anything that I can recall probably since the 9/11 attack.

So you have a magazine that became known in the Western world, regardless of what the reality is, for publishing images that are very offensive and upsetting to the Muslim minorities in the West, and whose cartoonists were turned into heroes and martyrs … who were victims of Muslim violence. I think the reason why people are so eager to turn them into martyrs and heap all sorts of praise and awards on them is because it does make us Westerners feel good about ourselves; it tells us that we’re the victims and the people who we’ve been bombing and invading and torturing and pillaging for the last 15 years are actually the evil ones.

It fuels this whole war narrative that has been sustaining a lot of really bad policies in ways that are quite propagandistic and manipulative, because of the heavy emotions involved.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
30. They do - there's more room to debate because Geller is such a reprehensible person
Tue May 5, 2015, 03:54 PM
May 2015

At DU I mean.

It's not a complex idea - nobody should be shot up for drawing cartoons or promoting the drawing of cartoons; but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the context or the intent of those cartoons. You can be angry at this stunt, without supporting her event being shot up.

Pretty simple idea; but there are some people invested in not understanding it.

Bryant

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
36. Agree totally.
Tue May 5, 2015, 04:18 PM
May 2015

"Context and intent" cannot be ignored in a situation like this.

The intent of this event was to be deliberately offensive to the religious beliefs of others. It served no other purpose, nor was it meant to.

To hold Geller up as a victim and/or a defender of free speech is ludicrous.

cemaphonic

(4,138 posts)
42. This happened in the US
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:06 PM
May 2015

If she had pulled this stunt in Iran, or ISIS-controlled area (or for that matter even a non-theocratic Muslim majority state like Turkey) then I would agree that she would be in the wrong. Disrespecting your hosts legal and cultural values when traveling is wrong, foolish and uncivilized, even if you don't agree with those values.

But in this case, the shooters were attempting to project their values about blasphemy at the expense of the American cultural and legal traditions about free speech and religious expression, and were doing so violently to boot.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
46. It is not an American tradition to insult and vilify an entire other religion, is it? Free speech
Tue May 5, 2015, 05:32 PM
May 2015

can have a far better saviour than the evil, bigoted, racist Geller.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
51. Actually it IS a new American tradition
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:01 PM
May 2015

to vilify Muslims. And especially a radical, socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, radical Christian, Hawaiian President who JUST HAPPENS to be black.

BlueStater

(7,596 posts)
55. Bears are animals with no control over their behavior
Tue May 5, 2015, 06:30 PM
May 2015

Hyper-sensitive assholes, however, CAN decide not to murder everyone who offends them.

Bad analogy.

 

mariuma

(11 posts)
57. Respectfully disagree
Tue May 5, 2015, 11:17 PM
May 2015

There has been, for many years now, a movement within Islam that threatens everyone (Muslim and not, western and not) with punishment for disobeying the various rules that they derive from their holy book and hadiths.

"Draw a cartoon we dislike, and we'll kill you! Dare to burn our book, dare to write a provocative novel, dare to call for peaceful reform, challenge us in any way - that makes you a blasphemer and worthy of death!"

Who suffers most? Naturally, it's the locals in Muslim-majority lands who live under this mafia code. For them, it means restrictions on their lives and constant danger - danger which falls disproportionally on those people that DUers usually care most about - namely women, gays, free thinkers, poor people, and religious minorities.

Yet even in these dangerous countries, a few brave souls stand up. They risk their lives. Just this year we've seen two liberal activists in Bangladesh get beaten to death. A Saudi who announced that he no longer believed in Islam was sentenced to beheading for apostasy. A Pakistani activist named Sabeen was shot a week ago. An Afghani Muslim scholar named Farkhunda was murdered on a public street after criticizing an imam. (All he had to do was yell, "Kill that woman; I saw her burn the Quran!", and forty random men leaped up to beat her and then set her body on fire.)

Thousands of others die silently every year because of how this violent strain of Islam percolates into the home, and onto the street, and into the hands of common people: women beaten for "disobedience" (domestic violence in Pakistan is 90-plus percent); gays chased and stoned by teens on the street, minorities lynched for Allah.

Millions more do not die, but live circumscribed, frightened lives tiptoeing around and trying to wear the black-enough niqab or the long-enough beard to please whatever authority figure is watching them - neighbor, haia, father, imam, republican guard. It's a coercive, authoritarian system. It has its own benefits, as all authoritarian systems do. They just aren't typically the ones that liberals like us would want to trade our freedom for.

Do all people in Muslim-majority lands live like this? Certainly not. But plenty do, and can we NOT fatuously insist that "that's their culture and they all, every one of them, LOVE it that way"? Some do love it - especially those (males, heteros, self-styled imams, militants, one-percenters) who reap the perks. Some don't. Respecting the thugs on the top, means selling out the victims on the bottom.

When the OP says we should not project our Americo-centric values onto others (it's American obnoxiousness to value equality of women and men, and freedom to be gay, and freedom to criticize religious leaders? what foreigner could possibly want such things imposed on them?? hmm let's think...) - I think he/she makes the mistake of assuming that the most coercive and violent Muslims are spokespeople for all Muslims and deserve to rule in perpetuity. Who does that help?

Here in the US - unlike in most Muslim-majority lands - we are actually incredibly safe to speak up for what we believe in. So I ask the question: should liberals speak up for core beliefs like equality, religious freedom and social justice? Or should we take pains (as OP seems to want) to respect every single religious and cultural belief that exists everywhere in the world - including the huge and powerful and violent ones that are working overtime to stomp down lots of people that fall under their power?

Because it's either A or B; it can't be both.

Unless - last thought! - we combine the two by being really respectful toward the murderous religious people, and continue being openly DISrespectful toward the peaceful ones. Because, umm, that's noble

ps. Hope I made sense... sometimes I have so many thoughts, I have a hard time organizing them into a coherent point. Will be happy to clarify if I didn't.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
63. Comprehension fail
Wed May 6, 2015, 12:36 AM
May 2015

No surprise there. Yes, we're talking about humans with the ability to make rational decisions, but as we've seen, these types of bigoted provocations have the potential to inspire violent reprisals from a small subset of Islamists. It's a known risk that your 1st Amendment Hero, Geller, practically begged to happen.

 

Codeine

(25,586 posts)
64. Having an abortion clinic inspires bombers.
Wed May 6, 2015, 07:49 AM
May 2015

Walking down the street holding the hand of someone the same sex can inspire a beating. Being transgender makes some people want to kill you.

Do we allow the Heckler's Veto to keep us all timid and quiet about these things too? Granted, each of these are more important acts than drawing a cartoon, but that cuts both ways, yes?

I think being told you can't do something that is perfectly legal and harmless for threat of reprisal is sufficient reason to do that thing, over and over as publicly as possible.

 

Yorktown

(2,884 posts)
60. OP summary: why defend universal freedoms? who are we to blame intolerance?
Tue May 5, 2015, 11:45 PM
May 2015

Anything goes, might is right. Talibans want to stop girls from learning? Hooray!

I am fed up with people who want to say democracy, freedom and liberty are universal values.

Because these values were first championed in Europe, they are de facto eurocentric values.

How dare we say female genital mutilation is wrong? It's a cherished tradition in Africa. Hooray!

I can't wait to see our narcissistic democratic values replaced by some medieval superstition.

 

mariuma

(11 posts)
61. truly hoping this is sarcasm...
Tue May 5, 2015, 11:56 PM
May 2015

... and assuming that it is, I love you.

I think I said the same thing a few posts up, except it took me fifty times more words and was way less coherent. (But I'm new here and was trying to be really polite.)

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
67. What projecting on the world? It was in fucking Texas.
Wed May 6, 2015, 09:53 AM
May 2015

As for your bullshit poking the bear analogy bears are animals with no self control. i expect better from human beings.

Really dismayed at the lack of respect for your basic rights too damn many DUers seem to have. If you do not cherish these rights then you can not complain when they are taken away from you.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
68. You're right about the cultural differences but...
Wed May 6, 2015, 10:02 AM
May 2015

...when you come into someone else's country, you don't get to dictate -by force of arms- how that country's citizens behave.

The shootings were not excusable but it is exactly what Geller wanted and the reaction was predictable. She has the right to risk her own life any way she wants but she does not have the right to risk others'. Hopefully, she and her cohorts will become toxic to communities where she wants to encourage people getting hurt.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No, the shootings are in ...