Can you quote the post where he “seems to be” doing this? Because, it’s quite a leap from “taking offense” to “murderous psychopath”.
Monty didn’t use the term “murderous rage”. But comparing “vehemence” (which is the work he did use) with “murderous rage” isn’t very useful in this context since the subject is actual “murderous rage”.
And no, you don’t get to use the term “murderous rage” unless you are actually referring to rage that rises to the level of murder in a thread about rage that actually did rise to the level of murder.
Whatever. Standup often gets a free pass, because there’s no evidence that a specific thing got said (and also because the folks that read the newspaper don’t have to encounter it, unlike political cartoons of the Herblock type). Show me something in print, a cartoon that actually showed up in a newspaper in the Muslim world. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I bet it only exists in a few places, and on a very limited scale. Mocking Islam gets you killed, most places, especially in the Muslim world.
Nah. No death, only this minor inconvenience.
Salman Rushdie made a very interesting point on Bill Maher this weekend – the fundamentalist part of Islam didn’t just happen – it was a conscious effort on the part of governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others, to gain power in the Islamic world. These governments (and others) spent billions on supporting extremist Imams around the world and suppressing moderate Muslim teachings – not for religious reasons, but as a power play. Not only did they want to dominate the Islamic world, but they wanted to create the opportunity to blame all their problems on the west, or on moderate Muslims, or on the ‘infidels’, or the Jews.
Islam, everyone!
Seeing as I don’t read Arabic or Farsi (or Indonesian), and you’re asking me for something printed over there, I can’t provide. Yet you assure me it doesn’t happen or exist, anywhere, despite yourself, assumedly, not reading those languages (or having bothered with the most cursory of searches).
OK, then. That seems intellectually honest and settles it !
(oh, and as for standup getting a free pass, I’m sure Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor would have been happy to know about that…)
I just came acrossthis news story with embedded video last night. Apparently, the ‘Anonymous collective’ has ‘formally’ declared (digital) war upon terrorism/terrorists. Pretty straight forward video made by Anonymous that says they will take down, ruin, kill-off anything they can related to terrorism. Video is in French, I think, but its a clear statement from Anonymous. This Hebdo attack was the straw that broke Anonymous’ back, so to speak, it seems. I have to admit that I am glad that Anon is making such a commitment, but at what consequence to others involved w/ fight against terrorism that monitor commo through the digital pathways for tidbits that make up a larger part of puzzle of finding/catching their ‘targets’.
I might start a thread about their statement and how it might interferee with ongoing monitoring from other nations and such. But Al-Qaeda et al now has ~thousands of folks knowledgable at ruining their networks and ability to confer across websites/e-mails, etc, focussed squarely on them (and anyone associated with terrorism stuff). Should be interesting to see how it plays out…
Is that what he said? And note that al-Qaeda is both Islamist (ie, fundamental) and rabidly opposed to the governments in the region. I think there is more than one origin of the Islamist philosophy.
Looooooove Bill Maher’s show, btw, and this last one was top notch. Once in while his show will fall flat, but it’s sure nice to have him back again.
Whenever you read “Anonymous”, what it really means is “Some guy on the internet”. Anonymous is not an organisation, it is anyone who has heard of 4Chan and decides to use that pseudonym. There could be hundreds of people involved - and censorship through murder is the kind of thing that I’d expect to grab the attention of a lot of those guys - but it could also be just one.
It’s from my memory (I watched it this morning) and paraphrasing, so I may have missed something.
I love his show too, though I disagree with Bill a good amount and sometimes he’s just an ass, IMO.
+1.
Criticizing a set of ideas is entirely different from criticizing a person or a group of people.
Islam (like Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) is a set of ideas, and is open to criticism and, yes, mockery as much as any other.
I don’t get your distinction between ‘rational’ and ‘nonrational’ criticism. To me, this seems a reasonable reading of the Old and New Testaments, whether or not it’s true, and one with ancient historical roots. I know quite well that the Old Testament is not ‘all Judaism is’, but the portrait of God in the Old Testament is quite clearly more ‘nasty’ than the one in the New. It’s perfectly legitimate for Christians (or for that matter atheists) to criticize the Old Testament (or any other non-Christian religious text), just as it’s legitimate for Jews to criticize the New Testament, or the Koran, or the holy texts of Hinduism. Of course Christians are going to think Christianity is superior to Judaism (and to Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, etc.): that’s why they’re Christians.
On the other hand, I don’t have any opinion about whether Judaism should ordain women: it’s not my business, because it’s not my religion.
Well, the governments in the region like SA and Iran certainly have been instrumental in proliferating fundamentalism, so it’s an important point even if there are other sources of it.
He can be pretty edgy, for sure, and walks the fine line between “funny” and “being an ass”. Not surprising he might fall on the wrong side from time to time. I don’t always agree with him either, but I do like the diversity of opinion he brings to his show. He’s a liberal who loves inviting conservatives, and one has to give a certain amount of credit to some of the conservatives who show up there. Not Carly Fiorina, though-- she’s more of a media whore than anything else. 
There’s a lot you don’t get, you little sexist oink oink. Your views on women are right up there with anything the fucking Saudis and Haredim believe.
It’s your job to prove its existence. You can’t just claim something exists, with zero evidence, and expect unquestioning belief. That would be a religion, and I’m not religious.
Do you have any actual examples from the past 50 years of this so-called murderous rage on par with the murderous rage of the Hebdo terrorists?
Or were you just hyperbolizing as you scour the liberal scrapheaps for another false equivalency?
Did I misread it? :dubious:
Errr, you’re the one asserting the thing does no exist, a priori and without a shred of evidence, and this despite having already been provided contrary examples. Which prompted you to quickly skedaddle away, goalposts in hand, I might add.
So no, it’s not my job to prove the existence of a thing that exists in every single human culture. You’re making the extraordinary claim, you fucking defend it.
You linked to a very funny comedian (I love his work, I’ve seen him do a couple of those jokes before) who was mocking Iranian culture. He said not one word about Islam, even indirectly. Conflating Islam and Iranian culture is like conflating Christianity and Russian culture. Persian culture is thousands of years older than Islam, and they were Zoroastrians for a LOT longer than they have been Muslims.
Did you even watch your own link? Seriously, I’m asking.