Still waiting for you to provide an actual cite for your assertion that any progressive, Muslim or otherwise, said that the Charlie Hebdo murders were justifiable or excusable.
No, attempts to twist generic pronouncements along the lines of “it’s not very nice to say mean things about other people’s religion” into something that your frenzied imagination can interpret as an actual justification or excuse for the murders doesn’t count as a cite.
Yeah, just like you went!
You did go, didn’t you, Haberdash?
If you aren’t able to comprehend the meaning of pointing at the still-cooling bodies and chiding them for “punching down” then you need to repeat the fourth grade.
Whee, more moving goalposts!! Once it’s pointed out to you that PEN Canada’s award to Badawi doesn’t actually imply any “falsehood” or hypocrisy in Cole’s suggesting that PEN American Center should also give a different award to Badawi, you switch to the irrelevant complaint that Cole didn’t attend the PEN Canada awards ceremony in Toronto.
Nope, sorry. Nothing about the PEN Canada award to Badawi in any way invalidates or falsifies Cole’s statement that he thinks Badawi would be a good candidate for the PEN American Center award.
Man, those bodies are really taking a while to cool. I gotta wonder what they fed them at Charlie’s.
If the only thing between me holding a picture of Muhammad and a Muslim with a gun was Teju Cole choosing to unlock a door, I would be very concerned.
Yes, you were very fast to answer a question nobody had actually asked!
That’s a dishonest evasion to try to conceal the fact that you can’t actually find a cite supporting the assertion you made.
Here’s what the 7 January “punching down” article that you seem to be quoting actually said, which is the exact opposite of what you’re trying to insinuate it said:
You may not like the fact that somebody criticized the work and attitude of a group of people who were so recently brutally and heinously murdered. And you don’t have to like it.
But you don’t get to pretend that such criticism constitutes any kind of attempt at actual justification or excuse for the murders, when right there in the article it explicitly condemns the murders.
So… still waiting for you to provide an actual cite for your assertion that any progressive, Muslim or otherwise, said that the Charlie Hebdo murders were justifiable or excusable.
And where do the “we support free speech, but” wafflers stand on the continued, all-fronts assault on free speech by Muslims who wish to use the power of the government rather than machine guns, for now, to accomplish their goals? Oh look, not supporting free speech. Shocking.
And by this, you mean PEN Canada, who gave an award to Raif Badawi, correct?
Sure, let’s talk about this instead of your repeated cite failure, which I can readily understand is an embarrassing topic for you. Exactly what “stand” on the part of exactly what “wafflers” are you complaining about now?
Documented specifications and clear allegations concerning the particular incident(s) you’re upset about, please. You know how unreliable you get when you’re allowed to carry on yelling at clouds about the unspecified Very Bad Things that you believe unspecified “Muslims” and their unspecified “enablers” are doing.
I’ve filled this thread with links to dozens of examples, as opposed to just spinning around yelling “Islamophobe” like a magic word. Address them at your leisure – just today I showed you that Muslims in Congress want to ban “Islamophobes” from entering the U.S. and the American chapter of Hamas – oh oops, there I go again, I mean the “Council on American-Islamic Relations” – is lobbying for colleges to ban anti-Muslim speech.
Yes, I saw your links in some of today’s earlier posts. Exactly what is it that you want us to “address” about them? Are you asking for our personal opinions concerning them? Claiming that some as-yet unspecified “wafflers” are taking some as-yet unspecified “stand” on them? Inferring something from them about some as-yet unspecified larger political, social or cultural phenomena? What?
Please identify specifically what it is that you’re asking us to “address”. Remember, vague generalizations and incoherent ranting don’t actually make speech any more “free”, except in the stylistic sense.
Nicely phrased.
Haberdash’ rhetoric on this subject is to dialectic as free verse is to meter.
I almost wish I had started a thread condemning France’s immoral crackdown on free speech.
You see, a free-speech fundamentalist doesn’t get to choose which speech to defend and which to allow to be censored. The writers who bailed are cowards; afraid to betray political correctness in the name of a higher calling.
Where has Teju Cole or any of the other writers who declined to attend this award ceremony said that Charlie Hebdo should be censored? Are you genuinely too dumb to understand the difference between “Shouldn’t be awarded for saying something,” and “Shouldn’t be allowed to say something?”
Never mind. I just answered my own question.
Frankly, I find the term “free speech fundamentalist” to be a ridiculous smear. If you’re not a strict supporter of free speech then you don’t support anything; everyone supports the right to say things that don’t need protecting. It’s an attempt to paint the chin-stroking “non-fundamentalist” as the only rational person in the room, beset by the religious and the “free speech” fundamentalists on all sides as he offers his wise solution to censor unpopular speech just some of the time.
The fact that there are multiple incidents every day of Muslims censoring or attempting to censor any speech they don’t like.
The fact that the people doing this censoring are not the “radical fringe” but the mainstream voices of Islam in the United States, frequently held up as the spokesmen for the average Muslim – two members of the U.S. Congress, and CAIR, which, despite being the American chapter of Hamas, is for whatever reason the go-to quote source on Muslim issues for the mainstream media.
The fact that 100% of the links to actual news in this thread have come from me and support my position, whereas all you have is the tautology that “people who dislike Islam dislike Islam” repeated in a more frequent and shrill manner.
Very true, but irrelevant in this case. Because, as you seem mysteriously unable to comprehend, not supporting an award for a particular instance of speech is NOT the same thing as allowing that speech to be censored.
Nobody is censoring Charlie Hebdo or interfering with its publication. No well-known writers or writers’ organizations or any other progressives are calling for it to be censored or suppressed, or saying that it would be okay to censor or suppress it.
Objecting to a writers’ organization bestowing a free-speech award on Charlie Hebdo is not in any way equivalent to allowing it to be censored. I really don’t know how to explain this to you any more plainly: it shouldn’t be so hard for you to understand.
And while we’re on the subject of Dieudonne and Haberdash’s ongoing campaign of error:
Haberdash apparently believes that the French antisemitic comedian and provocateur Dieudonne M’bala M’bala counts as “one thing about Islam”.
In fact, AFAICT Dieudonne is not and never has been Muslim (his mother is a white French native who subscribed to “New Age Buddhist” beliefs and his father was an immigrant from Cameroon, whose population is about 70% Christian). He was educated in French Catholic schools and his children are baptized Catholics (one of whom has French National Front far-righter Jean-Marie Le Pen for a godfather, in fact; noted conservative “traditionalist” Catholic bishops Richard Williamson and Philippe Laguerie presided over two of the baptisms).
Moreover, Dieudonne’s antisemitism is closely connected not to radical Islamism but to the traditional French hard-right such as the National Front, who are staunchly anti-Muslim as well as antisemitic.
So while it would be reasonable to describe Dieudonne as “one thing about hardline French conservatism” or possibly “one thing about reactionary traditionalist French Catholicism”, it doesn’t really make sense in any respect to call him “one thing about Islam”.
Dude. Did you miss the part where Teju Cole calls himself a “free speech fundamentalist”??
That’s how that term cropped up in this thread in the first place, and neither Cole nor anybody in this thread has been using it as a term of disparagement in any way.
[QUOTE=Haberdash]
It’s an attempt to paint the chin-stroking “non-fundamentalist” as the only rational person in the room, beset by the religious and the “free speech” fundamentalists on all sides as he offers his wise solution to censor unpopular speech just some of the time.
[/QUOTE]
And the Haberdash campaign of error rages on unchecked, as he continues to get all butthurt over something that nobody actually said. :rolleyes: