This is why it’s impossible to talk to you people. What else is “freedom of expression” besides forcibly censoring the expression of others? The government putting people in jail? Shooting up events you don’t like?
Use words honestly and people won’t constantly suspect you of subterfuge.
Irony!
Still working on coming up with one thing about Islam you’re willing to criticize? I’ll accept “the two guys who tried to go on a murder spree yesterday.” This is Celebrity Jeopardy level easy. Grab the brass ring.
Because Eltahawy actually has a broader interpretation of what counts as “freedom of expression” than you, oh Mighty Warrior of Free Speech, do?
Don’t shoot!
Because she has an objectively incorrect interpretation that extends to straightforward censorship. It throws into question the entire petition above and everything you claim to believe. How do I know that when you say you’re against murder you don’t mean “I’m against murder except on Tuesdays” or “I’m against murder except when people draw cartoons of my favorite pedophile” or even “I have potato chips on my shopping list?” If you’re going to use words to mean literally the exact opposite of what they mean, no one can even distrust you, let alone trust you, because you’re just pounding out gibberish on a keyboard rather than communicating.
Dhimmi media literally blames victim for the deaths.
In other words, you’re claiming that there aren’t any “men’s rights” types who actually believe that nobody deserves to be raped.
If that’s true, all it says is that “men’s rights” types are kinda shit. It doesn’t imply anything about the beliefs held by other people on other subjects.
Oh, you mean like Muslims blew up the Poteru River bridge in Odisha about a year and a half ago?
Oh wait, it wasn’t Muslims who blew up that bridge: it was communist Naxalite terrorists.
You must mean like Muslims blew up the Hassanabad bridge in Pakistan last January.
Oh wait, Muslims didn’t blow up that bridge: what they did was repair it.
Gosh, when you look at actual events in the real world, it almost seems as though not all terrorists are Muslims and not all Muslims are terrorists!
[QUOTE=Haberdash]
It’s not plausible for the immediate response to every attack to be a list of the sins of the victim, and for the reason to be anything but making it obvious that the lister believes the victim deserved it.
[/QUOTE]
You think so because you’ve made up your mind that nobody can criticize Islamophobes without also believing that Islamophobes deserve to be attacked by terrorists.
But, like almost everything else you post here, that position reflects much more about your own bigoted imagination than about actual reality.
As usual, you post the linked URL instead of quoting any of the actual statements, in the hope that we’ll just take your word about what it says.
No, describing the outcome of an event as “fatal” does not automatically imply that the person referred to is being blamed or held responsible for the fatality.
Similarly, for example, referring to somebody killed in a “fatal accident” does not necessarily imply any assignment of blame. “Fatal” just means “resulting in a fatality”: it doesn’t specify responsibility for the fatality.
Facts 1, Haberdash 0, as usual.
I see your understanding of what “objectively” means is just as lacking as your reading comprehension ability, your creativity, and your sense of humor.
You might consider taking your own advice. Just sayin’.
Don’t shoot!
If it’s your contention that “forcibly destroying speech you don’t like” is an allowable meaning of “freedom of expression” then you have given everyone ample reason to doubt everything you have said about opposing censorship, murder, etc.
Except, the car wreck does kill someone. The cartoon contest killed no one. The dead were killed by police, justifiably, because they were about to commit mass murder. The physical responsibility lies with the bullets and the moral responsibility with the two dead people; the cartoons don’t enter into what was “fatal.”
In Salon’s world, all that happened was an “Islamophobe” caused people to die, and the intermediate steps are irrelevant. It’s funny how the people who claim to respect Muslims don’t give them any free will – if you do something Muslims don’t like and either Muslims or victims of Muslims die as a result, it’s as mechanistically inevitable as the physics of driving your car into another at 60 mph.
Aaaand Haberdash thankfully sprints for the distant escape hatch that he imagines will allow him to get away with ignoring the facts and sound reasoning that A’isha’s been using to take apart his flimsy arguments.
For a purported admirer of freedom of speech, Haberdash does an extremely poor job of honestly engaging with any speech he doesn’t happen to like.
Free speech doesn’t require honesty and isn’t a particularly meaningful concept at the personal level. It’s an issue for governments and those who run them (that is, us), but it’s not something that an individual can really be accused of violating.
“Censoring speech is part of freedom of expression” is neither a fact nor sound reasoning. It’s pure Muslim doubletalk designed to let people say they “oppose violence” or “support free speech” while being understood among other Muslims/dhimmis to mean “except when there’s a good reason, like someone drew a cartoon or ate a ham sandwich.”
Incidents involving the police shooting criminals are described by the press as “fatal” all the time.
Is there anything you don’t fail at, Haberdash? Other than being a brain-dead bigot, I mean.
Don’t shoot!
Yes, being shot dead by a policeman, justifiably or not, is fatal. The cartoon contest was not fatal. That is my point – Salon assigns responsibility to Pam Geller for the murders, which is the exact victim-blaming and fact-eliding I predicted.
“Spraypainting just one of many identical public ads as an act of protest” =/= “censorship”.
Just like protesting the showing of a movie isn’t censorship, or calling you out on your bullshit isn’t censorship.
Can you not even read your own statements correctly? “Fatal” simply means “resulted in a fatality”. It does not imply anything about who or what is actually being held responsible for the fatality.
[QUOTE=Haberdash]
In Salon’s world, all that happened was an “Islamophobe” caused people to die
[/quote]
Neither the quoted tweet nor anything else you’ve offered up from your so-called “dhimmi media” actually accuses Gellar of “causing people to die”. Nobody has said she is to blame for the terrorist attack or that she or any other of the participants in the event deserved to be attacked by terrorists.
Except that nobody has actually stated or implied any such thing. You’re back to punching that saggy battered strawman of yours.
Don’t shoot!
Yes, it is. The use of law or force to prevent the free exercise of speech by another is censorship.
The examples in this thread were not mere protests of the showing, they were demands for censorship, i.e. they sought to have government institutions order the screening cancelled. That some of them failed is irrelevant to what they were trying to accomplish; the ones that succeeded were censorious.
How do I know that you don’t define “calling you out on your bullshit” to include murdering me?