And that’s because none of the people Breivik killed were participating in hate speech. Which makes them distinctly different from the staff at Charlie Hebdo. Neither of which changes the essential and incontrovertible fact that not a single person in this thread, at any point, has argued that Charlie Hebdo should not have been allowed to publish their cartoons. That’s because, much like the ACLU that you are pretending to support, we realize that it’s possible to support someone’s freedom of speech without endorsing the content of that speech.
Ah, so he’s gauche. Gotcha. Charlie Hebdo was the soul of propriety. I recall lifted pinkies at teatime.
Would you think it bigoted if your fellow Islamophobes did so?
Well, one reason is that there are fewer Muslims in Western countries with microphones; Muslims in Western countries tend to be poor. One reason is that Muslims speakers are often religious leaders, since it is, y’know, a religion–and while we’re talking hypothetically about murders of Muslim speakers, attacks on Muslims by Islamophobes, including arson, hate speech, and threats with guns. And one reason is that we don’t need to talk hypothetically about the murder of a Muslim by an Islamophobe in France. Maybe the fact that he was a regular dude minding his own business, and not an activist, is important to you. I don’t think it matters to his family.
But if you’re cleverly getting at the fact that yeah, there’s a death-cult comprising Muslims who are fucking insane and want to kill people who draw Mohammad, just like there’s a death-cult of Christians who are insane and want to kill gay people and abortion providers, you’re correct. I don’t think you’d get any argument at all if you say that members of this death-cult are Bad Guys.
What makes you look like an idiot is your inability to distinguish between members of the death cult and Muslims at large.
Could you please use regular English for your responses instead of your patented Haberdash SneakyObliqueSpeak? I wasn’t asking you whether the ACLU supports racists’ right to free speech.
What I was asking you was whether you would indeed support a #JeSuisHymieHater or #JeSuisWhiteDominion campaign to honor the courage of an anti-Semite or KKK supporter murdered for their opinions, “the same way” that you’re demanding that everybody must support #JeSuisCharlie (or else be labeled an “Islam-apologist murder-justifier”).
Why would you think there is an equivalence between advocating a holocaust and publishing a cartoon of Mohammad? Blasphemy isn’t racism, no matter how many times you say it is.
Hate crimes happen, unfortunately. “You deserve to die for hurting my feelings,” not so much, in the West. I can’t speak for Hindus in India. They don’t seem particularly rational or peaceful either. There’s already one poster here who sees every dissent from Islam as part of the Hindutva conspiracy, and might even learn to spell “Hindutva” at some point. We don’t need two.
So, contrary to what you claimed a few posts back, you would not in fact “be thinking the same way if Jews murdered an anti-Semite, or blacks murdered a KKK member”. Well, thanks for clearing that up for us.
And shot ten times more. And did it because he considered his targets to be too pro-Muslim.
Of course not. That was entirely the purview of your fellow Islamophobes who supported Breivik and his Islamophobic influences (including, again, your free speech hero Pamela Geller).
And, as Miller pointed out, none of them were engaged in any form of hate speech. Most, in fact, were children.
The Rohingya (whose encroaching genocide at the hands of extremist Buddhists is applauded by…guess who, your free speech hero Pamela Geller. Hmmm, I’m sensing a pattern here) say hi. As do all the people mentioned by Kimstu and Left Hand of Dorkness.
“You deserve to die for hurting my feelings” is a major theme of American discourse, although it’s more commonly phrased as “It’s about ethics in games journalism.” You’re right that actual murder for hurt feelings doesn’t generally happen on a political, public level; that’s reserved for murdering government daycare workers out of insane conspiracy theories, or murdering people at the Holocaust Museum, or murdering random schmoes in the next door apartment, or murdering women for not having sex with the killer.
Yes, there’s a death cult who practices Islam. Yes, this death cult has different features from the death cults who practice Christianity and Judaism and other religions. And yes, it’s been better financed and more effective at obtaining the world stage in recent decades than Christian death cults.
But you’re an idiot for conflating the death cult with Islam as a whole.
You’re the one who made up this “obligated to spread a hashtag” nonsense. I never asserted any such thing.
The matter of the content of the speech is a little different. I would expect the substance of a person’s anti-Semitic remarks to be accurately reprinted, if we are to believe that they were murdered for being an anti-Semite. That news organizations refused to reproduce the CH cartoons out of cowardice or deference to Sharia was, in my opinion, a double standard. Whether you approve of them or not, they were news.
I certainly never claimed that any random individual is “obligated” to publish them, though. You are doing a good job of arguing against hypothetical people. Well, not so good actually.
I don’t think people who go out looking for members of other religions to beat up consider themselves “civil rights activists.” That’s the key difference you’re ignoring – only Muslim violence is considered the progressive, justified act of a victim. Other types are rightly viewed as inexcusable.
Are there any other Bad People you’d like to baselessly try to associate non-Muslims with? Given that the Gamergate idiots seem to be motivated by a pathological hatred of women for daring to exist and speak as women, they actually have a lot more in common with Muslims than Islamophobes.
Those people were probably Mossad agents plotting to drink Palestinian blood though, right?
You’ve lost your point and have descended into “how can you care about Muslims killing people when there are Other Bad Things! You have to solve all the problems before pointing out any of them, or you’re a hypocrite!” In other words, well-trod territory for this thread.
This remains as much of a lie designed to smear murder victims as it was when Teju Cole first wrote it as he was watching the murderers hold shoppers hostage on TV.
Interesting that you pick anti-Muslim incidents – Sweden has a problem with anti-Jewish violence, committed mostly by Muslims of course. Even though there are 20 times as many Muslims as Jews in Sweden, there are more hate crimes directed against Jews.
All of these is basically only an interesting bit of trivia as far as the topic of “being killed for writing the wrong thing” is concerned. Hate crimes in general are not that category any more than violence in general is.
Except that nobody is considering these acts of terrorist-extremist Muslim violence to be “the progressive, justified act of a victim”. You have to get to work with your Haberdash Super-Seekrit Liberal Code decoder ring to pretend that any “progressive” person has said any such thing.
Yup, true-believer Judaism sure does believe some absurd, oppressive things. Why can I say that and not say the same thing about Islam?
Given that she survived an assassination attempt for her speech (by…was it Jews? oh wait, Muslims. How about that) less than a month ago, I think that’s an apt description. Pamela Geller believes many things that I don’t, including that the U.S. wars against Muslim countries are good and that immigration should be curtailed. But unlike the Muslims and lefties in this thread, I don’t consider “does this person agree with me” before addressing “does this person have human rights.”
Must be one of those “WE’RE allowed to say it, but YOU’RE not” things.
Oh, and I don’t really think that “someone posted a link to Pamela Geller on a white supremacist message board” means that they are “closely allied” with her. I would not expect Geller, a Jew, to be allied with neo-Nazis, nor they to tolerate her. In fact, I recall reading this theory that the Jews are the ones really pulling the strings of the Nazi movement before…seems to be very popular among Muslims, in fact. Weird.
