Pamela Geller is nuts

[Anonymous]

For the conservatives who applaud Geller's action to promote Freedom of Speech and fight against those who would try to abridge that freedom, I assume that you likewise applaud homosexuals who openly conduct PDAs and dress and act flamboyantly in public. Because after all, they should fight for their right to Freedom of Speech and expression of themselves in public as American citizens.

For the liberals who believe that Geller and company were unnecessarily provoking the radical Muslims, I guess you believe that homosexuals should avoid PDAs and flamboyant behavior because it unnecessarily provokes conservative or traditional Christians and brings gay bashing upon themselves, right?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:What it is, is a reaction to a provocation...

This “reaction,” as you call it, was intended to kill people.
Speech that is provocative is the VERY speech that needs to be protected. Nice, uncontroversial speech does not need that protection.

Compare this “reaction” on the part of radical Muslims to the reaction by Christians, radical or other, when “Piss Christ” was on exhibit (and endorsed by NEA).
I don’t remember any Christians arming themselves with the intent to kill the artists or the owners of the museum.

I am not a huge fan of Geller and I don’t condone what she did, but I also do not condemn it.
I, myself, believe that hurtful actions should be avoided. As should hurtful words - regardless of the audience.
But, she has every right to sponsor such an event.
I just find it interesting that the outrage on the part of the liberal left has been limited to inflammatory speech against radical Muslims.
I don’t recall the left’s outrage at the inflammatory language and acts against Christians.

[jsteele]

[quote=Anonymous
For the liberals who believe that Geller and company were unnecessarily provoking the radical Muslims, I guess you believe that homosexuals should avoid PDAs and flamboyant behavior because it unnecessarily provokes conservative or traditional Christians and brings gay bashing upon themselves, right?


My issue with Geller is not that she was being provocative, but that the cartoon show was part of her ongoing campaign of hatred toward Islam. As the New York Times wrote in an editorial, the event "was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom" and "to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash." As such, Geller and her event should be treated like any other display of hatred. Gay people kissing or dressing provocative is hardly the same thing.

The NYT editorial is quite good, by the way and worth reading in its entirety:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:At least we have gained some clarity in this thread. A poster writes:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

And Geller's supporters weigh in to say the poster is "spot on" and is "100% correct". So, let's not hear any more of the "we are only concerned about 'radical' Islam" hogwash. Not one Geller supporter jumped into to advise the poster that the issue is freedom of expression, not hatred of Islam.

It is perfectly legal and within your rights to be Islamophobes. But, you are no different than anti-Semites, racists, or any other run of the mill bigot. Wrapping yourselves in the 1st Amendment doesn't change that.

Yet posters have clearly stated they would stand behind the RIGHT of those groups to speak--even when it is hateful and offensive. This isn't about agreeing with Geller. It isn't about Islamaphobia. It is about free speech, an issue most Americans hold quite dear and which sets us apart from many parts of the world. Islam, or the radicalized adherents, are no different than any other group that is the subject of such offensive remarks or actions. The difference--they don't feel compelled to murder because they are offended. We cannot give up such an important right because some groups respond in the extreme.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:At least we have gained some clarity in this thread. A poster writes:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

And Geller's supporters weigh in to say the poster is "spot on" and is "100% correct". So, let's not hear any more of the "we are only concerned about 'radical' Islam" hogwash. Not one Geller supporter jumped into to advise the poster that the issue is freedom of expression, not hatred of Islam.

It is perfectly legal and within your rights to be Islamophobes. But, you are no different than anti-Semites, racists, or any other run of the mill bigot. Wrapping yourselves in the 1st Amendment doesn't change that.

Yet posters have clearly stated they would stand behind the RIGHT of those groups to speak--even when it is hateful and offensive. This isn't about agreeing with Geller. It isn't about Islamaphobia. It is about free speech, an issue most Americans hold quite dear and which sets us apart from many parts of the world. Islam, or the radicalized adherents, are no different than any other group that is the subject of such offensive remarks or actions. The difference--they don't feel compelled to murder because they are offended. We cannot give up such an important right because some groups respond in the extreme.

At best, you completely misread my post. At worst, you are another example of the type of of poster that I am criticizing.

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.

How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"?

There are plenty of Islamophobes wrapping themselves in the 1st Amendment and suggesting that any criticism of them is an attack on freedom of expression. There is nothing wrong with saying, "I detest what you are saying but defend your right to say it." But, a lot of you leaving out the part about detesting and some are going even further and saying they agree with what Geller says. Even you seem to imply that murdering as a reaction to offense in a Muslim trait. Yet, that is not true of the vast majority of Muslims. If someone is being racist or anti-Semitic, do you react by finding fault with Jews or people of color and blaming the entire religion or race for that acts of those individuals?

[Anonymous]

+1

This woman is not fooling anyone. She hates Muslims, and that's that.

[Anonymous]

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.


How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"?

You seem to be branding all the posters who support the 1st Amendment under the same brand of the above poster.


Yes, Geller was deliberately provocative. I have no direct knowledge of her beliefs and never heard of her until this controversy, but yes, she appears to be Islamaphobic. Being hateful and being provocative does not negate free speech. Every day we are faced with deliberately provocative and hateful messages, whether it be political cartoonists, flag burners, Westboro, op-ed pieces, art that defiles the image of Mohammad, Jesus or other religious figures, etc. On this forum alone, on any given day, you will most likely find a dozen or more active threads that are deliberately provocative or hate filled toward one group or another (Republicans, Democrats, Jews, SAHM, WOHMs, etc). Should we hold you in contempt for providing a platform for people to spew their hatred or should we support your right to maintain a forum that allows such provocation and open discussion? I think the problem some of us seem to be having, is that you and some other posters seem to suggest that one group is to be exempt from offense. You can support free speech. You can hate the speech. You can point out or criticize some factions of a group that responds to the speech you disagree with and not be hate-filled yourself. It isn't all or nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.


How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"?

You seem to be branding all the posters who support the 1st Amendment under the same brand of the above poster.


Yes, Geller was deliberately provocative. I have no direct knowledge of her beliefs and never heard of her until this controversy, but yes, she appears to be Islamaphobic. Being hateful and being provocative does not negate free speech. Every day we are faced with deliberately provocative and hateful messages, whether it be political cartoonists, flag burners, Westboro, op-ed pieces, art that defiles the image of Mohammad, Jesus or other religious figures, etc. On this forum alone, on any given day, you will most likely find a dozen or more active threads that are deliberately provocative or hate filled toward one group or another (Republicans, Democrats, Jews, SAHM, WOHMs, etc). Should we hold you in contempt for providing a platform for people to spew their hatred or should we support your right to maintain a forum that allows such provocation and open discussion? I think the problem some of us seem to be having, is that you and some other posters seem to suggest that one group is to be exempt from offense. You can support free speech. You can hate the speech. You can point out or criticize some factions of a group that responds to the speech you disagree with and not be hate-filled yourself. It isn't all or nothing.

So.., are you saying the rest of us do not support the first amendment, merely because we think her event was provocation?

[Anonymous]

Heller will be like Cliven Bundy. Your hero until she gets enough air time.

This is a woman who led a campaign to stop an Arabic-English school in Brooklyn. Not exactly the actions of a defender of the first amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.


How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"?

You seem to be branding all the posters who support the 1st Amendment under the same brand of the above poster.


Yes, Geller was deliberately provocative. I have no direct knowledge of her beliefs and never heard of her until this controversy, but yes, she appears to be Islamaphobic. Being hateful and being provocative does not negate free speech. Every day we are faced with deliberately provocative and hateful messages, whether it be political cartoonists, flag burners, Westboro, op-ed pieces, art that defiles the image of Mohammad, Jesus or other religious figures, etc. On this forum alone, on any given day, you will most likely find a dozen or more active threads that are deliberately provocative or hate filled toward one group or another (Republicans, Democrats, Jews, SAHM, WOHMs, etc). Should we hold you in contempt for providing a platform for people to spew their hatred or should we support your right to maintain a forum that allows such provocation and open discussion? I think the problem some of us seem to be having, is that you and some other posters seem to suggest that one group is to be exempt from offense. You can support free speech. You can hate the speech. You can point out or criticize some factions of a group that responds to the speech you disagree with and not be hate-filled yourself. It isn't all or nothing.

So.., are you saying the rest of us do not support the first amendment, merely because we think her event was provocation?

That was neither stated nor implied. The distinction drawn was that supporting free speech in this instance (no matter how hate filled) does not make one Islamaphobic.

Similarly, you can hate the actions of Westboro. You can support their right to spew their hatred without yourself supporting that hatred. You can point out their perversion of Christianity without yourself being anti-Christian or Christian-phobic. This logic follows both for Geller and other offensive, provocative or hateful people or groups, but we must hold the 1st amendment protection for them and not just for those with whom we agree. If we do not it weakens the protection for all of us. This isn't something many of us are willing to do, even if it means we have to be offended, disgusted, or angered from time to time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.


How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"?

You seem to be branding all the posters who support the 1st Amendment under the same brand of the above poster.


Yes, Geller was deliberately provocative. I have no direct knowledge of her beliefs and never heard of her until this controversy, but yes, she appears to be Islamaphobic. Being hateful and being provocative does not negate free speech. Every day we are faced with deliberately provocative and hateful messages, whether it be political cartoonists, flag burners, Westboro, op-ed pieces, art that defiles the image of Mohammad, Jesus or other religious figures, etc. On this forum alone, on any given day, you will most likely find a dozen or more active threads that are deliberately provocative or hate filled toward one group or another (Republicans, Democrats, Jews, SAHM, WOHMs, etc). Should we hold you in contempt for providing a platform for people to spew their hatred or should we support your right to maintain a forum that allows such provocation and open discussion? I think the problem some of us seem to be having, is that you and some other posters seem to suggest that one group is to be exempt from offense. You can support free speech. You can hate the speech. You can point out or criticize some factions of a group that responds to the speech you disagree with and not be hate-filled yourself. It isn't all or nothing.

So.., are you saying the rest of us do not support the first amendment, merely because we think her event was provocation?

That was neither stated nor implied. The distinction drawn was that supporting free speech in this instance (no matter how hate filled) does not make one Islamaphobic.

Similarly, you can hate the actions of Westboro. You can support their right to spew their hatred without yourself supporting that hatred. You can point out their perversion of Christianity without yourself being anti-Christian or Christian-phobic. This logic follows both for Geller and other offensive, provocative or hateful people or groups, but we must hold the 1st amendment protection for them and not just for those with whom we agree. If we do not it weakens the protection for all of us. This isn't something many of us are willing to do, even if it means we have to be offended, disgusted, or angered from time to time.

I believe the islamophobe comment was specific to a certain post disparaging Islam. If you are so thoughtful, you could read the comment and give your opinion as to whether it is islamophobic can or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice that I quoted this remark from another poster in this thread:

Islam kills gay men daily. Islam subjugates women daily. Judaism and Christianity embrace morals and values on which modern society is based.


How can you read such a remark and say, this "isn't about Islamaphobia"?

You seem to be branding all the posters who support the 1st Amendment under the same brand of the above poster.


Yes, Geller was deliberately provocative. I have no direct knowledge of her beliefs and never heard of her until this controversy, but yes, she appears to be Islamaphobic. Being hateful and being provocative does not negate free speech. Every day we are faced with deliberately provocative and hateful messages, whether it be political cartoonists, flag burners, Westboro, op-ed pieces, art that defiles the image of Mohammad, Jesus or other religious figures, etc. On this forum alone, on any given day, you will most likely find a dozen or more active threads that are deliberately provocative or hate filled toward one group or another (Republicans, Democrats, Jews, SAHM, WOHMs, etc). Should we hold you in contempt for providing a platform for people to spew their hatred or should we support your right to maintain a forum that allows such provocation and open discussion? I think the problem some of us seem to be having, is that you and some other posters seem to suggest that one group is to be exempt from offense. You can support free speech. You can hate the speech. You can point out or criticize some factions of a group that responds to the speech you disagree with and not be hate-filled yourself. It isn't all or nothing.

So.., are you saying the rest of us do not support the first amendment, merely because we think her event was provocation?

That was neither stated nor implied. The distinction drawn was that supporting free speech in this instance (no matter how hate filled) does not make one Islamaphobic.

Similarly, you can hate the actions of Westboro. You can support their right to spew their hatred without yourself supporting that hatred. You can point out their perversion of Christianity without yourself being anti-Christian or Christian-phobic. This logic follows both for Geller and other offensive, provocative or hateful people or groups, but we must hold the 1st amendment protection for them and not just for those with whom we agree. If we do not it weakens the protection for all of us. This isn't something many of us are willing to do, even if it means we have to be offended, disgusted, or angered from time to time.

I believe the islamophobe comment was specific to a certain post disparaging Islam. If you are so thoughtful, you could read the comment and give your opinion as to whether it is islamophobic can or not.

Of course, it was hate filled, but the response painted all who support free speech in this instance with the same Islamophobic brush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is extremely brave.

She also correct.

There is a drawing on the net of all of the major deities of the world's religions having a very graphic orgy. (Mohammed is not included.)

No one has been killed or threatened over this drawing.

Christians may find things like this offensive, but know it is free speech.

. She is not brave she is stupid.

And she is not correct she is wrong.

She is also unbelievably ignorant and I'm afraid for outspoken antics are going to get her in a tremendous amount of trouble

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1

This woman is not fooling anyone. She hates Muslims, and that's that.

+2.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Radical Muslims are murdering Christians, raping children, forcing women to be sex slaves and this is what has people's panties in a bunch.Really?

If your problem is with "radical" Muslims, why do you support insulting all -- or at least the great majority -- of Muslims? I am sure that you don't think other religions should be judged by their most radical members, so why treat Islam that way? Wouldn't you want to encourage a more targeted strategy that didn't actually alienate more Muslims?

I was very specific to indict radical Islam and not Islam as a whole. The potential for offense is a consequence of free speech--whether that offense is taken by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Women, Men, Blacks, Whites, Asians, Europeans, etc. Millions of people are "offended" by satire and by direct and indirect acts every day. Millions of people do not expect the world to bow to their narrow world view. I am not defending the actions of Gellar. I am defending her right to act, just as I defend the rights of other offensive groups and people to act. I simply pointed out the misplaced, in my opinion, angst over a cartoon contest in light of horrible atrocities--murders, rape, sexual slavery. Radical Muslims--or even Muslims--are not the only people who are subject to offense in this world. The difference, most of us don't murder in response.

Geller's right to act is not in dispute. You seem to believe that an act -- for instance, criticism of Geller instead of criticism of radical Muslims -- can be legal but "misplaced". Can you not conceive that the same might be true of Geller? While her actions are indisputably legal, they are insulting in a way that is not deserving of praise and support. If Geller had hosted an anti-Semitic display of some sort, she would be shunned by polite society. Polite society might well support her right to be anti-Semitic (as happened when the Nazis wanted to march through Skokie), but she would be shunned just the same. I assume that you, for instance, would not respond by criticizing critics of anti-Semetism and suggesting they should focus on the worst actions committed by other members of the group being offended. While criticism of Geller may well be misplaced, it is far less misplaced then her actions.

You always go to the Jews. Why is that?