Pamela Geller is nuts

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why don't you address the issues that I raise instead of attempting to deflect the conversation? I mentioned anti-Semitism, not "Jews". It, like Islamaphobia, is a common type of bigotry that I abhor. Will you join me in condemning anyone who engages in anti-Semitic and/or anti-Islamic activities?

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it was to kill people or not, the point I was trying to make was that it was a reaction a provocation. I have already said that Muslims should ignore these provocations, and in fact the Majority of Muslims do, and in this particular case, the majority of Muslims in Texas where the event was being held completely ignored it. They had less than 100 people there and most of them were not from the area. Yes. people have the right to be racists & bigots and I have the right to call them racists & bigots. Geller is a hate monger by all standards and we shouldn't dignify her hate speech by responding to it. Both Geller and ISIS Hatred breeds more hatred and seem to subscribe to the same view, that you cannot be a practicing Muslim AND a patriotic law abiding American and we have seen the backlash that can come from those like Geller and her cronies. We have seen a rise in hate crimes against Muslims across the country. We know of terrorists, including Andre Breivik in Norway who cited Geller in his manifesto, then went on to kill 77 people, many of whom were children. Geller defended Breivik’s actions by saying "the youth camp Breivik targeted was an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center" and the victims would have grown up to become: future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole." So don't tell me about killing people, free speech or people's reaction. Again, Pamela Geller has EVERY RIGHT to be a bigot and a racist, and we have every right to call her a bigot and a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

No. Because gays have a motive for the pda that I can respect Its called love.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why don't you address the issues that I raise instead of attempting to deflect the conversation? I mentioned anti-Semitism, not "Jews". It, like Islamaphobia, is a common type of bigotry that I abhor. Will you join me in condemning anyone who engages in anti-Semitic and/or anti-Islamic activities?

wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why don't you address the issues that I raise instead of attempting to deflect the conversation? I mentioned anti-Semitism, not "Jews". It, like Islamaphobia, is a common type of bigotry that I abhor. Will you join me in condemning anyone who engages in anti-Semitic and/or anti-Islamic activities?

wow.

I think what Jeff said is sensible. If you can expand on "wow", I'd appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Pam Geller trying to shut down a "madrassa", i.e. a public school that is Arabic-English bilingual. Great "Free Speech" advocate you have here...

[Anonymous]

I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Nobody has suggested that Geller does not have a right to express her Islamophobic views. That is not in dispute. You keep repeating almost the same thing and I keep replying almost the same way. I don't see a reason to keep debating an issue that has no opposing side present in this forum.

Setting aside Geller's right to express her views -- which, again is not in dispute -- I find her views abhorrent. I would expect other decent people to find her views abhorrent. Posters who have expressed this view about Geller have been repeatedly criticized as having their "panties in a bunch", "misplaced angst", or simply being wrong because Geller is correct in her views. I am not debating, disagreeing with, or even discussing, Geller's "right" to her views, because that is not in dispute. My issue is with those who believe criticizing Geller's abhorrent views is an attack on her freedom of expression. It is not. I have a further issue with people who think that Geller is correct in her views. I consider those individuals to be no different than someone who considers anti-Semites or racists correct in their views.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Nobody has suggested that Geller does not have a right to express her Islamophobic views. That is not in dispute. You keep repeating almost the same thing and I keep replying almost the same way. I don't see a reason to keep debating an issue that has no opposing side present in this forum.

Setting aside Geller's right to express her views -- which, again is not in dispute -- I find her views abhorrent. I would expect other decent people to find her views abhorrent. Posters who have expressed this view about Geller have been repeatedly criticized as having their "panties in a bunch", "misplaced angst", or simply being wrong because Geller is correct in her views. I am not debating, disagreeing with, or even discussing, Geller's "right" to her views, because that is not in dispute. My issue is with those who believe criticizing Geller's abhorrent views is an attack on her freedom of expression. It is not. I have a further issue with people who think that Geller is correct in her views. I consider those individuals to be no different than someone who considers anti-Semites or racists correct in their views.

If you look at the post and picture immediately preceding the post you reference, you will see that post is in direct response to someone who snarkily says "Great "Free Speech" advocate you have here..." The response to that post and picture was most definitely on point to that post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Au contraire, many posters in the original thread said that she is standing up for Free Speech. In fact quite a few of them seem to deny that her goal was provocation at all.

I think all of us, liberal and conservative, accept the fact that what she did is protected speech. What we question, which apparently most of the conservatives do not acknowledge, was that she was engaging in hateful provocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Au contraire, many posters in the original thread said that she is standing up for Free Speech. In fact quite a few of them seem to deny that her goal was provocation at all.

I think all of us, liberal and conservative, accept the fact that what she did is protected speech. What we question, which apparently most of the conservatives do not acknowledge, was that she was engaging in hateful provocation.

Quite the hubris to claim you can ascertain the political affiliation of anonymous posters, unless of course you have a target on the posts of people on your board. Exactly when did free speech be one a conservative vs liberal issue? I guess I thought it was an American issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Au contraire, many posters in the original thread said that she is standing up for Free Speech. In fact quite a few of them seem to deny that her goal was provocation at all.

I think all of us, liberal and conservative, accept the fact that what she did is protected speech. What we question, which apparently most of the conservatives do not acknowledge, was that she was engaging in hateful provocation.

Quite the hubris to claim you can ascertain the political affiliation of anonymous posters, unless of course you have a target on the posts of people on your board. Exactly when did free speech be one a conservative vs liberal issue? I guess I thought it was an American issue.

I guess you like being deliberately obtuse. I didn't know that was "American".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Au contraire, many posters in the original thread said that she is standing up for Free Speech. In fact quite a few of them seem to deny that her goal was provocation at all.

I think all of us, liberal and conservative, accept the fact that what she did is protected speech. What we question, which apparently most of the conservatives do not acknowledge, was that she was engaging in hateful provocation.

Quite the hubris to claim you can ascertain the political affiliation of anonymous posters, unless of course you have a target on the posts of people on your board. Exactly when did free speech be one a conservative vs liberal issue? I guess I thought it was an American issue.

I guess you like being deliberately obtuse. I didn't know that was "American".

??? Not the pp, but your comment appears a bit ignorant.
Do you not understand that Free Speech is part of our Constitution..... the AMERICAN Constitution?
And, I assume you know that not ALL countries permit freedom of speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall anyone saying she was an advocate for free speech, rather that her right to free speech, even if hateful or provocative, is protected--just like other hateful and provocative groups like Westboro. There is a big difference in claiming someone is an advocate for the 1st amendment and stating they are entitled to its protections. Moreover, supporting her 1st amendment rights is not the same as supporting her message.

Au contraire, many posters in the original thread said that she is standing up for Free Speech. In fact quite a few of them seem to deny that her goal was provocation at all.

I think all of us, liberal and conservative, accept the fact that what she did is protected speech. What we question, which apparently most of the conservatives do not acknowledge, was that she was engaging in hateful provocation.

Quite the hubris to claim you can ascertain the political affiliation of anonymous posters, unless of course you have a target on the posts of people on your board. Exactly when did free speech be one a conservative vs liberal issue? I guess I thought it was an American issue.

I guess you like being deliberately obtuse. I didn't know that was "American".

??? Not the pp, but your comment appears a bit ignorant.
Do you not understand that Free Speech is part of our Constitution..... the AMERICAN Constitution?
And, I assume you know that not ALL countries permit freedom of speech.

No, really? Hey brainiac, read the underlined statement I made above. Do you know what that sentence means???

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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?

Is the bolded statement true or is it not true?