General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Pam Geller lashes out at critics: You’re saying the ‘pretty girl caused her own rape’
Mayor Douglas Athas of Garland, Texas said this week that anti-Muslim crusader Pam Geller and her group put the lives of law enforcement and citizens in danger by bringing a “draw Muhammad” cartoon contest to their city.
In an interview this week, Athas told BBC News that he did not know why Geller chose Garland for the event that inspired two Muslim men to open fire with assault-style rifles before being killed by police.
“Of course we’d been happy if they’d stayed in New York and had their activity there,” Athas said. “But they chose to come here. From all the reports I’ve gotten from our officers that were on the scene, most of the people there were not from Garland. They were not even from Texas.”
According to Geller, the mayor’s assessment of her event was akin to blaming a rape victim.
“How ridiculous,” she opined to the BBC. “I mean, that’s like saying the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape. The mayor is going after the defenders of free speech, and clearly giving a free pass to the savages who came with guns to kill innocent people because of a cartoon.”
more
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/pam-geller-lashes-out-at-critics-youre-saying-the-pretty-girl-caused-her-own-rape/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oktober
(1,488 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Of what crime is she a victim?
Tell me specifically what happened to this woman.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Swap the groups and instead of Geller's group it was the ACLU or NAACP or Code Pink or whatever you want.
They got loud, they said that their opposition was full of liars and miscreants. Really got em riled up and a group of right wing wackadoddles decides to blow up an office or take shots at an event.
The goal of shooting or blowing up a specific person is secondary to the fear and intimidation they are trying to create. They don't want those groups to keep doing what they are doing and believe that using violence this one time will stop them in the future.
It's classic terrorism.
That doesn't mean that the local chapter president of that group who was blown up or shot at has to be physically present and in danger. The primary threat was against their organization as a sign that future speech will result in more violence so shut the hell up.
That's why they are a victim and your obvious hatred of Pam Geller has blinded you to logic and ethics.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6629137
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's that simple.
A security guard at an event was wounded by a criminal.
She is not a victim of any crime.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)I wonder if people read what they write sometimes...
ProfessorGAC
(65,106 posts)A violent provocateur can be a criminal and so can those provoked to violence.
They're not mutually exclusive and the statement implies nothing of the sort. That's your inference, and it's wrong.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She "is the real criminal" implies ("the" and "real"
that there is only ONE "real" criminal, and by extension anyone else - like, say, the shooters - were not "real" criminals.
It's a disgusting thing to say, given that she could spend all day every day spewing nothing but noxious bile, and it still wouldnt be comparable to trying to fill someome with bullets over a cartoon.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)A cartoon drawing context is hardly provocation for violence.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you respond to people's actual comments, not so much.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How so? Why can't the shooters be criminals AND Geller be a shit stirrer? These are not mutually exclusive.
Why didn't she do her little party in NY where she is HQed?
Why didn't she do it in VT or Los Angeles or San Fransisco in Ca?
I think she deliberately picked TX for its lax gun laws and bigotry. I think she is guilty of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But proving such intent in a court of law is probably impossible.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Try again.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)I hope you understand that.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Where did I say that?
I didn't.
I hope you understand that.
You can't read well, can you?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)....and protests against it, and she knew tensions were high in that community. She literally admitted that.
She knew exactly what she was doing and what could very well happen.
If she were reading DU right now, she'd be laughing her head off how many people have unwittingly parroted her cause.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That must be very painful. Waaaaaaah.
Damn You, First Amendment!
Also, it's debatable whether even ACTUALLY yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would be illegal, despite the fact that that example is run into the ground with over and mis-use.
Comparing "saying something that made someone really mad because it offended their religious sensibilities" to "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a perfect example of the misinformed, callous disregard for one of our central Constitutional freedoms, that makes DU fucking MADDENING when these stories happen.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You people really have zero reading comprehension.
But go on..... make up stuff among yourselves.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)is somehow a standard for determining she's not free under the 1st Amendment to say it?
By that logic, Anita Sarkeesian is guilty of "incitement" every time she makes a youtube video that she knows will piss off the gamergate twitter brigade.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The point being that "saying something that might piss other people off" is not a standard for determining speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.
But, then, acting as if the 1st Amendment is a big inconvenience, making arguments supportive of censorship.. why am I not surprised. 
kcr
(15,318 posts)Is deliberately being a bigot not only knowing it will provoke a violent reaction but hoping it will because you're a bigot and that's your agenda, the same as being a feminist and speaking out about ones feminist ideals? If not, why were you comparing the two?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)is not only a fallacious argument constitutionally, it's not really a road we want to go down, because there is plenty of speech that "might piss someone off" which you, or I, might agree with wholeheartedly.
Understand?
kcr
(15,318 posts)The argument to me seems to be she isn't a victim, which I heartily agree with.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In answer to your question, though, I've seen at least 5 or 6 people on DU in the past 24 hours arguing that what she did was NOT protected speech because she knew it might make people mad (absolving, as well, the responsibility of the folks who showed up to shoot cartoonists, a la Charlie Hebdo) and as such equivalent to, among other things, "incitement", "fighting words", "shouting fire in a crowded theater" etc.
These are legal arguments. And as someone who takes the 1st Amendment seriously, you betcher bippy I'm going to object to them, whether or not Pam Geller is an asshat of the first order.
kcr
(15,318 posts)But this thread seems to be about whether she's a victim. 
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)whether she is, quote, "guilty of yelling fire in a crowded theater", i.e. an argument that whatever she did ought not be protected under the 1A, whether or not the "intent could be proven in a court of law"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026629083#post273
Those are legal arguments. Legal terminology (i.e. "criminal" .
I see things I don't agree with all the time. I respond to them, instead of trying to censor them.
Unfortunately too many people seem to wake up in the morning profoundly bothered by the fact that they can't cleanse the world of all the words, pictures, etc. that they don't like.
kcr
(15,318 posts)the subthread still seemed to me to be in the context of the OP and not generally whether or not what she did was legal free speech, so I still didn't see why you were arguing about that. It really seemed to come out of nowhere, especially since I wasn't arguing about free speech at all, but making the comment about comparing her to Anita Sarkeesian.
You seem to immediately assume that people who disagree don't just disagree but are one of those people who are anti-free speech.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's comparing the fact that she says something that pisses some people off, to the fact that AS says things that piss some people off.
The comparison is the fact that they're both saying something that pisses someone off, or that they might KNOW might piss someone off. That is not judging the relative merits of the speech or the being pissed off-ness (I happen to think that being pissed off at AS is ridiculous, and so is being pissed off at a cartoon of Mohammed) it is pointing out that "saying something that might piss someone off" is a terrible standard to use for "incitement" or anything else.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Your words, for clarification: "By that logic, Anita Sarkeesian is guilty of "incitement" every time she makes a youtube video that she knows will piss off the gamergate twitter brigade."
I can think of at least two glaring differnces between the two. One of them being feminism isn't bigotry. The other being Sarkeesian wasn't deliberately spoiling for a violent reaction. That is why your comparison is ludicrous.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Whether someone knows something is going to make someone real mad, or might make someone real mad (i.e. "spoiling for a violent reaction" or even if they did it hoping it would make someone else real mad is irrelevant to whether the speech is constitutionally protected.
Gay couple gets on stage at a rally of fundamentalists and kisses each other, and the crowd gets violent. Maybe they were "spoiling for a violent reaction". Are we going to blame them, or the people who had the violent reaction?
The blame for violence lies with the people who commit the acts of violence, every time, no "butbutbut". I realize that may not be a popular viewpoint on tumblr or wherever, but it's the truth.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Especially considering that yes, it is indeed irrelevant. I actually agree. I, myself, don't particularly care that it's constitutionally protected speech. All that means is the government won't come and arrest her. But that doesn't stop me from thinking she's a giant piece of shit who is morally and ethically responsible for the violent reaction that she deliberately provoked. The fact that it is constitutionally protected means diddly squat to me, personally, in my judgment of her.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I think the people responsible for acts of violence are the people who commit those acts. "They said something that made me real mad" isn't an excuse.
Which is part of my point, here.
kcr
(15,318 posts)My point is knowing that such people exist, and manipulating them as weapons to advance an agenda is not okay either. Hiding behind the 1st doesn't make it okay. That hardly excuses the weapons themselves and I don't understand why some people think that's what I and others who make this argument are saying.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Fine, this complete atheist wants to outlaw blasphemy. Go ahead and think that if you want 
I'm sorry for not thinking deliberately putting crowds of people in mortal danger is fine and a-OK!
calimary
(81,365 posts)is either trying to pick a scab, pick a fight, or pick an affordable undertaker.
One is just ASKING for trouble. With a cherry on top. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing. Trying to stir up shit. And she did. And because she's physically somewhat attractive, she's guaranteed to get LOTS of face time on our whore media.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I just said that....
and was accused of wanting to outlaw blasphemy!
Unbelievable, isn't it. Some people get so worked up they can't comprehend what's written in front of them...
If you point out that shooting at people might be worse that having a draw Mohammad party, you love and agree with everything Geller stands for.
If you point out that Geller engineered this to have the very results she got.... you want to outlaw blasphemy and think the shooter reacted appropriately.
It's the Twilight Zone!!!
I... a complete atheist who thinks religion is ridiculous wants to outlaw blasphemy. Alrighty then!
I, a gay man, have also been accused of homophobia on DU too. Is there something about this site that makes people unable to read??? Am I using too many big words???
Petrushka
(3,709 posts). . . an Islamic fundraiser was held in that same building and thousands of people protested---non-violently, of course!. See: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Thousands-Protest-Muslim-Conference-in-Garland-288936351.html
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)
keroro gunsou
(2,223 posts)the shooter/s are/were the criminals. she was their enabler.
the classic three elements of any crime: means, motive, and opportunity. she enabled the shooter/s by giving them the motive for their crime and the opportunity.
all that said, she's a petulant child who wants attention. if it wasn't her obsession with radical islam, it'd be something else. we're wasting our time with twits like her when we've got bigger problems.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Did the ACLU/NAACP/Code Pink/whatever want to see a violent response that placed people in danger?
If so, then they share some responsibility in their actions. Sure. Provide me a real life example of that happening, and if it is analogous to what Geller has done, I'll gladly assign them responsibility.
Trust me, I'm holding Geller to the same standard that I would hold anyone else.
No one individual should place the safety of the general public at risk for their own self-serving goals. No one. Kobayashi Maru, right?
So no. Pam Geller is not the victim. Perhaps she is not responsible to the point of criminal responsibility, but she bears some responsibility and you are pathetic if you are buying her "I'm a victim of Free Speech" spiel.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)that mocks religion puts everyone else in the vicinity (in a museum, near offices of a magazine...) in danger so therefore they shouldnt do it. Religion should be off limits for mockery.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Or are they exhibiting art for arts sake?
There's a huge difference.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)not about art or to make money.
And the violence means that she failed. A success would have been doing it and nothing happening because that would set a precedent about mocking Islam. Im sure thats what she would have preferred. She prepared for possible violence, but Im sure was surprised that it actually happened.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Do you even know anything about Pamela Geller?
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/pamela-geller
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, it wasn't "about free speech."
For starters, her freedom of speech is not in question. Her freedom of speech is SO liberated in fact, that her hateful ads get to be placed on buses in major cities around the nation
Next, she is an opponent of the first amendment - she wants censorship of the media and laws against religions she dislikes (all of them except Christianity and Judaism - and she counds atheism as a religion, so don't think you get off her hook.)
This event was not a "celebration of free speech," it was an islamophobe rally, where shits like Pam Gellar, Geert Wilders, and Robert Spencer showed up to pat each other's backs and corrdinate their efforts against Muslims, under a veneer of "art contest."
Gellar didn't host the event to celebrate free speech - tellingly, only one form of speech was allowed there - but rather to provoke a reaction. She was trolling, basically. And she got the reaction she wanted.
This does not mean that the engagement was not protected speech - it was - but let's not kid outselves that Pam Gellar is some champion of freedom. Unless you want to laud David Duke in the same way? Clive Bundy?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Garland was chosen for a reason. There was a Muslim conference there last January, there's a significant Muslim population in the area, and some members of the community protested the conference after the Charlie Hedbo attacks (even though the conference itself was not advocating extremism).
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)My god, rikatipawolugi, said in his book, the sacred takwoglit, that the name Scootaloo is bad.
So bad it gives me a licence to shoot anyone calling himself Scootaloo.
What you are saying is that you must change your name, or you are inciting my violence.
In the name of the great rikatipawolugi, I, on my part, am not inticing violence. I am a believer.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It'll save you the trouble of making stupid shit up and pretending I said it.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You are focusing on the personality and agenda of Mrs Pamela Geller. I could not care less.
If as a student you have a competent teacher who is unlikable, his teaching stays valid.
Even Geller's motives are irrelevant. If she is a hateful person is irrelevant.
The crux of the matter is that one ideology, Sunni Islam in its current interpretation, claims the right to mow down anyone making fun of it.
What you say is that making fun of that ideology is not a defense of free speech. I say it is.
Regardless of who makes fun. Nice person or not.
I would go as far as to say that the defense of democratic free speech should prompt the expression of whatever opinion some radicals -or whole ideologies- claim to forbid.
In short, Mrs Geller is the nasty knight of a just cause.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There are no laws hobbling Gellar's right to say whatever damn fool shit she wants. In fact there are court rulings saying she can smear her shit across the sides of buses, if she so wishes. You cannot "defend" something that is not under attack. Unless you're with BillO and are going to tell me about the "war on Christmas" next?
That she is a hateful person is very relevant. What her agenda is, is very relevant. The methods she undertakes to promote her message is very relevant. It's relevant because those are the topics of the discussion. it is evidently not the discussion you wish to b having, so maybe you could go back to atlasshrugs and tell them how mean some dirty liberal named after a pony was to you, hmmm?
It does not, and such a statement is quite ignorant.
Ironically her cause is the abolition of the 1st amendment.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1- you confuse the message and the messenger. Let me repeat: pamela Geller could be Cindirella or a female Grinch, I could not care less. The point is that Islam has the pretension to exercise a right of oversight over free speech in democracies. Must I remind you that the Islamic Conference presented a resolution to the UN twice to call for a worldwide ban on blasphemy?
2- you think you have a right to call people names (ignorant) when in fact they apply to you. I repeat my statement "Sunni Islam in its current interpretation, claims the right to mow down anyone making fun of it. ", and I prove it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy#Punishment_by_different_Islamic_schools_of_jurisprudence
The Quran does not explicitly mention any worldly punishment for blasphemy (sabb allah or sabb al-rasul), as it does for apostasy (riddah). Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) of Sunni and Shia madhabs have declared different punishments for the religious crime of blasphemy, and they vary between schools. These are as follows:[2][3][89]
Hanafi – views blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance of apostates. Those who refuse to repent, their punishment is death if the blasphemer is a Muslim man, and if the blasphemer is a woman, she must be imprisoned with coercion (beating) till she repents and returns to Islam.[90] If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be death, arrest, caning, etc.).[6][91]
Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, and repentance is not accepted. For women, death is not the punishment suggested, but she is arrested and punished till she repents and returns to Islam or dies in custody.[92][93] A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.[94]
Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women, and repentance is not accepted.[95][96]
Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.[97][98]
Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[99] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[100]
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)They are not only well within their rights to exhibit any sort of art or make any sort of statement they want, they are doing a Good Thing for society. Assholes like religious fundamentalists SHOULD be offended at each and every opportunity; no cost is too high, no risk too great to protect even the silliest or most vile expression.
Fundamentalist Muslims, as with Fundamentalist Christians, should be mocked everywhere and in every way, and anyone supporting, condoning or even trying to explain or contexturalize their reaction should be shunned as part of the very same problem.
We need to mock all of these silly forms of mental slavery, every day, everywhere.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Violence can be incidental to an expression (for example, the often repeated example of a gay couple holding hands in front of a homophobe), or it can be the intended result.
One is justifiable and in fact lamentable. The other is most definitely not.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)If I knew someone was a homophobe I'd hold another guy's hand, right in front of them, just because assholes should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity
It's not 'violence for the sake of violence', it is forcing them to confront the choice of accept civilized society or be considered violently insane and be removed from it (by any means necessary). It's not caring in the slightest if they might respond with violence except to the degree necessary to protect oneself and others.
I don't think I'd like Gellar in person. She has said other things I dislike, but anyone who will mock and otherwise de-legitimize religious fundamentalism is doing a good thing. If we can't rid the world of this mental disease at least we can identify and isolate the carriers.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)The thing about gay couples holding hands in front of homophobes: Sure, it's okay to mock their bigoted mindset. And if you are willing to accept a punch in your face to show to others the extent of that mindset, that's your call. It might work in an intimate setting like that.
But it breaks down completely in situations like Geller's. First of all, Geller is on record stating that there's no such thing as moderate Islam, that Islam is nothing but a "genocidal ideology", stating that Islam should be banned in this country. So she's not just targeting the extreme fringes of the religion but in fact what amounts to over a billion people.
So she criticizes the religion as a whole as evil. Then she does something she knows will provoke the most radicalized, reactionary members of the religion. Then she turns around and goes back to her original criticism of the religion as a whole being evil. It's disingenuous to say the least.
And again, unlike that gay couple pissing off a homophobe by holding hands, Geller's event has far more implications. It's a public event, and violence targeted at that event will no doubt not only affect the safety of the willing participants of that event but others in that immediate vicinity. Other people who might not have the same beefs or beliefs that she does. And that's exactly what happened here, and that's why her actions were so incredibly unethical, reckless and immoral. She's essentially playing chess with human pieces for her own little game.
She's not doing a good thing. Not even close. You might not like the extremists who take violence offense over a drawing, but you're ignoring the fact that Geller is an extremist too. Why are you sanctioning the actions of one extremist simply because she's at odds with the actions of other extremists? It doesn't make much sense to me.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)An ideology which calls for death for blasphemers, gays and adulterers IS a problem.
And geller's aggressivity aside, that point SHOULD be raised.
And after the Jylland Posten and Charlie Hebdo, caricatures are a rather peaceful way to push for a reform of Islam.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Don't be so shocked about that. That's par for the course in human behavior.
But you fail to understand that what Pam Geller was not doing was asking Muslims to take a long, hard look at themselves and tackle some of those problems and reform themselves, no matter how hard that might be.
What Pam Geller was doing was being a bigot. Plain and simple. She's on record as claiming all of Islam is evil and its practice should be banned in this country. And that's before this event. Then she holds this event because she knows the subject matter has gotten a violent reaction in the past. And the event does get a violent reaction, and it gives her cause to go on television and say the exact same things she said leading up to the event.
What Ms. Geller does is engage in hate speech. Hate speech is protected in this country only for the benefit of infinitely more valuable speech that doesn't seek to divide but rather legitimately generate productive discussion. Since not all productive, valuable speech is in agreement, we don't want to have people demanding some of that speech be banned merely because they don't agree with it. So we basically say all of it can be protected regardless of content, even the non-productive, divisive, worthless hate speech.
But people like Ms. Geller aren't engaging in speech for the purposes of valuable discussion. They're engaging in speech for the purposes of hate.
What she is doing is not laudable or valuable, even if it is technically protected.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)She might be a hateful bigot. I don't know her and I don't care.
But when you write
it just so happens "asking Muslims to take a long, hard look at themselves and tackle some of those problems and reform themselves, no matter how hard that might be" is MY objective.
If Mrs Geller, whoever she might be, willy nilly ends up pushing that objective, I take it.
The only concession I must make is that the personality of Mrs Geller blurs the massage.
But do take note that the same 'blame the victim' tactics were used in EACH case to obscure the positive message: the Jylland Posten folks were called far right, the (very leftist) Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were called immature, culturally insensitive folks who never grew up post adolescence.
It seems the message I hope will get through in the end and that you formulated so well "ask Muslims to take a long, hard look at themselves and tackle some of those problems and reform themselves, no matter how hard that might be" is also blurred by good intentioned people who, wanting to be nice and culturally sensitive, end up being -in Lenin's words- the useful idiots of hard line islamists against muslim reformists.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)As long as they leave the rest of us alone, we should be leaving them alone.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It would be one thing if the rule was that if you want to be a Muslim, you aren't allowed the draw the prophet.
It's another thing to make a rule that even people who aren't Muslims aren't allowed to draw the prophet, potentially under penalty of death.
Now you are taking your rules of your religion and imposing them on me.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Chemisse
(30,813 posts)When people draw their prophet, it hurts and insults millions of Muslims, not just the few that would react with violence.
Sure we CAN do it, but why would we, other than to spread hate and intolerance? Just like that church group that pickets funerals of gay soldiers. Yes, they have a right to do it, but it is really despicable.
Whether or not someone reacts to this with violence is not relevant.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Seriously?
When people draw pictures of George W Bush looking like a chimp, that hurts and insults millions of Republicans.
In both cases, I would say too bad.
What if the Republicans made a rule that no one is allowed to draw insulting pictures of George W Bush because it hurts their feelings?
Why would we draw pictures of the prophet? Maybe to make a point of how stupid it is that one has to fear for one's life over a drawing.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's the hope to escalate the hatred and fear of Muslims who may object to it - whether you agree with their right to do that or not, into violence that would further play into the Muslim=terrorist/crazed beast thing that works so well for her and all bigots.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Maybe we ought to be strengthening their position by normalizing the idea that satire ought not to be punishable by death.
That the component of any religion that calls for death over the drawing of a cartoon (even by someone who isn't a follower of the religion) ought to be challenged.
The forces of fundamentalism ought to be marginalized both from within and without. If an Orthodox Jew, for example, demands that a woman change seats on an airplane because sitting next to her violates his religious beliefs then the answer is that is his problem, not hers. If he wants to wrap himself in plastic to avoid making contact with her then he can knock himself out. What he cannot do is force her to move from her seat.
Similarly, you can't make a rule that I am not allowed to draw a cartoon or you will kill me. That must not be allowed to go unchallenged - especially in light of what happened to the Charlie Hebdo staff members.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I never said there should be a rule against drawing anything, but when you do it knowing and hope for violence, as I fully believe she did and endanger the lives of others - you don't get to play victim. Warmongers do this same thing all the time - goad, provoke and do things you and I might find trivial, but it all feeds into that bucket of hate that feeds the desire to eliminate whole groups of people - and sometimes it even works. Hitler got a lot of support for his propaganda by first demonizing and dehumanizing Jews, the handicapped, Roma, gays. And yes, I know she certainly doesn't have the power of Hitler, but ordinary Germans were spreading this bigotry and hate. How far do you believe someone should be allowed to go with it?
Since 9/11 the flames of hatred for Muslims, regardless of how tolerant most probably are, and how big the lies against them, have been fed with this crap. I'm quite sure she and her bigot followers are praying for violence, maybe even more war. I consider her in the exact same class as Coulter - they both make me sick.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Geller is a nut job - I share none of her opinions about Muslims.
I don't think drawing a cartoon of the prophet constitutes anything like Hitler demonizing and dehumanizing Jews.
I think it's much more similar to drawing a cartoon image of Bush made up to look like a chimp. Or like how Family Guy pokes fun of Christianity with cartoons of Jesus and whatnot.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Over a billion people who we both believe are extremely tolerant. With the climate of hatred towards Muslims since 9/11 - Is see it as far different than drawing a picture of chimp. We all know there are people who want more war - imo, she's just one of them. I HATE war and the warmongers, liars and propagandists that build on the fear and hatred to the point it can happen. What may seem a small thing to you, obviously isn't to others. She's a fucking warmonger as far as I'm concerned and as a victim of rape myself, her comparing the reaction she's getting to that, makes my skin crawl.
derby378
(30,252 posts)He's created knowledge, he's created wisdom; so therefore, he's created all the gags.
So, if you don't like a gag I tell, don't blame me, blame him. His address is God Esquire, in care of Jimmy Carter, the White House, Washington.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)I've lost the ability to discern between sarcasm and stupid the longer I stay here.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)What makes religion so special that it should get a pass from criticism, examination, ridicule, and mockery?
Is that ALL religions? Even Scientology? Mormonism? End of Days cults?
Or just the one you follow?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)You're not serious, are you?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)to express their first amendment rights no matter what the results are.
And the other will instigate such speech in the hopes of violence.
840high
(17,196 posts)samsingh
(17,599 posts)and by the way, boston did nothing but their race was still attacked by killers with the same mindset.
I think these two nuts would have done something violent anyway and Gellar actually saved lives.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)how?!
840high
(17,196 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)zero. fucks.
840high
(17,196 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)thus the zero fucks in my previous post.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)is right.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She doesn't give 2 shits about the 1st amendment and she is basking in the media attention.
She's despicable.
uncleverusername
(37 posts)n/t
840high
(17,196 posts)writing freedom of speech on it.
uncleverusername
(37 posts)Not the government? Not anybody else.
She's basically doing the equivalent of screaming the n-word while running down the street and then whining when people call her out on it. I didn't know a supposedly liberal site condoned racism and bigotry.
840high
(17,196 posts)violin believe it's ok to kill her?
uncleverusername
(37 posts)Now you're just being ridiculous.
ann---
(1,933 posts)Being "pretty" is NOT the same thing as
knowingly and willingly conducting a contest
to see who could create the most hideous and
hate-filled cartoon against a religious leader.
Would she say the same thing if a group of
Muslims had a contest as to who could create
the ugliest and most hateful cartoon about Jesus?
Most of all - sexual contact should be CONSENSUAL
and if it is not - it is rape. That in NO way is
comparable to deliberate HATE speech which is
not free - it has consequences of all kinds.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Where speech that some consider hateful is still protected and under no circumstances justifies or reduces her or her group's status as a victim after they were attacked.
It's just that easy...
ann---
(1,933 posts)The people who were shot at - and the innocent Muslims
who were scandalized by the horrible cartoons.
Pam Geller was not a victim - no attack was made on HER.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)My word?!
How could any reasonable human being be expected to tolerate the fact that somewhere in the world folks are doodling a long dead warlord whose main claim to fame was child brides and chatting with the big man in the sky?
Someone find me a fainting couch! I'm going down!
ann---
(1,933 posts)think it's okay for right-wingers to go bonkers if a
group of Muslims held a contest as to who could
create the most hate-filled cartoon about Jesus.
Thinking like yours is why I am so glad I am not
registered to ANY political party.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)If you mean protests and a strongly worded letters to the editor...
Then sure...
If you mean violence against the group of artists then not so much...
There isn't much in this world that isn't deserving of some mockery and religion of all stripes is at the top of the list.
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke...
ann---
(1,933 posts)it will lead to violence and not just "letters." And,
there have not been any contests held by Muslims
to disrespect Jesus - or it would have made front
page news.
Hate speech is not free. It is hateful and some people
react violently to it. Not condoning it, but I don't hold
Geller blameless in this.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)... then what is your follow up plan of action?
Cave to violence in the hopes that their kinder and gentler sides will prevail?
If you agree not to draw Mohammed today then what will you agree to tomorrow?
What happens when two groups who threaten violence give you conflicting rules about what you can and cannot do?
Hate speech is a null phrase. There is hate in about 80% of what is on DU but it isn't illegal. So it means diddly in the context of a legal and ethical conversation.
Mocking religion is fine sport and the sign of an enlightened society as well as a first step towards lifting the stone of irrational belief (and all it's ills) off of our collective neck.
Additionally, there have been countless pieces of 'art' that infuriated Christians but we all seemed to pull through without AKs or blowing anything up.
beevul
(12,194 posts)there have not been any contests held by Muslims
to disrespect Jesus - or it would have made front
page news.
It seems to me, that someone mentioned in another thread, just that sort of thing, happening in Iran.
I'll see if I can find it.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)Pakistan
afganistan
Syria
try opening any type of temple in Saudi arabia
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)Please note that the man who drew the winning cartoon is an ex-Muslim.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)But she has every right to mock whatever religious leader, icon, or god she feels like.
It is not "hate speech". That is a very slippery slope to base an argument upon.
Her right to do so is not up for bargain, no matter how despicable she is.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's not what the contest was.
Did you see any of the actual cartoons?
The winning entry was definitely neither hideous nor hate-filled.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and she needs to stand up and take responsibility for all those she put in danger. She manipulated and exploited both side's ignorance and hatred.
Stop hiding behind the 1st amendment Ms. Geller!
Oktober
(1,488 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Shamefully.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)They exercise their 1st A right. Whether you agree or not.
BayouBengal07
(1,486 posts)You know the powerful phrase "Don't tell me how to dress; tell them not to rape"?
How about "Don't tell me how to speak; tell them not to kill"?
beevul
(12,194 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)uncleverusername
(37 posts)And it's pretty insulting she's trying to compare being a racist bigot to being a rape victim.
Party of personal responsibility, everybody.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)She's not even the victim. She does, however, bear a bit of responsibility for the attack. I think she is getting just the sort of attention she wanted, and that she deliberately put many more people than herself at risk.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)If the rape victim went up to a known racist, tore off her clothes and screamed "I dare you to rape me". Then it might make a decent comparison.
Geller is a hateful, spiteful, nasty, mean, vicious woman who dared people to attack her for her "freedom". Well better that she managed to get someone else attacked.
Funny, she's free to run through Harlem screaming "Ni**er Muslims" at the top of her lungs, but I don't see her exercising that one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I saw a really good one today. Someone said this, and he was serious:
Do you agree with that?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I went a different route myself-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6619883
People are saying-
She has a right to say her hate speech but if she gets shot she should expect it since fundies get pissed off-
compare to repukes who would say-
She has a right to go to the bar late at night in a mini dress but if she gets drunk and raped she should have expected it-
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She went to a party that she openly calls a part of her war dressed like this:
Now, I agree she has a right to say what she says and I don't think she deserves any violent response. In addition, I in no way excuse those that responded violently. They are 100% responsible for their own actions.
But she's not girl in a bar in a mini-dress and she's not a victim, she's just playing one on tv. She won this battle in her war. She sees herself very much as the victor here.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)She was not shot.
She was not harmed in any way.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Both in terms of spreading her message of Islamophobia and, no doubt, in monetary terms as well, with donations to her hatemongering groups increasing.
JustAnotherGen
(31,834 posts)She's getting paid, getting paid. And she was not hurt/injured/killed in the shooting. It's not all about her - but what else can we expect from a self absorbed snot?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)What if someone unloaded 10 rounds of an automatic assault rifle at, say, a gay rights event that you are attending. The bullets go past your head and don't physically injure you in any way, yet you are still a victim of violence. A kidnapper can keep a woman hostage, never laying a hand on her, but she can be traumatized by the violence even if nothing violent even occurred.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)A third party, a security guard, was the only victim here.
Geller wanted the exact response that she got. There's no "should have expected" about it. She literally wanted this to happen. Hence why she's currently soaking up the attention on the cable news circuit.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)And the Rape comparison is a joke. If the victim went up to a rapist and screamed "rape me" then maybe you have a comparison.
This was not some honorable act of free speech. It was purposefully designed to get someone hurt. Purposefully
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And they start showing PDA in front of the angry mob. If the angry mob violently attacks them, are they not also victims?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And those that attacked them would be 100% responsible.
But I would be very interested to know from them what prompted their action and what they thought might happen.
Very interested.
Once I had that information, I might also have some thoughts about them.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's kinda the point.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It doesn't absolve the attackers of a single bit of responsibility, but it still matters.
My degree of sympathy for the victims is going to vary to a significant degree depending on their intent and motive.
In the case of Ms. Geller, I have nothing but contempt.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)What an amazingly awful opinion you have on this issue, an opinion that in other contexts would be universally denounced here as victim blaming.
Wow. Just wow.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Yeah, I see how they are exactly the same.
Exactly.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)THEN what, hmmmm??
You don't see the slippery slope?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Because far as I know she wasn't shot or injured at all. A hired security guard was.
So explain to me again how Pam Geller's the victim here.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Not even a little?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I really want to know.
Cause she's not the gay person in your analogy, if that's what you think.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I fail to see anything in the entire situation that remotely qualifies her as a victim in any of this.
Her behavior may not have risen to the level of criminal incitement (although I would argue it came pretty close), but that alone--nor her First Amendment rights--do not give her the right to call herself a victim.
She was not shot, she was not injured, and she got the result that she dearly wanted so that she could have a platform to justify her pre-existing agenda.
You go on blathering about some slippery slope when I point out the fact that Geller's not the victim here. That should be blatantly obvious to you, but for whatever reason it isn't.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)nice.
lol
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I keep on wanting to see some proof that Pamela Geller is an actual victim here, and you have no interest in actually providing said proof.
How is she the victim?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)She can't organize a satirical cartoon drawing contest without fearing for her life.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I feel as bad for her as I do for the white guy who's complaining he can't use the word "n___r" without people thinking he's racist.
That's Sarah McLachlan singing about homeless cats and dogs level of sad right there.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I think it would be more akin to someone being told they aren't allowed to draw insulting pictures of George W Bush (making him look like a chimp, for example) because it enrages some Republicans who revere him and may respond violently to such an insult against this icon.
I could imagine many DUers getting very pissed off about this and refusing to accede to such a ridiculous restriction to their freedoms just because it might upset the feelings of Republicans.
In fact, I would think that if a group of folks wanted to organize a "Draw George W Bush" contest in response to this ridiculousness, that they would get a lot of support here on DU for doing so.
And if some crazed Republican attempting to shoot at people at such an event - well, you get the idea.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Or is it just the fear that they might get upset or turn violent?
Is the contest in a public forum? If there had been prior acts of violence, would putting the event in a public place put other members of the public not associated with the contest at undue risk with the threat of further violence?
What would be the motivation behind the organizers of contest? Would it simply be to draw funny pictures of Bush as an FU to Republicans? Or do the organizers want to intentionally create a situation where they can then smugly point out how Republicans are a bunch of violent crazies?
Geller was not motivated by free speech in any of this. She hates the First Amendment. This is what's so disgusting about her throughout all of this, the utter hypocrisy and false framing and fake victimizing.
Yes, she was technically protected by the First Amendment. Yes, no one here is excusing shooting people. But Geller casting herself as a "victim" is where the line needs to be drawn.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And your point is taken. I get that she is not motivated by free speech. I get that she is a hypocrite and a phony.
I think she is a victim only in the sense that she can't run a draw the prophet contest without fearing for her life.
The fact that no one has been killed for drawing an insulting image of George W Bush and people have been killed for doing the same with respect to the prophet actually is more of a reason why people should draw pictures of the prophet, which is a much more courageous act than drawing a picture of George W Bush.
I respect those who assert that we are not going to be bullied into limiting which religions or philosophies we can satire due to the violent actions of these lunatics.
I know that this woman was not coming at it from that angle at all, but I think people should feel as free to draw the prophet as they are to draw Jesus or George W Bush or L Ron Hubbard or what have you.
We should also feel free to draw insulting caricatures of Pamele Gellar and point out what a horrible person she is in general.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)But if the only thing that makes her a victim is that she can't hold a Mohammed cartoon contest without fear of violence, that would qualify her as one of the smallest victims ever.
And frankly, she did hold the contest. And there was violence, but I don't think she was at all discouraged by that. I think she relished it and I think that was her intended result.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I do think that was probably her intended result.
We've got to figure out a way, though, in my opinion, to get to a situation where drawing a cartoon of the prophet is not a potentially life-threatening endeavor.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)samsingh
(17,599 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Pam Geller and the other people at the event where the intended targets. Just because the police officer stopped the two primitives in time doesn't mean she is not the victim of attempted murder, just like you'd be the victim of attempted murder if someone shot at you and missed.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Now, for clarification purposes, if someone successfully shoots someone but does not kill them, that person is a victim of an assault, which is also a crime. And there may be a target of an attempted murder, but if the murder is not successful, that person is not the victim of an attempted murder, because there was no murder of which to speak. Only the attempt.
Of course, there's no evidence to suggest that the two gunmen specifically sought out Geller. I still don't even know if she was even at the event at the time of the shooting. We know she was not shot nor was she shot at. We also know that it does not appear she has suffered in any way. The only result appears to be that she has gained more attention for herself and a bully pulpit to spew her views.
So, no, she's not the victim here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)An attempted and failed murder is a felony.
In the United States, attempted murder is an inchoate crime. A conviction for attempted murder requires a demonstration of an intent to murder, meaning that the perpetrator either tried to murder and failed (e.g. attempted to shoot the victim and missed) or took a substantial step towards committing a murder (e.g. purchasing a gun or other deadly weapon and writing about their intent to kill).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_murder
DU is littered with astoundingly ridiculous assertions of facts, but yours takes today's cake.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)And the subject of an attempted murder is a target, and if that target is physically impacted by the murder attempt, that person is a victim of assault and/or battery. However, that person is not a "victim" of the attempted murder since no actual murder occurred, it was only attempted.
All of this is beside the point for the purposes of this discussion, given that Pam Geller was not shot or injured nor is there any record of her being shot at or even specifically targeted by the perpetrators.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)sure she is.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Explain to me otherwise.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Republican asshole?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)She's not the victim because:
1. She wasn't shot at
2. She wasn't killed
3. She wasn't injured
4. She wasn't specifically targeted
5. She held an event for the purposes of provoking a violent response, which self-fulfilled, and another person who wasn't her was actually injured because of her lack of ethics and recklessness
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)1. Only because the criminals were stopped first.
2. See #1
3. See #1
4. Her group was. So you think if they had gotten through they would have specifically NOT tried to shoot her?
5. You have ZERO proof she tried to provoke a violent response. Did she want to provoke? Yes. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum hold free speech events to provoke responses. If this were the FFRF in Madison hosting the event, I'm sure you would be singing a different tune. Which brings me to:
because republican asshole.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)The fact is, I've yet to hear any confirmation that Geller was actually at the event during the time of the shootings. But everything you say is speculative. There's no indication that Geller was ever in any type of immediate danger, even if she had been there.
As to Geller's motives, consider that she's made her living pushing the "Muslims are here to kill us" argument. Then Charlie Hedbo happens and only then does she come up with this idea to hold this event. Then she just supposedly comes up with Garland, Texas at random where this event should be held, which just so happens to be a place where a) there was a notable American Muslim conference recently and b) where there's a not so insignificant Muslim population living in the area. Then the event happens and the shooting happens and voila--Pam Geller is on the TV talking about "free speech", comparing herself to Rosa Parks and rape victims, and using this incident to prove to the world that, yes, "Muslims are here to kill us."
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Turns out the hitman was a policeman. He videos he giving him money to kill my neighbor.
I get charged and convicted of attempted murder. It happens all the time.
Also, you can't be both convicted of attempted murder and murder when there is a murder. The attempt gets rolled into the murder.
Understand?
beevul
(12,194 posts)By that posters logic, a woman, who a rape was attempted against, is not a victim if the rape fails.
Fucking bizarre world. Someone please hit the "bizarroworld off" switch and return us to our normally scheduled sanity.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Geller was not a victim of any crime.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Geller is claiming she is a victim and getting blamed for being a victim.
She is not a victim. No crime was committed against her. Thus to make your angry mob analogy fit, we have to have the mob attack someone else.
Geller worked very hard to inflict violence upon someone else.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Holy shit.
So her rape doesn't make her a victim?
I have nothing.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)That would be horrifying.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)into "raping" them, they are not a victim. They have orchestrated a scenario in which it was their intent to get "raped". They are a consensual and willing partner in the act.
But, FWIW, there is absolutely no analogy here to the Geller situation.
It's just Ms. Geller and a few remaining holdouts here that I see using the rape analogy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)and that's why I put the quotes around the word rape.
But you do that humanist thing you do so well, and make all kinds of negative assumptions about me.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)a naked woman walking around a drunken frat house is NOT entrapping men to commit rape unless you think rape is somehow an uncontrollable impulse for all men, at least when they are drunk. i.e. the "they can't help it" defense, which is fucking sick.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to help you out.
That's the very definition of entrapment. She is tricking someone into committing a supposed crime in which she is an active and consensual participant.
I'm not saying anything about the men at all. All I'm saying is that in this scenario, she is not a victim by any definition of the term.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)simply being naked. Do you want to go down that rabbit hole?
Remember, the perps in this situation are NOT mind readers, they sexually assault her, that's on them, her intent doesn't matter unless it is implied consent, but again, that's a rabbit hole you do NOT want to go down.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)result in her being assaulted. Naked, pretending to be really fucked up, coming on really heavy - it doesn't matter. She is orchestrating the scene. She is not a victim.
I agree that the perps will bear full responsibility for their actions and never said they wouldn't. But she's not a victim. She's a willing participant.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or any number of other scenarios.
WTF cbayer, read your own fucking post.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you think they hope to be assaulted?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'm sure the attacker thinks the victim "is asking for it", too.
That's fucked up
cbayer
(146,218 posts)"hoping to be sexually assaulted" are used to describe the person in question? Right?
So maybe you could stop with the full out attack on me.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'm asking reasonable questions about how that applies to the general topic on hand. You know, like this while subthread.
Attack? Ppppppppppptt
cbayer
(146,218 posts)about how fucked up my POV view is here, and that feels like an attack.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)anywhere and NOT get sexually assaulted, you have a differing opinion on that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)So fucked up.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I think.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)840high (5,844 posts)
353. So you and your tiny
violin believe it's ok to kill her?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The assailants? The cops? A jury? Society? You?
That's fucked up.
Victims are victims. People can and will find any way to blame the victim given the opportunity. Geller may be an obvious case of it to you. This example, too. But most aren't. And framing a violent attack as something the attacked party is wholly or partly responsible for is a slippery slope that you're comfortable getting all up into.
Homophobes justify beating and death because the victim was displaying PDA feels "provoked". Anti choicers bombing clinics feel as if they are provoked into violence by doctors performing abortions. The line is arbitrary and shouldn't be approached.
Why is that side of the discussion so impossible to see?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But in the proposed scenario (which was proposed by another member, btw), the situation is made clear. The woman in question is hoping to be assaulted. If she is then assaulted, the assailants are guilty, but she is not a victim.
Perhaps she has done a very good thing. Perhaps she has exposed something that needed to be exposed. Perhaps she has brought some people to justice that needed to be brought to justice.
But she's not a victim. She's a willing and consensual participant, even if they don't think she is.
I don't in any way excuse the perpetrators, and that is the side of the discussion that it seems you are having difficulty seeing. But I would agree with you, the line isn't arbitrary and the woman who wishes to be assaulted is really crossing that line.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And how is that not totally fucked up? The attacker often thinks the victim is asking for it, that they were provoked. That's dangerous and bullshit. We are human beings in complete control of our reactions and actions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)sexual assault the person who was assaulted was the victim, except in the case described in this very weird scenario in which the person says that they hoped to be assaulted in order to prove a point.
And even in that case, I would still hold the assaulters completely and totally responsible, not her.
But she would not be a victim. She was completely in control of her reactions and actions. She was a willing and consensual participant.
I can't imagine anyone actually doing that, but that is the scenario that was proposed.
Response to cbayer (Reply #359)
PeaceNikki This message was self-deleted by its author.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)their decision, but how in the world can you call them a victim.
If I jump out in front of a car in order to prove a point, how would I be a victim?
As I see it, calling someone who orchestrates and hopes for an assault a victim diminishes the true victims. The true victims have done nothing. They weren't in control of the situation. They didn't purposefully try to elicit or hope for an assault.
And again, nothing I have said detracts from the responsibility and culpability of the attackers. I agree that they are 100% responsible.
Don't ever assume that someone hasn't had experiences similar to yours. I am sorry that this feels like an attack on you, but from my position, I think it's a defense of the real victims.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Sigh
I don't assume I'm the only victim of violence, cbayer. And nothing I said implied that. I was sharing MY perspective and now I'm sorry that I did and will delete it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's just my opinion, but I don't see that person as a victim and I think it diminishes real victims to say that.
You know, I like you PN. I respect you. You are passionate about the things you believe in and you generally debate in a really civil and informed way.
We are all sharing our perspectives, and I'm not the monster I am sometimes made out to be. I'm just another person with my own struggles and my own history and my own opinions.
I don't love Ben Carson, my husband is not a homophobe and I'm not a rape apologist.
I'm glad to have had this exchange with you and I hope we have more.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Not sure why you threw all that at PeaceNikki but I'll be your huckleberry.
You did say it's really hard not to love Ben Carson, your husband did compare same sex marriage to marrying "my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle" and by saying Geller wanted to get shot at you're claiming she asked for it.
You're victim blaming, just like rape apologists do.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)What did this theoretical naked woman do? jump in front of a hard dick that was going to go into someone else? That's the only way its comparable.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The bottom line for me is this. If you label someone who has control over the situation and who is voluntarily and knowingly participating in triggering a crime to be labeled as a victim, you diminish the real victims who have no control and are not participating voluntarily or with knowledge.
They are victims. The woman who hopes to be assaulted is not.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You are victim blaming.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)even if she expected someone to assault her, she didn't make them do it. That's a key difference.
Someone moving in front of a moving car is NOT a comparable situation, they do have total control over the situation in that case, and more importantly, the driver of the car was doing nothing wrong at the time of the collision. In that case, the driver is 100% the victim of what is most likely insurance fraud. Its a good idea to get a dash cam to prove such cases though.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are right, she wouldn't have total control, but she would have knowingly and willingly placed herself in that situation. Maybe she's a crusader. Maybe she's kinky. But to put her on the same level as a real victim of sexual assault is an insult to those who have actually been assaulted, unless she is psychiatrically impaired.
I was thinking about someone who routinely drives impaired and doesn't give a shit who he hurts with the car scenario. Maybe it's not a good example.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and why does it matter so much? A rape victim is still raped, unless you want to claim she wasn't raped, for example, a type of role play situation, but then no crime took place at all.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think it's important not to dilute what a victim is by labeling others as victims when they don't share some of the basic traits of victims.
If someone has consensual sex with someone but pretends that she is too fucked up to really give consent, even if she isn't at all fucked up, is she raped? No, she's not. It's consensual. She has made an informed decision.
The horror is that some women are accused of doing just that, and that is a tragedy. But what would make it even worse is if we granted a woman who openly acknowledges that she set it all up and knew exactly what she was doing to claim that she was a victim.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Seriously, what is your argument here, that people are just asking for being victims aren't really victims at all? Did Geller put the gun in the perpetrators hands herself? Do rape victims who put themselves in "risky situations", according to you, do the same?
Why the fuck should anyone bear the responsibility for the reactions of others?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Anymore than the lowlifes who said I was attacked because I wore a short skirt.
You are just like them, blathering endlessly on about how you JUST FUCKING KNOW we asked for it.
kcr
(15,318 posts)who don't like being compared and equated with bigoted assholes?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)It's as simple as that.
A woman who wears a short skirt does not want to be raped. That's impossible. No one wants to be raped. Otherwise, it wouldn't be rape.
However, someone who organizes an event because they want to get a violent reaction to that event, and they get a violent reaction to it: Not a victim. Period.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)if I were you.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Her purpose was the same as that of the individual in the quoted text, but she instead brought an entourage with her to act as human shields for the bullets she courted.
Like the naked woman, she found an assailant that could validate her generalized belief in collective guilt.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's a gross insult to the victims of rape.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)She a troll who went trolling.
But she did us a service. Two violent idiots went to kill her and were taken out.
At least one of them tried to engage in jihad previously, and likely would have pulled off a violent attack somewhere less protected, if they weren't whipped into a frenzy by Ms. Geller.
So I say "have at it," Ms. Geller. Let them come at you and hopefully they will get caught or killed.
Better Ms. Geller than, say, a Jewish elementary school or whatever soft target would likely have been their attack.
Thank you for agreeing to be human bait.
+++++++
Regarding the "women ask for it" analogy:
A better analogy would be Salman Rushdie. He wrote the intentionally provocative "Satanic Verses" and has lived with a death fatwa, endless death threats, and not a small number of assassination attempts.
I don't recall non-Islamic people condemning Mr. Rushdie for his book.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you understand that she is a despicable bigot who wants to wipe muslims off the earth? Do you understand that she doesn't want any of her precious 1st amendment rights applied to muslims in the US? Do you understand that she believes she is waging a holy war against all muslims, not just those who are terrorists?
I thought I had seen the worst DU could come up with, but you, MosheFeingold, get the prize.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)She's and idiot and a bigot.
She's also made her stupid self a target.
So, have at it. I'd rather have her killed than a decent person.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the clarification.
Since I was curious, I looked at your journal and saw your position that religious nuts should be left alone even if they hate us.
I don't really agree with that. I think Geller is dangerous and I don't think she should be left alone. I think we should shine a great big light on her before she gets any further with her war.
FWIW, I don't think she was really at risk of being a target. She had serious security and kept herself pretty deeply hidden, as far as I can tell. She knew that many people would get killed before they got to her.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Otherwise it's some coincidence.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm serious. There are those that are applauding her for having gotten these two taken out. Applauding her?
I feel sick.
RandySF
(59,020 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)just gone home? I think they were pretty intent on shooting someone at that event.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)DU would ABSOLUTELY be calling them victims. But since she's a shitbag Republican, we get to redefine things so that nothing falls back on religion.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)And if someone intentionally provokes violence that affects people who are not willing to hold themselves out as targets, that person forfeits any right to call him or herself a victim. Especially when the violence did not directly affect them but rather a third party.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Viewed in this context, the analogy of rape is especially loathsome. The unarmed security guard who got shot didn't consent to any of this shit, she consented on his behalf.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So the expectation you have if you attend an event that some group might find objectionable is that you have a target painted on your back and tough luck if you get shot?
That is one seriously compromised ethical system you have.
The guard consented to work at the event. He is in the same category of "target painted non victim" as the rest of the attendees.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I don't consider the host who invited guests to her planned house fire "the victim".
Compromised ethics? I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you think that attacks on the guard she hired as an unarmed human shield ("who consented to it" after all) constitute victimization against her, then I have no doubt that you'd see other ethical systems as suspect.
She's a self promoter who got (and is continuing to get) exactly what she expected and intended.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Pam Geller didn't put his city or officers in danger, those 2 asshole terrorists did, they didn't have to attempt to commit mass murder over some silly assed drawings of Mohammad.
Pam Geller is a vile RW'er, but in this case, she's right.
cali
(114,904 posts)where a pro-Islam event had been held in the wake of the Hebdo massacre. Why hold the event there? She lives in NY.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Sure that POS may have had the RIGHT to say what she did, but it was beyond stupid. She needs to be held accountable for the obvious results of her actions.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as a city. we also had our police ensuring no violence, or death
why cant we have both.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but to blame her for the actions of those 2 terrorists is, IMO, wrong, those 2 chose the course that ended their lives over some silly drawings.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is she to blame that two dudes or whomever tried to commit a violent act or whatever? (cause i am not following this shit, i do not give them the attention). no. she is not to blame for these mens actions.
it is like the comedian that does it to offend. and when he offends, he says... hey. why are you offended?
well. isnt that stupid?
i do not do stupid.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)that will be considered inflammatory and being warned that it was inflammatory yet failing to provide adequate security means the venue would be financially liable.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The local police provided an immense amount of security and the fact the the only people who died were the gunmen is a testament to how adequate it was.
That's really not fair.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)going to bring a case on their behalf.
There is one injury, and that's a cop.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)There is also moral and financial liability.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)such as this due to their concerns about liability.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)begin refusing to hold events for the gay community, or blacks, or liberals for the same reason, that's not a problem.
Far too many people here are letting their hate for Geller put them on a ridiculously slippery slope.
justhanginon
(3,290 posts)By this result the first amendments protection of free speech would be negated by two gunmen. They would now have made the implied threat of future violence a reason to not exhibit any art work or media that does not conform to some groups religious sensibility. We could still have exhibits of essays extolling the virtues of mom and apple pie but nothing that might be considered offensive in some way to someone somewhere. And every exhibit probably offends someone.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's not my intention to give them any "win" from this at all. I also didn't think through the unintended consequences, so I concede the point.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"It's not my intention to give them any "win" from this at all."
Thats not enough. And thats the point you and so many others seem to miss. When it comes to free speech, not intending to give them any "win", is not enough.
To protect free speech, one must be of the mind to hand them a loss at every opportunity, even when it means aligning with the worst scum that the world might be able to offer up. That is the lense through which many of us see this.
I could personally give a rats ass whether it was geller or someone from any random point on the political scale that was involved.
Free speech is bigger than partisanship. Way bigger. In fact, its not even close.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I think you are missing the point of why so many of us are disgusted by her actions here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am fully behind Ms. Geller's constitutionally protected right to hold this kind of event.
I hold the gunmen 100% responsible for their action and do not hold her responsible at all.
I do not wish for terrorists to win and withdrew my statement about this event deterring future events. I was wrong.
I also do not wish for Geller or people like her to win. I will not align with her in any way. She used the ruse of the 1st amendment to further her bigoted cause. She doesn't give a shit about the 1st amendment and I support nothing about her or her agenda.
This isn't about partisanship, and when it come to Geller, it's not about free speech. That's a separate issue.
She is despicable scum. She orchestrated an event brilliantly and got exactly what she hope for. She should not be allowed to have this as a victory and it should particularly not be handed to her by those on the left.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I mean her Honest-to-God-Filibuster was damned inflammatory. Then the fact that she talked about reproductive freedom at every turn was *very* inflammatory to a large portion of Texans.
What, was she supposed to keep her mouth shut, or stay away from public venues just in case another nutball like Roeder might shoot up the place?
Fuck.that.noise.
I'm really not liking the things I'm seeing out of otherwise reasonable DU'ers in this mess. Principles are principles- it doesn't matter who they're applied to. To say otherwise makes them something other than principles.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Richardo
(38,391 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Richardo
(38,391 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...but she doesn't look like she's aging well. Maybe that's why she refers to herself as a 'pretty girl'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because they think it's about sex.
When in reality, I read that abusers will often pick less conventionally attractive women for the very reason that no one will believe them if they tell others about it.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Have the guts to admit. COWARD.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)would you claim that Andres Serrano (the artist who created it) was an "instigator, a provocateur and a COWARD"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Long ago and far away, one of the circles I hung with did underground comix. My friends mostly did ironic stuff. The little I did was absurdist. Then there were those who did shit simply to PROVOKE A REACTION. Like a 5 year old who finds out saying a curse word gets them attention.
So those artists whose intent is to provoke should have the guts to admit it.
Now, Serrano. I never even bothered to read much about him or his intent w/his work. Seems on its face to go for shock value.
There is a holy tradition in India of using dung turned into ash for anointment or consecration. I doubt he was invoking that tradition.
See- The Holy Virgin Mary by Ofili.
One of my majors in University was Art History and another was Art Criticism. I have little use for work that need to use visceral reactions or is derivative. It's the mark of immaturity.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)People who were provoked or offended by it were simply wrong. They ascribed their own meaning and became inflamed because of that.
But you want to blame the artist for people who misinterpreted his work? Does this mean artists should think of all the possible ways people might mistakenly view their pieces, and not produce anything that someone, somewhere, might incorrectly think their piece is offensive?
What a fucking boring art world that would be.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Serrano's work is very diverse, the Bodily Fluids series of which 'Piss Christ' was a part-it's a photograph by the way- is actually very moving and not really about Christ.
I will offer to you this link to some work Serrano calls 'Holy', at the same site you can see other groups of work, I recommend 'The Church' and 'America' for viewing today. I think you will be surprised.
http://www.artnet.com/usernet/awc/awc_thumbnail.asp?AID=424202827&GID=424202827&CID=264331&page=1&recs=6&MaxPages=3&works_of_art=1
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I still couldn't be bothered to care about Serrano or his work.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So Salmon Rushdie was morally liable for insulting the prophet and causing a fatwah to be issued against him, and anyone injured as a result would be his fault?
On 3 August 1989, while Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh was priming a book bomb loaded with RDX explosive in a hotel in Paddington, Central London, the bomb exploded prematurely, destroying two floors of the hotel and killing Mazeh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Failed_assassination_attempt_and_Hezbollah.27s_comments
Perhaps Mazeh's family should sue Rushdie for damages?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Not all cages rattle in the same manner. Or something like that...
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)You guys should really do your homework. You can stop using this as an example of Christian forbearance in the face of blasphemy--they can't control themselves either:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters
"When New York artist Andres Serrano plunged a plastic crucifix into a glass of his own urine and photographed it in 1987 under the title Piss Christ, he said he was making a statement on the misuse of religion.
Controversy has followed the work ever since, but reached an unprecedented peak on Palm Sunday when it was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an "anti-blasphemy" campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the southern city of Avignon.
The violent slashing of the picture, and another Serrano photograph of a meditating nun, has plunged secular France into soul-searching about Christian fundamentalism and Nicolas Sarkozy's use of religious populism in his bid for re-election next year."
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)a poster child for right wing religious extremism. Not to mention venomous hate disguised as free speech.
It is simple. There is a difference between talking about the hornet's nest - and poking it with a pretty girl stick to see what happens, hoping someone gets stung.
UTUSN
(70,718 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)with mind-numbing analogies that are absurdly off-base. I'm glad a lot of people see through them.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)That said, I have no further commentary on this other than to say the gunmen are asses and so is Pam Geller.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)By Ms. Geller, her supporters, her critics, Faux News, the NRA, the military/police/intelligence/prison industrial complex, ISIL and various critics of America on the stupid deaths of two marginalized people.
Yay Earth
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Nothing happened to this woman.
She is like the friend who drove her friend to the frat house and left her there.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and some gold old boys got their rifles and went right to where the protest is to kill some of the protesters and before they could shoot one of them, the police shot them, you would say what to your friend? "No big deal"?
elleng
(131,018 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'spreading RW propaganda', or whatever the accusation is that gets thrown at lefties all the time when they point out flaws in Clinton.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)You were not "raped", Pam. You were not shot or injured or in any way harmed.
You wanted violence so you could justify your message, you got violence because two idiots fell for your trap, and unfortunately an third party--not you Pam nor anyone in your contest--was injured because of it. We're lucky there weren't more innocent people injured.
She's getting everything she wanted here.
melman
(7,681 posts)Like it's something that just happened to them. She's the bad actor, and they just got caught up in it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Even if it is to the extent of 60/40 or 80/20 or 95/5?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Exactly the outcome she was looking for. Her only regret is that innocents didn't die.
She was hoping for a truck bomb.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)With intent, she successfully baited the lowest common denominators among us. Rape victims however, do not do so.
It's an invalid, half-witted and idiotic analogy predicated on both bias and agenda.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
gordianot
(15,242 posts)They do employ a number of so called attractive blond female reporters. Guess Geraldo, Hannity, and Billo need to take all the heat. As for myself I find none of them attractive including self described sex object non Fox News delusionist Pam Geller.
olddots
(10,237 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Then cries victim when someone gets stung.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)How is that not comparing Muslims to bees? If it isn't, please explain the comparison.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Is that no innocents died. She was hoping for a truck bomb so she could justify the WWIII that she was sure would result from her sick minded little scheme.
You know, cuz freedom and stuff...
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)drunk, then cries victim when she's raped. You're using the exact same line of reasoning as rape apologists.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)I'm just commenting so I don't get pulled into a jury on this thread.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Was the contest targeted at people that wouldn't be offended or was it targeted at people that would be offended?
Was the reason for the behaviour within you or without you?
For example:
* It is okay to say the word "asshole" in a conversation. It is not okay to call somebody an asshole.
* You are free to think whatever racist, classist, sexist and homophobic stuff you want. You not free to treat people like that.
* You are free to say whatever you want. You are not free to abuse that right for slander, lies, misinformation and attacks.
Pamela Geller's free-speech-defense would work better if she fought for the free-speech-rights of Muslims, too.
spanone
(135,855 posts)certainly not ms. geller....the ugly exudes from her
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)It would most likely be alerted on and be hidden. I have the freedom to post this and someone else has the freedom to alert on it. Does this make me a victim because I used speech that is offensive?
It's nothing like being a rape victim or blaming a rape victim--no matter what a rape victim wears or doesn't wear, she's not "asking" to be raped.
It's all about being responsible with the words you use and accepting the responsibility if you take those words too far--we berate bullies all the time on DY and never compare those to rape victims when we do berate them. Why is Geller or her words any different?
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Im ok with the former, not the later.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)responsible for the people who died in that attack, and Geller is responsible for the injuries suffered by the security guard, and heck, why not, for the deaths of the two gunmen as well.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)I'm referring to her constant anti-Islam language. Not what happened at the convention center.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Was she harmed? Did anyone deny her the right to hold the convention? Did anyone tell her she couldn't say what she said? Not that I can see, so please explain how this woman is a victim? The security guard was certainly a victim but Geller not so much.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Charlie Hebdo was actually about the concepts we call the first amendment.
She's using our first amendment sensibilities to outlaw Islam, in effect to nullify the core of the first amendment.
It's clever but cynical to use the first amendment to destroy the first amendment.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)For starts.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Intent, maybe? Geller intended to spark violence. It's no different than the scenario above about the woman naked in the frat house. She's still a victim
Other than that, it's basically the same. A person engaged in a 100% legal activity who is violently attacked and then blamed for it.
The idiot terrorists made her a free speech hero and a celebrity 
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)You do understand that concept right?
Otherwise it's not rape. It's just plain old consensual sex.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Reread the scenario at the beginning of this thread about the frat house. She's still a victim
frylock
(34,825 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)She was made to feel as if her life was in danger
frylock
(34,825 posts)a security guard was shot at. Her group was safe and sound, singing nationalistic theme songs.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)....there has to be a crime committed against that specific person in the first place. Without that crime, there is no victim. Get it?
An incredibly stupid hypothetical deserves an equally incredibly stupid dramatization, so let me demonstrate the flaw in said hypothetical:
Woman (seeing man): I desire to have sexual intercourse with that man.
Man (to woman): I believe you wish to have sexual intercourse with me. Ergo, let us have sexual intercourse together.
(The two have sexual intercourse, after which time.....)
Woman (to man): Ha ha, you fool. I did not actually wish to have sexual intercourse with you after all. I hereby retroactively revoke my consent for you to have sexual intercourse with me. I only wanted you to think I wanted to have sexual intercourse without me so you would have sexual intercourse with me without my consent and therefore I could call you a rapist. You have just raped me. Ergo, you are a rapist.
(Sad trombone theme music plays; man looks into camera dejected)
So, yeah, that was incredibly dumb, because that whole argument is incredibly dumb. Of course you have to look into a person's intent to determine whether or not they are actually a victim. If they literally and actually do want something to happen to them--not just a misinterpretation of signals but an actual intent--then guess what: they aren't a victim.
(And let's not forget that once again, Geller herself was not shot at, killed, injured or specifically targeted. Someone else--a third party not associated with her or her organization--was.)
Clearly neither you nor Pamela Geller have any idea what rape actually is.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)she was the victim of assault or attempted battery.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Because if the gunfire took place in the front of the building and she was deep inside the back of the building, it's extremely doubtful she'd be considered the victim of such crimes.
Hell, I still don't know if she was even there at the time of the shooting. Can anyone confirm?
Sgent
(5,857 posts)There are better statues she would be a victim of. The number one being domestic terrorism:
18 U.S. Code § 2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)She didn't care who got shot or blown up, she just wanted some sort of violent reaction to the event.
It had nothing to do with the First Amendment.
That's my claim.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Only the reaction she gets is rape.
Oh never mind. You have built your trenches and fortifications, the fact that you are blaming the victim of a violent attack "because words" is not going to get you to change your position.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Please kindly explain to me how exactly that constitutes rape, since the definition of rape precludes its victims from wanting to be raped.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)And if someone uses that as an excuse to rape her, she is indeed the victim of rape.
That's nothing remotely close to what happened here.
Pam Geller didn't hold this event simply because she wanted people to talk about free speech or whatever. She's made her entire career about railing about the dangers of Islam and how there's an Islamic threat that's going to kill us all. She decided to hold this event right after Charlie Hedbo. She had to have known that there was a high likelihood of a similar reaction to her event, and she either knew or should have known that innocent people could get injured or even killed. And that's exactly what happened. And since it happened, she's been on our TVs 24-7 saying the same shit that she's been saying for years on her blog leading up to this event.
A victim has lost something--his or her money or property, or physical well-being, or sense of self-worth, or life itself.
What exactly has Pam Geller lost here?
That's right, nothing.
She's in fact gained all the attention in the world. She's not a victim.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That the reaction she got was islamic jihadists shooting people at her event might not have been the exact reaction she wanted, but that is irrelevant, according to you.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)The woman makes her money creating the Muslim boogeyman to scare US citizens. Any incident that lends any sort of credence to her position (even if it in fact distortive of reality) she is going to take it and run with it and beat into the ground.
Put it this way: She didn't hold this event simply so us people at DU could have something to talk about.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And it's pretty sad when a right wing asshole is right and many on DU can't see that because of their bias.
It's blaming the victim. Doesn't matter if Geller wanted violence, which there isn't proof of, being provocative isn't a crime. Hoping for violence in reaction to your event isn't a crime.
If there is no excuse for violence, then what the victim of violence intended is completely irrelevant.
Lots of people excusing violence and blaming the victim here.
And yeah, if someone is hosting an event that is attacked by people intending on killing as many as they can, they're a target of the violence and a victim.
Heck, there are conservatives saying Geller "went too far", which makes sense, as this is all about protecting the privileged position of religion in society, all this victim blaming bullshit.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)In order to kill and terrorize anyone associated with the event. Seriously? This is a question?
frylock
(34,825 posts)fucking seriously?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)same exact thing.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Th analogy is that people blaming her are using the same logic as those who blame victims of rape. And they are.
ann---
(1,933 posts)we are saying it is not comparable at all.
Sex is supposed to be CONSENSUAL - if it isn't
it is rape -regardless of what the woman (or man)
looks like.
I'm sure Muslims would never consent to having
ugly cartoons drawn of their religious leader, so
I think the analogy would mean that Pam was the
perpetrator.
This in no way condones the shooting - but it
certainly does not deny that the actions Pam
Weller took were hate speech which is always risky.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)So she should be blamed for ensuing violence? Getting drunk and going home with a guy a woman doesn't know is risky, so she should be blamed for the ensuing rape?
It's the exact same line of reasoning.
ann---
(1,933 posts)It's certainly NOT the same line of reasoning as a woman being raped.
If you've ever been raped, you would be insulted by the comparison.
Besides, Pam Geller was not attacked.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Which is completely subjective. My opposition is to blaming the violence on her. I'm not comparing her experience with being raped, I'm comparing the reasoning of rape apologists with those who say Geller is to blame for the violence.
ann---
(1,933 posts)blaming her for the violence committed by the shooters.
But, she is not blameless in the hate speech department.
Who holds a contest for the most hate-filled cartoon
against a religious leader? She is as sick as the shooters.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)assigning at least partial blame for the violence on her.
ann---
(1,933 posts)those who put nude photos of themselves on the internet
or storage site and then sue when someone hacks the site.
Both are to blame - though not to the same degree.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There is some mandate, some edict, that has gone out that requires some people here to insist on blaming the victims.
frylock
(34,825 posts)her analogy is flat out bullshit, and is an affront to anyone who has been raped. It's inconceivable to me that people on this board lend her any fucking credence on this argument.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I didn't see anyone on here say the experience was similar to the experience of being raped.
The people blaming Geller are using the EXACT SAME reasoning as rape apologists, and THAT'S what's disgusting.
frylock
(34,825 posts)She has likened herself to the pretty girl that girl was responsible for her own rape ffs.
“How ridiculous,” she opined to the BBC. “I mean, that’s like saying the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape. The mayor is going after the defenders of free speech, and clearly giving a free pass to the savages who came with guns to kill innocent people because of a cartoon.”
Her words.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Of those blaming her for the violence with those of rape apologists, and, well, it's the same reasoning.
frylock
(34,825 posts)be sure and get back to let us know if they agree with you and Geller. Kirk out.
That seems irrelevant.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)So yeah, it does seem irrelevant to me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)THAT may have been closer to HER part in inciting the violence with her hate-filled cartoon contest. She was paying money to
the winner for the cartoon that reflected the most hatred of a religious leader. What does that make her? A tease? Maybe. A hater?
Absolutely.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Being a rape victim and being a bigoted asshole aren't the same thing. Anyone can become a rape victim. One chooses to become a bigoted asshole. Do I think that people should kill bigoted assholes? Of course not. Being a bigoted asshole is not deserving of a death sentence. However, comparing someone getting killed because they were being a bigoted asshole, a choice they made, with a rape victim, a circumstance not of choosing, is wrong.
Stating that actions have consequences does not mean one is stating automatic approval of every possible consequence. Stating one shouldn't be an asshole doesn't make one an apologist for every consequence that asshole faced. So, no, I won't compare a bigoted asshole deliberately provoking known murderously violent people to a rape victim and anyone doing so is wrong.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)of a rape apologist. It doesn't matter if you think a person is a bigoted asshole, it's never their fault for being targeted by violence! What if the rape victim was a bigoted asshole? Using your logic, the rape would be partially her fault because of "a choice she made".
If there is no excuse for violence, you can't BLAME the victims of violence because you don't like them.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Pam Geller is not a victim.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And so what if she did? Again, sounds similar to "she was asking for it, wearing that short of a skirt, she wanted it".
Something tells me Geller didn't want to be killed, but even if she did want to be attacked, it's completely irrelevant as to who gets the blame.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Thousands-Protest-Muslim-Conference-in-Garland-288936351.html
Thousands Protest Muslim Conference in Garland
Thousands of protesters and counter-protesters held American flags and signs outside of a Muslim conference in Garland, Texas, on Saturday night.
"We're here to stand up for the American way of life from a faction of people who are trying to destroy us," a man protesting the conference said.
The demonstrations began hours before the start of the program at the Curtis Culwell Center, which is operated by the Garland Independent School District.
The conference is titled, “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate” and bills itself as a fundraiser to build a center dedicated to teaching Muslims how to combat negative depictions of their faith.
The art exhibit and contest will be held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland on May 3rd. ”This was the site of a Muslim conference denouncing ‘Islamophobia’ — an obscene stand for them to take after the Charlie Hebdo massacre – and our massive Free Speech Rally outside that event,” Geller wrote in a press release obtained by Breitbart Texas
(Link is for verification purposes only
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/11/10000-muhammad-art-and-cartoon-contest-to-be-held-at-site-of-stand-with-the-prophet-conference-in-texas/
And for the 1,000th time, Geller was not shot, injured, killed, shot at, or ever in any immediate danger at the time of the event. The only individual who was physically impacted was a security guard hired by the city to guard the event.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)are more than just those who actually are successfully attacked. And so what if she was being provacitive, that's her right! Again, exact same logic as rape apologists. You can't shoot a place up because you're offended!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)The only thing that's happening here is that people are rightfully calling BS on Geller's "victim" schtick and "First Amendment hero defender" schtick.
Pam Geller hasn't suffered anything as a result of these attacks. She's only gained the attention that she wanted in the first place. She's been on the media nonstop spewing her views.
She's nothing at all like a rape victim. The rape analogy is ridiculous and offensive but we wouldn't expect anything less from Ms. Geller.
She's not a victim.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)for the attack, that is what I was speaking against. I don't think Geller supports the First Amendment, from looking at her views.
She is a victim, and the comparison is between those who blame her and those who blame rape victims, and it is the exact same logic.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)That there can be multiple contributing factors from multiple independent parties. And while someone may have primary responsibility and another may have secondary responsibility, the primary responsible party doesn't negate the actions of the secondary responsible party.
Exactly how is Geller a victim here? Because I just don't see it at all.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Rape victims don't have "secondary responsibility", even if they acted provocatively or in a risky manner, same with any violence. The violent party carries all blame and all responsibility, otherwise you are saying that, on some level, their reaction was justified and the other person shares the blame. It's blaming the victim.
Terrorist attacks against groups always make victims of their members and leaders, by terrorizing them with the threat of violence and death, even if they don't all get shot. That is the aim of terrorism.
Geller was and especially now is a target.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I don't know how many times I have to point out that rape victims do not intend to be raped, and thus rape apologists claiming that they are to blame for wearing a sexy outfit are dead wrong.
But that's nothing like what Pam Geller wanted. She wanted a violent reaction, and she didn't care who would be the victim of that violent reaction, so long as she got that violent reaction.
To wit, if there hadn't been a violent reaction to Geller's event, she wouldn't be on cable news 24-7 saying the exact same things about Muslims she said prior to the event. She wanted a platform for her viewpoints, and she wanted something that she could point to that she would claim would justify her pre-existing beliefs.
Do you understand how wrong it is to compare Geller's situation to that of a rape victim?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'm guessing Geller didn't want to die. What if an activist was hoping for someone to at least make an attempt at assaulting them in order to get attention? So what? They're still a victim, and the offender is entirely at fault.
I think it's entirely appropriate to compare the logic of those blaming Geller for violence to those who blame provocative women for rape, because it's the exact same logic.
I think people who keep saying it's wrong to compare Geller's experience to rape are either being intentionally disingenuous or they really can't understand the point being made.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Geller never bothers to plan this event until after the Charlie Hedbo attacks, so she knows this is the type of thing that could provoke a violent response. Not only that, but she decides to hold the event in Garland, Texas, where it just so happened that there was a major Muslim-American conference that her group had protested, not to mention that there's a significant Muslim population in the area.
Do you honestly believe all of that was a coincidence?
While Geller never expressly said "I dare you to attack me", every single thing she did screamed that this was the intended result. She wouldn't have been on the news this week but-for this going down.
Geller may not have specifically wanted to personally die, but that doesn't mean she didn't want an attack on her event. She could and in fact did successfully insulate herself from the danger, while others were exposed to risk. This is manipulative, reckless, selfish and unethical behavior at its very height.
She's not a victim. She was not killed, injured, or every in any immediate danger. The fact that she's a victim because her event was attacked is bullshit. First, because I'll repeat she was not killed, injured or ever in any immediate danger. A few years ago, there was a murder-suicide in my office building. I heard the gunshots through the wall go off in the office next to mine. It was an extremely scary and unnerving event. However, as horrible as it was, I personally was not the "victim" of anything.
Secondly, because this was the exact thing she wanted. It wasn't something that she should have expected. It was how she wanted it to play out. And that's why the whole rape analogy is so insulting to actual rape victims. If you believe the rape victim comparison, and it appears you have, you are nothing but a fool.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Is completely irrelevant. Whether she was personally a victim is also irrelevant. We can disagree on those, because it doesn't matter.
The analogy to rape apologists is entirely appropriate, because it's the exact same logic, whether you qualify her as a victim or not, or think she wanted an attack or not. Rape apologists also dispute these two things all the time, and for the exact same bankrupt reasoning. No matter what, you can't blame someone else for violence simply because they expressed themselves.
And that's what you're doing.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)If she's not a victim of the violence (and she wasn't), and her conscious, voluntary and intentional actions were to encourage an attack on her event, she bears some degree of responsibility for the outcome.
Your analogy would now be if someone went up to a known or suspected rapist, point to a woman in the corner and tell that person they ought to try and take advantage of her, and the perpetrator proceeds to rape her......that person would bear a portion of responsibility of what happened, even if it were only that person's intention to lure the suspected rapist into doing something that would bring him to justice.
You do know that rape is a very serious and scarring attack on one's body, both physically and psychologically? Many people who are raped feel so much shame and horror for what happened they're afraid to tell police or family members right away. I've never heard of any rape victim who immediately after her rape did whatever is the equivalent of going on just about every cable news show on television for five days straight after her rape.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The only comparison being made is the rape apologists logic to those blaming Geller, and it's the same.
You're blaming Geller for the violent actions of another because she organized an event.
It doesn't matter if she hoped for an attack for publicity. It's not her fault.
Your analogy was terrible. If you want to remove victimhood from it, which it was never about anyways, but which follows right along with rape apologists logic, then an apt analogy would be an LGBT rights activist and organizer of an event in a very homophobic country that sponsors a contest to vote for the sexiest naked homosexual couples, and hires heavy security, expecting, nay hoping, for attempted violence to bring more attention to their cause. An attack happens.
So fucking what!? It's not the organizer's fault, it's only the attacker's fault.
You are excusing violence, you are justifying violence when it's a viewpoint you don't like, it's the exact same disgusting logic as a rape aplogist.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Geller didn't just organize the event. She organized an event wanting a violent response. She got that violent response. The people who perpetrated the violence were no doubt to blame here. That's undisputed. However, by desiring a violent result, she too bears some degree of responsibility if anyone beyond willful participants of the event are injured.
There's nothing in that situation that absolves Geller of criticism here. None.
And your hypothetical--the gay beauty contest in a homophobic country--if the organizer of such an event wanted violence, and innocent bystanders end up hurt or killed, that organizer too is not the victim and is not immune from criticism or blame. Sorry.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)to say it's not her fault, it's defending the right to express views. If you can separate those two, maybe you'll see my point.
I have no idea how someone ever deserves blame for violence for merely expressing an opinion.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)And suggest that all she did was "express an opinion."
You're completely ignoring everything that suggests that she herself did everything she could short of expressly daring people to attack to set forward a violent reaction to her event, all so that she could gain a bully pulpit. And by her actions, someone not affiliated with her group, someone who was only there because he was hired by the city to guard the event, was injured.
Geller's not a victim and you know it.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's not her fault. I think the guard was hired by Geller, and was off duty, not that it matters.
Yes, all she did was express a viewpoint.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)She's been expressing her viewpoints for years. Fine, nothing wrong with that, even if they are hateful and bigoted viewpoints.
Her problem is that she intentionally set up a situation to demonstrate her "viewpoint", and that situation was dangerous to the public at large. Perhaps her behavior wasn't specific enough to be criminal, but it was certainly reckless.
The injured security officer was a public ISD officer. Even if he got off-duty pay for it, he still was neither a participant nor an organizer of the event.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)is she expresses herself in a way you found dangerous because other people attacked her, so it's her fault. I'll never understand that line of reasoning, but it can be used to blame people for violence for expressing themselves in any situation. That's not a healthy attitude.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)She intentionally put other people in the line of fire (literally) for her own agenda. I don't think you're understanding that.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The only people who did something intentionally wrong were the shooters. She didn't force people to go to a controversial exhibit.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)But yet that very clearly was Pam Geller's intent in holding this event, to provoke a violent response to it.
http://www.newsweek.com/qa-pamela-geller-woman-isis-wants-dead-330244
They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less-protected target, and killed more people. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. And because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed
Mark my words, this had nothing to actually do with "free speech."
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)and Geller's intent doesn't change it in any way. It was completely legal what she did, and it should be. If merely expressing an opinion is enough to be considered a death wish, then the people who are assaulting others as a result of the speech are to blame.
kcr
(15,318 posts)One makes a choice to be a bigoted asshole. Therefore it is relevant.
It isn't my logic. I'm not the one using such broad sweeping logic comparing all victims of violence to those who deliberately provoke it.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Or it shouldn't I should say, as many people do exactly as your reasoning says, by telling a target of violence they're partially to blame because of some trait or characteristic.
Who is "deliberately provoking violence" is really up for interpretation as well, and under your logic, if a gay couple gets attacked in a rural town for showing PDA, and a witness mutters they were deliberately provoking violence, they're just using your logic. Really, everyone who is attacked deliberately provoked violence under some interpretation, which of course doesn't matter at all.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Deliberate action. Blame can be placed on both.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But, no nonviolent action can be blamed. I suppose PDA is action as well. It's all the same logic.
If you think people should never be attacked for drawing offensive cartoons, even deliberately, then you can't blame those targeted.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Being a bigoted asshole isn't a trait. That is deliberate action. Her deliberate action was particularly pointed and deliberate, however. She knowingly provoked an act hoping for a violent reaction. She was hoping for this very reaction. To compare this to rape victims is beyond the pale.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It doesn't matter how deliberately she was provoking someone, it was done in a completely nonviolent, legal manner, and all you are doing is justifying the attack on her by placing the blame on her.
The comparison isn't Geller to a rape victim, it's rape apologists to terrorist apologists, and many on here are uncomfortably mimicking the same line of reasoning over and over.
"But she was naked walking through a room full of guys, she was pointedly deliberately provoking that guy. She has some responibility as well". Nope. Fucking nope. Do you get if yet? Fuck, it's a little frustrating, but I don't really give a shit what a person finds "incredibly provocative" or if the person targeted was hoping for some sort of response, if violence is NEVER an excuse, they CANNOT be blamed.
You ARE excusing violence if you deem an action "provacitive" enough, that's is majorly FUCKED.
kcr
(15,318 posts)It certainly does if you're going to compare and equate her with rape or any other victims. Legal doesn't mean free from judgment or reproach or condemnation. Legal doesn't mean equal to all other people. I don't give a shit if it was legal. It still makes her a giant peace of shit. It still makes her morally and ethically culpable. She is not a victim and it is a giant slap in the face to victims everywhere to compare her to them.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But to blame her for the violence is blaming the victim. People aren't morally or ethically culpable for other's violence against their nonviolent, legal expression. The only way for them to be culpable is if a person believes, on some level, that the nonviolent expression DESERVES to be met with violence.
The people who most fervently believe that are the people that targeted this event, and the many others who believe violence is deserved, and who condone it. If you don't condone this violence, then you can't blame Geller.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Because she had a part in it. That's why I think she's a piece of shit. People are indeed morally and ethically culpable when they deliberately take an action and their intention is that the action result in violence. You may choose to give this piece of shit the benefit of the doubt and think she did not have that intention. Maybe it's because you don't have full knowledge of the situation? I don't know.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)As a person whose event is shot at for promoting LGBT equality through artwork depicting gay couples kissing in a homophobic country. Which is to say, none at all.
Uh uh. Big difference. In your example, the person promoting LGBT equality is not hoping for a violent reaction. Here, I'll try this. An equivilent would be someone who wants voilent action on LGBT activists but doesn't want to do it themselves and get their hands dirty. So they stage rallies holding pictures of of GLBT activism with targets on their faces, knowning that their violent crazy followers will be there, and mention the dates, times and locations of the LGBT pomotion events, knowing that this will incite the crazies to do it for them. When one of them does the deed, they shrug and and pull the innocent, "who, me?" act.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)to bring attention to their cause? I mean, they would have to be hoping for a violent reaction in such a circumstance, even expecting it, right?
It doesn't matter what they were hoping for. Why would it? On what logic does it matter?
kcr
(15,318 posts)But yes, I would say there is a difference, certainly. I would not equate the two. Intentions matter. Why doesn't it matter?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Even if the person being targeted is hoping fervently, for whatever demented or respectable reason, that their nonviolent expression will be targeted. It's never that person's fault. It's only the people that committed the violent act.
kcr
(15,318 posts)No way equality could ever be maintained longterm with that attitude. Violence has to be carefully considered, of course, but sometimes it's the right course.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)When?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)she even said it.
It's sickening.
frylock
(34,825 posts)fuck me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)right now.
That people here could defend her in anyway whatsoever appalls me.
I gave everyone a pass early yesterday, because it was clear they didn't know who was behind this.
And honestly, most people backed down when they found out.
But there are a few who are just ramping it up.
To be honest, I think it may be driven by islamic bigotry. There seems to be some kind of identification with Geller going on here, and that's all I can figure.
ann---
(1,933 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But would it make a difference? If she was there could she not be blamed? It's irrelevant. Terrorism is about terrorizing more than just the people at the event, it will definitely terrorize anyone at the event or hosting the event or thinking of hosting such an event, the message is that they are open game to be targeted.
randome
(34,845 posts)Which is a very personal type of violence.
She may be a 'victim' of having her hate speech temporarily interrupted but that's about it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Victims of rape, and that is a valid comparison.
ann---
(1,933 posts)wrong reaction to hate speech, but the only
way Pam Geller could have had that "event"
was to pay $10,000 for security that the sheriff
said was required. She knew her hate speech
would not be free.
How, in heaven's name is that comparable
to a woman being raped because she is attractive
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Is using the same logic as rape apologists. That's the point of the analogy.
Her event was free speech, the only people to blame for the violence is the shooters.
ann---
(1,933 posts)I blame her for using hate speech as a way to denigrate a
religious leader. Free speech that is hate speech is disgusting
and she is to blame for that. She incited more hatred against
Muslims and there were consequences to pay for her taking that
risk.
Comparing this situation to a woman being raped is wrong and
a slap in the face to all women (and men) who have suffered the
horror of rape.
Pamela Geller was not attacked.
gordianot
(15,242 posts)Being a grotesque ignorant slob he would walk up to the dog chained behind a fence to hear the dog growl and run toward the fence trying to reach his tormentor. Once too often after weakening the chain it broke and the dog got to his tormentor with fury and vengeance. I know I saw it happen and in this case at the age of 7 knowing the neighbor and dog pulled him off. Parents did not sue I hope because they knew their son was a grotesque ignorant slob. The neighbor shot his dog after it was determined the dog did not have rabies. The paper boy kept his route and his neighbors had cause to hate him.
As far as I know to his credit he never used the fact that he was a grotesque ignorant slob one time as a defense.
So how is it this grotesque woman who self identifies as attractive a victim? I equate her as the monster in my story the paperboy was a monster, in her story the terrorists are also monsters, the dog was turned into a monster, the neighbor had to commit a monstrous act. All because some one saw fit to be a tormentor.
Now how is it again Pam Geller is a victim?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The shooters were not dogs, they were responsible for their actions.
gordianot
(15,242 posts)Even after I pulled him off. This by the way is a true story.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)IMHO, we haven't given them personhood or legal rights yet, though it's an interesting topic. But, it seems cruel to taunt animals because they cannot reason like we do. They are acting on instinct. That's the theory anyways.
The blame on that situation would lie on the owner that didn't secure the dog, but I'm sure some interesting arguments could be made that the boy contributed as well. It's just not a good analogy though IMHO.
gordianot
(15,242 posts)The dog in his doggy logic was not totally out of control. Whatever a human does I take it is a conscious act and should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions at least that is partly what you are now conceding. There is nothing so frustrating in human behavior as a double standard.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Not that this is a massively racist line of argument or anything.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts) for those so impaired.Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)
Pam Geller wanted to warn people about the dangers of MacGuffins, so she went to Times Square and placed a big heaping pile of MacGuffin food in the middle of it.
You'll eventually get it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Metaphors that compare people with free will to animals.. you just can't seem to admit what a silly metaphor that is.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)There's a key distinction between metaphors and analogies.
Both metaphors and analogies seek to compare to things that on the surface are not the same.
However, analogies are fueled by how similar those two different things are. So they seek to draw as many comparisons between the two things as possible.
However, metaphors aren't as concerned as drawing as many similarities between the two things as they are talking about a greater, underlying theme or truth between them. So the comparisons are far less literal.
"Kicking the hornet's nest". "Poking a sleeping dog with a stick." "Chumming the waters for sharks." All of these are metaphors. The themes of these metaphors is danger, and the intentional creation of danger where danger might otherwise not exist. The animal reference is something that brings home that theme of danger, but it's not asking the listener to compare whatever creates that danger specifically to animals. Whatever animal reference there is in the metaphor is a MacGuffin. A MacGuffin is a narrative device where something in the narrative is key to the development of the narrative, but itself has no value. It can be interchanged with any other MacGuffin and the underlying narrative remains the same.
So bring that to Geller. What we're saying is that Geller previously spoke about what she viewed as a dangerous situation in the abstract, but instead of keeping that danger in the abstract where there'd be little risk to the surrounding public, she intentionally created a situation where that danger moved from being abstract to very real, and thus placing the public needlessly at risk in doing so.
So real the subject of the metaphor is not Muslims, but Pam Geller and danger. Thus the animal reference is not meant to compare Muslims to animals but rather to focus on whatever danger Geller intended to create.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I know, you've got too much invested in it to back-pedal now but it's fun watching you splutter and try to convince folks that you weren't comparing people to animals.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Clearly you don't either understand the difference between an analogy and a metaphor, or you don't want to understand it. Or you do understand now but you don't want to admit it.
The "danger" in the metaphor is the MacGuffin. Substitute in whatever you want--Muslims, sharks, aliens, whatever--and it will still say the same thing about Pam Geller regardless: She intentionally created a dangerous situation just to argue her point where she didn't need to.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Please, continue. Your bias is showing. It deserves more sunshine.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)The metaphor speaks towards analyzing Geller's behavior. It's not focused on the specific type of danger created, only that Geller sought to create the danger.
Honestly, do you now understand, or are you intentionally being obtuse?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you can't see how fucking dehumanizing that is, I give up.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Take yourself back to high school English class.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I get it though, even if they don't.
Omaha Steve
(99,675 posts)I'll catch heck now for being shallow.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)THAT's where her analogy is a false one.
The rape victim is not asking to be raped. The hatemonger, on the other hand, is intentionally trying to stir up hate. Geller got EXACTLY what she wanted, unlike a rape victim.
Mz Pip
(27,452 posts)A pretty woman does not go out with the intention of getting raped. Geller is a provocateur. I'm sure she's pleased as punch this happened.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not sure how to put it though. But a girl out and dressed a certain way does not want to be raped. She wanted some Muslim to do something bad. She took the affirmative step to get that to happen.
murielm99
(30,749 posts)decided to have an event near the courthouse in my rural county. A few toothless bigots showed up to have a cookout. (I don't remember how many portapotties they had, if any).
Hundreds of people showed up to protest. Law enforcement was all over the place, protecting that handful of toothless bigots. The bigots had done everything legally. They had a right to be there.
Of course, all the protesters should have stayed home.
There was no violence. There could have been. But we do protect hate speech in this country.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's the fault of the guy who hit him, of course, but people still aren't going to have a lot of sympathy for the drunk asshole.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)And then the drunk asshole has the audacity to play the victim.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... The same exact asinine argument that was made by Democrats on this very forum.
Fascinating.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)there is nothing to justifying shooting people for whatever fucking shit they are saying.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)...including comparing herself to Rosa Parks and rape victims.
When very clearly Pam Geller is not the victim here.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but honestly, i didn't read in great detail
840high
(17,196 posts)
ananda
(28,868 posts)..
Quantess
(27,630 posts)She is not describing herself as a pretty girl that got raped.
It's more abstract than that: Saying that you were provoked does not excuse the crime.
I happen to agree with the analogy.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Geller's quote actually is an analogy and not a metaphor, and therefore she is comparing herself to a rape victim. And therefore it's an offensive analogy.
The quote:
“How ridiculous,” she opined to the BBC. “I mean, that’s like saying the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape. The mayor is going after the defenders of free speech, and clearly giving a free pass to the savages who came with guns to kill innocent people because of a cartoon.”
Pam Geller is self-identifying herself as a "defender of free speech", and therefore claiming she's being blamed for the attack, like someone might blame a rape victim for being raped because of how she was dressed.
There was one innocent victim in this attack. That victim happened to be a security guard assigned by the city to guard the event. He was not a member of Geller's group or one of the artists drawing the cartoons.
Geller's claiming that she and her group, the so-called "defenders of free speech" are the victims here.
Meanwhile, Geller's desire to see violence as a result of this event in order to give her a bully pulpit to spread her views arguably put the actual victim at greater risk. No doubt the attackers themselves hold the primary responsibility for what happened, but she is far from blameless and certainly not the victim.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)That's what it boils down to: Putting pen to paper and depicting the oh-so-precious imaginary sky-daddy Mohammed provokes murder of real flesh-and-blood people.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)...and she wanted it to happen because she wanted to have a platform to spew her own agenda.
And someone--not her--was injured because of it, and we're lucky that other innocent life was not killed or injured, either.
So the whole idea that she's parading herself around like she's some First Amendment Martyr is disgusting because that's not why she did it. And the fact that so many DUers have bought and propogated her First Amendment Martryrdom schtick is just pathetic.
She's not primarily responsible for what happened. But she's not blameless, either. And she's certainly no victim.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)No admonishment for the unhinged nutcases who wanted to murder anyone who dares put a pen to paper to show what their god might look like.
Of course Pamela Geller is not a victim. I'm not saying that, and I don't think Geller called herself the victim, either. Free speech is the victim.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I said it's about people who refuse to admit that she had any role in what happened.
It's easy to admonish people who act out violently, because that pretty goes without saying. It's harder to speak up against someone who manipulated said violence and is now shamelessly parading around like a First Amendment martyr.
And there's no mutual exclusivity between the two. I don't know why people don't realize that. More than one party can play a role.
And yes, she is absolutely playing the victim here.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I see it differently. To me, it is all about the backwards, insane, radicalized islamists who think it's great to murder anyone who draws a picture of their precious Mohammed.
How can anyone in their right mind defend these radical islamists? Who is more wrong, here? I think Ms Geller is just proving a point.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)That both of their actions demonstrate what is grossly wrong with some members of society? That both of their actions viewed together demonstrate that violence and hatred create a viscous cycle?
It's not a zero sum game here. Fault can be attributed to both sides. And maybe those who actually respond to the provocations of violence by committing the violence may be more responsible than the original provocateurs, but in the end, they both share some proportion of the blame.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)If you take the fucking radical islamists' side, then I have lost all hope in not only you but DU as a whole.
Even if you call it 40 / 60
By that I mean, if you place even 40% ( geller= <.4) of the blame on Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, etc)
then I have serious doubts about...anything! My place in humanity?! You think these fucking islamist fascists should dictate to the world whatever they say?
I happen to be a woman, and if these crazy islamist assholes take charge, you better believe I am fucked, as are all women. Look what the radicalized islamists do to gay people. Beheadings are a dime a dozen.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Why can't they both be absolutely wrong and neither responsible for the wrongness of the other?
I do not believe that Ms. Geller is responsible for the acts of the gunmen.
I do not believe the terrorists are responsible for the hateful bigotry of Ms. Geller.
But they are both very, very wrong and very, very dangerous. In fact, one might call them both terrorists.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Hence, I'm not taking either of their sides.
You can bicker over proportionality or percentage of fault all you like. It doesn't matter. They are all bad people. They all played some role in what happened there, which was putting innocent people at risk.
There's one victim here. One. That's the security guard who was shot and wounded. He didn't deserve that. But he got that because of the hot mess that was placed around him by everyone else.
As far as I'm concerned, Pam Geller, Elton Simpson, Nadir Soof, Geert Wilders, and whoever else played a role here---they can all fuck each other till the cows come home. They're all shit.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)1:20 to the end.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"I suppose I should have just kept my mouth shut like a mute. Then everybody would be happy!"
trotsky
(49,533 posts)QUITE offensive. To their religious beliefs, even.
I guess MLK shouldn't have provoked them?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I mean, the woman already compared herself to Rosa Parks and a rape victim. What's comparing her to Martin Luther King at this point?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But since the topic here is if you offend/provoke people to be violent, you are wrong, then what exactly is wrong with that comparison?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)King knew that his actions might provoke people to be violent, but that wasn't his end game.
Geller wanted to provoke people to be violent in order to give her a platform to demonize an entire religion. That's pretty much the polar opposite of King's philosophy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And surely MLK knew he was provoking people, and that violence could result.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)That King didn't want violence? Or that Geller wanted violence?
King anticipated violence. He didn't want it. And the violence he anticipated was violence that was directly targeted at him and his compatriots, not at people who were bystanders to the conflict. And King didn't see violence against him and his group as an opportunity to demonize an entire group of people. Rather he saw the ultimate juxtaposition of non-violence vs. violence as something that would ultimately be a unifying force when the dust had settled.
Geller didn't just anticipate a violent reaction, she wanted a violent reaction. And she got a violent reaction. And in this instance the only actual victim of the violent reaction was not someone in her group, but instead it was a bystander. And there's no chance she wants to use that violence as a catalyst for unity as King did. She just wants to use it in order to further demonize an entire group.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm pretty sure that she didn't want to to be killed. Seems reasonable.
Lots of people had already been killed in the South fighting for civil rights. MLK knew there were risks, and the risks were real, and that he was putting himself and others around him in danger. But he felt his cause was worth it. Geller did (and does) too, as wrong as she might be about that.
So basically your position comes down to special pleading (Geller is a Republican asshole, MLK wasn't), not an overriding principle. Glad we've established that.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Why? Because that's where there was a major Muslim-American conference back in January in that same building, and there were protests of the conference in the community. There is also a significant Muslim population in Garland.
It's all here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026630577
She knew it was a tinder box. She even admitted as much in an--ugh--Breitbart piece:
The art exhibit and contest will be held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland on May 3rd. ”This was the site of a Muslim conference denouncing ‘Islamophobia’ — an obscene stand for them to take after the Charlie Hebdo massacre – and our massive Free Speech Rally outside that event,” Geller wrote in a press release obtained by Breitbart Texas
Link is for verification purposes only:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/11/10000-muhammad-art-and-cartoon-contest-to-be-held-at-site-of-stand-with-the-prophet-conference-in-texas/
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Provoking people all the way.
You have done nothing to negate the comparison.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)One wanted violence for her own cause, the other merely anticipated it for a greater cause.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But that isn't a logical way to dispute the point being made.
Either people are responsible for provoking others to violence by the act of offending them, or they aren't.
Which will it be?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)You might argue King might be responsible for provocation as well, but it wasn't for self-serving goals. The same couldn't be said about Geller.
Kobayashi Maru.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Two religious extremists were prevented from killing anyone in the future. Some might argue that was anything but a self-serving goal.
You're just back to special pleading. Provoking people to violence by offending them is good if you like it, but bad if you don't.
Take care.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)And most human beings do have a pretty decent moral compass, believe it or not.
Person A is a leader in the community of a persecuted minority group. He organizes non-violent demonstrations that do not in and of themselves provoke violence nor seek to offend the majority group, but the combination of anger and fear in the majority and the majority group's power structure leads to the majority group cracking down violently on the minority group's non-violent activities. Person A responds not with violence or judgment or name-calling, but instead with more non-violent demonstrations that do not in and of themselves provoke violence or seek to offend the majority group. After time, the juxtaposition between the non-violent, inclusive actions of Person A and the violent, exclusive actions of the majority group lead to an improved sense understanding and respect and tolerance and co-existence between the majority group and Person A's minority group.
Person B is a talking head who has frequently made the target of her criticisms members of a religion who has a well-publicized problem with some of its members acting out violently in its name. Person B seeks to argue that the entire religion that she criticizes is inherently violent and dangerous to the country where she lives. Person B knows that certain actions, while seemingly innocuous on their face, have in the past provoked to violence certain members of that religion who view such actions as offensive. Person B stages an event centering around those seemingly innocuous acts that have been viewed as offensive knowing that members of that religion may act out violently. Person B knows that members of that religion acting out violently would lend support to her prior position that said religion is inherently violent. Upon having staged this event, some members of that religion do act out violently. Person B then predictably uses this opportunity as a bully pulpit to argue that she is correct in claiming that the religion that she has criticized is inherently violent.
It doesn't take a deep philosopher to realize that Person A's actions are far more morally justified than Person B's actions. Nor does it take specific names of people, races, religions or political philosophies. They are apparent on their face.
As to your speculation that Geller could be viewed as a hero because the two perpetrators died, that's asinine. Say they killed 20 people in the attack who were not affiliated with Geller's group before themselves being killed. Would Geller still be viewed as someone who prevented them from killing?
Speculation about events that never occur is so random it can never be viewed as a judge of character. Suppose I receive a premonition that a newborn baby in the hospital is the second coming of Adolph Hitler who will be responsible for the death of 10 million people. So I go to the hospital and kill that baby. Will I one day be lauded as a hero who saved 10 million people? No, I'll be called a crazy baby murdering fuck.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or to sit back in judgment of who deserves to have the freedom of speech, and who deserves to be violently attacked for exercising it.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)That's your rhetorical bridge to jump off.
Saying that she was technically afforded 1st Amendment protection or pointing out the obvious fact that the shooters bear primary responsibility does not mean one has to buy into Geller's Free Speech Martyrdom schtick or her faux victimhood status.
She's a cold hearted, nasty, manipulative bitch who knew exactly what she wanted, got exactly what she wanted, and has reveled every minute in getting what she wanted.
If she were on DU, she wouldn't last a minute without being rightfully MIRTed.
She deserves zero sympathy. None.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)blather, blather, blather, blather
Why do you keep responding to me if you all you think I do is "blather"?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)I'm always interested in a back and forth conversation.
You didn't feel the need to answer a question I asked repeatedly, instead wanting to change the topic. Just like you're doing right now.
But hell, I'm patient. I'll ask you again:
Do you believe Pamela Geller is a victim here, and if so, why?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)You deflected by answering it with that question and accused me of "blathering". http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6629416
You first!!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Your question was based on a rapidly shifting hypothetical.
You first compared Geller's situation (the one where she claims to be a victim) to be like two gay people kissing or holding hands in front of a homophobe or group of homophobes and getting attacked for it.
I pointed out that that gay people's action would have been nothing more than a personal expression of affection, whereas Geller's action was an intentional provocation of violence in order to provide her a bully pulpit to spew her agenda. Thus the violent reaction to the gay people would be ancillary to their intent, whereas the violent reaction to Geller's actions was her intended result.
You weren't satisfied at that point, so you changed the scenario to some weird situation where the gay people kissed or held hands not as an expression of affection but instead as an attempt to elicit some reaction from the homophobes. And you left it pretty vague at that. The silliness of the hypothetical leaves a bunch of unanswered questions here. I mean, are the two gay people a couple who actually do have a deep emotional relationship with each other? Or are they just two random gay people who at the spur of the moment seek to bond together to provoke these homophobes? And what's the intended reaction from the homophobes here? Is it a disgusted look? Is it homophobic slurs? Is it a beating? And who are the homophobes? Is it a specific group, like the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it rural southerners? Is it just plain old regular Christians? And why exactly do they want to provoke these homophobes? What message do they think an attack will send?
But all those questions do is serve as their own deflection from a fatal flaw in your slippery hypothetical. You have the homophobes attacking--and for the sake of argument let's say physically attacking--these two gay people who provoked them by kissing or holding hands. Say they did want to elicit that violent reaction from them. In that case, they would have known that any reaction would almost certainly be focused on them. They would know that it would likely be they who would be the victim, not a third party. That's completely unlike Geller's situation, where Geller knew a violent attack would likely involve guns or explosives, things that could put the general public at risk. It would put people at risk who were in no way involved in her organization. It would suck the general public into the shit fight she was having with extremist Muslims. And you know what? That's exactly what happened. The only person physically impacted (other than the shooters themselves) was a security guard hired by the city to guard the event. He was the victim. Not Pam Geller.
I believe I've more than sufficiently answered your question, so I'll ask once again that you answer mine:
Do you honestly believe Pam Geller is a victim in this situation, and if so, why?
You're on the clock.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)...you cannot answer it, or it means you can answer it but you're too embarrassed to give your honest answer.
But what the hey, I'll ask once again:
Do you believe Pam Geller to be a victim in this situation, and if so, why?
rug
(82,333 posts)
I'm waiting for a comparison to Joan of Arc.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and all other hate mongers. I'm going to ignore the shit out of her. Hate mongers love the negative attention.
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Gellers stunt is pretty much the same as a Klan rally.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)at least one of the 2 attempted radical islamist killers was known to police and would have probably done something violent.
she drew him out and both were mercifully stopped by the police before they could use their assault rifles (thanks NRA) to massacre a lot of people.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not only is she a victim, she's a HERO!
Oh, I hope she repeats this all over the country so we can draw out more of them bad muslims.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Potential maybe could be future actions justify someone intentionally attempting to provoke violence to suit their own self-serving agenda, right?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Astrology is not destiny, despite what you seem to think.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)great of you to put innocent lives at risk tough.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)for this disgusting excuse for a human being.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)It's so very heroic to go out of one's way to antagonize and draw out unstable and potentially violent people while at the same time managing to insult millions of peaceful Muslims. I'm just sorry that she managed to provoke what she was undoubtedly craving.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't see her as a hero at all.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I was totally agreeing with you.
I think she's nothing more than a provocateur.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)and you lost.
Period.
Rex
(65,616 posts)She knew what was going to happen the moment she put her campaign together. I bet she relishes what happened, because now it gives here the national spotlight on the Hate Radio tour she would have never gotten otherwise.
MineralMan
(146,320 posts)One of my grandmother's aphorisms that seems to apply here.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)She needs to be locked up in Belvue. She is a danger to herself and other people. She went to Garland to provoke an incident and she did. Those who are defending her behavior as innocent are being outrageously disingenuous.
Ms. Geller and the others foolish enough to attend her festivities are fortunate that the gunmen didn't shoot their way past security and reached a place where they could have killed more people.
She is a vile person, but I don;t want to see her harmed or see others harmed on he account. Unfortunately, she'll do this again and again until more blood is spilled.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)'That's like saying blah blah!'
No. It isn't.
jmowreader
(50,561 posts)He said you flew halfway across the country, hung a rib roast around your neck, crawled into a big-cat cage, and are acting all surprised because a tiger tried to eat you.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)giving this monster a pass. Now the shooting was inexcusable, yet this 'organizer' of this event is culpable for inciting violence. Period. And fro listening to her, that is what she wanted. Despicable human being.
Skittles
(153,169 posts) joeybee12
(56,177 posts)It would only be correct if the pretty girl decided beforehand, hey, I'm going to get raped...and planned the outcome. Geller wanted and planned for violence, and she got it.
RandySF
(59,020 posts)Response to DonViejo (Original post)
RandySF This message was self-deleted by its author.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)However, she is not simply a 'defender of free speech'; she is a hate group leader. She was trying to create trouble - not just to live her own life, like a girl who dresses in a way that someone then uses to justify rape.
The gunmen were of course also hate merchants in a far-RW cause.
And let us note that SHE used 'blaming the victim' arguments with regard to Breivik's murder of young Norwegians:
http://pamelageller.com/2011/07/summer-camp-indoctrination-training-center.html/
Hekate
(90,744 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,815 posts)The only one who did any luring were whoever was filling the perpetrator's heads with radical propaganda. Geller was within her right. Period. You don't have to like her. I don't have to like her. But she had the right to do what she did. It's profoundly disturbing that many on DU don't understand that. I hope they are trolling, but I think many of then are sincere. And that's troubling.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,188 posts)Does anyone think that these two jihadists would have lived quiet lives as peaceable and loyal Americans if we hadn't held the contest? They would have waged jihad elsewhere, on a less-protected target, and killed more people. The jihadists were the end of the line. By drawing them out, we exposed their network. And because we secured the perimeter, we were able to expose the network without getting anyone killed.
http://www.newsweek.com/qa-pamela-geller-woman-isis-wants-dead-330244
bobjacksonk2832
(50 posts)It's quite typical of the far right to always play the victim. Pathetic. I wish she'd just go away.
