Death to hate speech

Rick Giles's picture
Submitted by Rick Giles on Mon, 2006-04-10 04:27

Perigio makes bedfellows-- Click to enlarge

Caveat: Of course I don't mean this as dissent from Objectivism and reason but as dissent from Sense Of Life Objectivism as it is presently propagated.


( categories: )

Updated this image from

Rick Giles's picture

Updated this image from above now too.

That's better

Rick Giles's picture

Fixed the image so you can see the picture again. Don't thank me.

The rights of man

Rick Giles's picture

primitive theology started asserting itself to determine what my rights are and who does and doesn't have them.

Think you'll ever take up Objectivism then?

Rick, that's all I need to

JoeM's picture

Rick, that's all I need to say. I wasted enough of my time. And now I give you the last word, which will no doubt be something snarky and delivered in that oh-so-condescending tone of a victory which never happened.

A tough one

Richard Wiig's picture

Since when did the principles of medieval theology determine for you what rights are and who has them?

That's a bit of a tough one, but I'd say probably 9/11. Yep, I think that's the day a disgusting primitive theology started asserting itself to determine what my rights are and who does and doesn't have them. That's the day that Islam showed itself, to the whole world - minus Rick, who, along with others of like mind, doesn't care to delve into Islam to find out what the real Islam is - to be incompatible with western pluralism and tolerance.

She's with me

Rick Giles's picture

Rick: "And what's your advice to those of us who play sport with Muslims..."

My advice, Rick? "Don't fail to pronounce moral judgment."

That's all you can say? Haha. Maybe Coates isn't talking crap after all.

Is it that they know I demand immediate, moral-epistemological action from them, and a long-range stand-while communism is a threat they can evade and make unreal in their own minds?

The demand for moral-epistemological action is not in question (and you completely miss my point if you think it is).

Freedom of worship

Rick Giles's picture

freedom of worship cannot be applied to Islam. How come?
because it is contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Since when did the principles of medieval theology determine for you what rights are and who has them?

You're just talking crazy now. But okay, if we can't send bullets into Islam we must send ideas, you say. And just how do you expect to accomplish that?
A Sherlock Holmes you are not.

An answerer of questions you are not.

Islam = Nazism

Richard Wiig's picture

as if Islam is something that you can come to terms with and live beside in peace, when it isn't

So the right to freedom of worship cannot be applied to Islam. How come?

That's right, freedom of worship cannot be applied to Islam because it is contrary to the tenets of Islam.

You're just talking crazy now. But okay, if we can't send bullets into Islam we must send ideas, you say. And just how do you expect to accomplish that?

A Sherlock Holmes you are not.

Crazy talk?

JoeM's picture

Rick: "And what's your advice to those of us who play sport with Muslims..."

My advice, Rick? "Don't fail to pronounce moral judgment."

"What would happen if a few key people or cultural leaders maintained a 'moral tone'-instead of today's scared...cowardly surrrender to any immoral assertiveness? Why are people more afriad of me than of communism? Is it that they know I demand immediate, moral-epistemological action from them, and a long-range stand-while communism is a threat they can evade and make unreal in their own minds? Is it the issue of their guilt and lack of self-esteem, which makes physical terror or disaster more 'acceptable' to them than psycho-epistemological terror, than the immediate threat to their (pseudo) self-esteem?"
-Ayn Rand

Just because

Rick Giles's picture

So there.

[okay, so I hit 'post comment' twice]

On not killing The Cat

Rick Giles's picture

Fight bullets with bullets and ideas with ideas. Cat Steven's or, Yusf Islam, as he is now called, is simply spreading ideas about how good Islam is - Islam is peace, and all that bollocks.

Why, that devious bastard. If we don't shoot him then just what do you suggest? Ideas? How can that be done? Do you seriously think people like us have a chance of competing with Islam's simple spreading of ideas about peace and the good?

as if Islam is something that you can come to terms with and live beside in peace, when it isn't

So the right to freedom of worship cannot be applied to Islam. How come?
And what's your advice to those of us who play sport with Muslims, shop for groceries alongside Muslims? You don't want me catching and killing or calling the cops to do it? What then?

You're just talking crazy now. But okay, if we can't send bullets into Islam we must send ideas, you say. And just how do you expect to accomplish that?

Bullets with bullets

Richard Wiig's picture

So you must think the overdue assasination of Cat Stevens and Mohamed Ali is top priority.

Fight bullets with bullets and ideas with ideas. Cat Steven's or, Yusf Islam, as he is now called, is simply spreading ideas about how good Islam is - Islam is peace, and all that bollocks. They are dangerous ideas; more dangerous to you, if you take them on board, than Osama's bombs.

It's not Wigg

Richard Wiig's picture

it's Wiig, and no, I haven't flipped my wig. I'm just cognizant of the fact that ideas are more powerful than bullets - something that seems to elude you. The actions of, Osama and the like, do their cause more harm than good, because they wake people up to the true nature of Islam, whereas the likes of your "MuslimsforAmerica", or the other site I showed you, "minaret.org", lends to the lie that Islam has been hijacked by a small maniacal minority. It hasn't been; not in the slightest, and I see no recognition of that fact anywhere on that site. I see nothing but pap about having to "bridge the cultural divides", as if Islam is something that you can come to terms with and live beside in peace, when it isn't, and that is why it is more dangerous. For some real honesty about Islam compare that site to http://www.faithfreedom.org

You'll stop when I let you

Rick Giles's picture

Cat Steven's does; he paves the way for the Osama's of this world.
It has nothing to do with stamina, it's to do with constructive use of my time.

So you must think the overdue assasination of Cat Stevens and Mohamed Ali is top priority.

If Bush shared your virtue then constructive use of his time would involve having the Muslims For Bush network all killed and/or detained instead of visiting and supporting their cause.

If US Forces shared your constructive priorities Afghanistan and Iraq should have come second to flushing out American Muslims.

If I see Bin Laden down my street I should run past him to spear-tackle the dormant threat of the 17yo assistant librarian. Only when she and her kind are dead do we go back for Osama?

You've flipped your wig, Wigg. The crap you talk should be encouraged though. And it's not because you're right but because, in your crap, you will help convince others of the utter bollocks this TFR editorial is representitive of.
After your defense of The Free Radical it seems more obviously brainless than ever.

Like Islamists themselves, you are destroying your true values in your attempt to champion them.

Yep, here I am responding again.

Richard Wiig's picture

I just can't leave it alone huh.

So what it comes down to is that Cat Stevens, Mohamed Ali, and other moderate Moslems are a con job.

Yep.

They fool themselves, fool The Bush Administration, and they fool me.

Yep.

Not you! You see through the clever mass deception called illusion, or "the moderate Muslum." You remind us Cat Stephens is more of a security threat than any terrorist, Osama Bin Laden explicitly so!

It's quite clear what Osama Bin Laden is, and that's why he's less of a threat. The so-called "moderate" muslim is more of a threat, because they are not honest. Osama is honest through and through. He won't deceive you about what Islam stands for, but Cat Steven's does; he paves the way for the Osama's of this world.

There was more where that TFR defense came from...but for your stamina?

It has nothing to do with stamina, it's to do with constructive use of my time.

Benevolent Muslims are mistaken! :)

Rick Giles's picture

Muslims who are fooling themselves, and others

So what it comes down to is that Cat Stevens, Mohamed Ali, and other moderate Moslems are a con job.

They're born, write a few tunes or box a few rounds, have their name abused by Perigo, then die without realising they were worse than Osama all along? They fool themselves, fool The Bush Administration, and they fool me.

Not you! You see through the clever mass deception called illusion, or "the moderate Muslum." You remind us Cat Stephens is more of a security threat than any terrorist, Osama Bin Laden explicitly so!

I've just decided the excruciation of it all isn't worth it.

There was more where that TFR defense came from...but for your stamina?

Can't help thinking that, if you had more staying power, other seemingly admirable people would have been implicated as abuse-worthy enemies of the West too. Ah well.

Grateful for your wise insights, thankyou Richard.

Here's another

Richard Wiig's picture

http://www.minaret.org

Muslims who are fooling themselves, and others, which is what, from first glance, appears to be going on at muslismsforAmerica, too. An extract from there:

When you get beyond this consensus - the cultural chasm consensus - and ask what to do about the problem, there is less agreement. After all, chasms are hard to bridge. Fortunately, this chasm's size is being exaggerated. The Muslim uproar over those Danish cartoons isn't as alien to American culture as we like to think. Once you see this, a benign and quintessentially American response comes into view.

Even many Americans who condemn the cartoon's publication accept the premise that the now-famous Danish newspaper editor set out to demonstrate: In the West we don't generally let interest groups intimidate us into what he called "self-censorship." What nonsense. Editors at mainstream American media outlets delete lots of words, sentences and images to avoid offending interest groups, especially ethnic and religious ones. It's hard to cite examples since, by definition, they don't appear. But use your imagination.

And this:

But the more we learn about this episode, the less it looks like spontaneous combustion. The initial Muslim response to the cartoons was not violence, but small demonstrations in Denmark along with a lobbying campaign by Danish Muslims that cranked on for months without making it onto the world's radar screen.
 
Only after these activists were snubbed by Danish politicians and found synergy with powerful politicians in Muslim states did big demonstrations ensue. Some of the demonstrations turned violent, but much of the violence seems to have been orchestrated by state governments, terrorist groups and other cynical political actors.
 
Besides, who said there's no American tradition of using violence to make a point? Remember the urban riots of the 1960s, starting with the Watts riot of 1965, in which 34 people were killed? 

And no, I haven't surrendered, if you must see things in those terms - as a battle of wits. I've  just decided the excruciation of it all isn't worth it.

Surrender accepted

Rick Giles's picture

I've had enough

Richard Wiig's picture

What matters is that Lindsay felt a need 

His feelings and his needs don't make his actions right automatically.

Ok, Rick, I've had enough. You are trying to get me to say that polite reasoning is the best way to persuade people. Well, I've given my thoughts on that. You're trying to get me to say that Lindsay was wrong, destructive even, in his editorial. Well, nothing you have said has shown me that he was wrong. He wasn't wrong; he was right - and this whole concern of yours is a non-issue as far as I am concerned.

There are truly important things to come to grips with, such as what separates a so-called Islamist from a so-called moderate, and what does it mean to be muslim. What does Islam urge muslims to be, etc, etc, etc. To defeat the enemy you must know the enemy; you must know what is being fought so that appropriate defensive measures can be taken. It must be taken seriously, but it seems that you prefer the inanity of hair splitting about pointless trivialities rather than really getting down to the guts of the matter - such as the example immediately above. It's too time wasting for me.

Ready when you are

Rick Giles's picture

What matters is that Lindsay felt a need

His feelings and his needs don't make his actions right automatically.

he has every right

Being within your rights don't make your actions right automatically.

You want him, and everyone, to give up that freedom

Never. But I do have a fun new way of exercising it better.

Hey look! I'm within my rights too. I feel a need also. Surprised?

I wasn't saying scorn is better than reason, or rudeness better than politeness, as a means of persuasion.

Well when are you going to? And how many more times do I have to ask?

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challenge? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

It depends on who you're talking to, doesn't it.

Not in general terms, no.
But why don't you, for a fair test, presume I am talking to the same person in this way that you are talking to using your method/style/outline above, if that allows you to answer the quetion?

Now, how about this Islamist question?

Ready when you are.

Quadruple sigh and a triple bypass

Richard Wiig's picture

Wouldn't that spur work just as well- nay better- if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange?

Again, it depends on who you're dealing with as to what gets through. Sometimes, the only thing that will get through is a fist, or a sizeable nuke. As for the scorn: as Joe pointed out so well, the scorn is not about persuasion. It's simply about expressing scorn where it's due, and that's something that anyone can do as long as we still have freedom of speech.

As for what I said above: I wasn't saying that one way is  better than any other way. I wasn't saying scorn is better than reason, or rudeness better than politeness, as a means of persuasion. I  was simply saying that a muslim, who valued truth and justice, would wonder why someone heaps scorn on them. In the face of that scorn they would investigate and they would either defend their religion,  by showing the one heaping the scorn,  that they were wrong in their assessment, or they would find out that they themselves were wrong. And that's not because anyone tried to persuade them, it'd be because they cared.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what they might think. What matters is that Lindsay felt a need to express his scorn in defense of his values, as he has every right to do. You want him, and everyone, to give up that freedom and temper themselves for the sake of non-offense. You want him to no longer express his scorn, and bow down in sensitivity to some group who is out to enslave him? Well, to put it bluntly, fuck that.

Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

Now, how about this Islamist question? What separates the moderate from the Islamist? I rreally would like to know your understanding of it.

Well then

Rick Giles's picture

I already told you, I'm not willing to be subjected to unilateral questioning here.

I have answered your question - is reasoning an effective means of persuasion: Of course it is, with someone who listens to reason.

That's not my question, this is..

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that spur work just as well- nay better- if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

Sigh

Richard Wiig's picture

Not intended to. It was an answer to a question, if you recall. You were asking what my understanding of where defined Islamism fit in. Was there something else?

Of course there was something else: an elaboration, in your own words, of what you understand "Islamist" to mean and what sets the "Islamist" apart from the "moderate". I still don't have a clue what you think on the matter.

I really would like to hear in your own words what you believe separates the moderate from the Islamist.

I'm not even going to think about answering your question if you wont extend the same respect to mine.

I have answered your question - is reasoning an effective means of persuasion: Of course it is, with someone who listens to reason. I don't know what more you're looking for.

Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

Rick Giles's picture

You'll have to refresh my memory on the big question. I'm more than happy to answer it

Why, this of course:

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

It depends on who you're talking to, doesn't it.

Not in general terms, no.
But why don't you, for a fair test, presume I am talking to the same person in this way that you are talking to using your method/style/outline above?

Are you going to put up, or am I wasting my time?

Your diagram hasn't really explained to me what you believe the difference between a "moderate" and an "Islamist" to be.

Not intended to. It was an answer to a question, if you recall. You were asking what my understanding was of where definitive Islamism fit in. Was there something else?

It does show me, however, that you don't think terrorism is at the core of Islam,

Correct. It's t'other way around.

you probably believe that Islam has been hijacked.

No, not really. That would be like hijacking the doomed Titanic and sinking her. Islam is evil.

I really would like to hear in your own words what you believe separates the moderate from the Islamist.

I'm not even going to think about answering your question if you wont extend the same respect to mine.

Time wasting?

Richard Wiig's picture

You'll have to refresh my memory on the big question. I'm more than happy to answer it

Why, this of course:

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

It depends on who you're talking to, doesn't it. I'm not denying you any method you want to try in persuading people to something. Go forth and persuade away.

What part of that definition confuses you?

None of that confuses me, and it is a slightly misleading definition too, but I am not interested in a google definition, I"m interested in your understanding of it.

As thus:

Your diagram hasn't really explained to me what you believe the difference between a "moderate" and an "Islamist" to be. It does show me, however, that you don't think terrorism is at the core of Islam, that you probably believe that Islam has been hijacked. I really would like to hear in your own words what you believe separates the moderate from the Islamist. Are you going to put up, or am I wasting my time?

As thus

Rick Giles's picture

Cat Steven is actually more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden, because he lulls people like you into a false sense of security.

Do you think he should be higher up on the Most Wanted Man list than Osama?

Why do you ask such a pointless question?

For the same reason that you don't answer it.

So, convince me. What's the difference between them? Put it up on the table and tell me.

I'll go so far as to explain it when you admit there is something to be explained.

Why do you need my admission? What's that all about? Some kind of power game? It doesn't matter whether I think there is a difference or not

To me that's all that matters.

You'll have to refresh my memory on the big question. I'm more than happy to answer it

Why, this of course:

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

What part of that definition confuses you?

None of that confuses me, and it is a slightly misleading definition too, but I am not interested in a google definition, I"m interested in your understanding of it.

As thus:

Ok

Richard Wiig's picture

So that's your way to enlightenment, what about mine? Why are you avoiding that question?

You are free to fight the Islamic threat in which ever way you choose. I don't particularly care how you go about it, to be honest.

So Cat Stephens is your idea of a fundamentalist Muslim?

Cat Steven is actually more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden, because he lulls people like you into a false sense of security.

Do you think he should be higher up on the Most Wanted Man list than Osama?

Why do you ask such a pointless question?

So, convince me. What's the difference between them? Put it up on the table and tell me.

I'll go so far as to explain it when you admit there is something to be explained.

Why do you need my admission? What's that all about? Some kind of power game? It doesn't matter whether I think there is a difference or not, (and of course there are differences between muslims), what matters is that you think I and others are not differentiating well enough, so how about stating your case. What's the difference between them?

Besides, after a string of posts you still haven't answered my big question to you- so what's my hurry?

You'll have to refresh my memory on the big question. I'm more than happy to answer it.

Of course there's something to elaborate.

Islamist- A person or an organization using Islamic religious precepts to form a political ideology (taken from google define).

What part of that definition confuses you?

None of that confuses me, and it is a slightly misleading definition too, but I am not interested in a google definition, I"m interested in your understanding of it.

So you don't consider that an important answer?

I consider it to be an answer that didn't take the question seriously.

It's always about Objectivist conclusions

Rick Giles's picture

It's about beating back a totalitarian threat,
It's a threat that will overrun your life and change it beyond measure,

Not if I can stop you.

Ten bucks says that you're going to quibble over Joe's use of the word "scorn".

I used it that way first. Pay up sucker!

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

I refer you to Joes post. Now lets drop this persuasion thing.

No thanks.
Retract if you like, I wont mind. But you said the hateful bullying [strong words] of the victims [targets] via this method [outline] might be a pathway to enlightenment. So that's your way to enlightenment, what about mine? Why are you avoiding that question?

So Cat Stephens is your idea of a fundamentalist Muslim?

Cat Steven is actually more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden, because he lulls people like you into a false sense of security.

Do you think he should be higher up on the Most Wanted Man list than Osama?

How do you know which muslim is "Islamist" filth, and which isn't?

The first step of being able to tell one from the other is to admit there is such a thing as one from the other. When you reach that stage we can talk further.

So, convince me. What's the difference between them? Put it up on the table and tell me.

I'll go so far as to explain it when you admit there is something to be explained. Besides, after a string of posts you still haven't answered my big question to you- so what's my hurry?

Don't mistake my brevity for lack of substance. It is a simple identity to define, there is nothing to elaborate.

Of course there's something to elaborate.

Islamist- A person or an organization using Islamic religious precepts to form a political ideology (taken from google define).

What part of that definition confuses you?

What does it mean to be a muslim? That's a very important question to answer

It may be defined as being personally, religiously, repelled by the TFR editorial. Some who are repelled carry bombs and malice, some who are repelled carry children and peace.

So you don't consider that an important question?

So you don't consider that an important answer?

Your concern

Rick Giles's picture

Well I think if it's true you and Richard are galvanising our enemies resolve and delivering more resolute converts to Osama's ways it's of concern to everyone. And it'll be on your hands.

Huh?

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't have the foggiest notion of what you're on about.

Tags

Rick Giles's picture

Edit your post and close the frickin' italics tags, it's dazzling!

I'll hold you to ransom with underlined until you do!

But Rick

JoeM's picture

That's YOUR concern, not mine.

No he hasn't.

Richard Wiig's picture

He has succinctly and clearly contradicted everything you've been saying about that, Richard.

Either I haven't been stating myself clearly enough, or you haven't understood.

But Joe!

Rick Giles's picture

Scorn is not meant to be a persuasive argument; it's meant to galvanize those already opposed to the object of scorn.

That's partly what I'm afraid of...

--click to enlarge

It's not about Objectivist conclusions, either.

Richard Wiig's picture

It's about beating back a totalitarian threat, which you seem to see as some sort of game. It's a threat that will overrun your life and change it beyond measure, while you play the game of quibbling over mindnumbing trivialities. Ten bucks says that you're going to quibble over Joe's use of the word "scorn".

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

I refer you to Joes post. Now lets drop this persuasion thing. We will never see eye to eye on Lindsay's editorial.

<Pointless Nothings snipped out>

They are muslims, which means they believe in and follow Islam. THey are already there with the so-called "Fundamentalist Muslims".

So Cat Stephens is your idea of a fundamentalist Muslim? How much thought have you really put into this issue Richard?

Cat Steven is actually more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden, because he lulls people like you into a false sense of security.

How do you know which muslim is "Islamist" filth, and which isn't?

The first step of being able to tell one from the other is to admit there is such a thing as one from the other. When you reach that stage we can talk further.

It seems to me that you simply evaded the question. You started this thread. You're the one who's concerned about the blanketing of all muslims. You're the one who seeks to stop it be it's so unconstructive. So, convince me. What's the difference between them? Put it up on the table and tell me.

What is an "Islamist"
a quickfire definition simply will not do.

Don't mistake my brevity for lack of substance. It is a simple identity to define, there is nothing to elaborate.

Of course there's something to elaborate. I want to know what separates the two? You talk as if you know, so spit it out. What's the big deal?

What does it mean to be a muslim? That's a very important question to answer

It may be defined as being personally, religiously, repelled by the TFR editorial. Some who are repelled carry bombs and malice, some who are repelled carry children and peace.

So you don't consider that an important question?

But Richard!

Rick Giles's picture

Thankyou for putting that so succinctly and clear, Joe.

He has succinctly and clearly contradicted everything you've been saying about that, Richard.

If you wish to revise your validation of hate speech please admit it. This is a completely different kettle of fish and not one I have been responding to so far.

Thankyou

Richard Wiig's picture

Scorn is not meant to be a persuasive argument; it's meant to galvanize those already opposed to the object of scorn.

Thankyou for putting that so succinctly and clear, Joe. It's what I mean't when I said "it doesn't fucking matter what they think".

"A Muslim who does that, who

JoeM's picture

"A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?"

Scorn is not meant to be a persuasive argument; it's meant to galvanize those already opposed to the object of scorn.

It's about Objectivist conclusions

Rick Giles's picture

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against
his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

FFS, Rick, you are so goddman finnicky and narrow in the way you look at things.
Now stop being so finnicky and heading off down such inconsequential trivial paths. Stick to essentials and this might all be a little bit easier.

Humor me then. Just answer the question: If your hate speech can get Muslims to think why shouldn't my strict, yet non-abusive, persuasion also get Muslims to think?

Spineless fickle creatures?

Yes, absolutely. Anyone who might profess to be a "moderate muslim", or who does not even profess to be, but is simply presumed to be because of their apparently nice behaviour...can certainly be classed as fickle.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I can make an observation about muslims in general, and...I can make a reasonable judgement about the so-called "moderate" muslim population.

How would Wafa Sultan have taken it
Call me psychic but I think she'd be pissed at you
Possibly, but so what?

explain to me what makes such respondents (who *you* say possibly would include Wafa Sultan herself) the way you say they are. Spineless fickle creatures? Why?

Of course it doesn't include Wafa Sultan herself. I don't know why you threw that in.

Because you said that even she might "possibly" qualify as someone who would respond that way. I agree that she would. I do not agree that every such respondent to be pissed off by such abuse is a "spineless fickle creature." If you want to change my mind, and if you admit now that such simple observations and reasonable judgements are not beyond your powers to explain, you have my full attention.

I don't think you know that enemy very well at all. You seem to make the assumption, as do many, too many, that they think with a western mindset.

Well they don't. But are you saying they are biologically or genetically (or some such) less ameniable to reason than we are?

Please clarify to eliminate this interpretation of your words.

there would be more people in this world ameniable to Objectivist conclusions were they not driven away from them by *our*
abuse of their human dignity as rational animals.

It's not about furthering Objectivism here, it's about defending freedom,

I didn't say "furthering Objectivism," I said "Objectivist conclusions." Your response is to something I never wrote, please respond again.

and as far as this "abuse of their human dignity" goes, it doesn't. In my opinion it does just the reverse

Then why do you think Wafa Sultan would "probably" be pissed off by it?

Furthermore, what benifit to spineless fickle creatures is our bullying them?

Again, you see it as bullying; I see it as anything but.

"..squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesqueries, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists.."

Not even a little little bit Richard? Can you find anybody to second that motion?

They need shaking in their boots

You see this as anything but bullying? Well what a bully you'd make! : )

But you stated earlier that such hate makes its relevance known by making victims into our friends. And I

Victims? Of what?

Of blanket Muslim hate speech. Do you prefer the term 'targets'?

If they must learn spine and resolution isn't it better they learn those things from us than that we drive them to

fundamentalist Muslims who will do it instead?

They are muslims, which means they believe in and follow Islam. THey are already there with the so-called "Fundamentalist Muslims".

So Cat Stephens is your idea of a fundamentalist Muslim? How much thought have you really put into this issue Richard?

I want to visit the Islamist filth with catastrophic devastation.

How do you know which muslim is "Islamist" filth, and which isn't?

The first step of being able to tell one from the other is to admit there is such a thing as one from the other. When you reach that stage we can talk further.

What is an "Islamist"
a quickfire definition simply will not do.

Don't mistake my brevity for lack of substance. It is a simple identity to define, there is nothing to elaborate.

What does it mean to be a muslim? That's a very important question to answer

It may be defined as being personally, religiously, repelled by the TFR editorial. Some who are repelled carry bombs and malice, some who are repelled carry children and peace.

It's not about Objectivism

Richard Wiig's picture

I haven't been on about preferences.

And just what do you call this?

A great way to win a war. They need shaking in their boots, not touchy feely niceties.

FFS, Rick, you are so goddman finnicky and narrow in the way you look at things.

You give much appearance of someone with an evaluation of one persuasive method over another.

And that's because of your limited vision. Now stop being so finnicky and heading off down such inconsequential trivial paths. Stick to essentials and this might all be a little bit easier.

If Lindsay's editorial turns them away they become of great worth to evil by broadening the support and swelling the ranks of our deadly enemies.

Is such a spineless, fickle, hanging to the west by a thread, creature, worth any effort?

Spineless fickle creatures?

Yes, absolutely. Anyone who might profess to be a "moderate muslim", or who does not even profess to be, but is simply presumed to be because of their apparently nice behaviour, who runs off and becomes a so-called "radical" because of say, Lindsay's editorial, can certainly be classed as fickle.

Now how would you make a judgement like that? Now you say you know the character of these Muslims when at other times, to suit your purposes, you refuse to admit it.

I've said I don't know the character of any particular muslim, which is true, at least until I get to know said particular muslim, but I can make an observation about muslims in general, and when I see large ripples throughout the muslim world because of some harmless cartoons, and next to no ripples in regards to the beheading of school girls, the murderous bombing of people, etc, etc, et al, then I can make a reasonable judgement about the so-called "moderate" muslim population.

Well admit it now then. And explain to me what makes such respondents (who *you* say possibly would include Wafa Sultan herself) the way you say they are. Spineless fickle creatures? Why?

Of course it doesn't include Wafa Sultan herself. I don't know why you threw that in. Wafa Sultan shows herself to be standing miles above the so-called "moderate" muslims. She is not a symbol of them; she is one of only a very, very small minority.

My understanding, on the contrary, is that there would be more people in this world ameniable to Objectivist conclusions were they not driven away from them by *our* abuse of their human dignity as rational animals.

It's not about furthering Objectivism here, it's about defending freedom, and as far as this "abuse of their human dignity" goes, it doesn't. In my opinion it does just the reverse.

Furthermore, what benifit to spineless fickle creatures is our bullying them?

Again, you see it as bullying; I see it as anything but.

What benifit to them, what to us, and what to Islamists?

Again, you use this "Islamist" label. What's the difference between an "Islamist" and a "Moderate"? Why is one more dangerous than the other?

If they must learn spine and resolution isn't it better they learn those things from us than that we drive them to fundamentalist Muslims who will do it instead?

They are muslims, which means they believe in and follow Islam. THey are already there with the so-called "Fundamentalist Muslims".

But you stated earlier that such hate makes its relevance known by making victims into our friends. And I

Victims? Of what? Of the editorial?

You want to treat them all with kid-gloves and have everyone on tenderhooks? A great way to win a war.

Not all. I want to visit the Islamist filth with catastrophic devastation.

How do you know which muslim is "Islamist" filth, and which isn't?

 What is an "Islamist", and what is it you are trying to achieve?

You can quickly define the word by typing in "define: Islamist" into Google and reading their online dictionary. Or, if you want more, visit the Cox & Forkum site which makes extensive use of the word. I don't mean to fob you off by not answering for myself, but it is just a word definition after all.

I'm not looking for a quick definition, I'm looking for your understanding of it. For instance, what separates the "Islamist" from the "Moderate"? How much of a separation is there between the two, if there is indeed something that separates them? If there is a separation, and you've identified it, which of them is Islamically correct and which isn't? There is a lot to consider here, and a quickfire definition simply will not do. If you want to defeat an enemy, then the more thoroughly you know that enemy, the better. I don't think you know that enemy very well at all. You seem to make the assumption, as do many, too many, that they think with a western mindset.

What I am trying to achieve is to do for my own side what Muslims must do for theirs. Does that answer your question?

Not really. It does illustrate my point about assuming muslims think with a western mindset though. What does it mean to be a muslims? That's a very important question to answer.

They need shaking in their boots

Rick Giles's picture

And as you claim (though inconsistently) not to have any idea how one method/style/outline will be recieved why should you think yourself qualified to prefer Lindsay Perigo's over mine?

I haven't been on about preferences.

And just what do you call this?

A great way to win a war. They need shaking in their boots, not touchy feely niceties.

You give much appearance of someone with an evaluation of one persuasive method over another.

Admitting that, answer the question at last..

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

You're being a might slippery.

If Lindsay's editorial turns them away they become of great worth to evil by broadening the support and swelling the ranks of our deadly enemies.

Is such a spineless, fickle, hanging to the west by a thread, creature, worth any effort?

Spineless fickle creatures? Now how would you make a judgement like that? Now you say you know the character of these Muslims when at other times, to suit your purposes, you refuse to admit it.

Well admit it now then. And explain to me what makes such respondents (who *you* say possibly would include Wafa Sultan herself) the way you say they are. Spineless fickle creatures? Why?

My understanding, on the contrary, is that there would be more people in this world ameniable to Objectivist conclusions were they not driven away from them by *our* abuse of their human dignity as rational animals. 8/10 pro-capitalists, and even Objectivists, were staunch socialists once. Those of us who were have not been converted by abuse, and at no time were they spineless fickle creatures. Many have admitted that to me personally.

Furthermore, what benifit to spineless fickle creatures is our bullying them? What benifit to them, what to us, and what to Islamists? If they must learn spine and resolution isn't it better they learn those things from us than that we drive them to fundamentalist Muslims who will do it instead?

Call me psychic but I think she'd be pissed at you
Possibly, but so what?
You asked the question!

The point being, that what any particular muslim thinks of Lindsay's editorial is, fucking irrelevant.

A just fate for ink I sincerely hope you're right about.

But you stated earlier that such hate makes its relevance known by making victims into our friends. And I say that it makes its relevance known by making the victims our enemies. So we both think it was an editorial of some measure of relevance.

You are so scared you need to tip toe lightly around muslims?

Fear doesn't motivate me but reasons, which I offer you to consider yourself.

You want to treat them all with kid-gloves and have everyone on tenderhooks? A great way to win a war.

Not all. I want to visit the Islamist filth with catastrophic devastation. Let them be the deserving targets of the hate speech that you would dish out to radical fundamentalist and family men, woman, and chlidren alike.

What is an "Islamist", and what is it you are trying to achieve?

You can quickly define the word by typing in "define: Islamist" into Google and reading their online dictionary. Or, if you want more, visit the Cox & Forkum site which makes extensive use of the word. I don't mean to fob you off by not answering for myself, but it is just a word definition after all.

What I am trying to achieve is to do for my own side what Muslims must do for theirs. Does that answer your question?

Too many pointless questions

Richard Wiig's picture

Well, why do you?

I haven't been on about preferences.

Like I said: if Lindsay's editorial turns them away then what worth are they?

If Lindsay's editorial turns them away they become of great worth to evil by broadening the support and swelling the ranks of our deadly enemies.

And I have to ask you again:  If Lindsay's editorial turns them away, then what worth are they? Or perhaps better, what worth were they? Is such a spineless, fickle, hanging to the west by a thread, creature, worth any effort?

You are quite patronising you know; wanting to protect the muslims from strong rhetoric.

I'm offending Muslims? And you're complaining?

I'm not complaining; just pointing something out.

Didn't know you cared. Lucky for Islam, then, that it has you to defend it from my abuse!

I don't defend it from anything, let alone your abuse.

How would Wafa Sultan have taken it Call me psychic but I think she'd be pissed at you Possibly, but so what?

Fuck. You asked the question! Moral: Don't ask pointless questions.

It was a rhetorical question, made to make a point. The point being, that what any particular muslim thinks of Lindsay's editorial is, fucking irrelevant. You are so scared you need to tip toe lightly around muslims? You want to treat them all with kid-gloves and have everyone on tenderhooks? A great way to win a war. They need shaking in their boots, not touchy feely niceties.

I'll make you a deal. I'll do or say anything I want, and you can like it or lump it. Is that fair?

You've just described Anarchism,

No I haven't. I've just described execising my freedom.

and no it is not fair and nor is it a fit apology for what I'm arguing against in this thread.

What do you want an apology for? There is nothing to apologise for.

Now, how about some serious matters. What is an "Islamist", and what is it you are trying to achieve?

Who knows? I know.

Rick Giles's picture

I haven't advocated any method here

What would someone who cares about truth do, when confronted with Lindsay's editorial? After their initial reaction, they'd think
they'd investigate why this person is criticising their ideology.

It was an outline of what someone who was concerned for the truth, would do in the face of strong rhetoric.

Who knows what might be going on in the muslim mind

You seem to think you know enough to prescribe a discourse of abusive encouragement. Don't you?

My point was that I have no idea what is going on in any particular muslims mind.

So then what is your method, sorry style, sorry outline, based on?

And as you claim (though inconsistently) not to have any idea how one method/style/outline will be recieved why should you think yourself qualified to prefer Lindsay Perigo's over mine? Well, why do you?

Like I said: if Lindsay's editorial turns them away
then what worth are they?

If Lindsay's editorial turns them away they become of great worth to evil by broadening the support and swelling the ranks of our deadly enemies. If Lindsay's editorial turns them away then it's our loss. If Lindsay's editorial turns them away, them who should have been our allies, who should have been our brothers in reason, he has done Osama And Friends a great service.

You are quite patronising you know; wanting to protect the muslims from strong rhetoric.

I'm offending Muslims? And you're complaining? Didn't know you cared.
Lucky for Islam, then, that it has you to defend it from my abuse!

Besides, am I? Who knows what might be going on in the muslim mind? : )

How would Wafa Sultan have taken it
Call me psychic but I think she'd be pissed at you
Possibly, but so what?

Fuck. You asked the question!
Moral: Don't ask pointless questions.

I'll make you a deal. I'll do or say anything I want, and you can like it or lump it. Is that fair?

You've just described Anarchism, and no it is not fair and nor is it a fit apology for what I'm arguing against in this thread.

Like it or lump it.

Richard Wiig's picture
I have no idea what is going on in any particular muslims mind. You are the one who is presuming to know.

 

After that admission, Richard, perhaps you'll retract the above anatomy of persuasion

It wasn't an "anatomy of persuasion". It was an outline of what someone who was concerned for the truth, would do in the face of strong rhetoric.

You are presuming that they'll get all upset over linz's rhetoric and it'll turn them away from seeking any understanding, but you don't know

Yes I do, actually.

Like I said: if Lindsay's editorial turns them away (not from Linz, but from seeking truth) then what worth are they?

How would Wafa Sultan have taken it as opposed to say, Richard Reid???

Why don't you poke her linquistically in the eye when next you meet and see what response that induces?

Call me psychic but I think she'd be pissed at you, as would 3/4 of the Fantastic Four.

Possibly, but so what? You are quite patronising you know; wanting to protect the muslims from strong rhetoric. Hirsi Ali, a friend and colleague of Theo Van Gogh, worked alongside him, a man who was quite brutal in his rhetoric about Islam and Muslims, yet she stood at his side. She didn't turn and run from his rhetoric, even if some of it ever did made her angry. ANd who knows whether it did or it didn't? I certainly don't, and I certainly wouldn't presume to second guess her character and decide that she needs protecting from someones rhetoric, whether it's true or false rhetoric. BTW, the girls were hot for Theo Van Gogh.

Make you a deal. You leave the regular Muslims to me to talk to and save your method for the Islamists. They deserve the full brunt of it. Sounds fair?

Not really. I'll make you a deal. I'll do or say anything I want, and you can like it or lump it. Is that fair?

BTW, why do you separate muslims from Islamists? What exactly is an "Islamist"?

Just style

Rick Giles's picture

I haven't advocated any method here other than to

Ah-hah-hem...

point out a truth in a way that arouses people emotions.
After their initial reaction, they'd think, what
they'd investigate why this person is criticising their ideology.
spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers
set on a better path

I have no idea what is going on in any particular muslims mind. You are the one who is presuming to know.

After that admission, Richard, perhaps you'll retract the above anatomy of persuasion and withdraw from trying to rival my (rocket science) insight.

You are presuming that they'll get all upset over linz's rhetoric and it'll turn them away from seeking any understanding, but you don't know

Yes I do, actually. In general, and in several particular cases. And if you don't know I suggest you make it your business to find out. For one thing, you score more chicks that way.

How would Wafa Sultan have taken it as opposed to say, Richard Reid???

Why don't you poke her linquistically in the eye when next you meet and see what response that induces?

Call me psychic but I think she'd be pissed at you, as would 3/4 of the Fantastic Four.

Your concern is more about style than method.

Doctors used to drill holes in your skull by way of healing you. How do you like that for "style?"

Well, you have your style, linz has his, and I have mine Get over it and move on

This diplomatic "style" sucks arse Richard, no matter the adherents. I will not let it go simply because we disagree! Logic like that gets you a hole in the head.

Make you a deal. You leave the regular Muslims to me to talk to and save your method for the Islamists. They deserve the full brunt of it. Sounds fair?

No idea

Richard Wiig's picture

Who knows what might be going on in the muslim mind

You seem to think you know enough to prescribe a discourse of abusive encouragement. Don't you?

My point was that I have no idea what is going on in any particular muslims mind. You are the one who is presuming to know. You are presuming that they'll get all upset over linz's rhetoric and it'll turn them away from seeking any understanding, but you don't know in what way any particular muslim will take it. How would Wafa Sultan have taken it as opposed to say, Richard Reid???

If it were then Wafa Sultan should be the first advocate of your method.

My method? I haven't advocated any method here other than to speak up for speaking the facts. Your concern is more about style than method. Well, you have your style, linz has his, and I have mine Get over it and move on.

Just like me

Rick Giles's picture

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange?

Who knows what might be going on in the muslim mind

You seem to think you know enough to prescribe a discourse of abusive encouragement. Don't you?

After their initial reaction, they'd think, what the hell is this guy on about. He's a bit over the top isn't he. Why does he feel this way.

That hasn't been my experience

Then you haven't been dealing with people who care about truth.

No, they do care. But if you dress the truth in a personal attack it makes it extremely difficult to reverse their prejudice. It's no slight thing to change the mind of a man. Attempting to do so while also asking him to embrace your abuse, I'll wager, has never ended in the results you propose.

Do you know what turned, Wafa Sultan? (if it wasn't W.S. it was someone similar like, Hirsi Ali) It wasn't "polite challenge".

Yes I do. And yes, you're right this is her story.

bursting into her classroom and murdering her teacher
It turns her, but not them.

Trauma can turn one type of unreason into another- it is a negative force. It was her mind that turned her to reason.

Many Christians, likewise, stop believing in their god in times of trauma. How could God let my wife die? Likewise, many Christians I quiz turn to Christianity in a time of crisis. Desperation makes many converts. But emotional shock, like the one WS faced, is not the way to enlightenment.

If it were then Wafa Sultan should be the first advocate of your method. We see on the contrary that her persuasion is firm, polite, and reasonable in its resolution. Just like me. Eye

What goes on in the muslim mind.

Richard Wiig's picture

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange?

Who knows what might be going on in the muslim mind, or what might spur one to truth. Do you know what turned, Wafa Sultan? (if it wasn't W.S. it was someone similar like, Hirsi Ali) It wasn't "polite challenge". It was a few noble Muhajedin bursting into her classroom and murdering her teacher - just another atrocity and product of their religion that Muslims everywhere are confronted with everyday. It turns her, but not them.

After their initial reaction, they'd think, what the hell is this guy on about. He's a bit over the top isn't he. Why does he feel this way.

That hasn't been my experience

Then you haven't been dealing with people who care about truth.

Another brick in the wall

Rick Giles's picture

Richard, although I don't agree with you I find that you're making reasonable points clearly and understand what I'm trying to explain. If we persist we may reach a resolution.

However, if it would better suit you may I propose that we begin to abuse one another? The people are deceived en mass but pissed off one at a time. If you think pissing people off is a pathway to enlightenment then perhaps instead of theorising about it we should begin to engage in it between ourselves. If antagonism can be an effective remonstration between men of different walks of life, as you suggest, then how much better would it work between we two?

What would someone who cares about truth do, when confronted with Lindsay's editorial? After their initial reaction, they'd think, what the hell is this guy on about. He's a bit over the top isn't he. Why does he feel this way.

That hasn't been my experience. Any time I've badgered and bullied to get my way it has never insited curiosity or introspection in my victims. And when I was young and went to school there were certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they could- exposing every weakness however carefully hidden by the kid. Far from accelerating and encouraging I've only ever noticed this form of instruction do damage and stifle introspective analysis in favor of promoting defensiveness.

What has been your experience with the giving and the dealing of this? Ever work out for you?

A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper, to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against his religion, has been set on a better path.

Wouldn't that work just as well if the phenomenon of scorn were replaced with a phenomenon of polite challange? Fair and firm reasoned persuasion?

This has the added advantage of being enticeing, charming, in a way that abusive language consistently fails to deliver to its target audience.

Salvation Army Brass Band and Duncan Bayne's Mom to also be loci of evil.

Well they are, in as much as they promote evil ideologies. Just like Muslims, Environmentalists are the locus of totalitarianism, and that includes Duncan's mum.

Then we agree on that.

toughen up. You should have learned how to tie the knot.

It was a package deal I couldn't accept. The same enlightenment minus the (unnecessary) indignity would have been perfectly welcome to me then and, I think, to Muslims today.

I have patience, Peter.

Richard Wiig's picture

I just have to beware of mixing it with my stupidity.

Nothing to respect.

Richard Wiig's picture

"And, no, Islam does deserve an iota of respect- much more than that"

Islam has produced nothing, nada, zilch, zip. Anything that's been attributed to Islam didn't arise from Islam, because Islam is incapable of producing. Any attributions to Islam really came from the societies that Islam conquered and set about destroying.

To consistently consider this a fact you also have to consider, for example, the Salvation Army Brass Band and Duncan Bayne's Mom to also be loci of evil.

Well they are, in as much as they promote evil ideologies. Just like Muslims, Environmentalists are the locus of totalitarianism, and that includes Duncan's mum.

The point of my cartoon is to say something about the benifit of doing that.

The benefit of doing that is to point out a truth in a way that arouses people emotions. What would someone who cares about truth do, when confronted with Lindsay's editorial? After their initial reaction, they'd think, what the hell is this guy on about. He's a bit over the top isn't he. Why does he feel this way. And, if truth was something that concerned them, they'd investigate why this person is criticising their ideology. A Muslim who does that, who is spurred to investigate, to look deeper,  to find answers to this phenomenon of scorn against his religion, has been set on a better path. One who turns and runs with the so-called "radicals" isn't worth a pinch of shit anyway, and being nice to him won't change that.

Really, what are you trying to achieve here? You didn't answer that below. You're upset over some strong rhetoric that might offend someones poor sensiblities. Well, boohoo. Get over it Get out of your highchair and toughen up. You should have learned how to tie the knot.

What's true

Rick Giles's picture

Yes, Islam must be put to death!

Yes, East and West both need to rediscover their golden ages of reason. It's important to remember that we're on our second wind now, having once fallen into an even darker age than the one Islam suffers now. It's also important to remember that when we were in that hole this young civilisation helped us back out of it- you might say we owe them one.

And, no, Islam does deserve an iota of respect- much more than that.

Simple example:
Divide LXXXVII by XLIV. Or, for the price of an iota of respect for Islamic intellectuals, try doing it with Arabic numerals.

Let us not forget that Muslims are the locus of totalitarianism.
[...]
is untrue? I think the line that would offend you most would be the last line, but it is, an actual fact.

To consistently consider this a fact you also have to consider, for example, the Salvation Army Brass Band and Duncan Bayne's Mom to also be loci of evil. The point of my cartoon is to say something about the benifit of doing that.

Cresswell pendantically insists that we note that this line paraphrases "Let us not forget that while Muslims are the locus of totalitarianism, they are aided and abetted by an array of allied ayatollahs, woeful witch-doctors of every hue.

I hope that cheers you up Peter.

Troll

Peter Cresswell's picture

Don't feed the troll, Richard. Unless you have the patience.

Tell me, Rick....

Richard Wiig's picture

what, out of this:

Death to Islam! In the name of humanity, Islam must be put to death. Muslims must discover rationality and decency. Westerners must rediscover them. Islam is not worthy of an iota of respect. Let us not forget that Muslims are the locus of totalitarianism.

is untrue? I think the line that would offend you most would be the last line, but it is, an actual fact.

Nice try Wiig

Rick Giles's picture

No one else did, but you - and whoever else placed a collectivist interpretation on what they read.

What they read:
Death to Islam!
In the name of humanity, Islam must be put to death.
Muslims must discover rationality and decency.
Westerners must rediscover them.
Islam is not worthy of an iota of respect.
Let us not forget that Muslims are the locus of totalitarianism.

Yeah, you're right! I did interpret that Muslims were the ones hate was directed toward.

Hands up anybody out there who seriously thinks it can be read differently?

And that would be an attempt to.....

Richard Wiig's picture

achieve what?

"Using the word "Islamist" would have narrowed the fire rather well"

Actually, using the word "Muhajedin" would be most correct, which would place them - the "squalid savages" - as the most noble within Islam. Calling the most noble within Islam, "squalid savages", is going to offend any pious muslim. But still, it must be said.

"Islamist" is merely an attempt to separate them from their religion. It's an attempt to evade.

Actually, you (Rick) blanketed them in this....

Richard Wiig's picture

"..squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesqueries, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists.."

No one else did, but you - and whoever else placed a collectivist interpretation on what they read.

The above words are entirely apt, and if the so-called "moderates" don't agree with those words, then it has to make you wonder, doesn't it?

Battery hens

Rick Giles's picture

Rick I agree about the horse and the honey. But that's not necessarily the situation we face, or the whole solution.

No, but it's the basis for the whole solution. First rule of medicine: first do no harm. Don't abuse and slap around the people you wish to claim for reason. No, it's not the whole solution but only the most basic beginning of one. Can we not even get that right?

Take Iraq
We've smeared honey all over that poor horse but they still don't want to ride him to the promised land.

They weren't born knowing where that land is and they weren't born knowing how to ride that metaphorical horse. We are the inheritors of a very rich culture. To realise the elements of our way of life which we take for granted would blow your mind. Our social system is a working machine and we know how to work it just as our grandfathers did. Throwing these poor Arab newbies into the deep end like battery-hens into the wild is doomed to failure if they don't know how to use what to us is the manifold of everyday life. Freedom is still a very new idea. You can't just kill Saddam, let off a few rounds, hold free elections and watch civilisation blossom! There is a huge cultural gap to bridge and you can start to do that by being patient (never tolerant!) with these poor uninformed Arabs as opposed to alienating all and sundry.

Rick I agree about the horse

Ross Elliot's picture

Rick I agree about the horse and the honey. But that's not necessarily the situation we face, or the whole solution.

Take Iraq. The West goes and facilitates a nice tidy overthrow of the dictatorship, rounds up the perps and proclaims: Hey, you there--the formerly oppressed--you're free! Go forth and democratise!

Isn't happening. It's devolved into inter-mystic, inter-tribal and internecine violence. And it's all because these people won't break free of their collectivist mindwarps.

We've smeared honey all over that poor horse but they still don't want to ride him to the promised land.

Rick's tips for killing Islam

Rick Giles's picture

Rick, let me say up front that I don't think you do have a problem with hate speech directed at Islamists. I have no doubt whatsoever that you believe that I have a right to say anything I damn-well choose.

Good. Thanks.

..far as I'm concerned his invective is directed at the perpetrators of the violence and those that, as I said, are guilty of complicity by omission.

That's exactly who I think it was directed at too. Except that the wind caught it and put Perigo calibre bullet holes of words into our would-be converts.

Using the word "Islamist" would have narrowed the fire rather well, much in the same way those delightful Cox and Faulkum cartoons know and use this particular vocabulary word.

no amount of epistemological equivalence is going to help them

To whisper capitalism in the ear of a timid horse is not epistemological equivalence. To coax fraternity sneeking up and blowing a bullhorn into the horse's sensitive ears just doesn't seem like a winning plan to me.

To win the hearts and minds of people you need to show a little respect for their intellectual capacities, not wound their pride & inflame their defenses. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Is this too radical for The Free Radical?

I never did learn to tie knots like the Sydney yobbo-wanker. And I was more ready to thump the fucker and learn nothing than to gain a new perspective at the cost of being his bitch. What's the bet Lindsay hasn't misjudged your average towl-head's inclination to respond any differently?

Rick, let me say up front

Ross Elliot's picture

Rick, let me say up front that I don't think you do have a problem with hate speech directed at Islamists. I have no doubt whatsoever that you believe that I have a right to say anything I damn-well choose.

Lindsay can speak for himself, but as far as I'm concerned his invective is directed at the perpetrators of the violence and those that, as I said, are guilty of complicity by omission.

Most Muslims live in semi or full dictatorships. I don't envy them or their frustrated natural urge to be free, but until they rise up and denounce their oppresors or seek refuge in the West and reject the mysticism that caused their predicament in the first place, then no amount of epistemological equivalence is going to help them.

But seriously folks

Rick Giles's picture

Rick, your point is clear but

Shhhhhh! We're trying to talk that down.

They are guilty of complicity by omission.

I think you've got alot of difficult territory with the falacies of collectivism and with unchosen responsibility there. Also the fact that community leaders, during my time in Australia at least, do denounce the Islamists- and so do individuals I've met (and I'd be happy to prove that by having fresh talks with them). However, for argument's sake lets put that asside and suppose you're right.

When I first moved to Sydney back in 04 I had a job driving a truck for an office relocations firm. There was another driver who knew a knot I didn't and wanted to teach it to me. However, he was the most derogatory and condescending Aussie wanker I've ever met- intent on treating me like a little kid. "Come learn how to tie down this strop" he said, and I told him flat "Not from you!"

So explain only this to me. If the ordinary (non-Islamist) people of Islam have half the self-worth and human dignity I had then how does blanketing them all in...

"..squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesqueries, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists.."

...facilitate teaching them a new rope knot, let alone teaching them to supplant an entire and entrenched ancient culture?

I'd find that 'invitation to civilisation' a bit uninviting. Wouldn't anyone?

Honestly, I don't have a problem with hate speech directed at Islamists and that's a fact. However, if this thread were to become a debate that fact would quickly be reversed no matter how many times I restated it.

No, it's squalid savages. I

Ross Elliot's picture

No, it's squalid savages. I had a squalid sausage once and it didn't look anthing like that Eye

Is that squalid savages, or

Duncan Bayne's picture

Is that squalid savages, or squalid sausages? 'Cos I'd swear it's the latter.

Hey

Andrew Bissell's picture

You know Rick, with a little more hair, your cartoon characters would look just like the Furry Fry Friends.

Rick, your point is clear

Ross Elliot's picture

Rick, your point is clear but the sentiment misplaced.

The character (a "moderate" Muslim) is running with the terrorists because he won't stand up and proclaim that he disagrees with them; that they do not represent him and that they never will.

You see, most of the so-called moderates don't denounce the violence because it is rooted in the same teachings that they themselves follow. They're caught between a rock and a hard place and in a real bind. But it's a web of their own weaving. They should stand up and denounce the murder and terror but they can't because to do so would force them to admit that they share the same false premises as the jihadists. They are guilty of complicity by omission.

[You know, the Catholics, et al, are just as loopy as the Muslims. But we can handle them because the mystics in the local basilica aren't preaching death to atheists and blowing themselves up in public. They'll keep.]

?

Peter Cresswell's picture

Who left the doors open?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.