Hey, I didn't even notice this.
Because falling in love, or getting married, or simply going out for a drink are all the same as choosing to participate in a war?
Which war is this?
Tell me something, Geoff: If she consents to blow you does she tacitly consent to you sticking it up her ass?
Well, a gentleman never tells. Why do I keep ending up in your fantasy zone, Tiassa?
If she consents to you sticking it up her ass, does she also implicitly consent to you beating her into the hospital with your fists?
I have no idea what the dating scene is like in Bothell.
But if all this is just a question of degree, if one accepts that a certain number of hate letters will arrive every week, should they sign for a grenade in the mailbox next?
We loathe when wars target reporters, but it's also a risk of entering the war zone. Would you say the same thing about going to the local pub? No, seriously, if your local pub is a war zone, find a new pub.
Yeees, we do loathe wars when they - or rather their combatants - target reporters. Do you mind if I continue to do so? WRT to your second comment (diverging from the first):
Neither criticize crocodiles, nor
feed them. Instead, fly into a frothy fit at their opponents on the intertubes. Perhaps if we do nothing and say nothing, they will leave us alone. They will not, but it fits into my hackneyed conceptualizations.
This time, the comedic decision cost lives. But here's the conundrum: When you throw down fighting words, it is unreasonable to expect that nobody will respond by throwing a punch.
Nose. Expression. Right to, end of, etc. And? So it is unreasonable to expect that if we criticize anti-abortionists, that none of them will come calling to blow up abortion clinics (or just protest them). If we attack Republicans, it is unreasonable to think that they won't respond by directing automatic fire at Dem party headquarters. And we dare not respond! We dare not express our outrage. Because, well... 'fighting words'. No, no:
you don't believe in something so stupid. No, no - it's those other guys that don't. And if they don't, well, tough for you. Don't expect me to cry any. No, no: I hear what you're saying.
Be not critical, for there are wolves. If the woodsman had just let ol' Red Riding Hood get eaten and got back to his harvesting, why... well, we wouldn't have any as many little girls, for sure, but then again we'd be taking no risks with our woodsmen either. And that has to count for something, surely.
What if it was a rape survivor who snapped and did this? Would we still be defending free speech? Would major newspapers be trying to piss off every woman on the planet by standing in solidarity with misogynists?
You're comparing the experience of rape survivors with that of religious fascists who get made fun of. All right. CH raped the Islamofascists. Someone drew one Mohammed too many, and they had to respond, like Farah Fawcett in
The Burning Bed. Well, we can hardly defend free speech
now: just look at what those CH fuckers did!
What happened is wrong.
But that doesn't make Saint Charlie.
Congratulations on your belated perspicacity: it
was wrong. And
who said
Saint Charlie? They surely weren't always right, but they sure as hell weren't wrong about criticising religious fascism. See, a more balanced psychology is able to simultaneously applaud CH for their criticisms of the latter while still deploring the former: you should try this balance sometime. You struggle and struggle to achieve this absolute dichotomy, so that you can attach a label to the pesky things and not have to think about them any more. That'll show social complexity what for: we'll just turn and walk away. No, no, we're not talking to you any more. If you want us to turn around and act like an adult, you'll have to arrange an interest-free loan for Political Polarization Now. Hey, I didn't make the rules, buddy.
There's nothing like taking a godawful situation and trying to make it worse. But, hey, we've got GeoffP, and, you know, that's kind of his thing, and we don't want to interrupt free speech, so do carry on with your grotesquely irresponsible, mewling, hateful drivel.
Oh,
yes, Tiassa: that damn Geoff, making the world worse by obliquely supporting a level of free speech designed to offend religious fascists - which he hates. Oh, how he hates the religiously intolerant! What a swine! And oh so irresponsible with his balanced narrative, spewing hateful
reason into the dialectic! And his comments on an obscure internet forum just made it all
worse. Someone might see them and feel just awful. Just like all those people protesting gunfire as a response to the baiting of idiots. Those
bastards. How dare they make things worse. Is tawdry neo-intellectualism your thing in that you step off serious issues on the wrong foot, or that you
like to?
These people aren't heroes. They're assholes who also happen to be victims.
Yees, victims of religious fascists. They're not Phelps' church. They assaulted the idiocies of religious idiots, and were attacked for it - physically. With respect to the issue, that does make them heroes. You carry that bucket of absolute equivalency out into the desert, though. I bet you can find a buyer there, if there aren't too many chunks.
