I'm offended, so I can attack you now then Nancy, right?

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "I'm offended, so I can attack you now then Nancy, right?" by rabbitpirate.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/news/im-offended-so-i-can-attack-you-now-then-nancy-right/

 

[jrparri]

Well said, Rabbit. I have nothing to add but to second it.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I almost wish I'd remained ignorant of that article, but I'm glad you've dragged it into the cruel and pitiless searchlight of your mind, RP. I third the second.

 

[borrofburi]

Danes fail to perceive the fact that they have developed a society deeply suspicious of religion. This is the real issue between Denmark and Muslim extremists

That blows my mind.

 

[5810Singer]

Nancy Graham Holt appears to be a total bell-end.

 

[jrparri]

Nancy Graham Holt appears to be a total bell-end.

Bell-end? I've never heard that before.. does it mean she gets banged by a hunchback every Sunday?

 

[5810Singer]

Nancy Graham Holt appears to be a total bell-end.

Bell-end? I've never heard that before.. does it mean she gets banged by a hunchback every Sunday?

It refers to the bulbous tip of the male member.

 

[rabbitpirate]

Bell-end? I've never heard that before.. does it mean she gets banged by a hunchback every Sunday?

It refers to the bulbous tip of the male member.

Ah, that's what I love about the League of Reason, the shear high tone of the conversations.

 

[Orkaney]

Memory fails me as usual, but didn't those Imams try going down to the Middle East twice before they got the reaction they wanted? I also vividly remember some of the pictures being printed in an Egyptian newspaper without anyone even batting an eyelid over it. And looking at The Akari Dossier, Mr. Westergaard's drawing was the least insulting of them all, why is he picked out?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wow, I don't agree with ANY of you, or her.

I think that she's dead wrong, but I also find that the condemnation of her isn't exactly fair either. She doesn't say anything about "deserves", does she? There is a case to be made that the cause for the violence is deeper and more fundamental than the rather facile "crazy Muslims kill when they are offended." Too bad she didn't bother to try to make it, instead opting for the equally simplistic "we should be more respectful of stupid beliefs" direction.

 

[5810Singer]

Wow, I don't agree with ANY of you, or her.

I think that she's dead wrong, but I also find that the condemnation of her isn't exactly fair either. She doesn't say anything about "deserves", does she? There is a case to be made that the cause for the violence is deeper and more fundamental than the rather facile "crazy Muslims kill when they are offended." Too bad she didn't bother to try to make it, instead opting for the equally simplistic "we should be more respectful of stupid beliefs" direction.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you agree with me.

When I read that article the message I got was "these Danes brought it on themselves by not respecting religion," which, unless I've misunderstood you, is pretty much your take on it too.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you agree with me.

When I read that article the message I got was "these Danes brought it on themselves by not respecting religion," which, unless I've misunderstood you, is pretty much your take on it too.

I didn't get the "brought it on themselves" part of it, which is where I disagree.

 

[5810Singer]

I didn't get the "brought it on themselves" part of it, which is where I disagree.

Admittedly I'm inferring it, but I can't read this paragraph without hearing it in the back of my mind:

His cartoon depicted the prophet Muhammad in a turban with a stick of dynamite protruding from the top. Muslims failed to see Westergaard's cartoon as satire. Instead, they saw in it a defamatory and humiliating message: Muslims are terrorists. Humiliation is a devastating feeling. But most people who are insulted will accept an apology. If an apology had been forthcoming from the then prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that probably would have been the end to it, but none came, and the humiliation was compounded.

Why should the Danish Prime Minister apologise?
The artist doesn't work for the Danish state, the newspaper isn't state controlled, which leaves "apologising on behalf of the Danish people", which isn't reasonable for either the Muslims or the journalist to expect.
Since when does anyone hold a whole nation accountable for one cartoon? Anyone reasonable that is.

I think this particular line is telling: ".....most people who are insulted will accept an apology. If an apology had been forthcoming from the then prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that probably would have been the end to it, but none came, and the humiliation was compounded."

So she's definitely saying that if the Danish Prime Minister had apologised then things wouldn't have been so bad, and that's the basis for my inferrence.

Two paragraphs later she stresses the point that Danes are suspicious and disrespectful of religious beliefs and people, and refers to it as a "deeply rooted prejudice", which makes me disinclined to be charitable about her motives, which in turn reinforces the inferrence I drew.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I found her writing and general attitude to be too "limp noodle" to actually rise to the level of actually assigning blame or who deserves what. It seems more of a mealy-mouthed "can't we all just get along" nonsense.

 

[xman]

What an utter twat. Lets pool our resources and buy her some classes in logic or something. Ah never mind. Probably wouldn't do any good and I hate wasting my money.

 

[DeistPaladin]

All this reminds me of an article I remember seeing when Iran issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Anyone remember that incident?

The opinion-commentary article was entitled:

Rushdie's Insensitivity.

He abused his freedom of speech in a way that's sure to offend

So Rushdie said some things critical of Islam and so he deserves to have a death-sentance passed against him because he's being mean and stuff? It just blows my mind how people can blame-the-victim and seriously call for the placating of violent and irrational people.

Beyond the astounding attitude of blaming the victim, there's also the futility of appeasing religious people who are eager to play the "hurt feelings card". Dennet commented on this problem in the video "The Four Horsemen" very early on in the discussion. He said that no matter how lightly you tread in a discussion of religious ideas, there are going to be some people who will be offended and accuse you of "insensitivity".

At the end of the day, religions like Islam and Christianity don't really just want to be respected. They don't want co-existence. They don't want to be left alone. They want to be OBEYED! It wants to set the rules for believers and non-believers alike. Everyone, on your knees or in the ground! Nothing less will satisfy them. Appeasement, "respect" and blaming the victim are as futile as they are absurd.

 

[obsidianavenger]

she was educated at UC Berkeley, presumably back during the high hippie days..... her attitude is understandable to me :roll:

 

[creamcheese]

she was educated at UC Berkeley, presumably back during the high hippie days..... her attitude is understandable to me :roll:

So was my mother, and she is nothing like this.

 

[obsidianavenger]

she was educated at UC Berkeley, presumably back during the high hippie days..... her attitude is understandable to me :roll:

So was my mother, and she is nothing like this.

good! that means some people are immune. lol

 

[5810Singer]

she was educated at UC Berkeley, presumably back during the high hippie days..... her attitude is understandable to me :roll:

So was my mother, and she is nothing like this.

good! that means some people are immune. lol

I'm a "high hippie" and I think she's full-o-crap...