Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

Occom Bill replied to this posting. I read some of it, hit REPLY, got a message saying something to the effect of "does not exist" and guess what, OC's reply does no longer exist.

she has a mind that may change with persuasive reasoning.

What hypocrisy? In March of this year, al-Awlaki himself declared that he was an enemy of the state by telling the Times the Jihad against the United States was binding on him and every other able bodied Muslim. All Obama did was recognize him as the enemy he is self-proclaimed to be.

If you wish to argue the merits this response; start a thread and link it. But I won't cooperate with you derailing this one with your standard "America's the great satan, and Bill's a hypocrite" idiocy.

al-Awlaki is no boogieman. He is ranking al-queda and is a party to the crime of several terrorist attacks. Boogieman= fiction. al-Awlaki is quite real and has proven repeatedly to be very dangerous.

How thick am I? You are the only idiot here dumb enough to believe the U.S. is attempting to take over the world. You're probably also the only one here ignorant of the fact the proponents of Sharia Law have repeatedly stated their intent to do just that. This is propaganda only to the deliberately obtuse. The rest of us believe them when they state their purpose for themselves.

but perhaps you'd care to identify what precisely you think Molly did wrong; and list the other entities you think she shouldn't lampoon in her satire. I triple dog dare you.

What you haven't done is stated why this special interest group alone should be afforded special consideration by cartoon satirists. That's not a circle.

I've explained myself on Molly. No need to go into it further. What would be better, you improve your comprehension skills. Molly's now a non-entity, self chosen, I might add.

Actually, I think cartoon satirists overstep a lot of lines. But that's just me and my delicate sensibilities. I don't much like ridicule or hateful, hurtful expressions in general. I don't think this one group alone should be afforded special consideration. But then, I don't much care what cartoon satirists do because I almost never give them any notice. I find them generally offensive. But that's their intent and I get that. They get to be offensive and I get to ignore them. Others get to react however they react. Most of those reactions are perfectly valid and legal. OTOH, if you're going to go out of your way to inflame a couple billion people, don't be surprised if a lot of them are hurt and a few of them fight back. As in all things in this life, Bill, there are actions and reactions -- some of them surprising, some of them predictable. Is anyone actually surprised that this is the result? It's a choice she made with a predictable outcome. I don't admire her for it in the least. I don't wish her any ill will either. I'm sorry that she's had to give up her identity and her career. But no one forced her to make the choices she made.

Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.

How many comedians, cartoonists, etc could possibly do their work under such a philosophy?

Molly is the topic of this thread. I do not see where you posted your position, can you link to it? And for the zillionth time: I am well aware of a great many wrongs committed by my country. The fact that I refuse to cooperate with you in derailing every thread with your pet-project only makes me a hypocrit in the mind of an idiot like yourself.

Occom Bill has the temerity to write:

You can't possibly really believe that, JPB. You state that your sensibilities aren't reserved for Islam, but then write off death threats as nothing more than a predictable reaction. Meanwhile; you insist that you're actually a proponent of free speech. Do you mean that you really only believe in free speech that doesn't offend? Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.

[When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they send the CIA in, with its resources and activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly textbook-ish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market, where children can't go to school, where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside their homes, where government administration and programs grind to a complete halt, where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people, where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt. If you ask the state department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say it's to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

...

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

Let me ask you something, Bill.

Are you really surprised by this outcome?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.

How many comedians, cartoonists, etc could possibly do their work under such a philosophy?

You're getting closer. I never said understandable. I simply said predictable. Come on, Bill. You're an intelligent person. You know that there are legal limitations on free speech -- such as screaming "FIRE" in a theater when there's no fire. There are also prudent ones - based on predictable outcomes. They exist in all aspects of life. I don't say most of what I think when I'm around my in-laws, for example. It wouldn't be prudent and, to use Cyclo's phrase, it's just stirring up ****.

She didn't need to make an inflammatory call to action in order to keep her livelihood.

Till this point, I agree. You could legally go into the most dangerous neighborhood in Harlem and yell, "ni**ers should all be shipped back to Africa", but it would be as foolish and dangerous as the sentiment is idiotic. Indeed, a man who chose to ignore my warnings against belligerently calling a bartender friend of mine the C-word met a violent reaction from me. There is no ambiguity in your point here.

So what else can we do? Obey every bully who makes a credible death threat? Does that really seem appropriate to you? Various bullies continue to threaten to kill gay people, for being gay. Would you recommend gays stay in the closet so as not to offend these bullies? (Btw, these same bullies hate gays every bit as much as they hate cartoonists.) Or, would you recommend that rather than staying in the closet; gays should openly oppose those who would harm them? Should other gays join them in walking in parades to show the bullies they will not be intimidated? Would you join them in that walk even though you're straight? (Time permitting, I be you would.)

It is a pity that the show of solidarity runs the risk of offending a billion people. That really isn't the point, and it's relatively harmless collateral damage anyway. The point is that the relative few extremists that would literally lose their minds and start killing cartoonists; cannot kill us all if we stand together. I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist. Neither should you.

Molly, (I'm assuming now) must have reasoned that it was not fair for Matt and Trey to shoulder the load alone. After all, all satirists lampoon people and practices for a living. It's what they do, and they most certainly don't deserve to die for it, no matter how distasteful their work may be. So why not demonstrate solidarity by exercising the same right Matt and Trey were under fire for? And not wishing to be the only other cartoonist in the crosshairs; the logical next step would be to invite everyone to join her.

Molly is the victim here. She is being victimized for having the decency to stand up for her colleagues. History will remember her as a hero, and I wish her the very best of luck in whatever she does next.

Indeed, a man who chose to ignore my warnings against belligerently calling a bartender friend of mine the C-word met a violent reaction from me.

Sure, and if Molly had organized an "Help Support Free Speech" parade instead of a shove-it-in-their-faces, "Take That, You Assholes!" call to action then she probably wouldn't have gotten a death threat either.

Something you wrote near the beginning of this thread is still pertinent. This isn't just about assholes and satirists. It's about 2 billion people who she set out to hurt. You said

Quote:

It is a pity that the show of solidarity runs the risk of offending a billion people. That really isn't the point, and it's relatively harmless collateral damage anyway. The point is that the relative few extremists that would literally lose their minds and start killing cartoonists; cannot kill us all if we stand together. I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist. Neither should you.

It's the thought that this "relatively harmless collateral damage anyway" justifies her, and your, actions that prevents me from agreeing with you.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Molly, (I'm assuming now) must have reasoned that it was not fair for Matt and Trey to shoulder the load alone. After all, all satirists lampoon people and practices for a living. It's what they do, and they most certainly don't deserve to die for it, no matter how distasteful their work may be. So why not demonstrate solidarity by exercising the same right Matt and Trey were under fire for? And not wishing to be the only other cartoonist in the crosshairs; the logical next step would be to invite everyone to join her.

For the same reason that you wouldn't gather up all you best buddies and rush off to Harlem to kick some ass!

Quote:

Molly is the victim here. She is being victimized for having the decency to stand up for her colleagues. History will remember her as a hero, and I wish her the very best of luck in whatever she does next.

Your crystal ball is better than mine on how history will remember her. I wish her the very best of luck too.