Originally Posted by JDG 66

-
-You mean, PW might have been a marine for the 3 days until his butt got kicked out of boot camp. Or are you referring to PW's service in the Parachute Ski Marines?

If Playfraud was a marine, he was the most incompetent and ignorant marine in history, and that's saying a lot.

From the archives:



To which I responded:



...that easily forgettable song which most USMC veterans simply end up referring to as "that friken song about when a soldier dies and goes to heaven, not to fear, he'll find a marine guarding the pearly gates"...

How far should I dig into the archives?

Are you actually taking Playfraud's little off hand remarks seriously, Mr. Horn? Are you really that gullible? Well, as you know, you're the real deal, so I'll always cut you a little break, Mr. Horn.

At the time, I was sharing how perplex I was with not only my son deciding to join, but how things were so very different from when I joined. I was trying to do it with a little amusement. If one was intelligent enough or had similar experiences, it would not have been hard to have read my pride between the lines. You obviously have neither so it went way over your head, but folks like me and now my son get pretty use to that coming from other guys that kinda, sorta fell into other military branches because they, well, just didn't have much else going on in their lives and prospects dim.

We've been down this road plenty of time over the years, Glick. It started when I called you out for trying to use your supposed superior military experience to shut down other posters' opinions over your "alpha shooters" nonsense (must be an Army thingee). While I have casually and indirectly from the topic at hand mentioned or somehow implied my own military background (e.g. my pondering my son's enlistment), I have not tried to use it as a battering ram to the extent that you have.

This issue with proving said experience always winds up in the same place. So let's cut to the chase this time. You claim this military experience of some guy named Glick. So, go ahead and prove you are the said Glick by sending me a facsimile of your military id, drivers license photo id and your Social; I'll take it from there and report to the forum your validity or lack of. Or, you can release your military record to me beyond what is already publicly available (which may be how you obtained your professed identity to begin with).

Now if history is any guide, this is where you stop posting for a while.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

He has a right to make that film.

I have a right to my opinion of that film, and of him for making it.

Absolutely.

End of story.

Nope, that's not the end of the story. I also have a right to my opinion that a culture that considers *even just words* "despicable" is a culture in which freedom of speech is in danger.

Why do you bother to argue that you have a right to express your opinion of the film-maker? Could it be because you believe that you need to stand up for freedom of speech?

I also believe I need to stand up for freedom of speech. Thus my argument.

Am I arguing against criticism of the film? No.

I am arguing against placing the primary focus on how "the filmmaker shouldn't have made the film, because that was like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater," rather than on the people who responded violently to it.

A culture in which the majority of responses to an incident like this place the primary focus on how awful the film was, rather than on the fact that violence is never justified in response, is a culture that is losing sight of the value of and reason for freedom of speech.

Particularly when there start to be calls for government investigation of the film-maker.

You have repeatedly tried to claim that this discussion started as a discussion of the film. It did not. If it had, I wouldn't have a problem with people's focus on criticizing the film.

But this discussion started as a discussion of the attack on the US embassy.

Which wasn't even about the film anyway.

So why were so many responses to the attack so strongly focused on how awful the film was?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-The left cares about offending people who threaten to cut their heads off:

As I noted to the other folks (JPT, Weave, Wallace) that believe it's right to use the right of free speech to get our people in the field killed -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...829#post443829

Mitt Romney Condemns Anti-Muslim Film, Echoing White House Position

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I haven’t seen the film. I don’t intend to see it. I you know, I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ve seen General Martin Dempsey call Pastor Jones to say, “Please don’t promote this film.” You think that’s a good idea?

MITT ROMNEY: I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment- the good judgment- not to be- not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing

From you all's standpoint, Romney is about as far to the Left as one can go on this issue.

So why don't you all man up for once in your lives and take a pledge to both not vote for the guy and actively campaign to get other people to not vote for the guy. Say starting with just this forum: every one of your posts should include a strong call to people not to vote for Mittens.

If you can't do that, all this principle talk about the sacredness of the right to free speech you all have been spewing is just that - bullshit.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Nope, that's not the end of the story. I also have a right to my opinion that a culture that considers *even just words* "despicable" is a culture in which freedom of speech is in danger.

Well, to some extent that's not really an opinion but an assertion of fact, since you're claiming an objective state of danger. I'll come back to this.

Why do you bother to argue that you have a right to express your opinion of the film-maker? Could it be because you believe that you need to stand up for freedom of speech?

I don't think so, although I do have one concern relating to the NDAA power of indefinite detention without trial, which could be used to squelch freedom of speech. It was struck down recently by a federal judge but the Obama administration has appealed the ruling, which, needless to say, does NOT make me happy.

I don't consider the opinions expressed here about this a threat to free speech, but we are having a discussion and an exchange of views and I am participating in it and those are mine.

I am arguing against placing the primary focus on how "the filmmaker shouldn't have made the film, because that was like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater," rather than on the people who responded violently to it.

See, I don't think that's an appropriate comparison to make. Condemnation of those who responded violently to it is a given. That really doesn't need to be discussed, does it? Aren't we all in agreement there?

You have repeatedly tried to claim that this discussion started as a discussion of the film. It did not. If it had, I wouldn't have a problem with people's focus on criticizing the film.

But this discussion started as a discussion of the attack on the US embassy.

Actually, no. It started (see the thread title) as a discussion of Mitt Romney's use of the attack on the U.S. Embassy for political purposes, and that led naturally, because of one of the things Romney said, to a discussion of the film in the context of a statement made by the embassy staff before the attack, which Romney criticized and tried to whack Obama with. As such, the relationship if any between the film and the attack, and between criticism of the film and excusing the attack, and in general drawing a see-saw relationship between critiquing the film and condemning the attack as you have done in this post, and as if there were any reason in the world we couldn't do both at the same time without significant limitation, so that they need not compete with one another in any way -- all of that came up quite logically from a discussion of what Romney did.

In which context it makes a lot more sense than if the discussion had really started just about the attack on the embassy itself.

Now about your assertion of fact above. It's necessary to walk a tightrope here. On the one hand, as you say there's some danger that strong moral condemnation can lead to physical action either directly or via the government. On the other hand, failure to condemn behavior that does in fact deserve it risks losing our moral compass.

I'm not prepared to err in either direction. I don't want to live a life painted in washed-out watercolor, but nor am I willing to give in to the temptation to violence (first- or second-hand), and I personally have a very strong commitment to free speech. There is simply no good way to "play it safe" here.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Absolutely.



Nope, that's not the end of the story. I also have a right to my opinion that a culture that considers *even just words* "despicable" is a culture in which freedom of speech is in danger.

Why do you bother to argue that you have a right to express your opinion of the film-maker? Could it be because you believe that you need to stand up for freedom of speech?

I also believe I need to stand up for freedom of speech. Thus my argument.

Am I arguing against criticism of the film? No.

I am arguing against placing the primary focus on how "the filmmaker shouldn't have made the film, because that was like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater," rather than on the people who responded violently to it.

A culture in which the majority of responses to an incident like this place the primary focus on how awful the film was, rather than on the fact that violence is never justified in response, is a culture that is losing sight of the value of and reason for freedom of speech.

Particularly when there start to be calls for government investigation of the film-maker.

You have repeatedly tried to claim that this discussion started as a discussion of the film. It did not. If it had, I wouldn't have a problem with people's focus on criticizing the film.

But this discussion started as a discussion of the attack on the US embassy.

Which wasn't even about the film anyway.

So why were so many responses to the attack so strongly focused on how awful the film was?

Because, Ted, some of our people are now dead. Those people now dead were actually overseas doing something about maintaining your right to freedom of speech so that you can feel all warm and fuzzy waxing on with your bullshit without the slightest possible personal risk.

There are many forms of chicken hawks and chicken shits.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, being published is no longer a challenge. Anyone can be published; all you have to do is upload a book, properly formatted, to Amazon and boom! you're published. That's a huge consequence of the digital revolution.

I think I have him beat hands down, too, but that's not why. (Besides, most of what I've published is fiction.)

Yes, I realize the bar is lower than in the past.

I realized that as I was noting that our friend hasn't even made that cut. It takes a little bit of self confidence.

I've come to learn that those with a lot of bluster tend to not have much of that when their onion gets peeled back.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I was wondering the same thing when I came to this conclusion:


It's ok for Blues to offend Muslim extremists by wearing bikinis and having gay marriages, but not ok for Reds to do so by making crappy movies about Islam.
And now that Obama's in charge, it's also ok for Blues to offend Muslim extremists by dropping bombs on them.

Wow -

a national healthcare plan providing free abortions for all?

I'm surprised I missed that little nugget. Care to explain what you meant by that?

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's ok for Blues to offend Muslim extremists by wearing bikinis and having gay marriages, but not ok for Reds to do so by making crappy movies about Islam.

That reflects nothing more than a personal belief about what they have any business being offended by. It's like the difference between if you got offended by other people not being vegetarians, versus if you got offended by someone else yelling racist, sexually harassing crap at you on the street.

And now that Obama's in charge, it's also ok for Blues to offend Muslim extremists by dropping bombs on them.

Sez who?

Here's an NYT summary of what is offensive in the film -

The incendiary, amateurish video, which depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a buffoon, a womanizer and a child molester, was first uploaded to YouTube in June and was translated into Arabic and uploaded several more times in the week leading up to the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

There's a lot of talk here about how these things are done to Christians all the time. Really? Care to reference a movie of "Jesus, the child molester?"

In Islam, Jesus is revered, standing only behind Mohammad as a prophet. I don't think you would find this shit coming from them. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Saying that a certain type of speech is "despicable" is an expression of opinion. It means that the speech, and by logical extension the speaker, are worth of being "despised." It has nothing to do with violence, and in no way, shape or form implies that violence is to be contemplated against the speaker. So the fact that you control yourself and don't give in to the temptation to violence in that circumstance does NOT mean that you don't consider the ethnic slur "despicable."

The legal process of the Nuremberg Trials determined that Julius Streicher, whose crime was the relentless dissemination of incendiary libel against Jews... with such material easing the mass murder of Jews deserved to die with a rope around his neck even if he never commanded a death squad, never planned any part of the Holocaust, and never 'served' in a concentration camp. In a totalitarian state, getting broad access to people's minds presumably suggests that one has authority. This applies whether the material is the newspaper Der Stürmer for general circulation among adults or the "children's" book Der Giftpilz (The Poisonous Mushroom) that the Jew is at best a contemptible and expendable character and at worst a dangerous menace to any German especially if he has economic or personal power.

Hate speech made possible the Rwanda genocide possible. Among the vilest was Froduald Karamira, a businessman and politician who made daily speeches exhorting Hutu thugs to murder Tutsi victims on Rwandan state radio. He fled after his regime collapsed and was arrested in Bombay and extradited to Rwanda, where he was tried, convicted, and executed.

Of course hate speech is much less troublesome where it can be countered. Jews could laugh at Der Stürmer for its crudity while, before the Nazi takeover, freedom of expression existed in Germany. Rwanda at the time of the genocide had nearly no personal freedom. When it becomes the official word in all but name it becomes a tool of command, and permission to write and publish in a dictatorial order often becomes tantamount to command or at least permisiion to do the inexcusable.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Heh. I'm not at all surprised that you missed any of it.
And no I think I'll leave you guessing.

Yea, I think that's a smart move on your part.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yeah, I know you guys don't want the crescent flying over the White House and Israel reduced to rubble, and we don't either; but don't you guys also like women and gays put in their place, and people praying a lot (not toward Mecca, but to the same god)? You conservatives might be happier under Muslim rule than we liberals would, donya think?

Nope.......

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Um. I don't think JohnMc82 is a "left winger" but perhaps he can clarify.

lol - had to add some historical & international plot points for comparison because my political opinions are completely out of touch with (our highly dysfunctional) modern American politics.



Democrats call me a right-winger, Republicans call me a leftie... but they're all violent authoritarians to me

Anyway, is it inherently racist or prejudiced to admit Israel has its own capabilities and strategic interests? Is that more racist than acting like Israel is some sort of lapdog who exists just to please us and can't survive without our constant protection?

Australia:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You know, it's interesting that some of the posters here can't understand objecting to this film except in terms of what it might provoke Muslims to do to us. It's as if there can be no other reason to object to it -- not aesthetic reasons, not reasons of taste, not reasons of morality, nothing except fear of retaliation.

This is a parallel blind spot along with the other one, an inability to understand that "this film should not have been produced" is not equivalent to "we should ban this film." It's as if they expect, if you disapprove of something, you're going to want to use heavy-handed government force and censorship to suppress it. There's apparently no understanding at all of the concept that one can believe in freedom without at the same time approving of everything someone does with it.

What can we tentatively conclude from this? I would say two things.

1) Those posters who have the above holes in their understanding themselves cannot evaluate either art or actions except in an authoritarian, fear of punishment context. Since that is the only way they are able to think about evaluating art or actions, they assume that that's what others are doing, too, and look for some plausible source of punishment that might suffice to explain the fear.

2) Those posters who have the above holds in their understanding themselves have very little appreciation of freedom. One sees this in other contexts, too: freedom of religion is good if it's MY religion; freedom of speech is good if it's not IMMORAL speech; freedom of action is good if the action isn't one God (or a substitute) would shake his finger at. Since freedom -- which in effect means the right to do what you want whether someone else approves of it or not -- is a foreign concept to them, expressions of disapproval automatically amount to a call for suppression by force of the state.

It's quite revealing, actually.

It's both reasons. When I run into Evangelicals whining about "religious freedom" they are the same people who thought that the planned Islamic Center in NYC was an existential thread to America. When they speak of "freedom" they mean the freedom to impose their own beliefs on others.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Me too, Odin; you're not the only leftist with this opinion.

Arguments like playwrite et al's are an embarrassment to non-postmodernist leftists like you and me.

...

I've seen many progressives and leftists, online and IRL, argue that making this film was "like shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater."

I disagree. Now maybe I'm just going all Boomerish and slippery-slopey...but here's why:

Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is saying something that you know or should know *normally* causes people to injure one another.

Saying this guy metaphorically "shouted 'fire!' in a crowded theater" is saying he did something that he should have expected would cause violence. Something that *normally* causes violence.

A culture that supports free speech -- and freedom of conscience -- cannot be a culture that believes it is *normal* to react to "blasphemy" with violence.

...

Related:

Brian argues that it's normal for Americans to believe that some speech is "despicable." Maybe it is. However, I for one would have a hard time labeling *any* speech as *so* bad that it really deserves the term "despicable."

When someone uses the ethnic slur that applies to my dad's side of my family, the slur that applies to people with my surname...I get extremely angry and am indeed tempted toward violence. But I control myself; and I do not consider the use of that slur to fit the label "despicable." "Despicable" is a word for something worse.

When someone online became so angry with something I said that they told me I "deserve to be raped to death with a rusty rake," that led my partner and me to fear that this person might track us down and throw Molotov cocktails through our window. I do consider those words to be pretty damn bad. (If they'd known my history of sexual abuse, those words would've been even worse.) Even for that, though, I still feel the term "despicable" is still a little strong.

I actually find the idea that some speech is "despicable" a little creepy. I think it encourages a mindset that is dangerously close to forgetting the need for and the purpose of freedom of speech.

I've already seen incidents in which people have compromised some of their supposed values, or even broken their own stated rules, because, "This particular offense is different, is worse, is *truly* despicable; surely our [value | rule] of [free speech | tenure | an unmoderated discussion group | etc.] wasn't meant to apply to *this*." Encouraging the attitude that, yes, some speech really is "despicable"...can only encourage that mindset.

US society seems to be moving in that direction. It's been mentioned before on these boards that Millennials, or perhaps simply modern society, seem(s) especially inclined toward the whole, "Although I was caught cheating, I am a good student" thing; I've often seen Young People Today(tm) say things even more obviously contradictory, such as, "Although I speculated about someone's motives behind their back, and others believed it and it altered their attitude toward the person, I didn't gossip."

People who are good at, "Although it fits all the criteria for X, it's not actually X, this time it's different," are especially likely to say, "Although it fits all the criteria for a free speech issue, it's not actually a free speech issue, this time it's different"...

If they want to. If they want to because they're especially outraged by this particular speech. If they've been encouraged to be especially outraged by some statements, because they've been encouraged to believe that yes, some speech really is "despicable."

No. No speech, no just words or just a film or just a picture, is *so* bad that it really merits the label "despicable." None.

...

BTW. In retrospect I now realize that the liberal Millennial who told me I
"deserve to be raped to death with a rusty rake," did so partly because my previous defense of freedom of speech had inspired him/her to conclude I must be a conservative.

If we go ahead and cede something as basic as defense of free speech to the conservatives, then stick a fork in us, we're done.

At least Secretary of State Clinton came out strongly in support of freedom of speech.

Not staying home for this election. I wonder about the next one, though.

...

Brian keeps trying and trying to redefine this discussion as being "about the film, not the attack on the embassy." But well...it actually started out as being about the attack on the embassy (and Mitt Romney's response to it); I checked.

I'm in complete agreement.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's an NYT summary of what is offensive in the film -



There's a lot of talk here about how these things are done to Christians all the time. Really? Care to reference a movie of "Jesus, the child molester?"

In Islam, Jesus is revered, standing only behind Mohammad as a prophet. I don't think you would find this shit coming from them. Prove me wrong.

Mohammed DID marry a 8yo girl, which is likely where the child molester thing came from.

Originally Posted by Odin

Mohammed DID marry a 8yo girl, which is likely where the child molester thing came from.

Gasp! How dare you bring up such facts? Have you no respect?

But yeah... I share your frustration with the authoritarian left right now.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Gasp! How dare you bring up such facts? Have you no respect?

But yeah... I share your frustration with the authoritarian left right now.

A couple years ago during the Mohammed cartoon thing I caused a massive flame war on DU because I mentioned that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Because, Ted, some of our people are now dead. Those people now dead were actually overseas doing something about maintaining your right to freedom of speech so that you can feel all warm and fuzzy waxing on with your bullshit without the slightest possible personal risk.

There are many forms of chicken hawks and chicken shits.

Im just dying to know how the ambassador to Libya is "maintaining my right to freedom of speech." I was unaware that Libya posed such a significant threat to the bill of rights.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Stevens was a big advocate of diplomacy, especially when it comes to Iran.

So who has knowledge of the location of secret safe houses, and a desire to see us fighting with Iran? Yeah.

About a month ago, there was another well-timed attack on an advocate of peace with Iran. Rockets dropped on General Dempsey's plane just a few moments after he stepped off in Bagram - and just a few days after he said we weren't going to attack Iran over their nuclear power program.

Huh. Guess who called Obama after midnight on Tuesday, for a "Long, frank" conversation:

Yeah, probably not Israel either.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Yeah, probably not Israel either.

What are you thinking, Iranian Mujahedin? Hezzbolah? Spell it out, man!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What are you thinking, Iranian Mujahedin? Hezzbolah? Spell it out, man!

Good chance this one was Iranian.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's ok for Blues to offend Muslim extremists by wearing bikinis and having gay marriages, but not ok for Reds to do so by making crappy movies about Islam.

And now that Obama's in charge, it's also ok for Blues to offend Muslim extremists by dropping bombs on them.

I'm thinking that most American women, when they put on a bikini, or when they decide to marry a girlfriend, are not doing these things for the sake of offending a Muslim extremist. These are life style choices. The guy who is making the offensive film, though, is deliberately provoking.

Then, you know that. You know all about being deliberately provocative.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There's a lot of talk here about how these things are done to Christians all the time. Really? Care to reference a movie of "Jesus, the child molester?"

Well, no. But then, Christian tradition doesn't have a recorded incident where Jesus married a 9-year old girl. Oddly enough, the "smear" you bolded is actually true.

OTOH, there are movies like The God Who Wasn't There that question whether Jesus ever actually existed, which one could argue is even more offensive. But, it's hard to say that objectively, since people tend to get more bent out of shape when their own religious perspective is skewered.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Because, Ted, some of our people are now dead. Those people now dead were actually overseas doing something about maintaining your right to freedom of speech so that you can feel all warm and fuzzy waxing on with your bullshit without the slightest possible personal risk.

2004 just called. The Republicans want their talking points back.