Shorter Michelle Malkin
Posted on September 17th, 2008 by Brad
- So, she asked about banning some books. Big deal! You don’t want your kids reading about homos at the public library, do you?
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
I love this particular picture of MM because she reminds me of a young Peoples’ Liberation Army officer that I nailed on the boat from Chongqing to Wuhan, back in the 1980s, long before the massive damn was built.
Can you say, “Dong fang hong?”
Tasty.
All you ever needed to know about Hulkin Smash can be read here:
See, when I made this, I had no more than a sense of dull dread that someone would actually force textbook Nazi ideology into the debate. I do so wish I believed America was incapable of winning a war or even existing as a society without detaining foreigners without charge, expelling native-born citizens on the basis of their skin color, or yanking books with the taint of the hated homoislamofascist agenda from the shelves and throwing them into the fires; if I thought so little about my country I could accept someone like Malkin fouling it so terribly.
On a lighter note, good to know that the entire point of Liberal Fascism wasn’t so much about protecting the white male as making sure nobody was confused about who the real Jews are.
You know: the homos.
I have a few suggestions if we are really going into the book banning business. How about these:
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Round-Up-Americas-Terror/dp/0895260514/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221663049&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Unhinged-Exposing-Liberals-Gone-Wild/dp/0895260301/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221663049&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Invasion-America-Welcomes-Terrorists-Criminals/dp/0895260751/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221663049&sr=8-3
I am sure that Michelle could get behind banning such blatant appeals to hatred and intolerance, don’t you think?
jill’s splash page today deals with this very thing, funny enough.
Um. What?
The commenters are quoting Ted Nugent. They’ve reached the bottom of the intellectual barrel, scraped through it, and started dredging up the ant-infested mud under the barrel. Nice.
It’s always fun when Malkin talks about books. Here’s one of hers completely demolished:
http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html
From her post:
Well Michelle, if you’re David Irving don’t expect your Holocaust denial book to be sold at Auschwitz.
The Islamic jihadists are banning our books now? Are we in favor of or against that sort of thing? ‘Cause, you know, they’re against the homos and all.
Seriously, does this bitch not even understand that most conservatives only tolerate her because they want to poke her in the ass. She keeps talking and all they hear is wah, wah, wah, while thinking poke, poke, poke.
Can you say, “Dong fang hong?”
No, but I can say Dong fang hong.
Blessed is the archive.
Waaaazaaaap! Oh no you di’int! Fab gear! What’s swingin’, daddy-o? Word to your mother, homes! A’ight? Keep on truckin’! Where’s the beef? Mellow out, man! Whut-everrrrrrrrr! Talk to the hand, girlfriend! Yeeeeeeeeah, boyeeeee!
If books are banned, only book banners will have books! Is that what you want, America? IS IT??!?!?!?!?!?!!?
Wait… where was I going with this?
I fucking hate Malkin but I also fucking hate those on my side who support censorship and justify it with stupid cliches about differential power and “elites” and other dumb fucking special pleading about how book banning sucks but ok when the people who are offended are those whose opinion you think matter.
Isn’t “Fuk Yu” her real name ?
Matt Damon is “Hollywood”, now? What is that, his poker nickname?
Ah, my favorite WILF!
(wingnut I’d like to f*&k)
There’s really not very many of them.
Although we feel compelled to interject ourselves here, we don’t really think it would help very much.
Like who? Anonymous posters on a Borders bulletin board, as in her example? Give me some names of people who advocate having the government censor things they don’t like, and I’ll agree with you that they’re nasty people. But I can’t think of any.
I CAN HAZ ENTURMINZ?
Have you ever heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected Islamic jihadists the way they talk about suspected Republican “book-banners?”
They’ve instituted Shania law at my liberry! The only book they have now is “I’m OK, You’re OK and Allah Is Great!”
“Have you ever heard Hollywood liberals talk about suspected Islamic jihadists the way they talk about suspected Republican “book-banners?””
Wait a minute. Are the Islamonazis trying to keep me from reading books now? What sort of success rate are the acheiving with their pernicious efforts? Oh, that’s right. They’re batting about .000 in that effort.
I fucking hate Malkin but I also fucking hate those on my side who support censorship
So do I, but it’s at this point in the argument when I use concrete examples of “those on my side who support censorship.” Which, you see, you didn’t actually do.
Leave it to Michelle to equate Unfit for Command – a important and intelligent discussion of why John Kerry hates America and how he fakes wounds- to anything book of literature Palin hypothetically asked about banning in a library.
Without wingnut welfare, this woman would be flinging feces on the street corner till the cops tazed her ass.
Righties often confuse criticism with censorship. That’s probably what they’re talking about.
Malkin:
Damn, looked OK in preview. Malkin quote is the first one.
What the cockslap? One of her nasty-ass tomes was in a national park bookstore, next to the coffee table books and postcard racks? Imagine it, you’re at the Grand Canyon or some fucking place, and you’re looking around for some bland gift for mom, like a little ceramic burro, and your eyes come to rest on “In Defense of Internment”.
WTF? How did that piece of shit get there in the first place?
but the whole thing blockquoted works well regardless, since that is the logical conclusion of her argument. There is no essential difference between asking retailers not to sell a book at odd’s with one’s own political views, and someone with executive authority in the state pressuring for same.
It’s central to her point.
Imagine it, you’re at the Grand Canyon or some fucking place, and you’re looking around for some bland gift for mom, like a little ceramic burro, and your eyes come to rest on “In Defense of Internment”.
Yeah, well, they also have a book in there saying how the Grand Canyon was created by God when he was bored. You know, for balance against all the science-y stuff.
Wingers also confuse the actions of individuals with the power of law behind them, i.e. Caribu Barbie, and the actions of consumer groups who seek to use market forces to persuade Borders not to carry a book they don’t like.
They also forget about whining about Rachel Ray’s scarf to the point where they convinced Dunkin Donuts to fucking pull the ad. You see, morons, whining about something you don’t like and encouraging others to do so is not actionable censorship. The state attempting to FORCE the banning of books, IS actionable censorship.
Why. Can’t. They. Get. That.
If the liberals had only let conservatives censor the media properly so as to prevent any foolish whiners from complaining about what’s happening now on Wall Street, none of this would have happened.
No, but I can say Dong fang hong.
(machine gun sound)
Duke (startled into wakefulness): What the hell was that!?
Chinese Official: That was the overture Mr. Duke.
Duke: Automatic weapons fire is the overture!?
Chinese Official: As it is so often in life…
And as soon as any of those liberal would-be book banners (a) tries to use his or her governmental executive position to remove books from public libraries and/or (b) is on the ticket for Pres/VP, I will come out and say “That’s a big strike against him (or her),” exactly the same way I do about Palin.
Seriously, does anybody except Malkin think the book-banning issue is the biggest problem with Palin? Of course not. We all realize that Palin’s library escapade is a symptom, not the underlying issue. I understand that Malkin, like most of the rest of the right-wing blogosphere, is scrabbling for anything to screech about to support their candidates, no matter how minuscule and lame… but honestly, this?
Imagine it, you’re at the Grand Canyon or some fucking place, and you’re looking around for some bland gift for mom, like a little ceramic burro, and your eyes come to rest on “In Defense of Internment”.
The specific national park was Manzanar National Historic Site which is where Japanese Americans were interned. In other words, EAT IT NIPS!
Malkin:
A McCain/Palin ticket “is one of the most dangerous choices” of [Ensler’s] her lifetime …
As opposed to all the ululating jihadis on past and present American presidential tickets? How dare she!
Classic projection. Damon, Ensler, and the anti-censorship crusaders …
Damn you, anti-censorship crusaders! Damn you to hell!
Note how Malkin artfully leaves out the news about Palin wanting to censor ‘Pastor, I’m Gay’, written by a pastor in the town next door to Wasilla:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html
Who is scarier: A lipstick-wearing pitbull who wants to use the power of government to determine what you may or may not read, or [insert totally random strawman here]??!!!
Someone mentioned in the previous thread what may be key here: that the neocon mindset subconsciouly views the government as yet another business or industry, so to compare a government official inquiring about censorship becomes analogous to a bookstore (or Wal-Mart, or whatever) deciding to no longer carry a book.
So it’s all perfectly fine, because the government has the same right as any private business to decide what they carry! (Except when they decide to stop carrying one of THEIR books, of course…)
Anyone who is more concerned with fundamentalists on the other side of the world who abstractly dislike your society than fundamentalists living down the street who would look your children in the eye and tell them their parents are bad people for what they read is insane. I mean it. Fucking insane.
It’s not even a case of priorities. Yes, our local fundamentalists have their finger on the fucking button and the Islamists don’t, but that’s not the question here. We’re concerned about Republican book-banners because they are running for offices whose authority we might find ourselves subject to.
It’s impossible to imagine a world in which Ahmadinejad had hi, bye, or boo to do about my life. On the other hand, Palin is running for VP with the would-be oldest man ever to be inaugurated President. If she’s no worse than the fundies in Nevada she’d still be willing to deny members of my family legal recognition for their partnerships and my fiancee and I the right to avoid the extremely dangerous consequences of carrying a fetus to term with a condition likely to cause ectopic pregnancy.
So no, you don’t hear liberals talk about suspected Islamic jihadists (way to phrase that to cover your ass about the people in Cuba who we haven’t fucking charged with anything, you fucking traitor). This is because those Islamic jihadists, for all their big talk, have yet to start challenging our right to read with our own fucking children.
Also, read D.A.’s link – it’s a great story and throws into horribly sharp relief what people like Palin are actually fighting for. They don’t just want to rule the state, they want to rule the church and the home – they can’t stand the idea of a Jesus that isn’t as Aryan as theirs, and they vote with their fists.
No one may lose sleep over more than one concern that is pre-determined by Commissar Malkin. It’s a RULE, fuckwads! And it goes double for “feminist playwrights”!!
Sarah Palin has never attempted to ban any book from the any library, yet progressives and Leftists in European countries such as France, Great Britain and Italy routinely ban books and even put authors on trial, yet you never hear a peep from the American left about that.
Even Canada has recently begun forcing writers and publishers to face so called “human rights tribunals” for printing material deemed offensive to Islam.
Recent history shows that it is the progressive Left that is far more likely to supress access to the written word.
While the title of the book was “In Defense of Internment,” Ms. Malkin wasn’t actually defending the internment of Americans of Japanese descent. She was…ah…umm… It was for their own good! Can’t you lie-berals see that?!?!?
Is Ringo parody? I am thinking no, but Sadly Noers are a crafty bunch way smarter than this average bear and he is redoubtably silly, so…
Anyhoot, Ringo, we urgently await our policing powers for the rest of the world. While we check the mail daily for our badges and passports, we’ll just keep an eye on “Miss Hypothetically Banning and then firing a Librarian 1984.” She competed in that pageant, right?
Also, thanks for putting The Guess Who in my head, fucker.
American Leftist, stay away from me-eeee
Damn straight. And we’ll ban your ass to Gunatanamo if you don’t mind your p’s and q’s, bucko.
Thank the FSM that the progressive Left has been running things all these years! Think of how bad things might be right now if, say, the government had been run by conservative ideologues for the past seven years or so. We’d really be in deep shit then, eh?
See, you and Palin both seem to be under the belief that the disingenuous phrasing trick works because people believe whatever you say. This is an out and out lie; there is no possible phrasing of it that would be true in even the most convoluted sense.
Palin attempted to ban books both as Governor and as Mayor, at least one of which she tried to have banned without having read or actually knowing what it was about.
Europe lacks the American tradition of freedom of speech, and the significantly greater liability for libel does in fact lead to authors being put on trial. You know: sued. Because they’ve defamed someone else in a country where that isn’t constitutionally guaranteed. There’s nothing political about it one way or the other; the law is just different.
The idea that there’s a massive progressive conspiracy against politically incorrect authors is ridiculous, incidentally – the biggest restriction of expression controversies in Europe tend to be stuff like headscarf and prayer bans. To be prosecuted under hate speech laws you pretty typically have to actively abet or incite some kind of hate crime, and that takes a lot of doing.
I disagree with the laws existing at all – in fact, almost every American liberal does, and this is one of the biggest things distinguishing the American (and to a lesser extent Canadian) left from the European left. The idea that nobody raises a word about it is ridiculous; Sadly and Greenwald (not exactly ‘nobody’) went to bat for Steyn when he was indicted for some of the most shamefully virulent racist garbage to have come out of Canada in years.
The entire case was a shameful moment for everyone – they, unlike you, are not particularly big on hating Muslims for their extremist clothing, and the idea that one of their own would engage in that kind of fucking evil was demoralizing – but I can assure you that it bothered progressives a great deal.
But that’s not what you’re here for, is it? You just want someone to hate unconditionally, a low-investment cop-out cause to pretend to care about, and a few easy lies to eagerly swallow.
US OUT OF LAKOTA
DEATH TO MICHELLE MALKIN, B’LACK O-ALLAH IS GREAT
BEHEAD ALL WHO INSULT CLIMATE CHANGE
Just in case anyone missed it: Ringo’s URL indicates he’s one of those pissant demo-voyeurs who likes to look for people with colorful signs and reveal their scandalously radical Judeo-Bolshevism as a warning to all decent people. They’re an especially gullible and smug sort of right-wing slimebag, and they add to the usual disgusting personality a greasy, almost pornographic obsession with people shaming themselves by political exuberance.
They are to the Beltway media what interracial fetishists are to Jim Crow.
BUSH HATES NIGGAZ!!!
True, dat.
Just in case anyone missed it: Ringo’s URL indicates he’s one of those pissant demo-voyeurs who likes to look for people with colorful signs and reveal their scandalously radical Judeo-Bolshevism as a warning to all decent people. They’re an especially gullible and smug sort of right-wing slimebag, and they add to the usual disgusting personality a greasy, almost pornographic obsession with people shaming themselves by political exuberance.
They are to the Beltway media what interracial fetishists are to Jim Crow.
—————————————————————————————————–
Wow, and I thought I was just taking pictures of moonbats.
Over at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (the good one, not the Scaife fishwrap)…
“Penguins Training Camp: It’s A Strange New World For Satan.”
I’d heard Michel Therrien can be kind of a dick, but…
Hey Bingo The Shit-Slingo:
The specifics of Mooseburgers’ book-banning are well-known, well-documented, and proven. Just google “Pastor, I’m Gay”.
Or maybe you don’t google topics like that since you’re afraid you might catch teh ghey disease.
Get it? It’s a hockey joke! About Satan and a French guy! It’s funny!
Sarah Palin would have laughed…
Alec,
Stop bringing facts and logic to the discussion. It’s not fair.
I fucking hate Malkin but I also fucking hate those on my side who support censorship
So do I, but it’s at this point in the argument when I use concrete examples of “those on my side who support censorship.” Which, you see, you didn’t actually do.
Whatever. I’m not some fucking rightwing concern troll trying to prove phony equality. But yes, every time a similar issue comes up, there are always at least a few “progressives” who equivocate and say “censorship is bad … but sometimes its ok to censor the narrative of the powerful vs censoring the narrative of the powerless”.
I saw this recently on PZ Meyers blog, who I respect as a scientist but find shallow as a cultural critic, when he and multiple commentors casually did just this to justify why they thought the reaction to his “desecration of a cracker” was horrible but the Muslim reaction to the Motoons was arguably legitimate.
If there was a leftwing Palin who had tried to censor “Why Your Gay Daddy is going to Hell” or something similar I have no doubt, being a regular reader here, that there would be people special pleading how it was ok to pull that book from the library.
Satan out of the NHL!!!!
What? – I’m Jewish? I’m gonna need a crash course. Can I use my propeller beanie or do I hafta buy a special Jew beanie?
Note how I’m carefully avoiding all references to cir*______ion* Don’t want to get THAT started again.
“If there was a leftwing Palin who had tried to censor “Why Your Gay Daddy is going to Hell” or something similar I have no doubt, being a regular reader here, that there would be people special pleading how it was ok to pull that book from the library.”
Your substitution of a strawman for specifics is pretty typical.
Since it doesn’t seem you know what Liberals do when confronted with the evil vileness of republican policies, “thoughts”, and opinions that have been put into book form, I’ll help you out.
They show just how vile and lying they are by publishing refutations of them, and if they don’t have enough time to research how wrong republicans are, they simply snark them to death.
Exhibit 1: sadlyno.com
Once again, I think it just can’t be quite THAT moronic – & then I click the link & do yet another facepalm.
No “if” about it, Vampirella – & she didn’t just “inquire” … she tried to get the town’s librarian onside with banning a book she didn’t like (which was surely only the first of MANY), then shitcanned that librarian & only gave her her job back when it became obvious that even her pack of council cronies weren’t onside with her stupidity – & subsequently hounded her out of her job anyway. Sort of sends a not-so-subtle message, don’t you think?
What am I smoking? I actually used the word “think” in relation to Malkin. Must be therapy-time.
From the comments:
Michelle Malkin is shit, & these lovely folks are flies.
Yet I wouldn’t DREAM of censoring her – until she seriously & actively advocates violence.
So, yeah – I’m fine with mandatory duct-tape & boxing-gloves for Ms. Mau-Mau.
Why does it take one click to enter MM’s site but about 20 clicks to back out?
The criterion isn’t, by the way, “offensive to Islam,” it’s the equivalent to a white person shouting “nigger!” in the Apollo Theatre. And I really don’t have a problem with that, being the sort of person who cheered when Ernst Zundel (finally!) got deported to Germany. Good riddance; we didn’t want him here anyway.
Also, anyone who thinks the current Canadian government is somehow on the left is nuts. Harper is so right-wing, if he’s driving north he has to turn three times to go west.
I saw this recently on PZ Meyers blog, who I respect as a scientist but find shallow as a cultural critic, when he and multiple commentors casually did just this to justify why they thought the reaction to his “desecration of a cracker” was horrible but the Muslim reaction to the Motoons was arguably legitimate.
Yeah, maybe it’s because Catholics aren’t an oppressed minority in the United States, and nobody’s locking Catholics up for having a suspicious religion, or deporting them halfway around the world so they can be tortured, and because people spouting anti-Catholic bigotry in public tend to get looked at funny, instead of encouraged. I do kind of think that gives you a little extra grounds for not antagonising a minority group in the first place. That said, Myers got death threats because he defended a guy who’d gotten death threats from fundaloon Catholics in the first place. (That was before he speared the cracker with the nail, by the way; that was about when he said, “You think what Webster Cook did was bad? I’ll show you bad…”) So the situations aren’t actually all that analogous, really.
If there was a leftwing Palin who had tried to censor “Why Your Gay Daddy is going to Hell” or something similar I have no doubt, being a regular reader here, that there would be people special pleading how it was ok to pull that book from the library.
Yeah, and if Cheetos were health food Jonah Goldberg would be Mr. Universe.
Holy Sheeet.
Miroslav Satan does look like gezaten.
em>Why does it take one click to enter MM’s site but about 20 clicks to back out?
Pretty much the same reason the Franklin bridge is free when going from Philly to New Jersey but you hafta pay to get out of Jersey.
You don’t want your kids reading about homos at the public library, do you?
No, but I wouldn’t mind her reading some stories about and written by gay and lesbians!
The specific national park was Manzanar National Historic Site which is where Japanese Americans were interned.
Oh dandy, it’s even better than I thought. Because you know, it’s important that the folks who’ve come to see one of the most shameful chapters in our country’s history get a “balanced” view of it.
Remember, there are exactly two sides to everything! There’s the undisputed facts, and then there’s the other side, which is needed to balance out the truth! It’s kind of like the duality of man, sir.
Miroslav Satan does look like gezaten.
Yea, but slash him in the ankles and he drops crying like a little baby.
Looking for a job here, you know. I bet I can write better books than Malkin.
Candy Crowley agrees wholeheartedly.
Candy Crowley is a wall eyed cod swallower. Isn’t she the Satan spawn of Aleister Crowley?
“It’s kind of like the duality of man, sir.”
The what? Whose side are you on, son?
I’m giddy.
“Satan skating down right wing. Satan moves to the center. Satan takes the feed from Crosby. Satan with the sweet move on Lidstrom, Satan shoots, HE SCORES!!! SATAN!!! SATAN!!! SATAN WINS IT FOR THE PENGUINS!!!”
Oh, yeah.
There’s the undisputed facts, and then there’s the other side, which is needed to balance out the truth!
Let’s be fair and balanced, though: the other side of this argument is that there’s no other side of the argument, thus providing the other side of the argument that does not exist.
You’re mistaking censorship for criticism.
And, might I add, treating a well-established group with around 30% of the population as roughly equivalent to a group reviled as unassimilable foreigners comprising less than 2%.
When you claim to speak for one of the former type of groups, you get taken seriously – like Donohue did pretending to speak to Catholics by being outraged about Sinead O’Connor tearing up a picture of the Pope as an act of protest against concealing child abuse. (Whoops!)
I’m not going to assume you’re going to claim the same for the latter kind – right-wingers really like to believe Muslim clergy attract slavish admiration from powerless governments and decadent liberals, but it’s just not true. A government without any particular respect for freedom of speech threw up their hands in sneering mock-surrender, pretending to be powerless to stop a newspaper from publishing offensive cartoons for no better reason than shock value. (The claim that they were investigating something is bollocks – if they had been actually interested in the opinion of any Muslim they would have caught the ‘reactionary provocateur’ bit pretty early.)
Right-wing rags across the Continent started picking it up – often papers that had actively participated in BAN THIS SICK FILTH-style appeals to state censorship on religious grounds. It’s ridiculously offensive in the context of European racial politics, and it was almost exclusively a case of my-god-is-bigger-than-yours bullying.
What happened from Denmark was perverse; the right to interfere with expression had effectively been guaranteed to one group and denied to another. The rightist government was turning a blind eye to race-baiting directed at their own fucking subjects.
Freedom of speech was never an issue, at least not for the majority of people spreading that fucking trash. Nor was ‘critique’ – there’s as much wrong with Islam as any other religion, but how wackily like a bomb their untermensch turbans are is not part of that. It was just a tasteless moment in what has become an increasingly brutal and uncivilized campaign of xenophobic inhospitality by the European right.
The Mohammed cartoons have nothing at all to do with ‘censorship’. Their being censored occured primarily in profoundly illiberal societies where Islam was the majority religion. And it’s not like the principle of the matter stuck: the German papers who served as the prime post-Danish vector for the race-bait would proceed a few months later to join a campaign to have a part of Madonna’s tour cancelled for her having offended religious sensibilities.
Treating someone getting pissed off by this as if it’s a form of censorship is preposterous. I’d hope it’d piss you off if you saw someone spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue – the government’s obligation (or, in the European context, lack thereof) to leave speech alone does not impose on us an obligation to tolerate it ourselves.
Drill, Baby, Drill!!!!
Since it doesn’t seem you know what Liberals do when confronted with the evil vileness of republican policies, “thoughts”, and opinions that have been put into book form, I’ll help you out.
Actually I do cause I am a fucking liberal.
You would know it if you weren’t a subhuman dumb fucking animal.
RB: Holy fucking hell.
Tx for digging that up. I think.
The decline of decency in our culture can be directly attributed to the banning of a book (The Holy Bible) from public schools.
This is a lie of course.
More book-control by authoritarian assholes from around the world:
The New Republic has a lengthy article about how Putin is rewriting history textbooks, sugarcoating the past in order to promote unquestioning Russian nationalism. I especially liked this quote from the blog one of the textbook authors, addressed to any instructors who have reservations about teaching flagrant propaganda:
“You may ooze bile but you will teach the children by those books that you will be given and in the way that is needed by Russia. And as to the noble nonsense that you carry in your misshapen goateed heads, either it will be ventilated out of them or you yourself will be ventilated out of teaching…. It is impossible to let some Russophobe shit-stinker (govnyuk), or just any amoral type, teach Russian history. It is necessary to clear the filth, and if it does not work, then clear it by force.”
Clear the Filth! Catchy slogan, eh?
“I’ll keep you safe from the danger” rhetoric. First time (Bush), tragedy. Second time, farce (McCain). Two cases in point.
I do like his attempts to talk colloquial (“I’ve takin’ on tougher guys than this before”). It’s so obviously forced, although I do think he’s internalized the maverick bullshit, which is sad and disturbing.
Well, here’s two bits of fun right here:
1: It isn’t “writers & publishers” – it’s one irresponsible writer & publisher, so far as I know. The material in question was judged to be very likely to incite violence or lead to violence – the right to free-speech doesn’t extend to speech pointlessly fomenting disorder or producing injury &/or death. The person who wrote that article (a wingnut named Ezra Klein, if my memory serves) knew damn well that it was liable to do so & put it out anyway – then got his hero-costume on while all the glibertarians foamed at the mouth & cheered.
2: It would depend on what was in that book. If it just said nasty things about gay dads, it would be sickening but sacrosanct – if it said it’s the duty of all good Christians to follow their Holy Bible’s command by butchering them, it would be over the line.
No censorship EVAR = I have the right to scream “fire” in a crowded theater – or incite thugs to blow it to bits.
You CAN be opposed to censorship while still being in favor of silencing hate-speech … indeed, that kind of speech is itself a kind of censorship, in that it generally produces (or is intended to produce) either the extreme distortion of discourse into noise, or outright bloodshed – both of which are mortal enemies of real freedom of expression.
If what you say is overtly written so that it makes folks think it’s cool to gang-stomp someone or blow up their church, I not only won’t defend to the death your right to say it – I’ll support any & all reasonable efforts to make you STFU.
You’re mistaking censorship for criticism.
I think death threats are a form of censorship.
Treating someone getting pissed off by this as if it’s a form of censorship is preposterous. I’d hope it’d piss you off if you saw someone spraypainting a swastika on a synagogue – the government’s obligation (or, in the European context, lack thereof) to leave speech alone does not impose on us an obligation to tolerate it ourselves.
Understood – PZ meyers was never under threat of Censorship. The Catholic reaction to him was in the same vein as the Muslim reaction to the Motoons – so we are comparing apples to apples.
On one hand the Pharyngulites decried the reaction of the Catholics (“Death threats!! OMG!!”). On the other, they justified the reaction of the Muslims (“Well, what do you expect when you insult their prophet?”).
I dont think they would have objected to government censorship if they didn’t object to the death threats.
jim: The Canadian wingnut is Mark Steyn. Ezra Klein isn’t a wingnut.
What Interrobang said.
Also, PZ Meyers is an asshole.
I saw this recently on PZ Meyers blog, who I respect as a scientist but find shallow as a cultural critic, when he and multiple commentors casually did just this to justify why they thought the reaction to his “desecration of a cracker” was horrible but the Muslim reaction to the Motoons was arguably legitimate.
That example is a bit weak. PZ’s initial post on the whole utterly retarded Mohammed cartoon fiasco explained his views on this quite well, and don’t allude to the Muslim reaction being “arguably justified”.
And now we know what keeps feminist playwrights like Eve Ensler (”The Vagina Monologues”) awake at night. Not Iranian nuclear ambitions or al Qaeda beheading videos. She is haunted by nightmares of Bible-thumping, book-burning Sarah Palin.
Um, yeah, actually. Because the idea that Bible-thumping, book-burning Sarah Palin will be dealing with Iranian nuclear ambitions or al Quaeda threats is scarey as sh*t.
Jesus fucking Christ. I thought you had to be kidding.
Just wow.
Why does it take one click to enter MM’s site but about 20 clicks to back out?
I’ve noticed that at several wingnut sites. I guess it’s to force up the site-o-meter hit count thing.
Just hold the back arrow and scroll down to the page you want.
libarbarian: I have no fucking idea how you got the idea that PZ Myers or Pharyngula commenters in general justified the death threats over the Mohammed cartoons. I mean, that’s all I can say, because it’s incomprehensible to me. Do you actually have any quotes to justify that?
I call bullshit. As I recall Myers also “desecrated” an analogous Muslim artifact, after Catholics said he wouldn’t. And I don’t think anyone, least of all PZ Myers, would ask for deference to any religious group’s “prophet.”
“Some books are more equal than others,” she says, and then she underlines the point by whining about “Unfit for Command”.
Ken Lowery is right. That PZ Meyers guy is a total prick.
jim said:
“If what you say is overtly written so that it makes folks think it’s cool to gang-stomp someone or blow up their church, I not only won’t defend to the death your right to say it – I’ll support any & all reasonable efforts to make you STFU”
——————————————————————————
I suppose you are in favor of banning the Koran then?
> You would know it if you weren’t a subhuman dumb fucking animal.
I think a little Shakespeare is needed here, to counteract this silly effusion of anger. In reference to your claim of being a liberal:
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
I am a fucking liberal. You would know it if you weren’t a subhuman dumb fucking animal.
I call fake liberal.
Censorship, intimidation. Censor, censure. Different words, different meanings.
Most indirect hate speech, provocation, and so on (up to and including yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater – that little doozy shows up in all the history books, but it hasn’t been part of the Supreme Court’s take on expression for decades – and it was used to put a man who abetted resisting the draft in WW1 in prison, at that) are in fact covered by ‘freedom of speech’. They are the buy-in present in the concept of freedom of speech.
This does not mean you are obligated to leave lies, hate speech, or anything else floating out there unchecked. Unmolested, yes – unchecked, no. In a free-speech regime there’s very little the government or any other effective regulator can stop you from saying (and ‘saying’ is pretty broad – in certain state constitutions it gets broad enough that, for instance, Oregon has a constitutionally-protected right to strip-dancing); doing is where the wicket becomes sticky.
On the other hand, regimes which don’t have effective freedom of speech – Britain’s, to use an example we’re likely to be familiar with or at least capable of looking into easily – are not obligated to, and generally shouldn’t, leave hate speech, provocation, and so on unmolested. If you’re not going to give people a more or less unconditional right to speak their mind, what in the Hell point is there letting them harm people with their words?
As an aside, even a government with a constitutionally extensive free-speech regime – ours, for instance – can actively oppose private speech without attempting to suppress it. The Danish government’s “ha ha, you don’t like your freedom of speech so much now it’s hurting your false darky-god, do you?” routine was just vicious and indefensible.
BTW jim,
Do you think Mark Steyn’s book ‘America Alone’ should be banned here in the United States?
I suppose you are in favor of banning the Koran then?
Just as long as we ban the Bible at the same time. Fair’s fair.
Ha ha, zing! He got you there! You know, on account of we decadent parading rootless cosmopolitans are locked helpless but oh-so-willing in dhimmitude to the Arab, the sole font of religious savagery in our enlightened world.
GOYIM ARE BAD FOR CHILDREN AND OTHER LIVING THINGS
I suppose you are in favor of banning the Koran then?
Just as long as we ban the Bible at the same time. Fair’s fair.
Agreed.
g,
Any other books you’d like to see banned while your at it?
Yes, I know, “your” should say “you’re”.
Thanks in advance.
Based on your own logic, Ringo, there are lots.
They seem to scare you.
> Just as long as we ban the Bible at the same time. Fair’s fair.
Oh, now wait a minute. You’re being extreme.
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 has God ordering his believers to burn entire towns and kill everybody in them if non-believers are found in said town.
That isn’t bad. That is just peachy. A swell way to treat people who you don’t agree with.
And, as we already know, it will be one of the Standard Policies that Mooseburger will enact if she becomes President Punisher.
How about Atlas Shrugged? Can we ban that? It’s so badly written. At least, the KJV has some poetry in its fairy tales.
We should ban all books that have evil, death, hatred, or negative opinions in them.
That would leave only books with a Gay Theme.
Wait a minute….
Any other books you’d like to see banned while your at it?
30 Minute Meals – the whole godawful series and anything else by “that woman”
How the Grinch Stole Christmas
The Giving Tree
Love Story
Anything by Tim Clancy
I don’t support banning the Bible or the Koran. They just need to be shelved in the “Fiction” section.
“Any other books you’d like to see banned while your at it?”
Can we start a pool re: how many times total “Ringo” posts this same awesomely clever barb before he a) decides that’s enough b) kicks the computer’s power cord out of the wall c) spills his liquid lunch on the keyboard d) is called away by one of his 7 kids e) forgets to post another iteration because he is busy, well, you know, tee hee.
g,
Based on your own logic, Ringo, there are lots.
They seem to scare you.
————————————————-
What have I said that would make you think that. I don’t advocate tha banning of any books and I never have.
My home library contains many of the books that were once deemed unfit for publication. When I was younger Hemry Miller was one of my personal favorites.
The only people here who are advcating banning books are you and jim.
I’d ban pornography. It used to be so sexy when it was unavailable.
Ringo, I think you’re sarcasm-impaired.
So…when is the first meeting of the Progressive Leftists Book Banning Association being held, and where? I don’t want to miss out.
Me neither, I wanna be on that mailing list. My email address is hypocriticalleftistislomofascistloverwhohatesamerica@theinternets.com
Ban, Baby, Ban!!!!
My house. Everyone bring a covered dish, and I’ll spring for the keg.
My house. Everyone bring a covered dish, and I’ll spring for the keg.
Got a fireplace?
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
.
.
I call fake liberal.
Whoa. Didn’t you see that libarbarian also said this:
I’m not some fucking rightwing concern troll trying to prove phony equality.
I believe libarbarian because anytime people vehemently defend themselves from accusations that have not been leveled they have instant credibility with me.
Banning doesn’t go far enough.
Burn, Baby, Burn!
Chopped Liver, are you kosher? I’ll bring the kreplach.
Got a fireplace?
We’ll have a big bonfire in the backyard.
Four Hundred Fifty One Fahrenheit Degrees.
Remember when, before Malkin venerated McLame, she totally despised him?
These conservatards switched allegiances in less time than Ted Haggard got de-gayed!
I got a crate of Farenheit 451 to burn.
I ban comments by commie atheist for preemptive strikes on my jokes.
I will be bringing every fucking copy of this book and they will be the first to burn. Just try to stop me, subhuman animals.
Now I understand the Bush Doctrine!
My house. Everyone bring a covered dish, and I’ll spring for the keg.
Yay! A party! I’ll make my famous spinach-artichoke dip and bring along “Liebrul Fascism” and “The Compleat Day-by-Day” for the burning.
If this thing gets too big for the Chopped Liver residence, maybe we could move it to Old Comiskey Park. They have a huge field, perfect for bonfires. We could do records, too.
I call it the Commie Atheist Doctrine.
Damn you, J—!!!!
libarbarian: I have no fucking idea how you got the idea that PZ Myers or Pharyngula commenters in general justified the death threats over the Mohammed cartoons. I mean, that’s all I can say, because it’s incomprehensible to me. Do you actually have any quotes to justify that?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/poxridden_houses.php
Oh yes, records too, good idea J—. I’ll bring those old Bachman-Turner Overdrive and Grand Funk Railroad albums that somehow never sold at my garage sales.
Just as long as somebody brings along something with Brussels sprouts. And mikey.
I guess that makes ME a subhuman dumb fucking animal TOO, then – see, most liberals try to avoid calling other folks subhuman because it sounds, um, fascist as hell. This person might want to Google “Cognitive Dissonance” (like saying “I think death threats are a form of censorship” then saying Myers “was never under threat of censorship” when it’s common knowledge that he’s received loads of death-threats, & regularly did even before the “Cracker Affair” due to his merciless taunting of Creationists) & if they really ARE a “fucking liberal” I sure hope for the sake of the gene-pool that they’re using birth-control. Yeesh.
Aren’t YOU a tricky little troll, though? Thanks for asking. It’s a historical document, just like the Bible (which has incitements to violence just as heinous) … or for that matter, “Mein Kampf” … & thus its historical merit gives it special status – & lots of OTHER fiction also contains “hate-speech” but isn’t serious about it. You may as well have asked if I favor banning William “Let’s Kill All The Lawyers” Shakespeare. Society doesn’t need protection from Korans & Bibles, but it DOES need to keep extremists from acting out the less savory passages – or using the power of persuasion to make others do so. If the context of a holy book negates its more unethical portions, as in this case, then I think religious freedom needs to be protected more than does freedom from hate-speech. But when someone advocates the naughty bits out of it, THEIR “expression” is neither historically valuable nor reasonable – & it’s slapdown time. Nice attempt at baiting, though – enjoy your fail.
Thanks – that’s two big fat cockups in as many threads now.
Time for a new logic-chip implant?
Ahhh, who the hell am I kidding … I had that fucker extracted AGES ago.
I just need to do my bloody homework more often.
(*hangs head, whimpers*)
The Canadian wingnut is Mark Steyn. Ezra Klein isn’t a wingnut.
Djur, I think Jim was referring to Ezra Levant, the editor of the now-defunct Western Standard, a right-wing, Alberta-separatist rag which ceased publication in 2007 when it became apparent that no one was reading it. Levant ran afoul of the Alberta Human Rights commission when he published the Muhammad cartoons in their entirety — the charges were, however, dismissed. (Steyn’s legal problems are with the BC Human Rights Commission.)
When I was in the US about a month ago, Steyn’s latest fishwrapper was being sold with a sticker proclaiming SOON TO BE BANNED IN CANADA. These days, however, he appears to be spending his time directing his hangers-on and sockpuppets in harassing/threatening CBC columnists for daring to say bad things about Sarah Palin…
Steyn’s latest fishwrapper
Sexist comment! Ban it. Ban it now.
The mighty Ringo said:
That’s totally unfair! What about me? I want to ban books, lots of books. I want to ban newspapers, magazines, sales brochures, postcards. I want to ban bus schedules. I want to ban sales receipts.
I can’t help it, man, I’m a leftist. We’re just totally committed to the suppression of all free expression. Only Sarah Palin can stop us.
Sexist comment! Ban it. Ban it now.
Comments with the word sex in them MUST BE BANNED.
Ringo + Megan McArdle + Big Tent Democrat = Cavalcade Of Teh Funnay! Add in PZ Myers, microwave some asparagus, dump on a half pound of pasta for no apparent reason, then chow down on the suck!
Now – look – he didn’t explicitly call for censorship. He may even oppose it. However, he damn well did justify the kind of furious outrage that he didn’t think was appropriate in his case….and why?
Because he decided that everyone in Group A was part of a “poor and oppressed underclass” (no matter how fucking rich they may be or how powerful they may be in their own fucking countries) and Group B wasn’t and that, somehow, is all we need to know about when it’s appropriate to mock people and when its not.
Forgot the rest of the PZ Myers quote, libarbarian:
And again, nothing in the part you excerpted said anything about approval for official banning of unnacceptable texts or images. Try again.
I am a fucking liberal. You would know it if you weren’t a subhuman dumb fucking animal.
Wow. You’re almost as good a secret-codeword detective as D. Pantload.
Please deconstruct my language even further. Tell me what I really am – besides a guy who gets pissed when doctrinaire douchebags react to any criticism by assuming the critic must be some disguised member of the other, evil, team.
I am a banner, like my father and his father before him.
Bruce Banner?
I love how libarbarian is scare-quoting “poor and oppressed” as if the American bombs blowing Muslims to pieces, dollars flowing to the regimes keeping the boot on their neck, etc. are all part of some sort of risible pomo fabrication.
Make THat
I guess that makes ME a subhuman dumb fucking animal TOO, then – see, most liberals try to avoid calling other folks subhuman because it sounds, um, fascist as hell.
Wow. You’re almost as good a secret-codeword detective as D. Pantload.
Please deconstruct my language even further. Tell me what I really am – besides a guy who gets pissed when doctrinaire douchebags react to any criticism by assuming the critic must be some disguised member of the other, evil, team.
I didn’t leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left MEEEEEEE!
No one is to ban anyone until I blow this whistle!
I find liberbarian and PZ Myers both tedious in equal doses, and that Myers toning down his trademark douchebaggery w/r/t the cartoons to be an exercise somewhat similar to the Pantload pretending to be an intellectual. You’re all so, so, so completely useless. Just so you know.
I just noticed this line from troll Ringo:
Whoo-doggy, you’re one avant-garde, cutting-edge mo-fo!
I have a large library, but that does not in any way indicate a reluctance on my part to ban every book that you can possibly imagine. Books are the evil spawn of Satan. Late at night, I take them down off the shelves and beat the crap out of them, the miserable little knowledge-filled bastards.
We are all Bruce Banners now.
I didn’t leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left MEEEEEEE!
No. Actually I left the GOP and joined the Dems. Sadly I have to put up with people like you, but its a small price to not have to put up with people like Palin.
By the way, libarbarian, you do notice that you’ve drifted from accusing the left of pervasive pro-censorship sentiment to accusing a single well-known blogger of being more tolerant of one group’s outrage than another, right? You yourself have indicated that Myers didn’t support censorship. Do you have any more evidence for your assertion?
liebarbarian: I don’t see anything in the quote you provided that “supports death threats.”
Also, in the name of the Beatles, I ban Gringo from using “Ringo” as part of his nym.
I love how libarbarian is scare-quoting “poor and oppressed” as if the American bombs blowing Muslims to pieces, dollars flowing to the regimes keeping the boot on their neck, etc. are all part of some sort of risible pomo fabrication.
Yes. All muslims are being bombed. ALL mulsims are being oppressed. ALL muslims, evne in their own countries, are being discriminated against by Americans.
1.5 Billions people who are ALL a “poor oppressed underclass”?
Why don’t you tell me something now about ALL black people or maybe ALL asians. Got any other sweeping generalizations up your sleeve?
Sadly I have to put up with people like you
No you don’t. Feel free to leave.
“you’ve drifted from accusing the left of pervasive pro-censorship sentiment to accusing a single well-known blogger of being more tolerant of one group’s outrage than another, right?”
When did I use the FUCKING TERM “PERSAVIVE” ??
I didn’t because I didn’t do anything of the sort. I said a minority does support censorship – much smaller than those rightwing censor supporters – and YOU FUCKING READ MORE INTO THAN YOU SHOULD HAVE.
No. Actually I left the GOP and joined the Dems. Sadly I have to put up with people like you, but its a small price to not have to put up with people like Palin.
Why don’t you go troll some winger blogs then?
I said a minority does support censorship – much smaller than those rightwing censor supporters
Okay, you said that. Thanks. Point made.
Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s got an oozing sense of entitlement. Dude, where’s my rec…never mind. Ann Althouse on why Obama is doomed!
I didn’t say “all,” and I’m not interested in debating with someone who unashamedly employs the stereotype critique of class analysis. “Muslims as a class are oppressed” doesn’t mean “all Muslims are oppressed,” and if you’re unwilling to accept that fundamental point there’s no point in a debate.
libarbarian will persavive.
“Ringo + Megan McArdle + Big Tent Democrat = Cavalcade Of Teh Funnay! Add in PZ Myers, microwave some asparagus, dump on a half pound of pasta for no apparent reason, then chow down on the suck!”
——————————–
I’d respond if I could figure out what the heck you’re trying to say.
Do you think Mark Steyn’s book ‘America Alone’ should be banned here in the United States?
Sigh … now you’re just being a pain in the bullocks. I’ll answer your question with a question.
Is the book breaking American law?
No?
Then bugger off & quit while you’re behind.
If you think my opposition to hate-speech means I’m waving my pom-poms for a crypto-Stalinist orgy of book-banning, you don’t “get it” – to put it VERY mildly – & your “mind” is already made up.
Your Steyns & your Malkins & your O’Reillys are laughing at your gullibility, all the way to the bank. As long as they tell you what you want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or vicious, they’ve got a licence to print money. YOUR money. They get rich, & you get screwed – & the sweet part for them is, you give them MORE green the more they screw you. Every new phony boogeyman they wave at you is just another summer cottage, stock portfolio investment or new luxury speedboat to them. They never seem to have any REAL answers to REAL problems, though … gosh, I wonder why?
Yes. My speed-induced spelling errors are signs of a leaky brain.
I call censorship on the in-joke named troll !
Yeah, D.N. is a bit too vague for my tastes. Heh. Indeed. We’re winning!
It’s going to be banned. (1:35 into clip, from a pretty funny movie with a good soundtrack)
of course, my protests would involve writing letters and canceling subscriptions, not rioting and burning down buildings.
Mm.
I call censorship on the in-joke named troll !
Who censors the censors? ME.
jim:
“Your Steyns & your Malkins & your O’Reillys are laughing at your gullibility, all the way to the bank. As long as they tell you what you want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or vicious, they’ve got a licence to print money. YOUR money. They get rich, & you get screwed – & the sweet part for them is, you give them MORE green the more they screw you. Every new phony boogeyman they wave at you is just another summer cottage, stock portfolio investment or new luxury speedboat to them. They never seem to have any REAL answers to REAL problems, though … gosh, I wonder why?”
————————————————————
I’ve never read a book by O’Reily ( I have no use for him) or Malkin, but I do like Mark Styen. In fact I think that he, and Theodore Dalrymple, are two of the best essayists writing today.
Have you read Styen’s book, America Alone?…If not, you should.
I didn’t say “all,” and I’m not interested in debating with someone who unashamedly employs the stereotype critique of class analysis. “Muslims as a class are oppressed” doesn’t mean “all Muslims are oppressed,” and if you’re unwilling to accept that fundamental point there’s no point in a debate.
Djur,
I also dont have a desire to debate with people like you who cherry pick the context in your class analysis to get the results you want.
Anyone who uses the term like “oppressed” without bothering to specify the context isn’t worth talking to because they clearly haven’t thought clearly about the issue.
Muslims are oppressed in some places and contexts. In other places and contexts, however, they are the oppressors. Ask the fucking Yazidis.
Any other wingnut welfare highlights you’d like us to get to? I hear An Army of Davids isn’t necessarily completely full of shit, for example.
Wouldn’t the context be implicit in a conversation about anti-Muslim cartoons printed in Denmark?
Dammit! This thread’s stock is down 56% since I got here.
Oh, well. Give me my $21 million and I’ll leave.
Wouldn’t the context be implicit in a conversation about anti-Muslim cartoons printed in Denmark?
You’d think that, but no, Muslim means “the Muslim of my choosing”.
Libarbarian – does it bother you that the quote from PZ Myers that you used doesn’t come close to saying what you claimed it did?
I’m just asking because I would be really damn embarrassed if I did something that stupid
“I love how libarbarian is scare-quoting “poor and oppressed” as if the American bombs blowing Muslims to pieces, dollars flowing to the regimes keeping the boot on their neck, etc. are all part of some sort of risible pomo fabrication.
Yes. All muslims are being bombed. ALL mulsims are being oppressed. ALL muslims, evne in their own countries, are being discriminated against by Americans.
1.5 Billions people who are ALL a “poor oppressed underclass”?
Why don’t you tell me something now about ALL black people or maybe ALL asians. Got any other sweeping generalizations up your sleeve?”
-Libarbarian
“you’ve drifted from accusing the left of pervasive pro-censorship sentiment to accusing a single well-known blogger of being more tolerant of one group’s outrage than another, right?”
When did I use the FUCKING TERM “PERSAVIVE” ??
I didn’t because I didn’t do anything of the sort. I said a minority does support censorship – much smaller than those rightwing censor supporters – and YOU FUCKING READ MORE INTO THAN YOU SHOULD HAVE.”
-Libarbarian
One Question: When did Djur use the term ALL?
Well, okay, if that’s what floats your boat …
Looking for sweeping generalizations … still looking … looking … AHA! Found one! Oops – looks like it’s yours, honey-pie. The mighty Djur pwned me up yonder, & I’m mighty grateful to him for doing so – I “love” to know when I’m unknowingly screwing Fifi The Poodle, so I can (ideally) dismount, wash up & slink away, hopefully a tad wiser for it. He also pwned you @ 20:40, but I have this funny feeling you’re not exactly feeling very thankful right about now.
Capslock is cruise-control for cool!
Its power has defeated us all … & our shame is manifest … okay, who’s got the sackcloth & ashes? I think I have a hair-shirt somewhere, but only one – so it looks like we’ll have to share.
Exactly
How about we throw in another $21 million worth of stock options and call it a deal?
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/09/15/will-the-mcpalin-campaign-ask-carly-fiorina-to-give-her-42-million-back/
I have to say I enjoy watching McCain flub like a fish when forced to address this thing called the economy.
Flub again.
Not to flog a dead horse or anything (hell, I’m at work and wishing I was anywhere else right now, so what the fuck), but here’s libarbarian’s original comment that set off this whole kerfluffle:
Now, 130 or so comments later, I have yet to see any support for this statement. None. Nada. Zip. Not a single link to anyone on the left who supports censorship or book banning. Just one link to PZ Myers expressing a relative amount of sympathy for Muslims who were offended by some cartoons, and… that’s all, folks.
So, moving on.
Have you read Styen’s book, America Alone?…If not, you should.
Just wondering – does Steyn ever get around to explaining the real reasons WHY America (which had unprecedented global sympathy & solidarity after 9/11) now suddenly finds itself so “alone”?
Does he say anything about SAIC & Halliburton scamming billions from the government, or those C-130s full of money that vanished somewhere in Iraq, or BushCo sending patently unqualified junior GOP cronies over there to run it, or secret torture-cells in Eastern Europe, or Bush’s morphing of a war-crime (aggression) into official national policy, or his attempt to monitor libraries & bookstores for “national security” purposes, or his classifying anti-war & human-rights groups as potential terrorists, or prison-ships, or the Military Commission Act’s suspension of Habeas Corpus, or “extraordinary rendition”?
Or is his book just the usual “eldritch Jihadi plot to dominate the planet, which only the glorious US of A opposes” slop?
From what I’ve seen & heard of Steyn, I kind of think I may already know the answer.
Banning books very often results in an increase it those book’s desirability (and, thus, marketability). It’s why advertisers were able to use the tag “banned in Boston” on books to dramatically increase their sales. Looked at this way, I maintain that Sarah Palin is actually a secret radical agent of the gay and lesbian rights movement. She is actually promoting books with which she plans to destroy traditional marriage once and for all.
Don’t believe me? Then think about this, doubters: Lipstick and pitbulls were definitely secret wink-wink giveaways to her radical homosexual comrades.
Ever heard the phrase Lipstick Lesbian? You never hear the phrase Lipstick Righteous Churchgoer, do you? So why did she say “lipstick,” huh?
And pitbulls? I’ve known lots of lesbians in my life and virtually every one was a major dog fan. It all becomes so clear now, doesn’t it?
Please begin a major continuous e-mail campaign immediately to warn our friends in the religious right about this secret radical threat of Sarah “I might even let gays adopt my baby” Palin, right on their very doorstep!
jim: It’s even better than that. It’s a moralizing fable about demographics, postulating a future in which the doughty white race has become endangered in Eurabia, leaving America “alone” as the only outpost of Aryan-Christian virtue, etc.
Lock me away
And don’t allow the day
Here inside, where I hide with my whitiness
I don’t care what they say, I won’t stay
In a world without plaid
Libarbarian – does it bother you that the quote from PZ Myers that you used doesn’t come close to saying what you claimed it did?
I’m just asking because I would be really damn embarrassed if I did something that stupid
“they have cause to be furious” is actually pretty fucking close to “what do you expect?”, but I suppose it depends on our distance metric?
Which one are you using?
I’m using the common distance metric of “meaning” becayse when PZ Meyers says Muslims have a “cause” to be furious over the Motoons it implies that the people who made them should have expected the reaction … and that is pretty fucking close to “what do you expect?”
Of course, since you want me to be wrong you are going to cherry-pick what scale “close” means to you in this context.
Are you suggesting we use “edit-distance” where “close” is defined by how many letters need to be changed to get from one string to the other, because by that measures … you’re right, I’m not close at all.
JF,
And we all know that lesbians will eat our children.
Put this:
In context with this:
Which comes just before.
A recognition of a legitimate grievance is not an endorsement of specific means to voice or correct it.
You were suggesting “what do you expect when you insult their prophet?” as meaning that PZ was justifying the riots/death threats/etc. The fact that someone could have rationally expected publishing a series of loathsome slanders on the prophet of a major world religion to result in blowback doesn’t justify every aspect of that blowback.
To be specific: if that same newspaper had published the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, I would expect and approve of Jews speaking out, promoting a boycott, etc. The “Motoons,” as you term them, were an offense to Muslims as grave as publishing the Protocols would be. It has nothing to do with blasphemy, and everything to do with, you know, suggesting that an entire religion has a tendency to terrorism and murder rooted back in the character of its very founder. That’s what a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his hat means, and you should know that. The cracker incident, on the other hand, only carries connotations of blasphemy. Was it juvenile? Sure. But PZ sticking a nail through a wafer doesn’t reflect on the character of Catholics as a class.
The question of whether Muslims were justified in violence and death threats or demands for censorship is entirely different from the question of whether Muslims were justified in their anger.
More nuttitude from Barbara Kay in Canada’s national wingnut rag: Shoving abortion down doctors’ throats
Where “none of my business” = “as long as your choices don’t offend me.”
Btw, abortion has been harder to get in Canada for decades. Doctors are more reluctant to practice abortion, not less.
The cracker incident. Mercy me.
I was so hoping the Devils would sign Satan. I’d buy one of those jerseys.
Society doesn’t need protection from Korans & Bibles
Given the Bible’s role as #1 inspiration for self-mutilation, you could ban it on public-health grounds.
My you’ve been busy while I was at lunch.
Just reading this thread makes me want to paste 20 minutes of /b-tards around just to shock and awe people.
“How about we throw in another $21 million worth of stock options and call it a deal?”
Done! See you on the next thread! (humming, counts swag)
I’ll respond more in time but I anted to say this now:
It has nothing to do with blasphemy, and everything to do with, you know, suggesting that an entire religion has a tendency to terrorism and murder rooted back in the character of its very founder. That’s what a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his hat means, and you should know that. The cracker incident, on the other hand, only carries connotations of blasphemy.
Not to be difficult but there are several ways of interpreting that image as well as others. Yes, I’d agree that most all have to do with the nexus of Islam and terror but it not necessarily so simple as “Muslims are Terrorists” any more than a picture of the Pope/Jesus holding a cat-o-nine-tails says “all Catholics/Christians are torture-loving Inquisitors”.
Duke: Automatic weapons fire is the overture!?
Chinese Official: As it is so often in life…
More Doonesbury quotations on S,N!
Smut Clyde here, signing off and heading for the tub.
Now, 130 or so comments later, I have yet to see any support for this statement.
Not books, but trying posting the word “cunt” at Shakespeare’s Sister and see how quickly you get reamed.
Not books, but trying posting the word “cunt” at Shakespeare’s Sister and see how quickly you get reamed.
It is true that being an asshole at somebody’s place may mean that someone may choose to expunge all trace of you from their environment. I suspect you can say cunt cunt cunt all day long at your place and not have your posts removed.
Now, 130 or so comments later, I have yet to see any support for this statement.
Does anyone seriously think that no self-titled progressives support any censorship whatsoever?
Jesus. This is ridiculous. I’ve met them – not just online but in person. Any group encompasing over 100 million people is going to have some douchebags in it.
Any group encompasing over 100 million people is going to have some douchebags in it.
Ah.
libarbarian wins the thread—and those of you who know me know I don’t say that lightly—on a statistical probability!
Is this the more promised above at 23:09, or will there be more more?
I’ve followed the book-banning story pretty closely, and I’m sure it will come as no shock that Malkin doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but since she goes to the “So what if she did try to ban books, huh?” defense, it’s partially moot. Malkin ignores that most libraries, including the Wasilla one, had/have a procedure in place for citizens to challenge books if a conversation with the librarian or library staff doesn’t satisfy them. She ignores that Palin fired the librarian, then re-hired her almost immediately due to public outcry. Malkin also ignores that there’s a difference between book stores and libraries, and conveniently forgets that she’s led quite a few consumer boycotts in her time (as did Palin’s church in at least one case). Malkin certainly ignores the role qualitative judgment and fact-based arguments play in the reality-based community when it comes to assessing books –but then, her revisionist, shoddy defense of internment doesn’t hold up too well by those standards. She’s got a right to think and write any ol’ blather she wants, of course, but her complaints are all the more ironic when she’s continuing her policy of dismissing the concerns of anyone who doesn’t crap themselves at the thought of an Islamofascist boogeyman.
[…] Sadly, No! Posted in Blogs, US Politics […]
“I was so hoping the Devils would sign Satan. I would buy one of those jerseys.”
Number 666, perhaps?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/666
There’s a kind of standard line of defense for punitive behavior towards ethnic slurs that works here. Using the N-word is categorically demeaning; no matter how much the target might fucking have it coming, a random child passing by with the wrong color of skin most certainly does not.
That’s not even to touch the profoundly malicious behavior behind using any of those words in seriousness. From a purely agentic perspective (e.g. not directly taking mens rea into account), it’s still foul and unreasonable to throw out a word designed to slam an entire group in order to snap at a single target.
While ‘cunt’ and ‘nigger’ have different pedigrees, both of them share that they’re deeply and categorically offensive. ‘Cunt’ is rarely a matter of personal expression and much more commonly simple abuse; and if it is personal expression it crosses into fighting words, at which point private action against the speaker is justifiable. The idea of freedom of speech guarantees the state isn’t going to sanction you for saying you’ve fucked a stranger’s mother; it doesn’t furnish the state with any pressing obligation to defend you from the utterly predictable response.