Well, by the time I get around to responding to this, it seems like everything worth saying has been said. First, let’s recap:
Tom McMahon made up a parody of that idiotic “Coexist” bumper sticker that looked like this:
Being a particularly provocative and insightful point, it spread around the blogosphere. Here’s my post about it, but I was one of about a bazillion bloggers who decided to post it. And why not? It made for a lively discussion and that’s what makes blogging fun. Free speech, robust debate, sharp points, etc. The discussion under my post was lively and entertaining.
Typically, a bunch of liberal bloggers and the perpetually offended decided to use McMahon’s parody to smear him and conservatives as antisemitic because McMahon’s parody bumper sticker replaced the Star of David with a swastika. This has been a standard play for liberals. If you don’t like what someone is saying, then call them an antisemite, racist, antidentite, misogynist, or whatever else to try to intimidate them into shutting up. It’s a cheap tactic, but it’s been successful enough in the past to make it a favorite of some folks.
Then it spread out of the blogosphere when the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee decided to send a letter to Charlie Sykes’ employer asking them to make Sykes remove the offending parody bumper sticker. Sykes responded with this:
Frankly, I do not recall a single instance in which either you or the Interfaith Conference ever protested this particular tactic when it has been used by the left. Has there ever been a single instance in which your organization has objected to a left-wing protest in which the swastika was used intentionally to equate Judaism with Nazism? Please be specific.
As for your being offended: I am also frequently offended by things I read and hear. (I’m offended, for instance, by the offensive ignorance of your letter. I am also offended by the fact that with the all of this community’s problems you could not find anything more important to write about.) But I know that is the price I pay to live in a country where we have a vigorous exchange of ideas. My being offended does not give me license to demand that voices I find “offensive” be silenced, or images be removed.
Too often political correctness has been used to stifle free speech and the expression of controversial ideas; too often the media and academia have been bullied by the perpetually offended who trump up outrage over bogus charges or misunderstandings.
I’m drawing the line here. The answer is no.
Apparently, coexistence is only a virtue when everyone agrees.
“My being offended does not give me license to demand that voices I find “offensive” be silenced, or images be removed. Too often, political correctness has been used to stifle free speech and the expression of of controversial ideas…”
Owen, I consider you one of the more thoughtful bloggers from the right side. Many of us that find Charlie Sykes and company to be huge hypocrites have pointed out that Charlie was guilty of exactly the same thing he’s accusing the ICGM of doing here when he crusaded against the Last Supper parody poster at the Folsom Street Fair. Charlie is a huge wimp so he just shrugged off the comparison without addressing it.
What’s your take on that? Do you see that in both cases, private parties are trying to prevent other private parties from putting their support behind images they find offensive? In both cases, they are doing so through market based methods (letters, boycotts etc.) and not through the use of government. So it’s not really a 1st amendment issue in either case. It’s just, as Charlie says, the “always offended crowd” trying to stifle the “vigosous exchange of ideas” and all that. Do you see a material difference between the two instances? You’re a reasonable guy. You have some integrity (which is why I’m asking you and not Peter or Fred). So here’s the question:
Is Charlie Sykes being a hypocrite here?
Sykes did the same to Dick Abdoo.
Miller Brewing Company chose to insult Catholics (and Christians in general) in order to gin up business with the leather-chains-&whips;crowd.
Sykes merely brought it to the attention of a lot of people. IIRC, he NEVER once said that Miller Brewing had “no right” to offend.
He just made it clear that they DID offend, as is their right.
The IFC’s complaint, in contrast, is groundless. Comparing Islamofascists, Nazis, and Commies is legitimate; each group has a well-earned reputation for killing innocent people by the thousands (or millions).
In other words, the IFC is “offended” on behalf of genuine mass-murderers.
Sykes, in contradistinction, was offended on behalf of Catholics and Christians in general.
I’m sure you understand the difference, no?
Dad29- Excuse me?!
Dad is only trying to say that all Islamists are evil terrorists, no matter what the reality is. And he is missing the other offensive part, but that is selective outrage for you.
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s as if you think Christians aren’t ever murderers and terrorists. They ARE. (see Northern Ireland for a grade-A prime, modern example). Charlie pointed out an “offensive” act. So did the ICGM. Charlie’s purpose in bringing this “offensive” parody to people’s attention was to remove the poster (or get Miller’s name off of the poster). He wanted to silence the idea (ed. Was that even that bad of a poster? It’s been a while since I read the Bible, but there’s some gay stuff in there. Jesus hung out with a lot of dudes and there was that bit about his “inner tunic” in like John 13:25 or whatever.) The ICGM also wanted Charlie’s station to be silent with their comparison of Jews to Nazis (I get that wasn’t the intent of the parody sticker but the Folsom Street poster wasn’t intended to insult Christians either). They used a letter to get Charlie’s station to be quiet instead of a boycott. Regardless of the method, Charlie wanted to silence an idea he didn’t like. Same with the ICGM.
But whatever Daddio29, you’re obviously narrow-minded and brainwashed. I see little hope for you. I’m more interested in whether a normal guy Republican-type will acknowledge the hypcrisy, even when it’s his “side.”
Let me see if I get this straight, Capper.
My postulate that Islamists are determined to subjugate non-Mohammedans is incorrect?
In whose well-researched opinion, Capper? Yours?
Or should the West’s experience with Islamism, beginning around 600 AD, simply be ignored? You know, the slaughters in Jerusalem, the Balkans, Turkey, Arabia, N. Africa, Spain, and more recently in Lebanon and NYC?
After having been bitten by wild dogs a few times, MOST thinking people shoot them on sight.
You have the option, Capper, of allowing them to make you into lunch. Go ahead.
JJAWetc.: I think you should have spent a lot less time with Mary Jane.
“Or should the West’s experience with Islamism, beginning around 600 AD, simply be ignored? You know, the slaughters in Jerusalem, the Balkans, Turkey, Arabia, N. Africa, Spain, and more recently in Lebanon and NYC?”
Daddio, should the Muslim world have ignored their experience with Christendom for the 600 years before that?
Also, I’ve spent very little time with Mary Jane, but even if I had, it’s a far safer drug than the one you’re on. I love how you guys just ignore that obvious point. I must be on drugs because I see two analogus sets of circumstances and point that out? How about you explain what the difference is?
C’mon buddy. I have money riding on whether just one right of center blogger will admit that it’s hypocritical to condemn the ICGM for asking Charlie/his station to remove an image they find offensive, and praise Charlie Sykes et. al. for asking Miller to remove an image they found offensive.
Frankly, after you were such an ass to Dad29, I don’t see why I should bother satisfying your curiosity. I have better things to do this morning.
I think it would be fairer to say that we were asses to eachother. He talked down to me (as he constantly does), so I talked down to him. You’re more respectful than he is so I’m more respectful to you. But Dad29 isn’t a very nice guy, to say the least. I’m not going to refrain from calling stupid points he makes stupid.
But that’s not really relevant to the topic. Are you really going to use it as an excuse to dodge the question? Obiously you don’t have to answer it. You do whatever you want. But it would say a lot about you if you called out one of “your own” when he is clearly and obviously practicing some serious intelectual dishonesty.
Remember, with Kookoo for Kokopuffs [K]onservatives, it’s always 100% or nothing when it comes to a progressive point.
The point of co-existance is to move to live in BETTER harmony; yet the KK[K] can’t stand this notion (or is afraid of) for some twisted reason, so they throw their arrows: OH, COEXISTANCE MEANS 100%; EVERYTHING!
Then they throw their darts to poke holes in something we’ve never intended.
Look at it this way: the so called pro-lifers believe life begins at contraception and ends at birth, then you’re on your own; the far right preaches family values and then posts pole-a-palooza BS. They will accuse anyone who disagrees of having no sense of humor. Owen, is that picture something you showed your children? Do you still plan on running for the Assembly?
The far right considers Goldwater to be a liberal today. Goldwater didn’t care about a persons’ private life, including a women’s right to abortion. He said of Jerry Falwell’s oppositon to Sandra Day O’Connor as a Supreme Court nominee: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”[
The truly unpartriotic right-wing in America joined the British forces in the American Revolutionary War.
Their loyalty is based on twisted notions that have no bearing on real life. The KK[K] want their own little cold war in underground shelters, to be sheltered from the rest of us.
Adam, you can’t even coexist with conservatives, how do you expect to achieve harmony with anyone?
You should probably have your blood pressure checked. That vein in your forehead is really throbbing.
Wendy sweetheart, remove your head out of umm…, the sand.
Goldwater couldn’t co-exist with you!
Your buddy Charlie and Dadio29 often accuse girliemen like me of hiding behind apron strings? So, where’s big strong Owen?
Rhymes with rich.
Very revealing, Adam.
should the Muslim world have ignored their experience with Christendom for the 600 years before that?
That is, before Mohammed was alive?
And you demand “respect.”
Ooops. I read your post wrong and thought you were referring to the past 600 years *rather than the past 1400 years beginning in 600 c.e), so I referred to the 600 years prior to that. My mistake. I guess I was a little confused because, if we’re talking about the west’s relationship with Islam going back all the way to 600 c.e., Christendom was the aggressor at least as often as the Islamic world was. I did learn something from that. And you clearly didn’t since you still subscibe to one of those ideas.
And I never demanded respect or anything else. I politely asked Owen’s opinion on something and I stated that I show no respect for you, basically because you’re rude and narrow-minded.
Actually, I’m a real sweetness and light kinda guy, except to intolerable jackasses.
But Dad, I am a tolerable jackass, so you better be nice to me. I’m sure you don’t have much exposure to Muslims in your parish, but in my not-so-many-as-yours years on this Earth, I have met several. I have found them to be normal people. They didn’t try to convert me and obviously they didn’t kill me. I don’t go by the screeches of those that have nothing but fear or hatred in their hearts, and I would have thought you could have done the same.
Besides, if the Israelites that bought and display the original COEXIST artwork in their museum in Jerusalem think it can happen after their thousands of years of experience, who are we to gainsay them?