Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I do not condone killing ... [View all]F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)183. The big difference between your examples
And what the last sentence of your post said was the timing. There's nothing wrong with precautionary advice--like your experience. It's a good thing to know that it's not safe to walk outside of the hotel. It's good to know that you might get injured if you walk out the door. It's also a good thing to know that you might want to have window security, before something happens. But your post said that it was sensible to criticize someone after the fact.
Would you criticize me for rejecting the advice of someone who knew the dangers better than I did? I think that criticism would have been valid even though the mugger would still be at fault and I would be a victim.
No, I would not. It might not have been a brilliant decision, but to criticize you for it imparts some measure of responsibility for what happened. Take a look at this post and my response to it, and maybe it will help clarify what I mean: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026057652#post40
I do like what you say in your next paragraph, for the most part. There is nuance to it.
Another difference is the status of the criminal. If I were mugged, everyone would agree that it was a crime and that the mugger should be punished, so people could criticize my recklessness without being read as taking the mugger's side.
An interesting thought, and something I haven't considered. However, I think that it is still wrong to do so regardless. Perhaps friendly advice ("I wouldn't walk there in the future; it's a bad place and it's likely to happen again." would be in order, but even then, I would think that if a crime happened, the victim is already aware of the factors that led up to the crime. If you chose to ignore the hotel staff and walk outside anyways, resulting in you getting mugged, you know exactly what happened. All that criticism serves to do is assign guilt and blame to the victim, even if unintentional (and I think you are clearly trying to avoid that).
One thing about the language you use in your post:
If a student at a party is raped, there might be dispute about whether a crime occurred, was she asking for it, and many other factors that aren't present with a mugging.
I tend to avoid using phrases like "was she asking for it" even if I'm describing what others might say. Using that phrase helps to perpetuate the idea that it is possible to "ask" for being raped. I would instead use the phrase "was there consent".
Applying all this to the OP, there does seem to be, in this thread, at least some sympathy for the "provocation" criticism of the victim. If I walk through a bad neighborhood, people might say I was reckless, but no one would say I was provoking an assault. Here, however, some people seem to be pointing to the alleged offensiveness of the speech as being relevant beyond the mere fact of increasing one's likelihood of being attacked. I would not join in any criticism that said or implied that cartoonists or other commentators should restrain themselves from criticizing radical Islam, so as not to provoke violence.
+1, well said. I completely agree with this. I think we both are on the same side here, just some differences in the little stuff. Thanks for making me think.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
188 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If you have a different idea of what constitutes stupidity, by all means explain it.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#51
Your talking points are like a square tire, in reference to "the big picture."
demosincebirth
Jan 2015
#61
People who do the right thing because they're afraid of burning in hell are stupid.
QuestionableC
Jan 2015
#50
Did it occur to you that sometimes people who want to help others are attracted to
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#130
Well, here's the thing. I get very nervous when I see people making statements about
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#164
Except not just religion was denigrated...whole races and classes of human beings with very little
kelliekat44
Jan 2015
#96
You have every right to be offended/Insulted, but you do NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to be PREVENTED
bobalew
Jan 2015
#5
Not asking the government to censor the deliberate denigration of others by some person/organization
kelly1mm
Jan 2015
#6
I don't know if that will work anymore. Fox and RW radio have brainwashed people into believing that
Dark n Stormy Knight
Jan 2015
#109
And each religion has fundamentalists, and the vast majority of christians might not start
randys1
Jan 2015
#165
"the deliberate denigration of others because you do not agree with their expression of faith."
oberliner
Jan 2015
#12
So would you then agree that all religions should not be able to denigrate gay people?
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#13
People gunned down by machine guns for publishing cartoons should not "own the result"
Kurska
Jan 2015
#24
When you respond to speech with violence, you lose any moral authority you had n/t
Kurska
Jan 2015
#83
Of course. There are many ways to protest when you've felt denigrated other
Luminous Animal
Jan 2015
#40
Nobody is saying that it was justified. Nobody on this board has said that it's justified.
NYC_SKP
Jan 2015
#132
If gay people were trying to murder the Phelpses, or black people were bombing Klan offices...
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2015
#42
You are correct 1SBM, with rights come responsibilities. We must begin to accept this as a whole
Dont call me Shirley
Jan 2015
#54
"Speak and act in the ways of non-violence" like Charlie Hebdo did, you mean?
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#55
But the hateful and intolerant are usually pretty unreasonable about what offends them
cemaphonic
Jan 2015
#68
I have expressed views that agree with yours and been the target of insult myself.
NYC_SKP
Jan 2015
#92
Religion is a philosophy and adhering to that philosophy is not innate.
Luminous Animal
Jan 2015
#33
"does your free speech right mean I have to tolerate your intolerance?"
cherokeeprogressive
Jan 2015
#35
Yes, we got it, you aren't a fan of free speech, why don't you practice what you preach and..
Humanist_Activist
Jan 2015
#91
I mostly stand with staunch defenders of free speech, but I understand your concern
whatchamacallit
Jan 2015
#46
But you do implicitly blame the victims, and that's nearly as bad. N.T.
Donald Ian Rankin
Jan 2015
#49
i haven't looked into it much but the limits seem to be about actual historical events and actual
JI7
Jan 2015
#89
depends on what you mean by tolerate, you have a right to criticize with words, protest, and other
JI7
Jan 2015
#65
If your life or your family was being threatened would you be willing to kill an attacker ...
spin
Jan 2015
#78
Anti-Semitism is an entirely different matter one would for example never see a caricature of Moses
Behind the Aegis
Jan 2015
#97
And right there in your OP, you imply an equivalence between "offensive" speech, and murder.
Warren DeMontague
Jan 2015
#93
"does your free speech right mean I have to tolerate your intolerance?"
Behind the Aegis
Jan 2015
#100
The fact that you think giving offense weighs seriously against mass murder
True Blue Door
Jan 2015
#106
So do you think Martin Scorsese should be ridiculed for his tastelessness? Paris, Oct 1988, Saint
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#120
The gunmen's motives were not what they claimed. They just found an excuse to kill.
randome
Jan 2015
#147
The people who firebombed the Last Temptation thought it was inflammatory and tasteless.
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2015
#168
that cover was over the line in ugly, imo. the issue of freedom of speech, allows me, and society
seabeyond
Jan 2015
#133
It means you don't have a right to kill someone because he has disrespected your or your idol./NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Jan 2015
#139
Yes, picketing the outside of the place is the answer, not killing. When I worked near ARAMCO, which
freshwest
Jan 2015
#187
Shit, that's practically the very definition of membership in the Middle East.
randome
Jan 2015
#154
My free speech right and your beliefs are the intersection we are talking about, and it is
randys1
Jan 2015
#163
It is an issue that seems to hit real close to home for many people, and I have one other
randys1
Jan 2015
#177
Are you conflating deliberate denigration with broadcasting controversial ideas?
LiberalAndProud
Jan 2015
#181