Pam Geller lashes out at critics: You’re saying the ‘pretty girl caused her own rape’

[Tommy_Carcetti]

407. I actually asked you my question before that, but hey, I'm a nice guy so I'll indulge.

Your question was based on a rapidly shifting hypothetical.

You first compared Geller's situation (the one where she claims to be a victim) to be like two gay people kissing or holding hands in front of a homophobe or group of homophobes and getting attacked for it.

I pointed out that that gay people's action would have been nothing more than a personal expression of affection, whereas Geller's action was an intentional provocation of violence in order to provide her a bully pulpit to spew her agenda. Thus the violent reaction to the gay people would be ancillary to their intent, whereas the violent reaction to Geller's actions was her intended result.

You weren't satisfied at that point, so you changed the scenario to some weird situation where the gay people kissed or held hands not as an expression of affection but instead as an attempt to elicit some reaction from the homophobes. And you left it pretty vague at that. The silliness of the hypothetical leaves a bunch of unanswered questions here. I mean, are the two gay people a couple who actually do have a deep emotional relationship with each other? Or are they just two random gay people who at the spur of the moment seek to bond together to provoke these homophobes? And what's the intended reaction from the homophobes here? Is it a disgusted look? Is it homophobic slurs? Is it a beating? And who are the homophobes? Is it a specific group, like the Westboro Baptist Church? Is it rural southerners? Is it just plain old regular Christians? And why exactly do they want to provoke these homophobes? What message do they think an attack will send?

But all those questions do is serve as their own deflection from a fatal flaw in your slippery hypothetical. You have the homophobes attacking--and for the sake of argument let's say physically attacking--these two gay people who provoked them by kissing or holding hands. Say they did want to elicit that violent reaction from them. In that case, they would have known that any reaction would almost certainly be focused on them. They would know that it would likely be they who would be the victim, not a third party. That's completely unlike Geller's situation, where Geller knew a violent attack would likely involve guns or explosives, things that could put the general public at risk. It would put people at risk who were in no way involved in her organization. It would suck the general public into the shit fight she was having with extremist Muslims. And you know what? That's exactly what happened. The only person physically impacted (other than the shooters themselves) was a security guard hired by the city to guard the event. He was the victim. Not Pam Geller.

I believe I've more than sufficiently answered your question, so I'll ask once again that you answer mine:

Do you honestly believe Pam Geller is a victim in this situation, and if so, why?

You're on the clock.