So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that

[Nuclear Unicorn]

209. I've also seen a shark analogy used here. Another reason these animal analogies fail is --

If someone were to make an analogy about the shooters that involved an unflattering animal image -- say, pigs -- the people making the shark/bear analogies would flip their friggin' minds.

"How dare you liken them to animals!" we would be told in the sternest terms as we await the jury results. I feel fairly confident in saying this; so confident, in fact, I have no desire to suffer the jury results.

But why is it okay the make the attackers metaphorical animals in one sense but not another? Why is it okay to portray them as uncontrolled killers but not muck-rutting pigs? Would any of them have any qualms about calling Gellar a pig? If we drop the animal metaphor entirely and insist the attackers be seen exclusively as human doesn't that cast their actions in a completely different light? Is it just another way of saying, some animals are more equal than others?

I honestly don't think this is about "hate speech" or "provocation" or the horribly misused "incitement" arguments so much as it is an opportunity to try and silence a Hated Other. But it is the sort of crass, uncritical opportunism that is destined to backfire and our entire society will suffer for it.