Pages

Jump to bottom

27 comments

1 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:08:02pm

Her rhetoric is right. Her actions are wrong.

2 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:19:44pm

re: #1 Bob Dillon

Her rhetoric is right. Her actions are wrong.

From the link:

Banning hate speech doesn't end racism or antisemitism. Social pressure does that. It becomes socially unacceptable. To get to that level of unacceptability, we must stand up to hate-mongers like Geller. Clearly, not enough of us are doing so if hate crimes against Muslims in the US tripled in 2010-2011.

Her actions are in perfect accord with her rhetoric. What action would you suggest to fulfill her rhetoric?

3 researchok  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:36:09pm

re: #1 Bob Dillon

I'm of mixed feelings here, but there is no 'proportionate' response to bigotry or racism.

Her response was appropriate, I believe.

Mona Eltahawy was not addressing the NYC Transit Authority- she was addressing Pam Geller's deliberate and provocative hate.

The NYCTA would not put up posters on behalf of the Klan or the Salafis.

The is no reason to put a poster which refers to Muslims as 'savages'.

None whatsoever.

4 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:44:10pm

re: #2 wrenchwench

re: #3 researchok

The posters had been accepted and space paid for. Her beef should have been directed to the NYCTA thru an attorney.

Spray-painting another's property is vandalism. Not free speech.

5 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:49:17pm

re: #4 Bob Dillon

re: #3 researchok

The posters had been accepted and space paid for. Her beef should have been directed to the NYCTA thru an attorney.

Spray-painting another's property is vandalism. Not free speech.

Pamela's posters had already been to court and been approved. Yes, it was vandalism. Yes, it was an illegal violation of someone's private property. It was still the right thing to do. Eltahawy did not want to deny Pam's right to post the things, she wanted to show Pam how socially unacceptable her message is.

Do you have any other suggestion for how one can show Pam's message to be socially unacceptable beside talking to a lawyer?

6 researchok  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:50:02pm

re: #4 Bob Dillon

I do understand- but in my opinion, the TA made a huge error in judgement.

Suppose they put up a KKK poster- do you believe the response would have been different? Should it be?

7 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:56:14pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

re: #6 researchok

Picket their HQ and call a press conference. Do not overtly break the law.

Someone at the TA probably has their ass in a sling for approving them in the first place. Setting a legal precedent or negative press against the TA would speak loudly to have others nationwide change their review criteria for advertising.

8 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:01:39pm

re: #7 Bob Dillon

re: #6 researchok

Picket their HQ and call a press conference. Do not overtly break the law.

Someone at the TA probably has their ass in a sling for approving them in the first place. Setting a legal precedent or negative press against the TA would speak loudly to have others nationwide change their review criteria for advertising.

I don't think the goal is to change the policy of the TA. I think it is to show Geller that her views are abhorrent to society. The negative press should be about Geller, not the TA. It seems to be working to some extent, apparently most of the posters are tagged "Racist".

Again, do you have a suggestion for publicizing the abhorrent nature of Geller's message?

9 researchok  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:03:28pm

re: #7 Bob Dillon

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree.

But bigotry and racism are particularly egregious.

10 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:08:36pm

re: #8 wrenchwench

This is about, or should be about marketing. Not law breaking. Picket and protest and get enough people to join you. Then go after the courts on appeal. If one feels that they must break the law to make their point they are stagnant in their thinking and need more creative ways to market their goals.

Kind of like when a parent runs out of ways to deal with a child's negative behavior and strikes them. Good intentions - bad action.

11 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:13:16pm

re: #9 researchok

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree.

But bigotry and racism are particularly egregious.

Get used to it. It has always been and always will be with us just like poverty and hunger. We can only do the best we can as individuals on those levels and educate others vs fight and take negative action.

12 researchok  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:16:36pm

re: #11 Bob Dillon

Fair points.

Still, this kind of blatant racism is meant to be a provocation, not unlike an assault.

There is a reason crying 'FIRE!" in a crowded theater is illegal.

13 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:21:51pm

re: #12 researchok

There is a reason crying 'FIRE!" in a crowded theater is illegal.

That is true but not on an open street or park. In the theatre we are captive and exits are limited.

Of course its a provocation. Like the child. Hitting back = you are frustrated and have run out of resources. Time to get creative and move forward legally.

14 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:21:53pm

re: #10 Bob Dillon

This is about, or should be about marketing. Not law breaking. Picket and protest and get enough people to join you. Then go after the courts on appeal. If one feels that they must break the law to make their point they are stagnant in their thinking and need more creative ways to market their goals.

Kind of like when a parent runs out of ways to deal with a child's negative behavior and strikes them. Good intentions - bad action.

When you have a small budget (ie: none) a can of spray paint in front of news cameras goes a lot farther than a phone tree.

re: #11 Bob Dillon

Get used to it. It has always been and always will be with us just like poverty and hunger. We can only do the best we can as individuals on those levels and educate others vs fight and take negative action.

Thank goodness you are wrong. Poverty and hunger have declined over the centuries, and so has racism over the recent decades.

Eltahawy's illegal actions are a lot less negative than Geller's legal ones. I'm surprised you can't see that.

15 Flavia  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:29:41pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

Pamela's posters had already been to court and been approved. Yes, it was vandalism. Yes, it was an illegal violation of someone's private property. It was still the right thing to do. Eltahawy did not want to deny Pam's right to post the things, she wanted to show Pam how socially unacceptable her message is.

Except that, in so doing, she is admitting that all Muslims are savages & all Muslims hate Israel. Nowhere in these posters does anyone say "Muslims are savages". I will be the first to say that this is what Geller says (WTTE) on many occasions, but, in these posters, she was very careful.

So Eltahway was wrong on all counts.

Do you have any other suggestion for how one can show Pam's message to be socially unacceptable beside talking to a lawyer?

Buy their own ads. How hard is that?

Don't tell me Eltahway has a "small" or "nonexistent" budget. The groups who hate Geller have lots of money, too.

16 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:30:03pm

re: #14 wrenchwench

Of course I see it. And I support Geller's right of free speech and have put my life on the line to back it up. I will not and cannot support illegal activity. There are always other options. No money to support your cause? Get off your righteous backside and go raise it.

17 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:36:28pm

re: #15 Flavia

Except that, in so doing, she is admitting that all Muslims are savages & all Muslims hate Israel. Nowhere in these posters does anyone say "Muslims are savages". I will be the first to say that this is what Geller says (WTTE) on many occasions, but, in these posters, she was very careful.

So Eltahway was wrong on all counts.

Buy their own ads. How hard is that?

I am disgusted by your excusing of her carefully-worded posters, and blaming Eltahawy for interpreting them the way Geller meant them. How naive are you?

Geller has raised tons of money selling hate. I don't expect Eltahawy to stop her life and start a bunch of organizations and websites like Geller has just to say Geller is wrong, when she can take out a can of pink spray paint and get her point across, at the cost of only her freedom and her clean rap sheet.

18 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:39:14pm

re: #16 Bob Dillon

Of course I see it. And I support Geller's right of free speech and have put my life on the line to back it up. I will not and cannot support illegal activity. There are always other options. No money to support your cause? Get off your righteous backside and go raise it.

I have thanked you before for your service. I still do, but I am saddened that you see it as in the interest of Geller and not in the interest of Elathawy, merely because she committed (probably) a misdemeanor in making her own free speech.

Were you opposed to civil rights sit-ins too?

19 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:42:05pm

re: #16 Bob Dillon

I was referring to Eltahway Ms WW. Not you personally.

20 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:48:40pm

re: #19 Bob Dillon

I was referring to Eltahway Ms WW. Not you personally.

I understand, or I'd be out looking for you right now. //

I think it's wrong to say only those with money can play the free speech game. Eltahawy has hurt no one. Geller even had spare posters at the ready. Eltahawy put her own freedom on the line. I respect her actions. I respect your disagreement with me, but I shall continue to argue that Eltahawy's actions were just. Maybe not today, though.

21 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:50:06pm

re: #18 wrenchwench

I have thanked you before for your service. I still do, but I am saddened that you see it as in the interest of Geller and not in the interest of Elathawy, merely because she committed (probably) a misdemeanor in making her own free speech.

Were you opposed to civil rights sit-ins too?

Not in the interest of Geller. In the interest of everyone in America. If Geller takes advantage of it fine! That is her right.

Were you opposed to civil rights sit-ins too?

Of course not as long as no laws were broken. And Gandhi while we're on it. Full support. Legal activity = GOOD. Illegal activity =BAD. Very simple.

22 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:53:09pm

re: #21 Bob Dillon

Not in the interest of Geller. In the interest of everyone in America. If Geller takes advantage of it fine! That is her right.

Were you opposed to civil rights sit-ins too?

Of course not as long as no laws were broken. And Gandhi while we're on it. Full support. Legal activity = GOOD. Illegal activity =BAD. Very simple.

Sound like you have a poor grasp of the concept of "civil DISobedience". The civil rights sit-ins were illegal. They were sitting in places they were legally barred from, under racist laws. Gandhi also broke the law. His non-violence was met by legal violence. Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail. So did Mona Eltahawy. I support both.

23 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 4:54:41pm

re: #21 Bob Dillon

Legal activity = GOOD. Illegal activity =BAD. Very simple.

TOO simple. Law does not and cannot make morality. Lawmakers can strive to make moral laws, but moral actions can be outside the law. Not simple, but not so hard.

24 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 5:07:48pm

re: #22 wrenchwench

Sound like you have a poor grasp of the concept of "civil DISobedience". The civil rights sit-ins were illegal. They were sitting in places they were legally barred from, under racist laws. Gandhi also broke the law. His non-violence was met by legal violence. Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail. So did Mona Eltahawy. I support both.

Okay - expanding - Passive lawbreaking = to be considered.

What Eltahawy did was not passive. I can support her want. Not her action.

25 wrenchwench  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 5:11:44pm

re: #24 Bob Dillon

Okay - expanding - Passive lawbreaking = to be considered.

What Eltahawy did was not passive. I can support her want. Not her action.

Expand it a little more to include actions of no physical and infinitesimal monetary damage, and we'll be in agreement.

26 Charles Johnson  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 5:16:23pm

Testing.

27 Bob Dillon  Sun, Oct 14, 2012 5:44:31pm

re: #25 wrenchwench

Expand it a little more to include actions of no physical and infinitesimal monetary damage, and we'll be in agreement.

Nevah!


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 137 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 305 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1