Saturday, April 30, 2016

Damned if you don't, continued (again... and again....)

Robert Spencer posted a report recently about a speech he gave in Calgary, Canada.

What he wanted his readers to note was the mainstream news media's take on his speech:

First, note the headline: “U.S. anti-Muslim blogger Robert Spencer draws hundreds in Calgary as critics condemn ‘dangerous speaker.'” The mainstream media typically defames all foes of jihad terror as “anti-Muslim,” and the charge is as false as it is revealing. The usage indicates that the mainstream media considers opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, non-Muslims, etc. to be “anti-Muslim.” That in turn implies that the mainstream media is well aware that these things are Islamic. Yet in the same breath, the mainstream media claims that none of these things are genuinely Islamic, and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose them. If that is so, then why is opposition to them “anti-Muslim”?

First of all, let's get this out of the way:  What's wrong with being anti-Muslim?

Second of all...  what else is there to say...?

Let's see what the Jihad Watch Loyalists said when I asked my question:

Oh wait, they had nothing to say to my post.  (Perhaps the "Peanut Gallery" might weigh in later -- or at least their front-line soldier, the Energizer Bunny, "Angemon" -- keep checking that link later...).

Update:  Well, in the meantime, I had posted a more fulsome version of that comment, and true to form, the Energizer Bunny, "Angemon", couldn't help himself.  My readers will want to click on this link for my comment under the nickname "Fessitude" and then scroll up for context, then down for Angemon's reaction.  I of course have not read it and hopefully never will subject myself to getting ensnared in his typical rabbit-trail of sophistry.  I encourage my readers to take a look at it and see if my suspicions (the jaded fruit of countless times I used to tangle with him in the old days) are not correct -- that, in effect, his "response" to my argument was not an actual counter-argument, but a tissue of sophistry effectively defending a soft position on the problem of Muslims.  (And, naturally, none of the "Peanut Gallery" (Jihad Watch regulars Mirren, gravenimage, Wellington, dumbledoresarmy, Jay Boo, Champ) will have seen fit to notice what Angemon, their friend, is doing and express their critical dismay about it -- or, if they agree with him, to offer up a reasoned paraphrase of his attempt at a counter-argument, demonstrating that it is in fact sound, and not sophistry.  No; they'll just pretend like they don't notice what he's doing, as he has done now some 20 times (while I have been ignoring him) to my comments in various comments fields over the past couple of months since I rejoined Jihad Watch comments under the new nickname "Fessitude".   

Second Update 5/8/16:  Angemon has continued to pester me so much, zooming in to pick at my comments with his sophistry in service of a soft approach to the problem of Islam, that by now the number must have doubled to 40...  And, of course, the aforementioned Peanut Gallery continues to pretend like they don't see him doing it.)

Further Reading:



Egghead said...

Note that the very name 'anti-defamation' gave a strong signal of the intention to enact hate speech laws - that clearly contravene the intent of first amendment that people might criticize their leaders.

Egghead said...

Censors are back! Don't need hate speech laws when you can erase the comments at the source!

Egghead said...

In the comment above yours at Jihad Watch, Mo Ham Ed says, 'The leftist keyphrase 'incites hate' is an attempt to say he's breaking some kind of law.'

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League drafted model hate crimes legislation in 1981, and now we are to the point where many people think that hate speech laws exist - which apparently they do in the rest of the West. I am sure that's next on the docket with the appointment of the next Supreme Court justice and one case by one Muslim with 'hurt' feelings.

Egghead said...

Hate crime or hate speech? You be the judge: