I'm perfectly comfortable admitting there are certain situations where dumbass right-wingers (or whoever else) push buttons knowing full well they are provoking a reaction and wanting to make hay out of that reaction. This is probably one of those situations.
I think it's fine to admit there are certain ways you can modulate your chances of becoming the victim of a crime while also agreeing that crime shouldn't be happening in the first place. I wouldn't accept drinks from strangers if I wanted to lower my chances of being raped. I wouldn't walk through a really sketch part of town at night if I wanted to lower my chances of getting mugged. Etc. None of these things should be happening and we should have no tolerance for their occurrence, but obviously we should be able to agree you should try to be more careful if you don't want to experience consequences.
Where I have a bone to pick on this issue is that many people in this debate are not consistent about this, though. Many conservatives would be quick to equivocate if it was their religion being made fun of, and many "progressives" are quick to denounce alleged victim blaming in virtually every other situation, except when it comes to Islam, and then suddenly you should know better, be responsible, and so on.
I actually think Bedstuy's
"What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people? Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay? After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?" is a great question and was dodged in Deadflag's reply. Where is the line when it comes to respecting the subjective tastes of a group? What should be allowed to offend them and not? This is nearly impossible to judge. What if I
deliberately took the hand of my boyfriend when I
knew I was walking through a Muslim community, specifically to send a message and ruffle their feathers? Is that unempathetic and tasteless? Why not? I doubt many social justice activists would have the same answer if I was walking through a deeply Christian community. The rules here are awfully arbitrary.
I'm not trying to take anyone's right to be offended away from them, but you don't get some sort of special exemption from art or comedy, no matter how low-brow, based on your status. It's absurd.
As much as I've disagreed with Cinyc in the past, it's hard not to agree with this.
Sorry. You and the other "punching downward" Charlie Hedbo apologists are simply wrong. Everything is fair game for satire. There are no protected classes when it comes to comedy. You shouldn't get special privileges against criticism by being a member of a special "minority" group, with there being some unpublished, ever-changing hierarchy of which groups are more special than others. Everyone is in a minority group in their own way, including religious Christians who you have no problem lampooning. The sacred cows of "progressives" like yourself aren't everyone's sacred cow.
Just because you don't find satire funny when it is directed at Islam doesn't make it impermissible or imprudent. Nobody is "spitting on the sort of people who drive you to the airport". They are spitting on religious extremists' call to murder those who don't agree with them and their religion and convert to Islam. Those people are "The Man" in parts of the Arab world and are more than fair game for criticism and satire. Not that you have to be "The Man" to be subject to criticism, anyway.
