You're just determined to give this self-absorbed trull all the attention she craves, aren't you, Amy?

Patrick has the vapors again.

First 'Attention whore', then 'attention junkie', and now 'self-absorbed trull'. Golly, I can hardly wait to see what Patrick calls her next!

So Patrick asked a question in the previous thread about Pam Geller that deserves an honest response. The question (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words) went something like: "Isn't this like a woman going into a dark alley in a miniskirt?" Here's what I think the answer is:

We tell women, "Be smart. Going down a dark alley in a miniskirt might not be a safe thing to do." It isn't because we're going to blame her if she gets raped. We're telling her that because the least harmful kind of rape is the one that doesn't happen. But if she does go down a dark alley in a miniskirt and gets raped, the person who says "She deserved it" is going to get condemmed from every corner, and rightly so.

But consider: She might have had a good reason for going down a dark alley in a miniskirt. Maybe, for instance, she's doing it to make a political point. She's aware of the danger she's placing herself in, so she takes some precautions. She might be armed, or she might have bodyguards or security keeping an eye on her. And then if some thug tries to attack her, he gets shot. If this happens, is it her fault that he got shot? No. He got shot because he engaged in thuggery. QED.

Pam Geller knew she was going down a dark alley of sorts, but she thought she had a good reason to do so. She wasn't stupid. She took precautions. The event had hired security. And she chose a location in Texas to do it. (The latter turned out to be a smart choice.) And yet, somehow, in this case, people feel free to pop up and say, "She had no right to go down that dark alley. She deserved it."

So let me ask: what's the diff? Anyone want to name the elephant in the room?

Cousin Dave: So Patrick asked a question in the previous thread about Pam Geller that deserves an honest response. The question (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words) went something like: "Isn't this like a woman going into a dark alley in a miniskirt?"

I don't know who asked a question like that, Cousin Dave, but it wasn't me. Pamela Gellar compared herself to a rape victim, which I find disgusting.

Unlike Pamela Gellar, (we assume) rape victims don't deliberately do everything possible to instigate the attack.

The metaphor I used for Pamela Gellar was that of a matador. But a matador doesn't deliberately instigate the bull, then blame the bull and claim he's an innocent victim when he gets gored.

Pamela Gellar compared herself to a rape victim, which I find disgusting. ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 13, 2015 12:14 PM

Pamela Geller compared her critics to those tho blame the victim, not herself to the victim.

==============================

Unlike Pamela Gellar, (we assume) rape victims don't deliberately do everything possible to instigate the attack. ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 13, 2015 12:14 PM

The attackers will tell you the victim provoked them, that they were "asking for it."

==============================

The metaphor I used for Pamela Gellar was that of a matador. But a matador doesn't deliberately instigate the bull, then blame the bull and claim he's an innocent victim when he gets gored. ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 13, 2015 12:14 PM

The matador is armed and deliberately enticing the bull with the intent to kill it.

The metaphor I used for Pamela Gellar was that of a matador. But a matador doesn't deliberately instigate the bull, then blame the bull and claim he's an innocent victim when he gets gored.

Patrick, when are you going to stop comparing Islam's adherents to dumb animals? ;-)

Conan: The attackers will tell you the victim provoked them, that they were "asking for it."

Not always, but even if they do, rational people will deny this. And again, I have never said nor implied that Pamela Gellar was asking for it. I have said, repeatedly, that I am not saying that Pamela Gellar could not, or even should not do what she did.

You can wave your fists and jump up and down all you care to, Pamela Gellar did compare herself to a rape victim. She said that blaming her for the shooting is "like saying that the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape." That's comparing herself to the pretty girl and the shooting to the rape. Case closed.

I find this comparison to be wildly innappropriate, disgusting and highly insulting to the real rape victims, who do not deliberately entice their own assailants. And I believe Pamela Geller should apologize for it, though I won't hold my breath. Yes, the assailants may argue that the victim was "asking for it." That does not make it true.

Can you say the same for Pamela Geller? Can you truly tell me that you believe that, in the wake of the controversy of the Danish cartoon of Muhammed, she truly had no idea that Islamic extremists would not be stirred to violence? I doubt that, especially since she hired beefed up security. Obviously, she was anticipating it would be needed.

You yourself have conceded that she is more of an attention whore than she is a champion of free speech.

I believe, unlike Amy (who is determined to turn her blog into a paean of praise for St. Pamela of Austin, patron saint of free speech), that the best thing to do with narcissists is not feed their need for attention. And, yes, Pamela is likely suffering from NPD. She has compared herself to Rosa Parks. (And notice this link this time, Conan, thanks.) Comparing yourself to famous people without commensurate achievements is a classic sign of NPD.

Conan: The matador is armed and deliberately enticing the bull with the intent to kill it.

Are you 100% sure that wasn't Pamela's intention? It certainly attained that result.

"What would [Trump] have said about Rosa Parks?" Geller said. "'Rosa Parks should never have gone to the front of the bus. She's taunting people.'"

If Trump said that about Parks, he'd be right. Rosa Parks was in effect taunting people. Her intent was to provoke a reaction.

Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith had, before Parks, refused to give up their seats on Montgomery buses and were arrested. They were considered too dark, young, and poor to be effective plaintiffs for a lawsuit challenging segregation. Colvin was additionally compromised in having been charged with assaulting police officers rather than violating segregation laws, further limiting her utility as an anti-segregation plaintiff.

The NAACP needed someone who could be the face of the fight against segregation. The 42-year-old Parks was considered an ideal plaintiff in both age and social class.

After her arrest, organizations were formed. A boycott was organized. Her defiance and arrest were publicized from coast to coast. Rosa Parks was made the poster child for the anti-segregation fight.

Unfortunately, Parks and her husband had been active for many years in various radical causes, including the NAACP and the Communist Party funded defense of the Scottsboro boys, meaning she was not the ideal plaintiff the NAACP needed after all.

Eventually Aurelia Browder would be the lead plaintiff in the 1956 case that struck down bus segregation, Browder v. Gayle.

Someday, we may discuss Geller as a free speech heroine. More likely, she'll be the Claudette Colvin or Mary Louise Smith of the movement - in the right, but just not appealing enough to be the poster child for the fight.

Wrong again, Conan. Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust law by defying it. Pamela Geller isn't taking a stand against any law, just or otherwise. Her activities have been perfectly legal. She's provoking adherants of a particular religion, with full knowledge that their extremists are prone to violence.

I say provoke away. We'll continue to kill them for ya'll. Eventually, given enough cartoon contests, we could eliminate violent islam, at least its followers in the US.

She may be an attention whore, but she also illustrated the extreme stupidity of being afraid to draw a damn cartoon because you might piss off some savage who might then try to kill you. Her point, I believe, is it doesn't matter WHAT we do, we offend islam by existing, so who cares if they're offended?

Patricks position on leaving Islam alone seems especially odd, given how poorly he'd do under sharia law.

momof4: Patricks position on leaving Islam alone seems especially odd, given how poorly he'd do under sharia law.

Provoking Islam is fine. Have at it, if that's what you want to do. No other nation in the world does free speech like the United States (since the U.S. is the only nation in the world who treats it as an individual right, rather than a collective right). And by all means, taunt them to your heart's content.

From the article Amy shared: Taunting. Daring. In other words, asking for it.

I disagree. Taunting or daring is not asking for it. I could taunt you till your white with rage. I could even dare you to punch me in the face. But that does not give you the right to do it.

What I object to is simply this: If you stir up the hornet's nest, then say you stirred up the hornet's nest. Don't liken yourself to a rape victim, or any other type of victim. Not only is the analogy grossly inaccurate and offensive, it suggests that you're too thin-skinned to be the champion of free speech that you think yourself.

Wrong again, Conan. Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust law by defying it. Pamela Geller isn't taking a stand against any law, just or otherwise. Her activities have been perfectly legal. ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 13, 2015 2:54 PM

Rosa parks intentionally provoked a reaction to draw attention to something and instigate a dialogue. As did Geller.

That is the similarity I pointed out.

And, yes Geller's stand is against a law. Geller's stand is against the interpretation of Islamic law that says it is blasphemy to mock or pictorially represent the prophet and that it is an obligation to kill any and all who do so. Let's ask Theo Van Gogh what he thinks. Oh, wait, we can't.

That you like Parks ('60s radical) and hate Geller (religious social conservative) is the real issue you have here.

She's provoking adherants of a particular religion, with full knowledge that their extremists are prone to violence.

And yet that's her problem?

Interesting. So, if a same sex couple walks into a Muslim bakery and asks them to bake them a wedding cake, and they get their heads cut off, that was because they provoked the owner of the establishment?

Tisk, risk, Conan. You're playing semantics. Shame on you. Rosa Parks took a stand against the segregation laws enacted by various states, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. Sharia "law" has not been enacted by any state nor has any court upheld it. Quite the contrary, the courts tend to take a dim view of plural marriages and honor killings.

To conflate U.S. or state laws and sharia law is a low tactic unworthy of a commenter who would like to be taken seriously. Naughty, naughty, Conan.

Sigh. No IRA, I'm suggesting that since she's throwing rocks at the hornets nest, rher comparison of herself to a rape victim is invalid, offensive, and inaccurate.

"Sharia "law" has not been enacted by any state"

Yes it has been enacted by the Islamic State and is enforced by violence like any other law. Unlike every other law they claim every jurisdiction and instead of jail move straight to the death sentence, without trial. Your guilt is obvious to them as all who are not Muslim are guilty.

"her comparison of herself to a rape victim is invalid"

No she compared the people saying she was being provocative and "asking for it" to the people who claim an inappropriately dressed rape victim was "asking for it."

She did not say she was raped, or that anyone tried to rape her and she did not claim to be a victim. Where is the comparison you claim?

I guess the disconnect comes because she wasn't a victim. They only intended to murder her, they didn't get close enough to do it.
If they had succeeded then all the people who said some version of "she asked for it" would be just like the people who claimed a rape victim in a miniskirt "was asking to be raped." The fact that she avoided victim hood does not make these people nicer or her worse.

Patrick: "She said that blaming her for the shooting is 'like saying that the pretty girl was responsible for her own rape.' That's comparing herself to the pretty girl and the shooting to the rape. Case closed."

She's not comparing herself to a rape victim. She's comparing the validity of the opinion that she is at fault for being attacked to the validity of the opinion that a pretty girl is at fault for being raped. She's saying that one is no more valid than the other. Which is correct.

Patrick: "Tisk, risk, Conan. You're playing semantics. Shame on you... To conflate U.S. or state laws and sharia law is a low tactic unworthy of a commenter who would like to be taken seriously. Naughty, naughty, Conan."

Ad hominem. You lose.

Patrick: "The metaphor I used for Pamela Gellar was that of a matador. But a matador doesn't deliberately instigate the bull, then blame the bull and claim he's an innocent victim when he gets gored."

Wave a cloth in front of a bull and it might charge - wave a cloth in front of an ox and it might just continue chewing its cud.

So, do we agree, Patrick, that some followers of Islam need to be castrated?

Turns Out "She Was Asking For It!" Is Sometimes Acceptable To The PC -- Depending On Who "She" Is

Exactly. To the PC, progressive, liberal, leftist, whether or not something is right or wrong, good or evil depends, not on the nature of the act itself, but on who does it.

It's cute how you sycophants are trying frantically to whitewash Pamela Geller's disgusting and offensive comparison of herself to a rape victim.

Cute, funny, yet sad, all at the same time.

Patrick,

You keep tying yourself in rhetorical knots trying to say say she deserved it without saying she deserved it. You would be calling yourself out on this if you weren't the one writing it.

No, I do not say she deserved it. I say that she should not compare herself to a rape victim. If you want to be the heroic champion of the First Amendment, and you throw rocks at the hornets nest, you should not wrap yourself in the shroud of victimhood when you get stung.

That said, those of you frantic to sing the praises of Pam Geller are merely fueling a narcissist's need for adoration.

"What I object to is simply this: If you stir up the hornet's nest, then say you stirred up the hornet's nest. Don't liken yourself to a rape victim, or any other type of victim. Not only is the analogy grossly inaccurate and offensive, it suggests that you're too thin-skinned to be the champion of free speech that you think yourself."

Fair enough. Geller is an agent provacateur, no doubt about that. But that's the kind of person it takes to do that sort of thing. If you think that Rosa Parks was just a mild-mannered black lady minding her own business, or that John Scopes was just an everyday high school teacher, you need to do some more reading. An attention-seeker is the type of person it takes to do something like that. I personally am very suspicious about activism in general, but I can't deny that every once it a blue moon it succeeds in bringing about positive change.

And you have to consider the possibility that Geller is speaking to her intended audience in a a language that they understand. These days, you have to be a "victim" of some sort, or you get no public notice. That's the way our media and popular culture work. As you said, obviously Geller had some inkling that something like that would happen, since she hired security. It is true, in a sense, that she set a trap -- not only for the Islamists, but for our quisling media. And by doing so, she proved her point, in dramatic fashion.

(And an aside: Geller has been a canary in the coal mine, for a number of years now, regarding the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Western culture. I remember the first time I read something she wrote about it, back around 2002, and thinking, "Anti-Semitism? How quaint. Will they bring back zoot suits next?" But as I did my own reading on some of the things she was writing about, I realized she was right. That's when I started paying attention to it.)

Patrick, summarized: Rosa Parks' stand against an unjust law was good and Geller's stand against intimidation by medieval-minded murderers is bad.

Do you really want to claim that illegal thuggery is something people should bow to?