Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The Innocence of Muhammad

This is, I think, the movie that has so many people acting like violent children, all bent out of shape because someone hurt their widdle feelings.  (If I picked the wrong movie please leave a comment.)

The proper response is: more. More more more more more. Desensitize these idiots until they're panting from every time they have to get all frothy about someone defaming the prophet. This is what happened to Christians in this country - yes, they still try to force their values on us through politics, but walk around with an anti-Christian T-shirt, and no one bats an eyelash anymore - as it should be. So to the rioting idiots in Libya and Egypt and elsewhere: GET OVER IT YOU BABIES. IT'S THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. NO ONE'S PET PEEVES ARE SACRED ANYMORE.

Think that's a little harsh? How about this: I'm offended by socialist movies. So whenever someone makes a movie defaming Adam Smith or Milton Friedman, I'm going to attack their embassy, and try to destroy property and human life. Is that okay? If you're even remotely okay with people destroying life and property because their sensibilities are offended, you have to tell me why I'm not allowed to do the same thing whenever my feelings are hurt. You also have to explain not only why you apply different rules to different people, but what qualifies YOU to decide this for everyone else in the world.

Of course, you're free to disagree with me, tell me I'm a jerk, and tell other people to stop reading my blog. But you're not free to burn my house down or kill me. The same applies to me where your own expression is concerned, as well as to every other grown-up in the civilized world.


Anonymous said...

You're completely wrong! Taking actions where you know this will be the reaction, makes you responsible. Freedom of speech is limited in all cases. (shouting fire in a crowded cinema is the classic example).

Michael Caton said...

You're assuming that people reacting to this video have no free will and are NOT responsible for their actions, which is more than a little condescending. The rest of us are just holding them to the same basic moral standard in this regard that we try to abide by.

Your argument is very dangerous in that it means we should allow threats of violence to dictate our actions. You're saying - if a bully threatens you not to say something or he'll beat you up, then listen to him - and it's YOUR faut if he does beat you up. That is exactly what you're arguing. If you're not, I'd like you to clarify that here.

That there are any limits of freedom of speech doesn't mean that any other limits proposed are automatically valid. The very fact that we can have this disagreement civilly is only possible because we've agreed ahead of time that committing violence over our expression is not acceptable - and that if one of us does choose violence, it's our own fault, and not the other person's fault for making us mad.