What are Zig Forumss thoughts on the Satanic verses affair?

What are Zig Forumss thoughts on the Satanic verses affair?

Attached: satanic verses.jpg (900x1200, 190.01K)


It's performance art that makes political commentary.
Salman Rushdie got the response he was fishing for. Doesn't make the response justified, but he's also not some innocent victim either.

This is why I despise liberals.
You grudgingly accept that he has the right to, you know, write a fucking book without getting killed and censored, but then just go on how he was just a meanie to all those little muslims who you don't even expect to deal with things other religions deal with all the time.

He's an israeli. I don't care about his opinions

t. has never taken a physics course because da jooz

Wanna write for a living? The CIA Harvard has a job for you.

That's your projection, not what I said. He knew what he was getting into. If you want to make a political point, that's fine. I don't even disagree on the point that Islam is a shitty religion.

What I'm saying is you don't get to pretend like it's an unexpected reaction when you get the reaction you're fishing for; that is an angle to the story that gets played up by certain people who mask racism toward middle easterners with religious criticism. Rushdie was savvy insofar as he trolled a lot of Muslims into dropping their masks. He paid for it, but he also expected to pay for it going in, and ultimately he managed to get through his hard times and become lionized by "classical liberal" free speech fetishists. I'm for free speech, but there's a difference between supporting free speech and denying that speech has consequences while at the same time declaring that ideas have the power to change the world. It's a contradiction.

Because as we all know, muslims don't genuinely believe in islam, only white people are capable of having any genuine beliefs that ought to be taken seriously, for middle-easterners faith is just a component of their race, like hook noses and female facial hair.

This is the dumbest, most dishonest shit.
When it happens to offend muslims, you assume rushdie didn't write out of genuine artistic desire. The book didn't make him, he was already a huge thing. He's from a muslim family. He grew up with these themes. They inspired him. But apparently this is one of those things liberals feel they can take for granted.
Many people who in other circumstances would have defended a writer's right to write a book without getting death threats refused to even condemn the death penalty, preferring to condemn him. And all you have to say about that is to say that the motives of the principled ones were sinister. Kill yourself.
Seeing such disdain for free speech from a leftist is disgusting. And it's sad that your reasoning isn't even coherent. The fact that "speech has consequences" is pure vaguery. People write for their writing to have consequences. You're just trying to put the fault in the person who wrote a book instead of the people who wanted to burn him along with his books.

Free speech is bourgeois liberal horseshit. Under socialism all criticism of Jesus will be dealt with through the death penalty.

Also people who deny the Holocaust will be paraded around the town as the village idiot before being gassed in an Auschwitz replica for irony's sake.


Isn't he Indian?

As if it matters

Colleges are full of liberal intellectuals. They make better rubble than actually anything worth galvanizing

No actually I was poor. No ulterior motives. Basically the bottom line.

Do you not know how dogwhistles work?

I tell you you're misinterpreting what I said, so I'm lying?

That's not what I said. I said he knew the context of what he was doing.

I didn't condemn him. I think he was in the right. What I did was provide context to disabuse people of the notion that the meanie sandniggers swooped in and attacked him out of the blue sky, which is one of the narratives surrounding the case.
Having foresight =/= having sinister motivations. Are you a human or a dumb animal?

So you're a troll then? Because I already explained this here.
Apparently if I don't support your vulgar liberal narrative about free speech to the letter, I'm some kind of fascist, lmao.
No it isn't, the word is "vagary," and it doesn't mean "a vague thing."
No, I'm honoring him by doing what he did with the book and trying to provoke idiots (you) to show people how stupid they are.

Attached: free speech libs.jpg (480x726, 45.08K)


Hard no. Try not to be such a moderator

Kill yourself. Speech has to be free because it has consequences.

I do. My neighbor said "good day" to me when I left my house this morning, what this dogwhistle really means is "good die", signalling to all the others who gangstalk me that my time is up.

Yes. The way they work is that you get to accuse other people of saying things they didn't say. It's hella handy.

>Speech has to be free because it has consequences.
What a shitlib take. And you think I'm being incoherent?

If there are consequences to speech, it isn't free. Whatever consequence-free speech exists is politically vacant. Ideally all speech would be truly free, but in reality it is not. Instead, the burden is to transgress the restrictions and provoke the consequences as part of political struggle so that we resolve the conflicts responsible for creating consequences for speech. Free speech isn't something we have in practice, but at best a telos that drives us to resolve the problems that keep us from having it.

You do know that the people in that region are not all Muslim, right?

Go back to jezebel.com

Attached: 1434925428694.png (246x208, 79.72K)



It's a threat (from the guy talking about dogwhistles, no less).



this user understands

Makes no sense. I mean I'll stop saying nigger once blacks stop chimping out over it. Goes for anyone.

Just more proof that Islamists are reactionary swine, though given how the Ayatollahs treated Tudeh no one here should be surprised by this fact.

What do you think "free" means? If it costs something it's not free. If it's limited it's not free.

It's not a threat in any form. It's just a description of how the dynamic works.

No, it only is free if it has no power to do anything. It's precisely when speech isn't free that we should feel obligated to speak and act until the speech is free, i.e. can't do anything because the conflict is resolved and there's nothing left to do.

A quantitative difference in consequence doesn't make it qualitatively not a consequence, maybe a quantity of consequence you would accept though.

Not really, it wouldn't probably change much as far as the system if I told people the last thing I fapped to or described the last dump I took, but those things can still be restricted or allowed by a system whether they matter or not.
huh? Dunno where you're getting that, all I'm saying is that being kicked off a site for an hour for calling the mod a fag =! being beheaded for saying gaity isn't evil or something. One is trivial and doesn't hurt much, the other is disproportionate and lethal. It's dumb to paint them with the same brush, which is what people on this thread seem to be doing.

ok but is it a good book tho? the summary i saw of it seems sorta interesting, magical thinking mixed with re-contextualization of religious historical figures?

My understanding is that the book skillfully employs the nuances of the english of the indian subcontinent, which might not be fully appreciated by other readers.

This particular shitposter, while I don't think he's intentionally arguing against free speech, but merely being an überfedora making the point that Rushdie knew muzzies would sperg out, the way he's making this point is communicated in a way that's denser than a brick of uranium.

The core of this miscommunication (which, to be fair, even his opponents, such as & seem to have subconsciously assimilated), is conflating two different meanings of "speech has consequences". This is also, I believe, innocent, both of you having swallowed it unthinkingly from genuinely malicious pro-censorship "muh freeze peach" shills.

"Speech has consequences", in its genuine, good-faith pro-expression sense, means that when you say something, the world around you, that is, your audience, should change.

"Speech has consequences", in its false, motte-&-bailey pro-censorship sense, means that you personally should suffer retribution for daring to express yourself.

The former DOES NOT imply the latter. Period.

Attached: Mr. Rogers.png (797x540, 460.27K)

That's the opposite of what I said.
Ok, so maybe you actually don't know what quantitative vs qualitative difference is. They are the same type of thing, employed to different degrees. Qualitatively they are in the same basic category, but quantitatively one is much more severe than the other.

I only even posted because there are a lot of people who point to this case as evidence that muslims/arabs are a bunch of frothing savages who will attack you completely at random. I'm not justifying the actions of the people who went after Rushdie. I'm saying he knew they were like that and picked that fight to show the world. I don't see how that's being an überfedora since it's usually the secular neocons like Sam Harris who use this story to scapegoat the middle east.

>"Speech has consequences", in its genuine, good-faith pro-expression sense, means that when you say something, the world around you, that is, your audience, should does change.
What I'm saying is speech may or may not change (or help to change) something. It's only "free" if it doesn't, because there's no cost, impact, or restriction. It's empty. If there's non-free speech, i.e. something consequential to say, we should engage with it. Ideally all speech would be free in that sense because we've resolved the conflict that attaches consequences to speech.

That usage is more or less "boy this sure is a nice shop. be a shame if something happened to it."
Yeah, no shit.
Posters on /left(y)pol/ have been doing this lately, reading sinister threats into statements of fact. Either someone is deliberately trying to muddy waters or there are some real morons on here. Funny how it seemed to start around the time of the NZ shooting when we know the Feds started patrolling the site. IIRC the angle of these arguments has been to interpret this board to fit the ebul authoritarian gommie stereotypes.

Attached: 1410524354849.jpg (1920x941, 172.54K)

By "fedora", what I was referring to wasn't specifically being a euphoric New Atheist, but hairsplitting "ackshually"-posting against people who you know agree with your general point.
See, for instance, while the "at random" part makes that technically correct insofar as he knew they were hair-trigger psychopaths, that's pretty obviously quite a bit of a strawman, since plotting assassination against somebody for saying mean words is, in typical civilized people's opinion, ample grounds for being called a frothing savage.

Much like in your first post, where you chose the phrasing "not some innocent victim", when the normal opinion is that anyone threatened with death for writing a book is, unconditionally, an innocent victim by definition.

Though you are not sincerely be pro-censorship, your contrarian writing style implicitly regurgitates many pro-censorship concepts. i.e.:
This is not similar to any definition of "free speech" I've ever come across outside deluded "freeze peach" shills. Free expression, properly, refers to the expectation of freedom to express oneself, without fearing acts of reprisal, on the basis that the content itself of expression can not do harm, and harm can at worst only be done by acts associated with expression rather than the content of expression, so free expression is by definition always desirable'.

Consequential expression can't deserve greater protection, simply because all expression inherently deserves protection.

Perhaps, but it's still best practice to be aware of and avoid telltale tonal subtleties or misrepresentations that commonly occur in the speech of the enemy. Seeing certain buzzwords will immediately put many anons on high alert regardless of its intended meaning.

Attached: ackshually.jpg (700x700, 45.35K)

There is literally no evidence to Rushdie just fishing for a reaction, yet you keep asserting it. Stop.

Nothing wrong in being inspired by Satan tbh, Islamosatanist gang when?

They did nothing wrong. Only cambodian, chinese and korean communists are praiseworthy, to hell with all the rest.


Attached: vampyric.jpg (640x854 35.02 KB, 82.87K)

Sure, most people on Zig Forums probably agree. I was posting because there's a racist narrative surrounding The Satanic Verses that some people here might believe (or you might encounter people who believe it). And from what you say below it's clear we don't ackchyually agree, and I don't think this is a trivial or hair-splitting point at all, since it deals with how radicals should think about ideologies we inherit from liberals.

The specific people he triggered are psychos. The problem is that their response is used to characterize all of Islam or all of the middle east. A point you are conveniently glossing over here.
There's a difference between innocence and a lack of guilt. He did nothing wrong, but he acted with foresight, making him not innocent - uninformed, unaware, naive. He like everyone else is a victim of living in a world with deranged people, but writing the book put him in a different, more specific position.

Because the point is the mainstream liberal idea of free speech is incoherent. The "freeze peach" shills make the mistake of thinking that because the reigning ideology doesn't make sense that it's fundamentally worthless. The fact is that free speech is a nice idea but we don't have it in practice. If you don't start your analysis from facts, you will end up with nonsense.

This is the bullshit I'm talking about.
That's patently false. This is a Sargon-tier "offense is never given, only taken" argument. All sorts of things that are considered "expression" can hurt people psychologically or even physically in the right context. Any evaluation of freedom of speech needs to account for the consequences that mere "expression" can have.
This thinking casts expression/speech as not an act for which someone is responsible, which is absurd. People make judgments all the time about when, where, and whether to say something. Expression is usually a very deliberate act. Recognizing that someone is responsible for what they say, how they say it, choosing when and how to say it, etc does not imply they are wholly responsible for how anyone reacts, merely that expression is not a meaningless non-action that happens in a vacuum. That's distinctly non-materialist. Fetishizing "free speech" is a way of distracting people from questioning how they speak (and by extension how they think). It handwaves any attempt to address questions like what constitutes effective speech or even recognizing how a known quantity might respond to certain speech. The obvious example here is snitching.

While everyone forgets about how the majority in the middle east starkly condemned the fatwa's against Rushdie, the majority they don't want you to hear about, being so ignored and overlooked that it was forced to take refuge in the leftist imagination.

Alright, that's a totally valid point. Even though mass tolerance among Muslims (even inside the migrant population of western Europe) was part of the problem, blaming everyone categorically is inherently faulty.
>he acted with foresight
Did he? To be clear, I'm not terribly familiar with the specifics of this case, but disputes that, and even if he did know what reaction he would get, posits that he did so in spite of, rather than because of, the likelihood of such a reaction. Regardless, using the phrase "not innocent", even in reference to a clearly stated provocateur such as Charlie Hebdo, has a vile stench to it.
That's a motte-&-bailey strawman commonly used by censorship shills, because it's simultaneously not something free expression advocates disagree with in its most absurdly literal sense (obviously the inequities of society, first among them capitalist oppression, inherently place many practical pressures against free expression), and because it's factually incorrect blackpilling that denies the massive victories for free expression (and, indeed, free thought) that have been won since The Enlightenment. More insidiously, it undermines free expression as an ideal to strive toward, by implying (or explicitly claiming!) there is and can be no material difference between naked suppression in absolute dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, and the unofficial censorship that occurs in liberal democracies such as burgerstan.
Because expression is not an act at all, it is information. And the typical examples given for "harmful expression" (i.e.: inciting panic, plotting crime, intimidation, harassment, blackmail, public nuisance, and indeed leaking secrets) revolve entirely around acts ulterior to transmitting information, not the content of that information.

Eroding this distinction between expression and acts gives censorship shills the foot in the door they need to justify suppression based entirely on content, blurring the line between thought and physical reality.

Sure, but censorship as an ideology is based on a matroyska doll of misrepresentations and conflations, there is little of worth to be taken from their propaganda.

Moderates being enablers for extremists is a real issue, and it's specifically an issue with Islam, but there's a difference between recognizing they're part of the problem and treating them as the same as the extremists putting out fatwas. Part of the project of secularization is the transition from extremism to moderation to a lack of investment. Moderate Muslims already catch a lot of shit from more extreme Muslims in their community. If your goal is to de-radicalize religious people, you should be more tolerant of their fuckups than the radicals, so they see your side as the better one.

I also want to point out that Rushdie seems happy to act in the role of enabler to anti-Muslim speakers like Sam Harris. He has shared stages with people like that (including Harris IIRC) and not challenged them on their anti-Muslim narrative. That doesn't necessarily mean that he endorses their (sometimes openly genocidal) opinions, but he doesn't challenge them either. My impression is that he's happy to let these people use his story to support their messages. It makes me suspect his honesty when he claims he didn't expect the backlash he got, considering his publisher was warned in advance about this and his history of deliberately provocative political writing.

Personally I don't like his critique of Islam. It seems willfully ignorant of something that doesn't need misrepresentation to look bad. Strip away the charming cultural voice and the portrayal of Islam comes across like something your racist hick uncle would say. That critique itself suggests that he may have had malicious intent, to "trigger" the Muslims. I can't prove that, but it's a hypothesis supported by the actual content of his criticism, his account of what happened vs the record, and his apparent tacit endorsement of other people's use of his story to push a racist narrative under the guise of religious criticism.

None of that justifies the fatwa or any of the violence that was committed.
The ethics here aren't zero sum. I do not think Rushdie is a piece of shit, but even if he were it wouldn't justify the backlash. I do think he more or less expected what happened, but that doesn't justify the backlash. I don't want people to think that fatwas are acceptable or suppression of dissent/criticism is acceptable (or that I think this). I want people to be aware of how the narrative around a controversy like this is consciously shaped by the parties involved, including the "innocent" victim. Maybe it doesn't matter very much in this case, but if this kind of distinction is a problem, what about when Zionists shape the narrative around the Holocaust to justify Israel's actions?

No, an observation. You can dispute its accuracy, but it's an observation of the status of speech. I start my understanding from observational evidence and build an understanding consistent with what I see. If you think my observation indicates a particular conclusion that tells me you're arguing in the opposite direction.
If you read the entire argument you'd see it's in no way blackpilled, and those victories are contextualized as part of an unending process. We can asymptotically approach free speech but never really get there. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. You and I have fundamentally different and probably irreconcilable conceptions of free speech.

If you think that's what I'm arguing, then you're denying that quantitative difference matters. I say that these are (broadly) in the same qualitative category of suppression, but different quantities. I didn't say the quantities are irrelevant. I stated exactly the opposite that it's good to struggle for quantitative improvements (me)

Attached: real fuckin.jpg (400x400, 32.81K)

Don't do this to yourself, son. Saying that there are different problems with different religions subjects you yourself to be called racist against islam - as if that makes sense - by people who see racism in Rorschach tests, so don't be one of those people.

Nobody is "racist against Islam." Some people are bigoted against Muslims per se. Some people are racist toward middle easterners and use opposing Islam as a cover. Some people legitimately just criticize Islam. Some people are a combination.

And there absolutely are different problems with different religions given distinct histories, institutions, ideologies, practices… What a bizarre thing to deny.

This post has more clarity and substance that any of this guy's posts:

Those are both me. I had the flag off for one due to phoneposting.

Then keep up the non-stupid stuff