Quote from: jaysabi on May 20, 2015, 08:12:59 PM

I have interspersed my comments directly to your response and changed the font color to red to differentiate my text from yours. I'm very troubled by the implications of living in a society such as the one you propose.

Quote from: hebdonymous on May 20, 2015, 07:34:49 PM

I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? Everyone who stands for law and justice. If any harm comes to anyone, I expect the perpetrators to be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, just like every other crime. The conclusion of implying that 'no one is standing by her' is that anyone could harm her without consequence, or society as a whole has cast her out. Neither of these is true. I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? No, an institution is welcome to have opinions that differ from individuals the same as you are, and their name no more than your name deserves to be on an intimidation list because you hold an opinion other people disagree with. Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.

In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. You're not proposing debate, you're proposing attributing false rhetoric to people who don't subscribe to it for the purpose of having them deal with consequences you created. There's nothing protected about that action in law or morality. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" There is nothing wrong with someone holding this opinion of another, after all it is an opinion and another huge group of people to kill you. but there is something wrong with an intent to harm. And anyone causing harm will face the same consequences under the law as anyone else, despite how reprehensible their personal opinions might be. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.

In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.

Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List. This is the perfect summation of everything wrong with your point of view. I don't agree with your opinion of things, so I'm going to falsely attribute things I actually believe to you so that you have to face the consequences for it. That makes you a coward for having a clear point of view but no willingness to stand behind it. Your entire premise is based on a subjective opinion that you are right, but you seek to intimidate and harm (or cause to have harmed) those who hold counter-opinions. The actions you perscribe are not at all in keeping with the "free and open society" you pretend to care about, and the irony is that in perscribing to intimidate those who hold a different opinion of you in the manner you have just described, you are doing the same thing ISIS is doing in their campaign of intimidation.

In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. You have freedom of expression. No government is censoring or stopping you. If you feel intimidated by the muderers in ISIS, that's a problem with a group of people, not a government. Our society will not tolerate their threats against you for your opinions or their violations of your rights, and if god forbid they attempt to harm you for expressing your opinion, we will see to their prosecution to the fullest extent possible, because that's the way a free and just society should work. This is what we expect of all crimes in a just society, there is no exception in practice because Islam is involved. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. I agree, and the fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reality doesn't exist. Hyperbole aside, we're not about to become that society either. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. <--(Hyperbole) If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. This sentiment makes you an enemy of freedom, not a defender of it. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it. And this sentiment makes you a despicable person.

Everything below this is interprative and not based on objective, established facts. Debating any of those circumstances is not the purpose of my response, so I am addressing nothing further. My response is only meant to address the motivation of inflicting repercussions on people you disagree with by dishonest means under the guise of building 'an open society,' because as I've demonstrated, you're not interested in that at all.

Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.

I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:

Hebdo is not fini.

I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.

I just want to add that I don't mean to make it personal, if my tone makes it seem like I do. That's not my intent, I run a little hot sometimes when responding in the moment. I'll just add that I understand your frustration and your desire to "fix" it. But I think the actions you have perscribed are the antithesis of what you say you are defending. In reality, you're asking to create an atmosphere of intimidation to bully those you don't agree with. Just as that's not acceptable for ISIS, it's not acceptable for anyone else. The answer to how to have a free and open society isn't intimidate everyone into compliance; it's fight like hell to have a free society. But you have to actually have the free society, the appearance of a free society where everyone has been bullied into silence is worth nothing.