Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Pam Geller lashes out at critics: You’re saying the ‘pretty girl caused her own rape’ [View all]Tommy_Carcetti
(43,232 posts)441. Are you aware that it is possible for more than one party to be at blame for a wrong?
That there can be multiple contributing factors from multiple independent parties. And while someone may have primary responsibility and another may have secondary responsibility, the primary responsible party doesn't negate the actions of the secondary responsible party.
Exactly how is Geller a victim here? Because I just don't see it at all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
535 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Pam Geller lashes out at critics: You’re saying the ‘pretty girl caused her own rape’ [View all]
DonViejo
May 2015
OP
Not a victim is right - that disgusting Islamaphobe is the REAL criminal.
InAbLuEsTaTe
May 2015
#107
If a cartoon can cause you to murder someone, you have no place in civilized society.
Shoulders of Giants
May 2015
#475
If you keep creating straw men to respond to I am sure you will continue to be outraged.
stevenleser
May 2015
#234
She picked Garland, Texas because there was a Muslim conference there this year...
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#291
Awww. You mean you realize you're probably NOT going to be able to outlaw blasphemy?
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#381
You mean you realize you're probably NOT going to be able to outlaw blasphemy?
AlbertCat
May 2015
#389
So why do you seem to think "she deliberately said something she knew was going to piss people off"
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#393
I'm saying that arguing something isn't protected speech because it "might piss someone off"
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#463
And the subthread is about whether a) "she is the REAL criminal" and b)
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#472
I'm guessing she picked Garland Texas because that's where, a week after the Charlie Hebdo killings,
Petrushka
May 2015
#390
And you don't find that extremely telling as per Geller's motives here? nt
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#399
Is Comedy Central/the movie theater/museum showing the art because it wants violence?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#104
She scheduled this right after Charlie Hedbo and yet you think she's surprised it happened?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#226
Not to mention she specifically held it in a place where she knew there were already tensions.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#268
So anyone who threatens violence wins, in the name of whatever cranky 'belief'.
Yorktown
May 2015
#459
They have every right to be 'mental slaves' to a religion, if they so choose.
Chemisse
May 2015
#358
"When people draw their prophet, it hurts and insults millions of Muslims..."
oberliner
May 2015
#446
I believe most Muslims are far more tolerant than you, or Geller are making out.
polly7
May 2015
#454
Difference between Geller and ACLU etal is one will fight for the right of anyone
NoJusticeNoPeace
May 2015
#231
It seems to me, that someone mentioned in another thread, just that sort of thing, in Iran.
beevul
May 2015
#246
and they're not? Churches are destroyed regularly in muslim dominated countries
samsingh
May 2015
#293
FWIW: Have you seen the winning cartoon? I just did a bing search and found this --->
Petrushka
May 2015
#392
"a contest to see who could create the most hideous and hate-filled cartoon..."
oberliner
May 2015
#302
She used that as her excuse to exploit the ignorance and hatred of both Muslims and bigots
notadmblnd
May 2015
#419
You posted the analogy that she is like the pretty girl getting blamed for being raped?
cbayer
May 2015
#15
She was? Did she have to duck? Did bullets whiz by her head? Was she in the same room, even?
GoneFishin
May 2015
#133
You don't? What if a gay couple goes into a VERY RW town where a Jesus/homophobic rally is happening
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#50
It doesn't matter "what prompted their action and what they thought might happen."
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#65
How is your position any different than "dressed like a provocative slut, deserved what she got"?
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#122
A personal expression of love vs. intentionally seeking to provoke violence to serve your agenda.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#56
But maybe the gay couple just met and they are just doing it to piss off the assholes.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#66
No seriously, you don't see the slippery slope you support? Not even a little?
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#83
Why? So you we can keep bickering? Fuck it. You're not interested in discussing like an adult.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#196
In your scenario, had there been past instances of violence over drawing Bush?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#410
you are very patient with someone who clearly can't understand a simple question
samsingh
May 2015
#299
Actually, legally speaking, there's no actual victim of an attempted (read: failed) crime.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#100
Then go ahead and get horrified, because if someone intentionally tries to entrap another person
cbayer
May 2015
#276
Let me repeat the scenario for you with the important words highlighted in order
cbayer
May 2015
#318
Its still not entrapment unless you think she created the idea of being raped by...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#319
Just like women who wear skirts that are too short when leaving a club at 3 AM...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#321
That's your assumption, not mine, I'm not the rape apologist here. n/t
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#326
You apparently have a threshold of "naked" trying to figure out where you draw the line. n/t
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#333
OMG. You do know that we are discussing a very specific scenario in which the words
cbayer
May 2015
#352
OK, maybe that's a strong word. But you are going back and forth with another member
cbayer
May 2015
#360
I'm don't have a standard there, a woman should be able to walk around, buck ass naked...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#330
And cbayer is the one who decides whether the alleged victim is really a victim or not.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#346
Who is responsible for coming to the conclusion whether one is a real victim or not?
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#331
Ok, let's finalize this. I would always, always, always assume that in a case of
cbayer
May 2015
#359
We are talking about a scenario in which the person is already identified as hoping for an action.
cbayer
May 2015
#367
Seriously, you need to work on your comparisons, jumping in front of a moving car?
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#369
Let me put it this way, she wouldn't have total control over the situation...
Humanist_Activist
May 2015
#373
For the last time YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHO IS AND ISN'T A VICTIM
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#371
A person who intentionally wants a specific result and gets that specific result is not a victim.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#413
Oh, dear. You think Pamela Geller is a hero. I wouldn't be so quick to call others sick,
cbayer
May 2015
#298
Rapes are committed by individuals. This attack was committed by individuals.
lumberjack_jeff
May 2015
#422
No it is an analogy that you cannot come up with a coherent response to other than "is not".
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#127
"Hi Welcome to my victimhood event! Please hold still while I paint a target on your back." n/t
lumberjack_jeff
May 2015
#502
You're so right. How people can defend that knuckle-dragging right winger who puts innocent lives in danger is beyond me.
InAbLuEsTaTe
May 2015
#110
when we had the crazy do that with the koran here in amarillo, national news, we called him out.
seabeyond
May 2015
#10
of course she is to blame. that is her purpose and intent. why wouldnt we be honest.
seabeyond
May 2015
#22
there is an expectation for public venues to provide adequate safety. Knowingly holding an exhibit
KittyWampus
May 2015
#19
I am speaking theoretically. And pointing out liability goes further than legal.
KittyWampus
May 2015
#52
None of this Free Speech martyrdom schtick means that Geller's the actual victim here.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#255
No, you are morally liable for instigating it. You're an instigator, a provocateur.
KittyWampus
May 2015
#7
If a Christian extremist had bombed the gallery displaying "Piss Christ" (a crucifix in piss),
Nye Bevan
May 2015
#24
Possibly, & the gallery might've been liable f/ not having adequate security.
KittyWampus
May 2015
#37
What did they teach at University about criticism of art you have not seen?
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#94
As I plainly stated, I never bothered to care about Serrano. I gave a first glance impression.
KittyWampus
May 2015
#114
If only all religious extremists would do nothing worse than hit a photo with a hammer (nt)
Nye Bevan
May 2015
#384
Provocation for the sake of provocation is not a trait of a pretty girl. Geller is a really now just
Fred Sanders
May 2015
#8
The no longer pretty girl has been asking to have her ass kicked for many years.
elleng
May 2015
#33
Since she's a far RW nutjob, I guess that means all of the people on DU saying the same thing are
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
May 2015
#35
So in your mind is it impossible that in any situation two different parties may share the blame?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#71
With intent, she successfully baited the lowest common denominators among us.
LanternWaste
May 2015
#38
Yes, because people, like bees, sharks and bears can do NOTHING to control their reaction to stimuli
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#70
Yes, because humans are alway rational. And human behavior can't be manipulated. LOL
KittyWampus
May 2015
#374
Even if only two of the hornets in the nest took the bait, it's enough to blame the entire nest. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
May 2015
#423
Thats analogous to the venue not renting her space, not people trying to kill her. eom
mr_liberal
May 2015
#96
so to be clear, Salmon Rushdie is responsible for the attacks against him, Charlie Hedbo is
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#137
because this wasn't about "berating", this was people with guns intending to kill people.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#380
Begging the question. In order for a specific person to be a victim....
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#172
Geller wanted a violent reaction to her event so she could have a bully pulpit about evil Islam.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#181
Suppose a woman dresses "provocatively" because she likes the reaction.
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#190
If a woman dresses provocatively only for the intention of being looked at then that's her intention
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#220
Touché. Your logic is impeccable...it all leads to provocateurs being unable to claim victimhood.
Fred Sanders
May 2015
#427
Well, it's like her old schoolmate who she only bumps into at reunions was raped. But it's the
GoneFishin
May 2015
#136
I've come to the conclusion that, just like with Hedbo, this discussion is useless.
Warren Stupidity
May 2015
#210
If someone actually desires to be a target, they don't get to be victims.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#435
Sure there is. You honestly don't think she chose Garland at random, do you?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#437
Are you aware that it is possible for more than one party to be at blame for a wrong?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#441
But you keep putting the victim label on Geller and she's not a victim.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#498
But if her victimhood status is irrelevant, your analogy automatically fails.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#511
You're twisting yourself in knots to try to defend someone not worth defending.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#515
I just read an article on Breitbart that could have been written from material on DU
cbayer
May 2015
#169
Metaphors that have inconvenient associations fly right past some, apparently.
X_Digger
May 2015
#461
Yes, comparing an act that provokes a thoughtless creature to an act that offends a person.
X_Digger
May 2015
#526
Actually more like a drunk asshole mouthed off and the person next to them gets punched in the face.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#227
i hate her but in this very specific instance i dont think she is wrong
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2015
#236
It's not about justifying shooting people. It's about Pam Geller playing the victim card
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#239
i thought she was making an analogy about the shooting, not her specifically.
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2015
#240
Yes, it's ridiculous that it provoked people to violence, but Geller knew that it would....
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#262
I fear you missed my point. I was talking about the percent of responsibility contest (nt)
cbayer
May 2015
#334
You're not reading what I'm writing. I'm saying they are both in the wrong.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#398
A whole hell of a lot of people thought what Martin Luther King said was offensive.
trotsky
May 2015
#257
I agree that one person is admirable and the other is despicable, and have not insisted otherwise.
trotsky
May 2015
#289
It must be super cool to read so deeply into the hearts and minds of people like they can.
PeaceNikki
May 2015
#317
If you want to be the one to go to bat for Pam Geller here, hey, be my guest.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#400
I actually asked you my question before that, but hey, I'm a nice guy so I'll indulge.
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#407
Lovely. Very lovely. So your inability to answer my question either means....
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#430
She has gotten what she wants twice; violence and attention. I'm going to do what I do
liberal_at_heart
May 2015
#259
Yes. I mean, she'd be just as much a hero if 20 other innocent people died in the attack, right?
Tommy_Carcetti
May 2015
#309
I have no idea what she means, all I know is she is an asshole for trying to get people killed.
Rex
May 2015
#365
I won't get into whether she's responsible or not...but her anology is incorrect
joeybee12
May 2015
#449