The Outstanding Hypocrisy Here At DU

[jberryhill]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by taterguy (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Okay, so what I see on the news are a lot of people demonstrating their displeasure with something someone said.

A few of them, as with any angry mass demonstrations do destructive things. Now, when that happens in protests we like, "they must be agitators, provocateurs, etc."

But we have quite a few folks here taking the position "what's wrong with these people is that they don't understand freedom of speech."

That is true to a large extent, because they didn't grow up with it. But this criticism misses the the elephant in the room.

By and large, the protests consist of people gathering, chanting, carrying banners and signs, and not doing any harm to anyone.

In others, they are engaging, exercising, and thus expanding their own freedom of speech.

The ones doing violent things cannot be a majority of the thousands upon thousands who, by and large are simply walking down a street, shouting and gesticulating.

The outstanding hypocrisy here is that the simple observable fact of the overhelming preponderance of non-destructive protestors, is the folks here who say:

"These people need to understand free speech!"

Uh... Wtf do you think most of them are DOING?

[Scootaloo]

1. Oh, you mean the "crazed mobs"?

It's not just hypocrisy, it's a double standard.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. those were NOT crazed mobs

Random mobs don't try to sack a diplomatic location and also know of the "safe house" where the people are evacuated to, then go and sack that, killing the Ambassador. And that's just the beginning -- there are multiple additional reports of other attacks that clearly demonstrate extensive prior planning, command and control.

Rioting mobs have neither planning or command and control in place. They're mobs!

Has nothing to do with "free speech"

edited to add:
Al-Qaeda says ‘meticulously executed’ Benghazi attack ‘revenge’ for number two’s death
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014232040

[sabrina 1]

34. I think that one was definitely different.

That seemed to be orchestrated. They came with weapons and knew as you say, where the 'safe house' was.

[dixiegrrrrl]

47. Luckily, Al quada has emerged to take credit for it

Weren't they the reason we had "boots on the ground" in Yemen some time ago?
Andt hen bragged we had driven them out?

damn..even with a scorecard it is hard to keep up with who and where the bad guys are.

[sabrina 1]

55. Well in Libya we first made an agreement with Gadaffi to keep the fairly

large contingency of extremists under control for us, which he was more than willing to do since he hated them and they hated him.

Then we changed our minds and when they rose up against Gadaffi, because they were the 'revolutionaries' which has been pretty well documented by now, we decided that they needed our help and protection. When the West began arming them, because ordinary Libyans who started the protests were unarmed, but they were quickly side-lined, many people warned that this was a mistake.

But the Western powers wanted Gadaffi gone especially France under Sarkozy, so they were willing to back the extremists to get rid of him. I guess someone thought they could control them later, or that they would be grateful. I don't know what the thinking was.

Al Queda is also now in Syria, in opposition to the Government there also, and we are again on their side.

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' We supported Gadaffi right up to months before we didn't. We supported Assad when he was taking in millions of Iraqi refugees, but now we don't. We opposed Al Queda, until we didn't.

I know, it's more than a little confusing but lives are being lost as the Masters of the Universe play their chess games.

[Scootaloo]

43. Thus the quote marks

[dionysus]

50. dude no shit.. sometimes the mind boggles....

[2on2u]

2. +1

[Spazito]

3. Well said! n/t

[geek tragedy]

4. Didn't realize attacks on embassies were peaceful free speech. nt

[lamzydivy]

7. Only when Muslims do it.

[jberryhill]

11. How many of the protestors did that?

EVERYONE in Occupy is a vandal? Is that what you believe?

Do you believe EVERY protester is responsible for the actions of every other protester?

[geek tragedy]

31. We're talking about the violent attacks on

embassies because of a YouTube.

Happening across the globe.

No one else whines about youtubes or cartoons and demands a global ban on blaspheming their precious little faith.

[backscatter712]

16. Most of the people out on the streets weren't attacking anything.

They were doing what I've done plenty of times - marched in the streets, waved banners and yelled and chanted.

But by all means, continue to embarrass DU with your bigoted broad-brushing.

[geek tragedy]

28. Societies that tolerate this kind of violent, primitive response

to a YouTube are severely fucked up.

In Libya people have rejected this crap. The government of Egypt tacitly encourages it.

Only losers protest a YouTube.

[Curtland1015]

5. Agreed. But I think the media has a lot to do with people's perceptions.

The news doesn't show the peaceful protestors.

"That SH!T is BORING!"

They have to show the ones throwing rocks and fighting with police. People tune in for that stuff.

...and of course, if that is all people see, that's what a lot of them start to think.

Not that I think this is true with the majority of DU, or even half... but it certainly happens.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I don't have any issue with the peaceful protestors.

Just the ones who throw bombs and kill people.

[JaneyVee]

8. Why should they need to understand free-speech, it's in OUR Constitution, not theirs.

[lamzydivy]

10. Constitutions have no connection with whacked-out religious principles.

If you don't think free speech is a good thing you might consider moving to one of those places where it's reserved for a few Mullahs.

[JaneyVee]

12. Oh I love free-speech. But trying to understand why some over there don't is ridiculous.

They don't like free-speech because it goes against their religious beliefs. WE will never change that.

[HiPointDem]

18. anti-islamic garbage from the cesspools of the far right

[Paulie]

19. We seem to have peace here in the US

Inside a (relatively) secular state. We are a young country without a recent history of Being on the receiving end of imperialism and interference.

But be careful with your broad brush, you'll get yourself soiled in the end...

[Blue_In_AK]

20. That's a ridiculous generalization.

My Muslim son-in-law certainly considers my daughter worthy of existence AND equality. She's a lawyer and he's a stay-at-home dad, doting husband and wonderful father. You need to check your prejudices at the door.

[mythology]

27. Based on the posts in this thread

I'm not sure this poster will be around long enough to bother with checking anything at the door.

[treestar]

26. You're trying to convince us they don't deserve to live, aren't you?

I doubt you really know much about the Koran.

[Paulie]

13. Most do codify religion into their constitutions

The US one specifically excluded religion.

[lamzydivy]

15. Yes, you are correct, I should have said "Rational Constitutions".

Keyboard outran reason there.

[HiPointDem]

21. yes, plenty -- either in their constitutions or in their law. for example, norway only just this

year finally got rid of its "official state religion"

Norway is distancing itself from its Christian past. The Storting -- the country's Parliament -- will amend the constitution so that the state no longer has an official religion, ending the 1,000-year tradition of the Church of Norway.

A parliamentary committee report presented Tuesday contains a unanimous recommendation to have the state permanently separate from the church.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/15/no-more-official-religion-for-norway

there are many other examples, that was just the first one i happened upon.

[HiPointDem]

17. +100

[Aerows]

23. I usually agree with you

But people that riot are anything but able to cognitively discuss a problem. It's batshit crazy gone wild, regardless of the issue that set it off, and you can't reason with batshit crazy - particularly religion style.

It's like sticking your hand in a blender and yelling "GOD is GOD" and expecting that because you believe the same way it won't chop your fingers to bits.

[HiPointDem]

25. or it could be that americans are the most propagandized people in history and these stories

of crazed muslims bear no relation to the facts & situation on the ground.

[Aerows]

29. Probably is the truth

I don't think you are wrong.

Mostly I think this is concocted bullshit, if you want my honest opinion, but I'm not there so I don't know for certain.

[HiPointDem]

36. in my experience with local issues, the media always gets part of it wrong. & where there are

big political conflicts involved, 99% of the time they spin in the direction of power.

[Aerows]

38. So this is concocted bs?

Just asking

[HiPointDem]

40. I'm always skeptical of reporting dealing with highly politicized matters & try to consult sources

from all viewpoints, plus history.

and our media/leadership certainly have a long history of giving us less than the straight story -- and in fact, giving us fake stories.

'incubator babies' etc.

i'm sure many folks on the hill & in the press corps *knew* who that woman was. but they didn't tell us until long after the fact.

[Aerows]

46. Concocted bullshit

Is where I'm leaning.

[Aerows]

22. Riots

Riots are filled with sensible people that respect values and use logical thinking.

I hope I don't need to use a sarcasm tag.

[M_M]

30. Kay + Are

[Aerows]

33. Are you insinuating that this is

a Russian plot? With your KR?

Please describe your ideas,

[Surya Gayatri]

32. Finally, someone has dared to speak the truth behind the hyperbole...

Hypocrisy indeed. The large majority of protestors around the world are simply excercising the same freedom of expression that we supposedly espouse.

Only problem is, they're saying things that we don't agree with.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. I agree.

Holy shit. I'm reading through these threads, seeing people equate those who were involved with the destructive, violent attacks -- involved with VIOLENCE, (NOT merely protesting) -- with the entire culture and nation.

Unreal.

Obviously bigotry doesn't stop at party lines.

[MNBrewer]

37. Yeah, chanting "Death to America", and "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama" is SoooooooOOOooo peaceful

Responding to free speech with death threats isn't "more free speech", sorry, regardless of whether they actually were the people who broke into the embassy grounds and burned the flag, replacing it with one that indicates THEIR loyalties. Or the ones who burned the KFC....

Breaking into an embassy is very close, in itself, to being a violent act. We've seen this play before in the Middle East, and it doesn't often come out well for those in the embassy.

[Aerows]

49. If you don't see this as a bunch of bullshit

to prop up Mitt Romney, then I'm a huge conspiracy theorist and have learned nothing from politics at all. I can't impart on you how many things are taking place because Mitt is behind in the polls, but I am full of it, because I am discussing that things are going on behind the scenes, which makes me a tin foil hat wearer.

[RobertEarl]

39. Indeed

I bet most of those hypocrites have not a whiff of remorse about the US sending in a drone on a wedding party.

The ones doing violent things (Americans) cannot be a majority, right?

Yet, some here will slander a whole regional populations because of the actions of a few; as long as 'they' are over 'there'.

[ProSense]

41. Observation

There is a thread defending Julian Assange, one attacking the First Amendment and one comparing Obama to Clarence Thomas.

Wheeeeee!

[Aerows]

52. I'm expecting

one to crop up to say that quantum theory is blackmail against politicians, and that cows really do distribute milk - while someone will vigorously disagree with the idea that cows give milk.

Cows don't give milk, of course. Politically, they aren't capable of doing so.

It makes that much sense when I read such threads. (none)

[cr8tvlde]

42. As an old 60's anti-war Democrat....

seems we're still perennially at war with small, other-than-white, non-english-speaking countries, valiantly proclaiming and protecting "American interests abroad", demonizing their "free speech", and Democrats getting better and better at justifying it.

Peace.

[Warpy]

44. What "those people" (overseas Muslims) don't understand

is the type of freedom of speech that exists here that prevents the government from interfering in free expression, at least theoretically. In their countries, governments have always approved of or suppressed freedom of expression. They think any crackpot here has expressed himself with the cooperation of the government, not merely the non interference of government.

That's why embassies and consulates are hot spots for demonstrations. They all think the government had a hand in producing that video because they've never known anything else.

[Posteritatis]

45. Aren't "See? THOSE people don't deserve freedom!" threads fun?

This place has gotten pretty goddamned condescending towards the Muslim world in the last two years.

And selectively blinkered, as you can see from the number of responses in this thread ignoring things like the attempts to protect some of the sites, the protests in Libya against the attack, and so on. Those just don't mesh with that nice, easy, paternalistic narrative, you see.

[joshcryer]

54. +1, so fucking true. The entire Muslim world has been slandered to shit and back.

I saw that shit happening, too, it was all so predictable. And disgusting. On DU no less. I spent almost the entire year in 2011 trying to rebuff the hateful, vile, xenophobic shit I was seeing.

[The Midway Rebel]

48. K & r

[stupidicus]

51. indeed, it's part of the percieved "war on islam" that underlies their protest

and those that conflate most or even a significant amount of the protesters with the terrorists that attacked -- you know, the ones in the story on the DU front page -- are thinking and talking like rightwingers, and contributing to the validity of that perception.

Rightwingers don't have a monopoly on stupid, or various other less than desirable attributes, just more of it proportionally.

[joshcryer]

53. Yep. On DU they've been called jihadists and extremists

People make revolution and they are slandered so hard that it's not even funny over the actions of a small unrepresentative counter-revolution minority. They even laugh about it, even.

[taterguy]

56. Locking, feel free to repost in Meta

Thank you for your understanding.