Oakland bakery features mural of a convicted terrorist

[Derec]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Many people.

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

Why do people get their panties in a wad over a few Confederate generals with a statue? Why is that outrage acceptable, but outrage over glorifying terrorists is not?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

The question is not whether the owner has the right to glorify a terrorist. Something can be within one's rights and still be wrong morally.

 

[Derec]

A counter-protester tried to rip the signs the protesters were carrying. While even that is not appropriate, there were no "attacks". To compare these counter-protesters with the Charlottesville nazis is just Derec's inability/refusal to see brown people as anything other than scary monsters.

Why such obsession with "brown people" RavenSky? Who said anything about the hue of these violent counter-protesters?

And for a little more context to this story, while the Jewish group has every right to peacefully protest - and have even gained a police escort to do so - the restaurant owner has been the target of hate mail, threats, and online attempts to harm her business long before this incident.

World's smallest violin, playing just for the terrorism-supporting bakery owner.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do people get their panties in a wad over a few Confederate generals with a statue? Why is that outrage acceptable, but outrage over glorifying terrorists is not?

Because these Confederate statues are generally on public property and maintained by the public. They are PUBLIC (not private ) glorifications.

 

[LordKiran]

Many people.

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

Why do people get their panties in a wad over a few Confederate generals with a statue? Why is that outrage acceptable, but outrage over glorifying terrorists is not?

There it is, there's the hook.

Predictable as ever.

 

[4321lynx]

So you think glorifying terrorists is good?
You think people attacking peaceful protesters is good as long as the violence comes from the left-wing?

It's not "whataboutism" to point out the sickening one-sidedness of our contemporary discussion of political violence.

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Beg to disagree with your last sentence. Don't think it's OK to glorify: Pol Pot, Kim jong Un or whatever his name is, Hitler, Himmler, many other Nazis in SS and out of SS, too many to name, Beria, also Peters, Berman, other Bolshies, Jewish and non-Jewish like these last two all over the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, too many to name, any convicted pedofile, Isis beheaders of "infidels" and their bosses/leaders/trainers/supporters, terrorists Islamic and non Islamic killing men women and children indiscriminately, and so on and so on. Think before you hyperbole.

 

[Derec]

Why do people get their panties in a wad over a few Confederate generals with a statue? Why is that outrage acceptable, but outrage over glorifying terrorists is not?

Because these Confederate statues are generally on public property and maintained by the public. They are PUBLIC (not private ) glorifications.

That only plays a role over who decides to put or remove statues/murals (elected officials vs. property owners), not about whether public is entitled to have and express opinion about it.

 

[LordKiran]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Think before you hyperbole.

It wasn't hyperbole.

 

[4321lynx]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Think before you hyperbole.

It wasn't hyperbole.

You may be right there.

But it was IMO hyperfuckingstupidbullshit, and I did not want to say that.

 

[LordKiran]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Think before you hyperbole.

It wasn't hyperbole.

You may be right there.

But it was IMO hyperfuckingstupidbullshit, and I did not want to say that.

You might as well have. It wouldn't have given me an easy in to take the wind out of your sails if nothing else.

 

[laughing dog]

Because these Confederate statues are generally on public property and maintained by the public. They are PUBLIC (not private ) glorifications.

That only plays a role over who decides to put or remove statues/murals (elected officials vs. property owners), not about whether public is entitled to have and express opinion about it.

You asked why do people get their panties in a wad over Confederate statues. The reason is those statues are on PUBLIC property.

BTW, who in this thread is denying anyone the ability to have or express an opinion? On public property, the PUBLIC has every reason to expect its opinion to be heard, since the issue is about PUBLIC property. On private property, the public has no reason to expect its opinion to be heard.

 

[bilby]

Either that or pretty much everyone involved in WW2 is a terrorist.

Everybody involved in WWII planted bombs in grocery stores?
Odeh's terrorist attack had no other purpose but to murder civilians. Even in WW2 that would count as a war crime.

The RAF and USAAF bombing campaign in Germany included a large number of raids targeting 'workers housing' in major cities and towns. The people planning and executing those raids knew that this housing was occupied; there is no question that they were deliberately targeting civilians.

No RAF or USAAF personnel were ever charged with war crimes for this.

 

[dismal]

Everybody involved in WWII planted bombs in grocery stores?
Odeh's terrorist attack had no other purpose but to murder civilians. Even in WW2 that would count as a war crime.

The RAF and USAAF bombing campaign in Germany included a large number of raids targeting 'workers housing' in major cities and towns. The people planning and executing those raids knew that this housing was occupied; there is no question that they were deliberately targeting civilians.

No RAF or USAAF personnel were ever charged with war crimes for this.

They were fighting Nazis so you can't say anything bad about them or it means you like Nazis.

 

[Elixir]

They were fighting Nazis so you can't say anything bad about them or it means you like Nazis.

Come out of the Dark Ages, dude. Now it's fashionable - even presidential - to like Nazis.

 

[laughing dog]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Beg to disagree with your last sentence. Don't think it's OK to glorify: Pol Pot, Kim jong Un or whatever his name is, Hitler, Himmler, many other Nazis in SS and out of SS, too many to name, Beria, also Peters, Berman, other Bolshies, Jewish and non-Jewish like these last two all over the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, too many to name, any convicted pedofile, Isis beheaders of "infidels" and their bosses/leaders/trainers/supporters, terrorists Islamic and non Islamic killing men women and children indiscriminately, and so on and so on. Think before you hyperbole.

There is a distinct and obvious difference between having the freedom to glorify whomever you wish on private property and whether it is a good idea to do so. bilby was explicitly referring to the former. You appear to be referring to the latter.

 

[bilby]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Beg to disagree with your last sentence. Don't think it's OK to glorify: Pol Pot, Kim jong Un or whatever his name is, Hitler, Himmler, many other Nazis in SS and out of SS, too many to name, Beria, also Peters, Berman, other Bolshies, Jewish and non-Jewish like these last two all over the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, too many to name, any convicted pedofile, Isis beheaders of "infidels" and their bosses/leaders/trainers/supporters, terrorists Islamic and non Islamic killing men women and children indiscriminately, and so on and so on. Think before you hyperbole.

I did.

And I stand by my claim.

I don't agree with any person who glorifies any of those people; but I will defend their right to do so in their own private ways.

If you want it to be illegal to have a shrine to Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler in your home or privately owned business premises, then you are my opponent on this issue.

Perhaps you should think before you contradict.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

- H L Mencken.

 

[bilby]

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

Think before you hyperbole.

It wasn't hyperbole.

You may be right there.

But it was IMO hyperfuckingstupidbullshit, and I did not want to say that.

Your opinion that people should not have the right to glorify bad people is the hyperfuckingstupidbullshit here; as you would probably realise, if you thought before posting.

Who do you propose will maintain the list of people who may not be privately glorified? And how will they be prevented from adding to that list people who are there solely because they disagree with their politics?

George Washington rebelled against a properly constituted authority and killed thousands of brave soldiers who were simply under orders to restore order. Should he be on your list too? How will you go about ensuring that he is not?

 

[jab]

You should try not being such a hyper-partisan.

Derec could also consider being up front with what his point is instead of trying to transparently set up a "Gotcha!" A conversation that exists as pretext for a "Gotcha!" isn't a conversation held in good faith.

huh?

 

[Elixir]

Who do you propose will maintain the list of people who may not be privately glorified?

{Raises hand...}

And how will they be prevented from adding to that list people who are there solely because they disagree with their politics?

{Takes hand down...}
I'm not gonna play if you're going to restrict my liberty that way!

 

[LordKiran]

Derec could also consider being up front with what his point is instead of trying to transparently set up a "Gotcha!" A conversation that exists as pretext for a "Gotcha!" isn't a conversation held in good faith.

huh?

Wut?

 

[jab]

huh?

Wut?

huh? do you mean "what", or is that some aristo slang?