Canada’s Seven Dirty Words?
Ok, here goes:
Mohammed, terror, Islamism, fundamentalist Islam, race, religion, cult.
George Carlin is dead, yet none of the news articles have pointed out the dramatic reversal. Carlin was arrested for talking about the Seven Words you cannot say on television. Liberals (back when there were such things) used to praise Carlin for daring to speak about topics that had been kept away from television.
And now, people like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are being hauled before so-called human rights tribunals for speaking on topics that are no longer allowed in Canada. The dispute is getting a lot of press in Canada, but what do those people in the U.S. who used to praise George Carlin have to say about it? Nothing.
feminism, socialism, nazism, communism, fascism, Islamism, secularism, humanism, egalitarianism, ooops, sorry, that’s 9. Does that mean I beat george?
Comment by INP — June 24, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
As a USian, it boggles my mind how such jackassery promulgates among Canadians - every Canadian I’ve personally known has been one of the nicest people on the planet. Hell, I spent a week in Edmonton on business and I don’t think at any time I was allowed to buy my own booze - and this was with people I barely knew. It doesn’t compute at all.
Maybe the solution is to round up the assholes and get them to all move to Vermont (it can’t get much worse there anyway).
Comment by Erik The Red — June 24, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Liberalism?
Comment by winston — June 25, 2008 @ 1:58 am
I can never tell whether you guys actually believe your own near-delusional hyperbole or not, so I’m never sure whethe it’w worth rebutting. I suspect not.
Here’s a test. Can you detect any qualitative difference between these two statements:
a) Islam incorporates elements which, interpreted literally, represent a threat to non-Islamic nations and peoples.
b) Muslims are murderous, terror-loving scum.
If you can’t detect the difference, no problem (and congratulations - you’ve found an excellent online home.)
For those who CAN detect the difference (the sane, in other words), you will be relieved to note that within the past two weeks Canada’s two national newspapers and the national broadcast service have carried stories or features that explore the issue as phrased in example (a).
Comment by balbulican — June 25, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Great analogy Wendy…and so ironic.
Balbulwhatchamathingie: Do you need to be reminded that there are 3 high profile MSM publications/editors in HRC trials where the net effect is to censor their ability to speak openly and dissentingly of radical islamism? Need we remind you those who brought the charges of hate crimes against the publication do so by showing the intolerant bigotry of fundamentalist Islamism?
Or is these objective examples just more “literal interpretations” of radical islamist intolerance and social malevolence?
Comment by WL Mackenzie Redux — June 25, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Thanks, Redux. You’ve just self-identified as one of the folks who doesn’t detect the difference between the two examples. No problem.
By the way, we’re running a poll on the most ridiculous, hyperbolic description from a “conservative” site of HRC tribunal at Stageleft. We’ve got twelve very funny nominees - one from THIS VERY blog. Come on over and vote for Wendy - there’s even a prize.
Comment by balbulican — June 25, 2008 @ 10:00 am
Hey Balbie, here’s a multiple choice for ya: Which statement is true:
a) Leftwingdingdom incorporates elements which, interpreted literally, represent a threat to all western capitalist nations and peoples.
b) Leftwingdings are conniving, treasonous, delusional scum.
If you guessed both of the above - have a cigar.
Comment by INP — June 25, 2008 @ 10:36 am
[...] RIGHT GIRL– Canada’s Seven Dirty Words? Ok, here goes: “Mohammed, terror, Islamism, [...]
Pingback by Steynianism 179 « Free Mark Steyn! — June 25, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Zero value added by INP, as usual. But at least he’s not pretending to be Aboriginal this time.
Careful, INP. Wendy doesn’t like native men.
Comment by balbulican — June 25, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Why do liberals always go looking for us? I’ve never once thought,”hmm, I have far too much free time so i want to go make an ass out of myself by purposly picking a losing fight!”
One of the only ways they could’ve found this site was by being on conservative sites or just plain looking for it!
Oh, and this one goes the the Canadians:
The Qur’an was written down by Muhammad’s companions (sahabah) while he was alive, although the prime method of transmission was orally.(http://www.reference.com/search?q=Mohammed) Here is a couple passages from it:
Quran 4:89: “They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.â€
Quran 8:12: “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;â€
Quran 2:191: “… kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …â€
Comment by L.M._. — June 25, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
“One of the only ways they could’ve found this site was by being on conservative sites or just plain looking for it!”
Err…yeah. That’s pretty darned insightful.
“Why do liberals always go looking for us? I’ve never once thought,â€hmm, I have far too much free time so i want to go make an ass out of myself by purposly picking a losing fight!â€
Surely you must occasionally wonder what people besides yourself are thinking?
No? Ah, well…
Comment by balbulican — June 25, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
“Thanks, Redux. You’ve just self-identified as one of the folks who doesn’t detect the difference between the two examples.”
Nooo actually you have outted yourself as a scion of false logic and objective denial….facts do not seem to trouble the myths you have fabricated as given truths.
You syllogism was fraudulent so there is no difference to divine.
Comment by WL Mackenzie Redux — June 25, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Hey balbulthingawazit: aside from the pathological dripping hubris and snide remarks have you got that evidence that proves Wendy’s premise to be a false equivalence…naw thought not…just more empty bandwidth running fraudulent logic exercises and snide craven ad hominem.
Comment by WL Mackenzie Redux — June 25, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Not to worry, WL…I didn’t actually expect you to get the point. My comments was addressed to the readership with some residual cognitive capacity.
Comment by balbulican — June 25, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Balbulican:
I appreciate your nostalgia for a time when public debate was more informed, more literate, and favored “factsies” over “feelies”.
Unfortunately, decades of ideological trends mingling pedagogy and social development theory have taken their toll. It is notable that said “trends” were valiantly resisted by the (historically) more academically inclined conservative Right. In the end, the misgivings of the latter proved correct on just about every score…
So it seems rather RICH, if you will permit the use of the term, to invade a discussion and bemoan this fact without identifying it. Of course, that permits your Lefty voice to broadstroke commentators here as badly informed agents of the uneducated conservative Right.
Ahem. Sorry, old chap, but that just won’t stick!
I’m terribly pleased to see that your personal journey has produced one so very well versed in the packaging of perspective. The “packaging”, however, does not characterize the contents you have on offer in this case.
What do you have on offer? The status-quo? The death of democracy? The squelching of freedom of expression and religion? Sorry, I’m not buying.
Nonetheless, good luck with that…
Comment by Simon Fleischmann — June 26, 2008 @ 5:53 am
Well, the reasoned tone and aura of erudition informing your response are a welcome respite, Simon, and, in this venue, a pleasant surprise. The substance - well, let’s address your points in order.
Your attempt to claim literate, informed and fact-based debate as the historical turf of the “conservative Right” is an amusing pre-emptive maneuver. I suppose I could rebut with a list of right wing demagogues, but that’s irrelevant in the context of this discussion. I do note your gracious, if tacit, acknowledgment of my attempt to frame the current dialogue at a higher level.
That makes your characterization of my entrance into the discussion as an “invasion” a bit surprising, but never mind. Suffice to say that whatever the historical antecedents of the rhetorical styles favoured by our respective political camps, I’m sure you agree that what matters in a discussion is what’s being said here and now. To obscure the point at issue by holding one respondent culpable for the rhetorical sins of an ill-defined group in the past is a bit - well, unworthy, no?
As to what I offer (and please, rein in the hysteria) - I am, of the simple goodness of my heart, helping well-meaning (no doubt) but misguided folks to understand that, contrary to the assertion that launched this thread, we can, in fact, speak critically and with impunity on Mohammed (sic), terror, Islamism, fundamentalist Islam, race, religion, and cults. And we do.
Comment by balbulican — June 26, 2008 @ 8:27 am