Sunday, February 12, 2006

Gregory Rodriguez, Pusillanimous Dhimmi LA Times, Defends Censorship

Gregory Rodriguez, in an oped in the LA Times today, defends censorship. It's the right thing to do when the 'victim' or parody causes violence and threatens violence against the perpetrator. He justifies this by social etiquette( "Social etiquette dictates that we don't discuss religion or politics at a dinner party for fear of giving offense or inciting argument."), fear of violent retaliation ("While you have a right to yell obscenities at the jerk who cut you off on the freeway, you would most likely hold your tongue if you suspected the jerk would pull out a gun.", and "Editors may think twice about the importance and newsworthiness of stories and opinions that are likely to provoke vehement reactions from ethnic, racial or religious groups in their audience.") He further equates the censorship of Muslim parody with universally recognized limits on speech (..rules against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.) Worse of all, he implies censorship is necessary in a multicultural society ("After all, Denmark is a remarkably homogenous country, new to the multicultural realities that immigrant nations such as the U.S. and Britain have known for years.")

Doesn't this sound like taqiyya? Making unfair comparisons, changing the subject, declaring facts, such as the 'required' censorship in a multicultural society, and complete omission of the core tenets of Islam, which drives the violence - jihad, singular Islamic world goal, kill, convert or subjugate infidels. This absurd assumption that Islam deserves not just equal respect as other religions, but special privileges is truly the hallmark of a pusillanimous dhimmi (PD) puhweeh! What is the stink coming out of the LA Times? Smells like rotting brains.

4 comments:

Always On Watch said...

John Sobieski,
Mark my words--we're going to see more of this in the msm. I'm not surprised at the LST, not at all. And what appears there eventually becomes the tone within five years--or even less. I predict less.

I first saw these arguments suggested last week by those who attend the ADAMS Center, the huge mosque in Sterling, Virginia. CAIR will back this argument all the way.

Here's the truth, which is a general truth: Almost everything published offends someone if he allows himself to become offended. Becoming offended is a subjective process because "sensitivities" themselves are subjective.

Moral relevancy, inherent in mutliculturalism, is taking us down a road of no return.

We are going to live to see the day when the truth is suppressed because the truth offends some group's sensitivities.

Anonymous said...

I'm not too surprised that this is coming from a "Colly-Fornia" paper. Do something to stand up for yourself and you risk a freeway jerk pulling a gun on your or a co-worker's fist in your face. I'm guessing that in L.A. it's illegal for you to defend yourself from the freeway jerk or workplace violence because you have to talk things over with angry people.

Anonymous said...

The "don't yell FIRE" argument is used wrongly. If there is no fire, you shouldn't yell fire: however
if there is a fire are people to say nothing?

Anonymous said...

We have trolly rage in supermarkets,
road rage in traffic, queue rage while
waiting in line....

We know have a new psychosis called
NEWS RAGE.

As with all these social ills, they all
had to start somewhere. The lunatic
Muslims have now invented NEWS RAGE.

I guess eventually , they had to invent
something original.