| |
|
Sorry for misrepresenting your analogy, Legba; I think I kind-of read in an "and therefore these people are being unreasonable" that wasn't really there.
Incidentally, Giblets at Fafblog (the whole world's only source for Fafblog) puts my earlier point somewhat better than I could:
Look at these Muslim fanatics, which Giblets will henceforth refer to as “Muslinatics.” All it took was one insult to their lunatic religion to reduce them to bloodthirsty savages! Well, that and decades of being treated like second-class citizens. But that’s all it takes – just one insult and decades of second-class citizenship! And confinement to poverty-stricken ghettos. Just one insult, decades of second-class citizenship, and confinement to poverty-stricken ghettos! Oh, and the Iraq War. All it takes to get these people to resort to violence is one insult, decades of second-class citizenship, confinement to poverty-stricken ghettos, and a half-assed scheme to bomb them into democracy. Giblets’s point is, these are bloodthirsty savages who kill at the drop of a hat!
And to dispel any idea that might remain that those who attended the "behead the infidels!"-type protest a week or so back represent, well, pretty much anyone, the hundred or so that attended that event were somewhat dwarfed by thousands attending a Unity protest the other day which, according to the account on Lenin's Tomb, also went along "straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back" lines.
Alas, in what way do you think that Fish misrepresents liberalism? I know that in the US the term tends to be used as synonymous with "left" (since the latter became a dirty word?), but I can't see that it's misused in the classical no idea is worth fighting over to the death, "why can't we all just get along?" sense? I'm also not seeing the comparison to Hitchens' position - indeed, I would consider Hitchens to be an archetype of both modern liberalism and the "What's wrong with these people?" line of thought that Fish attacks.
I do see Alex's argument, and agree that Fish's phrasing does make his position appear to claim to represent all Muslims, but I'm inclined to agree with Fish that the free-speech arguments currently espoused by liberals in defence of the cartoons is indeed more than a little patronising and basically missing the point. |
|
|
