Merged Rally to Restore Sanity

[Piscivore]

This isn't all-inclusive, but of relevance here is the idea that everyone is equal under the law, that the state alone should have a monopoly on the use of violence for punishment, that we have a right to our own beliefs, and a right to express those beliefs.

And that includes the right to express the belief that the guy pissed him off and he wouldn't be upset if someone else whacked him.

And have you ever wanted them dead because of something they said?

I wouldn't even want to try count how many times.

Then I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but you're a reprehensible person.

And you have every right in the world to say so.

The dude supported a death sentence against somebody for writing a book.

So? Am I supposed to be shocked by that? Have you looked at the history of this species?

A death sentence, BTW, which has led to the person in question having to live in hiding for decades now.

And you think that's all this guy's fault because he said he liked the idea?

I'm not suggesting that we make it a crime, or even treat it like one. If I thought it should be a crime, then Stewart wouldn't be the one I'd be disappointed in, the government (which is responsible for responding to crimes) would be. And that's rather my whole point: what he said is NOT a crime. But Yusuf thinks that what Rushdie wrote is a crime.

That's doesn't make it one. And he's free to think so- and say so. There was a guy once... said something about specks in our brother's eyes.

 

[marplots]

His name isn't Cat Stevens. It's Yusuf Islam.

Then how did you know who he was talking about?

 

[Ziggurat]

And that includes the right to express the belief that the guy pissed him off and he wouldn't be upset if someone else whacked him.

1) that characterization alone is reprehensible
2) what pissed him off was blasphemy, he specifically expressed the belief that the proper punishment for such blasphemy was death, and he'd actually be willing to help make that happen.

Yes, he's got the right to say such things. And we have the right to treat him appropriately. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from any consequences for that speech. It means that the government can't sanction the speech. But the government alone should have a monopoly on the use of violence for punishment. You apparently don't feel that way. Which is... well, pretty vile, actually.

So? Am I supposed to be shocked by that? Have you looked at the history of this species?

I never said I was shocked by anything. But the fact that some people always have and always will behave terribly doesn't mean we should abandon any standards.

And you think that's all this guy's fault because he said he liked the idea?

Nope, never said it was. The point was that, unlike your wish for the death of an author you don't like, the reprehensible ideas that Yusuf supported have real consequences, and so we should treat the threat that such ideas represent quite seriously. In contrast, your mewling hatred is of no consequence.

And you never responded whether or not there was anyone whose presence on stage you would find inappropriate. There are multiple ways I can interpret that silence. Perhaps you're loathe to admit that yes, there are people whom you would disapprove of, it's just that Yusuf isn't one of them. Or perhaps there IS no one you would disapprove of, and that you'd be all for Stewart inviting Fred Phelps up there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then how did you know who he was talking about?

Because his name used to be Cat Stevens. But it isn't now. It's Yusuf Islam.

 

[Infoexcavator]

You all keep saying that calling for his death does not matter because it was 20 years ago, but Rushdie still has the fatwa on him and he gets death threats all the time. Cat/Yusuf could restore some sanity and denounce and reject the fatwa. It is incomprehensible how the organizers could invite a radical islamist who wants people to die to their sanity rally.

I did not remember how bad his statements actually were until someone linked the wikipedia article in Yusuf's defense, they left no doubt that he wants him dead.

 

[Piscivore]

Was the stupid **** you said broadcast on national television, or reported in a major newspaper? Was it something that you were subsequently challenged on in public?

If not... scratch that: I know it wasn't. So, I don't care, and it's not relevant.

So because he happened to say it on TV he should have to answer for it the rest of his life? And so what if he still believes it now? Does that mean he needs to be shunned ffom all human discourse until he recants? How is that in keeping with "western democratic ideals"? Should we do a search on this forum for anyone who stated they wished harm on Sylvia Brown and ban them, lest the "association" taint us? How about the nazis and holocaust deniers?

Do you think, perhaps, that HOW you associate with them, and what you disagree with them about, might matter in some way?

Yes. "...we can have animus and not be enemies.... Where we live our values and principles form the foundations that sustains us while we get things done, not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done."

Context.

Is there truly nobody whose presence on that stage you might find inappropriate?

Snookie.

The only person in this discussion treating anyone else like a mortal enemy is Yusuf Islam.

No, see.... he's not in this discussion. We need to make a distinction between talking to someone and talking about him. We don't know what he thinks or how he "treats" anyone, we extrapolating from something he said 21 years ago. Either one of us could be wrong, or we might both be wrong.

That's exactly the kind of thing Stewart was speaking against.

What, that we should tolerate violent intolerance?

What did Yusef do that was "violent"? What "violently intolerant" thing has he done?

 

[bookitty]

You all keep saying that calling for his death does not matter because it was 20 years ago, but Rushdie still has the fatwa on him and he gets death threats all the time. Cat/Yusuf could restore some sanity and denounce and reject the fatwa. It is incomprehensible how the organizers could invite a radical islamist who wants people to die to their sanity rally.

Personally, I'm OK with the idea of inviting (allowing?) an extremest Muslim to sing Peace Train at a rally for moderates.

But if the press from this event and this re-visiting of Yusuf Islam's statements makes him reconsider and publicly denounce such horrible words, it would be a bonus.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The dude supported a death sentence against somebody for writing a book. A death sentence, BTW, which has led to the person in question having to live in hiding for decades now. <snip>

Yeah. Last I heard he was in hiding at Emory University, on the faculty as Distinguished Writer In Residence.

I think he's been hiding out there for about four years, so far, in between public appearances.

 

[Ziggurat]

So because he happened to say it on TV he should have to answer for it the rest of his life?

Refuting it once (not making excuses) would be enough. That's not exactly a difficult standard to reach.

And so what if he still believes it now? Does that mean he needs to be shunned ffom all human discourse until he recants?

It means that perhaps Stewart shouldn't have invited him to perform. That hardly constitutes "shunned ffom all human discourse", does it?

How is that in keeping with "western democratic ideals"?

It's very much in keeping with western democratic ideals. No government sanction is involved, and no violence or threat of violence against him is involved. There's no conflict there. What on earth ever made you think there was?

Should we do a search on this forum for anyone who stated they wished harm on Sylvia Brown and ban them, lest the "association" taint us?

That wouldn't be equivalent treatment. I'm not asking that Yusuf be prevented from coming on his own. But he didn't just come to the rally, he was put on stage. So yeah, if someone had voiced similar approval of violence on this forum, I think it would be quite proper to not invite them to give a hosted talk at one of the TAM's. Do you really find that radical or draconian?

 

[Piscivore]

1) that characterization alone is reprehensible
2) what pissed him off was blasphemy, he specifically expressed the belief that the proper punishment for such blasphemy was death, and he'd actually be willing to help make that happen.

Yes, he's got the right to say such things. And we have the right to treat him appropriately.

And it is the exact nature of what is "appropriate" is what we are disgreeing on.

You seem to think that he should be shunned for all time from all further public discourse because he offended you. Isn't that a milquetoast version of the same impulse behind the fatwa?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from any consequences for that speech. It means that the government can't sanction the speech. But the government alone should have a monopoly on the use of violence for punishment. You apparently don't feel that way.

Not quite. I don't think Yusef should be punished forever for disagreeing.

I never said I was shocked by anything. But the fact that some people always have and always will behave terribly doesn't mean we should abandon any standards

You don't have to "abandon [your] standards" to not treat the guy that has different ones like a pumpkin-assed forehead eyeball monster.

Nope, never said it was. The point was that, unlike your wish for the death of an author you don't like, the reprehensible ideas that Yusuf supported have real consequences, and so we should treat the threat that such ideas represent quite seriously.

But the "threat" doesn't come from Yusef, he can't eliminate it, he's not responsible for it.

And you never responded whether or not there was anyone whose presence on stage you would find inappropriate. There are multiple ways I can interpret that silence.

And multiple ways you could be wrong. That's the problem with trying to decide what others mean for them.

Perhaps you're loathe to admit that yes, there are people whom you would disapprove of, it's just that Yusuf isn't one of them. Or perhaps there IS no one you would disapprove of, and that you'd be all for Stewart inviting Fred Phelps up there.

That would have been great. Yes.

Why not?

 

[marplots]

That wouldn't be equivalent treatment. I'm not asking that Yusuf be prevented from coming on his own. But he didn't just come to the rally, he was put on stage. So yeah, if someone had voiced similar approval of violence on this forum, I think it would be quite proper to not invite them to give a hosted talk at one of the TAM's. Do you really find that radical or draconian?

I don't think it is radical or draconian, but I do think it evinces one premise that the rally was held against. There's an idea that clarity is more valuable than nuance. So when someone is 'put on stage' they become a cardboard cut-out of a real human being -- they become a symbol. But I think this is a mistake.

I think it is a mistake because I cannot define (nor wish to) a person based on something they did or said, even when that was dramatic and notable. I believe that people are more complex than this. It's a gut reaction I have.

Even when Hitler is touted as the embodiment of evil, I find myself wondering if he might have had a dog. If he loved that dog and grieved when it died.

The reason I think a more nuanced view is called for is because I also believe that meaningful change is built from cooperation and that cooperation is won when common ground is reached. Granted, a dictatorial and skewed power balance can also lead to change, but I prefer and trust connection as a motivator more than imposition.

The whole thing boils down to what I am willing to overlook in the service of communication. I obviously overlook more when it comes to Mr. Islam than others might.

 

[Piscivore]

Refuting it once (not making excuses) would be enough. That's not exactly a difficult standard to reach.

"Just say you agree with us, just once, and you can come play with us again."
How is that "American"?

It means that perhaps Stewart shouldn't have invited him to perform.

Why not?

That wouldn't be equivalent treatment. I'm not asking that Yusuf be prevented from coming on his own. But he didn't just come to the rally, he was put on stage. So yeah, if someone had voiced similar approval of violence on this forum, I think it would be quite proper to not invite them to give a hosted talk at one of the TAM's. Do you really find that radical or draconian?

I find that not in keeping with my standards- based on skepticism- that the voices we need to listen to the most are the ones that disagree with us.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think it is radical or draconian, but I do think it evinces one premise that the rally was held against. There's an idea that clarity is more valuable than nuance. So when someone is 'put on stage' they become a cardboard cut-out of a real human being -- they become a symbol. But I think this is a mistake.

I think it is a mistake because I cannot define (nor wish to) a person based on something they did or said, even when that was dramatic and notable. I believe that people are more complex than this. It's a gut reaction I have.

Even when Hitler is touted as the embodiment of evil, I find myself wondering if he might have had a dog. If he loved that dog and grieved when it died.

The reason I think a more nuanced view is called for is because I also believe that meaningful change is built from cooperation and that cooperation is won when common ground is reached. Granted, a dictatorial and skewed power balance can also lead to change, but I prefer and trust connection as a motivator more than imposition.

The whole thing boils down to what I am willing to overlook in the service of communication. I obviously overlook more when it comes to Mr. Islam than others might.

Well said.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think it is radical or draconian, but I do think it evinces one premise that the rally was held against. There's an idea that clarity is more valuable than nuance. So when someone is 'put on stage' they become a cardboard cut-out of a real human being -- they become a symbol. But I think this is a mistake.

So "nuance" will let us tolerate violent intolerance. Got it.

I think it is a mistake because I cannot define (nor wish to) a person based on something they did or said

I'm not asking anyone to define Yusuf. But it's no form of enlightenment to refuse to treat someone based upon what they said and did. In fact, that's the only reason to have invited him up there in the first place: because he said (in the form of songs) things people liked to hear.

Granted, a dictatorial and skewed power balance can also lead to change, but I prefer and trust connection as a motivator more than imposition.

What's dictatorial about not inviting Yusuf to perform? Hell, most singers weren't invited to perform. Were they all being oppressed?

The whole thing boils down to what I am willing to overlook in the service of communication. I obviously overlook more when it comes to Mr. Islam than others might.

Indeed. But what communication do you think actually took place? Yusuf "communicated" to the audience, but do you think he told them anything that they didn't already know, or that someone else couldn't have said? And do you really think that the communication was a two-way street? Do you think Yusuf came out of that rally thinking, "You know what? My past approval of killing Rushdie for writing a book was really evil, I should appologize for it"?

 

[Ziggurat]

"Just say you agree with us, just once, and you can come play with us again."
How is that "American"?

How is it unamerican?

Why not?

Because it shows tolerance of violent intolerance. Which is... not productive.

I find that not in keeping with my standards- based on skepticism- that the voices we need to listen to the most are the ones that disagree with us.

And that requires giving them a prominent platform? No, it doesn't. Stewart didn't invite Yusuf to a debate, Piscivore. But please, tell me why I need to consider the possibility that I'm wrong that it's a bad thing to kill a writer for offending a religion. I'm interested in hearing from someone who disagrees with me.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to think that he should be shunned for all time from all further public discourse because he offended you. Isn't that a milquetoast version of the same impulse behind the fatwa?

You're wrong on both counts. First, there's a sharp dividing line between actions which involve violence and actions which don't. The two things you mention are NOT on the same side of that dividing line. Secondly, that's not what I said, and it's not what I think. I've rather explicitly stated otherwise.

Not quite. I don't think Yusef should be punished forever for disagreeing.

Evidently you think Stewart is punishing me, because I didn't get invited to sing on stage.

What a peculiar concept of punishment you have.

But the "threat" doesn't come from Yusef, he can't eliminate it, he's not responsible for it.

He's responsible for what he said.

That would have been great. Yes.

Why not?

Because it would be counterproductive. Seriously, do you think if Stewart had done that, either the audience OR Phelps would have come away with any greater sympathy or tolerance for the perspective of the other side? Do you think his presence would have helped "restore sanity", or would it simply have riled people up?

 

[Piscivore]

How is it unamerican?

I think that was addressed by Stewart's speech.

Because it shows tolerance of violent intolerance. Which is... not productive.

So you are defining Yusef by this one statement. His entire life, work, and whatever else he has said is insignifigant next to this one comment from twenty-one years ago.

And that requires giving them a prominent platform? No, it doesn't. Stewart didn't invite Yusuf to a debate, Piscivore.

Neither did he invite him to pontify on the necessity to exucute heretics. He asked him to sing a song. Yet you're telling me that the reason his presence was "innappropriate" is the statement he made 21 years ago about executing heretics.

But please, tell me why I need to consider the possibility that I'm wrong that it's a bad thing to kill a writer for offending a religion.

Who did Yusef kill?

 

[varwoche]

I wouldn't even want to try count how many times.

Suppose you could will these people dead with the snap of your finger (or voodoo dolls if you prefer). Until you say otherwise, I'm assuming you wouldn't act on these impulses. That's because I think it's highly unlikely that you're actually a homicidal sociopath.

To varying degrees, there's a part of me that wishes ill, even death, on lots of people (including mass murderers, people who take too long in the grocery checkout line, Abba, and many others). But the thing is, it's never risen to the level of me actually killing someone. And more to the point, it's never even risen to the level of me advocating the death of an innocent person. That's because the part of me that values and respects my fellow human beings far overshadows the base part of me that wishes them dead.

Have you ever seriously advocated the death of a person who broke no laws, caused no physical harm, and stole no property? Has anyone in your family ever seriously advocated the death of such a person? Any friends? Acquaintances? I can't think of even one person IRL who has advocated the death of an artist due to their art.

In short, I'm not buying it for one minute. (And in so not doing, I'm interpreting your words in the most positive light. You're welcome! )

And he's free to think so- and say so.

Nobody here is suggesting otherwise.

 

[Piscivore]

You're wrong on both counts. First, there's a sharp dividing line between actions which involve violence and actions which don't.

Which part of his "actions" were violent?

The two things you mention are NOT on the same side of that dividing line. Secondly, that's not what I said, and it's not what I think. I've rather explicitly stated otherwise.

You don't think he should be given a public platform to even perform a song on until he "takes back" what he said, don't you?

Evidently you think Stewart is punishing me, because I didn't get invited to sing on stage.

That's not the same thing. You think Yusef should have been specifically excluded specifically because of what he said, not "not invited" due to some other reason.

He's responsible for what he said.

And that means he should not be invited anywhere until he agrees with "us"?

Because it would be counterproductive.

How so? What do you see as the goal of the rally? Was it "building consensus" to you?

Seriously, do you think if Stewart had done that, either the audience OR Phelps would have come away with any greater sympathy or tolerance for the perspective of the other side? Do you think his presence would have helped "restore sanity", or would it simply have riled people up?

It would have been funny as hell. I think it would have gone down a lot like the Comicon thing.

 

[bookitty]

Because it would be counterproductive. Seriously, do you think if Stewart had done that, either the audience OR Phelps would have come away with any greater sympathy or tolerance for the perspective of the other side? Do you think his presence would have helped "restore sanity", or would it simply have riled people up?

If Fred Phelps had gone onstage and started ranting about what god hates, yes that would be counter-productive. If he had gone onstage with his family and sang "Kumbaya" (with the proper words) and meant it, it would be very productive. It would actually be rather awe-inspiring to see a radical Christian extremist lay down the metaphoric sword.