The Dumbest 57 Seconds Ever On TV?

National Review ^ | 1/8/2015 | Jonah Goldberg

[Servant of the Cross]

Adam Baldwin linked to this MSNBC clip with a succinct tweet ”Spot the morons/cowards.”

Video at link ...

All due respect to Adam, but his understatement is almost a scandal. We’ve posted a lot of incredibly stupid sound bites from MSNBC and other places around here, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a dumber exchange. I don’t know who the guy is making the astoundingly obtuse comparison between Jerry Falwell and a bunch of cold-blooded murderers, but as incandescently stupid as that analogy is it’s eclipsed by Wagner’s smug, knowing nods as he talks.

If I follow her response correctly she is saying that we focus on anti-Muslim blasphemy disproportionately because it is so much more “controversial” and “incendiary.”

Well, uh, yes. I guess that’s true. But the reason mockery of Islam is more controversial is because people get killed over it!

To compare Falwell’s lawsuit to these murderers isn’t just astoundingly, jaw-droppingly, stupid. Doing so misses just about every important moral, legal and factual distinction that one can miss. But Wagner doesn’t think that’s good enough. She had to take it a half-step farther and really emphasize how unfair it is that people make it seem like only Muslims are thin-skinned about such things. ​

(I will indulge as a matter of charity, that Wagner merely mispoke as she tried to couch reality in MSNBC-friendly euphemisms. “Controversial” and “incendiary” might be her way of saying “barbaric terrorism.” But even if that’s the case, it doesn’t excuse her from failing to respond to this idiotic comparison with the words: “How dare you sir, that is outrageous.”)

I was never a huge fan of Falwell’s, but I always thought his lawsuit had some merit, and was at least understandable in human terms. Also, for what it’s worth, I don’t think it had much to do with his religion. He filed a personal defamation lawsuit, I’m pretty sure. But here’s the thing: when he lost the lawsuit you know what he did? Nothing. Oh I’m sure he griped about it. Wouldn’t you? What he didn’t do was lead a goon squad to Hustler’s offices and murder Larry Flynt and his staff. That’s a pretty meaningful distinction, I think.

[Liaison]

Recently the Saudi government wanted to set marriage and consent at the age of about 14 (this age is a swag from article I read) and Saudi Arabian Imams will not set age limits on marriage and consent. To set an age would have a fatwa that can be interpreted that Muhammad may have been wrong or at least his teachings do not conform to modern reality of Islam and therefor it can create a new schism and widen critique. Too much fun!

[vladimir998]

Direct Link so people don’t have to WASTE their time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_hizBb-z60

[Slings and Arrows]

Mad Mo’ is pleased.

[Dr. Sivana]

If Mohammad were still alive, and the French publication knowingly printed something libelous, I think he should be able to have an action. Interesting point. Two thoughts on it:
1. As a public figure, Mohammed would have the bar set pretty high with respect to winning a libel case. Beyond that, he'd have to prove damages. (Note: IANAL. Not even close.)

2. Truth is a defense against libel. If you call him a murdering pedophile, all it means is you've read his book.

I was positing as a matter of personal opinion of right and wrong, as Falwell is U.S. and the magazine is France. I think that bar has been set too high for public figures, especially as they have more to lose (politicians would be an exception, because of the risk of the legal system being abused to influence elections).

I also used the word "if" because we KNOW the language used against Falwell was libelous on the face of it. My main points were that a) even Mohammad himself should be given the benefit of a properly functioning legal system and b) this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Falwell case.