Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Black man lynched in upstate NY. This happened four days ago. Why no media coverage?

chezmadame's picture
Thread: 

Oh wait, it was a muslim woman.

And she was beheaded.

By her husband.

For daring to seek a divorce.

In New York.

And the media didn't cover it.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Card-carrying_Buddhist's picture
Submitted by Card-carrying_B... on

Thought to blog about it. Didn't. Don't know why I didn't.

Great headline. sigh. You're right.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Alas, poor Violet.

What I want to talk about is the reaction to this thing in the blogosphere, which basically boils down to “so what?” Women get killed by their partners all the time, goes the argument, so this is no big deal. Besides, Muslim men might get offended.

Horseshit. First of all, the fact that women are getting killed all the time is surely not a reason to remain silent on the matter. Secondly, I don’t give a good goddamn if Muslim men are offended. But more to the point, an honor killing carried out according to sharia law — which is what this certainly looks like — is similar to but not identical with the usual spouse-murder in the United States. Honor killings are a relatively new form of murderous misogyny in this country, and as such they ought to be of keen interest. And they would be, if we lived in a society where women’s lives were valued.

OR you don't want to feed the meme that Muslims are especially violent and dangerous and should all be put under very close watch for polluting our feminist culture or something, which has, from time to time, been a popular idea among some of Violet's commentariat.

Oooooh, sharia. Scary Arabic word!

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

It's extremism. Pure, violent hate. No one gets excused for their misogyny, neither Catholics nor Muslims, on the account of religion or a past history of suffering discrimination themselves. Why? Because nothing changes the fact that women and girls are human beings and thus entitled to basic rights and civil liberties.

All forms of misogynistic bigotry, particularly gender-based hate crimes, should be condemned. Period.

It's something else that you choose to trivialize the lives of women and girls to the point of mockery ("Oooooh, sharia"). Truly.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...is a system of laws developed over a very long time, only *some* of which concerns gender, and the rest everything from tax law and banking to political order. At the moment it is a propaganda word. It is not that misogyny is not a problem, it is that sharia is used as a propaganda word to make Muslims sound like alien invaders, is what.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Go read about how Pakistan is embracing Sharia law, which includes banning girls from schools (which is just the beginning of the extremism scale), and tell me how these extreme anti-female "laws" can be trivialized as "only some."

They refer to it as Sharia so what are we supposed to call it so you feel more outraged by the bigotry espoused than the word choice?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

is a complicated case. The Taliban who sometimes conquer areas in the north sometimes implement their version of sharia law (there are several), which includes the very offensive restrictions on girls and women, but is not the only thing that they implement.

Now, I don't happen to agree with some of the other things they implement. But, the West has a longstanding history of objectifying the Muslim world in a certain way, and this is one of them. In the context of the news story, it is indeed that men find all kinds of justifications to visit violence on women in the USA. Violet would like to make this about Muslims, and engage in that kind of objectification.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Why accept their framing of it anyway?

Common sense, we know that violence against women is a worldwide phenomenon taking various surface forms, but ubiquitous at varying degrees the world over. Economic and educational development seems to have some causative effect in reducing it, we know this too. So why make it specifically about Islam and Muslims?

Unless you want to identify the Enemy. Otherwise, it's not at all clear that sharia this and sharia that is productive except to buy into the conflict that the Taliban itself want to set up.

That way leads to war. Violet's way leads to war. It has. It will.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

New York hadn't adopted sharia law, so it's kind of beside the point.

Submitted by lambert on

Some yes, some no. I'm not inclined to call an entire legal system "extremist," if only because I don't know what "extremist" might mean concretely. And I like the prohibition of usury, extremist or not.

That said, all so-called "honor killing" is to be condemned -- dammit, will we never be able to stop talking about the primaries...

I saw this one, and just couldn't cope with the imagery. Sorry. Glad somebody posted on it.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

There's an excellent Pakistani movie from 07 that touches on this from a Pakistani, Pakistani-British, and American perspective, Khuda ké liyé ("In the name of God"). It's in Urdu and English with English subtitles on the Urdu. Though it has no songs, it suffers from some of the standard tropes of subcontinental drama, but I do recommend it. It was directed by a liberal Pakistani film director who knows the conflicts in Pakistani society over women and over music and over Western influence, while not having any illusions about the good intentions of the West.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

As far as I can tell, the analysis on the left goes like this: “The Right is full of racist Islamophobes. Therefore I have to favor all things Muslim.”

Seriously, if some nutjob fundie Christian did this, I'm pretty sure a lot of the same people trying to either ignore it or mischaracterize it would be pointing to it as an example of why oppressive fundamentalism is a bad thing. But if a nutjob fundie Muslim does it, we have to worry about contributing to a meme that nutjob fundies are bad? I don't see why Islam should get a free pass on this as opposed to Christianity.

Also, the meme that Muslims are especially violent and dangerous and should all be put under very close watch for polluting our feminist culture or something, which has, from time to time, been a popular idea among some of Violet's commentariat. has a number of problems.

There is such a meme about Muslims needing to be watched in some right wing circles, I'm pretty sure. I haven't ever seen one on the left, including in Violet's "commentariat". And if there's one thing this world is not, it's a feminist culture.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...I was a Violet regular back in the day and have watched her degeneration over time. Let's take, for instance, a good chunk of the comments by greenconsciousness, who was (is?) tolerated for a long time and was a big fan of Phyllis Chesler, apparently, a feminist-turned-neocon-wingnut. Let's take one of greenconsciousness' posts from her own blog, for instance. For defending a pro-Palestinian point of view an American Islamic group is a...what?

For a time, I thought that Violet herself was able to avoid dipping into the vein that some of her commentariat did, but it turns out not to be the case.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

but I will point out that it's hardly fair to blame her for something one of her commenters said on the commenters blog. You want to be held responsible for reading every post of everyone's personal blog who replies to one of your comments?

Re: GreenConsciousness and Chesler --

Okay, I'm barely familiar w/Chesler, so I'll just say that having David Horowitz and some of the others praise your book is not a good sign for that book, imo, and my SO tells me your characterization is not unfair, but I've never seen GC mention PC on Violet's blog.

And while I didn't love the posts of hers you just linked to, unless something has changed drastically in the last couple of months GC herself isn't a neocon or a racist--while she despised his tactics in the primary, she voted for Obama in the general, and was making the case for voting for him instead of McCain on a number of PUMA-ish blogs (even got accused of trolling for it, iirc); I remember at least some of her posts in a couple of different places and they were far from nutty. Heck, you would have found her views more palatable than mine during the general election; I voted for McKinney and Obama would not have been my second choice.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...people voting for McKinney, as such.

I don't support voting for McKinney (or anyone else) because they dislike the way Obama won.

In any case, it's an environment she's created that's the issue.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

The posts you complained about weren't even on her blog.

Over the past year or so since I started reading her, I really don't see how you can imply she's creating some "let's get the Muslims" atmosphere. She's not kind to any sort of oppressive fundamentalism, and while I'm not about to go count posts, I'd be happy to wager she attacks Christian fundamentalists more often than any other religion, or all other religions put together.

She calls out misogyny where she sees it, including (very recently) on the part of posters she otherwise likes on PUMA blogs. http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/01/...

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I was too lazy to dig too deep in the archives, but let's take this post from the Way Back When when she was still kind of sane---but it reflects a tendency that was always present. The comment I linked to was where the *real* fun begins, but the whole thread is instructive.

This tendency pervades a good deal of her oeuvre on Barack Obama, incidentally, and it also pervades the premise of chezmadame's post here.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"when she was still kind of sane"

Who appointed you to be the sanity police?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I shouldn't have used the "sane/insane" thing because it's wrong to abuse mental health terms, and certainly not so flippantly.

But the spirit of what I want to express is the same---that she has exhibited terrible political judgement, suffers from weird interpretations of reality, and so on, when she didn't quite used to, at least not so consistently and stridently.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Now Violet says on that thread:

As for the “embattled minority” bullshit, nice of you to be more concerned about the fee-fees of Muslim men than about the pandemic of violence against the female half of the human race.

Right, so this is all about the "fee-fees" of Muslim men. Talk about cheques you can't cash.

This is kind of what I mean.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Violet's a long story. I'll get back to Arthur soon enough.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Seriously, if some nutjob fundie Christian did this, I'm pretty sure a lot of the same people trying to either ignore it or mischaracterize it would be pointing to it as an example of why oppressive fundamentalism is a bad thing. But if a nutjob fundie Muslim does it, we have to worry about contributing to a meme that nutjob fundies are bad? I don't see why Islam should get a free pass on this as opposed to Christianity.

We are not about to declare war on Christofundistan, you know, or specially screen its members at airports or whatever.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

you actually *do* sound like you are saying "ignore this because it might stir up dislike against fundamentalist Islam".

Bush/Cheney are out of office, and however much I'm not Obama's biggest fan, I don't think he's going to invade anyone, or try to achieve any domestic goals by whipping up anti-Islam sentiment.

And, well, I do think it's the same thing, so I guess we part ways here anyway.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

and even having been one during my teens, I confess I tend to approve of oppressive, bigoted fundamentalism being disliked, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or what have you. (and yes, I know, there are plenty of non-bigoted progressives in each of these).

As for whether fundamentalist Islam warrants dislike, I will simply point to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books Infidel and The Caged Virgin, and the Apostate's blog, as these are women who grew up in that particular fundamentalist culture. I realize there are other women from these cultures who espouse different points of view, but I tend to share these.

(and I realize Hirsi Ali is currently surrounding herself with conservatives. I would suggest part--possibly all?-- of the reason for that is the left tending to have a knee-jerk defense of Islam on multicultural grounds even in the face of atrocities committed against muslim women)

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The response comes from the fact that, well, it bringeth war, pestilence, famine, and death. The response comes from the way in which Hirsi's friends use it.

I have no objection to fundies being disliked. Dislike away! However, when they're already disliked, singling out minority groups for behaviours that pattern well with the majority indeed, is sowing the wind.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I didn't see it, but I don't see the need for the gratiutous use of a black man being lynched in the title to make your point, either. The comparison, at best, is a distraction. It's exactly this kind of "them vs. us" comparison during the primaries that pushed me away from reading PUMA sites. It's simply not necessary.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I think if it had to be used, it should have been used in the post rather than the headline. Why not compare how the mainstream media dismissed or framed the lynchings of blacks in racist terms to how blogs or the media treat misogynistic violence today? It would cause us to appreciate the civil rights struggle all the more and help change the misogynistic mindset of today.

For example: Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" was greeted with howls of protest by the media establishment, with Time Magazine accusing her of "propaganda."

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

I don't think they were intending it to be an "us vs them" comparison at all; but were pointing out that hate crimes against women simply don't get treated the way other hate crimes are, or even acknowledged as hate crimes. The OP could have used a gay-bashing example instead of a lynching, I suppose, but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or ill-intentioned about using either.

I'm guessing they used that example precisely because *everyone* will (correctly) view the lynching of black man as a horrifying hate crime motivated by bigotry, whereas in this case a lot of people seem to be trying not to view it at all, or in the context of a minor domestic squabble, ignoring the fact that it was a murder in which the man in question seemed to view the woman as his property who had no right to leave him, and that in his world view he was entitled to kill her for this.

You may be right that the post could have been made without the analogy, on the other hand the analogy arguably is helpful in driving the point home.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

My concern is not the intent of the comparison, but that it's very distracting for folks like myself whose ancestors were specifically targeted as the victims of this specific tool of domestic terrorism. Because of that, it'd be much more appropriate to compare that tool to rape, which is used to specifically target and terrorize women.

If it is just my problem (and no one elses) that I'm a bit irked by the flippant and gratuitous use of, and reference to, black lynching in America, so be it. But, I thought I'd share it, and perhaps make someone think about better ways to go about making comparisons and speaking of sensitive issues. Again, even at its best of intents, it's simply distracting.

These kind of comparisons smack of at least an implication that crimes against blacks are overreported, and if you believe that, I'd ask you to ask how many times you've heard of Elizabeth Smart, Jean Benet Ramsey, Lacey Peterson, Natalie Holloway, Caylee Anthony...So, excuse me if the implication I find a bit distasteful/distracting to the crime mentioned, here.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

These kind of comparisons smack of at least an implication that crimes against blacks are overreported

While disagreeing with you about what the comparison implies, I will agree with you that crimes against blacks and other minorities generally proportionally tend to get much less coverage than crimes against whites. (I would put hate crimes as the exception here) I think part of that is due to class (crimes against poor people tend to get undercovered as compared to those of middle and upper class), but if you mean to imply that the mainstream news media tend to focus on people they identify with more, and that part of that identification is racial, I'd say yeah, you're almost certainly right, and I wish they make more of an effort to cover things equitably, and it's a problem.

I guess our main area of disagreement is whether the usage was flippant and gratuitous, or whether it was useful in making the point (I don't think rape could have been used in the same way; for much of the citizenry rape remains something to joke about; Shakesville has a whole series of posts about this).

That the usage was triggering and hurtful in the same way some usages (not yours, here) of rape are is a whole different problem, and one I don't know how to adequately answer. I guess the idea is that rape and murder of women because they don't behave properly should invoke the same horror as crimes against blacks for similar reasons, instead of using the crimes more as a cautionary tale for women to keep their place, which is frequently a subtext when the media does cover these stories. I'm quite honestly not sure how to get that across without using potentially triggering analogies that other people will make these connections with, but am quite willing to listen to any suggestions on how to do it without causing inadvertant offense (it wasn't my post, but I applauded it, so whatever they did in a problematic way I did wrong by proxy as well)

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I'm simply tired of black lynchings being used as political and social footballs on issues where it's not appropriate. Yes, the disconnect is coming from my belief in its flippancy, here, and your belief that it's not. You talk about rape not being treated seriously, enough, and I'd say that this is a great example of the maligning (however unintentional) of black lynching. I said this in another thread, yesterday, about PETA using the KKK's terrorism against black people as a means to their (PETA's) own ends, but if we have a Godwin's Law, we really need one for historical black oppression/White Supremacy.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

example with this one. PETA's example was blatantly racist, especially since they had already pulled the same stunt a few years ago and were called on it.

A person could make a pretty strong argument that "honor killings" are in fact the exact same thing as "lynching". Only the victims are different, women, rather than black men. Let's not forget a person was killed and mutilated here, how does it diminish other killings to make the comparison? In both cases, people deemed "inferior" by the powerful are killed as a warning and to terrorize others, what will happen to you if you step out of line, as a means to reinforce the power structure.

How could it be any more relevant?

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

It has the same goal, the same result both for the lynched woman, and making other women fearful that men will do it to them. Many men don't realize that a very good percentage of women look at the men in their lives and wonder now and then if they will flip out and attack them. I know I do. You just never know when it will happen.

Of course, I am speaking as someone that had a father that started doing that after brain injury, and as someone that has seen quite a few men do that. They drink, or have some kind of injury, get emotional, or whatever, and they flip out and attack someone. Not that women don't do that also, but men do it more often, they do it directly toward women in particular, are more often stronger, and more often trained to hurt and/or kill in many ways. Watch the local news and see how often you see women attacked and killed compared to men, even gays and black men.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

There are plenty of ways to critique the lack of news interest in domestic abuse without bringing something loaded like that in from left field, a story that certainly should bother us in its own right.

I get the point -- that one bothers "us" and one doesn't, but I don't think much good ever comes of playing the Oppression Olympics.

Gratuitous not that there is no good reason for it, but that it writes a check that needn't be cashed in this situation.

Submitted by Randall Kohn on

You said what had to be said, in just the right way. As for those who squirm, let them squirm.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...unless there was something in particular about it they liked, but feel free to keep hiding your cards.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...what do you get from pointing out the Musliminess of Muslims doing bad things? Encourage intervention in Islamistan? Selectively curb Muslim immigration? What?

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

. . . hopefully you make aspects of that culture socially unacceptable outside and eventually even within that culture and gradually reduce the prevalence of these aspects and the bad consequences thereof.

It is how societies evolve.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

OK, so, what is the "outside" to which you refer?

If the "outside" is white European culture, then you would, I assume, try to make violence against women (quite prevalent!) less acceptable. You'd do this in the absence of a Muslim culture, right? You'd do it regardless.

So what is the value, as a member of the majority, of referring to Muslims?

I don't think the societies evolve through outside pressure at all---not as a general rule. In some cases they do, in some cases they don't. Take, for example, the Muslim world. Many Muslim countries have taken steps *back* on this front, precisely because pressure from the West made it a question of Western dominance and superiority. So it was in many cases counterproductive, wasn't it?

Gotta take it on a case by case basis, and in the case of a man who committed a horrible crime in the West, it's not *their* problem to be solved from the *outside*, it's *ours*.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

trust me, outside pressure was needed.

Not just in the obvious sense (Civil War, federal protection of Civil Rights workers, such as it was) but in the sense of ongoing cultural pressure.

This has already made huge difference on race and gender equality relative to, say, when I was born in '65, and a lesser but still significant difference in LGBT issues. None of these things is all the way to where it should be, but as someone who grew up in a small town there, I can say with pretty close to 100% certainty that without people calling people on bigotry on a regular basis, things would be much, much worse. This is both a within/without issue -- it's not just those "outside agitators" butting in to someone else's culture where it's unwanted that makes a difference, but people within the culture, and the two groups supporting and working with each other and the whole mutual feedback dynamic that helps evolve solutions. In cases of systemic oppression such as this, taking it on a case by case basis gives way too much leeway to systems that internally encourage things like "she asked for it"; "he got uppity" or "that gay dude just made pass at me" as justification for often-fatal violence. "He got uppity" is no longer acceptable due to people making not just making individual bigots pay for their actions but discouraging the entire mindset; "she asked for it" is not acceptable in cases of murder (in the south; apparently still is in some cultures, thus the need to call them on it) but sadly still is in some quarters in other types of violence, and ditto gay-bashing.

Anti-western backlash due to Bush invading people willy nilly on flimsy pretexts is not a reason to treat all non-positive examination of other cultures as unhelpful.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...the history is way longer than that, and the most important thing to consider is the effect of it. For instance, one of the results of the endless stream of depraved-Muslim documentaries is the increasing tendency of younger Muslim women in the West to adopt the hijab themselves, often against the wishes of their parents. Can you imagine, at least, why backlash might take this form?

Every case is different. Sanctions worked on South Africa, but they won't necessarily work elsewhere. The key difference is respecting the wishes of the oppressed groups inside the country in question---in South Africa, sanctions were appropriate.

In this case, the judgement call should be fairly obvious. Chezmadame and Violet's posts demand a focus on the fact that this a Muslim man living in the West. So what action do they expect to stem from that focus? What do you think is more likely, a backlash against minorities and deflection of blame from the West's own misogyny, or change in Muslim communities?

I vote for the former, from experience.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Was there a reason no link was offered up on this at the beginning of the post? It shouldn't have taken Mandos to have provided some linky goodness.

It seem that everything about this original posting was done recklessly, from the inept comparison, to the curtness of the tone. Perhaps, when we post about such things, we can do it with a bit more thoughtfulness, because I'm really trying to find the worth in what has amounted to a smart-assed hit-and-run posting, though, I do appreciate Mojave trying to salvage the wreckage of the original post with thoughtful debate.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

I didn't think the initial post was wreckage; I just saw why you would be tired of people using this analogy. Or, as I thought I put it last night but apparently the computer shut off before the comment editing went through:

eta: I was gonna let this go in the interests of agreeableness while I pondered things, but felt guilty, since I think this may be the heart of exactly what chezmadame was getting at, and from the other side might be what you're getting at. I really don't see how making the analogy of lynching of a black man to beheading of a woman trivializes or maligns either. They're both horrific, and both historical lynchings and current honor killings are done to punish oppressed people for getting out of line and perpetuate systemic oppression.

It's late, so maybe I'm missing something, and will think on this when more awake, but for all I could understand your reaction in many circumstances, and why you would maybe wish she'd chosen another example here, I don't get any maligning or failure to take seriously the oppression of people of color in the original post.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

and put it back. It was not gratuitous. I expected criticism for it. It was a comment on the media, not a comparison of the terror tactics historically used on blacks versus those used on women.

I provided no link deliberately. I wanted the reader to have to think about why he had to search as he searched.

The words were blunt because I wanted them to fall one at a time and with a thud at the end, like drops of blood culminating with a head rolling on the floor.

I was not indifferent. I was not careless. I was not heedless of consequence. I was, therefore, not reckless.

I originally posted as food for thought, and apparently it did make some people think. I am only commenting now to salvage the wreckage that you are trying to make of the original post and ensuing discussion.

It is not us versus them. We are them; they are us. That's the point.

Submitted by lambert on

... in exactly that way.

OTOH, neither I, nor my ancestors, have ever been in any danger of being lynched.

Tricky stuff. Culture is very, very persistent. Memory persists for many thousands of years.

Well done.

* * *

The idea of making people look might have been made explicit; as everyone knows, I'm big on linky goodness; OTOH, I suppose one way to approach material that ought already to have been linked to is to say "You know you read this; go find it again" (though I didn't read the post that way). I guess I hope that doesn't become a standard rhetorical practice; in the wrong hands, it could do a lot of damage. In general, I strongly deprecate the practice of saying "Just Google for it," if for no other reason than that this does not keep the record straight, which is one of our missions.

Submitted by ohio on

They were women.

I think you may have missed the obvious point adroitly expressed by herb:

A person could make a pretty strong argument that "honor killings" are in fact the exact same thing as "lynching". Only the victims are different, women, rather than black men. Let's not forget a person was killed and mutilated here, how does it diminish other killings to make the comparison? In both cases, people deemed "inferior" by the powerful are killed as a warning and to terrorize others, what will happen to you if you step out of line, as a means to reinforce the power structure.

That's a powerful, inescapable point. So much so that I am considering using the term "lynching" instead of "honor killing" as that phrase is idiocy of the highest order and implies a justification for the unjustifiable.

Damon, I must disagree with you regarding the flippancy. There was nothing flippant about this comparison. Nothing. I think chezmadame's point is about how the media treats those with whom they don't identify is shameful. But there's nothing new with that, either.

Yes, I saw the headline and read the article. And then I wondered how many other articles didn't make the wire services, get past an editor, or get written.

All those lives. All that cruelty. I have no graceful closing. This is unbearable. I am reminded of Rodin's "The Fallen Caryatid Carrying a Stone."

Submitted by lambert on

Duh. Gee, this patriarchy thing is hard to avoid, isn't it? So hard not to be stupid.

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

Friends, neighbors, possibly family members in the present day are also threatened right now.

As someone that has dealt with this personally, in the lives of family and friends, this is a right now thing.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The headline translated to "The media treats your suffering better than it treats mine." If you were not reckless, then that's worse.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

odd that you translated them as excuses.

I suppose you are entitled to translate my words into your version of what I actually intended.

Your point is noted.
Lambert's is noted and taken.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

In many fewer words than my own you got to the point of my offense taken at this, and quite frankly, I'm getting tired of it, because, it's an unproven meme, and because we shouldn't be doing it even if it was a proven talking point. You're right, if it was not reckless it was intentional, and either way, an egg was laid. I'm beginning to see now what is and isn't protected, here.

uni.mo's picture
Submitted by uni.mo on

Does anyone else find it ironic that this man founded his tv station, Bridges, to combat Muslim stereotypes, but it turned that he is, himself, a stereotype?

The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said.

His wife filed for divorce January 6

Muzzammil Hassan was charged with second-degree murder

CNN

wtf? Only 2nd degree murder charges? Why not 1st degree? He confessed to a gruesome murder.

I have been following this online for several days now. I think it should have gotten more media coverage on tv. It is a huge story.

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

There is no excuse for that. Men have been excused for not controlling their emotions for too long when it comes to attacking women.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

to murders committed with one of thirteen aggravating factors, including instances where

"(x) the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner
pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting
torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this
subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of
extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the
infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing
debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of
pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain;"

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN...

I think its common for police to initially charge with a lesser crime (for which they have strong evidence) while they build a case for more serious charges.

In NYS, the imposition of the death penalty is limited to those convicted of first degree murder. However, as it is currently written, New York's death penalty statue has been ruled unconstitutional.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing...

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

And has been mostly disappeared from this conversation about political correctness.

The victim. The woman victim. No posts about her feelings.

A long discussion of racism and bigotry in the title, or about the perpetrator, but not much discussion about the woman the post was about.

Which pretty much proves the point of the post, doesn't it? That the fate of women pretty much disappears, when other social considerations are brought into play.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

that didn't seem to warrant much, and for some that image became the focus. Not the indifference of the media. Not the act. Not the terror. Not the pain. Not the woman. The image.

Political footballs were tossed!

Lynching was maligned!

Unproven memes shouldn't have been used even if they were proven talking points! (huh?)

Outrage was directed not at the media, not at the perpetrator, not at the act, but instead spent on the use of an image to drive home an uncomfortable point.

A woman was beheaded by her husband in NY and the media didn't cover it.

That is not culture. That is not custom. That is criminal.
-HRC

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

and you got it. Why pretend to be surprised now? Certainly uncomfortable topics expressed in uncomfortable ways will lead to uncomforatable conversations. And there's nothing wrong with that.

If your focus was on the event or the media coverage, you probably knew you were also going to get criticism re: the Oppression Olympics aspect that VL addressed above. The way it was worded leaves that open to interpretation. When things are open to interpretation that's just what happens. But that is mainly to Damon's reaction, which is understandable (although it's a judgement call in my view and one I didn't share so much before).

Regarding Mandos absurd objection to your including the word "Muslim". First, you call HER muslim, not her murderer. Second, without SOME kind of reference that this is being described as a so-called "honor killing" (and isn't that the word the Klan would have come up with for "lynching" if they had a public relations man?) based on the murderer's culture, what have you got? A completely incomplete picture of the actual event and crime, divorced (if I can use the word) from reality. If that is uncomfortable to some, they should work on changing their culture rather than working the refs.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...was to a related post on another blog, which I linked here in a deprecatory manner, and then others deprecated my deprecation, and so on.

I mean, for a site that goes on about "truthiness" all the time...