Amazingly enough, she spent more time debating the RTTV moderator, than the moderate Muslim spokesperson, who stated that this is a great country, and Pamela has the right to her free speech:
Now, I don’t know about you, but I could tell Pamela was going to have trouble with the moderator from the get-go. Did you notice how her demeanor changed as she went from reading about the wonderful, peaceful Muslim bus ads to the mean ol’ SIOA ads?
The woman was low on facts (what’s a fatwa? hello???), but high on mushy headed approved liberal opinion. And her opinion wasn’t based on anything concrete or factual…Pamela clearly explained the fatwa, she cited case after case of the threats and violence Muslim “apostates” face, but the only danger this woman could fanthom was the violation of her comfy, politically correct worldview, and that of the perpetually aggrieved. How is Pamela promoting stereotypes that are inaccurate? She’s been trying to expose the gruesome practice of honor killings for years. All of those victims would be happy to know that they’re just “inaccurate stereotypes”…if only they were still living and breathing, and able to hear what the lady who doesn’t even know the meaning of fatwa, has to say.
This little episode made me think of something Ace had written earlier this week…(he can be so insightful). He was discussing how the leftists think, and how they base their opinions on symbolism, rather than facts, using the border fence as an example:
I always enjoy how twits speak of the symbolism of a thing.
That’s why the “Political Class” — the Gee Aren’t I Terribly Enlightened? crowd — opposes this. They talk about that a lot — the symbolism of the thing.
How about discussing the reality of it? It’s a fence. Its real purpose — in real-world, real-time reality — is to halt people from crossing a border. A real border, mind you, although on that point I concede a border is a more abstract concept than, say, a shoe.
It doesn’t symbolically represent a division between the countries. It actually is a division between the countries.
And what is wrong with that?
I’m noting this because a few weeks ago I saw a guy at the riots in Toronto who complained that the police barricades were a symbol representing a division between the protesters and the G-20 representatives.
And I thought, “Gee, no, actually it’s not a symbol of a division; it really is, in fact, a physical division.” Because, see, you’re rioting. (And not symbolically in riot, either.) You can tell it’s a real-world division because now you can’t get to the G-20 conference center and throw rock-metaphors through the window-symbols.
I think there is a type of person — well-represented in the “Political Class” and in progressive politics — that has learned, from college, that the Abstract is everything, that Real Smart People are always focused on the Abstract, on metaphors, on symbols.
And they seem to disregard the concrete, the real, almost as a dirty thing, something of concern to the plebians, who cannot of course grasp the subtleties of high representational thinking like they can. You know, with their “symbolic” barricades and all.
It’s just an observation of a type of intellectually-insecure individual who parrots the pattern of thinking of his professors (who once represented intellectual authority to them — Symbolically, of course) and elevates, always, the Abstract above the Real.
I just tend to distrust this sort of divorced-from-tangible-reality worship of the abstract. Obviously — duh — abstract thinking is important. It is, in certain ways, I suppose, a higher form of thinking than thinking of the concrete.
But not when it is shorn of all rootings to the actual world.
This is how evil happens. You can abstract any evil you choose into some esoteric “greater good.”
This is how evil is ignored, too:
American Power: Booman Tribune Blood Libels Pamela Geller