5 ms·

This guy is a legend. He lives in the heads of half of the Islamic world rent-free since publishing a book 30 years ago that illustrated just how fragile can be

This guy is a legend. He lives in the heads of half of the Islamic world rent-free since publishing a book 30 years ago that illustrated just how fragile can be one's perception of reality, opening up many avenues for political manipulation. He touched a sore spot there. And yet he is not the one mocking religion, the religious people are mocking it themselves by treating it and their God as a fragile thing subject to books and magazines written by foreigners thousands of miles away.

jedimind 4y ago
- mhh__ 4y ago
  Liberal values?
nxmnxm99 4y ago
I don't get what's so admirable about antagonizing a bunch of people? Obviously he should be allowed to say whatever he wants, but celebrating people who do that always struck me as silly. To each his own, but I wouldn't be celebrating someone writing books intended to piss off black people or the LGBT community either.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  It cuts both ways. Do we celebrate (or even tolerate) people who declare a death sentence on others who violate their extreme rules? Should they be a protected class? Doesn't that elevate them to some kind of privileged people?
  - nxmnxm99 4y ago
    Who's celebrating or protecting people making death sentences?
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
      Folks who propose we 'just quit antagonizing them'
      - nxmnxm99 4y ago
        Who's saying "quit antagonizing them"? I'm saying celebrating professional antagonizers is stupid.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  No matter how much you antagonise the black community, no one is going to call for your murder.
  - nxmnxm99 4y ago
    What? You think if JK Rowling wrote about African Americans being low IQ there wouldn't be people calling for her head? Someone tried to attack Dave Chapelle on stage just a few weeks ago for making jokes about trans. What rock are you living under?
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  The thing is, if you criticize X (for any value of X) then you're always going to antagonize some people. It's exceedingly hard to avoid doing that, no matter how careful you are. Especially if people are looking to be insulted for their own political gain (always good to have a "bad guy" to be antagonizing about, whether that's a single person, group, or vague concept such as "The West").
  - nxmnxm99 4y ago
    I agree. Nothing wrong with insulting people, I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. Yes, you should be allowed to offend whoever you want in a free society. But admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is just weird.
    - jatins 4y ago
      > I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. But "like offending people" is not objective. The burden has to lie with offendee as well. Flat earthers might be offended by someone saying Earth is round, but that doesn't mean that person saying that likes offending flat earthers.
      - fjeroifjg 4y ago
        You can get banned from HN for mentioning far more obvious facts relevant to many peoples lives, ex. race and crime rates. Arguably more well supported than round earth. So it's just pure hypocrisy and pretending otherwise is silly.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      That's not my point; my point is that any argument which criticizes anything is likely to antagonize people. It's also not my impression that Rushdie "likes offending people"; he wrote a fictional novel and some people took issue with what seem fairly minor points to me and had a massive hissy fit over that (partly motivated for political reasons), but I don't know the man.
- ogogmad 4y ago
  I don't think he intended to antagonise anybody when writing that book. The fact that he accidentally did so is because some people are very oversensitive -- and those people deserve to get offended, frankly. I guess nobody's getting death threats for still saying "blacklist" or "quantum supremacy", but people who are oversensitive enough to care deserve to get offended. That said, I don't think we should encourage causing people offense. It's worth being aware that a person may get offended by harmless things because of mental illnesses like psychosis, so it's worth being sensitive to that.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  The book is fiction and magic-realism at that. The intention of the book was most certainly not meant to antagonize. It is also most certainly not why he's celebrated.
  - booleandilemma 4y ago
    The intention of the book was most certainly not meant to antagonize I kinda disagree with this. There are certain parts of the book that I don't think could be interpreted any way other than antagonization. Reading the book, I felt like he even went out of his way to antagonize muslims. There were parts when I had to ask myself, "Is xyz really essential to the plot?" I'm not muslim, fwiw. And this goes without saying, but no one should be persecuted for what they write.
- conorgdaly 4y ago
  Being black or gay isn't a choice. Being a voluntary member of an organization is a choice.
  - Ladioss 4y ago
    Apostasy for ex-Muslims is punishable by death. It makes it much harder to be really a "choice".
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  Gonna drop this off and skedaddle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility

jedimind 4y ago

mhh__ 4y ago
Liberal values?

nxmnxm99 4y ago

I don't get what's so admirable about antagonizing a bunch of people? Obviously he should be allowed to say whatever he wants, but celebrating people who do that always struck me as silly. To each his own, but I wouldn't be celebrating someone writing books intended to piss off black people or the LGBT community either.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
It cuts both ways. Do we celebrate (or even tolerate) people who declare a death sentence on others who violate their extreme rules? Should they be a protected class? Doesn't that elevate them to some kind of privileged people?
- nxmnxm99 4y ago
  Who's celebrating or protecting people making death sentences?
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    Folks who propose we 'just quit antagonizing them'
    - nxmnxm99 4y ago
      Who's saying "quit antagonizing them"? I'm saying celebrating professional antagonizers is stupid.
cuteboy19 4y ago
No matter how much you antagonise the black community, no one is going to call for your murder.
- nxmnxm99 4y ago
  What? You think if JK Rowling wrote about African Americans being low IQ there wouldn't be people calling for her head? Someone tried to attack Dave Chapelle on stage just a few weeks ago for making jokes about trans. What rock are you living under?
Beltalowda 4y ago
The thing is, if you criticize X (for any value of X) then you're always going to antagonize some people. It's exceedingly hard to avoid doing that, no matter how careful you are. Especially if people are looking to be insulted for their own political gain (always good to have a "bad guy" to be antagonizing about, whether that's a single person, group, or vague concept such as "The West").
- nxmnxm99 4y ago
  I agree. Nothing wrong with insulting people, I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. Yes, you should be allowed to offend whoever you want in a free society. But admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is just weird.
  - jatins 4y ago
    > I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people. But "like offending people" is not objective. The burden has to lie with offendee as well. Flat earthers might be offended by someone saying Earth is round, but that doesn't mean that person saying that likes offending flat earthers.
    - fjeroifjg 4y ago
      You can get banned from HN for mentioning far more obvious facts relevant to many peoples lives, ex. race and crime rates. Arguably more well supported than round earth. So it's just pure hypocrisy and pretending otherwise is silly.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    That's not my point; my point is that any argument which criticizes anything is likely to antagonize people. It's also not my impression that Rushdie "likes offending people"; he wrote a fictional novel and some people took issue with what seem fairly minor points to me and had a massive hissy fit over that (partly motivated for political reasons), but I don't know the man.
ogogmad 4y ago
I don't think he intended to antagonise anybody when writing that book. The fact that he accidentally did so is because some people are very oversensitive -- and those people deserve to get offended, frankly. I guess nobody's getting death threats for still saying "blacklist" or "quantum supremacy", but people who are oversensitive enough to care deserve to get offended. That said, I don't think we should encourage causing people offense. It's worth being aware that a person may get offended by harmless things because of mental illnesses like psychosis, so it's worth being sensitive to that.
bogomipz 4y ago
The book is fiction and magic-realism at that. The intention of the book was most certainly not meant to antagonize. It is also most certainly not why he's celebrated.
- booleandilemma 4y ago
  The intention of the book was most certainly not meant to antagonize I kinda disagree with this. There are certain parts of the book that I don't think could be interpreted any way other than antagonization. Reading the book, I felt like he even went out of his way to antagonize muslims. There were parts when I had to ask myself, "Is xyz really essential to the plot?" I'm not muslim, fwiw. And this goes without saying, but no one should be persecuted for what they write.
conorgdaly 4y ago
Being black or gay isn't a choice. Being a voluntary member of an organization is a choice.
- Ladioss 4y ago
  Apostasy for ex-Muslims is punishable by death. It makes it much harder to be really a "choice".
jimmygrapes 4y ago
Gonna drop this off and skedaddle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility