> I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people...admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is

> I just take issue with deifying and amplifying people who like offending people...admiring people because of their intent to offend large groups of people is just weird. This is a false framing. The person who wrote the post you originally replied to does not appear to be doing that; the comment praises Rushdie for saying uncomfortable things and challenging entrenched views, not for insulting people. It may be (as as been suggested in these comments) that Rushdie was indeed trying to offend people, but even if that were the case, it does not mean that his supporters are celebrating him for that. In fact, I feel it is fairly safe to say that, for most of his supporters in this matter, he is something of a MacGuffin: they support the position you concur with in your second paragraph, and he just happens to present a case where it is under significant threat. Opposition to terrorism (state-sponsored terrorism, no less) does not necessarily imply or depend on supporting the victim's position or all of their actions, any more than opposition of the death penalty is an endorsement of murder and its perpetrators. Even people who have reservations about your second paragraph can see that Rushdie was not threatening anyone, directly or indirectly.