3 ms·

>In 1989, the novelist Salman Rushdie went into hiding. The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Musl

>In 1989, the novelist Salman Rushdie went into hiding. The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million. It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence. Or to then keep referring back to it, but only to chastise liberals and leftists for being mildly critical of Rushdie, rather than the actual god damned supreme leader of Iran who called for his death. Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder. To be perfectly clear: we can't have a liberal intellectual society in the Arab world[0] for as long as people like the Ayatollahs have power and a platform. Likewise, speech-shaped violence in the Western[1] world harms liberal values way more than left-wingers saying offensive speech is violence. In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit fatwas built-in. Bonus inaccuracy nit: >The Roman Catholic Church considered the idea of heliocentricity to be harmful in the 16th century No, they considered insulting the pope to be harmful. The academic establishment wanted heliocentricity dead, because Galileo was a mathematician - the lowest rung of the academic hierarchy at the time. They silenced Galileo by convincing the Catholics that they had been insulted by a book he published on the topic of heliocentricity. [0] Iran is majority Shia Muslim but this isn't specific to one sect. [1] As in, "countries with liberal constitutions and rule of law". Western countries are not literally the westmost parts of the planet.

brandonmenc 4y ago
> It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence. > The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million. This is called "putting a hit out" on someone.
yterdy 4y ago
>Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder. I laughed, but it's important to point out that fatwas are not a formal Islamic method of putting out a hit on someone. A (likely inexhaustive) list of major fatwas declared over the past few centuries includes edicts like, "You should get vaccines," and, "Don't smoke cigarettes," and, "Coke and Pepsi are fine, actually." A lot of them are objectionable from a Western humanist's point of view, but they're not all (or even mostly) concerned with unaliving someone. I imagine tht this lack of understanding is kind of a crucial disconnect, frustrating the West's efforts to help to curb human rights abuses in Islamic regions. >In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit [threats against life and limb] built-in. Important to emphasize. People are surprised when good ol' boy speech gets you self-defensively cold-cocked, not understanding that such speech is often part-and-parcel of attempted assault and murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III) It's not speech that proceeds violence, it is speech as subject to violence's predicate, a sort of kiai.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Point taken. Is there a more specific term for "fatwas that call for someone's death" that I should be using?

brandonmenc 4y ago

> It's not a good look to start your article on how speech is not violence with a concrete example of someone using speech as violence. > The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwā calling on “all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world” to kill the writer without delay, for which the assassin would receive a bounty of $1 million. This is called "putting a hit out" on someone.

yterdy 4y ago

>Fatwas are exactly the sort of thing I'd point at if I wanted to say that speech is violence. And there are plenty of examples of fatwas in the western world now. Hell, we coined the word "stochastic terrorism" to refer to them, because apparently you're not allowed to call a fatwa a fatwa unless it comes from the Champagne region of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling murder. I laughed, but it's important to point out that fatwas are not a formal Islamic method of putting out a hit on someone. A (likely inexhaustive) list of major fatwas declared over the past few centuries includes edicts like, "You should get vaccines," and, "Don't smoke cigarettes," and, "Coke and Pepsi are fine, actually." A lot of them are objectionable from a Western humanist's point of view, but they're not all (or even mostly) concerned with unaliving someone. I imagine tht this lack of understanding is kind of a crucial disconnect, frustrating the West's efforts to help to curb human rights abuses in Islamic regions. >In fact, the reason why left-wingers are up in arms about offensive equals violent is specifically because a lot of that offensive speech comes with implicit [threats against life and limb] built-in. Important to emphasize. People are surprised when good ol' boy speech gets you self-defensively cold-cocked, not understanding that such speech is often part-and-parcel of attempted assault and murder. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Richard_Collins_III) It's not speech that proceeds violence, it is speech as subject to violence's predicate, a sort of kiai.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Point taken. Is there a more specific term for "fatwas that call for someone's death" that I should be using?