So, complete asshats all around then.
Gotta figure out how to pluralize this gif.
Great another a’hole in the lime light, just what this world really needs.
“. . .outrage farmer. . .” I’ve never heard this term before, but I like it! I shall apply it to some folks I know on Facebook immediately, thanks for the poppin’ fresh verbiage (which is most likely not that fresh, but I live under a cultural rock, so whatever).
And nothing of value was lost, cancelled… or written
as is the BBC’s affected paraprasing of what Burchill said to make it sufficiently inoffensive to describe.
Sounds like the S.O.P. for the the NYT when it publishes its occasional “Nazi Next Door” piece. There are ways of covering these scumbags without implying that their ideas and opinions are worthy of consideration by serious readers.
Oh noes! She’s been CANCELLED! Now we’ll never have to hear from her again! (Oh wait…)
Well, that is an an uncomfortable truth about Muhammad (who isn’t worshiped, but revered as a prophet.) But there are also A LOT of uncomfortable stories/truths in the Jewish and Christian texts as well.
But this wasn’t a theological or historical examination. It was just tripe from a professional shit-stirrer who is just saying controversial things to drum up attention/business.
Maybe that was her intent in the first place?!
Julie Burchill is vile, and always has been.
It still is.
It neatly and accurately caricatures her style as a columnist.
Yeah. I mean, regardless of the intent of the gadfly, it’s as much a fact that mohammed was a pedophile, as it is that god commands the jews to commit genocides in the old testament.
All very impolite, but probably it’s important to remember that everyone’s holy books and holy men weren’t and aren’t the shining monuments to humanism and morality they like to claim they are.
Most religious people are in fact far more morally sound than their religions command then to be.
The ‘Tony’ in the column being Tony Parsons who used to work at NME with Burchill. He turned into a piss-poor, (inexplicably best-selling), author with a nasty side-line as a right-wing tosser working for the Murdoch Augean stable.
Since that’s also a pretty good description of her, perhaps the mutual hatred is something like two magnetic south poles repelling one another. Except that the term “magnetic” can never really be applied to either of them.
In fact, everyone and everything mentioned in this article is awful.
For some reason, I was gifted with the book Satanic Verses one Christmas. Curious why the author was threatened with death, I went ahead and read it. Maybe the threats were because it was such a dull read.
But it did have two spots that I could see giving offense. One happens to be the only part of the book I remember. It’s set while a particular prophet was alive.
So he had a bunch of wives. Some enterprising brothel owner decides to theme his place, with each woman pretending to be one of the wives. Business took off. The woman playing the youngest wife was raking it in. Until one of the wives died. Then her impersonator was top earner (and all she had to do was pretend to be dead).
And for that, Rushdie was almost cancelled in the permanent sense.
It’s also worth noting that wealthy/ powerful men marrying… well girls was hardly uncommon at the time. So pointing out Muhammad for this seems a bit disingenuous, and clearly being said for shit- stirring purposes.
The land that comprises the Duke of Westminster’s holdings was the dowry of a 12 year old girl who married one of his ancestors. Maybe she could aim her fire a little closer to home? Or is not judging people of old by the standards of today a selective process? To sure, I doubt she is a royalist but I doubt her arguments are much to do with the age of Mohammed’s wives.
Roman Catholic Church is led by 'em.
Everyone was doing it. Therefore it wasn’t wrong.