Basement Dweller

[Silverspetz]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

I believe erttheking already explained why comparing this to "a modest proposal" is fucking ridiculous, but here are some more reasons.

1) "Let's make rape legal" is nowhere near "Let's eat babies" in terms of how likely it is to actually happen. It doesn't work as satire because it sounds more like an actual (if bigoted) suggestion. There are plenty of people out there that actually think this would be viable, Roosh himself included.

2) The extreme poverty and inhuman conditions that people faced in Swift's time was an ACTUAL widespread problem that needed to be tackled. Innocent men being falsely accused of rape? Not so much.

3) The sources of these two texts couldn't be more different. Jonathan Swift was actually a smart man who proved many times that he cared about the Irish and had their best interests in mind. "A modest proposal" therefore reads as satire because not only is it so abhorrently extreme that no one can take it seriously, but it also goes directly against what he has said before so people knew he wasn't being serious. "Make rape legal" is only a small step up in vileness from all the other misogynist shit that Roosh spouts on a regular basis. No one is willing to give that waste of skin the benefit of the doubt.

In summary. You clearly don't know anything about satire if you think that every bigoted suggestion can be made "ok" if you just claim you were joking all along. No one is buying that pathetic excuse.

 

[Michael Dunkerton]

RE: "It was only satire!" as a unilateral defense--
Proverbs 26:18-19: "Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death, so is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, ?Was I not joking??

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

I believe erttheking already explained why comparing this to "a modest proposal" is fucking ridiculous, but here are some more reasons.

1) "Let's make rape legal" is nowhere near "Let's eat babies" in terms of how likely it is to actually happen. It doesn't work as satire because it sounds more like an actual (if bigoted) suggestion. There are plenty of people out there that actually think this would be viable, Roosh himself included.

2) The extreme poverty and inhuman conditions that people faced in Swift's time was an ACTUAL widespread problem that needed to be tackled. Innocent men being falsely accused of rape? Not so much.

3) The sources of these two texts couldn't be more different. Jonathan Swift was actually a smart man who proved many times that he cared about the Irish and had their best interests in mind. "A modest proposal" therefore reads as satire because not only is it so abhorrently extreme that no one can take it seriously, but it also goes directly against what he has said before so people knew he wasn't being serious. "Make rape legal" is only a small step up in vileness from all the other misogynist shit that Roosh spouts on a regular basis. No one is willing to give that waste of skin the benefit of the doubt.

In summary. You clearly don't know anything about satire if you think that every bigoted suggestion can be made "ok" if you just claim you were joking all along. No one is buying that pathetic excuse.

Issue the first: If you don't think the chances of rape being legalized these days have about the same chances as baby eating being legalized, well that just says a lot about you I'd say. (Again, unless you're talking about the Middle East.)

Issue the second: While it is true that false rape accusations are not a wide spread problem (I would also add a YET at the end of that sentence), it still doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, with the added bonus in that the acussor suffers nothing for doing so and the person they claimed raped them STILL becomes a social pariah even if they're found to be innocent. (The kids of the Cards Against Humanity guy faced no end of crap from their classmates for example.)

Third: Are you basing that on what Roosh has actually said, or what people on here have been saying? I'll admit I don't really keep up with ROK, but with things like this happening https://archive.is/xVt1K I can't bring myself to discount everything people like them say anymore.

And I'll also admit to not knowing much about satire. See, when I was in college I didn't get an English degree. I went for something more useful.

Edit: Actually, there is ONE thing I do know about satire. In a world where people will apply all kinds of meaning and metaphor to the color of a character's curtains, pretty much the only way anything can be known to be satirical anymore is if the author themselves states it to be so.

So if you want anyone to blame for ROKs satire defense, blame the people who constantly tried to apply deeper meaning to any Dr. Seuss book that WASN'T Butter Battle.

 

[Silverspetz]

A comic about a popular straw man? Fair enough. Though to be honest I don't know what "Return of the Kings" is, but I am hoping they don't really believe what is portrayed in the comic.

Actually the comic is parodying a very real man who if given a more cutting portrayal would be too close to reality that it wouldn't be funny.

"Innocent men get unfairly condemned for rapes they didn't commit, particularly in collages, thanks to the "listen and believe" philosophy that's being adopted. The solution? Legalize rape, so that innocent people get raped instead of innocent men being accused."

That's an actual quote right there. RoK is basically Stormfront for sexism.

Boy I'm glad you weren't around when "A Modest Proposal" was published.

So, what's Roosh satirizing?

If I had to guess? The stuff that's been going on in Europe recently, and some of the reactions to it.

I must be dense. I get how Swift's satire works in the land of poorhouses and child labor.

At risk of ruining the joke, how is "Making rape legal on private property will make women defend themselves better" satire?

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

As for the Satire, it's basically an over exaggerated solution to the problem of false rape accusations being more of a thing, and yet nothing is really being done to curb the issue. (And before you say anything against the idea, let me just say Mattress Girl and the guy who made Cards Against Humanity. You want more, I can find em, those are just off the top of my head.) So he proposes a ridiculous idea to solve the problem much like in the vein of Cannibalizing low class Irish children to solve the famine in Ireland.

I believe erttheking already explained why comparing this to "a modest proposal" is fucking ridiculous, but here are some more reasons.

1) "Let's make rape legal" is nowhere near "Let's eat babies" in terms of how likely it is to actually happen. It doesn't work as satire because it sounds more like an actual (if bigoted) suggestion. There are plenty of people out there that actually think this would be viable, Roosh himself included.

2) The extreme poverty and inhuman conditions that people faced in Swift's time was an ACTUAL widespread problem that needed to be tackled. Innocent men being falsely accused of rape? Not so much.

3) The sources of these two texts couldn't be more different. Jonathan Swift was actually a smart man who proved many times that he cared about the Irish and had their best interests in mind. "A modest proposal" therefore reads as satire because not only is it so abhorrently extreme that no one can take it seriously, but it also goes directly against what he has said before so people knew he wasn't being serious. "Make rape legal" is only a small step up in vileness from all the other misogynist shit that Roosh spouts on a regular basis. No one is willing to give that waste of skin the benefit of the doubt.

In summary. You clearly don't know anything about satire if you think that every bigoted suggestion can be made "ok" if you just claim you were joking all along. No one is buying that pathetic excuse.

Issue the first: If you don't think the chances of rape being legalized these days have about the same chances as baby eating being legalized, well that just says a lot about you I'd say. (Again, unless you're talking about the Middle East.)

Issue the second: While it is true that false rape accusations are not a wide spread problem (I would also add a YET at the end of that sentence), it still doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, with the added bonus in that the acussor suffers nothing for doing so and the person they claimed raped them STILL becomes a social pariah even if they're found to be innocent. (The kids of the Cards Against Humanity guy faced no end of crap from their classmates for example.)

Third: Are you basing that on what Roosh has actually said, or what people on here have been saying? I'll admit I don't really keep up with ROK, but with things like this happening https://archive.is/xVt1K I can't bring myself to discount everything people like them say anymore.

And I'll also admit to not knowing much about satire. See, when I was in college I didn't get an English degree. I went for something more useful.

1) Nice deflection tactic there kiddo. Obviously I am the problem for thinking that a culture that rushes to blame the victim every time a woman is raped MIGHT be more inclined to make rape legal than eat babies. Bonus points for blatant racism BTW.

2) Oh no, some kids got shit from their classmates. Clearly THIS could become a widespread problem, but lessening rape-laws? Nah. Solid priorities there.

3) Did you just link me to a fucking BREITBART article? Unironicly? Well, thanks for saving us all some time and outing yourself as a complete waste of space I suppose.

Bit of advice, if you are ignorant about a subject, and too fucking lazy to spend 30 seconds on Google to find some basics out for yourself, you probably shouldn't open your mouth on said subject.

If you don't know much about satire, maybe you shouldn't pretend to know what is or isn't satire? Especially not if all you are going to do is smugly use a reference to Jonathan Swift (which is apparently "useless" knowledge in your eyes) to defend a self-admitted rapist.

 

[Flathole]

Nobody takes him seriously, that's why his articles and videos get millions of hits. What a loser, living with his mother, who would otherwise be alone most of the time in an empty home. No mother likes her children after they turn 18, especially such blatant idiots like him. Also what kind of guy lives with his mom when they could pay $1200/month on rent alone for a rathole apartment in the Murder District.

That's why I read every clickbait article about him and follow his life on a day-to-day basis. He has no real power and his rhetoric is nonsensical, I know because I've memorized every ridiculous claim he's ever made, and bought a copy of all his books for my Kindle. He's fascinating- I mean, he's crazy. Do you think he makes money off all the interviews he does? The youtube vids he makes or the website(s) he manages and contributes to? I don't know, I NEED TO FIND OUT. this guy is the real thing, and if we aren't vigilant, him and his cronies will legalize rape, then murder, then murder-rape!

Woah, check out his wikipedia page- 68 sources cited! And the wiki mods have locked it!


I wish you'd all admit you're infatuated with him.

 

[Bocaj2000]

This comic is bullshit! Everyone knows that face huggers don't discriminate...

 

[Silverspetz]

Nobody takes him seriously, that's why his articles and videos get millions of hits. What a loser, living with his mother, who would otherwise be alone most of the time in an empty home. No mother likes her children after they turn 18, especially such blatant idiots like him. Also what kind of guy lives with his mom when they could pay $1200/month on rent alone for a rathole apartment in the Murder District.

That's why I read every clickbait article about him and follow his life on a day-to-day basis. He has no real power and his rhetoric is nonsensical, I know because I've memorized every ridiculous claim he's ever made, and bought a copy of all his books for my Kindle. He's fascinating- I mean, he's crazy. Do you think he makes money off all the interviews he does? The youtube vids he makes or the website(s) he manages and contributes to? I don't know, I NEED TO FIND OUT. this guy is the real thing, and if we aren't vigilant, him and his cronies will legalize rape, then murder, then murder-rape!

Woah, check out his wikipedia page- 68 sources cited! And the wiki mods have locked it!


I wish you'd all admit you're infatuated with him.

1) Pretty sure the ones who say he is harmless and the ones who say he has millions of hits are two distinct groups. It is a logical fallacy to pretend these come from the same source.

2) Staying with your mother isn't shameful in and of itself, but I do believe a small amount of Schadenfreude is in order when a proud douchebro who considers himself the height of manhood and "the femalez" to be beneath him hides out in his mother's basement. You seriously can't tell me you don't see the irony in this.

3) No one needs to follow him especially rigorously to know the gist of his political beliefs. It literally takes just 10 seconds to google him and see for yourself. And there are enough disgusting posts from him floating around the web to get the gist regardless. It's typical troll logic to accuse the opponents of a political belief of mania by claiming that they "know too much". Apparently you think anyone who engages in discussion should show up wholly unprepared and preferably uninterested in the topic of discussion, otherwise they might be "biased" or something.

4)I'm not sure exactly how many think of him as a serious threat in this, but given how prelevant his brand of douchebro culture is in media already, I'd say people are right to be a little vigilant when the guy attempts to organize his ilk on a global scale in a grab for more widespread influence. Whether he is likely to succeed or not, his "politics" are more than vile enough to warrant some opposition. Then again, you obviously consider any kind of interest in a topic to be too much.

 

[Gengisgame]

This comic is bullshit! Everyone knows that face huggers don't discriminate...

Xenomorphs live in a class system, regardless of individual talent facehuggers are just seen as breeders to the rest. Queens are the 0.001% give or take local resistance.

 

[Bocaj2000]

This comic is bullshit! Everyone knows that face huggers don't discriminate...

Xenomorphs live in a class system, regardless of individual talent facehuggers are just seen as breeders to the rest. Queens are the 0.001% give or take local resistance.

Does this mean facehuggers can't be racist/sexist because they're disempowered?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

This comic is bullshit! Everyone knows that face huggers don't discriminate...

Xenomorphs live in a class system, regardless of individual talent facehuggers are just seen as breeders to the rest. Queens are the 0.001% give or take local resistance.

Does this mean facehuggers can't be racist/sexist because they're disempowered?

It all makes sense now...

Facehuggers are oppressed.

Therefore, they can't possibly oppress people, since they're part of the humantriarchy. And it's not face rape when they jam their ovipositor down your throat because they lack agency due to the oppressive power structure put in place by all those god damned apes.

Clearly, people in here need to check their mammalian privilege and stop humansplaining.

 

[iller3]

Can we just stop giving attention to Frauds on every side of the culture war plz?
You guys do realize they're just distractions orchestrated by the corrupting Investor class, right? ... I'm not saying INTENTIONALly orchestrated, but definitely direct results of

 

[Thaluikhain]

Who cares about moderate feminists who honestly just want to do the right thing when they dont affect jack shit and let these man hating monsters speak for them instead of taking a stand against these authoriarian regressives?

Again, moderate feminists spend a lot of time condemning those on the fringes (or, indeed, other moderate feminists), which a few minutes of Google would show you. That you assert otherwise isn't helping your credibility.

Feminism was once about equal RIGHTS for both genders. Nowadays its a circus clown show that attempts to make every possible problem and culture about itselfe. Atheism? Feminist issue! Video games? Feminist issue! Tech sector? Feminist issue! Company hiring culture? Feminist issue! Diversity? Feminist issue! Racism? Feminist issue! LGBT? Feminist issue! Heavy metal? Feminist issue! Comic books? Feminist issue!

Out of interest, which of those issues and industries does not involve gender? That is, does not depict or contain or otherwise relate to human beings which happen to have gender?

All in a desperate attempt to stay relevant even thought there is allready equality in front of the law

So? Again, out of interest, how many rights groups can you name which concern themselves with equality in the eyes of the law, that is, on paper, and nothing else?

(I'd argue that many abortions laws are unequal in that they affect women rather differently from men almost all the time in practice, even though they theoretically affect both the same way.)

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

In all honesty, I find his claims that men are raging bags of testosterone who can't keep it in their pants more important than the surface proposals, because they seem to be the base of all the reasoning and justifications he's bringing up. Which is ironic because I would have thought basic self-control was a valuable virtue for a 'dudebro manly man".

Oh, and another thing... what is it with people treating the "teach men not to rape" and "teach women how to be sensible" ideologies like they're polar opposites, or even mutually exclusive? Teaching people to respect the other gender and not to get pissed off their heads is good life advice no matter the situation.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, and another thing... what is it with people treating the "teach men not to rape" and "teach women how to be sensible" ideologies like they're polar opposites, or even mutually exclusive? Teaching people to respect the other gender and not to get pissed off their heads is good life advice no matter the situation.

There's quite a bit of difference between "don't commit crimes" and "don't have crimes committed against you", though.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Oh, and another thing... what is it with people treating the "teach men not to rape" and "teach women how to be sensible" ideologies like they're polar opposites, or even mutually exclusive? Teaching people to respect the other gender and not to get pissed off their heads is good life advice no matter the situation.

There's quite a bit of difference between "don't commit crimes" and "don't have crimes committed against you", though.

And? Telling people not to commit nor invite crime should be virtues that compliment each other.

People shouldn't commit crime in theory, but the fact is in practice it's not an excuse for negligence. Any insurance company will tell you that. Or maybe I should be chastising the government for leaving signs in tourist attractions that say "car theft is an opportunity crime: lock your cars and don't leave your valuable in plain sight".

 

[Thaluikhain]

And? Telling people not to commit nor invite crime should be virtues that compliment each other.

One might be a virtue, but the other is merely a lack of a vice. Not quite the same thing.

People shouldn't commit crime in theory, but the fact is in practice it's not an excuse for negligence.

Nor is it automatic proof of it. It is very often taken to be so, though, and discussions of prevention often focus on that to the exclusion of all else, which we do not see with most other crimes.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

And? Telling people not to commit nor invite crime should be virtues that compliment each other.

One might be a virtue, but the other is merely a lack of a vice. Not quite the same thing.

Again: so what? My problem is with people acting like the two are mutually exclusive, not that they're splitting hairs over whether they technically count as 'the same thing"

People shouldn't commit crime in theory, but the fact is in practice it's not an excuse for negligence.

Nor is it automatic proof of it. It is very often taken to be so, though, and discussions of prevention often focus on that to the exclusion of all else, which we do not see with most other crimes.

So in other words, people should be encouraging prevention while also discouraging committing the crime themselves?

Thank you for proving my point for me.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

This is like saying Islam is a whole is responsible for cleaning up extremists and because they "don't denounce terrorists" the religion as a whole is a terrorist religion.

It is and eventually I believe they will. But it is people like you who do a grave disservice to Muslim reformers by condemning any and all criticism of Muslims and Islam as hate speech or 'Islamaphobia'. The lynching of Farkhunda Malikzada [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Farkhunda] in 2015, the attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai#Assassination_attempt] in 2012, the assassination of Salmaan Taseer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer] in Pakistan in 2011 are off the top of my head just some of the more newsworthy examples of individual moderate Muslims paying in blood for daring to drag their cultures and the shared religion that informs them into the 21st century.

This is like saying Christians as a while are responsible for cleaning up the Westboro Baptist Church and because "they don't denounce the WBC" they must all be responsible for their vile poison.

And neither is it the fault of ordinary Catholics that their particular brand of Christianity will be associated with pedophilia for the rest of living memory across the Western World. Shit happens, right? You seem to be operating on the quaint notion that life ought to be fair, wherein I'm dealing with life how I perceive it to actually be. Besides, the Westboro Baptist Church is an irrelevant example. Unless you can prove that they have managed to succeed in altering governmental law or policy to better suit their ideological agenda. The WBC lack any meaningful power or political clout outside of their ability to defy the boundaries of good taste to protest at events and places they really shouldn't. That isn't power. It is the desperation of utter irrelevance.

This is like saying that you, as a gamer, are responsible for all gamers who give rape threats and doxxing of women like Felicia Day for speaking out publicly about being harassed.

I've already addressed that life is unfair and that anyone who tells you differently is selling something. Everyone who played video games were vilified for the actions of a few individuals during Gamergate.

Because those groups DO have many members who call out extremists on their opinions. Just as radical feminists ARE called out by their moderate peers.Your inability to find these criticisms does you no credit to being a credible hat in this discussion. Like this is something that was settled decades ago. Like your not even presenting the philosophy from this century dude.

I don't believe what people say, I believe what people do. I wouldn't write off the philosophies from last century until they stop informing the creation of government law and policy, neither should you.

Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of Canada with a 50% female cabinet "because it's 2015."

I wouldn't pass judgement on the Trudeau administration until I see what sort of policies and law they enact, and neither should you. I would be lying if I said I wasn't more optimistic about Canada then I was about Europe, but I'd also be lying if I said that I thought Canada was as relevant as Europe to the rest of the Western World.

I'm sorry. It just isn't.

Moreover the type of feminism that is entering politics and gaining influence is third wave feminism. Emma Watson does work for the UN. The radicals aren't the ones getting traction and getting change done.

I'm certain that Emma Watson will do for feminism what Bono did for Africa. Her heart is probably in the right place though.

But who needs facts when you have bluster and rhetoric. Are you certain you are not a Useful Idiot for some agenda?

Everyone has the potential to be useful and idiotic to someone.

 

[88chaz88]

Because asking to make rape legal at all is so freaking ridiculous outside of most of the Middle East that it can't be anything but?

Seriously? Do you understand how appalingly racist this reads? Nobody from outside "most of" the "Middle East" (got to generalise as vaguely as possible right?) could possibly make such an argument seriously.

No, unfortunately views like Roosh's while not common are everywhere. I mean even if you think his specific comments are satire you should take a look at the many members of his site that agree with him and defend him. The reason people like him aren't terrifyingly serial raping women openly as opposed to many areas of the Middle East is more due to us having a far more robust justice system in the West. Roosh has also urged young men to move to countries where rape is much easier (although he likes to put it that the women are more submissive and society is less tough on men).

 

[Silverspetz]

I didn't say they were irrelevant. I said that it is highly dishonest to call them the "core" of feminism as a whole because it ignores the reality of feminism as a huge and diverse movement with multiple branches, many of whom are much larger.

Diversity in feminism is irrelevant, if only one branch of thought consistently manages to make an effect upon government policy. In much the same fashion as religion I am far less interested in the inner workings of feminism itself then I am with the intersection between government and feminism. In such situations those who identify as sex positive feminists that helped these politicians into power to enact their sex negative agenda are reduced to textbook examples of useful idiots [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot].

This is like saying Islam is a whole is responsible for cleaning up extremists and because they "don't denounce terrorists" the religion as a whole is a terrorist religion.

It is and eventually I believe they will. But it is people like you who do a grave disservice to Muslim reformers by condemning any and all criticism of Muslims and Islam as hate speech or 'Islamaphobia'. The lynching of Farkhunda Malikzada [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Farkhunda] in 2015, the attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai#Assassination_attempt] in 2012, the assassination of Salmaan Taseer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmaan_Taseer] in Pakistan in 2011 are off the top of my head just some of the more newsworthy examples of individual moderate Muslims paying in blood for daring to drag their cultures and the shared religion that informs them into the 21st century.

And until then you are just going to hold the lot of them responsible for everything, thus making it that much harder for these people to actually change anything. Thank you for clearing that up.