Sensitivity Training

[Arif_Sohaib]

That aside that was a real zinger, even as a christian I felt that.

I hear that. I think it's cause as far as Stout goes, she's not anti-Muslim, she treats all religions with equal contempt. Referring to religious people as ones who have "an imaginary friend" is a cheap shot at anyone who believes in a higher power that can't be unquestionably proven to exist.

I think it is the equivalent of a religious person saying "you don't believe what I believe therefore you are going to hell". Neither is a pleasant comment and both should be kept out of general conversation.

That is a really good way to put it. In criticizing religion some atheists start doing the exact thing they criticize religious people for.

 

[maninahat]

Now, admittedly, there are other religiously motivated terror groups. But they don't operate on the same scale. There also aren't any Christian theocracies out there than put people to death for adultery or blasphemy.

Places like the Central African Republic still execute people for witchcraft, whilst many Christian African nations are notorious for applying the death penalty to homosexuals and sodomites. Women are denied or discouraged from education in many places, and conflicts between Muslim and Christian groups are common.

And all of this is supported by a doctrine of global jihad, which basically classes all outsiders to certain sects as barbarians and therefore, declares open warfare on them. And yes, this is a religious notion, not just a political one. People died when a cartoon was drawn of Mohammed and a Koran was burned in Afghanistan. These aren't any less religiously motivated than politically...

...What it does mean, I think, is that condemning the religious institutions themselves for the actions of its followers is appropriate and that doing so does not necessarily make one a xenophobic turd or a prejudiced person. It certainly doesn't mean that everyone who criticizes the religion is completely ignorant of it either. I probably know more about Islam than many of the violent Muslims who are largely illiterate and get their information from religious leaders who are trying to convince them to be violent. This is a widespread problem, not something that is isolated to a few small groups who have perverted their faith.

There isn't much I can disagree with there. My only concern is that Islam gets regarded as somehow exceptionally and intrinsically violent whilst similar examples of religious (and for that matter, non-religious) motivated violence goes unreported/unnoticed.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Yay, Penny's back!
And wearing a rather fetching pair of kitty ears, to boot.

 

[Skeleon]

I didn't get the joke at first. I think that might say something about my attitude towards organized religion.

 

[Agayek]

So, if I said that you needed to convert to Catholicism or be punched in the face until the stupid bleeds out of your ears, would that be discussing my belief uncivilly?

Just askin'.

If you attempted to assault me because I said your *insert holy book here* is fallacious, you would be discussing your beliefs uncivilly.

If you restrained it to just stating that you want to punch me in the face for not being *insert religion here*, you would still qualify as "civil".

No war actually happened because people told other people to believe in their religion. They happened because of political and social differences. Even the Crusades wasn't the Pope telling Muslims to convert. The first one was because one Muslim ruler forgot that Islam prohibits persecuting non-Muslims living in a Muslim country and started abusing Christians. The Byzantine emperor called for help and the Pope seized this as an opportunity to gain political power and throw some bad people out of Europe by sending them as mercenaries/Crusaders. Where does Christianity or Islam come into this? Its Muslims and Christians who were the culprits, not their religion. If they did follow their religion, the Muslim ruler would not have done what he did and the Pope would turn the other cheek. And don't say religion allowed these people to control everyone else, people like that can use any excuse. Stalin, Hitler and Robespierre used nationality to do the same thing. Money can be and is used to do it, resources, land, anything can do it.

Some Muslims can and do respond in a civil manner, you just tend to ignore them.
What question would you ask of me, a proud Pakistani Muslim?

Also, Islam has rules for war, one of them being to not kill civilians and another being if an enemy inclines to peace we are ordered to incline to peace.

About the protests, you only saw the violent ones. From Pakistan,for example, you saw the ones on the day declared by the government on which it turned violent. No news channel covered the peaceful one in my university or the one held by Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, the Grand Mufti of Pakistan, one week later. What you don't understand about those protests is that there are some people here who use protests like this as an excuse to start looting.

I live in Karachi and I actually saw the aftermath of this personally. Is a stupid joke worth this? Is it not hate speech if it incites hatred between my people and yours? We aren't asking you to censor any speech that you don't censor for others.

I never said anything about Islam.

I'm firmly of the camp that people are people. Some are good, some are bad, and the vast majority are somewhere in between. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, black, white, yellow, tall, short, whatever. It's all irrelevant. People are people.

My point was not the whole "fuck religions, especially those damn dirty Arabs!" thing that you've apparently conjured up. I explicitly made no mention of any particular religion or situation, simply a general guideline of behavior.

My post explicitly states that "anyone (I really want to draw attention to this because you're apparently willfully blind to it) who can't keep their hands to themselves over an argument needs to be punched in the face". That means that anyone, regardless of race or creed, that feels the need to resort to violence to settle an argument needs to be violently beaten, preferably with pieces of their own anatomy.

People can, and have, done terrible things to people for any number of reasons, some valid, but most horrifically not. Anyone who perpetrates violence against another for stating their opinion is most assuredly in the latter category. I don't give a flying fuck what the reasons are.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

What's for a xenophobic turd to fail to understand? Some people get murderously violent because of a religion, about 99% of the time, it's a certain religion. I don't have to get a degree in Islamic Studies or anything to want to put a boot to it.

Except it ain't muslims 99% of the time. At the moment, Islam is probably the most violent large religion on earth, but only by a small margin. So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Citation needed. Specifically a citation relevant to the last 20 years. Now, if you only consider honor killings, then you would have a point. Course, even there Islam still takes the plurality, if not the majority. However, excluding honor killings, Islam is very much in the lead concerning violence. Definitely over 90%, quite possibly well over 99%.

Honor killings have nothing to do with Islam(maybe not even with Hinduism or Sikhism). They are an ancient Indian tradition. That is why Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are all guilty of it.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

So, if I said that you needed to convert to Catholicism or be punched in the face until the stupid bleeds out of your ears, would that be discussing my belief uncivilly?

Just askin'.

If you attempted to assault me because I said your *insert holy book here* is fallacious, you would be discussing your beliefs uncivilly.

If you restrained it to just stating that you want to punch me in the face for not being *insert religion here*, you would still qualify as "civil".

No war actually happened because people told other people to believe in their religion. They happened because of political and social differences. Even the Crusades wasn't the Pope telling Muslims to convert. The first one was because one Muslim ruler forgot that Islam prohibits persecuting non-Muslims living in a Muslim country and started abusing Christians. The Byzantine emperor called for help and the Pope seized this as an opportunity to gain political power and throw some bad people out of Europe by sending them as mercenaries/Crusaders. Where does Christianity or Islam come into this? Its Muslims and Christians who were the culprits, not their religion. If they did follow their religion, the Muslim ruler would not have done what he did and the Pope would turn the other cheek. And don't say religion allowed these people to control everyone else, people like that can use any excuse. Stalin, Hitler and Robespierre used nationality to do the same thing. Money can be and is used to do it, resources, land, anything can do it.

Some Muslims can and do respond in a civil manner, you just tend to ignore them.
What question would you ask of me, a proud Pakistani Muslim?

Also, Islam has rules for war, one of them being to not kill civilians and another being if an enemy inclines to peace we are ordered to incline to peace.

About the protests, you only saw the violent ones. From Pakistan,for example, you saw the ones on the day declared by the government on which it turned violent. No news channel covered the peaceful one in my university or the one held by Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, the Grand Mufti of Pakistan, one week later. What you don't understand about those protests is that there are some people here who use protests like this as an excuse to start looting.

I live in Karachi and I actually saw the aftermath of this personally. Is a stupid joke worth this? Is it not hate speech if it incites hatred between my people and yours? We aren't asking you to censor any speech that you don't censor for others.

I never said anything about Islam.

I'm firmly of the camp that people are people. Some are good, some are bad, and the vast majority are somewhere in between. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, black, white, yellow, tall, short, whatever. It's all irrelevant. People are people.

My point was not the whole "fuck religions, especially those damn dirty Arabs!" thing that you've apparently conjured up. I explicitly made no mention of any particular religion or situation, simply a general guideline of behavior.

My post explicitly states that "anyone (I really want to draw attention to this because you're apparently willfully blind to it) who can't keep their hands to themselves over an argument needs to be punched in the face". That means that anyone, regardless of race or creed, that feels the need to resort to violence to settle an argument needs to be violently beaten, preferably with pieces of their own anatomy.

People can, and have, done terrible things to people for any number of reasons, some valid, but most horrifically not. Anyone who perpetrates violence against another for stating their opinion is most assuredly in the latter category. I don't give a flying fuck what the reasons are.

Lets say I am in a position of power and am able to spread information very fast and I insult or spread bad rumors your mother or father or whoever your most beloved person or thing is. Are you not allowed to be angry? Are you not allowed to punch me in the face out of frustration because in the hypothetical scenario you are not in a position that anyone will listen to you. That is why some people respond violently to comments.
This is the situation most uneducated Muslims found themselves in after the video was posted on Youtube.
Those who could respond peacefully did. Like the response to Newsweek's Muslim Rage article on twitter.

 

[NotALiberal]

or because they're xenophobic turds looking for any excuse to put the boot in on a religion they don't even begin to understand.

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone whose family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

 

[Cavouku]

Except it ain't muslims 99% of the time. At the moment, Islam is probably the most violent large religion on earth, but only by a small margin. So what? We gonna boot out all the christians and hindus next?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Anyone who can't keep their hands to themselves over an argument, especially when it comes down to something as asinine as who's ancient supposedly-divinely-inspired text is the ONE TRUE TRUTH, needs to be punched in the face until the stupid bleeds out of their ears.

Believing in something is not, and should not be, a problem. The problem arises when one cannot discuss, or respond to criticism of, their beliefs civilly.

I'm willing to totally agree, but we can extend that to; the problem also comes when people with different beliefs or no beliefs are not being civil towards people with certain beliefs, right?

 

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

Youknow, if you agree to hate muslims cause they discriminate against nonmuslims. You must also hate Christians for discriminating against non-christians. And Conservatives for approving violence against people following left-leaning ideologies.

 

[Agayek]

Lets say I am in a position of power and am able to spread information very fast and I insult or spread bad rumors your mother or father or whoever your most beloved person or thing is. Are you not allowed to be angry? Are you not allowed to punch me in the face out of frustration because in the hypothetical scenario you are not in a position that anyone will listen to you. That is why some people respond violently to comments.
This is the situation most uneducated Muslims found themselves in after the video was posted on Youtube.
Those who could respond peacefully did. Like the response to Newsweek's Muslim Rage article on twitter.

Of course you're allowed to be angry when someone maligns you or yours falsely. What you're not allowed to do is haul off on someone for stating their opinion. You can argue your case, and if they've lied you can prove them wrong, but you are not in any way justified in attacking them.

When someone says something you don't like, there's 2 possible scenarios that can play out.

1) It's the truth
2) It's a lie

If #1 is the case, then the solution is ridiculously simple: Accept it or change it. Either you like it, in which case good on you, or you don't like it, in which case the onus is on you to do something about it. Neither of these responses involve violence, rioting, or really much of anything beyond some introspection and possibly a change/focus in your efforts in the future.

If #2 is the case, then they can safely be ignored (as clearly the holder of said opinion has false information or is deliberately lying, either way they're not worth the effort), or if you're feeling petty, proven false. Again, neither of these options involve violence.

At the end of the day, responding to someone's opinion with violence is inherently flawed, and you do not in any way have the right to do so. The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

TLDR version: Settling arguments, especially such pointless ones as "which ancient text that's been translated so many times and across so many cultures that practically nothing of the original remains is the ONE REAL TRUTH", with violence is fucking atrocious, and anyone that does so needs to be beaten to death before their stupidity can take even more of a foothold amongst the human race.

 

[Cavouku]

So, if I said that you needed to convert to Catholicism or be punched in the face until the stupid bleeds out of your ears, would that be discussing my belief uncivilly?

Just askin'.

If you attempted to assault me because I said your *insert holy book here* is fallacious, you would be discussing your beliefs uncivilly.

If you restrained it to just stating that you want to punch me in the face for not being *insert religion here*, you would still qualify as "civil".

No war actually happened because people told other people to believe in their religion. They happened because of political and social differences. Even the Crusades wasn't the Pope telling Muslims to convert. The first one was because one Muslim ruler forgot that Islam prohibits persecuting non-Muslims living in a Muslim country and started abusing Christians. The Byzantine emperor called for help and the Pope seized this as an opportunity to gain political power and throw some bad people out of Europe by sending them as mercenaries/Crusaders. Where does Christianity or Islam come into this? Its Muslims and Christians who were the culprits, not their religion. If they did follow their religion, the Muslim ruler would not have done what he did and the Pope would turn the other cheek. And don't say religion allowed these people to control everyone else, people like that can use any excuse. Stalin, Hitler and Robespierre used nationality to do the same thing. Money can be and is used to do it, resources, land, anything can do it.

Some Muslims can and do respond in a civil manner, you just tend to ignore them.
What question would you ask of me, a proud Pakistani Muslim?

Also, Islam has rules for war, one of them being to not kill civilians and another being if an enemy inclines to peace we are ordered to incline to peace.

About the protests, you only saw the violent ones. From Pakistan,for example, you saw the ones on the day declared by the government on which it turned violent. No news channel covered the peaceful one in my university or the one held by Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, the Grand Mufti of Pakistan, one week later. What you don't understand about those protests is that there are some people here who use protests like this as an excuse to start looting.

I live in Karachi and I actually saw the aftermath of this personally. Is a stupid joke worth this? Is it not hate speech if it incites hatred between my people and yours? We aren't asking you to censor any speech that you don't censor for others.

I never said anything about Islam.

I'm firmly of the camp that people are people. Some are good, some are bad, and the vast majority are somewhere in between. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, black, white, yellow, tall, short, whatever. It's all irrelevant. People are people.

My point was not the whole "fuck religions, especially those damn dirty Arabs!" thing that you've apparently conjured up. I explicitly made no mention of any particular religion or situation, simply a general guideline of behavior.

My post explicitly states that "anyone (I really want to draw attention to this because you're apparently willfully blind to it) who can't keep their hands to themselves over an argument needs to be punched in the face". That means that anyone, regardless of race or creed, that feels the need to resort to violence to settle an argument needs to be violently beaten, preferably with pieces of their own anatomy.

People can, and have, done terrible things to people for any number of reasons, some valid, but most horrifically not. Anyone who perpetrates violence against another for stating their opinion is most assuredly in the latter category. I don't give a flying fuck what the reasons are.

Actually, I should've read the second page before my last post.

Now, you realize you're recommending violence against violent people, right? I just want to point that out to you. I know you probably mean more of a general "they should be punished for assaulting others" deal, but you shouldn't use forms of assault within that punishment. That's... kinda getting a bit Hammurabic there.

You're right. People who use violence in an argument are not being nice, and should receive some form of condemnation for it. Religion is barely related to that. I don't believe anyone's disagreeing.

So... thanks for the input, but unless it IS related to religion, like the "My texts are holier than thou'sts" bit from earlier, it's a bit redundant. In regards to the text thing... well, it's one of many reasons people argue. I like to think South Park had it right; if you take away the thing making people argue, they'll find something else to argue about.

Captcha: inside out

I just thought that might have some meaning if you think about it.

 

[Agayek]

I'm willing to totally agree, but we can extend that to; the problem also comes when people with different beliefs or no beliefs are not being civil towards people with certain beliefs, right?

That's more or less what I was driving at under "discuss", so yea sure.

Edit: To clarify a response to your second quote of me, I am in fact promoting violence against those who initiate violence. Violence is a tool, and just like any other, it has its place. Defending you and yours is the most widely acknowledged of such, but it also extends to the realm of punishment. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and accepting punishment for wrongdoing, 'tis one of the reasons I support the death penalty and whatnot.

If someone is willing to commit violence, they implicitly accept the responsibility for that choice, and should therefore have violence committed unto them for doing so.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

or because they're xenophobic turds looking for any excuse to put the boot in on a religion they don't even begin to understand.

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone who's family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

I am very sorry about what happened to you but I would like to clarify that if you lived in a Muslim county, Islam says it is the responsibility of the government to protect you.
If the government that you lived under ignored this part then they are not just terrible people, they are terrible Muslims.
When Pakistanis burnt Hindu temples in response to the Babri Masjid verdict in India, our government actually paid to repair those temples and they were following Islam when they did this. I can't provide links to this news but this was something my old history teacher(who came from India to Pakistan in 1971) told the class.
Again I am very sorry for what Muslims did to you and your family and your community.

 

[NotALiberal]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway. As long as you arent using liberals as a synonym for 'left leaning' like some other idiots I've seen... actually, im not even certain the democrats are liberal. Are you American or Not? Cause Democrats are pretty much the actual conservatives with a mix of Liberalism. The Republicans are regressive s with a mix of conservatism, which makes Democrats seem progressive, really its just an illusion.

 

[NotALiberal]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives. Inaction is to me, more neutral than negative-action. And the negative action deserves far more hatred.

 

[NotALiberal]

or because they're xenophobic turds looking for any excuse to put the boot in on a religion they don't even begin to understand.

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone who's family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

I am very sorry about what happened to you but I would like to clarify that if you lived in a Muslim county, Islam says it is the responsibility of the government to protect you.
If the government that you lived under ignored this part then they are not just terrible people, they are terrible Muslims.
When Pakistanis burnt Hindu temples in response to the Babri Masjid verdict in India, our government actually paid to repair those temples and they were following Islam when they did this. I can't provide links to this news but this was something my old history teacher(who came from India to Pakistan in 1971) told the class.
Again I am very sorry for what Muslims did to you and your family and your community.

If you are Muslim, then no offense intended. To be clear, if someone tells me they're Muslim, I won't treat them any differently, I will merely treat them the way I would want to be treated. I hate most major religions, but I will NEVER hate it's adherents blindly because they believe in something I do not. I will only hate those who give me reason to, like the idiots burning down embassies, or more recently, those fundie Christians in Greece(I think?) who assaulted press for watching a "blasphemous" film.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Lets say I am in a position of power and am able to spread information very fast and I insult or spread bad rumors your mother or father or whoever your most beloved person or thing is. Are you not allowed to be angry? Are you not allowed to punch me in the face out of frustration because in the hypothetical scenario you are not in a position that anyone will listen to you. That is why some people respond violently to comments.
This is the situation most uneducated Muslims found themselves in after the video was posted on Youtube.
Those who could respond peacefully did. Like the response to Newsweek's Muslim Rage article on twitter.

Of course you're allowed to be angry when someone maligns you or yours falsely. What you're not allowed to do is haul off on someone for stating their opinion. You can argue your case, and if they've lied you can prove them wrong, but you are not in any way justified in attacking them.

When someone says something you don't like, there's 2 possible scenarios that can play out.

1) It's the truth
2) It's a lie

If #1 is the case, then the solution is ridiculously simple: Accept it or change it. Either you like it, in which case good on you, or you don't like it, in which case the onus is on you to do something about it. Neither of these responses involve violence, rioting, or really much of anything beyond some introspection and possibly a change/focus in your efforts in the future.

If #2 is the case, then they can safely be ignored (as clearly the holder of said opinion has false information or is deliberately lying, either way they're not worth the effort), or if you're feeling petty, proven false. Again, neither of these options involve violence.

At the end of the day, responding to someone's opinion with violence is inherently flawed, and you do not in any way have the right to do so. The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

TLDR version: Settling arguments, especially such pointless ones as "which ancient text that's been translated so many times and across so many cultures that practically nothing of the original remains is the ONE REAL TRUTH", with violence is fucking atrocious, and anyone that does so needs to be beaten to death before their stupidity can take even more of a foothold amongst the human race.

Sometimes people's emotions get the best of them and they resort to violence in frustration.

And I really don't want to mention Hitler again but he spread rumors about Jews before killing them. So no, if the person spreading rumors is in a position of power, it can't be ignored.(I am not talking about the guy who posted the video, I am talking about Youtube arbitrarily defining what is and what isn't hate speech on their own whims, no response video is going to get as many hits or media attention as the original and more attention would have been on the violent protestors).