What difference should the level of antagonistism make though?
It should make a HUGE difference in relation to how people treat or talk about said antagonism, which is what my first post was responding to.
Let's take a trip down memory lane to the far away time of just around 30 minutes and roughly 12 posts ago and look at what I was responding to:
It's interesting reading some of the earlier comments in this thread, complete with the suggestion that offending Islamists comes with a nearly understandable "consequence" of potential danger and death. I am curious if the same people think the same way about the shooting in Florida. If people are gong to flaunt their gayness knowing that radical Islamists are offended by it, is what happened in Florida just a "consequence" as well?
Good point. People said Pamela Geller was partly at fault because she flaunted her Draw Muhammad contest in their faces and baited radical Muslims. What other things make radical Muslims mad and "bait" them into violence? Being gay, being a Christian, being Jewish, feminism, women in charge, Muslims who refuse to believe as they do, women who have pre-martial sex, women who show their ankles......
Josie's comment about your comment. And what were they both doing? Talking about peoples reactions to the victimized groups and attempt to assert them as being equal and analogous things. That "flaunting their gayness" was similar to the muhammed drawing event. That "Being Gay" was the same bait as the "Draw Muhammad" contest.
And yes, I was making an issue out of the distinction between those two things, because there is a huge distinction. As I did when I referenced the event in North Carolina where the Trump protester got punched.
Or how about another hot topic, Rape.
In one instance a woman goes out to the bar with a bunch of her female friends, gets roofied, pulled away from her friends when they're distracted and then raped in a back alley.
In one instance a woman goes out to the bar by herself, drinks until she's ****faced and passing out, and then gets into the car with a complete stranger who offered to drive her home, and ends up raping her.
In neither case is the rape justified. In neither case is the woman at fault for the rape itself. But if you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that their level of responsibility that night, and the level of risk they choose to take with their actions, were comparable and should be treated or talked about in the same way then you're kidding yourself.
Based on the logic you all are employing right now, I'd be sitting here saying "Hey, they're both at a bar and have a vagina, which you know makes you a target for a rapist. What's the difference?! If you even suggest there's a difference you SUPPORT RAPE!!!!!!"!
No, in neither case were the savages who perpetrated/attempt to perpetrate these horrific acts in any way justified. And you can go back in this thread and likely find me saying that very thing. HOWEVER, the level of antagonism, the level of risk they were entering into, and the level of condemnation for the needlessness or recklessness of their own actions between these two events are MASSIVELY different. And attempting to equate them as equal, and trying to act as if they should have similar or equal responses, is ludicrous.