Talk:Pamela Geller

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sexism[edit]

This page apparently seeks to use the fact that Geller is a woman to discredit her. Her breasts are of a fine size and nature and it would be insane to use her body to debase her argument. Who wrote this sexist shit? Guidedog (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--ADtalkModerator 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Not as bad as that older version of the Ann Coulter article. Eugh. Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 11:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anders Brevik[edit]

It is certainly interesting that Anders Brevik read Geller's blog; mass murderers tend to have unstable cognitive habits at best. He could have come across and been drawn into her site for any number of reasons. This belongs on the Anders Brevik page, not on Geller's as she has no control over who her blogs appeal to. Guidedog (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

She published one of his letters...--"Shut up, Brx." 03:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No she didn't. It was an anonymous reader. It's a city of 650,000 people. How can you rationally conclude that it was Brevik? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Guidedog (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"we" were "stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment"--"Shut up, Brx." 03:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So if someone stock piles weapons and equipment, you think that they are responsible for shootings in their area? You know they have rules of evidence right? 650,000 people 50% of them enrolled in the Norwegian home guard. Guidedog (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It is reasonable to include (although I should note that this article needs writing improvement) because her slavering islamophobia helped influence a violent islamophobe. Ideologues should be held to account when their influence translates to real-world events; while not responsible for the actions of others, Gellar's ravings helped to convince Brevik that his world was under assault by liberals and Muslims.
If you require further clarification, please read Mother Night by Vonnegut.--ADtalkModerator 03:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
As much as I would like to read Vonnegut I don't have time. I read the synopsis but didn't see anything worth noting, perhaps an Anti-Vonnegut nutjob has hijacked the page and the synopsis isn't as objective as it could be. What your arguing, I judge, is that Geller's work in some way defrauded Brevik by convincing him to mount a suicidal attack. However, the connection is so tenuous, because while Geller is opposed to the spread of Wahhabist Islam and other fundamentalist sects, nothing in the article suggests that she encouraged the violence that Brevik ended up committing. I would also point out that there is a difference between personal opinion, a hoax, and a fraud. It is still Brevik's obligation to be critical of the opinions he takes on, and the actions he takes. Guidedog (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If you have time to edit this wiki how do you not have time to read Vonnegut? It's not like he's lengthy or obtuse. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Having time to edit a wiki doesn't mean I have time to read Vonnegut. Guidedog (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that it is probably a problem if you don't have time to take in and assess new information, yet still consider yourself well-informed. Nonetheless, the point that would have been made by the book (and made much better by the book) is that no matter their intentions or their best wishes, a person has some ineluctable culpability for the effects of the ideas they espouse. I was not saying that Gellar "defrauded Brevik by convincing him to mount a suicide attack" - an almost incomprehensible misstatement - but rather that Gellar's ideology was influential on Brevik, and helped convince him that his decision was a just and correct one. Gellar rants daily, in hyperbole and hysterics, about how militant Islam is taking over every aspect of the world, insidiously infiltrating and taking advantage of the good nature of white people the West. She shrieks about taqqiya, which in her interpretation makes it moral for Muslims to lie when it suits them, and dhimmitude, which is/will be levied on all non-Muslims in the dystopic future. And the people enabling this infiltration and conquest are the foolish liberals, with their dangerous beliefs. Gellar screams about a Gordian knot of lying liberals and murderous Muslims, insoluble in its tangled malevolence, and cries out for someone to do something about this knot. It's not hard to see a connection when someone takes out a sword and goes to town on it.
Seriously: read some books.--ADtalkModerator 22:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I doubt the letter was Breivik. The inconsistencies outweigh the post hoc parallels. However, the fact is that Geller reacted to Breivik's massacre by editing the letter to remove the "stockpiling weapons" quote, so the connection is there. As a group, these right wing bloggers need to know that their words can lead to actions. And if they want to spew hate, they can't wash their hands if someone runs with it more seriously. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 10:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell[edit]

Falwell was an anti-Semite, he only supported Israel because he thought he could make money out of it as he himself admitted. He said that the Antichrist was alive today and was an adult, male Jew so I'll be removing him from the "Not anti-Semitic list" if you don't mind. I'd rather read that boring hack, Kurt Vonnegut than Falwell. Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear confused. The statement in the article means Geller thinks that - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugly old bitch[edit]

One of her quotes on her own blog is to 'drop a MOAB for every rocket fired from Gaza'. Savage whore. --AlanA (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Geller is terrible, but there's absolutely no need for genedered insults or attacks on her physical appearance.TallMan (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrific[edit]

Dang, you people are cruel. Pamela Geller has more balls than all you leftists on RationalWiki! She (and other bold souls) expose the politically incorrect truth about Islam while you guys have a cowardly series on "Islamophobia." History ain't going to treat you people kindly. God bless Pamela Geller and other brave heroes who stand up to Islam. — Unsigned, by: 67.10.74.137 / talk / contribs

She's a Bosnian Genocide denier. In light of her defiant tone towards Islam, genocide denial is a red-flag. user:ChrisAmiss
We don't have a "series" on Islamophobia. We have a category for tagging articles on people and movements that are Islamophobic, like the 969 Movement which actively murders Muslims (I bet you deny said movement even exists). We also have ONE article explicitly on Islamophobia and a fair chunk of it is about how there is a difference between Islamophobia and simply criticizing Islam. We also have articles on Anti-Semitism, Anti-Catholicism, and Atheophobia. We also have categories for Islamism AND Islamic fundametalism AND Islamic extremism, articles on every major Islamic terrorist group in the world today, and articles on a whole bunch of individual Muslim douchebags. But I guess we're "cowardly."
P.S: You're lord and savior, Pam Geller, is a joke. Rand0 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You're a joke. The Serbs did perpetrate atrocities in Bosnia, but so did the Muslims. The complication with the Muslims is that they exaggerate the numbers and just outright lie. It's hypocritical to ignore war crimes on one side and demonize the other. Muslim propaganda sites like "Loonwatch" spew libel to harm the people like Pamela Geller, and the useful idiots on other websites just parrot the same disinformation. And yes, the 969 Movement exists but they're a response to violent Islamic aggression. The 969 Movement may be pretty brutal and ruthless, but the Burmese Buddhists had it worse under Muslim persecution. I noticed the lack of that specific information on your 969 Movement article so yes you guys are indeed "cowardly." Not to mention you all lack similar relevant information on many other of your Islam-related pages. — Unsigned, by: 67.10.74.137 / talk / contribs
We're just not bigotted enough, and can't see how mindless hate is the only way forward! What failures are we! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

She may have coined a new word[edit]

The word "unmosks" occurs in her rant. Making allowances for spelling errors, wouldn't that mean demolishing a mosque? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)