Still stuck in the idyllic “yummy phase” of childhood, are ya? Don’t worry, you’ll come around to these delicious hoppy messes we call the IPA and you’ll love it.

I would totally fuck a Cantillon gueuze. Any lonely gueuze’s should come pay me a visit.

Really? In my experience, even some of the star commenters here at jezebel will say things they would never say in person or with their name attributed to it. What I said was “people act like dicks,” and here is an example of it:

People act like dicks when they can communicate with others anonymously. Just look through the comments of any controversial gawkerverse article.

Speech that incites violence is not necessarily irresponsible in the same way that dressing provacatively and getting sexually assaulted is not irresponsible. You are guilty of victim blaming.

The problem is that the anti-choice core value is NOT about un-born babies, but about controlling women’s sexuality.

You make it clear to the opposition that if they can’t provide good evidence for the existence of a ghost inside of a fetus, then there is no reason to prohibit abortions? At the very least, force them to make the case that America should be a theocracy- one that supports their ideas about god and souls and the like.…

Absoultely. My post was long winded as it is, and all the potential conflicts between a “fetus with rights” and a mother would require volumes to hash out. The point you make is actually super complicated, just like standards for home self defense are. How much danger must a potential mother be in for her rights to…

Yesterday a commenter got chided for criticizing the fact that certain countries jail gay people.

I hate the way abortion is debated pretty much everywhere. Perhaps Jezebel could do the right thing, and make an effort to talk about this issue in a more productive way.

But you aren’t allowed to criticize the culture because punching down or something.

It only pushes the boundaries because you and her predict a violent response by extremists. They are the reason the speech is dangerous, the speech itself is harmless.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we should allow religious extremists to decide what we can and can’t say.

Yes, actually.

Agree on almost all points.

I don’t know her exact intentions, but I know why South Park, Charlie Hebdo, Reason, and several others did it.

There is a difference between simply an outsider view, and an informed outsider perspective

My reply was also to the general rhetoric on this thread about ‘fighting radicalization’ followed by empty statements, which do not acknowledge people who live there, and fight there, overtly or just by existing.

Well, then we might just have to disagree. I don’t think I need to have lived every where in the world to denounce institutionalized homophobia in all of it’s forms and I really don’t think I need to be especially tolerant of it,

Geller has been on the wrong side of many debates. But what about this debate? Is drawing Mohammed as way of protesting censorship-by-threat-of-violence acceptable or not/