Pamela Geller wrote a “STICKY POST” seemingly intended to insult the very crowd she courts:
NO SIGNS AT THE 911 GROUND ZERO MEGA MOSQUE RALLY — FLAGS! **STICKY POST**
Robert and I respectfully request that those of you who will be attending our protest against the Ground Zero mega mosque bring American flags, not signs [...] Please get the word out now [...] We are asking that we all respect and honor that day with the flags, states flags, flags of other countries.. lots of flags…PLEASE don’t bring signs [...] It is a solemn day. No signs. FLAGS.
From a rhetorical standpoint, listing the banned item before the desired one gives the impression that you’re more concerned with stopping people from bringing the former than encouraging them to bring the latter. To wit:
NO CHILD RAPISTS AT BILLY FOURTH YEAR BIRTHDAY PARTY — GRANDMAS! **STICKY POST**
Write that and people will not only assume that some members of your audience want to bring a pedophile to a young boy’s birthday party, but that they will do so unless specifically told not to. What does that say about how you feel about your audience?
It says that you believe they lack common sense, that they might not only consider bringing a pedophile to the party, but that they might even think it’s a good idea. At the very least, you suggest that your audience might think of bringing a pedophile before a grandma, which means you think they think more about pedophiles than grandmas.
As if to prove you think they’re scum, you decide to “sticky” a post ten days in advance of the event and implore people to “get the word out now,” because you think that if your audience isn’t constantly reminded not to bring pedophiles to the party, some members of it will. Then—presumably because you feel your audience has been insufficiently insulted—you follow that title with a post whose tone flits between pleading and hectoring:
Robert and I respectfully request that those of you who will be attending Billy’s fourth year birthday bring grandmas, not pedophiles [...] Please get the word out now [...] We are asking that we all respect and honor that day with the grandmas, great-grandmas, other people’s grandmas.. lots of grandmas…PLEASE don’t bring pedophiles [...] It is a happy day. No pedophiles. GRANDMAS.
Why would you write that? Because you know that more than a few pedophiles will be showing up at the party and you want to establish plausible deniability.
Now replace “pedophile” with “hilariously misspelled, overtly racist, or just plain pig-ignorant sign” and the respect Geller has for her fellow attendees becomes all too apparent.
Scott, I'm not sure this is at all fair or right. People bring signs to rallies. That's how rallies go. The pedophile analogy is over the top. A better analogy might be:
"Robert and I respectfully request that those of you who will be attending Billy’s fourth year birthday bring donations for a charity, not presents [...] Please get the word out now [...] We are asking that we all respect and honor that day with donations…PLEASE don’t bring presents [...] It is a solemn day. No presents. DONATIONS."
Posted by: Matthew Merlino | Thursday, 02 September 2010 at 08:23 PM
Yours is more reasonable, certainly, but not necessarily more accurate, as the problem that Geller's trying to avoid are the racist, homophobic, anti-brown-people signs that end up gracing every conservative event. Her problem is that those signs, though inevitable, are used by the "lamestream media" to demonstrate that all of her people are bigots ... but her rhetoric here suggests that she believes they're all pretty much bigots, as opposed to being hardcore Israeli-supporters like herself.
Posted by: SEK | Thursday, 02 September 2010 at 08:42 PM
But hasn't Geller invited reps from the fascist English Defence League? So racist signs aren't ok, but a couple of Nazi salutes are fine (to a hardcore Israeli-supporter)?
Posted by: Naadir Jeewa | Friday, 03 September 2010 at 09:47 AM
Is it just me, Scott, or is this another edition of the "who's responsible for the embarassing people who show up in large numbers when I make points they agree with in ways that are useful to them?" discussion we had, lo those many years ago, about KC Johnson's commenters?
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Friday, 03 September 2010 at 01:04 PM
Is it just me, Scott, or is this another edition of the "who's responsible for the embarassing people who show up in large numbers when I make points they agree with in ways that are useful to them?" discussion we had, lo those many years ago, about KC Johnson's commenters?
Yet sadly, she seems more aware of her people's failings than KC did of his.
Posted by: SEK | Friday, 03 September 2010 at 01:56 PM
But hasn't Geller invited reps from the fascist English Defence League? So racist signs aren't ok, but a couple of Nazi salutes are fine (to a hardcore Israeli-supporter)?
Christ, Naadir, I hadn't seen that. When Jews lie down with Nazis ... I'm not even sure where to go with that, it's just that wrong.
Posted by: SEK | Friday, 03 September 2010 at 01:58 PM
[Edited his name to "anonymous" after leaving the previous comment from the same IP address.]
I dislike Pam Geller. I agree with much of your argument.
But your headline for this post is disgusting.
And so are you Scott. Fuck off and die.
Posted by: [Likely the person impersonating SEK] | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 06:44 PM
I'm guessing the sign ban is to prevent the media from picking out the one or two ugly signs and using them to smear the entire movement.
The left routinely assembles with a variety of ugly/mean signs, but they can get away with that because the press won't use them to smear the group in toto. This happened all the time during the Bush years. And I agree ... you shouldn't hold the crowd responsible for a few wackos.
The same doesn't hold true for right-leaning marches/assemblies. It's Media Bias 101.
Posted by: Christian Toto | Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 06:30 PM
Well, apparently they didn't listen, and it's a motley crew (Move the Mouse?)
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Saturday, 11 September 2010 at 08:22 PM