November 1, 2014

Actor spouting Islamophobia gets punched in the face and shouts "It's a social experiment! It's a social experiment!"

"A social experiment that ended with an actor posing as an Islamophobe getting punched in the face has shown that Canadians are prepared to defend Muslims in the face of overt racist abuse in the wake of a recent terror attack."



Via Metafilter, where somebody says "They got punched for committing sociology."

78 comments:

kcom said...

That's the stupidest word on the face of the earth. Somebody ought to punch anyone who uses it.

Use "anti-Islamic" if that's what you mean. It's actually descriptive of what's going on. But Islamophobia, especially "spouting Islamophobia" is a non-sequitur. A phobia is a state of mind, not a political act. Someone might spout anti-Islamic words because he's an Islamophobe, but there are plenty of other reasons he might do so, like digust at their repellent actions.

Carol said...

Obviously they're already cowed by Islamists and want to keep the peace.

traditionalguy said...

That was funny. Don't mess with the Religion of the Sword. ( Islam has never claimed to be the Religion of Peace...that is PR only hoping to transform them.)

Bob Ellison said...

The guy who got punched says "He stood up for him, and I appreciate that. That's good. That's good."

So what did he learn? Violence against him is a good answer to his own speech?

Ann Althouse said...

@kcom Please watch the video and comment on that.

The "-phobia" words like "homophobia" have been criticized over the years in the way that you are doing, but your comment is really off point and unfortunate as the first comment in this thread, because the actor is literally expressing a fear of Muslims.

That you would threaten violence toward people who misuse a word further detracts from your comment, even if you imagine you are being funny.

B said...

Violence = "prepared to defend Muslims"

Message: violence is ok as long as it's for the right cause.

tds said...

I'm pretty sure the guy in a cap would punch anybody given a proper opportunity ... and he probably does, look at his technique.

rhhardin said...

It's a skit, not a social experiment.

No science involved.

Steve Uhr said...

Social experiment 2 -- the guy punching is also "in on it" and see if anyone says the he went too far.

Steve Uhr said...

Social experiment 3 -- The main actor lifts up the clothes of the muslim actor and reveals a bomb strapped to his waist.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I am in favor of more of these "social experiment" people getting punched in the face.

madAsHell said...

I'll guess that the whole thing was scripted.
It's theater.

traditionalguy said...

That was a good look into passive-aggressive Canadian sociology. The sweet reason on the surface is demanded until it is time for violence which is delegated to a ruffian class of enforcers.

Bob Boyd said...

The guy in the black leather coat says, "You can't stereotype people by their...nationality."
"What happened there was an incident of fanatics."
"They did that in the States in 9/11, and it was crazy."

Real bigot attacks faux bigot by spouting bigotry.

kcom said...

I'm not being funny, I'm being disgusted. It's a ridiculous, stupid, propaganda word. Whoever promulgates and promotes it is doing a disservice to truth.

But I will admit I didn't watch the video but read the closed caption on the screen cap. I have since watched the video and still believe that word is a propaganda word and has no place in rational discussion. It sidesteps the real issues.

And further, I was disgusted by the editorializing at the end where the guy who got punched said that it was a good thing that he got punched "because the guy stood up for him and I appreciate that." The guy didn't stand up for him. The guy committed violence. He reinforced the stereotype that when Muslims get criticized with words that violence is seen as the answer. (Of course, I don't know who did the punching and don't know his religion, but the outcome is the same - someone criticizes a Muslim and violence is the answer.) The people who "stood up for him" were the other people. The ones that argued back and explained what they thought was wrong, not the one who did the punching. He's just a criminal.

And further, I have issues with what one of the guys in the video says, that I would classify as anti-Americanism (and not Americophobia, natch). He says all Muslims were punished in the United States after 9/11, which is a pile of hooey. That's just straight up, self-righteous Canadian bigotry. Remember that NBC tried this same stunt at a NASCAR race (I'm sure they were rubbing their hands together with glee) and got absolutely nowhere. No one did anything.

EDH said...

If only the Rotherham, England police had felt as much freedom to display such equal treatment between people of all religions and protect children from child predators.

Is there a word for fear of being accused of "islamophobia"?

kcom said...

Jewphobia?
Africanamericanophobia?
Japanophobia?
Hispanophobia?
Caucasophobia?

Do any of these words sound ridiculous to you? Cause they all do to me.

I'll do a social experiment and go out on the street and spout Jewphobia. What does that even mean?

Bob Boyd said...

Is there a word for fear of being accused of "islamophobia"?


Is there a word for an irrational fear of Isamlaophobia?
Isalamophobophobia?

April Apple said...

kcom cracks the code:

"The guy committed violence. He reinforced the stereotype that when Muslims get criticized with words that violence is seen as the answer."

This.

April Apple said...

I don't give a crap about staged play acting that stereotypes anti-Muslim bias.

After the horrific shooting of an innocent man by a crazed Islamic asshole, where are the apologies from the Islamic world?

*crickets*


Don't tell me radical Islam isn't the same as Islam. Until an apology is issued, they are the same.

furious_a said...

If only Mormons and Catholics (well, exc. in Ulster) "punched back twice as hard", occasionally. Maybe they'd get the same cowering deference as Muslims do.

"Spouting Islamophobia" is silly usage,unless one has quotation marks marks around "Islamophobia[!]".

Gahrie said...

Now...what happens when someone spouts anti-Christian or anti-Jewish speech on the street in any majority Muslim state?

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
furious_a said...

At least the Fearless Muslim Defender didn't use a dull sword, or make the actor read a prepared statement in front of a video camera.

Speaking of which, how many bound, helpless captives did ISIS butcher yesterday

Steve Uhr said...

"Now...what happens when someone spouts anti-Christian or anti-Jewish speech on the street in any majority Muslim state?"

That's easy. High fives.

What happens when someone spouts pro-Christian or pro-Jewish speech on the street in any majority Muslim state?

furious_a said...

Blogger Steve Uhr said...
"Now...what happens when someone spouts anti-Christian or anti-Jewish speech on the street in any majority Muslim state?"


It's usually a mob, and they're gathered around either a burning embassy or a gallows with a Baha'i or Yazidi or three dangling from it.

chickelit said...

The guy in the black leather jacket and glasses sounds like Meade at some of those WI Capitol protests.

Rusty said...

Oh, sure. It's all a "social experiment' until a bus blows up.
Canadians are so cute.
They can quit sending their geese down here any time now.

Anonymous said...

On any given day there are a lot of people on the street that need to get punched in the face. This is especially apparent at city bus stops. Harvey Keitel would have no problem with this.

Anonymous said...

Some guy stares too long at Harvey Keitel's girl and: Bam! Punch in the face. Remember: every girl is Harvey Keitel's girl .

Anonymous said...

People talking shit when they shouldn't be talking shit: Harvey Keitel knows a punch in the face will keep them honest.

furious_a said...

What happens when someone spouts pro-Christian or pro-Jewish speech on the street in any majority Muslim state?

It's usually at the head of an conquering army (Kuwait City 1991 and East Jerusalem 1967, respectively).


Anonymous said...

Harvey Keitel has no need for sociology. Sociology is just an excuse to not punch someone in the face. Cowards.

chillblaine said...

"Don't judge a book by its cover!"

Excellent advice. Judge the book by its content.

"Men are the maintainers of women...the good women are therefore obedient... and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them..."

Anonymous said...

Harvey Keitel understands that to live outside the law you must be honest. Sometimes a punch in the face is the sincerest form of honesty.

kcom said...

"when Muslims get criticized with words that violence is seen as the answer."

I hope it escaped no one's attention what type of violence it was, too. A sucker punch from behind. It was a bully attack as many of them are. Shooting a guy with an unloaded weapon who was standing at attention, attacking an unarmed guy in the street in Amsterdam and sticking a knife with a message in his chest, attempting to murder a 15-year-old girl who wanted to go to school and said so. All cowardly acts by people sneaking up on defenseless victims. But, no, it's Islamophobia, not Islamodisgustia. Islamophobia properly describes those self-righteous but spineless people who will criticize every religion but Islam. They defend throwing a crucifix in a jar of urine but get the vapors when a cartoon of Mohammed is published. They pretend they are being sensitive but its only a cover for their cowardice. Ask Bill Maher about that.

Anonymous said...

Some people have gone through their entire lives without punching someone in the face. Harvey Keitel can only shake his head at their shame.

Hagar said...

There was that experiment at UC, or wherever it was, with "ins" and the "outs" that scared the bejesus out of the scholarly scientists who conducted it.

Be careful about "social experiments" into human nature. You may not like what you find.

Meade said...

"Sometimes a punch in the face is the sincerest form of honesty."

Yeah — death’s honesty.
As if it won’t fall upon them naturally.
You'd think they sometimes must get lonely.

Fernandinande said...

overt racist abuse

Do people in England still speak English? Pretending to confuse a religion with a race sounds like Newspeak.

Obviously it was completely coincidental that the defender of islam was violent and cowardly.

Anonymous said...

Those who choose to withhold the deserved punch discover that they will just be one more person crying. Harvey Keitel knows this to be true.

Fernandinande said...

kcom said...
I'm not being funny, I'm being disgusted. It's a ridiculous, stupid, propaganda word.


It's Newspeak, and also part of the Soviet-style strategy of claiming that dissent is the result of mental problems.

April Apple said...
After the horrific shooting of an innocent man by a crazed Islamic asshole,


Double redundancy.

Anonymous said...

To punch Harvey Keitel in the face is to earn his hard-won respect. Of course, he will then beat you down into a quivering flesh-bag of bloody marmalade, but you WILL have his respect.

Hagar said...

Such experiments are also unnecessary. We have plenty of examples of the real thing, and on very large scales.

jr565 said...

Would any actor be punched in the face for beign a Christianophobe, like almost all the left is?

jr565 said...

The Islamic girl shot in the face by the Taliban also learned that you don't criticize the religion.

kcom said...

"Pretending to confuse a religion with a race sounds like Newspeak."

Exactly. What's the point of using words if they have no meaning? Islam is a religion. Muslims are believers in Islam. There is no race called Muslim.

When I used to live in Liberia my favorite restuarant (cookshop, as they called it) was owned by a Muslim family. They treated me better than a lot of the non-Muslims there and seemed more genuinely interested in me as a person (as opposed to being a "rich" American). They were black Africans whose people were originally from Guinea. President Obama grew up around Indonesian Muslims, of Asian descent. The Middle East has lots of Arab Muslims but also Persian Muslims and other ethnic groups who are Muslims. China has Uighurs. There are European/white Muslims (in Europe and the US), some of whom are direct converts and some who are children of earlier converts. There are native-born Muslims in Bosnia, remember that? So, tell me, what "race" are Muslims?

Answer me this, too. If I want to convert from Christianity to Islam is that possible? Yes, I can. If I want to convert from Islam to Christiantity is that possible? Yes (but perhaps unadvised for some reason I can't figure out). Now tell me, where do I go to convert from Caucasian to Asian or Asian to Black? If your group is based upon an idea that you can change your mind about, you're not a race and people criticizing you are not racists. They might be something inadmirable and worthy of criticism, but they're not racists. Unless words from here on out are intended to be devoid of meaning.

jr565 said...

Our embassies also learned this lesson when a video on You Tube supposedly set off rioting in the ME. Even though, that wasnt' why our embassy was really attacked.

You can have freedom of speech if it means you can insult those who the left deems suitable for you to insult (read, white males and Christians). All the rest though, you are a bigot for daring to criticize. And in the case of being critical of Islam, expect a punch or worse.

jr565 said...

So the actor only said those things to guage the reaction of the public to "racist" provocation. I bet the guy who punched him in the face feels like he has egg on his face. Isn't it also gauging the reaction of how quick some people resort to violence when faced with words they don't like?

YoungHegelian said...

I'm wondering how long it'll be before the Islamists get Dante's Inferno banned.

And, jumpin' jeebus, it would be an act of absolute courage now to perform Monteverdi/Tasso's Il Combattimmento di Tancredi e Clorinda (part 1, part 2).

YoungHegelian said...

Ooops, wordpress ate the link to the 1600 translation of Tasso's Gerusalleme Liberata, from which the libretto comes.

You can see why the ending would drive Muslims right up the bend.

Revenant said...

I'm an atheist and normally roll my eyes at Christians lamenting how tough they've got it.

But they're spot-on in saying that if this guy was ranting about Christians and got punched, nobody would be praising the attacker. Hell, we'd be seeing it used as an example of how intolerant *Christians* are.

kcom said...

"he will then beat you down into a quivering flesh-bag of bloody marmalade"

I'll bring toast.

kcom said...

Show me one example of people criticizing Christians where the accusers were accused of "racist" comments. Christians in the US get accused of all kinds of things, especially during political campaigns, but never once have I seen those criticisms characterized as racist. Both Christianity and Islam are worldwide religions with adherents or many different races and ethnic groups. Why the double standard?

David said...

Oh, it's a social experiment all right. But the rats in the cage did not act quite as expected.

kcom said...

I've now read the Independent article you linked to. It can't even be honest in describing the video.

To their credit they put Islamophobia in quotes in the headline but to their discredit they used Islamophobe in the story without quotes.

Then they say this:
"In an attempt to test whether Canadians feel safe in the presence of Muslims [they] conducted the experiment ... to see how many people would defend a supposed Muslim from verbal abuse."

Those are two completely different issues. Whether they feel safe from Muslims as a group and whether they would stand up for a lone individual being abused is not the same thing, and one doesn't shed light on the other.

"At the start of the video, Al-Bach introduces two actors, "Devin" as an outspoken racist..."

Sorry, that's not what happened on the video. Omar says "Devin's going to play the Caucasian man that verbally abuses him." He never uses the word racist or even the word outspoken. It might be somewhat implied by his use of the word Caucasian but they're putting words in his mouth. Also, I'd like to see this experiment repeated with someone of different ethnic background and see if it makes any difference. I doubt it would.

Then the Independent says this:
"Devin addresses the camera at the end, with blood running down his face from his nose, to say that he "appreciates" that various members of the public stood up for Zack even though he got assaulted in the process."

That's not what he said and their paraphrase glosses over the truth completely. That's just what they wanted him to say. What he actually said was (my bold), "The social experiment had a negative ending to it but you know what it's positive because he stood up for him and I appreciate that." "He" clearly was singular and clearly referred to the puncher. He was praising the guy that committed violence and said nothing (at least on the video) about all the other people there who used their grown up words.

kcom said...

"Please watch the video and comment on that."

I finished my assignment, Teacher. I found plenty to comment on. What's my grade?

kcom said...

Headline rewrite (for accuracy):

Actor spouting guilt by association gets punched in the face and shouts "It's a social experiment! It's a social experiment!"

He doesn't actually ever say anything critical of Islam (i.e the religion). Listen to the whole thing. He makes no statements about Mohammed, Islamic tenets, points of faith or anything. He bases his comments on the man's dress and his belief (through guilt by association) that he could be a terrorist or have explosives strapped to his body.

Gerrard787 said...

This idiotic "social experiment" occurred in the city of Hamilton, the same city where our murdered Canadian
soldier lived. The "experiment" could easily have ended up much worse with people as angry as they are.12131

Bob Ellison said...

I'm kinda on kcom's side on the "-phobia" word.

Those words used to connote fear, not hatred. We still say acrophobia, agoraphobia, hydrophobia, etc.

Now "-phobia" means pretty much "I assume you hate what I'm gonna put before the -phobia suffix. Not that you fear it, but that you hate it, without reason, and I hate you for hating it."

Bob Ellison said...

Jesus taught that one should love his enemy. What did Muhammad teach?

damikesc said...

Would they punch a guy blasting Christianity?

Decent money says no.

Muslims have made Islam a symbol of ass-backwardness and violence. It wasn't Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. It was Muslims.

And they get real pissy when you notice.

Writ Small said...

So people in Western societies react negatively to overt and crude stereotyping and bullying. Shocker.

jeff said...

How come the guy courageously defending tolerance walked around behind the guy and then sucker punched him? Impressive.

Jupiter said...

Islam has bloody borders.

Bob Ellison said...

Yes, Islam has bloody borders. It starts with a book.

furious_a said...

but your comment is really off point...

No, it isn't. What's apparent is the dhimmitude implicit in embracing the mis-use of the word.

Jupiter said...

"The "-phobia" words like "homophobia" have been criticized over the years in the way that you are doing, but your comment is really off point and unfortunate as the first comment in this thread, because the actor is literally expressing a fear of Muslims."

Phobia, in modern English usage, is not synonymous with "fear of". Phobias, as I am sure you know, are irrational fears, symptomatic of mental illness. And that implication is very clearly intended by the shifty little vermin who coin terms like "homophobia" and "Islamophobia".
It is not irrational to be afraid of people who claim that God wants them to cut your head off. What is irrational, and indeed is clear evidence of mental illness, is letting them into our country.

Lucien said...

The coining and eventual broad use of the term "homophobia" is one of the great rhetorical/propaganda coups of recent decades.

The idea is that those who oppose a position or program are not doing so for rational reasons but based on an irrational fear -- they can't help themselves.

When I describe someone who opposes ____ as "____ phobic" I'm not just saying that they are wrong, but that they might just be mentally ill in order to oppose such a just cause.

IMHO this worked with respect to "homophobia" in large part because it was close to being true -- some people had (have?) close to phobic reactions to homosexuality.

But generally, whenever someone attaches "phobia" to the end of something for political/rhetorical gain, it's about time to call BS on them. (See Orwell re "fascist").

n.n said...

Don't kill me! Don't kill me!

Some people are so myopic and narrow-minded. They pray for the peaceful coexistence that followed with profane works of art including "Christ in Urine" or "Piss Christ".

n.n said...

Lucie:

To be fair, with the normalization of womb banks, sperm depositors, and the establishment of a degenerate state religion, including planned parenthood ritual human sacrifices, the scope of "objective" has narrowed and been extraordinarily diminished. The creation of moral hazards through selective exclusion has certainly not improved the prospects of returning to an objective frame of reference.

averagejoe said...

So comforting to see the white knights defending Islamic jihad, ignorantly slandering America, and sucker-punching people they disagree with from behind. As the dummy with bloody nose says, "That's good." Whatever, dude.

Jupiter said...

Then there is the charge of "racism". Of course, a prejudice against Islam and its adherents is not racism, because Islam is not a race. But the frequency with which this charge is leveled is telling. The Islamophiles want it to be racism, because they know that charges of racism need not be proven, and cannot be disproved. To call a white person a racist is to say that he is not a person, and has no right to speak.

Gusty Winds said...

I thought one of the main tenants of social experimentation was not to reveal you are conducting a social experiment.

O'Keefe would have stayed in character.

Alex said...

I'd ask any Muslim - are you Jewphobic?

kcom said...

"I'd ask any Muslim - are you Jewphobic?"

It's the only possible explanation of why a Muslim would oppose Jews. So I guess any Muslim critical of Jews is Jewphobic.

Also, did you read the post about Mary Burke and the swastikas? Why wasn't that post headlined "Mary Burke is spouting Naziphobia"? She's not doing anything much different than the guy in this video was doing.

McCackie said...

Same thing happened in Australia, the "racist abuser" got thumped also . What would happen in a France?

McCackie said...

Same happened in Australia, a setup with a covered "Muslim woman and child" and a Muslim male acting as a "racist abuser" (who got thumped by decent people). What is it with Muslims stereotyping those around them; why the hate?