User:TieWrex

"I do have to say that sectioning out can also look like you found part of the argument you couldn't debunk, so you cherry-pick what you can debunk (or think you can debunk) and bring only that up."

Cute, but not necessarily the case as you've noticed, I'm sure.

"I agree wholeheartedly in that I disapprove of those who treat Christianity as a means for profit, war, creating a means to oppress others... I just blame the people rather than Christianity, another religion in question or religion itself (unless it's something the religion itself mandates like the Qu'ran's mandate to subjugate or kill everyone who refuses to convert to Islam - a command that thankfully most Muslims don't follow)."

The religion doesn't even have to mandate violence in order for inhumanity and crimes to be carried out in its name, is the thing. Glad we (seem to) agree on that much.

"...This proves my point that there is a double standard in how Islam is treated compared to how Christianity is treated, and if it wasn't for this Ennis wouldn't have gotten away with his anti-Christian comic, which I will also compare to another thing; have you heard of those "Draw the Prophet Muhammad" contests? It's something done to antagonize Muslims as I strongly suspect the comic was written to antagonize Christians. What do you think of the "Draw the Prophet Muhammad" contests?"

That's another flimsy comparison, the primary reason being that depictions of the prophet have long been expressly forbidden, whereas artistic depictions of God and Jesus were made part of the culture for many sects of Christianity.

"By the way, thanks for explaining the dynamic behind revenge fantasy vs revenge fic and the Ron the Death Eater trope, which was my mistake. I'll instead contend Preacher is a Hate fic and it does sound like an anti-theistic atheist revenge fantasy; guy gets powers and uses them to call God out on everything they don't like and get a response while also screwing God over."

While also being hounded by the powers that be, other factions that wish to steal the power from him, abusive family members that wish to do him harm, nearly losing the love of his life, being betrayed by someone who he came to regard and respect as a friend, suffering loss and adversity the entire way through... yep, totally how a revenge fantasy works. I shouldn't have to explain at length why it doesn't fit Hate Fic, either - the trope page clearly indicates that it's for authors writing about entire series they don't like.

"The thing that I said would strip the story wasn't the motivations, but removing the anti-Christian stuff such removing the portrayal of God as a responsibility-dodging narcissist, the inbred descendants of Christ (the Christ not dying on the cross part I think was a just a puerile jab on Ennis' part), Jesse not getting the power because an angel and a demon decided to bang. Since you said the story would be significantly stripped, you see my point somewhat."

Again, a ficitonal substitute religion could work as well, but I digress on that point.

"The only way to know for sure if that's what Preacher was trying to do is have proof of Garth Ennis' motivations for writing it; I'm not saying that inciting violence was his intention, I personally think his intention was to rant and strawman about a religion he despises and a religious group I strongly suspect he's prejudiced against. I'm not saying its propaganda because of personal offence, I was saying its propaganda because it seemed to be clearly trying to push an agenda. Upon reflection, I'm not sure I'd call it propaganda, yet I do call it a prejudiced work and that's the author venting his prejudice, as such I think it should be treated the same as other prejudiced works like Holy Terror or Innocence of Muslims."

...both of which are prejudiced works that also very clearly intend to be, and are marketed as, propaganda based on exploiting anti-Muslim sentiments post-9/11. This, as opposed to the comic book which was marketed as... a comic book... and not designed to exploit any particular cultural outbreak of instance of anti-Christian sentiment outside the author's (which he makes readily evident). This much applies for the show as well, and even without that... Still doesn't quite fly.

"I'm not driven by an emotional response to this work anymore than you defending it is merely an emotional response to someone criticizing it. I don't think only a Garth Ennis fanboy would take issue with my edits. I do think a Garth Ennis fan would read the whole series through, not be put off by the clear axe he has to grind and how heavy-handedly he grinds it, and also devote this much time to defending it. I'm also of the view that his works only target Christianity, and this is after looking up his other works."

It's almost like the rest of the story could potentially compensate for this 'axe' in some regard. It's also more than a bit disingenuous to suggest that I haven't been at all critical of Preacher (see: this entire convo) or his other works (as I indicated when I stated that Preacher is the only work by him I've ever read, and my other previous statement that some others would be too bleak for me to tolerate now - there are some I doubt I would have tried even back when I first read Preacher).

"Also, the fact that you've been watching my page to know my activities and know I went to Garth Ennis' page make me suspicious of your stance and biases; did you report me to moderators by any chance, claiming fears of potentially libellous statements? It's not libel - nor a persecution complex - to say that he exclusively or nearly exclusively targets Christianity in his works if it's true. I added the Bible verse as a side point that even in raging against Christianity, Ennis proves Christ correct in a way."

You do realize that there is a Recent Changes page on which all users' contributions to pages are visible, yes? Not to mention the mods are often editing pages as well, and it would be more than sensible to check for that section to patrol other editors' additions/removals from articles. In addition to literally not having to report anything myself, it also helps that I wasn't particularly active on the wiki in-between my last couple of responses to you.

"How did the Innocence of Muslims film aspire to inspire violence against any religion (race wasn't a factor in the film)? Are there any verified instances of violence against Muslims inspired by this film? The only intention of the film was to criticize Islam, not incite violence. Did writer/producer Nakoula Basseley Nakoula state that was his intention? Not in any source I’ve read. The only known intention was to criticise Islam, so "Innocence of Muslims" does not compare to Birth of a Nation. Also note the title "Innocence of Muslims", as in "Muslims are innocent"; Nakoula wasn't attacking Muslims, he was attacking Islam and Muhammad (albeit strawmanning). I do know that in a few places around the world (including Australia where I currently live) that some Muslims got together in Hyde Park to protest the film and that degenerated into a riot. I also know in other parts of the world, some riots the film provoked got people KILLED; not Muslims killed by anti-Muslim people, but rioting Muslims killing people as the riot got out of hand. If anything, rather than provoke violence against Muslims the film provoked Muslims to violence (of course #notall). Maybe that’s why Ennis targets Christianity because he sees it as a soft target since I don’t recall any Christians threatening him with physical harm, rioting or assaulting him after all the anti-Christian stuff he’s spewed."

See my previous statement about the cultural contexts in which Innocence of Muslims and Holy Terror were published. The lack of similar outrage at the current AMC adaptation should also be indicative.

Simply put: your belief system, politics, or special sense of personal entitlement does not give you the right to libel a public figure on the wiki. Your continued insistence that you have special snowflake privileges to do so is a very clear violation of rule one of the Terms of Service to which you agreed when you signed up for an account. To remind you:

1. You promise not to be a huge jerk on our site.

You are currently being a huge jerk on our site. This is an official admin warning: continuing this behavior is grounds for a "time-out" tempban at the very least.

Cool it.

CC: @Labster, @GethN7, @Robkelk, @QuestionableSanity, @DocColress, @LulzKiller, @SelfCloak

"Also, are you trying to say that one is justified and the other isn't?" "if merely going to a Christian school was what set him off that woudln't debunk the idea that he's prejudiced." "The fact remains that such prejudices are not always justified regardless of how they manifest..."

Making a LOT of assumptions right now. At no point did I state my opinion on his takes on Christianity in either direction, nor did I attempt to say that he was or wasn't prejudiced or would be justified in being so - merely that this sort of thing does not come out of nowhere. Nor am I attempting to argue that either generalization is justified, merely that said generalizations themselves are not the same in nature - again, the "non-Western religion" perception of Islam is a major factor, and Holy Terror is in fact a primary example of my point, I feel. That's also the reason I'm not entertaining either of those comparisons - not only are those apples and oranges, but questions that try to compare atrocities are tasteless in the extreme.

"The only thing Ennis' wikipedia page indicates about experiences was the comic Truth Faith was satire based on his schoolboy days..." The key phrase in my answer was "for starters", and I left it at that because I'm not about to write a whole biography from scratch just to substantiate an answer, especially not when his feelings on things like Christianity and the Catholic Church are more than evident in his works. You do not agree with them, fair enough. Trying to directly compare it to anti-Muslim sentiments is generally used as a form of deflection/"whataboutism", and while that might not be the case here, it still doesn't hold water under scrutiny, much like any insinuation of "all discrimination is exactly the same" wouldn't.