Posts by slypuma17

Who exactly is dictating which medications people can discuss? 😕

From what I can gather, users who actually utilize certain drugs tend to bring them up within specific threads.

Besides, you can't even walk into a CVS or Walgreens and pick up these meds without a prescription—something you certainly won't find being handed out on an online forum. So, I really don't see why everyone is losing their minds. 🤷

Seriously, I fail to see the cause for panic.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:What you’re saying is technically spot on, but honestly, it’s also incredibly confusing.
Let me try to break this down.
If I’ve got issues I want to vent about here—looking to grab some pointers from people who actually know their stuff or have been through the same ringer—how am I supposed to know what anyone’s profession is or why it even matters?
Because based on what you just typed, there’s basically zero point in coming to this forum to talk about anything with anyone.
Like, looking at your intro post, someone could easily assume you’re "the expert" or whatever—the one authority we should all listen to. But how am I meant to verify that? What if I mess up big time because I decided to follow *only* your advice? What if you're out here claiming to be some high-level "college professor" when you're really not?

Bottom line: I don't really get the point of this thread, or why you feel such a massive need to kick it off in the first place.

I’m with you on this.
How can we actually verify the validity of what she’s claiming regarding her professor or the specific college courses she supposedly completed? 🙄

We need to be careful here. People come to forums like this to unwind or vent, but you also have trolls who treat everything as a game, making things up just for the hell of it. In my experience, those types are often the most prevalent group—so where does that leave us? How are we meant to PROVE someone is being sincere rather than just killing time with fabrications?
🤔

bluebison8 said:

Furthermore, they chose hanging as the method because it’s painless, fast, and inexpensive.

LOL. The only thing accurate about that is the cost. The "optimal" outcome here is just breaking your neck. Even then, you aren't dead instantly; you're essentially severed from your body while your brain slowly dies. If your neck doesn't snap—which is actually more likely—you're left with several minutes of agonizing suffocation.

Far more effective methods would be carbon monoxide poisoning from car exhaust or overdosing on sleeping pills. Even slashing your wrists mostly just brings sharp pain at the moment of the cut, followed by simply drifting off into sleep.
Hehe, I don't have this information firsthand since I haven't tried to end it myself or known anyone who has; I just looked it up via 🙂

Fair point, that kind of thing can happen... if you're an amateur.
It isn't exactly built for the uninitiated. ☕

As for what actually happened with those people, I suspect it’s just hard for fellow Americans to admit they were the ones behind it. It's easier to go hunting for cults or outside agitators.
Until the FBI or some official investigation confirms otherwise, we're all just guessing.

Eighteen suicides since the first of July—that’s more than one a month.
🤷
What does the average look like over there, anyway?
Furthermore, they seem to have settled on hanging as the method of choice, simply because it’s quick, painless, and cheap.
Looking at the available data—which is admittedly sparse—and considering the general socioeconomic climate, I don't think we're looking at a cult or some kind of fringe sect, though there might be a certain romanticization of death happening.
Since it's a relatively small community where most people likely know one another, it's possible the first incident triggered a domino effect. One person goes, then others start questioning things—asking "why him, and why am I still here?"—and it just snowballs. One by one.
It’s an interesting phenomenon, though not exactly my cup of tea when discussing politics.
It's a shame there isn't a PDF version of Criminalistics available. ☕

Elizabeth Gomez11 said:So, we arrive at the moderator’s favorite pastime: banning users. In theory, a ban is meant to be the removal of a user who, despite several warnings, stubbornly ignores the Rules and refuses to stop violating them. On paper, this sounds perfectly reasonable—even necessary—to ensure the rest of the community can function without chaos. However, in practice, it often devolves into impatient moderators tossing out whoever they feel like, whether it's someone whose political views they dislike or simply someone whose posts they find irritating. Of course, they’ve learned by now that a banned user usually returns under a different handle, often behaving even worse than before, but it seems to be part of human nature to occasionally succumb to the urge to ban someone just to prove they have the power to do so.

Perhaps the most dramatic, or at least most curious, instance of a ban I ever witnessed occurred following an argument between two members. The conflict was ignited by a female member who began hurling insults at another user specifically to provoke him. He made the mistake of engaging rather than immediately reporting her language to a moderator; instead, he jumped into the fray, and after a few exchanges, she turned around and reported him. It wouldn't have been particularly interesting if it hadn't later come to light that the moderator in question was her former flame—someone she had dated a few times before dumping. The man was essentially sitting there like a coiled spring, just waiting for her signal to strike.

Another example involves a situation where about a dozen members were accused of forming a little "lobby" on the forum, leading to their simultaneous expulsion. Meanwhile, at that exact same moment, a completely different lobby was operating within the same space, acting in perfect lockstep with the moderators.

Ultimately, the human factor remains the deciding element in performing that duty, and it appears there are situations where certain forums are governed by people who lack any clearly defined role or purpose.

So, here is my advice: if you intend to stay on a forum, whatever you do, do not engage in arguments with the moderators. Try your best not to contradict them and to keep yourself off their radar as much as possible. If you disagree with them, it is far better to remain silent than to voice your grievances.

In the ecosystem of a forum, moderators are effectively the bouncers of the real world; the title "moderator" is really just a euphemism used to make the role sound more dignified. Therefore, the next time you find yourself "eye to eye" with a mod, just picture them as some balding, heavy-set brute standing at the entrance of a dive bar. It will make it much easier to understand exactly who you are dealing with.

Did you hear the news, folks? No joke.
School's in session
for the little ducklings.☕

northernbison63 said:Good catch. 👍

I leave that little hint in absolutely EVERY single thread that touches capitalism—it's not hard to spot. Just look at that "space technology in reverse" thread. It shouldn't have had anything to do with capitalism, right? Wrong. I made a very clear connection between the total, criminal incompetence of capitalism and the Space Shuttle fiasco compared to the (relative) success of the Soyuz...

The goal is dead simple: I want to hammer it into people's brains that capitalism is, fundamentally, a criminal system. It's incredibly easy to prove, and I've spent my time proving it a thousand times over.

Maybe to you, this sounds a bit like saying, "By the way, I think Carthage needs to be wiped off the map"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceterum..._esse_delendam

Yeah, it's the exact same principle. It’s vital that every single activity tied to capitalism gets its true label: crime. Everyone needs to wake up to that. (Though the actual meaning behind this is a bit more layered than that)

And no, I'm not advocating for destruction. Because if we just tear things down, instead of a relatively functional Carthage or Rome, we’ll just end up with something even more destructive and brutal. In fact, the destruction of Carthage is what pushed Rome from being a republic toward becoming an Empire, much like how the destruction of the British Empire led to the rise of the USA. Just look at how the West today—represented by the USA and Nicolas Sarkozy—is sprinting toward something unprecedented in human history following the collapse of the USSR.

And once it all falls apart, just like Rome did, the question remains: will anyone even be left to build a new civilization upon those ruins after a thousand years? And they’ll probably just make the exact same mistakes all over again.

Sarkozy is just someone who recognized a historical moment where he could personally profit by holding power in France and forcing Germany into a specific set of moves. No matter what he does or how famous he gets, he'll ultimately just be a pathetic puppet in the hands of capital a hundred years from now. And that capital isn't really in anyone's hands—it's its own master, whether the formal owner is a Frenchman, an American, an Englishman, a German, or a Jew. Capital is, to them, the true God. The Golden Calf. A nation is just a fake God used by guys like Sarkozy to push the "real" God onto the masses. That’s why the French are all charging ahead together in this wave of national euphoria, heavily pumped up by the media—which is controlled by that very same capital.

Well, okay then, why don't you offer some constructive criticism? What kind of social order was better, or could have been better? Come up with an alternative, because right now, your posts just boil down to sterile critiques that get a little exhausting after a while...

I couldn't care less about "constructive criticism." You've got plenty to argue about up there. I have no intention of laying out my theories on social structures, because that's just empty theorizing, and we've seen enough of that over the last 180 years.

First, let's reach an agreement—or rather, let's achieve mass awareness—that capitalism equals crime. Once that happens, it will be incredibly easy to establish a model of social relations that minimizes crime in the long run. And that's probably what you were actually trying to ask me in the first place.😉

It doesn't bother you, you say? Personally, I think it's time you let it get under your skin, seeing as you pour so much energy into criticizing everything else. Your goal seems to be—as you put it—implanting your postulates into people's heads by chanting the same old litany over and over. That is the fundamental flaw with critics like yourself: you point out what is wrong, what is bad, and what is broken, yet you offer nothing constructive in return, claiming it simply doesn't concern you. In doing so, you actually end up doing a favor to the very capitalism you so vehemently despise.
If that isn't your objective, then perhaps it's time to start caring...

First, let's reach an agreement—or rather, achieve mass awareness—that capitalism is essentially a crime. Once that is settled, it will be quite simple to establish a model of social relations that minimizes such crimes in the long run.

"Once that is settled," you claim? How about we start by tearing down the existing system without having any clear idea of how we intend to build in its place. "The right model will present itself"... Just appearing out of thin air, is it? 😂

northernbison63, unfortunately, there’s some truth to what you're observing here. Sure, you spend your time analyzing things, chewing them over, starting new threads... But there's this recurring theme that keeps popping up in your posts:

northernbison63 said:We’ve seen this movie before, haven't we? It’s basically a rerun at this point. The USA, the UK, and France are gearing up to expand their imperial reach all over the map, especially across the Middle East. And Iran and the Arab world? They're about to be branded as pariahs—just like they were a century ago because they were "savages," and just like they are today for the exact same reason. Anyone standing in their way is going to get crushed under that imperial boot. One day it'll be over nuclear plants, the next it'll be some manufactured outrage—kind of like how a French consul getting attacked back in 1837 served as the perfect excuse for France to invade Algeria and occupy it for 140 years. Spain will probably just sit on the sidelines, though if they start acting up, the "democratic world" will suddenly find a lot of sympathy for the Basques, Catalans, or Galicians. Italy, being Italy, will keep playing both sides, trying to grab whatever they can while strengthening their grip on the Eastern Adriatic and eyeing Greece. The North America will basically act as a buffer zone for Germany, and Canada will eventually have to decide if they’re siding with Berlin or the West. While Germany tries to shore up ties with Russia because of energy needs, France—via Nicolas Sarkozy—is cooling things down with Germany and losing that old-school understanding of Russian concerns. Expect Poland to drift toward France in the next few months; Sarkozy will likely start acting all sympathetic to Polish interests... Honestly, it’ll probably be Sarkozy and the Kaczyński brothers heading off on a little joint vacation, coming back all smiles and sunshine with some massive new plans. Poland, which took a huge hit after pulling troops out of Iraq, is about to see things look a lot brighter very quickly. Europe is sliding right back into its old habits: imperialism, fascism, racism, pure selfishness, violence, and genocide against anyone who doesn't fall in line. The only question left is whether Germany will buckle—either by giving in to American, British, or French blackmail (which looks like what Sarkozy has already done), or if they'll be vilified by the "free and objective media" and pushed into fascism or total irrelevance just so they can be torn apart again. Basically, within the next year or two, Germany either pivots hard toward the West—meaning a total reversal of their Russia policy—or they’re toast.

Third-world countries are being redrawn using that same old imperial playbook—drawing straight lines across maps for 500 kilometers at a time (just look at how they carved up Iraq, or even the recent history in Mexico and Canada). This "short-sighted" line-drawing has already caused millions upon millions of deaths and endless misery globally, while providing massive profits for the people holding the pens.

Sarkozy is a first-rate imperial product, the exact kind of politician big capital absolutely adores. He’s really just the final stage in dismantling the myth of the EU social state—that lie that capitalism can actually have a human face. It’s the same script, just different villains. A century ago, it was "infidels" threatening holy sites; before that, it was "pagans" in America needing conversion; then it was "illiterate savages" needing Western civilization; and today, it's "religious fanatics" who need to be taught Western values and democracy. It’s the same story, repeated for a thousand years.

Capitalism is hands down the most criminal system ever conceived. Places like America, Canada, and Mexico were the first to pay the full price, and they’ll keep paying it, and paying it, and paying it. Russia has managed to dodge it for now, but Afghanistan and Iraq are paying the bill, and Iran is next. Then everyone else follows. Don't forget: to maintain the lifestyle people enjoy in the USA today, the planet’s resources can only support about 500 million people. That means 6.5 billion people have to die in the next 50 to 70 years. And Sarkozy knows it.

======

PS: What does the "moral compass" of Western civilization, Vaclav Havel, have to say about Sarkozy’s threats against Iran? Or what about Salman Rushdie? They don't say anything. They just count the money they were paid to stay quiet.

PPS: Did you guys catch that? In his last 45-minute speech marking the anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden actually pivoted... he totally shifted gears from all that Islamic fanaticism over to this whole anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric.

Look, why don't you offer some actual constructive criticism? What kind of social structure was better in the past, or could potentially work better in the future? Try to design an alternative, because right now, your posts just boil down to sterile critiques that, in the long run, become a bit tedious...

urbandriver said:I’m genuinely proud of our little corner of the universe because we’re seeing more and more "users" popping up everywhere.

I wouldn't go that far, honestly. Where are all these legendary users you're talking about? I don't see them exactly everywhere.
They’re hiding, looking over their shoulders, creeping around in the shadows... even when they're just at home pulling the curtains shut and lowering the blinds. It seems like they've grown so accustomed to their current situation that, sometimes, it feels like they don't actually want change. It strikes me that they secretly enjoy their status—especially the younger crowd who think, "Oh, we're outlaws, we're the rebels." Yeah, right...🙄
These self-proclaimed rebels aren't exactly taking any meaningful action.
Maybe it's just inconceivable to them that one day they might be able to walk into a coffee shop and buy their marijuana just like anyone else, without glancing around nervously or keeping their heads down. Perhaps in a world like that, they wouldn't even know how to act...
At the end of the day, they aren't really the big shots they imagine themselves to be...

James Turner80 said:Alright, let’s walk through a vivid little illustration here.

[claps] 🤣 You didn't exactly let me down there; that was pretty much the answer I was bracing for. It was a colorful little analogy that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic, topped off with those subtle little jabs—what some might call "ad hominem" remarks. Honestly? It was textbook.

If I were tasked with drafting legislation to prohibit the crime of child abuse, my approach wouldn't be about just slapping a new rule on the books. It’s more complex than that—it's about building a framework that actually holds up under pressure. You can't just declare something illegal and expect the social fabric to mend itself; you have to address the systemic gaps that allow such harm to occur in the first place. It would require a multi-layered strategy involving law enforcement, social services, and strict judicial oversight to ensure that protection isn't just a word in a statute, but a functional reality for every kid in the country.

🙂 This isn't even about jumping between different levels of argument; it’s just textbook demagoguery.
Peter Peric, a thirty-year-old who spends his time smoking homegrown and listening to music—who exactly is he supposed to be intimidating?

We aren't here to debate whether that law is a total disaster or actually a good idea.

Wait, is that actually against the rules?
What exactly is the core focus of our discussion here?

James Turner80 said:If those examples could actually debunk the claims regarding the harms of marijuana...

It’s funny watching you all squirm, trying to engineer new ways to dodge the point... it's really the only thing you have left to do.
Who is going to address my actual question? Does an adult citizen have the right—at their own risk—to make their own decisions? I mean, who can give me a straight YES or NO without dragging minors, pedophiles, or little green men into the conversation?
None of you lovely people, overflowing with love and concern for your fellow man—specifically our dear friends who are always "ready for anything illegal"—will answer. Because by any standard of logic or principle, you feel they simply DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!
The right to personal choice and autonomy applies, in a general sense, to absolutely every adult individual,
not just to those who happen to want to smoke marijuana. See, if you claim this right belongs only to "them," you're essentially stripping it from yourselves too. You'll find yourselves in quite a bind, because if nobody possesses the right to decide, then you don't either. How, then, can you justify deciding for "them"?!
If you answer "yes," then it’s clear this is your final word in the entire debate. Because if we possess that right, you no longer have any grounds to lecture anyone about marijuana, alcohol, turkey dinner, or anything else under the sun.
So...🙂 do we have any heroes in here?

De, debunk the fundamental, inalienable right of every individual to make their own choices, then! It isn't just about "them"; you're digging a grave for yourselves as well!

But by universal logic, this is merely proof that different perspectives exist.

Sure, but you're forcing only one perspective as if it were the absolute truth...

Come on, this isn't even a debate about which substance is more addictive versus less; we’re supposed to be sticking to the actual topic here. There isn't a single thing on this planet that won't cause damage if you overindulge, even if it’s objectively "the best" thing out there. Whether someone chooses to go overboard and in what specific way—well, that's entirely up to them. My take? Advice is fine, but bans are not, because a ban is just a direct assault on the freedom of choice.

We are, for the umpteenth time, circling back to the core issue: does an individual (an adult with full mental capacity)) have the actual RIGHT to decide what they eat, drink, or smoke, under their own responsibility?
That is my question to you, you pro-prohibition crowd: do citizens actually possess the right to make their own decisions, or are you all just viewing us as a bunch of immature children and simpletons who need a babysitter to decide everything for us?

Joseph Kern11, you’re dodging again... just like your imaginary allies who apparently can't counter an actual argument regarding HUMAN AGENCY. Instead, you start dragging in all sorts of irrelevant nonsense. I don't even know how many people you've managed to pull into this debate—minors, suicides, even pedophiles—not to mention tossing out phrases like "the path of eternal fire" or "EVIL," terms that really belong in a sermon rather than here. Honestly, if you weren't constantly attacking everyone in sight, I might have put you on my ignore list by now, but I'll stick around just to see who else becomes your target.

On a more serious note:

Sam Green73 said:But the topic is political, not a health issue.
The real question is the pros and cons of marijuana illegality.

Right now, cartels hold a total monopoly on the marijuana trade. (Hopefully, that part is clear enough.)

The upsides of legalizing marijuana include shifting revenue from the black market into state coffers—much like we do with cigarettes—and ensuring quality control over the product (so people aren't buying literal clay or glass dust just to add weight). Plus, police could focus on actual crime instead of chasing down people for getting high...
As for the downsides, I don't see them. Even if it stays illegal, those who want to use it will continue to do so, and those who want to overindulge will still find ways. It would be virtually identical to the legal scenario.

Sam Green73 said:Do you realize how many people die from illnesses related to alcohol, nicotine, and obesity?

There it is again: individual agency...
If someone can't handle one or two drinks without being wasted every single day, that isn't my problem. If someone can't stop at one cookie and ends up eating the whole box, that isn't my problem. If someone "needs" to have a cigarette in their mouth at all times, they can deal with themselves.
As a legal, mentally competent adult, I have the right to my coffee and my cigarettes, my glass of wine, and my cookies or whatever other food might be bad for someone... By that same logic, I should have the right to buy marijuana "like a civilized person"—legally, at a store, in original packaging, with a fixed price tag and a consumer service number to call if there's a complaint...

Samuel Brown6 said:No, you were quoting him, so he clearly didn't catch your drift regarding what you meant by "rigged."

Honestly, calling them "kids"...🙄
I’m quoting Kyle Ross56 because I find myself almost entirely in agreement with his sentiment...
The core of this whole debate really boils down to individual autonomy—the right of every person to make their own calls, which he put quite elegantly:
Kyle Ross56 says:

Every adult with a sound mind has the right to decide for themselves. That choice belongs to them and them alone. Attempting to interfere with that choice under the guise of some manufactured morality is, by its very nature, perverse. It's an insult to anyone possessing even a modicum of intelligence and common sense.

I’ll pose a question to Joseph Kern11: do you agree with that logic, and would you personally be willing to hand over your own freedom of choice to someone else?

Kyle Ross56 said:I honestly have no clue what you're getting at here. Care to elaborate?

The question was actually directed at Joseph Kern11. I mean, how do you not follow this? Are you just completely out of the loop?

I haven't seen any posts from tomy108 yet. If you have content from them that needs rewriting, please provide it. kaže:
The real issue here isn't just about a few unstable personalities getting swept up; it’s that the majority tend to follow the crowd. You’re one of those rare individuals who doesn't just fall in line—and frankly, I take your word for it because I know people like you exist—but when you look at the big picture, more people are going to end up ruined than actually enjoying themselves. Then there's the matter of minors. Cigarettes are strictly for adults, yet we see kids everywhere lighting up. Why on earth would anyone assume things would be any different with marijuana?

You didn't actually answer the question I posed. Instead, you’ve retreated once again behind the shield of minors, using them as a sort of moral crutch to bolster your position throughout this entire discussion. My inquiry was specifically aimed at a legal adult—someone with a fully developed mind—yet you insist on pivoting back to juveniles. It's classic demagoguery. Every demagogue seems to find refuge in the same tired rhetoric, constantly invoking the plight of children, the underprivileged, or the disenfranchised to deflect from the actual point at hand.
And while we’re on the subject, they’ll eventually reach adulthood and start making their own calls. One day, they won't be looking to you for direction anymore. After all, most of a person's life is spent being an adult.

The issue isn't that we're dealing with fragile, unstable personalities; it’s more that most people simply get swept up in the momentum.

You’re the one who suffered the consequences, and now you’re trying to convince us that this is just how everyone operates. Honestly? You might want to take a hard look in the mirror and own up to a few things first.

Cigarettes are marketed strictly to adults, yet you see kids lighting up everywhere you look. If we can't even keep them away from nicotine, why on earth would anyone think things would be any different with marijuana?

Did you also wait until your eighteenth birthday to light up your first cigarette? 😬
And just how many of them actually *don't* drink? We’re talking about the crowd that wouldn't touch a drop even if a cocktail was handed to them from the heavens. Alcohol is perfectly legal here in the States, yet even then, alcoholics remain a minority. So, should we really be looking at bringing back Prohibition just to hand a golden ticket to some new Al Capone? It seems like a rather predictable way to line someone else's pockets.

It isn’t really about the marijuana; it’s more about this:

I suppose some people just find comfort in simplicity, but I’ve always found that kind of brevity to be rather uninspired. It lacks the texture one expects when trying to actually convey a thought. One can't exactly build an argument—or even a decent conversation—on a single syllable, can they? It feels a bit like staring at a blank canvas and calling it a masterpiece. kaže:
Any adult with a sound mind should have the absolute right to make their own decisions. It’s their life, their choice, and nobody else's. Attempting to interfere with those personal choices under the guise of some manufactured sense of morality isn't just intrusive—it's inherently perverse. Honestly, it's an insult to anyone possessing even a modicum of intelligence or common sense..

Could you honestly put it that way? Are you really suggesting that you’d hand over your own agency and subject your decision-making process to some sort of guided instruction manual?

Joseph Kern11 said:As someone who used to smoke and has since quit for good, I can tell you: it’s pure EVIL. It turns you irresponsible, lazy, dim-witted, and more prone to mental health issues. It’s simply a massive trap—a one-way ticket to ruin.

I get that you mean well. You don't want anyone else to stumble through the same mess you did... BUT! You're operating under the assumption that everyone else is just like you, or at least very similar. And that is fundamentally WRONG.
Every individual is their own unique story; people react differently to their surroundings, to stress, to substances, and so on. If someone is an adult and possesses basic mental competence, let them make their own calls. Don't mistake your good intentions for a mandate to decide everyone else's fate for them.
I'm not some hardcore smoker, so this doesn't move the needle much for me personally, but being lectured by well-meaning folks like you is what really gets under my skin...
Marijuana is illegal because someone, somewhere, decided it should be "this way and no other," all while hiding behind a veil of supposedly "caring for our neighbors." Most of these arguments have more to do with dogma than reality... whether you believe it or not.

So what? Should we keep it "outlawed" just because of a few unstable individuals who might fall victim to it? People like Pero Peric, who maybe only smokes on a Sunday afternoon or once in a blue moon after a grueling week at the office, shouldn't be penalized because of others.
Does that sit right with you?

Thanks for such an exhaustive review, Hrobos.
I’ve also spent quite some time attempting to make my way through it, only to eventually throw in the towel for the exact same reasons. It seems my reaction isn't just some isolated, subjective impression.
It really makes me wonder if even the "Queen Mother" herself ever bothered to read it.

Gregory Howard said:Well, I'll go first. If I didn't finish it, at least I tried before putting it down out of sheer boredom. I skimmed through this little novella closely enough to reach several conclusions:

*Salman Rushdie is your textbook postmodernist trickster. He relies on those convoluted time loops, fantasy elements (reminiscent of Hispanic magical realism), and an overall sense of unreality.

*It is true that the novel features a deliberate mockery of Islam (Mahound is a medieval European slur for Muhammad, which he equates to a demon or something similar. The satanic verses are called such because Mahound isn't entirely sure if his revelation from the angel Gabriel is "divine" or "satanic"). However, this isn't propaganda; it’s just pure postmodern playfulness with everything under the sun. In other parts, you see this crazed woman making a pilgrimage to Mecca who, despite being a fanatic, possesses a sort of divine allure (animals and birds follow her).

*The novel follows several narrative threads, and the one concerning Mahound is just one of three or four. It doesn't even take up much space—maybe 20% of the book.

*Even the opening is lackluster—two angels descending via parachutes from an airplane.

Quite simply, the novel was boring. Rushdie himself is an overwrought, suffocating writer, drowning in his own tools of frantic fantasy, even in his best work, "Midnight's Children." I don't believe his primary goal was to offend Muslims. He is merely a novelist by trade living through the decay of the genre—a period where ambitious writers resort to cheap provocations and intellectual games with any topic they can find. This makes their novels increasingly tedious and unconvincing (think Mario Vargas Llosa, Salman Rushdie, Orhan Pamuk, Philip Roth, Julio Cortázar, ...).

Recommendation: punish extremists and ayatollahs by forcing them to read any work by Rushdie. The only worse punishment would be making them read the German classics (Thomas Mann, Muslil, Hermann Broch...).

If they actually sat down to read it, the whole fatwa would fall apart. As it stands, they just tell them, "Rushdie wrote something terrible." If they actually looked at the pages, they might start asking why there was such a massive uproar over what is essentially a mediocre novel.
At this rate, they'll end up actually killing him, and then it'll just become mandatory reading in British schools...🙂

Jack Walker78 said:He should stick to politics instead of writing. His books are garbage—he lacks talent. Honestly, his best marketing move was being targeted by Khomeini. Without that, he'd be washing dishes in New York City.

🤣 Just being blunt and skipping the pleasantries here...🤣

I’m curious, though: how many of you have actually sat down and read his book (we all know which one) and what did you think of the work itself, rather than focusing on the man?

Nicholas Moore9 said:It’s honestly wild to me how the CIA managed to track him down on a continent packed with nearly 400 million people. I mean, the guy was running around with five different passports and five different names—everything about his identity was scrubbed—and they still caught up to him. Just... incredible.

This brings up an interesting point, if we might pivot back to the case of Adolf Eichmann.
He didn't exactly have everything scrubbed clean. Sure, he could swap out names or alter his appearance, but there was one thing he couldn't hide: his accent. They say he was intercepted while simply commuting home from work. Think about it—at least fifty people knew exactly who he was. His employer, his coworkers, perhaps even a mistress, or just the local baker, the doctor, the pharmacist, and so on.
Still, I suppose it did take fifteen years to finally unmask him...

Chloe Garcia98 said:Just look at these self-righteous moralists of ours, weeping crocodile tears while they scramble to defend the reputation of the entire humanitarian organization... They demand links, they plead their case, and they beg for accountability as if they’re anything more than performative😂

But the second the Vatican or the Red Cross gets pulled into the fray, all that nuanced debate goes out the window, replaced by nothing but sweeping, mindless generalizations😵

Let's stop kidding ourselves by descending into petty personal attacks; we can leave the soul-searching and moral posturing to the Almighty.
I didn't drag the Catholic Church into this conversation—but since it's already sitting at the table, let's actually look at the details:
The fact that, amidst the post-war chaos while thousands were lining up for aid, a single Red Cross official issued a passport to someone posing as Richard Kimmel, doesn't prove—not yet, anyway—that the Red Cross as an organization was actively assisting Nazis in their escape. Refugees and displaced persons knocking on the doors of the Red Cross often lacked any formal documentation to prove who they were. We shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
On the contrary, if nearly the entire upper echelon of the local fascist leadership managed to find their way to the USA or Spain via the Vatican connection, is it even plausible to assume the Catholic Church wasn't aware of exactly who they were dealing with on an institutional level?

Hmm. Even if the Church tells its version of the truth, wouldn't there still be some distancing? You always see some local priest holding a memorial mass for one of the "notables," hinting at old sympathies... meanwhile, the Red Cross still isn't printing stamps featuring Nazi noses...