Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:55:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest  (Read 8803 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2015, 02:54:00 PM »

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever. 

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2015, 02:54:11 PM »

This is what the organizers wanted in order to prove their point.

"Your honour, she was asking for it."

I think you are missing the point here. There are people out there who don't necessarily mind seeing something violent happen if it proves their point.

The point is that it doesn't matter, and you bringing it end up, no matter how you mean it, as a defense for the people committing violence. Are the victims of this violence a bunch of bigoted assholes; yes, but that's not really important, or it stop being important when other people react with violence.

Uh, no, it was not a defense, it was a valid point about why the event was held in the first place. Do you really think these people would have put on this event if they weren't looking for some sort of reaction?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2015, 02:56:28 PM »

Oddly enough, Howard Stern predicted this event would occur (which was pretty predictable) back in March.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2015, 02:57:48 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 03:00:46 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand.

It's good to hear that you respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages and would equally condemn art like the piss Christ that offends Christians.

You know what's offensive to me? Anyone who would shut down free speech because someone might be "offended" by what they hear.  They, and those"offended" need to grow up and realize that there are people who won't always agree with them.

No, no; I don't respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages because that's clear and obvious discrimination. It's also not a "speech" act, it's discrimination involving commerce, which was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I would condemn art that flagrantly offends the sensibilities of Christians. I don't condone speech that is intended to incite hatred or bash the norms of others, so long as those norms aren't destructive.

Sure, I'm also opposed to those who would like to censure some speech acts using the writ of the government. With that being said, I reserve the right to condemn other speech acts using my speech acts. I think your post is disgusting and implicitly justifies racism. It mistakes the legal notion of "free speech" for the realities of discourse in society. It's a thoughtless, stupid post. Smiley
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2015, 02:59:28 PM »

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.

Does it make a difference if the sole purpose of doing this was to give the finger to Muslims? Ditto for gays if the sole purpose of their holding hands is to offend those around them, rather than their doing it because it is what they enjoy doing to express affection for each other. It's all about motive. All of these acts are protected, and should be, but that does not mean that the speech is something one should applaud necessarily.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2015, 03:01:25 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 03:18:39 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.

I don't respect this post. Smiley

You're mistaking my post for an advocacy of censorship or government action. I support no such thing. I'm merely stating that, in context, this cartoon drawing contest is a hateful, vile scheme designed to flagrantly bash Islam in a non-constructive manner. Although I believe it is rooted in racialized bigotry directed at group, I would still find it distasteful and vile if it was directed at Catholics or Presbyterians.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't agree with your ideas or values on this topic. My norms aren't your norms either. That's, more or less, the point of my posts: there are no commandments or rules that determine what is respectful and what isn't respectful. Judging whether or not something is tasteful, inoffensive or respectful must be done on a case by case basis that is attentive to social, cultural and political contexts. In most cases, trying to draw cartoons of Muhammad is pretty tasteless. It's tasteless because it's a weak critique of Islam, it's designed to anger/irritate/provoke Muslims rather than engender a constructive conversation about Islam etc. Does drawing a cartoon of Muhammad serve any purpose whatsoever? No. It's a cheap shot.

I suppose this is okay with you, right? After all, it's only attacking an idea. It's not necessarily directed at Jews, right?

Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2015, 03:02:37 PM »

I think social and political context does matter.

I don't want to assume too much, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a significant  number of those attending this event are white, middle-class, politically conservative American citizens. They are attending an event hosted by a group called "Stop Islamization of America" whose founder has -among other things - called Islam "the most violent, genocidal ideology in the world." Furthermore, a keynote speaker at the event is a prominent  far-right political figure who also has some really mean, bigoted things to say about Islam, and Muslims in general.
 
Now - much to the chagrin of many in the state - Texas is home to many thousands of Muslims; however, they make up less than 2 percent of the overall population of the state. Somehow, I doubt that they have much political or social power over the state's affairs. Can the people who are defending the "Stop Islamization of America" crowd tell me how exactly a dominant group (certainly, within Texas, and pretty much anywhere in America, for that matter) going out of its way to demean, insult, and yes, offend a relatively powerless religious minority group is somehow A-OK, because of "free speech?"

People seem to forget that speech has consequences. No, I'm not referring to violence here; I'm referring to the further marginalization of less powerful groups in American society, because those who have power and/or are in the majority, can't resist the urge to exercise their "free speech" in the most insensitive and callous ways.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2015, 03:14:29 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 03:32:08 PM by ingemann »

This is what the organizers wanted in order to prove their point.

"Your honour, she was asking for it."

I think you are missing the point here. There are people out there who don't necessarily mind seeing something violent happen if it proves their point.

The point is that it doesn't matter, and you bringing it end up, no matter how you mean it, as a defense for the people committing violence. Are the victims of this violence a bunch of bigoted assholes; yes, but that's not really important, or it stop being important when other people react with violence.

Uh, no, it was not a defense, it was a valid point about why the event was held in the first place. Do you really think these people would have put on this event if they weren't looking for some sort of reaction?

When a artist craft a work which mock Christianity do he expect violence? No not really he expect to spread his message. In the same way these event serve primary to spread a message, it's not a complex suicide attempt.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2015, 03:28:01 PM »

Does it make a difference if the sole purpose of doing this was to give the finger to Muslims? Ditto for gays if the sole purpose of their holding hands is to offend those around them, rather than their doing it because it is what they enjoy doing to express affection for each other. It's all about motive. All of these acts are protected, and should be, but that does not mean that the speech is something one should applaud necessarily.

Well, Mr. Lawyer, isn't the legal definition of "offensive" an objective definition, based on community standards, rather than a subjective standard, based on the subjective feelings of the person complaining?  I would think so, right? 

And, I personally think it's more offensive to muslims to normalize the behavior of the people who are offended or take to violence.  I think most American Muslims don't care about these cartoons, because they understand free speech.  This isn't about those majority of Muslims in my mind.  It's about the Muslims who use violence and threats to silence people, and their fellow travelers.  That group of muslims who hate the western world, our cosmopolitan free countries and cling to fundamentalist religion, we should offend them.

I don't respect this post. Smiley

You're mistaking my post for an advocacy of censorship or government action. I support no such thing. I'm merely stating that, in context, this cartoon drawing contest is a hateful, vile scheme designed to flagrantly bash Islam in a non-constructive manner. Although I believe it is rooted in racialized bigotry directed at group, I would still find it distasteful and vile if it was directed at Catholics or Presbyterians.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't agree with your ideas or values on this topic. My norms aren't your norms either. That's, more or less, the point of my posts: there are no commandments or rules that determine what is respectful and what isn't respectful. Judging whether or not something is tasteful, inoffensive or respectful must be done on a case by case basis that is attentive to social, cultural and political contexts. In most cases, trying to draw cartoons of Muhammad is pretty tasteless. It's tasteless because it's a weak critique of Islam, it's designed to anger/irritate/provoke Muslims rather than engender a conversation about Islam etc.

I suppose this is okay with you, right? After all, it's only attacking an idea. It's not necessarily directed at Jews, right?



I distinguished racism and criticizing a religion. 

Let me also distinguish criticizing Judaism from criticizing Islam.  You can criticize Judaism in the media or the public without being silenced by violence or threats.  You can't criticize Islam in the media without that implicit threat.  So, it's necessary that we change that and stand up for free speech.  I would say that same thing if Jewish violence made people reticent to criticize elements of the Jewish faith. 

That's why these Mohammed cartoons are being done, remember?  It's not a critique of Muslim people or the religion of Islam, it's an affirmation that freedom of speech is paramount.  Do you really think a majority of American Muslims are offended by this cartoon exhibition?  I don't think so. 

Another thing about standards of what is offensive, they can't be individualized.  Jews don't get to censor advertisements for Big Macs, Mormons don't get to censor ads for Hennesy, animal rights activists don't get to censor advertisements for horse racing.  Offensive means offensive to the general public.  The reciprocal right to free exercise of religion is that you don't get to impose your religious beliefs on other people.  That's exactly the fight here.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2015, 03:38:23 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 03:43:17 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

What is this sophistry? No one is discussing "offensive" in the legal sense of the term but rather in the sense of the term as it is defined by society. In most contexts, "offensive" means something that is done specifically to "offend" the sensibilities of another individual or another group. My point is incredibly simple: this exhibit was designed to flagrantly offend the sensibilities of Islam.

It's legal in the United States to call Mexicans "beaners", to call African-Americans the n-word, to call Jews "kikes" etc. It's legal to buy Bibles for the sake of burning them in a large bonfire on public property, it's legal to call generalized groups nasty, nasty things. Although I'm reluctantly opposed to legal censorship, I still look down upon all of these acts. I would boycott any store owned by someone who did any of these things. I would call the proponents of these acts "racists" or "bigots" or "chauvinists".

Likewise, I condemn Geert Wilders' fun gathering of quasi-fascists and extremists.  I think they're chauvinistic bigots. This is the beauty of free speech: any speech act that is deemed to be offensive by a community may be countered, condemned and punished by other speech acts. I don't need a government mandate to oppose stupid and vile behavior. I certainly don't need your permission. Your interpretation conforms to your belief that Islam is a threat to Western society. I don't think that's accurate or correct or constructive or remotely interesting. It's propagandized nonsense. Just because a few extremists are willing to kill someone for printing a cartoon means that people need to support bashing an entire community for the sake of punishing a few.

Okay, I'm done. I don't care to persuade a hypocrite who is willfully ignorant to condemn bigotry.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2015, 03:45:16 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 04:05:57 PM by Torie »

Does it make a difference if the sole purpose of doing this was to give the finger to Muslims? Ditto for gays if the sole purpose of their holding hands is to offend those around them, rather than their doing it because it is what they enjoy doing to express affection for each other. It's all about motive. All of these acts are protected, and should be, but that does not mean that the speech is something one should applaud necessarily.

Well, Mr. Lawyer, isn't the legal definition of "offensive" an objective definition, based on community standards, rather than a subjective standard, based on the subjective feelings of the person complaining?  I would think so, right?  

And, I personally think it's more offensive to muslims to normalize the behavior of the people who are offended or take to violence.  I think most American Muslims don't care about these cartoons, because they understand free speech.  This isn't about those majority of Muslims in my mind.  It's about the Muslims who use violence and threats to silence people, and their fellow travelers.  That group of muslims who hate the western world, our cosmopolitan free countries and cling to fundamentalist religion, we should offend them.


I don't know whether American Muslims are offended by the cartoons or not for sure. I suspect that many or most of them are, just as many Christians were offended by the piss Christ image. Sure, most respect the right to free speech, and would agree with the rest of us that what happened here was attempted murder. What I said is that the conduct was offensive to me, and I suspect it would be offensive to many other non Muslims in this country, because it is gratuitous, involving an aspect of theology that really does no one else any real harm, unlike say to the extent it is the case, what the Muslim religion has to say about gays or the role of woman, or as some see it, the role of Jihad, and so forth. I also think that prudentially even if it were not offensive in our society to gratuitously offend the sensibilities of another religion on some aspect of their theology that has no real public policy import, it's just counterproductive to do the equivalent of waving a red handkerchief at an angry bull. Why do it? To make the point that you don't like the religion, or aspects of it?  Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. Obviously we will not be changing either of our opinions on this. Opinions don't change much on this forum about much of anything do they?  Smiley

Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2015, 03:46:06 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 03:49:27 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7517221/charlie-hebdo-blasphemy

To move this discussion away from what people think is offensive, why not investigate social scientific literature that has explored this topic?
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 04, 2015, 03:50:47 PM »

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 04, 2015, 03:58:28 PM »

The arguments in this thread are going more smoothly than the last time I waded into this debate, which is a good thing. That's probably because the point of contention has moved from "we as a diverse society should take pause before criticizing what Muslims believe" (which is a radical position) to "this particular contest is legitimately offensive to people" (not so much).

It's also perfectly possible to condemn using violence as a means here or ask for more stringent protection while believing both those statements above. I then wonder why the usual participants seem to ignore this possibility - is it because we're not white?

When it comes to this smaller issue, let's try not to use phrases like

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because, you know, you could just ask a Muslim friend about what offends them.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 04, 2015, 03:59:21 PM »

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 04, 2015, 04:06:26 PM »

What is this sophistry? No one is discussing "offensive" in the legal sense of the term but rather in the sense of the term as it is defined by society. In most contexts, "offensive" means something that is done specifically to "offend" the sensibilities of another individual or another group. My point is incredibly simple: this exhibit was designed to flagrantly offend the sensibilities of Islam.

It's legal in the United States to call Mexicans "beaners", to call African-Americans the n-word, to call Jews "kikes" etc. It's legal to buy Bibles for the sake of burning them in a large bonfire on public property, it's legal to call generalized groups nasty, nasty things. Although I'm reluctantly opposed to legal censorship, I still look down upon all of these acts. I would boycott any store owned by someone who did any of these things. I would call the proponents of these acts "racists" or "bigots" or "chauvinists".

Likewise, I condemn Geert Wilders' fun gathering of quasi-fascists and extremists.  I think they're chauvinistic bigots. This is the beauty of free speech: any speech act that is deemed to be offensive by a community may be countered, condemned and punished by other speech acts. I don't need a government mandate to oppose stupid and vile behavior. I certainly don't need your permission. Your interpretation conforms to your belief that Islam is a threat to Western society. I don't think that's accurate or correct or constructive or remotely interesting. It's propagandized nonsense. Just because a few extremists are willing to kill someone for printing a cartoon means that people need to support bashing an entire community for the sake of punishing a few.

Okay, I'm done. I don't care to persuade a hypocrite who is willfully ignorant to condemn bigotry.

You're missing the point.

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. 

A small, sometimes violent group of muslims have been asking for special rights to have their religions taboos respected by our diverse society.  That's the offensive thing.  When you back up that kind of request with violence, it becomes a positive act of free speech to disregard that threat.  This is a religion acting like the mafia.  They way you deal with that behavior is not to just give in a little bit, but to be defiant. 

And, you're insulting American muslims by insinuating that they're offended by this.  Why do you think they're offended?  I think we're letting the violence and radicalism speak for the majority which is not fair at all.

But, let me bring up the gay people hypothetical again.  Should gay people refrain from holding hands or seeming gay if they're near a mosque or in a muslim part of town? 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2015, 04:07:37 PM »

I used to think blasphemy a trivial offense, at least when it was only the use of a holy name in a vile context  -- as saying "God damn it" after falling on ice. Such has no premeditation; it is done with practically no thought. "God damn"... what? The ice? Does a thin glaze of ice have a soul to condemn to Hell? "Damn you!" for cutting me off in traffic and causing hot coffee to spill upon my pet dog along for the ride? That is a bit harsh.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, all that I could say was "God damn him!" Military aggression is a horrific crime, one that typically results in mass, pointless death.  I am sure that many said the same of fascist aggressions from Mussolini invading Ethiopia to the Pearl Harbor attack. I may not be a religious man, but if there is a just God, then I can only imagine where Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, and Saddam are.... and I do not want to go where they are.

But that is comparatively minor. We are not the One Who could condemn an egregious sinner to Hell. really, it is up to us to forgive someone who did some thoughtless offense to our persons or those of our loved ones (including the four-legged ones).

...Far worse is the libel of a religion (including its key figures) or its believers. No people deserves to be demonized. Hitler would have never had a chance to murder six million Jews had it not been for the debased images of Jews that emanated from Julius Streicher.  I have no idea of what sort of crimes are possible against Islam and Muslims. I will be unable to see any difference between the murder of six million people as Muslims and the killing of six million people as Jews.

Shame on the Jew Pamela Geller! She should know better!  
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 04, 2015, 04:07:48 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2015, 04:11:11 PM by Torie »

I responded to the gay people holding hands hypo above. By the way, partner Dan and I hold hands walking by a mosque a block away frequently. We do it because we like showing affection for each other that way, and it's on the route from our home to the main drag in town. We don't do it for the purpose of offending its denizens. If we did it for that purpose, I think that conduct would be "offensive."
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 04, 2015, 04:30:19 PM »

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 04, 2015, 04:56:42 PM »

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 04, 2015, 05:23:08 PM »

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

This is a strange counter-factual. His career clearly isn't a performance art project. Even if Geert Wilders' political career was one long performance art project, I'm not sure how I would react because that would be utterly surreal. I'd like to think I would condemn him for promoting bigotry though.

I don't know what your point is ingemann. Are you irritated that I said "I wouldn't shed a tear for Geert Wilders"? That's pretty accurate, I hate him and condemn this project. Why do you think this means that I support terrorists?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 04, 2015, 06:52:17 PM »

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

Another person's opinion is not an objective standard for what is appropriate.  It's the mutually agreed upon conventions of the community. 

We've agreed that racism is impolite and morally wrong.  We've agreed walking around naked is impolite and offensive.  We haven't agreed that depicting religious figures is offensive.  Simple as that.  The assumptions of specific religions aren't the customs of the entire community.  Muslims can't expect that their assumptions of their religion apply to the entire community.  It's any disrespect if you understand that most people don't care about Mohammed or revere him in any way. 

Think of it this way, they sell shirts at Fenway Park that say "Yankees Suck."  I'm a Yankees fan,  but I realize that not everyone else likes my team.  Red Sox fans denigrating Derek Jeter or Micky Mantle might piss me off, but it's only annoying because I like the Yankees.  It's annoying, assuming you like the Yankees.  Just like Mohammed cartoons annoy people, assuming they're Muslim.   
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,841


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 04, 2015, 07:08:07 PM »

This isn't a conversation about what one is "allowed" to find offensive and acceptable. This thread has been dominated by questions of what is the "appropriate" use of free speech.

That's not what the conversation needs to be about. The fundamental backing behind a liberal democracy's right to free speech is its inalienable and universal nature. There is a reason that we criticize nations that imprison political opponents for speaking out against their government. In those contexts, we don't call them constitutional rights or First Amendment rights, we call them human rights. For all of humankind, there is a right to inalienable to free speech.

It has been a pillar of Western Civilization that any limitation of free speech by the state must be extremely measured (i.e. shouting "fire" in a movie theater) but there are no cultural protections for ones use of free speech. The state is the state because it has a monopoly on force. By permitting others to use force, they are bizarrely condoning the violence that ensues.

This creates a mandate for the state to protect those practicing their freedom of speech from harm as a result of their speech. That's a major point in this discussion. There is absolutely no room for the kind of feckless, "They had it coming!" talk when we are discussing Islamic fascism.

Islamofascists seek to destroy the fundamentals of Western Civilization with attacks on things like free speech and free expression. These attacks are outrageous and very, very disproportionate . I used the example of Piss Christ in another. Not only was no one shot over the vulgar work, no one was shot over the government funding that vulgar work. There was no armed rebellion or shooting on the artist's home.

Whether or not the rhetoric of the event went "too far", this was a horrible act of violence. It is clearer and clearer with each act of political violence that Islamic fascism is the greatest threat posed to liberal democracy in the 21st century.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 04, 2015, 07:11:20 PM »

There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

Another person's opinion is not an objective standard for what is appropriate.  It's the mutually agreed upon conventions of the community. 

We've agreed that racism is impolite and morally wrong.  We've agreed walking around naked is impolite and offensive.  We haven't agreed that depicting religious figures is offensive.  Simple as that.  The assumptions of specific religions aren't the customs of the entire community.  Muslims can't expect that their assumptions of their religion apply to the entire community.  It's any disrespect if you understand that most people don't care about Mohammed or revere him in any way.
 
I try to let my actions be dictated by my convictions, not by community standards. In this case, my conviction is to avoid unnecessarily offending people, and to urge others to do the same.

Also, your post inadvertently justifies the criminalization of Muhammad depictions in majority-Muslim countries.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, just as you would avoid denigrating the Red Sox because you dislike it when people do the same to your favored sports team, you should avoid denigrating Islam... except that the impetus in this case is even stronger, as the attachment that people have to religion is (presumably) far higher than the attachment that people have to sports.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 04, 2015, 07:56:41 PM »

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand.

It's good to hear that you respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages and would equally condemn art like the piss Christ that offends Christians.

You know what's offensive to me? Anyone who would shut down free speech because someone might be "offended" by what they hear.  They, and those"offended" need to grow up and realize that there are people who won't always agree with them.

Let's say I call someone an @$$hole and they punch me in the face. It was wrong for them to punch me in the face, but it also wasn't very prudent of me to call them an @$$hole. This is one of those situations.

I think we can all agree that wantonly firing a gun at people in a non-defensive situation is wrong - it's also against the law.

Having a "Draw Mohammed" convention is not against the law (at least not in this country). That doesn't mean it's a "wise" thing to do.

Context matters and reminds me of a lot of the comments following the Charlie Hebdo shootings about the problem of "punching downward." Historically in Western art, literature and culture, the Church was a target of satire and parody. That made, and makes, sense. Christianity is our Establishment. Even in America, where it's not the official religion, it is one of the edifices of our culture that jesters and freethinkers will always "punch upward" at to question norms and hurl spears at those in power.

That kind of satire isn't funny when it's directed at Islam. It's just mean. Islam isn't part of the Establishment in the West. You're not mocking corrupt clergy, hypocritical pastors embezzling money and having affairs, or self-righteous politicians wearing their "Faith/Family/Freedom" on their sleeves. You're mocking people who by and large are living in a country they don't have a social support structure in and who, particularly in Europe, are socially and economically marginalized. You're not sticking it to The Man. You're spitting on the sort of people who drive you to the airport and give you your change at the gas station.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 11 queries.