Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Tom Sawyer]

She has no legitimate grievance -- she's a rich conservative white American, for crying out loud!

Doesn't she get some credit for being a woman in a patriarchal society?

Only if it's white men trying to shoot her. If it's one of the coloureds, then it's her own damn fault for being in the way of the bullet.

 

[Trausti]

A protest? Oh, come on! For it to be a protest, Geller et al would have to have a legitimate grievance to protest about. She has no legitimate grievance -- she's a rich conservative white American, for crying out loud! It's only a protest if you're the Oppressed. When you're an Oppressor, which is what Geller is, it's incitement and any resulting violence is your fault. All those reductio ad absurdums people in this thread keep offering miss the point -- they keep trying to apply untermensche's arguments to speech against Oppressors, to which such arguments simply don't have any relation. You don't have to avoid inciting Christians because Christians aren't Oppressed. You don't have to avoid inciting American jingoists because American jingoists aren't Oppressed. You don't have to avoid inciting skinheads, anti-family-planners or fascists because skinheads, anti-family-planners and fascists aren't Oppressed. If you protest against any of those people and violence results, that's on them, because they're Oppressors.

Heh. That reminds of this:

it’s intriguing to consider that somewhere out there is a blind African quadruple amputee AIDS-afflicted lesbian who can win any argument just by walking into the room. You know, if she could walk.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/leftist_grievance_poker/

 

[arkirk]

Have you considered that the purpose was to protest the encroachment of theocracy on Western values? Are you against protests?

A protest? Oh, come on! For it to be a protest, Geller et al would have to have a legitimate grievance to protest about. She has no legitimate grievance -- she's a rich conservative white American, for crying out loud! It's only a protest if you're the Oppressed. When you're an Oppressor, which is what Geller is, it's incitement and any resulting violence is your fault. All those reductio ad absurdums people in this thread keep offering miss the point -- they keep trying to apply untermensche's arguments to speech against Oppressors, to which such arguments simply don't have any relation. You don't have to avoid inciting Christians because Christians aren't Oppressed. You don't have to avoid inciting American jingoists because American jingoists aren't Oppressed. You don't have to avoid inciting skinheads, anti-family-planners or fascists because skinheads, anti-family-planners and fascists aren't Oppressed. If you protest against any of those people and violence results, that's on them, because they're Oppressors.

The question that crosses my mind is whether or not this cartoon "contest" was a deliberate effort to precipitate a violent response. I think it was as is evidenced by the fact they had special security on hand to meet a violent response. When the response came in the form of these two very naive Muslims, their hired security thugs couldn't even get that right. The local police killed these two guys. The resultant of this "cartoon contest" was two dead. Now I happen to believe that there is no adequate response to what has happened here. This was an event that did not have to happen and I suspect the sponsors of this event had at least a strong suspicion that their "contest" would aggravate an assault on the attendees. What's worse is the fact that IT'S NOT OVER. Here those free "talking" Americans have provoked perhaps still more troubles in the future and has set conditions of conflict just like a stain in the fabric of society. Actual violence promotes the kind of hatred that fuels further violent conflict from BOTH SIDES.

These young Muslims did not have the right to demand that nobody poke fun at their prophet in a cartoon and indeed there are many cartoons deriding and making fun of Mohammed that get published and duly hated by Muslims without driving them to violence. This contest was posted as a "let's insult the prophet" party with some kind of favors offered for the best insult. The humanist position on this matter is not reactive and we know that this kind of escalation of poor relations with people of this faith will take time, with a period of no violence to cool off. In my estimation, Islamism is kind of social sickness that quickly arises in Muslim cultures that are subjected to violence from those outside the religion. Over the past ten years, our government may have killed upwards of a million muslims in various conflicts in the middle and far east. Whether we like it or not, our government's actions could easily be interpreted by Muslims as a war on Islam. Our last president Dubbiya described it as a clash of civilizations. Our current president insists we have the right to fly drones in their lands and execute people Obama puts on his shit list. All of this activity is a likely prelude to so called terrorism. Reactive acts of hatred are NOT RATIONAL. I am in no way imputing there is anything just about an act of terrorism. They always turn out to be terribly ugly affairs like the Boston Marathon bombing and everybody looks at the "terrorist" as some kind extremely evil person when in reality he is just a human like you and me.

What I am saying is that all these acts of terrorism are reactions to conditions created in the lives and societies which the terrorists identify with. If we cut down on our international violence, it may take awhile for people to recognize we have done so and we may not be instantly forgiven, but the conflict will lessen and so will the amount of terrorism in the world. Keep doing like we are doing and we will keep getting what we are getting.

 

[Warpoet]

Warpoet seems more concerned with the hate a speaker feels. But he drips hate for Geller in his speech so he must be silenced.

Intelligent people recognize the distinction between disdain directed at a group of people who self-identify on the basis of their bigoted beliefs (Geller et al) and generalized hatred for an entire subset of the population (Muslims and Arabs).

Neither should be banned, but don't even bother trying to put me in the same category as people like her because it's not going to fly.

Nice try, though.

 

[dismal]

Warpoet seems more concerned with the hate a speaker feels. But he drips hate for Geller in his speech so he must be silenced.

Intelligent people recognize the distinction between disdain directed at a group of people who self-identify on the basis of their bigoted beliefs (Geller et al) and generalized hatred for an entire subset of the population (Muslims and Arabs).

Neither should be banned, but don't even bother trying to put me in the same category as people like her because it's not going to fly.

Nice try, though.

I should have said oozing with hate for Geller. Dripping did not capture it.

 

[Warpoet]

I should have said oozing with hate for Geller. Dripping did not capture it.

Actually, you should have just not said anything at all, since your reasoning was crap. And shockingly, when this is pointed out, you just fall back on your usual safe routine of trite, unfunny one-liners.

 

[Axulus]

Warpoet seems more concerned with the hate a speaker feels. But he drips hate for Geller in his speech so he must be silenced.

Intelligent people recognize the distinction between disdain directed at a group of people who self-identify on the basis of their bigoted beliefs (Geller et al) and generalized hatred for an entire subset of the population (Muslims and Arabs).

Neither should be banned, but don't even bother trying to put me in the same category as people like her because it's not going to fly.

Nice try, though.

You error in thinking that all Arabs or Muslims take offense at drawings of the prophet.

 

[Warpoet]

You error in thinking that all Arabs or Muslims take offense at drawings of the prophet.

That isn't what I said.

 

[untermensche]

Burning a cross on someone's yard would be an act of violence in of itself. Drawings are not.

You mean violence against wood?

You didn't answer the question. The act of performing an abortion led a radical to blow up a clinic. How is that any different?

You just don't like the answer.

Women wanting to have abortions in private is not incitement to anything.

But this contest was deliberate and direct incitement to violence. A reasonable person should have known that it could potentially lead to violence.

And what is the gain of this insane contest conducted by fanatics?

Nothing as far as I can see or as far as anyone has demonstrated.

 

[untermensche]

But this contest was publicized.

A deliberate and direct incitement.

Of course it was publicized. They were trying to make a public point.

Now, if you make another post, I'm going to strangle a cat. Don't make yourself a cat murderer by posting.

What point were they trying to make beyond pointing out what assholes they are?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course it was publicized. They were trying to make a public point.

Now, if you make another post, I'm going to strangle a cat. Don't make yourself a cat murderer by posting.

What point were they trying to make beyond pointing out what assholes they are?

Cat killer

 

[untermensche]

What point were they trying to make beyond pointing out what assholes they are?

Cat killer

Fine, retreat to the level of a second grader.

It takes a second grader to support your position.

 

[Trausti]

Cat killer

Fine, retreat to the level of a second grader.

It takes a second grader to support your position.

Why you have to be so provocative against Tom? More kitties might die. Stop it.

 

[untermensche]

Fine, retreat to the level of a second grader.

It takes a second grader to support your position.

Why you have to be so provocative against Tom? More kitties might die. Stop it.

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater just for my jollies.

And these fanatics don't get to endanger others just for their jollies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There were threats of violence when "Life of Brian" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" were released. And yet they did not keep it to themselves, and in fact advertised them heavily to try to get people to attend. Python members were quite proud of the fact that christians were offended. (I heard Graham Chapman say that in person at an appearance a couple years before his death.) If some of you had your way, "Life of Brian" would never have been released and the world would be a much worse place without "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life."

There were threats, but was there any actual violence?

I think the distinction you're missing here is that we've got a pattern of violence when it comes to offending Muslims that we didn't have with Christians. The Jesus freaks get their undies in a twist. The Allah freaks go out and kill people.

Christians scream bloody murder. Muslims commit bloody murder.

I'm all for satire and songs and poking fun at religion. I've repeatedly said that I think violence as a response to such things is wrong.

But this "cartoon contest" was not satire or hijinks or even performance art. The organizers knew that there was a likelihood of a violent response, since there has been a pattern of violent response in the past, and it is my position that they (at least secretly) hoped for a violent response. At what point does it stop being an exercise in free speech and start being an incitement of violence?


The overwhelming opinion here seems to be "never." Even if the speech in question is deliberately formulated to elicit a violent response.

I wouldn't say "never". There's a difference between urging violent conduct (something I think should be more restricted than it is now) and simply expecting a violent response to merely provocative conduct to a non-captive audience. (Captive audiences are another matter--I do favor restrictions on free speech when the audience can't just reasonably walk away--for example, protests at a funeral, bible thumpers preaching outside classrooms etc.)

 

[bilby]

Why you have to be so provocative against Tom? More kitties might die. Stop it.

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater just for my jollies.

And these fanatics don't get to endanger others just for their jollies.

Provoking someone isn't 'endangering others', it is 'endangering yourself'.

Allowing yourself to be provoked isn't 'endangering others'; it is also 'endangering yourself'

Responding to provocation by attacking people other than those who provoked you isn't a case of the provoker 'endangering' anyone; it is a case of the provoked being mentally ill.

If a mentally ill person becomes irrationally violent, they need to be restrained; Their opinion of the cause of their violence is irrelevant, because it is irrational.

Drawing a picture does not justify violence. Under ANY circumstances.

 

[Jayjay]

Burning a cross on someone's yard would be an act of violence in of itself. Drawings are not.

You mean violence against wood?

Even if you want to be pedantic about it, at least it would be a violation of intrusion into another person's private property. But I think the main point is the historical context of burning crosses of people's yards: the intent was not to express an opinion, or even to provoke a response, but intimidation and a clear threat of violence against the folks living in the house.

You didn't answer the question. The act of performing an abortion led a radical to blow up a clinic. How is that any different?

You just don't like the answer.

Women wanting to have abortions in private is not incitement to anything.

But this contest was deliberate and direct incitement to violence. A reasonable person should have known that it could potentially lead to violence.

And what is the gain of this insane contest conducted by fanatics?

Nothing as far as I can see or as far as anyone has demonstrated.

You are right that the abortion analogy fails in the sense that the clinic performing abortions is providing a valuable service as such, and not just defending said valuable service. But I don't see how the organizers of this event being fanatics has any bearing on the fact that nobody deserves to get shot for drawing a cartoon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I fully agree that the desire to harm others because they merely make a cartoon of a long dead religious icon is close to insanity. The idea that one has some mental connection to a god is close to insanity. But in most cases it is an insanity implanted into the most vulnerable by the people they care about most.

I have exposed that belief as absurd.

I can say whatever I want to say about it.

Unless people go on a murdering rampage, then you are saying we should cower to violent extremists and stop saying what we want to say about it.

Leftist diplomacy 101:

There is a peaceful solution the problem. If you can't find it you aren't looking hard enough.

Appeasement is the proper response when you can't reason with an opponent--not taking harmful action is more important than survival.

(And I've had multiple leftists prove this last one: Given a scenario where the choice is take a repugnant action or by default a much worse action happens that includes the same result as the repugnant action I've had multiple people on here choose the latter course. Do no wrong is vastly more important than a good outcome.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Cat killer

Fine, retreat to the level of a second grader.

It takes a second grader to support your position.

I've said my piece in this thread. Your childish points merit childish responses.

Also, I killed another cat. Not because of you, I just wasn't watching where I was driving. Don't feel guilty about that one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So your freedom of speech is contingent on whether people are willing to kill you to shut you up?

You get to speak your opinion now because people don't want to kill you for it but if they did you'd have to stop?

Again, a second graders reading.

The question is one of direct incitement.

People of reason know that a tiny minority of Muslims can be driven to potential violence with certain kinds of direct incitements.

But lets pretend this isn't about direct incitement by fanatics, it's about freedom of speech.

Except there's no direct incitement here. The winning cartoon is in this thread--there's no call to violence in it.

I fully agree it's waving a red flag in front of a bull--but only an animal will respond with violence. By saying we shouldn't do it you are in effect saying that tiny minority are animals.