Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Laemos wrote:
that is blaming the victim. She started it by dressing that way. He could have crossed the street but didn't so he clearly provoked them.

In this specific case, more like She started it by standing in front of a loony with a gun and screaming at them to shoot her.

Once again, that doesn't make the response acceptable. Just not particularly surprising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

But this whole "we are gonna shoot anyone who draws mohammad" is an unacceptable thing to have.

Of course it is. Nobody in this thread was saying otherwise.

 Jihadin wrote:

Citation needed.

Edit

Current event time frame.

Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.

Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.

Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Laemos wrote:
that is blaming the victim. She started it by dressing that way. He could have crossed the street but didn't so he clearly provoked them.

In this specific case, more like She started it by standing in front of a loony with a gun and screaming at them to shoot her.

Once again, that doesn't make the response acceptable. Just not particularly surprising.

Your comparison is weak. It would be better if you had a woman with short skirt getting raped, then pointing out "...but she was wearing a short skirt".

The loonies on the other hand stood with guns in front of the police, screaming to shoot them while actually shooting at the police.

Baxx wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?

Oh wait that never happened.

Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.

Right, it happened hundreds of years ago when that kind of thinking was acceptable, considered enlightened, and rampart at the time. It doesn't matter in this particular case what happened hundreds of years ago because back then everyone was doing stuff that was acceptable then but deplorable by todays standards.

Hence why when peoples answer to freedom of expression is violence today its both anachronistic, unjustified, and totally unacceptable regard less of how much some groups' feelings were hurt over a cartoon.

You bring up a good point.

Why is it that some religions have cooled down from the crusade days, while others are still stuck in an antiquated mindset over what is and is not acceptable behavior in modern society?

Baxx wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Citation needed.

Edit

Current event time frame.

Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.

Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.

Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).

Come now. Bosnia

 easysauce wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Remember that one time when people were drawing cartoons of Jesus and all the Christians armed themselves and killed a bunch of innocent civilians?

Oh wait that never happened.

Sure it happened. Many times, thousands of victims. But the protest just continued, the injustice was increasingly criticised, blasphemy rocketed and slowly, church lost the iron grip of society. This is part of the process of enlightenment and development of democracy. Today, you can say or draw anything you want about Jesus. Not a single christian starts killing. And every single day, people are making and enjoying tons of anti-christian art. So that never again shall religious fanatics kill those who disagree with them.

Right, it happened hundreds of years ago when that kind of thinking was acceptable, considered enlightened, and rampart at the time. It doesn't matter in this particular case what happened hundreds of years ago because back then everyone was doing stuff that was acceptable then but deplorable by todays standards.

Hence why when peoples answer to freedom of expression is violence today its both anachronistic, unjustified, and totally unacceptable regard less of how much some groups' feelings were hurt over a cartoon.

You bring up a good point.

Why is it that some religions have cooled down from the crusade days, while others are still stuck in an antiquated mindset over what is and is not acceptable behavior in modern society?

Because of where the religions have developed. Things are different in the middle east and africa than in america and western Europe. Had chritanity stayed in the middle east and islam in america and europe, we would have the same sort of things happening over anti-christian stuff.

 easysauce wrote:

Why is it that some religions have cooled down from the crusade days, while others are still stuck in an antiquated mindset over what is and is not acceptable behavior in modern society?

Because some religions are observed primarily in countries where state and church have been largely separated, resulting in many citizens not following that religion, and many laws being made by non-followers... While others aren't.

What is and isn't acceptable in modern society is dictated by that society. It's not a universal truth, set in stone, that applies to the whole world.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Because of where the religions have developed. Things are different in the middle east and africa than in america and western Europe. Had chritanity stayed in the middle east and islam in america and europe, we would have the same sort of things happening over anti-christian stuff.

Yes if Christianity had stayed in its dark age mentality, and Islam progressed through the enlightenment, things would be different... is your point that if things were different that they would be different? You are right, if things had been different and it were Christians doing this now, we would be talking about them.

Regardless of the label one puts on a belief system, and regardless of the alternate time lines that system could have taken in its evolution, all we as people have that's tangible about that belief system are results of the actions it causes/encourages/discourages.

It wouldn't matter if it was atheists, Christians, or Muslims shooting people over a cartoon in a free society that they chose to be a part of, the actions of that group would still be anachronistic.

In reality, right now, this is the mind set of enough of (not all, not even most) Islam/Muslims that it is a real issue facing the modern world.

The issue is not that a hornets nest is being poked, not that people are saying inflammatory things.

Its that enough people are stuck in the past that we keep seeing this kind of violence.

Its that and open, inclusive society has welcomed people into it who are actually working to turn back the clock and change that culture to one that is more closed and repressive.

Because that is what this kind of violence does, it can close down society through change (IE the laws make drawing mohammed illegal closing down free speech), or through fear (people fear the terrorists so enact burka bans, people get islamaphobic, ect)

Which is why it is important to have these people say their piece openly, even if it is inflammatory to show Mohammad. Even if it means they will likely be targeted by violence. They have to keep putting their ideas out there to keep everyone else doing the same and preserve a truly open society.

 easysauce wrote:
Its that and open, inclusive society has welcomed people into it ...

Has it?

'Allowed' is probably a better word than 'welcomed'. To me, 'welcoming' someone would imply less mocking and/or screaming for them to get the hell out.

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Citation needed.

Edit

Current event time frame.

Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.

Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.

Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).

Come now. Bosnia

bosnia was because of cartoons about Jesus?

 Laemos wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Citation needed.

Edit

Current event time frame.

Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.

Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.

Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).

Come now. Bosnia

bosnia was because of cartoons about Jesus?

Go to Baxx post that started this chain

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Its that and open, inclusive society has welcomed people into it ...

Has it?

'Allowed' is probably a better word than 'welcomed'. To me, 'welcoming' someone would imply less mocking and/or screaming for them to get the hell out.

No its not a better word in this case, and it doesn't justify you blaming the victim that they were "asking for it" due to them expressing their opinions. Spouting a risky opinion is not asking for it any more then sporting a risky dress is asking for it.

The west as it stands *today* is built on immigration and being welcoming of other cultures, give me your tired, poor, weak and all that.

Immigrants come from all over the world and live in western countries, all religions, ethnicity, ect, and all get along pretty well for the most part. Its a state of cultural diversity and integration not seen in other parts of the world. Western society is the most welcoming of all ideas, races, elasticities, religions, ect on the planet because it has such diverse people from so many different backgrounds working together.

The only people who are not welcoming anything are the people shooting others over cartoons.

Shooting people is also a great way to have people ask you to leave the party too... so what came first, were they asked to leave and then shot people over it? or did they shoot people and then were asked to leave? is it unreasonable to ask that kind of person to leave or mock their ideals if they justify this kind of action? (again, talking specifically about the people committing the acts, not the faith as a whole)

 easysauce wrote:

No its not a better word in this case, and it doesn't justify you blaming the victim that they were "asking for it" due to them expressing their opinions. Spouting a risky opinion is not asking for it any more then sporting a risky dress is asking for it.

So, if my neighbour plays music that the guy across the road doesn't like, and as a result the guy across the road burns my neighbour's house down... and then I choose to play the same music, is there any particular reason I should be surprised if my house suddenly starts to feel a little warm?



Yet again, I'm not saying the reaction in this case was reasonable, or acceptable, or sane. What I'm saying is simply that it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody, and that acting in a way specifically (seemingly) intended to trigger that reaction might not have been the best idea.

Or, to return to the analogy that people seem so insistent on wedging in there - if a girl wears a skimpy dress, it's not her fault that she got raped... but that doesn't change the fact that walking alone down a dark alley where someone in a skimpy dress was raped the night before might not be a wise decision.

That doesn't excuse what happens, or make it any less terrible.

The west as it stands *today* is built on immigration and being welcoming of other cultures, give me your tired, poor, weak and all that.

Yes, I know that's what it says on the tin, but the reality is very, very different.

In practice, the people who are 'welcomed' are those who dress like us, and speak like us, and behave like us... and everyone else is either tolerated, or told to change their ways or get the hell out.

The only people who are not welcoming anything are the people shooting others over cartoons.

You caught the part where this 'art' contest was organised by a group dedicated to keeping Islam out of America, right?

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Citation needed.

Edit

Current event time frame.

Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.

Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.

Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).

Come now. Bosnia

Arguably Rwanda as well.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Citation needed.

Edit

Current event time frame.

Don't bring me something that goes back to Crusades.

Ok I was thinking about going back centuries before that too.

Let me just say this, the reason I can mock christianity today is because someone mocked it before me (and lost their head because of it). The reason why I can mock islam tomorrow, is because someone mocks islam today (under threat of and actually being killed for it).

Come now. Bosnia

Arguably Rwanda as well.

Muslims Bosniacks
Orthodox Serbs
Catholic Croats

Tutsi vs Hutu

 insaniak wrote:

Yet again, I'm not saying the reaction in this case was reasonable, or acceptable, or sane. What I'm saying is simply that it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody, and that acting in a way specifically (seemingly) intended to trigger that reaction might not have been the best idea.

Or, to return to the analogy that people seem so insistent on wedging in there - if a girl wears a skimpy dress, it's not her fault that she got raped... but that doesn't change the fact that walking alone down a dark alley where someone in a skimpy dress was raped the night before might not be a wise decision.

That doesn't excuse what happens, or make it any less terrible.

To escort the skimpy dressed girl with armed police down the ally the night after someone in a skimpy dress was raped there, is probably the best idea.

To shut down all music in fear of pyromaniacs is also a high cost for alot of people, a much worse idea than to keep on rocking in the free world.

 Jihadin wrote:

Geller told the AP before Sunday's event that she planned the contest to make a stand for free speech in response to outcries and violence over drawings of Muhammad. Though it remained unclear several hours after the shooting whether it was related to event, she said Sunday night that the shooting showed how "needed our event really was."

She did the event after another event took place there it seems

This is not the first such event; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (or "Draw Mohammed Day") was an event held on May 20, 2010, in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

Baxx wrote:
To shut down all music in fear of pyromaniacs is also a high cost for alot of people, a much worse idea than to keep on rocking in the free world.

Nobody is doing the equivalent of shutting down all music. The cartoons are clearly legal and nobody is arguing that it should be otherwise. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

 insaniak wrote:
Or, to return to the analogy that people seem so insistent on wedging in there - if a girl wears a skimpy dress, it's not her fault that she got raped... but that doesn't change the fact that walking alone down a dark alley where someone in a skimpy dress was raped the night before might not be a wise decision.

And what happened when someone pointed out that fact? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
Toronto Police spokeswoman Meaghan Gray said cautioning women on their state of dress is not part of any police training. "In fact, this is completely contradictory to what officers are taught," she said. "They are taught that nothing a woman does contributes to a sexual assault."

 insaniak wrote:
In practice, the people who are 'welcomed' are those who dress like us, and speak like us, and behave like us... and everyone else is either tolerated, or told to change their ways or get the hell out.

So how do you believe society should respond to those who enter a country willingly, refuse to obey local laws, and insist that the native culture be changed to better suit them - and even use violence to achieve their aim?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So how do you believe society should respond to those who enter a country willingly, refuse to obey local laws, and insist that the native culture be changed to better suit them - and even use violence to achieve their aim?

'Society' doesn't need to respond to those people. That's why we employ law enforcement.

But the shunning of muslims is hardly confined solely to those who are actively causing problems. Just look at the complaints that spring up every time someone lodges an application to build a mosque. Or the groups like the one behind this 'art' contest... They're not just trying to keep the extremists out. They're trying to keep islam out entirely.

That's not a 'welcoming' atmosphere.

The organizers can use their free speech to piss of people they don't agree with and they should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean that others have to agree that it was a wise decision.

Criticizing the organizers for having an event that exists to offend and to provoke a response is a perfectly acceptable use of our free speech as well, and doesn't equal censorship.

The only people that broke the law were the shooters, who decided that terror was the only response to being offended.

I may think I that the organizers are idiots and that they should have seen this coming (which they did, and which is why they spend a lot of money on security), but I won't argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be idiots in the future simply because they were attacked.

But at the same time we should also not be forced to stop the criticism of the organizers simply because they were attacked. Their behavior doesn't excuse the attack one single bit, but the fact that they were attacked also doesn't excuse their behavior.

The law gives them the avenue to offend, and they have the right to be offensive. Others also have the right to be offended. Both sides have the right to use their speech to spread their message, and nobody has to agree with anyone. Both sides can yell at each other all they want, and the cries of "don't be so offensive" and "don't be so offended" will continue. And that's good. There will be public responses to people that offend as well as people that are offended, and that is good. And it's not always against the people doing the offending either. The OT school play thread is a good example where somebody was offended and the law appears to have agreed with him, but he still faces public criticism of the fact that he was offended here. Others here are criticizing the teacher for being offensive by organizing the play. Point being, that is how it is supposed to work.

Everybody agrees that terror is never an appropriate response to being offended, but terror should never result in the silencing of offensive speech nor their criticism.

If offensive speech gets drowned out by the speech of those offended, then that is how it is supposed to work. If those who are offended get drowned out by the speech of those who are offensive, the so be it. But when offensive speech or the criticism thereof gets shut down because of terror, then nobody wins.

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

No its not a better word in this case, and it doesn't justify you blaming the victim that they were "asking for it" due to them expressing their opinions. Spouting a risky opinion is not asking for it any more then sporting a risky dress is asking for it.

So, if my neighbour plays music that the guy across the road doesn't like, and as a result the guy across the road burns my neighbour's house down... and then I choose to play the same music, is there any particular reason I should be surprised if my house suddenly starts to feel a little warm?

Why wasn't the guy across the street put in prison? And while you should expect the guy to continue to act unreasonably, is that really justification for you and your neighbors to allow that lunatic to control what happens in the neighborhood? Terror wins?

 insaniak wrote:
Yet again, I'm not saying the reaction in this case was reasonable, or acceptable, or sane. What I'm saying is simply that it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody, and that acting in a way specifically (seemingly) intended to trigger that reaction might not have been the best idea.

She spent $50,000 on security. That's why only one guard was injured and the two terrorists were killed before they could do any more harm. Make up whatever silly similes you wish, this group payed attention to the attack at Charlie Hebdo. Speaking of which, would you really suggest the people at Charlie Hebdo were responsible for what happened to them? It pretty much falls along the same line of thinking.

 insaniak wrote:
You caught the part where this 'art' contest was organised by a group dedicated to keeping Islam out of America, right?

That's a gross exaggeration of their purpose. Even if it were their purpose, they've already failed give there are over a million practicing Muslims in America already.

 d-usa wrote:
The organizers can use their free speech to piss of people they don't agree with and they should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean that others have to agree that it was a wise decision.

Criticizing the organizers for having an event that exists to offend and to provoke a response is a perfectly acceptable use of our free speech as well, and doesn't equal censorship.

The only people that broke the law were the shooters, who decided that terror was the only response to being offended.

I may think I that the organizers are idiots and that they should have seen this coming (which they did, and which is why they spend a lot of money on security), but I won't argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be idiots in the future simply because they were attacked.

But at the same time we should also not be forced to stop the criticism of the organizers simply because they were attacked. Their behavior doesn't excuse the attack one single bit, but the fact that they were attacked also doesn't excuse their behavior.

The law gives them the avenue to offend, and they have the right to be offensive. Others also have the right to be offended. Both sides have the right to use their speech to spread their message, and nobody has to agree with anyone. Both sides can yell at each other all they want, and the cries of "don't be so offensive" and "don't be so offended" will continue. And that's good. There will be public responses to people that offend as well as people that are offended, and that is good. And it's not always against the people doing the offending either. The OT school play thread is a good example where somebody was offended and the law appears to have agreed with him, but he still faces public criticism of the fact that he was offended here. Others here are criticizing the teacher for being offensive by organizing the play. Point being, that is how it is supposed to work.

Everybody agrees that terror is never an appropriate response to being offended, but terror should never result in the silencing of offensive speech nor their criticism.

If offensive speech gets drowned out by the speech of those offended, then that is how it is supposed to work. If those who are offended get drowned out by the speech of those who are offensive, the so be it. But when offensive speech or the criticism thereof gets shut down because of terror, then nobody wins.

Agreed... wholeheartedly.

I think some excitedly pro-Free speech folks (like moi) rubs certain folks the wrong way because it appears that we're clamoring to be free from criticism.

Which is so far from the truth actually... for blasphemous, ugly, slowed speech... the antidote is MORE SPEECH!

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So how do you believe society should respond to those who enter a country willingly, refuse to obey local laws, and insist that the native culture be changed to better suit them - and even use violence to achieve their aim?

'Society' doesn't need to respond to those people. That's why we employ law enforcement.

So we don't attempt to address their concerns, help them integrate into society, etc. we just wait for violence and let the police take care of it?

 insaniak wrote:
But the shunning of muslims is hardly confined solely to those who are actively causing problems. Just look at the complaints that spring up every time someone lodges an application to build a mosque. Or the groups like the one behind this 'art' contest... They're not just trying to keep the extremists out. They're trying to keep islam out entirely.

That's not a 'welcoming' atmosphere.

Then I ask again; how does society respond to this?

 Breotan wrote:

Why wasn't the guy across the street put in prison? And while you should expect the guy to continue to act unreasonably, is that really justification for you and your neighbors to allow that lunatic to control what happens in the neighborhood? Terror wins?

See, that's exactly the point. There are better ways to deal with the situation other than to just keep doing the same thing and getting shouty when it continues to have the same result.

Particularly when that same thing has been proven to provoke a violent response.

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Why wasn't the guy across the street put in prison? And while you should expect the guy to continue to act unreasonably, is that really justification for you and your neighbors to allow that lunatic to control what happens in the neighborhood? Terror wins?

See, that's exactly the point. There are better ways to deal with the situation other than to just keep doing the same thing and getting shouty when it continues to have the same result.

Particularly when that same thing has been proven to provoke a violent response.

Like what, exactly? This guy was already being watch and a court already refused the government's request to prevent him from travelling. Short of a crime, he couldn't be imprisoned.

 Peregrine wrote:

Baxx wrote:
To shut down all music in fear of pyromaniacs is also a high cost for alot of people, a much worse idea than to keep on rocking in the free world.

Nobody is doing the equivalent of shutting down all music. The cartoons are clearly legal and nobody is arguing that it should be otherwise. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

Nothing about what I stated was about legality. It was a response to something "not being the best idea". And what you commented on was a response that it certainly wasn't the worst idea and maybe even the best.

Baxx wrote:
Nothing about what I stated was about legality.

Then why are you talking about "shutting down all music", something that would involve making music illegal and taking action to suppress it?

Because the man across the street had actions that would imply threat to burn down buildings.

 insaniak wrote:

In practice, the people who are 'welcomed' are those who dress like us, and speak like us, and behave like us... and everyone else is either tolerated, or told to change their ways or get the hell out.

That might be your own, anecdotal experience, mine is quite different. In my experience we all realize we are all immigrants here at some point and no one is told to "change their ways or get out" everyone gets to be who they want to be and is welcome. Cultures are assimilated and in fact become part of the greater culture up here rather then being told to change or GTFO as you put it.

My experience in the states, UK, and europe has been the same namely that the west is a melting pot, not an assimilation factory where every culture comes in and comes out yankee doodle dandy *or else*

Freely expressing ideas in a free society is not a risky behavior on par with going down murder ally at night in that it is a dumb move that should expect violent action. In fact you are blaming the victim when you say that they should expect this kind of thing.


sure they can be criticized for how they did it, D-usa summed that up nicely.


That doesnt mean their actions were cause or effect, nor were their actions were wrong.

the *only* people who did anything wrong were the shooters, you seem to think the even organizers are also to blame.

 easysauce wrote:
That might be your own, anecdotal experience, mine is quite different.

Then it would seem that only one of us is paying attention to the news.

Our would you class the actions of the group behind this 'art' contest as 'welcoming' to Muslims?

the *only* people who did anything wrong were the shooters, you seem to think the even organizers are also to blame.

No, just that they acted like donkey-caves, and what happened was a completely unsurprising reaction to that, given recent events.