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.

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I know you're saying that we should be nice, and take the higher ground.... but, sometimes, you have to do it, to prove it.

Why?

I don't need to piss off my neighbours to prove to myself that it's possible. I know how annoying I can be when I put my mind to it.

Because we can. It's as simple as that.

Look up the laws regarding the Heckler's Veto.

 easysauce wrote:
whats more antagonizing,

killing people, or expressing ideas?

You keep reverting to this argument as if anyone here is suggesting that the shooters were in the right.


Once again - nobody is saying this.

However, the fact that it prompted an inappropriate reaction in no way lessens the donkey-cave nature of the original action. Quite the opposite, in fact, wouldn't you think?

 whembly wrote:
Because we can. It's as simple as that..

Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.

Insaniak said it perfectly. Well done, +1 and all that.

That being said, how is that concrete wall feeling on your forehead? Are we getting to the point in the thread where we get to call all the "free speech is always okay, no matter what!!" posters any name we want without getting in trouble? I mean, they ARE requesting we do so. The idea that if they choose to hit the triangle of friendship, they demean their entire argument and just show themselves to be hypocritical asses does make me a little bit happy.

*still not supporting the Muslims actions. Also not supporting the people who put on the conference. And I won't be supporting either group. At all.

Are someone in this discussion saying that humour, art and criticism of authorities is nonsense, worthless, immoral, bad idea or idiotic?

Are someone in this discussion saying that in case criticism of authorities result in violent reactions, such criticism is nonsense, bad idea, immoral or idiotic?

In a situation when you can not criticise authorities, that is when it is utmost important to do so. Criticising authorities in the face of danger is the right thing to do. Because historiy teaches us what happens if we don't.

Every single day musicians travel around the world, burning bibles, screaming about burning churches, killing jesus, raping nuns and slaughtering angels. No reaction.

One day a small group of people draw muhammad. Terrorist attack.

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Because we can. It's as simple as that..

Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.

Hey... that's your opinion. Not something that I subscribe to.

And I noticed that you left out the concept of Heckler's Veto... here, I'll quote the salient point:

Briefly, the legal framework is based on a court case Hill v. Colorado 530 US 703, 735 where the US Supreme Court found that the government can not grant power to a private actor, the heckler, to unilaterally silence a speaker because of a concern for the violent reaction by the heckler. The excuse of the local government during the civil rights movement in the U.S. for not giving permits to civil rights marchers to protest segregation was that the marches would create a public danger or put participants in danger because of the violence that might ensue. The Supreme Court found this unacceptable and a deprivation of the First Amendment rights of the marchers.

Outside of legal parlance, it has come to mean that the heckler himself creates the veto and suppresses the speech by creating the violent reaction or the threat of violent reaction. The end result of this is usually that the individual who is potentially being heckled will self-censor for fear of the reaction it might create.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Insaniak said it perfectly. Well done, +1 and all that.

That being said, how is that concrete wall feeling on your forehead? Are we getting to the point in the thread where we get to call all the "free speech is always okay, no matter what!!" posters any name we want without getting in trouble? I mean, they ARE requesting we do so. The idea that if they choose to hit the triangle of friendship, they demean their entire argument and just show themselves to be hypocritical asses does make me a little bit happy.

*still not supporting the Muslims actions. Also not supporting the people who put on the conference. And I won't be supporting either group. At all.

You can separate the two further buddy...

You can support the PRINCIPLE of free speech. You can also separate that act from the CONTENT of said speech.

It's an important distinction.

All this talk about, "Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should" is simply a "yeah, but..." circular arguments.

If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.

If you can't criticise authorities, you must criticise authorites, or you have ethnic cleansing all over again.

Baxx wrote:
If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.

Why?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.

Why?

Why not? Seriously...

I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.

However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.

I'm pretty sure you blocked me though already, since you haven't responded to me in any of my posts over the last 6 pages, Baxx. Doesn't covering up my words for yourself count as a form of censorship? Where'd your belief go in showing it off? Clearly you should be embracing my comments, not hiding from them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Why?

If you can make art, why shouldn't you?

Blasphemy ensures freedom.

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
whats more antagonizing,

killing people, or expressing ideas?

You keep reverting to this argument as if anyone here is suggesting that the shooters were in the right.


Once again - nobody is saying this.

However, the fact that it prompted an inappropriate reaction in no way lessens the donkey-cave nature of the original action. Quite the opposite, in fact, wouldn't you think?

 whembly wrote:
Because we can. It's as simple as that..

Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.

with all the back lash you are giving them, saying that they *should not have done the art show* yes, you are indeed justifying the shooting despite denying such a thing. Saying they shouldnt have done the show is tantamount to justifying the shooting, even if you do not want it to be interpreted as such.

in the same way as you are unilaterally saying the art show isn not about freedom of speech and that it is strictly about provoking muslims, your claim that they shouldnt provoke muslims is in fact justifying the action that was provoked.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.

However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.

I'm pretty sure you blocked me though already, since you haven't responded to me in any of my posts over the last 6 pages, Baxx. Doesn't covering up my words for yourself count as a form of censorship? Where'd your belief go in showing it off? Clearly you should be embracing my comments, not hiding from them.

I haven't blocked you or anything. I haven't noticed anything you've said that needed answering. Usually I respond to statements made by others which I think is wrong or particularly interesting or provocative. Maybe you haven't made such statements, or I didn't read close enough.

Sure I can behave and act polite in front of other people.

But I can never stop criticising authorities. Never. And I can never stop enjoying and creating blasphemy and art. Never.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.

Whether you should is irrelavant. You have that RIGHT to do so.

Just allow me to "retort", as it is my right as well.

However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.

Good to know.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.

Why?

Why not? Seriously...

we have piss jesus and poo virgin mary, no one got shot, no one claims people shouldnt do art that *literally* in a universally degrading way pisses and poops on Christianity.

But the mere depiction (not even derogatory, you cannot even portray mohammad positively) is art that shouldnt be done.

why exactly?

what is the difference between the one artist who pisses on christ, and an artist who draws mohammad.

be specific in what the difference between those two art forms is that makes piss Jesus a "should" and mohammad a "should not"





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I can call you every single word on George Carlin's list of things not to say in polite conversation. According to your viewpoint, that means I should.

Whether you should is irrelavant. You have that RIGHT to do so.

Just allow me to "retort", as it is my right as well.

However, I'm not a gakky human being. So I won't. I will admit the temptation is pretty strong though at this point.

Good to know.

Right, exactly, freedom of speech is universal, its not freedom to say what I think you *should* say.

This way the idiots out themselves, they say things that are stupid, exposing their stupidity to the world.

I want these people to feel free to inform me of their stupidity, it is their right after all.

Baxx wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Why?

If you can make art, why shouldn't you?

Blasphemy ensures freedom.

No, it doesn't, it proves it's already there.

The capacity to create art does not in itself constitute an imperative to do so, just as the ability to call someone a gak-smelling knobgobler does not demand that we make use of it.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.

Why?

Why not? Seriously...

What if I don't want to make blasphemous art? I most certainly have the capacity to create blasphemous art, so the question then is, to what purpose would I do so? I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind the above call to create blasphemous art for the sake of creating blasphemous art.

 easysauce wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
If you can make blasphemous art, you should make blasphemous art.

Why?

Why not? Seriously...

we have piss jesus and poo virgin mary, no one got shot, no one claims people shouldnt do art that *literally* in a universally degrading way pisses and poops on Christianity.

But the mere depiction (not even derogatory, you cannot even portray mohammad positively) is art that shouldnt be done.

why exactly?

what is the difference between the one artist who pisses on christ, and an artist who draws mohammad.

be specific in what the difference between those two art forms is that makes piss Jesus a "should" and mohammad a "should not"

Wikipedia wrote:The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986[11] from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy.

Find where anyone in this thread has argued in favour of Piss Christ but against drawing Mohammad and stop spouting strawmen.

 easysauce wrote:


Right, exactly, freedom of speech is universal, its not freedom to say what I think you *should* say.

Where in this thread has anyone argued against that?

 whembly wrote:
Hey... that's your opinion. Not something that I subscribe to.
.

Indeed it is.

I don't know, maybe I'm just old-fashioned... I was raised to show consideration for those around me, and I'll be bringing my children up the same.

I'm constantly seeing effort into removing cause or value in the actions and art made by others.

Because you disagree with someone, does that mean their art is worthless? Does that mean their actions are nonsense? Does that mean that their effort into criticising authorities is a bad idea?

I would like someone to tell me the difference between drawing muhammad and playing in a metal band. Is one idiotic / donkey-cave behaviour / bad idea / nonsense / worthless while the other is not? I would in that case like to know why.

I know alot of people say music is evil and bad. I'm picking up same wibes here.

I always show consideration for those around me.

I never show any consideration or respect for mass-murderous tyrants and dictators. Not now, not ever.

I was raised to raise hell

thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.

what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey... that's your opinion. Not something that I subscribe to.
.

Indeed it is.

I don't know, maybe I'm just old-fashioned... I was raised to show consideration for those around me, and I'll be bringing my children up the same.

And that's a worthy goal.

I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.

easysauce wrote:
Right, exactly, freedom of speech is universal, its not freedom to say what I think you *should* say.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Where in this thread has anyone argued against that?

seriously?

 insaniak wrote:

Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

No, it doesn't, it proves it's already there.

The capacity to create art does not in itself constitute an imperative to do so, just as the ability to call someone a gak-smelling knobgobler does not demand that we make use of it.

Blasphemy is an important tool to enforce freedom where there is none. This is part of history. You are correct it is also usefull to constantly ensure that we have that freedom. And any infringement on freedom will quickly be noticed by the use of blasphemy. Which surely is the case here.

If you don't criticise authorities in the face of threat, that's when bad things happen. That's why you should do it.

Baxx wrote:
I'm constantly seeing effort into removing cause or value in the actions and art made by others.

Because you disagree with someone, does that mean their art is worthless? Does that mean their actions are nonsense? Does that mean that their effort into criticising authorities is a bad idea?

I would like someone to tell me the difference between drawing muhammad and playing in a metal band. Is one idiotic / donkey-cave behaviour / bad idea / nonsense / worthless while the other is not? I would in that case like to know why.

I know alot of people say music is evil and bad. I'm picking up same wibes here.

Context matters. Showing up playing Sabaton at a Holst festival, while legal, is rather poor taste, whereas doing it on a rock festival is nothing out of the ordinary. Similarly, drawing Mohammed isn't the issue, it's that it's done by a group that, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Islam. It's even in their damn name.

 easysauce wrote:
thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.

what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?

There is no such distinction, you're implying that someone's made that distinction when no one has, which is a strawman.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.

what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?

There is no such distinction, you're implying that someone's made that distinction when no one has, which is a strawman.

you are not reading things then

 insaniak wrote:

Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.[/quote]

 whembly wrote:

And that's a worthy goal.

I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.

'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
thats not even close to addressing the point I brought up mr godly walrus, so its funny you bring up straw men when your post is the only one in sight.

what is the specific difference between the two depictions that makes one a should not, and one a should?

There is no such distinction, you're implying that someone's made that distinction when no one has, which is a strawman.

you are not reading things then

 insaniak wrote:

Which brings us back to the idea that just because you can doesn't automatically mean that you should.[/quote]

What? Where does that claim that something is something you should do?

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And that's a worthy goal.

I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.

'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'

So Pam's skirt was too short? She was just asking for it?

Don't you realize how silly that statement is?

It's like... some right-winger shoots up a Planned Parenthood rally. You going to blame PP for provoking that reaction?

What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Do you think he provoked his assassin and thus should bear part of the blame of his death?

No.

Planned Parent, MLK, Pam fething Gellner should be free to express their views without ANY fear of violence.

THAT... insaniak is what we need to stand for.

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And that's a worthy goal.

I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.

'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'

So what are the various terrorist acts from the minority of religious extremists over the last century or so supposed to provoke?

satire is an acceptable form of protesting against a religion you might not agree with, you dont affect people by being blaize you do it by being provocative. provocative ideas are the hallmark of a free society.


we do not curtail freedom of speech based on what some whacko might do.

yes we all want to be polite to everyone as much as we can, but some would consider two gays holding hands "impolite" and some would not. They have the right to do so despite what anyone thinks about the should or should not. You dont seem to be able to separate the idea that what you think everyone should do is just your opinion, not some universal truth that everyone must be held up to.


again you are using the "but she asked for it, dressing in a manner that enhanced her desirability, and wearing make up to look sexy" argument, like its putting meat in front of a starving animal.

people are not animals, we are expected to see things that upset us, and deal with it appropriately.

we do not expect to never see things that upset us (well... obviously going by this thread some of us do expect this, but its not an ideal worth striving for)

 whembly wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And that's a worthy goal.

I just don't think you grasped the implications of what transpired.

'If you deliberately try to provoke a reaction from religious extremists, it's possible that you'll get a reaction from religious extremists?'

So Pam's skirt was too short? She was just asking for it?

Don't you realize how silly that statement is?

It's like... some right-winger shoots up a Planned Parenthood rally. You going to blame PP for provoking that reaction?

What about Martin Luther King Jr.? Do you think he provoked his assassin and thus should bear part of the blame of his death?

No.

Planned Parent, MLK, Pam fething Gellner should be free to express their views without ANY fear of violence.

THAT... insaniak is what we need to stand for.

They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Context matters. Showing up playing Sabaton at a Holst festival, while legal, is rather poor taste, whereas doing it on a rock festival is nothing out of the ordinary. Similarly, drawing Mohammed isn't the issue, it's that it's done by a group that, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Islam. It's even in their damn name.

Sure context matters. According to muslim terrorists, making criticising art is such a poor taste it doesn't matter where you do it. Drawing Muhammad is the issue regardless of place, be it France, Denmark or Texas.

Let's say you have a swedish metal band like Anti-Christ, Bestial Mockery, The Project Hate MCMXCIX or similar consisting of "a group that's, based on earlier actions, blatantly doesn't seek friendly co-existance with any form of Christianity. It's even in their damn name".

Now you say what? That this is an issue? Is it poor taste? Doing a show in a rock festival would be out of the ordinary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

They absolutely should, but your comparison is off. Rape victims generally do not go around trying to get raped to prove a point, there's a fair bit of context here suggesting that this was a deliberate provocation in the hopes of getting some nutter to go violent.

But you're saying that people who criticise authorities generally goes around trying to get killed by fanatics?

This was a deliberate provocation to ensure freedom. As similar provocations are done every single day, every second.

I like the rape analogy. But let's make it a teeny bit more accurate, shall we:

College girl goes to frat party yells "have at, boys" and rufies HERSELF, then gets upset when she wakes up with man-juice leaking out of every hole.

I mean, they should have worn condoms, clearly!

That's a bit more like what happened here.