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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.

I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.

um... what? o.O

Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?

I think he's countering your own irrational anger and societal angst with his own.

AH... gotcha

I think...

 whembly wrote:

um... what? o.O

Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?

No, just pointing out that I'm American and I hold the values espoused in the essay you cited in contempt. Apparently that the Administration might sympathize with me is angering to some.

More broadly, I get annoyed when people say things like "We believe..." or "Americans believes..."

 Wolfstan wrote:
When you drill in to it it's the usual suspects, the illiterate masses being stirred up by educated individuals with an axe to grind. For crying out loud, how many of these people would of heard of this film unless stirred up? In fact how many would of seen it? If you could grab one of them out of thin air and stick them in a room and get them to tell you exactly what part of the film was so bad, they wouldn't have a clue.

It was what I was aluding to in a hamfisted way earlier. In the past Western religions were able to stir up this type of trouble, because of the lack of education and literacy. Unfortunately there are still a big chunk of the Islamic world that is still like this and therefore easily stirred up.

What would be great is to be able to tell these people that this isn't the Crusades, we have no interest in their lands, we don't care who they worship, we just want to get along... but as per usual there is "power" at stake here and those that have it don't want to let it go.

That's well said. It's worthing pointing out that the Mohammed cartoon thing had a lot of extra cartoons added to it as it worked its way through the Islamic world, all far more offensive than the originaly cartoons. And most of the really strong complaints against the The Satanic Verses were about things that simply weren't in the book.

But that said, do you remember when people were convinced that Saddam really was the worst of the worst of the worst, because of all those stories about bayonetting babies in infirmaries, and feeding people into acid vats, and the sons grabbing girls off the street to rape? In the West we might be more resistant to manipulation, but we're not immune.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.

He intended to stir gak. gak got stirred, and some people are dead. He deserves to be blamed for making the film.

The trick comes, I think, in realising that just because he deserves blame, it doesn't mean we should do anything about him or any other dill weed that wants to make a racist movie. Nor does it mean the people who acted violently deserve any less blame.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

um... what? o.O

Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?

No, just pointing out that I'm American and I hold the values espoused in the essay you cited in contempt. Apparently that the Administration might sympathize with me is angering to some.

More broadly, I get annoyed when people say things like "We believe..." or "Americans believes..."

Ooooooooooh... okay... comprende dude .

 Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

You keep talking about speech as if the entirety of the concept begins ands with the legal issue of free speech. It doesn't. Personal responsibility is a major issue.

 Seaward wrote:

You say that like you're sure of it. The truth of the matter is, we have no idea how to bring about a healthy, modern state in the Middle East, or even if it's possible. The only non-Israeli example that actually functions is Turkey, and they still flirt with theocracy more often than anyone should be comfortable with, not to mention they've been on Europe's doorstep for centuries and have some pretty important cultural differences with the rest of the states in the region.

I like how by "healthy" and "modern" you really mean "Western."

 Seaward wrote:

The notion that they're going to vote for theocrat extremists now, but will be electing their version of Benjamin Franklin in the future, is nothing more than hope, and predicated on the notion that democracy's going to stick around once the extremists get in power.

Of course its hope, we are talking about the future after all.

And when did democracy become intrinsically opposed to extremism? One can very easily democratically elect extremist politicians repeatedly.

One of the arguments that lots of scholars and developing countries make is that the West is to focused on its sort of democracy, to the point where it doesn't see democracy as something which is independent of being a Western nation. I think its a pretty good argument, and something many people need to consider. Of course, young Huntington agrees.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

You keep talking about speech as if the entirety of the concept begins ands with the legal issue of free speech. It doesn't. Personal responsibility is a major issue.

You keep bringing up "personal responsibility"... what do you really mean by it?

 sebster wrote:

The trick comes, I think, in realising that just because he deserves blame, it doesn't mean we should do anything about him or any other dill weed that wants to make a racist movie.

George Takei should feel obligated to say this...




...again.

 Seaward wrote:
You say that like you're sure of it.

I'm not sure of it. I don't know which, if any, of the Arab Spring states will produce healthy states.

But I am sure that there isn't a better alternative. You don't just decide that some people can't be democratic, so we better install our man in the region. I mean, we tried that. That's one of the big reasons we are where we are.

The truth of the matter is, we have no idea how to bring about a healthy, modern state in the Middle East, or even if it's possible.

Of course it's possible. Exactly how is a good question, but I'd guess it's a combination of blood, bravery, a lot of good fortune and time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... he was sarcastic there...

Comments like it come up every time a Muslim does something bad. They're not meant as a real suggestion, but nor are they joking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Its not going to be a democratic government we're use to. Either they're going to declare Sharia Law or come close to it.

That's more than a little simplistic. There's a whole range of options between Sharia Law and open, liberal democracy. It can end up a very conservative state with strict regulations, and not follow Sharia law.

Just, go and read about Indonesia. It's an interesting place, and the law is informed by conservative religious values in a way that'd make Christian Dominionists in the US think that's too far, but it is at the same time a long way from Sharia Law.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
To give an analogy, about a year ago the "Piss Christ" image was damaged. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story about this that did not include an image of the art in question. When the media refuses to show art that a group considers offensive because they might behead someone, then we're empowering them. That's not what America is all about.

I think there's a difference between not showing an image because you're afraid of violence, and not showing an image because you don't want to offend a large number people who don't need to be offended.

For instance, here in Australia many aboriginal groups find it offensive to show images of the dead. This makes it hard to talk about issues in which one or more aboriginal people have died. Now, I don't agree with a government coming in and telling people they cannot show those images, but I do believe media outlets need to show some restraint, and some consideration for whether that image really needs to be shown.

I think much the same of images of Mohammed, or of anything else really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings.

No, but it is where personal responsibility starts.

(purple emphasis mine) OK, so that is I think the point Shuma was trying to make to me, and even though you were responding to someone else. I see what you guys are saying. Less about cowardice, more about pragmatism.

 whembly wrote:
What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.

Is that what you meant by "responsibility?

I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.

I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.

Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.

Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.

As Ben Franklin famously said:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it

Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.

 sebster wrote:
I'm not sure of it. I don't know which, if any, of the Arab Spring states will produce healthy states.

But I am sure that there isn't a better alternative. You don't just decide that some people can't be democratic, so we better install our man in the region. I mean, we tried that. That's one of the big reasons we are where we are.

That's not exactly true. We didn't play kingmaker in most of these states, we just worked with the ones who came to power. You know, like every one else.

Of course it's possible. Exactly how is a good question, but I'd guess it's a combination of blood, bravery, a lot of good fortune and time.

I disagree, until there's proof one way or another, I'll say it's impossible.

Comments like it come up every time a Muslim does something bad. They're not meant as a real suggestion, but nor are they joking.

They come up, from me at least, anytime a fanatic of any religion does something bad. I don't play favorites; none of the major superstitions are better than any of the others.

 Ouze wrote:
(purple emphasis mine) OK, so that is I think the point Shuma was trying to make to me, and even though you were responding to someone else. I see what you guys are saying. Less about cowardice, more about pragmatism.

Yeah, but not just pragmatism. Even if there was no violent retaliation to this kind of thing, it is worth asking if the offence caused is really justified by what you have to say.

It's an answer that depends on each case. I mean, I'd in the case of The Satanic Verses the answer would clearly be that it was worth it, because that book had a lot to say about Islam and how it interacted with the modern world (even though ultimately the book wasn't that good).

On the other hand, I'd say that Piss Christ had little of interest to say, and was really motivated more by shock value than anything else, and the artist should have shown some self censorship and said 'actually, this will just piss some people off and isn't very good, so I won't release it'.

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, but not just pragmatism. Even if there was no violent retaliation to this kind of thing, it is worth asking if the offence caused is really justified by what you have to say.

So you're saying you're in favor of freedom of speech only if it's justified?

 sebster wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:
What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.

Is that what you meant by "responsibility?

I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.

I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.

Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.

Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.

As Ben Franklin famously said:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it

Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.

You're right... I agree with this...

I'm more of a "stand by" what you said/done kind of thing...

But, I want to clarify that last statement:
'that kind film is not what this country is about'... no, but we're the kind of country that allows it...

That's the difference...

 Seaward wrote:
That's not exactly true. We didn't play kingmaker in most of these states, we just worked with the ones who came to power. You know, like every one else.

Some we did, some we didn't. Even where we didn't we frequently had a strong influence afterwards.

The point is that deciding some group of people can't run their own country and that some agreeable dictator is the solution puts that country on hold. Sooner or later that dictator will fall and when

I disagree, until there's proof one way or another, I'll say it's impossible.

Poppycock. Islam is a religion, no more, no less. It doesn't magically stop anyone from being part of a democracy.

They come up, from me at least, anytime a fanatic of any religion does something bad. I don't play favorites; none of the major superstitions are better than any of the others.

Do think bigotry against religion is any better when it's against all religion?

 sebster wrote:

The point is that deciding some group of people can't run their own country and that some agreeable dictator is the solution puts that country on hold.

You need to stop acting as though we're the ones who make that call. It's the people in the countries themselves, not us.

Poppycock. Islam is a religion, no more, no less. It doesn't magically stop anyone from being part of a democracy.

Who said it had anything to do with Islam? You're operating on theory, I'm looking at, you know, what's actually going on over there. If you can point to a democracy in the region that's not Israel or Turkey that you'd consider a shining example for the others to aspire to, by all means, be my guest.

Do think bigotry against religion is any better when it's against all religion?

I think anyone attempting to defend the killing of another human being on grounds of superstition is off their fething rocker.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, but not just pragmatism. Even if there was no violent retaliation to this kind of thing, it is worth asking if the offence caused is really justified by what you have to say.

So you're saying you're in favor of freedom of speech only if it's justified?

I think the point might have been that, just because you have the right to say something and no one can stop you from doing it, doesn't mean you should do it.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:
What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.

Is that what you meant by "responsibility?

I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.

I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.

Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.

Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.

As Ben Franklin famously said:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it

Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.

You're right... I agree with this...

I'm more of a "stand by" what you said/done kind of thing...

But, I want to clarify that last statement:
'that kind film is not what this country is about'... no, but we're the kind of country that allows it...

That's the difference...

So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."

The rests of your posts are pretty much just regurgitations of conservative talking heads telling you why you should be angry about something Obama said. You are making Frazzled sound like MSNBC, so that's a skill. I don't put anybody on ignore, but I make a choice not to interact with some people, I think your posts are getting there.

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."

Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?

Can't we do both?

 Ouze wrote:
Can't we do both?

The former becomes unnecessary with the latter.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."

Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?

If you have the choice of Obama saying "Sorry if it offends you, but it is a result of our freedom" in order to try to calm a mob and maybe safe some American lives, and Obama saying "We got freedoms and we don't care how you feel about it", which one do you prefer and which one is the more diplomatic one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If an idiot makes a stupid movie in order to piss people off then that is his freedom. Our President doesn't have to legitimize the movie by standing behind it. Which brings me back to page 1 or 2 where I stated that Freedom of Speech doesn't absolve you from using it responsibly and anticipating the results.

 d-usa wrote:


If you have the choice of Obama saying "Sorry if it offends you, but it is a result of our freedom" in order to try to calm a mob and maybe safe some American lives, and Obama saying "We got freedoms and we don't care how you feel about it", which one do you prefer and which one is the more diplomatic one?

If those are my choices, I'd pick the former. And I'd have no problem with it. What I would have a problem with is what's been said elsewhere in this thread, a, "Sorry, it should not have been made," sentiment.

And you still did not answer my question.

I am fine with it beig made.
I am fine with calling the maker an idiot for making it.
I am fine with Obama trying to do damage control.

As to the question: with great power comes great responsibility.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."

Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?

If I were to say toy you that 'I wish death upon you and your family' should I assume that any offense you take is just because your crazy or is the onus on me to realize that that statement is crass and offense and need not be said

 youbedead wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."

Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?

If I were to say toy you that 'I wish death upon you and your family' should I assume that any offense you take is just because your crazy or is the onus on me to realize that that statement is crass and offense and need not be said

You're missing the point. You can say something offensive to me, and I can be offended by it. There's no problem with that, and it happens all the time. There's no guarantee that I'm aware of anywhere that suggests you have a right to live your life free of ever being insulted.

Where the disconnect comes in, with you people who are suggesting this is all the film's fault, is the assumption that being offended leading to the killing of another human being, or even the storming of a foreign embassy, is somehow justified. It's not. It's crazy.

 youbedead wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."

Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?

If I were to say toy you that 'I wish death upon you and your family' should I assume that any offense you take is just because your crazy or is the onus on me to realize that that statement is crass and offense and need not be said

Exactly.

What if I go to an NCAAP meeting and yell "N****** are stupid"? Is it the fault of the group that they would be offended?

I have freedom of speech, but I also know the result of that speech before I say it and the only reason for me to say it would be to get the anticipated response. Purpose of speech is important, and while we shouldn't restrict it we also shouldn't let people off the hook for being irresponsible with it.

Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


If you have the choice of Obama saying "Sorry if it offends you, but it is a result of our freedom" in order to try to calm a mob and maybe safe some American lives, and Obama saying "We got freedoms and we don't care how you feel about it", which one do you prefer and which one is the more diplomatic one?

If those are my choices, I'd pick the former. And I'd have no problem with it. What I would have a problem with is what's been said elsewhere in this thread, a, "Sorry, it should not have been made," sentiment.

"Sorry, it should not have been made" sounds like the perfect thing to say. It shouldn't have been made, simply because it is akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre; and it was not meant to accomplish anything other than inciting riots. However, "Sorry, it should not have been made" reconciles perfectly with "nevertheless, it was still that individual's right to make it".

I think you're starting to blue the lines between a "should not have been made" statement, and a "will not be allowed to be made" statement, when really they are miles apart.

 d-usa wrote:
Exactly.

What if I go to an NCAAP meeting and yell "N****** are stupid"? Is it the fault of the group that they would be offended?

I have freedom of speech, but I also know the result of that speech before I say it and the only reason for me to say it would be to get the anticipated response. Purpose of speech is important, and while we shouldn't restrict it we also shouldn't let people off the hook for being irresponsible with it.

Quit conflating "being offended" with "killing someone because they offended you."

You guys are coming awfully close to making the argument that fueled dueling as a method of dispute resolution for so long in the West. "He offended me, therefore I have a right to kill him."

Simple question: do I have the right to insult you?