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.

 whembly wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But they're the same thing really. If you don't have the ability to promote hatred then you aren't really free of oppression.

Having the ability doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

Self-control is more or less the hallmark of being an adult.

F that man...

Free speech means just that. There is no "but".

You can counter protest if you'd like... But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.
EDIT: @sebster

"because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.

I'm sorry, but if the only defense you have for this sort of stuff is that it isn't actually illegal to do it, then I'm not sure that it's really a good plan.

First dead terrorist identified:
https://gma.yahoo.com/official-one-texas-shooting-suspects-ided-111112719--abc-news-topstories.html

This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

Radical/Extremists/Jihadists are incompatible with the West

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be

You have been in the OT before, right? People on an Internet forum declaring and deciding how offended others are allowed to be is one of it's most 'endearing' qualities.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

Radical/Extremists/Jihadists are incompatible with the West

Increase your Muslim population and you will get more of them.

Islam is a creed of domination. It doesn't matter if there is a large silent/complicit majority.

Younger Muslims in Britain (even the ones born here) are more likely to be radicalised and hold stricter Islamic views.

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

This is the United States. We antagonize the Bear with free speech...daily.

EDIT: This is also Texas. Here we eat the bear, after deep frying them, with some nice cream gravy. mmmm cream gravy....

Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.

We seem to be heading back to the dark ages where religions cannot be offended without getting killed for blasphemy. Even in the west.

Another thing;
I wonder if this is what the roman pagans were like, disorganised and divided, preoccupied with their daily lives while Christianity usurped their empire. There's probably pretty strong comparisons between then and now the way power and politics is playing out. We've already got some kind of comparison with Constantine and other high ranking romans being christian and/or sympathizers and there sure is alot of them now for Islam for example.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.

And in this case, they were allowed to do so. Nobody has said that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

 insaniak wrote:

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.

And in this case, they were allowed to do so. Nobody has said that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

You could argue that those that are defending that they shouldn't have organized this event are saying exactly that.

Self-censorship and PC censorship are still forms of censorship.

Modern society needs these forms of provocation, they are the only real way to affirm our freedoms.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

Radical/Extremists/Jihadists are incompatible with the West

Increase your Muslim population and you will get more of them.

Islam is a creed of domination. It doesn't matter if there is a large silent/complicit majority.

Younger Muslims in Britain (even the ones born here) are more likely to be radicalised and hold stricter Islamic views.

That's not strictly because of you having an "increased Muslim population", but has more to do with the fact that the Muslim population is not as integrated as it should be.

Historically that has been an issue with Europe and ethnic/religious minorities when they have transplanted.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

This is the United States. We antagonize the Bear with free speech...daily.

EDIT: This is also Texas. Here we eat the bear, after deep frying them, with some nice cream gravy. mmmm cream gravy....

Not many bears in Texas because we killed them all. So we only get cast offs from other states.

PhantomViper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Whether people think it nice or not to offend peoples religions is irrelevant, people must be allowed to do so. No religion should be above reproach in our modern world.

And in this case, they were allowed to do so. Nobody has said that they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

You could argue that those that are defending that they shouldn't have organized this event are saying exactly that.

Self-censorship and PC censorship are still forms of censorship.

Modern society needs these forms of provocation, they are the only real way to affirm our freedoms.

i have to agree with PV here. Freedom of speech must be protected, even for idiots, racists, and provocateurs. The heckler's veto (and this is the ultimate form of it) has no place here.
Also, as they have just learned, we shoot back here-and we actually practice.

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's not strictly because of you having an "increased Muslim population", but has more to do with the fact that the Muslim population is not as integrated as it should be.

There is an argument to be made that cultures shouldn't "integrate" because in the process of doing so, they lose what makes them unique. That's not an argument for "segregation" either. We just shouldn't expect Muslims to give up their own culture or make concessions just to fit in.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

This is the United States. We antagonize the Bear with free speech...daily.

EDIT: This is also Texas. Here we eat the bear, after deep frying them, with some nice cream gravy. mmmm cream gravy....

Not many bears in Texas because we killed them all. So we only get cast offs from other states.

true that. my East Texas relatives in law eat anything that won't eat them first...

PhantomViper wrote:
You could argue that those that are defending that they shouldn't have organized this event are saying exactly that.

Self-censorship and PC censorship are still forms of censorship.

Modern society needs these forms of provocation, they are the only real way to affirm our freedoms.

Agreed.

 djones520 wrote:


Somehow, I bet if we swap a few religious names around here, there wouldn't be quite as much indignation towards the event organizer, and lots more wailing and teeth gnashing at the gunmen. I mean we're getting seriously close to victim blaming in this thread.

It's not victim blaming though: they purposefully provoked retaliatiatory responses. Change it to "best picture of Jesus gets $10k", and you'd have a ton of people in there drawing him. Hell, I'd try my hand at that! But it's fairly common knowledge that images of Muhammad are offensive (I don't understand why, he was just a man after all, preaching the word of his God/Allah, but whatever). Putting this event on was fueling a fire. There's no way around it. I feel bad for the cop. He's the only one here deserving of sympathy. The politician douchenozzel needs to pay his medical bills. In full.



Hmm, wait, that's not hardcore enough for one of my posts. Let me fix that. Pay the cops medical bills and the politician should lose his ability to have children so no more hateful spawn can come into this world from his loins.

That's better.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
This is basically like antagonising a bear. Thy can do it, but they should expect the obvious results.

It's just further evidence of Islam being entirely incompatible with the West.

Radical/Extremists/Jihadists are incompatible with the West

You both wrong.
It shows religious extremists (especially, but not exclusively, Muslim) are not compatible with a free and democratic society. No West, or East, or South or North or above or below or any other geographical direction involved.

dereksatkinson wrote:
There is an argument to be made that cultures shouldn't "integrate" because in the process of doing so, they lose what makes them unique. That's not an argument for "segregation" either. We just shouldn't expect Muslims to give up their own culture or make concessions just to fit in.

Culture should mix, and evolve together. But yeah, Muslims (and non-Muslims) must change stuff to better fit in. And that should not even be considered concessions, as this implies the change is negative. It is only negative if you decide it to be.

 Goliath wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be

You have been in the OT before, right? People on an Internet forum declaring and deciding how offended others are allowed to be is one of it's most 'endearing' qualities.

You know when that one guy at work told that really offensive joke once and at the time you were like "man! I am totally offended!" and maybe for a couple of days you might have been a little bit angry whenever you thought of the joke but after that you more or less got on with your life? That is how most people deal with offense when it is given in a remote form.

The majority of people are reasonable human beings with better things to be worrying about than maintaining a level of offense against something that does not intrude on their daily lives. You have to work at being offended and take the offense and build it into your world view... and quite simply most people are not like that.

So, not telling people how offended they should be, pointing out how most people deal with offense.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
It's not victim blaming though: they purposefully provoked retaliatiatory responses. Change it to "best picture of Jesus gets $10k", and you'd have a ton of people in there drawing him. Hell, I'd try my hand at that! But it's fairly common knowledge that images of Muhammad are offensive (I don't understand why, he was just a man after all, preaching the word of his God/Allah, but whatever).

Mohammed is a historical figure. Declaring that nobody anywhere is permitted to depict him is as stupid as if the French wanted to forbid people from drawing Charles De Gaulle or Americans banning any painting or drawing of George Washington. Trying to murder people for depicting said historical figure is equal parts evil and insane.

You know that. I know that. But it's indoctrinated into that religion. I never said it makes sense. But these guys went out of their way to provoke members of said religion. That's kind of like sticking your head in a gator's mouth while getting somebody to stick a finger up its butt. You provoke it, it's gonna snap.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing
.

And there are some people are so jaded they don’t even read the thread before posting their witty comment.

If those jaded people had read the thread, they would find that every single person who posted thought the attempted attack was much, much worse than drawing pictures of Mohammed. They would learn that the only reason the drawing is getting more commentary is because that’s actually being debated, whereas it’s just accepted by everyone that attacking the conference was murderous insanity.

But hey, more fun to be jaded and just dropping in for witty comments.

The feth thread did you read? There were exactly four people - including yourself - who made any sort of statement that the attacks were worse than the drawing. Four. And two of those were only made as responses to other folks. So kindly lay off the personal attacks and pay attention before you go gak on someone else for no reason.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
But it's indoctrinated into that religion.

No. No it is not. It is an interdiction for Muslims that has been put forward as a universal rule by people actually purposefully trying to create trouble. Blame those people before you blame the expo organizers. Affirm that Islamic law has no bearing on what unbelievers can or cannot do before lambasting provocateurs that do the same.

From what I've seen, this event was designed by a certain woman who has a history of anti-muslim activity. You don't ask bernie the shark killer to save a shark.

 juraigamer wrote:
From what I've seen, this event was designed by a certain woman who has a history of anti-muslim activity.

that appears to be the case.

You don't ask bernie the shark killer to save a shark.

Er...what?

I believe Stephen Fry had something to say about the right not to be offended that is applicable here.

 d-usa wrote:
Reading it again I realize that it did. Sorry, that wasn't my intention.

Don't worry, we all do that from time to time and I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding your point.

 cincydooley wrote:

Horrible people doing things to horrible people.

I think it's bad choice to use same word for killing and drawing.

Stephen Fry had a very applicable quote about being offended which basically boiled down to: You have not right to not be offended. In a land of free speech, people are going to be offended. So what?
My religion get's mocked quite often but you don't see us going on shooting sprees. In fact, I support people that criticize because they should have every right to do so. I don't agree with it, but I'll defend their right to mock my religion.

Think of it as a context of making art that may inspire to critical thinking and mockery of violent leaders.

I appreciate that you're using war time propoganda to try and make your point. It makes me smile.