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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

No... the comparison is valid.

It matters not ONE BIT, if the rape victim/PP/MLK/Pam G actually DID deliberately provoke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

So... It's Gellnar's fault that these terrorists tried to kill her?

Baxx wrote:

 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?

If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.

Baxx wrote:

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

No, I'm saying that, based on their previous track record of being donkeycaves to Muslims, the organization involved sought to provoke a violent response, while at the same time minimizing risk to themselves by keeping a SWAT team on-site.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

No... the comparison is valid.

It matters not ONE BIT, if the rape victim/PP/MLK/Pam G actually DID deliberately provoke.

Yes it does, because it ruins the argument that the SIOA were acting out of good faith and proves that they were, in fact, confrontational douchebags. That doesn't change the fact they have the right to be confrontational douchebags, and no one in this thread has claimed otherwise.

Similar would be:

Protestors criticise authorities, result in lethal reprisals.

Where is that the case? In any and all dictatorships.

North Korea
Syria
Libya
Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Red Khmer's Cambodia

If you don't want to be tortured and killed, you better keep your trap shut and stop criticising authorities!

However, if you dare criticise dictators, that's like being a slutty prostitute begging to be raped in a men's prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.

And if christians made the life of any non-christians a sure hell, that would surely be motivation for such a blasphemous reaction?

If this is your argument, then please tell me which of the people drawing muhammad has made the life of muslims more difficult? How was muslim lives made more difficult by drawing muhammad in a private event?

To my knowledge, very few anti-christian swedish metal bands seek friendly co-existance with christians. And this was how you described would cause a problem.

In my experience, very few anti-fascists want to live in friendly co-existance with neo-nazis.

Baxx wrote:
Similar would be:

Protestors criticise authorities, result in lethal reprisals.

Where is that the case? In any and all dictatorships.

North Korea
Syria
Libya
Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Red Khmer's Cambodia

If you don't want to be tortured and killed, you better keep your trap shut and stop criticising authorities!

However, if you dare criticise dictators, that's like being a slutty prostitute begging to be raped in a men's prison.

Pointing out causal relationships is not the same as condoning them. In a perfect world no one would be killed for one's views. We do not live in a perfect world.

Baxx wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.

And if christians made the life of any non-christians a sure hell, that would surely be motivation for such a blasphemous reaction?

If this is your argument, then please tell me which of the people drawing muhammad has made the life of muslims more difficult? How was muslim lives made more difficult by drawing muhammad in a private event?

Polarizing the view of Islam, spreading the idea that the entire religion, and by extention those that practice it, are "savages". Trying to paint an incredibly complex geopolitical situation as a clear-cut problem with a simple solution.

The only way to stop being killed for drawing art is keep drawing art. If your swedish metal bands didn't have blasphemous predecessor, they'd all be burned alive.

Tell me which blasphemous metal band wouldn't wish for christian protestors outside their concert venues? Are they all confrontational douchbags? From what I can see, they try as hard as possible to cause a response, but they get none.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 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?

If those rock bands had a history of making life more difficult for Christians just because they could then yes, they'd be donkeycaves as well.

Baxx wrote:

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

No, I'm saying that, based on their previous track record of being donkeycaves to Muslims, the organization involved sought to provoke a violent response, while at the same time minimizing risk to themselves by keeping a SWAT team on-site.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

No... the comparison is valid.

It matters not ONE BIT, if the rape victim/PP/MLK/Pam G actually DID deliberately provoke.

Yes it does, because it ruins the argument that the SIOA were acting out of good faith and proves that they were, in fact, confrontational douchebags. That doesn't change the fact they have the right to be confrontational douchebags, and no one in this thread has claimed otherwise.

Critizice all you want...

It doesn't matter if they were acting out of good faith or not.

There's no fething qualifications on freedom of expression. (except for extremely narrow exceptions, such as incitement/fraud/slander/etc...).

That's the point I'm trying to drive home.

I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.

Blasphemy doesn't ensure freedom.

Speech ensures freedom.

Blasphemy is a form of speech, sure. And telling blasphemers that they are dicks is also speech.

Continuing to point out that criticizing blasphemy is wrong and trying to shut that down basically makes you the [insert your favorite dictator] of this thread.

So far we have "they didn't provoke" and "more people should provoke" as an argument by the same person. And now we have "don't tell people to shut up" and "shut up and stop criticizing those that criticize" as an argument by the same person.

Being provocative donkey-caves doesn't mean the attack was deserved. Just because they were attacked doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call them provocative donkey-caves.

How is this such a complicated discussion?

 whembly wrote:
I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.

Indeed. And why did that happen?

Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.


It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.

 d-usa wrote:
Blasphemy doesn't ensure freedom.

Speech ensures freedom.

Blasphemy is a form of speech, sure. And telling blasphemers that they are dicks is also speech.

Continuing to point out that criticizing blasphemy is wrong and trying to shut that down basically makes you the [insert your favorite dictator] of this thread.

So far we have "they didn't provoke" and "more people should provoke" as an argument by the same person. And now we have "don't tell people to shut up" and "shut up and stop criticizing those that criticize" as an argument by the same person.

Being provocative donkey-caves doesn't mean the attack was deserved. Just because they were attacked doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call them provocative donkey-caves.

How is this such a complicated discussion?

Blasphemy is speech. Blasphemy ensures freedom.

So you would say that pretty much 50% of any all-time top metal bands list consists of dicks and douchbags?

I don't expect you to enjoy bands like Motörhead, Black Sabbath or Slayer? They all fall under your critea of dicks.

I want to bring the drawing of muhammad into a broader category of blasphemous art which includes some of the best art created in all history.

I would like to know such artists are labeled donkey-caves on the same basis that muhammad drawing artists are.

I know of excellent poetry, litterature, drawings, music and art from different decades and different countries. All literally exploding with provocations. All explicitly offensive. And all supreme in quality.

It's already been mentioned that the SPLC considers the SIOA organization a hate group. So does the Anti-defamataion League.

Baxx wrote:
Blasphemy is speech. Blasphemy ensures freedom.

So you would say that pretty much 50% of any all-time top metal bands list consists of dicks and douchbags?

I don't expect you to enjoy bands like Motörhead, Black Sabbath or Slayer? They all fall under your critea of dicks.

I want to bring the drawing of muhammad into a broader category of blasphemous art which includes some of the best art created in all history.

I would like to know such artists are labeled donkey-caves on the same basis that muhammad drawing artists are.

Were they created with the explicit purpose to attack Christians at every opportunity, or were they formed as bands that happened to have an "anti-Christian" message?

Baxx wrote:
Blasphemy is speech. Blasphemy ensures freedom.

No, no it doesn't. Force of arms ensures freedom. For blasphemy to be tolerated, freedom has to already exist. You've got the causal relationship backwards.

 d-usa wrote:
Blasphemy doesn't ensure freedom.

Speech ensures freedom.

Kinda contradict youself there a bit...

Blasphemy is a form of speech, sure. And telling blasphemers that they are dicks is also speech.

True.

Continuing to point out that criticizing blasphemy is wrong and trying to shut that down basically makes you the [insert your favorite dictator] of this thread.

Nah... freedom of speech is inherently blasphemous in a diverse group.

So far we have "they didn't provoke" and "more people should provoke" as an argument by the same person. And now we have "don't tell people to shut up" and "shut up and stop criticizing those that criticize" as an argument by the same person.

Is this directed at me?

Being provocative donkey-caves doesn't mean the attack was deserved. Just because they were attacked doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call them provocative donkey-caves.

I don't think anyone has argued othwise ITT.

How is this such a complicated discussion?

Freedom of speech/expression is evidently hard to understand by some.

 insaniak wrote:

Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.


It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.

Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?

Your writing and participating in this thread is an attempt to provoke an attempt of mass murder. This is actually your motivation for being here. Over what? Small snippets of text?

Does it work?

Baxx wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.


It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.

Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?

Your writing and participating in this thread is an attempt to provoke an attempt of mass murder. This is actually your motivation for being here.

Does it work?

What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.

Indeed. And why did that happen?

Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.


It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.

Sure... go with that buddy.

Just like MLK provoked his assassin... Right?

Baxx wrote:

Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?

Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.

You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.

I think we just got trolled for 12 pages. Nobody is actually stupid enough to believe in what the trolls have been spewing. Well done, Baxx. We all fell party to a well done trolling. I'm slightly ashamed at falling for it so badly, honestly. How did you convince some of the long time members to join you in this trolling attempt? That's the part that confuses me the most, I think.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?

Would you say Charlie Hebdo attempted to provoke an attempt of mass murder in Paris?

I'm not so much interested in discussing specifics of this event, because it consists of a group of individuals who does not necessarily share the same motive. And I care about the principles, not the specifics. From my impression there seems to be that some of the organizers are rather uptight christian radicals which I have no respect for.

 insaniak wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?

Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.

You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.

I don't believe they thought, in their wildest dream, that this would turn out exactly the way it happened.

Their critics is what pushing their profile higher. o.O

 insaniak wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?

Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.

You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.

What their motives were I find completely irrelevant for this topic.

 insaniak wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Strange how you are in a position to dicate the motivation of others. Can I do the same?

Well, of course you can. Sharing opinions is pretty much how discussion works.

You're free to disagree, obviously... but it seems pretty clear to me that the reaction that they received was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for.

It's not like I didn't post a copy of the speech given by the organizer given at this very event where she states that she thinks that Muslims run our government and that the event was organized and held at this specific venue because some Muslims met there last year for a "we support the Prophet" event.

 whembly wrote:

I don't believe they thought, in their wildest dream, that this would turn out exactly the way it happened.

So the presence of a SWAT team was, what? Because cops just happen to enjoy a bit of Mohammed art?

Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.

Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.

It's a pretty delightful irony, really.

I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.

Baxx wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?

Would you say Charlie Hebdo attempted to provoke an attempt of mass murder in Paris?

No, because, again, they did not have an agenda that consists of "Muslims are the evulz!!11!!oneone".

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't believe they thought, in their wildest dream, that this would turn out exactly the way it happened.

So the presence of a SWAT team was, what? Because cops just happen to enjoy a bit of Mohammed art?

I do like to spend tens of thousands of dollars hiring a security force for an event that has no intention of being offensive while knowing that there are idiots who will respond with terrorism.

That doesn't mean that organizers should have to accept that terrorism is going to happen or that we have to tolerate terrorism as a response.

But arguing that this isn't what they were doing despite their own statements and preparation to defend against such an attack makes that argument pretty shaky.

Maybe all the "hide your purse, lock your car" signs at the parking lot are preemptive victim blaming...

 cincydooley wrote:
Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.

Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.

It's a pretty delightful irony, really.

I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.

You need to give me more text to work with cause I've lost the references here.

Can I quote you in my signature on you saying swedish metal is garbage?

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.

Indeed. And why did that happen?

Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.


It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.

So its a case of "the western dbags dared me to do it" and all the jihadis friends were doing it too so these guys thought it would be ok to shoot some people?

Also you are claiming its just an "attempt" to provoke now? what constitutes that? because basically anything controversial ever, could be construed as that. Sure its provocative to do this art, same as a mini skirt is provocative.

Once an activity as benign as drawing a picture becomes the standard for something that can provoke mass murder then we have a problem.

The problem is not that people drew a cartoon they knew would provoke people, its that some people are provoked to mass murder other people over a cartoon.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

What evidence do you have to back that theory up? Because, you know, we've actually provided examples of SOIA being donkeycaves to Muslims in the past. Is there anything in insaniak's posting history that makes it likely that he is trying to provoke violence?

Would you say Charlie Hebdo attempted to provoke an attempt of mass murder in Paris?

No, because, again, they did not have an agenda that consists of "Muslims are the evulz!!11!!oneone".

They had an agenda of "make fun of everyone now look at our 'Jesus, a Jew, and Mohammed walk into an orgy' comic".

They also knew that they were provoking and they were okay with that and didn't hide behind a 'we weren't trying to piss people off' excuse.

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm mean... there was an attempt of MASS F'N MURDER, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.

Indeed. And why did that happen?

Because there was an attempt to PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder, on US soil, over a F'N cartoon.


It succeeded. Score 1 point for Free Speech.

Hmmm...yet the US is now 2 less lurking terrorists on its soil. I'm kind of thankful they got provoked into such a foolish decision instead of succeeding somewhere in the future.

I find the group that put on this "show" was ignorant, careless and morally reprehensible. Still they had the right to be free from violence and the would've been murders have no right to violence. Citizens of the US are free to be offended by their actions they are not free to seek violence against their offenders.

It is a wasted effort to choose this point to make the fight against racists in this events context. Nobody wants to hear it right now, as in Joan/John Q Public. It is far more concerning that 2 individuals just attenpted mass murder on US soil as members (however distance) of a globally growing cult of murder and totalitarian theocracy. They attempted mass murder in opposition of the most basic of US rights.

People are actually arguing that the group that drew ugly pictures of a religious figure had it coming to them....on US soil...right? That we should watch what we do or say in fear of provoking lurking murders in our country? Instead of being concerned about the lurking murders.

 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?'

And?

They mitigated the possible reaction by paying 50k+ for armed security.

 cincydooley wrote:
Swedish metal is garbage. If I listened to that audio trash all the time I'd probably be an angry donkey-cave, too. It all makes sense.

Additionally, and I wasn't going to address it intitially, but I guess I will now - it's laughably arrogant when a condescending, Sam Harris guzzling atheist espouses the claim that, by simply being a Sam Harris guzzling atheist that they are intellectually superior and not a...what was it... "Sheep waiting to be brainwashed." Especially when they're prosthetizing, almost verbatim, the same tired "I'm an intellectually superior atheist" schtick that every other one does.

It's a pretty delightful irony, really.

I also thought it was particularly cute how you selectively ignored every historical instance of mass murderers acting on behalf of personal power as opposed to on behalf of a higher power. A lovely bit of selective editing, indeed.

I am a particular fan of him calling Muslims mass-murdering pedophiles, only to get offended because I might be calling his favorite Swedish metal band "stupid".