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.

Why is it relevant wether an event is deliberately provocative or not?

I have went to dozens of delibaretely provocative events throughout the years.

So what is your point about an even being provocative?

 easysauce wrote:


literally the 2nd quote...

Which you've literally taken out of context. Well done.

 insaniak wrote:

Left to its own devices, a man-eating tiger is going to eat someone. Deliberately walking into his den wearing 15kg of raw meat strapped to your legs is still going to provoke him... the fact that he would have eaten someone else if you hadn't come along doesn't change that.

well its a good thing we are human beings that should be held to a higher standard then base animals!

it is in animal nature to eat when hungry, hence why meat in front of a tiger by its nature will be eaten.

it is not human nature to kill people over cartoons, hence why only a small % of the population is riled up by a cartoon to the point where they shoot people.

again, you keep focusing on the artists provocation and diminishing/deflecting the blame onto them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


literally the 2nd quote...

Which you've literally taken out of context. Well done.

you called the organizers douches, thats not out of context when talking about people in this thread painting the event organizers as douches... besides which, no one should give a hoot how douchey they are when you have crazy people that attempt murder over cartoons to give a hoot about.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Evidently the attackers lacked the agency to make their own decisions, and could only respond to this provocation by violence...

I never said that.

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, though, it would be the epitome of naive to organise an event like this and not expect that a violent response was likely. And given the level of security on hand, that's exactly what the organisers expected.

You have consistently laid the blame for this at the feet of those who organized the event, and attempted to diminish the role of those who carried out this shooting with whom the ultimate responsibility lies;

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

With any event like this that causes controversy there is likely to be a reaction. But to categorize an attempt at murder as the same as any other reaction, like a peaceful protest is just asinine.

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

 insaniak wrote:
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.

So are you able to substantiate these claims that the organizers were attempting to "PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder" yet, or that the shooting "was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for"? It's statements like these, with no evidence, and leaps of logic, that show an attempt to deflect the responsibility for this attempt at murder.

 easysauce wrote:
again, you keep focusing on the artists provocation and diminishing/deflecting the blame onto them..

Yes, in a discussion that involves one point that we agree on, and one point that we disagree on, my posts explaining my disagreement focus on the point that we disagree on.

Weird how that works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But to categorize an attempt at murder as the same as any other reaction, like a peaceful protest is just asinine.

Probably just as well that nobody has done that, then.

 CptJake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Well, it seems at least one of these wondrously considerate and accommodating citizens tried to go overseas to wage Jihad, and since they were both radicalized and considered themselves good Mujahadin the odds of them just chilling out and being law abiding polite citizens of the US is pretty slim. They eventually would have found another excuse to gun up and claim their place in paradise, either CONUS or someplace else. Seeing as they were clearly tactically 'challenged' from a skills perspective, it was not likely to end up well for them wherever they decided to attempt mass slaughter of nonbelievers. They used this event and venue as an excuse to get in on all those martyr benefits.

Sure.

That doesn't change the (apparently deliberately) provocative nature of the event in question.

Left to its own devices, a man-eating tiger is going to eat someone. Deliberately walking into his den wearing 15kg of raw meat strapped to your legs is still going to provoke him... the fact that he would have eaten someone else if you hadn't come along doesn't change that.

And?

They tried here. And got capped without doing too much damage in the process. And the crap bags staging the event got to exercise their free speech.

Sounds like a good thing.

They were wearing body armor to
Even money say they had no plates in

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
But to categorize an attempt at murder as the same as any other reaction, like a peaceful protest is just asinine.

Probably just as well that nobody has done that, then.

You just did. To go back to the analogy used earlier you basically said that if someone dresses like a slut they deserve to get treated like a slut. You are blaming the victims.

You claimed that if you seek to provoke a reaction that you should expect a reaction. In this instance was the reaction of violence proportionate, or disproportionate?

So are you able to substantiate these claims that the organizers were attempting to "PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder" yet, or that the shooting "was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for"? It's statements like these, with no evidence, and leaps of logic, that show an attempt to deflect the responsibility for this attempt at murder.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You claimed that if you seek to provoke a reaction that you should expect a reaction. In this instance was the reaction of violence proportionate, or disproportionate?

I already said (several times) earlier in the thread that I think the reaction was inappropriate.

What you're taking as meaning something completely different is my statement that this inappropate reaction should have been (and seemingly was) completely expected, given recent events.

If you seek to provoke a reaction, then absolutely you should expect a reaction. And if you've seen the reaction that has resulted previously, you should expect a similar reaction.

That's not an endorsement of that reaction. Nor is it a suggestion that this reaction is no different to writing a stinging rebuke on Twitter. It's simply a statement that if someone does something that prompts a violent response from religious extremists, there's a very strong likelihood that someone else doing the same thing will prompt a similar reaction.

So are you able to substantiate these claims that the organizers were attempting to "PROVOKE an attempt of mass f'n murder" yet, or that the shooting "was pretty much exactly what the organisers of this event were fishing for"?

It's a statement of opinion, not a doctorate submission. That opinion is based on the nature of the event, the timing of the event, the location of the event, and the nature of the people organising it.

It's statements like these, with no evidence, and leaps of logic, that show an attempt to deflect the responsibility for this attempt at murder.

Then you're still completely misunderstanding the point being made.

The shooters are entirely responsible for their own actions. That is not in dispute.

That doesn't change the fact that this event was a trigger for those actions.

 insaniak wrote:

What you're taking as meaning something completely different is my statement that this inappropate reaction should have been (and seemingly was) completely expected, given recent events.

If you seek to provoke a reaction, then absolutely you should expect a reaction. And if you've seen the reaction that has resulted previously, you should expect a similar reaction.

That's not an endorsement of that reaction. Nor is it a suggestion that this reaction is no different to writing a stinging rebuke on Twitter. It's simply a statement that if someone does something that prompts a violent response from religious extremists, there's a very strong likelihood that someone else doing the same thing will prompt a similar reaction.

You've made this statement over and over again. I've asked what purpose it has. What's the motivation? Is there some point behind this? Or is it only stating the obvious without any deeper meaning to it? Is it relevant in any aspect?

It looks to me as if you have an opinion between the lines of this statement.

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
again, you keep focusing on the artists provocation and diminishing/deflecting the blame onto them..

Yes, in a discussion that involves one point that we agree on, and one point that we disagree on, my posts explaining my disagreement focus on the point that we disagree on.

Weird how that works.

Right, your point is that its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons.

My point is that the terrorists didnt shoot this place up because of the cartoon, they shot it up because it was convenient for them target to them at the time in a long standing campaign of terror against various things they dont like. Its not like ISIL hasnt been making threats and has the means to carry them out in terms of small scale attacks. If they really are just a tiger as you assert, if its not this piece of meat, its the next piece. If not this event, another.

Since ISIL has taken credit for the attack, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32589546 its a bit shady to blame some small time event organizers when they were just the target of opportunity not the root cause is just silly.


We are lucky this event spent the money on security and avoided tragedy, its not the victims fault they were chosen, regardless of how much they were asking for it, or how douchey they are.

 insaniak wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that this event was a trigger for those actions.

The fact is that the action was caused by radical islamism, nothing else.

 easysauce wrote:


Right, your point is that its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons.

No, that is not, and has never been, my point.

Baxx wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that this event was a trigger for those actions.

The fact is that the action was caused by radical islamism, nothing else.

Be careful here. Let's not condemned an entire religion because of the action militant version of individuals

Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam. I can condemn an entire religions based on the violent message they include and how they inspires violence.

Baxx wrote:
Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam.

I know all about that version. I also dealt with quite a few other "versions" that were not radicalized. Just warning you in a polite way to not brand an entire group of people who follow the Islamic faith.

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


Right, your point is that its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons.

No, that is not, and has never been, my point.

You're the one using the tiger analogy, that to dress in a meat suit in a tiger cage is to expect to be eaten, much the same way to do things ISIL disapproves of is to expect to be attacked. (who are not most mustlims as ive stated)

 insaniak wrote:
it would be the epitome of naive to organise an event like this and not expect that a violent response was likely. And given the level of security on hand, that's exactly what the organisers expected.

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

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

 insaniak wrote:
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.

riight, you never said anything that blamed the victim or said they were provoking it or asking for it...

Baxx wrote:
Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam. I can condemn an entire religions based on the violent message they include and how they inspires violence.

We can go down that road with point; counter point.

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam.

I know all about that version. I also dealt with quite a few other "versions" that were not radicalized. Just warning you in a polite way to not brand an entire group of people who follow the Islamic faith.

I never talked about muslims. There may be a language barrier here cause when I speak of things like "religion" or "islam", I don't mean people.

 easysauce wrote:
your the one using the tiger analogy, that to dress in a meat suit in a tiger cage is to expect to be eaten, much the same way to do things ISIL disapproves of is to expect to be attacked. (who are not most mustlims as ive stated)

More or less, yes.

That's a very, very long way away from "its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons."


To be clear, what I've been saying is that in this specific situation the event organisers should have expected (and seemingly did expect) a violent reaction.

Not that people should expect a violent reaction to anything they do that might potentially provoke someone... Or that said violent reaction would be an acceptable response.




To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why you seem to find this idea so offensive. It's not 'blaming' the victim... it's just common sense. If I drop a rock on my foot, and it hurts, I'm going to expect that the next rock I drop on my foot might also hurt.

Baxx wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Well this particular behaviour comes from an interpretation of islam.

I know all about that version. I also dealt with quite a few other "versions" that were not radicalized. Just warning you in a polite way to not brand an entire group of people who follow the Islamic faith.

I never talked about muslims.

Your alluding it then

I am at loss as to why this point is so important to you. What is the point of it? I've asked multiple times, but have no clue as to why it in any way is relevant.

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
your the one using the tiger analogy, that to dress in a meat suit in a tiger cage is to expect to be eaten, much the same way to do things ISIL disapproves of is to expect to be attacked. (who are not most mustlims as ive stated)

More or less, yes.

That's a very, very long way away from "its not ok to provoke people without expecting a violent reaction from a very small # of people who shoot people over cartoons."


To be clear, what I've been saying is that in this specific situation the event organisers should have expected (and seemingly did expect) a violent reaction.

Not that people should expect a violent reaction to anything they do that might potentially provoke someone... Or that said violent reaction would be an acceptable response.




To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why you seem to find this idea so offensive. It's not 'blaming' the victim... it's just common sense. If I drop a rock on my foot, and it hurts, I'm going to expect that the next rock I drop on my foot might also hurt.

right, why do you seem surprised that people doing something they know could in theory cause a violent reaction to protect themselves and have an hint it was coming?



they took precautions as needed, that doesnt mean they wanted to be attacked, it just meant they knew it was a better then normal chance. thats common sense, when a rock falls on your head, you wear a helmet next time you go rock climbing, you dont quit rock climbing.


when you are trying to make a stand, and your oponents are not rational people who use words instead of bombs/bullets, you plan to have to protect yourself from actual threats to peoples lives.

 Jihadin wrote:

Your alluding it then

Well that is not good in this case.

 easysauce wrote:
right, why do you seem surprised that people doing something they know could in theory cause a violent reaction to protect themselves and have an hint it was coming?

I have no idea where you found surprise at this in any of my posts in this thread.

 insaniak wrote:

I have no idea where you found surprise at this in any of my posts in this thread.

Are you surprised why others wonder why you emphasize so much on your point? What is the relevance? What is the point being made?

Insaniak's message isn't hard to understand at all. And he's made analogy after analogy to make his point. Yet you all keep coming back to an idea that the terrorists aren't being condemned. What is so difficult about his point that he doesn't support either group? A bunch of us who are in agreement with him NEVER said we support the terrorists. Nobody in the thread has ever said they support the terrorists. Everyone here disagrees with what they've done. However, the INTELLIGENT members also realize that the people who held the convention were giant douche nozzles. They were completely within their right to do so. Nobody has ever disagreed with that. I think Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park said it best: "you were all just so preoccupied with whether you could that you didn't stop to think that you should".*

* Slightly edited to remove the scientist part.

This is the essence of the critics I've posted earlier. Dubious messages about people being donkey-caves and douchbags.

Since when did criticism and mockery of mass murderous authorities qualify for being douchbags and donkey-caves?

I reckon that's why you slander them. Because you use the message "just because they can doesnt mean they should".

So tell me, just because I can make art, that doesn't mean I should? Why shouldn't I?

I've heard this argument over and over again, yet there's no reason or value behind it.

Just because I can do something meaningfull in my life, that don't mean I should? Says who? You?

If someone have the opinion that drawing mass-murderous authorities is douchbag behavior, please say so in clear text. Or change how to communicate cause then I am mislead to believe that's what you mean.

Guess the ole Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote needs to be updated

I disapprove of what you say, but I will try to rationalize those who attempt to kill you for saying it

I don't think "being part of a Muslim/Islam hating group and making a 'draw Muhammad' contest with the goal of offending a specific group of people you've already admitted to hating" counts as meaningful. Your definition of "meaningful" is clearly different than mine.

A tastefully done nude painting, or even a provocative one can draw criticism, but still be meaningful as it addresses the beauty of the human body. A loud, angry rock song that defines the things wrong with government can show the aspects we need to change. I can add a hundred more examples and you'll tell me I have no right to regulate art (or some other phrase meaning the same damn thing). You're a troll. Plain and simple. Anyway, at 400 posts on the site, I hope you wear out your welcome quickly and leave. You won't be missed.

I connect "draw muhammad" and "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

What I read from you is more of a connection between "hate muslims" and "just because you can doesn't mean you should". I agree with that.

I guess I discuss something on the sideline, principles, instead of specifics.

Can't give you any luck though, I've been on dakka for almost a decade.