insaniak wrote:
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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

 djones520 wrote:
CptJake nailed it.

The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.

Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.

 d-usa wrote:
Who in this thread has advocated for hate speech laws?

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not what Laemos said though.

 d-usa wrote:
And who in this thread defended the terrorists?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And who in this thread defended the terrorists?

Too many posters here are effectively blaming the victim. Fortunately this is Texas so everything turned out right in the end. Thanks Sam Houston!

Do you agree with this statement? I think you do.
1. In the US, freedom of speech extends to even speech we do not like or may find offensive.
2. I find the Geller stuff offensive, if not in content, in intent.
3. Regardless of #2, #1 still applies.
4. Regardless of #3, I still reserve the right to call Geller on it.

 d-usa wrote:
Who in this thread has advocated for the Heckler's Veto?

 d-usa wrote:
Saying that your actions will piss off violent terrorists, in addition to thousands of non-violent followers of the same faith, is not the same as advocating for or endorsing a Heckler's Veto.

Edit: saying you are stupid for leaving your purse in your front seat and the keys in the car does not advocate car theft. It's really not difficult, your conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?

It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.

As for the OP:
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?

 easysauce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
People are gay because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe gays should be killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
People who others would characterize as idiots, donkey-caves and douchebags because they dare criticise and provoce authorities in the face of threat.

That doesn't sound very sensible at all, could you point us to where people are doing this so that we may mock them?

Sure. Here:

 cincydooley wrote:
People draw Muhammad because they want to specifically to agitate those that believe Muhammad should not be drawn.

Where does cincy call anyone an idiot, donkey-cave, or douchebag because they dare criticise and provoke authorities in the face of threat? You REALLY need to stop making up arguments to argue against, we've called you out loads of times already.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. They were terrorists. And the event organizers are donkey-caves. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

literally the 2nd quote...

 CptJake wrote:
The event was not a 'trigger', and thinking it was shows a total lack of understanding of what went on.

Just as the Boston Marathon was not a 'trigger' for the Tsarnaev brothers.

The perps in this case were radicalized and committed to jihad before this event was announced. Simpson as far back as 2011 was wanting to go kill for Allah in Somalia. We don't know yet when Soofi made his decision that killing then being killed for Allah was the way to go, but it was very VERY likely NOT because of this particular conference.

Even in the attacks in Paris, the perps had been radicalized well before and had already taken the path of jihad.

The conference was a target, NOT a trigger. Yes, it was chosen as a target to make a statement (just as the Charlie Hebdo office was) and to instill fear/change behavior patterns. But it was not a trigger.

 whembly wrote:
The threshold d-usa, is that when bullets are about to fly over a fething cartoon... my give-a-feth meter over content dissipates.

So much effort is spent on whether or not Geller's group should've exercise this, and not enough spent on the fact that literally, two ISIL radicals just tried to commit mass murder on US soil.

It's like, people are acting like we do have laws against Hate Speech here in the states. (we don't)

Maybe that's the disconnect?

 ejazzyjeff wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?

It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.

As for the OP:
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?

So why is it okay to put a crucifix in a jar of urine? Why is it okay to have a picture of Mary surrounded with elephant dung? Why is okay to mock Jesus? Is this also inflammatory, disrespectful to Christians? But I don't see Christians screaming God is Great and go on a killing spree because their religion is being mocked.

This is a free country. You should be able to voice or draw opinions and not worry about being killed for it. This proves a point that Islam is intolerant of those who are not Islam.

This is a free country. You should be able to voice or draw opinions and not worry about being killed for it. This proves a point that Islam is intolerant of those who are not Islam.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.

 d-usa wrote:
And who in this thread defended the terrorists?

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The event was not a 'trigger', and thinking it was shows a total lack of understanding of what went on.

Just as the Boston Marathon was not a 'trigger' for the Tsarnaev brothers.

The perps in this case were radicalized and committed to jihad before this event was announced. Simpson as far back as 2011 was wanting to go kill for Allah in Somalia. We don't know yet when Soofi made his decision that killing then being killed for Allah was the way to go, but it was very VERY likely NOT because of this particular conference.

Even in the attacks in Paris, the perps had been radicalized well before and had already taken the path of jihad.

The conference was a target, NOT a trigger. Yes, it was chosen as a target to make a statement (just as the Charlie Hebdo office was) and to instill fear/change behavior patterns. But it was not a trigger.

That, I feel, is fair criticism. At the same time, though, I would argue that acting in a spiteful manner for the sake of being spiteful is not going to help prevent others from becoming radicalized; quite the contrary.

Posters slamming Islam for ‘killing Jews’ can be displayed on MTA buses: court

A conservative firebrand said Tuesday she plans to paper at least 50 MTA buses with Islamophobic posters following a judge’s ruling the ads were protected by the First Amendment.

Manhattan Federal Court Judge John Koeltl wrote the MTA had improperly denied displaying Pamela Geller’s controversial posters featuring a picture of a menacing man with his face masked in a Middle Eastern scarf next to the quote, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” The quote was attributed to “Hamas MTV” and included the tagline, “That's His Jihad. What's yours?”

Though the MTA had accepted other incendiary posters by Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative, it declined last year to post the “Killing Jews” ad, saying it could provoke violence.

The judge disagreed.

“While the court is sensitive to the MTA’s security concerns, the defendants have not presented any objective evidence that the Killing Jews advertisement would be likely to incite imminent violence,” Koeltl wrote.

Geller hailed the ruling, and said she would pay for more posters to be displayed than she originally planned.

“Islamic supremacists and craven government bureaucrats are put on notice — sharia restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional and will not stand in these United States,” she said.

An MTA spokesman said “We are disappointed in the ruling and we are reviewing our options.”

Monica Klein, a spokeswoman for Mayor de Blasio, said, “These hateful messages serve only to divide and stigmatize when we should be coming together as one city.”

“While those behind these ads only display their irresponsible intolerance, the rest of us who may be forced to view them can take comfort in the knowledge that we share a better, loftier and nobler view of humanity,” Klein said.

 juraigamer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And who in this thread defended the terrorists?

That's tricky. I wouldn't argue anyone's defending the terrorists, rather there are some attempting to keep this anti-islamic attitude from getting out of hand.

While the act of violence against those present for the drawing contest isn't something I agree with, I also don't agree with holding the contest with it's express purpose being "Hey look at us doing something you don't like"

I don't care what side you're on regarding this event, so long as you don't condone agitating hate speech.

For reference:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Spoiler:

EDIT: removed original image because of a teeny tiny sign that might be inappropriate. Here's a rated-G:

PhantomViper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.

Why was it counter-productive? If the goal was to bring awareness to Muslim intolerance, then I would say that it achieved its goal.

Western democracies shouldn't avoid confrontation with Muslim intolerance in our own countries, quite the contrary, everybody should do their best to confront and expose the barbarity of Islam, because Islam is the complete opposite of Western ideals.

 djones520 wrote:
CptJake nailed it.

The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.

Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


You're doing that thing where you attribute your interpretation of what someone meant to them again. Nothing in that quote says anything whatsoever about why cincy feels the event organizers were donkey-caves. The claim was that we call them donkey-caves because they critizise authority. We don't; we critizice them because they do so in a counter-productive and needlessly confrontational manner. Again, there's more than a little evidence to suggest that this was done to spite Muslims, as opposed to actually achieving anything.

Why was it counter-productive? If the goal was to bring awareness to Muslim intolerance, then I would say that it achieved its goal.

Western democracies shouldn't avoid confrontation with Muslim intolerance in our own countries, quite the contrary, everybody should do their best to confront and expose the barbarity of Islam, because Islam is the complete opposite of Western ideals.

I would argue that relying on emotional arguments is the complete opposite of the rationalist, Enlightenment ideals we should be striving towards. Purposefully baiting awful people into doing awful things is hardly neccessary to point out the issues with Islam, and behaving in a respectless manner on purpose (as in, doing something you know someone won't like just to piss them off, as opposed to behaving in a respectless manner for some other goal) undermines whatever moral high ground one could claim. It doesn't matter how right one is if the one you're trying to convince won't talk to you because you were being smugly confrontational about the issue.

EDIT: Just for clarity, I'm not arguing that you're relying on emotional arguments, I'm arguing that SIOA are.

 easysauce wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
CptJake nailed it.

The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.

Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.

right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
CptJake nailed it.

The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.

Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.

right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)

Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
CptJake nailed it.

The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.

Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.

right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)

Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.

So if they had not posted adequate security and all ended up dead, it would have been ok?
Because someone actually headed the warnings that makes them bad, makes them shouting "come at me bros?"

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
CptJake nailed it.

The event was nothing more then the target, not a cause. Had this not occured, they probably would have hit a church or some other soft target.

Hell, we should probably be glad that this event did occur, because they had security there. There are so many targets of opportunity out there that doesn't have security.

right, exactly, in the same way we do not call sarkeesian a douche for holding her events despite knowing full well she will get death threats, that we keep repeating how douchey this specific events organizers were is the same victim blaming as if anita sarkeesian was being called a douche for her events (or any person who does anything controversial that people will threaten violence over)

Is Sarkeesian running adverts on the NYC subway basically amounting to "come at me, dudebros!" and posing SWAT teams at her events? No? Apples to oranges.