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.

 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?"

No.

But I do think that the fact that they paid so much for security is evidence that they knew it was a "come at me bro" type event. Which just makes it seem silly that some are criticizing others for calling it that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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?"

When that same organization has repeatedly run ads in high-profile places that demonize people based on their faith it is rather easy to portray their behaviour as "come at us bro!", yes. If one looks at the situation in isolation, such a conclusion would probably be harder to support, but the situation is the continuation of a concerted effort by SIOA to vilify Muslims as a whole.

This is going to be tricky..but what the Hell









htt

Some of the posters and what not her organization has put up

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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?"

When that same organization has repeatedly run ads in high-profile places that demonize people based on their faith it is rather easy to portray their behaviour as "come at us bro!", yes. If one looks at the situation in isolation, such a conclusion would probably be harder to support, but the situation is the continuation of a concerted effort by SIOA to vilify Muslims as a whole.

UNless they are saying "come at me bros" thats not appropriate. EVen if they are you're still blaming the victim, making it the victim's fault instead of the wannabe murdering terrorists.

As noted, at least they tried to hit this instead of some church or school.

 easysauce 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.

no, the comparison is apt,

the only difference is your personal emotions are different towards each of the events ideals/organizers.

Its a shame you are too emotional to see the connection.


the amount of publicity an opinion/person gets does not at some point justify violence against them or give cause to blame the victim.

That's rather rich, considering the amount of times in this very thread that you've claimed people have said things they haven't. In fact, you're doing it in the very post I'm replying to, implying that I, or anyone else in this thread, has justified the violence against the event.

Since I'm getting tired of you implying that I've said things I haven't, I'll just spell it out with big, easy-to-read letters: VIOLENCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS A RESPONSE TO BEING OFFENDED. EVER. Can you please stop pretending that's what we're saying now?

Further, the response above is just a flat "yes, its is", without any sort of justification, argument, or rationalization whatsoever. You're not contributing anything, you're just petulantly being contrary. I made an argument as to why I feel the two comparisons are not the same, if you can't even be bothered to formulate an argument I'm at a loss of why you're here in the first place.

There are legitimate grievances to make in regards to dogmatic Islam:

-Sharia Law is draconian, completely suppresses freedom of, well, anything (speech, thought, press, etc).
-Dogmatic Islam is oppressive to women.
-Dogmatic Islam is worse than the Westboro Baptist Church when it comes to LGBT rights.

If Gellar was concerned about Islamic reform, her group would be addressing those issues, PARTNERING with American Muslims (and western European Muslims) that agree reform is necessary, and getting someone on Bill Maher's show, because he, of all liberals, agrees with that.

But they didn't.

We can spin our wheels here, but I think it's foolish to claim that this situation was analogous with "she was asking for it because she was wearing a a short skirt with a thong." This is gaking on the doorstep, ringing the doorbell, and yelling "come at me, bro."

That still doesn't justify domestic terrorism in any manner. But the claims that Gellar wasn't purposefully (and hopefully) antagonistic is disingenuous at best.

These claims that provocation doesn't exist are getting pretty tiresome. Make no mistake: the terrorists are the criminals here. But that doesn't mean Gellar and her coterie aren't inflammatory, antagonistic donkey-caves.

These claims that provocation doesn't exist are getting pretty tiresome. .

please cite where that is a valid claim under law.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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..

Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!

This was not counter-productive. It was desperately needed confrontation.

Is there anything disrespectfull in drawing caricatures of mass-murdering dictators?

 Jihadin wrote:
Of all cartoons I've seen aimed at religion I'm surprise Hustler hasn't been attacked yet.

Hustler has cartoons?

*Fishes in back of old pickup*

Well I'll be damn...

Baxx wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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..

Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!

You've said that repeatedly, yes. Unlike you, however, we've actually backed up our arguments with the fact that it's not unreasonable to argue that a group that has spread anti-Muslim messages in the past would arrange this as a way to attack Muslims. We're not just making our minds up based on this single event, SIOA has a documented history of being awful to Muslims.

So please, before you call me a liar, back your arguments up with something.

Baxx wrote:

This was not counter-productive. It was desperately needed confrontation.

Is there anything disrespectfull in drawing caricatures of mass-murdering dictators?

Yes, if you're doing it just to piss people off, as I maintain SIOA did.

Freedom of Speech trumps people's wish to not have their religious sensitivities offended.

Kind of surprising to see so many leaning towards "blame the victim". Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Does that sentiment get thrown out the window when sacred cows are involved?

 Frazzled wrote:

These claims that provocation doesn't exist are getting pretty tiresome. .

please cite where that is a valid claim under law.

No one ever claimed it did. Hell, I went out of my way like, twice in my comment to say that this particular type of provocation doesn't justify a response. But can we stop pretending it wasn't provocation at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Freedom of Speech trumps people's wish to not have their religious sensitivities offended.

Kind of surprising to see so many leaning towards "blame the victim". Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Does that sentiment get thrown out the window when sacred cows are involved?

You really should read more of the thread.

What's really being said is: "I may disagree with what you say, and I'll defend your right to say it, but I still think you're an donkey-cave."

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Freedom of Speech trumps people's wish to not have their religious sensitivities offended.

Kind of surprising to see so many leaning towards "blame the victim". Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Does that sentiment get thrown out the window when sacred cows are involved?

You really should read more of the thread.

What's really being said is: "I may disagree with what you say, and I'll defend your right to say it, but I still think you're an donkey-cave."

Fair enough.

Baxx wrote:

Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!

Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?

(Did I do that right?)

This was not counter-productive. It was desperately needed confrontation.

What necessitated the "need?" Because you said so?

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!

Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?

Yeah I know the intent of the artists! You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.

No need to repeatedly lie (as have been done in this thread) and say that an action which obviously has multiple purposes instead only has a single purpose (which is then used to back up your views).

If I had the view that drawing muhammad was douchbag behaviour, I would find it very helpfull to limit the purpose of such behaviour to being only one thing, and that thing being only negative.

In reality, drawing muhammad has plural purposes, many of which are only positive.

in America we say come at me bro. It is what we do. And we fight any one stupid enough to try. It doesn't matter if offended are republicans or rappers or police or Christians or whatever. I see no reason to treat Muslims any different.

"I promise your honor, I didn't mean to offend any Muslims with my Muhammad drawings" *bats Bugs Bunny eye lashes*


Yeah fething right.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
"I promise your honor, I didn't mean to offend any Muslims with my Muhammad drawings" *bats Bugs Bunny eye lashes*

On what legal ground?

It is a human right to be offended. By anything or anyone.

Baxx wrote:
It is a human right to be offended. By anything or anyone.

Being offended is a response, in some cases involuntary, but not a right. We'd have to amend our Constitution to make it a right (unless you're talking about the myth of "natural human rights")

It's a right regardless of whatever local laws you may make up in your own country.

Very well explained here:

So you are talking about some sort of magical, universal natural human right?

I'm afraid it's not. There are no magical human rights, only the rights that our societies choose to define and protect.


You'll forgive me if I don't wade through 8 minutes of standup. comedy to discovr your point.

Baxx wrote:

Yeah I know the intent of the artists!

The feth you do.

You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.

'
Because no one would ever present a mistruth.

Baxx wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!

Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?

Yeah I know the intent of the artists! You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.

No need to fight ISIS then. After all, they just want worldwide peace for everyone, right?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Baxx wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Why does this lie never stop? Not a single cartoon was drawn "just to" or with "the sole purpose" or "only to" provoke. I've called this out so many times, but it never stops!

Are you now presuming to know the artists intent? Are you the arbitrating judge of all artistic intent?

Yeah I know the intent of the artists! You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.

No need to fight ISIS then. After all, they just want worldwide peace for everyone, right?

Just reminded me to change my Avatar

 cincydooley wrote:

Baxx wrote:

Yeah I know the intent of the artists!

The feth you do.

You don't have to be a judge, you can simply listen to what the artists explicitly say are their purposes of their art and of their actions.

'
Because no one would ever present a mistruth.

So now you're accusing artists to lie about their motivation for drawing? Wow... Nothing can possibly get through to you?

You are damn right I know the purposes of drawing. I know that very well thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
So you are talking about some sort of magical, universal natural human right?

I'm afraid it's not. There are no magical human rights, only the rights that our societies choose to define and protect.


You'll forgive me if I don't wade through 8 minutes of standup. comedy to discovr your point.

I'm afraid it is.

You speak your mind to me because your society allows you to do it?

I speak my mind no matter what any societies choose to allow it or not.

It is a right to be offended by anything and everything you may wish for.

I have the right to be offended at how this thread manages to become dumber by the page.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
"I promise your honor, I didn't mean to offend any Muslims with my Muhammad drawings" *bats Bugs Bunny eye lashes*


Yeah fething right.

where is it illegal to offend people except Canada? USA Courts hold often say offensive stuff is free speech and to suck a lemon if you don't like it.

Baxx wrote:


You speak your mind to me because your society allows you to do it?

I speak my mind no matter what any societies choose to allow it or not.

That's all well and good to say, but if you lived in China, North Korea, or one of the many theocracies blighting this planet, and decided to speak your mind unfiltered, you'd learn quickly that there really is no natural right to speak your mind at all. You presumably have been raised in a society that defined that right for you at some point, and continues to value and protect it.

 jasper76 wrote:

Baxx wrote:


You speak your mind to me because your society allows you to do it?

I speak my mind no matter what any societies choose to allow it or not.

That's all well and good to say, but if you lived in China, North Korea, or one of the many theocracies blighting this planey, and decided to speak your mind unfiltered, you'd learn quickly that there really is no natural right to speak your mind.. You presumably have been raised in a society that defined that right for you at some point, and continues to value and protect it.

Don't you dare say "why" Baxx.

Christopher Hitchens on free speech.