French cartoon sparks protests
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2025 15:43
VIEWED: 11186
PAGE 1 of 2
You'd think by now the Western world would have gotten the message. But no...Quote:
Hundreds of Afghans have taken to the streets to protest against satirical cartoons published in a French magazine depicting the Prophet Mohammad.
Around three hundred students chanted "death to France, death to America" as they marched in a western neighbourhood near the capital Kabul.Quote:
Dozens of Iranian students and clerics have gathered outside the French embassy in Tehran to protest the publication of caricatures of Islam's Prophet Muhammad by a French satirical weekly.
Protesters chanted "Death to France" and "Down with the U.S." and burned the flags of both nations Thursday.
The publication of the cartoons in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo raised fears of more protests highlighting tension between Western principles of free speech and Islamic beliefs that do not tolerate insults directed at the Prophet Muhammad.Quote:
In France, police said Thursday they had forbidden a demonstration planned for Saturday in front of Paris's Grand Mosque.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by the cartoons could go to court, but he also stressed that in France "freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature".
Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood demanded on Thursday that France act against the magazine in the same way as against the topless pictures of Prince William's wife, Catherine.
Its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), called for "firm and rapid measures against the (French) magazine" Charlie Hebdo.
Charlie Hebdo's editor, Stephane Charbonnier, described those getting irate over the cartoons as "ridiculous clowns" and accused the government of pandering to them by criticising the magazine for being provocative.
It just keeps on going...and going...and going...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We need more cartoons. Many more. If these j**koffs go ballistic over a few caricatures, maybe they'll commit mass suicide if we inundate the media with it( btw, why are they looking at cartoons anyway? They're supposed to be praying when not working, right?).
Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured 'toons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You'd think by now the Western world would have gotten the message. But no...
And what message is that Niki?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think, generally speaking, that the people who protest and start yelling "death" in response to a cartoon actually don't even really understand their prophet's own sense of humour. Or have read some of the prophet's more vulgar moments from the quran. This isn't exactly the first time he's been depicted mooning people.
On the other hand, people who deliberately just rile Muslims up are basically the IRL equivalent of trolls, only their provocations tend to kill more people.
So I'm going to suggest maybe both sides are really dumb.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, absolutely right on. But then, most of them are probably TOLD what the Prophet believed, etc., they don't learn it for themselves.
Nobody: The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon, except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone, it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name of avoiding death and chaos to others.
That dumb film maker said he made the video (I still doubt there is an actual movie) "to stop Muslims from killing"...! That is sheer insanity. The French guy who put out the cartoons, in my opinion, did so for self-agrandizement; he'd done it before (and has the paper's offices bombed), so he knew what he was doing and what would result from it. What did he or anyone gain from it, exactly? These people take no responsibility for deliberately instigating violence.
For me it's not about fear of the Muslims who will act out, it's more than riling them up is just plain stupid. If there was a good reason to challenge their religious beliefs, that would be one thing. But these two examples are just plain idiotic, and people should know better by now. If it's IMPORTANT to challenge something, go for it...but for a stupid video and a couple of equally-stupid cartoons??? (Aside from which, neither example was even well done, they're both just poorly-produced trash, in my opinion.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective?
Could it be that, some in France, and Europe in general, are sick and tired of having to kowtow to the whims of fanatical Muslims?
Who'd have thunk, the day where France leads the world in making fun of.... anyone.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people. In another thread recently, someone posted a religious figure Hindu/Christian/Buddhist/Some Others cartoon porn. What the hell is even the point of anyone drawing that?
Obviously, some people will always be idiots and publish offensive trash and garbage, and they have the right to. But why should we find any of their work admirable? Because we don't like the group they happen to target? Then when that group goes apeshit, we should feel smugly superior and encourage a bunch of self-aggrandizing copy cats to spiral the targets further into losing their cool at us?
This is playground bullshit. It's like a mean girl makes enough snide comments at another girl, who flips out and pulls some of her hair, and then the mean girl gets her friends to join in.
Guess what? I just compared this situation to a fight between MENTALLY DEFICIENT TEENAGE GIRLS.
Fuck all this. Both sides can ACT LIKE ADULTS, these immature social REJECTS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um. Niki. How is this ANY different from telling young women to "not dress like whores" so as to avoid rape? Or it's just "plain stupid" for a young woman to go out at night? Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are always a "good reason" in and of themselves. We hold these truths to be self-evident...except o' course when we come up against a culture that will murder you for acting on 'em, then we slink away into our polite little hidie holes until they "grow up???" And to say neither was "well done" absolutely misses what purpose they serve. What about the outrage and offense quite rightfully felt by the cartoonist? What's the cartoonist supposed to do? Shut up until he can come up with a more elegant way to express his feelings? Because it would "save lives???"
Originally posted by Niki2:
The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon, except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone, it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name of avoiding death and chaos to others.
That dumb film maker said he made the video (I still doubt there is an actual movie) "to stop Muslims from killing"...! That is sheer insanity. The French guy who put out the cartoons, in my opinion, did so for self-agrandizement; he'd done it before (and has the paper's offices bombed), so he knew what he was doing and what would result from it. What did he or anyone gain from it, exactly? These people take no responsibility for deliberately instigating violence.
For me it's not about fear of the Muslims who will act out, it's more than riling them up is just plain stupid. If there was a good reason to challenge their religious beliefs, that would be one thing. But these two examples are just plain idiotic, and people should know better by now. If it's IMPORTANT to challenge something, go for it...but for a stupid video and a couple of equally-stupid cartoons??? (Aside from which, neither example was even well done, they're both just poorly-produced trash, in my opinion.)
Cartoons don't CAUSE deaths, Niki. They just don't. Wearing a dress never CAUSES rape. Radical fundamentalism is Totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the problem here, Niki, not bad art. The folks who kill over a cartoon are simply trying to further their Totalitarian agenda and there is no right way to tolerate that shit. Period.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What's the cartoonist supposed to do? Shut up until he can come up with a more elegant way to express his feelings?
Like we can ever expect anyone to develop more intelligence and maturity than they already have. I peaked at five years old myself. No, stuff like this is a fact of life. Cartoonists simply are going to draw naked Mohammeds and terrible movie directors with a history of fraud will overdub footage with Mohammed as a child molester, and together they'll laugh at the forced outrage, all the time, forever.
But I still think both sides are total morons with nothing better to do and pitifully bad communication skills, and I think both sides are making the situation worse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people. In another thread recently, someone posted a religious figure Hindu/Christian/Buddhist/Some Others cartoon porn. What the hell is even the point of anyone drawing that?
You really didn't get the point of that? Its called contrast. That even the most offensive image possible, depicting 3 different faiths, no less - and not a single act of violence as a result.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte,
That's only 'cause you force the world into "two sides." There aren't two sides. There are never two sides. There's just people. And there's right and wrong. Some people will murder other people. And that's wrong. Period. There is no one on that side. That side is madness.
The source of violence and abuse is the abuser. Never the victim. Never. As soon as murder is on the table, the victim is in no position to make things worse. The victim in no way brought murder into the conversation. That's all on the killer. You're making the worst kind of false equivalence when you compare tasteless cartoonists and homocidal maniacs who kill over "blasphemy." You and the killers are both dehumanizing the cartoonist if you're gonna sit there and tell me these drawings are in any way the cause of riots and murder.
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I more didn't understand why it was a point that needed to be made. Some of 'em react violent? Durrr yeah? Fuckin' obvious? And now we have a goddamn travesty on my eyes out there, thanks a lot artists, that was so completely worth you guys doing.
That image does not reflect well on the character of the artists or human kind in general. Rah. Way to go. Fake enthusiasm. They want to make total jackasses of themselves, hey, that's their deal, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pat them on the back and call them pretty or like their art.
All of this is still the stupidest bunch a bullshit I've ever seen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There are never two sides. There's just people. And there's right and wrong. Some people will murder other people. And that's wrong. Period. There is no one on that side. That side is madness.
Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes.
Why should I be sympathetic towards anyone involved in this? Gimme a good damn reason.
The artists are victims? ahahahaha. Pretty brave of them hiding behind a desk in a first world country while other people get killed. What they are is trolls and money grubbing opportunists. Starve more asswipes, I wouldn't buy your garbage if you paid me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.
I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
There are never two sides. There's just people. And there's right and wrong. Some people will murder other people. And that's wrong. Period. There is no one on that side. That side is madness.
Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes.
Why should I be sympathetic towards anyone involved in this? Gimme a good damn reason.
The artists are victims? ahahahaha. Starve more asswipes, I wouldn't buy your shit if you paid me.
" Huh" ? WE made what ?
Sorry, WE didn't make any damn thing. It was a handful of folks , making this vid, and even fewer ( one ? ) who cartoonishly dubbed in some coarse, pre-pubescent dialogue, from the best I can tell.
And I'm sorry, but in the past 11 years, the internet has been home to all manner of vulgar, anti Mohammed nonsense. Probably a lot worse than this. So ,why does THIS random, unknown 'film' spark all this ?
It doesn't. This crap about a video ? It's just an EXCUSE for them to riot and kill. It was never the REASON.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.
I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.
Oh eat your hat. When did I ever say they shouldn't be allowed to make their stupid awful garbage?
Them being artists and free speech, and their art still sucks. They aren't victims. Trolls are trolls, and both sides are beyond ridiculous here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
" Huh" ? WE made what ?
Sorry, WE didn't make any damn thing. It was a handful of folks , making this vid, and even fewer ( one ? ) who cartoonishly dubbed in some coarse, pre-pubescent dialogue, from the best I can tell.
Nonsense. I paid taxes for missiles that killed them. I voted in the last election. I'm absolutely responsible for all these deaths. And so are you and most of the other people here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
" Huh" ? WE made what ?
Sorry, WE didn't make any damn thing. It was a handful of folks , making this vid, and even fewer ( one ? ) who cartoonishly dubbed in some coarse, pre-pubescent dialogue, from the best I can tell.
Nonsense. I paid taxes for missiles that killed them. I'm absolutely responsible for all these deaths. And so are you and most of the other people here.
Again-- HUH?
I was talking about the stupid video. Now you're shifting the subject, and talking about missiles ? Hell, it was missiles WE PAID FOR which liberated those MF'ers in the first place. REMEMBER ???
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lol yeah, they seem very free. Free to kill or be killed by a dozen different factions while each tries for military takeover of the country. Whoopdedoo. We're awesome.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Nobody: The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon, except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone, it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name of avoiding death and chaos to others.
That dumb film maker said he made the video (I still doubt there is an actual movie) "to stop Muslims from killing"...! That is sheer insanity. The French guy who put out the cartoons, in my opinion, did so for self-agrandizement; he'd done it before (and has the paper's offices bombed), so he knew what he was doing and what would result from it. What did he or anyone gain from it, exactly? These people take no responsibility for deliberately instigating violence.
For me it's not about fear of the Muslims who will act out, it's more than riling them up is just plain stupid. If there was a good reason to challenge their religious beliefs, that would be one thing. But these two examples are just plain idiotic, and people should know better by now. If it's IMPORTANT to challenge something, go for it...but for a stupid video and a couple of equally-stupid cartoons??? (Aside from which, neither example was even well done, they're both just poorly-produced trash, in my opinion.)
I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity?
Newsflash: maybe this isn't the way to challenge Islam. Or get them to listen to us about social issues and civil rights. Like at all. Maybe lewd drawings of Mohammed are really pointless and actually say nothing, and if we want to help the women over there or end the violence, there might be better methods.
Or maybe atheists back in the 1800s drew a metic ton of Jesus screwing a donkey cartoons. That really got us the respect and tolerance of the christians.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one, or at least that's how it seems to me.
Oh, and in regards to being told what the Quaran contains versus reading it themselves, that is where and why I wholeheartedly support RAWA's attempt to spread literacy... although I am not sure it will make the difference they seem to think it will, cause Christians do not have the excuse of illiteracy and few enough of them have read the Bible.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CHRISISALL:
We need more cartoons. Many more. If these j**koffs go ballistic over a few caricatures, maybe they'll commit mass suicide if we inundate the media with it( btw, why are they looking at cartoons anyway? They're supposed to be praying when not working, right?).
Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured 'toons
There's something to be said for that. Inundate 'em with it, and when they see that their world didn't come to a screeching halt, maybe they'll realize that their religion, like any other, can be criticized or made fun of.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OMG, you found some kind of serious point in what I posted jokingly? *falls off chair*
Originally posted by Kwicko:
There's something to be said for that. Inundate 'em with it, and when they see that their world didn't come to a screeching halt, maybe they'll realize that their religion, like any other, can be criticized or made fun of.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Frem, really? Byte is explicitely equating the drawing of tasteless cartoons and murder:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You call yourself an Anarchist and you condemn free speech in this way??? Tell me I'm misunderstanding you, please, 'cause so far as I can see you and Niki are way off the rails on this one.
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one, or at least that's how it seems to me.
"Takes two to tango. We kill them, they kill us, we make shitty content with little to no artistic value about their religious figures, they kill us, and on it goes."
(Incidentally, I have never heard "takes two to tango" used except as a justification for abuse. It's kinda like that whole "for the greater good" thing.) Byte's hatred for the, I'm sorry, TRULY INNOCUOUS content of the cartoons has blinded her to the real issue here; which is the wholly incompatible values of a free society and a totalitarian society. In her estimation, these two "sides" are both at fault for murder.
Free speech means there is no wrong way to do free speech. Free speech is an end in itself. And free speech has never killed a single human being in the history of the world.
"Gee, that was kinda stupid?" Like Treyvon Martin wearing a hoodie stupid or rape victim dressing slutty stupid?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter wheTrere you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.
I think that people should consider consequences betfore doing anything, yes. But there should never be any restriction on their right to make art, no matter what anyone think of it.
Oh eat your hat. When did I ever say they shouldn't be allowed to make their stupid awful garbage?
Them being artists and free speech, and their art still sucks. They aren't victims. Trolls are trolls, and both sides are beyond ridiculous here.
Okay, if I misinterpreted you, I appologize. I think we are perhaps a bit closer in views on this than I had thought.
I don't really consider the maker of the film in question an artist, for what that's worth. He was not trying to create art - he was trying to piss people off. Which, granted, is often the purpose of art, but this was something else, I feel.
But I also tend to agree with Chris - we should all be wearing tee-shirts with cartoon Mohammed on them - it should become so commonplace it becomes irrelevant.
And I've never been a hat guy, though, so I have none upon which to munch.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK: Stop calling the artists victims. They are trolls. I never once said they should stop trolling. I did compare what they did to murder, because, um, it kinda resulted in murder. Kinda like my paying taxes for the right to stay in this country and use free speech resulted in murder.
I don't think I argued that I'm going to stop speaking or paying taxes though. Though I only do the later because the long arm of the law will bust my ass if I tried it.
Oh hey! But would you like me to stop talking? Because I'm kinda tired of it anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Okay, if I misinterpreted you, I appologize. I think we are perhaps a bit closer in views on this than I had thought
That's... Huh. I actually didn't expect anyone to apologize. I was on a major bitch rant there.
But, yeah, I didn't ever say that the artists should stop doing their thing, only that I thought this particular thing was kinda dumb and tasteless with a sprinkling of reckless.
But then, I'm kinda dumb and tasteless, with a sprinkling of reckless... Eh. Whatevs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people.... This is playground bullshit....I more didn't understand why it was a point that needed to be made.
I agree with some of what Byte said.Quote:
I think that people should consider consequences before doing anything, yes.
Was the ENTIRE point I was making. Not censorship: disapproval. A wish that people had the sense to realize that what they did, just 'cuz they could do it, would bring about the deaths of other INNOCENT people.
The idea that the "movie" maker did to STOP Muslims from killing is as insane and stupid as his supposed "movie" is in the first place. Not only does the "movie" make no such point or even attempt to make any sense at all (which causes me to doubt the reason he gave for making it in the first place), but the cartoons are idiotic and make no point; they're just childish "neener neener"s.
If freedom of speech is available to everyone (including Byte and I), then fine: I DECRY THE IDIOCY OF DOING SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL FOR NO GOOD REASON, especially something which will cause the deaths of people who had no choice in the matter.
It's interesting how disapproval of what these people did is immediately called "kowtowing" to Muslims. There are legitimate things that need challenging, and legitimate ways to do it. I don't see either of these things as ANY attempt to "challenge" Islam, just, essentially, to treat it like shit. Quote:
Who ever challenged Christianity? I don't recall ever hearing of anyone challenging it...some had a different view of it and made their own "versions", but "challenged"? Not that I know of. Aside from which, this isn't "challenging" Islam; the "movie" (if there really is one) "disparaged" it (kindest term I can come up with), the cartoon "mocked" it...no challenges there.
I wonder how different the western world would be now if no one ever challenged christianity? Quote:
Newsflash: maybe this isn't the way to challenge Islam. Or get them to listen to us about social issues and civil rights. Like at all. Maybe lewd drawings of Mohammed are really pointless and actually say nothing, and if we want to help the women over there or end the violence, there might be better methods.
You go get 'em, girl; that's akin to the point I was making, but more direct. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but with those I quoted, I do.Quote:
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Thank you, Frem. Seems any statement negative to something is immediately considered "censorship" or "condemnation of free speech". Interesting, that.
Cav, if you truly consider those cartoons truly innocuous, then your view is different from mine. I found them tasteless at best, gross to be more realistic. I think a few million other people would find some of them gross and offensive, no matter what their religion.
I seem to remember a few movies about Christ and/or the Christian religion raising quite a furor. They didn't lead to violence, as far as I know, but I'm sure it never occurred to anyone that if we didn't have the rule of law and we lived in a country where violence is an everyday occurrence, those movies might well have caused violence. There's your basic difference. In Afghanistan, the punishment for stealing (when I was there) was the loss of the hand that allowed one to eat from the communal bowl--ergo, death. It was an accepted punishment. We wouldn't dream of such a thing. But we USED to kill people who were suspected of being witches. Remember the Inquisition? (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition--sorry, couldn't resist) We've evo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Oh hey! But would you like me to stop talking?
Not ever. Not even when we're on opposite sides of an issue. Once talking stops, so does any hope of reaching an understanding.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
HK: Stop calling the artists victims. They are trolls.
Do they become dead trolls or victims, like Theo Van Gogh, when some Islamo-zealot kills them ?
Saying what they do is akin to murder , because it RESULTS in murder, is like calling a girl who gets raped a rapist. I mean, if something she wore "resulted " in her getting raped, that's all on her, right ?
I tend to blame the perp, and not the victim. Crazy, I know.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This rape victim analogy so does not work! If the artists get murdered, then YES, they're a victim. But if they aren't murdered, they're a douchey troll! And probably still a douchey troll even when they are a victim. :/
It is possible to be a jerk and to be murdered at the same time. Not all victims are innocent, you know. And trying to accuse me of being pro-blaming the rape victim because I think these guys are jerks? Weak argument and a massive red herring and ad hominem fallacy.
The problem is you're equating what I'm saying to that I think people on either side of this tragic farce DESERVE to be either raped OR murdered. And I don't think either one. I hate that it happens, but some of this stuff, people being jerks, people getting murdered, round and round it goes, some of it is just an inevitable function of being human and living in such an awful sucky world. One thing leads to another sometimes. It is not something I can ignore when I think there was wrongdoing in the first place. A girl wearing a skimpy outfit, I think, is something different from this vileness on display. I must be unanimous in my contempt here.
A rape victim has my full sympathy. These opportunistic rabble-rousing asshats do not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE: A girl wearing a skimpy outfit, I think, is something different from this vileness on display. I must be unanimous in my contempt here.
Depends on the outfit, and the girl, huh?
j/k
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Depends on the outfit, and the girl, huh?
j/k
...
I can't be certain what you're getting at here. But, no. It does not depend on the outfit or the girl. Whatever a rapist does to the girl is wrong.
Yet. In this case, how the crowd reacted was wrong, but drawing filth like this, I think, is wrong as well. The difference is, I don't think that there must be laws against everything people do that I might think is "wrong." I don't think that the ability to draw this stuff should be taken from them. I just think the work of these artists is ugly, repulsive, and shows appallingly bad character and judgement, and I don't particularly want to support them or encourage them in any way.
And that sentiment doesn't depend on the artist either. If Bill Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes fame ever drew something like this, I would think he is a massive jerk as well. And I also wouldn't think he deserves to die, any more than the victims of the mad crowd deserve to die.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Byte, Star Trek was my religion when I was in my teens (and that's NOT overstating it!!), and when douchebags made fun, I ignored them and pitied them for their ignorance.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If the artists get murdered, then YES, they're a victim. But if they aren't murdered, they're a douchey troll! And probably still a douchey troll even when they are a victim. :/
Why can't 'adults' of other faiths have the same tolerance for fools?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I do think that both sides are behaving pretty terrible. Like I've already said.
And I thought the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist porn was disgusting as well. I don't really think highly of those artists either, even without them having caused massive protests.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me either, but take away the right of someone to be an asshat, and a slippery slope that ends in the end of free speech is in sight. Plus, the penalties are way out of whack. If I don't like what someone says, I let them know, curse them out or ignore them. Killing them is off the table. It bespeaks of a small mind, and a truly, TRULY fearful heart.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I thought the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist porn was disgusting as well. I don't really think highly of those artists either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Whoah, WAIT there- they didn't CAUSE massive protests. Even if they MEANT that to happen, the dumasses reacting to what they deemed so important did.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
even without them having caused massive protests.
That's it, I'm gonna go back in time & SLAUGHTER those who made fun of Trek for their infidel behaviour!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Me either, but take away the right of someone to be an asshat, and a slippery slope that ends in the end of free speech is in sight. Plus, the penalties are way out of whack. If I don't like what someone says, I let them know, curse them out or ignore them. Killing them is off the table. It bespeaks of a small mind, and a truly, TRULY fearful heart.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I thought the Christian/Hindu/Buddhist porn was disgusting as well. I don't really think highly of those artists either.
Chris, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I've been saying. :/
Thinking someone is a jerk is not the same thing as thinking they deserve to be killed or that free speech should be curtailed.
Nor is it the same thing as me thinking that these things happen, or that there's a such thing as cause and effect and people have responsibilities.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Whoah, WAIT there- they didn't CAUSE massive protests.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
even without them having caused massive protests.
I'll have to disagree there. I think they have a responsibility here as to what happened. Just as if people had unexpectedly rioted over the Jesus/Buddha/Shiva porn.
You might be able to argue that the middle east is such a powder keg that if this didn't set them off, something else would have. But what you can't deny is that these cartoons and that movie DID set people off, which DID result in violence. And it was also pretty predictable that it would have that result if people became aware of it. That's the definition of reckless.
Quote:
Reckless, adj. 1. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless
I would not outlaw recklessness, but that does not mean I approve of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Responsibility/recklessness is subjective.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You might be able to argue that the middle east is such a powder keg that if this didn't set them off, something else would have. But what you can't deny is that these cartoons and that movie DID set people off, which DID result in violence. And it was also pretty predictable that it would have that result if people became aware of it. That's the definition of reckless.
Short story time: When I was 22, I was riding my brand new bike through a rough part of my city when four brothers waved to me like they wanted directions or something. I've always had black friends, so I feared not & pulled over to see what they wanted, and promptly got kicked off my bike by a fifth dude I wasn't aware of. I grabbed my bike back & proceeded to mentally mark which knees I would attempt to break first when they all seemed to disengage. Cool, I got on my bike & rode away.
So, did I 'cause' them to attack me by being an idiot? Yes & no.
Personally yes & objectively no.
Let's look at this differently- If I had pulled over with greater, more experienced awareness, and had expected them to try and jump me, and WANTED them to so I could straight up kick all their asses, THEN who would be reckless? Or responsible?
Edited To Add:
Stupidity is never a justification for harming someone IMO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting bit someone mailed me this morning, seems amazingly relevant to both the topic at hand, as well as a particular section of history y'all might have noticed I have an interest in.
Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apo
logia-for-censorship-are-enough/
Quote:
Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. This post is not about fisking Sarah Chayes; her column deserves it, but I will leave it to another time. This post is about putting the Holmes quote in context, and explaining why it adds nothing to a First Amendment debate.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The application of law, much like a superhero's powers, can change according to how the writers want it to go...
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apo
logia-for-censorship-are-enough/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not saying anything about laws and I'm not saying they should stop! Can't I just think these guys are irresponsible jerks and not like their art? Without making a goddamn federal issue outta it?
Or does free speech require me to admire everything someone does in the name of "free speech" regardless of my own personal tastes or whether I think it's a violation of my sense of decency? I don't want to take away rights from the Westborough Baptist Church, because I think that's a slippery slope, so does that mean I think those guys and their message is awesome? NO! They're also assholes! These guys are assholes! THEY'RE ALL ASSHOLES!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Byte,
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But what you can't deny is that these cartoons and that movie DID set people off, which DID result in violence. And it was also pretty predictable that it would have that result if people became aware of it. That's the definition of reckless.Quote:
Reckless, adj. 1. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless
You seem to have no understanding of the nature and causes of violence. That's disturbing in so many ways. I abso-freakin-lutely deny that the cartoons set people off. There is no cause and effect relationship there. Just as NOTHING a child does causes the father to "get the belt," there is no level of blasphemous cartoon that CAUSES riots. Just as NOTHING a woman wears is gonna CAUSE rape. Back in the day, dressing like Madonna was pretty disgusting to a lot of folk, and considered thoroughly tasteless by a lot more, who were offended by women wearing underwear as outerwear. But no one was assassinated over it. The point of these cartoons is that people who riot over such things are crazy. Just because such folk actually do respond to such cartoons with rioting, doesn't make the cartoons responsible for the rioting in any gorram way.
I am kinda surprised by the outrage from you and Niki over the Onion cartoon. The cartoon was making a pretty vivid point, namely, that no degree of blasphemous depiction of any of these religious icons is gonna "cause" any amount of violence. Also, that getting outraged because Ganesha is fisting the Buddha is unutterably silly (particularly given Hindu attitudes about sex!). And Byte, I'm sorry but it's just sex. Really, you're disgusted by handjobs? How would you make the same point the Onion was making? Or do you simply think the point is not worth making?
How is the Onion cartoon not relevant satire, how is it not protest? You're allowing "recklessness" to be entirely defined by the unjust power arrayed against it. I continue to be astonished by the regressiveness of your argument.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. Since none of you want to listen to me or understand what I'm actually saying how about all of you takes your strawmans And EAT THEM.
And HK take your fake civility and concern and eat that too. I don't have to participate in you guys misinterpreting every fucking thing I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Strawman??? I'm quoting you.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Find me one place where I said rape victims are responsible or that they deserve what happens to them.
You are strawmanning like crazy, not listening to me and what I ACTUALLY have to say, and I do not have to take this from any of you. ANY OF YOU.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um. The whole point of bringing up rape, is to make a comparison between your attitude toward these cartoonists and a similar attitude folks have about rape. It's not a strawman, it's a simple analogy. In terms of the debate, you should be able to differenciate your argument about the cartoons from other examples of abusive behavior "caused" by the behavior of the victims/targets of the abuse.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm pro-rapist HK! Artists are exactly the same as rape victims! That's exactly what this conversation is about. Well done HK you have opened my EYES. These guys and their hateful ugly rhetoric are SO COOOL and we should admire how they've pushed the boundaries of decency and good taste. Because it's free speech, and that makes everything they say admirable. We should have thousands of cartoons just like this! That'll show those CAH-RAAAAAAZY muslims!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm pro-rapist HK! Artists are exactly the same as rape victims! That's exactly what this conversation is about. Well done HK you have opened my EYES. These guys and their hateful ugly rhetoric are SO COOOL and we should admire how they've pushed the boundaries of decency and good taste. Because it's free speech, and that makes everything they say admirable. We should have thousands of cartoons just like this! That'll show those CAH-RAAAAAAZY muslims!
Curious where this stuff about "admiration" comes from. I guess it was something Chrisisall said?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It comes from ME. I'm saying I don't admire these artists because of the content of their work, and that I think they're jerks, and I'm not going to buy their stuff, and somehow that translates into me being a blame the victim type and against free speech?!
Whatever guys! I can see how that's not a strawman at all!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You seem to be having a much harder time than usual listening, Byte. You say some fairly outrageous things in this thread. When someone calls you on it, you throw up this tornado of denial and then go back to saying the same damn thing you said before.
Your words here seem rather pointedly to lay some portion of blame on these cartoonists for the violence which ensues. I find that horrendously unjust. And that's where the comparison with rape victims comes from. The whole point of bringing it up is because I presume you DON'T believe rape victims to be at fault for their victimization. The point is that I believe these cartoonists, regardless of their aesthetic mis/judgments, are EVERY BIT AS BLAMELESS as any other victim of violence. I believe that to be self-evident.
I'd hoped that you could at least acknowledge that piece, but instead you double down on your insistance that the cartoonists are at fault in some way. This gets confusing because there are two very different levels of "fault" that you seem continually to conflate. The fault of "poor taste" and being a "troll," and the "fault" of "setting off" violent reprisals. I would simply like you to differentiate these two faults and for you to acknowledge that no amount of tastelessness deserves violent reprisals. And it goes without saying that I have no means or desire to force such an acknowledgment out of you.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When someone calls you on it, you throw up this tornado of denial and then go back to saying the same damn thing you said before.
Show me one place where I went back on anything I've said! It's you guys dumping stuff on me I haven't said!
People are responsible for their actions? oh wow! Revelation! Muslims tearing up a place are acting ridiculous and irresponsible? Absolutely!
Artists in response are drawing terrible anti-Islamic intolerant and pornographic stuff are themselves being ridiculous and are also irresponsible and kind of jerks? Oh no! We have to draw the line there! They're victims!
Quote:
The point is that I believe these cartoonists, regardless of their aesthetic mis/judgments, are EVERY BIT AS BLAMELESS as any other victim of violence.
The only one who was a victim of violence was that guy Auraptor brought up!
And I still think he's a jerk, which is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE FUCKING ISSUE from whether or not I think they deserve violence to be done on them. Incredible as it might seem: I don't!
Oh hey, if I were to be a rape victim, would I be a rape victim AAAND a jerk? Huh! It appears to be so!
Quote:
And it goes without saying that I have no means or desire to force such an acknowledgment out of you.
Whatever. You're not going to apologize to me about the pro-rapist or denial thing and I sure as hell am not going to start admiring these artists or call for more cartoons.
What is happening is that you think very poorly of me, and I think very poorly of you, and neither of us understand each other, and that is the way of things and nothing can be done about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm saying I don't admire these artists because of the content of their work, and that I think they're jerks
I get that, and it's a valid opinion Byte.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever Chris. You went after me just as bad. You all think I'm anti-free speech? Well, let me exercise some fucking anti-free speech!
How about this.
...!
Wow! that was good. Lets get some more of that up ins.
..............................!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
What is happening is that you think very poorly of me, and I think very poorly of you, and neither of us understand each other, and that is the way of things and nothing can be done about it.
If I thought poorly of you, Byte, I assure you, I would not be talking to you. That you think very poorly of me is news to me.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I kinda also don't think the cartoonists are jerks.
It's insensitive and possibly stupid in that it might endanger them (some Pakistani government official apparrently put a bounty on the movie-maker's life) but as long as they don't come out saying downright hateful things about muslims in general, I won't consider them jerks.
The movie guy I only detest because of the snarling hatred for muslims and reckless deception of the actors that went into making his shit movie.
Whatever some radical muslims decide to do in response to those things is entirely on them, though. It cannot be put on the provocateurs, even if it IS predictable. Even in a realpolitik kind of way. It cannot be on them.
I don't think anyone here actually intended to lay real blame at their feet, though, really. It's legitimate to find religious taunting of this kind to be jerk-like.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Whatever Chris. You went after me just as bad.
This is a lively debate, or so I thought... sorry if it seemed like I was bird-doggin' ya, really.
We can get intense here with our opinions, and some times we can take offense, none at all meant, milady.
In point of fact, you are one of my favourite posters here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Agent,
I think context is crucial when talking about brutality. That's the only reason to bring up rape: as a cut and dried example of how our culture blames the victim and why that is such a very terrible thing to do. Something we can all agree on. I'm particularly sensitive to folks using the "bad character" of the victim to distract from and/or mitigate the culpability of the abuser. Even if it is not intended, that is its social function. I see otherwise very nice people doing this all the time, unwittingly, because they choose to ignore this very important context. And to be fair, it can be very hard to take absurdly violent threats as seriously as they need to be.
Children get brutalized by their parents and the parents talk about the bad character of their children as if that changes anything. The child was "seductive" or "defiant" or "willful" or "stupid," etc. "Taunting" in the context of threats against the life and health of these cartoonists strikes me as code for "asking for it."
The character of the cartoonists is an absolute non sequitur in the context of this discussion. It has nothing to do with the violent reaction at all. That's what violence does: it changes the subject. Violence is never part of a conversation, it prevents conversation. That is its social function.
No matter what the subject of the argument, when somebody threatens physical violence, the ostensible subject of the conversation has been lost. Now the subject is survival, and when well-intentioned folk then point at the victim and say, "reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse. When well-intentioned folk like Niki or Byte come in with, "Well, the cartoons WERE disgusting..." it is simply inappropriate and only serves to distance folks from the real danger in which the real human beings who drew the cartoons find themselves. And, I'm sorry, even if real physical violence does not occur, the threat of violence is a violation.
So, yeah, in the face of the absurd brutality of the threats against the life of an artist, folks of good conscience are obliged to stand with them, regardless of the content of the art, on the principle that art in a free society is as close to sacrosanct as we secularists get.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK,
I do absolutely agree with that.
I do, however, think "taunting" is not inappropriate to use because it IS an intentional provocation (UNLIKE dressing in a certain way, which is first and foremost personal decoration).
I do not in any way equate that with responsibility for the response or as justification for anything untoward that happens as a reaction.
It is provocative art. It intentionally violates an existing taboo. There is nothing wrong with that. Personal tastes vary with regard to drawing a line between fascination and utter disgust at crass insensitivity, but even when my complete personal condemnation of content or form is achieved, there is still nothing wrong with provocative art. You just end up questioning the character of the creator. That is not the same as blaming them for any inappropriate reaction OR wishing them silenced.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So, yeah, in the face of the absurd brutality of the threats against the life of an artist, folks of good conscience are obliged to stand with them, regardless of the content of the art, on the principle that art in a free society is as close to sacrosanct as we secularists get.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
It is provocative art. It intentionally violates an existing taboo. There is nothing wrong with that. Personal tastes vary with regard to drawing a line between fascination and utter disgust at crass insensitivity, but even when my complete personal condemnation of content or form is achieved, there is still nothing wrong with provocative art. You just end up questioning the character of the creator. That is not the same as blaming them for any inappropriate reaction OR wishing them silenced.
^
This.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry they've upset you so much, Byte; I've been gone for a day or more, and reading through this thread I see how you've been misunderstood. I'd be frustrated too. I think you should have backed out much sooner (tho' I know how impossible that is when trying to get through to someone), for your own sake.
Okay. Bear in mind that, from her first post, Byte stated:Quote:
I think, generally speaking, that the people who protest and start yelling "death" in response to a cartoon actually don't even really understand their prophet's own sense of humour. Or have read some of the prophet's more vulgar moments from the quran. This isn't exactly the first time he's been depicted mooning people.
On the other hand, people who deliberately just rile Muslims up are basically the IRL equivalent of trolls, only their provocations tend to kill more people.
So I'm going to suggest maybe both sides are really dumb.
She didn't say anything about censoring anyone...in fact her very next post statedQuote:
There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people.... Obviously, some people will always be idiots and publish offensive trash and garbage, and they have the right to.
Everyone seems to have ignored that she said THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO. The response?Quote:
So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.
HUH??? At least Frem was able to see realilty:Quote:
As to
I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"
Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one...Quote:
Your words here seem rather pointedly to lay some portion of blame on these cartoonists for the violence which ensues. I find that horrendously unjust.... The point is that I believe these cartoonists, regardless of their aesthetic mis/judgments, are EVERY BIT AS BLAMELESS as any other victim of violence.
First of all, the cartoonists have been victims of NO violence whatsoever. You can find it 'unjust' if you want to, but the fact is the cartoonist DID intend to provoke. They say it was satire, but they've been there before; their offices were attacked and burned last November for a much milder satire of Mohammed. Then yes, they were victims. Not this time. This time they've suffered nothing, others have. In the words of another, "To repeat the same stupidity, the same idiocy and the same calumnies, the same ignominy seems to be nearly psychotic action."
Maybe these people are truly stupid. But anyone who'd had their offices attacked, and saw the violence that stupid video created, would have to be TRULY stupid not to know what the outcome of their provocation would be.Quote:
How is this ANY different from telling young women to "not dress like whores" so as to avoid rape?
Let's get rid of that one right now. In the first place, I didn't "tell" anyone to do anything. I expressed my opinion, so did Byte. Beyond that, the comparison to rape is totally irrelevant: Quote:
A woman running around in sexy clothes does so for reasons which have nothing to do with the possibility of being raped. Treyvon Martin wore a hoodie because it fit the weather. A cartoonist who does what they did in the face of uprisings over an anti-Islamist video does so with full knowledge of what may transpire; in fact, they DO it to provoke a response. There's a gigantic difference between someone choosing what they'll wear and someone deliberately doing something they KNOW could incite violence.
"Gee, that was kinda stupid?" Like Treyvon Martin wearing a hoodie stupid or rape victim dressing slutty stupid?
What nobody here seems to be grasping is that Byte (and I, to an extent) are decrying what these idiots did, and stating that we think the cartoons were
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote Niki:
"Nobody: The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths
of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up
and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon,
except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone,
it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western
country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name
of avoiding death and chaos to others."
Ah shit, I don't wanna debate in here!
I disagree, Niki.
HKC, thank you for your clear & unwavering posts about the principles here & who's doin'
what to whom. I agree completely.
It's not just the Muslims. Forever, there have been people willing to torture and kill
others over insults, real or perceived, large or small.
In countries that I consider civilized, this is against the law. Free thought and free
speech are essential. Good taste is not required. In fact, I find myself somewhat in
agreement with the artist & publisher of the offending cartoon. It says to me, "Some
people are willing to commit murder over this sort of thing. Beware of them and do
not mistake them for responsible adults."
Oonj: Keep it simple, and don't confuse ourselves.
Oonj: If I put principles before personalities, I can stick to the point instead of always
trying to make every conversation about Me.
=========================
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. ~Charles R Swindoll
If I have to react to others all the time, then they own my mind more than I do.
If I let others tell me how to feel, I lose my ability to choose happiness.
If I let others tell me who I am, I've vacated self-definition.
Finally, I realized how foolish I was to give others such power over me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw, this is depressing, folks. Thank you, Oonjerah, for your kind words of understanding. I was hoping that a good several people here were more savvy about violence than this.
Hey Niki, some comments on your latest post (btw, did you read my last post, the one addressed to AgentRouka? It speaks to a lot of your arguments here):
Quote:And from her first post, Byte says, right there, that the cartoonists' "provocations...kill...people." I don't know how much clearer she could be that the cartoonists share blame for the violence.
Originally posted by Niki2:
...from her first post, Byte stated:Quote:
On the other hand, people who deliberately just rile Muslims up are basically the IRL equivalent of trolls, only their provocations tend to kill more people.
So I'm going to suggest maybe both sides are really dumb.
Cartoonists should not be threatened, should not be attacked--end of story. No one should be threatened or attacked because of what a cartoonist draws. Ever. That goes for all types of cartoons. There are not certain cartoons that deserve threats even a teensy bit more than other cartoons. Cartoonists do not deserve death threats. Period.
Quote:
First of all, the cartoonists have been victims of NO violence whatsoever. You can find it 'unjust' if you want to, but the fact is the cartoonist DID intend to provoke. They say it was satire, but they've been there before; their offices were attacked and burned last November for a much milder satire of Mohammed. Then yes, they were victims. Not this time. This time they've suffered nothing, others have. In the words of another, "To repeat the same stupidity, the same idiocy and the same calumnies, the same ignominy seems to be nearly psychotic action."
This is just awful, Niki. You say yourself that the newspaper's offices were attacked and burned already for far more mild satire. So, how is the new cartoon not an act of defiance? How is it not an act of courage? Because you think it's disgusting??? That's ONLY your opinion! I don't think they're disgusting in the least. And I can see that they serve a much larger purpose, PARTICULARLY in light of recent violence against the paper. How can you not see the legitimacy your words grant to the violence when you say the cartoonists should have censored themselves?
And I'm sorry, but if you live under threat of violence, you are a victim of violence. The abuser wants things the way he wants them or else. The house ruled by such a tyrant is no less violent because the inhabitants have LEARNED to stay in line. Knuckling under to tyranny has terrible consequences for the folk who engage in that sort of self-violation. And even if you "play by the rules," tyranny will lash out periodically, just as a "reminder." And THAT is why there's no cause and effect between cartoonists and violent reprisals.
Quote:
Maybe these people are truly stupid. But anyone who'd had their offices attacked, and saw the violence that stupid video created, would have to be TRULY stupid not to know what the outcome of their provocation would be.Quote:
How is this ANY different from telling young women to "not dress like whores" so as to avoid rape?
Let's get rid of that one right now. In the first place, I didn't "tell" anyone to do anything.
Nonsense, Niki. You're "telling" the cartoonists, retroactively of course, to self-censor. You're telling us that that's what they shoulda done. Y'know, to save all those lives they've endangered by defying madmen.
Quote:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
God. Dammit.
Quote:
And from her first post, Byte says, right there, that the cartoonists' "provocations...kill...people." I don't know how much clearer she could be that the cartoonists share blame for the violence.
Cartoonists should not be threatened, should not be attacked--end of story.
Okay then! HK! Show me how "cartoonists share the blame for the violence" is the same as "they should be attacked"!
Maaaaaaybe I think neither violent muslims OR cartoonists deserve to be attacked? Is it even possible???
ARRRRRRGH fuck this thread. I explained myself VERY CLEARLY then I left! No one else has a problem understanding what I've been saying. Then YOU have to have it out for me, keep this going about what I DIDN'T EVER SAY BUT YOU INSIST I MEAN and oh, you don't think poorly of me and yet you think I support terrible bullshit!
I just want to be judgmental and hate everyone including stupid riots and stupid artists and most especially myself, over there in the corner and not bother anyone, is that too much to ask? But noooooo.
I am going to go Dada-esque. It will be an eye-bleeding symphony of madness and the incomprehensible.
Enjoy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WHAT IS THIS
I DON'T EVEN KNOW
IT IS A MULE DEER WITH PAINT ON IT
IT IS MY MIND
SO MUCH FEELS
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Since none of you want to listen to me or understand what I'm actually saying...
Did you even consider the third option - they just don't AGREE?
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem is HK and I have serious miscommunication issues and once we get on one we can't see eye to eye no matter how much I explain myself.
She thinks I said things I didn't. And she's going to insist I said them for the rest of this thread.
Instead I propose scary clowns. This is a relatively reasonable course of action.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We're in agreement on all but ONE single thing, Cav. I think it's horrendous; I think the protesters are 99.9999% to blame for what they did; I think everyone has the right to say/write whatever they want; I think censorship is wrong. The only single thing we disagree with is that the cartoonists knew they were fanning the fires and what they did would make matters worse, which to me makes them bear the other 1%. That is our only point of contention.
I get all the things you said, and disagree that I am "telling" anyone what to do; I repeat: I'm expressing my own opinions, nothing more.
And trying, once again, to help people understand the societal differences which are largely the CAUSE of the riots: Quote:
That's one of the main points, in my opinion. Those in the Middle East countries we're discussing DO live under the threat of violence, every day, and ARE the victims of violence--and the mentality that comes with it. I spent too much time trying to explain myself and didn't make my point clearly enough; if we're ever going to deal with these people we NEED to understand the vast differences between their society--which has existed for thousands of years--and ours, which is relatively new and begun on a totally different concept than theirs. I've seen it; I've lived it; it's a world we can't possibly hope to understand unless we've been there. That's why, in my mind, it's too simplistic to say anyone should be able to say anything with no repercussions. The REALITY is different when it comes to societies like that.
if you live under threat of violence, you are a victim of violence
It's wrong; it's 100% wrong; and it has to change. And it will. How long that will take, I don't know, but asking people to come ahead 2000 years in fifty, or even a hundred, and then blaming them because they don't "get" the way it SHOULD be is unrealistic. Ergo, doing things specifically to stir them up is wrong, too, in my opinion. It doesn't help; it doesn't change anything; it doesn't allow any kind of communication. And communication is what we NEED. The cartoons do exactly the opposite.
I agreed with someone back there that I think it would be GREAT if everyone everywhere wore t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed on them. They can't kill everyone, and mabye it would be a first step to bridging the GIGANTIC understanding gap between our two cultures. Even better would be t-shirts with Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., all portrayed in a positive fashion. They NEED to understand, they NEED to change...but we also need to understand, and not just condemn outright in our own, pardon my bluntness, blind insistence that everything should be our way: NOW, with no exceptions.
Am I making any sense? We can agree to disagree that the cartoonists knew what they were doing and did it to be deliberately provocative, and that if they did, they bear SOME responsibility for the results. Other than that, we are mostly in agreement. What I should have been shooting for, instead of repeating myself trying to be clear why I believe what I do, was shoot for a better understanding of the situation.
While I was in Afghanistan, there was the story of an American woman who went to a party in a strapless gown and took a ghadi (their form of taxi--a horse-drawn cart kind of thing). She arrived with a knife in her back. It was horrible, it was wrong, but it was what it was. For better or worse, until things change that's the reality.
And we're not that much better. However wrong it is--and it's terribly wrong--a Black man wearing a hoodie and a woman dressing sexually CAN result in terrible things. So for all our "civilization", we share some of the same attitudes. Violent protests happen here, too. There is little, if any, similarity to hundreds of people rioting, but for all our supposedly more civilized attitudes, t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hah, in another thread, Shiny got it:Quote:
That is true, by the way, for BOTH sides. Especially the first part. NOT saying their ways are good or right, but what Shiny said. How many Americans have even the slightest GRASP of other cultures--or would ever attempt to have--and would rather just hate?
You're right Niki- there are far too many who refuse to learn and accept other cultures & customs. Then base their hatred on hearsay, propaganda and boldface lies.
Granted you see people burning buildings and throwing stones but they've been lied to as well. Plus it's been reported that many within these countries want democracy. But we must understand that they have been used to their old ways for thousands of years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is no excuse for what the violent groups are doing or how they react. And there is no excuse for feeding the fire. Different cultures and slow changes or not, this is monumental stupidity - the situation is worse now, and both sides are less willing to listen and learn from each other.
And, once again, there is my usual caveat: pointing out the facts of the situation is not the same as insisting or expecting anyone to do anything different. Because apparently idiots exist and always will. Nor is it the same as suggesting that someone deserves harm done to them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's what I think of Muslims. It is an opinion, based on common sense as I know it,
not on any personal knowledge of Middle Eastern people.
I think Muslims are intelligent, decent, sane, responsible people in the majority.
Many of them want separation of church and state.
They have suffered far more from the violence of madmen than we have. They are sick of it.
They know Jihad when practiced as terrorism is wrong and may bring about the destruction
of their culture.
They don't trust America; we've always cheated them & let the common people down.
The Muslim culture can change, more quickly than we expect, due to internal pressures.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My personal familiarity with some Middle Eastern people (who are also Muslims) would support that, Oonj. They aren't like these people going nuts out there and rioting.
I'd just like to see less hatred in the larger world, no matter where it's coming from. Maybe if there were less hatred, I'd be less angry myself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Negative emotions breed like wildfire. If you can find safe emotional ground, the burns can become manageable....
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Maybe if there were less hatred, I'd be less angry myself.
If that makes any sense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I just want to be judgmental and hate everyone including stupid riots and stupid artists and most especially myself, over there in the corner and not bother anyone, is that too much to ask?
Yeah Byte, it kinda is too much to ask. Particularly from anyone who cares about you. You want to be allowed to hate indiscriminately and then you cry fowl when somebody gets the idea that you wish others harm. Not philosophically, but viscerally. That's what hate is. You want someone to hurt.
Maybe you don't really mean it when you say you hate people. Maybe you just really, really, really, I mean REALLY, disapprove of their actions and wish real hard that they wouldn't do whatever; but you would NEVER wish them harm and would get absolutely ZERO satisfaction were things to go badly for them. But you can hardly call something like that "hate," can you?
After all, in other posts you are very much against "hate," the kind of hate I'm talking about. And then you really gum up the works and confuse one and all when you tell us that you hate yourself, 'cause that doesn't make any kind of sense. No one has to care about you particularly, as an individual, to be concerned when you, a fellow human being, hate yourself. There's no logic in an animal wishing itself harm. Combine this basic human decency, of which we have an abundance in this group, with the camaraderie and goodwill bestowed on you by this community all the time and we all are gonna have a problem with the idea of you harming yourself. Whether it's over there in a corner, or right here in our faces.
I was trying to say that what you're saying in this thread, and what I know you to believe are in serious conflict. I hope eternally that I misunderstand you. I always begin there. I'm just trying to point out that what you say and what you mean to say as I understand it don't seem to be working together.
Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. You and I agree, I think, that torture is a terrible, terrible thing, totally without merit. You and I see the torture perpetrated by agents of our government and the torture performed by our government's political enemies as one and the same thing: torture. But a lot of folks in this country are busy telling us that our torture isn't really torture at all. Torture, when "we" do it is "enhanced interrogation;" we only do it against the "worst of the worst." But torture, when "they" do it is a war crime, the most unspeakable evil. I think you and I agree that that is really hypocritical, and whether they intend to or not, these patriotic American torture apologists are justifying torture.
So here you are with your hate. You just wanna hate. And then a few posts down, you decry hatred in your enemies. Does this make you a bad person? No. But it's a problem. A problem you will have as long as you stand by your "right" to hate. It dilutes the living hell out of your arguments against hate. You, despite your best intentions, have been a hate apologist in this thread.
And just 'cause it keeps coming up: people here do care about you. I care about you. Of course, I do. Why in the WORLD would I converse with you here if I didn't care about you? There are and have been a very few people on this board whom I believe to be...well, not such good folk. "Malign" comes readily to mind. I don't talk to those folks. Haven't for years. Life is way too short for me to talk to nasty, heartless people over the internet. I'm perfectly willing to share this cyberspace with you, to chat with you and argue with you and, as a friend, call you on your shit when such, I believe, shows up in these discussions. That's all. I'm a big believer in friends speaking difficult truths to each other. In my experience it makes us better friends.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Negative emotions breed like wildfire. If you can find safe emotional ground, the burns can become manageable....
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Maybe if there were less hatred, I'd be less angry myself.
If that makes any sense.
You can hold onto your anger if you wish, and forge it into a weapon. Anger, like light, is an energy, and it can be focused like a laser.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
We're in agreement on all but ONE single thing, Cav. I think it's horrendous; I think the protesters are 99.9999% to blame for what they did; I think everyone has the right to say/write whatever they want; I think censorship is wrong. The only single thing we disagree with is that the cartoonists knew they were fanning the fires and what they did would make matters worse, which to me makes them bear the other 1%. That is our only point of contention.
I get all the things you said, and disagree that I am "telling" anyone what to do; I repeat: I'm expressing my own opinions, nothing more.
And trying, once again, to help people understand the societal differences which are largely the CAUSE of the riots:Quote:That's one of the main points, in my opinion. Those in the Middle East countries we're discussing DO live under the threat of violence, every day, and ARE the victims of violence--and the mentality that comes with it. I spent too much time trying to explain myself and didn't make my point clearly enough; if we're ever going to deal with these people we NEED to understand the vast differences between their society--which has existed for thousands of years--and ours, which is relatively new and begun on a totally different concept than theirs. I've seen it; I've lived it; it's a world we can't possibly hope to understand unless we've been there. That's why, in my mind, it's too simplistic to say anyone should be able to say anything with no repercussions. The REALITY is different when it comes to societies like that.
if you live under threat of violence, you are a victim of violence
It's wrong; it's 100% wrong; and it has to change. And it will. How long that will take, I don't know, but asking people to come ahead 2000 years in fifty, or even a hundred, and then blaming them because they don't "get" the way it SHOULD be is unrealistic. Ergo, doing things specifically to stir them up is wrong, too, in my opinion. It doesn't help; it doesn't change anything; it doesn't allow any kind of communication. And communication is what we NEED. The cartoons do exactly the opposite.
I agreed with someone back there that I think it would be GREAT if everyone everywhere wore t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed on them. They can't kill everyone, and mabye it would be a first step to bridging the GIGANTIC understanding gap between our two cultures. Even better would be t-shirts with Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., all portrayed in a positive fashion. They NEED to understand, they NEED to change...but we also need to understand, and not just condemn outright in our own, pardon my bluntness, blind insistence that everything should be our way: NOW, with no exceptions.
Am I making any sense? We can agree to disagree that the cartoonists knew what they were doing and did it to be deliberately provocative, and that if they did, they bear SOME responsibility for the results. Other than that, we are mostly in agreement. What I should have been shooting for, instead of repeating myself trying to be clear why I believe what I do, was shoot for a better understanding of the situation.
While I was in Afghanistan, there was the story of an American woman who went to a party in a strapless gown and took a ghadi (their form of taxi--a horse-drawn cart kind of thing). She arrived with a knife in her back. It was horrible, it was wrong, but it was what it was. For better or worse, until things change that's the reality.
And we're not that much better. However wrong it is--and it's terribly wrong--a Black man wearing a hoodie and a woman dressing sexually CAN result in terrible things. So for all our "civilization", we share some of the same attitudes. Violent protests happen here, too. There is little, if any, similarity to hundreds of people rioting, but for all ourNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
have been a hate apologist in this thread.
You know what? Fine. I am. I take back what I said about wishing there were less hate. I want to revel in it. Hate is awesome. What I object to is stupidity, not hate.
Quote:
Maybe you don't really mean it when you say you hate people. Maybe you just really, really, really, I mean REALLY, disapprove of their actions and wish real hard that they wouldn't do whatever; but you would NEVER wish them harm and would get absolutely ZERO satisfaction were things to go badly for them. But you can hardly call something like that "hate," can you?
Yep. I sure can. It's pure black hearted "YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB I CAN'T STAND YOU ARRRGH" mixed with an unhealthy dose of resentment and misplaced victimization.
It's more like I don't even want anything to DO with them or anyone, because I hate everything so much. I have officially given up on everything, this world is for shit.
Don't even question my loathing. It is like sludge through my veins and the only thing keeping me alive. Beyond toxic. I live only for the moment I can express that spite in a spectacular enough manner, and then die. Like a vulgar accusation painted on society's stupid face with my demise.
In any case, you want to think these artists are admirable and rational actors? I guess it doesn't really matter. This world's gonna tear itself apart no matter who we decide to blame. You want to believe that I'm awful? I guess I am. But don't go acting all concerned about my well being and lecturing me when you're otherwise talking at me like I'm pond scum. Because I ain't listening anymore, and you got better things to do with your time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The title of this thread is "French cartoon sparks protests."
The title of the post above this could be called "Byte's Rant."
I get it that Byte needs to express herself. She needs to be heard.
Could we have a thread dedicated to Byte, her opinions and feelings?
Working title, "YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB I CAN'T STAND YOU ARRRGH" !!
Just a passing thought from Dumb Oonj. -:)
=========================
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. ~Charles R Swindoll
If I have to react to others all the time, then they own my mind more than I do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, don't worry, I saw your previous oh so helpful comment about "Oonj: If I put principles before personalities, I can stick to the point instead of always trying to make every conversation about Me."
I just chose not to address it because maybe every now and then I like to actually try to discuss an issue instead of constantly having to defend myself against malicious insinuations. :)
Never does work out that way! So hey, what are you doing here, are you discussing the topic about Mohammed and the artists? I only see one post from you about it, and it was a half post, whereas you have 1 and 1/2 posts about how much of a blowhard I am.
Maybe we can make a thread about Oonjerah's antagonistic relationship with Byte. I'd even promise not to post in it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dumb Oonj responds to Angry Byte.
My 9/24 post, "Ah shit, I don't wanna debate in here!" is on topic.
My 9/25 post, "Here's what I think of Muslims" is on topic.
My 10/2 post, is about Bytemite.
Byte, I gather you don't like what I said there.
BUT -- I will not address your feelings directly in this thread again.
That would be Off Topic.
I am suggesting we could have a thread about your feelings.
This thread can be about the French cartoon and reactions to that.
"posts about how much of a blowhard I am."
Don't put words in my mouth. I think of you as severely maladapted, but not a blowhard.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Listen. I wasn't the person who made this thread about me. People ASKED me to elaborate on, and defend my opinion on this matter.
When someone necroposts a thread that's been a week since anyone posted in it just to insult me and make more allegations about stuff I've already cleared up, then maybe I'm not actually the aggressor here. I'm allowed to defend myself, and I'm allowed to get a little bit testy.
Win one for objectivity. If you want to debate my opinion on an issue, you address me, not Niki, and say what point I made you take issue with. Including if you just think I'm a self centered brat and don't really want to get into the argument. But whatever you do, be up front about it and OWN it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The source of violence and abuse is the abuser. Never the victim. Never. As soon as murder is on the table, the victim is in no position to make things worse. The victim in no way brought murder into the conversation. That's all on the killer. You're making the worst kind of false equivalence when you compare tasteless cartoonists and homocidal maniacs who kill over "blasphemy." You and the killers are both dehumanizing the cartoonist if you're gonna sit there and tell me these drawings are in any way the cause of riots and murder.
I pretty much agree with your philosophy here, although I suspect this may be one of those posts where I end up arguing against myself.
You are right in that too many people use someone else's behaviour or actions as an excuse for their own behaviour or actions.
If you believe in free will, then we are all responsible for our behaviour 100%.
Trouble is, do I believe in complete free will? There are fairly significant arguments against it, that so much of our decision making is dependant upon a whole load of things outside of our control, ie how our brain functions, our learned belief system, our temperament, our genes. When you look at all those variables, how much free will do we actually, truly exercise is quite scary. It's why prisons are full or people whose cognitive functions have been impaired by mental health, drug and alcohol use, physical and emotional abuse and trauma.
Strangely then, I believe we are still responsible for our actions, mainly because I cannot see what the alternative is, other than culling large parts of the population or stopping them for breeding. Not really part of my value system.
I believe that both sides had choices regarding their actions, and both bear the responsibility of the results. The cartoonist draws a cartoon full knowing the impact, and in fact hoping for that impact in order to draw attention to the intolerance of fundamentalist Muslims. And Muslims similarily decide on their course of action, to protest violently, peacefully or ignore the cartoon. Neither is responsible for the actions of the other, but both are responsible for their own actions. I think....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Magons,
Whether or not, or to what degree our individual will is free at any given moment still doesn't imply that one person's violent actions are caused by the non-violent behavior of another person. I think my argument is primarily moral rather than causal, however. I believe that wherever there are functioning fists and feet violence is always an option, but that the urge to violence can always be channeled into some other non-violent form. I believe that the knowledge of what violence is is innate (infants, of course, have a pretty hazy understanding of all things 3-dimentional, so I don't mean we're born with an understanding of what violence is, but once we are developmentally ready to comprehend it, we all of us know perfectly well what it is). True, the habits and norms of one's life can make violent acting out more likely or less, but that's still all on the individual in terms of giving into an urge toward violence, or choosing to forbear.
Now, of course, violence as a direct reaction to violence is sometimes purely instinctual and so the moral accountability for the violence must be laid at the feet of the instigator of the violence. And certainly, when a person is systematically violated again and again over a considerable length of time the psyche can be twisted and personal responsibility is correspondingly mitigated. But when we commit an act of violence in an otherwise non-violent social context, we are the authors of that violence.
Of course, there is a long history in dominator culture of this basic understanding of the nature of violence being intentionally perverted and occulted. In dominator culture the harm visited on anyone by the dominator is understood to have been "caused" by the victim. After all, the dominator is merely acting according to his nature: to dominate. It's an extraordinary and very subversive distortion of reality. But all my training and my experience tells me that it is a distortion and a bringer of great suffering to all who live under its sway.
The rioters, such as they are, have embraced dominator culture. In their culture there are non-violent things which they feel a moral requirement to violate. A cartoon defames the Prophet? Something must be done! An example made! The blasphemers threated or attacked! But these actions are the children of the dominator culture internalized by the individuals committing the violence, NOT the cartoonists.
Even if the cartoonists WANT a violent reaction, they are helpless to make that happen if the rioters are not willing. The cartoonists truly have no power to make the violence happen and therefore cannot be held responsible. They are wholly dependant on the will of others to bring about any violence. And they have no power to shape or direct that violence once it occurs. The rioters and/or assassins, on the other hand, have every opportunity to shape and direct the violence as they see fit.
It's a tragic reflection on the state of the rioters psyches and our own if we imagine that the rioters are so utterly without conscious agency that their violence was caused by a cartoonist drawing a single cartoon in a magazine. The cartoonist who imagines he was the architect of the rioters' violence is like the king in The Little Prince who claims to order the sun to rise every morning. That is, they're both mistaken about the nature of causality and imagine they have agency where they in fact have none.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Whether or not, or to what degree our individual will is free at any given moment still doesn't imply that one person's violent actions are caused by the non-violent behavior of another person.
agreed
Quote:
I think my argument is primarily moral rather than causal, however. I believe that wherever there are functioning fists and feet violence is always an option, but that the urge to violence can always be channeled into some other non-violent form. I believe that the knowledge of what violence is is innate (infants, of course, have a pretty hazy understanding of all things 3-dimentional, so I don't mean we're born with an understanding of what violence is, but once we are developmentally ready to comprehend it, we all of us know perfectly well what it is). True, the habits and norms of one's life can make violent acting out more likely or less, but that's still all on the individual in terms of giving into an urge toward violence, or choosing to forbear.
Yeasss... I think I pretty much agree, with the qualifier that some people have less capacity to choose other options than other people. I think the choice is still in there somewhere, but that some brains are more trained to resort to violence than others. I don't actually think this is the case with the rioters, and agree with your paragraph below.
Quote:
Now, of course, violence as a direct reaction to violence is sometimes purely instinctual and so the moral accountability for the violence must be laid at the feet of the instigator of the violence. And certainly, when a person is systematically violated again and again over a considerable length of time the psyche can be twisted and personal responsibility is correspondingly mitigated. But when we commit an act of violence in an otherwise non-violent social context, we are the authors of that violence.
Quote:
Of course, there is a long history in dominator culture of this basic understanding of the nature of violence being intentionally perverted and occulted. In dominator culture the harm visited on anyone by the dominator is understood to have been "caused" by the victim. After all, the dominator is merely acting according to his nature: to dominate. It's an extraordinary and very subversive distortion of reality. But all my training and my experience tells me that it is a distortion and a bringer of great suffering to all who live under its sway.
The rioters, such as they are, have embraced dominator culture. In their culture there are non-violent things which they feel a moral requirement to violate. A cartoon defames the Prophet? Something must be done! An example made! The blasphemers threated or attacked! But these actions are the children of the dominator culture internalized by the individuals committing the violence, NOT the cartoonists.
I've never heard the phrase 'dominator culture; but what you are saying makes sense to me. I think that we live in a culture dominated (sic) by such thinking - or at least it is prevalent.
Quote:
Even if the cartoonists WANT a violent reaction, they are helpless to make that happen if the rioters are not willing. The cartoonists truly have no power to make the violence happen and therefore cannot be held responsible. They are wholly dependant on the will of others to bring about any violence. And they have no power to shape or direct that violence once it occurs. The rioters and/or assassins, on the other hand, have every opportunity to shape and direct the violence as they see fit.
It's a tragic reflection on the state of the rioters psyches and our own if we imagine that the rioters are so utterly without conscious agency that their violence was caused by a cartoonist drawing a single cartoon in a magazine. The cartoonist who imagines he was the architect of the rioters' violence is like the king in The Little Prince who claims to order the sun to rise every morning. That is, they're both mNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And we're back to how this compares to blaming the rape victim.
Let's break this down.
The argument (simplified) that has so INFLAMED me is this: "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse. If I blame the artists for having a role in increased middle eastern violence, it is like saying that rape victims asked for it."
Up to now I have refused to address this, not because I can't refute it, but because it is, simply, a very flawed argument. Before I dismissed this the first time around I called it a red herring, an ad hominem, and a false analogy. The false analogy is the most logically egregious part of this (and related to the red-herring), so I'll address that.
The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.
First of all. While after some consideration I'm willing to concede that some of the artists are victims or have been in the past, I also say that we have to evaluate each artist/Muslim incident on a case by case - sometimes nothing happens to the artists.
Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person. However, when the artists made these cartoons, and when the guy overdubbed his movie to be anti-Islam, this was done with an expressed purpose: to show that some Muslims are violent.
Mission accomplished.
But this second part defeats the argument - neither the rape victim nor the abused child intends to be attacked. When Trevon Martin walks down the street in a hoodie, ideally he should not have reason to suppose he might be shot by George Zimmerman.
In this case, the artists wanted more attacks, and possibly even attacks on themselves, to make a point. You call it courageous - perhaps it is, but it is also misguided. And because of that we can't argue that the artists had no role in the outcome of these events. They may be victims, depending on how personally the backlash affected them, but they certainly aren't innocent in this, and wanted a specific negative outcome.
It's a rather manipulative tactic, very close to a frame up or the wounded gazelle gambit, and if you see other people doing it in other situations, if I were you, I'd seriously question their likeability or motives. Just because someone else is guilty of something doesn't mean that anything that gets them in trouble for it is entirely moral or honest. While it's true that this violence wouldn't have happened if the protestors weren't willing, it's also true true that they're willing because of violence the west has done to them. In this view, these cartoons are just the proverbial last straw, the spark to the tinder fire, they're an escalation in an already on-going and volatile conflict, as opposed to a single self-contained instance where we can immediately spot the aggressors.
In short this argument simply does not WORK. It does not inspire me to re-examine some double standard I have or some such, rather it insinuates that, in your words, believing as I do is immoral, possibly cowardly, pro-rapist, pro-abuse, etc., and that I do not understand the implications of fear, anger, and/or violence. If I have seemed unreasonable, it is because of this. As for blaming the victim. While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play.
I do hold these artists somewhat accountable for what has happened, and I think their choices reflect poorly o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Nailed it. And yes, some brains ARE more trained to resort to violence than others...those who live in a violent country ruled by Mullahs who demand that violence being a perfect example.
I believe that both sides had choices regarding their actions, and both bear the responsibility of the results. The cartoonist draws a cartoon full knowing the impact, and in fact hoping for that impact in order to draw attention to the intolerance of fundamentalist Muslims. And Muslims similarily decide on their course of action, to protest violently, peacefully or ignore the cartoon. Neither is responsible for the actions of the other, but both are responsible for their own actions. I think....
....some people have less capacity to choose other options than other people. I think the choice is still in there somewhere, but that some brains are more trained to resort to violence than others.Quote:
That does not take into account a religion which has been perverted into believing any depiction of the prophet--whatsoever--is blasphemy. The rulers of that religion...quite familiar with inciting violence and with very long-standing knowledge that what they say will be obeyed by some without question...in many ways do the thinking for their followers. Not many, in reality; most do not obey the call for violence, but some always do.
It's a tragic reflection on the state of the rioters psyches and our own if we imagine that the rioters are so utterly without conscious agency that their violence was caused by a cartoonist drawing a single cartoon in a magazine.
Sort of like our anti-abortionists, who believe they are acting in defense of THEIR religion (as they view it). We live in about as different a culture as is possible and put much weight on individual decisions and individual responsibility, yet those people act irresponsibly violent. Put in a culture such as Afghanistan or those like them, and you have multiple people acting out, not just one or two.
I should give up; I already know it's impossible for us in the states to grasp any number of things: that violence is a daily way of life over there; that religion rules to an extent of which we cannot conceive; that there are those who know exactly how to manipulate to achieve the outcome they want. This debate keeps putting things in context WE can understand, so an expectation of understanding such a different culture is probably a waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
that violence is a daily way of life over there; that religion rules to an extent of which we cannot conceive; that there are those who know exactly how to manipulate to achieve the outcome they want.
I agree with this. I do not think this excuses this, and I know that many Muslims don't respond to the call of violence and that there was actually outcry in these nations against the violent protests. The violent protestors are very clearly bad actors.
But I can't help but see people seeming to deliberately try to stir them up as bad actors as well - to me it seems almost like bullying someone with an attitude problem, and mocking them when they predictably act out, or taking advantage of what is a very bad situation for the people of the middle east for profit and amusement.
Muslims in the middle east are so poor and voiceless in general that I can't really see them as being the abusive power in their relationship to western countries and citizens. I see it the over way around - we're abusing them, and they have limited options how they can make a statement back.
I suppose, as I said to HK, that perhaps it doesn't matter who we blame. But I do wish people wouldn't tar me as some kind of pro-victimization monster just because I have a different perspective.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And we're back to how this compares to blaming the rape victim.
Let's break this down.
The argument (simplified) that has so INFLAMED me is this: "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse. If I blame the artists for having a role in increased middle eastern violence, it is like saying that rape victims asked for it."
Up to now I have refused to address this, not because I can't refute it, but because it is, simply, a very flawed argument. Before I dismissed this the first time around I called it a red herring, an ad hominem, and a false analogy. The false analogy is the most logically egregious part of this (and related to the red-herring), so I'll address that.
The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.
First of all. While after some consideration I'm willing to concede that some of the artists are victims or have been in the past, I also say that we have to evaluate each artist/Muslim incident on a case by case - sometimes nothing happens to the artists.
Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person. However, when the artists made these cartoons, and when the guy overdubbed his movie to be anti-Islam, this was done with an expressed purpose: to show that some Muslims are violent.
Mission accomplished.
But this second part defeats the argument - neither the rape victim nor the abused child intends to be attacked. When Trevon Martin walks down the street in a hoodie, ideally he should not have reason to suppose he might be shot by George Zimmerman.
In this case, the artists wanted more attacks, and possibly even attacks on themselves, to make a point. You call it courageous - perhaps it is, but it is also misguided. And because of that we can't argue that the artists had no role in the outcome of these events. They may be victims, depending on how personally the backlash affected them, but they certainly aren't innocent in this, and wanted a specific negative outcome.
It's a rather manipulative tactic, very close to a frame up or the wounded gazelle gambit, and if you see other people doing it in other situations, if I were you, I'd seriously question their likeability or motives. Just because someone else is guilty of something doesn't mean that anything that gets them in trouble for it is entirely moral or honest.
In short this argument simply does not WORK. It does not inspire me to re-examine some double standard I have or some such, rather it insinuates that, in your words, believing as I do is immoral, possibly cowardly, pro-rapist, pro-abuse, etc., and that I do not understand the implications of fear, anger, and/or violence. If I have seemed unreasonable, it is because of this. As for blaming the victim. While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play.
I do hold these artists somewhat accountable for what has happened, and I think their choices reflect poorly on their character. I do not like them, I think they're foolish, and reactionary and inflammatory, and they have questionable taste (rather similar to the violent groups they have set themselves against). And again, this still has no bearing on what I think anyone "deserves," and it also doesn't suggest that I think they should stop their art or self-censor. It only affects my opinion on them.
InNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.
Hey Byte,
Some kids do act out self-destructively. Some do want to be attacked. It can be a bit of a power thing. Y'know, if the kid acts out with intent to get beat, at least he feels he caused it. It gives him the illusion of control in a life that is out of control. But it is an illusion, of course. He's not the cause of his father's violence. He has no control over his father. That's the painful truth of his situation which he's trying to avoid.
The system of violence his father put in place is the origin of his father's violence. The source, as far as the child is concerned, for the violence in his house. The father has all kinds of outside stressors and, sure, a history of his own abuse, but none of that makes the son responsible for the father's violence. And again, in any case, the child is dependent on his father's whim for the violence to take place. Some fathers see through this kind of manipulative ploy and will adjust their approach tactically so as not to be "made a monkey of." Again, the child has no power to determine whether the father beats him or only laughs at his attempt to "get a rise out of the old man."
It may not be wise to poke a bear, but people are not bears. As surely as it is the father's whim that determines who gets beat and when, it is the whim of the mob when and where there's going to be a riot.
And some women do indeed dress with intent to provoke and/or offend. Some women wear "bite me" or "slut" or "rape me" on their t-shirts or embroidered on their butts. Y'know, to make a statement about rape culture, for instance. But in these cases we recognize that no manner of rhetoric or printed t-shirt is justification for rape or any other kind of violence. Because it's rhetoric. Words. Free speech. And it's commentary. Commentary doesn't cause violence. The inability for the abusive person to process their feelings about that commentary may trigger a violent episode, but even that is not the cause of the violence.
As I said before, and this is the actual heart of my argument:
Quote:
No matter what the subject of the argument, when somebody threatens physical violence, the ostensible subject of the conversation has been lost. Now the subject is survival, and when well-intentioned folk then point at the victim and say, "reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse.
The responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his or her behavior in anticipation of the abuse. That's what I disagree with.
Quote:You completely de-claw this argument when you insert that "should." No mere act of free speech or offence SHOULD ever result in violence, but sometimes violence happens even to kids and women. Victims, who are not themselves behaving violently, are not responsible for the violence visited upon them. Or others. When a man holds a gun to someone else, and tells you that whether they live or die is dependent on your actions, he's wrong.
Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If you really thought that way, WHY would you continue this discussion with me?
I truly don't know. Perhaps I wanted to defend myself against these allegations, but ultimately, I don't really care anymore what you think about me. Rather, now I'm arguing because I refuse to let you paint my name black to everyone else here.
Quote:
"reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse.
Again, you've yet to show me one place I've suggested they should curtail their actions. I've called them fools, and they may well continue to be fools - my calling them fools is my OPINION. Or perhaps my opinion is simply unwelcome, and I should not contribute it?
Quote:
"While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play."
Totally specious. And moving the goal post. And making the cartoonist responsible for what western governments have done is guilt by association at best.
"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
What evidence have I demanded you?
"An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association."
I did not, for example, claim that because all the artists have black hair, all people with black hair are assholes.
The artist's guilt is their own - in the very least, they're guilty of intolerance, which I do not defend. Their guilt, however, has been exacerbated by what western powers have done. I also do think that as citizens of western powers that pay taxes that pay for missiles and predator drones, that we can't wash our hands from what happens in the middle east simply because we feel ourselves removed from it. That is the closest I have come to guilt by association, but in this case, we are actually GUILTY.
A guy walks into a bad neighborhood waving around a lottery ticket. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. By your reasoning, it remains dumb up until the very moment the guy gets robbed, at which moment he is no longer a freethinking human who did something dumb, but is merely an unconscious object of our pity. No other opinions are permissible.
Quote:
No mere act of free speech or offence SHOULD ever result in violence
I've actually decked a person before because I took issue with something they said (and bitten someone else), and I have no problem with this.
So, while I don't think deadly violence or abuse or rape is ever "deserved," and this is STILL majorly not at all the subject here anyway, I don't have the same issues all of you have with other kinds of violence. I see it as yet another kind of free speech.
I am content to leave this conversation there. We have been going in circles for almost two pages, and are simply unwilling to acknowledge the counterpoints we're both making. We can not see eye to eye on this, as I've both long suspected AND said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
A guy walks into a bad neighborhood waving around a lottery ticket. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. By your reasoning, it remains dumb up until the very moment the guy gets robbed, at which moment he is no longer a freethinking human who did something dumb, but is merely an unconscious object of our pity. No other opinions are permissible.
Ya having fun, Byte? You just pulled this example of stupid behavior out of the air and I'm to see a parallel with the VARIOUS forms of protest and free speech I discussed? That's just shitty, Byte. Was Tina Turner stupid to hand her husband a gun? Is that what you're saying? Besides, I don't care if you judge the cartoonists as stupid or brilliant or sexual deviants or whatever crosses your brain pan, none of that was my point--I'm interested in you and others blaming them for riots. That is all. I would object to accusations of stupidity only in as much as you believed it was their stupidity that caused riots. Stick to refuting my ACTUAL argument, please!
And this horseflop of "no other opinions are permissible" is all you and nothing to do with me. You're permitted, okay? Duh? Here, let me unlock those magical shackles I so clever slipped on your wrists when you weren't looking. How is it possible that I became your personal tyrant? Please explain to me my super powers that I can so oppress you.
I disagree with you is all. And I take you seriously, so I'm not just gonna ignore what you've said. I think your tolerance of violence in yourself is pretty alarming. I worry about you. You've threatened to kill yourself in these threads more than once. Was it rhetoric? Performance art? Confession? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's not cute or cool. And it's galling to see you do that and then turn around and claim SOMEONE ELSE made you the subject of this thread. And from what I understand of human behavior and psychology, your commitment to violence is bound to distort your thinking. And it surely causes you suffering. So yeah: alarming. I'm sorry you do that to yourself. I hope you're free of it one day.
I do not find your arguments, thus far, compelling--on the contrary, you keep demonstrating that your thinking on this matter is distorted in precisely the way I've been saying: by your commitment to violence against yourself and others. You somehow think your violence (something you think is no big deal) doesn't count as violence (something that you are very vocal in opposing). It's no big deal that you hit someone because of something they said. You said it yourself: violence is "yet another form of free speech." I'm sure you have a "rule of thumb" that tells you where your "protected violence" ends and real violent violence begins.
"Violence is a form of free speech!!!" That goes far beyond any allegation I've made against you in this thread.
This is precisely the problem with excusing your own violence: it leads to you perceiving the non-violent actions of others (me having a disagreement with you on the internet) as violence (me not permitting you to hold your own opinions), force and incitement so you can let 'er rip when you get the itch. That's not good news, Byte.
Last night, your post was perfectly civil. Though you did make the alarming statement that violence is free speech. I read it and thought, yeah, she's right, this discussion is talked out. I can let it go. At least she's stopped accusing me of hating on her. Win/win.
This morning I see that you felt the itch to lash out, to paint me as your oppressor, and edited your post accordingly. And just to be clear, I don't think you're pond scum over it, I think you're really wrong about violence. I think it hurts you. And I'm not your jailer. I'm just some guy on the internet wishing you some respite from the violent storms in your thinking.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Besides, I don't care if you judge the cartoonists as stupid or brilliant or sexual deviants or whatever crosses your brain pan, none of that was my point--
At this stage in the argument, we both pretty much only care about what our PERSONAL points are, not the argument of the other person. That's a good indication that this argument has long since run its course.
Quote:
And it's galling to see you do that and then turn around and claim SOMEONE ELSE made you the subject of this thread.
Then. What. Are you doing?
Quote:
You somehow think your violence (something you think is no big deal) doesn't count as violence (something that you are very vocal in opposing). It's no big deal that you hit someone because of something they said. You said it yourself: violence is "yet another form of free speech." I'm sure you have a "rule of thumb" that tells you where your "protected violence" ends and real violent violence begins.
Where did I talk about my "rule of thumb" and what I think is "protected violence" or what doesn't count as violence since you're supposedly quoting me?
Quote:
force and incitement so you can let 'er rip when you get the itch. That's not good news, Byte.
You have some very unusual views about violence, and also about my psychology. I think it benefits no one to attempt to explore my issues or speculate on how they manifest, or how I express myself, or what the source might be. It's also not relevant. Since yelling at Oonj, I have been making an effort to keep that contained, as a favour to you all. I'm well aware no one wants to hear any of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, I highly recommend you give up. You'll never win, and you'll never come to any kind of understanding on this issue. People believe what they believe; at this point, I'd choose agreeing to disagreeing over further futile efforts to communicate. It just won't happen, and they'll just upset you further. JMHO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought Byte's position was very clear. She just got frustrated because it seemed to her like people were misunderstanding her on purpose, ascribing free-speech objections to her that she never said.
I understand what HK is saying, about how violence has different roots than the stimuli that provoked it. But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.
Yes, people who commit violence are 100% responsible for their actions. But we can't pretend that words don't have power, and that sometimes, speech very much contributes to violence as well. Doesn't mean I support curtailing speech by law, but that we need to use some common sense in understanding words have power.
---
Folks don't like to have somebody around knowin' more than they do. It aggravates 'em. You're not gonna change any of them by talkin' right, they've got to want to learn themselves, and when they don't want to learn there's nothing you can do but keep our mouth shut or talk their language. -- Harper Lee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.
(Don't mean to get any badness going again, just have to throw my thoughts in...)
That's exactly how I see it. My analogy: suppose I hate a guy I work with because he's an abusive ass. I also know that he beats his wife. So, I get him drunk and pick a fight with him when I'm in company and protected, knowing full well that he'll go home to beat on his wife and then, I hope, he'll get arrested and fired.
I didn't beat the woman. But, fully knowing the danger, I sicc-ed this monster on her. For my own ends. Surely I bear some responsibility, perhaps not legally but certainly morally. I've not done a good deed.
I don't know enough about these cartoonists to guess their intentions, so I don't know if they were actually hoping for the violence. I certainly hope not. If they really meant to stir the hornet's nest, then surely they are assholes. If they didn't realize the potential for the stirred nest existed, then they were idiots.
Certainly they're not nearly as idiotic and asshole-ic as the fools who riot and kill over a stupid comic strip and an even stupider video. But I guess that, culturally, I identity more with the cartoonists, so passing judgement on them is more meaningful to me. I can't really understand and certainly can't change the religion of the Middle East. But I understand the cartoonists, or at least imagine that I understand them. It makes them easier to criticize.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I thought Byte's position was very clear. She just got frustrated because it seemed to her like people were misunderstanding her on purpose, ascribing free-speech objections to her that she never said.
I understand what HK is saying, about how violence has different roots than the stimuli that provoked it. But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.
Yes, people who commit violence are 100% responsible for their actions. But we can't pretend that words don't have power, and that sometimes, speech very much contributes to violence as well. Doesn't mean I support curtailing speech by law, but that we need to use some common sense in understanding words have power.
Yes, very good post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with CTTS and Mal4, and that was my original point before I got some of what Byte has been getting and backed out myself. I think it's pretty close to what Byte was trying to get across, too, tho' I can't speak for anyone but myself. Thank you for elucidating it so well, both of you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME