Thankfully the number of people agreeing with that stance is limited to a vocal few.

The victims shouldn't have been so offensive.

The rape victim shouldn't have dressed provocatively.

And so on, ad NAUSEUM. You are right, I think this will be the only safe place for a while.

The rape victim analogy is perfect because it's a defense that is used by jerkoffs all over...

It applies especially well here...some muslims in the US need a basic lesson in free speech, but so do some of our friends here as well.

Free speech for what you love is easy, free speech for what you hate, not so much....

is how violence should NEVER be looked at as a "normal" response to one's religion being criticized or even mocked.

But when even the wonderpope says it's normal, it's difficult to see how we will get past this conflict.

Completely agree with you on GD.

"Of course we have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to offend people's deeply-held religious beliefs" -- I wonder how many "liberals" here and elsewhere would completely agree with that quote? Or at least for some specific religions?

Nobody worries about pissing off Quakers or unitarians, which is why nobody bothers with it. I don't see Hindus or Buddhists mocked either, nor would I worry about the safety of anyone who did.

But there is one religion whose critics require police protection to keep them alive. That fact alone justifies the criticism and that mockery of that religion.

It's about inciting a reaction to what one religion considers hate speech. And Pamela Geller's organization is considered a hate group, by the way. In no way am I defending the shooters but she absolutely knew this would provoke a reaction - hence the over-the-top security measures at the event.

Here's a hypothetical: what if someone had a "mock Jesus" cartoon contest and a couple of good ol Christian boys showed up and started shooting, then were killed? I am positive there would be a very different reaction to Christians killed while defending Jesus with their guns. This should be no different, but Islam is the only religion we're allowed to hate here, it would seem.

So it's okay to kill those who are angry at mocking their prophet, but only if they're Muslim. Right?

Plenty of SCOTUS cases in that regard.

It's OK to kill those that are trying to kill others exercising their free speech. Geller's group didn't "have it coming." Blasphemy is protected speech. At least in this country.

"Islam is the only religion we're allowed to hate here, it would seem"

'Here' meaning what? the USA, DU, the A&A group?

"So it's okay to kill those who are angry at mocking their prophet, but only if they're Muslim. Right?"

You seem to have reached that conclusion about someone's reaction (I'm not sure who) entirely on the basis of your own hypothetical, which I think you haven't made clear enough. However, the people killed on Sunday evening were killed because they started shooting at other people, so I can't see where your "it's okay to kill those who are angry" comment fits in at all.

To get you started on a realistic hypothetical, here's what happened when someone did propose something to mock Jesus:

Where the hell did that come from?

Did you make that up yourself?


If Muslims JUST got angry.... you might have a point.

But they don't.

They had every right to do the draw Muhammed thing, and I don't really give a shit. I'm objectively pro-blasphemy. So no, I'm not on the side of the Muslim nutbags here. But I can still recognize that this was a singular event construed as a trap intended to accomplish exactly this. That wasn't necessarily true for Charlie Hebdo staff. They were an ongoing unit, not a one-off incitement.

It's also noteworthy that I can easily imagine the precise reverse of this situation. I could easily see these, or substantially similar rightwing nutfuck bastards gunning for the Muslims if they held a "shit on the flag and bible" day, or whatever. Charlie Hebdo staff would have been doing both the drawing and the shitting. They weren't simply the opposite side in a religious war. They were opposed to religious wars. That isn't true of Geller and her fellow fuckwits.

They set it up knowing exactly this would happen. One could probably argue that she set it up in order for a couple of Muslims to get killed while they made her point for her. The whole thing was a way to bait them.

It's like poking a bear with a sharp stick. Sure, you have the right to do it, but you know damn well what's going to happen when you do.

And that Muslims just can't help but kill people when they are "poked"? Right? That's what you are saying?

That is not what I said.

You said:

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/Submit

noun

a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"

a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Comparable. Similar. No, Muslims are not bears.

Geller's hate group provoked this response and it was stupid of them to do so. Within their rights, but stupid.

But let's go with your definition:

Are you assuming that all Muslims are the same?


Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

Also you do realize your argument is way over the line for what you might consider islamophobia, in the real meaning, not in the "they drew pictures of my prophet" sense. You're literally comparing Muslims to animals here who instinctively lash out at anyone who insults their religion.

You are literally assuming she thinks all Muslims are the same. Is that what you think? There is no difference between the Muslims who came and shot at people and Muslims who could care less what idiots like Geller do or say?


Wow!

Do you think all Christians are the same?

Do you think all Atheists are the same?


Since you are defending Muslims, should I assume you think those who flew planes into the World Trade Center had a right to do so?

(of course I don't think you think that..... because I'm not letting religions and their undeserved reverence and privilege skew my comprehension)

therefore she obviously mean each and every one. All of them. Even That One.

We atheists endure hate speech form all sides every day, and we manage to refrain from going all Attila the Hun on every sanctimonious preacher and right-wing moron who calls us evil and dangerous. Call it a test of character. I'll insult you and see how your react. By your reaction I will know your morals and values.

....not to go crazy when they are insulted. However, everybody knows this is these guys' extreme reaction. Seems to me that if I know I'll get burned if I touch a hot stove, I should stop touching the hot stove just for shits and giggles, no? I'm not advocating that we need to walk on eggshells around the easily offended. But we should not be surprised when they react in predictable ways if we just can't seem to help provoking their predictable response. And we should be glad we have the intelligence not to react so violently when we are insulted.

then the intelligent thing to do is to never express my thoughts on politics?

You will really allow yourself to be silenced so easily? You will really allow someone to take away your right to free speech with so little effort to preserve that right?

If that is true, then you deserve to be silenced.

I'm saying: pick your battles. Is provoking a known and expected violent response worth having a cartoon contest simply to provoke that response?

Any of us can speak our minds all we like. But we're stupid if we don't think about the response. This is so damn predictable that extra security was planned just because they knew it would happen. THAT'S stupid. That's deliberately baiting them. And for what? To make the point that they'd react with violence? We already knew that.

Must be nice to be the arbiter of all things safe to say in public.

was worth having a march from Selma to Montgomery? The violence in their case was even more predictable. In Garland, the 2 gunmen traveled in from another state. The local Muslims had decided to ignore Geller, to give her minimum publicity.

I don't think King and Lewis were stupid. I believe the cause they made their symbolic demonstration in favour of was a good one, and Geller's is a bad one, but that's the difference between them - not whether a violent response was possible, or likely. People plan extra security for all kinds of things; you can't use that as a measure of whether the event is intended to produce a violent reaction.

"Most people have the intelligence not to go crazy when they are insulted."

So know they are stupid bears? You might want to stop while you're not 5 miles behind.

Really digging a hole with your mouth today. I'd stop that, if I were you.

Just because a lot of religious people are nutty and extremely thin-skinned/defensive about the idiotic supernatural nonsense they believe doesn't mean we can't make fun of religion.

A pox on all of it.

we don't shut down abortion clinics because some doctors have been shot due to abortion offending some right wing fundamentalist christians...

What we do is increase security which is what was done in Texas. If a couple of killers of any religious stripe are going to come to the flypaper and get killed then that is on them. Someone's inability to control their murderous rage over government policy is their problem to the extent that they are unwilling to behave in a socially acceptable fashion to express their outrage. It's my problem inasmuch as I need to protect myself while engaging in drawing a cartoon of the prophet or taking a woman to a clinic for a legally allowed medical procedure.

I've used a firearm in self-defense previously, lethal force was appropriate and I wasn't charged with any crime. I intend to defend myself again as needed against those who would harm me for whatever criminal reason. I would advise all US Citizens to avail themselves of their right to keep and bear arms for protection as well as the simple enjoyment of the shooting sports.

No tolerance for dissent is the problem for believers, how they choose to act may end their lives or the lives of someone expressing a fundamental right. The entire blame lies with those whose reaction is murder. Period. There is no obligation for a religious nutjob to react with violence, it's a choice based on belief in fantasy. If a fantasy makes you a killer questioning that fantasy and all the others who believe and support that fantasy is an entirely appropriate course of action.

Hey guys, did you know muslims are mindless, unreasoning, savage animals? Me neither!

Oh wait, they aren't mindless, unreasoning, savage animals. So, where were you going with this?

Oddly I think the vast majority of muslims, like the vast majority of the rest of humanity, are quite capable of controlling their behavior, so no, we don't have to not make fun of Islam because muslims can't control themselves.

It was intended to annoy and offend Muslims, sure. It was intended to get publicity for Geller and the others round her, and as a platform for their hatred of Muslims. But what evidence is there that the intent was for a violent response by any Muslims?

Did you think that "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" was also intended to get a violent repsonse? Did it fail because there wasn't one?

When the small Clare College, Cambridge newsletter published one of the Mohammed cartoons in 2007 in a special one-off anti-religion issue, was it a trap, trying to incite violence?

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)

First: "Talking point" is a cheap way to dismiss something you don't like as being somehow not genuine. It's a way to impugn someone's motives. Without evidence, by the way. Or do you have evidence that I'm relaying some sort of "talking point" someone else wants me to relay? This is a fucking lazy argument. And it's especially ironic coming in response to a post that seems to try to call me out for insufficient evidence in favor of someone else's motives.

Second: there were no fucking victims. Cops were out in serious numbers just waiting for something like these guys to show up. The people actually put in significant danger here were, in fact, the cops, oddly enough. Not a group I usually feel the most sympathy for in most situations, but this situation was not most.

Third: Crazy right-wing Christian assholes don't become sad little big-eyed bunnies when someone takes a shot sorta near them. Geller and Wilders are nasty pieces of shit, and I wouldn't give a damn if they turned guns on each other and both succeeded. Actually, I would give a damn. I'd approve. They give every appearance of wanting this to be a fucking religious war, and you're goddamned right I'm going to acknowledge that. It's not the fucking same as Charlie Hebdo. Or when some college students hold a free speech event that includes some Muhammed cartoons. Nutbag far-right Christians and nutbag Muslims don't have to be equally assholes in every case to both be groups of assholes. Especially when one of them, from a position of political strength, is deliberately goading the other who is in a position of political weakness. And *that* is a normal, everyday, pedestrian Atheist "talking point".

Fourth, and final bit: I can speculate about the motives of religious nutbags. I really can. It's okay. I'm nearly positive you've done that too. We do that all the fucking time. We don't have evidence of their, or anyone's, internal states, but we somehow still talk about how things like fear of death drive them, etc. We don't have evidence to show that they aren't, instead, actually motivated by Jesus tugging on their Purkinje fibers like they say they are. Talk about motives is nearly always speculation, to a degree, but it's hardly baseless. I'm almost certainly right that this was one of their motivations. If you don't think some of these nutbag rightwingers were having shootout fantasies with the Muslim nutbags, you're going to need some evidence for that one. Becuase that would be fucking extraordinary.

I think we're mostly on the same side most of the time. But don't insult me when you're not. Especially not when you're being too wilfully dense to understand what I'm saying. Because that's just fucking obnoxious.

This particular bit is like arguing about whether or not Hitler was a fucking Christian as if a contrary result would somehow make the mass of Nazis become a bunch of godless heathens. These people are explicitly trying to incite a greater degree of conflict between the Christian west and the Muslim world. And most of the people pushing that are Christian. And Muslim.

As for being insulting, I was just responding in kind. I *am* being insulting. I don't deny that, or feel bad about it. The difference is, well, the usual. I was incited. I didn't do the inciting. And yes, that matters.

As for "victims...." I guess we can stretch that one out if you really insist. The majority of people at the event were "intended victims" of an outcome that had a real likelihood of happening, but a very low probability of actually harming them. In risk-assessment terms, the hazards were potentially high (hey, what if the terrorists had a nuke!!!!!11) but the risks were pretty fucking low. The ongoing risks for Geller and Wilders are likely to remain fairly high. So they're fairly brave bigots, it's true. I don't give a fuck that they're brave. But it's true anyway.

But to go from "intended victims" in your fairly-broad sense of "victim" to "the poor innocents who could never have anticipated this likely thing that benefits them" is, yes, fucking willfully dense. Yes, I have *knowledge* that this was in fact a trap. They knew what their bait might bring. They were prepared for what their bait might bring. And what the bait was most likely to bring would benefit their cause. They were aware of all of that. I don't give a fuck whether they had other motives too. I'm sure they did. But none of that takes away from the very, very simple, obvious, well-evidenced, rational and really, really real reality that this was, among other things, a fucking trap.

Now, being a trap isn't necessarily a bad thing. Selma was a trap for violent bigots too. They knew what was possible, and knew that their cause could benefit from that likely outcome. In both cases, the "intended victims" used violence to achieve their goals. Violence they incited against themselves. What sets them apart is the value of their respective causes. And the fact that the right-wing fuckwits knew the violence was very likely to be contained away from themselves by police protection.

Yes, I wouldn't give a damn if some nasty far-right crazies shot each other, which was the throwaway scenario I noted. As you almost certainly understand, in spite of your obvious desire to use it to score some fucking stupid point.

I don't need to like Islamic terrorism for that be true. I like it when Islamic terrorists die too. So whatever point you imagine you were about to score, you didn't. I'm not okay with Islamic terrorists shooting people for "blasphemy." Though I'd be okay if they shot somebody for trying to kill their children. The reasons people do things fucking matter. If they didn't, then the "Islamic" part of "Islamic terrorist" woudn't mean anything. Neither would the "terrorist" part.

And that's exactly why the reasons Geller and Wilders held their event matter too.

They aren't fucking Charlie Hebdo. They aren't fucking Salmon Rushdie, whether he appears with them or not. They're still shitty people who want shitty things and who did this thing to try to accomplish shitty things. It really is okay to attack their shitty motives. You might not like it. I don't care what you like. Their motives were shitty before the event, and they were shitty during it, and remain ever fucking thus. I'm not cowed enough to pretend otherwise, I guess.

I can hate both groups. Them, and the conservative Muslim fuckwits. I can hate Geller when she's walking her dog. I can hate her when she's doing laundry. And I can hate her when she's blaspheming fucking Muhammed.

And if she had a dog-walk-a-thon to raise awareness for the need to bomb Iran, I'd hate her dog-walk-a-thon. Not because it's not okay to have a dog-walk-a-thon, but because it's not okay to fucking bomb Iran without overwhelming need. And I'd be cynical about her little doggy event, because I would know that the cute doggy event would likely get her some media exposure for her shitty bomb-Iran ideas. Whereas, if someone held one because they wanted to assert their rights to peaceably assemble and walk cute doggies, probably I'd be less cynical. Now, I'm as okay with blaspheming Muhammed as I am with dog walking. What I'm not okay with is wanting to indiscriminately kill lots of people because they have a shitty religion. This really shouldn't be that fucking hard to understand. Motive fucking matters.

I already anticipated this B.S. in the original post, and addressed it there. The things a group does are always within the context of who the group is, and what it has done before. To take this to an extreme, in a hopefully-not-futile attempt to make the example clear enough for you: if a Nazi group held a holocaust remembrance event, it would not be the same thing as it would if a bunch of Jewish people did the same. Even if they both had the exact same exhibition of photographs. Even if they both served fucking cake.

And the "citations plz" shit in this case is fucking obnoxious as well. As if it would be worthwhile to artificially limit ourselves to accepting only the officially adopted motives of people who are, in fact, our enemies. There's plenty of evidence of these people's disposition toward Muslims. This fucking stupid "where's the evidence" call is equivalent to some moronic reviewer saying you need to provide citations for the existence of hydrogen bonding. No, I don't need to do that. That these people are bigoted assholes is well and truly established.

That's an order. It's against the rules.

No, you did not 'anticipate' my questions in your original post or address them; you just asserted, with no evidence at all, that it was "a trap intended to accomplish exactly this".

"The things a group does are always within the context of who the group is, and what it has done before."

You didn't say that earlier, and neither does that answer my questions. You have claimed they exactly did this to 'trap' someone into being violent. There is no sign of that. They weren't saying "bring it on, we welcome your violence" or anything. 2 people from Arizona were in no way 'trapped' into traveling hundreds of miles to shoot at people.

"if a Nazi group held a holocaust remembrance event ..."

Blah, blah, blah. Setting up a hypothetical situation involving different people and actions is extremely futile, and you shouldn't have wasted your time or mine with it.

"And the "citations plz" shit in this case is fucking obnoxious as well. "

Not as obnoxious as you calling me 'dense'.

"As if it would be worthwhile to artificially limit ourselves to accepting only the officially adopted motives of people who are, in fact, our enemies."

This should be about reality, not about the motives you want to ascribe to your enemies.

" There's plenty of evidence of these people's disposition toward Muslims."

This isn't about whether they hate Muslims; I know they do, and have posted about Geller's hate before. It's about whether they did this to get attacked. You just assert they did, without any evidence. And now you're saying we should all just accept your word for it, and a call for evidence is 'shit'.

What gives you this knowledge you claim? It is supernatural? A message from a god?

But oh, you've convinced me. You win. I have been resorting to supernatural knowledge. I'll play super agnostic instead.

It is possible, and therefore likely, so don't anybody say otherwise, that these poor victims, who are members of an explicitly anti-Muslim group, had no idea that they might receive a useful propaganda tool when they engaged in an activity that has previously provided them with useful propaganda tools. The cops were all there mostly on accident. No one could have anticipated this. Because no one had supernatural knowledge of the future. Something about the problem of induction. David Huuuuuuuuuuume! Standards of evidence, people. We hold them very, very high. Pretending to talk about observed human behavior is exactly like knowledge of gods and ghosts. We don't know any of these things exist. They could have been programmed to do this by an alien intelligence. So everyone stop pretending you know anything about their motives even when they've been telling us their motives and doing things that are likely to help achieve their goals. That just isn't good enough. We have to pretend not to have that knowledge, and pretend that they did not have that knowledge. We must become fucking dense.


Yeah. You can have that "win." Welcome to it. But holy shit, dense isn't even the word. You've gotta be fucking impenetrable.

You are just stamping your foot and screaming "I'm right! I'm right! You're all poopyheads!" repeatedly.

It's laughable that you are complaining about being asked to show some evidence as if that's a problem. Yes, we do hold standards of evidence high.

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 12:33 AM - Edit history (5)

"Effective" is an empirical measure. And in this, it depends as much on the audience as it does the argument. So, yes. You're absolutely right. I can't effectively convince someone playing at being a stump.

But aside from that... holy shit, what would your evidence even look like, if her explicitly anti-Muslim activities aren't good enough? I'm supposed to come up with her published plan to maybe sucker some Muslim nutbags into giving her a propaganda coup? That's not evidence that I'm going to have, fucking obviously. Because she has a strong motivation not to do that. Are you really going to pretend that it's not okay to consider someone's motives unless we have a confession? Who the fuck do you think you're kidding with that? That's not a standard we'd use in court. That's not a standard we'd use fucking ever. Because people lie. Because people fail to confess. Jesus Fucking Christ, this is stupid. What in holy hell is your problem?

It's not up to me to define what your evidence for your claims should look like. You should present it. But you seem to be falling back on "of course there's no evidence, they would make sure there is none, but I just know they did this to trap some Muslims into mounting an armed attack".

Yes, she's anti-Muslim, but that doesn't mean that what she does is an attempt to get a Muslim to attack her. If you are anti-Republican, that doesn't mean having a 'Republicans suck' march would be a trap to get them to start violence - and that would be out in the open, taking the message to other people that would include Republicans, not inside a building a thousand miles away from where the attackers came from. She does things for publicity. She does things to get more people to hate Muslims.

I can't argue with willfully misinterpreted words. Go ahead and build your strawmen to suit your narrative. I'm wasting my time trying to knock them down and it's not a hill I will die on. Have fun.

and I'll either use your words or change my argument.

I am quite sure you didn't want to sound as dismissive and roughly racist as you did. But what you said was pretty clear to several people. Using your own words is not building a strawman. But that English lesson isn't going to be provided to you for free.

By the way, it's not misinterpreting your words when we accurately paraphrase you. Coded language doesn't fly here. You say 'poking a bear with a stick' we can figure out exactly what you mean. It's not hard. Poking - controversial speech in the form of cartoons of a religious figure, bear - Muslims. It's not hard to decipher your precise meaning.

It's not our fault you tried to compare Muslims to wild animals. If you don't like that being pointed out, simply stop doing it.

Oh c'mon!

I understood the analogy. I don't think it was meant to include ALL Muslims. Just the ones that want to actually kill blasphemers.

you don't seem to have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Careful with the mixed metaphors, too. Another free English lesson.

If violence had erupted in Memphis on Easter weekend, would folks be talking about the rightwing Christian provocateurs? Somehow I doubt it.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/28722150/tensions-mount-as-christian-convention-opens-near-atheist-convention

Along with Salman Rushdie. And the editor of Charlie Hebdo. All 3 had appeared together at free speech events:

http://news.yahoo.com/garland-texas-shooting-wanted-list-charlie-hebdo-154129907.html

Never thought I'd be defending the likes of Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, but here I am, doing that very thing.

Guess I shouldn't feel too bad - CAIR is also defending their freedom of speech. As it should, in this case.

"Never thought I'd be defending the likes of Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, but here I am, doing that very thing."

I knew I'd end up doing it too, and we got accused of cheering on Geller for our trouble.


sigh...

violence directed at people expressing their opinions. The authoritarian left seems alive and well here in the USA.

They're reactionary, bigoted assholes who want to stir up more of a fight against Muslims. The fact that some terrorist assholes took pot shots at people who were ordered to guard them doesn't change that. There's no reason to pretend it does.

If you are defending their right to do what they did, why? We already all agree on that. If you are defending them against the idea that they deserved, somehow, to be killed for doing a bit of blasphemy... why? We already all agree on that too. If you are defending them against people who refuse to ignore the fact that they did this to advance their agenda, why? That's explicitly why they did this.

If you are defending them against the accusation that they considered this outcome possible, and useful, why? You'd have to be a fool to think otherwise. Of course they considered that. They can't possibly be so stupid that they didn't. Why in hell should we pretend otherwise? Is this some sort of weird PC-gone-wrong thing? We can't note that they can do okay things for shitty reasons? Who the fuck says? Because some nutbags shot at the cops guarding them? What, is it too soon?

Hiding in here with you vermin instead.

I was just reading through some of those threads and HOT DAMN you were on fire!



This one especially got the point across:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6618708

Thanks!

I just can't even today.

But I probably will.

Seems like the victim-blaming idiots have no problem marching right in here to continue the discussion.