• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Two shot outside Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squirrel Killer

Squirrel Killer

Member
Quotient said:
Their are 1.6 billion muslims in the world who find the caricature of their prophet to be extremely offensive, what does it achieve to insult these people besides proving we have the freedom to do so? At the end of the day our freedom comes with responsibility and consequences, and in this particular case, i don't agree with the consequence at all, but when you piss off so many people there are bound to be a few nut jobs among the 1.6 billion.
Click to expand...
20 trillion people are offended by cargo shorts, and yet I still wear them. If Ralph Lauren is going to kill me for wearing them, the "freedom" to wear them doesn't really mean much, now does it?

Quotient said:
I condemn the action of killing people because what they say offends you. I stated so early.

Of course you can say whatever you so wish, you can draw, you can sing it, you can make a movie, that is what our wonderful freedoms allows us to do. Those who respond with acts of violence are disgusting.

I just wonder what the value is in having a competition which clearly offends a large group of people. What is the objective besides demonstrating we can?
Click to expand...
The value of having a competition is to stand up for the freedom of speech.
 
C

creationtheory

Member
RustyNails said:
Do you hang out with cyborgs? You can easily offend people. Why not stop a random passerby and say stuff about his gf? Freedom of speech!
Click to expand...

Conversation is more fun when nothing is sacred. I wouldn't say something about someones girlfriend unless they advertised that I couldn't do it.
 
J

Jonm1010

Banned
Prior to this shooting, news organizations, most members of the Garland community and anyone with a passing attempt to understand its context overwhelmingly drew the conclusion that this was at its core an anti-islamic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke and fan the flames using a self proclaimed art show as the catalyst and free speech as its cover and rationalization.

Now that Islamic extremists attempted to shoot up this event that doesnt retroactively change the nature of this event. It is still by objective accounts an anti-islmic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke.

Simply criticizing the event doesnt automatically make you a victim blamer. It doesnt mean you are trying to equivocate the two actions. It doesnt mean you are advocating for censorship. It doesnt legitimize the actions of these anti-islamic extremists. It doesn’t mean you are sympathizing with terrorists.

The thing is, in all the criticism of Pamela Geller and orchestrators of this rally I have read only one post that verifiably tried to bridge criticism of the event to one of the arguments in the paragraph above. But a handful of posters have seemingly hijacked this thread by trying to poke and prod a handful of posters because they expressed opinions they seemingly think is a cover for the above arguments. And they won't take no for an answer. So the people defending themselves from the accusations have all spent countless pages of responses to keep reiterating the same thing they already said but no one will let up.

With that said, in respect to clarity - which I think has been the driver of why this thread has gone so far into the shitter - let me make myself as clear as possible. These people attempted murder. Just because Geller and Co. held a disrespectful and hateful event doesn't put them on equal footing. They tried to execute a mass murder. They failed, fortunately. The event attendees and orchestrators are condemnable in their own right in the same way we judge people that exercise their free speech for hate all the time. However murder takes a much higher precedent in terms of judgement then hate rallies though. Both on moral grounds and the law. These people running this event are hate filled assholes for sure, but they have every right, within the grounds of the law and on moral grounds of free speech, to conduct this event. They bear no responsibility for the actions of those that didn’t respect a basic human right and the law and attempted a act of murderous terrorism.


To me there are a lot of good conversations that can be had here about various topics this brings up. Unfortunately it seems like the overwhelming majority of this thread has amounted to nothing more then mischaracterizations and rampant generalizations that serve little purpose.
 
B

BamfMeat

Member
Squirrel Killer said:
Apparently we do because people are fine with appeasing these types of radicals.
Click to expand...

Who's appeasing them? Did I say we need to stop the TX people from doing what they did? No. I called them idiots and I disapproved.

Apology accepted. Also, you may also not be aware that people are allowed to start conversations in ways not explicitly approved by you.
Click to expand...

Again with the bullshit rhetoric of, if I disapprove of what someone says, I must be wanting to silence them. Please, quote me where I said that the TX group shouldn't have done what they did.

I think you mean "insightful," regardless, neither insightfulness nor incitefulness nor originality is required to speak.
Click to expand...

You are correct on all accounts here.

Radicals violently attacking and killing speakers is the "fucking" "curtailing freedom of speech." They are making it fully well known that if you depict their religious figure, they will violently attack you for it.
Click to expand...

And.... who's dead again from last night? Certainly not the speakers. I'm still not seeing where anyone's freedom of speech was curtailed? Do you see where people were silenced last night? The extremists attempted it, but didn't get very far with that did they? Or is there some sort of repercussions I'm missing here that suddenly we're all in fear of having extremists shoot us up?

Portraying my largely grammatically correct posts as "MAH FREEDUMB UF SPEECH" is reveals more about your argument than mine Also, this is the second time someone in this discussion has told me to be quiet. Go get someone with a red name.
Click to expand...

Who's the one that's been throwing around the "freedom of speech" line? I'm not the one saying that freedom of speech is being curtailed here. I'm challenging you to prove there WAS a challenge to anyones freedom of speech here. Also, I told you to stop with the line because it's not applicable. I didn't "silence" or "shush" you or even tell you to be quiet. And, ready for this? I can't *force* you to be quiet at all, now can I? It's almost as if you have freedom of speech here as well and yours isn't being threatened either, despite you telling us to call out for a red name.

As I state above, no ones freedom of speech has been trampled on. Just because you're banging on the "freedom of speech" drum doesn't make it true or applicable. The best you got is the extremists want to take away the freedom of speech, but even that is crap because they want to take away a lot more than just our freedom of speech. But that's not going to happen any time soon, to any of us.

FunkyMunkey said:
Just like with the attacks in France, people were going "I'm not victim blaming, but what did they expect to happen by offending religious people with cartoons?" or things parallel to that. It's completely ridiculous and unless they were readily threatening the lives of other people, they hardly deserve to be attacked physically in any way. You can be a bigot and ignorant all you want as long as you're not a public official or using public money to fund your beliefs, or threatening the safety and lives of other people.
Click to expand...

Uh, if you're going to provoke the lion, don't be surprised when the lion bites. That doesn't make the lion biting you correct, but at the end of the day, *you still provoked the lion*.

They provoked the extremists. That doesn't make them wrong and the extremists right, but they did achieve exactly what they set out to do, and in spades no less. Not only did they show just how fucking stupid the extremists are, but none of them got hurt (when that could have been a very real possibility). So I guess it's a win for them, really.

Once again, it's not right that the extremists tried to shoot up the place. There is no, no, NO reason for violence (or even a fucking reaction to a bullshit cartoon). That doesn't take away the fact that they knew what they were doing when they planned this. So if victim-blaming means that I point out the TX group got the exact reaction they were hoping for, then so be it, I'm victim-blaming. And I'd say that of anyone that was attempting to provoke another group of people.

Once again, you know who has that same tactic? Westboro. Except they don't want to be shot, they just want to sue you to get more money. And how do we deal with them? We don't take away their freedom of speech - they're still free to picket any funeral and have any godhatesfags signs they want.

Just like, no one will be shutting down this TX group either. Hell, next week the TX group should hold another conference to do the same thing they did last night. Maybe we can eradicate the extremists just by luring them out 2 by 2.
 
Q

Quotient

Member
Jonm1010 said:
Prior to this shooting, news organizations, most members of the Garland community and anyone with a passing attempt to understand its context overwhelmingly drew the conclusion that this was at its core an anti-islamic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke and fan the flames using a self proclaimed art show as the catalyst and free speech as its cover and rationalization.

Now that Islamic extremists attempted to shoot up this event that doesnt retroactively change the nature of this event. It is still by objective accounts an anti-islmic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke.

Simply criticizing the event doesnt automatically make you a victim blamer. It doesnt mean you are trying to equivocate the two actions. It doesnt mean you are advocating for censorship. It doesnt legitimize the actions of these anti-islamic extremists. It doesn’t mean you are sympathizing with terrorists.

The thing is, in all the criticism of Pamela Geller and orchestrators of this rally I have read only one post that verifiably tried to make one of the arguments in the paragraph above. It seems like a handful of posters have instead hijacked this thread by trying to poke and prod another handful of posters because they expressed an opinion they seemingly think is a cover for the above arguments. And they won't take no for an answer.

With that said, in respect to clarity - which I think has been the driver of why this thread has gone so far into the shitter - let me make myself as clear as possible. These people attempted murder. Just because Geller and Co. held a disrespectful and hateful event doesn't put them on equal footing. They tried to execute a mass murder. They failed, fortunately. The event attendees and orchestrators are condemnable in their own right in the same way we judge people that exercise their free speech for hate all the time. However murder takes a much higher precedent in terms of judgement then hate rallies though. Both on moral grounds and the law. These people running this event are hate filled assholes for sure, but they have every right, within the grounds of the law and on moral grounds of free speech, to conduct this event. They bear no responsibility for the actions of those that didn’t respect a basic human right and the law and attempted a act of murderous terrorism.


To me there are a lot of good conversations that can be had here about various topics this brings up. Unfortunately it seems like the overwhelming majority of this thread has amounted to nothing more then mischaracterizations and rampant generalizations that serve little purpose.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
R

Rush_Khan

Member
Jonm1010 said:
Prior to this shooting, news organizations, most members of the Garland community and anyone with a passing attempt to understand its context overwhelmingly drew the conclusion that this was at its core an anti-islamic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke and fan the flames using a self proclaimed art show as the catalyst and free speech as its cover and rationalization.

Now that Islamic extremists attempted to shoot up this event that doesnt retroactively change the nature of this event. It is still by objective accounts an anti-islmic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke.

Simply criticizing the event doesnt automatically make you a victim blamer. It doesnt mean you are trying to equivocate the two actions. It doesnt mean you are advocating for censorship. It doesnt legitimize the actions of these anti-islamic extremists. It doesn’t mean you are sympathizing with terrorists.

The thing is, in all the criticism of Pamela Geller and orchestrators of this rally I have read only one post that verifiably tried to bridge criticism of the event to one of the arguments in the paragraph above. It seems like a handful of posters have instead hijacked this thread by trying to poke and prod another handful of posters because they expressed an opinion they seemingly think is a cover for the above arguments. And they won't take no for an answer. So they have all spent countless pages of responses to keep reiterating the same thing they already said.

With that said, in respect to clarity - which I think has been the driver of why this thread has gone so far into the shitter - let me make myself as clear as possible. These people attempted murder. Just because Geller and Co. held a disrespectful and hateful event doesn't put them on equal footing. They tried to execute a mass murder. They failed, fortunately. The event attendees and orchestrators are condemnable in their own right in the same way we judge people that exercise their free speech for hate all the time. However murder takes a much higher precedent in terms of judgement then hate rallies though. Both on moral grounds and the law. These people running this event are hate filled assholes for sure, but they have every right, within the grounds of the law and on moral grounds of free speech, to conduct this event. They bear no responsibility for the actions of those that didn’t respect a basic human right and the law and attempted a act of murderous terrorism.


To me there are a lot of good conversations that can be had here about various topics this brings up. Unfortunately it seems like the overwhelming majority of this thread has amounted to nothing more then mischaracterizations and rampant generalizations that serve little purpose.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
Quotient said:
I condemn the action of killing people because what they say offends you. I stated so early.

Of course you can say whatever you so wish, you can draw, you can sing it, you can make a movie, that is what our wonderful freedoms allows us to do. Those who respond with acts of violence are disgusting.

I just wonder what the value is in having a competition in drawing images of a religious figure, in many times in not so flattering light, which clearly offends a large group of people. What is the objective besides demonstrating we can?
Click to expand...

Does your own inability to think of how such a thing could be beneficial make it so?

The value of such a competition could achieve a couple of things.

It could bring awareness of the irrationality of Wahabism and Salafism since it would be a consequence of such a competition that these types become more vocal.

It could make people critical thinkers, since they get to observe the lack impact drawing muhammed actually has and can contrast that to the actions of radicals. This may make them critical or organized religion or authority, which arguably, is generally intellectually productive.
 
O

orochi91

Member
Jonm1010 said:
Prior to this shooting, news organizations, most members of the Garland community and anyone with a passing attempt to understand its context overwhelmingly drew the conclusion that this was at its core an anti-islamic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke and fan the flames using a self proclaimed art show as the catalyst and free speech as its cover and rationalization.

Now that Islamic extremists attempted to shoot up this event that doesnt retroactively change the nature of this event. It is still by objective accounts an anti-islmic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke.

Simply criticizing the event doesnt automatically make you a victim blamer. It doesnt mean you are trying to equivocate the two actions. It doesnt mean you are advocating for censorship. It doesnt legitimize the actions of these anti-islamic extremists. It doesn’t mean you are sympathizing with terrorists.

The thing is, in all the criticism of Pamela Geller and orchestrators of this rally I have read only one post that verifiably tried to bridge criticism of the event to one of the arguments in the paragraph above. But a handful of posters have seemingly hijacked this thread by trying to poke and prod a handful of posters because they expressed opinions they seemingly think is a cover for the above arguments. And they won't take no for an answer. So the people defending themselves from the accusations have all spent countless pages of responses to keep reiterating the same thing they already said but no one will let up.

With that said, in respect to clarity - which I think has been the driver of why this thread has gone so far into the shitter - let me make myself as clear as possible. These people attempted murder. Just because Geller and Co. held a disrespectful and hateful event doesn't put them on equal footing. They tried to execute a mass murder. They failed, fortunately. The event attendees and orchestrators are condemnable in their own right in the same way we judge people that exercise their free speech for hate all the time. However murder takes a much higher precedent in terms of judgement then hate rallies though. Both on moral grounds and the law. These people running this event are hate filled assholes for sure, but they have every right, within the grounds of the law and on moral grounds of free speech, to conduct this event. They bear no responsibility for the actions of those that didn’t respect a basic human right and the law and attempted a act of murderous terrorism.


To me there are a lot of good conversations that can be had here about various topics this brings up. Unfortunately it seems like the overwhelming majority of this thread has amounted to nothing more then mischaracterizations and rampant generalizations that serve little purpose.
Click to expand...

Fantastic post.

The bolded especially is on point, since a number of users pulled that "victim blaming" card to shut down criticism of Geller and her event.
 
Q

Quotient

Member
Earthstrike said:
Does your own inability to think of how such a thing could be beneficial make it so?

The value of such a competition could achieve a couple of things.

It could bring awareness of the irrationality of Wahabism and Salafism since it would be a consequence of such a competition that these types become more vocal.

It could make people critical thinkers, since they get to observe the lack impact drawing muhammed actually has and can contrast that to the actions of radicals. This may make them critical or organized religion or authority, which arguably, is generally intellectually productive.
Click to expand...

Do honestly believe this event had these objectives in mind?
 
L

Log4Girlz

Member
Quotient said:
Their are 1.6 billion muslims in the world who find the caricature of their prophet to be extremely offensive, what does it achieve to insult these people besides proving we have the freedom to do so? At the end of the day our freedom comes with responsibility and consequences, and in this particular case, i don't agree with the consequence at all, but when you piss off so many people there are bound to be a few nut jobs among the 1.6 billion.
Click to expand...

Some do not feel the need to bow before the tyranny of the masses.
 
B

BamfMeat

Member
Earthstrike said:
No. In fact, I would assert these were not the objectives. But the right to protect the speech is necessary in the instance someone wants to advance these objectives.
Click to expand...

But no one is arguing they shouldn't have the right to do it. All anyone is saying is that it was done to be dickish. No one is making the argument that the group should have been silenced, nor is anyone saying they should be silenced going forward.

Everyone keeps talking about freedom of speech but that's not the issue at all. We are being critical of the speech they used, which is just as much our right to do as it is theirs to be inflammatory.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
BamfMeat said:
But no one is arguing they shouldn't have the right to do it. All anyone is saying is that it was done to be dickish. No one is making the argument that the group should have been silenced, nor is anyone saying they should be silenced going forward.

Everyone keeps talking about freedom of speech but that's not the issue at all. We are being critical of the speech they used, which is just as much our right to do as it is theirs to be inflammatory.
Click to expand...

Ok sure. I never really disagreed with any of this. My first post on the issue was demostrating that depictions of muhammed could have value, since a poster posed that as a question. I simply answered it.
 
C

Coolwhip

Banned
Log4Girlz said:
Some do not feel the need to bow before the tyranny of the masses.
Click to expand...

Especially if those masses are brainwashed into believing in prophets and all the religion nonsense.

Those anti islam movements and rallies are perfectly fine. As long as they aren't violent.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
Jonm1010 said:
Prior to this shooting, news organizations, most members of the Garland community and anyone with a passing attempt to understand its context overwhelmingly drew the conclusion that this was at its core an anti-islamic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke and fan the flames using a self proclaimed art show as the catalyst and free speech as its cover and rationalization.

Now that Islamic extremists attempted to shoot up this event that doesnt retroactively change the nature of this event. It is still by objective accounts an anti-islmic event that bordered on a light hate rally with the intent to provoke.

Simply criticizing the event doesnt automatically make you a victim blamer. It doesnt mean you are trying to equivocate the two actions. It doesnt mean you are advocating for censorship. It doesnt legitimize the actions of these anti-islamic extremists. It doesn’t mean you are sympathizing with terrorists.

The thing is, in all the criticism of Pamela Geller and orchestrators of this rally I have read only one post that verifiably tried to bridge criticism of the event to one of the arguments in the paragraph above. But a handful of posters have seemingly hijacked this thread by trying to poke and prod a handful of posters because they expressed opinions they seemingly think is a cover for the above arguments. And they won't take no for an answer. So the people defending themselves from the accusations have all spent countless pages of responses to keep reiterating the same thing they already said but no one will let up.

With that said, in respect to clarity - which I think has been the driver of why this thread has gone so far into the shitter - let me make myself as clear as possible. These people attempted murder. Just because Geller and Co. held a disrespectful and hateful event doesn't put them on equal footing. They tried to execute a mass murder. They failed, fortunately. The event attendees and orchestrators are condemnable in their own right in the same way we judge people that exercise their free speech for hate all the time. However murder takes a much higher precedent in terms of judgement then hate rallies though. Both on moral grounds and the law. These people running this event are hate filled assholes for sure, but they have every right, within the grounds of the law and on moral grounds of free speech, to conduct this event. They bear no responsibility for the actions of those that didn’t respect a basic human right and the law and attempted a act of murderous terrorism.


To me there are a lot of good conversations that can be had here about various topics this brings up. Unfortunately it seems like the overwhelming majority of this thread has amounted to nothing more then mischaracterizations and rampant generalizations that serve little purpose.
Click to expand...

Fantastic post. There's really nothing else I can say to add to this without being redundant.

A lot of people here tripping over themselves trying to shut down discussions and pulling snarky one-liners without really reading or understand what others are saying.
 
S

Sothpaw

Member
The cop took out two ISIS shitheads who had assault rifles and body armor...with his pistol? That's pretty amazing. He probably saved a ton of lives.
 
D

Draft

Member
This couldn't have gone any better for the organizers. Well, if the poor security guard hadn't been injured it would have been perfect. The event was designed to antagonize Muslims and to mock them as being backwards and violent. Two Muslims show up to shoot up the place and get smoked Dirty Harry style by one very skilled Texas lawman. It's like an episode of Walker come to life.
 
Q

Quotient

Member
Laconic said:
After so many pages of this double-speak from you and other like-minded posters here, I almost think you actually believe this.
Click to expand...

What double speak? Point me to where i suggest we should have censorship.

EDIT: What is with people putting words in other folks mouth. Some of you are really reaching to draw conclusions.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
creationtheory said:
Well since it wasn't obvious to you the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
Just to get this straight, you're gonna talk shit about your buddy's girl because he told you not to do so, because you stand by the rule that if someone says dont say this, you feel compelled to do it more. Got it. Defendor of Freedom right here.

In other words, you must be fun at parties.
 
S

Sothpaw

Member
Wall Street Journal yesterday: "Religious institutions have survived by controlling what their adherents know, argues Tufts Prof. Daniel C. Dennett, but today that is next to impossible." I hope 50 years from now we can all read stories about how people were offended over a religious drawing and think "oh, how quaint."
 
M

M0nochromatic

Member
Wasn't the whole point of the "don't draw Mohammed" rule so that he wouldn't be idolized? If so, that makes the whole thing hella ironic.

Sothpaw said:
Wall Street Journal yesterday "Religious institutions have survived by controlling what their adherents know, argues Tufts Prof. Daniel C. Dennett, but today that is next to impossible." I hope 50 years from now we can all read stories about how people were offended over a drawing and think "oh, how quaint."
Click to expand...

It's too optimistic. If superstitions were really that easy to eliminate, they wouldn't be around in the Information Age. Also, I'm fairly sure there was a research article that predicted an increase in religous individuals worldwide in the next ten years. It's actually growing, not shrinking.
 
S

Sothpaw

Member
M0nochromatic said:
It's too optimistic. If superstitions were really that easy to eliminate, they wouldn't be around in the Information Age. Also, I'm fairly sure there was a research article that predicted an increase in religous individuals worldwide in the next ten years. It's actually growing, not shrinking.
Click to expand...

Hmm, are people in Islamic countries really in the "information age" to the extent western nations/Japan/South Korea are? Christianity is prevalent in educated/developed countries and is on a massive decline for example.

Personally, I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools through college, and religion makes me shake my head.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
Quotient said:
I never suggested we should censor speech. I am all for freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

This is what my original post in this thread was responding too:

I just wonder what the value is in having a competition in drawing images of a religious figure, in many times in not so flattering light, which clearly offends a large group of people. What is the objective besides demonstrating we can?
Click to expand...

You asked a question, and I answered it.
 
V

vas_a_morir

Banned
Has the gallery been posted yet? It was mostly terrible art with some good artists mxed in. The worst stuff was gloating pro-Jesus stuff (that was pretty rare TBH) and one picture in particular depicted Mohammad raping what was labeled as a 9 year old girl. (did that happen?) The one that won most clearly represented the intent of the exhibit without treading into bigotry like most others did.

I don't want to link anybody to the gallery with a depiction of pedophilia and rape, and I don't particularly want to view that shit again, but it's out there if you are curious as to what the exhibit was like.
 
M

M0nochromatic

Member
Sothpaw said:
Hmm, are people in Islamic countries really in the "information age" to the extent western nations/Japan/South Korea are? Christianity is prevalent in educated/developed countries and is on a massive decline for example.

Personally, I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools through college, and religion makes me shake my head.
Click to expand...

In properly developed nations with proper educational systems, I'm inclined to agree that it will slowly dissipate, but there are more nations that lack those qualifications then those that have them. Maybe someday, in the Year 2XXX it'll get better, but I'm not betting on it happening in this century. I bet we'll see Islam get it's own retcon like Christianity, and no one will care about Mohammed portraits. I can see that happening in a couple decades, maybe.

Not to mention new religions are being created and gaining in strength like Mormonism and Scientology. As long as we have the fear of death, fear of the unknown, and poverty, it'll always be around in some form.
 
B

bsp

Member
vas_a_morir said:
one picture in particular depicted Mohammad raping what was labeled as a 9 year old girl. (did that happen?)
Click to expand...

Muhammad married a girl named Aisha when she was 6 or 7 and consummated with her when she was ~9. She was also his supposed favorite or preferred wife.
 
V

Valhelm

contribute something
vas_a_morir said:
Has the gallery been posted yet? It was mostly terrible art with some good artists mxed in. The worst stuff was gloating pro-Jesus stuff (that was pretty rare TBH) and one picture in particular depicted Mohammad raping what was labeled as a 9 year old girl. (did that happen?) The one that won most clearly represented the intent of the exhibit without treading into bigotry like most others did.

I don't want to link anybody to the gallery with a depiction of pedophilia and rape, and I don't particularly want to view that shit again, but it's out there if you are curious as to what the exhibit was like.
Click to expand...

Mohammad probably did marry a 9-year-old girl, yeah. It's unjustifiable, but far too often is used as proof that Islam is inherently evil or some shit. Normalized pedophilia is hardly exclusive to this religion or this era, though. The Roman army raped children as a fear tactic, and King John of England was deeply enamored with his 12-year-old wife Isabella.
 
V

vas_a_morir

Banned
Valhelm said:
Mohammad probably did marry a 9-year-old girl, yeah. It's unjustifiable, but far too often is used as proof that Islam is inherently evil or some shit.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well, in all fairness, I'm not even sure if that was all that uncommon for those times. Girls routinely got married at ages that would be considered rape by modern standards. Generally, they were wed off after they had their first period. Regardless, that picture was drawn deliberately to be as offensive to Islam as possible, and in a sea of provocative, tasteless, bigoted drawings... that one really stood out as particularly noteworthy.
 
D

devilhawk

Member
vas_a_morir said:
Has the gallery been posted yet? It was mostly terrible art with some good artists mxed in. The worst stuff was gloating pro-Jesus stuff (that was pretty rare TBH) and one picture in particular depicted Mohammad raping what was labeled as a 9 year old girl. (did that happen?) The one that won most clearly represented the intent of the exhibit without treading into bigotry like most others did.

I don't want to link anybody to the gallery with a depiction of pedophilia and rape, and I don't particularly want to view that shit again, but it's out there if you are curious as to what the exhibit was like.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous. He married her at 6 or 7.
 
D

daniels

Member
vas_a_morir said:
Has the gallery been posted yet? It was mostly terrible art with some good artists mxed in. The worst stuff was gloating pro-Jesus stuff (that was pretty rare TBH) and one picture in particular depicted Mohammad raping what was labeled as a 9 year old girl. (did that happen?) The one that won most clearly represented the intent of the exhibit without treading into bigotry like most others did.

I don't want to link anybody to the gallery with a depiction of pedophilia and rape, and I don't particularly want to view that shit again, but it's out there if you are curious as to what the exhibit was like.
Click to expand...

yeah he kinda did he was also a massmurderer, warlord, racist, slave owner and trader.
Its also the reason why its such a problem to compare this person to someone like jesus.
 
Squirrel Killer

Squirrel Killer

Member
To begin, "appeasement" means to make concessions in order to avoid conflict. In the context of this case, it means restraining artistic opinion to avoid offending radicals who would respond by violent conflict. Such appeasement can come from either the government by removing the free speech protections from such speech or from the artists self-censoring themselves. With that in mind...

BamfMeat said:
Who's appeasing them? Did I say we need to stop the TX people from doing what they did? No. I called them idiots and I disapproved.
Click to expand...
Who's advocating appeasing them?

Quote to group the group of quotes said:
Melkezadek said:
I just don't see the point in holding an event that you know is going to potentially draw out radicals that could hurt innocent people.
Click to expand...

Melkezadek said:
But knowing there is a higher probability of retaliation by insulting this particular group of people is flat out irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Wreav said:
Of course drawings shouldn't be illegal, but failing to realize that we're dealing with RADICAL FANATICS and acting surprised every time they react in the exact way they've warned that they are going to react is beyond stupid at this point.

Keep sticking your dick in the beehive, keep getting stung. Whether or not you should be allowed to stick your dick in beehives doesn't change the fact that getting stung is the likely outcome.
Click to expand...

Wreav said:
When a car bomb inevitably goes off in Times Square, we'll wonder if poking fun of Mohammad all these years simply to antagonize radicals was worth it, when all we simply had to do is act like adults.
Click to expand...

Wreav said:
It's like you totally didn't read the whole "so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence" that is now in the equation with radical islamists all over the world promising imminent violence in response to these displays.
Click to expand...

wanderingprostheyltite said:
Yes, first amendment and all that, yes we shouldn't bow down to the threat of violence in order to express ourselves. But when a known HATE GROUP is holding an event like this with the clear intention of being antagonizing it kind of drops the whole artistic expression argument. To those rallying behind their right to hold this event, would you show up at said venue with no hesitation as to your safety or well being? Cause if not your words mean fuck all. I value my life more than some absurd semantics for the sake of upholding freedom of speech argument.
Click to expand...

wanderingprostheyltite said:
Do you honestly believe jihadists' ideals and proclivity towards extremist violence are going to change anytime soon? I think we can count on their retalitation more than our ability to bite our tongues when it comes to inflammatory art exhibits targeting a known violent group.
Click to expand...

RiccochetJ said:
I don't think the people who put on this exhibition were exactly oblivious to the reaction that might happen. From what I've read so far, this was taunting. Victim blaming does not come to mind here.
Click to expand...

RiccochetJ said:
Haha! Ok, here's a question; would you go and walk through a black neighborhood wearing KKK garb and not expect to be smacked in the mouth by someone? It's taunting plain and simple.
Click to expand...

A Link to the Snitch said:
The gallery exists to be offensive. The point of the gallery not being "that" would be a huge first step.
Click to expand...

A Link to the Snitch said:
What I'm saying is that people shouldn't just do things for the explicit purpose of making people offended.
Click to expand...

orochi91 said:
JimtotheHum said:
Art is supposed to push the status quo. Even offend at times. I'm just getting you to specify when it is good to censor it and when it is bad. Also, who determines this?
Click to expand...
I don't know what art should be (or who should be the arbiter), but this definition of art you've presented to me is unacceptable; I can't agree with this.
Click to expand...

rpmurphy said:
But in the past years, we have learned that depictions of Muhammed is considered major disrespect, and creating such an event really has just the sole purpose of inciting this kind of reaction. If the end goal is to convince Muslim minorities that human life and social liberties are more valuable than not being offended, is this the best way to approach this problem? Is it even a good way? Secondly, it's also a question of priority. Is being able to draw Muhammed in a cartoon so critically important right this second that it is fine to possibly jeopardize the larger efforts of integrating Muslim minorities into free democratic societies?

I feel like people with honest intentions who are involved in events like this are trying to make things happen and shake the world in ways that they are able to as individuals, which I won't say that it isn't commendable... but at the same time, they are fixated on something that really doesn't need immediate change (especially there just really isn't much demand for drawings of Muhammed in this country to begin with) and causes more harm than good in the current state of the world.
Click to expand...

rpmurphy said:
Public expression without purpose or audience is meaningless. If there is purpose and an audience, then there is social responsibility attached to it. Especially in this age where communication carries far and wide, what you say and do in the public space is more important than ever before. The people involved in this event are inextricably tied to shaping America's interaction with Muslim minorties, for better or for worse.
Click to expand...

necrosis said:
the shooters were obviously in the wrong here, but so too are the individuals hosting & participating in an event designed to antagonize muslims and poke the bear of radicalism
Click to expand...

wachie said:
Just like trolls and troll baiting are both banned (here), IMO such events shouldn't also be allowed to exist.
Click to expand...

wachie said:
What I was suggesting is that we unnecessarily don't provoke things for the sake of provoking.
Click to expand...

Zing said:
Ok, I understand wanting to support free speech, but what the hell?

"Hey guys, I know there are millions of people openly offended by is doing this sort of thing, but let's hold a contest for who can do this offensive thing the best."

Imagine a "gay cartoon contest", "black cartoon contest", or a "christian cartoon contest". Yes, they are all legal but isn't it just plain rude and disrespectful?
Click to expand...

Derwind said:
But I also think people shouldn't do that.
Click to expand...
(Note: "...do that" = "...do things for the explicit purpose of making people offended.")

BamfMeat said:
Uh, if you're going to provoke the lion, don't be surprised when the lion bites. That doesn't make the lion biting you correct, but at the end of the day, *you still provoked the lion*.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
=====

BamfMeat said:
Again with the bullshit rhetoric of, if I disapprove of what someone says, I must be wanting to silence them. Please, quote me where I said that the TX group shouldn't have done what they did.
Click to expand...
Where did I say you wanted to silence them? We were discussing whether their offensive speech was with or without reason. Your response to my comment about "Starting a conversation..." was that "I wasn't aware that the only way to start a conversation with people regarding various issues is by insulting them." That's a false dicotomy. I was pointing out that your false dicotomy was false. There are hundreds of ways to start a conversation. That they chose a way to start that conversation in a way you don't like doesn't invalidate their (arguably racist) reason.

=====

BamfMeat said:
And.... who's dead again from last night? Certainly not the speakers. I'm still not seeing where anyone's freedom of speech was curtailed? Do you see where people were silenced last night? The extremists attempted it, but didn't get very far with that did they? Or is there some sort of repercussions I'm missing here that suddenly we're all in fear of having extremists shoot us up?
Click to expand...
The repercussions you're missing:
=====

BamfMeat said:
Who's the one that's been throwing around the "freedom of speech" line? I'm not the one saying that freedom of speech is being curtailed here. I'm challenging you to prove there WAS a challenge to anyones freedom of speech here. Also, I told you to stop with the line because it's not applicable. I didn't "silence" or "shush" you or even tell you to be quiet. And, ready for this? I can't *force* you to be quiet at all, now can I? It's almost as if you have freedom of speech here as well and yours isn't being threatened either, despite you telling us to call out for a red name.

As I state above, no ones freedom of speech has been trampled on. Just because you're banging on the "freedom of speech" drum doesn't make it true or applicable. The best you got is the extremists want to take away the freedom of speech, but even that is crap because they want to take away a lot more than just our freedom of speech. But that's not going to happen any time soon, to any of us.
Click to expand...
I believed the context of my post made clear that the threats to free speech were from non-governmental actors.

No, you did not tell me "silence" or to "shush" or tell me to be quiet. Where did I claim that you did? You told me to, "Stop." And you are correct, you can't force me to stop. Where did I claim that you did?

=====

And since I went back and re-read the entire thread...
MIMIC said:
To all of the free speech advocates in here, speech that serves no purpose other than to provoke a fight is not protected.

And for good reason. I mean, does common sense not exist anymore?
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this exhibit would fall under any of the exemptions from protected speech.

--

Wreav said:
I'm honestly trying to answer for myself if these depictions of the prophet fall under hate speech. The little blurb from wiki:
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Click to expand...
Seems awfully damn close.
Click to expand...
Fortunate for the artists then that the US protects hate speech. Fortunate for you too:
Wreav said:
Just look at these cunts.

C4eObHR.jpg


L-R, the contest winner, Wilders, and Geller, all pleased as punch about their little farce.
Click to expand...

--

In a tangent regarding how banning Holocaust denial/mockery is a good thing...
ICKE said:
And what happens when at a local level this ideology starts to affect policy making? Or when there are rich influential individuals who use their power to spread said ideology?

Suddenly you have politicians who are advocating discriminatory laws or people who are being demonized by their neighbors. This is obviously a fine line we are walking but I personally support regulatory measures in some capacity.
Click to expand...
In the US, we handle this by letting the batshit insane keep flapping their jaws and using the power of free speech magnified by the number of non-batshit insane people to ruthlessly mock Holocaust deniers/mockers. Tends to work a bit better than just killing them.
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
Yet another example that intelligent discussion cannot exist, because you have made a decision as to what other people are trying to communicate, and nothing will ever change your mind. That's not a debate, that's speaking to a wall.
 
Squirrel Killer

Squirrel Killer

Member
Yet another example that intelligent discussion cannot exist, because you have made a decision as to what other people are trying to communicate, and nothing will ever change your mind. That's not a debate, that's speaking to a wall.
 
A

A Link to the Past

Banned
What do you want me to say? You already heard my clarifications on those statements. Can you explain the difference between me restating something that you clearly don't think is true and me calling you out on participating in a discussion where you assume that people are being untruthful?

EDIT: Also wondering how you thought that "clever" reuse of my statement works when I haven't made any declaration of what you're trying to communicate beyond the fact that you have repeatedly refused to accept a truth that doesn't affirm that everyone in this thread who criticizes the curators in any way, shape, or form isn't also blaming them for the shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
18K
Elysium44 replied
  • Poll
[Ars Technica] Google should kill Stadia
Opinion Drama 2 3
105
9K
Moochi replied
  • Locked
Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check
763 764 765 766 767
38K
2M
EviLore replied
Students left a pineapple in art exhibition and people mistook it for art
2 3 4
168
17K
CountAntonius replied
Gangnam: The scandal rocking the playground of K-pop
4
3K
CyberPanda replied
Top Bottom