Support NeoGAF

[Siegcram]

Criticizing art, and the reason certain art exists, is not equivalent to "she wouldn't have been raped if she didn't dress like that." It's a super, horribly gross sentiment.

When you get down to it, no art has any greater reason to exist. Feel free to criticize the organizers and their motives, but they were still well within their rights.

Regardless, you shouldn't try to make your point by sweeping generalizations about how GAF members feel about rape victims.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The gallery exists to be offensive. The point of the gallery not being "that" would be a huge first step.

Oh.My.Fucking.Deities.

He is comparing rape to murder. Get on the same planet.

Oh, hey! Thanks for the laugh. Nothing better than someone who literally read a post that said "I'm not advocating murder, the murders are awful, etc." by saying "you support murderers" telling me that I'm being nebulous.

Do you plan to explain what part of my post advocated or defended murder?

 

[Metaphoreus]

The comparison is between "she wouldn't have been raped if she didn't dress the way she did" and "violence is never acceptable in response to art, but I wish the point of the art wasn't about being disrespectful."The former explicitly blames the crime on the victim, the latter blames the killers entirely and as an aside gripes about the art gallery.

Like I said, you're missing the point of the comparison. To paraphrase your paraphrase, the comparison is between "rape is never acceptable in response to short skirts, but I wish she hadn't been wearing a short skirt," and "violence is never acceptable in response to art, but I wish the point of the art wasn't about being disrespectful."

Look, I'm trying to help you out here. You admitted that you're more confused than you've ever been, so I'm trying to explain to you why focusing your commentary on the victim's pre-crime conduct attracts the sorts of responses you're getting.

 

[orochi91]

Just look at these cunts.

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

Those faces.

Infuriating.

 

[railGUN]

Art that is beyond criticism is not art. It will never be art. Sorry for treating it like art.

You're criticism is that you wish it didn't exist in the first place, :lol

 

[Wreav]

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?

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.

Seems awfully damn close.

 

[Laconic]

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?

Who determines this purpose?

Too much soap on a slope, there.

 

[ponpo]

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?

If you want Islamic laws to be applied to non-Muslims then you're asking for some kind of theocracy. This isn't really a free speech issue.

 

[orochi91]

I'm honestly trying to answer for myself if these depictions of the prophet fall under hate speech. The little blurb from wiki:



Seems awfully damn close.

Look at the fine folks behind the event.

This is absolutely hate-driven, all under the pretense of free speech and "art".

 

[A Link to the Past]

You're criticism is that you wish it didn't exist in the first place, :lol

I wish that the point of the art wasn't "we're going to offend people." I find that kind of art to be distasteful.

 

[Red]

If you want Islamic laws to be applied to non-Muslims then you're asking for some kind of theocracy. This isn't really a free speech issue.

.

Look at the fine folks behind the event.

This is absolutely hate-driven, all under the pretense of free speech and "art".

Regardless of what reason it was sponsored for, it shouldn't be censored and it shouldn't be a target of violence. If a radical Muslim wanted to have a nonviolent but offensive art exhibit they would likewise have the right.

 

[Scrooged]

The gallery exists to be offensive. The point of the gallery not being "that" would be a huge first step.

Plenty of art exists to offend or shock people. This is nothing new, and there shouldn't be an exception for art that offends a particular religion.

 

[Buzzati]

The issue isn't that it's offensive, it's that were it not offensive, it wouldn't exist.

Not that it matters, but we can never know if the art exists solely to be offensive because Muhammad can never be portrayed without it always being considered offensive.

 

[HariKari]

I'm honestly trying to answer for myself if these depictions of the prophet fall under hate speech. The little blurb from wiki:

Nope:

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

This is absolutely hate-driven, all under the pretense of free speech and "art".

Doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

No info on the shooters yet? Wondering what background these guys came from to think this was the right thing to do.

 

[Laconic]

I'm honestly trying to answer for myself if these depictions of the prophet fall under hate speech. The little blurb from wiki:



Seems awfully damn close.

Who is a protected group?

The most widely practiced religion on the planet?

Really?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Like I said, you're missing the point of the comparison. To paraphrase your paraphrase, the comparison is between "rape is never acceptable in response to short skirts, but I wish she hadn't been wearing a short skirt," and "violence is never acceptable in response to art, but I wish the point of the art wasn't about being disrespectful."

Look, I'm trying to help you out here. You admitted that you're more confused than you've ever been, so I'm trying to explain to you why focusing your commentary on the victim's pre-crime conduct attracts the sorts of responses you're getting.

I'm confused by people who replied to a condemnation of violence saying "you support violence." That's the limit of it. I've never once said that "if you didn't do this you wouldn't have been attacked." It's two separate statements - this violence is awful, and the art gallery is shite.

Plenty of art exists to offend or shock people. This is nothing new, and there shouldn't be an exception for art that offends a particular religion.

There is nothing here that we disagree on? I've never argued for the exception.

 

[railGUN]

I wish that the point of the art wasn't "we're going to offend people." I find that kind of art to be distasteful.

Fine, as soon as you wish it didn't exist because of that, though, you're attempting to censor it. You know that right?

 

[notworksafe]

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?

Common sense like...not trying to kill people you disagree with? I guess not.

 

[MIMIC]

Who determines this purpose?

Too much soap on a slope, there.

The event was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is considered an anti-Muslim group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups.

The group said it specifically picked the venue, a public school-owned facility, because it was host to a event denouncing Islamophobia in January.

CNN

The purpose is pretty clear.

 

[Siegcram]

I'm honestly trying to answer for myself if these depictions of the prophet fall under hate speech. The little blurb from wiki:



Seems awfully damn close.

It's really not. That's like saying I'm propagating hate speech by wearing a shirt with an upside down cross on it. The feelings of extremists don't dictate the standards for hate speech.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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?

This isn't accurate. The exception to the First Amendment for "fighting words" has to do with circumstances, not the purpose of the speech. The government can't make it illegal for Tony Stark to go on TV and tell the Mandarin where his address is, merely because the only point of such speech is to provoke an attack. The government could make it illegal for Tony Stark to incite a riot while among a crowd of angry protestors.

 

[Wreav]

Nope:

Doesn't matter in the slightest.

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.

All the keyboard warriors are tough until it's their loved one that gets gunned down because they happened to be near some anti-islam event designed to stir up radicals. How quickly their tunes will change.

 

[HariKari]

Who is a protected group?

Art is fully protected, he's just choosing to be willfully ignorant of that fact. Some are clawing in every direction to put the blame on the event and not the crazies that intended to shoot it up.

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.

I don't think you understand the imminent danger test in the slightest.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Art is fully protected, he's just choosing to be willfully ignorant of that fact. Some are clawing in every direction to put the blame on the event and not the crazies that intended to shoot it up.

Who in this thread is tryoing to put the blame on the event for the violence?

 

[JimtotheHum]

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?

What if the fight is a noble one?

 

[orochi91]

CNN

The purpose is pretty clear.

The sponsors of this event are an actual hate group?

Holy shit.

Those radicals got played hard.

 

[Trago]

Same question for you then. How can the artist portray Muhammed in a way you don't see it as offensive.

I'm not asking for them not to be offensive at all, by all means have at it. It is their right after all. But that doesn't mean that people who would get offended should just shut up and take it. As I said already in this thread why not criticize the art? And it seems when someone did, they were accused of being a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[Scrooged]

There is nothing here that we disagree on? I've never argued for the exception.

What do you mean, then, when you say that having the art not be offensive is a good 'first step'? First step to what?

 

[A Link to the Past]

What do you mean, then, when you say that having the art not be offensive is a good 'first step'? First step to what?

That the event being for the purpose of antagonizing people rather than actually advocating for the right to depict Mohammed.

 

[Buzzati]

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?

If those pieces are automatically assumed to provoke a fight just for existing as portrayals, then perhaps they do serve a purpose as a critique of the effect religion has? This is not difficult.

 

[HariKari]

IAs I said already in this thread why not criticize the art?

If the criticism of the art is that it simply exists or that it was publicly displayed, then those posting as much deserve to be criticized and questioned in kind.

 

[Casimir]

Tragic that this resulted in violence, but I am glad this was resolved with no innocent lives lost.

 

[Red]

Who in this thread is tryoing to put the blame on the event for the violence?

Melkezadek
RiccochetJ
orochi91

 

[Scrooged]

That the event being for the purpose of antagonizing people rather than actually advocating for the right to depict Mohammed.

What better way to advocate depicting Mohammed than to, you know, actually depict Mohammed?

 

[Trago]

If the criticism of the art is that it simply exists or that it was publicly displayed, then those posting as much deserve to be criticized and questioned in kind.

Well of course, that gets the discussion going, which is a hell of a lot better than a violent act taking place haha.

 

[orochi91]

What if the fight is a noble one?

Feel free to donate to the "noble" cause:

http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/

Geller thanks you in advance.

 

[coleco]

Crazy to think 'The life of Brian' premiered more than 35 years ago. A few here would have it banned if it was to release tomorrow.

 

[Melkezadek]

Melkezadek
RiccochetJ
orochi91

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face. Doesn't make it at all true. Keep seeing what you want to see, though. It's your right.

 

[sindbadthesailor]

Gellar is a well known bigot and hate mongerer. Shame a couple of idiots had to give such a horrible person even a little legitimacy.

Also, not even a little surprising an event like this was held in Texas.

 

[A Link to the Past]

What better way to advocate depicting Mohammed than to, you know, actually depict Mohammed?

For instance, you could do it for reasons that aren't simply "trying to offend people." This is something artists have done before.

 

[SpoonyBard]

It would have been more newsworthy if everything went without any problems.

 

[Red]

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face. Doesn't make it at all true. Keep seeing what you want to see, though. It's your right.

Sure thing, bud.

 

[Scrooged]

Feel free to donate to the "noble" cause:

http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/

Geller thanks you in advance.

The cause is to not let religious lunatics shut down free expression. That doesn't mean you have to necessarily associate or support everything this particular group is about.

 

[Siegcram]

For instance, you could do it for reasons that aren't simply "trying to offend people." This is something artists have done before.

It is well established that when it comes to this specific issue, reasons are irrelevant.

That would require a level of thought these extremists are incapable of.

 

[Melkezadek]

Sure thing, bud.

And there is plenty of evidence that their agenda was calling out radicals. Nothing to do with victim blaming. You're reading in to what you want.

 

[Laconic]

It would have been more newsworthy if everything went without any problems.

Can you imagine all the commotion that would have ensued had someone NOT tried to commit mass homicide?

*crickets*

 

[A Link to the Past]

It is well established that when it comes to this specific issue, reasons are irrelevant.

That would require a level of thought these extremists are incapable of.

This is not a reason why people should go for the less ideal approach. Depicting the figure should not be for the sake of angering people, even if it doesn't matter to some people why you're doing it.

 

[Wreav]

All those red blooded MERCANS on twitter basically calling for the extinction of muslims tonight with some #WeAreGarland and other associated bullshit hashtags. This idiots are gonna get me killed in the street.

 

[not psycho]

Just look at these cunts.

Contest winner's drawing:

What a cunt, right? You would be hard pressed to draw anything more offensive than that.