Support NeoGAF

[Terra Firma]

Because they shouldn't have to if they don't want to. Damn. How hard is that for you to get? No matter how offensive they draw Muhammad or depict him, never condones violence, threats or death.

He is not condoning violence. He is simply saying that he does not agree with the event organizers and that he believes that their intention was to create controversy.

It would be like if a Neo Nazi group holds an antisemitic art contest and gets attacked. I wouldn't condone the violence but I would not be sympathetic towards their cause or intention.

 

[Siegcram]

Most Muslims aren't going to try to kill them for depicting Muhammed. Why shouldn't people do it in a relatively respectful way? It isn't hard to do that.

History disagrees.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Any gallery with depictions of Mohammad, no matter the reason for its being, will have the effect of offending radicals.

Not all galleries that depict Muhammed are going to exist because the owner wanted to offend people.

History disagrees.

What event in history justifies being as disrespectful as possible just because you might as well? Doubling-down is a really bad idea.

 

[HariKari]

I would not be sympathetic towards their cause or intention.

Though I straight up do not approve of the motives behind these exhibits aimed at baiting Muslims.

No one is asking you to do so, only to recognize their right to do such things in a free society. You cannot pick and choose. It's all or nothing.

 

[Red]

Not all galleries that depict Muhammed are going to exist because the owner wanted to offend people.

That's not relevant at all.

 

[orochi91]

"Only what I deem to be acceptable, is acceptable."

You won't find me shooting up a gallery just because I don't accept what they're showing, if that's what you're alluding to.

Though I straight up do not approve of the motives behind these exhibits aimed at baiting Muslims.

 

[Terra Firma]

No one is asking you to do so, only to recognize their right to do such things in a free society. You cannot pick and choose. It's all or nothing.

Tell me where A Link to the Snitch has said anything about these people not having the right to do what they did or where he condones violence against this group.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That's not relevant at all.

It's entirely relevant. My issue is solely the fact that the point of the gallery is to offend people. Unless all theoretical Muhammded galleries exist for the sake of offending people.

 

[Surface of Me]

You won't find me shooting up a gallery just because I don't accept what they're showing, if that's what you're alluding to.

Though I straight up do not approve of the motives behind these exhibits aimed at baiting Muslims.

Would should strive for a world where no one is "baited" by mere drawings.

 

[Red]

It's entirely relevant. My issue is solely the fact that the point of the gallery is to offend people. Unless all theoretical Muhammded galleries exist for the sake of offending people.

The intent is irrelevant, because they believe Mohammad is not supposed to be represented.

 

[Madness]

He is not condoning violence. He is simply saying that he does not agree with the event organizers and that he believes that their intention was to create controversy.

It would be like if a Neo Nazi group holds an antisemitic art contest and gets attacked. I wouldn't condone the violence but I would not be sympathetic towards their cause or intention.

You should always be sympathetic to victims, and not champion the offenders. A terror/mass shooting attack was foiled today, and two gunmen dead because they didn't like an abrasive art exhibit happened. Saying art shouldn't offend just means you're trying to impose some sort of rules on what can or cannot be drawn. It is art. It is offensive. Just like how there have been numerous offensive art exhibit like Piss Christ and many others.

I don't agree with the event organizers either. I bet most of them are racist individuals. But that's irrelevant. They can hold whatever event they want and should be free of death and violence. And if they are attacked or killed I would be sympathetic because someone was killed even if the reason for it was inflammatory.

 

[OuterLimits]

That's what mainstream scholars advise Muslims to do when some stupid event like this happens. Muslims should just ignore it and whatever insignificant anti-Islamic event it may be, it won't get more exposure and would just fade away.

What these idiots did was make this stupid event into the front page of many news outlets. Pamela Geller is licking her lips at the amount of publicity she is getting.



The entire event was a means to cause offense. It was hosted by Pamela Geller, a right wing nutjob who thrives off of anti-Islamic and anti-liberal sentiment.

South Park already got away with doing so in one of the earlier episodes of South Park before the whole 2006 cartoon fiasco happened.

Pamela Geller is on the Right when it comes to economic policies but is fairly socially liberal. She supports abortion rights and same sex marriage which aren't exactly anti-liberal.

So her big offense was holding an event mocking a religion? Oh no, how dare they sit around drawing cartoons and making jokes about Islam. The horror.

But some Liberals feel the need to be critical of the "right wing nutjob" Geller more than the far right wing Islamic extremists. At least in Gellers "far right" world, gays would still have freedom and even the right to marry. I wonder if far right Islam would be so friendly to socially progressive ideals?

 

[daniels]

Most Muslims aren't going to try to kill them for depicting Muhammed. Why shouldn't people do it in a relatively respectful way? It isn't hard to do that.

explain to me where the line is ?
People constantly say its only a crazy tiny minority of insane islamists so why exactly should respect even come into play?
Not to mention that the drawing that won gives them already way more respect they deserve.
I could go way the fuck worse in an instant remember muhammed was a massmurder, warlord, rapist, slaveowner/trader and child abuser!
If you consider this the drawings are Laughable and no christian could ever understand these babys crying over something so tame.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The intent is irrelevant, because they believe Mohammad is not supposed to be represented.

If your only purpose in your art gallery is to make someone mad - that is, the gallery wouldn't exist unless there were people who would be mad about it - then people are well within their rights to call you out for it.

What of people who accept it when people outside of Islam depict Muhammed?

 

[HarryKS]

12 500 dollars for one sketch.

Damn that's some good money.

 

[Easy_D]

No winners in this story.
Stirring shit for the sake of it? Idiots
Getting so mad your prophet is depicted that you feel an urge to shoot people? Idiots.

 

[orochi91]

No one is asking you to do so, only to recognize their right to do such things in a free society. You cannot pick and choose. It's all or nothing.

Of course they have every right to do so, I don't think I've said anything blatantly otherwise.

I just don't sympathize with their cause.

Would should strive for a world where no one is "baited" by mere drawings.

That would be nice.

I certainly wished those radicals didn't get baited tonight, consequently resulting in more negativity towards innocent Muslims.

 

[BocoDragon]

Personally, I don't go out of my way to make provocative images of Muhammad either. I hope Muslims realize that 99% of secular society isn't interested in prodding that issue.

But I support the right of satirists to do it, because it's a freedom of speech issue. And that's 0% in order to "bait Muslims" and 100% to assert their rights to freedom of speech.

I don't even think most satirists are "making fun of Muhammad". I think they're defying the taboo against the depiction of Muhammad in order to practice their own tradition's (secular democracy) right to freedom of speech.

Stop being offended by non-Muslims' depictions of Muhammad... and this all goes away! No one draws Buddha or Jesus as a freedom of speech issue!

Trying to enforce the taboo of depiction is like trying to force secular society to pray to Mecca, eat Halal or observe Ramadan. It's not a law for the world, it's a way for Muslims to get closer to their God. Making it the world's taboo waters down its power as an instrument to practice your faith.

 

[daniels]

If your only purpose in your art gallery is to make someone mad - that is, the gallery wouldn't exist unless there were people who would be mad about it - then people are well within their rights to call you out for it.

uhh what are you talking about its nothing new that you get cartoons for every current political and religious topic so yeah its ok it always was.
I really have no clue why something like this gets treated very differently as soon as islam is involved it cant only be fear can it?

 

[MIMIC]

Nah, dude.

Your comment about Tony Stark "inciting a riot" goes to Brandenburg v. Ohio (the case regarding inciting violence), not Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action

Moreover, "an immediate breach of the peace" (from Chaplinsky) is referring to a fight, not a riot. "Inciting imminent, lawless activity" (from Brandenburg) is referring to a riot.

 

[A Link to the Past]

uhh what are you talking about its nothing new that you get cartoons for every current political and religious topic so yeah its ok it always was.
I really have no clue why something like this gets treated very differently as soon as islam is involved it cant only be fear can it?

I'm openly critical of people offending for the sake of being offensive. You can put that straw man away.

 

[Madness]

If your only purpose in your art gallery is to make someone mad - that is, the gallery wouldn't exist unless there were people who would be mad about it - then people are well within their rights to call you out for it.

What of people who accept it when people outside of Islam depict Muhammed?

Seriously why are you even playing Devils Advocate in this thread? You've done nothing but essentially victim blame for several pages and you try to justify it saying art shouldn't offend or that we should be calling out these people for holding an anti-Islam exhibit etc. Like what is your point? We get it, you didn't like the message of the art exhibit. That still doesn't excuse the fact that two would be terrorists/gunmen are dead because they wanted to kill everyone associated with the art exhibit. So what is the point of posting over and over how you feel they shouldn't have drawn Muhammad in an offensive way?

 

[Metaphoreus]

If your only purpose in your art gallery is to make someone mad - that is, the gallery wouldn't exist unless there were people who would be mad about it - then people are well within their rights to call you out for it.

What of people who accept it when people outside of Islam depict Muhammed?

Of course they have every right to do so, I don't think I've said anything blatantly otherwise.

I just don't sympathize with their intent.

Where are you two getting your info regarding the "purpose" and "intent"? If we go straight to the source, we learn:

Geller said that the Cartoon Exhibit was a logical next step following AFDI’s Free Speech Rally in Garland: “This event will stand for free speech and show that Americans will not be cowed by violent Islamic intimidation. That is a crucial stand to take as Islamic assaults on the freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom, are growing more insistent.”

Honestly, Snitch-Link, it's like you're just thrashing about hoping to find some reason to keep denigrating the victims in this case--and hoping nobody challenges your ignorance.

 

[Madness]

No winners in this story.
Stirring shit for the sake of it? Idiots
Getting so mad your prophet is depicted that you feel an urge to shoot people? Idiots.

My friend. There is a GIGANTIC difference between people drawing art that is offensive and would be killers and terrorists.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Seriously why are you even playing Devils Advocate in this thread?

I'm not.

You've done nothing but essentially victim blame for several pages

Never did.

you try to justify it saying art shouldn't offend

Never said that.

or that we should be calling out these people for holding an anti-Islam exhibit

Not a once.

So what is the point of posting over and over how you feel they shouldn't have drawn Muhammad in an offensive way?

I never said anything like what you think I've said.

 

[Siegcram]

Not all galleries that depict Muhammed are going to exist because the owner wanted to offend people.



What event in history justifies being as disrespectful as possible just because you might as well? Doubling-down is a really bad idea.

I'm not the one doubling down on this absurd notion that the artist's or organizer's intent had anything to do with what took place.

 

[superseohyun]

No winners in this story.
Stirring shit for the sake of it? Idiots
Getting so mad your prophet is depicted that you feel an urge to shoot people? Idiots.

if only all the idiots are the same. Drawing something to stir some shit back, not pulling out fucking AKs.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Contest winner ^ . You mentioned that you are a Muslim earlier in the thread. You mention that this drawing is unacceptable to you and yet you aren't planning on murdering anyone (I hope?). Why are you able to reconcile your feelings with this art piece and still not wage an assault on the artist? What is the mechanism in your brain that's keeping you from doing this?

Normal people logic?

I mean, I am a Muslim too. That "I hope?" is cheeky though, as if "murdering" according to you is an automatic response a Muslim will have whenever he/she finds something unacceptable

Oh, and I clearly dislike the art in display. Hopefully that doesn't automatically get me pegged as a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[daniels]

I'm openly critical of people offending for the sake of being offensive. You can put that straw man away.

Yeah strawman...since the winning drawing already proved that the line for "offense" in this case is so low only a braindamage islamist could find it you should better get used to cartoons.
Or how do you explain ever other religion that islam has more rights to not be offendet simply because of the threat of violence?

 

[Terra Firma]

Pamela Geller is on the Right when it comes to economic policies but is fairly socially liberal. She supports abortion rights and same sex marriage which aren't exactly anti-liberal.

So her big offense was holding an event mocking a religion? Oh no, how dare they sit around drawing cartoons and making jokes about Islam. The horror.

But some Liberals feel the need to be critical of the "right wing nutjob" Geller more than the far right wing Islamic extremists. At least in Gellers "far right" world, gays would still have freedom and even the right to marry. I wonder if far right Islam would be so friendly to socially progressive ideals?

She is an Obama birther. She is anti-Islam, not just anti-radical Islam or anti-terrorist. She sees any sort of outreach towards the Muslim community as "dhimmitude", even attacking the Pope for being sympathetic towards Muslims. She is an ultra Zionist, meaning that she thinks Israel has the right to wipe out every single Arab country in the area to reclaim biblical Israel. She also fell on the side of George Zimmerman. She is also vehemently anti-Iran and tows Netanyahu's line.

But never mind all that. She is pro-gay marriage? Then she must be a progressive paragon!

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'm not the one doubling down on this absurd notion that the artist's or organizer's intent had anything to do with what took place.

Please make sure to reply with me ever saying that the intent had anything to do with what took place. I've said multiple times that the criticism of the event and its purpose is not related to the shooting.

Yeah strawman...since the winning drawing already proved that the line for "offense" in this case is so low only a braindamage islamist could find you should better get used to cartoons. Or how do you explain ever other religion that islam has more rights?

I have never offered my opinion on that particular piece of art. I don't know why you're bringing up the winner as though it relates to the intent of the event.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your comment about Tony Stark "inciting a riot" goes to Brandenburg v. Ohio (the case regarding inciting violence), not Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Moreover, "an immediate breach of the peace" (from Chaplinsky) is referring to a fight, not a riot. "Inciting imminent, lawless activity" (from Brandenburg) is referring to a riot.

Whether you want to discuss Chaplinsky and Brandenburg as dealing with the same exception (as the Congressional Research Service report I linked to does) or two different exceptions doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about how the exception(s) operate(s).

 

[Easy_D]

if only all the idiots are the same. Drawing something to stir some shit back, not pulling out fucking AKs.

Well yes. As unpleasant as loud mouths are it's obviously better when they don't come armed.

 

[cyclonekruse]

How many times have we seen people in Muslim-majority countries burn Bibles or other holy books? How many times have we seen them burn the American flag? How many times have they chanted something to the effect of "death to America"?

Going by the logic of some in this topic those countries should not be surprised when they get invaded or bombed by drones. After all they were poking the bear. Not that the violence is justified, of course. Just what do you expect from a hawkish country like the USA?

Meanwhile most reasonable people don't think violence is an appropriate response to mere insults. Insults with a credible threat attached? Maybe. But not just insults.

 

[rpmurphy]

Tolerance for civil society pre-empts tolerance for religious dogma in the Western world.

This was met with murderous militia:

That's unacceptable to us, not because of bigotry, but because we value civil society. We can't tolerate this.

That's understandable and it definitely is an ideal worth defending. 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.

 

[coleco]

Other shit stirring art from the past:

Piss Christ (1987) by Andrés Serrano

The Holy Virgin Mary (1996) by Chris Ofili

La Nona Ora (1999) by Cattelan

 

[Buzzati]

Normal people logic?

I mean, I am a Muslim too. That "I hope?" is cheeky though, as if "murdering" according to you is an automatic response a Muslim will have whenever he/she finds something unacceptable

That is precisely my point. Muslims are no different than Christians, in that they don't have automatic "murder centers" in their brains. They can collect and function in civil society, despite their religious impositions given to them since birth. You're right - it is logic that allows people to abide by the values of civil society. It is logic that determines one should see pictures like

and understand what they mean in the context of civil society.

The "I hope" was not meant to be cheeky. It was trying to bring some levity to the conversation.

 

[Buzzati]

That's understandable and it definitely is an ideal worth defending. 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.

The "best way to approach the problem" is not the responsibility of citizens that are endowed with the right to express themselves.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I think this topic would be a lot less taboo if instead of just focusing on funny pictures of Muhammad, they did it with other religious figures as well so it doesn't appear as biased and it's more so about freedom of speech.

So why not a picture of Jesus kissing a dude, or Adam and Eve pondering what will happen if their kids marry too?

 

[Siegcram]

Please make sure to reply with me ever saying that the intent had anything to do with what took place. I've said multiple times that the criticism of the event and its purpose is not related to the shooting.

You explicitly stated that if this venue would have been done in a more tasteful manner, you'd approve and that in that case the likelihood of a violent response by Islamists would be far more unlikely.

That is delusional and goes against everything that happened in the last 15 years.

So either you say the intent matters, to you personally and overall, or you're just purposefully shitting up the thread with your own misconceived stance on art and satire.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Other shit stirring art from the past:

Piss Christ (1987) by Andrés Serrano

The Holy Virgin Mary (1996) by Chris Ofili

La Nona Ora (1999) by Cattelan

How many murders were directly related to those art pieces? honestly curious

 

[Metaphoreus]

How many murders were directly related to those art pieces? honestly curious

And once we know that, did the artists ever do anything to deserve those murders? Were they listed by the SPLC as hate groups?

 

[superseohyun]

Well yes. As unpleasant as loud mouths are it's obviously better when they don't come armed.

i mean, i can even tolerate some level of violence. Throwing eggs or shoes at them for all i care. But when somebody pulls a fucking gun...

 

[orochi91]

That's understandable and it definitely is an ideal worth defending. 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.

This is, essentially, what my current view on the matter is.

Again, well said.

 

[A Link to the Past]

The "best way to approach the problem" is not the responsibility of citizens that are endowed with the right to express themselves.

But just as the citizen can do things like that, others can criticize and discuss it, or suggest that they consider other perspectives.

You explicitly stated that if this venue would have been done in a more tasteful manner, you'd approve and that in that case the likelihood of a violent response by Islamists would be far more unlikely.

That is delusional and goes against everything that happened in the last 15 years.

So either you say the intent matters, to you personally and overall, or you're just purposefully shitting up the thread with your own misconceived stance on art and satire.

I've never suggested that the likelihood of a violent response would be reduced. Don't make up arguments for me to take. The point has always been, and I've made this clear multiple times, that doing it in a more respectful manner is of benefit to Muslims who do not kill or advocate killing. If you're going to do something that may incite violence, there is no reason to do it in the worst way possible. Why shouldn't people be encouraged to try harder (but only slightly harder)?

 

[reckless]

I think this topic would be a lot less taboo if instead of just focusing on funny pictures of Muhammad, they did it with other religious figures as well so it doesn't appear as biased and it's more so about freedom of speech.

So why not a picture of Jesus kissing a dude, or Adam and Eve pondering what will happen if their kids marry too?

Because other religious figures have pictures made of them all the time.

 

[daniels]

I have never offered my opinion on that particular piece of art. I don't know why you're bringing up the winner as though it relates to the intent of the event.

If your only purpose in your art gallery is to make someone mad - that is, the gallery wouldn't exist unless there were people who would be mad about it - then people are well within their rights to call you out for it.

No you only said that as a whole its wrong lol so ofcourse this also includes all cartoons.
Which makes you wrong since cartoons are usually always about current political and religious nonsense only with islam this strangly makes trouble.


and btw my question remains if you dont want cartoons that gives crazy islamists a boo boo inside you have to explain to me and every other religion why islam has more rights to not be offendet simply because of the threat of violence.

 

[Buzzati]

But just as the citizen can do things like that, others can criticize and discuss it, or suggest that they consider other perspectives.

Sure.

 

[MIMIC]

Whether you want to discuss Chaplinsky and Brandenburg as dealing with the same exception (as the Congressional Research Service report I linked to does) or a different one doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about how the exception(s) operate(s).

Firstly, you are extremely misinformed. It's not the "same exception". Here is a LIST of 1st Amendment exceptions from Wiki:

1. Incitement
2. False statements of fact
3. Obscenity
4. Child pornography
5. Fighting words and offensive speech

Etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

They are categorized as two separate exceptions. Fighting words (where the purpose is to cause a fight) and incitement (inciting lawless activity) are two different things; they are not the same thing. "Fuck you you whore" (fight) and "Let's all kill Joe!" (inciting lawless activity) are two different concepts

Secondly, "fighting words" have nothing to do with the "circumstances" (as you referred to earlier). Do you know what fighting words are? There isn't some new term the Supreme Court came up with. Everyone knows what "fighting words" are: words where the purpose is to start a fight.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I said that the point of the gallery, the reason the gallery was made, was to offend people. I did not offer my opinion on any of the art, or the art in the gallery as a collective.

I've also never offered my opinion on the rights of people to depict Muhammed. I've said that in this case, there are simple, better ways to make their point or to depict their art than the way they chose. It's like suggesting that I shouldn't tell someone to speak more politely. Sure, it's "technically" an attempt at censorship, but it's also an attempt to make the conversation more civil.

Speaking of which, please be more polite in future posts, daniels.

EDIT: I also don't know why you keep bringing up cartoons that I already told you I am critical of when they offend to offend.