Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

Watch and be amazed.

Holy crap, this makes me ill

 

[vas_a_morir]

The idea that the Catholic church shouldn't sell indulgences was offensive to some people. The idea that the people shouldn't own slaves was offensive to some people. The idea that the women and African Americans should be able to vote was offensive to some people. The idea that people view images of naked people is offensive to some people. The idea that people in same-sex relationships should be allowed to marry was (and unfortunately still is) offensive to some people. The idea that there was a Holocaust is offensive to some people. The idea that some people draw images of a religious leader is offensive to some other people.

If we stop being offensive, we stop being who we are. Someone will always take offense at anything.

You nailed it, IMO. Oddly enough, most of the Western world didn't fully abandon actual honest-to-God SLAVERY until after WW2. Something I sometimes forget. The advent of a free society as propelled the human race so rapidly. Societies where free speech is limited are stagnant and miserably oppressed. I see the progress and quality of life these in these societies historically, and I want no part of it.

 

[KingGondo]

Well, TLDR: Yep.
*snip*

Yes, there are a lot of people talking past each other in this thread.

 

[superseohyun]

If the group running the event is reprehensible, then the purpose of the event and the event itself become reprehensible.

so if this group hold a charity for an ill white boy, the charity is reprehensible.

 

[Trouble]

If the group running the event is reprehensible, then the purpose of the event and the event itself become reprehensible.

That's like saying a bad person can't do a good deed.

 

[xsarien]

so if this group hold a charity for an ill white boy, the charity is reprehensible.

If you're gonna get into hypotheticals, that's fine. I'll just add on:

They throw a charity event for that hypothetical, ill white boy, but later that month they're asked to participate in a similar event for an ill Muslim boy, they decline. Still monsters.

How far down this useless rabbit hole do you want to go?

 

[captive]

Holy shit at the victim blaming on the first page.

 

[pgtl_10]

I don't like the group who did the exhibit but I'll defend their right to do the exhibit.

Shooting or acting violently is the wrong way to go about this. If you let the event organizers have their exhibit and don't let them get to you then they lose their ability to provoke.

Confidence in one's faith or beliefs means you don't let people's opinions control you. Like Will Smith said:

“Stop letting people who do so little for you control so much of your mind, feelings and emotions.”

Radicals should read that quote everyday and live by it. I often find radicals to be least faithful of a religion because they most offended by other people's actions.

 

[alfredofroylan]

Second shooter identified and Simpson's father spoke to ABC

The second shooter in the Garland, Texas terrorist attack has been identified as Nadir Soofi, 34. According to law enforcement officials quoted by the Washington Post, he was indeed Elton Simpson’s roommate, as some earlier reports indicated.

Elton Simpson’s father Dunston is speaking out. He denounced his son’s actions to ABC News: “We are Americans and we believe in America. What my son did reflects very badly on my family.”

Dunston Simpson described himself as a strict father, and said his son was “always a good kid,” but said Elton “made a bad choice.” Father and son had not spoken much recently, “because we had some very serious differences.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ified-elton-simpsons-father-denounces-attack/

 

[Guileless]

Shooting or acting violently is the wrong way to go about this. If you let the event organizers have their exhibit and don't let them get to you then they lose their ability to provoke.

Or you can credibly threaten to murder people and get actual results.

 

[pgtl_10]

Or you can credibly threaten to murder people and get actual results.

What results do you gain by intimidation?

 

[Vade]

The victim blaming is top tier in this thread. Only Islam seems to get this significant victim complex on everything its members do. If you actually believe Islam is a victim here are you also part of the crowds that say it was Freddie Gray's fault he was killed? That is the same strand of logic being applied.

 

[Quotient]

Just because someone says something you don't like, you don't respond with violence, and you don't insult someone just because you can.

 

[BamfMeat]

The victim blaming is top tier in this thread. Only Islam seems to get this significant victim complex on everything its members do. If you actually believe Islam is a victim here are you also part of the crowds that say it was Freddie Gray's fault he was killed? That is the same strand of logic being applied.

I don't blame all of Islam on the actions of militant individuals just like I don't paint all Christians in a bad light because of the Westboro Baptist Church or pro-life militant people who shoot doctors.

Is it really victim blaming to point out the following?

Nope.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Just because someone says something you don't like, you don't respond with violence, and you don't insult someone just because you can.

Sure you do. They can do the same to you. If they are unable to come up with a good counter-argument, they should shut up and take the L.

 

[Arkeband]

Is it really victim blaming to point out the following?

1) Crazy people, fueled by religion, are historically known to lash out violently over these dumb cartoons.
2) Group behind anti-Islam movement hosts and publicizes a 'Draw Mohammad Contest'
3) Violence occurs (again)

I think the sentiment behind 'was this event necessary' stems from the unsurprising blowback from hosting it. Obviously violent responses are a problem and are absolutely not okay and need to be discouraged, but how do you stop religion-fueled crazy? You can't. There will always be crazy people willing to sacrifice their lives for some abstract cause.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Is it really victim blaming to point out the following?

1) Crazy people, fueled by religion, are historically known to lash out violently over these dumb cartoons.
2) Group behind anti-Islam movement hosts and publicizes a 'Draw Mohammad Contest'
3) Violence occurs (again)

I think the sentiment behind 'was this event necessary' stems from the unsurprising blowback from hosting it. Obviously violent responses are a problem and are absolutely not okay and need to be discouraged, but how do you stop religion-fueled crazy? You can't. There will always be crazy people willing to sacrifice their lives for some abstract cause.

Unfortunately for all those sickened by the anti-islamic group's provocative exhibit, the terrorists legitimized the message. They wanted to prove a point and they did, thanks to the terrorists. It's frustrating, but what can you say? The hate-group had the biggest rhetorical victory they could have ever imagined. Hell, maybe fostering hate against Muslims is the goal of these terrorists. I know they certainly do not do what they do because they care about their fellow Muslims, and I've never read the Koran but I can't imagine it tells you to murder people over matters of pride.

 

[creationtheory]

Just because someone says something you don't like, you don't respond with violence, and you don't insult someone just because you can.

When someone is insulted by something so ridiculous they should be insulted.

 

[Bigfoot]

If you're gonna get into hypotheticals, that's fine. I'll just add on:

They throw a charity event for that hypothetical, ill white boy, but later that month they're asked to participate in a similar event for an ill Muslim boy, they decline. Still monsters.

How far down this useless rabbit hole do you want to go?

Wow, his point totally flew over your head, didn't it? Just because a "bad" person or group does something, it doesn't make what they are doing "bad".

 

[Terra Firma]

When someone is insulted by something so ridiculous they should be insulted.

People are insulted if you insult their race, their religion, their culture, their mothers. So by your logic, we should all go around insulting everyone BECAUSE they can be insulted?

 

[creationtheory]

People are insulted if you insult their race, their religion, their culture, their mothers. So by your logic, we should all go around insulting everyone BECAUSE they can be insulted?

I expect to be insulted in life and I don't feel like I (or anyone else) should be exempt for any reason.

 

[Terra Firma]

I expect to be insulted in life and I don't feel like I (or anyone else) should be exempt for any reason.

You said, "should be insulted." Most people are insulted by mere personal insults that are mostly ridiculous. What you said is that you should then insult them BECAUSE they're insulted by personal insults.

 

[BamfMeat]

Wow, his point totally flew over your head, didn't it? Just because a "bad" person or group does something, it doesn't make what they are doing "bad".

Likewise one "good" deed doesn't suddenly make everything bad they've done in the past null and void.

Can we stop with the posturing that this was "just" an art exhibit, please?

They may not be a civil rights group, but freedom of speech is a civil rights issue.

I have yet to see anyone say the group needed to be quieted down, by force if necessary. No one is trampling on the groups right to hold the art exhibit.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Oh hush. This is not a Civil Rights group, and no one is working to force them to not communicate what they're trying to say. What they're trying to say is also not the equivalent of "black people shouldn't be property."

They may not be a civil rights group, but freedom of speech is a civil rights issue. And if you're saying that protecting the freedom to draw a picture of a religious figure isn't important, well, I find that very offensive.

Spoiler

Of course however, I will defend your right to say it.

 

[Opto]

Well this event is just going to be a new self-perpetuating cycle. Jesus christ.

 

[A Link to the Past]

They may not be a civil rights group, but freedom of speech is a civil rights issue. And if you're saying that protecting the freedom to draw a picture of a religious figure isn't important, well, I find that very offensive.

Spoiler

Of course however, I will defend your right to say it.

I've never said that they shouldn't be allowed to express themselves that way.

Also, I don't have the power or authority to limit their rights to speech even if that was my intention.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Can we stop with the posturing that this was "just" an art exhibit, please?

So what if it wasn't?

I have yet to see anyone say the group needed to be quieted down, by force if necessary. No one is trampling on the groups right to hold the art exhibit.

The freedom to depict a religious figure is being threatened.

 

[Joni]

Why'd you cut parts of my post to make me seem like a rigid ideologue? I was fair. Did you simply not read my point about Newtown or did you purposively ignore it? BTW, the police and security were not armed in the country I lived.

As for "Has more shootings" I DID address that part, and you pretended like I didn't. Actually, you purposively chopped up my post to obscure the facts of what I said in order to make your argument easier. I'm talking about the right of an individual to defend their lives as a human right. IF someone DOES choose to illegally use arms to attack you, it is a compelling argument that you should have the ability to defend yourself as an individual. And, the price for this right is relatively high, as I said in my original post.

Please, be fair. It's disingenuous to chop up somebody's words to make them say something they didn't.

I only quoted the parts that I wanted to address, ie the strange assumptions you made. You seem to be referring some proof that private arm possessions helps in cases like this. It didn't, the police interfered. Even without stuff like Newtwon, it is a strange remark. As for your country's police not having guns, I seriously doubt the SWAT equivalent from your country doesn't have armed police. Wilders doesn't get to go out in Europe without an armed escort.

 

[Opto]

There's "don't do this, make it illegal" statements and there are "don't do this, jesus christ, I implore you to stop" statements. I don't see any of the former

 

[Hex]

I hope their evidence was a little bit more solid than "possibly"... if they shot two innocent guys this won't end well



Oh okay they opened fire... I hope they didn't hurt anyone.

SO damned quick to try.
Never change.


Anyway, really sad thing for this to happen, the fact that anybody is getting hurt over this is asinine.

When someone is insulted by something so ridiculous they should be insulted.

This is a really stupid statement and the exact mentality that causes issues. People needing to prove points.

 

[Hex]

double post

 

[Earthstrike]

The victim blaming is top tier in this thread. Only Islam seems to get this significant victim complex on everything its members do. If you actually believe Islam is a victim here are you also part of the crowds that say it was Freddie Gray's fault he was killed? That is the same strand of logic being applied.

Wait, what? I don't completely understand your analogy here. Are you sure you typed it out the way you meant it? This is borderline incomprehensible. I don't actually understand what you are trying to say.

 

[vas_a_morir]

I only quoted the parts that I wanted to address, ie the strange assumptions you made. You seem to be referring some proof that private arm possessions helps in cases like this. It didn't, the police interfered. Even without stuff like Newtwon, it is a strange remark. As for your country's police not having guns, I seriously doubt the SWAT equivalent from your country doesn't have armed police. Wilders doesn't get to go out in Europe without an armed escort.

Well, next time I suggest you address what I'm saying instead of addressing what you wish I said.

 

[BamfMeat]

So what if it wasn't?

Then that makes the people doing the exhibit deplorable human beings who are out to piss people off for no reason. I view them the same as I view the people who trot out the guns and dare cops to say something to them.

NOTE: That doesn't mean I'm saying it should be illegal for them to say it. I'm just saying they're trash people.

The freedom to depict a religious figure is being threatened.

Is it? By who? Where are these threatening gestures you're speaking of?

 

[Mrmartel]

I already agreed it was art. It just happens to be terrible, boring art.

There is never a justification for violence in response to speech. That doesn't change the fact that the people who put on the show are ignorant assholes whose intent was almost certainly to provoke.

All of the involved parties were wrong and they should all be condemned.

This is such a poor conclusion. An disgusting equivalency for what actually occurred. The height of victim blaming.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Then that makes the people doing the exhibit deplorable human beings who are out to piss people off for no reason. I view them the same as I view the people who trot out the guns and dare cops to say something to them.

Getting radicals to demonstrate the absurdity of their violent response is "no reason?" Starting a conversation about whether or not to allow a radical violent minority to curtail freedom of speech is "no reason?"

 

[KingGondo]

This is such a poor conclusion. An disgusting equivalency for what actually occurred. The height of victim blaming.

Let me spell it out for you explicitly: They're assholes for holding this exhibition regardless of the reaction it provoked. They deserve to be condemned for this, and the shooters deserve to be condemned for reacting with violence.

There is no contradiction there.

 

[Mrmartel]

Let me spell it out for you explicitly: They're assholes for holding this exhibition regardless of the reaction it provoked. They deserve to be condemned for this, and the shooters deserve to be condemned for reacting with violence.

There is no contradiction there.

Except for the Equivalency they should be equally condemned. Unless you see no difference in Violence or people you personally dislike promoting an event that you personally dislike.

 

[Valhelm]

I read this thread as "Muhammad Ali Exhibit" and thought it was a race issue...

...I peer a little closer and see it's a religion issue.

I've been deep into Scientology recently, reading about the "fair game" policy and how it mandates an offensive attack on anyone who criticizes them. When it's a new movement, outside of the smoke and mirrors of Religion (tm), it's easier to see it more clearly: there is an attack element programmed into this ideology, it motivates its members to attack others who criticize it. Clear as day. But of course #NotAllScientologists right?

Islam does prohibit images of Muhammad. It does advocate righteous defence of the faith. This is a logical outcome. At best we have to implore Muslims that this means "does not prohibit images of Muhammad.... for Muslims. And advocates righteous defence of the faith... through impassioned dialogue."

And to those who say "that's what Islam is! That's what we Muslims do!" Great. Good. You're on our team. Keep promoting that version of it. But realize that this version is not some assumption of following Islam that goes without saying. It must be fought for. It does not go without saying... just like a Scientologist not taking "fair game" literally does not go without saying. People actually need to take a stand and say that it's okay for the secular world to draw this comic and it is un-Islamic to attack them. It actually needs to be said and affirmed again and again.

This is more or less how I feel. The people who organized this contest are assholes, but they attacks will only make American Muslims feel more unsafe.

 

[BamfMeat]

Getting radicals to demonstrate the absurdity of their violent response is "no reason?" Starting a conversation about whether or not to allow a radical violent minority to curtail freedom of speech is "no reason?"

Man your hyperbole is off the charts. I thought I tended to be grandiose in my wording but holy hell.

We'll break this down to two questions.

Getting radicals to demonstrate the absurdity of their violent response is "no reason?"

We don't need to incite more reactions to have a reason. We have plenty of those. You have to live in a fucking hole to not know how absolutely batshit insane these radicals are.

Starting a conversation about whether or not to allow a radical violent minority to curtail freedom of speech is "no reason?"

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the only way to start a conversation with people regarding various issues is by insulting them.

We know already that the muslim extremists gonna extreme. There is nothing new or inciteful about what this TX group did. And we know that the extremists, no matter how tame the depiction of Mohammed is, are going to be all up in arms and start bombing shit. Again, nothing new.

Also, where is this fucking "curtailing freedom of speech" at? Can you tell me? Because I'm not fucking seeing it. We're not telling the group to not do this again, so it's not like they're being silenced. No one told them "you can't have this because you don't know what'll happen!"

Stop with the "MAH FREEDUMB UF SPEECH" shit. It's tired and not even applicable to what happened.

 

[KingGondo]

Except for the Equivalency they should be equally condemned. Unless you see no difference in Violence or people you personally dislike promoting an event that you personally dislike.

I didn't say that the acts are equal in their repugnance. I didn't even say that in the post that you originally quoted.

In subsequent posts (which you clearly did not bother to read) I clarified my position and stated that the violence was obviously worse than the event that provoked it.

 

[superseohyun]

If you're gonna get into hypotheticals, that's fine. I'll just add on:

They throw a charity event for that hypothetical, ill white boy, but later that month they're asked to participate in a similar event for an ill Muslim boy, they decline. Still monsters.

How far down this useless rabbit hole do you want to go?

yes? and that made the charity reprehensible how?

 

[Quotient]

Sure you do. They can do the same to you. If they are unable to come up with a good counter-argument, they should shut up and take the L.

When someone is insulted by something so ridiculous they should be insulted.

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.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

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.

Not all Muslims will find a caricature of Muhammed to be extremely offensive, there's a great amount of variance in the opinions of 1.6 billion individuals.
Some will tell the caricature drawers to keep on drawing, others will simply not care, and then you got those who are offended (and the sub-group of individuals with that opinion who resort to violence.)

 

[Squirrel Killer]

We don't need to incite more reactions to have a reason. We have plenty of those. You have to live in a fucking hole to not know how absolutely batshit insane these radicals are.

Apparently we do because people are fine with appeasing these types of radicals.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the only way to start a conversation with people regarding various issues is by insulting them.

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

We know already that the muslim extremists gonna extreme. There is nothing new or inciteful about what this TX group did. And we know that the extremists, no matter how tame the depiction of Mohammed is, are going to be all up in arms and start bombing shit. Again, nothing new.

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

Also, where is this fucking "curtailing freedom of speech" at? Can you tell me? Because I'm not fucking seeing it. We're not telling the group to not do this again, so it's not like they're being silenced. No one told them "you can't have this because you don't know what'll happen!"

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.

Stop with the "MAH FREEDUMB UF SPEECH" shit. It's tired and not even applicable to what happened.

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.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

They should be able to shout from the rooftops about purple elephants in the sky without worrying about being murdered, period.

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.

I second the opinion that it's quite something Islam seems to get an excuse in this regard on gaf, even marginally. Any other thread about people being attacked for actions that don't deserve it, and there's almost no one questioning the victims (it happens but they're usually met with shock and disagreement). But these threads seem to deviate into what the victims were up to or believing in (or saying or drawing) that could possibly yield a violent response, rather than focusing on plainly condemning the barbaric acts that followed, and stopping there. I'll never understand it.

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.

Posts like this :/

 

[superseohyun]

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.

If drawing some fucking cartoon can extremely offends 1.6 billion ppl on this planet, then there must be something wrong on this planet and those ppl probably need to change.

 

[Quotient]

Not all Muslims will find a caricature of Muhammed to be extremely offensive, there's a great amount of variance in the opinions of 1.6 billion individuals.
Some will tell the caricature drawers to keep on drawing, others will simply not care, and then you got those who are offended (and the sub-group of individuals with that opinion who resort to violence.)

That is very true. I shouldn't have generalized. I'm not certain about this, but i don't think their is anything in the koran that strictly forbids images of Muhammad.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

yes? and that made the charity reprehensible how?

Probably in the same way Penn State Dance-a-thons are pitiful.

 

[Quotient]

Posts like this :/

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?