Shooting at Wilders speech in Texas

[Farm Boy]

Yea, Stephen King would probably get more slack for planning out that sort of thing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Perhaps I used the wrong word. It doesn't seem like it's very easy to understand the thought behind the question.

Let me reformulate it: Do you think it is right that there shall be no consequences or retaliations for doing an exceedingly offensive act, in secret, in ones own home?

My point is to try to slowly build up some kind of consensus. Because I don't like a lot of what I'm reading here, and I hope that some of it can be attributed to us talking past each other.

I don't think we are talking past each other. You probably don't like my opinion. I'm okay with that.

Eventually you are going to move the offensive act from the absolute privacy out into ever more public arenas, to see where people approve of it bringing consequences. And we're all supposed to learn that freedom of speech is the most important thing in the world and violence is evil and we all have to give a jerk his day and turn the other cheek. Pass.

Here's what I live by:

Sticks and stones just break bones, but the damage from words may never heal. If you use your mouth to spew hate into the world without regard for where the consequences of that hatred fall, those consequences need to be directed upon you yourself with as much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary.

 

[Berzerker]

I know a lot Muslims who aren't even aware that this event happened.

They just had a funeral/celebration for them in Peshawar

Saying the shooters are representative of the views of many Muslims is false.

They're martyrs, what does that represent?

And I hope you don't expect me to admire them. The person who s()its over the grave of a dead person is not to be admired, no matter how legal the move.

I dont who you're talking about, the dead people are the shooters and their intended victims are not sitting on their graves

It is people like you who help me understand that "free speech", no matter what beautiful ideals are attached to it, is in reality just a self serving concept. Everyone has the right to free speech, it is just the coincidence that Americans prefer the free speech of rich white guys who own the media over any other.

What happens to a Muslim living under Islamic law when they renounce the religion? They dont have freedom of speech.

 

[warpus]

Did I say violence was needed? I apologize then, if my tone indicated I approved of violence. I am just tired of people being laudatory of these cartoons. It seems to indicate that some types of free speech and some people who exercise that right are more valuable than others.

I don't think that you did, no need to apologize. I was mainly responding to your sentiment that some things should be sacred and immune from criticism or ridicule. (or at least my interpretation of your sentiment I suppose)

If there's people out there who think that X shouldn't be criticised - I hope that there's also people out there criticising and mocking X.

The idea that some things need to be immune from mockery is a dangerous one. I don't like it when people get offended - it's not nice, etc. - but that is a small price to pay for the overall greater good. IMO.

No sacred cows allowed - everything is open to mockery. If that ever changes, we're in trouble.

 

[Berzerker]

In passing, I think Farm Boy, as usual, has cut right to the nut by using the word incitement. If someone has a goal of inciting violence, I am in favor of letting them enjoy the fruits of their efforts.

So you do think the French cartoonists got what they deserved

 

[Narz]

Strife and hysteria over the brown menace.

I don't think it has anything to do with their skin tone (Muslims ran the gamut on that with Brother Ali on the extreme white end of the spectrum).

The issue is, when someone calls you stupid & backwards & then you try to kill them it kind of proves you right.

If this was any other type of shooting people would be admonished for discussing the perpetrators & ignoring the victims but when it comes to Islam someone their sensitive feelings is always at the forefront of discussion.

Progressive means freedom to let people be jerks in their own little circle as long as they're not hurting anyone.

No other religion is connected to so many backward regimes, violence & oppression & I'm suppose to get up in arms over a cartoon of their version of Moses? Come on. Moderates should look at their own culture, honor killings, genital mutilation, terrorism before they start blaming the rest of the world for not showing them due respect.

 

[Narz]

Sticks and stones just break bones, but the damage from words may never heal. If you use your mouth to spew hate into the world without regard for where the consequences of that hatred fall, those consequences need to be directed upon you yourself with as much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary.

Were these people saying "Death to Islam" or just taking a stab at their sacred founder?

IIRC there was a thread here on CFC about whether or not Jesus was gay. Say some folks found a gay Jesus event, now some fundy Christians might think thats worth killing over. Where do you draw the line over whats spewing hate?

Me personally, I don't really care much about Islam in general but I suppose a guy's right to get a Prophet Mo tattoo if he really wants one.

 

[Cheetah]

I don't think we are talking past each other. You probably don't like my opinion. I'm okay with that.

Eventually you are going to move the offensive act from the absolute privacy out into ever more public arenas, to see where people approve of it bringing consequences. And we're all supposed to learn that freedom of speech is the most important thing in the world and violence is evil and we all have to give a jerk his day and turn the other cheek. Pass.

Here's what I live by:

Sticks and stones just break bones, but the damage from words may never heal. If you use your mouth to spew hate into the world without regard for where the consequences of that hatred fall, those consequences need to be directed upon you yourself with as much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary.

Okay, let's drop my plan...

You're prediction is correct on the first sentence, namely:

Eventually you are going to move the offensive act from the absolute privacy out into ever more public arenas, to see where people approve of it bringing consequences.

However, all I expected to follow from thereon, was that we would eventually find the line, or lines, where we disagree. And my hope would be that we have simply misunderstood each other to some degree.

But it seems trying to do such a stepwise investigation was dead on arrival, so instead I'll tell you how I've understood what you and some others have said (there was more, but these stood out especially):

The comparison to "blind violence when you go out of your house" holds no water. Maybe if you were to go out of your house wearing a sandwich board sign that said "hey neighbors, I hate all you [deleted] and I'm hoping to have an opportunity to burn your houses down one day" the comparison would be more apt.

The violent result would still be illegal, but it wouldn't really be "blind" in either case...or unpredictable, which I think was the point.

The 'burning your houses down' part would be an actual threat though, which the police should probably look into. But ignoring that, in this case the organisers didn't go around forcing their drawings on others, which I believe would have counted as some form of harassment (As jackelgull said, he wouldn't even have known about this except for the aftermath of the violent response). As such, I think your comparison is even poorer.

Interestingly, here you're acknowledging that a violent response is illegal, but from your other statements I get the feeling you would rather see it not being illegal?

Isn't it just a bit silly of them, though? You simply don't poke a rabid dog with a stick unless you're looking for trouble.

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks (and others), they surely knew that what they were doing would provoke a reaction. In fact, I'd say they'd have been disappointed not to get one. So, in this sense they really were asking for it.

To me this reads like pure victim blaming. If I change the objects a bit in Borachio's statement, I think it would be easier to see:

Isn't it just a bit silly of those women, though? You simply don't tempt horny, drunk guys by dressing like that unless you're looking for trouble.

After all the previous rapes, they surely knew that what they were doing would provoke a reaction. In fact, I'd say they'd have been disappointed not to get one. So, in this sense they really were asking for it.

There's always a place to talk about precautions and motives, but both these organisers and the women in my example were simply acting based on rights I thought all of us agreed on. I can't say I remember what Borachio's position is vis-a-vis rape, but I don't think he would argue that women must limit their freedoms, or else take the consequences. And yet I see him making just such a point when the issue is freedom of speech, and the (potential) victims are people he doesn't care much for.

The cartoons in question did not focus on mistreatment of others. They were lewd and ridiculing drawings of the Prophet. Traditionally Muslims interpret the depiction of any worldly object as a graven image, and thus a Violation of the Ten Commandments.

I'm not sure if he realizes it, but here Zkribbler is expanding on what Muslims can validly get offended by. Not only images of Muhammad, but any image is a violation of the first commandment! Taken by itself, that is interesting (and disturbing), but in the context of this discussion it seems to imply that because extreme Muslims are not killing and destroying because of all the other images, then their outrage of the lewd Muhammad drawings is acceptable. It also tells me, that if this opinion is held by many, then it also works as a word of warning: if lewd Mohammad images would be banned, the conflict would eventually move to the next most offensive image, and then this cycle would continue.

I have no problem with telling someone "That was free, but if you say it again you might as well be punching me, because I will hit you back." What happens next is their choice, and I'll never miss a minute's sleep over it. In such a case who would you say started the violence?

You started it of course. First with a threat, and then potentially by carrying out the threat.

Here you're stating your willingness to use intimidation, threat of violence and violence itself to silence any statement you do not approve of, and that you would blame your victims for you having to hurt them. You're also not qualifying it with stating whether this applies in your home, in public, or even in the other persons home.

If intentionally being an A hole isn't sufficient to get your life threatened, what is?

Here you're repeating that if someone behaves in a way you disapprove of, you believe they deserve to be threatened with death - and presumably you also believe that such a threat shall be carried out if the victim doesn't concede.

I had assumed that the vast majority of us were in agreement that the only time we should kill someone is when that someone is about to (or believed to be about to) kill or severely hurt someone else. And that killing people for any other reason is murder.

Sticks and stones just break bones, but the damage from words may never heal. If you use your mouth to spew hate into the world without regard for where the consequences of that hatred fall, those consequences need to be directed upon you yourself with as much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary.

If you were referring to people agitating for violence towards a person or a group, then I would agree that they should be stopped (But only with violence if absolutely necessary).

In the context of this discussion, it reads as if you believe that opinions which offend may justifiably be answered with violence.

You probably don't like my opinion. I'm okay with that.

Several people in this thread appear to believe that freedom of speech should not apply to offensive speech. Especially if that speech is offending religious sensibilities. I think they haven't thought through why we actually have a freedom of speech. Or I fear that they have, and that they'd prefer to limit it.

You, personally, are coming across as a very unpleasant, and potentially dangerous, person, who is willing to use violence to silence any opinion you do not approve of, and who thinks that victims have themselves to blame if they offended the wrong people.

I'm not okay with this. In fact, I'm extremely uncomfortable with it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you do think the French cartoonists got what they deserved

Having already said otherwise, I spit out the words you put in my mouth. Thanks for your attentiveness.

As a satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo is a different thing. They are a publication, subject to the market not only on the sales end but the advertising end. Commenting on society is their job.

This thing in Dallas was pretty much just a bunch of loudmouths saying "hey let's get together and talk about how much we hate Muslims."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You, personally, are coming across as a very unpleasant, and potentially dangerous, person, who is willing to use violence to silence any opinion you do not approve of, and who thinks that victims have themselves to blame if they offended the wrong people.

I'm not okay with this. In fact, I'm extremely uncomfortable with it.

Well, you are certainly right to be uncomfortable with that.

Now let's rewind and put in some reality.

I have no interest in "silencing opinions." For example, here we are in an open discussion, and you suggesting that I am very unpleasant and possibly dangerous is expressing your opinion, and I have no problem with you doing so. The purpose of this open discussion is to exchange opinions.

Now, if I responded with a string of obscenities I would be sanctioned by the owners of this facility, and rightly so. But if we were exchanging opinions in a venue that didn't exert any controls then responding with a string of obscenities would be an available option. It would not be a continuation of the exchange of opinions, it would just be unwarranted abuse. Point of fact, it would be unwarranted abuse intended to silence opinion. Is there any reason I should be allowed to get away with that?

Of course not. Is there any reason you should silence your opinion by walking away?

Of course not. Is there anything to be gained from protecting my "freedom" to abuse you?

Of course not.

At one point in my life I was walking through a parking lot, and a guy in a car blew his horn...I'm guessing because I was not walking fast enough for him. I stopped and told him that blowing his horn was not only not making me move faster, since I was now stopped, but what it was doing was [street term for making me angry]. Assuming that his response was to just lay on the horn, what was his message?

Was it anything but "I want to make you angry?" There is no way to call it a misunderstanding, is there? No "expression of an opinion" involved, is there? All it is is a predator trumpeting a challenge.

 

[innonimatu]

Eventually you are going to move the offensive act from the absolute privacy out into ever more public arenas, to see where people approve of it bringing consequences. And we're all supposed to learn that freedom of speech is the most important thing in the world and violence is evil and we all have to give a jerk his day and turn the other cheek. Pass.

Freedom of speech is not some new idea. It has been discussed, in the US, for well over 250 years, and the legal details have been tweaked to account for people's reasonable reactions. Look here for a short comment abut the present legislation.

Your concerts over freedom of speech are either naive (in which case you should read up on the current legislation and the case history that built it up), or else hide another agenda.

Sticks and stones just break bones, but the damage from words may never heal. If you use your mouth to spew hate into the world without regard for where the consequences of that hatred fall, those consequences need to be directed upon you yourself with as much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary.

Please define "much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary". Is that support for resorting to murder as retaliation for words? Yes or no?

Ironically by even advocating some kind of violence (ferocity?) as retaliation for words you seem determined to test the limits of free speech. And definitely go beyond what those drawers of cartoons do.

 

[Berzerker]

Having already said otherwise, I spit out the words you put in my mouth. Thanks for your attentiveness.

I can see why your logic left a foul taste in your mouth, but you didn't respond to my question until now so you hadn't already said otherwise. Somebody here needs to pay attention and it aint me...

As a satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo is a different thing. They are a publication, subject to the market not only on the sales end but the advertising end. Commenting on society is their job.

This thing in Dallas was pretty much just a bunch of loudmouths saying "hey let's get together and talk about how much we hate Muslims."

And your response is laughable, now freedom of speech only applies to publications that sell ads?

Allow me to translate your nonsense - the French cartoonists were leftists so you're okay with what they did, but these are right wingers down in Dallas and they deserve to be shot for their cartoons.

 

[JollyRoger]

Freedom to be a public bigot is protected from some things, but not from criticism.

 

[Cheetah]

Well, you are certainly right to be uncomfortable with that.

Now let's rewind and put in some reality.

I have no interest in "silencing opinions." For example, here we are in an open discussion, and you suggesting that I am very unpleasant and possibly dangerous is expressing your opinion, and I have no problem with you doing so. The purpose of this open discussion is to exchange opinions.

Now, if I responded with a string of obscenities I would be sanctioned by the owners of this facility, and rightly so. But if we were exchanging opinions in a venue that didn't exert any controls then responding with a string of obscenities would be an available option. It would not be a continuation of the exchange of opinions, it would just be unwarranted abuse. Point of fact, it would be unwarranted abuse intended to silence opinion. Is there any reason I should be allowed to get away with that?

Of course not. Is there any reason you should silence your opinion by walking away?

Of course not. Is there anything to be gained from protecting my "freedom" to abuse you?

Of course not.

At one point in my life I was walking through a parking lot, and a guy in a car blew his horn...I'm guessing because I was not walking fast enough for him. I stopped and told him that blowing his horn was not only not making me move faster, since I was now stopped, but what it was doing was [street term for making me angry]. Assuming that his response was to just lay on the horn, what was his message?

Was it anything but "I want to make you angry?" There is no way to call it a misunderstanding, is there? No "expression of an opinion" involved, is there? All it is is a predator trumpeting a challenge.

The message was obviously 'I'm acting irrationally and continue to blow my horn even though it did not have the intended effect earlier, and now I'm getting increasingly more irrational!'

Half of my uncomfortability stems from knowing that you're a rather reasonable person to talk to (even though I'm strongly disagreeing with one of your opinions vis-a-vis vaccines). So when you seem to argue that you'd want to use violence against opinions you disapprove of, I end up rather disappointed.

What is interesting is that you seem to be able to handle most arguments, and yet the definition you gave was abstract enough to cover any kind of opinions or arguments you would happen not to like. It seems to me (through a forum on the Internet, but still) that the only time you'd actually not respond rationally to an opinion or argument it would have to be akin to a steady stream of unfounded, generalised insults. And while colloquially I guess most of us would say we'd "kick some ass" over it, it's more often than not smarter to - and I'd wager that you would do so also - simply remove oneself from such company, instead of starting a fight.

However, this whole discussion springs out from the recent events in Texas, and the backdrop they exist in. You, and several others, seem to simply write the organisers off as some abusive, annoying, troublemakers who shouldn't have created this event, because it is in extremely bad taste.

That may all be true, but I feel that wildly misses what's important here, and some of the responses from you and others in this thread seem to trivialize the reasons for having a freedom of speech in the first place.

The first round of caricatures came about in 2005 because of a perceived problem about criticism of Islam and with self-censorship. In a reasonable world, it would have ended there: Some Muslims in Denmark would have been offended, perhaps some letters to the editors or maybe even a protest march, and things would have died down. Instead the response was a huge wave of violence and threats, and of the media and politicians backing down.

While the wave calmed down, the threats and violence has continued in a small, almost continuous stream, and it is extremely easy for journalists, cartoonists and other to simply give up and accept that caricaturing Mohammad is taboo. That would set quite a bad precedent, and would encourage the most vocal to push for further concessions. Hypothetically, if we were to make mocking Mohammad taboo, we would soon have to make mockery of other religious figures taboo as well. And while the figuratively slippery slope is quite overdone, I'd be extremely wary that the taboo would be extended to include other parts of the religions, and soon serious criticism would be difficult.

The result, is that what was initially merely a curiosity, has now become a vital battleground for the freedom of speech. Comparing the latest drawings to needless provocations is disingenuous, all the time they do in fact tie into the bigger issue of people being free to criticize. They might be extremely hostile and more offensive than what Jyllandsposten or Charlie Hebdo did, but all these caricatures are really the canaries in the coal mines.

In this setting, your statements about opinions and using violence becomes very problematic. I'm glad you saw fit to defend Charlie Hebdo, but these drawings must also be protected. Not because of their inherent value or their quality or their good values, but precisely because they have none of those things.

It's still less than a hundred years since the last blasphemy trial in Norway. Blasphemy was still a crime until 2005, and Life of Brian was banned as recently as 1980.

I am aware that religious people don't like to have their sacred things mocked, and I'm aware how they have punished others for it for a very long time. I value my freedom, and I want a society where one is allowed to criticize and mock.

 

[Berzerker]

Freedom to be a public bigot is protected from some things, but not from criticism.

So why should these cartoonists be killed for criticizing public bigots who want to kill people?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Talk about constructive criticism.

 

[JollyRoger]

I value my freedom, and I want a society where one is allowed to criticize and mock.

Which would include criticizing and mocking Geller and company.

 

[JollyRoger]

So why should these cartoonists be killed for criticizing public bigots who want to kill people?

I have said the killers and would be killers are wrong. That doesn't make the bigots right.

 

[Berzerker]

Talk about constructive criticism.

If you wanna construct a society without freedom of speech, killing people for what they say will help you achieve it.

I have said the killers and would be killers are wrong. That doesn't make the bigots right.

If the killers are wrong they cant be right too... Oh, you dont think the killers are bigots, you think their victims are the bigots for complaining about the killers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Please define "much immediacy as possible and as much ferocity as necessary". Is that support for resorting to murder as retaliation for words? Yes or no?

If somebody is unleashing a stream of abusive language (not expressing an opinion, just being abusive) I will tell them that they may be headed for unexpected consequences because I do not differentiate verbal abuse from physical abuse when I decide to respond in kind. Does a physical confrontation have the potential to end up with someone dead? Always. If you want to call that "murder as retaliation for words" that's your prerogative. I always make sure the other party has full knowledge of what they are getting into and ample opportunity to avoid it, so I wouldn't call it that myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, to try to get more in line with the topic, since Cheetah has gotten across where I got off the track.

I am not distinguishing between "leftist cartoonists" in Paris vs "right wing cartoonists" in Texas based on their winginess. To me there may be a distinction based on intentions. To be honest I can't say if there is or isn't, because the presentation of the "event" in Texas that I have seen is no doubt skewed and I wasn't there to see for myself. However, the presentation looks very much like "let's have a contest to see who can piss off the Muslims the most." Not "let's make a point through satire."

To me those are two very different things, and only one is "speech." Speech, be it verbal, or written, or drawings, or some other form, is meant to convey something more than "I hate you, I want to dominate you, stop existing," and all those things can also be conveyed using any of the same media. I will listen to speech, in whatever form, used to express any opinion, including opinions I totally disagree with. I have no tolerance for "I hate you, I want to dominate you, stop existing."

My opinion of the intent of this gathering is that it was the latter, not the former. Because I have been unable (thus far) to get across the distinction I was basing my opinion on (having false interpretations spewed at a steady clip by Berzerker hasn't helped with that) no one has provided anything that would change my mind in that regard, or even made an attempt (not recognizing the basis of my distinction, why would anybody attempt to clarify on that basis?). There may not be anything to change my opinion on that, because everyone has their own opinion and that doesn't leave much room for facts, but one never knows.

Anyway, to make everyone hopefully more comfortable; before I personally took any sort of action I would eliminate any doubt about the intentions. I would go to the event. I would listen. I would ask. I would exchange opinions with anyone who was willing. I wouldn't walk in wearing body armor with guns blazing, having committed to violence against people without any first hand interaction with them.