2 Gunmen Killed Outside 'Draw the Prophet' Show

[ArmorPierce]

When one group is the one in power it doesn't take a lot bully the group not in power, and bullying from the group in power has more impact. Would you suggest that the riots by black folk in Baltimore to be them bullying white folks? If you slap a dog around are you surprised and blame it when it bites you?

Christians may or may not go around murdering people individually. But they are in a position of power to cause the murder and death of millions indirectly through war and causing instability in other countries.

I am for free speech but this group didn't do it to foster free speech. They did it to foster hate.

[Tanasinn]

See, I can't seem to recall a bit in the First Amendment that says "unless you're just saying it to be mean."

[Elheru Aran]

It is in a sense a tyranny of the masses... but that's not illegal. That's sort of how the democratic system works.

Basically: It's legal to be an asshole, as long as you don't escalate. The law exists to enforce collective justice, not individual morality.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Fuck's sake...

Side A is saying: "It's legal for them to do this!"

Side B is saying: "Yes, it is legal. But that doesn't mean it stops making you an asshole to say things purely to piss someone off."


Nobody is saying trying to goddamn murder someone over being intentionally antagonistic is right. Everyone agrees that trying to kill over this is very much wrong. We've just got one side saying "They have a right to do this!" and the other saying "It's still a dick move to do it." The people going back and forth right now aren't going "It's legal!" "Well it shouldn't be!" The argument is, quite literally, "It's legal!" "Yes, and it's a dick move nonetheless."

The side saying it's a dick move isn't saying we should ban it. They're saying it's a dick move. We can all agree that Westboro Baptist Church are a bunch of dicks, yes? Even if they have a legally right to pull the shit they do? That's the situation here. Everyone agrees it's legal, one side is just trying to point out that the entire point of the protest was to piss people off. Which is a dick move. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people can't call you an asshole for being an asshole.

[Grumman]

The side saying it's a dick move isn't saying we should ban it. They're saying it's a dick move. We can all agree that Westboro Baptist Church are a bunch of dicks, yes?

If the Westboro Baptist Church weren't picketing funerals and just hosted "Why God hates homosexuals" discussion forums at their church, nobody would give a fuck about them, despite them still being on the wrong side of the debate. And the people saying "We should be able to draw Mohammed without lunatics trying to murder us" are not on the wrong side of the debate, any more than Boobquake was, or the gay pride movement.

[gizmojumpjet]

Nobody is saying trying to goddamn murder someone over being intentionally antagonistic is right. Everyone agrees that trying to kill over this is very much wrong. We've just got one side saying "They have a right to do this!" and the other saying "It's still a dick move to do it." The people going back and forth right now aren't going "It's legal!" "Well it shouldn't be!" The argument is, quite literally, "It's legal!" "Yes, and it's a dick move nonetheless."

The side saying it's a dick move isn't saying we should ban it. They're saying it's a dick move. We can all agree that Westboro Baptist Church are a bunch of dicks, yes? Even if they have a legally right to pull the shit they do? That's the situation here. Everyone agrees it's legal, one side is just trying to point out that the entire point of the protest was to piss people off. Which is a dick move. Freedom of speech doesn't mean people can't call you an asshole for being an asshole.

The issue is when they says "What they did was wrong, but..." it comes across as equivocation. Here are two statements:

"The men who tried to kill the cartoonists were evil."

"The men who tried to kill the cartoonists were evil, but the cartoonists were being provocative bully jerks."

One of these statments is a stronger denunciation of violence than the other. Can you tell which is which?

Please also keep in mind that people in this very thread have wondered why it's "okay for a majority group to bait and bully a minority group." That's right, a non-child has had to have it explained to them why people can say whatever they want about whatever they want.

[ArmorPierce]

I don't think that anybody said they don't have a right to say what they want. What I think some have said, at least me, is that they are doing it to bully and foster hate of a smaller minority group, not out of some sense of being an advocate for freedom of speech, and prior actions have demonstrated this to be true.

[Napoleon the Clown]

There's a difference between "socially acceptable" and "legal."

Don't be pig-headed. Everyone's trying to be "right" in this. You can denounce one person while saying that another person is also doing something that's rotten. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Killing over a drawing is reprehensible. Pissing someone off just to piss them off? It's a shitty thing to do. They aren't mutually exclusive statements.

The people involved in this event are assholes, but they don't deserve to die. Nobody has said otherwise. This is a big back-and-forth of "They're being dicks." "Well they have that right!" "Yes, but they're being dicks." "They have that right!"

Can we all agree that it's a dick move to piss someone off just to piss them off? Can we agree that Muslims in this country are a discriminated against minority?

I'm not going to get in a back-and-forth. Both sides agree it's legal, both sides agree that trying to kill over a fucking cartoon is utterly in the wrong. We've just got one side that's utterly convinced that comes across as thinking any condemnation of being an asshole as condoning the actions of another group of assholes. You're all talking past each other, if I'm being charitable. If I'm being not so charitable.... Well, I mentioned above the whole "wanting the last word."


So, can we all agree that killing over a cartoon is wrong? Yes? Awesome! We agree on that!

Can we all agree that people have a legal right to draw the cartoon? Yes? Sweet!

Now the question is, can we agree that doing something just to piss someone off is a dick move? Especially when the group you're trying to piss off is subjected to mistrust and outright discrimination on a large scale. If we can't agree on that... Well, no way anybody is convincing anyone of anything else in this thread. It'll just continue to be a back-and-forth, rehashing of the same arguments until the thread gets locked by an annoyed mod or someone decides they don't want to bother anymore.

[Terralthra]

Do keep in mind that when the Muslim Sound Vision Foundation hosted a Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect conference advocating peace and love for, with, and from all Muslims, and denouncing violence, terrorism, and reaffirming American values as not in conflict with Muslim values, they received threats of violence and death as well as protests organized by Pamela Geller. This occurred in Garland, Texas, in the same convention center. This isn't a coincidence. Pamela Geller, the pretty virulently anti-Muslim organizer, picked the same convention center to try to send a message that Islamization (like letting Muslims have events places) wouldn't be tolerated.

[ArmorPierce]

In reply to the 'equivocation' and 'child' comment

. I realize it's difficult to understand that the world is not completely black and white and that there is a tremendous amount of factors to consider is complex, but I believe trying to reduce problem to one group being right and one group being wrong without any consideration of all the factors is a child like perspective of the world and morality.

[Zadius]

To even call the cartoonists 'jerks' or 'assholes' is blaming the fucking victim. An example from earlier in the thread was pigeon breeding. Does pigeon breeding make you a jerk because it offends some people? What if I take up pigeon breeding just because I know they don't like it. Am I a jerk then? Is that less bad than drawing a cartoon and why?

Seriously. We are talking about drawing cartoons! I don't think being offended by a cartoon makes you a savage like Geller said. But it certainly is not a "moderate" reaction. People have asked, "What about the moderate Muslims who are offended?" Excuse me, it's a fucking cartoon. I don't even accept the premise that being offended slightly is a moderate reaction to a cartoon that simply depicts someone. Remember, there is no such thing as a respectful depiction of Muhammad apparently. Don't let violent extremists skew the spectrum so much that we call clear overreactions "moderate." Pat Robertson is a religious extremist, for instance, but he's certainly no ISIS. There is a big spectrum from moderate to the most extreme, but being so easily offended is not moderate.

So, I don't know what the real stats are, but if a majority of Muslims are offended by any depiction of Muhammad, then a majority of Muslims are not moderate. Its not just true of Islam, of course. Religions are usually extreme and ridiculous.

[FaxModem1]

Do keep in mind that when the Muslim Sound Vision Foundation hosted a Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect conference advocating peace and love for, with, and from all Muslims, and denouncing violence, terrorism, and reaffirming American values as not in conflict with Muslim values, they received threats of violence and death as well as protests organized by Pamela Geller. This occurred in Garland, Texas, in the same convention center. This isn't a coincidence. Pamela Geller, the pretty virulently anti-Muslim organizer, picked the same convention center to try to send a message that Islamization (like letting Muslims have events places) wouldn't be tolerated.

Garland actually voiced concerns about this, but noted that the GISD had no choice on who they rent it out to, knowing that an incident would likely occur. It is also worth noting that Gellar spent 10 grand to have 40 people there as security. And that GPD was there as well, knowing an incident was probable.

[Napoleon the Clown]

It isn't blaming the victim to call their actions a dick move, you fucking moron. Blaming the victim is saying "If they didn't want to have X happen, they shouldn't have done Y." If you take up pigeon breeding for the express purpose of pissing people off, you're an asshole. Pissing people off just to piss them off makes you a goddamn asshole.

Is it reasonable to be offended by a simple cartoon? Not really. But people are very often not reasonable. Remember how angry people got over Piss Christ? That's an example of people being unreasonable over a piece of "art."

Apparently being decent to your fellow humans is too much to ask, though. If I know someone is bothered by swearing I don't swear in front of them, even though it's "unreasonable" to be offended by the word fuck. It's not hard to go "Oh, I'll be a decent human being and not antagonize you just because it amuses me."

[Alyrium Denryle]

To even call the cartoonists 'jerks' or 'assholes' is blaming the fucking victim.

No. No it is not. The AFDI, the organization that put this on, is an anti-muslim hate group that benefits politically from this attack. They put it on inside a muslim community that they had targeted for outright harassment in the past, and one that suffered numerous hate crimes, some of which were organized by them.

They brought it on themselves. Willingly. As in "lets see if we can prove a political point by doing something we know might attract a violent person from out of the wood work of their religion". Even if they did not, they are still dicks. What with being a hate group and all. They are dicks independently of their little cartoon contest.

Seriously. We are talking about drawing cartoons! I don't think being offended by a cartoon makes you a savage like Geller said. But it certainly is not a "moderate" reaction. People have asked, "What about the moderate Muslims who are offended?" Excuse me, it's a fucking cartoon.

Religious connotations of Muhammad deceptions aside, intent matters. A cartoon depicting say, a moment in the life and times of Jesus would not be offensive to anyone. A cartoon depicting Jesus being nailed on the cross (for decidedly degrading BDSM homoerotic definitions of nailed) WOULD be offensive to the sensibilities of even liberal christians, because the intent is to degrade their savior, and by extension them.

The Mohammad drawings are, in this case, largely similar. A moderate muslim like some of my school mates would not give a shit if someone drew a little comic showing the Mohammad receiving the Qu'ran from an archangel. They'd be like "Ok. I am not religiously allowed to draw that, but you are a Jew/Christian/Atheist/Hindu and dont live under my restrictions. Have a nice day".

That same moderate would be like "Dude, you are an asshole", if that same artist drew a picture of Mohammad bathing in pigs blood, drinking scotch, while being ass-reamed by Ariel Sharon.

An extremist might be willing to kill for it, and out of a few tens of millions of muslims in the US, you can find at least two. The AFDI found two, and are now benefiting politically from an uptick in anti-muslim sentiment, which is the entire reason they exist.

This is not rocket science.

[Zadius]

It isn't blaming the victim to call their actions a dick move, you fucking moron. Blaming the victim is saying "If they didn't want to have X happen, they shouldn't have done Y." If you take up pigeon breeding for the express purpose of pissing people off, you're an asshole. Pissing people off just to piss them off makes you a goddamn asshole.

You're wacky. I can take up pigeon breeding for whatever-the-fuck reason I want to and it doesn't make me an "goddamn asshole." Even if my only reason is because I know silly people will react ridiculously. That's obviously not the main motive for drawing the cartoons though although it seems to be a common strawman.

If some pigeon breeders were murdered and I wanted to show solidarity with the victims by taking up the hobby myself, which is actually more analogous to the motives some people have for these cartoon drawings, then I'm definitely not a goddamn asshole. Taking a stand against intimidation by defying it is not the same as antagonizing people for the sake of amusement.

Do you worry about offending Pat Robertson and the like? Two men kissing probably makes him sick to his stomach. Are they fucking assholes because they are purposely offending him and his ilk? What if they are two straight guys and they really do it just to piss him off? Jerks? What about a police brutality situation? Say a man is shot and killed for giving the middle finger to a police officer and the community gathers a protest in which they all silently hold up their middle fingers at the line of cops. That's a peaceful protest with a point, whether you agree with the tactic, they aren't just being dicks or sake of being dicks! It's peaceful resistance to violence.

I see drawing the pictures more in that light. I don't like this Pamela Geller, for many of her opinions, but it doesn't matter. These shootings and threats are working. Major news networks are self-censoring (read: not doing their job as journalists) and not showing any of these newsworthy images. That's because they are afraid. I'm not sure Fox News has even aired any of them, though I could be wrong. They are afraid. It's actually not really self-censorship actually, since the external coercion is strong enough. It wouldn't be so strong if fewer people were shaming, and sometimes outright blaming, the victims.

[Zadius]

To even call the cartoonists 'jerks' or 'assholes' is blaming the fucking victim.

No. No it is not. The AFDI, the organization that put this on, is an anti-muslim hate group that benefits politically from this attack. They put it on inside a muslim community that they had targeted for outright harassment in the past, and one that suffered numerous hate crimes, some of which were organized by them.

They brought it on themselves. Willingly. As in "lets see if we can prove a political point by doing something we know might attract a violent person from out of the wood work of their religion". Even if they did not, they are still dicks. What with being a hate group and all. They are dicks independently of their little cartoon contest.

They brought it on themselves. Willingly. That does sound like blaming the victim. I'm not here to defend that organization (AFDI) except to the extent they don't deserve to die or be shamed for drawing cartoons. I just don't really care how nutty they are with other things they do, because the cartoons are the reason for the attack.

The Mohammad drawings are, in this case, largely similar. A moderate muslim like some of my school mates would not give a shit if someone drew a little comic showing the Mohammad receiving the Qu'ran from an archangel. They'd be like "Ok. I am not religiously allowed to draw that, but you are a Jew/Christian/Atheist/Hindu and dont live under my restrictions. Have a nice day".

That same moderate would be like "Dude, you are an asshole", if that same artist drew a picture of Mohammad bathing in pigs blood, drinking scotch, while being ass-reamed by Ariel Sharon.

Can I photoshop a picture of Sarah Palin blowing a Russian... oh wait they made an entire porn movie about that! Nobody died. And I don't consider a barbaric conquering medieval warlord more sacrosanct than a modern mentally challenged politician, so am I really an asshole?

[AniThyng]

Have you considered that your moderate Muslims are actually liberal Muslims by global Muslim standards? Seriously. The most moderate Muslim nations on earth are all thinly disguised theocracies by your standards.

organizers of such an exhibition in a Muslim country will not be murdered, but they sure as fuck will be thrown in jail.

[Zadius]

Indonesia is often quoted as being the largest Muslim majority country and they are so peaceful! Wait, isn't that the country where an atheist blogger was recently beaten by a mob and then imprisoned for several years for saying that God does not exist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... y-mob.html

Look, I don't know what percentage of the population in these counties are "extremists", however one wants to define that term. But if the cultural climate is one in which angry murderous mobs form spontaneously and attack people for completely innocuous things, I would say your culture has a problem.

[Alyrium Denryle]

They brought it on themselves. Willingly. That does sound like blaming the victim. I'm not here to defend that organization (AFDI) except to the extent they don't deserve to die or be shamed for drawing cartoons. I just don't really care how nutty they are with other things they do, because the cartoons are the reason for the attack.

If it is true, it is true.

Say for example that I want to engage in a Thrill Killing without going to prison. In order to accomplish this, I go into a jewish neighborhood and start ranting Holocaust Denial insanity in the hope that I piss off someone enough that I have to "defend myself".

If someone finds this out, are they "victim blaming" if they point this out to a prosecutor?

In this case, is it acceptable to respond to a cartoon with violence? Of course not. Irrespective of the cartoonists intent. Trying to murder someone is never acceptable save in cases of defense or in extreme situations (like the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler)

On the other hand, if the cartoonist (broadly speaking) was trying to get a violent reaction (and in this case, it is a big if) and used the cartoon as a vehicle, dont they also need to be held responsible (socially, if not legally) for the consequences of the act they intended and arranged to have come about?

It is not legitimate to blame the victim of a crime when said victim is going about their business in good faith.

But what about when they are not going about their business in good faith, and actively trying to be victimized for some other purpose?

[Joun_Lord]

You're wacky. I can take up pigeon breeding for whatever-the-fuck reason I want to and it doesn't make me an "goddamn asshole." Even if my only reason is because I know silly people will react ridiculously.

That kinda would make you an asshole. You are doing something just to piss someone off, thats being an asshole. It would be like if I was an insult comic, making fun of people just to get a rise out them. To get them pissed off and visibly angry because I'm an attention whore and having people noticeably agnry at me gets me attention. Thats me being an asshole.

But being an asshole doesn't excuse someone trying to kill them anymore then a woman dressing provocatively and acting like whatever the current nebulous concept of being a "slut" is at a bar or frat party excuses someone trying to rape her.

[Zadius]

If it is true, it is true.

Say for example that I want to engage in a Thrill Killing without going to prison. In order to accomplish this, I go into a jewish neighborhood and start ranting Holocaust Denial insanity in the hope that I piss off someone enough that I have to "defend myself".

If someone finds this out, are they "victim blaming" if they point this out to a prosecutor?

In this case, is it acceptable to respond to a cartoon with violence? Of course not. Irrespective of the cartoonists intent. Trying to murder someone is never acceptable save in cases of defense or in extreme situations (like the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler)

On the other hand, if the cartoonist (broadly speaking) was trying to get a violent reaction (and in this case, it is a big if) and used the cartoon as a vehicle, dont they also need to be held responsible (socially, if not legally) for the consequences of the act they intended and arranged to have come about?

It is not legitimate to blame the victim of a crime when said victim is going about their business in good faith.

Part of it is that I disagree that the cartoon drawers want to provoke violence. I know there are agitators and anti-Muslim bigots in the mix, but obviously they don't really want to get killed or maimed over a cartoon. I take most of them at their word that they are angry about terroristic violence.

And drawing a cartoon is not at all comparable to saying something about the Holocaust. I know it's just an analogy, but are you so sure that would actually work? I mean Fred Phelps never got badly hurt. And Jews are touchy about the subject because their family was murdered, not because sky god said no to idolatry. I doubt it would be an effective thrill kill strategy however, and that should tell you something. It's more offensive, but it would probably be less provocative.

[AniThyng]

Religious connotations of Muhammad deceptions aside, intent matters. A cartoon depicting say, a moment in the life and times of Jesus would not be offensive to anyone. A cartoon depicting Jesus being nailed on the cross (for decidedly degrading BDSM homoerotic definitions of nailed) WOULD be offensive to the sensibilities of even liberal christians, because the intent is to degrade their savior, and by extension them.

The Mohammad drawings are, in this case, largely similar. A moderate muslim like some of my school mates would not give a shit if someone drew a little comic showing the Mohammad receiving the Qu'ran from an archangel. They'd be like "Ok. I am not religiously allowed to draw that, but you are a Jew/Christian/Atheist/Hindu and dont live under my restrictions. Have a nice day".

That same moderate would be like "Dude, you are an asshole", if that same artist drew a picture of Mohammad bathing in pigs blood, drinking scotch, while being ass-reamed by Ariel Sharon.

An extremist might be willing to kill for it, and out of a few tens of millions of muslims in the US, you can find at least two. The AFDI found two, and are now benefiting politically from an uptick in anti-muslim sentiment, which is the entire reason they exist.

This is not rocket science.

Said moderate would be a liberal in many muslim societies, except perhaps in the West. Organizers or producers of such material regardless of religious affiliation can and will be one of the following in many other muslim societies:

deported (if you're a white foreigner, i guess, good for you!)
fined
jailed
forced to attend state sponsored brainwashing..sorry i meant "rehabiliation".

A step up from murder, I'm sure, but still.

[gizmojumpjet]

A cartoon depicting say, a moment in the life and times of Jesus would not be offensive to anyone. A cartoon depicting Jesus being nailed on the cross (for decidedly degrading BDSM homoerotic definitions of nailed) WOULD be offensive to the sensibilities of even liberal christians, because the intent is to degrade their savior, and by extension them.

Mel Gibson's Jesus movie, which is basically torture porn, made 611 million dollars and I don't recall a single person being shot over it.

The problematic assumption being used here is that doing a thing someone tells you they will kill you for is "trying to get a violent reaction" instead of "defying unreasonable demands" and telling assholes to "go fuck themselves."

[AniThyng]

A cartoon depicting say, a moment in the life and times of Jesus would not be offensive to anyone. A cartoon depicting Jesus being nailed on the cross (for decidedly degrading BDSM homoerotic definitions of nailed) WOULD be offensive to the sensibilities of even liberal christians, because the intent is to degrade their savior, and by extension them.

Mel Gibson's Jesus movie, which is basically torture porn, made 611 million dollars and I don't recall a single person being shot over it.

The problematic assumption being used here is that doing a thing someone tells you they will kill you for is "trying to get a violent reaction" instead of "defying unreasonable demands" and telling assholes to "go fuck themselves."

It was also banned in most muslim countries, fancy that.

[AniThyng]

Indonesia is often quoted as being the largest Muslim majority country and they are so peaceful! Wait, isn't that the country where an atheist blogger was recently beaten by a mob and then imprisoned for several years for saying that God does not exist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... y-mob.html

Look, I don't know what percentage of the population in these counties are "extremists", however one wants to define that term. But if the cultural climate is one in which angry murderous mobs form spontaneously and attack people for completely innocuous things, I would say your culture has a problem.

Well yeah, we don't know how much of an asshole atheist he was.

But seriously, yeah I think sometimes it's difficult to understand because atheist persecution in the US is nothing compared to how it is in some other societies.