Shooting at Mohammed "art" contest

[kmoose]

Nothing at all wrong with that expectation and I did not suggest otherwise.

So, if it is reasonable to expect that people will not start shooting because of some perceived disrespect, then why would we hold other people criminally liable for someone doing just that?

 

[Irish#1]

I think the world would be a much better place if people were comfortable enough in their beliefs and identity to not let others define you by some characteristic (race, religious affiliation, etc). That's the way I have always lived my life. Yes, I understand that this particular stance is easier for me to take given my race, education level, etc. But the point still stands that our actions and how we treat people ultimately define us and if we leave this world a better place. Far be it of me to tell people how they should live their life. Even if I disagree with them to the fullest, it still won't change how I would help them in a time of need. Judge on character.

Therein lies the problem. The extremist believe everyone should adhere to their beliefs.

 

[GoIrish41]

So, if it is reasonable to expect that people will not start shooting because of some perceived disrespect, then why would we hold other people criminally liable for someone doing just that?

It is also reasonable to expect that people will not knowingly do something to cause harm to themselves, but tobacco lawsuits are filed with regularity. Applying your argument to these cases, the tobacco companies would be faultless. But, of course, that has not been the case. In 1998 lawsuits filed by Texas, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas resulted in $40 billion dollars in settlements to recover expenses tied to smoking related illnesses. An overarching lawsuit that covered the other 46 states resulted in a settlement of $206 billion to be paid over 25 years. So, while it is reasonable to expect that people will not do harm to themselves, the companies that produced and marketed the products in question were held accountable. Tobacco companies knowingly distributed products that were harmful to users. Were these settlements unreasonable?

 

[Irish#1]

I do. I also blame those who purposely provoked them, who knew what would happen with this event (which is why they hired SWAT Teams as security), and they went forward with it anyway. I'm just saying that there are extremists on both sides of this issue.

Here's the problem. As we know, speech is free (political and non-political) in the US. You may not like that they held a show, demonstration, etc. that incited a couple of guys but it was their right. Our laws are set up with the notion that this is okay as long as you are not being physical, destroying peoples property or threatening someone. The law puts a premium on the insulted to use their common sense and retaliate ONLY in a like civil manner. Hold your own show, protest or file suit.

A divorce is another example. One or both sides do not like what the other has said or done and they may get angry, but by in large, they work it out through the system.

 

[ulukinatme]

Yes except I did not say anything about excluding Mormons. I find it humorous that someone who is advocating civility is met with such hostility and attempts to twist the meaning of what is being said. And people who have gone out of their way to publicly mock members of a religion are being defended so strenuously. It is almost as if we crave perpetual conflict. Maybe we get what we deserve as a society.

You're assuming these extremists can be civil. Can you sit down with these people and negotiate a truce or a compromise? Do they want peaceful resolutions? No, they want to use violence to get their point across. Their cause tells them they can die for Allah and they'll go to heaven where 72 virgins await them, that's the endgame. These are the people you're afraid to offend. You'd rather try to avoid them and hope they don't shoot you later when, in fact, they will shoot you later because you're not one of them. You say we get what we deserve as a society. There is no room in society for terrorists because their society is still stuck in Medieval times while much of the world has moved on. If you give up your freedoms for them they will continue to take until you have nothing left and you're either dead or one of them.

 

[IrishLax]

It is also reasonable to expect that people will not knowingly do something to cause harm to themselves, but tobacco lawsuits are filed with regularity. Applying your argument to these cases, the tobacco companies would be faultless. But, of course, that has not been the case. In 1998 lawsuits filed by Texas, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas resulted in $40 billion dollars in settlements to recover expenses tied to smoking related illnesses. An overarching lawsuit that covered the other 46 states resulted in a settlement of $206 billion to be paid over 25 years. So, while it is reasonable to expect that people will not do harm to themselves, the companies that produced and marketed the products in question were held accountable. Tobacco companies knowingly distributed products that were harmful to users. Were these settlements unreasonable?

The crux of the smoking lawsuits is negligence on the part of the tobacco companies for CONCEALING the dangers of tobacco. If they had made the people fully aware of the dangers and not hidden the negative effects, then they wouldn't have been liable. The whole reason people were awarded huge damage is because lawyers argued they weren't knowingly doing something that would hurt them in the ways it did.

So this example doesn't really fit at all the argument you're trying to make, in fact it's the opposite.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're assuming these extremists can be civil. Can you sit down with these people and negotiate a truce or a compromise? Do they want peaceful resolutions? No, they want to use violence to get their point across. Their cause tells them they can die for Allah and they'll go to heaven where 72 virgins await them, that's the endgame. These are the people you're afraid to offend. You'd rather try to avoid them and hope they don't shoot you later when, in fact, they will shoot you later because you're not one of them. You say we get what we deserve as a society. There is no room in society for terrorists because their society is still stuck in Medieval times while much of the world has moved on. If you give up your freedoms for them they will continue to take until you have nothing left and you're either dead or one of them.

In fairness, your posts suggests that you are the one who is assuming that they cannot be civil. When the current administration was negotiating a nuke arms deal with these Iran, most of the rhetoric I heard from the right was that "we don't want to sit down with these people to negotiate a compromise." I heard that they are savages stuck in the 8th Century who cannot be trusted. But it was our government representatives who tried to blow up the accord, not theirs. And, we all know that the alternative to that deal was more than likely going to be a war to keep them from acqiring nukes. So, who was being unreasonable?

Of course there is no room in our society for terrorists. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. When someone commits an act of violence, I say punish them to the full extent of the law. But, we cannot assume that every Muslim is pre-disposed to terrorism, can we? There are 3 million Muslims who are citizens of this country. Should we just assume they are all going to eventually earn their 72 virgins at our expense. Because I think that is just paranoid rhetoric. Should we go out of our way to provoke them to violence?

I know that punching a guy in the jaw is illegal, but if I'm out somewhere with my wife and somebody decides to insult her over and over, there is only going to be so many insults before that dude gets punched. There is no place for violence in our society, but I'm certain that most people on this site could be provoked into a fight given those same circumstances. So, why keep swatting at this hornet's nest of probable terrorists if we think they are just waiting for a reason to attack? Seems counter-productive and, I would argue, stupid. Further, why defend the provoker and demonize the provoked? Forget that someone decided they have had enough and took (inappropriate for sure) action. What about the 3 million Muslims in this country who are also greatly offended by this mean-spirited, hateful "art show?" Do they just have to suck it up because they are just a bunch of backward people?

Should the rest of us be permitted to taunt and ridicule them based on their faith? Further, what right do the organizers of this event have to endanger others' lives with such provacative actions? What remedy do offended Muslim citizens of this country have to stop being singled out and provoked? Free speech should not be a licence to harrass people. Like any other freedom, it comes with responsibility.

 

[greyhammer90]

I know that punching a guy in the jaw is illegal, but if I'm out somewhere with my wife and somebody decides to insult her over and over, there is only going to be so many insults before that dude gets punched. There is no place for violence in our society, but I'm certain that most people on this site could be provoked into a fight given those same circumstances

There is a huge and well defined difference between "fighting words" (what you described above, which is not protected in our society) and political/religious/social speech (what happened at this contest). So immediately this comparison holds no water. Further, there's a big difference between punching someone in a moment of anger and grabbing some guns, driving to a different state, getting out of the car, loading the guns, and getting into a shootout with police officers. The first is a reasonable reaction, particularly if you feel threatened by the guy being in your face. The second is insane.

So, why keep swatting at this hornet's nest of probable terrorists if we think they are just waiting for a reason to attack? Seems counter-productive and, I would argue, stupid.

Because these people have a right to say what they want to in a peaceful manner.

Further, why defend the provoker and demonize the provoked?

BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO IN A PEACEFUL MANNER.

What about the 3 million Muslims in this country who are also greatly offended by this mean-spirited, hateful "art show?" Do they just have to suck it up because they are just a bunch of backward people?

YES. This is a free society. If someone disagrees with you, you ignore them or debate them.

Should the rest of us be permitted to taunt and ridicule them based on their faith?

Literally every other group, religion, and political party is taunted every day. Any violence they take would NEVER and should NEVER be blamed on the citizens exercising their rights to hate them in a peaceful manner.

Further, what right do the organizers of this event have to endanger others' lives with such provacative actions?

The organizers endangered nothing and nobody. They were speaking their minds about a religious group they fundamentally disagree with in a peaceful way. They weren't in any Muslim's home. They weren't threatening Muslims. They were excercising the same rights the Muslims have if they want to respond in a legal manner.

What remedy do offended Muslim citizens of this country have to stop being singled out and provoked?

They have the same rights the rest of us have. The same rights Catholics have when people call them child molesters. The same rights Gays have when people tell them they disagree with their lifestyle or that they're going to hell. The same rights black people have when they're confronted with racism. It's live and let live. It's called living in a free society.

Free speech should not be a licence to harass people.

No one was being harassed. This was a group of individuals coming together to discuss a religion they hate. Again, this is freedom.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

Why defend the provoked and demonized the provoked? Because the provoked showed up at an art show and started shooting. Like someone said earlier, I think there is a misunderstanding of terrorism and its roots. These weren't everyday Muslims that did this. These are extremists who want the formation of the Caliphate. I may be wrong but it's been reported that at least one of these 2 were on a terror watch list for the past 10 years. This event didn't radicalize them and force them into action.

 

[NDgradstudent]

What about the 3 million Muslims in this country who are also greatly offended by this mean-spirited, hateful "art show?" Do they just have to suck it up because they are just a bunch of backward people?

Should the rest of us be permitted to taunt and ridicule them based on their faith? Further, what right do the organizers of this event have to endanger others' lives with such provacative actions? What remedy do offended Muslim citizens of this country have to stop being singled out and provoked? Free speech should not be a licence to harrass people. Like any other freedom, it comes with responsibility.

There is an element of self-loathing and "minoritarianism" here. Many Christians are offended when photographers and bakers have their lives ruined for refusing to cater a gay wedding; many Christians are offended over government funded "art" like this; many Christians are offended by college professors mocking our religion, etc. Most liberals, of course, do not care about Christian sensitivities, probably because we will not murder anybody if we are upset. We might peacefully protest, or request that government funding be withdrawn, but we do not shoot anybody.

Being a victim is now the highest status to which one can aspire in America (which tells you something about our decaying country), and the basic rule among liberals, as far as I can tell, is that the less you are like George Washington, the more of a victim you are. So the next round of the Oppression Olympics -gays vs. Muslims- will be interesting to watch in the short-term. In the long-term, I would not bet against people who have high birthrates.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

There is an element of self-loathing and "minoritarianism" here. Many Christians are offended when photographers and bakers have their lives ruined for refusing to cater a gay wedding; many Christians are offended over government funded "art" like this; many Christians are offended by college professors mocking our religion, etc. Most liberals, of course, do not care about Christian sensitivities, probably because we will not murder anybody if we are upset. We might peacefully protest, or request that government funding be withdrawn, but we do not shoot anybody.

From the first Dougherty article I shared yesterday:

Other progressives feel that mocking Muslims is a form of racism. Or, more circumspectly, that the cartoonists of Charlie Hedbo were somehow unsporting. This says a lot about secularism: The point is to make sure France isn't ruled by contraception-deploring Ursuline nuns, not to bring a minority to heel. Secularism is not about religion per se, but a tool for rearranging the distribution of power.

The taboos of secularism interlock in other odd ways. Modern Western secularists feel no anxiety whatsoever when they encounter harsh criticism and satire of Christianity. But if you offer a particularly barbed remark about Islam among the enlightened, someone will ask you to politely agree that Christianity is just as bad. And ironically, this instinct to protect the powerless is a leftover instinct of Christian civilization, which put sayings like "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last" at the heart of its worship and moral imagination.

We used to say of comedians, "He can make that joke because he's Jewish." In this respect, the Western world's comfort with attacking Christianity is an inadvertent admission that Christianity is "our" religion. And so it elicits from us none of the respect, deference, or fear we give to strangers. Viewed this way, secularism looks less like universal principle than a moral and theological critique derived from Christian sources and pitched back at Christian authorities.

I can't recall you ever denouncing those who provoke and persecute Christians, GoIrish (quite the opposite, in fact). That's a strong indication that you're engaging a sort of shallow identity politics here, and not arguing from principal.

As an aside, the 3 million Muslims in this country are overwhelmingly opposed to SSM. Why should we gut our First Amendment jurisprudence to protect the religious sensibilities of one "bigoted" group while your team is busy persecuting another for their apparent thoughtcrime?

 

[Corry]

The people who organized this event comes across as Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance. When you stand in the middle of Harlem with a sign around your neck that says something offensive to the people who live there you're going to get attacked. The same applies to this. These people are no better than the Westboro Church idiots.

 

[Irish#1]

The people who organized this event comes across as Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance. When you stand in the middle of Harlem with a sign around your neck that says something offensive to the people who live there you're going to get attacked. The same applies to this. These people are no better than the Westboro Church idiots.

No one is arguing that the event wasn't stupid. What's being discussed is the right to hold these type of events and the proper response to these type of events. Besides your example falls short. Willis was out in the middle of the public in a specific area looking for a reaction. This event was held indoors.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The people who organized this event comes across as Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance. When you stand in the middle of Harlem with a sign around your neck that says something offensive to the people who live there you're going to get attacked. The same applies to this. These people are no better than the Westboro Church idiots.

Some people cannot control themselves, and others can. Do you think if somebody held up a sign mocking Mormons in Provo, they would be attacked? I doubt it.

 

[Wild Bill]

The people who organized this event comes across as Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance. When you stand in the middle of Harlem with a sign around your neck that says something offensive to the people who live there you're going to get attacked. The same applies to this. These people are no better than the Westboro Church idiots.

I think reasonable minds can agree they'd prefer a group of people acting like fools in a place they can be easily ignored rather than the funeral of a loved one.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

The people who organized this event comes across as Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance. When you stand in the middle of Harlem with a sign around your neck that says something offensive to the people who live there you're going to get attacked. The same applies to this. These people are no better than the Westboro Church idiots.

Not even remotely similar. Doing this in the middle of the street in Dearborn Michigan? Maybe. This was a private event. Not following the logic here.

 

[GoIrish41]

From the first Dougherty article I shared yesterday:



I can't recall you ever denouncing those who provoke and persecute Christians, GoIrish (quite the opposite, in fact). That's a strong indication that you're engaging a sort of shallow identity politics here, and not arguing from principal.

As an aside, the 3 million Muslims in this country are overwhelmingly opposed to SSM. Why should we gut our First Amendment jurisprudence to protect the religious sensibilities of one bigoted group while your team is busy persecuting another for their apparent thoughtcrime?

It is not about the religios beliefs of anyone per se. I am an agnostic, and as spirituality goes, I don't pick sides. I find it hard to believe that followers from any religion have a market on truth or righteousness. I no more side with Muslims as I do with Jews, Christians, or Hindus or Atheists. I think if you recall my posting history in any of the political threads you will find that I have been consistent in communicating these simple concepts -- fairness and civility. You are not likely to find me very often on the side of a bunch of people piling on some person or some group, and you are not ever going to find me on the side of those who use bullying tactics to impose themselves on others. And, that is exactly what I see happening in this who Texas art show mess. You had a group of people who decided to very publically taunt another group of people (bullies), knowing that it was likely to make them extraordinarily angry (civility), and they did so knowingly and put other people at risk. "My team" is not about poking people in they eye just because we don't agree with them. It is not about "thought crime" but about converting thoughts to actions that have a real effect on peoples' lives. This stupid "art show" was not about art, and it was not even about free speech. It was about being provocative, insensative, hateful dicks to people. It just so happens that those people have enough detractors that they can find allies in our midst to leap to their defense and sheild their bigotry and hatred with the First Amendment.

And it isn't even just a First Amendment issue. This attitude toward Muslims colors our foreign policy, which perpetuates the hatred and keeps this on the front burner.

 

[kmoose]

Further, what right do the organizers of this event have to endanger others' lives with such provacative actions?

The organizers have only endangered others' lives if you believe that the attackers are justified in killing people as a response to the events. And that's probably where the biggest riff in this discussion lies.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think if you recall my posting history in any of the political threads you will find that I have been consistent in communicating these simple concepts -- fairness and civility.

We know what that looks like. In the post-Reformation West, it involves a secular state, strong minority protections, and a commitment to Freedom of Expression. That's the détente that was reached after the Thirty Years' War, and it's worked pretty damned well over the last four centuries. Anyone who moves into a Western country, including Muslims, has to sign onto this armistice agreement. Blasphemy laws have no place here.

You are not likely to find me very often on the side of a bunch of people piling on some person or some group, and you are not ever going to find me on the side of those who use bullying tactics to impose themselves on others.

You had no problem piling on against the Kleins in Oregon, the Hugenins in New Mexico, or the O'Connors in Indiana when they were targeted by gay rights activists, bullied by online lynch mobs of Social Justice Warriors and/or bankrupted through fines levied by local officials. This all revolves around who you deem to be an oppressed minority, and who you perceive to be "The Man".

You had a group of people who decided to very publically taunt another group of people (bullies), knowing that it was likely to make them extraordinarily angry (civility), and they did so knowingly and put other people at risk.

So how could we legislate against events like this Texas art show without gutting the First Amendment? You're advocating for blasphemy laws here.

"My team" is not about poking people in they eye just because we don't agree with them. It is not about "thought crime" but about converting thoughts to actions that have a real effect on peoples' lives.

Right. "[C]onverting thoughts to actions" is the point where people of faith either have to conform to your doctrine or to GTFO of the public square. That's not a neutral position at all. That's about imposing a civic religion on dissenters, which Progressives are all in on.

This stupid "art show" was not about art, and it was not even about free speech. It was about being provocative, insensative, hateful dicks to people. It just so happens that those people have enough detractors that they can find allies in our midst to leap to their defense and sheild their bigotry and hatred with the First Amendment.

One can defend the First Amendment without endorsing the motives of these art show promoters. I'm glad I live in a country where both the KKK and the LGBT Alliance can organize parades, but that doesn't mean I support either of those causes.

And it isn't even just a First Amendment issue. This attitude toward Muslims colors our foreign policy, which perpetuates the hatred and keeps this on the front burner.

Ah, so this is really about uncovering the latent racism that lurks in the heart of every American WASP. We cannot permit such evil to exist in our society. It must be stamped out at all costs!

 

[phgreek]

It is not about the religios beliefs of anyone per se. I am an agnostic, and as spirituality goes, I don't pick sides. I find it hard to believe that followers from any religion have a market on truth or righteousness. I no more side with Muslims as I do with Jews, Christians, or Hindus or Atheists. I think if you recall my posting history in any of the political threads you will find that I have been consistent in communicating these simple concepts -- fairness and civility. You are not likely to find me very often on the side of a bunch of people piling on some person or some group, and you are not ever going to find me on the side of those who use bullying tactics to impose themselves on others. And, that is exactly what I see happening in this who Texas art show mess. You had a group of people who decided to very publically taunt another group of people (bullies), knowing that it was likely to make them extraordinarily angry (civility), and they did so knowingly and put other people at risk. "My team" is not about poking people in they eye just because we don't agree with them. It is not about "thought crime" but about converting thoughts to actions that have a real effect on peoples' lives. This stupid "art show" was not about art, and it was not even about free speech. It was about being provocative, insensative, hateful dicks to people. It just so happens that those people have enough detractors that they can find allies in our midst to leap to their defense and sheild their bigotry and hatred with the First Amendment.

And it isn't even just a First Amendment issue. This attitude toward Muslims colors our foreign policy, which perpetuates the hatred and keeps this on the front burner.

not sure the scope of "my team" but I consider Bill Maher and his ilk on your team. While he makes me laugh, his life, and really the life of many liberals is dedicated to bullying people...what the hell is the PC movement, and various campus level "movements" if it is not to bully, stifle, and control speech and thought? I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you here.

Overall, I get what you are saying in a practical sense ...don't be mean spirited...

But I divorce that sentiment from the level of expectation I have of people in a position to respond. People either understand western society or they don't, and if they don't, well they might find themselves in jail or with an acute case of lead poisoning...shrug.

 

[ulukinatme]

In fairness, your posts suggests that you are the one who is assuming that they cannot be civil. When the current administration was negotiating a nuke arms deal with these Iran, most of the rhetoric I heard from the right was that "we don't want to sit down with these people to negotiate a compromise." I heard that they are savages stuck in the 8th Century who cannot be trusted. But it was our government representatives who tried to blow up the accord, not theirs. And, we all know that the alternative to that deal was more than likely going to be a war to keep them from acqiring nukes. So, who was being unreasonable?

Of course there is no room in our society for terrorists. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. When someone commits an act of violence, I say punish them to the full extent of the law. But, we cannot assume that every Muslim is pre-disposed to terrorism, can we? There are 3 million Muslims who are citizens of this country. Should we just assume they are all going to eventually earn their 72 virgins at our expense. Because I think that is just paranoid rhetoric. Should we go out of our way to provoke them to violence?

I know that punching a guy in the jaw is illegal, but if I'm out somewhere with my wife and somebody decides to insult her over and over, there is only going to be so many insults before that dude gets punched. There is no place for violence in our society, but I'm certain that most people on this site could be provoked into a fight given those same circumstances. So, why keep swatting at this hornet's nest of probable terrorists if we think they are just waiting for a reason to attack? Seems counter-productive and, I would argue, stupid. Further, why defend the provoker and demonize the provoked? Forget that someone decided they have had enough and took (inappropriate for sure) action. What about the 3 million Muslims in this country who are also greatly offended by this mean-spirited, hateful "art show?" Do they just have to suck it up because they are just a bunch of backward people?

Should the rest of us be permitted to taunt and ridicule them based on their faith? Further, what right do the organizers of this event have to endanger others' lives with such provacative actions? What remedy do offended Muslim citizens of this country have to stop being singled out and provoked? Free speech should not be a licence to harrass people. Like any other freedom, it comes with responsibility.

You're trying to equate Iran with the two extremists that were killed, but they're not the same. Iran is an Islamic state, but they're not extremists like ISIL/ISIS. These two attackers fall in line with the later. I agree that to an extent Iran can be bargained with and so by that definition they're somewhat more civil than the other group. It's been mentioned that at least one of the attackers talked about the Caliphate, and while there's no evidence at this time ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack.

Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists, there are peaceful ones, but you're asking people to tiptoe around the ones that are dangerous. If you live in fear of the ones that are dangerous then you're playing right into their hand. They want you to fear them and give in to their unconstitutional demands. They want you to adhere to their society and laws, laws which are backwards and don't apply to US citizens. For the Muslims that do live here, extremists or peaceful, they need to adhere to our laws and not the other way around. I agree that we shouldn't necessarily go out of our way to provoke them, but cartoons of Mohammed are not justification for killing infidels. If that's all it takes to set off your crazy Islamic side, you're classified as an extremist and it's unreasonable to assume these kinds of people aren't already looking for any excuse to attack.

In regards to the 3 million other Muslims that may have been offended by the art show, of course they need to suck it up, just about every other religion does. They can peacefully object, but violence isn't going to change things. I don't necessarily agree with art pieces like Piss Christ because of my beliefs, but I don't let it get to me because I'm tolerant and I understand that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. If I really cared as much as the two attackers did about my faith I MAYBE would have written the artist that took the photograph and voiced my displeasure or I would have demonstrated peacefully about it, but I don't really care enough to do anything because I have my faith and they have theirs (Or they have a lack of a faith, which is fine too). I wouldn't have turned to violence in any case, no matter how offended I could have become. That's the difference between us and the extremists, most other major religions aren't going to slaughter a bunch of people due to some drawings, but there's a large sect of Islam that will.

Why is it okay to taunt and ridicule Christians, Jews, and other religions but not Islam? Because Islam is the only one that may try to kill you today if you do. If the same art show had drawings of Jesus in cartoons it probably doesn't make the national news, maybe regional. I'm guessing you're trying to say that it's not okay to taunt any religion and not just Islam, and you'd be right, but it's going to happen anyway. Right or wrong, it's a protected freedom to hold an art show like this. Look at the winning drawing, it's said that you're not to visually depict Mohammed, and yet the artist defies his former religion by drawing him anyway because he can. What right do extremist Muslims have to tell others they can't depict drawings of Mohammed? And their justice is death? By refusing to allow such artistic expression you're indirectly supporting Islam's wacky rules and laws.
Should we cover up a woman's beauty for fear of offending Muslims?
Should Disney abolish Mickey Mouse because he's Satan's soldier? Mickey Mouse must die, says Saudi Arabian cleric - Telegraph
Should we quit using emoticons for fear of retribution? Emoticons - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth
Should we outlaw girls from riding bikes after 13 because there's a fatwa against it? Fatwa against girls bicycle riding | Siasat

 

[GoIrish41]

not sure the scope of "my team" but I consider Bill Maher and his ilk on your team. While he makes me laugh, his life, and really the life of many liberals is dedicated to bullying people...what the hell is the PC movement, and various campus level "movements" if it is not to bully, stifle, and control speech and thought? I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you here.

Overall, I get what you are saying in a practical sense ...don't be mean spirited...

But I divorce that sentiment from the level of expectation I have of people in a position to respond. People either understand western society or they don't, and if they don't, well they might find themselves in jail or with an acute case of lead poisoning...shrug.

Actually not a big fan of Bil Maher. I think he brings his views on religion into every discussion whether it fits or not and he is needlessly offensive to people of faith. I also get the feeling that he looks at himself as a bit of an intellectual, but his typical schtick really isn't that deep. However, in his defense, he speaks out more against political correctness than almost anyone I can think of.

As to the rest -- yes, "don't be mean spirited" is a fairly concise way of putting it. Western society. for all its merits, has plenty of warts, too. I don't think it is advisable to simply accept them as part of the package.

 

[GoIrish41]

The organizers have only endangered others' lives if you believe that the attackers are justified in killing people as a response to the events. And that's probably where the biggest riff in this discussion lies.

It certainly makes no difference what I believe. The event organizers were trying to bait them into an attack. And we do not have to believe it was right for the attackers to come in with guns blazing to understand that.

 

[Domina Nostra]

It certainly makes no difference what I believe. The event organizers were trying to bait them into an attack. And we do not have to believe it was right for the attackers to come in with guns blazing to understand that.

That's a pretty high standard: you are guilty of incitement if you provoke the most radicalized group on Earth. Those people are provoked by our very existence.

The point is, its one thing to provoke a normal, law-abiding citizen to do something they wouldn't (arguably) already be doing, such that you are the major cause of the behavior. It is another thing to talk about incitement in terms of the KKK, or Nazis, or Black Panthers, or other groups that are ALREADY committed to violence. You didn't incite them to the crime, you just gave them a desirable target.

 

[connor_in]

It certainly makes no difference what I believe. The event organizers were trying to bait them into an attack. And we do not have to believe it was right for the attackers to come in with guns blazing to understand that.

So the lesson is...don't be inflammatory at all to anyone? Or just to certain indiviuals or groups? Because if its the latter, I need to know where that list is kept or what channel or website it is constantly streaming on to keep myself or my loved ones safe. If someone/group gets added and I make an off color (pardon me, inappropriate) joke at the wrong time, i would hate to be the cause of a microaggression or worse.

 

[Ndaccountant]

So the lesson is...don't be inflammatory at all to anyone? Or just to certain indiviuals or groups? Because if its the latter, I need to know where that list is kept or what channel or website it is constantly streaming on to keep myself or my loved ones safe. If someone/group gets added and I make an off color (pardon me, inappropriate) joke at the wrong time, i would hate to be the cause of a microaggression or worse.

Avoid this man at all costs

 

[connor_in]

Avoid this man at all costs

America...land of the avoidance

 

[IrishLax]

Guys, as we are all part of The Great Satan (my favorite term, thanks Iran), we should probably stop existing. It's quite inflammatory and offensive to these sensible people. And the artists deserved to get shot at by extremists for antagonizing them with their super-duper offensive cartoons and drawings.

Just look how offensive that is!!! Doesn't it make you just want to go murder people?

Remember, if you offend someone, you invite them to try to come and kill you, and deserve blame for antagonizing them. That's what I've learned from our resident progressives in this thread.

 

[ulukinatme]

Guys, as we are all part of The Great Satan (my favorite term, thanks Iran), we should probably stop existing. It's quite inflammatory and offensive to these sensible people. And the artists deserved to get shot at by extremists for antagonizing them with their super-duper offensive cartoons and drawings.

Just look how offensive that is!!! Doesn't it make you just want to go murder people?

Remember, if you offend someone, you invite them trying to come and kill you, and deserve blame for antagonizing them. That's what I've learned from our resident progressives in this thread.

Lax, we need to quit posting this picture, otherwise we're inviting violence on all of IE.

 

[connor_in]

Lax, we need to quit posting this picture, otherwise we're inviting violence on all of IE.

Hey! I am the one who pointed that out when YOU posted the pic!