Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Thoughts on the Garland shooting

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Thoughts on the Garland shooting
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Curious what other’s thoughts were on the Garland shooting Sunday. Only heard a bit of reporting this morning about this and read a quick update this afternoon. 2 suspects showed up at the end of a “Muhammad Art Exhibit” in Garland which is near Dallas. They opened fire hitting a security guard before both being gunned down by police already on scene.

The group that ran this (AFDI) was hosting a contest for the best cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. So obviously this was a free speech demonstration meant to antagonize Muslims. They had quite a bit of security on hand as well anticipating a reaction. While I’m glad the police were on hand to end this before it became a tragedy, and I’m glad we are free to say what we want even when other’s don’t want to hear it… Part of me is sickened by this whole thing. It smacks of baiting a trap and hoping to be able to spring it.

So are demonstrations/gatherings like these useful in calling out jihadists or are they just pure recklessness and abuse of our right to free speech? I only feel bad for the police stuck in the middle at this point. Would these two have taken up violence otherwise? Probably, but now an officer was forced to take two lives and become a hero of people who, almost literally, threw themselves into the line of fire.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's inherently good or right to antagonize people with blasphemy, but I also strongly feel that any threat of violence over blasphemy should backfire. [Frown]
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
geraine
Member
Member # 6844

 - posted      Profile for geraine   Email geraine       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The AFDI did this event in poor taste, but that still does not give those offended ANY excuse for violence. I'm honestly getting a little tired of people making excuses for violence like this.

We are a different country than those in the middle east. Those that are members of the Muslim faith need to understand that. That means that sometimes, there are going to be things that you don't like. It doesn't give you the right or the responsibility to try and murder people.

The Catholic faith is made fun of quite a bit, as is the LDS church, Scientology, and pretty much every other religion on the planet.

I don't think the reason they attempted this was because they were truly offended by what was going on. I think they used it as an excuse to become martyrs, and what better place to do it than at an AFDI event?

While I think 99% of the blame is on those that attempted the shooting, the AFDI is a horrible group. I hope them being in the news prompts people to learn more about them and realize that they are nothing but a bunch of scumbags that deserve no support.

Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no problem with those attempting violent reprisal for blasphemy being gunned down. And the event coordinators did pay the security (was an off duty cop who fired the shots). So even there they didn't just spout their mouths off and expect the police to protect them.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around a group, described as a hate group itself, serves a purpose in focusing the attention of religious extremists. I find this type of group disgusting, however, they are voluntarily putting themselves out there as bait (in addition to their stated goals of promoting free speech). In a way they understand what they are inviting. In this case, it drew out two individuals prone to violent defense of their religion and they are no longer a threat and the only other injured party is already released from the hospital.

It’s a rather sad commentary on cultural relations when I even have to consider if a hate group could be a necessary evil. I suppose as long as both sides fulfill the worst accusations of the other side we can expect violence to flare up now and then.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think the reason they attempted this was because they were truly offended by what was going on. I think they used it as an excuse to become martyrs, and what better place to do it than at an AFDI event?
This is why I wonder if having groups that antagonize them intentionally is useful.

They are "less innocent" than others who may have been casualties in the absence of a well defended antagonist.

The domestic version of "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" logic?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the fact that I would defend somebody's freedom to kick a hornet's nest doesn't have to mean I think it is smart or even useful to do so.

The question is - does AFDI view this result as "a success"? What, for them, constitutes a good result? If one kicks a hornet's nest because one can, and two hornets come out and sting you and die... does that help rid the world of hornets in some way?

I guess it makes people aware hornets "are dangerous"... but who didn't know that at this point? I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the exercise. Even as a means of criticizing Islam, I don't think it's very effective. It does draw the media, but to what end?

[ May 04, 2015, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe "the end" would be, as geraine pointed out; When they can be prodded and blasphemed and annoyed to the same extent of other religions and no violence happens as a result. At that point their opponents may accept or at least ignore them. (as much as the public accepts any religion or lack of religion contrary to their own)
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't think it's inherently good or right to antagonize people with blasphemy, but I also strongly feel that any threat of violence over blasphemy should backfire. [Frown]

Agree 100%.

quote:
Originally posted by geraine:
The AFDI did this event in poor taste, but that still does not give those offended ANY excuse for violence. I'm honestly getting a little tired of people making excuses for violence like this.

If I go on the street and wave my arms in a stranger's face and get right into his space, some percentage of the time I'm going to get punched in the nose. This predictable reaction doesn't mean my being an idiot conferring the *right* for anyone to punch me in the face, but this doesn't speak to the fact that it's an expected result. This event just shows us that when you antagonize people they will be antagonized. If this sounds like a tautology that's because the result is "duh" obvious.

[ May 04, 2015, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
This event just shows us that when you antagonize people they will be antagonized.

I think this event shows us that some people are unreasonably antagonized. What was done to these men?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's my concern about this:
quote:
Chris Matthews, in speaking with a guest: “This is problematic to me, because I wonder whether this group that held this event down there to basically disparage and make fun of the prophet Mohammed doesn’t in some way cause these events. Well, not the word ‘causing’ — how about provoking, how about taunting, how about daring?
Matthew's was far from the only one pushing this idea that those hosting or attending the event brought this on themselves - it came from all major broadcast and cable outlets with only a few exceptions. This idea that free speech can be sufficiently provocative to place at least some blame on the intended victims is analogous to the position that a scantily dressed woman was "asking for it".

If someone attacked a protestor burning the American flag, would we be hearing about how he was provoked and the protestor bears some responsibility? I don't recall much of that before from the MSM, certainly not as broad based as this.

One legal analyst for a mainstream outlet (can't recall who) took the position that the event was unconstitutional in that it was a form of hate speech based on the precedent of "fighting words".

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Matthew's was far from the only one pushing this idea that those hosting or attending the event brought this on themselves
Well, to be fair, that's completely self-evident. They were so expecting an attack that they staffed the place with a SWAT team, after all. The goal of the event was to provoke an attack.

Now, that doesn't mean that the attackers are not morally culpable for their actions. Of course they are. But it also means that a certain degree of separate blame accrues to the group who deliberately poked a beehive (presumably to prove to everybody that beehives are dangerous.)

[ May 08, 2015, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you would agree that a woman dressing provactively has a certain degree of separate blame for deliberately provoking those who sexually assault her?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only if her actual intent was to provoke an assault. If the point of this show was to get together and share some funny cartoons, that'd be one thing -- but the point of the show was to deliberately try to attract attacks.

If a woman dresses with the specific intent of driving men around her to attack her, as unthinkable as that is in practice, then she indeed holds some of the blame for being attacked. I suspect that happens pretty rarely, though; even Cosmo articles talking about "how to drive him crazy with lust" aren't intending for readers to take that phrase literally. But the hosts of this event did indeed anticipate and desire a genuine hostile response, and in fact the point of the event was to demonstrate that there would be some individuals in the target population incapable of refraining from hostile response.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
But the hosts of this event did indeed anticipate and desire a genuine hostile response, and in fact the point of the event was to demonstrate that there would be some individuals in the target population incapable of refraining from hostile response.

"Incapable" probably isn't the best choice of word there.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom that's not a satisfactory answer. The point in Garland was to raise awareness about a completely unacceptable behavior and to protect free speech. The fact that they took precaution's against that unacceptable behavior doesn't mean the people at the event were trying to get shot. Anymore than carrying mace while dressing provocatively, but not while not, would change the intent of dressing provocatively.

Rafi's analogy is better than your rationalization of it.

There is absolutely no intellectual honesty on this issue with respect to how blasphemy is treated when its against Muslims versus Christians.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The point in Garland was to raise awareness about a completely unacceptable behavior and to protect free speech.
No. Nothing about the event "protected" free speech; it might have been about the promotion of free speech. But specifically it was about raising awareness about an unacceptable behavior by provoking that behavior. Had no one attacked, the event would have been seen as a failure by its organizers.

They were not trying to get shot, but they very definitely wanted people to try to shoot; that was, as its organizers made very clear, the point of the exercise. Some of them even argued afterwards that they were hoping to draw out extremists for capture.

So, again, if someone is dressing provocatively in hopes that they'll be attacked by would-be rapists, then yes, we can draw an equivalence.

[ May 08, 2015, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, right back at you. The point of this event, and the events the Dutch are always running, and the publication of images by some members of the media is specifically to break this intolerance. It is absolutely about the protection of free speech.

The goal of all of these events is to make the publication a NON-EVENT that no one looks twice at, that no one would ever consider killing someone over, to just let it be a matter of bad taste, not life and death.

Your version of the analogy isn't made any better by repetition. There are plenty of activists that deliberately dress provocatively while protesting specifically to emphasize, in a very similar manner, that how someone dresses DOES NOT justify actions against them.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you suppose there might be some similarity between a Muslim in the Middle East issuing the phrase "Death to America" and an American depicting Muhammad in a blasphemous way? After all, we need to examine what latent premises might lie behind such a ridiculing of the Muslim religious figure. Some might suggest it's 'all in good fun', some might suggest it being done 'on principle' to prove a point, and yet others probably do think that Islam (and maybe other religions) is definitively evil. Is it not a stretch to suggest that desecrating the image of their prophet might not carry with it the implicit message of "down with Islam"? What about "death to Islam", since it's on record that America has certainly killed many Muslims for various reasons.

If the latter yes can be even partially answered with "yes" then we might choose to look in the mirror for a moment. When faced with "death to America" some Americans suggest Iran should be bombed. Granted, it's not just because of that but because of their alleged nuclear program and other alleged behaviors. And yet failing to comply with American demands has certainly been grounds for bombing or regime change in the past. But when faced with "down with Islam" coming from the West (and I'm quite certain many Westerners do endorse this view, even if it wasn't these exact cartoonists) we call any act of violence against the West the worst epithets available.

I'm not condoning any kind of violence, but I think there is a severe blind spot and double standard in the West in how we speak about and treat Muslims versus how we accept their speech about us. It isn't acceptable for a Muslim to commit a violent attack in America; but we seem to think it's ok to commit repeated assassinations with drones abroad based on the beliefs (and actions as well) of people there.

If anything it seems to me like these cartoonists were not demonstrating anything about the 1st Amendment, but were rather demonstrating that Americans do the same kind of 'hate-mongering against an enemy' that people in Iran do. It may demonstrate a constitutional point, but it doesn't raise America's score in the moral high ground department.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The point of this event, and the events the Dutch are always running, and the publication of images by some members of the media is specifically to break this intolerance.
Bull.
Who seriously believes that these events will make Muslims more tolerant of disrespect to their God and His Prophet? Does anyone actually believe that intentionally mocking their prophet in a way that seeks to demonstrate the inappropriateness in a modern context of a violent response to blasphemy is going to bring someone who would normally respond violently to blasphemy around to the correct way of thinking? That's like saying that repeatedly insulting somebody will eventually make him like you.

quote:
There are plenty of activists that deliberately dress provocatively while protesting specifically to emphasize, in a very similar manner, that how someone dresses DOES NOT justify actions against them.
And yet, do you believe they actually anticipate -- to the point of desiring -- attacks?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously it's worked for every social movement in this country, why wouldn't it work here? Repetition causes sensitivity to decrease.

Like I said, you're revision to the analogy doesn't get better by repetition. You've ignored motivation in favor of hammering effect on one side, and completed ignored it on the other side. Essentially, you get where you are because you impute bad faith or maliciousness.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seriously it's worked for every social movement in this country, why wouldn't it work here?
In what sense? What major social movement achieved its goals by repeatedly provoking the other side to violence until they eventually got tired of it?

quote:
You've ignored motivation in favor of hammering effect on one side....
Rather, it's exactly the opposite. I'm insisting that the motivation of these "protesters" is specifically to provoke attacks, in order to further isolate the attackers and demonstrate what they consider the unworthiness of their culture. Women who dress provocatively are not doing it to be attacked, but people who hold celebrations of deliberately insulting Mohammed cartoons are.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Art Spiegelman: Je Suis Charlie—But I’m Not Pamela Geller


quote:
This week, we also saw a shooting in Texas outside of a “Draw Muhammad” contest sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. What’s the difference between Charlie Hebdo and Pamela Geller’s organization?

I think that’s when my brain short-circuited. Because superficially, it seems like, well, the same thing is happening in Texas. But it’s not. It’s the anti-matter, Bizarro World, flipside, mirror-logic version of what Charlie Hebdo is about.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is racist organization. It’s exactly the nightmare version that the writers who were protesting the PEN award thought Charlie was. But Charlie is an anti-racist, political magazine that does not have an agenda that consists of wanting to bait or trouble Muslims.

Pam Geller’s organization is intentionally trying to start war of culture with Islam by saying that all Muslims are terrorists under the surface, and we’re going to prove it. Do the group members deserve free speech protection? Of course. But they’re hiding behind that banner with things that have very little to do with free speech and a lot to do with race hate.

Je suis Charlie, mais je ne suis pas Pam Geller. She and her dim-witted, ugly organization deserve the protection of the free speech mantle that they wrap themselves in. But would I ever give them a courage award? Hardly. Would I ever want to be in the same room with them? No. Do I wish they would stop? Yes.


Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But Charlie is an anti-racist, political magazine that does not have an agenda that consists of wanting to bait or trouble Muslims.
Well, I dunno about that, to be honest. I would argue that Charlie Hebdo's staff were all about baiting and troubling anyone who took something more seriously than they thought was appropriate. Which is actually not a bad goal, IMO. But they definitely deliberately baited and troubled almost everybody. The difference is that they did not rationally expect their baiting to actually provoke a violent response. Their message was "Hey, look at these silly goons, taking this silly stuff seriously!" -- and not "Hey, when we call these guys silly goons, we expect them to demonstrate to the world that they are dangerous maniacs who should be exterminated."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People are responsible for their own actions regardless of "provocation." Domestic abuse isn't less serious where someone provoked it, even if the victim could "rationally expect their baiting to provoke a violent response." Words and pictures don't justify trying to kill their authors.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Responsibility isn't a zero sum game. Acknowledging that someone is responsible for provoking an attack doesn't diminish the responsibility of the person doing the attacking.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
People are responsible for their own actions regardless of "provocation." Domestic abuse isn't less serious where someone provoked it, even if the victim could "rationally expect their baiting to provoke a violent response." Words and pictures don't justify trying to kill their authors.

Going around on the street calling people names and taunting them, only to then say "you see how this society is uncivilized" when some portion of them punch you, is evidence only of your own incivility. Peace and tolerance do not exist merely as mandates by law, but are also aided by civil treatment and respect. You can obey the law all you like, but if you disregard tenets of civility and respect you will increase violence and intolerance in the world.

I would even go further than this, to say that those who wish to celebrate the law while using disrespect and hate as their means are not only doing a disservice to the spirit of the law (i.e. the promotion of civil order) but are also promoting the idea of disrespect as a moral principle, which I think won't just summon angry people, but will serve to increase aggregate anger as well.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is absolutely no intellectual honesty on this issue with respect to how blasphemy is treated when its against Muslims versus Christians.
What do you mean by this Seriati? What interpretations (or direct bible quotes) do Christians use to justify violent retaliation for blasphemy? Are Christians blasphemed against and insulted regularly? Yes. Most religions get a large helping of this against both atheists and other religions. Are we (westerners) more cautious about blaspheming Islam? Defiantly. We believe that there is a much higher chance of facing repercussions if we insult Islam than any other religion.

In fact the only other modern religion I can think of where a section of their practitioners justify retaliation is Scientology, and they don’t do so with violence AFAIK. That’s not to say a whole religion believes blasphemy and insults need to be retaliated against, but nobody expects other religions (at least the ones we come into any regular contact with) to react in any lasting way.

Think of it as hanging out with your young drunk friends. You can get into a debate or argument with them with the intent of making them look silly and making yourself feel good about yourself for being “the smart one”. But you have this one friend who when embarrassed may punch you in the face. Otherwise, they are an OK person but as much as they dish it out, they just can’t take it. You avoid poking fun at that person, or just avoid them all together. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s common sense / self preservation. That doesn’t excuse the friend prone to violent resolution of arguments. It is rational however.

Blasphemy is one of two things; a test or a trap. If you take the insult, brush it off, ignore it or debate it, your religion is compatible with a society which promotes religious freedom. If you get violent and retaliate you (and as a reflection, your beliefs) fail the test. That is the trap. If a single religion resorts to retaliation often enough, the whole religion is viewed as incompatible with the society. In the drunk friend analogy above, the whole group stops inviting the violent friend to get together.

Keeping quite around that drunk friend who is prone to breaking noses is not showing deference to or respect for his opinions. It’s not treating your religion with less respect. It’s treating YOU with more respect for showing restraint. It may be giving you credit for holding to your belief and rejecting interpretations (or even direct calls) for opposing blasphemy. Every insult to your faith (at least those made without armed security) is done because they don’t believe you will hurt them for testing you. Some people will test you because they think you are being foolish and want you to snap out of it. Some do so because they believe their faith is correct and you have been mislead. Others do so to see if YOU and your religion are still compatible with an open society who (on paper at least) accept all religions.

Right now, a not insignificant number see Islam as that violent drunk. Most of the time, they are OK to hang out with, but every once in awhile, they get pushed to violence that seems totally unacceptable and unwarranted to the rest of the group. So yes, Islam is treated differently. Trust me, you don’t want Christianity to ever receive the same level of “respect” you may feel Islam gets in regards to blasphemy.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Responsibility isn't a zero sum game. Acknowledging that someone is responsible for provoking an attack doesn't diminish the responsibility of the person doing the attacking.

Why would you think that? The balancing of provocation is scattered all throughout our laws and sense of justice. The difference, for instance, between second and third degree murder more or less turns on whether we think the provocation to murder was serious enough. We certainly temper sentences were there was provocation involved. But even more we honestly tend to believe that justice is served when a provoker gets what's coming to them.

Maybe we shouldn't, but it's a fact that we do. The balancing line is trying to determine when we shouldn't. Sometimes its a matter of principal, even if its initially contra-logical - this is the path for instance we've been walking on victim blaming in the area of sexual assault. Towards an absolute acceptance of no responsibility by the victim, it's now pretty easy for us to see, even it wouldn't have been even a short while ago, that even someone deliberately sexually teasing someone can and should be able to back out at the last minute, and even during.

To me though, it's clear that here the intent of the victim blame is to remove culpability from the attackers. It's like the left is reducing them below children, with no ability to be any thing but unthinking reactionaries. There is quite literally nothing about these acts that impacted anyone in any way that it is socially or morally acceptable to recognize as a provocation worthy of even partially shifting blame to the event organizers.
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Going around on the street calling people names and taunting them, only to then say "you see how this society is uncivilized" when some portion of them punch you, is evidence only of your own incivility.

Well no. It's evidence of your incivility, and the puncher's criminal assault. Unless you believe that words are grounds for physical violence? The law usually blames the escalator.

It's only your sense of moral justice (ie he deserved it) that's swaying you here.
quote:
I would even go further than this, to say that those who wish to celebrate the law while using disrespect and hate as their means are not only doing a disservice to the spirit of the law (i.e. the promotion of civil order) but are also promoting the idea of disrespect as a moral principle, which I think won't just summon angry people, but will serve to increase aggregate anger as well.
The price of living in a free society is that even hateful messages are allowed to be aired. The appropriate response is to vet them and hold them up to ridicule should that be what is necessary.

The KKK wasn't beaten down with sticks and stones and violence, they were beaten by allowing them to actually speak openly, by letting everyone hear the hate in what they said, and since people are generally fundamentally good natured by rejecting the KKK and end up holding them in repugnance. How is holding back and letting them speak helping the Westboro Baptists?

I'm not convinced that you're correct in which side would ultimately get that treatment here, but that's exactly why we have to absolutely protect their ability to speak out, even if you believe they are spreading hate.

You're fundamentally wrong that spreading hate is a disservice to the spirit of the law. The spirit of this law is about open debate and rational choice, it only falls the way you mean if you're talking about propaganda and infantilizing the audience.
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
What do you mean by this Seriati? What interpretations (or direct bible quotes) do Christians use to justify violent retaliation for blasphemy?

Beats me. I'm not aware that Christians as a whole try to justify violent retaliation.

My point though wasn't about the Christians or the Muslims, it was about the "everyone elses" who notwithstanding that we live in a free country seem to want to make religious accomodations to Islam and deliberate religious provocation to Christians. It's no mistake for instance that every one of the stories about gay activists provoking confrontations with store owners is about Christian owners, why not do the same thing with Islamic businesses?
quote:
Are we (westerners) more cautious about blaspheming Islam? Defiantly. We believe that there is a much higher chance of facing repercussions if we insult Islam than any other religion.
Which is exactly why this event occurs. If you believe that, then you're already acknowledging the elephant in the room, that everyone should be on board with this event or this type of event.

There is no reason by the way that anyone should feel an obligation to blaspheme anything, I certainly never have out of respect and tolerance for others views. However, the right to free speech is one of the highest secular ideals, it shouldn't be sacrificed to anyone's religious intolerance.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:

quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Going around on the street calling people names and taunting them, only to then say "you see how this society is uncivilized" when some portion of them punch you, is evidence only of your own incivility.

Well no. It's evidence of your incivility, and the puncher's criminal assault. Unless you believe that words are grounds for physical violence? The law usually blames the escalator.

It's only your sense of moral justice (ie he deserved it) that's swaying you here.

Words escalate tension, and increased tension leads to violence. The fact that the law creates a black and white divide between speech and physical acts doesn't mean this divide exists in the real world. One is a legal fiction, the other is a continuum of intention and energy. In a world of buddhas people would maybe be in 100% control of their actions, but since that's not the case there is an extent to which aggravating others will lead to inevitable results. This isn't a moral or legal judgement, it's a fact.

quote:
The price of living in a free society is that even hateful messages are allowed to be aired. The appropriate response is to vet them and hold them up to ridicule should that be what is necessary.
This is more or less what I'm saying. We can accept the legality of certain kinds of free speech while yet condemning them.

quote:

You're fundamentally wrong that spreading hate is a disservice to the spirit of the law. The spirit of this law is about open debate and rational choice, it only falls the way you mean if you're talking about propaganda and infantilizing the audience.

I wasn't just referring to the constitutional protections from government, but also hate-crime laws and such. Although these laws are purely proscriptive and can't define good behavior, we can easily see that the spirit of these laws is to prevent both persecution and abuse of others. The law can't cover all possible cases of this, and in general tends to only absolutely forbid cases with a physical component. But I do think that abusing others to the best of your ability within the confines of what the law allows can certainly go against the spirit of the law and do nothing except show off that the laws (correctly) tend to be tuned to forbid as little as possible.

But the law itself does not in any way indicate a norm of rational discourse; only society can promote this. One can be totally irrational and obey the law fully, and likewise engage in only rational discourse and still be breaking various laws.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1