Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on September 19, 2012, 08:35:04 am
-
New French cartoons inflame prophet film tensions (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfB4a_pcUoxCoTdb6Kd-pOqdrW5g?docId=8251296cb1e5416faa8bfc2027a59efb)
good for France :)
-
At this point I think the rest of the world should just deluge them with objectionable material until they all die of apoplectic fits.
-
I wonder, is it possible to offend someone to death? Obviously it is possible to offend someone into committing poorly justified homicide, but actually offending someone to death??? 'Cuz that would be pretty awesome. I mean, I think I might have just discovered my true calling here.
-
if they get worked up enough it could trigger an aneurism or hear attack.
-
It's like a game of hot potato -- Here, whoever has the potato makes the crazy people angry, so keep passing it around.
-
You know, I have to agree with this:
"Freedom of opinion should not be by insulting religions," Dheini said, carrying his son Sajed, 4, who was dressed in camouflage military uniform.
It is entirely true that the reaction of the Moslem world to these jokes or insults is uncalled for, but those making the insults should bear better regard for who is on the biting end of their statements. Especially when it is well-known that such behavior will prompt extremely poor behavior on behalf of the vocal populace that is effected.
To make an analogy: it is your right to be racist if you so choose, but deciding to express those notions at the expense of others will bring the consequences upon you for doing so. After all, I don't think anyone here would be lending support to a racist group making insulting "blackface" comics now, would they...
-
"This is a disgraceful and hateful, useless and stupid provocation," Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Paris Mosque, told The Associated Press. "(But) we are not Pavlov's animals to react at each insult."
To be honest, this is the attitude of most Muslims towards it, as someone else pointed out, about 10,000 rioters out of over a Billion Muslims is not really a definitive sample.
Still it'll be hilarious right up until some nutcase detonates themselves in a shopping centre for revenge...
-
You know, I have to agree with this:
"Freedom of opinion should not be by insulting religions," Dheini said, carrying his son Sajed, 4, who was dressed in camouflage military uniform.
It is entirely true that the reaction of the Moslem world to these jokes or insults is uncalled for, but those making the insults should bear better regard for who is on the biting end of their statements. Especially when it is well-known that such behavior will prompt extremely poor behavior on behalf of the vocal populace that is effected.
To make an analogy: it is your right to be racist if you so choose, but deciding to express those notions at the expense of others will bring the consequences upon you for doing so. After all, I don't think anyone here would be lending support to a racist group making insulting "blackface" comics now, would they...
Exactly. There's not much "good" in being assholes just for the sake of being assholes. And again, the cowards who publish that magazine are probably not the ones who are going to have to pay the price for this.
-
when someone reacts inappropriately violent we should do what ever they say.
-
When we are deliberately going out of our way to anger them, that argument is moot.
So our method of forcing what we believe down their throats is to deliberately insult what they believe?
I mean, for Gods sake, we bombed two countries for 'attacking our Freedom...'
-
slight difference in attack method, there... :rolleyes:
-
$5 says that the day some extremist comes for Bobboau because he happens to live in a country that needlessly insulted on the extremist's religion.. he'll change his tune. Till then, we'll keep seeing these kinds of topics and posts from him...
I was not surprised by the topic content when I saw the title and who posted it.
-
slight difference in attack method, there... :rolleyes:
But not in the motivations behind it. America was attacked at a fundamental level, it's very basis is on the concept of Freedom and Entrepreneurialism, and when those were attacked the response resulted in far, far more death and destruction than these riots have. Whether justified or not, accusing Muslims reaction to having the basis of their society attacked of being 'over the top' is somewhat interesting.
-
/
$5 says that the day some extremist comes for Bobboau because he happens to live in a country that needlessly insulted on the extremist's religion.. he'll change his tune. Till then, we'll keep seeing these kinds of topics and posts from him...
9/11
we have been hit if you haven’t noticed. maybe when one of them comes for you because you said you don't think Mohamed is the prophet of god YOU will change your tune.
-
There's a large difference between having the right to not be Muslim and deliberately insulting Muslims though. If there were riots in the Middle East over the growing Gay Marriage laws in the Western World, I wouldn't give a ****, if there were riots over Western Women not wearing head-coverings then, once again, I wouldn't give a ****, because in both cases, it's nothing to do with these people. However, deliberately insulting something that IS close to them, their society and their way of life is a whole other story.
-
/$5 says that the day some extremist comes for Bobboau because he happens to live in a country that needlessly insulted on the extremist's religion.. he'll change his tune. Till then, we'll keep seeing these kinds of topics and posts from him...
9/11
we have been hit if you haven’t noticed. maybe when one of them comes for you because you said you don't think Mohamed is the prophet of god YOU will change your tune.
You missed (or ignored) my point. I mean you specifically and personally, not "we" as in the US.
And if the day comes that someone holds a gun to my head and tries to force me to believe in Mohamed, I hope I don't give in. I don't think I will.. but then again, I'm a middle class American that doesn't face those kinds of situations ever. Though I guarantee my faith is much stronger than your resolve to shame any person who believes in anything spiritual regardless of cost... :doubt:
-
some people respond to being threatened by becoming more obstinate and confrontational.
-
Noting wrong with that, we have every right to stand up for what we believe in, and like you, my response would be '**** off' if someone tried to force me to change religion. But it is possible, and considerably more mature to be stubborn without being abusive.
We get angry when Muslims brand all westerners on the basis of a single movie or a few cartoons, they get angry when we brand all Muslims based on a few uneducated psychopaths, There's an easy way out of that, but it requires effort on both sides, and someone has to blink first.
-
"We get angry when Muslims brand all westerners on the basis of a single movie or a few cartoons,"
actually I don't care what they think, I care what they do.
[edit]actually this isn't entirely accurate I am greatly offended by their refusal to use physical evidence as their basis for understanding the world. but I just ignore it for the most part.[/edit]
"they get angry when we brand all Muslims based on a few uneducated psychopaths,"
I don't see how bowing to the psychopaths will help. anyone.
-
Just because the rioting ones are featured on the news, that does not mean that they are the only ones with an opinion. Seems to me the plan is just to keep on insulting them until they snap and then point and say 'Look! Told you they were crazy!".
If someone spent enough time taunting you and your beliefs, you would eventually snap at them, does that make you a psychopath too? As I've said before, the reaction to the original Mohammed cartoons was somewhat silly, but the decision to keep poking the Muslims by deliberately publishing more was just plain trolling.
The low levels of education in these countries means that most of these people do not understand the world from a greater perspective, and, to be blunt, any hope of introducing better education and a more 'Western' attitude towards peoples' rights have been killed stone dead by these publications, they've seen nothing but the very worst of Freedom of Speech for years, and people seem to actually be proud of that fact.
So if you want to help that part of the world improve Human Rights, Education and Freedom then don't expect anything for at least a decade, we've shot ourselves in the foot, and whilst these countries remain as they are, they remain a threat to others. Rather than encouraging these countries towards a more 'Free' attitude, we've done nothing but put them off it for years.
-
(http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FAA/N2V2/GGK2GGPI/FAAN2V2GGK2GGPI.MEDIUM.gif)
-
when someone reacts inappropriately violent we should do what ever they say.
When we know someone will react inappropriately violent and then provoke them anyway, we're assholes. It's like poking a tiger with a stick, then being upset when it decides to eat your face.
-
I think this video sums up what I think about these scandals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jc-x0w_oEY
-
I would ignore them.
the plan is to keep on insulting them till they get over it. till they have the same attitude toward us we have toward them, that is "they are just going to do whatever the **** they want to do"
they cannot riot perpetually, eventually they will need to eat.
-
Intolerable behaviour does not generate Tolerance, never has, never will.
What happens when it turns out that people in the Middle East aren't 'little Americans' and that they actually have a different set of values to the US, where their religion, even compared to Americans, is far more important to them than people seem to assume?
It's a very dangerous way to be playing the game of International Relations, just to annoy someone until they give up even trying to find common ground. It's basically saying 'we're setting out to make enemies of them'.
-
I would ignore them.
the plan is to keep on insulting them till they get over it. till they have the same attitude toward us we have toward them, that is "they are just going to do whatever the **** they want to do"
they cannot riot perpetually, eventually they will need to eat.
Excellent idea, we troll them so hard and often that they get bored of retaliatory killings and change their beliefs. It's almost like I'm six years old again.
-
It seems to me like the people poking deliberate fun at Islam are missing the point entirely.
That approach only works if they value your (collectively speaking) life more than their (again, speaking collectively, but this time for the smaller group of violent rioters) beliefs. The ones that riot don't. If push came to shove, they wouldn't just give up because you pissed them off too many times.
-
Must admit, the part that confuses me is the fact that there are many non-Muslims who would rather go down fighting than have Islamic values forced upon them against their will. Does it not, therefore, follow that they have counterparts in Islamic society who would rather go down fighting than have Western values forced upon them against their will?
-
it's like you are using your values as some sort of pawn in some elaborate cultural chess game. we value free speech. we will not censor ourselves just because someone is threatening us.
seriously, if we did bow on this, they WILL find something else to riot about. for example gay marriage. what would you suggest if three years now every time a gay couple married there was a chance that the Islamic world would blow up?
-
Must admit, the part that confuses me is the fact that there are many non-Muslims who would rather go down fighting than have Islamic values forced upon them against their will. Does it not, therefore, follow that they have counterparts in Islamic society who would rather go down fighting than have Western values forced upon them against their will?
what part of drawing a stick figure is forcing anything upon anyone?
-
seriously, if we did bow on this, they WILL find something else to riot about. for example gay marriage. what would you suggest if three years now every time a gay couple married there was a chance that the Islamic world would blow up?
I think you've got a wire crossed here. They're not rioting because "Grrr westerners!" This has nothing to do with personal freedoms. This has nothing to do with what goes on in the US.
This has everything to do with people outright mocking their religion. It's a verbal attack on one of the very few things that's a bastion of security and solidarity to them. It's being a dick for the stated purpose of being a dick.
There's a big difference between reacting to a personal attack and commenting on something you don't like. I'll give you a hint: one of them is typically more violent than the other, and isn't really justified.
-
It's nothing to do with what the figure is, it's about what it is intended to represent.
You yourself said 'the plan is to keep on insulting them till they get over it. till they have the same attitude toward us we have toward them, that is "they are just going to do whatever the **** they want "'.
Sounds to me like what you want is for them to accept Western values, and the intention is to keep on trollin' until they do so.
Quick Hint, won't work, each wave of insult is remembered for generations to come, insults don't open doors, they close them.
-
seriously, if we did bow on this, they WILL find something else to riot about. for example gay marriage. what would you suggest if three years now every time a gay couple married there was a chance that the Islamic world would blow up?
There's a large difference between having the right to not be Muslim and deliberately insulting Muslims though. If there were riots in the Middle East over the growing Gay Marriage laws in the Western World, I wouldn't give a ****, if there were riots over Western Women not wearing head-coverings then, once again, I wouldn't give a ****, because in both cases, it's nothing to do with these people. However, deliberately insulting something that IS close to them, their society and their way of life is a whole other story.
I'll also add that indignation about these things would be a side effect, Gay Marriage was not introduced to offend Muslims, it's just a possible side-effect, and not one that I care about, whereas these cartoons are deliberately designed to insult, and are deliberately focused on the core of their belief system.
Some would argue that the existence of the WBC is a prime example of how good America is at Freedom of Speech, and I'd agree, but the whole reason it is an example of this is because they are a bunch of obnoxious pricks, and even America struggles with dealing with them at times. Acting like obnoxious pricks might be a 'prime' example of Freedom of Speech, but it's still acting like obnoxious pricks.
-
ok, what if following riots in the mid east there was a wave of anti-gay sentiment in the western world, people saying we shouldn't do it because it is insulting to islam, and as a reaction to both of these a bunch of gay people, as publicly as possible had a bunch of marriage ceremonies as an act of defiance?
-
Then they'd have to deal with it, like Anti-abortion campaigners. The whole purpose of Freedom of Speech is to give everyone a voice. You don't have to agree with them, and the odds are that they would get nowhere because such things have been tried before, but the whole idea that hurling abuse is some kind of solution to possible future problems is absolutely ridiculous.
And the fact is, if we hadn't been hurling insults, they wouldn't have got angry, so we are creating a problem, and then claiming that continuing to create that problem will somehow solve it.
With regards to the idea of mass Gay Marriages, as long as it is on soil where it's legal, there's not a damn thing that can be done about it, and they are within their rights to hold the ceremony, however, once again, there's a difference between defying religious fundamentalism and deliberately going out of our way to insult peoples religion.
-
I included the phrase "as an act of defiance" quite deliberately, they are doing it, with the intention of sending the message that they will not be stopped by this. that is equivalent to what is being discussed here, so, we know they perceive it as an insult, they do it anyway, therefore it is as much an insult as drawing a picture of Mohamed just because you were told not to.
-
The difference is that the drawings and film were designed, first and foremost, to insult Islam and Muslims in general. Whereas Gay marriage is something that certain religious sects just happen to take offense to, but that is not the intention of the act of Gay Marriage, simply a side-effect. It's the difference between someone choosing to take offense at another group of people, and someone going out of their way to cause offense to another group of people.
-
first off, the original cartoons, were not intended to "insult" Islam, they were a part of a discussion on self censorship (of all ****ing things!) and criticism of Islam. basically they were talking about exactly the thing we are right now.
second we have the right to criticize or insult people.
third, again I will point out, in my example, the ceremonies are happening as an explicit act of defiance, they know it is perceived as an offense, they are doing it to say that they will not have their way of life dictated. now that the side effect is well known it's happening both in spite and because of that.
drawing Mohamed is something that certain religious sects just happen to take offense to.
-
Drawing Mohammed, the centre of their religion in a deliberately insulting light is deliberately going out to offend every Muslim out there. Gay marriage, however, is slowly growing into an accepted thing, there is a massive, massive difference between the West standing up for Western Values, and the West attacking Eastern ones in the name of defending their values.
To be honest, it scares me, because the last time caricatures were used to represent an entire religion in bad light by the media, it was Der Stürmer in the mid 1930's and the caricatures that time were of Jewish beliefs and acts in the build up to the Jewish persecution of the 1930's-40's. It was a subtle thing then, and it is a subtle thing now, but that's how you De-humanise an entire culture, one step at a time.
-
drawing public figures in a deliberately insulting light is common in the western world, we poke fun at political leaders, historical figures, and fictional characters all the time, often to make a point, this is a common form of discourse.
and I hereby invoke Godwin's Law, I win, good day sir.
-
$5 says that the day some extremist comes for Bobboau because he happens to live in a country that needlessly insulted on the extremist's religion.. he'll change his tune. Till then, we'll keep seeing these kinds of topics and posts from him...
-
I didn't say Political Leaders or Historical Figures, I said Religion. And the last time there was a cartoon campaign against a religion on this scale, that was when it happened. You can invoke Godwin all you like, but that won't change history, and it won't change the psychological impact those cartoons had on Germany at the time, or the psychological affect of these cartoons now. Burying your head in the sand and going 'lalalala' won't change that.
If you'd have asked a mid 1930's German whether he thought those cartoons would lead to massive persecution and violence towards Jews, he would have said 'No way, maybe some people will get carried away, but we are sensible about these things".
-
"political leaders, historical figures, and fictional characters"
Mohamed is one or more of those.
ah, so you want to go down this road, eh? well... you know, there was a group of people once who wanted to ban things printed that they didn't like, they had book burnings and if you printed things that went against what they thought you'd be shipped off to a camp to die. I'll give you a hint, using Nazi's to try and win an argument is ****ing lazy and sad.
sorry you don't like our Entartete Kunst
-
The books they were burning were the ones that did not agree with their world-view, and burning them was wrong, no doubt, but you seem to be confused between the idea of destroying knowledge that already exists, and creating deliberately offensive images in order to broadcast them and create anger.
Expecting all Muslims to live up to your definition of what is acceptable and what is not is absolutely identical to the mentality of a Radical Islamic preacher saying that the West must live by Sharia Law. There's no difference, it's all about forcing other people to live by your rules rather than their own. And if they get angry about this idea, it's apparently their fault.
I swear, Empathy and Respect are sitting in a bar somewhere nursing a drink and wondering where humanity went.
-
ah, so you want to go down this road, eh? well... you know, there was a group of people once who wanted to ban things printed that they didn't like, they had book burnings and if you printed things that went against what they thought you'd be shipped off to a camp to die. I'll give you a hint, using Nazi's to try and win an argument is ****ing lazy and sad.
No, what's lazy and sad is erecting a massive straw-man in the form of gay marriage to make a comparison that doesn't hold up in the first place. It is nice to know that basic civility is lost on you, though.
-
Who are you suggesting is trying to dictate your way of life? The Muslims who get offended? Or your fellow citizens/forumites?
The Muslims who get offended cannot stop you from voicing your opinion, whether they would like to or not.
Your fellow citizens/forumites expect you to behave yourself. Do you perceive their criticism as an attempt to dictate your behavior?
-
Expecting all Muslims to live up to your definition of what is acceptable and what is not is absolutely identical to the mentality of a Radical Islamic preacher saying that the West must live by Sharia Law. There's no difference, it's all about forcing other people to live by your rules rather than their own. And if they get angry about this idea, it's apparently their fault.
So saying that it is wrong to kill people over a drawing is the same as saying that everyone should convert to your religion by force?
-
Bobboau has clearly gone from defending his viewpoint to merely trying to "win" the argument. The interesting part of this thread has run its course.
Let the semantics arguments fly...
-
in what way is it a straw man? Drawing cartoons,
even especially offensive ones, is free speech, a central value of western civilization that the Islamic world is trying too get us to curtail. Gay marriage is an emerging western phenomenon that is an expression of another central western value, self determination, this is something that the Islamic world could just as easily lash out against. my question was why there would be a difference in how it was handled given that what is at play in both scenarios is core values of western civilization.
and flip, I don't care if ultimately they cannot accept it, they are perfectly welcome to isolate themselves from us if they really want to. I am mainly concerned with what effects this will have on OUR culture, I do not want to live in a world where I have to worry about maybe offending someone when I'm trying to make a point, because quite frankly some peoples world views are so ****ed up that reality is offensive to them.
god that ****ing alcubierre drive cannot get built fast enough, I want off this rock.
-
"political leaders, historical figures, and fictional characters"
Mohamed is one or more of those.
That's not what Flipside said, so you might wanna rephrase your criteria.
-
Expecting all Muslims to live up to your definition of what is acceptable and what is not is absolutely identical to the mentality of a Radical Islamic preacher saying that the West must live by Sharia Law. There's no difference, it's all about forcing other people to live by your rules rather than their own. And if they get angry about this idea, it's apparently their fault.
So saying that it is wrong to kill people over a drawing is the same as saying that everyone should convert to your religion by force?
Nope, I'm saying the claiming that Muslims shouldn't take offense at these images because they don't offend you personally is the same as saying 'You must adopt my worldview or I'll just keep insulting you". Similar, but not identical. This isn't about the killings that have taken place, it's about the assumptions that just because we don't particularly care what people say about us or our beliefs, that neither should anyone else. It's about projecting our own values onto other cultures and then pointing fingers if they dare to not be like us.
-
That's not what Flipside said, so you might wanna rephrase your criteria.
the cartoons were of Mohamed, so if Flipside is talking about something else, then it is off topic. and I never said my criteria was exhaustive, I left things like religious leaders, and groups of people as implied.
they can take offense all they want, I take offense all the time from things that people say and do, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to say and do those things.
-
No-ones saying they don't have the right to do it, but there was a time when self control meant that just because you could do a thing, it did not follow that you must do that thing. There was one and only one purpose to releasing the later cartoons, and that was to piss off Muslims in the name of 'Freedom of Speech'. So why is everyone surprised that they are pissed off?
-
when someone is telling you you can't do something is when you must.
-
(http://blog.swell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/shark.jpg)
-
when someone is telling you you can't do something is when you must.
Ah, the mentality of either an angsty teenager or a four-year-old.
-
Bobboau, respond to my post plz?
-
when someone is telling you you can't do something is when you must.
Ah, the mentality of either an angsty teenager or a four-year-old.
Interestingly, this is increasingly becoming the peak of American maturity. We're waaaaay too entitled for our own good.
-
I would ignore them.
the plan is to keep on insulting them till they get over it. till they have the same attitude toward us we have toward them, that is "they are just going to do whatever the **** they want to do"
they cannot riot perpetually, eventually they will need to eat.
till they get over it?
well i don't see any progress over stuff like israel and draw moh day. all of which were years ago.
-
Everybody is fine with freedom of speech in most circumstances, it is when the message is controversial or insulting that freedom of speech is truly tested. This was bound to happen sooner or later. I am afraid either muslims will get desensitized to insults (unlikely), or this controversy will repeat itself every few years, lol, and in the end it will be the west that gets desensitized to rioting muslims..
-
Culture wars are so silly.
It's like a tug of war with a rope made of people.
Wait wait, maybe a boxing match with gloves made of people.
I wonder if Apple vs. Android will ever get this bad. Maybe Android fans drawing effigies of Steve Jobs. Then the Apple fans destroying those little kiosks in malls that sell phones.
I'll stop.
-
Hey guys, look, those guys are different. Let's go make fun of them. Oh lol wut, they're rioting? Hahaha, oh look now they're killing people? Wow they're a ****ed up culture. Let's make fun of them some more. Also I gotta post this on HLP since I already know most people there think I'm the one being dumb and I just loooove trolling people. Trololololol!
-
Hey guys, look, those guys are different. Let's go make fun of them. Oh lol wut, they're rioting? Hahaha, oh look now they're killing people? Wow they're a ****ed up culture. Let's make fun of them some more. Also I gotta post this on HLP since I already know most people there think I'm the one being dumb and I just loooove trolling people. Trololololol!
See what we should do is just direct all of the extremists to anonymous imageboards, and then get them hooked. They'll just stay in their basement all day screaming at each anonymous post by another person screaming. Perfect!
Maybe even add a bot that posts "differing views" that they have to contest frequently, just to keep them busy. A digital strawman-bot. It's perfect!
-
So if you want to help that part of the world improve Human Rights, Education and Freedom then don't expect anything for at least a decade, we've shot ourselves in the foot, and whilst these countries remain as they are, they remain a threat to others. Rather than encouraging these countries towards a more 'Free' attitude, we've done nothing but put them off it for years.
You're being optimistic. The Middle East has stood still for millennia. If you think a bunch of misfits can just go in and change their way of life within a decade, you'd be wrong, because they've been at it for at least that long.
$5 says that the day some extremist comes for Bobboau because he happens to live in a country that needlessly insulted on the extremist's religion.. he'll change his tune. Till then, we'll keep seeing these kinds of topics and posts from him...
How many tumbleweeds have you counted so far?
-
Expecting all Muslims to live up to your definition of what is acceptable and what is not is absolutely identical to the mentality of a Radical Islamic preacher saying that the West must live by Sharia Law. There's no difference, it's all about forcing other people to live by your rules rather than their own. And if they get angry about this idea, it's apparently their fault.
So saying that it is wrong to kill people over a drawing is the same as saying that everyone should convert to your religion by force?
Nope, I'm saying the claiming that Muslims shouldn't take offense at these images because they don't offend you personally is the same as saying 'You must adopt my worldview or I'll just keep insulting you". Similar, but not identical. This isn't about the killings that have taken place, it's about the assumptions that just because we don't particularly care what people say about us or our beliefs, that neither should anyone else. It's about projecting our own values onto other cultures and then pointing fingers if they dare to not be like us.
There's a difference between being offended and being offended enough to literally murder people over it. You do not find that to be a disproportionate reaction?
-
when someone is telling you you can't do something is when you must.
I'm telling you that you can't go into a biker bar and call people out for being anti-homosexual without them getting violent in the same manner you're complaining about from the Muslim world.
I'll be round to give you a straw to drink your lunch out of when you decide to stand up against that by going into a biker bar and calling them out on their intolerance. Or is it easier to agree with the principles when it's not your life on the line?
-
I would ignore them.
the plan is to keep on insulting them till they get over it. till they have the same attitude toward us we have toward them, that is "they are just going to do whatever the **** they want to do"
they cannot riot perpetually, eventually they will need to eat.
The actual ****? this is the same as saying "Let's portray Hitler as a hero and glorify the holocaust until the jews get over anti-semetism"
-
Most people in this thread is abhorrently missing the whole point of this crysis, and the equivocation starts with the notion that somehow "US" have "TROLLED" the muslims, so they are just striking back, and therefore "WE" shouldn't have done so in the first place.
The problem with this version of events is that it completely ignores the fundamental difference between a totalitarian muslim state (and beware that most muslims in the world do not live in totalitarian states) and those states who have a core belief in individualism and liberty.
The latter states are *not* in the same category as the former. It is precisely the inability of some muslim fanatics to understand this basic point that they equivocate the ramblings, trollings, irate statements and what not of a free citizen in a free country with statements from a *whole* country. To these people, it is not a douche in country X that made a stupid cartoon / flick / whatever, it is the whole country that did so (by allowing them, thus condoning them and so on).
This has been true for years and years. When a danish newspaper went slightly off the rails, they weren't flooded by "offended" comments on their mailboxes, the danish embassy was bombed.
Think about that for a second. Now the counterpart is that even in this thread, this equivocation persists, even among people who should know better. No people, it wasn't "US" who offended muslims, it was a person, two people, three. With their own personal motives. Perhaps their motives were pretty high concept and very important, perhaps they were assholes. However, it *was not the "west" that trolled the muslims*.
This is very important to understand, because the whole discussion goes off the rails in this precise equivocation.
For the next question should not be "Should we troll the muslims in this way?". That's a fair question that can only, in a free country that is, concern the people asking that same question, and it shall be left for each one of us to answer that question. The real question that these fanatics confront us with is:
What shall we do when someone on our free countries decides (for whatever reason) to state something that infuriates this particular population leading to violent riots?
That is the question we should be asking. Not the other one.
So, again, people who seem to say that the newspapers and the moviemakers are the source of this problem:
What are you prepared to do to solve this problem?
You do have solutions:
1. Create laws to stop people from insulting every religion / group;
2. Censor every material that can anger people;
3. Make our leaders issue apologies for every time some random citizen decides to do something stupid;
4. Punish the random stupid citizen for annoying barbarians on the other side of the planet;
5. etc.
My only comment at this point is to make clear that if you choose any of those solutions or something equivalent, I will consider you to be an enemy of core values that I hold dear such as the freedoms our parents and grandparents fought so hard (and some died) for them. I will fight any change of these core values of our societies to the bitter end, and if that means I am against an angry mob of barbarian medieval gangsters who cannot bear the thought of someone somewhere else in the other part of the globe stating silly things about themselves, SO BE IT.
-
when someone is telling you you can't do something is when you must.
I'm telling you that you can't go into a biker bar and call people out for being anti-homosexual without them getting violent in the same manner you're complaining about from the Muslim world.
I'll be round to give you a straw to drink your lunch out of when you decide to stand up against that by going into a biker bar and calling them out on their intolerance. Or is it easier to agree with the principles when it's not your life on the line?
... unless Bikers start rioting and killing people every time there is a .... frigging * C a r t o o n * about Biker Gay intolerance in some other countries obscure newspaper it is hardly the same thing.
Just saying ;)
For all intends and purposes the extremists reaction displayed is that of a very insecure adolescent... i.e. the tiniest implication of an insult is enough to summon emotional armageddon.
I would ignore them.
the plan is to keep on insulting them till they get over it. till they have the same attitude toward us we have toward them, that is "they are just going to do whatever the **** they want to do"
they cannot riot perpetually, eventually they will need to eat.
The actual ****? this is the same as saying "Let's portray Hitler as a hero and glorify the holocaust until the jews get over anti-semetism"
There are people who are actually denying or even gloryfing the holocaust. (Idiots that they may be).
There also are extremist newspapers of all kinds and antisemitic insults and/or jokes displayed in certain TV channels and newspapers.
Do you see anyone rioting in the streets over those?
The mature reaction is to ignore the idiot and move on - not to start killing people everytime someone says something stupid about you.
As for dealing with insecure adolescents... it may certainly be a good idea to appeal to people not to aggravate them needlessly and you can even try (keyword try ;) ) to educate people to be polite and considerate in general.
You can under no circumstances *force them* to however.... not unless you think compromising your whole society based on the whims of an insecure adolescent is a good idea. lol.
-
1. Create laws to stop people from insulting every religion / group;
2. Censor every material that can anger people;
3. Make our leaders issue apologies for every time some random citizen decides to do something stupid;
4. Punish the random stupid citizen for annoying barbarians on the other side of the planet;
5. etc.
You've missed the most obvious one. Give them a taste of their own medicine and insult them repeatedly until they stop.
And if they don't stop, you've proved that you can't even insult someone from a country with free speech into stopping, why on Earth would they expect the same tactic to work in The Middle East? :p
-
I'm not really sure what the best course of action is. Quite frankly I typically think poking people in the eye over religious issues is crude. So long as they are not trying to influence policy to fit their dogma or spouting something I find objectionable they should be left alone. Putting the folks on point in greater danger is also extremely irritating and stupid. When that WBC bonehead threatened to burn a Quran some months back I felt he should be taken out to a FOB in Afghanistan and the troops allowed to slap the stupid out of him. That said, now that its actually happened and they've killed people over it, I think it changes the equation a little bit.
If we actively did try to stop the generation of such material then we are are curtailing our rights because of fear of reprisal. That sticks in the craw of many folks, even ones who normally think it's dumb as **** to to try and incite the Muslim community. And its clear, this wasn't an act of satire or humor it was done as a jab. If we did actually change how we act in response then it might set the precedent in the minds of zealots that such barbaric behavior in the future is a successful method of influencing policy in the west. Internally what message would it send if we did stop it? Freedom of speech allows for some extremely stupid and hateful behavior. Fringe groups of all kinds are allowed to parade through the streets and spew forth their hate mongering diatribes. Are we going to turn around and tell the minorities, jews, people of alternate sexual orientation and other victims that "Hey, because you didn't take a connip**** and murder random folks these groups behavior is acceptable, but we're going to suddenly cow tie because the Muslim zealots flip out."
No easy answers.
-
You're being optimistic. The Middle East has stood still for millennia. If you think a bunch of misfits can just go in and change their way of life within a decade, you'd be wrong, because they've been at it for at least that long.
This is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong. It's only the last few hundred years or so (which interestingly coincides with the colonial period) that it's been having trouble. For all of the European Dark Ages, the Middle East was experiencing a Golden Age of scientific, mathematical, medicinal, and cultural advancement that took the West eight hundred years to catch up to.
-
1. Create laws to stop people from insulting every religion / group;
2. Censor every material that can anger people;
3. Make our leaders issue apologies for every time some random citizen decides to do something stupid;
4. Punish the random stupid citizen for annoying barbarians on the other side of the planet;
5. etc.
You've missed the most obvious one. Give them a taste of their own medicine and insult them repeatedly until they stop.
I haven't included that one on the list because I have no problems whatsoever with that particular solution. At. All.
If that were the case at hand, there would not be any thread here.
So, even if I were to disagree with anyone who considered these newspapers of being [insert insult here], I'd gladly watch in the sidelines as shiny examples of free speech values in motion.
And all would be well.
And if they don't stop, you've proved that you can't even insult someone from a country with free speech into stopping, why on Earth would they expect the same tactic to work in The Middle East? :p
That's not the problem at hand here. The problem I recognize here is watching every "Very Serious Person" in our western countries blaming the victim, and declaring that the problem is the free speech itself. That there exist bullies around the world is not even news worthy.
-
As Starslayer said in the previous cartoon thread, it is amazing how willing people are to sit at home and put other people in danger for what they believe in.
Once again, and this really, really must be about the 8th time I've had to say this. Self Control does not require laws. You don't defeat an oppressive regime by trolling them till they kill people. When your actions are leading to the death of other people, some of them your own countrymen, when this is being done purely for ****s and giggles, then maybe people should actually be trying to act like the 'Wise Man' we so arrogantly label ourselves as?
Edit : I do think that part of the problem is the 'The Whole world is America' attitude. If I were in the US and someone asked me for a good example of Freedom of Speech, it would be the WBC, because they troll and troll and yet are legal under the First Amendment. I would NOT, however, use the WBC as an example to other countries, because if I said, "Hey! You too can have people hurling abuse during the funeral of a soldier", most countries would reply "Well, good luck with that.". I'd be far more likely to use the Modest Proposal or the like as an example. Showing people the most extreme, troll-ridden side of Freedom of Speech is probably the worst way possible of introducing our ideals to the Eastern world in exactly the same manner as the most extreme side of Islam is the worst possible introduction to the Western one.
-
Expecting all Muslims to live up to your definition of what is acceptable and what is not is absolutely identical to the mentality of a Radical Islamic preacher saying that the West must live by Sharia Law. There's no difference, it's all about forcing other people to live by your rules rather than their own. And if they get angry about this idea, it's apparently their fault.
So saying that it is wrong to kill people over a drawing is the same as saying that everyone should convert to your religion by force?
Nope, I'm saying the claiming that Muslims shouldn't take offense at these images because they don't offend you personally is the same as saying 'You must adopt my worldview or I'll just keep insulting you". Similar, but not identical. This isn't about the killings that have taken place, it's about the assumptions that just because we don't particularly care what people say about us or our beliefs, that neither should anyone else. It's about projecting our own values onto other cultures and then pointing fingers if they dare to not be like us.
There's a difference between being offended and being offended enough to literally murder people over it. You do not find that to be a disproportionate reaction?
When that offence is being deliberately generated by an outside force in order to play on the ignorance of the masses. Personally, considering the cartoon artists knew it would happen if they released the cartoons, then you are entirely missing the point. People are printing things that they know will lead to people being killed. Is that acceptable in your books? Because it sure isn't in mine. Frankly, it's murder by proxy.
In the US there is the 'Temporary Insanity' plea, which is where someone has been pushed so hard for so long that they just snap. But once again, America is the world except in the case of America...
-
You dodged the question. Is it or is it not an appropriate reaction to kill people over drawings and badly-made movies?
-
Is it or is it not appropriate to deliberately troll a low-tech society until they start killing people?
Is that the 'best' we have to offer the world?
Edit : The deaths were sad and wrong, no-one has denied that, it's a failure to take responsibility for deliberately riling people who don't know better into a killing fury that seems to be being avoided. Us trying to force our definition of Freedom of Speech onto them is no different to them trying to force Sharia on us, it's unacceptable, and generates stubbornness and intolerance on both sides.
If you're happy with the prospect of never being being able to form a bond of respect with these countries, of them willingly staying in the past because most of their experience of the Modern world is insults, what they would consider as 'blasphemy' and America dictating what is and is not acceptable in their societies, then you just go right on trolling.
-
OMG are we talking about using the prime directive for Muslims?
Here's the catch. The cartoons were not made in Lybia, Syria or Iran.
They were made in France.
Two comments:
1. The newspapers should have known better than to do what they did;
2. We should all be defending their right for having been the jackasses they were (while criticizing them).
The second point never seems to be highlighted enough. It takes a really disturbed ****ed up world when I have to tune to ****ing Le Pen to hear a voice of wisdom on this matter. That wasn't supposed to happen. The "mainstream" pundits and politicians have let ****ing Le Pen be the voice of Free Speech!
If that isn't a symptom of how our society has gone somewhere really wrong, I don't know what it is.
-
Is it or is it not appropriate to deliberately troll a low-tech society until they start killing people?
Is that the 'best' we have to offer the world?
Should we start killing ambassadors every time some pissant Islamic Republic spews some state-sponsored hate speech?
-
No, because the whole point is we are supposed to be better and more mature than these countries. Though we are doing a pretty **** job of proving that.
-
Yes, clearly we are not more mature than them. I mean, what kind of a society draws cartoons to make fun of people?
Clearly just as worse as killing embassadors. Clearly.
EDIT: I mean, if this is the difference between "our two cultures" (oversimplification anyone?) and you don't consider it non-trivial, I have little else to say than Oh. My. ****in. God. And I'm an atheist.
EDIT 2: Respect is not a one-way street. Respect is not rolling your ass under your interlocutor's boots.
-
Is it or is it not appropriate to deliberately troll a low-tech society until they start killing people?
Is that the 'best' we have to offer the world?
Edit : The deaths were sad and wrong, no-one has denied that, it's a failure to take responsibility for deliberately riling people who don't know better into a killing fury that seems to be being avoided. Us trying to force our definition of Freedom of Speech onto them is no different to them trying to force Sharia on us, it's unacceptable, and generates stubbornness and intolerance on both sides.
If you're happy with the prospect of never being being able to form a bond of respect with these countries, of them willingly staying in the past because most of their experience of the Modern world is insults, what they would consider as 'blasphemy' and America dictating what is and is not acceptable in their societies, then you just go right on trolling.
Stop dodging and answer the question, please.
-
When the death of those people is directly attributable to the release of cartoons designed to create fury, cartoons that people knew would lead to violence and death, then the people who promote those cartoons are not exercising Freedom of Speech, they are hiding behind it.
@Legate : I did answer the question. Read my post before responding next time please.
-
I think it might be worth refocusing since I no longer am sure what the positions are.
I think everybody agrees it's dumb move to jab a beehive of fanatics, but the world is full of dumb people who are going to draw crude cartoons and make stupid films. Freedom of Speech allows them to do that. So unless we decide to restrain Free Speech then its going to continue to happen because you simply can't fix stupid.
So are we arguing that its dumb to piss of fanatics or that we should restrain our freedoms?
As much as I think the people who do this sorta crap are wastes of life, I am vehemently opposed to restraining Free Speech if its simply to appease a bunch of neobarb zealots.
-
No, because the whole point is we are supposed to be better and more mature than these countries. Though we are doing a pretty **** job of proving that.
When your countrymen are dying in other countries at the hands of angry mobs due to the small actions of a few attention seekers that are well within their rights in the country they live in, who is to blame? I mean the videos/images are rude, but they dont call for genocide. They poke at religious beliefs. Unless the muslim world finds a way to get over this, this will happen time and time again. The western world will not enact laws to protect their precious beliefs, and there will always be a troll to poke fun. This can only end in an even more violent culture war, or the muslim world finding a way to suck it up.
-
Actually, usually, it's some radical leader who stirs up the mobs for political reasons. You think Muslims regularly check out French political cartoons? No, some mullah found out about it, made a huge stink, and got his followers steamed. Makes him more 'important' as he's defending their beliefs, or so he thinks. Really, radicals won't change wankers' opinions any more than wankers' cartoons will change radical opinions. The worst a wanker can do is provide the fuel for the radical leaders to stir up their people, and the worst the radicals can do is stir up their people to the point where other countries are threatened enough to curb-stomp them back to where they belong. Highly ineffective, but there you go.
-
I think everybody agrees it's dumb move to jab a beehive of fanatics, but the world is full of dumb people who are going to draw crude cartoons and make stupid films. Freedom of Speech allows them to do that. So unless we decide to restrain Free Speech then its going to continue to happen because you simply can't fix stupid.
So are we arguing that its dumb to piss of fanatics or that we should restrain our freedoms?
As much as I think the people who do this sorta crap are wastes of life, I am vehemently opposed to restraining Free Speech if its simply to appease a bunch of neobarb zealots.
Exactly what I said previous page, I couldn't agree more. That is the point.
I don't think anyone in this thread is really in the mood of enfuriating crazy fanatics to the point of having them killing innocent people.
-
No, because the whole point is we are supposed to be better and more mature than these countries. Though we are doing a pretty **** job of proving that.
When your countrymen are dying in other countries at the hands of angry mobs due to the small actions of a few attention seekers that are well within their rights in the country they live in, who is to blame? I mean the videos/images are rude, but they dont call for genocide. They poke at religious beliefs. Unless the muslim world finds a way to get over this, this will happen time and time again. The western world will not enact laws to protect their precious beliefs, and there will always be a troll to poke fun. This can only end in an even more violent culture war, or the muslim world finding a way to suck it up.
The problem is the assumption that everyone must think like us. There are ways of introducing people to the concept of tolerance that don't involve showing nothing but intolerance. It's just a question of exercising our grey matter as hard as we seem determined to exercise free-speech.
-
I think it's more that some are arguing that just because you have Freedom of Speech to call someone a ***** just because you feel like it doesn't mean you should.
But as humanity (and this thread) has proven, people in general can't handle the maturity and responsibility that Freedom of Speech comes with.
-
@Legate : I did answer the question. Read my post before responding next time please.
All you said was "the deaths were sad and wrong". If by "wrong" you mean the killers were wrong to commit them, then whose actions do you believe to be more "wrong": the killers, or the cartoonists?
-
@mjn.mixael : Sadly true, seems that Freedom of Speech doesn't include Freedom to Take Responsibility, which should be equally important, but apparently isn't.
@Legate : Believe it or not, both sides can be wrong in an argument. The whole concept of 'us' and 'them' is precisely what caused this problem in the first place, no-one is gloryfying the rioters, but then, the cartoonists are equally stupid in their lack of consideration for other people and cultures.
-
I've yet to see anyone proposing that freedom of expression should be legally curbed. Nor is anyone suggesting that the response to those cartoons and the movie is at all reasonable...far from it. What I have seen is the suggestion that with the unalienable right of free speech comes the responsibility to use it...well, responsibly. Remember the classic example: you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, cause a stampede, and then hide behind free speech as your excuse. In the same way, drawing cartoons that you know have a decent chance of putting someone in mortal danger is pretty much just cowardice.
-
And, another thing: anyone who thinks that the cartoons were made to deliberately incite murderous fury, well, I think you need to step back and ask yourself how you know that to be true. Yes, the authors knew that could be a side effect. But seriously? By your logic, anyone that trolls a depressed person on these forums is directly responsible for their death if they commit suicide, and indeed deliberately attempted to murder them. Whoops, logic disconnect, check your assumptions.
-
No, because the whole point is we are supposed to be better and more mature than these countries. Though we are doing a pretty **** job of proving that.
When your countrymen are dying in other countries at the hands of angry mobs due to the small actions of a few attention seekers that are well within their rights in the country they live in, who is to blame? I mean the videos/images are rude, but they dont call for genocide. They poke at religious beliefs. Unless the muslim world finds a way to get over this, this will happen time and time again. The western world will not enact laws to protect their precious beliefs, and there will always be a troll to poke fun. This can only end in an even more violent culture war, or the muslim world finding a way to suck it up.
The problem is the assumption that everyone must think like us. There are ways of introducing people to the concept of tolerance that don't involve showing nothing but intolerance. It's just a question of exercising our grey matter as hard as we seem determined to exercise free-speech.
Finding a nice way to make the muslim world more tolerant would be great. Theres this issue though. How do you propose doing it without curtailing some of the most fundamental western values? If you want widespread hate for muslims in the west, go ahead and tell everyone they have to shut up and treat muslims like special children. Youll see massive calls for genocide the day you told everyone to shut up.
-
Everyone's "Free to take Responsibility", so I really am at odds with you there.
What perhaps you are trying to say is that we should all be "Forced to take Responsibility", which directly translates to the negation of Free Speech itself. That you don't like the very idea of Free Speech is something that I strongly suspect.
I think it's more that some are arguing that just because you have Freedom of Speech to call someone a ***** just because you feel like it doesn't mean you should.
MJN, 100% agreed. I understand your point. However, when the **** hits the fan and one or ten people out of 50 million have a blank in their ****-hitting-the-fan-detector, to blame the western society and its freedom of speech is insane. The problem should be correctly located and it is not in our values nor in our people.
Suit up MJ, stop blaming the victim here.
-
@jr2 : If someone said "I feel like killing myself" and someone else posted "Do it! Do it!", you'd think the person who replied was a heartless, inconsiderate wanker would you not? And if that person did then commit suicide then yes, I would say that response certainly attributed to the act. If memory serves me correctly, the American courts also felt the same way.
The fact is, everybody knew the impact these cartoons would have, riots were already going on because of the movie, whether justified or not, and fuel was deliberately added to the fire. Pleading ignorance to the fact that this would lead to more death is simply a lie.
@ Swantz, we don't need to curtail any values at all, but just because we can draw insulting pictures of a religious character doesn't mean that we must. It's a question as much of self-control as Freedom of Speech, without one, the other will just descend into pure anarchy.
-
@Legate : Believe it or not, both sides can be wrong in an argument. The whole concept of 'us' and 'them' is precisely what caused this problem in the first place, no-one is gloryfying the rioters, but then, the cartoonists are equally stupid in their lack of consideration for other people and cultures.
So your position is that they are equally at fault?
-
My position is that whilst the riots were silly and pointless, they were inflamed deliberately by external sources. You seem to be trying to make me say something so you can 'pounce' on it, and I don't like leading questions.
-
You seem to be continually refusing to answer simple questions.
-
Actually, I've answered the question over and over and over, maybe you should read the entire thread?
-
This audience is in dire need to hear this speech of Christopher Hitchens about Free Speech.
It starts like this: "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! Now you've heard it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU&feature=player_embedded#!
-
You can't fix stupid though. You're always going to have a bunch of nit whits goose stepping around screaming white power, you'll always have WBC swine showing up to the funerals of servicemen and women *****ing about gay marriage. These twits making Islam cartoons and films are no different. Acting like these people should know better is like telling a house on fire not to burn because its inconsiderate to the occupants.
I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is anymore.
-
Flipside, what you say is tru, but you are missing the point. Youre suggesting we should strive for the ideal situation. Thats admirable, but it wont happen. Unless something is made law, western trolls will continue to troll trolls in the muslim world. Muslims will get all mad, and they will react violently. There is no apparent good way to get everyone to stop poking fun at muslims without forcefully curtailing rights.The benefits of free speech come at the price of dealing with dicks. They will always exist, and the muslim world will have to find a way to get used to it, or smply shut themselves in.
In the end, I'm going to blame the group lashing out violently over a cartoon that insults a deity. They are wrong, they are ending lives in order to express distaste. There is no right there, unless you want to go far down the subjectivity road.
-
Well, see, here's the thing: most of us didn't draw insulting cartoons, but the riots happened anyway. Why? Why were they so angry? Well, because we allowed the cartoons to be draw. Basically, with the riots, whether intentionally or not, the radicals are saying: we demand that you stop allowing insults to our religion. In effect, they are demanding and end to the freedom of speech by commiting violent acts when we allow things like the cartoons. Now, we could definitely, on our own, shut up the wankers: refuse to buy or read the publications that host them. That would effectively take away the wankers' platform. But in this day and age, they will always find some platform.
And as far as "I feel like killing myself" and "Do it! Do it!", you know it's never that clear-cut. It's more like <insert depressing comments here> followed by "get the sand out of your vag and STFU", usually mixed with concern from the forum members that aren't walking dicks.
-
If you claim to have already answered, then surely clarifying your answer in the form of a simple yes or no response to my question should not be difficult?
-
Well, see, here's the thing: most of us didn't draw insulting cartoons, but the riots happened anyway. Why? Why were they so angry? Well, because we allowed the cartoons to be draw
Point.
-
jr2, hang out on 4chan/b/ for a little while. Youll see people telling others to kill themselves on cam with timestamp.
-
That's the whole point, the people who didn't, and wouldn't draw cartoons, because it would be insulting, are being branded alongside those who do. In the case of the movie, I could deal with it, it was an individual who was simply trolling his ass off, but when more mainstream media gets involved, as it did in France it alters from being perceptible as the act of an individual and starts to look state-sponsored.
Remember in these countries very little happens without Government approval, and the lack of education means that people assume every other country works exactly the same way, so to the minds of these people, the cartoons weren't released by a French Magazine, they were released by France as an entire country. Everybody gets to pay the price for the trolling of the few. And the trolls actually seem proud of this fact.
-
That's the whole point, the people who didn't, and wouldn't draw cartoons, because it would be insulting, are being branded alongside those who do. In the case of the movie, I could deal with it, it was an individual who was simply trolling his ass off, but when more mainstream media gets involved, as it did in France it alters from being perceptible as the act of an individual and starts to look state-sponsored.
Remember in these countries very little happens without Government approval, and the lack of education means that people assume every other country works exactly the same way, so to the minds of these people, the cartoons weren't released by a French Magazine, they were released by France as an entire country. Everybody gets to pay the price for the trolling of the few. And the trolls actually seem proud of this fact.
The trolls are dicks, and the rioters are fools. Problem is, we can't fix either without screwing ourselves in the process. There is no win-win.
-
Flipside, dicks exist. That point is moot. That's not the discussion.
-
If you claim to have already answered, then surely clarifying your answer in the form of a simple yes or no response to my question should not be difficult?
If you want to get involved in the thread then read it, I'm not Google.
@Swantz, exactly, but pretending this is 'exercising freedom of speech' is simply something to hide behind, it's not 'Carrying the torch of Freedom' anywhere.
@Luis : It's the entire point, these people are trying to make out that they are 'doing good' with these cartoons, but pretty much everyone agrees they are dicks, so there's no point applauding their actions.
-
I never applauded their actions. However, I do fear about this whole backslash against freedom of speech.
-
I'm sure. However, my actual point is, we don't even ban-hammer insensitive pricks here, it's a free board within certain confines, and as long as you stay within the confines, you can say whatever you want. I wouldn't change that. Yes, those people are twats, however, it's either that or the worse option of confining people to accepted views as determined by the forum admins, in this case, or governments, in the Real World.
EDIT: Well, there's not much you can do about that... that's the price of living in a free country, in a world where some countries aren't free. Problem is, since we are a bit sensitive to others and actually do care that lives are lost, we risk heading down the path of appeasement as the radicals are basically saying "you might say that everyone is free to do and say as they please in your country, however, we don't agree with this and will attempt to force you to change it" in effect, trying to get the free countries to become not free and muzzle their citizens.
We shouldn't approve of the dicks, but we shouldn't curtail their freedom, either. Terrorists know that free people tend to become complacent and don't like dealing with the bloody mess that they are willing to unleash. This is how they hope to win, by getting the free world to do the dirty work that they do not have the power to do themselves, namely, silencing those who oppose them.
If they succeeded in getting us to censor offensive images / articles, next would come images / articles that do not outright approve of their values.
-
If you claim to have already answered, then surely clarifying your answer in the form of a simple yes or no response to my question should not be difficult?
This must be why the Cardassians can't accomplish anything really significant. They can't comprehend that not every question has a yes or no response.
-
I know you're not applauding them Luis, but the OP was congratulating France for releasing the cartoons :)
If there were a backlash against Freedom and Speech, then I would defend Freedom of Speech, simple as that, but my point is that these cartoons are nothing to be proud of, have caused death in the name of 'lulz' and we should be ashamed that some peoples definition of Freedom of Speech is to try and watch the world burn.
-
Well then we agree on that proposition.
Although if you want some fire for this discussion I could add that my evil side in me tells me that shaking things up could bring up some healthy discussion about the values of western civilization and how important they are.
A lesser evil part of me also tells me that despite your claims that freedom of speech was never in doubt, one had to turn to watch ms Le Pen to watch somebody state the obvious fact that we should defend the rights of our people to say the dumbest **** up things, and not exactly gang up on them.
While I don't lilke the idea of "causing" emotional armaggedon to the point of murder (i.e. I'm not a dick), I also do not like a world where crazy people can harrass me and others, taking whole populations as hostages to curtail one of my basic and most important rights (there are so few of them left). I don't like that ****. Not. One. Bit.
-
I'm also sure that Muslims don't want to live in a world where crazy people attack the very core of their belief system.
For me, the solution isn't insults, it's education, on both sides. People need to understand the importance of Mohammed in the Islamic belief system and why Muslims are so offended by these images, and the Middle East needs to understand that the views of an individual are exactly that.
The long and the short of it is that both sides need to grow the **** up.
-
I do not think that our side needs "growing up" at all, that's probably where we diverge.
The reason why is that there will always be dicks. And there will always be people who are unsure we have our rights protected, and try to make a stand, no matter how silly it might be.
The system should be sufficiently tolerant of these outliers. The muslims apparently cannot accept a single outlier. They just go bananas. Something must give, and it isn't us, Flipside. Here we disagree plenty.
-
What perhaps you are trying to say is that we should all be "Forced to take Responsibility", which directly translates to the negation of Free Speech itself. That you don't like the very idea of Free Speech is something that I strongly suspect.
ahahahahahano
-
Well then, Mongoose, your "free to take responsibility" is completely meaningless drivel. We are already free to do that.
-
Yes, we do disagree, because had these images appeared on youTube or Twitter or similar individual outlet, then I could say 'Well, it's all the action of a few idiots, get used to it'. When it starts appearing in magazines and other frontline publications though, it projects an entirely different message.
People insulting Muslims is the action of individuals, as in the case of the movie, but entire companies insulting Muslims projects an entirely different image, as in the case of the cartoons.
Oh, and no, I'm not talking about forcing people to take responsibility beyond the point of law, please don't put words into my mouth, it's about personal responsibility, not governmental responsibility, that's the whole point of Freedom of Speech.
-
Freedom of Speech is a right.
Going into a crowded theater and yelling "Fire!" may be free speech, but that doesn't make it okay.
Walking into a crowded bar and calling everyone inside faggots may be free speech, but that doesn't mean you're not going to get your ass kicked for it.
Shouting profanities at the top of your lungs into a quiet suburban neighborhood may be free speech, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to ask you to stop.
Freedom of Speech is a right, but it should be exercised responsibly. If it's not, it becomes a mockery of itself.
-
I wonder why couldn't those Muslims just draw a cartoon making fun of Jesus (or the French, or maybe both) in response. What those French jerks did was stupid and immature, and should be met with an appropriate response (if any).
Also, I wonder what would happen if they made fun of black people instead. I bet nobody would even look at the cartoon before throwing the cartoonists out. The only difference between anti-islamism and racism is the people targeted.
-
Thing is, we can ask these people to consider causing a little less death in the world by showing some empathy, chances are they would ignore us and continue anyway, and there's little we can do about that, but that doesn't make what they are saying defensible or right, it's still obnoxious, offensive and dangerous. I would defend their right to be able to draw those pictures, but I'd still think they were assholes for doing so.
There's nothing 'glorious' about this, nothing 'good', nothing that promotes the best the West has to offer the world. Quite the opposite in fact. It's depressing, because the West does have plenty to offer the world, but the actions of a few people hiding behind 'Freedom of Speech' has reduced the odds of anything improving for a considerable amount of time, and we all get branded for it, some people pay the ultimate price for other people's trolling.
People like the Ambassador in Libya put their lives on the line to try and encourage understanding between the two cultures and then some dip**** comes along and not only undoes all the hard work, but infuriates an entire culture to the point where it leads to his death whilst sitting comfortably at their computer. That doesn't forgive his murderers but it does highlight that maybe we should be leaving East-West relations to those who actually know what is going on rather than stereotyping and insulting and undermining all the work that these people put in to try and prevent these kinds of incidents?
-
I'm not familiar enough with the French publication to do more then speculate, but I assume the cartoon was a reaction to the killings. People tend to respond more vehemently as a gut reaction then when they have had time to cool off and think. The Rubicon had already been crossed by the film and the subsequent violence. I can see the cartoon may have been more of a "**** You! We are not intimidated" response without a real scoping out of the entire problem and consequences. That type of reaction is natural, especially when anger clouds reason.
I'm not saying its the right reaction, just that when the fanatics went on a rampage and kill people, they make it a international issue which will garner a spectrum of reactions. Especially in the West where we don't clamp down on people's ability to express themselves. Though it's worth pointing out a rude cartoon is a much more measured and constructive response then hunting down a bunch of random Muslims in Western countries and killing them in revenge.
Again I'm not condoning it, but expecting people as diverse as the west to somehow turn around and act like saints in reaction to this is a bit idealistic, especially when there are so many, many twits.
-
The truth is, Muslims are judging us by the actions of a couple of idiots. Another, just as true truth is, we are judging Muslims by actions of a couple of idiots.
The world would've been a much better place if people on both sides would stop for a while, think, and realize that.
-
Well, the thing is, both sides are guilty of a knee-jerk reaction to the situation, that is why both sides have to grow up. The defence of 'but we didn't kill anyone!' is a bit thin, because whilst they didn't kill anyone, people still ended up dead, and it was suspected this would happen before the cartoons were ever released.
As I've said before, the film was the act of an individual, stupid action, stupid reaction, but to respond to anger with more anger makes us no better, for all our education.
-
Also, I wonder what would happen if they made fun of black people instead. I bet nobody would even look at the cartoon before throwing the cartoonists out. The only difference between anti-islamism and racism is the people targeted.
Black people can't choose not to be black. It's wrong to fault people for their genetic structure, but faulting them for beliefs is not the same thing.
-
Problem is, that's a very Western take on the issue. In most of these countries Islam isn't just a religion, it's an entire way of life, it defines who these people are.
You may not agree with that, I know I don't, but to Muslims, their faith is fundamental to defining them, asking a Muslim to give up Islam would be like asking him or her to cut off a limb, it would be simply unthinkable to them.
Once again, our biggest error is assuming that everyone, deep down inside, wants to be like us. We always assume that the Middle East is 'jealous' of the West for all its technology and Freedom, but I fear we may be pandering to our own image of ourselves in that case.
-
The defence of 'but we didn't kill anyone!' is a bit thin, because whilst they didn't kill anyone, people still ended up dead, and it was suspected this would happen before the cartoons were ever released.
No.
Regardless of your stance on the use of free speech, once someone is out there killing people over speech, it is entirely on them that they have done this. The existence of the cartoons or movie as a provocation can in no way absolve responsibility for the act of murdering people over them.
Yelling fire in a movie theater is treated as unacceptable speech in every justice system in the world regardless of their stance on free speech, because it is recognized that the reasonable response to someone yelling "fire" while you're sitting down to watch The Dark Knight Rises is to attempt immediate escape, so people will do it and probably get injured. There was nothing reasonable about this response and therefore no reasonable way to attach moral culpability to the people who did the speaking.
The act of the filmmaker and the act of the cartoonist are reprehensible, but on their own. The acts of those who killed over these works are even more reprehensible, but also on their own.
-
People like the Ambassador in Libya put their lives on the line to try and encourage understanding between the two cultures and then some dip**** comes along and not only undoes all the hard work, but infuriates an entire culture to the point where it leads to his death whilst sitting comfortably at their computer. That doesn't forgive his murderers but it does highlight that maybe we should be leaving East-West relations to those who actually know what is going on rather than stereotyping and insulting and undermining all the work that these people put in to try and prevent these kinds of incidents?
I just love having to repeat myself over and over and over and over, it's great fun....
-
Problem is, that's a very Western take on the issue. In most of these countries Islam isn't just a religion, it's an entire way of life, it defines who these people are.
You may not agree with that, I know I don't, but to Muslims, their faith is fundamental to defining them, asking a Muslim to give up Islam would be like asking him or her to cut off a limb, it would be simply unthinkable to them.
Once again, our biggest error is assuming that everyone, deep down inside, wants to be like us. We always assume that the Middle East is 'jealous' of the West for all its technology and Freedom, but I fear we may be pandering to our own image of ourselves in that case.
You are right, we should all try to empathize more with some of those extremists and maybe also start oppressing our women, stone them for infidelity and sentence to death anyone who utters blasphemy against OUR beliefs in our own countries, so we can understand them better. Yup that will work. We'll all be one happy stone throwing family. Maybe we can even meet up to burn each others flags or straw effigies of our presidents or leaders or something.
-
You don't know what Empathize means do you? You've gotten confused with 'Emulate'.
-
Well we just have to imagine we are dealing with 12th century Europe.
Tough job.
-
12th Century Europe with 20th Century weapons, which makes the situation even more delicate. But until we get a handle on why these people feel the way they do, there's nothing we can do to change it.
-
12th Century Europe with 20th Century weapons, which makes the situation even more delicate. But until we get a handle on why these people feel the way they do, there's nothing we can do to change it.
The region is rife with poverty, and poverty breeds religious extremism like nothing else in the world. It doesn't help that the countries where the riots are the worst are just coming off of a revolutionary fervor. Those are pretty glaring issues, and they're issues we can't do too much to fix.
-
True, there are some overlying issues that will be very difficult to fix, but there are poor relations between East and West since the early 1900s, with various superpowers encouraging coups and wars between Middle Eastern countries. The resistance to Western influence is as much social as cultural and its going to be a long road to undo the bad feeling that has developed over a large period of time. Even when I was in primary school, the PLO were hijacking planes over the situation in Palestine.
Truth is, the Middle East would be far more receptive to Aid and assistance if it were not for the fact that they simply do not trust our motives, and they believe they have good reason not to. And throwing enormous Mohammed-shaped spanners into the works does less than nothing to help improve that situation.
-
I just love having to repeat myself over and over and over and over, it's great fun....
It's one thing to say you don't absolve them once. It's quite another to go through the whole thread using phraseology that can easily be interpreted as doing that wholly or partially. Perhaps if you were to start discussing these things as the ultimately separate acts that they are from a moral standpoint. This sort of separation of actions and assignment of personal responsibility for them is extremely important when discussing these events, because the failure to do so is what causes them.
-
I haven't even once said or inferred that the actions of the rioters are acceptable in any way shape or form, what are you talking about? I've said it was tragic, I've said it was stupid of people to deliberately inflame these people into riots, but NOT ONCE have I EVER said that the results were acceptable or justifiable. How dare you infer that?
I want an apology for that comment.
-
I'm going to lock this thread, it seems apparent that people are now deciding to be trolling assholes.
And before anyone starts whining about 'Freedom of Speech'... Benevolent Dictatorship. Live with it.
Edit : I MAY re-open it at some point tonight, but if there is a repeat of someone trying to twist my position into one of sympathy with the rioters, it'll be locked straight back up again.
-
Right, let's see if we can continue this without spouting complete, deliberately misinterpreted garbage shall we? Trying to manipulate someone's words into something they are not is the lowest form of debate and will not be tolerated.
I have repeatedly stated that the deaths were wrong, sad and unforgivable, if you haven't read the thread throughout then I'd strongly advise you to do so. But saying that in any way my comments are coming down on the side of the rioters is complete garbage, I'm not on anyone's side, it's just a tragic outcome. I don't agree with the cartoons, but one more rise of the 'With us or against us' attitude and the thread will be locked permanently.
-
Well to me that particular equivocation ended when you clarified that you were only railing against the cheering of the original poster.
-
And could you please quote exactly where I said I was only railing against the original poster. I certainly stated that the original post cheered on those who released the cartoon, and I certainly stated that my responses were centered around that position because, you know, that's what the thread was about, but hey, I'd love to see where I said I was only dealing with that.
Please quote.
-
I am vehemently opposed to restraining Free Speech if its simply to appease a bunch of neobarb zealots.
But who has said that we should do this?
Luis Dias has constructed a massive strawman in this discussion based on the idea that someone has said this. No one has.
The closest they've said is that if someone decides to troll the Muslims we should all rise up and troll them instead.
Oh and I'm sticking the next person who claims that anyone in this discussion supports the rioters in the Political Prisoners group as they have no place on this board.
-
Come on Luis, I'm waiting for you to quote this:
I know you're not applauding them Luis, but the OP was congratulating France for releasing the cartoons :)
If there were a backlash against Freedom and Speech, then I would defend Freedom of Speech, simple as that, but my point is that these cartoons are nothing to be proud of, have caused death in the name of 'lulz' and we should be ashamed that some peoples definition of Freedom of Speech is to try and watch the world burn.
And how you define that as only railing against the OP. Certainly the point I made was with reference to the OP, but I sense more word twisting.
-
See how easy it is to misinterpret anyone else, Flipside? Here I was, merely informing you and everyone else that I understood your point (to which I agreed with previously) when you presented that reply to me, and now you understood precisely the opposite.
edit:
I am vehemently opposed to restraining Free Speech if its simply to appease a bunch of neobarb zealots.
But who has said that we should do this?
Luis Dias has constructed a massive strawman in this discussion based on the idea that someone has said this. No one has.
I find it a lot worse to place a quote without any name on it, and then reference my name, when clearly that quote isn't mine at all.
The closest they've said is that if someone decides to troll the Muslims we should all rise up and troll them instead.
And to that I said much more meaningful things than the idiocy you just quoted up there.
-
Heh, bad night and 1am don't mix well, and after the what happened earlier, I'm kinda on the defensive.
Yup, it is easy to misinterpret people, and my apologies for that, but theres' a difference between accidental error, as happened here, and the kind of deliberate misinterpretation that happened earlier.
In many ways actually, it's a good example on a smaller scale of the entire problem. That communication, particularly after the recipient has been insulted, is not an easy thing to do ;)
My interpretation of equivocation was inaccurate, I felt you wee saying that I was no longer treating people equally, the word has so many meanings...
-
I'd be glad if we stuck to the topic, and preferably split the ad hominem/misquoting discussion out, it starts to clutter the thread.
Problem is, that's a very Western take on the issue. In most of these countries Islam isn't just a religion, it's an entire way of life, it defines who these people are.
You may not agree with that, I know I don't, but to Muslims, their faith is fundamental to defining them, asking a Muslim to give up Islam would be like asking him or her to cut off a limb, it would be simply unthinkable to them.
This is actually the case with most religions. Even Christianity. Would you like xmas, thanksgiving, sundays, easter and the like taken away from you? The only reason we see Muslims as extreme is that due to commercialization and general cheapening of Christian traditions, we stopped connecting them with religion. Muslims are "real" believers in their faith, who don't celebrate their holidays just because everybody does. It means something for them. Let's face it, how many of you though about Christ's teachings and not about the presents last xmas? I have exactly one friend who is a "real" Christian, who hadn't forgotten the true meaning of her faith. Even though I'm an atheist, I respect such people for sticking to their beliefs and actually being who they say they are. Note, she's not a fanatic or anything, and respects other religions. For such people, faith is just as unchangeable as skin color, as it's integrated into who they are.
Now, in this incident, both sides are guilty, of overreaction and of lack of understanding of the other side. While I'm not defending the killing of an US ambassador (Bible, Koran, Panca-Sila and many other holy texts rather unambiguously agree that killing is bad), I'd say that the French, coming from a country which claims to be "more civilized" should've known better. Middle-eastern people aren't exactly known for taking jabs at their religion well, and it's a well known fact. If the relationship between the east and the west is supposed to improve, the west should be the first to reach out it's hand, and this should be an unambiguous gesture.
-
Good point there Dragon, most religions perform a whole framework of social and community functions, I suppose the real difference is that, in much of the US for example, if a child decides later on in life "I don't want to be a Christian any more" they have the Freedom to do so. There is no such choice in these countries, the child of a Muslim is a practicing Muslim for his or her entire life on pain of death. So in that respect, there is no choice.
-
On a slight tangent -- At least now Denmark gets a break. No longer will we have to travel the world with Finnish flags on our backpacks!
-
I am vehemently opposed to restraining Free Speech if its simply to appease a bunch of neobarb zealots.
But who has said that we should do this?
Heh, if you look at the entirety of my post I was asking what the argument was about because the discussion had become so muddled it was difficult to tease out what exactly everyone was arguing about, or what they thought they where arguing about. Considering this thread is just as convoluted as it was when I originally asked, I still think folks need to take a step back and clearly outline their points since its pretty clear that everybody doesn't seem to know what the main point of this argument is anymore.
-
Well, my point is that the cartoons were unproductive, dangerous and stupid. Should they be banned? No. Should people have known better? Yes. Do these people deserve applause for releasing these cartoons? Most certainly not. Will anything even remotely productive come from these cartoons? No.
To be honest, I think most people are arguing the same point from different angles at this stage, it's just the stupid questions like "Do you think the rioters killing people is wrong?" that really set it off course. Of course the rioters killing people was wrong, I really, really shouldn't have to answer that question because the answer is incredibly obvious. Which is why I refused to. It's kind of depressing that I actually ended up having to do so, and even more depressing that some people tried to twist my refusal to answer a question that has such an obvious answer into me in some way supporting them.
Edit : The worst part is that many of the people on this thread have known me for years, and know my views are usually of the 'try to find a way to get along' type. To imply that I somehow condone and support the idea of people rioting and killing is an insult to everything I represent and believe in. So, if anything, accusing me of supporting the murder of innocent people is my own 'Mohammed Cartoon', it's rude, it's inaccurate and it was designed purely for the purpose of trolling. So I"ll once again apologise to Luis, because he got the brunt of me feeling incredibly violated and insulted by another persons actions.
-
We don't want to have our persona hurt, we want to get along with out group but we also want to be right without having a discussion about it, we will resort to killing people and call it humane.
The more I read on this thread, the more and more it feels those words come true, the internet has ruined you people, I can't believe the lengths you go to be right about your opinions just to not be "wrong" or why someone else's opinion differs from yours.
I won't even bother trying to post my points on this thread, after reading it, I see they will be twisted in some way to support it's antithesis.
-
I am vehemently opposed to restraining Free Speech if its simply to appease a bunch of neobarb zealots.
But who has said that we should do this?
Luis Dias has constructed a massive strawman in this discussion based on the idea that someone has said this. No one has.
I find it a lot worse to place a quote without any name on it, and then reference my name, when clearly that quote isn't mine at all.
Seriously? That's the best you can do to answer me? Absolutely pathetic. :rolleyes:
To be honest, I think most people are arguing the same point from different angles at this stage, it's just the stupid questions like "Do you think the rioters killing people is wrong?" that really set it off course. Of course the rioters killing people was wrong, I really, really shouldn't have to answer that question because the answer is incredibly obvious. Which is why I refused to. It's kind of depressing that I actually ended up having to do so, and even more depressing that some people tried to twist my refusal to answer a question that has such an obvious answer into me in some way supporting them.
That's why I'm banning people next time I see that happening. If you have to ask a question like that, you don't belong on a discussion forum. It's a form of conversational terrorism (http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html).
-
We don't want to have our persona hurt, we want to get along with out group but we also want to be right without having a discussion about it, we will resort to killing people and call it humane.
The more I read on this thread, the more and more it feels those words come true, the internet has ruined you people, I can't believe the lengths you go to be right about your opinions just to not be "wrong" or why someone else's opinion differs from yours.
I won't even bother trying to post my points on this thread, after reading it, I see they will be twisted in some way to support it's antithesis.
:welcome:
Seriously though, in situations like this people always get belligerent, it's not just the Internet that is responsible for that. But yes, there's been some pretty unpleasant stuff in this thread. This board had a problem for quite a while with the attitude of 'If you don't agree with me you are a fascist/terrorist/idiot etc', and I really hope this doesn't signify the rise of that kind of mentality again.
-
We don't want to have our persona hurt, we want to get along with out group but we also want to be right without having a discussion about it, we will resort to killing people and call it humane.
The more I read on this thread, the more and more it feels those words come true, the internet has ruined you people, I can't believe the lengths you go to be right about your opinions just to not be "wrong" or why someone else's opinion differs from yours.
I won't even bother trying to post my points on this thread, after reading it, I see they will be twisted in some way to support it's antithesis.
The truest thing ever written about GenDisc. This was the first forum I was really active in and I thought this kind of virulence was the norm - for years and years I assumed this was just how internet debate worked.
Fortunately it turns out there are much more civilized places to debate current events, places where you can expect real content and bilateral, nuanced discussion. HLP is a brilliant modding community, but it has a weird little tumor of structuralized grudges and endless posturing strapped to its flank.
e: and i would never except myself from responsibility, mind!
-
Yup, GD has been a thorn in HLP's side to a greater or lesser extent for years, there's even been discussion of removing it entirely, and I'm still in two minds about that idea, I still remember the reaction when we dared to move it to the bottom section of the Forum lists, and some of the hate that was directed our way just for doing that.
It's depressing really, to see so many intelligent, creative people reduced to that kind of behaviour.
-
You know, I stayed away from this one just so nobody would complain about me being that way.
Also, I've seen it 100x worse on other forums.
-
Wow those 4 pages just appeared out of nowhere.
In reply to something jr2 said two pages ago:
No, I don't think they are trying to force us to stop drawing insulting pictures of them. I think they are just mad and out for blood. There's a difference between wanting to take away our freedoms, and wanting us dead (although the latter accomplishes the former).
Edit: Oops, I must have just skipped to the bottom of the last page. Apparently this was already discussed.
@karajorma: I don't like the sound of that, because it sounds like something I do from time to time :nervous:
-
Fortunately it turns out there are much more civilized places to debate current events, places where you can expect real content and bilateral, nuanced discussion. HLP is a brilliant modding community, but it has a weird little tumor of structuralized grudges and endless posturing strapped to its flank.
As true as that is, the sad thing is that I look at this place as a comparative escape from that sort of nonsense...and it really seems to be such when it's held up to another forum I frequent.
Amusingly enough, I think I just used half of those "conversational terrorism" elements in a single thread on said forum. :D
-
I'm pretty sure I first heard of that website due to a thread right here on HLP. Good to see it had such a strong effect on the people here last time. :p
-
Seriously? That's the best you can do to answer me? Absolutely pathetic. :rolleyes:
So do you find quoting something (edit: that someone else said) out of the blue and then saying to the audience that I did some stupid thing (with the quote in mind, edit: misdirecting everyone who saw your reply) to be acceptable behavior on your part? I find your attitude preposterous over the issue.
Notice that my contributions regarding this whole matter have been always about the concern that is non-trivial about censorship and lack of free-speech. This is not scaremongering: as we speak the now infamous "movie" depicting muslims as this or that has been censored in youtube, and the Obama administration has asked for Google (and others) to take out any link to that movie. So the anti free-speech movement is actually making strides on this.
To porsue the conversation on how the "problem is us" rather than focus on how we are just abandoning our core values out of fear of a few fanatics, is something that annoys me a little, although I do respect Flipside's opinions (and basically also agree with him).
Misquoting people is cause for banning people in other forums, but here I guess it's all okay except when it's done against moderators. Here, I just bow to your authority and accept your condemnation of being pathetic. What the **** else can I do anyway.
-
Fact check, everyone. Hop outside the box (of yourself) and re-read the thread. :ick: And remember, apologizing doesn't make you a smaller person, it makes you a bigger person. Just remember differences will remain.
Also, asking Google to remove links: :wtf: Seriously]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxymwN7nYQQ]Seriously (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxymwN7nYQQ) ??? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRKfyABraM)
EDIT: I also heard that the attack was a terrorist incident using the demonstrations against the video as cover. Anyone else get that?
-
I've heard rumours along those lines too, but seen no evidence of it yet.
My main concern was the whole idea that releasing these images were somehow applaudable. The conversation was actually going really well until people started deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying, and making some pretty foul accusations along the lines of me supporting the rioters or radical Islam, even if it meant misinterpreting a word or an entire thread to do so.
When people get that desperate to find reasons to attack others, it really does show the very worst side of HLP. Mikes I could understand to a certain degree, because it was purely a misinterpretation, even if his response to it was to imply that I agreed with stoning people to death, and I made a similar mistake later with Luis, but the other one was pure insult hunting. As usual.
-
Perhaps it is a violent internal reaction to those who actually do think that the violence was somehow justified, and that those who provided the fuel actually were the ones who directly caused it. People do exist, and when someone is already boiling in their reaction to an idea like that, it's easy to make snap judgements when it appears someone is leaning in that direction {when in fact, they aren't}.
-
I consider HLP a mature community, but sometimes when threads like these appear, I feel ashamed and disappointed. With that said, props for Flipside for being as responsible and respectful as he is.
-
Perhaps, Mikes, certainly, was a knee-jerk reaction, I'm perfectly willing to let that one pass as heat of the moment, the other one , however, came from someone who has a considerable reputation for insults, misquotes and poor debating skills. There might be points that he can make that are perfectly valid, but until he learns to do so in a fashion that is not an attempt to defame the person he is debating with, I find his behaviour completely unacceptable.
@Syphe : Thank you, I did actually attack Luis without reason, and have apologised for it, my behaviour wasn't perfect, but in my defence, I was incredible furious at the time, which is why the incident with Mikes is as good as forgotten as far as I'm concerned :)
-
I don't feel ashamed at all, I see it merely as evidence that conversations in threads are extremely easy to be equivocating, misdirected and unfocused. I wished I could say that actual direct conversations were a lot better, but they also have some downsides (particular the fact that the people actually have to be present to each other... which is not always the case).
And another aspect: **** the English language. What a crappy ambiguous language it is. Really. (No xenophoby here, I say the same about my own)
-
There are ways with any language to be more specific, however, they require a lot more effort on the part of the speaker and the reader, and can still be misunderstood. :(
-
Well, my position is that you always have to be prepared for hot feelings in a situation like this, Freedom of Speech is very close to people's hearts, and with very good reason, but the whole core of the problem in the Middle East is the fact that people let their emotions over-rule their rationality to the point where all they want to do is attack and hurt things because their myopic world-view had been challenged. We need to be careful not to fall into exactly the same hole when debating the matter.
-
I haven't even once said or inferred that the actions of the rioters are acceptable in any way shape or form, what are you talking about? I've said it was tragic, I've said it was stupid of people to deliberately inflame these people into riots, but NOT ONCE have I EVER said that the results were acceptable or justifiable. How dare you infer that?
I want an apology for that comment.
You appear to be interpreting me wrong here yourself, so now that thread has cooled off a bit I'll address it.
You've linked the two events repeatedly by an if-then relationship: if the movie/pictures, then the rioters. I think that the time lag and related issues make establishing such a direct causal relationship between irreverent depiction of The Prophet and violence in this case tenuous at best.
But more to the point what I'm actually saying is that I'm urging you, and others, to stop treating this if-then as a valid answer to explain what happened, because it is not a valid answer. It conforms to neither Western morality, nor that of the majority of Islam. If The Prophet Images, then Mob Violence, isn't a logical progression from anybody's religion or law. As long as we treat it like it's a certainty, as long as we act as though this is simply the way things work or the reality we must deal with, we grant it legitimacy by default. No matter how much we decry it.
EDIT: Which I should add is what makes the Libyan government's response to the situation so gratifying: rather than treat it as just something that happens, they regarded it as a major breach of civil order and got busy arresting people for it. Most of the other countries involved treat it like a storm they have to weather instead and don't bother dealing with it beyond their diplomatic commitments to maintain the safety of the embassies.
-
And as I'd pointed out earlier, the history between East and West goes back far, far further than the cartoons or even the recent wars. The riots are symptomatic as much as they are reactionary. It's that which lay at the heart of it, these people haven't just had their way of life insulted by a random persona, they believe they have had it insulted by a region of the world that has, in their eyes, had a long history of abusing their people and their culture.
That may well be an incorrect position for them to take, in many of these areas the West and its member countries are interchangeable to peoples minds, but whilst that does not justify the riots, it is exemplified by the fact that an American embassy was attacked over the film before the nationality of the film-maker had even been established, it was assumed he must be American because that, to their eyes, is what America 'does', and no doubt, a least a small percentage of these people were actively looking for an excuse to do so before the film or cartoons were ever released. A lot of these people see France, America, US etc in much the same way as we did the 'Axis of Evil', both of which show a lack of understanding of the inter-relations between the member countries and the differences between them.
The more we do to encourage that mindset, the less progress we stand to make in the area and the more social ammunition we give to the very people we are trying to stop.
-
Adding to that point NG, we should also take into account the fact that the groups that protested fanatically for this were lead to do so by very clever Imams and other people who wanted to see again the western flags burned.
If you think about this for a second, of course that those mobs did not see either the movies or the cartoons. They were told that once again the western satans commited a heinous crime and thus something harsh should be done against these countries ambassadors and so on. When we see that angry mob we should at least take the possibility that probably no one there actually saw any "offensive material". So it is quite possible some few people were just waiting for an excuse to unleash the hatred of these poor people against any others rather than the local powers that actually control their miserable lives.
Evidence of this is the fact that the Pakistani government issued a day of protests against the offensive movie.
No matter how reasonable the "westerners" can be, what are we to say of these people who should know better than rallying up hatred and directing it towards us to distract the people from realizing how terrible their own local powers are treating them? And should we really take responsibility of all these social issues they have?
These are tough questions that we should ponder, and I think they go somewhere beyond the simple "We are all superior people, We should be Responsible, Ours is also the fault of what is happening" and so on. There's a slight racism implied there, as if we couldn't treat these people as equals, but also a realism, which everyone should also admit, that once someone on this side of the aisle makes a movie or a cartoon of this sort, people do get killed.
-
But more to the point what I'm actually saying is that I'm urging you, and others, to stop treating this if-then as a valid answer to explain what happened, because it is not a valid answer. It conforms to neither Western morality, nor that of the majority of Islam. If The Prophet Images, then Mob Violence, isn't a logical progression from anybody's religion or law. As long as we treat it like it's a certainty, as long as we act as though this is simply the way things work or the reality we must deal with, we grant it legitimacy by default. No matter how much we decry it.
Note, while reacting with mob violence to silly cartoons isn't exactly in line with what Koran says, to an extremist who only knows what his guru preacher told him, it's a perfectly logical progression. I'm not saying it's conforming to any morality, nor that it's justifiable, but it's predictable, given the previous reactions of uneducated extremists to such situations.
Libyan government's reaction is indeed a sign of great progress, especially considering what the country went through. I've heard that the current ruling party is generally Islam-oriented, so I'd like to hear what happens to these rioters in the end, but the fact they were arrested is itself a big step forward.
As for rumors of terrorist action disguised as riots, some terrorists were seen stirring up the riots. The situation was certainly playing into their hands, so I doubt it's a complete coincidence, but I also don't think they orchestrated the whole thing, they just seized the occasion.
These are tough questions that we should ponder, and I think they go somewhere beyond the simple "We are all superior people, We should be Responsible, Ours is also the fault of what is happening" and so on. There's a slight racism implied there, as if we couldn't treat these people as equals, but also a realism, which everyone should also admit, that once someone on this side of the aisle makes a movie or a cartoon of this sort, people do get killed.
I don't think it's racism. Western culture is much more advanced than theirs, having more time to develop and having higher technology at it's disposal, and what's more important, having created this technology instead of acquiring it. Culturally, poor people in middle eastern countries are stuck in middle ages. It's the west that can accelerate middle east's progress, and thus it should either be "the smarter one" or get out of there entirely and leave those people to their own devices (which, because of certain black liquid, doesn't seem to be an option).
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGlXl-Ba01Ta6mwlgqWK1FtLX5ew?docId=370a5089bce94f218ba2643bcf700f29
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Tens of thousands of Libyans marched to the gates of one of the country's strongest armed Islamic extremist groups Friday, demanding it disband, as the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and four other Americans sparked a public backlash against militias that run rampant in the country and defy the country's new, post-Moammar Gadhafi leadership.
Related and interesting developments. I'd even call them positive.
-
Yup, I was reading about this yesterday, Libya is caught between those who want the country to improve and those who want to keep it where it is, in fact, I was reading a Libyan photojournalists' report at the time, and many civilians were praising Allah that the Ambassador was still alive when they found him, though sadly he died soon after.
In many ways it just goes to highlight that insulting them as an entire group is counter-productive.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-ambassador-video-idUSBRE88G19Y20120917
-
And as I'd pointed out earlier, the history between East and West goes back far, far further than the cartoons or even the recent wars. The riots are symptomatic as much as they are reactionary. It's that which lay at the heart of it, these people haven't just had their way of life insulted by a random persona, they believe they have had it insulted by a region of the world that has, in their eyes, had a long history of abusing their people and their culture.
That may well be an incorrect position for them to take, in many of these areas the West and its member countries are interchangeable to peoples minds, but whilst that does not justify the riots, it is exemplified by the fact that an American embassy was attacked over the film before the nationality of the film-maker had even been established, it was assumed he must be American because that, to their eyes, is what America 'does', and no doubt, a least a small percentage of these people were actively looking for an excuse to do so before the film or cartoons were ever released. A lot of these people see France, America, US etc in much the same way as we did the 'Axis of Evil', both of which show a lack of understanding of the inter-relations between the member countries and the differences between them.
The more we do to encourage that mindset, the less progress we stand to make in the area and the more social ammunition we give to the very people we are trying to stop.
We appear to be talking in circles around each other here then.
I'd say that the identity of the film and its actors and where they were from was probably never in serious doubt (if nothing else by their accents), and it only takes a bit of research to link the film to its backers. Do not forget, the film had been up on Youtube for a whole two months before the riots started breaking out. There was plenty of time to establish provenance via financial backing if nothing else.
Which is also why I mentioned the time lag and considered the casual relationship tenuous even if we accept the if-then premise. Though they have obviously grown beyond that stage, the idea that the rioting was initially orchestrated seems at least as valid as the idea they were spontaneous.
That said, while I disagree with Luis on some points (smart phones are as popular in the Arab world as anywhere else, so at the very least I suspect most of the rioters had a chance to watch the movie when somebody passed the phone around, much like they've been doing for the whole Arab Spring movement), he does a raise a point that I think is valid; there's something poisonous to both us and them about treating these people as having had their morality or rationality seriously damaged by what they've been told over the years about the US and/or the West. Past grievances and reactions to them simply aren't an adequate explanation any more than the previous if-then idea, particularly when the Libyans are so busy proving the thesis wrong.
It's not quite claiming they're a bull presented with a red flag, but it's getting close, and I'm distinctly uncomfortable with that. In offering an excuse, we are on some level actually excusing them; and even if we don't buy into it personally, they will be more than happy to use it to absolve themselves. It's the same reason why terrorism trials don't typically explore motives so much as they do execution or the attempt thereof, a tradition that everyone learned from when the Crown prosecuted the IRA on a regular basis.
-
Well, the film was bought to the public attention by an Egyptian TV Host, called Khaled Abdullah, who, ironically, when confronted with the trouble it had caused, cited 'Freedom of Speech' in their own defence. So there's a high levels of irony all round here.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/complaint-against-egyptian-tv-host-who-aired-innocence-of-muslims-raises-free-speech-issue.html
Of particular note is this comment :
And he dismissed any talk of legal action when word of Imam’s attempt at litigation first emerged. “Religious figures have a say in political matters as well. Their opinions exceed the walls of mosques. But when people do not like what we have to say, they file a lawsuit. How is this democracy?” he told Daily News Egypt earlier this week.
-
Just some random thoughts.
Did you saw that movie? Even accepting the angry mob understood english (lolno), the film is unintelligible. It's complete crap. How it is even called a movie is beyond my own comprehension. No, I do not think these people even saw the movie. They may have some kind of internet in their homes, but the movie is unbearable.
The lag that you mention may be further evidence of this possibility (no one really saw it, until perhaps some opportunist saw in it the excuse they were looking for).
EDIT: ninja'ed.
Yeah, lots of irony in here. Terrible human stories are always like this. It's like an Adam Curtis documentary in the making, yet again.
-
Thing is, it's easy to judge the movie by the standards of well-funded Western movies, but I've seen quite a few low-budget movies produced in the same region that were of the same quality with regards to acting and effects.
Slightly different country and a few years old, but just look at the Turkish remakes of Superman or ET for a rough example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oI7Fd3Uec
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oI7Fd3Uec
Jesus, I'm beggining to have doubts over the whole free speech thing
-
Did you saw that movie?
I did. I'm actually something of a bad movie aficionado (I stage semiregular Bad Movie Night social events at my house for friends), so I can tell you with some certainty that as far as these things go, it's actually not a bad example of the filmmaker's art considering its budget. Even after it was redubbed to insult The Prophet from whatever the actors were originally saying, it's still a pretty good production for the money that went into it. It's certainly no Night of Horror, Manos, or Bimbos in Armageddon City. It might actually have been enjoyable in its original form.
Which is vaguely sickening over and above the content, and the fact that they went back and redubbed it to make an anti-Islamic film out of it without the knowledge or consent of the actors and original film crew.
-
Just wait until some kid edits and redubs "The Adventures of Sinbad" to be offensive.
-
Thing is, it's easy to judge the movie by the standards of well-funded Western movies, but I've seen quite a few low-budget movies produced in the same region that were of the same quality with regards to acting and effects.
Slightly different country and a few years old, but just look at the Turkish remakes of Superman or ET for a rough example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oI7Fd3Uec
Don't forget Turkish Star Wars! :) The quality of films from that region indeed leaves a lot to be desired. I guess this "movie" was clear enough for them. Also, it takes one person who sees, understands and is offended by it. The news will spread through word of mouth, even without terrorist help (though as it was mentioned, they did indeed "help" starting the riots).
Jesus, I'm beggining to have doubts over the whole free speech thing
It just hit me: Doesn't all this fall under hate speech? That would cleanly resolve the "freedom of speech" debate, as hate speech isn't protected, nor it should be.
-
The other thing that set it all off is that the trailer was first released in dubbed Arabic just before the riots started, and the problem with that is that the all too obvious dubbing that takes place in the English language version is gone, because it's all dubbed, so there's a strong possibility that those who watched that particular trailer had no idea whatsoever that words had been put into the actors' mouths.
-
@Dragon,
What is Free Speech for me will be considered Hate Speech by a ****ing moron. Who just might be in charge.
For instance, is my laughter to the silly proclamations of faith of muslims a "hate speech"? Perhaps not to you, but it obviously is for many other people.
So no, I do not believe in "Hate Speech anything". Free Speech is the freedom to say the really unpleasant things. If it was the freedom to say pleasant things, it was an unnecessary value to have.
-
Notice that my contributions regarding this whole matter have been always about the concern that is non-trivial about censorship and lack of free-speech. This is not scaremongering: as we speak the now infamous "movie" depicting muslims as this or that has been censored in youtube, and the Obama administration has asked for Google (and others) to take out any link to that movie. So the anti free-speech movement is actually making strides on this.
And how is that anti-free speech? Obama has the right to ask Google. Google has the absolute right to tell Obama to **** off. Google has the absolute right to decide that they don't want to associated with any material they see fit. Free speech is threatened when someone is punished for what they have chosen to say. Or forced not to say it because of the threats of punishment.
The famously line supposedly by Voltaire does not say "I disagree with what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it in my newspaper"
Misquoting people is cause for banning people in other forums, but here I guess it's all okay except when it's done against moderators. Here, I just bow to your authority and accept your condemnation of being pathetic. What the **** else can I do anyway.
I accidentally delete the quote line and couldn't be arsed to put it back since I figured all concerned were mature enough to be able to deal with that. Stop trying to turn this into some pathetic conspiracy.
-
@Dragon,
What is Free Speech for me will be considered Hate Speech by a ****ing moron. Who just might be in charge.
For instance, is my laughter to the silly proclamations of faith of muslims a "hate speech"? Perhaps not to you, but it obviously is for many other people.
So no, I do not believe in "Hate Speech anything". Free Speech is the freedom to say the really unpleasant things. If it was the freedom to say pleasant things, it was an unnecessary value to have.
Hate speech is hate speech. I'd consider laughing (loudly, in a place where they can notice it) at Muslim proclamations of faith a form of hate speech, though a comparatively mild one. Ask yourself two questions: "Would you like it if somebody said something like that about you?" and "Is it an objective fact, or a subjective opinion?" before saying anything, and you shouldn't offend anyone. In general, if something has no other purpose than to offend somebody, then it's hate speech. I think it's the case with this "movie".
The other thing that set it all off is that the trailer was first released in dubbed Arabic just before the riots started, and the problem with that is that the all too obvious dubbing that takes place in the English language version is gone, because it's all dubbed, so there's a strong possibility that those who watched that particular trailer had no idea whatsoever that words had been put into the actors' mouths.
That would explain plenty of it. Now this looks like a clear attempt at provoking riots. It was either done by complete morons, or on purpose, most likely both. There's no way it could be an attempt at humor.
-
Notice that my contributions regarding this whole matter have been always about the concern that is non-trivial about censorship and lack of free-speech. This is not scaremongering: as we speak the now infamous "movie" depicting muslims as this or that has been censored in youtube, and the Obama administration has asked for Google (and others) to take out any link to that movie. So the anti free-speech movement is actually making strides on this.
And how is that anti-free speech? Obama has the right to ask Google. Google has the absolute right to tell Obama to **** off. Google has the absolute right to decide that they don't want to associated with any material they see fit. Free speech is threatened when someone is punished for what they have chosen to say. Or forced not to say it because of the threats of punishment.
Obama has the right to behave contrary to the "american values" anytime he wishes, after all he is free. However, he is not a "normal human being". He is the president, and that has a lot of clout. If Google were to accept the President's admonishion, we would be in a state of affairs of outright free-speech censorship.
Glad they didn't. Glad that Google knows better. But *really* sad that the president does not, and that the vermins of anti freedom of speech reached so high in the hierarchy.
The famously line supposedly by Voltaire does not say "I disagree with what you're saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it in my newspaper"
I missed the part where Google's search algorithm's was the President's "newspaper".
I accidentally delete the quote line and couldn't be arsed to put it back since I figured all concerned were mature enough to be able to deal with that. Stop trying to turn this into some pathetic conspiracy.
An apology would suffice. Bah.
Hate speech is hate speech. I'd consider laughing (loudly, in a place where they can notice it) at Muslim proclamations of faith a form of hate speech, though a comparatively mild one. Ask yourself two questions: "Would you like it if somebody said something like that about you?" and "Is it an objective fact, or a subjective opinion?" before saying anything, and you shouldn't offend anyone. In general, if something has no other purpose than to offend somebody, then it's hate speech. I think it's the case with this "movie".
My taste should have no binding whatsoever in the ability of anyone else be free to state their own opinions on whatever matter they so choose.
Do you understand this basic precept? Do you understand the difference between being "free" and being "nice", "respectful", etc.?
-
Must admit, my own temptation would be to say "Well, you aren't painting a very good picture of yourselves by dancing to the tune of people who are clearly morons..."
-
Do YOU know the difference between *****ing banally and stating your disagreement? Should I give you an example? All right here it goes :
You like Freespace?
Exhibit A:**** you **** sucker, COD IS THE **** NOOBF**.
Exhibit B: I don't like Space Sims, I prefer FPS games such as CoD.
One makes a point, the other is being an ass for the sake of being one.
This is a stupid fallacy too many people ignore on the internet, it's dangerous to be an ignorant douche read this: Critical Thinking (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/)
EDIT: Yes, I realize the Irony on this post.
-
You know, I'm not even certain what you're trying to say there.
If it's a response to my post, then maybe you should investigate the difference between tongue-in-cheek rhetoric and serious suggestion, and the difference between temptation and action?
If this is a response to the conversation between Luis and Kara, then don't worry too much about it, those two moderately enjoy bouncing off each other, and I'm moderately certain they are both adult enough to realise where to draw the line.
-
Obama has the right to behave contrary to the "american values" anytime he wishes, after all he is free. However, he is not a "normal human being". He is the president, and that has a lot of clout. If Google were to accept the President's admonishion, we would be in a state of affairs of outright free-speech censorship.
Glad they didn't. Glad that Google knows better. But *really* sad that the president does not, and that the vermins of anti freedom of speech reached so high in the hierarchy.
I missed the part where Google's search algorithm's was the President's "newspaper".
Then you missed the entire point I made. Google have the right to remove any video they see fit. This isn't a free speech issue. It's their website and if they don't want to be associated with that sort of content. In fact they even state that in their terms and conditions
We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we do not permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity).
So yeah, Obama has a perfect right to point out that they aren't living up to their own terms and conditions if people he works with are dying because of it. The last bit is the bit you are forgetting. This video has caused issues on a global scale. It's damaged East-West relations and forced Obama to make his own adverts complaining about the video. So clout or not, this is an issue that is affecting the country.
As for Google not removing the video. To be honest I doubt it was made on moral principles. I suspect it's a business decision based on the fact that there are too many people like you who'd complain about them removing the video and not enough people who'd complain about it not being removed.
If I were to start a "Google doesn't support the troops in Afghanistan" movement, it would be gone tomorrow.
An apology would suffice. Bah.
Fine. I'm sorry. But I really did think the fact that I actually named you in that post made it clear that I wasn't replying to you in the earlier part.
-
If you claim to have already answered, then surely clarifying your answer in the form of a simple yes or no response to my question should not be difficult?
If you want to get involved in the thread then read it, I'm not Google.
@Swantz, exactly, but pretending this is 'exercising freedom of speech' is simply something to hide behind, it's not 'Carrying the torch of Freedom' anywhere.
@Luis : It's the entire point, these people are trying to make out that they are 'doing good' with these cartoons, but pretty much everyone agrees they are dicks, so there's no point applauding their actions.
I am asking for a simple yes or no. You have claimed to have already answered, yet continually dodged my questions. Furthermore, your responses are so long that you could have answered my request for a simple yes or no answer hundreds of times already. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that you are deliberately refusing to answer me. Why?
A Warning was issued for this post : Repeatedly asking obvious leading questions without bothering to read the thread
++ Oh, and consider yourself fortunate, Admin had already stated that if you did this again you would be looking at time off, so consider yourself fortunate that I saw this and not Karajorma ++
-
Libyan people to Islamist Militia: We've had enough your **** and we're burning the whole thing down, right now. (http://news.yahoo.com/eight-people-arrested-over-benghazi-attack-official-173621608.html)
-
Obama has the right to behave contrary to the "american values" anytime he wishes, after all he is free. However, he is not a "normal human being". He is the president, and that has a lot of clout. If Google were to accept the President's admonishion, we would be in a state of affairs of outright free-speech censorship.
Glad they didn't. Glad that Google knows better. But *really* sad that the president does not, and that the vermins of anti freedom of speech reached so high in the hierarchy.
I missed the part where Google's search algorithm's was the President's "newspaper".
Then you missed the entire point I made. Google have the right to remove any video they see fit. This isn't a free speech issue. It's their website and if they don't want to be associated with that sort of content. In fact they even state that in their terms and conditions
I am afraid I did not miss that point at all, and I really don't like doing this "NO U", but you force me to. Look, if Google had taken down the video, it would have been out of fear and I'd have called them "Cowards", but there would have been no severe breach of "Free Speech". Here, we both agree vehemently. The Site is private, they do whatever they want to do with it. They are not obliged to have this video on their site. I hope we are clear on this particular matter.
The scandal was completely another: the fact that the president actively asked Google to censor the video. This is a whole new matter. This is the ****ing President asking for censorship. Granted, it was *asking*, not demanding. But it is clearly a step in the wrong direction. No President should ever ask a newspaper or a video site to censor itself. The job of the President is the exact opposite: to ensure and guarantee (with words and actions) the rights of Freedom of Speech.
So yeah, I think I am entitled to my amazement and concern.
Apropos, do not paint me as a republican or what not. Not only I am portuguese (so I really don't care) but I view myself as a liberal, both in the european and in the american sense (it is funny I am right wing here and left wing in the USA...).
So yeah, Obama has a perfect right to point out that they aren't living up to their own terms and conditions if people he works with are dying because of it. The last bit is the bit you are forgetting. This video has caused issues on a global scale. It's damaged East-West relations and forced Obama to make his own adverts complaining about the video. So clout or not, this is an issue that is affecting the country.
IMO, that's the wrong approach. He has to uphold the country's citizen's rights. Not ask them to forfeit those rights so that a crazy bunch can do..... exactly what? Do you really think that this censorship "after the fact" would have had any effect whatsoever? Rather than being a complete surrender of the citizen's rights to a bunch of terrorists?
You are surrendering far more than what you can possibly gain. And you seem to be oblivious to that fact.
Fine. I'm sorry. But I really did think the fact that I actually named you in that post made it clear that I wasn't replying to you in the earlier part.
Ok, sorry it dragged for so long. And no, I took the exact opposite meaning and I even spent half a minute trying to recollect some lost memory of when had I written that quote.
-
A Warning was issued for this post : Repeatedly asking obvious leading questions without bothering to read the thread
Excuse me, but is there anything wrong with simply asking someone to clarify their position on a subject? I was not asking whether he thought the rioters were wrong or not as he already answered that. I was asking whether he believed the majority of blame would fall on the rioters or the provokers. If his position is that they were both wrong, but the rioters were more wrong, then all he had to do was say so.
Furthermore, this line of inquiry grew out of a question made to his statement that the attempt to spread the value of free speech in theocratic nations was equivalent to the attempt to enforce religious law in secular nations. As I strongly disagreed with this position, I was simply requesting clarification so as to more reasonably debate said issue.
-
Flipside: Yeah, I was referring to their conversation, I apologize, It really angers me when I see people squabble the internet in such a pointless way, we created means to communicate through space across the planet, only to waste it in such pointless nonsense, that said, you are also right, I should have exercised more restraint and self-control while writing that post.
NGTM: That is... in all honesty, awesome news.
-
@Legate : Because the answer was already there, in plain black and white, and you still kept asking the question and accusing me of refusing to answer.
To be honest, I think most people are arguing the same point from different angles at this stage, it's just the stupid questions like "Do you think the rioters killing people is wrong?" that really set it off course. Of course the rioters killing people was wrong, I really, really shouldn't have to answer that question because the answer is incredibly obvious. Which is why I refused to. It's kind of depressing that I actually ended up having to do so, and even more depressing that some people tried to twist my refusal to answer a question that has such an obvious answer into me in some way supporting them.
That's why I'm banning people next time I see that happening. If you have to ask a question like that, you don't belong on a discussion forum. It's a form of conversational terrorism (http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html).
Edit : I will clarify, however, that you were NOT the one accusing me of anything for refusing to answer, at least not at that stage.
@An4ximandros : No problem and no offence taken, we've had enough miscommunication in here already, so I think we're all on tip-toes at the moment ;)
-
NGTM: That is... in all honesty, awesome news.
I wouldn't call it awesome. Not yet. The irony wheels keep on turning. All I see is madness everywhere.
-
Excuse me, but is there anything wrong with simply asking someone to clarify their position on a subject?
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
See nit-picking and out of context.
Quite simply, if you aren't smart enough to see the plainly obvious fact that Flipside doesn't support the rioters, you don't belong on here. And if you are repeatedly engaging in either of those two, even after you've been told to stop, you don't belong here.
So you've got exactly one post to justify why your plainly obvious question still needs an answer before I ban you from General Discussions for the week. Or you can be sensible and just drop it.
-
NGTM: That is... in all honesty, awesome news.
I wouldn't call it awesome. Not yet. The irony wheels keep on turning. All I see is madness everywhere.
Sadly I agree, from a political viewpoint it may seem like a positive thing, but it boils down to "How dare you smash things! For that, we are going to smash things!"
I applaud their actions from a certain perspective, but the last thing Libya needs is to be split back down the middle again.
Edit : As an aside, that last sentence really is a good example of what you were saying about the English language; back, down and middle all in the same sentence...
-
I see it as a demonstration, it shows that they are willing to step up to the people who might try to undo the changes they have gone through, that said, I do hope they know when to stop as there is a fine line between gesturing their point and unleashing destruction in retaliation for destruction.
-
The risk is always the 'Cycle of Vengeance', the old 'If they put one of yours in the Hospital, you put one of theirs in the Morgue' mentality.
Still, time will tell, hopefully this will prove to be indicative of a growing desire in the Libyan people and not simply a blip on the radar.
-
It's all a blip. Fractals. Real progress is too slow and "tipping points" rarely make a difference.
-
Well the demonstrators are claiming that their goals are to get people to give up their weapons. Which is a pretty laudable goal. Especially in that part of the world.
-
Sadly I agree, from a political viewpoint it may seem like a positive thing, but it boils down to "How dare you smash things! For that, we are going to smash things!"
I wouldn't go that far, apparently the main feature of it was they broke in to make way for the cops and government to search the place, and then somebody decided to torch a vehicle in the lot for some reason or another; might have just been a technical that the cops couldn't find keys for so they destroyed it in place.
-
Yup, I'll keep my fingers crossed that it is a positive sign for the future. I suppose the militia's reaction to this will be paramount in deciding where to go from here. I have a feeling of the usual methodology of 'blow people up till they submit' is going to earn them a very nasty surprise if they try that in Libya.
-
I kind of see Libya coming out of the Arab Spring quite well-off if they can get their government propped up properly. The article points out that this situation is serving as a rallying cry for the Libyan government. I hope it sticks.