[NGTM-1R]

The cost there was initially financial, though there was a large cost in life after the collapse. This isn't about one-upmanship, it's not about Nuclear proliferation, it's about people posting images that they know will lead to violence and death. Whether the people in these countries are misguided or not, that is not any kind of moral high-ground to stand on, it is simply encouraging an increase in hostility in a never-ending cycle.

Oh no. It's about information. Pakistan has already cut itself off from Twitter over this; over information they perceive as hostile or damaging. How Orwellian are they prepared to be over ASCII images? That is the question.

[Flipside]

Actually, they dropped the ban after 8 hours and Twitter is available again now.

I don't agree with the censorship instated by Pakistan, that probably wasn't the best way of dealing with the problem, but that doesn't mean that posting stuff that is designed to be abusive and insulting to their culture is the best way of confronting that mentality. Once again, the ASCII art is totally irrelevant and isn't really the issue being discussed here, it's the far more inflammatory ones being posted and the nonchalance towards the violence and death this creates, as though if enough people get killed, something will change. It won't, not via that route. All it does is give hardliners an excuse to say "See! They have no respect for our culture and we are justified in protecting ourselves against their insults!".

In other words, it's behaviour such as 'Draw Mohammed Day' that actually helps these people stay in power by living up to the stereotype of Westerners that they already project.

[NGTM-1R]

"See! They have no respect for our culture and we are justified in protecting ourselves against their insults!".

"See! They have no respect for the might of the Red Army!"

This is a circular and nonfunctional argument. They are attempting to protect people against information they regard as harmful to the view of reality that sustains their power, therefore creating that information enables them to maintain power. Please construct another one.

[Flipside]

It's their argument, not mine. I'm not saying it isn't circular, but give them the ammunition, mix it with cultural and educational differences and that is the result. This isn't about 'constructing arguments', it's about what is actually going on.

[mjn.mixael]

Saw thread title when it was first posted..

Rephrased it to "Third Annual Be An Ignorant Asshat Day" in my mind..

Watched thread conversation..

Realized I was right..

Good jorb Bob.. *sigh*

[NGTM-1R]

It's their argument, not mine. I'm not saying it isn't circular, but give them the ammunition, mix it with cultural and educational differences and that is the result. This isn't about 'constructing arguments', it's about what is actually going on.

It is about constructing arguments. You've taken a position here that this event does more harm than good, and it is up to you to defend it when someone denies that it reflects reality; as I have, citing examples of why this is so.

No matter what they cite the simple fact is that attempting to ban outlets for speech regarded as destructive to order or confidence in authority either A: doesn't work if not hairtrigger since people will continue to find it; or B: places you at a serious disadvantage in the perception of reality if it is hairtrigger. No matter what is proclaimed about the nature of this event, in the end it forces a choice on what kind of ineffective the sort of Islam that takes offense wants to be or forces it to adapt.

I don't find that much of a problem at all.

[Aardwolf]

Idunno, I kinda agree with Bob... in principle anyway. People who get offended too easily deserve to be offended. Except when they have power. In which case they deserve to lose that power.

Wait, this could probably be applied to me if someone could find something I get offended about.

Hey guys, how can I clarify "get offended too easily" in a manner that leaves me exempt? 

[General Battuta]

Idunno, I kinda agree with Bob... in principle anyway. People who get offended too easily deserve to be offended. Except when they have power. In which case they deserve to lose that power.

Wait, this could probably be applied to me if someone could find something I get offended about.

Hey guys, how can I clarify "get offended too easily" in a manner that leaves me exempt? 

say 'i'm a white straight male'

[Aardwolf]

But it was a half-serious ethics question.

What makes one person's offense worth denying another person's rights? Is there any good reason to take offense at something besides a physical offense being made at you?

[Flipside]

Well, it all falls back to the difference between taking offence and causing offence really. If someone takes offence at something someone else has said, then tough, they'll live. If someone doesn't agree with the existence of homosexuality, then fine, they're entitled to. If, however, someone actively seeks out Homosexuals in order to hurl abuse at them then that, to me, is not taking offence, it's setting out to cause it.

It's sort of like the difference between arguing for a shorter legal period in which an abortion can take place and hurling abuse at women outside abortion clinics. The first group, whilst I may not always agree with them, are at least accepting that there are other opinions, whereas the second group assume that they, and only they, are correct, which is a dangerous position to adopt.

[General Battuta]

But it was a half-serious ethics question.

A statement is probably worth worrying about if it infringes on someone's freedoms. This includes freedom from fear. 'Offense' is a weasel word that doesn't really belong in these discussions.

Is there any good reason to take offense at something besides a physical offense being made at you?

I hate all faggots and I'm never going to hire them. Women are ****s - is that your wife? What a *****. I bet she has you completely whipped.

[Flipside]

Well, 'offence' is a pretty generic term, this is true, it's just easier than trying to break it up into the all the sub-genres that come with it. If the discussion were less polarised, I would differentiate more, but at the moment the word suffices.

[666maslo666]

I think every religion (and atheism), ideology and worldview should be regularly insulted. If nothing more, then just to stick it to those people who think their ideology deserves any special privileges, and to stick it to those people who think insults should somehow be against the law or regulated. Blaspheme away!

[Flipside]

It's their argument, not mine. I'm not saying it isn't circular, but give them the ammunition, mix it with cultural and educational differences and that is the result. This isn't about 'constructing arguments', it's about what is actually going on.

It is about constructing arguments. You've taken a position here that this event does more harm than good, and it is up to you to defend it when someone denies that it reflects reality; as I have, citing examples of why this is so.

No matter what they cite the simple fact is that attempting to ban outlets for speech regarded as destructive to order or confidence in authority either A: doesn't work if not hairtrigger since people will continue to find it; or B: places you at a serious disadvantage in the perception of reality if it is hairtrigger. No matter what is proclaimed about the nature of this event, in the end it forces a choice on what kind of ineffective the sort of Islam that takes offense wants to be or forces it to adapt.

I don't find that much of a problem at all.

The thing is, when the founding fathers created the Right to Freedom of Speech, I think they expected people to be able to execute some level of self-control with regards to using it. And that's the problem, I talk about self-control, I've never once mentioned a preference for arresting people for it or banning it, but that is how you've chosen to interpret my words, as Bobboau did earlier.

It seems that merely talking to people is a pointless exercise in this day and age, it's threats in all directions or nothing, and Freedom of Speech is insults or bust.

If I intended to control Freedom of Speech, I would have locked this thread, instead I asked why the only possible response to the problems in Islam is to irritate them even more. Yes, you can do that, but where did the assumption that this is an intelligent way of dealing with the problem come from?

Edit: Bobboau has already quite openly stated that when people post these pictures, other people die. I feel extremely uncomfortable with people saying that it's ok to carry on posting those pictures safe from behind their computer screens whilst others pay the price. That's not pushing forward the ideals of Freedom, it's not even close to it. It's something considerably more sinister. That's why I ask people to stop and think for 30 seconds about the result of their actions in the larger scope, rather than just taking the opinion of 'Well, if people get killed, that's their problem, we'll just sit here and poke them even more'.

[The E]

"Freedom of speech" does not mean "Freedom of consequence". It is astonishing to me how many people, especially on the internet, seem to think that just because you can say something means that noone in their right mind can object to it.

[Flipside]

The problem there is that the argument goes "I don't care if they object to it, I still have a right to say it.", which is a handy way of avoiding responsibility for the outcome of that speech, because under those rules, no-one has to be held accountable for anything they say.

Sad truth is, appealing to peoples better nature is becoming a more and more futile gesture, it's almost as though asking people to show some empathy is, in some way, 'Anti-Freedom'.

[karajorma]

I think the way that I saw it put on the rape topic sums up my opinion. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but yes I have the right to think you're an utter **** for the way you used it.

[castor]

But it was a half-serious ethics question.
Is there any good reason to take offense at something besides a physical offense being made at you?

Does there need to be? There is no good reason for a lot things people do.

[sigtau]

Yes, you have freedom of speech, but yes I have the right to think you're an utter **** for the way you used it.

</thread>

[NGTM-1R]

Bobboau has already quite openly stated that when people post these pictures, other people die.

Uh, no, he's stated that people say posting these pictures should be punishable by death. Not that anyone actually carries it out or even necessarily attempts to. That's a serious functional distinction. I doubt that you or he can trace a single actual death to this cause, and until you do that statement is hyperbole assuming I'm generous and a lie assuming I'm not.

I feel extremely uncomfortable with people saying that it's ok to carry on posting those pictures safe from behind their computer screens whilst others pay the price.

Which renders this portion of your post irrelevant.


You keep posting about Freedom of Speech; this has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech and everyone who thinks it does is deeply and truly missing the point. This is the internet's form of demonstrating against things it doesn't like. It serves the same purposes; it demonstrates discontent and values outside those supported by the group demonstrated against. The rest of humanity has something to say about their habits. That they don't like what is said about their habits is perhaps unfortunate, but it reflects on them, not on the rest of humanity. You might as well blame the Arab Spring protesters for the governments they were protesting.

It's about forced adaptation to the world outside a subcultural bubble. The sort of Islam that gets hacked off about this is, honestly, not a terribly nice place to be by most standards, and it would be cruel to leave people there without taking even perfunctory action. Compromising that subcultural bubble with information hostile to it forces either adaptation to such information or efforts to block that information which must invariably limit access to other information as well and thereby force such a subculture to grow more feeble.