New Mohammed Shooting in Texas

[Bells]

That's probably true. The same thing can be said of anyone who holds strong beliefs, even when they aren't religious.

Certainly.

But we probably need to recognize that identifying what is and isn't 'fanaticism' is culturally relative. Killing a blasphemer is certainly fanatical from the Western point of view, but not necessarily from the point of view of a Muslim who is Shariah observant, since Islamic Law demands that Muslims do exactly that.

I am surprised we are all still alive.

I don't believe that all religions, cultures and ideologies represent equally deadly dangers to everyone that fails to suitably defer to them or somehow disrespects their cultural icons.

I beg to differ. Each can be as dangerous as the other and often are. Do you equate a religious belief that encourages shooting doctors or bombing abortion clinics to be less dangerous than Islam? How about the ones that preach not providing any medical aid, which has resulted in numerous children dying of wholly preventable issues and diseases? Or what about the ones who spit and threaten women for sitting in the front of the bus, as Israel has found in the last few years with its Orthodox members? You want to see people get angry and turn deadly, drop your pants and pee on the bible in full view of a far right Church. Or pee on a torah in front of an Orthodox Jew. After all, it's free speech, right? Freedom of expression and all that?

I'm sure you do. For reasons of your own, you passionately dislike this woman, so therefore the rest of us should conclude... what? That the Garland shooters were less culpable? That radical Muslims were somehow justified in targeting that event?

I have stated and provided evidence of why I dislike this woman. Her bigotry, racism for a start.

And where, exactly, have I said that the shooters were less culpable or that they are somehow justified in targeting that event?

Right. The Charlie Hebdo editors parodied the Prophet, knowing full well that's a deadly offense to Islamic Law. Yet they chose to do it anyway. They brought their death sentence down upon themselves and share equal responsibility for it.

Correction. Charlie Hebdo applied satire to the politics of the time in France and elsewhere around the world. They did not target just one group or religion. Geller spends all of her time focused on only one group. Her convention was not about free speech as it was to offend as many as she could deliberately. Add to the lead up and her referring to Muslims as "savages" and the stage was set for a fun weekend of Muslim bashing. That is the difference between Geller and Hebdo.

Fanatics vs fanatics. Moral equivalence.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it implicitly advocates making the boundaries of acceptable opinion and expression in open Western societies hostage to death-threats issued by the most intolerant and violence-prone elements within those societies.

Geller and her cronies issue death threats to anyone who disagrees with her on social media. Is this acceptable opinion and expression of open Western societies?

Is it only acceptable when she does it?

My point is that she is a hypocrite when it comes to issues of free speech and freedom of expression. The fact of the matter is, I don't quite understand what her point was with that convention. Do you know what it was? Why did she hold that convention? For what purpose?

Jihadists responded to her call and tried to shoot up the convention and now we get to talk about how evil and bad Muslims are. I guess she won her point after all. You do realise that was the whole point, right?

Sometimes those threats, and those issuing them, need to be challenged.

As I said, Geller is as much of a fanatic as the Jihadist who want her dead. She wants them dead as much as they want her dead. We have already had one of her and Spencer's supporters kill dozens of children for the cause they keep spouting about and now we have Jihadist trying to retaliate against her personally. Where will it end?

At some point, someone is going to have to figure out the distinction between freedom of speech and incitement to violence.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Sometimes those threats, and the people issuing them, need to be challenged.

Why? You are just lowering yourself down to their disgusting standards. I do not see anyone making cartoons of the KU KLUX KLAN hanging black people any longer. Everyone knows what the outcome of that would be so they do not do it.

 

[GeoffP]

One does need to ask: what is the response of Egyptian and Pakistani Christians to real, vicious, ongoing baiting of their communities including murder, attacks on churches, the burning of homes, and general genocide? Nothing. The response does appear entirely asymetrical.

 

[iceaura]

I do not see anyone making cartoons of the KU KLUX KLAN hanging black people any longer. Everyone knows what the outcome of that would be so they do not do it.

That's not why.

They don't do it any more because the KKK quit lynching black men. And the reason the KKK quit lynching black men was that the law persecuted them and jailed them and bankrupted them for doing so. And one reason the law did that was because its failure to do that was being ridiculed by cartoonists drawing pictures of KKK lynchings (which included burning people alive, religious justifications, etc - same as the ISIS horrorshow) and mocking the excuses of the legal authorities.

At some point, someone is going to have to figure out the distinction between freedom of speech and incitement to violence.

It's never going to be drawn on the inside of drawing a picture of Muhammed. If that is ever disallowed, freedom of speech has been disallowed.

 

[pjdude1219]

bill O'Reilly and al sharpton both made the roughly the same point here. that yes the people who attacked are in the wrong no one is disputing that and yes she has the right to be an offensive hack trying to provoke and get offended response. but their point remains that both this commentators on wildly divergent ends of the spectrum pointed out is just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should. the reason for doing something like this really needs to be more than because i can. that this really wasn't about freedom of speech. it was going out of her way to be offensive for the sake of being a hateful bitch. she got exactly what she wanted. she has made a career out of trying to incite violence either in muslims getting offended or trying to get americans to push for violence against muslims. Geller couldn't give two shits about freedom of speech its all about causing hate for her.

 

[GeoffP]

Why this assertion that she was "trying to provoke a response"? I've seen this written several times in the thread but it remains, so far as I've seen, an assertion designed to attack Gellar. Demonstrate the case that it was deliberate provocation - and, moreover, a provocation for gunfire.

 

[pjdude1219]

Why this assertion that she was "trying to provoke a response"? I've seen this written several times in the thread but it remains, so far as I've seen, an assertion designed to attack Gellar. Demonstrate the case that it was deliberate provocation - and, moreover, a provocation for gunfire.

i can understand why you might feel were attacking poor innocent ms geller but to people familiar with her will continue to state this was an attempt to provoke. its what she does. given the choice between extremism and constructive dialogue she has always chosen extremism. not to mention she been linked to a terrorist orgnization. that you don't see it is on you but her record of spreading and inciting hate is all over the place.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

This might be of interest:

Six table hosts withdrew from the center’s annual gala on Tuesday at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and more than 200 writers signed an open letter of dissent, criticizing the publication for insulting Muslims.

They argued that the magazine's drawings of the Prophet Muhammad "must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering" to French Muslims.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/charlie-h...f-expression-award-controversy-171443633.html

 

[The Marquis]

What does slut shaming have to do with this subject?

Pretty much everything, when one considers consistency of thought. Try victim blaming, instead. Perhaps those words might help. Rhetoric being what it is.

 

[The Marquis]

One does need to ask: what is the response of Egyptian and Pakistani Christians to real, vicious, ongoing baiting of their communities including murder, attacks on churches, the burning of homes, and general genocide? Nothing. The response does appear entirely asymetrical.

Yes, it is entirely asymetrical. And when that same tired argument appears, people have this rather silly tendency to go along with it, to give it credence, as though it's a telling point one must pause to consider.
Because in the west, we must tolerate that which is clearly beyond tolerance. That is one of those amorphous ideals I mentioned earlier.

When really, it's a rather windy and inconsequential response to a problem which requires a far more direct approach in order to combat.

The fact is, that extremist elements appear in support of just about any belief you care to name.

The difference between Islamic and western thought is simple. It all comes down to the separation of church and state. The west has that, Islam does not.
Freedom as speech, as an ideal, cannot be limited. It simply can not. As soon as one does so, they are supporting the ascendance and dominance of one thought pattern over another, and that is the real danger.
Stagnation.

As I've already pointed out, Gellar would probably have never existed in mainstream consciousness had not she been a response to a perceived lack of action in the west toward extremist thought.
Yet the slut shamers continue to blame her. Of course they do.

How does it go? "Not all men are rapists"?
Where the hell is Tiassa anyway? I thought these particular minutiae were his bread and butter.

 

[C C]

Yet the slut shamers continue to blame her. Of course they do.

A proposed analogy between

"She asked for it by by dressing provocatively and stimulating male urges."

and

"She asked for it by cartooning provocatively and stimulating jihadist urges." ??

 

[GeoffP]

More assertions about provocation. Several questions here: is it true? Would it even matter if it was true? Does the fact that the shooter was being encouraged to attack something by overseas jihadis change at all the wild supposition about provocation?

Washington (CNN)Elton Simpson, one of the two men who were foiled in an attempted attack on the Prophet Muhammad exhibit in Garland, Texas, was in private contact with known jihadists overseas who were encouraging Simpson to launch an attempted attack, multiple officials tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/07/politics/fbi-warning-elton-simpson-cartoon-event-attack/

The Marquis' comment about 'slut shaming' is salient: put the blame where it lies. Why was victim blaming even a part of the discussion in the first damned place? If one cannot be 'tempted' into sexual assault, one really can't be 'tempted' to attack a public commentary about the social implications of religious fascism using automatic rifles and grenades. In terms of the mechanics, drawing Mohammed offends exactly one group of people: Islamists. Islamic supremacists, if you like. And? I'm not particularly bothered by people attempting to offend Nazis. Progressive Muslims are, I think, quite savvy enough to make the distinction themselves, and the supposition that Elton there was provoked to attack because he thought there was some social reason to do so is offensive nonsense. He was a radical bigot, and he died for it.I reiterate: explain why this, like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, required a response at the end of the barrel of a gun.

I saw a joke the other day about the Texas attack: what was the last thing Elton Simpson heard? 'Draw!' Heh.

 

[Tiassa]

The Marquis' comment about 'slut shaming' is salient: put the blame where it lies. Why was victim blaming even a part of the discussion in the first damned place?

This kind of stupid misogyny is pretty much expected.

Tell us, Geoff, have you ever asked a woman why she wears what she wears? The answers are interesting, but only confusing if we let any one woman's explanation stand for all women.

To wit, one of my questions is about what I refer to as "cake frosting" lingerie. Variously I've been told over the years that a woman wears it for her partner, for herself, and for the benefit of other women. Any one of those explanations can make sense; there is no requirement to sit and dwell on legends of sleepovers teenaged, nor any demand that we understand why a woman would wear sexy lingerie for the benefit of another woman she is not otherwise connected to. This is what it means to any given individual, and that is what we have to work with.

What I have never heard, however, is that women wear sexy lingerie in order to encourage men to rape them to death.

And that little device is actually required for the "slut shaming" argument to be valid and effective; it is the necessary link, the fundamental juxtaposition.

The purpose of a "Draw Muhammad" contest in Texas was to piss off radical Islamists. And it worked.

I have no problem with everyday individuals wanting into the fight. But when they enter the fight, they are entering the fight, and if we are expected to pretend such ignorance as to overlook this decision, we've already lost the fight.

What happened in Texas is exactly what the artists wanted.

I reiterate: explain why this, like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, required a response at the end of the barrel of a gun.

It doesn't. No more than anything else. But that's where this fight is. And that's the fight these people wanted into.

Consider the weird story about the woman who dropped her toddler at the zoo. Now, most of us recognize she wasn't dangling the kid out there to tempt predatory cats with a baby-sized morsel, but apparently neither did she consider this possible outcome.

By comparison, yes, these artists were dangling the baby to tempt the cats.

Any other day, folks in Texas would know exactly what the phrase "fighting words" means. I refuse to arbitrarily pretend they forgot.

And, quite obviously, I reject this argument that women want to be raped.

It really is stupid.

And it only goes to demonstrate that there is no subject on the planet important enough that we can't take a short detour to bash some sluts.

(Hint: When you find yourself taking cues from the drunk in the corner looking to pick some sort of personal fight, reconsider your standards.)

 

[Bells]

Pretty much everything, when one considers consistency of thought. Try victim blaming, instead. Perhaps those words might help. Rhetoric being what it is.

At no time did I blame the security guard. Nor have I seen anyone blame the security guard who came under fire from the gunmen.

I could ask how Geller was the victim in all of this, but it probably would not be worth it. She got exactly what she wanted and what she set out to do. So how exactly would that make her a victim?

The difference between Islamic and western thought is simple. It all comes down to the separation of church and state. The west has that, Islam does not.

What planet do you live on where this is actually the case in the West? The Church interferes with the State on so many levels, it is not even funny anymore. Ask any woman trying to obtain an abortion or even birth control pills or seek help for a miscarriage in a public State owned hospital that is actually managed by the Church, about separation of Church and State and she might laugh at you. From citing the Lord's prayer to swearing in on a Bible or other holy text in houses of Parliament, to the Church being invited to sit on birth control panels (and no women), to the fight for marital rights for gays, to religious education and the ongoing battle to keep creationism out of State schools, the Church is very much involved. The separation of Church and State is a myth and at best, an ideology we can only hope to strive towards. At present, we are going backwards.

Freedom as speech, as an ideal, cannot be limited. It simply can not. As soon as one does so, they are supporting the ascendance and dominance of one thought pattern over another, and that is the real danger.

It actually is limited. You are not free to shout fire in a crowded theater, just as you are not free to incite. Nor is freedom of speech unlimited and unprotected when it comes to pornography and child pornography, or lies and false statements. It is very much limited and there are exemptions.

Do you think there is a real danger in limiting free speech when it comes to child pornography, for example? Or how about lies? Do you think free speech should protect inventing facts?

As I've already pointed out, Gellar would probably have never existed in mainstream consciousness had not she been a response to a perceived lack of action in the west toward extremist thought.

She only exists in the mainstream consciousness of those who support and follow her. Like Breivik, and those of his ilk. To most people, she is an annoying and bigoted gnat.

Yet the slut shamers continue to blame her. Of course they do.

No one is blaming her. The blame lies fully with the two shooters.

How does it go? "Not all men are rapists"?

I don't know, how does it go? If you wish to discuss rape, perhaps you could open a thread about it. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with this thread. Nor does slut shaming.

 

[Bells]

This kind of stupid misogyny is pretty much expected.

[...]

And it only goes to demonstrate that there is no subject on the planet important enough that we can't take a short detour to bash some sluts.

(Hint: When you find yourself taking cues from the drunk in the corner looking to pick some sort of personal fight, reconsider your standards.)

I was actually going to bring this up earlier, but real life intervened and I became distracted, so thank you for bringing it up.

Who is the "slut" in the context of this thread? And how is she a "slut" in the context of this thread or any other context? Why even bring up that term? And how is it "salient"?

The irony is that her defenders are, in effect, slut shaming her by taking it to that misogynistic extreme in even mentioning slut shaming.

 

[iceaura]

If Geller had gone to some center of Muslim religious culture and posted the drawings in the faces of the residents, one could make an argument for inciting violence or "fighting words". Like burning a flag in the parking lot of an American Legion hall, or setting out a display of pulled pork sandwiches in the buffet table at a bar mitzvah, discourtesy can be raised to the level of incitement to getting punched in the schnoz and deserving it.

But riding a bus from one Alabama town to another, no matter how provocative it in fact was and was intended to be, no matter the personalities involved, was a reasonable thing to do. One might even say it's something someone should have done, precisely because it provoked.

Maybe, so is getting together in a room somewhere and drawing pictures of Muhammed once in a while.

 

[GeoffP]

This kind of stupid misogyny is pretty much expected.

Now now. I don't think it reasonable to think that the artists and organisers wanted to receive gunfire, or a bomb. First, I've never really bought into the concept of "fighting words": you insult me, so I have to hit you or shoot you? I can't just insult in return? Maybe I expect too much, but I don't think it's unreasonable to treat with you using the 'weapons' you choose. Resort to mortal violence is justified by mortal threat. The art show threatened good taste, but not the lives of the attackers. Second, I don't buy into the excuse of "fighting words" in this specific case: one of those attackers was, really, shopping around for something to attack, egged on by other religious fascists far away rather. He wasn't some average, reasonable, otherwise ordinary carbon-based life form put in a position that he couldn't accept, like a burly man forced to carry out desperate acts to save the life of his slowly zombifying daughter. Doesn't 'fighting words' require some kind of moral grounding? So I don't agree that 'fighting words' buys anything here. If you dump all my tea in a harbour, should I let you have it with a barrage of musket fire or just say tut tut and tax you for getting me involved in an unnecessary New World land war against the French?

Tell us, Geoff, have you ever asked a woman why she wears what she wears? The answers are interesting, but only confusing if we let any one woman's explanation stand for all women.

Sticking stubbornly to the presumed common answer - for which I am sure you thank me - I'll propose that it's to get noticed. You say other women, I say well, men, generally, I would have thought, but I've heard that women do in fact do this also to annoy or impress other women: the former, in the case of my wife. But it doesn't really matter: in either instance self-expression ends at the other's nose. If I wear the very same stylish beret and fishnet stockings to the International Federation of Students Sock Hop that Jodie McKenzie wore, it doesn't mean we should start slapping each other around, unless it's a Tuesday.

What I have never heard, however, is that women wear sexy lingerie in order to encourage men to rape them to death.

The organisers did indeed want to piss off radical Islamists. No doubts there. But wanting that and wanting to be physically attacked strikes me as too far. If you argue that they actually wanted to be attacked with gunfire, you have to assume they were confident enough to predict the outcome.

And, quite obviously, I reject this argument that women want to be raped.

It's only an argument from the assertion that Geller et al wanted to be attacked. I think my objection to your objection holds: the position that they wanted to be physically attacked isn't justified either. Every issue will probably pass some "fighting words" threshold for some lunatic or other. We could start talking about which red flags to regulate, and what constitutes a red flag, but the response to such a less-than-certain level of unacceptability is the final word on this issue. They were attacked by a pair of Islamists. So was CH.

(Hint: When you find yourself taking cues from the drunk in the corner looking to pick some sort of personal fight, reconsider your standards.)

Oh, you and my standards. I recall an actual drunk trying to pick a fight with me on SF a while back and I don't think that ever saw the proper light of day. Moreover, do you think I stipulate to everyone else's 'fighting words'?

 

[Bells]

Pamela Geller wanted to prove that the US is at war, and she believes she did that.

She picked a hall that she knew had been used by Muslims who booked it for a stop bigotry towards Muslims Convention after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. That was the sole reason that space was hired. She then hit the media waves and started to refer to Muslims as savage. In effect, she went out of her way to not only advertise her competition, but she did so in the most offensive way possible. Frankly, I still do not understand why she did what she did and how. But that's just me. However, she decided that America needed to have this sort of convention and I believe she is American, so she is obviously able to read and understand her culture better than outsiders like me can. Did she prove her point? Sadly yes. Does that mean it deserved to be attacked? No. This level of extremism is never acceptable. Was she right to hold such a convention? The greater majority feel she has every right to do so and her right to do so should be defended and protected. It is perhaps a lesson she needs to learn when it comes to people she does not believe are Jewish enough or towards Muslims themselves, or who make comments or arguments she disagrees with.

I will say this, however..

I also do not think that what she did is in any way like Charlie Hebdo and I find her attempts to somehow liken herself to Charlie Hebdo to be offensive. What she did was nothing like Hebdo and her trying to capitalise on what happened to them to prove a point is just as offensive. There is no comparison. At all. Nor are the drawings even comparable. Personne ne Pamela Geller aujourd'hui.

Regardless of that, that competition still did not deserve to be attacked. That guard did not deserve to be shot at. He was simply doing his job.

Should people be shot for drawing a cartoon? No, of course not. No one here has said that this should be the case.

 

[The Marquis]

A proposed analogy between

"She asked for it by by dressing provocatively and stimulating male urges."

and

"She asked for it by cartooning provocatively and stimulating jihadist urges." ??

Yes, I suppose, if you wanted to oversimplify it... granted, of course, that in this environment one often feels the need to do so.

I'm less interested in who shot who and why, than in the consistency of thought consistently not shown by those here who deem themselves to be the moral majority. Or minority, of course, depending on the extent to which they prefer to perceive themselves as...let us say, the victims of stupidity. I don't give a fuck about Gellar, or what she has to say, other than in the observation that she is a natural response thrown up by a segment of the population who feel they have no voice.

It was not a comparison of events; it was a comparison of consistent thought.

Of course, I did so in the full knowledge that "they" will now go on about rape, and accuse me of having brought the subject up. "They" will now seek to demonstrate that it's all about them. And "they" will now argue for three pages or thereabouts about what they think I said.

... /sigh.

 

[Bells]

You are the only one consistently going on about rape and doing so out of the context of this thread's subject matter. You do realise that, yes?

If you can't discuss the actual subject of the thread, go and start a thread on the matter you seem to be jumping up and down with need to discuss. It has no place in this thread and frankly, your slut shaming has no place in any thread. This is like what? The second time I have had to say this to you? Third time won't be a charm.