REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

French cartoon sparks protests

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, October 11, 2012 06:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8002
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:54 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm pro-rapist HK! Artists are exactly the same as rape victims! That's exactly what this conversation is about. Well done HK you have opened my EYES. These guys and their hateful ugly rhetoric are SO COOOL and we should admire how they've pushed the boundaries of decency and good taste. Because it's free speech, and that makes everything they say admirable. We should have thousands of cartoons just like this! That'll show those CAH-RAAAAAAZY muslims!




Curious where this stuff about "admiration" comes from. I guess it was something Chrisisall said?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:57 AM

BYTEMITE


It comes from ME. I'm saying I don't admire these artists because of the content of their work, and that I think they're jerks, and I'm not going to buy their stuff, and somehow that translates into me being a blame the victim type and against free speech?!

Whatever guys! I can see how that's not a strawman at all!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:22 AM

HKCAVALIER


You seem to be having a much harder time than usual listening, Byte. You say some fairly outrageous things in this thread. When someone calls you on it, you throw up this tornado of denial and then go back to saying the same damn thing you said before.

Your words here seem rather pointedly to lay some portion of blame on these cartoonists for the violence which ensues. I find that horrendously unjust. And that's where the comparison with rape victims comes from. The whole point of bringing it up is because I presume you DON'T believe rape victims to be at fault for their victimization. The point is that I believe these cartoonists, regardless of their aesthetic mis/judgments, are EVERY BIT AS BLAMELESS as any other victim of violence. I believe that to be self-evident.

I'd hoped that you could at least acknowledge that piece, but instead you double down on your insistance that the cartoonists are at fault in some way. This gets confusing because there are two very different levels of "fault" that you seem continually to conflate. The fault of "poor taste" and being a "troll," and the "fault" of "setting off" violent reprisals. I would simply like you to differentiate these two faults and for you to acknowledge that no amount of tastelessness deserves violent reprisals. And it goes without saying that I have no means or desire to force such an acknowledgment out of you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

When someone calls you on it, you throw up this tornado of denial and then go back to saying the same damn thing you said before.



Show me one place where I went back on anything I've said! It's you guys dumping stuff on me I haven't said!

People are responsible for their actions? oh wow! Revelation! Muslims tearing up a place are acting ridiculous and irresponsible? Absolutely!

Artists in response are drawing terrible anti-Islamic intolerant and pornographic stuff are themselves being ridiculous and are also irresponsible and kind of jerks? Oh no! We have to draw the line there! They're victims!

Quote:

The point is that I believe these cartoonists, regardless of their aesthetic mis/judgments, are EVERY BIT AS BLAMELESS as any other victim of violence.


The only one who was a victim of violence was that guy Auraptor brought up!

And I still think he's a jerk, which is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE FUCKING ISSUE from whether or not I think they deserve violence to be done on them. Incredible as it might seem: I don't!

Oh hey, if I were to be a rape victim, would I be a rape victim AAAND a jerk? Huh! It appears to be so!

Quote:

And it goes without saying that I have no means or desire to force such an acknowledgment out of you.



Whatever. You're not going to apologize to me about the pro-rapist or denial thing and I sure as hell am not going to start admiring these artists or call for more cartoons.

What is happening is that you think very poorly of me, and I think very poorly of you, and neither of us understand each other, and that is the way of things and nothing can be done about it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:39 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm saying I don't admire these artists because of the content of their work, and that I think they're jerks


I get that, and it's a valid opinion Byte.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:45 AM

BYTEMITE


Whatever Chris. You went after me just as bad. You all think I'm anti-free speech? Well, let me exercise some fucking anti-free speech!

How about this.

...!

Wow! that was good. Lets get some more of that up ins.

..............................!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:53 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
What is happening is that you think very poorly of me, and I think very poorly of you, and neither of us understand each other, and that is the way of things and nothing can be done about it.


If I thought poorly of you, Byte, I assure you, I would not be talking to you. That you think very poorly of me is news to me.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:31 AM

AGENTROUKA


I kinda also don't think the cartoonists are jerks.

It's insensitive and possibly stupid in that it might endanger them (some Pakistani government official apparrently put a bounty on the movie-maker's life) but as long as they don't come out saying downright hateful things about muslims in general, I won't consider them jerks.

The movie guy I only detest because of the snarling hatred for muslims and reckless deception of the actors that went into making his shit movie.

Whatever some radical muslims decide to do in response to those things is entirely on them, though. It cannot be put on the provocateurs, even if it IS predictable. Even in a realpolitik kind of way. It cannot be on them.


I don't think anyone here actually intended to lay real blame at their feet, though, really. It's legitimate to find religious taunting of this kind to be jerk-like.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 11:34 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Whatever Chris. You went after me just as bad.





This is a lively debate, or so I thought... sorry if it seemed like I was bird-doggin' ya, really.
We can get intense here with our opinions, and some times we can take offense, none at all meant, milady.
In point of fact, you are one of my favourite posters here!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:23 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Agent,

I think context is crucial when talking about brutality. That's the only reason to bring up rape: as a cut and dried example of how our culture blames the victim and why that is such a very terrible thing to do. Something we can all agree on. I'm particularly sensitive to folks using the "bad character" of the victim to distract from and/or mitigate the culpability of the abuser. Even if it is not intended, that is its social function. I see otherwise very nice people doing this all the time, unwittingly, because they choose to ignore this very important context. And to be fair, it can be very hard to take absurdly violent threats as seriously as they need to be.

Children get brutalized by their parents and the parents talk about the bad character of their children as if that changes anything. The child was "seductive" or "defiant" or "willful" or "stupid," etc. "Taunting" in the context of threats against the life and health of these cartoonists strikes me as code for "asking for it."

The character of the cartoonists is an absolute non sequitur in the context of this discussion. It has nothing to do with the violent reaction at all. That's what violence does: it changes the subject. Violence is never part of a conversation, it prevents conversation. That is its social function.

No matter what the subject of the argument, when somebody threatens physical violence, the ostensible subject of the conversation has been lost. Now the subject is survival, and when well-intentioned folk then point at the victim and say, "reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse. When well-intentioned folk like Niki or Byte come in with, "Well, the cartoons WERE disgusting..." it is simply inappropriate and only serves to distance folks from the real danger in which the real human beings who drew the cartoons find themselves. And, I'm sorry, even if real physical violence does not occur, the threat of violence is a violation.

So, yeah, in the face of the absurd brutality of the threats against the life of an artist, folks of good conscience are obliged to stand with them, regardless of the content of the art, on the principle that art in a free society is as close to sacrosanct as we secularists get.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:09 PM

AGENTROUKA


HK,

I do absolutely agree with that.

I do, however, think "taunting" is not inappropriate to use because it IS an intentional provocation (UNLIKE dressing in a certain way, which is first and foremost personal decoration).

I do not in any way equate that with responsibility for the response or as justification for anything untoward that happens as a reaction.

It is provocative art. It intentionally violates an existing taboo. There is nothing wrong with that. Personal tastes vary with regard to drawing a line between fascination and utter disgust at crass insensitivity, but even when my complete personal condemnation of content or form is achieved, there is still nothing wrong with provocative art. You just end up questioning the character of the creator. That is not the same as blaming them for any inappropriate reaction OR wishing them silenced.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:24 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

So, yeah, in the face of the absurd brutality of the threats against the life of an artist, folks of good conscience are obliged to stand with them, regardless of the content of the art, on the principle that art in a free society is as close to sacrosanct as we secularists get.


Agreed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
It is provocative art. It intentionally violates an existing taboo. There is nothing wrong with that. Personal tastes vary with regard to drawing a line between fascination and utter disgust at crass insensitivity, but even when my complete personal condemnation of content or form is achieved, there is still nothing wrong with provocative art. You just end up questioning the character of the creator. That is not the same as blaming them for any inappropriate reaction OR wishing them silenced.


^
This.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 24, 2012 10:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sorry they've upset you so much, Byte; I've been gone for a day or more, and reading through this thread I see how you've been misunderstood. I'd be frustrated too. I think you should have backed out much sooner (tho' I know how impossible that is when trying to get through to someone), for your own sake.

Okay. Bear in mind that, from her first post, Byte stated:
Quote:

I think, generally speaking, that the people who protest and start yelling "death" in response to a cartoon actually don't even really understand their prophet's own sense of humour. Or have read some of the prophet's more vulgar moments from the quran. This isn't exactly the first time he's been depicted mooning people.

On the other hand, people who deliberately just rile Muslims up are basically the IRL equivalent of trolls, only their provocations tend to kill more people.

So I'm going to suggest maybe both sides are really dumb.


She didn't say anything about censoring anyone...in fact her very next post stated
Quote:

There's a difference between kowtowing versus having common sense and being a decent human being to other people.... Obviously, some people will always be idiots and publish offensive trash and garbage, and they have the right to.

Everyone seems to have ignored that she said THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO. The response?
Quote:

So, Byte comes down on the pro-censorship, kowtow to killers side.

HUH??? At least Frem was able to see realilty:
Quote:

I dun see anyone condemning free speech at all - more like pointing out "Gee, that was kind of stupid!"

Not so much a moral assessment as a logical one...

As to
Quote:

Your words here seem rather pointedly to lay some portion of blame on these cartoonists for the violence which ensues. I find that horrendously unjust.... The point is that I believe these cartoonists, regardless of their aesthetic mis/judgments, are EVERY BIT AS BLAMELESS as any other victim of violence.

First of all, the cartoonists have been victims of NO violence whatsoever. You can find it 'unjust' if you want to, but the fact is the cartoonist DID intend to provoke. They say it was satire, but they've been there before; their offices were attacked and burned last November for a much milder satire of Mohammed. Then yes, they were victims. Not this time. This time they've suffered nothing, others have. In the words of another, "To repeat the same stupidity, the same idiocy and the same calumnies, the same ignominy seems to be nearly psychotic action."

Maybe these people are truly stupid. But anyone who'd had their offices attacked, and saw the violence that stupid video created, would have to be TRULY stupid not to know what the outcome of their provocation would be.
Quote:

How is this ANY different from telling young women to "not dress like whores" so as to avoid rape?

Let's get rid of that one right now. In the first place, I didn't "tell" anyone to do anything. I expressed my opinion, so did Byte. Beyond that, the comparison to rape is totally irrelevant:
Quote:

"Gee, that was kinda stupid?" Like Treyvon Martin wearing a hoodie stupid or rape victim dressing slutty stupid?
A woman running around in sexy clothes does so for reasons which have nothing to do with the possibility of being raped. Treyvon Martin wore a hoodie because it fit the weather. A cartoonist who does what they did in the face of uprisings over an anti-Islamist video does so with full knowledge of what may transpire; in fact, they DO it to provoke a response. There's a gigantic difference between someone choosing what they'll wear and someone deliberately doing something they KNOW could incite violence.

What nobody here seems to be grasping is that Byte (and I, to an extent) are decrying what these idiots did, and stating that we think the cartoons were in extremely bad taste. Why exactly do we not have the right to condemn something we see as bad, then be accused of wanting to censor them? Isn't that not arguing against OUR right of free speech? NEITHER of us has called for censorship; we have expressed our opinion that the cartoonists knew what they were doing, so we think it was wrong of them to do it. What's wrong with that? Whatever words Byte chose to use, isn't it her right to use them? It's like you want to censor US, our opinions, when we've called for no censorship.

I remember I mentioned self-censorship, but that's a whole different thing. I believe a responsible person, when deciding the subject of their cartoon, in the face of both their building having been burned down before, the current riots and deaths of innocent people, would constrain themselves against adding to the fire, choose another topic or at the very least not choose to create such offensive and gross depictions of a religious figure. Violent protests aside, it would be wrong to do that to any religious figure, out of respect for the reader, if nothing else. They also know that the cartoonist who drew the cover last November has been under police protection since then. And yes, I do hold them accountable, AS WELL AS those they provoked. The only way to argue their intent was innocent is to accept that they are incredibly stupid. That is my OPINION. You're free to disagree, but you should stop using Byte and I to make some argument that we are calling for censorship.

They also painted a huge target right over France, by the way, which was forced to close embassies and schools in about 20 countries on Friday, as a precaution, and boost security in some locations, including its embassies, with police vehicles parked outside the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo late Tuesday. My question was, given they knew there would be SOME negative result from their actions, including possibly violence to innocent people: Was it worth it?
Quote:

There is no cause and effect relationship there

I just do not get the determination to insist on this. The "magazine" (I use the term loosely) had previous experiences with what happened when they depicted Mohammed in a negative fashion. They knew depiction of Mohammed angered Muslims. They knew there were riots going on worldwide and people dying over a video depicting Mohammed in an ugly fashion. The only way you can say there was no cause and effect, again, is to believe they were so utterly stupid that previous experience and knowledge of current events were nonexistent. They knew what they were doing and they knew it would bring about SOME kind of ugly "effect". How can you be blind to that?

When it comes to listening, I think YOU'RE the one having trouble, Cav, as well as others. All Byte and I have been saying is that--IN OUR OPINIONS--the art is bad, the artists knew what they were doing and what the result (in some form or other) would be. Byte has gone on to say she thinks the actions of BOTH SIDES are stupid, repeatedly. I agree. In other words, we're blaming the protesters too, not calling for censorship, or saying the cartoonists are "victims of violence", as you stated.

Well thank gawd, at least Agent gets some of it:
Quote:

I do, however, think "taunting" is not inappropriate to use because it IS an intentional provocation (UNLIKE dressing in a certain way, which is first and foremost personal decoration).

Bingo.

We are entitled to our opinions that the cartoonists knew exactly what they were doing, knew there would be some kind of violent reaction, and deliberately provoked that reaction. You can disagree. That's freedom of speech.

I saw nothing "outrageous" in what Byte wrote; her dislike of the art and the artists was strongly stated; her belief that they are "trolls" because they deliberately provoked what turned out to be violence and death elsewhere is her opinion. I read through the entire thread; I think she's right to be frustrated (which turned to anger) and I think people here have misread and misunderstood some of what she said. That's MY opinion.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 24, 2012 2:27 PM

OONJERAH


Quote Niki:
"Nobody: The message that dissing Mohammed is gonna bring about riots and the deaths
of innocents. Why not just leave him alone and wait for them to (hopefully) grow up
and get a sense of perspective? What exactly is gained by stuff like this French cartoon,
except a bloated sense of importance by the guy who published it? It doesn't help anyone,
it's not important enough to be worth all the death and destruction. Nobody in a western
country is going to censor it, but anyone with half a brain would self-censor in the name
of avoiding death and chaos to others."

Ah shit, I don't wanna debate in here!

I disagree, Niki.

HKC, thank you for your clear & unwavering posts about the principles here & who's doin'
what to whom. I agree completely.

It's not just the Muslims. Forever, there have been people willing to torture and kill
others over insults, real or perceived, large or small.

In countries that I consider civilized, this is against the law. Free thought and free
speech are essential. Good taste is not required. In fact, I find myself somewhat in
agreement with the artist & publisher of the offending cartoon. It says to me, "Some
people are willing to commit murder over this sort of thing. Beware of them and do
not mistake them for responsible adults."

Oonj: Keep it simple, and don't confuse ourselves.

Oonj: If I put principles before personalities, I can stick to the point instead of always
trying to make every conversation about Me.


=========================
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. ~Charles R Swindoll

If I have to react to others all the time, then they own my mind more than I do.
If I let others tell me how to feel, I lose my ability to choose happiness.
If I let others tell me who I am, I've vacated self-definition.
Finally, I realized how foolish I was to give others such power over me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 24, 2012 7:05 PM

HKCAVALIER


Aw, this is depressing, folks. Thank you, Oonjerah, for your kind words of understanding. I was hoping that a good several people here were more savvy about violence than this.

Hey Niki, some comments on your latest post (btw, did you read my last post, the one addressed to AgentRouka? It speaks to a lot of your arguments here):

Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
...from her first post, Byte stated:
Quote:

On the other hand, people who deliberately just rile Muslims up are basically the IRL equivalent of trolls, only their provocations tend to kill more people.

So I'm going to suggest maybe both sides are really dumb.


And from her first post, Byte says, right there, that the cartoonists' "provocations...kill...people." I don't know how much clearer she could be that the cartoonists share blame for the violence.

Cartoonists should not be threatened, should not be attacked--end of story. No one should be threatened or attacked because of what a cartoonist draws. Ever. That goes for all types of cartoons. There are not certain cartoons that deserve threats even a teensy bit more than other cartoons. Cartoonists do not deserve death threats. Period.

Quote:

First of all, the cartoonists have been victims of NO violence whatsoever. You can find it 'unjust' if you want to, but the fact is the cartoonist DID intend to provoke. They say it was satire, but they've been there before; their offices were attacked and burned last November for a much milder satire of Mohammed. Then yes, they were victims. Not this time. This time they've suffered nothing, others have. In the words of another, "To repeat the same stupidity, the same idiocy and the same calumnies, the same ignominy seems to be nearly psychotic action."

This is just awful, Niki. You say yourself that the newspaper's offices were attacked and burned already for far more mild satire. So, how is the new cartoon not an act of defiance? How is it not an act of courage? Because you think it's disgusting??? That's ONLY your opinion! I don't think they're disgusting in the least. And I can see that they serve a much larger purpose, PARTICULARLY in light of recent violence against the paper. How can you not see the legitimacy your words grant to the violence when you say the cartoonists should have censored themselves?

And I'm sorry, but if you live under threat of violence, you are a victim of violence. The abuser wants things the way he wants them or else. The house ruled by such a tyrant is no less violent because the inhabitants have LEARNED to stay in line. Knuckling under to tyranny has terrible consequences for the folk who engage in that sort of self-violation. And even if you "play by the rules," tyranny will lash out periodically, just as a "reminder." And THAT is why there's no cause and effect between cartoonists and violent reprisals.

Quote:

Maybe these people are truly stupid. But anyone who'd had their offices attacked, and saw the violence that stupid video created, would have to be TRULY stupid not to know what the outcome of their provocation would be.
Quote:

How is this ANY different from telling young women to "not dress like whores" so as to avoid rape?

Let's get rid of that one right now. In the first place, I didn't "tell" anyone to do anything.


Nonsense, Niki. You're "telling" the cartoonists, retroactively of course, to self-censor. You're telling us that that's what they shoulda done. Y'know, to save all those lives they've endangered by defying madmen.

Quote:

I expressed my opinion, so did Byte. Beyond that, the comparison to rape is totally irrelevant:
Quote:

"Gee, that was kinda stupid?" Like Treyvon Martin wearing a hoodie stupid or rape victim dressing slutty stupid?
A woman running around in sexy clothes does so for reasons which have nothing to do with the possibility of being raped.


And a cartoonist draws a cartoon for reasons which have nothing to do with hoping to be bombed.

Y'know, one day, if cartoonists continue to demonstrate the courage to defy the edicts of madmen, a cartoonist will draw an unflattering picture of Mohammed and exactly nothing will happen. That day, reason will prevail over madness and it will be a dead issue. Every time a cartoonist censors himself intending to "save lives" he merely prolongs the culture of fear that dominates a lot more than fringy French newspapers. I am astonished at your regressive thinking on this issue.

Quote:

Treyvon Martin wore a hoodie because it fit the weather. A cartoonist who does what they did in the face of uprisings over an anti-Islamist video does so with full knowledge of what may transpire; in fact, they DO it to provoke a response. There's a gigantic difference between someone choosing what they'll wear and someone deliberately doing something they KNOW could incite violence.

Niki, a whole bunch of people in this country believe dressing the way Treyvon Martin dressed IS an incitement to violence. A lot of black parents instruct their children to dress "safely" and a lot of their children don't listen. Not because they're stupid, but because, like every other human being on the planet, they want to live their lives according to their likes, not the dictates of others.

Quote:

What nobody here seems to be grasping is that Byte (and I, to an extent) are decrying what these idiots did, and stating that we think the cartoons were in extremely bad taste. Why exactly do we not have the right to condemn something we see as bad, then be accused of wanting to censor them? Isn't that not arguing against OUR right of free speech? NEITHER of us has called for censorship; we have expressed our opinion that the cartoonists knew what they were doing, so we think it was wrong of them to do it. What's wrong with that? Whatever words Byte chose to use, isn't it her right to use them? It's like you want to censor US, our opinions, when we've called for no censorship.

Storymark mentioned "censorship" but as far as I can tell, no one else has. I spoke of Byte's condemnation. And what I meant by condemnation is what you reiterate here. So, what's wrong with that, you ask? I think it's totally immoral, that's all. And I don't think you're really an immoral person, Niki. So, I was hopin' to clue you in to the really serious wrong of what you were saying, so you might change the way you think about this. I despair of doing so at this point, but I'm making one last attempt to clarify what I've been saying all along here.

Quote:

I remember I mentioned self-censorship, but that's a whole different thing. I believe a responsible person, when deciding the subject of their cartoon, in the face of both their building having been burned down before, the current riots and deaths of innocent people, would constrain themselves against adding to the fire, choose another topic or at the very least not choose to create such offensive and gross depictions of a religious figure. Violent protests aside, it would be wrong to do that to any religious figure, out of respect for the reader, if nothing else.

This is so spooky. Look, Niki, it's not just the cartoonist that made the decision to run the cartoon. A whole bunch of people at that paper, a whole bunch of 'em who were very well aware of the dangers of running it gave the go ahead. A concensus of legitimate adult human beings agreed to it. It's a protest and a defiance of the lawless bastards that would even think of harming another human being over a drawing. If artists wait around for tyranny to mellow out before they publish art in protest of that tyranny, tyranny wouldn't go away until it felt like it. And tyranny never feels like it, Niki.

It's the madmen who define cartoons as dangerous and leading to violent reprisal, just as it's madmen that say a woman showing her ankles in public is a dangerous incitement of male lust. Rapacious lust is properly the rapist's problem, just as the madman's desire to murder artists for their poor taste is the problem of the madman.

Quote:

They also painted a huge target right over France, by the way, which was forced to close embassies and schools in about 20 countries on Friday, as a precaution, and boost security in some locations, including its embassies, with police vehicles parked outside the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo late Tuesday. My question was, given they knew there would be SOME negative result from their actions, including possibly violence to innocent people: Was it worth it?

And the editors of that paper said, yes, it is worth it.


Quote:

Quote:

There is no cause and effect relationship there

I just do not get the determination to insist on this. The "magazine" (I use the term loosely) had previous experiences with what happened when they depicted Mohammed in a negative fashion. They knew depiction of Mohammed angered Muslims. They knew there were riots going on worldwide and people dying over a video depicting Mohammed in an ugly fashion. The only way you can say there was no cause and effect, again, is to believe they were so utterly stupid that previous experience and knowledge of current events were nonexistent. They knew what they were doing and they knew it would bring about SOME kind of ugly "effect". How can you be blind to that?


Niki. Say a child lives in a house with an abusive father. The kid knows all kinds of things he does are likely to get him beaten. Are you really advocating that the child live according to his violent father's whims just because the father's abuse is all but inevitable? Are you gonna sit here and tell me the kid caused his father's beatings by breaking the old man's crazy rules? You're really gonna fault the child for telling his father one day to go fuck himself because he used coarse language to do it? And if the father then murders his own son, are you gonna say, "Well, that's one less stupid kid in the world?"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:06 AM

BYTEMITE


God. Dammit.

Quote:

And from her first post, Byte says, right there, that the cartoonists' "provocations...kill...people." I don't know how much clearer she could be that the cartoonists share blame for the violence.

Cartoonists should not be threatened, should not be attacked--end of story.



Okay then! HK! Show me how "cartoonists share the blame for the violence" is the same as "they should be attacked"!

Maaaaaaybe I think neither violent muslims OR cartoonists deserve to be attacked? Is it even possible???

ARRRRRRGH fuck this thread. I explained myself VERY CLEARLY then I left! No one else has a problem understanding what I've been saying. Then YOU have to have it out for me, keep this going about what I DIDN'T EVER SAY BUT YOU INSIST I MEAN and oh, you don't think poorly of me and yet you think I support terrible bullshit!

I just want to be judgmental and hate everyone including stupid riots and stupid artists and most especially myself, over there in the corner and not bother anyone, is that too much to ask? But noooooo.

I am going to go Dada-esque. It will be an eye-bleeding symphony of madness and the incomprehensible.

Enjoy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:13 AM

BYTEMITE




WHAT IS THIS



I DON'T EVEN KNOW



IT IS A MULE DEER WITH PAINT ON IT



IT IS MY MIND



SO MUCH FEELS

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:00 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Since none of you want to listen to me or understand what I'm actually saying...



Did you even consider the third option - they just don't AGREE?


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum


"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:08 AM

BYTEMITE


The problem is HK and I have serious miscommunication issues and once we get on one we can't see eye to eye no matter how much I explain myself.

She thinks I said things I didn't. And she's going to insist I said them for the rest of this thread.

Instead I propose scary clowns. This is a relatively reasonable course of action.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


We're in agreement on all but ONE single thing, Cav. I think it's horrendous; I think the protesters are 99.9999% to blame for what they did; I think everyone has the right to say/write whatever they want; I think censorship is wrong. The only single thing we disagree with is that the cartoonists knew they were fanning the fires and what they did would make matters worse, which to me makes them bear the other 1%. That is our only point of contention.

I get all the things you said, and disagree that I am "telling" anyone what to do; I repeat: I'm expressing my own opinions, nothing more.

And trying, once again, to help people understand the societal differences which are largely the CAUSE of the riots:
Quote:

if you live under threat of violence, you are a victim of violence
That's one of the main points, in my opinion. Those in the Middle East countries we're discussing DO live under the threat of violence, every day, and ARE the victims of violence--and the mentality that comes with it. I spent too much time trying to explain myself and didn't make my point clearly enough; if we're ever going to deal with these people we NEED to understand the vast differences between their society--which has existed for thousands of years--and ours, which is relatively new and begun on a totally different concept than theirs. I've seen it; I've lived it; it's a world we can't possibly hope to understand unless we've been there. That's why, in my mind, it's too simplistic to say anyone should be able to say anything with no repercussions. The REALITY is different when it comes to societies like that.

It's wrong; it's 100% wrong; and it has to change. And it will. How long that will take, I don't know, but asking people to come ahead 2000 years in fifty, or even a hundred, and then blaming them because they don't "get" the way it SHOULD be is unrealistic. Ergo, doing things specifically to stir them up is wrong, too, in my opinion. It doesn't help; it doesn't change anything; it doesn't allow any kind of communication. And communication is what we NEED. The cartoons do exactly the opposite.

I agreed with someone back there that I think it would be GREAT if everyone everywhere wore t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed on them. They can't kill everyone, and mabye it would be a first step to bridging the GIGANTIC understanding gap between our two cultures. Even better would be t-shirts with Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., all portrayed in a positive fashion. They NEED to understand, they NEED to change...but we also need to understand, and not just condemn outright in our own, pardon my bluntness, blind insistence that everything should be our way: NOW, with no exceptions.

Am I making any sense? We can agree to disagree that the cartoonists knew what they were doing and did it to be deliberately provocative, and that if they did, they bear SOME responsibility for the results. Other than that, we are mostly in agreement. What I should have been shooting for, instead of repeating myself trying to be clear why I believe what I do, was shoot for a better understanding of the situation.

While I was in Afghanistan, there was the story of an American woman who went to a party in a strapless gown and took a ghadi (their form of taxi--a horse-drawn cart kind of thing). She arrived with a knife in her back. It was horrible, it was wrong, but it was what it was. For better or worse, until things change that's the reality.

And we're not that much better. However wrong it is--and it's terribly wrong--a Black man wearing a hoodie and a woman dressing sexually CAN result in terrible things. So for all our "civilization", we share some of the same attitudes. Violent protests happen here, too. There is little, if any, similarity to hundreds of people rioting, but for all our supposedly more civilized attitudes, the urge still exists in some. And we're a young country, with none of the enormous baggage they carry.

Things take time; meanwhile there are far better ways to bridge the communications gap than those cartoons, which further nothing.

I did my best, now I'm going to TRY to bail on this issue, 'cuz I don't think there's communication happening, just a set mentality and condemnation.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hah, in another thread, Shiny got it:
Quote:

You're right Niki- there are far too many who refuse to learn and accept other cultures & customs. Then base their hatred on hearsay, propaganda and boldface lies.

Granted you see people burning buildings and throwing stones but they've been lied to as well. Plus it's been reported that many within these countries want democracy. But we must understand that they have been used to their old ways for thousands of years.

That is true, by the way, for BOTH sides. Especially the first part. NOT saying their ways are good or right, but what Shiny said. How many Americans have even the slightest GRASP of other cultures--or would ever attempt to have--and would rather just hate?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:57 AM

BYTEMITE


There is no excuse for what the violent groups are doing or how they react. And there is no excuse for feeding the fire. Different cultures and slow changes or not, this is monumental stupidity - the situation is worse now, and both sides are less willing to listen and learn from each other.

And, once again, there is my usual caveat: pointing out the facts of the situation is not the same as insisting or expecting anyone to do anything different. Because apparently idiots exist and always will. Nor is it the same as suggesting that someone deserves harm done to them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:39 PM

OONJERAH



Here's what I think of Muslims. It is an opinion, based on common sense as I know it,
not on any personal knowledge of Middle Eastern people.

I think Muslims are intelligent, decent, sane, responsible people in the majority.

Many of them want separation of church and state.

They have suffered far more from the violence of madmen than we have. They are sick of it.

They know Jihad when practiced as terrorism is wrong and may bring about the destruction
of their culture.

They don't trust America; we've always cheated them & let the common people down.

The Muslim culture can change, more quickly than we expect, due to internal pressures.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:59 PM

BYTEMITE


My personal familiarity with some Middle Eastern people (who are also Muslims) would support that, Oonj. They aren't like these people going nuts out there and rioting.

I'd just like to see less hatred in the larger world, no matter where it's coming from. Maybe if there were less hatred, I'd be less angry myself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:13 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Maybe if there were less hatred, I'd be less angry myself.

Negative emotions breed like wildfire. If you can find safe emotional ground, the burns can become manageable....
If that makes any sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 1, 2012 5:31 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I just want to be judgmental and hate everyone including stupid riots and stupid artists and most especially myself, over there in the corner and not bother anyone, is that too much to ask?


Yeah Byte, it kinda is too much to ask. Particularly from anyone who cares about you. You want to be allowed to hate indiscriminately and then you cry fowl when somebody gets the idea that you wish others harm. Not philosophically, but viscerally. That's what hate is. You want someone to hurt.

Maybe you don't really mean it when you say you hate people. Maybe you just really, really, really, I mean REALLY, disapprove of their actions and wish real hard that they wouldn't do whatever; but you would NEVER wish them harm and would get absolutely ZERO satisfaction were things to go badly for them. But you can hardly call something like that "hate," can you?

After all, in other posts you are very much against "hate," the kind of hate I'm talking about. And then you really gum up the works and confuse one and all when you tell us that you hate yourself, 'cause that doesn't make any kind of sense. No one has to care about you particularly, as an individual, to be concerned when you, a fellow human being, hate yourself. There's no logic in an animal wishing itself harm. Combine this basic human decency, of which we have an abundance in this group, with the camaraderie and goodwill bestowed on you by this community all the time and we all are gonna have a problem with the idea of you harming yourself. Whether it's over there in a corner, or right here in our faces.

I was trying to say that what you're saying in this thread, and what I know you to believe are in serious conflict. I hope eternally that I misunderstand you. I always begin there. I'm just trying to point out that what you say and what you mean to say as I understand it don't seem to be working together.

Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. You and I agree, I think, that torture is a terrible, terrible thing, totally without merit. You and I see the torture perpetrated by agents of our government and the torture performed by our government's political enemies as one and the same thing: torture. But a lot of folks in this country are busy telling us that our torture isn't really torture at all. Torture, when "we" do it is "enhanced interrogation;" we only do it against the "worst of the worst." But torture, when "they" do it is a war crime, the most unspeakable evil. I think you and I agree that that is really hypocritical, and whether they intend to or not, these patriotic American torture apologists are justifying torture.

So here you are with your hate. You just wanna hate. And then a few posts down, you decry hatred in your enemies. Does this make you a bad person? No. But it's a problem. A problem you will have as long as you stand by your "right" to hate. It dilutes the living hell out of your arguments against hate. You, despite your best intentions, have been a hate apologist in this thread.

And just 'cause it keeps coming up: people here do care about you. I care about you. Of course, I do. Why in the WORLD would I converse with you here if I didn't care about you? There are and have been a very few people on this board whom I believe to be...well, not such good folk. "Malign" comes readily to mind. I don't talk to those folks. Haven't for years. Life is way too short for me to talk to nasty, heartless people over the internet. I'm perfectly willing to share this cyberspace with you, to chat with you and argue with you and, as a friend, call you on your shit when such, I believe, shows up in these discussions. That's all. I'm a big believer in friends speaking difficult truths to each other. In my experience it makes us better friends.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 1, 2012 5:33 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Maybe if there were less hatred, I'd be less angry myself.

Negative emotions breed like wildfire. If you can find safe emotional ground, the burns can become manageable....
If that makes any sense.




You can hold onto your anger if you wish, and forge it into a weapon. Anger, like light, is an energy, and it can be focused like a laser.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 1, 2012 6:12 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
We're in agreement on all but ONE single thing, Cav. I think it's horrendous; I think the protesters are 99.9999% to blame for what they did; I think everyone has the right to say/write whatever they want; I think censorship is wrong. The only single thing we disagree with is that the cartoonists knew they were fanning the fires and what they did would make matters worse, which to me makes them bear the other 1%. That is our only point of contention.

I get all the things you said, and disagree that I am "telling" anyone what to do; I repeat: I'm expressing my own opinions, nothing more.

And trying, once again, to help people understand the societal differences which are largely the CAUSE of the riots:
Quote:

if you live under threat of violence, you are a victim of violence
That's one of the main points, in my opinion. Those in the Middle East countries we're discussing DO live under the threat of violence, every day, and ARE the victims of violence--and the mentality that comes with it. I spent too much time trying to explain myself and didn't make my point clearly enough; if we're ever going to deal with these people we NEED to understand the vast differences between their society--which has existed for thousands of years--and ours, which is relatively new and begun on a totally different concept than theirs. I've seen it; I've lived it; it's a world we can't possibly hope to understand unless we've been there. That's why, in my mind, it's too simplistic to say anyone should be able to say anything with no repercussions. The REALITY is different when it comes to societies like that.

It's wrong; it's 100% wrong; and it has to change. And it will. How long that will take, I don't know, but asking people to come ahead 2000 years in fifty, or even a hundred, and then blaming them because they don't "get" the way it SHOULD be is unrealistic. Ergo, doing things specifically to stir them up is wrong, too, in my opinion. It doesn't help; it doesn't change anything; it doesn't allow any kind of communication. And communication is what we NEED. The cartoons do exactly the opposite.

I agreed with someone back there that I think it would be GREAT if everyone everywhere wore t-shirts with pictures of Mohammed on them. They can't kill everyone, and mabye it would be a first step to bridging the GIGANTIC understanding gap between our two cultures. Even better would be t-shirts with Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., all portrayed in a positive fashion. They NEED to understand, they NEED to change...but we also need to understand, and not just condemn outright in our own, pardon my bluntness, blind insistence that everything should be our way: NOW, with no exceptions.

Am I making any sense? We can agree to disagree that the cartoonists knew what they were doing and did it to be deliberately provocative, and that if they did, they bear SOME responsibility for the results. Other than that, we are mostly in agreement. What I should have been shooting for, instead of repeating myself trying to be clear why I believe what I do, was shoot for a better understanding of the situation.

While I was in Afghanistan, there was the story of an American woman who went to a party in a strapless gown and took a ghadi (their form of taxi--a horse-drawn cart kind of thing). She arrived with a knife in her back. It was horrible, it was wrong, but it was what it was. For better or worse, until things change that's the reality.

And we're not that much better. However wrong it is--and it's terribly wrong--a Black man wearing a hoodie and a woman dressing sexually CAN result in terrible things. So for all our "civilization", we share some of the same attitudes. Violent protests happen here, too. There is little, if any, similarity to hundreds of people rioting, but for all our supposedly more civilized attitudes, the urge still exists in some. And we're a young country, with none of the enormous baggage they carry.

Things take time; meanwhile there are far better ways to bridge the communications gap than those cartoons, which further nothing.

I did my best, now I'm going to TRY to bail on this issue, 'cuz I don't think there's communication happening, just a set mentality and condemnation.



Niki,

Thank you so much for this post. Thank you for taking the time to make your context clear; taking the time to distinguish your context from the de facto context of this thread. In this context, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I can agree with you here because you've destiguished your context from the context of violence.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:28 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

have been a hate apologist in this thread.


You know what? Fine. I am. I take back what I said about wishing there were less hate. I want to revel in it. Hate is awesome. What I object to is stupidity, not hate.

Quote:

Maybe you don't really mean it when you say you hate people. Maybe you just really, really, really, I mean REALLY, disapprove of their actions and wish real hard that they wouldn't do whatever; but you would NEVER wish them harm and would get absolutely ZERO satisfaction were things to go badly for them. But you can hardly call something like that "hate," can you?


Yep. I sure can. It's pure black hearted "YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB I CAN'T STAND YOU ARRRGH" mixed with an unhealthy dose of resentment and misplaced victimization.

It's more like I don't even want anything to DO with them or anyone, because I hate everything so much. I have officially given up on everything, this world is for shit.

Don't even question my loathing. It is like sludge through my veins and the only thing keeping me alive. Beyond toxic. I live only for the moment I can express that spite in a spectacular enough manner, and then die. Like a vulgar accusation painted on society's stupid face with my demise.

In any case, you want to think these artists are admirable and rational actors? I guess it doesn't really matter. This world's gonna tear itself apart no matter who we decide to blame. You want to believe that I'm awful? I guess I am. But don't go acting all concerned about my well being and lecturing me when you're otherwise talking at me like I'm pond scum. Because I ain't listening anymore, and you got better things to do with your time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:37 PM

OONJERAH



The title of this thread is "French cartoon sparks protests."
The title of the post above this could be called "Byte's Rant."
I get it that Byte needs to express herself. She needs to be heard.

Could we have a thread dedicated to Byte, her opinions and feelings?
Working title, "YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB I CAN'T STAND YOU ARRRGH" !!

Just a passing thought from Dumb Oonj. -:)


=========================
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. ~Charles R Swindoll

If I have to react to others all the time, then they own my mind more than I do.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:45 PM

BYTEMITE


Oh, don't worry, I saw your previous oh so helpful comment about "Oonj: If I put principles before personalities, I can stick to the point instead of always trying to make every conversation about Me."

I just chose not to address it because maybe every now and then I like to actually try to discuss an issue instead of constantly having to defend myself against malicious insinuations. :)

Never does work out that way! So hey, what are you doing here, are you discussing the topic about Mohammed and the artists? I only see one post from you about it, and it was a half post, whereas you have 1 and 1/2 posts about how much of a blowhard I am.

Maybe we can make a thread about Oonjerah's antagonistic relationship with Byte. I'd even promise not to post in it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:12 PM

OONJERAH



Dumb Oonj responds to Angry Byte.

My 9/24 post, "Ah shit, I don't wanna debate in here!" is on topic.
My 9/25 post, "Here's what I think of Muslims" is on topic.
My 10/2 post, is about Bytemite.
Byte, I gather you don't like what I said there.

BUT -- I will not address your feelings directly in this thread again.
That would be Off Topic.

I am suggesting we could have a thread about your feelings.
This thread can be about the French cartoon and reactions to that.

"posts about how much of a blowhard I am."
Don't put words in my mouth. I think of you as severely maladapted, but not a blowhard.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:41 PM

BYTEMITE


Listen. I wasn't the person who made this thread about me. People ASKED me to elaborate on, and defend my opinion on this matter.

When someone necroposts a thread that's been a week since anyone posted in it just to insult me and make more allegations about stuff I've already cleared up, then maybe I'm not actually the aggressor here. I'm allowed to defend myself, and I'm allowed to get a little bit testy.

Win one for objectivity. If you want to debate my opinion on an issue, you address me, not Niki, and say what point I made you take issue with. Including if you just think I'm a self centered brat and don't really want to get into the argument. But whatever you do, be up front about it and OWN it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:15 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The source of violence and abuse is the abuser. Never the victim. Never. As soon as murder is on the table, the victim is in no position to make things worse. The victim in no way brought murder into the conversation. That's all on the killer. You're making the worst kind of false equivalence when you compare tasteless cartoonists and homocidal maniacs who kill over "blasphemy." You and the killers are both dehumanizing the cartoonist if you're gonna sit there and tell me these drawings are in any way the cause of riots and murder.




I pretty much agree with your philosophy here, although I suspect this may be one of those posts where I end up arguing against myself.

You are right in that too many people use someone else's behaviour or actions as an excuse for their own behaviour or actions.

If you believe in free will, then we are all responsible for our behaviour 100%.

Trouble is, do I believe in complete free will? There are fairly significant arguments against it, that so much of our decision making is dependant upon a whole load of things outside of our control, ie how our brain functions, our learned belief system, our temperament, our genes. When you look at all those variables, how much free will do we actually, truly exercise is quite scary. It's why prisons are full or people whose cognitive functions have been impaired by mental health, drug and alcohol use, physical and emotional abuse and trauma.

Strangely then, I believe we are still responsible for our actions, mainly because I cannot see what the alternative is, other than culling large parts of the population or stopping them for breeding. Not really part of my value system.

I believe that both sides had choices regarding their actions, and both bear the responsibility of the results. The cartoonist draws a cartoon full knowing the impact, and in fact hoping for that impact in order to draw attention to the intolerance of fundamentalist Muslims. And Muslims similarily decide on their course of action, to protest violently, peacefully or ignore the cartoon. Neither is responsible for the actions of the other, but both are responsible for their own actions. I think....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:41 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Magons,

Whether or not, or to what degree our individual will is free at any given moment still doesn't imply that one person's violent actions are caused by the non-violent behavior of another person. I think my argument is primarily moral rather than causal, however. I believe that wherever there are functioning fists and feet violence is always an option, but that the urge to violence can always be channeled into some other non-violent form. I believe that the knowledge of what violence is is innate (infants, of course, have a pretty hazy understanding of all things 3-dimentional, so I don't mean we're born with an understanding of what violence is, but once we are developmentally ready to comprehend it, we all of us know perfectly well what it is). True, the habits and norms of one's life can make violent acting out more likely or less, but that's still all on the individual in terms of giving into an urge toward violence, or choosing to forbear.

Now, of course, violence as a direct reaction to violence is sometimes purely instinctual and so the moral accountability for the violence must be laid at the feet of the instigator of the violence. And certainly, when a person is systematically violated again and again over a considerable length of time the psyche can be twisted and personal responsibility is correspondingly mitigated. But when we commit an act of violence in an otherwise non-violent social context, we are the authors of that violence.

Of course, there is a long history in dominator culture of this basic understanding of the nature of violence being intentionally perverted and occulted. In dominator culture the harm visited on anyone by the dominator is understood to have been "caused" by the victim. After all, the dominator is merely acting according to his nature: to dominate. It's an extraordinary and very subversive distortion of reality. But all my training and my experience tells me that it is a distortion and a bringer of great suffering to all who live under its sway.

The rioters, such as they are, have embraced dominator culture. In their culture there are non-violent things which they feel a moral requirement to violate. A cartoon defames the Prophet? Something must be done! An example made! The blasphemers threated or attacked! But these actions are the children of the dominator culture internalized by the individuals committing the violence, NOT the cartoonists.

Even if the cartoonists WANT a violent reaction, they are helpless to make that happen if the rioters are not willing. The cartoonists truly have no power to make the violence happen and therefore cannot be held responsible. They are wholly dependant on the will of others to bring about any violence. And they have no power to shape or direct that violence once it occurs. The rioters and/or assassins, on the other hand, have every opportunity to shape and direct the violence as they see fit.

It's a tragic reflection on the state of the rioters psyches and our own if we imagine that the rioters are so utterly without conscious agency that their violence was caused by a cartoonist drawing a single cartoon in a magazine. The cartoonist who imagines he was the architect of the rioters' violence is like the king in The Little Prince who claims to order the sun to rise every morning. That is, they're both mistaken about the nature of causality and imagine they have agency where they in fact have none.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Whether or not, or to what degree our individual will is free at any given moment still doesn't imply that one person's violent actions are caused by the non-violent behavior of another person.


agreed
Quote:

I think my argument is primarily moral rather than causal, however. I believe that wherever there are functioning fists and feet violence is always an option, but that the urge to violence can always be channeled into some other non-violent form. I believe that the knowledge of what violence is is innate (infants, of course, have a pretty hazy understanding of all things 3-dimentional, so I don't mean we're born with an understanding of what violence is, but once we are developmentally ready to comprehend it, we all of us know perfectly well what it is). True, the habits and norms of one's life can make violent acting out more likely or less, but that's still all on the individual in terms of giving into an urge toward violence, or choosing to forbear.

Yeasss... I think I pretty much agree, with the qualifier that some people have less capacity to choose other options than other people. I think the choice is still in there somewhere, but that some brains are more trained to resort to violence than others. I don't actually think this is the case with the rioters, and agree with your paragraph below.

Quote:

Now, of course, violence as a direct reaction to violence is sometimes purely instinctual and so the moral accountability for the violence must be laid at the feet of the instigator of the violence. And certainly, when a person is systematically violated again and again over a considerable length of time the psyche can be twisted and personal responsibility is correspondingly mitigated. But when we commit an act of violence in an otherwise non-violent social context, we are the authors of that violence.


Quote:

Of course, there is a long history in dominator culture of this basic understanding of the nature of violence being intentionally perverted and occulted. In dominator culture the harm visited on anyone by the dominator is understood to have been "caused" by the victim. After all, the dominator is merely acting according to his nature: to dominate. It's an extraordinary and very subversive distortion of reality. But all my training and my experience tells me that it is a distortion and a bringer of great suffering to all who live under its sway.

The rioters, such as they are, have embraced dominator culture. In their culture there are non-violent things which they feel a moral requirement to violate. A cartoon defames the Prophet? Something must be done! An example made! The blasphemers threated or attacked! But these actions are the children of the dominator culture internalized by the individuals committing the violence, NOT the cartoonists.



I've never heard the phrase 'dominator culture; but what you are saying makes sense to me. I think that we live in a culture dominated (sic) by such thinking - or at least it is prevalent.

Quote:

Even if the cartoonists WANT a violent reaction, they are helpless to make that happen if the rioters are not willing. The cartoonists truly have no power to make the violence happen and therefore cannot be held responsible. They are wholly dependant on the will of others to bring about any violence. And they have no power to shape or direct that violence once it occurs. The rioters and/or assassins, on the other hand, have every opportunity to shape and direct the violence as they see fit.

It's a tragic reflection on the state of the rioters psyches and our own if we imagine that the rioters are so utterly without conscious agency that their violence was caused by a cartoonist drawing a single cartoon in a magazine. The cartoonist who imagines he was the architect of the rioters' violence is like the king in The Little Prince who claims to order the sun to rise every morning. That is, they're both mistaken about the nature of causality and imagine they have agency where they in fact have none.



Ha, ha. Nicely put. I'd say (again) that the cartoonists did not cause the rioters to behave the way they did, but they certainly influenced the outcome. They may be foolish or bravely making their own protest. Both views have merit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:22 AM

BYTEMITE


And we're back to how this compares to blaming the rape victim.

Let's break this down.

The argument (simplified) that has so INFLAMED me is this: "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse. If I blame the artists for having a role in increased middle eastern violence, it is like saying that rape victims asked for it."

Up to now I have refused to address this, not because I can't refute it, but because it is, simply, a very flawed argument. Before I dismissed this the first time around I called it a red herring, an ad hominem, and a false analogy. The false analogy is the most logically egregious part of this (and related to the red-herring), so I'll address that.

The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.

First of all. While after some consideration I'm willing to concede that some of the artists are victims or have been in the past, I also say that we have to evaluate each artist/Muslim incident on a case by case - sometimes nothing happens to the artists.

Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person. However, when the artists made these cartoons, and when the guy overdubbed his movie to be anti-Islam, this was done with an expressed purpose: to show that some Muslims are violent.

Mission accomplished.

But this second part defeats the argument - neither the rape victim nor the abused child intends to be attacked. When Trevon Martin walks down the street in a hoodie, ideally he should not have reason to suppose he might be shot by George Zimmerman.

In this case, the artists wanted more attacks, and possibly even attacks on themselves, to make a point. You call it courageous - perhaps it is, but it is also misguided. And because of that we can't argue that the artists had no role in the outcome of these events. They may be victims, depending on how personally the backlash affected them, but they certainly aren't innocent in this, and wanted a specific negative outcome.

It's a rather manipulative tactic, very close to a frame up or the wounded gazelle gambit, and if you see other people doing it in other situations, if I were you, I'd seriously question their likeability or motives. Just because someone else is guilty of something doesn't mean that anything that gets them in trouble for it is entirely moral or honest. While it's true that this violence wouldn't have happened if the protestors weren't willing, it's also true true that they're willing because of violence the west has done to them. In this view, these cartoons are just the proverbial last straw, the spark to the tinder fire, they're an escalation in an already on-going and volatile conflict, as opposed to a single self-contained instance where we can immediately spot the aggressors.

In short this argument simply does not WORK. It does not inspire me to re-examine some double standard I have or some such, rather it insinuates that, in your words, believing as I do is immoral, possibly cowardly, pro-rapist, pro-abuse, etc., and that I do not understand the implications of fear, anger, and/or violence. If I have seemed unreasonable, it is because of this. As for blaming the victim. While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play.

I do hold these artists somewhat accountable for what has happened, and I think their choices reflect poorly on their character. I do not like them, I think they're foolish, and reactionary and inflammatory, and they have questionable taste (rather similar to the violent groups they have set themselves against). And again, this still has no bearing on what I think anyone "deserves," and it also doesn't suggest that I think they should stop their art or self-censor. It only affects my opinion on them.

In any case, it's actually pretty offensive to keep implying pro-rape anything. But of course, this isn't an argument about how little respect you're showing me, so I imagine you'll just keep doing it. But I thought I'd try to at least explain why logically I object to the reasoning here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 4:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

I believe that both sides had choices regarding their actions, and both bear the responsibility of the results. The cartoonist draws a cartoon full knowing the impact, and in fact hoping for that impact in order to draw attention to the intolerance of fundamentalist Muslims. And Muslims similarily decide on their course of action, to protest violently, peacefully or ignore the cartoon. Neither is responsible for the actions of the other, but both are responsible for their own actions. I think....

....some people have less capacity to choose other options than other people. I think the choice is still in there somewhere, but that some brains are more trained to resort to violence than others.

Nailed it. And yes, some brains ARE more trained to resort to violence than others...those who live in a violent country ruled by Mullahs who demand that violence being a perfect example.
Quote:

It's a tragic reflection on the state of the rioters psyches and our own if we imagine that the rioters are so utterly without conscious agency that their violence was caused by a cartoonist drawing a single cartoon in a magazine.
That does not take into account a religion which has been perverted into believing any depiction of the prophet--whatsoever--is blasphemy. The rulers of that religion...quite familiar with inciting violence and with very long-standing knowledge that what they say will be obeyed by some without question...in many ways do the thinking for their followers. Not many, in reality; most do not obey the call for violence, but some always do.

Sort of like our anti-abortionists, who believe they are acting in defense of THEIR religion (as they view it). We live in about as different a culture as is possible and put much weight on individual decisions and individual responsibility, yet those people act irresponsibly violent. Put in a culture such as Afghanistan or those like them, and you have multiple people acting out, not just one or two.

I should give up; I already know it's impossible for us in the states to grasp any number of things: that violence is a daily way of life over there; that religion rules to an extent of which we cannot conceive; that there are those who know exactly how to manipulate to achieve the outcome they want. This debate keeps putting things in context WE can understand, so an expectation of understanding such a different culture is probably a waste of time.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

that violence is a daily way of life over there; that religion rules to an extent of which we cannot conceive; that there are those who know exactly how to manipulate to achieve the outcome they want.


I agree with this. I do not think this excuses this, and I know that many Muslims don't respond to the call of violence and that there was actually outcry in these nations against the violent protests. The violent protestors are very clearly bad actors.

But I can't help but see people seeming to deliberately try to stir them up as bad actors as well - to me it seems almost like bullying someone with an attitude problem, and mocking them when they predictably act out, or taking advantage of what is a very bad situation for the people of the middle east for profit and amusement.

Muslims in the middle east are so poor and voiceless in general that I can't really see them as being the abusive power in their relationship to western countries and citizens. I see it the over way around - we're abusing them, and they have limited options how they can make a statement back.

I suppose, as I said to HK, that perhaps it doesn't matter who we blame. But I do wish people wouldn't tar me as some kind of pro-victimization monster just because I have a different perspective.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And we're back to how this compares to blaming the rape victim.

Let's break this down.

The argument (simplified) that has so INFLAMED me is this: "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse. If I blame the artists for having a role in increased middle eastern violence, it is like saying that rape victims asked for it."

Up to now I have refused to address this, not because I can't refute it, but because it is, simply, a very flawed argument. Before I dismissed this the first time around I called it a red herring, an ad hominem, and a false analogy. The false analogy is the most logically egregious part of this (and related to the red-herring), so I'll address that.

The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.

First of all. While after some consideration I'm willing to concede that some of the artists are victims or have been in the past, I also say that we have to evaluate each artist/Muslim incident on a case by case - sometimes nothing happens to the artists.

Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person. However, when the artists made these cartoons, and when the guy overdubbed his movie to be anti-Islam, this was done with an expressed purpose: to show that some Muslims are violent.

Mission accomplished.

But this second part defeats the argument - neither the rape victim nor the abused child intends to be attacked. When Trevon Martin walks down the street in a hoodie, ideally he should not have reason to suppose he might be shot by George Zimmerman.

In this case, the artists wanted more attacks, and possibly even attacks on themselves, to make a point. You call it courageous - perhaps it is, but it is also misguided. And because of that we can't argue that the artists had no role in the outcome of these events. They may be victims, depending on how personally the backlash affected them, but they certainly aren't innocent in this, and wanted a specific negative outcome.

It's a rather manipulative tactic, very close to a frame up or the wounded gazelle gambit, and if you see other people doing it in other situations, if I were you, I'd seriously question their likeability or motives. Just because someone else is guilty of something doesn't mean that anything that gets them in trouble for it is entirely moral or honest.

In short this argument simply does not WORK. It does not inspire me to re-examine some double standard I have or some such, rather it insinuates that, in your words, believing as I do is immoral, possibly cowardly, pro-rapist, pro-abuse, etc., and that I do not understand the implications of fear, anger, and/or violence. If I have seemed unreasonable, it is because of this. As for blaming the victim. While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play.

I do hold these artists somewhat accountable for what has happened, and I think their choices reflect poorly on their character. I do not like them, I think they're foolish, and reactionary and inflammatory, and they have questionable taste (rather similar to the violent groups they have set themselves against). And again, this still has no bearing on what I think anyone "deserves," and it also doesn't suggest that I think they should stop their art or self-censor. It only affects my opinion on them.

In any case, it's actually pretty offensive to keep implying pro-rape anything. But of course, this isn't an argument about how little respect you're showing me, so I imagine you'll just keep doing it. But I thought I'd try to at least explain why logically I object to the reasoning here.


Wow, just... wow.
Not only have you explained it in impeccable detail (although I feel we shouldn't have to) that also explains exactly my position on the matter.
I'd throw you a hug, but you'd kick me in the yarbles.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:31 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.


Hey Byte,

Some kids do act out self-destructively. Some do want to be attacked. It can be a bit of a power thing. Y'know, if the kid acts out with intent to get beat, at least he feels he caused it. It gives him the illusion of control in a life that is out of control. But it is an illusion, of course. He's not the cause of his father's violence. He has no control over his father. That's the painful truth of his situation which he's trying to avoid.

The system of violence his father put in place is the origin of his father's violence. The source, as far as the child is concerned, for the violence in his house. The father has all kinds of outside stressors and, sure, a history of his own abuse, but none of that makes the son responsible for the father's violence. And again, in any case, the child is dependent on his father's whim for the violence to take place. Some fathers see through this kind of manipulative ploy and will adjust their approach tactically so as not to be "made a monkey of." Again, the child has no power to determine whether the father beats him or only laughs at his attempt to "get a rise out of the old man."

It may not be wise to poke a bear, but people are not bears. As surely as it is the father's whim that determines who gets beat and when, it is the whim of the mob when and where there's going to be a riot.

And some women do indeed dress with intent to provoke and/or offend. Some women wear "bite me" or "slut" or "rape me" on their t-shirts or embroidered on their butts. Y'know, to make a statement about rape culture, for instance. But in these cases we recognize that no manner of rhetoric or printed t-shirt is justification for rape or any other kind of violence. Because it's rhetoric. Words. Free speech. And it's commentary. Commentary doesn't cause violence. The inability for the abusive person to process their feelings about that commentary may trigger a violent episode, but even that is not the cause of the violence.

As I said before, and this is the actual heart of my argument:

Quote:

No matter what the subject of the argument, when somebody threatens physical violence, the ostensible subject of the conversation has been lost. Now the subject is survival, and when well-intentioned folk then point at the victim and say, "reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse.


The responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his or her behavior in anticipation of the abuse. That's what I disagree with.

Quote:

Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person.
You completely de-claw this argument when you insert that "should." No mere act of free speech or offence SHOULD ever result in violence, but sometimes violence happens even to kids and women. Victims, who are not themselves behaving violently, are not responsible for the violence visited upon them. Or others. When a man holds a gun to someone else, and tells you that whether they live or die is dependent on your actions, he's wrong. He's making shit up. The violent system he just created, and which exists and is enforced according to his whim, is responsible for his violence. Period.

Quote:

However, when the artists made these cartoons, and when the guy overdubbed his movie to be anti-Islam, this was done with an expressed purpose: to show that some Muslims are violent.
And children and women also taunt their abusers to hurt them. Tina Turner in her autobiography tells of the time she finally handed Ike the gun and told him to shoot her. Miraculously, the man backed down. If he hadn't, it still wouldn't have been her fault if she got shot.

Quote:

But this second part defeats the argument - neither the rape victim nor the abused child intends to be attacked.
This is not categorically true.

Quote:

In this case, the artists wanted more attacks, and possibly even attacks on themselves, to make a point.
What the victim of violence wants or doesn't want is trumped by the will of his or her attacker. The instigator of force is responsible for the consequences of his force, right?

Quote:

You call it courageous - perhaps it is, but it is also misguided. And because of that we can't argue that the artists had no role in the outcome of these events. They may be victims, depending on how personally the backlash affected them, but they certainly aren't innocent in this, and wanted a specific negative outcome.

Again, one's desire for a thing doesn't cause that thing to happen. Murder a suicidal person and you're still a murderer. And just because the victim and the abuser can agree that the victim is to blame, doesn't make it true.

Quote:

While it's true that this violence wouldn't have happened if the protestors weren't willing, it's also true true that they're willing because of violence the west has done to them. In this view, these cartoons are just the proverbial last straw, the spark to the tinder fire, they're an escalation in an already on-going and volatile conflict, as opposed to a single self-contained instance where we can immediately spot the aggressors.

This here is my point. The cartoonists are not to blame. If any civilian is killed as revenge for the violence our government has committed, that civilian is not to blame.

Quote:

While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play.

Totally specious. And moving the goal post. And making the cartoonist responsible for what western governments have done is guilt by association at best.

Quote:

In any case, it's actually pretty offensive to keep implying pro-rape anything.

Again and again, I've made it very clear in black and white that I do not think you are pro-rape. Rape was brought up as an ANALOGY, not an ANALYSIS.

Quote:

But of course, this isn't an argument about how little respect you're showing me, so I imagine you'll just keep doing it. But I thought I'd try to at least explain why logically I object to the reasoning here.

Byte,

You can believe what you want. But I'm showing you all the respect I would expect from anyone. I would expect people to tell me the truth as they see it. If what they see is a problem I seem to be having, I might disagree with them on that point, but there's nothing disrespectful about them letting me know. And I would not feel disrespected if I commanded them to stop talking about something and they didn't.

You've told me over and over again how much I despise you. Say what you like, I think it's pretty damn obvious that I don't despise you. We have magnificent, florid examples of how people go about despising one another on this board every day. What you and I are doing here? It ain't that.

I "talk at you like you're pond scum???" I'll grant that I am fully capable of being condescending, of thinking I know some stuff that you don't. I don't consider anything in my last post to you "lecturing," but fine, I'll take it: guilty as charged. I can be that way. But dayum, pond scum? What the hell? Seriously, where does anybody get off saying a thing like that? You can say whatever ya want, but that kinda blew me away. If you really thought that way, WHY would you continue this discussion with me?

I think you continue to address me, to argue with me, because we matter to each other. I know I've made you important to me. And I see that you have done likewise. We're important to each other--y'know, inasmuch as total strangers whose only contact is in these political discussions over the internet can be important to each other. I value your contribution to this board, and I know you value mine (most of the time). It might be nice if you could acknowledge that we are not enemies, but I don't need that from you. I will continue to value your contribution as it suits me to do so.

And finally, just 'cause it's a distraction and only creates unnecessary distance between us: I'm a heterosexual male. I haven't tried to keep that hidden, but somehow you've missed my more overt references to my gender. It happens. No big deal. Peace.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:21 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

If you really thought that way, WHY would you continue this discussion with me?


I truly don't know. Perhaps I wanted to defend myself against these allegations, but ultimately, I don't really care anymore what you think about me. Rather, now I'm arguing because I refuse to let you paint my name black to everyone else here.

Quote:

"reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse.


Again, you've yet to show me one place I've suggested they should curtail their actions. I've called them fools, and they may well continue to be fools - my calling them fools is my OPINION. Or perhaps my opinion is simply unwelcome, and I should not contribute it?

Quote:

"While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play."

Totally specious. And moving the goal post. And making the cartoonist responsible for what western governments have done is guilt by association at best.



"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

What evidence have I demanded you?

"An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association."

I did not, for example, claim that because all the artists have black hair, all people with black hair are assholes.

The artist's guilt is their own - in the very least, they're guilty of intolerance, which I do not defend. Their guilt, however, has been exacerbated by what western powers have done. I also do think that as citizens of western powers that pay taxes that pay for missiles and predator drones, that we can't wash our hands from what happens in the middle east simply because we feel ourselves removed from it. That is the closest I have come to guilt by association, but in this case, we are actually GUILTY.

A guy walks into a bad neighborhood waving around a lottery ticket. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. By your reasoning, it remains dumb up until the very moment the guy gets robbed, at which moment he is no longer a freethinking human who did something dumb, but is merely an unconscious object of our pity. No other opinions are permissible.

Quote:

No mere act of free speech or offence SHOULD ever result in violence


I've actually decked a person before because I took issue with something they said (and bitten someone else), and I have no problem with this.

So, while I don't think deadly violence or abuse or rape is ever "deserved," and this is STILL majorly not at all the subject here anyway, I don't have the same issues all of you have with other kinds of violence. I see it as yet another kind of free speech.

I am content to leave this conversation there. We have been going in circles for almost two pages, and are simply unwilling to acknowledge the counterpoints we're both making. We can not see eye to eye on this, as I've both long suspected AND said.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 7, 2012 4:11 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
A guy walks into a bad neighborhood waving around a lottery ticket. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. By your reasoning, it remains dumb up until the very moment the guy gets robbed, at which moment he is no longer a freethinking human who did something dumb, but is merely an unconscious object of our pity. No other opinions are permissible.


Ya having fun, Byte? You just pulled this example of stupid behavior out of the air and I'm to see a parallel with the VARIOUS forms of protest and free speech I discussed? That's just shitty, Byte. Was Tina Turner stupid to hand her husband a gun? Is that what you're saying? Besides, I don't care if you judge the cartoonists as stupid or brilliant or sexual deviants or whatever crosses your brain pan, none of that was my point--I'm interested in you and others blaming them for riots. That is all. I would object to accusations of stupidity only in as much as you believed it was their stupidity that caused riots. Stick to refuting my ACTUAL argument, please!

And this horseflop of "no other opinions are permissible" is all you and nothing to do with me. You're permitted, okay? Duh? Here, let me unlock those magical shackles I so clever slipped on your wrists when you weren't looking. How is it possible that I became your personal tyrant? Please explain to me my super powers that I can so oppress you.

I disagree with you is all. And I take you seriously, so I'm not just gonna ignore what you've said. I think your tolerance of violence in yourself is pretty alarming. I worry about you. You've threatened to kill yourself in these threads more than once. Was it rhetoric? Performance art? Confession? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's not cute or cool. And it's galling to see you do that and then turn around and claim SOMEONE ELSE made you the subject of this thread. And from what I understand of human behavior and psychology, your commitment to violence is bound to distort your thinking. And it surely causes you suffering. So yeah: alarming. I'm sorry you do that to yourself. I hope you're free of it one day.

I do not find your arguments, thus far, compelling--on the contrary, you keep demonstrating that your thinking on this matter is distorted in precisely the way I've been saying: by your commitment to violence against yourself and others. You somehow think your violence (something you think is no big deal) doesn't count as violence (something that you are very vocal in opposing). It's no big deal that you hit someone because of something they said. You said it yourself: violence is "yet another form of free speech." I'm sure you have a "rule of thumb" that tells you where your "protected violence" ends and real violent violence begins.

"Violence is a form of free speech!!!" That goes far beyond any allegation I've made against you in this thread.

This is precisely the problem with excusing your own violence: it leads to you perceiving the non-violent actions of others (me having a disagreement with you on the internet) as violence (me not permitting you to hold your own opinions), force and incitement so you can let 'er rip when you get the itch. That's not good news, Byte.

Last night, your post was perfectly civil. Though you did make the alarming statement that violence is free speech. I read it and thought, yeah, she's right, this discussion is talked out. I can let it go. At least she's stopped accusing me of hating on her. Win/win.

This morning I see that you felt the itch to lash out, to paint me as your oppressor, and edited your post accordingly. And just to be clear, I don't think you're pond scum over it, I think you're really wrong about violence. I think it hurts you. And I'm not your jailer. I'm just some guy on the internet wishing you some respite from the violent storms in your thinking.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:11 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Besides, I don't care if you judge the cartoonists as stupid or brilliant or sexual deviants or whatever crosses your brain pan, none of that was my point--


At this stage in the argument, we both pretty much only care about what our PERSONAL points are, not the argument of the other person. That's a good indication that this argument has long since run its course.

Quote:

And it's galling to see you do that and then turn around and claim SOMEONE ELSE made you the subject of this thread.


Then. What. Are you doing?

Quote:

You somehow think your violence (something you think is no big deal) doesn't count as violence (something that you are very vocal in opposing). It's no big deal that you hit someone because of something they said. You said it yourself: violence is "yet another form of free speech." I'm sure you have a "rule of thumb" that tells you where your "protected violence" ends and real violent violence begins.


Where did I talk about my "rule of thumb" and what I think is "protected violence" or what doesn't count as violence since you're supposedly quoting me?

Quote:

force and incitement so you can let 'er rip when you get the itch. That's not good news, Byte.


You have some very unusual views about violence, and also about my psychology. I think it benefits no one to attempt to explore my issues or speculate on how they manifest, or how I express myself, or what the source might be. It's also not relevant. Since yelling at Oonj, I have been making an effort to keep that contained, as a favour to you all. I'm well aware no one wants to hear any of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Byte, I highly recommend you give up. You'll never win, and you'll never come to any kind of understanding on this issue. People believe what they believe; at this point, I'd choose agreeing to disagreeing over further futile efforts to communicate. It just won't happen, and they'll just upset you further. JMHO.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:29 AM

CANTTAKESKY


I thought Byte's position was very clear. She just got frustrated because it seemed to her like people were misunderstanding her on purpose, ascribing free-speech objections to her that she never said.

I understand what HK is saying, about how violence has different roots than the stimuli that provoked it. But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.

Yes, people who commit violence are 100% responsible for their actions. But we can't pretend that words don't have power, and that sometimes, speech very much contributes to violence as well. Doesn't mean I support curtailing speech by law, but that we need to use some common sense in understanding words have power.




---
Folks don't like to have somebody around knowin' more than they do. It aggravates 'em. You're not gonna change any of them by talkin' right, they've got to want to learn themselves, and when they don't want to learn there's nothing you can do but keep our mouth shut or talk their language. -- Harper Lee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:42 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.



(Don't mean to get any badness going again, just have to throw my thoughts in...)

That's exactly how I see it. My analogy: suppose I hate a guy I work with because he's an abusive ass. I also know that he beats his wife. So, I get him drunk and pick a fight with him when I'm in company and protected, knowing full well that he'll go home to beat on his wife and then, I hope, he'll get arrested and fired.

I didn't beat the woman. But, fully knowing the danger, I sicc-ed this monster on her. For my own ends. Surely I bear some responsibility, perhaps not legally but certainly morally. I've not done a good deed.

I don't know enough about these cartoonists to guess their intentions, so I don't know if they were actually hoping for the violence. I certainly hope not. If they really meant to stir the hornet's nest, then surely they are assholes. If they didn't realize the potential for the stirred nest existed, then they were idiots.

Certainly they're not nearly as idiotic and asshole-ic as the fools who riot and kill over a stupid comic strip and an even stupider video. But I guess that, culturally, I identity more with the cartoonists, so passing judgement on them is more meaningful to me. I can't really understand and certainly can't change the religion of the Middle East. But I understand the cartoonists, or at least imagine that I understand them. It makes them easier to criticize.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I thought Byte's position was very clear. She just got frustrated because it seemed to her like people were misunderstanding her on purpose, ascribing free-speech objections to her that she never said.

I understand what HK is saying, about how violence has different roots than the stimuli that provoked it. But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.

Yes, people who commit violence are 100% responsible for their actions. But we can't pretend that words don't have power, and that sometimes, speech very much contributes to violence as well. Doesn't mean I support curtailing speech by law, but that we need to use some common sense in understanding words have power.




Yes, very good post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:44 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I agree with CTTS and Mal4, and that was my original point before I got some of what Byte has been getting and backed out myself. I think it's pretty close to what Byte was trying to get across, too, tho' I can't speak for anyone but myself. Thank you for elucidating it so well, both of you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL