Shooting at Muhammad cartoon conference in Dallas

[Jamzmania]

Nonsense, saying she should've expected to get raped walking around dressed like that at night shot at holding a contest like that where she was isn't apologism.

Again, would an organization that portrays religious Muslims as inherently violent not think that there was a major risk of an attack if they held this contest that they knew would cause offense? While it doesn't justify the shooting, the fact is that they knew that this could happen.

Anyway, my more relevant point is that they decided to piss off a whole bunch of people who don't want to shoot them in order to make a point to a few who do. That's fine, but since the right to create those drawings isn't at serious risk from the state, then it seems like a horrible waste of effort.

Something doesn't have to be at risk from the state to be at risk. Also I'll point out that you can believe that Islam is a violent religion without believing that all Muslims are inherently violent. Most Muslims would simply say, "Now is not the time for violence," but they cannot say that violence is contrary to Islam.

[Herskerstad]

If you want to link to an actual statement of Geller that would indicate that she is putting up such contests with the expressed aim of ensuring violence against the people who host it, then feel free to try.

You mean something like "Hah, I'm going to run a contest to draw Mohammed in order to draw extremists out of the woodwork, and make myself look like a free speech martyr in the process"? No. No, she didn't say that. What she did was to sponsor and publicize a contest for the best drawing of Mohammad in an area with a sizeable Muslim population despite her belief that Islam is an inherently violent religion, and that religious Muslims are therefore inherently violent. Again, there are only three reasonable conclusions to draw from this:

1. She does not believe that religious Muslims are actually violent, and her movement up until now has been based upon a lie.

2. She does not understand the link between cause and effect.

3. She had an idea that this might happen, and went ahead anyway for her own purposes.

She put it in Dallas Texas which is hardly the Saudi Arabia of the US. In short, the county has around 1.9% of it's inhabitants as adherents of Islam, and the state around 1%. By those estimates. Furthermore, it was held in the eastern, not the Northern part in which there is some semblance of an Islamic community while still not even close to any kind of majority. Which if such is the take on your demographics, would make such an exhibition impossible in just about any major city. In short, your premise is either extremely erroneous in point of basic arithmetic or your rationale arbitrary, in which in this case, I would conclude it is both.

[Aryavartha]

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

err..not getting what u r trying to say.

should i not be allowed to point out the irony of a religion being touted as 'religion of peace' and also should not be poked at lest there be violent response, because .. because..because....i give up.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Again, would an organization that portrays religious Muslims as inherently violent not think that there was a major risk of an attack if they held this contest that they knew would cause offense? While it doesn't justify the shooting, the fact is that they knew that this could happen.

Anyway, my more relevant point is that they decided to piss off a whole bunch of people who don't want to shoot them in order to make a point to a few who do. That's fine, but since the right to create those drawings isn't at serious risk from the state, then it seems like a horrible waste of effort.

What do you think will happen if those who draw get shot up? People aren't going to draw them. Whether it comes from the point of a gun or a edict is besides the point, it's censorship.

I mean, I'd argue that the 80something satirist hiding under his desk didn't quite expect to have his life ended by a man with a gun, especially since he had draw more offensive things, but it happened.

Surely if someone gets drunk, and walks home alone then...

Actually, what will likely happen is that there will be increased surveillance on Muslim populations to a degree that we haven't seen since 9/11 (and even then), Muslims will be looked at more suspiciously, anti-Islamic sentiment will rise, backdoor restrictions that go against the spirit of the First Amendment if not the letter will be passed and fought in the courts, and the United States in general will be seen as an unfriendly place for people who wish to practice the faith. Oh, and organizations like Geller's will get TONS more followers.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Anyway, my more relevant point is that they decided to piss off a whole bunch of people who don't want to shoot them in order to make a point to a few who do. That's fine, but since the right to create those drawings isn't at serious risk from the state, then it seems like a horrible waste of effort.

It's not enough that the right is at risk from a continuous stream of lone gunman? If Jews got together to make fun of Hitler and a Neo-Nazi shot up the place, we would not be talking about it like this.

[Aryavartha]

lol..u sent a PM..

As a Hindu I dont think you have any the right to mock my religion, im pretty sure there are many passages in your holy books which suggest "holy gods" raping the wives of other "gods" do not throw stones from a glass house.

sorry..don't have any more time for this. crapload of work...

[Vasileus]

What do you think will happen if those who draw get shot up? People aren't going to draw them. Whether it comes from the point of a gun or a edict is besides the point, it's censorship.

I mean, I'd argue that the 80something satirist hiding under his desk didn't quite expect to have his life ended by a man with a gun, especially since he had draw more offensive things, but it happened.

Surely if someone gets drunk, and walks home alone then...

Actually, what will likely happen is that there will be increased surveillance on Muslim populations to a degree that we haven't seen since 9/11 (and even then), Muslims will be looked at more suspiciously, anti-Islamic sentiment will rise, backdoor restrictions that go against the spirit of the First Amendment if not the letter will be passed and fought in the courts, and the United States in general will be seen as an unfriendly place for people who wish to practice the faith. Oh, and organizations like Geller's will get TONS more followers.

Oh, really? You know, that's why the BBC and CNN and The Globe and Mail were banning any showings of Muhammad after Hebdo. I mean, I thought it was because they were afraid muslims would kill them if the criticized the religion or went against it's teachings it any way.

But no, 9/11, islamophobia, chemtrails can't melt steel beams, etc

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Again, would an organization that portrays religious Muslims as inherently violent not think that there was a major risk of an attack if they held this contest that they knew would cause offense? While it doesn't justify the shooting, the fact is that they knew that this could happen.

Anyway, my more relevant point is that they decided to piss off a whole bunch of people who don't want to shoot them in order to make a point to a few who do. That's fine, but since the right to create those drawings isn't at serious risk from the state, then it seems like a horrible waste of effort.

Something doesn't have to be at risk from the state to be at risk. Also I'll point out that you can believe that Islam is a violent religion without believing that all Muslims are inherently violent. Most Muslims would simply say, "Now is not the time for violence," but they cannot say that violence is contrary to Islam.

Nor is it contrary to Geller's own Jewish faith, but she doesn't seem to mind that so much.

Seriously, if I get attacked walking down the street because I'm wearing the color blue in Blood territory (which doesn't really happen anymore, but go with me), it doesn't imply a larger threat to the right to wear blue. If I knowingly wear blue into that territory as proof that I have the right to do so, that's fine, but it's pretty stupid. It STILL doesn't imply a larger threat.

[Atlanticatia]

I'm going to condemn both the shooters and the people who participate in far-right groups like the American Freedom Defense Initiative or other intolerant and/or Islamophobic groups.

There is never any reason for violence nor is there any justification for Islamophobia or racism/intolerance.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You mean something like "Hah, I'm going to run a contest to draw Mohammed in order to draw extremists out of the woodwork, and make myself look like a free speech martyr in the process"? No. No, she didn't say that. What she did was to sponsor and publicize a contest for the best drawing of Mohammad in an area with a sizeable Muslim population despite her belief that Islam is an inherently violent religion, and that religious Muslims are therefore inherently violent. Again, there are only three reasonable conclusions to draw from this:

1. She does not believe that religious Muslims are actually violent, and her movement up until now has been based upon a lie.

2. She does not understand the link between cause and effect.

3. She had an idea that this might happen, and went ahead anyway for her own purposes.

She put it in Dallas Texas which is hardly the Saudi Arabia of the US. In short, the county has around 1.9% of it's inhabitants as adherents of Islam, and the state around 1%. By those estimates. Furthermore, it was held in the eastern, not the Northern part in which there is some semblance of an Islamic community while still not even close to any kind of majority. Which if such is the take on your demographics, would make such an exhibition impossible in just about any major city. In short, your premise is either extremely erroneous in point of basic arithmetic or your rationale arbitrary, in which in this case, I would conclude it is both.

So it's okay to be intentionally offensive to people when they're a small group?

Small groups can't pose a danger?

I wonder what the Crip population of Los Angeles is. I suspect it's smaller than the rough estimate that I came up with for the Muslim population of Dallas (Out of a population approaching 1.26 million, 1.9% comes out to a bit less than 24,000 Muslims). Anyway, numbers don't matter.

I'm not saying that such exhibitions should be prohibited. I'm simply saying that they're dumb, they're hateful, and a violent response by other dumb and hateful people is predictable.

[Hjortlund]

It is worth noting that the 2 shooters lived in Phoenix, and didn't reside in the DFW area.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Anyway, my more relevant point is that they decided to piss off a whole bunch of people who don't want to shoot them in order to make a point to a few who do. That's fine, but since the right to create those drawings isn't at serious risk from the state, then it seems like a horrible waste of effort.

It's not enough that the right is at risk from a continuous stream of lone gunman? If Jews got together to make fun of Hitler and a Neo-Nazi shot up the place, we would not be talking about it like this.

The right isn't at risk, whether from gunmen or anyone else.

Let's not compare apples and Nazis. The difference here is that while the artists were doing something that is offensive to most Muslims, not just radicals, there are no non-radical Nazis out there. Nazism in a Western society is radical by definition.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, what will likely happen is that there will be increased surveillance on Muslim populations to a degree that we haven't seen since 9/11 (and even then), Muslims will be looked at more suspiciously, anti-Islamic sentiment will rise, backdoor restrictions that go against the spirit of the First Amendment if not the letter will be passed and fought in the courts, and the United States in general will be seen as an unfriendly place for people who wish to practice the faith. Oh, and organizations like Geller's will get TONS more followers.

Oh, really? You know, that's why the BBC and CNN and The Globe and Mail were banning any showings of Muhammad after Hebdo. I mean, I thought it was because they were afraid muslims would kill them if the criticized the religion or went against it's teachings it any way.

But no, 9/11, islamophobia, chemtrails can't melt steel beams, etc

I think that the reaction in France, where the events actually took place, is more telling.

[Vasileus]

It's not enough that the right is at risk from a continuous stream of lone gunman? If Jews got together to make fun of Hitler and a Neo-Nazi shot up the place, we would not be talking about it like this.

The right isn't at risk, whether from gunmen or anyone else.

Let's not compare apples and Nazis. The difference here is that while the artists were doing something that is offensive to most Muslims, not just radicals, there are no non-radical Nazis out there. Nazism in a Western society is radical by definition.

Then most muslims can get fucked. They chose to live in the West, and in the West there's a tradition of making fun of ALL religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever. But I guess if it hurts their fee fees, we should abandon a hard won tradition?

[Vasileus]

Oh, really? You know, that's why the BBC and CNN and The Globe and Mail were banning any showings of Muhammad after Hebdo. I mean, I thought it was because they were afraid muslims would kill them if the criticized the religion or went against it's teachings it any way.

But no, 9/11, islamophobia, chemtrails can't melt steel beams, etc

I think that the reaction in France, where the events actually took place, is more telling.

Then their community shouldn't have provoked it, right? They could clearly see the consequences if an attack were to happen, in your view

[Herskerstad]

She put it in Dallas Texas which is hardly the Saudi Arabia of the US. In short, the county has around 1.9% of it's inhabitants as adherents of Islam, and the state around 1%. By those estimates. Furthermore, it was held in the eastern, not the Northern part in which there is some semblance of an Islamic community while still not even close to any kind of majority. Which if such is the take on your demographics, would make such an exhibition impossible in just about any major city. In short, your premise is either extremely erroneous in point of basic arithmetic or your rationale arbitrary, in which in this case, I would conclude it is both.

So it's okay to be intentionally offensive to people when they're a small group?

Small groups can't pose a danger?

I wonder what the Crip population of Los Angeles is. I suspect it's smaller than the rough estimate that I came up with for the Muslim population of Dallas (Out of a population approaching 1.26 million, 1.9% comes out to a bit less than 24,000 Muslims). Anyway, numbers don't matter.

I'm not saying that such exhibitions should be prohibited. I'm simply saying that they're dumb, they're hateful, and a violent response by other dumb and hateful people is predictable.

Yes, it's entirely ok to use satire against any religious group regardless of size. That's kind of an important part of western society if you have failed to notice as no violence is being done in doing so.

To your second question, and it would be a question since I never made the point you proclaimed, yes, small groups of people can pose a danger. As can large, but more often than not it depend on what group it is. Can the combined membership of the salvation army be considered dangerous? Not really, would a small radical mosque with a track record of terror be considered dangerous? If anyone has more than two brain cells to rub together they would consider it such. That you use the Crip population in LA of all things to make your point in this matter is interesting in itself.

And you're saying more than that, you're saying they are baiting, in which, all sane people would say that no, they are not. Stop your hypocritical standard of victim blaming.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

There will need to be some adaptation to the idea that people whom God likes can be drawn, and that drawing people isn't some sort of arrogant nonsense.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The right isn't at risk, whether from gunmen or anyone else.

Let's not compare apples and Nazis. The difference here is that while the artists were doing something that is offensive to most Muslims, not just radicals, there are no non-radical Nazis out there. Nazism in a Western society is radical by definition.

Then most muslims can get fucked. They chose to live in the West, and in the West there's a tradition of making fun of ALL religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever. But I guess if it hurts their fee fees, we should abandon a hard won tradition?

How is drawing Mohammed making fun of him? I can see it in the Super Best Friends episode, but the mere act of drawing him?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I think that the reaction in France, where the events actually took place, is more telling.

Then their community shouldn't have provoked it, right? They could clearly see the consequences if an attack were to happen, in your view

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So it's okay to be intentionally offensive to people when they're a small group?

Small groups can't pose a danger?

I wonder what the Crip population of Los Angeles is. I suspect it's smaller than the rough estimate that I came up with for the Muslim population of Dallas (Out of a population approaching 1.26 million, 1.9% comes out to a bit less than 24,000 Muslims). Anyway, numbers don't matter.

I'm not saying that such exhibitions should be prohibited. I'm simply saying that they're dumb, they're hateful, and a violent response by other dumb and hateful people is predictable.

Yes, it's entirely ok to use satire against any religious group regardless of size. That's kind of an important part of western society if you have failed to notice as no violence is being done in doing so.

I'm not talking about satire, which carries some sort of message. I'm talking about offense for the sake of causing offense. "I'm really offended by people who talk in all caps" "YOU MEAN LIKE THIS?" sort of thing.

To your second question, and it would be a question since I never made the point you proclaimed, yes, small groups of people can pose a danger. As can large, but more often than not it depend on what group it is. Can the combined membership of the salvation army be considered dangerous? Not really, would a small radical mosque with a track record of terror be considered dangerous? If anyone has more than two brain cells to rub together they would consider it such. That you use the Crip population in LA of all things to make your point in this matter is interesting in itself.

That...actually proves my point.

And you're saying more than that, you're saying they are baiting, in which, all sane people would say that no, they are not. Stop your hypocritical standard of victim blaming.

Of course they were baiting. This was sponsored by an organization with a history of going out of their way to attempt to provoke the Muslim community, to paint the President as a "secret Muslim" who is sympathetic to jihad, and to claim that Sharia law somehow poses a threat to America. They take out anti-Muslim billboards, bus ads, and other ads wherever they're allowed to do so. Charlie Hebdo may have been aiming for satire, however misguided it may have been, but this was sheer beehive-poking.

[Vasileus]

Then their community shouldn't have provoked it, right? They could clearly see the consequences if an attack were to happen, in your view

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does your talk about the "provocation" by Geller. This is exactly your logic thrown back at you

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Seriously, if I get attacked walking down the street because I'm wearing the color blue in Blood territory (which doesn't really happen anymore, but go with me), it doesn't imply a larger threat to the right to wear blue. If I knowingly wear blue into that territory as proof that I have the right to do so, that's fine, but it's pretty stupid. It STILL doesn't imply a larger threat.

Of course it does. The people in that area are letting gangs dictate how they dress, just like many people in the world are letting violent extremists dictate what they can draw. Just because it's often something we have to live with doesn't make it OK.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There will need to be some adaptation to the idea that people whom God likes can be drawn, and that drawing people isn't some sort of arrogant nonsense.

Hey, Jews! Pork can be eaten!

Hey, Hindus! Leather is a comfortable material!

Hey, Catholics! Birth control is a good thing! Actually, most Catholics use birth control, but you get the idea....

It's simply one of their beliefs, and it seems as harmless to choose to make some minor personal (not governmental or official) allowances for that as it does to ensure that your Jewish friend's club sandwich comes with the turkey bacon rather than the real thing. Now, your Jewish friend probably isn't going to pull out a gun and shoot up a barbecue joint, but let's not tell people what their beliefs should or shouldn't be. Focus entirely on what appropriate and inappropriate responses may consist of. Firmly worded letters to the local paper? Sure. Buying ad time or space to complain? Yes! Posters on various surfaces? You bet. Demonstrations outside? Why not?

Shooting up the place? That's a bit over the top.

I mean, again: We had a hate group without guns taking on a hate group with guns, and the outcome was predictable. It doesn't make it justified, it doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean that I'm blaming the victims when I say that it was predictable, although I suspect that Geller isn't exactly shedding tears over the enormous amount of airtime she's going to be able to exploit as a result of this mess.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Seriously, if I get attacked walking down the street because I'm wearing the color blue in Blood territory (which doesn't really happen anymore, but go with me), it doesn't imply a larger threat to the right to wear blue. If I knowingly wear blue into that territory as proof that I have the right to do so, that's fine, but it's pretty stupid. It STILL doesn't imply a larger threat.

Of course it does. The people in that area are letting gangs dictate how they dress, just like many people in the world are letting violent extremists dictate what they can draw. Just because it's often something we have to live with doesn't make it OK.

Yes, in that specific area. Not a larger threat in the United States. I apologize for my lack of clarity in my use of the word "larger", though. That's on me.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Neither does your talk about the "provocation" by Geller. This is exactly your logic thrown back at you

No, I mean I don't know which community you're referring to. Muslims? Muslims as a whole didn't provoke the attack. A specific group of Muslims caused that particular offense. The two aren't comparable.