Shooting at Muhammad cartoon conference in Dallas

[The balkens]

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, Hindus! Leather is a comfortable material!

No duh, why do you think there is an ENTIRE sub group of people that really enjoy it?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hey, Hindus! Leather is a comfortable material!

No duh, why do you think there is an ENTIRE sub group of people that really enjoy it?

Not just a sub group, but whole groups of subs!

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

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.

I would say that the fact that gunmen showed up to try to shoot at the participants goes quite a long way to proving that the right to draw whatever you want is under threat in that particular area.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

I would say that the fact that gunmen showed up to try to shoot at the participants goes quite a long way to proving that the right to draw whatever you want is under threat in that particular area.

Yes, in that area. Not in the United States as a whole.

Look, people are often going to take serious offense if they perceive that someone is pissing them off for the sake of pisssing them off. They're certainly going to do so more readily than if said pissing off is done inadvertently as part of something larger (again, there wasn't a huge outcry after the airing of "Super Best Friends"). Again, this doesn't make the response justified, it doesn't make it right, but it does mean that if you've paid any attention at all to what radicals are like over the past...forever, then it's a predictable reaction.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I would say that the fact that gunmen showed up to try to shoot at the participants goes quite a long way to proving that the right to draw whatever you want is under threat in that particular area.

Yes, in that area. Not in the United States as a whole.

Look, people are often going to take serious offense if they perceive that someone is pissing them off for the sake of pisssing them off. They're certainly going to do so more readily than if said pissing off is done inadvertently as part of something larger (again, there wasn't a huge outcry after the airing of "Super Best Friends"). Again, this doesn't make the response justified, it doesn't make it right, but it does mean that if you've paid any attention at all to what radicals are like over the past...forever, then it's a predictable reaction.

Which is relevant to note...how?

'Some people will get offended if you say/do offensive things' doesn't seem like all that relevant a point to bring up in relation to two people attempting to shoot up a place 'because' they were offended (insofar as it seems currently that is the most likely reason for their choice of target). There's a rather solid disconnect there that makes the two things unrelatable. People get offended all the time. Shooting up a place because of that offense is startlingly, ridiculously rare. Why bring up the former in relation to news of the latter? Why even bother comparing two incomparable actions and feelings?

[The balkens]

No duh, why do you think there is an ENTIRE sub group of people that really enjoy it?

Not just a sub group, but whole groups of subs!

Wow.

[Islaamistan]

"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.

You know very well what Im trying to say, lets not play games now.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, in that area. Not in the United States as a whole.

Look, people are often going to take serious offense if they perceive that someone is pissing them off for the sake of pisssing them off. They're certainly going to do so more readily than if said pissing off is done inadvertently as part of something larger (again, there wasn't a huge outcry after the airing of "Super Best Friends"). Again, this doesn't make the response justified, it doesn't make it right, but it does mean that if you've paid any attention at all to what radicals are like over the past...forever, then it's a predictable reaction.

Which is relevant to note...how?

'Some people will get offended if you say/do offensive things' doesn't seem like all that relevant a point to bring up in relation to two people attempting to shoot up a place 'because' they were offended (insofar as it seems currently that is the most likely reason for their choice of target). There's a rather solid disconnect there that makes the two things unrelatable. People get offended all the time. Shooting up a place because of that offense is startlingly, ridiculously rare. Why bring up the former in relation to news of the latter? Why even bother comparing two incomparable actions and feelings?

It's relevant because this contest is being portrayed as some sort of noble expression of the right of free speech in the face of terror, when in reality it was a bunch of trolls being sponsored by a flagrant bigot. It was the equivalent of burning the American flag in Oceanside, and advertising it at Camp Pendleton. They obviously shouldn't have been attacked, but I'm not going to pretend that the contest was anything other than a childish attempt to prove a point that didn't especially need proving.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not just a sub group, but whole groups of subs!

Wow.

Hey, I'm not in the subculture, but I know some of the lingo.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of "victim-blaming" again:

At no point have I blamed any victims. The only victim here was an injured police officer, and I'm not blaming him for anything.

If I were to place any sort of responsibility on anyone besides the shooters, it would be Pamela Geller, and I suspect that she's going to come out of this as far more of a beneficiary than a victim.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Which is relevant to note...how?

'Some people will get offended if you say/do offensive things' doesn't seem like all that relevant a point to bring up in relation to two people attempting to shoot up a place 'because' they were offended (insofar as it seems currently that is the most likely reason for their choice of target). There's a rather solid disconnect there that makes the two things unrelatable. People get offended all the time. Shooting up a place because of that offense is startlingly, ridiculously rare. Why bring up the former in relation to news of the latter? Why even bother comparing two incomparable actions and feelings?

It's relevant because this contest is being portrayed as some sort of noble expression of the right of free speech in the face of terror, when in reality it was a bunch of trolls being sponsored by a flagrant bigot.

That's not really how it's being portrayed by anyone but Gellar, and why they expressed what they expressed is irrelevant (be it to troll or because they hate Muslims).

It was the equivalent of burning the American flag in Oceanside, and advertising it at Camp Pendleton.

And if a Marine tried to shoot the people burning the flag, nobody would raise issue with the flag-burners being so provocative (as well they shouldn't).

They obviously shouldn't have been attacked, but I'm not going to pretend that the contest was anything other than a childish attempt to prove a point that didn't especially need proving.

The attacks on Charlie Hebdo (2011 and recently), the supposed issue of the Dutch Muhammed cartoons, and here would seem to counteract this assessment of it not needing proving in some manner as both violence and international pressure have been sought to prevent such depictions.

And, even if it was a childish attempt to prove a point that didn't especially need proving...Well, welcome to America where people do such just because they can all the goddamned time.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's relevant because this contest is being portrayed as some sort of noble expression of the right of free speech in the face of terror, when in reality it was a bunch of trolls being sponsored by a flagrant bigot.

That's not really how it's being portrayed by anyone but Gellar, and why they expressed what they expressed is irrelevant (be it to troll or because they hate Muslims).

It was the equivalent of burning the American flag in Oceanside, and advertising it at Camp Pendleton.

And if a Marine tried to shoot the people burning the flag, nobody would raise issue with the flag-burners being so provocative (as well they shouldn't).

They obviously shouldn't have been attacked, but I'm not going to pretend that the contest was anything other than a childish attempt to prove a point that didn't especially need proving.

The attacks on Charlie Hebdo (2011 and recently), the supposed issue of the Dutch Muhammed cartoons, and here would seem to counteract this assessment of it not needing proving in some manner as both violence and international pressure have been sought to prevent such depictions.

And, even if it was a childish attempt to prove a point that didn't especially need proving...Well, welcome to America where people do such just because they can all the goddamned time.

Okay. You're an intelligent poster who has often contributed insights that I've found interesting and challenging, though I've disagreed with you here and there: What was the point of the contest? What message was being sent, and for what purpose?

[Herskerstad]

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.

Satire can cause offense and is not limited by your understanding of what satire should be. Yes, satire can cause offense and even when such occur the best response to it generally is no response at all. It should not ever be grounds for anyone to commit any harm to anyone and the people who seek to destroy such, be it legislatively or by force ARE the problem.

That...actually proves my point.

Yes, you have proven that even small Muslim communities can have elements that are willing to take to violence. Well done. No problems there. I'd say you may have proved Pamela's point.

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.

Anti-Muslim and Anti-Islamic are two different things. Saying " All Muslims are stupid." Would be anti-Muslim and worthy of public scorn, saying that "Muhammad is a depraved psychopath." would be anti-Islam and not worthy of public scorn. And yes, Sharia-based courts are in effect in areas of Europe and Sharia-based tribunals do in fact exist in the US, even one in texas, which from the articles I see stand accurate and is worthy of poising the debate on the effects this will have, but back to your original and most dire logical failing which is that you think just being provocative constitutes baiting and in this case, the baiting would be being shot, just underlines a disgusting rationale which is equal to victim blaming, and this is a fucking drawing contest and you equate that as baiting where the reprisal in this case was shooting. No, it was not baiting just because you do not like them. No more than girls wearing short skirts bait rapists or anti-theistic gathering bait crusades.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Okay. You're an intelligent poster who has often contributed insights that I've found interesting and challenging, though I've disagreed with you here and there: What was the point of the contest? What message was being sent, and for what purpose?

That no one group should have the ability to constrain the creativity or expression of another, and that the only way to defend freedom of expression against threats of violence is to stand up to them and say that which the violent would desire to forbid.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Satire can cause offense and is not limited by your understanding of what satire should be. Yes, satire can cause offense and even when such occur the best response to it generally is no response at all. It should not ever be grounds for anyone to commit any harm to anyone and the people who seek to destroy such, be it legislatively or by force ARE the problem.

You're right. Satire is not and should not be limited by my understanding. Could you explain exactly what there was about these drawings that made them satire as opposed to simple trolling?

Yes, you have proven that even small Muslim communities can have elements that are willing to take to violence. Well done. No problems there. I'd say you may have proved Pamela's point.

No, she sees Islam in general as a threat. I do not. She sees Muslims who identify as religious as being inherently prone to violence. I do not.

Anti-Muslim and Anti-Islamic are two different things. Saying " All Muslims are stupid." Would be anti-Muslim and worthy of public scorn, saying that "Muhammad is a depraved psychopath." would be anti-Islam and not worthy of public scorn. And yes, Sharia-based courts are in effect in areas of Europe and Sharia-based tribunals do in fact exist in the US, even one in texas, which from the articles I see stand accurate and is worthy of poising the debate on the effects this will have, but back to your original and most dire logical failing which is that you think just being provocative constitutes baiting and in this case, the baiting would be being shot, just underlines a disgusting rationale which is equal to victim blaming, and this is a fucking drawing contest and you equate that as baiting where the reprisal in this case was shooting. No, it was not baiting just because you do not like them. No more than girls wearing short skirts bait rapists or anti-theistic gathering bait crusades.

Source for your claims regarding Sharia courts in Texas? And do they have any legal standing?

It wasn't baiting due to my not liking them. I don't have any opinion on the cartoonists other than that they may be somewhat misguided. It's baiting because they're causing offense to a group of people for the sheer sake of causing offense and eliciting a negative reaction. That's the definition of baiting.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay. You're an intelligent poster who has often contributed insights that I've found interesting and challenging, though I've disagreed with you here and there: What was the point of the contest? What message was being sent, and for what purpose?

That no one group should have the ability to constrain the creativity or expression of another, and that the only way to defend freedom of expression against threats of violence is to stand up to them and say that which the violent would desire to forbid.

And in the process, perform an action that alienates Muslims in America and reinforces the image that America is a land hostile to their beliefs and values even if they would never lift a finger against a cartoonist. Good job, folks!

[Occupied Deutschland]

That's not really how it's being portrayed by anyone but Gellar, and why they expressed what they expressed is irrelevant (be it to troll or because they hate Muslims).

And if a Marine tried to shoot the people burning the flag, nobody would raise issue with the flag-burners being so provocative (as well they shouldn't).

The attacks on Charlie Hebdo (2011 and recently), the supposed issue of the Dutch Muhammed cartoons, and here would seem to counteract this assessment of it not needing proving in some manner as both violence and international pressure have been sought to prevent such depictions.

And, even if it was a childish attempt to prove a point that didn't especially need proving...Well, welcome to America where people do such just because they can all the goddamned time.

Okay. You're an intelligent poster who has often contributed insights that I've found interesting and challenging, though I've disagreed with you here and there: What was the point of the contest?

To encourage depictions of Muhammed (in challenge, if one wants to get a bit more esoteric, to the Islamic forbidding of depicting Muhammed).

What message was being sent,

"Your religion's ban on this activity is objectionable."
"Your religion's rules don't affect me/us."
"Fuck Mohammed and the religion he started."
"Breaking the sharia law! Breaking the sharia law! I'm a rebel!" *Judas Priest music in background*

and for what purpose?

To protest against an outdated and unappealing ban within Islam on depictions of Muhammed by actively and openly contradicting it and 'proving' they can do it (something that was never in question, but which isn't a problem raised in any other case wherein someone does something offensive 'just 'cuz'. Why should it be here?)

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay. You're an intelligent poster who has often contributed insights that I've found interesting and challenging, though I've disagreed with you here and there: What was the point of the contest?

To encourage depictions of Muhammed (in challenge, if one wants to get a bit more esoteric, to the Islamic forbidding of depicting Muhammed).

What message was being sent,

"Your religion's ban on this activity is objectionable."
"Your religion's rules don't affect me/us."
"Fuck Mohammed and the religion he started."
"Breaking the sharia law! Breaking the sharia law! I'm a rebel!" *Judas Priest music in background*

and for what purpose?

To protest against an outdated and unappealing ban within Islam on depictions of Muhammed by actively and openly contradicting it and 'proving' they can do it (something that was never in question, but which isn't a problem raised in any other case wherein someone does something offensive 'just 'cuz'. Why should it be here?)

And, as stated, further alienating Muslims who don't have any desire to commit harm, and causing America to be seen as a place directly hostile to their beliefs. I get what they're trying to do, but it just seems incredibly juvenile and petty.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

And, as stated, further alienating Muslims who don't have any desire to commit harm, and causing America to be seen as a place directly hostile to their beliefs. I get what they're trying to do, but it just seems incredibly juvenile and petty.

Maybe. So is most instances of flag burning. But that doesn't mean that we need to feel sorry for the poor ultra-nationalists who are upset by that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And, as stated, further alienating Muslims who don't have any desire to commit harm, and causing America to be seen as a place directly hostile to their beliefs. I get what they're trying to do, but it just seems incredibly juvenile and petty.

Maybe. So is most instances of flag burning. But that doesn't mean that we need to feel sorry for the poor ultra-nationalists who are upset by that.

I feel bad for the people who agree that flag burning should be legal, but still have an emotional attachment due to military service, or having emigrated here from a more oppressive nation in search of opportunity, or have some other element in their personal stories that cause them to feel some minor distress. Of course, it's a protected form of expression, as it should be, and their feelings are not enough of a reason to ban the action...but it might be a reason to say "Look, do I want to piss these people off? Is there another way that I can make my point?" If not, then go for it, but I think that it shows a lack of imagination.

And, of course, regardless of my opinions, I will state once again that even if the flag is burned, attacks on the burner are unjustifiable. But again, if you advertise that you're doing this to a group of Marines, then the reaction could be somewhat predictable.

[Occupied Deutschland]

To encourage depictions of Muhammed (in challenge, if one wants to get a bit more esoteric, to the Islamic forbidding of depicting Muhammed).

"Your religion's ban on this activity is objectionable."
"Your religion's rules don't affect me/us."
"Fuck Mohammed and the religion he started."
"Breaking the sharia law! Breaking the sharia law! I'm a rebel!" *Judas Priest music in background*

To protest against an outdated and unappealing ban within Islam on depictions of Muhammed by actively and openly contradicting it and 'proving' they can do it (something that was never in question, but which isn't a problem raised in any other case wherein someone does something offensive 'just 'cuz'. Why should it be here?)

And, as stated, further alienating Muslims who don't have any desire to commit harm, and causing America to be seen as a place directly hostile to their beliefs. I get what they're trying to do, but it just seems incredibly juvenile and petty.

If one is alienated by America because of free speech, it's decidedly not America's problem, nor should it be. Folks who have an attitude that 'other people shouldn't be able to say [x]' are harmful to America and, frankly, should damn well be alienated by the US and have their beliefs treated as hostile. Whether such arises out of Islam, Christianity, or secular political philosophy.

I won't argue it's juvenile and petty, but, such is life. Muhammed gets drawn unflatteringly, crucifixes get put in jars of urine, and Nickelback is allowed to keep making shitty music. *shrug*

[Herskerstad]

You're right. Satire is not and should not be limited by my understanding. Could you explain exactly what there was about these drawings that made them satire as opposed to simple trolling?

Yes, not backing down to threats of freedom of expression for once. here is their winner.



I could list multiple other winners, some historical and well done portraits, some funny, and some for the point that freedom of expression should be defended even in spite of threats which is rationale enough for such contests alone.

No, she sees Islam in general as a threat. I do not. She sees Muslims who identify as religious as being inherently prone to violence. I do not.

Not the point in question. She's made points on how even small Muslim communities have elements that can be dangerous, and you've through your point made notion of how said community could take to ire and that the results stood predictable. In a way, you surpass her on that point.

Source for your claims regarding Sharia courts in Texas? And do they have any legal standing?

It wasn't baiting due to my not liking them. I don't have any opinion on the cartoonists other than that they may be somewhat misguided. It's baiting because they're causing offense to a group of people for the sheer sake of causing offense and eliciting a negative reaction. That's the definition of baiting.

In terms of Texas i said tribunal, and here is the website.

http://www.islamictribunal.org/about-it/

And no, while you miss-define them as well as the term, the word more accurately used for the above is simply offend, baiting implies setting things up deliberately for such to happen. Given that none of the arrangers had any provable points made to ensure this contest was made in hopes of sparking a violent reaction as you have hypothesized leaves your victim blaming very little to lean on.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

My reasoning? Oh, I'm a sociopathic totalitarian.

No, you're just thirteen (at most).

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I feel bad for the people who agree that flag burning should be legal, but still have an emotional attachment due to military service, or having emigrated here from a more oppressive nation in search of opportunity, or have some other element in their personal stories that cause them to feel some minor distress. Of course, it's a protected form of expression, as it should be, and their feelings are not enough of a reason to ban the action...but it might be a reason to say "Look, do I want to piss these people off? Is there another way that I can make my point?" If not, then go for it, but I think that it shows a lack of imagination.

And, of course, regardless of my opinions, I will state once again that even if the flag is burned, attacks on the burner are unjustifiable. But again, if you advertise that you're doing this to a group of Marines, then the reaction could be somewhat predictable.

Would it? Because even in the hayday of flag burning during the bush years, I didn't really hear about flag burning protestors getting shot at by patriots.

[MERIZoC]

Okay. You're an intelligent poster who has often contributed insights that I've found interesting and challenging, though I've disagreed with you here and there: What was the point of the contest? What message was being sent, and for what purpose?

That no one group should have the ability to constrain the creativity or expression of another, and that the only way to defend freedom of expression against threats of violence is to stand up to them and say that which the violent would desire to forbid.

But that's not the message. I'm sure you're familiar with Pamela Geller. The message of this was that Muslims are bad, bad people, the same bullshit she always perpetuates. She doesn't give two shits about free speech.