^^Mutants who get violent at the mention of a cartoon or a movie need to be ridiculed out of existence. They have absolutely no place in any society if we're going to entertain freedom of expression.

9/19/2012 9:04:37 AM

Let's engage in a thought exercise. What if instead of a religious group reacting violently to the exercise of speech, it was a political group doing the same? Your ^^^ quote from above works well here -

Quote :

"Great, that's all we need in this world now... some rich liberal shitheads to intentionally insult a figurehead for the sake of insulting, and the figurehead's poor conservative wild followers to run amok destroying public property and killing people."

So Obama supporters make a comment perceived as insensitive about Romney that causes Romney supporters to burn down all the Obama For America locations and then murder four of Obama's top campaign staff and we would blame the Obama supporters for their lack of insensitivity instead of the Romney supporters for their reaction?

9/19/2012 10:16:19 AM

I blamed both sides, as I insulted both of them (shitheads, wild).

Yes, the vast majority of the blame falls on the wild/uncivilized followers (not because they react, but because they react in the wrong way).

9/19/2012 3:50:11 PM

And I say absolutely zero blame should go to the creators of any film or cartoon that provokes such a reaction. Laying any blame on them is simply an attempt to put religion on a pedestal that it does not deserve. On any other topic we would call such a reaction ridiculous nonsense.

9/19/2012 3:56:18 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the vast majority of the blame falls on the wild/uncivilized followers"

I'm curious, you said the 'vast majority' of the blame lies with the muslims. But what percentage of blame for the death of our ambassador to Libya would you attribute to the creators of this youtube video?

9/19/2012 4:00:48 PM

Quote :

"And I say absolutely zero blame should go to the creators of any film or cartoon that provokes such a reaction. Laying any blame on them is simply an attempt to put religion on a pedestal that it does not deserve."

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable to assign some amount of blame to a provoker when they know (and arguably are trying to provoke) a response. Consider, it may be well within my rights of free speech to walk around down town harlem with a sign around my neck that says "Kill all the damn n*ggers", but that doesn't mean I'm not a stupid idiot, or partly to blame for my impending beat down either.

9/19/2012 4:04:33 PM

Actually no, I wouldn't assign any blame to that person any more than I would assign blame to a woman walking down the street naked getting raped.

But both the Walking in downtown harlem and naked rape victim are terrible analogies for creating a cartoon or a film.

In a civilized society we should be permitted to create whatever form of expression we wish (short of shit like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater) without fear of violent reprisal. I'm not asking every Muslim to not be offended by shit. I'm saying the right to not be offended is non-existent.

9/19/2012 4:49:44 PM

Quote :

"...Predictably, and by design, most media accounts from the day after the Benghazi attack repeated the White House line as though it were fact, just as they did for the Bin Laden killing. Said NPR on 12 September: "The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad." The Daily Beast reported that the ambassador "died in a rocket attack on the embassy amid violent protests over a US-produced film deemed insulting to Islam." To date, numerous people believe – as though there were no dispute about it – that Muslims attacked the consulate and killed the US ambassador "because they were angry about a film". As it turns out, this claim is almost certainly false. And now, a week later, even the US government is acknowledging that, as McClatchy reports this morning [my emphasis]: "The Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week's assault on the US consulate compound in Benghazi that left the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a 'terrorist attack' apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al-Qaida's leadership or regional allies. "'I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,' said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week .'The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,' Olsen said." [my emphasis] Worse, it isn't as though there had been no evidence of more accurate information before Wednesday. To the contrary, most evidence from the start strongly suggested that the White House's claims – that this attack was motivated by anger over a film – were false. From McClatchy: "The head of Libya's interim government, key US lawmakers and experts contend that the attack appeared long-planned, complex and well-coordinated, matching descriptions given to McClatchy last week by the consulate's landlord and a wounded security guard, who denied there was a protest at the time and said the attackers carried the banner of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamist militia." Indeed, Libya's president has spent the week publicly announcing that there is "no doubt" the attack was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with the video. CBS News reported Thursday morning that there was no anti-video protest at all at the consulate. Witnesses insist, said CBS, "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack." That, noted the network, "is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident." The report concluded: "What's clear is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/obama-officials-spin-benghazi-attack



[Edited on September 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2012 12:10:25 PM

I saw some article, wish I could find it now, that compared the frequency of protests in the middle east with food prices (I think they used the Global Agro Price Index). At least as they presented it, the correlation looked pretty damn strong. If any of you doubt me I guess I could google around and find it again.

As far as targets for protests go, there's probably not a single person in any of those countries who doesn't remember or know someone who remembers a recent US/Western intervention in their country (And to most of them, the recent Libyan one probably looked like just another shadow ops coup). So it's pretty easy to rile up anger against America--it's already there for many reasons, some legit and others not.

Then the "film" serves as the flashpoint, especially since religion is all that many of these folks have left, and dire conditions tend to radicalize people. I also suspect there might be some involvement by Al Qaeda or other international groups (Maybe some Iranian agents, who knows) acting as professional agitators to get momentum going in the streets for these things. I'm just guessing that because of the almost simultaneous outcries over the film in all these countries, when it was initially just spread through some radio(?) host.

I must be crazy, because these factors all seem fairly obvious to me, but the folks on TV are still saying shit like "They just hate us because they hate freedom." or some variation thereof. It seems like actually enunciating the more complex drivers amounts to "apologizing".

9/20/2012 12:56:17 PM

Quote :

"Then the "film" serves as the flashpoint, especially since religion is all that many of these folks have left, and dire conditions tend to radicalize people."

2008 Obama would have agreed with you:

Quote :

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

9/20/2012 1:03:07 PM

^^It's really beyond comprehension. If you were to only watch mainstream 24 hour news, you would be completely bewildered by all of these protests. Even NPR, which is usually decent in terms of coverage, makes it seem as though this film set off crowds of protesters that were otherwise friendly to American policy. That's generally being touted as the true reason for all of this.

This mainstream narrative sheds all context, which is crucial for understanding the situation. Watch the fucking news here. You don't see one god damn body on any of these news stations, and it's not because they aren't allowed to show them. It's because they won't show them. No American living exclusively on American soil has seen the carnage, destruction, and bloodshed that has resulted from U.S. policy. These people in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan? They've seen it up close and in person. They've seen it happen to family and friends. They may have met some of these "enemy combatants".

We live in a bubble, and I wish more than anything that I could make everyone here recognize it. We're arguing about the 47% and all this domestic bullshit, and in all the coverage of this upcoming election, there's not a solitary utterance of what is going on overseas.

9/20/2012 2:50:58 PM

New York City subway ad:



Obviously it's a form of protected speech but this is fucking stupid. I don't want this shit in New York City, which is already a target. Making a stand by putting others in danger! Beautiful...

[Edited on September 20, 2012 at 7:41 PM. Reason : subway]

9/20/2012 7:41:05 PM

^ How does a subway ad put others in danger? That doesn't make any sense.

9/20/2012 11:09:55 PM

^ do you live is Chatham county or something?

9/20/2012 11:23:17 PM

No, Surry County actually. Why? Do only people from Chatham County understand how words on paper put others in danger?

9/21/2012 6:42:06 AM

Yes that is exactly what I was getting at.

9/21/2012 8:21:48 AM

^^ I assume you're trolling but yes, obviously words have consequences. Especially when you intentionally try to incite the small segment of Islam who it truly radical.

If you ran through a Chicago hood with a Death to the Savage Negro sign do you think there would be no consequences?

9/21/2012 8:35:20 AM

Yes, let's set the level of discourse to whatever mutants from the Iron Age want.

9/21/2012 8:55:53 AM

I have no affiliation with this fight. Why should I have to be involved?

I ride the train multiple times a day and I'm assuming you don't.

9/21/2012 9:13:48 AM

You're absolutely right. Try not to wear any offensive colors or have an offensive haircut or say or think anything offensive. No T shirts that anyone might dislike either. There are other people on the train and if you invite an attack you're responsible for what happens to them.

Less snark: I don't see how free speech and any form of violent reaction to speech are compatible. The violent offenders need to change, not the rest of us. We're not going to get them to change by bowing to their intimidation.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2012 9:21:53 AM

I'm with disco_stu on this one.

You people are cowards.

9/21/2012 9:34:22 AM

So are people who own guns cowards? They are bowing to the savage hoards which are at their door.

Also the violent offenders need to change? When has this ever happened? This is why we fight wars.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 9:48 AM. Reason : G]

9/21/2012 9:39:11 AM

Clearly the answer is say whatever the fuck you want and carry a gun.

Quote :

"Also the violent offenders need to change? When has this ever happened? This is why we fight wars. "

I think the world has become more civilized since the days of Muhammad. So I think it's continually happening. I'd rather be hopeful that we can one day stop fighting wars instead of being defeatist. I don't think we ever get there without completely open discourse.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : word missing]

9/21/2012 9:54:59 AM

It's simple, in theory I agree with you. The outliers in society shouldn't respond the way they do to things like this and they shouldn't dictate our actions.

But I also live in reality where they do. And it is simply a stupid thing to do that will incite anger and will accomplish nothing.

Plus the lady behind it, Pamela Geller, is a dumb annoying bitch.

** and this stupid subway ad is hardly meaningful discourse.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 10:03 AM. Reason : X]

9/21/2012 10:02:34 AM

If you walk up to the biggest, drunkest guy in the bar and call him a stupid motherfucker, you're likely to receive a beat down. Now, the guy would be wrong to kick your ass in my opinion, but the outcome is very predictable.

I guess the irony is that by supporting Israel, you support savagery, slaughter of innocent people, and a track record of bullying.

9/21/2012 10:24:54 AM

I think the moral is thethe add is dumb and solves nothing.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM. Reason : Hhhh]

9/21/2012 10:45:50 AM

^^I think being convinced that a cartoon could be the equivalent of walking up to someone in person and taunting them to violence is the problem. We've let a culture of "tolerance" completely castrate our sense of free expression and reasonable discourse.

Quote :

"** and this stupid subway ad is hardly meaningful discourse."

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Try not to blow yourself up with a bunch of people in response to it.

[Edited on September 21, 2012 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2012 10:54:06 AM

Here is the issue. We are all trying to have a reasonable discussion about unreasonable people.

9/21/2012 10:58:08 AM

Bye, Pakistan.

9/21/2012 2:20:00 PM

Quote :

"If you walk up to the biggest, drunkest guy in the bar and call him a stupid motherfucker, you're likely to receive a beat down. Now, the guy would be wrong to kick your ass in my opinion, but the outcome is very predictable. "

What about if some guy in a bar jumped on you for something you had nothing to do with?

9/21/2012 2:29:46 PM

Quote :

"We've let a culture of "tolerance" completely castrate our sense of free expression and reasonable discourse."

lol what

muslims are harassed as shit in this country and essentially enjoy a 2nd class existence

at least when you were an irish immigrant people just thought you were undesirable, and didn't think you were an invading hoard of strong brown musselmen here to take your sisters and put them in burqa's

9/22/2012 11:28:19 AM

Quote :

"at least when you were an irish immigrant people just thought you were undesirable, and didn't think you were an invading hoard of strong brown musselmen here to take your sisters and put them in burqa's"

lol what

9/22/2012 11:51:23 AM

Irish need not apply.

Tnx.

9/22/2012 12:16:08 PM

Backlash against terrorist militias in Libya as crowds drive jihadists from base

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206994/Libyan-crowds-drive-jihadists-base-revenge-death-U-S-ambassador.html

9/23/2012 1:02:54 PM

^

9/23/2012 1:21:30 PM

Oh no, that doesn't play in to the "all Muslims let them do whatever they want and are complicit in it" narrative that so many people have.

9/23/2012 8:50:09 PM

Yeah, that was pretty sweet.

9/24/2012 8:56:11 AM

Quote :

"Backlash against terrorist militias in Libya as crowds drive jihadists from base http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206994/Libyan-crowds-drive-jihadists-base-revenge-death-U-S-ambassador.html"

this owns

9/24/2012 9:54:10 AM

I hope they keep up the good work.

I wish it would spread.

9/24/2012 2:16:19 PM

Quote :

"Oh no, that doesn't play in to the "all Muslims let them do whatever they want and are complicit in it" narrative that so many people have."

Except that's not a narrative that any reasonable person has, and you know no one would claim that of *all* Muslims.

Giving this more thought...depictions of Muhammad are forbidden by the hadith of Sunni Muslims, who themselves make up 75-90% of all Muslims.

I'm going to be charitable and say that only half of the Sunnis think that killing someone for violating this rule is justified. The other half are "moderates" I guess. That's 450 Million people who are the problem.

Salman Rushdie made an excellent point on Bill Maher, additionally. This bullshit isn't essentially an organic uprising so much as being riled up by leaders in Islamic countries and Islamic religious circles to gain political power. I'm not sure I agree 100% but that's almost certainly a large part of it. However, if the common Muslim didn't believe the myths in the first place, the leaders wouldn't have that power; so to an extent I hold every irrational theist somewhat culpable, especially if they continue the narrative of "religious tolerance" and "all faiths are equal" they do to protect their own beliefs from scrutiny. This shields the extremists to uphold the "legitimacy" of the moderates.

And of course there are other political factors that contribute to Muslim hatred of America and anything even inaccurately associated with us. All of which are again exacerbated by religious leaders enabled by theistic "tolerance" worldwide.

So I'm happy a few hundred Sunni in Libya like us at the moment. Let me know when the other hundreds of millions give up on the idea of getting violent at a cartoon (found nowhere in the Koran, much like nearly every other stupid thing theists believe about their holy books).

9/25/2012 1:28:00 AM

Anti-Muslim filmmaker's probation case creeps on

http://www.wral.com/entertainment/story/11592378/

Quote :

"Pakistani cabinet minister on Monday offered a $100,000 bounty to anyone who kills Nakoula."

wow, a cabinet minister?

9/26/2012 1:32:03 PM

Why is that surprising to you?

9/26/2012 1:49:56 PM

Seems to strongly support Salman Rushdie's conclusion.

9/26/2012 1:50:47 PM

^^because it's a cabinet member. I can see a religous leader in pakistan saying it, but it surprised me coming from a cabinet member. It seemed to surprise the other cabinet members too.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/24/pakistan-disowns-minister-100000-bounty-on-anti-islam-film-maker/

9/26/2012 1:57:40 PM

Quote :

"And of course there are other political factors that contribute to Muslim hatred of America and anything even inaccurately associated with us. All of which are again exacerbated by religious leaders enabled by theistic "tolerance" worldwide."

They hate us because we've been occupying their territories for over a decade, and the drones that hover over their villages and drop bombs and kill their children all say "Made in America."

Nobody seriously believes all of this shit, that happened on Sept. 11th, was a spontaneous outburst in response to a video, do they?

I'm gonna re-emphasize this, because it bears repeating:

Quote :

"Indeed, Libya's president has spent the week publicly announcing that there is "no doubt" the attack was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with the video. CBS News reported Thursday morning that there was no anti-video protest at all at the consulate. Witnesses insist, said CBS, "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack." That, noted the network, "is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident." The report concluded: "What's clear is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."...""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/obama-officials-spin-benghazi-attack

9/26/2012 1:57:50 PM

Yep, Islam has nothing to do with it. You're right. Sorry for being a poor liberal.

9/26/2012 1:59:20 PM

What are you trying to prove?

That religion is often used as a political tool to mobilize and enrage an impoverished citizenry?

Fucking, wow. Awesome insight.

9/26/2012 2:07:23 PM

I'm arguing that reality is a combination of what you're saying and what I'm saying. America sucks, religious leaders suck, religious followers suck.

Religion is a tool that doesn't have to work. Maybe the leaders would find something else as divisive and polarizing, but post WWII, nationalism and racism are probably tough sells.

9/26/2012 2:15:04 PM

I'd argue that killing brown Muslims from a far-away country in order to protect the homeland hits a pretty gnarly trifecta.




[Edited on September 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2012 3:37:30 PM

Because George Bush

9/26/2012 5:24:37 PM