Texas

[Pointedstick]

Looks like the terrorists messed with Texas and lost.

[moda0306]

Wait... what happened?  Last I heard, a guy successfully shot up an "art show" in Texas.  Did they catch the guy(s)?

[Pointedstick]

Wait... what happened?  Last I heard, a guy successfully shot up an "art show" in Texas.  Did they catch the guy(s)?

Two Muslim terrorists attempted to shoot up a provocative anti-Muslim art show, but were killed by a security guard before they could actually do any damage. The terrorists were armed with rifles and clad in body armor, but the guard killed both of them in less than 10 seconds with only a pistol. Amazing shooting.

[Benko]

"a provocative anti-Muslim art show"

which means drawing cartoons of the prophet.

[moda0306]

Badass... I follow almost no news today.

Wasn't there an actual successful attack very recently?  Perhaps this was it.  I thought they actually killed some folks.

"a provocative anti-Muslim art show"

which means drawing cartoons of the prophet.

Well from the article I read just now trying to grab the facts, the entire purpose of the art show was to assemble as many pictures of the prophet in satirical ways as possible.

It would be the equivalent of having a "Pisschrist Festival" where people bring artwork offensive to Christianity... perhaps showing a priest raping a boy... another showing Jesus as a megalomaniac.  Just some ideas.

Neither deserve violence.  But to assert that either aren't at least somewhat provocative and anti-Muslim/Christian would be a stretch.

[Pointedstick]

Badass... I follow almost no news today.

Wasn't there an actual successful attack very recently?  Perhaps this was it.  I thought they actually killed some folks.

"a provocative anti-Muslim art show"

which means drawing cartoons of the prophet.

Well from the article I read just now trying to grab the facts, the entire purpose of the art show was to assemble as many pictures of the prophet in satirical ways as possible.

It would be the equivalent of having a "Pisschrist Festival" where people bring artwork offensive to Christianity... perhaps showing a priest raping a boy... another showing Jesus as a megalomaniac.  Just some ideas.

Neither deserve violence.  But to assert that either aren't at least somewhat provocative and anti-Muslim/Christian would be a stretch.

And yet, I don't recall any kind of violence against the pisschrist people. That's the difference. These people were trying to prove a point. They were trying to deliberately provoke Muslims with the goal of getting attacked, in order to demonstrate how hyper-sensitive and violent modern Muslim extremists are, and how their conservative religious values are incompatible with the modern enlightenment ideal of free expression--even of things that are deliberately offensive. They spent $10,000 on security, evidently fully aware of the danger. And that danger manifested itself, perfectly proving their point--and also in the process dramatically demonstrating the benefits of guns in the hands of good guys to stop the bad guys with guns.

[moda0306]

PS,

I agree with all that.

It seemed to be of some sort of debate as to whether this event was provocative and anti-Muslim in nature, however.  I was asserting it was simply due to the fundamentals involved, and organizing a hypothetical similar one with the focus on a different group, that quite simply it is somewhat provocative and anti-Muslim, if not very anti-Muslim depending on the policy prescriptions that these people are advocating. 

Now "provocative" and "anti-Muslim" doesn't necessarily mean there's no lesson from any of it (such as, "we should fix our immigration policy," or "extremist Muslims are a toxic elements to civil society" or something like that).

But this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.  The people that put this stuff on are sometimes overwhelmingly in favor of:

1) Secretive violations of our 4th Amendment rights to "fight ter'ism" (oh and to discover the pot in some poor guy's ass after hours of having a doctor hunt for it)
2) Systematic, "legally" approved torture of unconvicted "combatants"
3) War and foreign occupation of foreign lands that result in the death of tens of thousands

So to the degree you want to say that extremist Muslims are not compatible with freedom, I would have to agree.  And then I'd have to add to that that a good solid number of conservative Americans are not compatible with freedom and an open discourse.  Sure, they don't want to over-tax their dentist or over-regulate their gas station owner, but if freedom is truly either God-given or natural or at least just universally appreciated, you don't get to pick and choose the town, state, or country that gets to have it, because it is a general HUMAN right.  So the supposed incompatibility has a lot less to do with general moral principles, and a lot more to do with general tribalism.

So if we're going to do a cultural experiment here, let's add one more... one whose implications can actually say something about populations high enough to actually affect our federal laws.  Go into this event with a questionnaire regarding the three issues above, as well as immigration issues.

If the folks at these events are just for limited immigration, but want to defend our 4th amendment rights, hate torture, and abhor war, then we can truly walk away with a qualitative cultural lesson here, and I'll refocus my energy to being more scared of terr'ists than my own government's actions.  If, however, my theory is correct, and these folks actively support (both at the ballot box and in verbal conversation) the spying of domestic folks by the NSA, torture, and war (though not declared, of course... that would be too messy), then we can rest assured that while there are some cockroaches in our kitchen, it's not nearly the threat to our freedom (and human freedom in foreign countries) and the rule of law as the mold growing in our foundation.

If you ignore your own group's transgression, and spend time doing social experiments to draw out the most fringe of another group, you can certainly put on a convenient show.  But when you lay out all the cards on the table, it paints a very different picture.

[Benko]

So if you take a bunch of  3rd graders, ask them to draw cartoons of the prophet (given that most 3rd graders are unlikely to have a political agenda or have any idea what you are talking about) anything they produce will still be inflammatory to "radical muslims".    Do you consider what they will produce:

"provocative and anti-Muslim "? 

[Pointedstick]

This was essentially a pro-first-amendment demonstration. It's irrelevant whether or not the people involved would support any of the stuff you're talking about. The whole point was to celebrate and exercise the right of free expression, even anti-religious free expression. Of course it was anti-Muslim. That was the whole point. Unlike in much of Europe, being anti-Muslim is still more or less allowed in this country. So is being anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu, whatever. What's not allowed is literally attempting to end the lives of people who offend you.

You often talk about how much worse it is when the government conscripts people to have them fight war than taxes are. Let me make a parallel: it's worse when someone attempts to murder people who have different points of view than it is when someone supports restrictive immigration policy or warrantless wiretaps or searches. When we're talking about death for innocents vs violations of rights, the person who supports death for innocents is clearly the worse person.

[Pointedstick]

So if you take a bunch of  3rd graders, ask them to draw cartoons of the prophet (given that most 3rd graders are unlikely to have a political agenda or have any idea what you are talking about) anything they produce will still be inflammatory to "radical muslims".    Do you consider what they will produce:

"provocative and anti-Muslim "?

Yes. By their very nature, cartoons of the prophet are provocative and anti-Muslim. That's why crazy Muslims want to kill people who draw them. The question really is whether Muslims should have the right to censor other people to protect their feelings, or whether Muslims should live with something they don't like. So far here in the USA we're firmly in the latter category, and likely to remain so the more they try to change this with violence. That just ain't gonna work. We're not Europe.

[Benko]

So if you take a bunch of  3rd graders, ask them to draw cartoons of the prophet (given that most 3rd graders are unlikely to have a political agenda or have any idea what you are talking about) anything they produce will still be inflammatory to "radical muslims".    Do you consider what they will produce:

"provocative and anti-Muslim "?

Yes. By their very nature, cartoons of the prophet are provocative and anti-Muslim.

A cartoon simply of a smiling prophet may be offensive to muslims, but it ain't anti-muslim i.e.

"characterized by or expressing hostility or discrimination toward Muslims or the Islamic faith < … a campaign aimed at stirring up anti-Muslim feelings"

Words have meaning and mixing these two up is part of how the left advances their agenda.

ON A RELATED NOTE:

And if we want to stop doing things which offend Muslims, I don't imagine they are very fond of gay marriage (kudos to Limbah for the example) so perhaps we should stop advocating for that as well.

[moda0306]

So if you take a bunch of  3rd graders, ask them to draw cartoons of the prophet (given that most 3rd graders are unlikely to have a political agenda or have any idea what you are talking about) anything they produce will still be inflammatory to "radical muslims".    Do you consider what they will produce:

"provocative and anti-Muslim "?

Probably not.  I mean they're children.  If I asked a third grader to show mommy doing some "women's work" and they show her cleaning, I don't think they're "provocative and anti-woman."  They're friggin' kids!

Perhaps the teachers are though.

But if you're somehow asserting that folks in Texas who are motivated enough to organize an entire "art show" around depicting the prophet Muhammad in ludicrous ways is somehow childish in nature, then I would have to agree with you.  Perhaps "3rd graders" isn't too far off to describe the thought process there.  But of course, immaturity shouldn't be punished by death, nor assault, nor any coercive limitations.  But nor should it be given some sort of high-minded idealist roots.


PS,

It's not a "Pro-first-amendment" demonstration any more than buying a home alarm system is a "pro-4th-amendment system."  The first amendment limits GOVERNMENT limitations on speech.  Government laws against MURDER, theft and assault are what limit offended radicals from shooting up people that offend them.

Putting this in terms of the constitution is just ridiculous.  This is a murder issue.  Not a first amendment issue.  And to the degree these people condone murder and torture of people who are NOT like them, thy are hypocrites, and to the extent people like them are a FAR bigger part of the voting block of the U.S., this is completely pertinent to who is a bigger threat to the freedom of myself or other peace-minded folks.

If the perpetrator of the violation is NOT government, it is NOT a constitutional issue.  Now that doesn't mean you can't still engage in protest against some other group, or the fringes of some other group, but let's call it what it is.  If I'm against the catholic culture of protecting molesters, and my buddies and I get dressed up as a bunch of priests with offensive and suggestive things going on in front of our robes, then this is not a "4th Amendment protest."  Should it be illegal?  No.  Are there perhaps some good points being raised by satire?  Sure.  But if my organization has a large majority of people that condone rape in various convenient instances, and we are of a far larger portion of the population than Catholics, what should society really think of us?  Should society rally against Catholics, or perhaps realize that there's some hypocrisy going on here, and perhaps we are even more dangerous enemies to the issue of rape/abuse than the Catholic church is!

So if this is also an attempt to "demonstrate" how non-compatible extremist Muslims are to civil society (as you said in another post), then I think it is VERY relevant to put things in perspective a bit to see what other groups might be incompatible with civil society, don't you?  And if you want to tap my phone calls, torture innocents, and bomb cities without due process or a war declaration, then I think we have a bigger issue here to deal with if we want to talk about values and incompatibility.

The U.S. IS firmly in the latter category when it comes to free speech.  As it should be.  And as most prominent Muslim groups in the U.S. that I've seen have agreed should stay that way (Though I see anger and disappointment at the offensive nature of these acts, I don't see calls for government censorship).  However, the U.S. is ALSO in the category of murder (war), torture, and gross violations of the 4th Amendment.  We should NOT stay that way.  And a lot of people who want to focus on non-violations of the 1st Amendment that may, someday, turn into potential violations, are often utterly ignoring the violations of the 4th Amendment and other values that we hold right now, and are often actually in support of those violations.

So if we're going to worry about human rights and Constitutional amendments right now, which ones should we worry about?

[moda0306]

So if you take a bunch of  3rd graders, ask them to draw cartoons of the prophet (given that most 3rd graders are unlikely to have a political agenda or have any idea what you are talking about) anything they produce will still be inflammatory to "radical muslims".    Do you consider what they will produce:

"provocative and anti-Muslim "?

Yes. By their very nature, cartoons of the prophet are provocative and anti-Muslim.

A cartoon simply of a smiling prophet may be offensive to muslims, but it ain't anti-muslim i.e.

"characterized by or expressing hostility or discrimination toward Muslims or the Islamic faith < … a campaign aimed at stirring up anti-Muslim feelings"

Words have meaning and mixing these two up is part of how the left advances their agenda.

ON A RELATED NOTE:

And if we want to stop doing things which offend Muslims, I don't imagine they are very fond of gay marriage (kudos to Limbah for the example) so perhaps we should stop advocating for that as well.

If eating pork is offensive to Muslims, but you eat bacon because... well it's the best food ever, then you're not being anti-Muslim.  But it might be a bit provocative depending on what century and country you live in.  Hell you might even have some Jews yelling at you.

If you decide to depict the prophet Muhammad, it's a bit provocative, especially if your purpose was to offend Muslims.  Whether it's offensive to Muslims or not may not be totally pertinent to whether it was "anti-Muslim," but your intentions certainly are.

And I believe their intentions are more tribalist then ANYTHING to do with the constitution, and while "compatibility" has something to do with it, when I see the policies espoused by people who get a hard on by showing how bad extremist Muslims (or Muslims in general) really are, I tend to think that "compatibility" has a lot more to do with the aforementioned base tribalism than anything to do with general human rights.  And to the degree that people are motivated by base tribalism, they are TRYING to offend and demean not just the fringes of the group, but the entire group, quite often.

But this is a lot of semantics here.  I watch Bill Maher from time to time.  Some of the comedians I watch are EXTREMELY provocative and anti-(religious, woman, republican, etc).

The key is "what should the lesson be from all this."  And I'd say, "Nothing we don't already know.  Extremist Muslims suck.  Texans who want to piss on our constitution for their version of domestic tranquility suck, no matter what kind of smoke screen they try to put up to distract us from their agenda."


But like I said... I could be wrong.  These people could be implying fighting for something else rather than some deep desire for tribal superiority, and with no advocacy for neo-con foreign policy, torture policy, and domestic spying.  But it ain't the First Amendment that has been assaulted.  As the perpetrator was not government.  Maybe someday it will be, but to the degree that the Constitution IS being assaulted, it is by our Federal government, and in the name of anti-terrorism... and in ways that haven't been put up for debate or public discussion, but decided by guys at the NSA, and excused if not encouraged by conservative hawks, and "liberals" who are afraid of losing an election by being seen as weak on the war on terror.

[Pointedstick]

It ain't gonna work?  We're not Europe?  Didn't we lock up a film maker a couple of years ago after he made a so called provocative anti-Muslim film? Didn't Obama and Hillary blame Muslim rioting in Cairo and Benghazi on this film maker? Is he still in jail?

The man you're thinking of, Dinesh D'Souza, was arrested for (and pled guilty to) making illegal campaign contributions and lying to the FEC about it. He was not imprisoned; his sentence is 5 years probation, 8 months in a halfway house, and a $30k fine. It looks like he's scheduled to be released from the halfway house this month.

In some European countries, they actually jail people for writing blog posts merely criticizing Islam. I presume you can see the difference.

[Pointedstick]

Ah, you're right. It was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He was arrested for (and pled guilty to) probation violation. He was jailed for one year and is currently out.

[moda0306]

I guess to step back a bit and give this a bit different perspective, if we actually are talking first amendment rights...

Flag burning (or stomping on the U.S. flag) is viewed with utter disgust by many Americans.  Personally, I think most of that kind of protesting is disrespectful and makes you look like a bit of a fool, but should not be illegal.

But here's info on the public support for congress of fed/state governments to be able to make a law out-lawing flag-burning.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public ... rning.aspx

I have personally experienced conservatives that go absolutely ballistic at the idea that we let people burn or stomp on the American flag, legally.

Are these people "not compatible with Western values?"  Obviously, advocating a law agaist something, and SHOOTING someone for doing something are two different things.  But if this is actually about the first amendment, then this is also about freedom from government limitations, not just personal ones.

[dualstow]

That's the difference. These people were trying to prove a point. They were trying to deliberately provoke Muslims with the goal of getting attacked, in order to demonstrate how hyper-sensitive and violent modern Muslim extremists are, and how their conservative religious values are incompatible with the modern enlightenment ideal of free expression--even of things that are deliberately offensive. They spent $10,000 on security, evidently fully aware of the danger. And that danger manifested itself, perfectly proving their point--and also in the process dramatically demonstrating the benefits of guns in the hands of good guys to stop the bad guys with guns.

politically incorrect and humorous tweet about the art show by some comedian...

"My favorite drawings at the Muhammad cartoon festival in Texas were the two chalk outlines out front."

— Evan Sayet (@EvanSayet) May 4, 2015

I love it! Great tweet.
Like PS said, this event clearly shows what it was supposed to, that those who would kill you over constitutionally protected free speech are worse, worse than pisschrist, worse than God hates fags.

No, Moda, there are no Jews who would yell at you for eating bacon unless they happen to be your grandparents.

[Xan]

Great article about the situation here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-goldberg

[Pointedstick]

Great article about the situation here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-goldberg

Spot-on. If you really want to get into the game of comparing liberals to conservatives on this particular issue, it quickly becomes obvious that liberals actually want to censor people, while all conservatives are out to do is get federal subsidies cut for things they find offensive. They aren't actually out to muzzle people over it.

[moda0306]

Great article about the situation here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-goldberg

Spot-on. If you really want to get into the game of comparing liberals to conservatives on this particular issue, it quickly becomes obvious that liberals actually want to censor people, while all conservatives are out to do is get federal subsidies cut for things they find offensive. They aren't actually out to muzzle people over it.

First off, only some liberals really want to piss off Christians.  Personally I think when rational debate with some fun snark and humor moves into simply trying to humiliate decent people, it is done in bad taste.  Many liberals agree with that sentiment.  Some don't and are obnoxious. Just like there are many obnoxious conservatives.

You know... like the ones that lose their minds when they see someone stomping on or burning the flag and call for illegalization. 

Many conservative Christians would be just as angry at an anti-American/Christian version of this art show as many liberals are at the anti-Muslim art show.

This is standard political hypocrisy, and it goes both ways.  Trying to make conservatives out to be saints on this issue is ridiculous IMO.  Many of them, very often, though often at the local level, are trying to impose their Mayberry version of society on everyone else.

[Pointedstick]

Look, I'm not saying he might not have a point.  But if he wants to get people like me to consider his thesis, it would actually be helpful if he actually provided some evidence and data, and not provided talk radio red meat.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/06/cnn-a ... spc1q:T0Tm

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/04/2 ... peech.html

It's true that he could have provided links, but this stuff isn't hard to find. Libs have been falling all over themselves to propose that the organizers of this stunt are irresponsible purveyors of "hate speech" which should probably be criminalized.

[Pointedstick]

Many conservative Christians would be just as angry at an anti-American/Christian version of this art show as many liberals are at the anti-Muslim art show.

How many of them call for it to be made illegal, and for the people doing it to be jailed? Can you provide an example of that?

Look, I've got no dog in this fight. I'm neither a democrat nor a republican, and have both liberal and conservative tendencies. But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives. This crap has been going on for years; libs have been trying to get "fair coverage" laws and anti-"hate speech" laws for decades. You talk about flag burning, but is that an issue that's even remotely on the radar screen of any major conservative politicians? When was the last time any of them made any noise about that? It seems like a very weak argument to equate the two, to the extent that you're even correct.

[Benko]

But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives.

Maybe that is why the left likes islam.  Maybe they envy how sucessful islam is at shutting up dissention, whereas they have to put up with the right.  ;-)

[moda0306]

Like (it seems) most here, I've not followed this story very closely.  FWIW, my view is that (i) the event Geller organized was offensive to Muslims, and probably seen by Muslims as anti-Muslim; (ii) even though I think she is an attention whore and a loathesome creature (much like the Westboro Baptist people), she absolutely ought to be able to do this; (iii) private citizens are free to object to Geller's schtick; (iv) private citizens trying to kill the organizers is wrong; the fact that they ended up dead is tragic (I generally don't like killin'), but understandable.

Great article about the situation here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... h-goldberg

Spot-on. If you really want to get into the game of comparing liberals to conservatives on this particular issue, it quickly becomes obvious that liberals actually want to censor people, while all conservatives are out to do is get federal subsidies cut for things they find offensive. They aren't actually out to muzzle people over it.

All that said, I didn't really find this article very enlightening. It was (IMO) a typical "movement conservative" (or what I sometimes refer to more snarkily as the "entertainment wing of the Republican party") article.  Use lazy arguments to rile up the base, but don't provide any data or thoughtful analysis.

The first half of the article is about a 1989 Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit.  Really?  Twenty five years later?  And the relevancy to a couple of assassins trying to disrupt Geller's event is...?

The main point of the article seems to be this:

But I am utterly baffled how people who think it’s censorship to withdraw funding for anti-Christian “hate speech” can argue that private individuals have no right to express anti-Muslim views.

And this is a point of view I can appreciate, and Goldberg could get me on board.  But his *only* evidence supporting this is in the next couple of sentences:

“While we have freedom of speech,” a New York Daily News columnist insisted, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo, a law-school grad, tweeted that Geller’s “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Constitution. At first Cuomo suggested proof of this could be found in the Constitution itself. He then hastily clarified that it fails the “fighting words” doctrine of the Supreme Court.

So an article by an author he both declines to name and doesn't provide a link to, and a tweet (another attention whore vehicle if there ever was one)?  That's it?

Look, I'm not saying he might not have a point.  But if he wants to get people like me to consider his thesis, it would actually be helpful if he actually provided some evidence and data, and not provided talk radio red meat.

I agree with your initial points, although I wouldn't go so far as to call the death of the attackers "tragic."  Perhaps somewhat unfortunate.  I personally can't work up much sympathy for dead killers (thought I can work up all kinds of annoyance with a government that wants to make ALLEGED killers dead, tortured or detained in sloppy ways and little legal backing).


To the rest of it, I think "hate speech" is sort of a BS term.  There is reasoned factual analysis with conclusions and policy prescriptions that might follow... and then there's meaningless hyperbole, loaded questions, generalizing, etc.  If speech falls within the former, even if it makes some people more racist, sexist or nationalist, so be it.  Sometimes facts adjust our thinking about groups.  Deal with it.  To the degree speech consists of that loaded, hyperbole garbage... well if were to outlaw that, we'd have to arrest most of congress and the majority of the U.S. population.

This is one area where the first amendment IS important to talk about. IMO, unless you are directly inciting violence, you shouldn't be silenced.  To the degree that people follow your drivel, rather than a more reasoned approach, this is simply just a symptom of too little critical thinking being taught in schools and too much tribalist rationalizing nonsense.

I am going to stand by both the flag burner and the raving racist against the government.  But if either of those people are attacked by a person in the public, I'm going to acknowledge the tragedy, but I'm not going to throw their entire "group" under the bus unless the entire "group" was condoning or advocating the attack.  The reason we react so much more harshly when the government does bad things (well... some people do... others will only if it fits their political agenda) vs shit heads is because they hold so much massive power.  Muslim whackjobs in the U.S. don't have that massive power.  They don't "work for us" like the government is supposed to.

If this truly is a debate abou the status of hate speech and the first amendment, put me in the pro-liberty camp... but that goes for burning flags too.



It just came to me, but another example of conservatives abandoning the constitution on issues like this was the Muslim community center issue.  Far from just protests labelling it poor taste to build an inter-faith Muslim community center near ground zero, conservatives were wanting the city to stop it from even being built.

Not only do I think should it NOT have been limited by the NYC government, but I think the only bad taste was those protesting it, even if they weren't calling for an outright permit refusal.  Holy balls was I surprised to see people coming out of the woodwork going ballistic on such a harmless if not sort-of encouraging project (making it a community center open to outside faiths).

Even Rand Paul was a slimy prick on this issue, IMO. 

But it seems to me that if we analyze this whole "compatibility" deal, there are a lot of Americans who "aren't compatible" with America, and many of them have a flag flying in their front yard, and go to church every Sunday.  IMO, while these people do have some great traits as human beings, citizens, family members, friends, etc, they're probably more likely to drag this country into bullshit that is going to limit my freedom and that of others than a handful of Muslim extremists or a larger handful of Muslim U.S. residents.

[moda0306]

But it really seems like this censorious attitude is much stronger in liberals than conservatives.

Maybe that is why the left likes islam.  Maybe they envy how sucessful islam is at shutting up dissention, whereas they have to put up with the right.  ;-)

Funny... I tend to think many conservative Christians secretly hate Islam because it's done such a good job of maintaing patriarchy and religious superiority over society against liberalism, and they're jealous.