SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian is reporting that...
Two gunmen have been killed and a security guard injured during what appeared to be an attack on a contest for cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Dallas suburb.
The gunmen drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland shortly before 7pm on Sunday where the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) were hosting the exhibition and contest.
According to city authorities an unarmed guard at the event was shot at before the men were engaged and killed by police.
Further...
A bomb squad was called in after reports of a possible incendiary device at the scene of the incident. Police said a "bomb container trailer" had also been deployed in which to place any suspect device.
A police spokesman said two males had been killed and their bodies were still lying outside their car hours later.
"Because of the situation of what was going on today and the history of what we've been told has happened at other events like this, we are considering their car (is) possibly containing a bomb," Officer Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland Police Department, said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Monday May 04 2015, @11:46AM
I agree 100%, but to mount an event where the sole aim is to offend a specific group of people is stupid. People will take offence and, as I pointed out, a very small minority will respond. I suggested that perhaps they ought to have left it to individuals to decide which God to depict, rather than stage something where the most likely outcome is exactly what we have seen. I am not condoning it, merely pointing out that it didn't take much intelligence to foresee the outcome.
Very true. But why Christians feel so touchy as to deem it necessary to mount an event to mock others' beliefs is beyond me. ....Or isn't that what you meant? Nevertheless, to organise an event in which the most likely outcome would provide aid for one's enemy is still not a very bright move.
Again, I agree. But I haven't claimed anything different in my previous comment.
But that is not what they did - the contest was designed to mock only one religion, almost as though they were trying to bait someone into reacting. The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:25PM
I agree 100%, but to mount an event where the sole aim is to offend a specific group of people is stupid. People will take offence and, as I pointed out, a very small minority will respond.
You have to understand Geller's goals. [nydailynews.com] This shooting is her wet dream. The only thing that could have made her happier is if some of the people attending had been killed too. It will give her an immense out of cover to continue promoting her bigotry and she hopes it will raise her profile so that she gets her message out to many more people (and brings in some big dollar 'donations.') We can only hope it backfires.
I would be unsurprised to learn that she had directly targeted the two men who were killed - sending them mailers advertising the event in order to provoke them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Monday May 04 2015, @09:06PM
I don't know about Christopher Hitchens, but I do know that Jesus said he came to bring **life**, not death. Is this a significant misunderstanding or is it just semantics?
Obviously this comment (and the preceding one) is quite ridiculously OT. Please feel free to down-mod.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:41PM
As with all extremists, those so-called christians who are big into things like the rapture pick and chose the parts of the bible that validate their own biases. Hitchens is talking about extremists, but you are not alone in thinking he's talking about mainstream religionists. Some of the more obnoxious atheists find that it validates their own beliefs and goals to encourage that confusion.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:54PM
I specifically quoted the sentences where Christianity is mentioned, because A) Hitchens is replying to a chrisitan and B) I wanted to show the similarity between Muslims and Christians - something that Hitchens is actually talking about. It is same with all the religions, otherwise they won't be popular. (You should see the video.)
But make no mistake - all Messianic Monotheistic religions are, at the core, about celebrating death. Jesus died. Final judgement will come only after every one is dead. There is heaven and hell - after death. You behave as per christian values or you will get punished - after death. Jesus brought life - and saved everyone from death for the last time! Everything about Christianity literally revolves around death.
Islam, when it was introduced, had more things to say about life than what bible says. But Europe has been through so many phases and revolutions, and due to a very complicated history Islamic world is just not there yet. There is a Islamic problem in the world. But one cannot argue away the fact that everyone knew some people are going to die that day. It was premeditated. If not on the ground then someplace else. And it were the christian fools who participated in that event who are to be held responsible because they thought the government will provide them security. The government provided security all right - to the organizers. They were the real enemy. But they got a bunch of people to focus on Muslims and get mileage from it too.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @01:31PM
I am not condoning it, merely pointing out that it didn't take much intelligence to foresee the outcome.
I'm not surprised, but if people react in this way, then that's all the more reason to continue with these types of events. Freedom of expression must be defended.
Very true. But why Christians feel so touchy as to deem it necessary to mount an event to mock others' beliefs is beyond me
It's not just Christians who draw Muhammed like this, but some of them are.
Nevertheless, to organise an event in which the most likely outcome would provide aid for one's enemy is still not a very bright move.
As I said, I seriously doubt that this will actually provide any aid. Someone's actions are their own, and these people were clearly insane to begin with.
But that is not what they did - the contest was designed to mock only one religion
This contest, yes. But I was speaking generally.
The organisers must take some of the responsibility for the events that have unfolded.
That's absolutely insane. Someone's actions are their own. No one forced these people to go insane and try to use violence to stop the event. The responsibility is solely on the people who took harmful actions.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:03PM
I'm not surprised, but if people react in this way, then that's all the more reason to continue with these types of events. Freedom of expression must be defended.
Rights come with responsibilities.
It is entirely compatible with the concept of freedom of speech to condemn Geller for her speech.
Lets look at it another way.
It is entirely within the rights of the KKK to walk through inner-city black neighborhoods and make vicious racist comments to everyone they meet. If one particularly unstable person kills one of them in response, does that make it even more important to double-down and do it even more?
The way we defend freedom of speech is to punish those who react violently, not by encouraging even more people to be assholes.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @02:25PM
It is entirely compatible with the concept of freedom of speech to condemn Geller for her speech.
I didn't say otherwise.
The way we defend freedom of speech is to punish those who react violently, not by encouraging even more people to be assholes.
I don't really think it's an asshole move to draw Muhammed, regardless of how offensive it is to some people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @02:28PM
> I don't really think it's an asshole move to draw Muhammed, regardless of how offensive it is to some people.
That is exactly what the KKK think about making racist insults.
I hope you will reconsider.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @03:21PM
You could use that same exact logic to 'prove' that anything is an asshole move. You think doing X doesn't make you a mean person? Well, that's what the KKK would say, too!
And I should have said that it was not objectively mean-spirited, because it is a subjective matter. People who are offended will of course not think highly of the people who are offending them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @03:36PM
You could use that same exact logic to 'prove' that anything is an asshole move. You think doing X doesn't make you a mean person? Well, that's what the KKK would say, too!
No. Do not muddy the waters. We are talking about two specific things:
(1) KKK making statements they know will insult and provoke black people
(2) Islamaphoes making pictures they know will insult and provoke muslims.
This is not about "anything" this is about two sorts of expressions made with the exact same intent.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM
This is not about "anything" this is about two sorts of expressions made with the exact same intent.
Absolutely anything you say could be offensive to anyone, yet you continue communicating knowing at least some people will be offended. And it matters that the situations are different. Were there people demanding that content be censored? Are there people who go insane when someone draws a certain something? Are you doing this for the purposes of freedom of expression? I don't know about this specific event; I'm thinking more along the lines of draw Muhammad day.
But I will say that all superstitious religious nonsense should be mocked, not just Islam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:00PM
> Absolutely anything you say could be offensive to anyone,
It isn't about "could be offensive" it is about "intended to be offensive."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @05:06PM
The effect is the same. You know what you say will be offensive to someone, and yet you persist. If people choose to take offense at such things, that's their problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @05:17PM
The effect is the same. You know what you say will be offensive to someone, and yet you persist. If people choose to take offense at such things, that's their problem.
ALL-Righty Then!
Now we are getting somewhere.
That is what I wanted to hear from you!
To bring this back around you are now supporting the idea that if some KKK go to black neighborhoods and deliberately insult people with racist speech and one unstable person is provoked to kill them that is all the more reason for the KKK to continue doing it.
At least you are consistent in your support for being shitty to the weak.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:51PM
At least you are consistent in your support for being shitty to the weak.
You're welcome to reference this thread [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fleg on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:35AM
thanks for posting that link. a shame he didnt respond to your last post in that thread. especially the last couple of paragraphs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:47PM
The KKK analogy is shit. That is harassment which is a different situation.
The KKK should double-down on white power conferences with racist drawing competitions if they wanted to show that they will not be intimidated by violence.
Basically everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church and many people would be happy if they all died, but their speech is protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @06:51PM
> The KKK analogy is shit. That is harassment which is a different situation.
Since when? As long as you don't keep talking to someone who has told you to stop talking to them it isn't harassment.
> Basically everyone hates the Westboro Baptist Church and many people would be happy if they all died, but their speech is protected.
Again there is a difference between being protected and it being a good idea to do more of it because an unbalanced person over-reacted.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @11:08PM
The Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church are gratuitously offensive and make the world a worse place. However, I defend their right to exist in the spirit of Voltaire. The reason for this is quite simple. If they cease to exist then we've either fixed a large number of social issues, such as racism and religious indoctrination or we've got a larger problem where people cannot express dissent or alternative views.
I'd prefer that people weren't dicks. However, I'd also prefer that root causes were addressed because the alternative is tyranny.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @06:57PM
To me, it all depends on the reason it is being done, not just that it is offensive. What is it in reaction to? The KKK's speech is just nonsense, like the WBC's protests are. We know there are some people who are highly oversensitive to drawings of Muhammed and some people who will issue death threats or take action, so I feel there is good work to be done here, regardless of the individual person's intentions when making these drawings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:24PM
>The KKK's speech is just nonsense, like the WBC's protests are.
And so is drawing insulting pictures of mo.
> We know there are some people who are highly oversensitive to racial insults and some people who will issue death threats or take action, so I feel there is good work to be done here.
FTFY.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @07:39PM
And so is drawing insulting pictures of mo.
No, it isn't. Your analogies are awful. Drawing pictures of Muhammed can be a way of celebrating freedom of expression, showing opposition to censorship, and showing that you will not back down in the face of threats that some people issue. The fairy tales (whether they are Christian, Islam, or some other brand of fairy tale) deserve to be insulted, as they are pure nonsense. Racism itself is nonsense, so the situation is also different in that sense. It makes sense to criticize religion and theism and those who take it too seriously, but saying that's on equal rational ground with the KKK's nonsense is pure garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @07:50PM
> Drawing making racial insults can be a way of celebrating freedom of expression, showing opposition to censorship, and showing that you will not back down in the face of threats that some people issue
FTFY
What you are having a hard time grasping is that everyone who is a dick thinks they have good, principled reasons to be a dick. You are no different.
The one common theme is being a dick. No matter how much you want to distance your principles from those of all the other dicks, you are all still being dicks because you think something else justifies it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:18PM
FTFY
You're not fixing anything; you're just using the same debunked KKK analogy over and over again.
What you are having a hard time grasping is that everyone who is a dick thinks they have good, principled reasons to be a dick.
What about people who realize the error of their ways? Therefore, it's not everyone and your statement is incorrect. Furthermore, it is possible to think you are good and principled and be right about it, especially since "good", "principled", and what constitutes being a"dick" are completely subjective, contrary to you seemingly pretending it's an objective matter.
Also, I don't think this is an example of being a dick for reasons I've stated.
No matter how much you want to distance your principles from those of all the other dicks
And no matter how much you try to reuse the same illogical KKK analogy, it will be debunked and thrown aside like the trash it is. That tends to happen when you fail to use logic to justify your point and instead rely on extremely superficial similarities to shoe-horn an analogy in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:30PM
> You're not fixing anything; you're just using the same KKK analogy over and over again.
Yes, because the point is that your argument is interchangeable with the KKK's argument.
> Furthermore, it is possible to think you are good and principled and be right about it
No it is not. Being a dick nullifies being good.
> Also, I don't think this is an example of being a dick for reasons I've stated.
Yes, that is what it comes down to. You think your principles are more important than being kind and treating other people with dignity and consideration. That is practically the definition of dickhood. It is not subjective.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:45PM
Yes, because the point is that your argument is interchangeable with the KKK's argument.
No, it isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. You could do the same thing to *any* argument about *any* form of expression. Just shoe-horn in the KKK.
No it is not. Being a dick nullifies being good.
Who said anything about being a dick? You don't believe it's possible to be good and principled? And remember: What is good, principled, or being a dick is subjective.
You think your principles are more important than being kind and treating other people with dignity and consideration.
I do not think irrational fairy tales that people actually believe should be given dignity or consideration. Maybe that seems 'unkind' to you, but I feel it is important for people to be rational, and believing in magical sky daddies without evidence is not rational. Islam is but one of many religions that needs to be criticized out of existence.
It is not subjective.
Please provide scientific evidence for the existence of the magical opinion fairy who has decided that your opinion about a subjective matter is objectively correct. I could pick out subjective and arbitrary terms from just about any definition you can give.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:59PM
> You could do the same thing to *any* argument about *any* form of expression. Just shoe-horn in the KKK.
We are not talking about *any* argument.
We are talking about the KKK doing the same thing you want to do.
> You don't believe it's possible to be good and principled?
Please do not play stupid. You keep trying to hide in generalizations rather than deal with the two specific examples that have been the central topic of this thread.
> I do not think irrational fairy tales that people actually believe should be given dignity or consideration.
Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want.
You want to stand up for freedom of expression? How about taking on people stronger than you who are criminals. [theguardian.com] Go ahead, dig up their names and start publishing them.
> Please provide scientific evidence
"Scientific evidence" is not necessary for word definitions. Choosing to deliberately insult regular people who have not done anything to you is being a dick. If you think otherwise then you are the one living in a fantasy world.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @09:13PM
We are talking about the KKK doing the same thing you want to do.
With the superficial similarity being that they intend to offend. When does the KKK stand up for any freedom of expression but their own? When do they stand against censorship and threats demanding censorship when it is speech they don't agree with? The KKK doesn't strike me as an organization that wants to respect people's liberrties.
Please do not play stupid. You keep trying to hide in generalizations rather than deal with the two specific examples that have been the central topic of this thread.
Limiting it to two specific examples (that I feel have been debunked) is silly when I am trying to demonstrate that your silly logic can be applied to anything.
Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want.
Irrational beliefs can affect your tendency to believe other irrational things, and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do. So yes, they *can* affect others. Maybe someone who believes in magical sky daddies isn't necessarily all-around irrational, but their irrational beliefs can beget other irrational beliefs and affect their decision-making in ways that aren't necessarily obvious, especially when the matter is directly related to their most sacred irrational beliefs.
And in this case, the irrational beliefs are causing certain people to threaten others and be offended when someone draws a picture. You think they amount to nothing, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The best way to stamp these things out is with education and criticism.
You want to stand up for freedom of expression? How about taking on people stronger than you who are criminals. Go ahead, dig up their names and start publishing them.
You should stand up to everyone who opposes freedom of speech.
"Scientific evidence" is not necessary for word definitions.
Then I hope you realize that your word definitions aren't nearly as objective as you think they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:22PM
> With the superficial similarity being that they intend to offend. When does the KKK stand up for any freedom of expression but their own?
If you listen to them they will tell you they are standing up for the rights of all white people.
They'll tell you that is even more important than freedom of speech.
This is all about perspective, you think you are better than them and they think the same about you.
The fact is you are both exactly the same self-centered myopic dicks.
> and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do.
Wow. Just wow. Because someone might vote in ways you don't like that means you should be shitty to them.
Wow.
> And in this case, the irrational beliefs are causing certain people to threaten others and be offended when someone draws a picture.
So, 2 unstable people out of 3,000,000+ react poorly and that justifies you being shitty to the remaining 2,999,998 people.
I'm pretty sure that is 100x more irrational than believing in fairy tales.
> You should stand up to everyone who opposes freedom of speech.
Then start with the strong, worry about the weak later.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:53AM
If you listen to them they will tell you they are standing up for the rights of all white people.
Exactly. They don't care about freedom in general; they care about their own freedom.
You're really stretching this KKK analogy.
The fact is you are both exactly the same self-centered myopic dicks.
Anyone who sticks up for freedom of expression is clearly just like the KKK. I heard Hitler liked puppies, too!
Wow. Just wow. Because someone might vote in ways you don't like that means you should be shitty to them.
Wow.
Must I tell you what you yourself said? Here: "Those irrational fairy tales are not hurting you. Leave those people to believe what they want."
That is patently false. Irrational beliefs can lead to irrational actions, sometimes in very subtle ways. So in general, I support advocating that people discard these beliefs. I may not participate in draw Muhammed day and the like, but some people find that important.
So, 2 unstable people out of 3,000,000+ react poorly and that justifies you being shitty to the remaining 2,999,998 people.
It's more than 2 people. And again, I don't consider drawing a picture of some guy as "being shitty"; that some people do is truly pathetic. And can you present your scientific evidence that all 2,999,998 people find these drawings offensive? I'm pretty sure there are many muslims who simply do not care.
Then start with the strong, worry about the weak later.
False dichotomy. Both can be tackled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:02PM
Irrational beliefs can affect your tendency to believe other irrational things, and can even cause you to vote for people who believe the same irrational things you do.
You know what is really irrational?
Thinking that if you insult people that will cause them to start agreeing with you on anything. Never once in the history of the world has that tactic ever worked.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:47AM
Presenting a set of beliefs as being nonsensical can make some people question their own beliefs. It's quite an extraordinary claim to say that no one has ever reevaluated their own belief system due to someone mocking it, being that billions of people exist and many more people have existed; only a single person would have had to do such a thing to prove you wrong.
Furthermore, if drawing a picture of someone is considered insulting, then that's rather pathetic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:51PM
Your incessant desire to continue to draw breath is an insult to my own personal religion, population one. I must therefore insist that you immediately cease and desist with this willful act of intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:56PM
> Your incessant desire to continue to draw breath is an insult
I'm pretty sure that if you had disease where you would die unless you drew an insulting picture of Mo, few muslims would feel put out if you chose life.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @01:53AM
So do you also believe the Freedom Riders must take responsibility for being beaten with baseball bats and tire irons?
Since you seem to be of the opinion that people should not exercise unpopular freedoms perhaps you should look into moving to a country which bans offensive speech. (Assuming you aren't already a proud, loyal subject of such a nation.)