|
THE AWESOME GHOST posted:We have a protest scheduled next week that is looking to be about 30k+ people and it's completely unrelated to outside influences, it's concerning our electoral laws and frozen government. Can you please survey those 30k people for their opinion? This is important to an internet debate on a comedy website forum (please tell them this). Their response would be a welcome addition to the OP under the heading "What all Muslims think". The tit for tat "what muslims think" thing can go on forever between people saying 'oh they all believe in killing over cartoons' or 'no, only a tiny few do'. It has been pretty frustrating to read the same loop for the past however many pages.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:The burden of free speech in a civilized society is the tolerance of people saying things we don't particularly like or agree with - attempting to shirk this obligation by shaming or pressuring people into not exercising their basic right to say unpopular things is a paving stone on the road to tyranny. This is kind of dumb. Why shouldn't we tell people to shut up when we don't want to hear what they have to say? Isn't that another part of free speech? We're not claiming anyone should be (legally) banned from saying offensive things; we're just saying that it is an assholish thing to do. Seriously, this is a dumb argument comes up every time free speech is mentioned. Individuals in a society have a right to judge and listen to whatever they want. Individuals also have a right to express opinions about certain things. Something these things people express opinions about are other people's speeches. You're saying if society as a hole determines certain things are bad we shouldn't be allowed to say so because certain people may become too ashamed to voice these unpopular opinions? Quite frankly, bigots should feel ashamed of their bigoted feelings. They should know people will tell them to gently caress off with their pathetic opinions. People have the right to say what they want, but that doesn't mean what they say have to be accepted. The law cannot touch; that's good. We don't need the law to tell us whats good or bad. We can tell this bigots that we, decent people of [Insert Nation Here], do not want hear their noise; they'll need to find somewhere else to air their stupid, evil grievances because we'll ignore them or shout them down. I feel I am not articulating this very well, but I think this argument is one of entitlement rather than freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech only guarantees that the government won't try to circumvent any expression/speech you may wish to voice when you voice it. The idea is that people should not feel afraid that they will be harmed for expressing their feelings. I feel, however, that the concept of Freedom of Speech does preclude society shunning individuals with unpopular opinions. That, in it self, is speech. We do not have a duty or obligations to make people feel comfortable about expressing themselves however. We do not have to listen to people with these unpopular opinions. We do not have to legitimize any of these opinions, and we do not have to provide a medium for these people to air these opinions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:If you are the sort of person who is willing to kill someone over an insult to your religion then you are terribly evil. Ah the old "bitch was totally asking for it" defense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
I don't think protest attendance is a reasonable or accurate measure of public opinion. The assertion was that 99% don't care about the cartoons. It's possible that some people care about the cartoons, or even think the cartoonists should be killed for blasphemy, yet fail to attend a protest for whatever reason.3 Tablets Daily posted:Ah the old "bitch was totally asking for it" defense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:This is the sort of passive-aggressive argument against free speech that always comes up when discussing the issue of islamic violence and intolerance. Take a real stance and stand up for what you're too timid to actually say - we should stop people from saying anything that might offend someone else - or at least place the onus of any violence upon the speaker. But I'm not too timid to actually say that, it's simply not what I believe. I don't think that we should stop people from saying things that might offend. However, I do think that it's appropriate to make moral judgements of people who have a completely callous and self-obsessed disregard for the feelings of vast numbers of people, or, worse, who actively set out to aggravate and offend those people. They can do it, sure, and I'll would never support removing their right to do it. But I'll also think that at least some of these people are amoral assholes intentionally pushing buttons to prove a point. The video that sparked this most recent round of protests was clearly intended to incite. It's not exactly subtle in it's motives. The cartoons had a nominal critical purpose but were handled in an extremely ham handed way. The official excuse that it was some sort of bizarre attempt to include Muslims into the broader religious community in Denmark by satirizing them is incredibly stupid. It's the same thing fraternities tell pledges just before them make them lick a goat's rear end in a top hat. Not to mention I'd be pretty surprised to see the same paper run a cartoon of say, Jesus loving a little boy, despite that being about as "satirical" as Muhammed as a suicide bomber. I'm just fundamentally baffled by the idea that we can't or shouldn't make moral judgements about any form of speech simply because someone has a legal right to make it. It's such a stupid argument. There isn't a finite amount of blame or judgement in the world. I can use a lot of it on the people murdering innocents and still save a little for the assholes who unapologetically foment that sort of reaction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Well if you look at Denmark out of all the muslims there only a single one was bothered enough to go to Egypt and spread the protests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
3 Tablets Daily posted:Ah the old "bitch was totally asking for it" defense. Well, since in this analogy the people being raped aren't the people doing the offending it's more like "that guy intentionally incited that mob of psychopaths and now they've killed an innocent person, maybe that guy should stop going out of his way to incite those psychopaths because literally nothing good ever comes of it and it has no constructive purpose so the net result is more dead people with no actual benefit". But there isn't a pithy saying for that to make you feel smugly superior so I'm not sure what to do about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
The fact that the victims of the violence are only connected to the "inciter" (ugh) by race and nationality actually makes it far worse. That is, the irrationally violent psychopaths are even more terrible than had they directly attacked those who dared to say a thing. Barely worse, because both are nearly immeasurably terrible, but still somehow worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
If you're saying things that are dangerous to your life to prove a point, it makes you
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 09:31
|
|
|
It would be good if we could get back to the Syrian revolution discussions instead of pseudo-intellectual debate with regards to the anti-prophet film and western military armchair general tactics. quote:The former head of Syria's chemical arsenal told London's Times newspaper that he had been involved in "serious discussion about the use of chemical weapons, including how we would use them and in what areas." Also we have the new UN mission stating that basically the Syrian regime is committing war crimes by indiscriminately wiping out their populace. The same man that said he would take a different approach to solving the crisis and to bring all parties to the table. I'm loving that the UN is continuing it's complicit inaction by stalling for the regime to wipe out more dissident civilians. With that in mind, we have the UK calling for the same proposal that was implemented in Libya. With Russia and China's adamant support for the regime to hold on to the last remaining bastions of support in the Middle-East, they are not supporting this call to action, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 11:44
|
|
|
The rebels take back the Turkish border crossing. This is a very important development as external arms are imported easily through rebel border positions, defectors can rejoin the cause, and refugee Syrians can cross into Turkey to escape the conflict. quote:Syrian rebels take full control of Syria's Tel Abyad crossing on Turkish border, says Turkish official. The regime continues to proponent for their despot regime and the Assad family to retain charge of the country as if the people do not deserve, or are not responsible to charge their own leadership. This is somehow a justification to the international community... what democratically elected government could stand behind this claim.. quote:Ali Akbar Salehi , the Iranian Foreign Minister, have said on Wednesday the solution to the war in Syria lies "only in Syria and within the Syrian family," state news agency SANA reported.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
Turkey just put out their report on the jet Syria shot down, badly Google Translated here. It appears it was shot down by a missile in international airspace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:You're making the rather extreme claim that this publication's desired, specific intent is to use muslim backlash to incite murder. In fact, their rather specific history with this very sort of thing led to their own offices being firebombed. Wrong. Free speech does not qualify you to be free of criticism. They are allowed to say or publish whatever they want, and I am allowed to call them out on it if I think they're reasons for it are lovely. You're strawmanning me, I never said it should be illegal, I'm saying in my opinion the only reason to publish a cartoon like the one that was published before is to antagonize Muslims. And yes, that's what I think the last one was for, because it was a racist depiction of Mohammed that broadly implied all Muslims are terrorists. They can say that all they want, they don't deserve to get firebombed for it, but guess what, I'm allowed to call them bad people for doing it. That's how free speech works. They aren't thinking this through to the point of 'I hope a Muslim kills me!' They are doing this just to stir up trouble and infamy for themselves, without really thinking about the possibility of a violent psychopath using it to justify attacking them. I would be hard pressed to believe any other reasons they presented, simply because the only possible use for such a comic would be a racist screed. Also that's a false analogy for 3 reasons; 1. People have made threats on Obama's life simply because he's a democrat and black, 2. There is a specific scriptural law against depicting the prophet Mohammed, and Christians and members of other religions when faced with something similarly sacrilegious to them have reacted just as violently (bombing abortion clinics for example), and 3. This is in the broader context of the middle east, which has been poo poo upon by the West for 60 year +, a fair number of the violent ones would probably use any justification to get riled up, that's the kind of mindset they are in, they just want a reason to hate the west. As to anyone saying 'but how do we know More Muslims aren't Violent,' guess loving what, every group in history has had a small, violent minority that have done atrocious things for very vague perceived insults. Most Muslims wouldn't want a depiction of their prophet being presented, many might even criticize it, but the vast majority will simply go on with their lives, because that's what sane people do. Those that launch threats and act out with violence are a terrible thing, but it's a problem that isn't unique to Muslims. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Communists,Shintoist, pretty much any group that has a hardcore base of fundamentalists adherents will have a segment of those adherents who use their creeds to justify violence. It's terrible and it's wrong but it's not unique to the Muslim world, and implying it is is nothing short of xenophobic, racist, and Hypocritical. Even if attacks result from these cartoons, that doesn't mean anything; you go out of your way to insult 1.6 billion people, don't be surprised if a few of them happen to be worse people than you and do something stupid. Or If other people criticize you for being little more than a school yard bully calling others racist names. Anyway I'm done with this derail. Back to read Brown's posts about Syria. Lascivious Sloth posted:The regime continues to proponent for their despot regime and the Assad family to retain charge of the country as if the people do not deserve, or are not responsible to charge their own leadership. This is somehow a justification to the international community... what democratically elected government could stand behind this claim.. I know it's a terrible situation and I wish more support from abroad was reaching them, but do you think direct military aide from the U.S. and Europe would aide matters or make them worse? I guess it's a moot point as long as Russia keeps everyone else at bay, but if the opportunity to intervene like in Libya was there, do you think we should?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
I'm wondering how the UN would react if Assad's forces did use chemical weapons. Wouldn't be surprised at all if they completely ignored it, just like they did when Saddam used chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
Myrdhale posted:Wrong. Free speech does not qualify you to be free of criticism. Exactly. "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?!?", is the cry of the lobotomized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Turkish forces are suffering more and more casualties, with ten soldiers killed and more than 70 wounded on Tuesday. On Sunday eight Turkish police were killed and nine wounded in the same region. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444450004578004100408688578.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/16/uk-turkey-pkk-attack-idUKBRE88F03Q20120916 Pieter Pan fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
HMDK posted:Exactly. I don't think anyone here is saying "LIKE the video", just "don't burn down a Hardees" and "don't kill people with the same nationality as the person who insulted you".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
France might have its own cartoon backlash.... http://www.france24.com/en/20120919-naked-mohammed-cartoons-fuel-muslim-outcry-france-charlie-hebdo-french-paper quote:France announced Wednesday it will close 20 embassies across the Muslim world on Friday after French weekly Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed naked, amid growing unrest over an anti-Islamic film that has left dozens dead. The cartoon  http://i.imgur.com/ywWuM.jpg
Sperg Victorious fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I don't think anyone here is saying "LIKE the video", just "don't burn down a Hardees" and "don't kill people with the same nationality as the person who insulted you". I won't suffer a Hardees to live.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
HMDK posted:I won't suffer a Hardees to live. But they have good breakfast  In a serious vein, what resources do you guys use for following events in the Middle East? I'm particularly interested in podcasts since I can listen to them on my phone when I have downtime (my schedule always varies since I'm beholden to a flight schedule), but any media is good. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Are the muslim riots just a de facto state of affairs now, reading on it there have been protests against depictions even going back a couple of years. So can we just accept this as something that is just going to happen? Or will it eventually burn itself out. I specifically talk about the 2005 riots/protests over the Danish Newspaper. I mean is this just status quo now? Publish video / Cartoon = Riot/Protests / People die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Lost in all of this is the fact that Muslims are prohibited from producing visual depictions of Mohammad lest the images lend themselves to the deification of a man their theology dictates is never to be worshipped as a deity, and yet here we have them responding to insults against Mohammad in a way that only someone defending their deity's honor would respond. It seems plainly obvious (to me, anyway) that modern Islam has become so completely bastardized that the cult of personality surrounding Mohammad (the man? the deity?) has superceded the worship of Allah or the study of the Koran. Randandal fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
Adar posted:If you're saying things that are dangerous to your life to prove a point, it makes you Seems like if your drawing of mohammed gets any sort of publicity at all, you arent really 'pretty safe' anywhere. Unless giving up your life and going into hiding with your family is relatively ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Religion is the opium of the people. Or, it's safer to demonstrate against a foreign nation than it is to demonstrate against your own government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:08
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Seems like if your drawing of mohammed gets any sort of publicity at all, you arent really 'pretty safe' anywhere. Unless giving up your life and going into hiding with your family is relatively ok. Yeah, I know . Everytime I make a joke about Moe Howard Mohammed, my muslim buddies try to behead me. It's a fun routine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
This could be some worrying newsquote:Eight Kurds killed at Turkey-Syria border crossing
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:This could be some worrying news If it's possible in a nutshell, what is the cause of the problems with the Kurds? I'm Jewish, so I know that there isn't always a rational reason for folks to hate you - but it still makes me curious that loving everybody just hates the Kurds out in that region. What's the history there, do the Kurds have a way of doing things or have they done things before that caused the Turks, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, etc., and seemingly every other faction within those nations, to use their  approach in regards to the Kurds?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
Basically the Kurdish factions aren't really interested in joining the FSA and have made a lot of noises about keeping the FSA out of their towns. The Syrian military pulled out of Kurdish regions a while back, and since them local Kurdish militias have been charge. Seemingly these militias are dominated by the local branch of the PKK, the PKD, which has worried Turkey enough for extra troops to be sent to those border regions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Baddog posted:Seems like if your drawing of mohammed gets any sort of publicity at all, you arent really 'pretty safe' anywhere. Unless giving up your life and going into hiding with your family is relatively ok. Yeah, you can say what you want about this lovely movie and those lovely cartoons, those were pretty much made to antagonize Muslims (not that doing so should result in threats on your life), but what about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie? Whether Satanic Verses antagonized Muslims or not, it's reasonably clear that it was not its sole intent to do so, and it's actually a pretty decent piece of art. Yet people are still calling for his death over it, even today. This is not to even mention the various "apostates" whose lives are at risk. I can agree to a point that purposefully antagonizing these nuts is irresponsible, but I can also understand the urge to give them the metaphorical middle finger by doing the thing that seems to piss them off the most. We as a society cannot tolerate a society that calls for people's deaths for expressing themselves, or a society that doesn't treat such threats as a crime. While you can argue that it's only a small minority of Muslims calling for death, violence and property destruction in these cases, I don't see a society around them that's willing to jail and prosecute them for making such threats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Thanks. It sounds like the Kurds are seeing the Syrian civil war and collapse of Assad's power as an opportunity to gain autonomy, and while the FSA has more important things to do right now, they're not happy about the idea of controlling a smaller Syria after Assad falls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Randandal posted:Lost in all of this is the fact that Muslims are prohibited from producing visual depictions of Mohammad lest the images lend themselves to the deification of a man their theology dictates is never to be worshipped as a deity, and yet here we have them responding to insults against Mohammad in a way that only someone defending their deity's honor would respond. I know yeah? apparently me and the other 99% worship Muhammed and not Allah, thanks for the fatwa Mullah Randandal!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Ahahahahhahaquote:Libya coverage 'broke broadcasting code' Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:I know yeah? apparently me and the other 99% worship Muhammed and not Allah, thanks for the fatwa Mullah Randandal! drat, please use context clues. If you want to be indignant before you even read something, you'll find something to outrage you. As a Muslim, I'm interested in hearing about how you view the incredible overreactions from the Muslim world. Is it 99%? I was thinking it was a small minority, but either way I'd like to hear what you think about folks placing so much more emphasis on the Prophet Muhammed than they would on any other "just a man".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Basically the Kurdish factions aren't really interested in joining the FSA and have made a lot of noises about keeping the FSA out of their towns. The Syrian military pulled out of Kurdish regions a while back, and since them local Kurdish militias have been charge. Seemingly these militias are dominated by the local branch of the PKK, the PKD, which has worried Turkey enough for extra troops to be sent to those border regions. Has the PKK or the PKD in Syria made any statements about their position in the civil war? Are they just filling the power vacuum or have they stated nominal support for the rebellion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Randandal posted:If it's possible in a nutshell, what is the cause of the problems with the Kurds? I'm Jewish, so I know that there isn't always a rational reason for folks to hate you - but it still makes me curious that loving everybody just hates the Kurds out in that region. What's the history there, do the Kurds have a way of doing things or have they done things before that caused the Turks, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, etc., and seemingly every other faction within those nations, to use their Kurds simply used to be one of the peoples ruled over by the Ottoman empire for centuries. At that time it didn't seem to matter too much - Ottoman empire was home to more ethnic groups than you have fingers and toes, somehow coming along. Come WW1, Britain and France divide the Ottoman Middle East to mandates and occupied areas between each other (and Russia until the Bolshevik revolution). After the war this plan was followed and after WW2 the national borders set during WW1 were followed with few exceptions. At the time nobody in charge thought that nationalism might end up playing a prominent role in Middle East politics - whether Zionism, Arab nationalism or Kurdish nationalism. I don't know if at the time when the current borders between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey were drawn anyone even knew how far the Kurds were spread. Basically, what most modern African states were formed after: arbitrary lines on the map. So come the Kurds starting to feel that their time has come you have the population spread far and apart among four sovereign states, all of which are pretty keen at maintaining full control of all of their areas. Turkey in particular, the home to the largest Kurdish population and also the nation that has the worst memories of its empire falling apart, something they don't want to see happen again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Yeah, the feeling towards the Kurds in the region is just what happens when you create a bunch of countries each containing part of an ethnic minority that actually forms a fairly congruent ethnic majority in a territory that crosses all of those borders. They want their own country, everyone else doesn't want bits of 'their' country disappearing to the demands of what from each of their individual perspectives is a small minority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Randandal posted:drat, please use context clues. If you want to be indignant before you even read something, you'll find something to outrage you. As a Muslim, I'm interested in hearing about how you view the incredible overreactions from the Muslim world. Is it 99%? I was thinking it was a small minority, but either way I'd like to hear what you think about folks placing so much more emphasis on the Prophet Muhammed than they would on any other "just a man". Maybe you shouldn't paint a broad swath of people and instead used context yourself? Seriously now, how did you manage to read that as 99% protestors and not 99% who worship Allah, and don't give a gently caress about cartoons or videos insulting Muhammed. I'm no scholar but I was still in grade six yet we had no problem quoting Abu Bakr in religious classes: "O People! If anyone among you worshipped Muhammad, let him know that Muhammad is dead. But those who worshipped Allah, let them know that He lives and will never die. 'Muhammad is only a Messenger of Allah, there have been Messengers before him. What then, will you turn back from Islam if he dies or is killed?' " Tell me though, how did it become plainly obvious to you that people started worshipping muhammed, have you seen a billion people coming out in protests worldwide?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Tell me though, how did it become plainly obvious to you that people started worshipping muhammed, have you seen a billion people coming out in protests worldwide? He, like many others, is only exposed to Muslims through the Media when something get broken. It's ignorant, but sadly not uncommon. It would be like saying every single person from Alabama was like George Wallace, or that all Christians bomb abortion clinics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Some interesting excerpts from a recent article on TIME's website:quote:In the town of Bdeeta in Idlib province — which happens to be the hometown of Riad al-As’aad — rebel fighters complain bitterly about the lack of assistance. “We are licking our plates. We beg for salt,” says Abu Mar’iye, who heads the Martyrs of Ibditha group in the tiny town, home to some 2,000 people. “It’s not enough. Even the weapons that arrive, it’s like a drop, just enough so the fighting continues, so we can kill each other but not win.” quote:Similarly, some FSA groups, like Suqoor al-Sham, are also part of wider Islamist networks, largely to maximize the amount of support they can get. In a major development, Abu Issa has joined a powerful new pan-Syrian Islamist coalition called the Jabhat Tahrir Syria, or the Syrian Liberation Front, which groups several formidable, battle-hardened rebel outfits, including the famed Farouk Brigades of Homs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Myrdhale posted:He, like many others, is only exposed to Muslims through the Media when something get broken. It's ignorant, but sadly not uncommon. I think the problem, at least for an outsider, is that the events you mentioned are done by scattered individuals, while those are riots with (what appears to be) lots of people. E: vvv You think the average outsider exposed to Muslims through the media has context? Tardigrade fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:44
|
|
