Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand. Even if I hated Islam (I don't), I would dislike this event because I think that public trolling is undignified garbage that isn't fit for polite society.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand.

It's good to hear that you respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages and would equally condemn art like the piss Christ that offends Christians.

You know what's offensive to me? Anyone who would shut down free speech because someone might be "offended" by what they hear.  They, and those"offended" need to grow up and realize that there are people who won't always agree with them.

No, no; I don't respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages because that's clear and obvious discrimination. It's also not a "speech" act, it's discrimination involving commerce, which was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I would condemn art that flagrantly offends the sensibilities of Christians. I don't condone speech that is intended to incite hatred or bash the norms of others, so long as those norms aren't destructive.

Sure, I'm also opposed to those who would like to censure some speech acts using the writ of the government. With that being said, I reserve the right to condemn other speech acts using my speech acts. I think your post is disgusting and implicitly justifies racism. It mistakes the legal notion of "free speech" for the realities of discourse in society. It's a thoughtless, stupid post.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.

I don't respect this post.

You're mistaking my post for an advocacy of censorship or government action. I support no such thing. I'm merely stating that, in context, this cartoon drawing contest is a hateful, vile scheme designed to flagrantly bash Islam in a non-constructive manner. Although I believe it is rooted in racialized bigotry directed at group, I would still find it distasteful and vile if it was directed at Catholics or Presbyterians.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't agree with your ideas or values on this topic. My norms aren't your norms either. That's, more or less, the point of my posts: there are no commandments or rules that determine what is respectful and what isn't respectful. Judging whether or not something is tasteful, inoffensive or respectful must be done on a case by case basis that is attentive to social, cultural and political contexts. In most cases, trying to draw cartoons of Muhammad is pretty tasteless. It's tasteless because it's a weak critique of Islam, it's designed to anger/irritate/provoke Muslims rather than engender a constructive conversation about Islam etc. Does drawing a cartoon of Muhammad serve any purpose whatsoever? No. It's a cheap shot.

I suppose this is okay with you, right? After all, it's only attacking an idea. It's not necessarily directed at Jews, right?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What is this sophistry? No one is discussing "offensive" in the legal sense of the term but rather in the sense of the term as it is defined by society. In most contexts, "offensive" means something that is done specifically to "offend" the sensibilities of another individual or another group. My point is incredibly simple: this exhibit was designed to flagrantly offend the sensibilities of Islam.

It's legal in the United States to call Mexicans "beaners", to call African-Americans the n-word, to call Jews "kikes" etc. It's legal to buy Bibles for the sake of burning them in a large bonfire on public property, it's legal to call generalized groups nasty, nasty things. Although I'm reluctantly opposed to legal censorship, I still look down upon all of these acts. I would boycott any store owned by someone who did any of these things. I would call the proponents of these acts "racists" or "bigots" or "chauvinists".

Likewise, I condemn Geert Wilders' fun gathering of quasi-fascists and extremists.  I think they're chauvinistic bigots. This is the beauty of free speech: any speech act that is deemed to be offensive by a community may be countered, condemned and punished by other speech acts. I don't need a government mandate to oppose stupid and vile behavior. I certainly don't need your permission. Your interpretation conforms to your belief that Islam is a threat to Western society. I don't think that's accurate or correct or constructive or remotely interesting. It's propagandized nonsense. Just because a few extremists are willing to kill someone for printing a cartoon means that people need to support bashing an entire community for the sake of punishing a few.

Okay, I'm done. I don't care to persuade a hypocrite who is willfully ignorant to condemn bigotry.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7517221/charlie-hebdo-blasphemy

To move this discussion away from what people think is offensive, why not investigate social scientific literature that has explored this topic?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

This is a strange counter-factual. His career clearly isn't a performance art project. Even if Geert Wilders' political career was one long performance art project, I'm not sure how I would react because that would be utterly surreal. I'd like to think I would condemn him for promoting bigotry though.

I don't know what your point is ingemann. Are you irritated that I said "I wouldn't shed a tear for Geert Wilders"? That's pretty accurate, I hate him and condemn this project. Why do you think this means that I support terrorists?