Men killed outside Art Exhibition in Dallas

[Blarghagh]

I just wanted to pipe in here because you said "ask the Dutch" about Wilders.

 

I'm deliberately going into Godwin's law here - this is a man who is actively trying (though failing) to emulate Hitler. His entire strategy is to exploit existing feelings of xenophobia and social inequality by scapegoating an entire religious group for those problems, gaining the support of the scared, disillusioned and uneducated morons of which there are surprisingly many, sometimes whipping his following into a frenzy using racist mantras. I will mercilessly ridicule the bleached haired racist and anyone who votes for him.

 

Yet, I will defend his freedom of speech to say the stupid nonsense he says to the death and so should everyone else. Because if you don't, who is going to be left to stand up when you are the one they want to silence? The solution here is to educate people so they won't be goddamned idiots, not to shut the goddamned idiots up.

 

As for this being art or not, one of the purposes of art is to push against boundaries and I would say that is exactly what this is doing. Any other discussion is fairly pointless considering how nebulous the concept of art really is. Either way, there is a matter of principle to me that if what these terrorists want to do is silence these by violence or the threat thereof they should on no account be allowed to succeed. There should be more of these shows just out of principle. What there shouldn't be is discussions where people, in this case yourself, are arguing that threatening violence to silence people should ****ing work.

 

I believe the quote goes something like this:

 

 

 

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Edited May 4, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Bartimaeus]

 

I wonder what Bruce thinks of abortion. With his attitude abortion would  still be completely illegal, abortion clincs would be shut down, pro abortionists/freedom of choicers would be censored, and fundamental christian crazies who used violence to oppose it would have 'won'. That's the kind of world Bruce wants to live in - where violent psychopaths get what they want.

 

Not sure how this relevant to my point in this thread  but I believe abortion in certain cases is fine and the decision should be the women's choice

 

Volourn is, I think, creating an analogy mainly in reply to this:

 

I think you guys are completely missing my point, in summary if you know something is going to offend people and quote possibly lead to violence or attacks on that institution then why do it? We also know the Middle East isn't very tolerant around other religions within there own countries but what has that got to do with Western countries and how we manage our own civil rights and human rights ...its like saying " now because Coptic Christians were attacked in Libya by ISIS we should be fine with Mosques being attacked within this Western country "

 

Don't we hold ourselves to a different standard than ISIS or any extremist group?

That is, those operating abortion clinics know it will offend fundamentalist Christians...who might conceivably raise hell...so shut down the abortion clinics in the name of making sure potential maniacs are not offended.

 

One could make the argument that by shutting down the abortion clinics, you may similarly be offending militant pro-lifers. However, one can extend Volourn's analogy by simply saying that you might be offending those who fervently believe in freedom and exercising your rights, regardless of whatever silliness it is for. The idea is you shouldn't shut stuff down simply because it might be controversial - that's a pissant way to run a supposedly "free" society.

[JadedWolf]

So you're doing the wrong thing, breaking the law and you would be arrested or at least receive a fine.

 

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. 

 

Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection?

[Chilloutman]

 

So you're doing the wrong thing, breaking the law and you would be arrested or at least receive a fine.

 

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. 

 

Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection?

 

 

In short? Yes. As far as you keep to the law you always should be protected

[JadedWolf]

 

 

I wonder what Bruce thinks of abortion. With his attitude abortion would  still be completely illegal, abortion clincs would be shut down, pro abortionists/freedom of choicers would be censored, and fundamental christian crazies who used violence to oppose it would have 'won'. That's the kind of world Bruce wants to live in - where violent psychopaths get what they want.

 

Not sure how this relevant to my point in this thread  but I believe abortion in certain cases is fine and the decision should be the women's choice

 

Volourn is, I think, creating an analogy mainly in reply to this:

 

I think you guys are completely missing my point, in summary if you know something is going to offend people and quote possibly lead to violence or attacks on that institution then why do it? We also know the Middle East isn't very tolerant around other religions within there own countries but what has that got to do with Western countries and how we manage our own civil rights and human rights ...its like saying " now because Coptic Christians were attacked in Libya by ISIS we should be fine with Mosques being attacked within this Western country "

 

Don't we hold ourselves to a different standard than ISIS or any extremist group?

That is, those operating abortion clinics know it will offend fundamentalist Christians...who might conceivably raise hell...so shut down the abortion clinics in the name of making sure potential maniacs are not offended.

 

One could make the argument that by shutting down the abortion clinics, you may similarly be offending militant pro-lifers. However, one can extend Volourn's analogy by simply saying that you might be offending those who fervently believe in freedom and exercising your rights, regardless of whatever silliness it is for. The idea is you shouldn't shut stuff down simply because it might be controversial - that's a pissant way to run a supposedly "free" society.

 

 

On the other hand, from what I understand, protesters against abortion are free to gather around the people who are seeking entrance to the abortion clinic and shout at them that they are going to hell.

[Walsingham]

To rake up Monte's point a bit:

 

I don't go around insulting people for the hell of it. But it is grave mistake to assume that not drawing pictures of Mohammed would solve this problem.

 

The only reason you attack someone who draws pictures is if you are having serious mortality/faith issues. So much so that merely questioning your beliefs is enough to trigger a fight or flight reaction.

 

Now, better men than I have argued that if an individual is that far gone, then simply being around people of different faiths is too much. They can't allow for others to think different because it exposes the essentially personal nature of faith, and the human fallibility of same.

 

In short, as Monte says, appeasement is merely feeding the tiger. You just get a stronger tiger, that is never going to stop being hungry.

 

In conclusion: we need to convince the Chinese that jihadi spleens are an aphrodisiac, so all the jihadi tigers will be captured or shot.

[JadedWolf]

Yet, I will defend his freedom of speech to say the stupid nonsense he says to the death and so should everyone else. Because if you don't, who is going to be left to stand up when you are the one they want to silence? The solution here is to educate people so they won't be goddamned idiots, not to shut the goddamned idiots up.

 

That's an interesting thing to think about. Would I be willing to die for Wilders? Hmm, I guess I fail as a human being because my answer is "Hmm, nope!"

 

By the way, I don't think Wilders is an idiot, I actually think he is a very cunning man. He knows exactly what he wants, and how to achieve it. He is a master of provokation, who knows exactly how to play his game. And that's my problem. It's not that I feel we should be sensitive to fanatics who will probably always find some reason to go around causing mayhem anyway, it's the cynical use of free speech by people like Wilders to put an aura of sainthood around themselves while other people suffer from it that gets under my skin.

 

Dying for Wilders... I can just imagine it. His cynical PR machine would end up declaring me a martyr for his cause. Yuck.

[BruceVC]

 

So you're doing the wrong thing, breaking the law and you would be arrested or at least receive a fine.

 

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. 

 

Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection?

 

 

Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue

 

For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security 

 

But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme

 

So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective    but what are the consequences?  

 

Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners"

 

So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

So you're doing the wrong thing, breaking the law and you would be arrested or at least receive a fine.

 

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. 

 

Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection?

 

 

Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue

 

For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security 

 

But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme

 

So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective    but what are the consequences?  

 

Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners"

 

So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ?

 

 

Not sure what are you still asking. Many people here already replied to you. Lets rephrase your question. 'Is it worth protect freedom of speech if someone will kill people because of it?' reply and we will see

[Blarghagh]

 

Yet, I will defend his freedom of speech to say the stupid nonsense he says to the death and so should everyone else. Because if you don't, who is going to be left to stand up when you are the one they want to silence? The solution here is to educate people so they won't be goddamned idiots, not to shut the goddamned idiots up.

 

That's an interesting thing to think about. Would I be willing to die for Wilders? Hmm, I guess I fail as a human being because my answer is "Hmm, nope!"

 

By the way, I don't think Wilders is an idiot, I actually think he is a very cunning man. He knows exactly what he wants, and how to achieve it. He is a master of provokation, who knows exactly how to play his game. And that's my problem. It's not that I feel we should be sensitive to fanatics who will probably always find some reason to go around causing mayhem anyway, it's the cynical use of free speech by people like Wilders to put an aura of sainthood around themselves while other people suffer from it that gets under my skin.

 

Dying for Wilders... I can just imagine it. His cynical PR machine would end up declaring me a martyr for his cause. Yuck.

 

 

To be fair, I will defend his right to free speech to the death. I'm not sure I would be called upon to defend him.

 

I also didn't say he was an idiot. I just said he says idiotic things, knowing full well his following, which does consist out of idiots, will swallow it up like the idiots they are. He's learned his lessons from Hitler well.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

So you're doing the wrong thing, breaking the law and you would be arrested or at least receive a fine.

 

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. 

 

Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection?

 

 

Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue

 

For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security 

 

But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme

 

So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective    but what are the consequences?  

 

Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners"

 

So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ?

 

 

Not sure what are you still asking. Many people here already replied to you. Lets rephrase your question. 'Is it worth protect freedom of speech if someone will kill people because of it?' reply and we will see

 

 

I don't believe it is worth someone else getting killed because I exercise my freedom of speech

 

So for example Wilders and the organizers of the exhibition probably won't get killed because of this but the reaction and targets of the outcry will be in countries outside the USA...as normally happens

 

And if someone does get beheaded who has nothing to do with this art exhibition how would that make you feel? Would you still believe this is a price we as Westerners pay for free speech?

 

And I'm not suggesting now we can't criticize Islam, I am only talking about this particular event and its consequences

[Chilloutman]

 

I don't believe it is worth someone else getting killed because I exercise my freedom of speech

 

So for example Wilders and the organizers of the exhibition probably won't get killed because of this but the reaction and targets of the outcry will be in countries outside the USA...as normally happens

 

And if someone does get beheaded who has nothing to do with this art exhibition how would that make you feel? Would you still believe this is a price we as Westerners pay for free speech?

 

And I'm not suggesting now we can't criticize Islam, I am only talking about this particular event and its consequences

 

 

Well you got your answear for you then. For you its not worth. For me? I dont care. If there are 'people' who kill someone because someone else done something in other country - well, not much I can do about it, those 'people' are probably retarded on their own and no matter my actions they will still be. Point is that they are not allowed to kill people in country where freedom of speech still exists. And even if that gallery was provocative it show us that those 'people' are now already in countries with freedom of speech. So its kind of rat trap. And in this particular example - well working one. We are -2 rats in america now. Job well done

[Elerond]

So here is my question, we know these types of events are legal in the USA despite being offensive to most Muslims...so why have them? Do we balance the right to freedom of expression against the safety of people and say " you are welcome to arrange this art exhibition but you are at risk and the Police cannot guarantee to protect you " 

 

Because apparently these attackers had a  bomb as well and could have created real havoc..and for what? Just so someone can have some really controversial art show?

 

So I'm not sure on this one in the sense " is it really worth having these types of events " knowing the amount of manpower that is now needed just to keep the premises  safe ? 

 

Point behind this kind events is to get some idiots riled so much that they attack/try attack the show (when you do such shows enough of times you eventually find someone/s that are just crazy and idiotic enough to do such attack), because that make public see all the people belonging to same broad group as attackers to be dangers to society that need to be watched and whose rights can be violated.

 

Should such controversial shows be legal, yes. Should they such idiots (meaning people that purposefully try get violent reaction from people so that they can claim that those belonging same group (religious, racial, national, sports fan club, etc.) of people who attacked them should not have same rights as them) that do them get protection of law, yes. But in my opinion press should do better job not making such people some heroes of free speech, because they really aren't such, as they usually think that only right sort of people should have right to free speech and their whole act is to get public opinion to same wave length.

 

But anyway to your question it is worth for the organizers to have this kind event, because they convey their message better than anything else, as most other cases their message would go unheard as public would mainly ignore it as idiotic and something that is against their values, but when they make events that get threatened by attacks or better attacked their message will get in news and it becomes easier to public accepts it and usually it don't put them at risk as most of the risk goes to those who protect them from the possible attack/attack.

[Walsingham]

For the record, if mainstream Islam genuinely can't handle freedom of speech, and the superior right to life, then it had better bloody well learn to handle it.

 

However, again for the record, I don't think mainstream Islam has anything to do with such shootings. Mainstream Islam is the only thing which enrages these ****ers more than the West does.

 

Worrying about the mainstream is a dangerous irrelevancy.

[Malcador]

I guess these people were really hoping for this kind of reaction to their, heh, "event".

[BruceVC]

 

So here is my question, we know these types of events are legal in the USA despite being offensive to most Muslims...so why have them? Do we balance the right to freedom of expression against the safety of people and say " you are welcome to arrange this art exhibition but you are at risk and the Police cannot guarantee to protect you " 

 

Because apparently these attackers had a  bomb as well and could have created real havoc..and for what? Just so someone can have some really controversial art show?

 

So I'm not sure on this one in the sense " is it really worth having these types of events " knowing the amount of manpower that is now needed just to keep the premises  safe ? 

 

Point behind this kind events is to get some idiots riled so much that they attack/try attack the show (when you do such shows enough of times you eventually find someone/s that are just crazy and idiotic enough to do such attack), because that make public see all the people belonging to same broad group as attackers to be dangers to society that need to be watched and whose rights can be violated.

 

Should such controversial shows be legal, yes. Should they such idiots (meaning people that purposefully try get violent reaction from people so that they can claim that those belonging same group (religious, racial, national, sports fan club, etc.) of people who attacked them should not have same rights as them) that do them get protection of law, yes. But in my opinion press should do better job not making such people some heroes of free speech, because they really aren't such, as they usually think that only right sort of people should have right to free speech and their whole act is to get public opinion to same wave length.

 

But anyway to your question it is worth for the organizers to have this kind event, because they convey their message better than anything else, as most other cases their message would go unheard as public would mainly ignore it as idiotic and something that is against their values, but when they make events that get threatened by attacks or better attacked their message will get in news and it becomes easier to public accepts it and usually it don't put them at risk as most of the risk goes to those who protect them from the possible attack/attack.

 

 

This is an interesting post but I need to ask you a question

 

" What is the message the art exhibition is trying to get across " in your opinion ?

[ravenshrike]

Hmm, so guys, do you think I should be able to get police protection if I decide to exercise my right to free speech by setting fire to Feijenoord shirts outside of the Feijenoord stadium, while wearing an Ajax shirt? I'll call it an art performance, if that helps.

 

If anyone then attacks the policemen, it won't be my responsibility at all.

Except the actual equivalent would be to set fire to said shirts while outside the Ajax stadium when Ajax isn't even playing Feijenoord.

[Nonek]

Art has no purpose, and meaning only in the eye of the beholder, it is the mark of a civilisations culture and freedom of expression. It should never be fettered by those whom wish to be offended, in fact it should actually promote offense, as it always has.

 

In my personal opinion of course.

[BruceVC]

Art has no purpose, and meaning only in the eye of the beholder, it is the mark of a civilisations culture and freedom of expression. It should never be fettered by those whom wish to be offended, in fact it should actually promote offense, as it always has.

 

In my personal opinion of course.

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended

 

They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective  and since when are religions rational?

[Nonek]

Then either do not attend the gallery or if feeling offended as they are wont to do, peacefully demonstrate within the law.

 

A christian for instance may not like your avatar, it is not their right to change it, only perhaps ask you or a mod to to change it. Or they could just be secure in their faith, vast amounts of any faiths teachings are now dispensed with or ignored while others are given importance when it suits an agenda. Read Leviticus for instance.

 

None of this should interfere with free speech, especially if you believe that they are irrational.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

Then either do not attend the gallery or if feeling offended as they are wont to do, peacefully demonstrate within the law.

 

A christian for instance may not like your avatar, it is not their right to change it, only perhaps ask you or a mod to to change it. Or they could just be secure in their faith, vast amounts of any faiths teachings are now dispensed with or ignored while others are given importance when it suits an agenda. Read Leviticus for instance.

 

None of this should interfere with free speech.

 

Fair enough, but does it not concern you that there will be people ( we have already seen the 2 gunmen ) who will not  go to the gallery and  or demonstrate peacefully but will attempt to inflict  maximum carnage on anyone they feel is associated with the gallery (so basically targeting any Westerner )? And they wouldn't have acted like this if it wasn't because of the art exhibition ?

 

So do  you feel the organizers of the art show have  no reason to feel any sense of responsibility about what happens after this?

[Chilloutman]

 

Art has no purpose, and meaning only in the eye of the beholder, it is the mark of a civilisations culture and freedom of expression. It should never be fettered by those whom wish to be offended, in fact it should actually promote offense, as it always has.

 

In my personal opinion of course.

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended

 

They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective  and since when are religions rational?

 

 

Well, islam tells them that stoning is right punishment. Do you support stoning to please them? Or do you at least sympathize with it? If something is religion dogma it doesnt mean i have to sympathize with it correct?

[Nonek]

In reply to Bruce I reiterate: 

 

 

None of this should interfere with free speech.

 

 

Lawlessness is the fault of the lawbreakers, not the peaceful artists or organisers of their work whom are acting within the law.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

 

 

Art has no purpose, and meaning only in the eye of the beholder, it is the mark of a civilisations culture and freedom of expression. It should never be fettered by those whom wish to be offended, in fact it should actually promote offense, as it always has.

 

In my personal opinion of course.

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended

 

They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective  and since when are religions rational?

 

 

Well, islam tells them that stoning is right punishment. Do you support stoning to please them? Or do you at least sympathize with it? If something is religion dogma it doesnt mean i have to sympathize with it correct?

 

 

Yes Stoning is still used in some countries, I think it is an appalling and inhuman way to implement the death penalty

 

There are other way to kill people that are much more humane so I don't support or sympathize with it 

 

But this is not the same thing as me  saying "I respect the wishes  of Muslims when they ask I don't create images of the Prophet  "  ?

[Gorgon]

For the record, if mainstream Islam genuinely can't handle freedom of speech, and the superior right to life, then it had better bloody well learn to handle it.

 

However, again for the record, I don't think mainstream Islam has anything to do with such shootings. Mainstream Islam is the only thing which enrages these ****ers more than the West does.

 

Worrying about the mainstream is a dangerous irrelevancy.

I think people should be free to offend whoever they want. Religious dogma in particular can be extremely damaging to human social development. Away with it I say.

 

 It's just that it's not only religion at stake here.Geert Wilders is a populist and a racist, and this event clearly had a little of that stink on it as well.