Behold the face of American Free Speech/Anti-Islam

Page 4 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

01 Jun 2015, 2:42 pm

This specific event really doesn't have anything to do with countering some "heckler's veto." I'm all for doing that, by the way--have your Mohammed drawing contest and even post the pictures across from the mosque if you like...

However, just because countering the 'heckler's veto" is okay (maybe even called for) doesn't mean it's okay to go out and deliberately try to incite violence in the way these people are.

There's a HUGE difference between displaying some drawings and assembling an ARMED, ANGRY MOB, literally clothed in obscenities outside a place of worship. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to interpret such a gathering as extremely threatening and harassing.

What's more, as far as I know, the innocent people at this mosque HAVE NOT engaged in any radical teachings nor have they made any public statements endorsing any sort of militant behavior.

While the protesters certainly have a right to free speech, they don't have a right to harass and threaten innocent people--especially people WHO HAVE IN NO WAY MADE THEMSELVES PART OF ANY PUBLIC DEBATE. Those people have a right to mind their own business and live free from harassment and implied threats of violence.

The 'demonstrators' are really nothing more than bigots and thugs hiding behind 'free speech' while they 'punch down' on a marginalized minority group they don't happen to like and want to oppress with intimidation.

This isn't what free speech is supposed to be for.

As Bill already pointed out, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. This is confirmed by Edmund Burke--not a founding father, but certainly a founding uncle...

I promised myself I'd stop posting this quote, but until what passes for libertarians these days 'get it' I feel I must...

Quote:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.


This is a really important concept that modern day "freedom warriors" don't seem to grasp. Freedom isn't absolute and it shouldn't be--the people who designed our system certainly didn't think so, and neither should we.

Freedom of speech isn't some absolute, sacred principle anymore than the prohibition against drawing Mohammed is...

And, seeing the phrase "freedom of speech" somewhere should not be a cue for otherwise intelligent people to switch their brains off and start spewing platitudes like "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death your right to say it!"

...talk about fanatical. :roll:

:P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Jun 2015, 4:22 pm

GoonSquad-

Thank you. 8)


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

02 Jun 2015, 2:18 am

Authoritarians of the world, unite! All you have to lose is your yucky, yucky freedom!

Kraichgauer wrote:
Do you really think those bigots don't associate brown skin with the Islamic religion?


Were there racists present? No doubt – any crowd of sufficient size, etc. However, you have presented no evidence that the event was significantly motivated by racism. The organizer spoke of his low regard for Islam, not for brown-skinned people. The contest (and its predecessor) had the theme "Draw Muhammad," not "Draw a brown-skinned religious figure." The Boston bombers did not have brown skin, but I've yet to hear anybody suggest that they were therefore less vicious than terrorists of darker hues. All this makes sense, since it isn't The International Brown-skinned Association which is waging war on the West, it's radical Islam. 

Quote:
If you don't, then you're very much naive, or blinded by ideology.


I look at what is there and try not to make assumptions in the absence of evidence. This ideology is called "objectivity," and it has served me well. 

You, on the other hand, drag racism into every discussion, usually with the implication that those who disagree with you must be racists. I swear, if we were discussing Chevy vs. Ford, you'd make it about race somehow. I'm blind? Well, there's a word for somebody who insists on seeing what is not actually there. 

Quote:
And when the hell did I ever say that rights were only for people I like? I'm just saying that people - whoever they are - should think before opening their mouths. What's possibly wrong with practicing a little responsibility with freedom? But I don't ever recall saying that such persons shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want.


When people you like say and do provocative things, you praise them; when it's people you dislike, you say they should "just shut up." No, you haven't called for actual censorship, but neither do you write like someone who sincerely values freedom of speech. (And when somebody of established authoritarian leanings suggests that some people should just shut up, it's considerably more ominous than when Joe Schmo says it.)

GoonSquad wrote:
This specific event really doesn't have anything to do with countering some "heckler's veto." I'm all for doing that, by the way--have your Mohammed drawing contest and even post the pictures across from the mosque if you like...
However, just because countering the 'heckler's veto" is okay (maybe even called for) doesn't mean it's okay to go out and deliberately try to incite violence in the way these people are. 

There's a HUGE difference between displaying some drawings and assembling an ARMED, ANGRY MOB, literally clothed in obscenities outside a place of worship. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to interpret such a gathering as extremely threatening and harassing.


I do. Given recent events, anybody wanting simply to "display drawings" of Muhammad would be insane not to arm themselves. And would you establish a Board of Clothing Censorship, to decide what slogans may or may not be permitted on a t-shirt? And perhaps a No Free Speech Zone within a certain radius of religious facilities? Better extend that protection to homes and businesses, too. Maybe we should just mark off a square mile of the Mojave for all controversial speech, and enforce strict inoffensiveness everywhere else. 

Freedom is messy. People will insist on saying and doing things of which you don't approve, and often in a time, place, and manner other than that which you would choose. 

Quote:
Freedom of speech isn't some absolute, sacred principle anymore than the prohibition against drawing Mohammed is...


No right is a contextless absolute. Like all rights, freedom of speech is contextual – defined and delimited by the rights of others. Of course the demonstrators didn't have the right to physically threaten or intimidate anybody, or even to impede traffic. (According to the article I just read, police eventually confined the protest and the counterprotest to opposite sides of the street. That was probably appropriate.) However, if they chanted slogans, wore offensive shirts, tore up a Quran – those actions violated nobody's rights. There is no 'right not to be offended,' no 'right never to be confronted by people who disagree with you.' I personally wouldn't do any of those things, but I don't claim the authority to dictate the actions of others. 

Quote:
The 'demonstrators' are really nothing more than bigots and thugs hiding behind 'free speech' while they 'punch down' on a marginalized minority group they don't happen to like and want to oppress with intimidation.


I'm sure they're all deeply, deeply concerned by your evaluation of their character and motivation, and will aspire to lead better lives. 

Quote:
As Bill already pointed out, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. This is confirmed by Edmund Burke--not a founding father, but certainly a founding uncle...


Burke spoke in Parliament urging conciliation with the then American colonies, trying to avert what became the War for American Independence. Beyond that his contribution to this country's founding was nil. Later he became a staunch advocate of royalty, nobility, and other traditional institutions, merely because they were traditional. His writings were to inspire modern conservatives of the Russell Kirk variety, but you won't find him much praised by classical liberals or libertarians. (As I recall either John Adams or Thomas Jefferson referred to him very harshly, but I don't have time to look it up.) Anyway, quote him if you like, but from the American point of view I don't believe he was a founding anything. 

Let's cut to the conclusion of the quote you posted:
Quote:
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.


What does this mean? Passionate men may rightly be enslaved. But "passion" isn't something that can be objectively quantified. Who decides when a given individual is overly "passionate"? Why, the King and the nobles, of course! (Burke was no admirer of democracy.) He's arguing for a medieval state where the King or the Duke may imprison any commoner at his whim. Is that really where you want to live?

Quote:
And, seeing the phrase "freedom of speech" somewhere should not be a cue for otherwise intelligent people to switch their brains off and start spewing platitudes like "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death your right to say it!"
...talk about fanatical. :roll: 
:P


Guess that answered that question. Your preference for dictatorship is noted. Fortunately I think you're still in the minority. 

Remarkable given the source:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_lef ... must_face/


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 Jun 2015, 10:22 am

luan78zao wrote:
Authoritarians of the world, unite! All you have to lose is your yucky, yucky freedom!

Kraichgauer wrote:
Do you really think those bigots don't associate brown skin with the Islamic religion?


Were there racists present? No doubt – any crowd of sufficient size, etc. However, you have presented no evidence that the event was significantly motivated by racism. The organizer spoke of his low regard for Islam, not for brown-skinned people. The contest (and its predecessor) had the theme "Draw Muhammad," not "Draw a brown-skinned religious figure." The Boston bombers did not have brown skin, but I've yet to hear anybody suggest that they were therefore less vicious than terrorists of darker hues. All this makes sense, since it isn't The International Brown-skinned Association which is waging war on the West, it's radical Islam. 

Quote:
If you don't, then you're very much naive, or blinded by ideology.


I look at what is there and try not to make assumptions in the absence of evidence. This ideology is called "objectivity," and it has served me well. 

You, on the other hand, drag racism into every discussion, usually with the implication that those who disagree with you must be racists. I swear, if we were discussing Chevy vs. Ford, you'd make it about race somehow. I'm blind? Well, there's a word for somebody who insists on seeing what is not actually there. 

Quote:
And when the hell did I ever say that rights were only for people I like? I'm just saying that people - whoever they are - should think before opening their mouths. What's possibly wrong with practicing a little responsibility with freedom? But I don't ever recall saying that such persons shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want.


When people you like say and do provocative things, you praise them; when it's people you dislike, you say they should "just shut up." No, you haven't called for actual censorship, but neither do you write like someone who sincerely values freedom of speech. (And when somebody of established authoritarian leanings suggests that some people should just shut up, it's considerably more ominous than when Joe Schmo says it.)

GoonSquad wrote:
This specific event really doesn't have anything to do with countering some "heckler's veto." I'm all for doing that, by the way--have your Mohammed drawing contest and even post the pictures across from the mosque if you like...
However, just because countering the 'heckler's veto" is okay (maybe even called for) doesn't mean it's okay to go out and deliberately try to incite violence in the way these people are. 

There's a HUGE difference between displaying some drawings and assembling an ARMED, ANGRY MOB, literally clothed in obscenities outside a place of worship. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to interpret such a gathering as extremely threatening and harassing.


I do. Given recent events, anybody wanting simply to "display drawings" of Muhammad would be insane not to arm themselves. And would you establish a Board of Clothing Censorship, to decide what slogans may or may not be permitted on a t-shirt? And perhaps a No Free Speech Zone within a certain radius of religious facilities? Better extend that protection to homes and businesses, too. Maybe we should just mark off a square mile of the Mojave for all controversial speech, and enforce strict inoffensiveness everywhere else. 

Freedom is messy. People will insist on saying and doing things of which you don't approve, and often in a time, place, and manner other than that which you would choose. 

Quote:
Freedom of speech isn't some absolute, sacred principle anymore than the prohibition against drawing Mohammed is...


No right is a contextless absolute. Like all rights, freedom of speech is contextual – defined and delimited by the rights of others. Of course the demonstrators didn't have the right to physically threaten or intimidate anybody, or even to impede traffic. (According to the article I just read, police eventually confined the protest and the counterprotest to opposite sides of the street. That was probably appropriate.) However, if they chanted slogans, wore offensive shirts, tore up a Quran – those actions violated nobody's rights. There is no 'right not to be offended,' no 'right never to be confronted by people who disagree with you.' I personally wouldn't do any of those things, but I don't claim the authority to dictate the actions of others. 

Quote:
The 'demonstrators' are really nothing more than bigots and thugs hiding behind 'free speech' while they 'punch down' on a marginalized minority group they don't happen to like and want to oppress with intimidation.


I'm sure they're all deeply, deeply concerned by your evaluation of their character and motivation, and will aspire to lead better lives. 

Quote:
As Bill already pointed out, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. This is confirmed by Edmund Burke--not a founding father, but certainly a founding uncle...


Burke spoke in Parliament urging conciliation with the then American colonies, trying to avert what became the War for American Independence. Beyond that his contribution to this country's founding was nil. Later he became a staunch advocate of royalty, nobility, and other traditional institutions, merely because they were traditional. His writings were to inspire modern conservatives of the Russell Kirk variety, but you won't find him much praised by classical liberals or libertarians. (As I recall either John Adams or Thomas Jefferson referred to him very harshly, but I don't have time to look it up.) Anyway, quote him if you like, but from the American point of view I don't believe he was a founding anything. 

Let's cut to the conclusion of the quote you posted:
Quote:
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.


What does this mean? Passionate men may rightly be enslaved. But "passion" isn't something that can be objectively quantified. Who decides when a given individual is overly "passionate"? Why, the King and the nobles, of course! (Burke was no admirer of democracy.) He's arguing for a medieval state where the King or the Duke may imprison any commoner at his whim. Is that really where you want to live?

Quote:
And, seeing the phrase "freedom of speech" somewhere should not be a cue for otherwise intelligent people to switch their brains off and start spewing platitudes like "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death your right to say it!"
...talk about fanatical. :roll: 
:P


Guess that answered that question. Your preference for dictatorship is noted. Fortunately I think you're still in the minority. 

Remarkable given the source:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_lef ... must_face/


Islam is often code for brown skinned people. It's just that racism is so despised today that few are going to admit their true motives. And as far as the Boston bombers are concerned, while they might fit the definition of "white," they were hardly blond, blue eyed Nordic types.
And yes, ideology comes into the picture with libertarian conservatives, as they like to say that racism is a thing of the past, and that they themselves are color blind. That's when they start using coded language to hide their true feelings.
And if I bring race into an argument, it's only because I feel it's relevant.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

02 Jun 2015, 1:22 pm

luan78zao wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
This specific event really doesn't have anything to do with countering some "heckler's veto." I'm all for doing that, by the way--have your Mohammed drawing contest and even post the pictures across from the mosque if you like...
However, just because countering the 'heckler's veto" is okay (maybe even called for) doesn't mean it's okay to go out and deliberately try to incite violence in the way these people are. 

There's a HUGE difference between displaying some drawings and assembling an ARMED, ANGRY MOB, literally clothed in obscenities outside a place of worship. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to interpret such a gathering as extremely threatening and harassing.


I do. Given recent events, anybody wanting simply to "display drawings" of Muhammad would be insane not to arm themselves.

Well, they're doing MORE than simply showing drawings here--they're actually trying to provoke violence and seem to be spoiling for a fight. That shouldn't be condoned or protected. Further, there were plenty of police around to keep the peace. These guys had no reason to come armed if they simply wanted to exercise their right to free speech.

I'll say it again, this was about harassment and intimidation, not free speech.
Quote:
Freedom is messy. People will insist on saying and doing things of which you don't approve, and often in a time, place, and manner other than that which you would choose. 

Yes, freedom is messy. It's also complex and shouldn't be approached with simplistic absolutes.
Quote:
Quote:
Freedom of speech isn't some absolute, sacred principle anymore than the prohibition against drawing Mohammed is...


No right is a contextless absolute. Like all rights, freedom of speech is contextual – defined and delimited by the rights of others. Of course the demonstrators didn't have the right to physically threaten or intimidate anybody, or even to impede traffic.
(According to the article I just read, police eventually confined the protest and the counterprotest to opposite sides of the street. That was probably appropriate.) However, if they chanted slogans, wore offensive shirts, tore up a Quran – those actions violated nobody's rights. There is no 'right not to be offended,' no 'right never to be confronted by people who disagree with you.' I personally wouldn't do any of those things, but I don't claim the authority to dictate the actions of others. 


Well, I'm glad we can agree, at least in principle, on that underlined bit...
So, if you don't mind, could you provide an example where we could reasonable limit speech? I don't mean something like "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" I mean give me an example of the least extreme behavior that should not be protected...

As I've already stated, I think an armed, angry mob confronting families (women and children) on their way to church is extreme, excessive, harassing, intimidating and not worthy of protection.

I'd be very interested in where your threshold lies.


 
Quote:
Let's cut to the conclusion of the quote you posted:
Quote:
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.


What does this mean? Passionate men may rightly be enslaved. But "passion" isn't something that can be objectively quantified. Who decides when a given individual is overly "passionate"? Why, the King and the nobles, of course! (Burke was no admirer of democracy.) He's arguing for a medieval state where the King or the Duke may imprison any commoner at his whim. Is that really where you want to live?


Okay, let me address this directly... What Burke is talking about here is extremism (and unethical behavior). NOBODY needs to enslave these folks... If you READ the bit I underlined, you'll see that Burke concludes that their extremism and unethical behavior is ultimately what's going to limit or 'enslave' them. In other words, acting foolishly will eventually result in it's own punishment.

He does, however, suggest that if you have a society full of as*holes you'll need to limit their freedom or else they WILL eventually ruin it for everyone else.

He's not arguing for tyranny. He's arguing for just what he says, men who understand the concepts of common decency, justice and prudence. These things are not really that hard for people of goodwill to identify and agree upon.

Really, they aren't.
:)
As for the rest of your comments about Burke, I think I'll let Winston Churchill rebut them:
Quote:
Winston Churchill, in "Consistency in Politics", wrote:

On the one hand [Burke] is revealed as a foremost apostle of Liberty, on the other as the redoubtable champion of Authority. But a charge of political inconsistency applied to this life appears a mean and petty thing. History easily discerns the reasons and forces which actuated him, and the immense changes in the problems he was facing which evoked from the same profound mind and sincere spirit these entirely contrary manifestations. His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the watch-words of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect. No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends, seeking the same ideals of society and Government, and defending them from assaults, now from one extreme, now from the other.


That last bit is the most important for me. I don't agree with Burke on a lot of specifics, but I do share his aversion for extremism on either end of the spectrum.

Here, we are clearly dealing with a brutal mob mouthing the watch-words of a non-existent liberty.

Quote:
Quote:
And, seeing the phrase "freedom of speech" somewhere should not be a cue for otherwise intelligent people to switch their brains off and start spewing platitudes like "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death your right to say it!"
...talk about fanatical. :roll: 
:P


Guess that answered that question. Your preference for dictatorship is noted. Fortunately I think you're still in the minority. 

This... this conclusion is just baffling.

My preference is for simple thoughtfulness and justice, rather than knee-jerk, rote reactions. That's all.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Jun 2015, 1:22 pm

I support free speech but I think these people are stupid bigots, there are a lot of them in this state unfortunately. Its not even the drawing Mohammed thing that bothers me since fine do whatever but doing it in front of their mosque on a Friday no less and encouraging protesters to come heavily armed looking for a fight is crossing the line. This wouldn't be tolerated against any other group, just think about the appearance of it. It certainly wouldn't be promoted by Fox News.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

02 Jun 2015, 2:28 pm

luan78zao wrote:

Guess that answered that question. Your preference for dictatorship is noted. Fortunately I think you're still in the minority. 

Remarkable given the source:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_lef ... must_face/



So, I went back and read the article you linked to, and I just cannot let this one bit pass...
Quote:
One must, though, call out New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for backing up Affleck on the same show, and, later, in an editorial. Kristof, after all, should know better. He trades in words and ideas, and his acceptance of the fraudulent term “Islamophobia” contributes to the generalized befuddlement on the left about the faith in question and whether negative talk about it constitutes some sort of racism, or proxy for it. It patently does not. Unlike skin color, faith is not inherited and is susceptible to change. As with any other ideology, it should be subject to unfettered discussion, which may include satire, ridicule and even derision. The First Amendment protects both our right to practice the religion of our choosing (or no religion at all) as well as our right to speak freely, even offensively, about it.


That bit I underlined is a common argument among people who want to do blanket discrimination against religion. It's telling because it exposes their underlying mentality and misunderstanding of WHY RACISM IS WRONG.

Let me pull out that really important bit...
Quote:
the generalized befuddlement on the left about the faith in question and whether negative talk about it constitutes some sort of racism, or proxy for it. It patently does not. Unlike skin color, faith is not inherited and is susceptible to change.

There's no generalized befuddlement on the left...

There's a general misunderstanding on the right as to why racism is wrong. If you look at the underlined bit, you'll see that the implication is that we can't be racist because race is beyond the individual's control...

Really?

In other words, we cannot criticize those poor n****rs because those poor n****rs didn't choose to be born poor n****rs and therefore inferior and prone to criminality. :roll:


That's not why racism is wrong.

Racism is wrong because the assumptions it carries, that an entire race (EVERY MEMBER) is somehow intrinsically defective and/or evil, IS WRONG (as in factually inaccurate and unjustified).

It's an absurd and asinine position to take.

Likewise, it's asinine to assert that every member of a religion and/or the religion itself is intrinsically bad or evil.

That's how racism and making blanket statements about Islam is similar and why engaging in either makes you wrong (not to mention very, very, silly).
:P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus