Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

That's my stance on the issue to a T.

[Aqizzar]

All of these statements juxtapose the speech with the crime, and this isn't coincidental.  If Lars Vilks had given the same lecture and no crimes were committed in response, the speech would have drawn much less condemnation.  Why?  Because then clearly it wouldn't have been the kind of irresponsible, reprehensible speech that provokes crimes.

I will admit that my criticism is based on a few wild assumptions about the character of Lars Vilks.  My understanding of the event is that he showed a (can we not just say it without appending moral judgment to aesthetic judgment?) grotesque video to a room full of people he could only know would be deeply offended by it.  I think I can safely assume from the responses, that the people present were not fully aware of what specifically was going to be shown to them (conference on homosexuality in Muslim society does not necessitate showing graphic pornography, however relevant); being so offended, they wouldn't have come otherwise (I'm also making the assumption that the audience wasn't composed of people searching for a reason to be outraged, which is not a rock-solid proposition, but I'm making a point here).

From that understanding of the event, I think I can safely support one of two possibilities.  Vilks was shortsighted, and wanted to be more direct than tactful, and showed the strongest example he could find of what he wanted to talk about, without fully appreciating that his purpose in giving a conference is to engage the audience, which doesn't require making them hate you.  The other possibility is that Vilks knowingly wanted to offend his audience, in supporting his point, strengthening the presentation, or any other reason, and so chose material that he believed would make people angry.  I, personally, just don't support that ethic in public presentation, and I don't see where anyone else has the right to say that my taste there is wrong, if that be what anyone is doing.  There are certainly other possible explanations, but I'm not readily drawing any from what I can understand of what happened, which is why I said what I did.

Then there's the issue of the people who were not at the presentation threatening Lars.  If there's one constant to cultural extremists, they will take any opportunity to be outraged from afar, and I don't think we need to debate that.  And I don't think anyone here is defending that, just making idle jokes at Lars' expense because we're an Internet peanut gallery, and the nature of his presentation doesn't suggest to me at least that he's a character I would have much sympathy for.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been hasty in my choice of words.  I don't specifically mean to denounce the film itself, or the sentiment behind it's creation or distribution.  I'm criticizing the idea that Lars should somehow be immune to negative response.  And now I'm criticizing this tired old insistence that I can't criticize the guy himself or the presentation without automatically agreeing with and supporting every other response.  I don't give one flip about the guy or whatever he's trying to do, and I'm not offended at all by the existence of homosexuality or by knowing that this video exists.  But I'd be put off by watching it, and I'd be pissed off if it was sprung on me during a conference, even if I knew the subject was homosexuality.  Can I not have my chauvinism and idle commentary without being in league with the extremists in question?

[DJ]

I reckon this is an effort to deplete the coffers of the people who are putting bounties on cartoonists. If it became a mass movement, there's no way the could pay out all those bounties.

But I personally think it'd be more effective to just set up counter-bounties on heads of those that offer the bounties on cartoonists. The ayatollahs would shut up after a dozen of them get whacked.

[ChairmanPoo]

Again, this was at an university in SWEEDEN. Not an university in Mecca. Most attendants to his conference were not muslim. Nobody forced muslims to attend, they did so of their own free will.

[redacted123]

-

[Creaca]

I've got to side with Aqizzar here. I'm all for free speech, but there are also natural logical consequences you must be ready to suffer. If you're going to roll in fresh chum and then go wade with sharks, don't fucking act outraged when the sharks bite.

I think a not dissimilar analogy is the "protest" movements of the last decade or so in the US, which are a weak, emo imitation of the movements of the '60s. I remember reading some interviews with some college freshman who were wailing that the police had cordoned them off into "free speech zones", and as a result, they hadn't had anything to eat in SIX HOURS! Despite supporting their cause, I felt an incredible urge to slap these silly bints into another time zone. People in Bangkok and Tehran are protesting despite the very real threat of being *killed*, and we've got whiners who feel it's a human rights violation because they didn't get their lunchtime noms.
If you're going to protest against the establishment, don't expect them to make it convenient for you.
If you're going to commit civil disobedience, don't be surprised when you get arrested.
If you're going to gay-bait people that you know are homophobic, don't be surprised when they beat the shit out of you.

I think one thing that maybe is being missed here is that this is not exclusive to conservative Muslims. There are plenty of places in the United States (even on college campuses) where this could have happened with an audience of white males.

I'm not saying that the reaction is a good one, or even that the perpetrators shouldn't be punished for it, but to say that it was totally unexpected is either to be incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous.

I think a not dissimilar analogy is the "protest" movements of the last decade or so in the US, which are a weak, emo imitation of the movements of the '60s. I remember reading some interviews with some college freshman who were wailing that the police had cordoned them off into "free speech zones", and as a result, they hadn't had anything to eat in SIX HOURS! Despite supporting their cause, I felt an incredible urge to slap these silly bints into another time zone. People in Bangkok and Tehran are protesting despite the very real threat of being *killed*, and we've got whiners who feel it's a human rights violation because they didn't get their lunchtime noms.

Trust me when I say that Lars is under the very real threat of getting killed, He's had at least five assassination attempts on him, and plenty of death threats. The scuffle outside the university was not one of these, some angry students broke his glasses, he didn't even get a bruise as far as I know.

I'm not saying that the reaction is a good one, or even that the perpetrators shouldn't be punished for it, but to say that it was totally unexpected is either to be incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous.

And what I'm saying is that you aren't saying he's wrong because of what he did. You're saying he's stupid because there are people out there who will kill him for what he did.

Like Footkerchief said, by that line of logic a rape victim might have just taken a free drink offered at a bar,but the fact that there are people in the world who will drug that drink then rape and kill her makes her stupid.

Edit: Updated Wrong to Stupid.

[Willfor]

He's not saying the man is wrong, he's saying the man is stupid. While that's generally regarded as quite similar, they are not the same. You can be completely correct, and still be stupid.

[RedKing]

I've got to side with Aqizzar here. I'm all for free speech, but there are also natural logical consequences you must be ready to suffer. If you're going to roll in fresh chum and then go wade with sharks, don't fucking act outraged when the sharks bite.

I think a not dissimilar analogy is the "protest" movements of the last decade or so in the US, which are a weak, emo imitation of the movements of the '60s. I remember reading some interviews with some college freshman who were wailing that the police had cordoned them off into "free speech zones", and as a result, they hadn't had anything to eat in SIX HOURS! Despite supporting their cause, I felt an incredible urge to slap these silly bints into another time zone. People in Bangkok and Tehran are protesting despite the very real threat of being *killed*, and we've got whiners who feel it's a human rights violation because they didn't get their lunchtime noms.
If you're going to protest against the establishment, don't expect them to make it convenient for you.
If you're going to commit civil disobedience, don't be surprised when you get arrested.
If you're going to gay-bait people that you know are homophobic, don't be surprised when they beat the shit out of you.

I think one thing that maybe is being missed here is that this is not exclusive to conservative Muslims. There are plenty of places in the United States (even on college campuses) where this could have happened with an audience of white males.

I'm not saying that the reaction is a good one, or even that the perpetrators shouldn't be punished for it, but to say that it was totally unexpected is either to be incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous.

I think a not dissimilar analogy is the "protest" movements of the last decade or so in the US, which are a weak, emo imitation of the movements of the '60s. I remember reading some interviews with some college freshman who were wailing that the police had cordoned them off into "free speech zones", and as a result, they hadn't had anything to eat in SIX HOURS! Despite supporting their cause, I felt an incredible urge to slap these silly bints into another time zone. People in Bangkok and Tehran are protesting despite the very real threat of being *killed*, and we've got whiners who feel it's a human rights violation because they didn't get their lunchtime noms.

Trust me when I say that Lars is under the very real threat of getting killed, He's had at least five assassination attempts on him, and plenty of death threats. The scuffle outside the university was not one of these, some angry students broke his glasses, he didn't even get a bruise as far as I know.

I'm not saying that the reaction is a good one, or even that the perpetrators shouldn't be punished for it, but to say that it was totally unexpected is either to be incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous.

And what I'm saying is that you aren't saying he's wrong because of what he did. You're saying he's stupid because there are people out there who will kill him for what he did.

Like Footkerchief said, by that line of logic a rape victim might have just taken a free drink offered at a bar,but the fact that there are people in the world who will drug that drink then rape and kill her makes her stupid.

Edit: Updated Wrong to Stupid.

Umm, yes? If you're young and female and accept drinks from strange guys with no friends to watch your back for you...that's not very bright. That in no way equals "..and you deserve to be raped."

The world is, by and large, not a friendly place--doubly so to those who fail to recognize that fact.

[Jackrabbit]

Yeah, he didn't deserve to be attacked, but that outcome was extremely likely, and I'm not sure how he could have thought otherwise. He didn't deserve to be attacked, he has a right to do it, I wouldn't try and stop him from doing had I had been there (free speech, cha-cha-cha) but he's still an idiot for doing it.