Print

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

[piecewise]

You're acting like all this started from him personally walking to the nearest Mosque and taking a dump during the middle of the prayer, then getting kicked around a little. He did a A Series of Sketches for a small art exhibit in Sweden, and got a bounty placed on his head, and now has had several assassination attempts directed at him. He's very lucky to be alive.

Relatively small steps do not cut it here. Hate to be cliche, but in the face of violence, I suggest bringing down a hell of a lot more violence in turn.

The "Solve violence with more violence" strategy eh?

[Nolor]

You have to demonstrate that a problem exists before you can solve it -- in cases like these, it's pretty obvious there's a problem, but few people are acknowledging it or actively trying to do something about it.

Regardless of how you try to spin it, the people who attacked him are obviously in the wrong. It's not a matter of whether or not he 'will' be attacked, but rather whether he 'should' be.

The answer is, of course, no, he shouldn't. It's pretty clear he knew what was going to happen — similarly, if I go into a homophobic neighborhood and sing songs of praise for gays, I know I'm probably going to get beaten. Even so, I'm not at all in the wrong. "I beat him up because he stated his opinions," is not a valid defense.

Even knowing he was probably going to be attacked for saying something contrary, he continued nonetheless. Instead of tip-toeing around muslims and making a mental note to treat them differently, he actively opposed such a thing.

If there's a neighborhood where all gay-rights supporters are beaten when they walk through, you don't think, "Well, they shouldn't have walked through there," — you do something about it. You bring it to people's attention and do something. Anything but ignoring the problem or waiting for it to 'blow over'. When we start making concessions that impede our free speech, they've won.

[ChairmanPoo]

He was attacked at a Swedish university. It's not like he was going to show the video at a mosque, or something like that, as some of the people here seem to be implying. If you cannot practice freedom of speech at an university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world, then where can you do it?

[Creaca]

The "Solve violence with more violence" strategy eh?

It just feels more proactive then 'Solve Violence with more Ignore The Violence'.

[piecewise]

The "Solve violence with more violence" strategy eh?

It just feels more proactive then 'Solve Violence with more Ignore The Violence'.

Peace through deterrence always seemed to work before. The threat of overhanging fiery oblivion always instills a bit more caution in someone.

[Creaca]

The "Solve violence with more violence" strategy eh?

It just feels more proactive then 'Solve Violence with more Ignore The Violence'.

Peace through deterrence always seemed to work before. The threat of overhanging fiery oblivion always instills a bit more caution in someone.

Deterrence seems to work to a degree, but unless Lars Vilks hires a shitload of mercenaries or Sweden gets a lot less neutral I don't see that help him directly. Violence will at least run the Terrorist groups to ground, giving everyone a breather, and hopefully making them 'Once Bitten, Twice Shy'.

[Jackrabbit]

He was attacked at a Swedish university. It's not like he was going to show the video at a mosque, or something like that, as some of the people here seem to be implying. If you cannot practice freedom of speech at an university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world, then where can you do it?

Somewhere other than a university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world? Because obviously you can't there.

That's what I'm saying. It is a violation of freedom of speech, yes, and that is bad. How does that change what happened? Are you going to stand in front of an enraged, murderous man and complain that you were allowed to show him something he'd find highly offensive because of freedom of speech and expect him to back down?

Whoever tried to assassinate him did not do a good thing. Whoever set the bounty did not do a good thing. The fact is that these things happened regardless. Freedom of speech is great, I love it, but it's not like it's going to keep you from being shot. Lars should have known better. That's what I'm saying. Not that he should have been prevented from showing it, not that I think the film should be burned and people prevented from talking about it, but that Lars should have shown a bit of common sense and not done it in the first place. He did and I feel no sympathy for him but I do hope that people can protect him.

[Creaca]

He was attacked at a Swedish university. It's not like he was going to show the video at a mosque, or something like that, as some of the people here seem to be implying. If you cannot practice freedom of speech at an university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world, then where can you do it?

Somewhere other than a university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world? Because obviously you can't there.

That's what I'm saying. It is a violation of freedom of speech, yes, and that is bad. How does that change what happened? Are you going to stand in front of an enraged, murderous man and complain that you were allowed to show him something he'd find highly offensive because of freedom of speech and expect him to back down?

It worked during the Civil Rights movement. I'm sure plenty of bigots found the idea of sharing public facilities and services with 'Niggers' offensive.

[ChairmanPoo]

What goes against common sense is to take these attacks on freedom of speech for granted. It is not normal for students to go violent against a speaker in an university because they dont like what he is saying, Jackrabbit. It does not normally happen, it shouldn't happen, and steps should be taken so that it doesn't happen.

[Jackrabbit]

It should indeed. But it was painfully obvious they'd find this offensive, so why show it to them? To provoke a reaction? I don't get his reasoning.

I'm certain, by the way, that they'd be just as affronted if it was naked women inter-cut with images of their faith instead of naked men. Remember, the first thing someone shouted was "It's porn!" not "It's gay!"
The homophobia (or at least, the translated homophobia) only came across later. What does this tell you? That it's a bad idea to show a room full of deeply religious people something connected to their religion that they find deeply offensive.

Gosh. Who'da thunk it?

[piecewise]

He was attacked at a Swedish university. It's not like he was going to show the video at a mosque, or something like that, as some of the people here seem to be implying. If you cannot practice freedom of speech at an university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world, then where can you do it?

Somewhere other than a university in a country with one of the highest development indexes in the world? Because obviously you can't there.

That's what I'm saying. It is a violation of freedom of speech, yes, and that is bad. How does that change what happened? Are you going to stand in front of an enraged, murderous man and complain that you were allowed to show him something he'd find highly offensive because of freedom of speech and expect him to back down?

It worked during the Civil Rights movement. I'm sure plenty of bigots found the idea of sharing public facilities and services with 'Niggers' offensive.

Because nothing bad or violent ever happened during the civil rights movement

[Aqizzar]

And somehow you're surprised that people reacted strongly to this guy showing some crappy video?

To answer your original question, yes, he was intentionally egging them on.  Using anything by Electric Six immediately proves you're an asshole.

[Creaca]

Because nothing bad or violent ever happened during the civil rights movement

Let me reiterate. People did things they knew would be dangerous during the civil rights movement. People got hurt during the civil rights movement. People got killed.

However, people didn't just shrug their shoulders and say 'Pft, those idiots shouldn't have had that peaceful sit-in in that Diner, next time the ones still alive will learn their lesson.' People knew that was crap, so they worked to change things.

[Jackrabbit]

But did they ever go up to a group of racists an start to scream "BLACK PEOPLE ARE OKAY, BLACK PEOPLE ARE OKAY, I LOVE BLACK PEOPLE, YOU LOVE BLACK PEOPLE" and expect it to achieve anything other than violence?

Just because you're in the right doesn't mean you're doing it right. In terms of civil rights, for the most part, we've done it right. Lars is doing it stupidly badly, if he's trying to do it at all. I'm still not sure he was even hoping to achieve anything. Maybe he's just a troll.

[Aqizzar]

Indeed.  The civil rights people, the ones famous for helping anyway, were not just non-violent, but fully non-confrontational.  They would just go into whites-only establishments and sit there peacefully.  They convinced the population at large to support civil rights legislation by appearing so much more staid and respectable than the people throwing shit at them.

Blaring gay porn to gay porn music at a room full of anyone makes you look like an ass, not an activist.  As with so many modern "protests" or movements, right message, wrong messenger.