Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (4 Viewers)

[Clifford]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

Soooo tl;dr let the Blues Brothers handle it?

 

[Clifford]

I'm one of the people who thinks it would be ideal for every newspaper to publish a Mohammed cartoon every day until Muslims join the rest of us in the 21st century. They apparently need to be offended much more often so they can grow a thicker skin.

Do you think this would be the most effective technique in bringing about the change that you desire?

I'm genuinely uncertain on that one. It's definitely the most philosophically satisfying approach, though.

99% of Muslims the world over do not engage in violence as a response to insults of their religion. Now 1% is still nearly 20 million people, and those are the radical Muslims. That's still quite a lot of people, far larger a group than in any other religion. That 1% is a significant number. Among Muslims in the United States, I doubt it's anywhere close to that 1%.But my point is that, in order to "punish" or "incite" or "change" that 1%, your solution is to insult the other 99%? The only effective result of your actions would be to grow that 1% into an even larger number.

Tim, just curious, what was your reaction when anti-Christian art was objected to by the religious right?

It depends on the content.I don't believe in insulting anybody for the purpose of insulting them. If you're deliberately insulting Judaism, or Christianity, or Islam just in order to hurt people and make them mad, I don't like it. I think it stinks, frankly.

But on the other hand, if you are producing art with a different intent, and it so happens that it insults other people, then that's too bad. I support the artists' integrity in that case.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. That book was deemed offensive to Islam, and Rushdie was placed under a death sentence- he still has to travel with bodyguards years later. But Rushdie's intent wasn't to denigrate or insult Islam; he was an artist trying to reach a certain level of truth about what he wrote, and in so doing offended Islam. So I don't blame him at all; in fact I celebrate him. Pam Geller is the exact opposite. There's no artistic integrity in what she was trying to achieve. She was simply trying to trash Islam and provoke a response. While she deserves the exact same protections that Rushide has, she doesn't deserve being lauded for her artistic bravery, like he does. She deserves only scorn.

Not sure about this. Is she anti-Islam? Definitely. But to her she may be trying to get a large segment of the world to face an ugly truth. On her page she had a still from some Arabic-language news network showing a gay man being executed by being thrown off a building while bound and hooded. She said someone should send it to the commissioner for gay human right in San Francicsco. Maybe the way she looks at it she is exposing the hypocrisy of the left in defending the Muslim faith. Maybe the way she looks at it it is her duty to expose what the religion really looks like in total control.

ETA 2 issues with what I just heard about this:

One: one of the shooters lawyers said he was devoutly religious and would often try to convert her to Islam. First off, that's completely ####ed up and disrespectful toward other religions. Second, she said that she couldn't imagine how he acted so violently and that something must have made him snap. The reporter let this go. Do we have to pretend thT the Koran does not explicitly state that it is the duty of every Muslim to kill anyone who depicts Muhammad?

Second, Mark Potok gets on and says it's not okay to be purely anti-Islam and that he supported Hebdo only because they were more than that. Well, Book of Mormon was 100% anti-Mormon. No one in the world has a problem with that. He then goes on to call Muslims a victimized population. Ok, Palestine yes, Iraq, yes, but how the hell are all Muslims a "victimized" population. Last I checked they were the ones out there in the world claiming victims left and right! I mean WTF!

 

[ROCKET]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

 

[pats3in4]

I wish the first prize was having the winner's photo put in the paper under the caption "Top Doosh". Same goes for those "Piss Christ" artists. Freedom of speech, after all.

The solution to too much free speech is more free speech.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Because of what Geller said, and because of her actions in the past.

When South Park ran the episode with Mohammed, what point do you think they were trying to make?

That there's a conspiracy to allow Muslims to take over America and impose Sharia law?

No, I don't think that was it. I think they were trying to make a statement about the relative level of intolerance within Islam as compared to other religions.

It seems to me that the cartoon people could easily have been trying to make the same or a similar point. I'm not sure why one is an example of artistic bravery while the other is just hate-filled trolling. Tim seems to have a personal issue with one of the people affiliated with the cartoon contest, and I think that's coloring his thinking on this.

 

[Willie Neslon]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

People cower all the time. Events are postponed or canceled because of bomb threats every other day. Props for saying you'd wear the red shirt. We will note how brave you were during the eulogy.

 

[Sinn Fein]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

People cower all the time. Events are postponed or canceled because of bomb threats every other day. Props for saying you'd wear the red shirt. We will note how brave you were during the eulogy.

People like Rocket are the same ones who step in front of a speeding car, simply because they have the right-of-way at the crosswalk, and surely that driver, who is texting, knows they have to stop at a crosswalk. I HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!

 

[sho nuff]

What is the upside in hosting a muhammad comic contest? Who thought that was a goods idea?

It's called free speech, and a big middle finger to all those who can't handle it.

You can wear what you want too but a jacket made of meat is not a good choice for a jungle hike.

The folks who put this on knew exactly what they were doing. They were making a point, and they knew full well it would probably elicit a terrorist act by some Muslim whack-job who doesn't realize he lives in a country where free speech is part of the territory. And now there are two less of those whack-jobs. There's your upside I guess.

And a security man was wounded. And police had to put themselves at risk. And the public was put at risk. And in addition to all that, it will probably cost the local government thousands of dollars before it's all done, if not more. All to supposedly protect freedom of speech. Which I don't even believe. I think they're deliberately trying to insult Muslims and incite violence. It's stupid and callous IMO.

I think we should have done more of this to be honest. There's not many things worth making a point of, or fighting for. Freedom of speech is one of them.

I think there needs to be a campaign explaining freedom of speech to some people.

what do you mean?

Nobody is saying they dont have the right to hold such a contest. They are saying its stupid to do so. As is their own right to free speech.

Apparently two dead terrorists said it.

So I was right on when I said some need to have freedom of speech explained to them...and you are one of those that needs some help.

 

[Willie Neslon]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

 

[sho nuff]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Those groups only matter when they are supported by Chick Fil A

 

[GroveDiesel]

Second, Mark Potok gets on and says it's not okay to be purely anti-Islam and that he supported Hebdo only because they were more than that. Well, Book of Mormon was 100% anti-Mormon. No one in the world has a problem with that. He then goes on to call Muslims a victimized population. Ok, Palestine yes, Iraq, yes, but how the hell are all Muslims a "victimized" population. Last I checked they were the ones out there in the world claiming victims left and right! I mean WTF!

Thank goodness I wasn't the only one that heard that interview. He all but said "the terrorists were justified." I was in disbelief.

 

[Clifford]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

 

[GroveDiesel]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

People cower all the time. Events are postponed or canceled because of bomb threats every other day. Props for saying you'd wear the red shirt. We will note how brave you were during the eulogy.

People like Rocket are the same ones who step in front of a speeding car, simply because they have the right-of-way at the crosswalk, and surely that driver, who is texting, knows they have to stop at a crosswalk. I HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!

So if Trey Parker and Matt Stone were executed by a Mormon mad about Book of Mormon, you would have the same reaction, right?

 

[rockaction]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

The SPLC has become a total joke. I'm glad somebody on here that's worked with them can attest to it. Every right-winger is part of a hate group to the SPLC.

 

[timschochet]

I don't consider the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a joke at all. From everything I've read, everyone whom they describe as a hate group is pretty much a hate group. Perhaps you guys have examples to the contrary. I doubt it.

Certainly any group headed by Pam Geller is going to be a hate group almost by definition.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

The SPLC has become a total joke. I'm glad somebody on here that's worked with them can attest to it. Every right-winger is part of a hate group to the SPLC.

 

[Sinn Fein]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

People cower all the time. Events are postponed or canceled because of bomb threats every other day. Props for saying you'd wear the red shirt. We will note how brave you were during the eulogy.

People like Rocket are the same ones who step in front of a speeding car, simply because they have the right-of-way at the crosswalk, and surely that driver, who is texting, knows they have to stop at a crosswalk. I HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!

So if Trey Parker and Matt Stone were executed by a Mormon mad about Book of Mormon, you would have the same reaction, right?

I really have no reaction to this - so I would have to say yes - same reaction.

 

[Apple Jack]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

This is some wicked awesome Darwin awards stuff.

 

[Clifford]

One of the guys they had me write up was an academic in Great Britain who had issues with some of the official accounts of the holocaust. No group, no movement, just a couple of papers submitted for publication.

 

[timschochet]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

The SPLC has become a total joke. I'm glad somebody on here that's worked with them can attest to it. Every right-winger is part of a hate group to the SPLC.

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

The SPLC has become a total joke. I'm glad somebody on here that's worked with them can attest to it. Every right-winger is part of a hate group to the SPLC.

Can you be specific here? Who have they called a hate group which you believe is not a hate group?

 

[Clifford]

Can't remember his name but see above.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

What would you say if an anti child abuse group chose to protest joe paterno's vigil or just penn state games in general?

 

[timschochet]

One of the guys they had me write up was an academic in Great Britain who had issues with some of the official accounts of the holocaust. No group, no movement, just a couple of papers submitted for publication.

What "official accounts" are you talking about?

Anyone who disputes "official accounts" of the Holocaust (there really aren't any) is most likely a Holocaust denier. That's code word for people like David Irving (who is British btw.)

 

[rockaction]

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

The SPLC has become a total joke. I'm glad somebody on here that's worked with them can attest to it. Every right-winger is part of a hate group to the SPLC.

The group who hosted this event is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty law center. (Not defending the violence or saying they don't have a right to express themselves.)

Yeah and their director Mark Potok sounded like a ####### idiot trying to defend that stance. I've worked with them. Anyone who utters anything that could be construed critical of any minority is branded a hate group. That had me writing up files on cranky, harmless old men. They are kind of a joke.

The SPLC has become a total joke. I'm glad somebody on here that's worked with them can attest to it. Every right-winger is part of a hate group to the SPLC.

Can you be specific here? Who have they called a hate group which you believe is not a hate group?

Family Research Council, off of the top of my head.

 

[timschochet]

Freedom of speech is very important in this country. When I was a kid, the American Nazi Party sought to have a march in Skokie, Illinois, in the midst of a bunch of Holocaust survivors. There was outrage, but the ACLU fought on behalf of the Nazis. And they should have.

But protecting their right to speak is one thing; celebrating it is quite another. The Nazis were scum. They were deliberately trying to get a reaction and they didn't care how terrible it would be for survivors to have to witness that. We can protect their right to free speech, but still condemn them for the content of their message.

It's the same here. Pam Geller's group had no intention other than to antagonize Muslims. She is consistently incendiary, and looks for media headlines. She has spoken out in favor of internment of American Muslims (along with that other Fox News hack, Michele Malkin), just like we did to the Japanese during Workd War II. She's a disgusting, disgusting human being. How anyone could defend this garbage is beyond me (and no I'm not talking about her right to do it, again I'm talking about the content of her message.)

What would you say if an anti child abuse group chose to protest joe paterno's village or just penn state games in general?

What does this have to do with anything being discussed? What would I say? I wouldn't say anything.

 

[Sinn Fein]

If someone wants to paint a mural on the building across the street from your kids school, and it shows Jesus butt-raping a little boy - we're all still cool with that, right? Freedom of speech, and all.

What these yahoos did by knowingly trying to offend others, under the guise of freedom of speech, is really just sad.

 

[timschochet]

The Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. They absolutely are; it's a proper designation.

 

[General Tso]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

no, because I have a son to raise. In 10 years? I just might do it. But one thing's for certain, I'd support the people doing it.

 

[rockaction]

If someone wants to paint a mural on the building across the street from your kids school, and it shows Jesus butt-raping a little boy - we're all still cool with that, right? Freedom of speech, and all.

What these yahoos did by knowingly trying to offend others, under the guise of freedom of speech, is really just sad.

Once again, lover of terrorism speaks on an issue and takes a stunningly provocative stance about shutting up or getting killed. He saw the Bat signal.

 

[rockaction]

The Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. They absolutely are; it's a proper designation. I also just simply declare things without the weight of any evidence. Love, Tim.

A shooting incident outside the FRC headquarters in 2012 (see below) prompted further comments on the SPLC's 'hate group' listing. Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post, referred to the incident as "a madman’s act" for which the SPLC should not be blamed, but called its classication of the FRC as a hate group "reckless" and said that "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."[55] Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry described himself as "not comfortable" with the designation: "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group."[56]

eta* If Milbank and Berry aren't on the side of your argument, it's probably best to reconsider your argument.

 

[timschochet]

As evidence, the SPLC cited a 1999 publication by the FRC, Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys, which claimed: “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”[48][49] The report said FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey and Peter Sprigg (2001) had "pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia".[31][48]

Seems pretty clear to me. As Taylor Swift would say, hate hate hate!

 

[timschochet]

The Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. They absolutely are; it's a proper designation. I also just simply declare things without the weight of any evidence. Love, Tim.

A shooting incident outside the FRC headquarters in 2012 (see below) prompted further comments on the SPLC's 'hate group' listing. Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post, referred to the incident as "a madman’s act" for which the SPLC should not be blamed, but called its classication of the FRC as a hate group "reckless" and said that "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."[55] Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry described himself as "not comfortable" with the designation: "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group."[56]

The Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. They absolutely are; it's a proper designation. I also just simply declare things without the weight of any evidence. Love, Tim.

A shooting incident outside the FRC headquarters in 2012 (see below) prompted further comments on the SPLC's 'hate group' listing. Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post, referred to the incident as "a madman’s act" for which the SPLC should not be blamed, but called its classication of the FRC as a hate group "reckless" and said that "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."[55] Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry described himself as "not comfortable" with the designation: "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group."[56]

Look, there are different levels of hate. The FRC certainly deserves to be on a higher level of hell than Aryan Nation. But their rhetoric against gays is hateful. No way to deny it.

 

[rockaction]

The Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. They absolutely are; it's a proper designation. I also just simply declare things without the weight of any evidence. Love, Tim.

A shooting incident outside the FRC headquarters in 2012 (see below) prompted further comments on the SPLC's 'hate group' listing. Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post, referred to the incident as "a madman’s act" for which the SPLC should not be blamed, but called its classication of the FRC as a hate group "reckless" and said that "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."[55] Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry described himself as "not comfortable" with the designation: "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group."[56]

The Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group. They absolutely are; it's a proper designation. I also just simply declare things without the weight of any evidence. Love, Tim.

A shooting incident outside the FRC headquarters in 2012 (see below) prompted further comments on the SPLC's 'hate group' listing. Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post, referred to the incident as "a madman’s act" for which the SPLC should not be blamed, but called its classication of the FRC as a hate group "reckless" and said that "it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."[55] Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry described himself as "not comfortable" with the designation: "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group."[56]

Look, there are different levels of hate. The FRC certainly deserves to be on a higher level of hell than Aryan Nation. But their rhetoric against gays is hateful. No way to deny it.

No, two of the most left-wing guys that deal with this stuff are calling it "reckless" and are "uncomfortable" with the classification. One dumb publication doesn't make a group an intrinsic nor inherent hate group. And "age of consent" back then was a radical gay issue. See Bronski Beat, The Age of Consent.

 

[General Tso]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

I like this Rocket guy. You from Texas?

 

[timschochet]

Are you really quoting Bronski Beat to me? Bronski Beat?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I don't consider the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a joke at all. From everything I've read, everyone whom they describe as a hate group is pretty much a hate group. Perhaps you guys have examples to the contrary. I doubt it.

Certainly any group headed by Pam Geller is going to be a hate group almost by definition.

67 chapters of the Oath Keepers are on the SPLC's list of hate groups and militias. Whether you agree or disagree with that organizations mission and philisophy, it isn't either of those things.

 

[rockaction]

Are you really quoting Bronski Beat to me? Bronski Beat?

As indicative of part of a radical agenda, sure. It was in the air at the time. Hell, the back of the album had every countries' general age of consent listed on the back of it. That sort of idea doesn't come out of thin air.

 

[timschochet]

I don't consider the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a joke at all. From everything I've read, everyone whom they describe as a hate group is pretty much a hate group. Perhaps you guys have examples to the contrary. I doubt it.

Certainly any group headed by Pam Geller is going to be a hate group almost by definition.

67 chapters of the Oath Keepers are on the SPLC's list of hate groups and militias. Whether you agree or disagree with that organizations mission and philisophy, it isn't either of those things.

I don't consider the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a joke at all. From everything I've read, everyone whom they describe as a hate group is pretty much a hate group. Perhaps you guys have examples to the contrary. I doubt it.

Certainly any group headed by Pam Geller is going to be a hate group almost by definition.

67 chapters of the Oath Keepers are on the SPLC's list of hate groups and militias. Whether you agree or disagree with that organizations mission and philisophy, it isn't either of those things.

You're talking about the militia movement, right? Lots of wackos there. I'd have to check out the SPLC's reasoning. Based on my experience, I'm sure it's solid.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Well, SPLC calls them a militia and a hate group. They are neither.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You never answered my question about South Park. Why is it artistically brave for South Park to deliberately offend Muslims to make a point, but it's evil and wicked for these cartoon people to do the same thing?

 

[timschochet]

Are you really quoting Bronski Beat to me? Bronski Beat?

As indicative of part of a radical agenda, sure. It was in the air at the time. Hell, the back of the album had every countries' general age of consent listed on the back of it. That sort of idea doesn't come out of thin air.

I'm just giving you crap for mentioning that awful techno band in the middle of a decent discussion.

The FRC has said some really dumb things about homosexuals pushing for pedophilia. It hasn't been one time. They've been hateful of gays, for sure.

But even if I excuse that example, I don't think your implication of the SPLC as a liberal group that calls right-wingers hateful is at all accurate.

 

[timschochet]

You never answered my question about South Park. Why is it artistically brave for South Park to deliberately offend Muslims to make a point, but it's evil and wicked for these cartoon people to do the same thing?

You never answered my question about South Park. Why is it artistically brave for South Park to deliberately offend Muslims to make a point, but it's evil and wicked for these cartoon people to do the same thing?

I didn't see the episode you're discussing. I was going on my general knowledge of South Park. If the writers of that show deliberately intended to offend Muslims, and it was not part of a larger context, then yeah I think that's wrong.

 

[Willie Neslon]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

no, because I have a son to raise. In 10 years? I just might do it. But one thing's for certain, I'd support the people doing it.

Why would you potentially risk your life in order to wear a certain color shirt? Why not just wear a a different color shirt and continue breathing? who are you trying to impress and why are you trying to impress them?

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow, I feel like I've explained my position here. So I will now leave this discussion to others.

 

[FlapJacks]

So the the Charlie magazine was being provocative and Geller was provoking....oh wait

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I didn't see the episode you're discussing. I was going on my general knowledge of South Park. If the writers of that show deliberately intended to offend Muslims, and it was not part of a larger context, then yeah I think that's wrong.

The larger context is "We're doing this to show that there's something seriously and uniquely wrong with modern Islam." That's a statement that I know you personally agree with, as do I. (I think they were also trying to make a point about how we treat Islam with kid gloves compared to everybody else, a point that was robustly proved when Comedy Central cut that part out).

Obviously you can make that statement in a manner that doesn't go out of its way to offend. For example, you could just say "There's something seriously and uniquely wrong with modern Islam" and then go on to back that up with reasoned argument. Likewise, a person could simply say "Things are getting a little out of hand in America" instead of desecrating a flag, but you have to concede that the flag-desecration part adds an exclamation point and gets people's attention in a way that an essay doesn't.

 

[squistion]

Are you really quoting Bronski Beat to me? Bronski Beat?

I know. As if Bronski Beat were advocating having sex with children like Nambla They were just trying to get the age of consent in the UK, which was 21 at the time, in line with other nations.

And actually this was a mainstream gay issue in the UK, hardly a radical one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Consent

By 1984, many European countries had reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16, but it remained at 21 in the United Kingdom, having only been decriminalised in 1967; the wording of the legislation to decriminalise also included wording that placed restrictions such as making illegal the use of a hotel room for sex.[4][5] Homosexuality was further stigmatised beyond the restrictions placed on homosexual individuals, and homophobia was a danger to gay individuals.

Against this background, Bronski, Steinbachek, and Somerville met in Brixton in 1983, and soon formed Bronski Beat.[4] They signed a recording contract with London Records in 1984 after doing only nine live gigs.

 

[FlapJacks]

If someone wants to paint a mural on the building across the street from your kids school, and it shows Jesus butt-raping a little boy - we're all still cool with that, right? Freedom of speech, and all.

What these yahoos did by knowingly trying to offend others, under the guise of freedom of speech, is really just sad.

Same as Charlie Hedbo....same as Charlie Hedbo

 

[ROCKET]

General, take the religion out of it. If there was an anonymous threat issued in your town, if someone wrote on the internet that on Friday if anyone steps outside wearing a red shirt, they will be shot. Would you go out wearing a red shirt?

Hell yes and I wouldn't be alone. Not only red, but red, white and blue. Are you going to cower every time some crack pot makes a threat against you or your freedom? What if the anonymous threat was not just for Friday? What if next it goes to blue also and Monday - Friday? So at first you give in to his demand for not wearing a red shirt on a Friday. Do you think it stops there?

I like this Rocket guy. You from Texas?

Nope, but all my ex's live there. Oh and I love your chicken.

 

[Willie Neslon]

If someone wants to paint a mural on the building across the street from your kids school, and it shows Jesus butt-raping a little boy - we're all still cool with that, right? Freedom of speech, and all.

we have decency laws. Any picture showing a child rape would obviously wouldn't be tolerated anywhere.