Mohammed cartoonist 'head-butted' during speech

[Emerald City Rolla]

First of all Nepal is a majority buddhist region, with a very strong and violent marital tradition, why do you think the chinese keep clashing? Secondly, dogs are considered "unclean" animals in the arab muslim tradition. When I say unclean, I mean there is a deeply rooted cultural "yuck" factor, similar to the look on your face when I tell you to go down a a chick on the rag. So yeah, this dude REALLY went out of his way to piss them off so he rightfully get what he deserved. Kill him? No, but let whiteboy know that he needs to watch his ish next time...

 

[janklow]

So yeah, this dude REALLY went out of his way to piss them off so he rightfully get what he deserved. Kill him? No, but let whiteboy know that he needs to watch his ish next time...

i have this theory - and it could be wrong, of course - that the people most flipping out over this cartoon are not people who care most deeply about not pissing off people THEY don't agree with. of course, it's just a theory.

 

[TheCATthatdidntDIE]

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those who supported and participated in war in Japan when Buddhist reigned after the Shinto dynasties.

hmm.... i guess they really werent so peaceful... you have a point. but that happened so long ago, if they were doing it at a much more savage time and place, why is it okay to do it now? when we are supposedly more advanced?

 

[And Step]

i have this theory - and it could be wrong, of course - that the people most flipping out over this cartoon are not people who care most deeply about not pissing off people THEY don't agree with. of course, it's just a theory.

I have a theory also. You always sidetrack issues , when white people do fucked up shit and get called on it. Mainly because you have conflicting emotions over the world wide relationship they have with non-whites.

Sort of like during the civil rights movement, when white people were beating the shit out of black people, and they cajoled blacks to be non violent, while they were still beating the shit out of black people mind you. And when some blacks hinted at violent self defense, they were all up in arms saying these people promote violence and your going to damage the movement if you do such.

FOH, Janklow.

 

[And Step]

hmm.... i guess they really werent so peaceful... you have a point. but that happened so long ago, if they were doing it at a much more savage time and place, why is it okay to do it now? when we are supposedly more advanced?

We are more advanced technologically. But morally we are not.

Don't take this personal.

But most white people, globally don't respect civility and diplomacy if it gets in the way of their agenda. They understand brute force and power.They only respect you to the point of your ability to inflict pain on that ass. So to me if you got to crack a couple crackers head to get the point across, then so be it.

 

[TheCATthatdidntDIE]

We are more advanced technologically. But morally we are not.

Don't take this personal.

But most white people, globally don't respect civility and diplomacy if it gets in the way of their agenda. They understand brute force and power.They only respect you to the point of your ability to inflict pain on that ass. So to me if you got to crack a couple crackers head to get the point across, then so be it.

perhaps, but how many catholics got pissed off when Dogma came out? i mean if buddy christ isnt offensive and Jay trying to sleep with jesus' long lost cousin, and Jay then getting a boner when god kisses his cheek....

 

[janklow]

I have a theory also. You always sidetrack issues , when white people do fucked up shit and get called on it. Mainly because you have conflicting emotions over the world wide relationship they have with non-whites.

i have a theory that you allow your apparent desire to talk shit at me to override your rational thought. but that's besides the point.

now i could note that it's not a racial issue here (while yourself and the post i responded to make racial comments, i'm not), but a social and/or religious one. and i could also note that i'm not sidetracking the issue when the issue is the cartoons and i'm commenting on that. i could also note that my comments here are in line with what i always say about this topic on this forum.

but i'll just note that you're accusing me of starting a tangent ... by starting a tangent about me. nice!

And when some blacks hinted at violent self defense, they were all up in arms saying these people promote violence and your going to damage the movement if you do such.

this is an poor comparison; the people offended by this cartoonist really compare to blacks being physically assaulted in the 1960s? really? this isn't insulting to blacks during the civil rights struggle?

but you're right, i always come on this forum and flip out about how "blacks hinted at violent self defense" ... except, no, wait, i don't do that either. huh. this IS confusing.

 

[And Step]

this is an poor comparison; the people offended by this cartoonist really compare to blacks being physically assaulted in the 1960s? really? this isn't insulting to blacks during the civil rights struggle?

but you're right, i always come on this forum and flip out about how "blacks hinted at violent self defense" ... except, no, wait, i don't do that either. huh. this IS confusing.

Yeah it would be if I was comparing Blacks to Muslims.
The comparison was the response of white people in both instances. Not Blacks and Muslims.

 

[Reality Speaks]

You know I don't condone attacking the cracker, just because he writes something disrespectful.

But when you disrespect people and act like an asshole intentionally then you deserve whatever you get.

White people(yes white people) have a bad habit of disrespecting other peoples traditions and customs, and inciting anger in people and then when people respond they want to play the victim role.

He is not fighting for a noble cause, he just wants to be a troll.

I feel no sympathy for the white boy. Like Snoop said, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

And black people don't do the same ? Really get your head out of the sand.

See in college, people are supposed to be able to be mature enough to listen and discuss viewpoints which they don't share.

And this was in a college setting and if you're not mature enough to hear someone's viewpoint out without resorting to violence and then you have no place in a college setting.

 

[Reality Speaks]

Janklow said "this is an poor comparison; the people offended by this cartoonist really compare to blacks being physically assaulted in the 1960s? really? this isn't insulting to blacks during the civil rights struggle."

A lot of people want to make exaggerated comparissons when their argument holds no logical water. There is no comparisson, the cartoonist used art to express his opinion upon radical Islam and they went and proved his opinion right.

 

[Reality Speaks]

Stop playin O,

Vilks and Hitler are not the issue. Words are. People can take words multiply by them by circumstances and create a hostile atmosphere, which leads to things like murder, war, and concentration camps.

Remember Hitler was inspired by Nietzsche words(or his sister some say).

Hitler was inspired by a lot more than that and the conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis were much more beyond Hitler himself and he jumped on the bandwagon after that movement had started.

 

[Reality Speaks]

I agree also, up to a point lol. You can replace ego, with belief in this case. Either way, if it's really "true" and if you really believe it to be true then a cartoon is not going to change that. Also, I don't think Hitler and Vilks is a creditable comparison. I would also argue that Hitler was extremely influenced by his ego.

I think it was more the collective humiliation of the German people after WW I, the poverty they suffered, the psychological effects of WW I, the hunger afterwards, the crushing stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles, the loss of land and the collective "us vs. them" mentality of the ethnic German diaspora. And there's other variables involved too. Hitler was just a charismatic and manipulative face and voice of the Nazi political movement and gave voice to those that couldn't voice what they felt at the time.

 

[Reality Speaks]

Agreed. When you go out of your way to fuck with people you get what you get.

He was not going out of his way to fuck with people, he was at a symposium at a university, discussion of controversial topics and many other topics is part of the experience. The people who yelled and attacked him were ignorant and immature and unable to argue their points like logical adults and instead restorted to terorrism to silence someone they couldn't use logic to silence him.

 

[Reality Speaks]

I don't agree with the cartoonist's antagonism, but I also don't think the mature, adult, rational, and most sensible reaction to something like this is violence or death threats. Are words and insults really that damaging to your ego?

I don't think he was antagonizing them but rather asking a valid question. If they can't act like adults in an academic environment, why should they be tolerated and why are they there ? Usually violence to silence someone is terrorism and radical Muslims think that their terrorism to silence critics and valid questions is ok and I believe that the more they think that, the more loudly these questions should be asked.

 

[Reality Speaks]

I agree up to a point. However, words can be very dangerous. Hitler started with words. Words can be the impetus to actions that are heinous. I think you mistakenly assume that it is strictly about ego. Some people want to preserve their way of life, and any thing that threatens that is seen as an enemy. Not saying that is the case in this instance, but in many it is.

What does Hitler have to do with this ? Nothing whatsoever, so why Godwin the thread ?

 

[Reality Speaks]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree words can lead to things like war, murder, etc; however, this type of behavior proves that a huge problem exists within mankind. People have attachments to concepts and words that are actually meaningless. You know, I don’t think the words are the problem, in my opinion it's the behavior and how we've been condition to respond to the words. A word is just that, a word. When the Taliban blew up all those Buddhist sculptures in Afghanistan, you didn't see Buddhist bug out about it because in fact a sculpture is just that, a sculpture. However, if someone draws a silly cartoon of Muhammad people start losing their mind. They brought more attention to it by reacting this way. I just can’t relate to that behavior, nor would any rational being.

I agree, and in fact since Fascism has been brought up in this thread, the Muslims who overreacted to the cartoons and the cartoonists are the fascists of our era. Hell look at the radical Muslims acted over the South Park episode ? You brought up the Buddhist reaction and I'll bring up the Christian reaction to the Virgin Mary statue queefing blood, no reaction. This shows to me that the radical Muslims are nothing more than the fascists of our era. If something offends a person, the rational reaction isn't killing, violence and the threat of violence, it's simply ignoring the offensive thing in question and moving on with your life. But then again, we're not dealing with rational people but rather violent fascists.

 

[Reality Speaks]

I don't think it had anything to do with the Buddhist not wanting to act up as much as they were in Afghanistan and they would have got fucked up. Buddhist wile out too.

And your analysis of people going silly over a cartoon is over generalized and too simplistic, something you are vehemently against. There are over 1 billion muslims on the planet who did not respond to that nonsense. Why take a few and make it the rule? There are Muslims in Sweden.

The Buddhists reacted rationally and they wouldn't have gotten fucked up, China would've deceminated the Taliban regime who're fascists in every sense of the word.

And yes there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, but the point being discussed is the irrational and radical Muslims and their reaction to anything which doesn't assuage their sensibilities and their reaction is violence and terrorism.

 

[Reality Speaks]

Well, to be fair I didn't say Muslims, I said "people," meaning those that overreacted. Also, Buddhists didn't wile out because it's not in their nature to wile out over something like that. The international Buddhist community didn't stress it because they don't have any attachments to material representations of their belief. That is a fundamental principle in Buddhism. Also, that could have happened anywhere and they wouldn't have made a big deal over it.

Actually they reacted using politics and diplomacy instead of terror and violence. Radical Buddhists in China did attack ethnic Uighurs, but they were denounced by the Chinese government and prosecuted for their crimes. Buddhists are like anyone else and capable of being outraged, but in this situation on the national level Buddhist majority nations reacted using politics and diplomacy, which is something that rational national collectives do.

 

[Reality Speaks]

the radical buddhists set themselves on fire in protest. no comparison.

Which is an act by irrational and radical Buddhists. A stupid act that is essentially attention whoring with no real result.

 

[Reality Speaks]

First of all Nepal is a majority buddhist region, with a very strong and violent marital tradition, why do you think the chinese keep clashing? Secondly, dogs are considered "unclean" animals in the arab muslim tradition. When I say unclean, I mean there is a deeply rooted cultural "yuck" factor, similar to the look on your face when I tell you to go down a a chick on the rag. So yeah, this dude REALLY went out of his way to piss them off so he rightfully get what he deserved. Kill him? No, but let whiteboy know that he needs to watch his ish next time...

They keep clashing for nationalistic and political reasons, nothing to do with religion. Secondly it was a symposium in an university setting, something which educated, rational and reasonable adults discuss the topic or topics like civil human beings. Not where you attack someone because your feelings or sensibilities were hurt. If you're unable to discuss something without resorting to violence like an irrational fool, then you have no point being around adults and need to be around fools.