Real World Event Discussions

French cartoon sparks protests

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2025 15:43
VIEWED: 11178
PAGE 10 of 11

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And we're back to how this compares to blaming the rape victim.

Let's break this down.

The argument (simplified) that has so INFLAMED me is this: "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse. If I blame the artists for having a role in increased middle eastern violence, it is like saying that rape victims asked for it."

Up to now I have refused to address this, not because I can't refute it, but because it is, simply, a very flawed argument. Before I dismissed this the first time around I called it a red herring, an ad hominem, and a false analogy. The false analogy is the most logically egregious part of this (and related to the red-herring), so I'll address that.

The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.

First of all. While after some consideration I'm willing to concede that some of the artists are victims or have been in the past, I also say that we have to evaluate each artist/Muslim incident on a case by case - sometimes nothing happens to the artists.

Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person. However, when the artists made these cartoons, and when the guy overdubbed his movie to be anti-Islam, this was done with an expressed purpose: to show that some Muslims are violent.

Mission accomplished.

But this second part defeats the argument - neither the rape victim nor the abused child intends to be attacked. When Trevon Martin walks down the street in a hoodie, ideally he should not have reason to suppose he might be shot by George Zimmerman.

In this case, the artists wanted more attacks, and possibly even attacks on themselves, to make a point. You call it courageous - perhaps it is, but it is also misguided. And because of that we can't argue that the artists had no role in the outcome of these events. They may be victims, depending on how personally the backlash affected them, but they certainly aren't innocent in this, and wanted a specific negative outcome.

It's a rather manipulative tactic, very close to a frame up or the wounded gazelle gambit, and if you see other people doing it in other situations, if I were you, I'd seriously question their likeability or motives. Just because someone else is guilty of something doesn't mean that anything that gets them in trouble for it is entirely moral or honest.

In short this argument simply does not WORK. It does not inspire me to re-examine some double standard I have or some such, rather it insinuates that, in your words, believing as I do is immoral, possibly cowardly, pro-rapist, pro-abuse, etc., and that I do not understand the implications of fear, anger, and/or violence. If I have seemed unreasonable, it is because of this. As for blaming the victim. While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play.

I do hold these artists somewhat accountable for what has happened, and I think their choices reflect poorly on their character. I do not like them, I think they're foolish, and reactionary and inflammatory, and they have questionable taste (rather similar to the violent groups they have set themselves against). And again, this still has no bearing on what I think anyone "deserves," and it also doesn't suggest that I think they should stop their art or self-censor. It only affects my opinion on them.

In

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The biggest problem is the central premise, "these artists are comparable to rape victims/ victims of abuse." The comparison made is that the artists have provoked Muslim violence against them the same way a rape victim provokes an attack by wearing skimpy clothing, or the way a child provokes a parents wrath by violating arbitrary rules. Which is to say, not at all, for the rape victim or child, the violence is entirely the fault of the attacker.

Hey Byte,

Some kids do act out self-destructively. Some do want to be attacked. It can be a bit of a power thing. Y'know, if the kid acts out with intent to get beat, at least he feels he caused it. It gives him the illusion of control in a life that is out of control. But it is an illusion, of course. He's not the cause of his father's violence. He has no control over his father. That's the painful truth of his situation which he's trying to avoid.

The system of violence his father put in place is the origin of his father's violence. The source, as far as the child is concerned, for the violence in his house. The father has all kinds of outside stressors and, sure, a history of his own abuse, but none of that makes the son responsible for the father's violence. And again, in any case, the child is dependent on his father's whim for the violence to take place. Some fathers see through this kind of manipulative ploy and will adjust their approach tactically so as not to be "made a monkey of." Again, the child has no power to determine whether the father beats him or only laughs at his attempt to "get a rise out of the old man."

It may not be wise to poke a bear, but people are not bears. As surely as it is the father's whim that determines who gets beat and when, it is the whim of the mob when and where there's going to be a riot.

And some women do indeed dress with intent to provoke and/or offend. Some women wear "bite me" or "slut" or "rape me" on their t-shirts or embroidered on their butts. Y'know, to make a statement about rape culture, for instance. But in these cases we recognize that no manner of rhetoric or printed t-shirt is justification for rape or any other kind of violence. Because it's rhetoric. Words. Free speech. And it's commentary. Commentary doesn't cause violence. The inability for the abusive person to process their feelings about that commentary may trigger a violent episode, but even that is not the cause of the violence.

As I said before, and this is the actual heart of my argument:

Quote:
No matter what the subject of the argument, when somebody threatens physical violence, the ostensible subject of the conversation has been lost. Now the subject is survival, and when well-intentioned folk then point at the victim and say, "reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse.

The responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his or her behavior in anticipation of the abuse. That's what I disagree with.

Quote:
Secondly, the girl in her skimpy outfit and the child have a reasonable expectation that their actions should not result in a horrible random attack on their person.

You completely de-claw this argument when you insert that "should." No mere act of free speech or offence SHOULD ever result in violence, but sometimes violence happens even to kids and women. Victims, who are not themselves behaving violently, are not responsible for the violence visited upon them. Or others. When a man holds a gun to someone else, and tells you that whether they live or die is dependent on your actions, he's wrong.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, October 7, 2012 3:21 AM

Quote:
If you really thought that way, WHY would you continue this discussion with me?

I truly don't know. Perhaps I wanted to defend myself against these allegations, but ultimately, I don't really care anymore what you think about me. Rather, now I'm arguing because I refuse to let you paint my name black to everyone else here.

Quote:
"reckless" or "foolish" they're missing the point and undermining pretty much everything they prolly stand for. Whether they realize it or not, they're saying the responsibility for keeping the peace falls on the likely victim curtailing his/her behavior in anticipation of the abuse.

Again, you've yet to show me one place I've suggested they should curtail their actions. I've called them fools, and they may well continue to be fools - my calling them fools is my OPINION. Or perhaps my opinion is simply unwelcome, and I should not contribute it?

Quote:
"While blaming a victim might be insensitive, it is not in itself necessarily illogical or immoral, if the victim in question had a role in their own problems, or if they have a role in some greater misfortune at play."

Totally specious. And moving the goal post. And making the cartoonist responsible for what western governments have done is guilt by association at best.

"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."

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

What evidence have I demanded you?

"An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association."

I did not, for example, claim that because all the artists have black hair, all people with black hair are assholes.

The artist's guilt is their own - in the very least, they're guilty of intolerance, which I do not defend. Their guilt, however, has been exacerbated by what western powers have done. I also do think that as citizens of western powers that pay taxes that pay for missiles and predator drones, that we can't wash our hands from what happens in the middle east simply because we feel ourselves removed from it. That is the closest I have come to guilt by association, but in this case, we are actually GUILTY.

A guy walks into a bad neighborhood waving around a lottery ticket. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. By your reasoning, it remains dumb up until the very moment the guy gets robbed, at which moment he is no longer a freethinking human who did something dumb, but is merely an unconscious object of our pity. No other opinions are permissible.

Quote:
No mere act of free speech or offence SHOULD ever result in violence

I've actually decked a person before because I took issue with something they said (and bitten someone else), and I have no problem with this.

So, while I don't think deadly violence or abuse or rape is ever "deserved," and this is STILL majorly not at all the subject here anyway, I don't have the same issues all of you have with other kinds of violence. I see it as yet another kind of free speech.

I am content to leave this conversation there. We have been going in circles for almost two pages, and are simply unwilling to acknowledge the counterpoints we're both making. We can not see eye to eye on this, as I've both long suspected AND said.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, October 8, 2012 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
A guy walks into a bad neighborhood waving around a lottery ticket. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. By your reasoning, it remains dumb up until the very moment the guy gets robbed, at which moment he is no longer a freethinking human who did something dumb, but is merely an unconscious object of our pity. No other opinions are permissible.

Ya having fun, Byte? You just pulled this example of stupid behavior out of the air and I'm to see a parallel with the VARIOUS forms of protest and free speech I discussed? That's just shitty, Byte. Was Tina Turner stupid to hand her husband a gun? Is that what you're saying? Besides, I don't care if you judge the cartoonists as stupid or brilliant or sexual deviants or whatever crosses your brain pan, none of that was my point--I'm interested in you and others blaming them for riots. That is all. I would object to accusations of stupidity only in as much as you believed it was their stupidity that caused riots. Stick to refuting my ACTUAL argument, please!

And this horseflop of "no other opinions are permissible" is all you and nothing to do with me. You're permitted, okay? Duh? Here, let me unlock those magical shackles I so clever slipped on your wrists when you weren't looking. How is it possible that I became your personal tyrant? Please explain to me my super powers that I can so oppress you.

I disagree with you is all. And I take you seriously, so I'm not just gonna ignore what you've said. I think your tolerance of violence in yourself is pretty alarming. I worry about you. You've threatened to kill yourself in these threads more than once. Was it rhetoric? Performance art? Confession? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's not cute or cool. And it's galling to see you do that and then turn around and claim SOMEONE ELSE made you the subject of this thread. And from what I understand of human behavior and psychology, your commitment to violence is bound to distort your thinking. And it surely causes you suffering. So yeah: alarming. I'm sorry you do that to yourself. I hope you're free of it one day.

I do not find your arguments, thus far, compelling--on the contrary, you keep demonstrating that your thinking on this matter is distorted in precisely the way I've been saying: by your commitment to violence against yourself and others. You somehow think your violence (something you think is no big deal) doesn't count as violence (something that you are very vocal in opposing). It's no big deal that you hit someone because of something they said. You said it yourself: violence is "yet another form of free speech." I'm sure you have a "rule of thumb" that tells you where your "protected violence" ends and real violent violence begins.

"Violence is a form of free speech!!!" That goes far beyond any allegation I've made against you in this thread.

This is precisely the problem with excusing your own violence: it leads to you perceiving the non-violent actions of others (me having a disagreement with you on the internet) as violence (me not permitting you to hold your own opinions), force and incitement so you can let 'er rip when you get the itch. That's not good news, Byte.

Last night, your post was perfectly civil. Though you did make the alarming statement that violence is free speech. I read it and thought, yeah, she's right, this discussion is talked out. I can let it go. At least she's stopped accusing me of hating on her. Win/win.

This morning I see that you felt the itch to lash out, to paint me as your oppressor, and edited your post accordingly. And just to be clear, I don't think you're pond scum over it, I think you're really wrong about violence. I think it hurts you. And I'm not your jailer. I'm just some guy on the internet wishing you some respite from the violent storms in your thinking.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't b

BYTEMITE

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:11 AM

Quote:
Besides, I don't care if you judge the cartoonists as stupid or brilliant or sexual deviants or whatever crosses your brain pan, none of that was my point--

At this stage in the argument, we both pretty much only care about what our PERSONAL points are, not the argument of the other person. That's a good indication that this argument has long since run its course.

Quote:
And it's galling to see you do that and then turn around and claim SOMEONE ELSE made you the subject of this thread.

Then. What. Are you doing?

Quote:
You somehow think your violence (something you think is no big deal) doesn't count as violence (something that you are very vocal in opposing). It's no big deal that you hit someone because of something they said. You said it yourself: violence is "yet another form of free speech." I'm sure you have a "rule of thumb" that tells you where your "protected violence" ends and real violent violence begins.

Where did I talk about my "rule of thumb" and what I think is "protected violence" or what doesn't count as violence since you're supposedly quoting me?

Quote:
force and incitement so you can let 'er rip when you get the itch. That's not good news, Byte.

You have some very unusual views about violence, and also about my psychology. I think it benefits no one to attempt to explore my issues or speculate on how they manifest, or how I express myself, or what the source might be. It's also not relevant. Since yelling at Oonj, I have been making an effort to keep that contained, as a favour to you all. I'm well aware no one wants to hear any of it.

NIKI2

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:49 PM

Byte, I highly recommend you give up. You'll never win, and you'll never come to any kind of understanding on this issue. People believe what they believe; at this point, I'd choose agreeing to disagreeing over further futile efforts to communicate. It just won't happen, and they'll just upset you further. JMHO.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:29 PM

I thought Byte's position was very clear. She just got frustrated because it seemed to her like people were misunderstanding her on purpose, ascribing free-speech objections to her that she never said.

I understand what HK is saying, about how violence has different roots than the stimuli that provoked it. But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.

Yes, people who commit violence are 100% responsible for their actions. But we can't pretend that words don't have power, and that sometimes, speech very much contributes to violence as well. Doesn't mean I support curtailing speech by law, but that we need to use some common sense in understanding words have power.

---
Folks don't like to have somebody around knowin' more than they do. It aggravates 'em. You're not gonna change any of them by talkin' right, they've got to want to learn themselves, and when they don't want to learn there's nothing you can do but keep our mouth shut or talk their language. -- Harper Lee

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.

(Don't mean to get any badness going again, just have to throw my thoughts in...)

That's exactly how I see it. My analogy: suppose I hate a guy I work with because he's an abusive ass. I also know that he beats his wife. So, I get him drunk and pick a fight with him when I'm in company and protected, knowing full well that he'll go home to beat on his wife and then, I hope, he'll get arrested and fired.

I didn't beat the woman. But, fully knowing the danger, I sicc-ed this monster on her. For my own ends. Surely I bear some responsibility, perhaps not legally but certainly morally. I've not done a good deed.

I don't know enough about these cartoonists to guess their intentions, so I don't know if they were actually hoping for the violence. I certainly hope not. If they really meant to stir the hornet's nest, then surely they are assholes. If they didn't realize the potential for the stirred nest existed, then they were idiots.

Certainly they're not nearly as idiotic and asshole-ic as the fools who riot and kill over a stupid comic strip and an even stupider video. But I guess that, culturally, I identity more with the cartoonists, so passing judgement on them is more meaningful to me. I can't really understand and certainly can't change the religion of the Middle East. But I understand the cartoonists, or at least imagine that I understand them. It makes them easier to criticize.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I thought Byte's position was very clear. She just got frustrated because it seemed to her like people were misunderstanding her on purpose, ascribing free-speech objections to her that she never said.

I understand what HK is saying, about how violence has different roots than the stimuli that provoked it. But at the same time, I think the rape analogy was not truly applicable, because there was no violence between the "provokers" and the perpetrators. It is more like Kid#1 saying something mean to Kid#2, who goes on to beat up Kid#3. A good analogy of this situation has to include the dynamics of provocation and displacement both.

Yes, people who commit violence are 100% responsible for their actions. But we can't pretend that words don't have power, and that sometimes, speech very much contributes to violence as well. Doesn't mean I support curtailing speech by law, but that we need to use some common sense in understanding words have power.

Yes, very good post

NIKI2

Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:44 PM

I agree with CTTS and Mal4, and that was my original point before I got some of what Byte has been getting and backed out myself. I think it's pretty close to what Byte was trying to get across, too, tho' I can't speak for anyone but myself. Thank you for elucidating it so well, both of you.