LimpyLoo

p.s. Dan Weiss, the drummer in MO's group, is probably the most mathematically elegant drummer I've ever heard here are the other tunes MO made animated scores for:

yeah, a little bit, tangentially i've been really into Miles Okazaki, and he runs in that circle occasionally Sweet! Not familiar , ill have to check him out (: I love Miles Okazaki so much highly conceptual stuff (like much of the M Base stuff) he's a visual artist, as well: he just put out a book a sort-of systematic presentation of his ideas i'm gonna try to pick it up this weekend but here's his website (lotta great conceptual stuff about form and rhythm and counterpoint): http://milesokazaki.com/research.php

i disagree with tha i think a person's character runs (mostly) independent of the conceptual model of the universe they have in their mind

we agree on that but i think we disagree on the reasonable-ness of the people being offended by a drawing Where did I ever say it was reasonable to be offended by a drawing? I don't get it anymore than you do. But do unto other as you would have done unto you. I'm sure you don't appreciate people coming up to you and mocking you for whatever you happen to believe in. People are what they believe. Or do you discount Popper? Ideas have physical manifestation. 1) Yes, do unto others...golden rule is my boy...i find it morally disagreeable that people eat meat, but i don't for one second expect people around to not eat meat simply because it bothers me...i don't have a right not to be offended...nor does anyone else 2) my point was that you can dislike someone's beliefs without disliking them...this thread, for instance: i would hope that we could all disagree without thinking the other is a bad person or morally bankrupt or whatever...i have lots of friends and acquaintances that i disagree with on this or that matter, but that has roughly zero impact on whether i like them or not...and i have a few religious relatives, and their beliefs have no impact on whether i get on with them or not...

i think it should be but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea as has been pointed out part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous is because so few people do it for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad I really strongly disagree with you about this. Yes of course freedom of speech is important and people should be allowed to express themselves even if their opinions are extremely unpopular. Guess what though - they *are* allowed. These people drawing pictures of the prophet aren't getting locked up for doing so. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket soldier's funerals and wave placards about with 'God hates fags' daubed all over them. People are allowed to express racial, homophobic and sexist prejudice without getting locked up for it. Does that make it right for them to do those things though? Should we hold all of these examples up as shining beacons showing the world the values we stand for? I don't think so, do you? The people drawing these pictures aren't doing it because they're professional artists making profound postmodern cultural statements. They're not doing it because they're trying to make the world a better place. They're doing it because they're racist fuckwits. There's no scenario where it should be a good idea to be a racist fuckwit. I agree that some of them are indeed racist fuckwits. But that is incidental. And they are allowed to do it....sorta. They either get scorned or murdered. Freedom of speech has to protect the unsavory shit, the shit we don't like. It has to protect the Holocaust deniers and the white supremacists and the Pam Gellers of the world, otherwise it's just "freedom of uncontroversial speech." Should the MET have taken down art that depicted Muhammad? Should Wikipedia have? I think there are a few issues here, and we're both talking past each other a bit: 1) should people be able to draw Muhammad without fear of death? (I think we all agree that yes, they should) 2) is it wise--given the current state of affairs--to draw Muhammad? (Practically speaking, it is dangerous to do) 3) might there be some racist people involved in the drawing of Muhammad? (without a doubt) 4) do we want to live in a world where drawing Muhammad--for whatever reason--isn't dangerous? (I hope we all do) 5) When someone draws Muhammad (or writes a book about Islam, or a film, or whatever) and is murdered, is it their own fault? (I hope we all think that no, no it's not) People get killed all the time for literally any reason under the sun. Suddenly this one reason is so taboo you've decided to go on some kind of crusade? If an American cartoonist had started drawing pictures of an Italian crime lord with his knob up a donkey and ended up floating face down in a canal somewhere because of it you wouldn't give a flying fuck. The perpetrators of the Charli Hebdo massacre were young, disillusioned, poor, an ethnic minority in a prejudiced country and were led astray and brainwashed into extremism. They were brainwashed by people with political motives, not religious ones. Their goal is to drive a wedge between the western world and all Muslims living in it, and by getting your knickers in a twist all you're doing is adding to the problem. Every negative thing you type on the internet can be seen by anyone who searches for the buzzwords you're talking about. Every time you go outside and look at someone wearing a burqa with an air of distrust and unease... it all adds fuel to the fire. It adds validity to the things that ISIS are saying to new recruits in order to get them to join them and turn their backs on the countries they come from. The only way towards a world where it is actually OK to draw pictures of the prophet and not need to worry about getting killed for it is to work with Muslims compassionately. Help to integrate them better into society. Not ridicule them for their beliefs or the clothes they wear. And most importantly not to antagonise. That's how we start to stem the flow of people from our countries who are making decisions to make their way to Syria and Iraq. That's how we start down the long road towards the world you want to live in. Arguing that it should be OK for a bunch of bikers to draw provocative pictures out of racially motivated hatred is not the way to go If people who drew Italian-American crime lords were being shamed for inciting violence and/or being racist, then I would have some things to say about that, as well. And if someone goes outside and looks at a person wearing a burqa with an air of distrust or unease, then that is their own idiocy at work. That is akin to saying "criticizing the US gov't adds fuel to the fire of ISIS recruitment," which I would never even think to say (And even if that happened to be empirically true, I would never in a million years suggest that the solution would be to stop criticism of the US gov't) And I disagree that I am antagonizing people, rather than ideas and beliefs. My mother belongs to a spiritualist church. If you know what that entails, then you probably know that it's not my cup of tea. But we are the best of friends. We don't agree about death, spirit realms, psychic healing, ESP, talking to dead people, etc. But these disagreements do not prevent us from being friends, nor does it make me see her as any less of a human being. In my eyes, her beliefs are wilder than the beliefs of the average Christian or Muslim...but again, that doesn't make me wary or uneasy or anything like that about her. Despite her goofy-ass beliefs, I would take a bullet for her. People are people, regardless of what they believe. We should be free to criticize ideas and beliefs, and not conflate that with dehumanization of any sort. And the people who see Christians, Muslims, et all as less than people for what they believe...they are dumb and we should tell them that they're doing it wrong.

but bro we live in a secular society, anyone should be able to literally take a shit on a catholic crucifix in densely populated catholic areas of Boston while experiencing no discomfort awkwardness and definitely no violent of any kind. MUSLIMS ARE FUCKIN EVIL DUDE what's up with this whole passive-aggressive sarcastic streak? can't you just express your opinions? just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to mock each other... (i'm plenty guilty of this myself, but i'm working on it...)

we agree on that but i think we disagree on the reasonable-ness of the people being offended by a drawing

yeah, see, here's the problem: if I say "I will kill the next person who makes a joke about Clark being disabled" then if someone makes a joke about Clark being disabled they are not inciting violence they are simply ignoring an ultimatum p.s.

i think it should be but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea as has been pointed out part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous is because so few people do it for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad I really strongly disagree with you about this. Yes of course freedom of speech is important and people should be allowed to express themselves even if their opinions are extremely unpopular. Guess what though - they *are* allowed. These people drawing pictures of the prophet aren't getting locked up for doing so. The Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket soldier's funerals and wave placards about with 'God hates fags' daubed all over them. People are allowed to express racial, homophobic and sexist prejudice without getting locked up for it. Does that make it right for them to do those things though? Should we hold all of these examples up as shining beacons showing the world the values we stand for? I don't think so, do you? The people drawing these pictures aren't doing it because they're professional artists making profound postmodern cultural statements. They're not doing it because they're trying to make the world a better place. They're doing it because they're racist fuckwits. There's no scenario where it should be a good idea to be a racist fuckwit. I agree that some of them are indeed racist fuckwits. But that is incidental. And they are allowed to do it....sorta. They either get scorned or murdered. Freedom of speech has to protect the unsavory shit, the shit we don't like. It has to protect the Holocaust deniers and the white supremacists and the Pam Gellers of the world, otherwise it's just "freedom of uncontroversial speech." Should the MET have taken down art that depicted Muhammad? Should Wikipedia have? I think there are a few issues here, and we're both talking past each other a bit: 1) should people be able to draw Muhammad without fear of death? (I think we all agree that yes, they should) 2) is it wise--given the current state of affairs--to draw Muhammad? (Practically speaking, it is dangerous to do) 3) might there be some racist people involved in the drawing of Muhammad? (without a doubt) 4) do we want to live in a world where drawing Muhammad--for whatever reason--isn't dangerous? (I hope we all do) 5) When someone draws Muhammad (or writes a book about Islam, or a film, or whatever) and is murdered, is it their own fault? (I hope we all think that no, no it's not)

i think it should be but since we live in a world where people get murdered for depicting Muhammad on a micro scale: no it's not a good idea but on a macro, historic scale: it is a good idea as has been pointed out part of the reason drawing Muhammad is dangerous is because so few people do it for instance after the Charlie Ebdo attack some publications (e.g. New York Times) wouldn't publish the cartoons or even the MET taking down all art depicting Mohammad unfortunately this serves both to legitimize the problem and localize the risk to those who do decide to depict Muhammad

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person fuck's sake Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed. Get back to us on that one will you? Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I think it's important to point out that there is a pretty big difference between religion restricting their first amendment and personal attacks (like drawing pictures of bikers fucking each other). In essence they are both just drawings but the point is that religion shouldn't restrict non participants rights, not that you can do whatever you want without consequence. Absolutely agree - religion (group think) shouldn't restrict non-participant's rights. Also agree you can't do whatever you want without consequence. Which is why it's not a good idea to draw insulting cartoons of bikers outside a known biker bar, just like it's not a good idea to draw insulting cartoons of Muhammed outside a mosque. Look, you might not agree with muslims, or bikers, but if they're not hurting you or affecting your life in any way (and I can only assume that living in calgary, you have a higher chance of running into idiot bikers than idiot muslims, that's certainly the case in Edmonton and vancouver), then leave them the fuck alone. By the way: just in case anyone thinks that only muslims get upset when you make mocking images of their spiritual leader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ#Reception so we agree: (some) Christians are also wrong about blasphemy

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person fuck's sake Yeah why don't you show up to that "protest" and just literally draw some pictures of bikers having sex with each other. Wearing a shirt that says "Fuck Bikers". Oh and make sure you're armed. Get back to us on that one will you? Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I think it's important to point out that there is a pretty big difference between religion restricting their first amendment and personal attacks (like drawing pictures of bikers fucking each other). In essence they are both just drawings but the point is that religion shouldn't restrict non participants rights, not that you can do whatever you want without consequence. well put you have a strange take on the ethics of ultimatums

they are literally just drawing pictures of a person fuck's sake

yeah, a little bit, tangentially i've been really into Miles Okazaki, and he runs in that circle occasionally

nothing but shake dup in this beauouaouetch

mad lolsies dup in heeya

lol what? what made you think of that?

you mean the tascam 388? i have one in my bedroom functioning as a table, waiting for a new belt for the motor a truly beautiful, frustrating, finicky, unwieldy machine

As a random aside: sometimes Slate is spot-on, and sometimes they are way off. I just read an article about how we should negotiate with terrorists (and, even more importantly, admit that we negotiate with terrorists). As someone who's rather obsessed with game theory and Bayesian analysis, I read that article with my mouth agape. I was actually embarrassed for the writer's having so little insight and so much confidence. (If we openly have a policy of negotiating with kidnapping, that will incentive much, much more kidnapping. The best strategy is probably to occasionally negotiate with terrorists, but very quietly). Anyway, sometimes Slate has great articles. Some of their writers are solid.

That story is just an orgy of bad decisions. Mixing heroin with alcohol is just asking for trouble...

Douchebags for drawing Muhammed? Are you also worried about offending Christians and Scientologists? See, I think the real problem here is that we live in a world where people are so outraged at cartoons (etc) that they literally go murder people. Isn't that the real (and only) problem here? Pam Geller is just some random knucklehead drawing some cartoons. It wouldn't be an issue if there weren't some severely confused people who took offense to it. Again, if music were considered blasphemous, would you not play music? In fact, would you not participate in a protest where people were flexing their right to play music? Here's a sober look at this issue: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_left_has_islam_all_wrong_bill_maher_pamela_geller_and_the_reality_progressives_must_face/

So, my point was that people should be able draw whatever they want without having over their shoulder for the Blasphemy Police, and I get all this pushback and comparisons to Fox News... I don't even know what to say...

Thank you for thinking clearly about this issue, Luke. People should be able to draw anything they want without the threat of death...even if they're deliberately trying to offend. If we start protecting people from simply being offended, then just imagine living a society engineered by Tipper Gore, Rick Santorum, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini...

1) I can tell by the passive wording of "lead to the death" that you're trying to soften this point: They were murdered. 2) I really don't think that you and JE understand the implications of what you're saying. If I'm in a religion that thinks that music is an affront to God and all who hear it are damned to hell...if you KNOW that I feel that way, then should you not make music so as not to aggregate me? And if you do make music, and then I kill you, is it partly your fault for provoking me? (Before you answer, please think carefully about the sort of world you want to live in...) I'm not trying to soften anything so don't attempt to assert my motivations upon me. It's distracting. I made a factual statement about what happened. I don't even know what you're trying to say really. Needlessly provoking people is and always will be a douchey thing to do. In this case it's to the point that behaving in such a way is insensitive to the plight of muslim people at the hands of OUR government and their dictators. It's gross. I'm proud that my state was prepared enough to keep anyone but the aggressors from dying. It still sucks people died though. It's still shitty. You also failed to acknowledge like a million things I touched on that are relevant to the situation in question, but I'm sure they're too inconvenient to discuss as they are quite complex. Seems most the discussion surrounding the current issue with the USA, islam, and the middle east are too complicated to be discussed properly by most people. You've brought the discussion to such a reductive point as to render it completely useless to even spend time discussing it. So in my example, would you make music or not? I'm curious what JE would say, too. It seems to me that in order to be logically and morally consistent, you should both advice the musician to stop making music so as not to aggravate the religious puritan, no?

1) I can tell by the passive wording of "lead to the death" that you're trying to soften this point: They were murdered. 2) I really don't think that you and JE understand the implications of what you're saying. If I'm in a religion that thinks that music is an affront to God and all who hear it are damned to hell...if you KNOW that I feel that way, then should you not make music so as not to aggregate me? And if you do make music, and then I kill you, is it partly your fault for provoking me? (Before you answer, please think carefully about the sort of world you want to live in...)