Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on February 09, 2006, 11:04:44 pm
-
WHY?!
why isn't there a topic about this yet
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/09/news/edelta.php
the toons in question
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
people are dieing over _CAR-****ING-TOONS_!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-0602090243feb09,1,7036501.column?coll=chi-news-col
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200602091928.htm
so, Europe, you gona stand up or back down?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/06/ucartoon.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/06/ixportaltop.html
for the record I may end up going out of my way to buy danish products, based on how this plays out.
I hope this has served as a wake up call for all of you who thought that there war was only with America and that you could just sit back and remain nutral.
-
I wish more papers would publish the bloody things. Intimidation should not stop free speech.
-
Tact should, though. Both sides are really missing the point in this entire affair.
-
These cartoons have been out since last September. Why the fuss now? Very simple.
The Saudi government is creating a diversion to draw attention away from the fact that 350 people died during the Hajj, in the same place and for the same stupid reason as in previous years. The whole event was poorly organized, under-staffed and badly run. And Muslims died because of it, as they have in previous years, because the Royal Family did nothing to improve conditions, even after promising to. So in the aftermath of the Hajj tragedy, which was I reckon a bigger deal in the Arabic and Muslim world than over in the West, Saudi government controlled papers start making lots of noise about some stupid cartoons. And now we have this.
The claim that any depiction of Muhammed is offensive is stupid. There are icons and other objects, rugs even, for sale in Iran (as in, the Islamic Republic of,) that have Muhammed on them. He's been shown in countless works of art, including one in the US Supreme Court. It's a cover act, and a remarkably effective one. Muslims feel reighteous indignation, Europeans see Muslims masses rioting for the second time in six months, everyone goes home pissed.
edit: besides which, I was disappointed that none of the cartoons were either funny or offensive. At least if you're going to have several hundred million people pissed over something, it might as well be for something good, like Muhammed getting it on with a young boy or something like that. I can't even get a proper entertainment kick out of this.
-
I though it was an Iranian cover to distract from there refuseal to comply with the IAEA, and Europe starting to look at them with the 'no... you realy better actualy do it this time' look. I guess this sort of thing gets colored by your exsisting prejudices, but what ever the case it's clear this is beeing used as a smoak screen by many groups.
-
(http://drybonesproject.com/blog/D06205_3.gif)
This was in our papers today... >..>
-
Depictions of religious figures in Islam is actually considered against the concept of monotheism, Rictor, so your rant is a bit off. Also, you'll notice it isn't the Saudis prodding this along.
-
From what I've heard, it's people of the Muslim religion pushing this along, mostly in afghanistan. I could be wrong, as I hear most of the news on the radio when I'm at work. I REALLY like how all over the news today and last night I was reading quotes that the Muslims are now blaming and saying it's AMERICA'S fault that it happened! My God! It was penned by a Danish writer!! Sure, America might go and supply other nations, influence other countries, but this cartoon was NOT penned by an American writer, and it was NOT penned in America itself! Where the hell do these people get off saying that Americans now must die because of this damn cartoon? It's NUTS.
Did anyone get mad and start shouting over Clinton's recent "Frozen Chosen" statement at Ms. King's funeral? NO! People were laughing! People could distinguish it was a joke! I know that making disrespectful images of Muhammed is unacceptable, but to give people the right to kill others over it, I disagree with. I'd have a very hard time believing in a God that allows me to kill others based solely on my interpretation of my faith. I also feel that it'd be one weak excuse to incite fighting and killing people over in Europe. "Europe's 9-11 is coming", over a drawing? Something deeply disturbs me about this whole thing.
-
"The U.S. base was targeted because the United States 'is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world,' said Sher Mohammed" -quote from another article i read.
So apparently the US is now responsible for anything Europe does.
-
Said Danish newspaper is not Muslim. What some assholes in some C-class dictatory state say should have preciously little influence on our core civil liberties.
The entire "let's limit freedom of press for the sake of not offensing some people" is so insanely big slippery slope that it itsn't funny in any regards. If such laws were implemented where I live I would certainly try to abuse them and see how seriously my outcries of "pictures of pig are offensing to [whomever]" and "cows are sacred to Hindis, don't advertise steak" would go.
-
"The U.S. base was targeted because the United States 'is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world,' said Sher Mohammed" -quote from another article i read.
So apparently the US is now responsible for anything Europe does.
Ok, sorry about the long article. Here's a Stratfor piece which I found really good and interesting. It sides what you said Carl.
The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments
Feb 07, 2006
By George Friedman
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't help but open with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare. Nonetheless, there is something exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark -- which has made a national religion of not being offensive to anyone -- could become the focal point of Muslim rage. The sight of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being burned in Damascus -- and Scandinavians in general being warned to leave Islamic countries -- has an aura of the surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark or Norway. Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes and Norwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney. History has its interesting moments.
At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The explosion in the Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by a minor Danish newspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in September -- has, remarkably, redefined the geopolitical matrix of the U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be more precise, it has set in motion something that appears to be redefining that matrix. We do not mean here simply a clash of civilizations, although that is undoubtedly part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamic world and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways.
Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is a prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed. There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by these cartoons.
It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.
The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his resignation.)
In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants.
These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics.
In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims -- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against European states.
One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that each side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught up in the war, the tension between the United States and Europe has been a critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split and the Sunni-Shiite split. It is, paradoxically, an affair that unifies as well as divides.
The Fissures in the West
It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" -- there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that generally has been taken to be the European position. More precisely, there is the elite Franco-German position that The New York Times refers to whenever it mentions "Europe." That is the Europe that we mean now.
In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted to 9/11. Apart from the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that the United States failed to appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation within the Islamic world and, by reshaping its relations with the Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed, this view goes, the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and added unnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European criticisms -- particularly from the French -- was the view that American cowboy insensitivity to the Muslim world not only increased the danger after 9/11, but effectively precipitated 9/11. From excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt and Jordan, the United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was the result of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the United States -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over the top.
Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United States, but also did not involve a state decision. The decision to publish the offending cartoons was that of a Danish private citizen. The Islamic response has been to hold the entire state responsible. As the cartoons were republished, it was not the publications printing them that were viewed as responsible, but the states in which they were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in EU offices at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe.
From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans an argument that the Bush administration has been making from the beginning -- that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be triggered by anything or nothing. European states cannot control what private publications publish. That means that, like it or not, they are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, is not under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of the United States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune to the threat than the Americans are.
This combines with the Paris riots last November and the generally deteriorating relationships between Muslims in Europe and the dominant populations. The pictures of demonstrators in London, threatening the city with another 9/11, touch extremely sensitive nerves. It becomes increasingly difficult for Europeans to distinguish between their own relationship with the Islamic world and the American relationship with the Islamic world. A sense of shared fate emerges, driving the Americans and Europeans closer together. At a time when pressing issues like Iranian nuclear weapons are on the table, this increases Washington's freedom of action. Put another way, the Muslim strategy of splitting the United States and Europe -- and using Europe to constrain the United States -- was heavily damaged by the Muslim response to the cartoons.
The Intra-Ummah Divide
But so too was the split between Sunni and Shia. Tensions between these two communities have always been substantial. Theological differences aside, both international friction and internal friction have been severe. The Iran-Iraq war, current near-civil war in Iraq, tensions between Sunnis and Shia in the Gulf states, all point to the obvious: These two communities are, while both Muslim, mistrustful of one another. Shiite Iran has long viewed Sunni Saudi Arabia as the corrupt tool of the United States, while radical Sunnis saw Iran as collaborating with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The cartoons are the one thing that both communities -- not only in the Middle East but also in the wider Muslim world -- must agree about. Neither side can afford to allow any give in this affair and still hope to maintain any credibility in the Islamic world. Each community -- and each state that is dominated by one community or another -- must work to establish (or maintain) its Islamic credentials. A case in point is the violence against Danish and Norwegian diplomatic offices in Syria (and later, in Lebanon and Iran) -- which undoubtedly occurred with Syrian government involvement. Syria is ruled by Alawites, a Shiite sect. Syria -- aligned with Iran -- is home to a major Sunni community; there is another in Lebanon. The cartoons provided what was essentially a secular regime the opportunity to take the lead in a religious matter, by permitting the attacks on the embassies. This helped consolidate the regime's position, however temporarily.
Indeed, the Sunni and Shiite communities appear to be competing with each other as to which is more offended. The Shiite Iranian-Syrian bloc has taken the lead in violence, but the Sunni community has been quite vigorous as well. The cartoons are being turned into a test of authenticity for Muslims. To the degree that Muslims are prepared to tolerate or even move past this issue, they are being attacked as being willing to tolerate the Prophet's defamation. The cartoons are forcing a radicalization of parts of the Muslim community that are uneasy with the passions of the moment.
Beneficiaries on Both Sides
The processes under way in the West and within the Islamic world are naturally interacting. The attacks on embassies, and threats against lives, that are based on nationality alone are radicalizing the Western perspective of Islam. The unwillingness of Western governments to punish or curtail the distribution of the cartoons is taken as a sign of the real feelings of the West. The situation is constantly compressing each community, even as they are divided.
One might say that all this is inevitable. After all, what other response would there be, on either side? But this is where the odd part begins: The cartoons actually were published in September, and -- though they drew some complaints, even at the diplomatic level -- didn't come close to sparking riots. Events unfolded slowly: The objections of a Muslim cleric in Denmark upon the initial publication by Jyllands-Posten eventually prompted leaders of the Islamic Faith Community to travel to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December, purposely "to stir up attitudes against Denmark and the Danes" in response to the cartoons. As is now obvious, attitudes have certainly been stirred.
There are beneficiaries. It is important to note here that the fact that someone benefits from something does not mean that he was responsible for it. (We say this because in the past, when we have noted the beneficiaries of an event or situation, the not-so-bright bulbs in some quarters took to assuming that we meant the beneficiaries deliberately engineered the event.)
Still, there are two clear beneficiaries. One is the United States: The cartoon affair is serving to further narrow the rift between the Bush administration's view of the Islamic world and that of many Europeans. Between the Paris riots last year, the religiously motivated murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark" campaign, European patience is wearing thin. The other beneficiary is Iran. As Iran moves toward a confrontation with the United States over nuclear weapons, this helps to rally the Muslim world to its side: Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam, and Sunnis who have raised questions about its flirtations with the United States in Iraq are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against Europe.
The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States. They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult.
It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but these are.
-
1) Followers of Islam will hold violent demonstrations (in which people die) over a bloody cartoon :eek2:.
2) Followers of Islam do not depict their Mohammed, therefore nobody is allowed to! :wtf:
3) The islamic religion purposefully perpetuates the threat of violence over those who would have opposing (or even different) views. :hopping:
-
1) Followers of Islam will hold violent demonstrations (in which people die) over a bloody cartoon :eek2:.
2) Followers of Islam do not depict their Mohammed, therefore nobody is allowed to! :wtf:
3) The islamic religion purposefully perpetuates the threat of violence over those who would have opposing (or even different) views. :hopping:
Congratulations on propagating stereotypes.
1) "Some" is the important missing word.
2) It's considered heresy. I'm not sure what you're beliefs are, but would you want them ridiculed?
3) Once again, you're making generalizations
Making generalizations and embracing stereotypes just feed the cycle.
-
I don't give a monkeys if people ridicule my religious beliefs mate, because I understand that people are entitled to their own particular views on that matter and am able to keep things in perspective. I'm atheist. There you go. Knock yourself out!
As for generalizations. You're damn right I'm generalizing. I came into this world with the same ideals of tolerance and understanding as everyone else but evidence has proven to me that those generalizations hold true... in general. Thus I reserve the right to make those generalizations. Especially in situations where my safety and the safety of my family are at risk. Deal with it :P.
-
So you're going to class 1.3 billion men, women, and children together as racist and violent. That's benevolent of you.
-
I'm classing the religion that way, but yes, same difference. On the other hand, what do you care. I'm just some guy :).
-
This whole charade was designed to remove attention from the Egyptian vessel (or so they say) that ended up killing about 1200 people.
Looks like it worked too, removed it out of the news the second day.
That's what I believe anyway.
-
This whole charade was designed to remove attention from the Egyptian vessel (or so they say) that ended up killing about 1200 people.
Looks like it worked too, removed it out of the news the second day.
That's what I believe anyway.
Egypt have been *****ing about the cartoons since about last October (it's a good way to claim Islamic credentials without pissing off major western allies too much) and the story was on the news days before the sinking, so I doubt.
NB: worth noting; firstly, these protests are by a minority of Muslims, and secondly were instigated by a bunch of fundamentalist clerics who added 3 far more offensive cartoons from elsewhere to a 'dossier' of the Danish cartoons; a lot of the protesting appears to have been instigated by extremists rather than being representative of Islam as a religion.
-
Depictions of religious figures in Islam is actually considered against the concept of monotheism, Rictor, so your rant is a bit off. Also, you'll notice it isn't the Saudis prodding this along.
iirc, there's no prohibition against it in the Quran. It's not encouraged but not forbidden.
It is, however, forbidden in the Hadiths(??) but apparently mainly because the Christians of region during the times of conquest (you know, the first war) were iconoclasts.
Not to mention that there are plenty of representations of muhammed in islamic art (both contemporary and historic), and not all of them have his face hidden on erased.
-
[Egypt have been *****ing about the cartoons since about last October (it's a good way to claim Islamic credentials without pissing off major western allies too much) and the story was on the news days before the sinking, so I doubt.
Yeah what a strange coincidence it gains popular attention five months after, just when the tanker kills all those people.
-
[Egypt have been *****ing about the cartoons since about last October (it's a good way to claim Islamic credentials without pissing off major western allies too much) and the story was on the news days before the sinking, so I doubt.
Yeah what a strange coincidence it gains popular attention five months after, just when the tanker kills all those people.
The. story. broke. several. days. before. the. sinking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4688602.stm
2 February: The editor of the French newspaper France Soir is sacked for printing the cartoons.
1 February: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint the caricatures, defying Muslim outrage.
31 January: The Danish paper apologises. The Danish prime minister welcomes the apology but defends the freedom of the press.
30 January: Gunmen raid the EU's offices in Gaza, demanding an apology over the cartoons.
26 January: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador to Denmark, while Libya says it is closing its embassy in Copenhagen.
The al-Salam Boccaccio '98 sunk on Friday 3rd February. And did receive media coverage in Egypt; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4683182.stm
-
irrespective of how representative the protests are of the greater population (BTW a 'small vocal minority' of 1.3 billion still equals a damn ****ing whole ****load of people) the acctions of the governments involved is perhapse the more shocking aspect of this situation, there are ambasidors getting recalled and embasies getting closed (not to mention burned) this escalates things to more than simply 'a few angry people' as these are actual offical governmental responces and positions, you cannot simply ignor this ****.
-
Careful Bobboau. I can see a fatwa with your name on it. I'm sure I'm already on the prophet's holy hitlist for my comments. Infidels must not be tolerated. Durka, durka. Mohammed jihad!
-
you cannot simply ignor this ****.
Who's saying that you should?
-
I wish more papers would publish the bloody things. Intimidation should not stop free speech.
-
Since I'm Muslim, I think I should be defending my religion, but seeing that I don't know jack **** about my own religion and I might as well be an atheist, I decided I take no part into this discussion. However, in my own personal opinion, both sides are overreacting and are just making a big deal out of this
-
I decided I take no part into this discussion. In my own personal opinion, both sides are overreacting
:lol:
-
I decided I take no part into this discussion. In my own personal opinion, both sides are overreacting
:lol:
Hooray for my habit of forgetting words :shaking:
-
Wow, someone ridiculed Islam. I cordially invite the Muslim world to join the ****ing club. They should take a hint from Bill O'Reilly and understand that being a windbag with no sense of humor only makes people want to push your buttons.
-
AFAIK the cartoons were printed in an Egyptian newspaper a couple of months after the original print in Denmark, and no one reacted to it then, so it has to be more to it than just "you insulted our religion etc".
-
AFAIK the cartoons were printed in an Egyptian newspaper a couple of months after the original print in Denmark, and no one reacted to it then, so it has to be more to it than just "you insulted our religion etc".
Said this earlier; fundamentalist clerics have been touring the region with the 12 cartoons plus another 3 far more offensive ones, to stir up a reaction like the one we've seen. Egypt has also been rather vocal since that original publication, of course, but it's basically down to the more extremist elements trying to get exactly this type of situation.
-
I'm classing the religion that way, but yes, same difference. On the other hand, what do you care. I'm just some guy :).
Islam isn't a violent religion. In fact, Muslims actually tolerate Christians and Jews and other monotheists in the world because of their belief in one god. Muslims and Islam as a whole doesn't hate the West--radical Muslims do.
Simply accusing the religion simply because radical clerics misuse the term jihad for violent purposes isn't valid. The Ku Klux Klan advocates killing blacks and other minorities and the Westboro Baptist Church claims that 9/11, Columbia, and Katrina were all punishments from God on the US for harboring homosexuals, but that doesn't mean they represent the whole religion.
-
It is a mixed up word we live in... :blah:
Now, I'm a catholic, and a devout one at that, and while I can see things that insult my religion in a way practicly daily (from jokes to drawings), I do realise that God allso has a sense of humor and satire, and as long as a certain boundry is not overstepped I can tolerate it nad laugh with others..and mind you, that boundry is pretty high..
So hte Muslims are forbidden to depict mohamed. So? the cartoonist weren't muslims.. Or do they want to fobid other wat to draw?
Allright, the picture was slightly offensive in a way, but as a satire it represented spot on what it was supposed to - that the general view of islam in the West is shifting towards a dangerous thing.
Now, since I belive God = Alah (aka - same God, only it approached people in a differnt way, and over the generations that small differnece in approahc was overblown..the core values are hte same), then I can fully understand if they are insulted...
But any man must learn to roll with the punches some times. It's not worht such a comotion - hell, you can protest, or stop buyng hte paper - but this? Such sensless violence is unaceptable no matter what.
Not to mention that totaly inocent peopel got killed.
However, what shocked me even more is the statements of some muslim imams (religious leaders) that after condoning such violense and claming that Islam is a tolerant and peacefull religion (which it is is according to what I read in the Kuran), they proclamed that they will suggest a fatva against those who started this riots!?!?!?
for those of you who don't know, a fatva is basicly a assasination blessing - it means that it's OK to kill whichever person the fatva was called against and it will not be considered a crime. Does that sound peacefull or non-violent to you? :eek2: Who the hell put him in the position of Imam in the first place? Sadly, too many like him are imams...waay to many.
I allways considered Islam a bit strange, but brotherly religion - but these recent events are putting my beliefs to the test.
-
@TM
A Fatwah is a religious edict, nothing more or less. As there is no central body akin to the Vatican that 'rules' Islam, there's a great deal of debate of what qualifies someone to issue a Fatwah; the end result being that it's not a binding decree (where the law is based on the religion, obviously, that differs, and there is usually some debate) - for example, a Shia muslim would favour the fatwa of a Shia cleric over Sunni. The assasination/violence Fatwahs are very misrepresentative of the fatwah concept in general.
-
It's one thing to have someone do something stupid, and get mad at that person for doing it it's irrational when a religious group - wether it be a radical group part of a bigger, general group, or an entire religious body - blames another country totally unrelated to the matter at hand for what happened.
Yes, we have to realize that a lot of the people involved in the protests probably do not represent all Muslims rather, they represent thier interpretation of Islam. If America starts sinking to that level of ignorance, then we're just as bad as the radicals.
-
IMO, the Newspapers should back the f*** down. Honestly, defending 'free speech' is one thing, but re-printing said cartoons only provides fuel for the already raging fire. Yes, certain individuals are exacerbating the situation for some reason, but that does not alleviate those European Newspapers of blame for the situation. The mobs of rioters will never back down, and so the responsibility of resolving this situation as quickly as possible falls entirely on those printing the articles. Free Speech is not under threat here, innocent lives are.
-
The. story. broke. several. days. before. the. sinking.
To. pre-empt. the. ****. that. was. about. to. happen.
Again, just my paranoid theory.
-
The. story. broke. several. days. before. the. sinking.
To. pre-empt. the. ****. that. was. about. to. happen.
Again, just my paranoid theory.
So, they planned a sinking in order just because a 5 month old story was going to spin up? That is rather, er, paranoid.
-
I seen a few of those cartoon..
Some of them are really good - like one of two terrorists knocking on the heavens door and getting a reply "sorry, we ran out of virgins, try somewhere else". Now that is funny...and no Mohamed in it eitehr...
Hell, people should learn to relax and undersant comedy and satire.. I too tell jokes that invole Jesus or Peter, despite being a christian. Granted, I don't tell greasy jokes about htem, only more standard ones, but a arab (doesn't even look like Mohamed- who calimed it was him anyway?) with a turban bomb is satiric and spot on(gets the point over).
Meh...the world is totaly f*** up...
-
"Mohamed! with a bomb on his head! that's offinceive as it implys we are all a bunch of violent thugs! lets kill people and burn there embacies untill they stop doing things in there country that we wouldn't do in ours" - the Muslum world
-
I seen a few of those cartoon..
Some of them are really good - like one of two terrorists knocking on the heavens door and getting a reply "sorry, we ran out of virgins, try somewhere else". Now that is funny...and no Mohamed in it eitehr...
Hell, people should learn to relax and undersant comedy and satire.. I too tell jokes that invole Jesus or Peter, despite being a christian. Granted, I don't tell greasy jokes about htem, only more standard ones, but a arab (doesn't even look like Mohamed- who calimed it was him anyway?) with a turban bomb is satiric and spot on(gets the point over).
Meh...the world is totaly f*** up...
The cartoon was of Mohammad; the newspaper was inviting the cartoonists' 'first thought' depictions of Mohammad. AFAIK there aren't any / many reliable images of Mohammed, anyways, to compare vs.
I think it's important to understand Muslims have every right to be offended, and to say that; if they feel they're being stereotyped as violent terrorists, etc, then of course they'll protest. Would you be happy if someone said all Croats were ethnic cleansers, even in a comedy way? Same as I get pissed off at the way Scots are portrayed as violent drunks in the Simpsons, etc.
The issue is in the expression of that offendedness; it's not acceptable to call for religious censorship of the free press, nor is it to launch violent protests that burn down embassies or call for death to people. Moreso, the minority that are protesting in this way are only reinforcing the caricatured stereotype of violent, intolerant Muslims they are supposed to be opposing. But we see a problem in that the violence of these extremist protests, it acts to polarize and fracture the sort of 'west-east' divide of cultures, giving a pretext to racism in particular upon both sides. It's ok to criticise what was published, after all, whilst still supporting the rights of freedom of speech.
-
Yeah they did pretty much shoot themselves in the foot by protesting violently against being protrayed as violent, didn't they? It has actually had some positive effects back here where it all started. The whole business of radical imams going down to instigate these troubles has seriously marginalized them, and directly led to the creation of a democratic muslim organization which is looking to claim as members by far the majority of the muslims who live here within not too long, depriving those radicals of many of the followers they had 6 months ago. It's always nice when such a plot backfires like that. Karma, I guess :)
Also, the countries who are backing, actively or by non-action against violence, these demontrations and transgressions, may soon find that they've alienated some of their best friends in the western world. The nordic countries are all heavily involved in aid programs as well as various peace initiatives in the middle east and elsewhere, and this might change if the regimes in question don't reign in the violence. Nigeria actually had many members of parliament burning danish flags, which strikes me as a bad idea considering the fact that they're royally screwed if we withdrew our aid.
-
well if you withdraw your aid you will have invited your own 9/11 and terror will fill your streets like the blood of your infedel kind.
-
The drawings are all ****ing crap anyway.
Maybe they're just pissed that they never bothered to put any effort in?
-
The drawings are all ****ing crap anyway.
Maybe they're just pissed that they never bothered to put any effort in?
Maybe it's just Danish humour but I didn't see anything remotely funny in the cartoons anyway. That's probably the saddest thing about the whole affair.
It's sort of like spilling rivers of blood to prevent censorship of art and then finding out that you were defending the Crazy Frog. :D
-
The. story. broke. several. days. before. the. sinking.
To. pre-empt. the. ****. that. was. about. to. happen.
Again, just my paranoid theory.
So, they planned a sinking in order just because a 5 month old story was going to spin up? That is rather, er, paranoid.
I was thinking something along the lines of people who knew of the impending catastrophe (1000+ people don't die due to glitches) pre-empting the news coverage with the inane "cartoon" bull****, getting the cattle out on the street to burn some flags while the serious **** goes on in the background.
It happens alot with the American news agencies, like the whole Schiavo matter which was used to distract from a few serious issues that were going on the side.
-
So Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia deliberately planned to stage major protests outside of their own borders based on some cartoon foolishness, with the express purpose of combating gross negligance by a semi-independent ferry operator that hadn't even happened yet? Whether this was done intentionally to hide something more sinister/important is a worthwhile debate, but the ferry incident cannot possibly be involved if only because of the timing. Who important would have been on that ferry when it sank? Because my impression was that it was almost exclusively working-class civilians.
-
I can see this getting very ugly very fast. This is definately a very large bonfire that is about to have some gasoline poured onto it. World War I didn't start because of one event...it was a series of small events that when connected together started the whole thing. I think we're in the middle of that process...maybe mid 1911 or 12.
-
What I wanna know ie where the hell in Afghanistan did they find a Danish flag ?
-
So Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia deliberately planned to stage major protests outside of their own borders based on some cartoon foolishness, with the express purpose of combating gross negligance by a semi-independent ferry operator that hadn't even happened yet? Whether this was done intentionally to hide something more sinister/important is a worthwhile debate, but the ferry incident cannot possibly be involved if only because of the timing. Who important would have been on that ferry when it sank? Because my impression was that it was almost exclusively working-class civilians.
Wouldn't think of who but more of what. God knows what the hell they were transporting there, and who had the incentive to get something from it/burn it to ashes. It must have been one hell of a payload for 1000 lives to be worth it.
Again, just paranoid conjecture.
-
It's a major export now. New business model: Piss off a religion, then export masses of flags to them for burning. In truth though, it was probably home-made, many of the flags I've seen in pictures from various incdents have been quite... poor. They could copy them off our military vehicles there to know what they look like.
-
It's a major export now. New business model: Piss off a religion
that would account for roughly 95% of webcomics these days, mainly anthropomorphic ones :p
-
It's a major export now. New business model: Piss off a religion, then export masses of flags to them for burning. In truth though, it was probably home-made, many of the flags I've seen in pictures from various incdents have been quite... poor. They could copy them off our military vehicles there to know what they look like.
Apparently a lot of swiss flags are being burnt by accident......... which is dangerous, because we all know how easy it is to set the Swiss on the warpath.
-
http://asssalamisteakum.ytmnd.com/
-
The cartoon was of Mohammad; the newspaper was inviting the cartoonists' 'first thought' depictions of Mohammad. AFAIK there aren't any / many reliable images of Mohammed, anyways, to compare vs.
I though the newspaper asked tehe artist to portray the irrational change in the view most westerners now have towards Islam (that it's a dangerous)
I think it's important to understand Muslims have every right to be offended, and to say that; if they feel they're being stereotyped as violent terrorists, etc, then of course they'll protest. Would you be happy if someone said all Croats were ethnic cleansers, even in a comedy way? Same as I get pissed off at the way Scots are portrayed as violent drunks in the Simpsons, etc.
No one said they don't have the right to be offended, but they are carrying it WAAAAAAAY overboards.. adn that's an understatement.
Croats ethnic clensers? If you wanted to make a remark that portrays a whole nations as a samll group, you are not entirely precise. 5 croats have been indicted and so far not one has been convocted of ethnic clensing.. So you know, one should actually do it and have it proven before that analogy woul be correct.. Now if you said murderers that would be more "accurate" analogy, as tehre were croats who killed serbs out of sheer vengance.
The issue is in the expression of that offendedness; it's not acceptable to call for religious censorship of the free press, nor is it to launch violent protests that burn down embassies or call for death to people. Moreso, the minority that are protesting in this way are only reinforcing the caricatured stereotype of violent, intolerant Muslims they are supposed to be opposing. But we see a problem in that the violence of these extremist protests, it acts to polarize and fracture the sort of 'west-east' divide of cultures, giving a pretext to racism in particular upon both sides. It's ok to criticise what was published, after all, whilst still supporting the rights of freedom of speech.
totaly agree...
The prblem with people is that they have:
a) very low or no tolerance level (living in a free world you will get offended/insulted from time to time - learn to suck it up)
b) ignorant or primitive (this won't sound nice, but a large portion of the muslim world is really "primitive")
That said, would you call it an offensive act if I go about hte town in a black T-****s with a white svastika (90° angle)?
-
I though the newspaper asked tehe artist to portray the irrational change in the view most westerners now have towards Islam (that it's a dangerous)
No, they were asking the cartoonists to draw their first image of Mohammad; it was IIRc sparked by an authors difficulty finding representative images of Mohammad. So it's respective of a cultural view in the sense that it feeds into the artists first mental image; obviously it's an amalgamation of the individual and the religion, but it was specifically intended to be that person.
No one said they don't have the right to be offended, but they are carrying it WAAAAAAAY overboards.. adn that's an understatement.
Croats ethnic clensers? If you wanted to make a remark that portrays a whole nations as a samll group, you are not entirely precise. 5 croats have been indicted and so far not one has been convocted of ethnic clensing.. So you know, one should actually do it and have it proven before that analogy woul be correct.. Now if you said murderers that would be more "accurate" analogy, as tehre were croats who killed serbs out of sheer vengance.
You misunderstand; the whole point is that the analogous cartoon is inaccurate, and it is stereotyping an entire group of people in an unfair way. You have a proportionally tiny amount of Muslims who are extremist and terrorists/violent, and you apply that to the entire religion without considering that image may be false, and as such may be damaging - are you saying it's fair to say Islam is a religion dedicated to inspiring terrorism? I'm not excusing the violence and action seen - I said that before - but I think we need to also acknowledge why moderate Muslims are offended, and not condemn them all as reactionist militants because of a few extremists. That does not entail, by any means, curtailing press freedom - nor should it.
totaly agree...
The prblem with people is that they have:
a) very low or no tolerance level (living in a free world you will get offended/insulted from time to time - learn to suck it up)
b) ignorant or primitive (this won't sound nice, but a large portion of the muslim world is really "primitive")
That said, would you call it an offensive act if I go about hte town in a black T-****s with a white svastika (90° angle)?
It could be offensive, if taken out of context (IIRC it's the 45 angle swastika that has nazi connotations). I'm not sure on Buddhist/Hindu constraints on using the swastika. I think with regards to a/b it is sadly true that many Muslim countries are lacking in either religious freedom/education or long-held democratic tenets of freedom of speech, etc. It's important to remember, though, that a lot of this can be put down to the impact of 19th century colonialism, so we can't just pretend to hold an unchallengeable moral high ground.
-
It's a major export now. New business model: Piss off a religion, then export masses of flags to them for burning. In truth though, it was probably home-made, many of the flags I've seen in pictures from various incdents have been quite... poor. They could copy them off our military vehicles there to know what they look like.
Apparently a lot of swiss flags are being burnt by accident......... which is dangerous, because we all know how easy it is to set the Swiss on the warpath.
The Swiss are a dangerous people. They all have government-issued assault rifles.
-
They have money. Much more powerful weapon than assault rifles or nuclear bombs.
-
(1000+ people don't die due to glitches)
Yes they do. If you have 1000+ people on a boat/train/massive plane/zeppelin/Deimos Class corvette and you get a glith that causes it to sink/derail over a cliff/crash/explode/get attacked by Shivans, then 1000+ people are going to die. What do the numbers matter if the glitch is unpredictable?
-
WW3 anyone?
-
WW3 anyone?
Between whom? Because of what? For what gain? How?
-
Just for reference Bob, I posted a thread called 'Yes! Go France' or something similar, it has of course disappeared but it covered all of this.
Personally I find a bunch of terrorists terrorising an entire nation and its supporters due to being called terrorists disgustingly ironic. I can only see this getting worse, everyone who's not a victim of religious elitism needs to stand together and show these deranged children that we won't stand for their petulance.
-
Just for reference Bob, I posted a thread called 'Yes! Go France' or something similar, it has of course disappeared but it covered all of this.
Personally I find a bunch of terrorists terrorising an entire nation and its supporters due to being called terrorists disgustingly ironic. I can only see this getting worse, everyone who's not a victim of religious elitism needs to stand together and show these deranged children that we won't stand for their petulance.
it's only a matter of time, unfortunately, until the stakes are risen even higher, and the tools, even more devastating.
-
Things is - tehy are whackos - they won't back down. So it's up to us to do so...
And so the nations in question will apologize for things they have no influence over and kiss the asses of those religious nuts, becouse it's the only way to end this...well, not the only way, but the fastest and least painfull one anway...
-
yeah well, the pen can be mightier than the sword, just look, it only took one to get a whole lot of people to jump up and down crying foul..
i wouldn't be ordinarily annoyed, but it's just that their noisy attitude towards anybody that's not them irks me to no end, it's typical bigotry, and we're on the recieving end this time around.
mind you, this sorta thing's been around for centuries when it comes with the confrontations between religions, "my god is better than your god" , etc.
-
Things is - tehy are whackos - they won't back down. So it's up to us to do so...
And so the nations in question will apologize for things they have no influence over and kiss the asses of those religious nuts, becouse it's the only way to end this...well, not the only way, but the fastest and least painfull one anway...
I don't think you get what's happening. If those who advocate freedom of speech back down then we've effctively said that they are right. We'll also be handing them a 'get out of jail free' card.
You may wonder what happens if you negotiate with terrorists; back down and find out.
-
Things is - tehy are whackos - they won't back down. So it's up to us to do so...
And so the nations in question will apologize for things they have no influence over and kiss the asses of those religious nuts, becouse it's the only way to end this...well, not the only way, but the fastest and least painfull one anway...
I don't think you get what's happening. If those who advocate freedom of speech back down then we've effctively said that they are right. We'll also be handing them a 'get out of jail free' card.
You may wonder what happens if you negotiate with terrorists; back down and find out.
indeed, freedom of speech also inclines that while you may be free to speak, you're also free to ignore what's being said, that said, all the riled up muslims shoulda just ignored the cartoon, it was -only- a cartoon after all, and was satire.
obviously they have no sense of humor, how ironic that their actions are proving all that's being said about them.
-
Things is - tehy are whackos - they won't back down. So it's up to us to do so...
And so the nations in question will apologize for things they have no influence over and kiss the asses of those religious nuts, becouse it's the only way to end this...well, not the only way, but the fastest and least painfull one anway...
like hell.
-
Exactly, why in the hell would WE apologize? Why should a secular country apologize? No, what they're doing is what should be apologized for. Hell, just stop, no apology necessary. If they want to look at it like tit for tat, then fine. But stop the stupidity already.
-
Islam isn't a violent religion. In fact, Muslims actually tolerate Christians and Jews
Well that's terribly kind of them :wtf:.
-
Backing down on a government level just isn't going to happen. They've got their apology from the newspaper, and that's all they're gonna get. And if they think burning embassies makes it more likely for us to back down, well, think again. The truth is, there's nothing they can do that will truely put us under pressure.
1) We're a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Nothing to come for there, if they thought they might be able to squeeze us.
2) Most of our major trade partners are in the western world. They're not going to boycott us, even though some have demonstrated less support for a loyal ally during this than one might have hoped.
3) Terrorism? Our total land border is less than 100km, and that's with Germany. It's not as easy to sneak in as they might think. and unlike many countries, aquiring weapons once in-country instead of smuggling them in is not a simple task here. Besides, terrorism will just make it even less likely for us to back down, just as the burning of embassies has done.
Basically, the ball is in their court. Back here, everything is going just fine, and to most of the muslims who live here the matter is considered settled.
-
WW3 anyone?
Between whom? Because of what? For what gain? How?
If you look at one of the links in the first post you'll see that 2 sides are already developing over this issue, also violence as it is, becoming more supported by select governments, whom some of which are armed with nuclear weapons whom im pretty sure have been itching for a target, it doesent seem so far off.
Also this gives the chance for every europe-america hating nation to side with the muslim countries already promoting violence, for the main goal of getting their kicks in when/if this explodes into something even larger.
Going by the recent trends in muslim nations, the chance of this errupting into full out war is 99.8%
I mean comon theyve been fighting wars for years over **** they havent been even half as pissed about, and ontop of that, theyre unifying fast.
I'd put alot of money on it.
-
WW3 anyone?
Between whom? Because of what? For what gain? How?
If you look at one of the links in the first post you'll see that 2 sides are already developing over this issue, also violence as it is, becoming more supported by select governments, whom some of which are armed with nuclear weapons whom im pretty sure have been itching for a target, it doesent seem so far off.
Also this gives the chance for every europe-america hating nation to side with the muslim countries already promoting violence, for the main goal of getting their kicks in when/if this explodes into something even larger.
Going by the recent trends in muslim nations, the chance of this errupting into full out war is 99.8%
I mean comon theyve been fighting wars for years over **** they havent been even half as pissed about, and ontop of that, theyre unifying fast.
I'd put alot of money on it.
Islamist world unifying? What the... Ideological wars are often supported on citizen level and abhorred on higher levels - the ones who make cold, uncaring calculations about gains and losses, economy, HOW CAN THEY DO IT?
But OK, give me a time when this erupts in a full-out war between some parties (Syria and Denmark, lol). Then we can place bets! :)
-
WW3 anyone?
Between whom? Because of what? For what gain? How?
If you look at one of the links in the first post you'll see that 2 sides are already developing over this issue, also violence as it is, becoming more supported by select governments, whom some of which are armed with nuclear weapons whom im pretty sure have been itching for a target, it doesent seem so far off.
Also this gives the chance for every europe-america hating nation to side with the muslim countries already promoting violence, for the main goal of getting their kicks in when/if this explodes into something even larger.
Going by the recent trends in muslim nations, the chance of this errupting into full out war is 99.8%
I mean comon theyve been fighting wars for years over **** they havent been even half as pissed about, and ontop of that, theyre unifying fast.
I'd put alot of money on it.
Islamist world unifying? What the... Ideological wars are often supported on citizen level and abhorred on higher levels - the ones who make cold, uncaring calculations about gains and losses, economy, HOW CAN THEY DO IT?
But OK, give me a time when this erupts in a full-out war between some parties (Syria and Denmark, lol). Then we can place bets! :)
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6337/2188/1600/world_02_13-303.1.gif)
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
-
You forgot to account for the fact that many of the Islamic countries consider their neighbor's to be heretics.
-
krackers: take a look at the history of europe and keep in mind that history of warring over seemingly minor issues. the issues would only be the excuse to start the war, the real reason would always be increase in power in some way or another. same thing in the middle east.
I doubt this will escalate into a war, however. it'd be impractical.
-
Yeah, and the UN would never allow it...
...HAAAHAHAAHAHAHHAAAAAAAHAHHAHHAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAHHAAAA!!!
-
never ****ing mind the UN. denmark's in nato.
-
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.
There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.
-
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.
There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.
Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with nes in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.
-
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.
There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.
Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with nes in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.
I'm not American.
edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB
-
I just went to the bbc news main page and saw a link to a report entitled:
"Pakistan cartoon violence spreads!"
Is there anyone else who finds this funny? :lol:
-
The phrase 'Infidel' is based on 'Infidelity' which is basically, calling someone a Traitor for not believing in the Islamic religion. So basically, it's perfectly alright to call the Western churches Treacherous, and the members of those religions 'Traitors'. It's done so often now we, and probably the people using the term, don't even see the implied insult.
Ironic huh?
-
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.
There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.
Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with news in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.
I'm not American.
edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB
I never said you were... and uh.... :wtf:
I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.
-
I never said you were... and uh.... :wtf:
I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.
So you admit he was right in that Middle Eastern nations have no military ability to go to war with countries hundreds of miles away which they have a strong economic dependence upon? He was right, too, that you failed to name any country which would actually declare war on a western nation and for what reason the government of such a government would choose to do so.
-
Hey, we're marked as "Defenders of freedom of speech" on the map. Cool!
:p
-
I notice our own press remains strangely neutral, I can't quite figure that out, I've always considered the British Tabloids to be world leaders in supporting Freedom of Speech, even, sometimes, beyond the point of reasonable.
It's probably our mixed culture that does it, but most of the Muslims I know had an opinion of 'I don't find the cartoons anger me, I find they sadden me.'
-
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.
There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.
Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with news in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.
I'm not American.
edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB
I never said you were... and uh.... :wtf:
I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.
As aldo so eloquently put, you didn't give us even any hypothetical scenarios which we could discuss. I wanted to know just what your wild assertion of propability of war being as high as 99,8% was based on - who, how, what, when, why. Your remarks of "learn some history and maybe I'll explain later" didn't help either because you made a point - the burden of proof is on you and now anyone can want you to explain your points.
Anyways.
Populace can riot. They can do stupid stuff as much as they want, because that rarely has any real effect on politics - and this is even more true in non-free countries. That doesn't mean governments would be as stupid as people - they shouldn't be and they rarely are. Even the most insane dictatorships - let's take Iran and NK, both being pretty visible players in world politics - know their limits.
NK throws a ****fit every now and then and then are willing to discuss and negotiate, all while essentially keeping the necessary aid flowing and their enigmatic country isolated in all respects. Iran is quite possibly trying to become a nuclear state, but so far even they haven't attacked Israel, Turkey, Iraq, US, whomever because they would lose more than they would gain. They do hilarious things like holocaust denial cartoon contests and bossing/trying to boss IAEA around, but so far nothing really solid.
This is backbone of all politics - gains and losses. Also, Iran has more allies than NK and can, for quite complex reasons, somehow rely on Russia (which is pretty interested in keeping it's southern borders stable, obedient and suitable for oil trade..).
Spewing fiery rhetorics and taking machiavellian stances on violent riots is a really, really good way to pump up civilian support. It's also great if you're trying to turn attention from, let's say, political assasinations, bad economy, nonexistant freedoms and all that jazz, because it always works.
Boycotting Danish products is quite far from turning into a full-scale war. OK, Denmark can become a big bad bogeyman and hated in those countries - but that doesn't mean war (or at least war as we are used to define it. State-supported terrorism, for example, is rather grey area and has been a useful tool in world politics too!)
-
obviously whoever said "the pen is mightier than the sword" didn't have this in mind.
look, to be serious folks, if this wasn't so tragic, it'd be hilarious to watch, i mean, people getting riled up over a -cartoon- of all things, i know it's a religious figure and whatnot, but people have done that to various popes, jesus, and god, and a few fundies might complain, but they don't go absolutely ape**** about it. i mean, these actions show a degree of immaturity you don't see all that often outside the internet. :nod:
-
Ya rly. The Catholics didn't do this when that guy did that painting of the Virgin Mary covered in whatsit.
Of course, the newspapers had no compunctions then about reprinting pictures of that. :doubt: Real consistent of them.
-
If you're referring to Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary", that piece was intended only to honor the Virgin Mary through the use of African symbolic motifs. It was entirely misunderstood because people didn't even take the time to learn about the piece. (Not that I would condone its removal even if it had been meant offensively.)
-
I never said you were... and uh.... :wtf:
I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.
So you admit he was right in that Middle Eastern nations have no military ability to go to war with countries hundreds of miles away which they have a strong economic dependence upon? He was right, too, that you failed to name any country which would actually declare war on a western nation and for what reason the government of such a government would choose to do so.
No, i admited that i wasnt going to take the time out of my day to research my point to answer his questions if he was going to behave like a 3 year old, especialy the little time i have, and its still much of a hunch but a big one at that, and since you express disbelief for the same reasons and manage to make your disbelief one of an adult whom if i were to take the time to go ahead and spend the time to make a strong backup for what i said, not just rebute them with retarded crap like that, i will go ahead and do so when i find the energy as ive been home for maybe 2 whole hours today.
-
in the second link down.
I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.
But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.
Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be alot stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?
Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.
There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.
Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with news in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.
I'm not American.
edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB
I never said you were... and uh.... :wtf:
I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.
As aldo so eloquently put, you didn't give us even any hypothetical scenarios which we could discuss. I wanted to know just what your wild assertion of propability of war being as high as 99,8% was based on - who, how, what, when, why. Your remarks of "learn some history and maybe I'll explain later" didn't help either because you made a point - the burden of proof is on you and now anyone can want you to explain your points.
Anyways.
Populace can riot. They can do stupid stuff as much as they want, because that rarely has any real effect on politics - and this is even more true in non-free countries. That doesn't mean governments would be as stupid as people - they shouldn't be and they rarely are. Even the most insane dictatorships - let's take Iran and NK, both being pretty visible players in world politics - know their limits.
NK throws a ****fit every now and then and then are willing to discuss and negotiate, all while essentially keeping the necessary aid flowing and their enigmatic country isolated in all respects. Iran is quite possibly trying to become a nuclear state, but so far even they haven't attacked Israel, Turkey, Iraq, US, whomever because they would lose more than they would gain. They do hilarious things like holocaust denial cartoon contests and bossing/trying to boss IAEA around, but so far nothing really solid.
This is backbone of all politics - gains and losses. Also, Iran has more allies than NK and can, for quite complex reasons, somehow rely on Russia (which is pretty interested in keeping it's southern borders stable, obedient and suitable for oil trade..).
Spewing fiery rhetorics and taking machiavellian stances on violent riots is a really, really good way to pump up civilian support. It's also great if you're trying to turn attention from, let's say, political assasinations, bad economy, nonexistant freedoms and all that jazz, because it always works.
Boycotting Danish products is quite far from turning into a full-scale war. OK, Denmark can become a big bad bogeyman and hated in those countries - but that doesn't mean war (or at least war as we are used to define it. State-supported terrorism, for example, is rather grey area and has been a useful tool in world politics too!)
Asking for proof requires time for me to give you that proof, or evidence of proof etc,
Try to take that into account next time.
-
If you're referring to Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary", that piece was intended only to honor the Virgin Mary through the use of African symbolic motifs. It was entirely misunderstood because people didn't even take the time to learn about the piece. (Not that I would condone its removal even if it had been meant offensively.)
It can be taken two ways, neither of which justifies the painting:
1) It used obscure symbolism to honor the Virgin Mary. Fine. But who is going investigate obscure symbolism that on its face is patently offensive, revolting, and insulting? It's just not appropriate. If you want to honor the Virgin Mary using obscure symbolism, for goodness sake pick something that doesn't outrage your entire target audience!
2) More likely, it was a direct attack on Catholicism. Also fine; nothing is above criticism. But using "art" as a thinly-veiled cover for all-out butchering of Catholic sensibilities is deplorable - both for its content and for the fact that the "artist" is trying to pass off and excuse his attack as something other than what it really is. I'd even say it blasphemes art as much as it blasphemes Catholicism. I support art; I even support the absurd "abstract art" that passes for high-society entertainment these days. But I do not and will not support such an abominable assault on public sensibilities. And taxpayers have the right to determine what their money is used for.
This article (http://www.uexpress.com/johnleo/?uc_full_date=19991003) expresses it better than I could:
The obliviousness of elite opinion on this issue is astonishing. A New York Times editorial on the Brooklyn controversy informed us that "cultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life." Transgression aimed at Christian believers may be a walk in the park to the Times, but the paper clearly doesn't feel that way when the transgression is aimed at groups it cares more about.
This is known as a double standard. Many people, including black and Jewish leaders, came forward to say that a dung-and-porn portrait of a rabbi or Martin Luther King Jr. would probably have been yanked from the show with no blather at all about artistic freedom....
The usual term for this kind of politics is propaganda. And nasty propaganda ought to be denounced, even when it's gussied up as art.
Now, having read this post, step outside the discussion for a moment. I'm upset about this. If I was Catholic, I'd probably be even more upset. And the fact that it was reprinted and discussed everywhere did nothing to quell the tension; in fact it exacerbated it. But neither I nor any Catholics across the globe rioted or advocated war against the artist or those who support it. And hardly any newspapers or media outlets refused to run the story or refused to air the pictures out of respect for Catholicism.
-
I never said you were... and uh.... :wtf:
I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.
So you admit he was right in that Middle Eastern nations have no military ability to go to war with countries hundreds of miles away which they have a strong economic dependence upon? He was right, too, that you failed to name any country which would actually declare war on a western nation and for what reason the government of such a government would choose to do so.
No, i admited that i wasnt going to take the time out of my day to research my point to answer his questions if he was going to behave like a 3 year old, especialy the little time i have, and its still much of a hunch but a big one at that, and since you express disbelief for the same reasons and manage to make your disbelief one of an adult whom if i were to take the time to go ahead and spend the time to make a strong backup for what i said, not just rebute them with retarded crap like that, i will go ahead and do so when i find the energy as ive been home for maybe 2 whole hours today.
My rebute "READ MY THOUGHTS OR UR DUMB" was maybe, just maybe, because you make a wild statement and then when called out on it say stuff like "well lol history learn my young padawan". You know, you can provide your proof amd just reply later.
Now, just on what was your assertion based on?
-
It can be taken two ways, neither of which justifies the painting:
1) It used obscure symbolism to honor the Virgin Mary. Fine. But who is going investigate obscure symbolism that on its face is patently offensive, revolting, and insulting? It's just not appropriate. If you want to honor the Virgin Mary using obscure symbolism, for goodness sake pick something that doesn't outrage your entire target audience!
2) More likely, it was a direct attack on Catholicism. Also fine; nothing is above criticism. But using "art" as a thinly-veiled cover for all-out butchering of Catholic sensibilities is deplorable - both for its content and for the fact that the "artist" is trying to pass off and excuse his attack as something other than what it really is. I'd even say it blasphemes art as much as it blasphemes Catholicism. I support art; I even support the absurd "abstract art" that passes for high-society entertainment these days. But I do not and will not support such an abominable assault on public sensibilities. And taxpayers have the right to determine what their money is used for.
It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.
-
Ya rly. The Catholics didn't do this when that guy did that painting of the Virgin Mary covered in whatsit.
Of course, the newspapers had no compunctions then about reprinting pictures of that. :doubt: Real consistent of them.
that and a whole bunch of catholic fundies didn't threaten to blow up the place, i mean, anybody remember the "stink" over the "piss jesus" ? this deal in Denmark makes that pale in comparison. really.
-
I must admit, I think this one by Cagle pretty much covers it all....
http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/lauzan.gif
-
It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.
If people are trying ot say something, than they should say it in a way that everyone can understand..
I understand hte concept of art, but if you're making things that only you and a select few nutjobs on the planet can understand or appreciate, then you're better of doing nothing.
A lot of crap these days passes for art, while in reality has nothing to do with it.
Mind you, this is just a general assesment of the situation - I personalyl never seen taht pisture so I cna't comment on that.
-
It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.
If people are trying ot say something, than they should say it in a way that everyone can understand..
I understand hte concept of art, but if you're making things that only you and a select few nutjobs on the planet can understand or appreciate, then you're better of doing nothing.
A lot of crap these days passes for art, while in reality has nothing to do with it.
Mind you, this is just a general assesment of the situation - I personalyl never seen taht pisture so I cna't comment on that.
The value of art should never be defined by it's accesibility. We've seen time and time again that trying to appeal to the largest possible demographic just leads to worthless tat with little or no originality or thought; just look at pop music and soap operas. In many ways, the value of the meaning of art increases the more it challenges the viewer, the more it makes them think about it; if you restrict art to be 'so that everyone can understand', you just get a recurring simplification of the medium, and a matching societal loss of imagination and intelligence.
Art is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
-
My main problem with art is semi-plagiarism that seems to be knocking about these days. Warhol used the Campbells tin in something fresh and original at the time, but people are still knocking out variations on the same theme, taking something that was created by someone else and then placing it in their own work, often without as much originality as the original Warhol piece, and that original piece was created 50 years ago.
Art is sort of in a rut at the moment, people are looking further and further for something to give a 'message' and forgetting that Art is sometimes just about creating something that looks nice. Hence, we get lots of artists who use Sinks, Urinals and bags of rubbish to produce art, when we need more artists who can use the contents of a rubbish bag to create imagery, but wouldn't just sit the bag on the floor and say 'This is Art'. We need more Tony Harts and Rolf Harris's.
-
My main problem with art is semi-plagiarism that seems to be knocking about these days. Warhol used the Campbells tin in something fresh and original at the time, but people are still knocking out variations on the same theme, taking something that was created by someone else and then placing it in their own work, often without as much originality as the original Warhol piece, and that original piece was created 50 years ago.
Art is sort of in a rut at the moment, people are looking further and further for something to give a 'message' and forgetting that Art is sometimes just about creating something that looks nice. Hence, we get lots of artists who use Sinks, Urinals and bags of rubbish to produce art, when we need more artists who can use the contents of a rubbish bag to create imagery, but wouldn't just sit the bag on the floor and say 'This is Art'. We need more Tony Harts and Rolf Harris's.
no, we need more Morph.
-
If people are trying ot say something, than they should say it in a way that everyone can understand..
I understand hte concept of art, but if you're making things that only you and a select few nutjobs on the planet can understand or appreciate, then you're better of doing nothing.
It doesn't work that way. You can't fully appreciate Debussy unless you learn about classical mythology. You can't understand Moby Dick unless you understand the transcendentalists. All art comes from other art, and it demands that you be willing to learn enough to understand the context. Artists go where their own thoughts and feelings take them. If other people want to appreciate their work, they have to shed their notions of obscurity and open their minds to the possibility that just because something is not widely known doesn't make anyone a "nutjob".
-
It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.
There is a huge difference between complexity and offensiveness. A cursory examination of James Joyce may be confusing, but it's not offensive. A casual listening to Debussy may be superficial, but it's not shrill. But a mere glance at the painting by any American, particularly those who are Catholic (his target audience, don't forget) causes a deep-seated reaction of revulsion. It is the artist's job to communicate something in his art, so how effective do you think he was if his art produced the exact opposite reaction?
Whether you art in depth or simply accept it at face value is your choice, but you can appreciate that something is well done even if you don't care to examine it closely. Likewise you can see that something is offensive whether you examine it closely or not.
-
There is a huge difference between complexity and offensiveness. A cursory examination of James Joyce may be confusing, but it's not offensive. A casual listening to Debussy may be superficial, but it's not shrill. But a mere glance at the painting by any American, particularly those who are Catholic (his target audience, don't forget) causes a deep-seated reaction of revulsion. It is the artist's job to communicate something in his art, so how effective do you think he was if his art produced the exact opposite reaction?
Whether you art in depth or simply accept it at face value is your choice, but you can appreciate that something is well done even if you don't care to examine it closely. Likewise you can see that something is offensive whether you examine it closely or not.
Isn't the fact that it's a 'mere glance' the core of the problem? That people aren't trying to understand or analyze it in any way beyond the way that's easiest for them - the way that requires least thought? Because if the art is based upon traditional african techniques, isn't that revulsion not at the art but at an entire foreign culture?
-
You have a point, but then again you can't expect EVERYONE to perform deep analysis on EVERYTHING they come across.
Life's too short...
If we were all Hippies, we wouldn't have these problems. Go Chemical Nirvana, yeah!
(Analysis: This Is A Joke. You Tard. ;))
-
Isn't the fact that it's a 'mere glance' the core of the problem? That people aren't trying to understand or analyze it in any way beyond the way that's easiest for them - the way that requires least thought? Because if the art is based upon traditional african techniques, isn't that revulsion not at the art but at an entire foreign culture?
Precisely. The outrage over Chris Ofili's piece is a perfect showcase of why superficial examination of art is so meaningless. When you fail to give something its due attention, you don't just get less out of it than you could-- you very often get an entirely wrong idea about it. In this case, the wrong idea was, as aldo says, a dismissal of an entire culture based on discursively produced ideas of obscenity.
-
My main problem with art is semi-plagiarism that seems to be knocking about these days. Warhol used the Campbells tin in something fresh and original at the time, but people are still knocking out variations on the same theme, taking something that was created by someone else and then placing it in their own work, often without as much originality as the original Warhol piece, and that original piece was created 50 years ago.
Art is sort of in a rut at the moment, people are looking further and further for something to give a 'message' and forgetting that Art is sometimes just about creating something that looks nice. Hence, we get lots of artists who use Sinks, Urinals and bags of rubbish to produce art, when we need more artists who can use the contents of a rubbish bag to create imagery, but wouldn't just sit the bag on the floor and say 'This is Art'. We need more Tony Harts and Rolf Harris's.
actually, I kinda like mashups.
-
actually, I kinda like mashups.
/me beats kode with a turnip
-
Ah, I see vyper is an enthusiast of Dadaist performance art.
-
Ah, I see vyper is an enthusiast of Dadaist performance art.
You don't write dadaistic poems.
You draw them.
With feet.
-
What do poems have to do with it? He obviously hit someone with a turnip to express revulsion with the absurdity of human constructs.
-
My main problem with art is semi-plagiarism that seems to be knocking about these days. Warhol used the Campbells tin in something fresh and original at the time, but people are still knocking out variations on the same theme, taking something that was created by someone else and then placing it in their own work, often without as much originality as the original Warhol piece, and that original piece was created 50 years ago.
But you sure as hell can enjoy them?
Art is sort of in a rut at the moment, people are looking further and further for something to give a 'message' and forgetting that Art is sometimes just about creating something that looks nice. Hence, we get lots of artists who use Sinks, Urinals and bags of rubbish to produce art, when we need more artists who can use the contents of a rubbish bag to create imagery, but wouldn't just sit the bag on the floor and say 'This is Art'. We need more Tony Harts and Rolf Harris's.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. If you react to something then it works. Crude, nice, offensive, serene, relaxing, aggressive - what's really the difference?
I can paint nice paintings of blue ducks on a green summer pasture but that doesn't mean they're worth anything more than a paper they're painted on.
-
Thing is, Art isn't only about something that promotes discussion, that's the whole point. Constable or DaVinci's most famous peices were not politcally minded, they were studies in the technique of art, of how to get something looking as realistic as possible etc. Photography killed that skill to a certain degree.
I'm fine with art that promotes discussion in it's own way, but if you push something too far down the 'something to promote debate' road, then how is that any better than pushing it too far down the 'Something nice to look at' road?
The fact is, I don't enjoy modern art any more, it's boring, overdone and, for something that is 'modern', getting somewhat long in the tooth. Unmade beds, a piece of blue canvas, a screwed up ball of paper. Minimalism gone mad really.
-
Thing is, Art isn't only about something that promotes discussion, that's the whole point. Constable or DaVinci's most famous peices were not politcally minded, they were studies in the technique of art, of how to get something looking as realistic as possible etc. Photography killed that skill to a certain degree.
I'm fine with art that promotes discussion in it's own way, but if you push something too far down the 'something to promote debate' road, then how is that any better than pushing it too far down the 'Something nice to look at' road?
The fact is, I don't enjoy modern art any more, it's boring, overdone and, for something that is 'modern', getting somewhat long in the tooth. Unmade beds, a piece of blue canvas, a screwed up ball of paper. Minimalism gone mad really.
It's not just about politics and promotion. It's about ideas in general, about making people think, whether the question is ontological, ethical, emotional, logical, humorous, reverent, or anything at all under the sun. There is always a seed idea, (or several), that sparks a creation, and very often the artist isn't even fully aware of what ideas he or she is incorporating into a work. A work of art with no ideas in it is called a Thomas Kincaid painting.
As for modern art, I don't know that much about the visual arts, but I do know that the most recent trend in poetry has been back towards formalistic verse. (Although free verse poetry hardly corresponds to a bag of trash on the floor.)
-
and very often the artist isn't even fully aware of what ideas he or she is incorporating into a work.
To quote Sean Connery in "Finding Forrester": "I just wrote a story. And then all these damn idiots came up with all this bull**** about 'what I was really trying to say.' "