Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jetmech Jr. on February 20, 2006, 10:53:19 am
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T164249Z_01_SP306320_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS.xml&archived=False
Ha ha, HA HA HA!
:wakka:
-
Now that's funny.
-
How..... funny? :wtf:
-
I don't exactly find it funny. But it does pretty much prove the point of the cartoons.
-
I don't exactly find it funny. But it does pretty much prove the point of the cartoons.
It's the irony.
It's simply delicious.
-
Because it pretty much destroys any chance of people listening to them. They've essentially boiled it down to "Do what we say or we'll throw a tantrum".
-
Does anyone listen to them anymore?
-
They do when they blow something up or take someone hostage.
-
At first I thought, ok, maybe these cartoons were a bit offensive (of course some of them were still pretty funny).
Now I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody offended. Violently protesting to protest being called violent...
EDIT: I wonder if we could stop all of this by drawing cartoons of various Muslim leaders saying "stop killing people and be nice, and all you terrorists stop!" if they'd say, "I'm offended! We're gonna stop blowing up buildings! that'll show you!"
-
They do when they blow something up or take someone hostage.
You're confusing "listening" with "try to shoot dead".
-
You're confusing "listening" with "try to shoot dead".
Really? Where's your gun?
-
Being a Brit I prefer to rely on the professionals to take care of the actual shooting of course.
-
While you listen? Or are your fingers stuck in your ears?
-
Now I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody offended. Violently protesting to protest being called violent...
They're not protesting against the cartoons because they potray muslims as being violent. They're protesting against them because they are drawings of Muhammed, any images of the prophet are a sacrileg.
It's like saying to a Christian: "Jesus was a gay horse****er" (incidently, one of the cartoons shows Muhammed ****ing some animal, but that cartoon was not printed in the danish newspaper, but was presented in the middle-east as "evidence" of the western blasphemy anyway)
-
Now I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody offended. Violently protesting to protest being called violent...
Now I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody offended. Violently protesting to protest being called violent...
They're not protesting against the cartoons because they potray muslims as being violent. They're protesting against them because they are drawings of Muhammed, any images of the prophet are a sacrileg.
It's like saying to a Christian: "Jesus was a gay horse****er" (incidently, one of the cartoons shows Muhammed ****ing some animal, but that cartoon was not printed in the danish newspaper, but was presented in the middle-east as "evidence" of the western blasphemy anyway)
They're not protesting against the cartoons because they potray muslims as being violent. They're protesting against them because they are drawings of Muhammed, any images of the prophet are a sacrileg.
It's like saying to a Christian: "Jesus was a gay horse****er" (incidently, one of the cartoons shows Muhammed ****ing some animal, but that cartoon was not printed in the danish newspaper, but was presented in the middle-east as "evidence" of the western blasphemy anyway)
Somehow, as temperamental as Christians are, I don't see them killing people and having violent protests because someone made fun of Christ in a non-Christian country.
-
Now I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody offended. Violently protesting to protest being called violent...
Now I have no sympathy whatsoever for anybody offended. Violently protesting to protest being called violent...
They're not protesting against the cartoons because they potray muslims as being violent. They're protesting against them because they are drawings of Muhammed, any images of the prophet are a sacrileg.
It's like saying to a Christian: "Jesus was a gay horse****er" (incidently, one of the cartoons shows Muhammed ****ing some animal, but that cartoon was not printed in the danish newspaper, but was presented in the middle-east as "evidence" of the western blasphemy anyway)
They're not protesting against the cartoons because they potray muslims as being violent. They're protesting against them because they are drawings of Muhammed, any images of the prophet are a sacrileg.
It's like saying to a Christian: "Jesus was a gay horse****er" (incidently, one of the cartoons shows Muhammed ****ing some animal, but that cartoon was not printed in the danish newspaper, but was presented in the middle-east as "evidence" of the western blasphemy anyway)
Somehow, as temperamental as Christians are, I don't see them killing people and having violent protests because someone made fun of Christ in a non-Christian country.
Exactly, people here has made fun of Christ, but that doesn't give me any thoughts on killing them.
-
@UT: Of course not, the protests are idiotic. I'm just pointing something out, which a lot of people seem to have missed.
And from what I've read, the whole outrage (which takes place 4 months after the cartoons were printed), was orchestrated by islamic fundamentalists from Danemark. They want the 'clash of the cultures' as much as some christian fundies in America.
But mind you, a few centuries ago, one would have been burned alive for much 'milder' blasphemy in Europe.
-
They're not protesting against the cartoons because they potray muslims as being violent. They're protesting against them because they are drawings of Muhammed, any images of the prophet are a sacrileg.
It's like saying to a Christian: "Jesus was a gay horse****er" (incidently, one of the cartoons shows Muhammed ****ing some animal, but that cartoon was not printed in the danish newspaper, but was presented in the middle-east as "evidence" of the western blasphemy anyway)
Did you think about the fact that those very cartoons that were created by muslims to incite hatred in other muslims depict Muhammed? They're willing to brazenly do the very thing they claim to be protesting about in order to push their agenda. You can't support these people unless you're willing to overlook the disgusting hypocracy, intent to harm and pure racial hatred that they embody.
As for the students that are going to 'join the cause'. Their education is really paying off methinks. :p
-
I'm not supporting anybody, I think all parties involved are idiots.
And yes, I see the irony, but it's just not what the protests are about.
IMO, the idiocy is on the same level as the fundamentalist abortion protestors who stabbed a doctor who was working in a abortion clinic.
-
But mind you, a few centuries ago, one would have been burned alive for much 'milder' blasphemy in Europe.
The pope was scary, I'm glad I didn't have to live back then. :blah:
IMO, the idiocy is on the same level as the fundamentalist abortion protestors who stabbed a doctor who was working in a abortion clinic.
And your right, it is
-
You can't support these people unless you're willing to overlook the disgusting hypocracy, intent to harm and pure racial hatred that they embody.
Wait, who are you talking about? That sounds like.... oh I dunno, everyone.
-
You can't support these people unless you're willing to overlook the disgusting hypocracy, intent to harm and pure racial hatred that they embody.
Wait, who are you talking about? That sounds like.... oh I dunno, everyone.
Speak for yourself :p
-
Riiiiiiiight. Everyone else is pure innocence :wtf:
-
Riiiiiiiight. Everyone else is pure innocence :wtf:
Well I am ;).
-
The problem is that this situation is being wound up out of all proportion in many respects. The cartoons were 'sexed up' by adding more offensive comment and most people only really took this as an offence to Mohammed after they had been told it was an offence to Mohammed by ringleaders.
Threatening to join Terrorists if we ever do anything similar again shows either stupidity or ignorance on the part of the person saying it. I'm flattered that they think we are organised enough to control the output of every single news and media agency in several continents, and as I've said before, it would be interesting to see if any Anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish cartoons have featured in Middle-Eastern papers, I am more than certain they have.
-
BURN THE HEATHENS!!!!!
-
Threatening to join Terrorists if we ever do anything similar again shows either stupidity or ignorance on the part of the person saying it. I'm flattered that they think we are organised enough to control the output of every single news and media agency in several continents, and as I've said before, it would be interesting to see if any Anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish cartoons have featured in Middle-Eastern papers, I am more than certain they have.
As I posted in another forum, I think that would be kind of hard to do, I guess the would have to use the Bible or the Ten Commandments. The probley wouldn't use Jesus since he as far as I know is part of Islam. But, I don't know what else is in there as well.
-
Let's not forget the groups that raised these protests didn't just include the ones from the danish paper, but 3 others that weren't even of Muhammed (one was a picture of a man with a pigs snout and ears from some entirely different topic). So it's even more stupid.
Now, if anyone called me a terrorist, I'd have to blow them up.
-
At least they're not protesting against stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists.
-
they should really just form a big mob, and go punch the one guy at the root of this in the face
freedom of speech is no excuse for being an asshole
-
I think we need to invent something that gives people a Sense of Humor.
If I was a wise person I would quote that quote about wise people being wise enough to laugh at themselves but I forgot what it was... :nervous:
-
Heh...teh westerners are too soft when someone is ridiculing their religion, and the muslims (the protesters) are going into the other extreeme.
Balance is soomewere in between (actually,. more on the western side)
-
Heh...teh westerners are too soft when someone is ridiculing their religion, and the muslims (the protesters) are going into the other extreeme.
Balance is soomewere in between (actually,. more on the western side)
Most westerners are agnostic...
-
The problem is that this situation is being wound up out of all proportion in many respects. The cartoons were 'sexed up' by adding more offensive comment and most people only really took this as an offence to Mohammed after they had been told it was an offence to Mohammed by ringleaders.
Threatening to join Terrorists if we ever do anything similar again shows either stupidity or ignorance on the part of the person saying it. I'm flattered that they think we are organised enough to control the output of every single news and media agency in several continents, and as I've said before, it would be interesting to see if any Anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish cartoons have featured in Middle-Eastern papers, I am more than certain they have.
Now, I don't know if it was printed or not, but I remember a week or so ago that some Middle Eastern papers were toying with the idea to print comics that made light of the Holocaust, insisting that they weren't trying to insult Jews or anything like that.
-
The problem is that this situation is being wound up out of all proportion in many respects. The cartoons were 'sexed up' by adding more offensive comment and most people only really took this as an offence to Mohammed after they had been told it was an offence to Mohammed by ringleaders.
Threatening to join Terrorists if we ever do anything similar again shows either stupidity or ignorance on the part of the person saying it. I'm flattered that they think we are organised enough to control the output of every single news and media agency in several continents, and as I've said before, it would be interesting to see if any Anti-Christian or Anti-Jewish cartoons have featured in Middle-Eastern papers, I am more than certain they have.
Now, I don't know if it was printed or not, but I remember a week or so ago that some Middle Eastern papers were toying with the idea to print comics that made light of the Holocaust, insisting that they weren't trying to insult Jews or anything like that.
An Iranian paper.... and we all know what the bloody Iranians are like.
-
oh the irony. :lol:
stupid childish little wankers, they are. :blah:
-
Most westerners are agnostic...
Yeah, wasn't there a poll a couple years ago that found only forty percent of Europeans consider themselves religious?
-
Now, I don't know if it was printed or not, but I remember a week or so ago that some Middle Eastern papers were toying with the idea to print comics that made light of the Holocaust, insisting that they weren't trying to insult Jews or anything like that.
http://www.boomka.org/ :D
And please, this whole thing is (read: should be) a MAJOR embarassment to the Western world, or heck, to ANYone who is fooled into thinking that these riots are because of the cartoons. Like has been said, they were printed over 4 months ago to no fanfare whatsoever - in an Egyptian newspaper (IIRC) no less! Yet they sparked no protests, no nothing. Why now? Does it not enter people's minds that it is perhaps a diversion from something else?
-
Now, I don't know if it was printed or not, but I remember a week or so ago that some Middle Eastern papers were toying with the idea to print comics that made light of the Holocaust, insisting that they weren't trying to insult Jews or anything like that.
http://www.boomka.org/ :D
And please, this whole thing is (read: should be) a MAJOR embarassment to the Western world, or heck, to ANYone who is fooled into thinking that these riots are because of the cartoons. Like has been said, they were printed over 4 months ago to no fanfare whatsoever - in an Egyptian newspaper (IIRC) no less! Yet they sparked no protests, no nothing. Why now? Does it not enter people's minds that it is perhaps a diversion from something else?
Yes! We Irish have beaten our drink affliction and are set to conquer the planet... Oh wait, Tom has decided to discuss those cartoons over a pint.
Oh well...
-
While you listen? Or are your fingers stuck in your ears?
If this is some attempt to imply I'm ignorant of their cause, I'm not. I don't agree with a lot of what's gone on in the east at the hands of the west, but trying to take away my right to free speech and threatening to blow me up while doing it is going over the line between friendly debate and asking for an arse kicking. They've crossed that line.
-
If this is some attempt to imply I'm ignorant of their cause, I'm not. I don't agree with a lot of what's gone on in the east at the hands of the west, but trying to take away my right to free speech and threatening to blow me up while doing it is going over the line between friendly debate and asking for an arse kicking. They've crossed that line.
Which was actually my point. You were listening to them. Remember? Not trying to shoot them? Way back then?
-
If they join the terrorists, then we'll get Deus Ex on their ass.
-
Which was actually my point. You were listening to them. Remember? Not trying to shoot them? Way back then?
Your point is invalid, as you specified listening to them when they were waving guns about threateningly or saying they would do so. He listened to them only when they were not waving guns about threateningly or saying they would do so.
-
Well, no. Since they are doing that and we are listening to them. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this chat.
-
there is a diference between listening to someone and paying atention to them.
-
*ahem*
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well I don't believe that's the case when they're rioting. There is no roundtable discussion going on in the background. Now if they were massing outside your door to give you a letter and you didn't read it, maybe.
They're burning stuff, you're talking about them. Mission accomplished. Rioting IS the action. They didn't loot a KFC cause no one listened to them.
-
were not listening to them, were mocking them.
-
http://howtooffendamuslim.ytmnd.com/
-
http://howtooffendamuslim.ytmnd.com/
...I'm trying to think of a way you could be cruder... but I just can't seem to come up with anything.
-
how about this? (http://islamrules.ytmnd.com/)
or this? (http://lolislamblows.ytmnsfw.com/)
-
Those had me laughing quite a bit. :D
-
or how about this (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=denmark&word2=Islam)
-
:lol:
-
http://howtooffendamuslim.ytmnd.com/
...I'm trying to think of a way you could be cruder... but I just can't seem to come up with anything.
Firefly quotes FTW!!
-
http://howtooffendamuslim.ytmnd.com/
:lol: Love it.
-
Some believe they are protesting because to create an image of Muhammad (sp?) is sacrelige. Yup, Koran states that, sure. That's just the 'lead-in'.
Everyone knows (or should know) the real reason they are acting up is because yonder 'cartoon' gives a whole group of overtly violent and sick people a free pass to act out their fantasies and live up to the very stereotype they are protesting against. Nothing more, nothing less.
I find it funny that a group of people would be offended by a cartoon but not offended by car bombings and hostage executions.
-
idolitry? (http://idolaters.ytmnd.com/)
-
Oh, goodie. (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22022006/140/bnp-use-cartoons-campaign.html)
-
Geeze, 443.000.000 result for Denmark in a googlefight? That's about 90 per person living here :p
-
Oh, goodie. (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22022006/140/bnp-use-cartoons-campaign.html)
And the BNP will play right into the establishment's hands by turning everyone against the cartoons since "Oh noes! It's the BNP!".
-
Am I the only one perversely amused by Europe's reaction to the "cartoon" riots in the Muslim world? I mean, people riot against what amounts to free speech, and Europe goes out of its way to take a stand and davka (http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/broadway/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=whatsonfeatures&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsbroadway&itemid=WeED17%20Feb%202006%2016%3A21%3A07%3A420) publishes additional cartoons in the name of free speech that will spark even more rioting among the adherents of the religion of "peace".
-
Am I the only one perversely amused by Europe's reaction to the "cartoon" riots in the Muslim world? I mean, people riot against what amounts to free speech, and Europe goes out of its way to take a stand and davka (http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/broadway/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=whatsonfeatures&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsbroadway&itemid=WeED17%20Feb%202006%2016%3A21%3A07%3A420) publishes additional cartoons in the name of free speech that will spark even more rioting among the adherents of the religion of "peace".
'Perversely amused'? Yes, you are the only person I know amused by it.
Most europeans are concerned, IMO, at both the risk of religious censorship and the exploitation of the reactions of a proportionally small group of Muslims as a method for rousing racism against them (as we see with the BNP). I think most of of use respect the right to be upset, the right to express being upset in a non-violent way, and the necessity to ignore that (specifically in not having the governments regulate newspapers) in the interests of free speech.
Again, worth noting part of the causes of the riots, etc, were fundamentalist/extremist clerics with additional, unrelated cartoons which were even more offensive (as they were perpetuated as being of Mohammed, when really for an entirely different purpose).
-
ten years from now:
"going out to vote! are you mad! we mussn't offend the muslims! just sit yer arse down and look like yer praying to mecca or te DoVV'll be on are arses again!"
-
LoL @ some of those links.
May I point out that:
The protest in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad passed off without violence.
Also, how much of the **** is media spin?
It may of been only a handfull of people yelling out the "kill people" comments, how can you trust the media that is ultimately fueling the problems?
I hold some personal hostilities towards the media myself.
-
LoL @ some of those links.
May I point out that:
The protest in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad passed off without violence.
Also, how much of the **** is media spin?
It may of been only a handfull of people yelling out the "kill people" comments, how can you trust the media that is ultimately fueling the problems?
I hold some personal hostilities towards the media myself.
This is now a wee bit old, and you probably saw it earlier, but anyways; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4685886.stm
-
reading that there was one bit that stuck out as deeply misthought
"He had a point; after all, a number of European countries would not allow a deeply anti-Semitic book to be published, and have made it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust.
Why should it not also be illegal to insult the Prophet? "
His thinking is totaly backward IMHO, rather than increaseing the curtailing of free speach as he sugests is the logical conclusion, why doesn't he attack the origonal infringement? why doesn't he say here that it was as wrong to cencer anti-semitism and criminaliseing certan (ignorant/incorect) thought, as the islamic mindset of criminaliseing all disrespect of 'the prophet'?
that is a failure on our part to live up to our own standards and values, not justification more thought police and destruction of those values.
it's not that we are starting to get something right that they already know, it's that we are starting to go wrong in a similar manner that they already are.
-
reading that there was one bit that stuck out as deeply misthought
"He had a point; after all, a number of European countries would not allow a deeply anti-Semitic book to be published, and have made it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust.
Why should it not also be illegal to insult the Prophet? "
His thinking is totaly backward IMHO, rather than increaseing the curtailing of free speach as he sugests is the logical conclusion, why doesn't he attack the origonal infringement? why doesn't he say here that it was as wrong to cencer anti-semitism and criminaliseing certan (ignorant/incorect) thought, as the islamic mindset of criminaliseing all disrespect of 'the prophet'?
He didn't say that atall, and I think you're missing his point. What he said was, that Muslims can look to europe and see legislation against such things as inciting racial hatred against Jews (especially in Germany and Austria), yet not against what they see as an equivalent insult and incitement against their religion. The root of the anger by Muslims is that they feel victimised; that these cartoons are protraying them as terrorists (and yes, the daft bastards firebombing embassies don't help) and acting as incitement to racism and hatred and yet gain an acceptance that we would never see if it were Jewish, or black people portrayed in that way. I'd imagine myself, that a cartoon (this directly relating to the bomb-turban cartoon) were published depicting a black guy as a sterotypical golliwog esque figure with oversized lips wide nostrils and dealing drugs, it'd be greeted in a vastly different way yet be as equally offensive to the 'target' as these cartoons are. The whole issue Simpson is talking about in this manner is not removal of freedoms of speech, but of perceived inequities in them, of unfairness in the protections offered to races and religious groups from insult and attack.
That's not to call an abolishment of freedom of speech; Simpsons' very point is that we have to understand that feeling of offense and prevent these sorts of schism, and not just dismiss it as a bunch of violent, anti-democratic, uneducated heathens.
Just read the last 2 lines.
But we must understand that many Muslims around the world feel increasingly beleaguered.
Increasing that sense will do nothing to help anyone.
EDIT; another thought. This page is some of the anti-semitic cartoons shown in the Arab media http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm. Firstly, it shows the incredibly hypocracy of those who would protest against the Danish cartoons, but not these ones. But, secondly, it also has issues relating to the media and free speech; would we feel comfortable if our newspapers were to publish cartoons of this ilk? Because the reason, of course, for this whole pullaver is because some Muslims find the Danish cartoons as offensive. It just happens that a minority have acted like twats and destroyed any chance of a reasoned examination, by invading Danish trade missions and burning flags, so we now have a situation that seems like mad fundies versus freedom of speech, when really it's far more grey.
-
You may have noticed that I was saying pretty much that right back when this started when everyone was congratulating the French newspaper for protecting freedom of speech.
-
Vatican asks Muslims to stop being Hypocrites. (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-23T181649Z_01_L2369100_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-VATICAN-MUSLIMS.xml)
-
You may have noticed that I was saying pretty much that right back when this started when everyone was congratulating the French newspaper for protecting freedom of speech.
Yeah, of course.
It's rather easy to get caught up in it when some daft bastard is attacking the Norweigan embassy of all things, but when you see the likes of the BNP using it to spread their filth.... it gets a lot more clearer what's going on. I mean, I don't think I'd bar this type of thing (publishing cartoons) because I don't think they're incitement as such (although I don't know what the accompanying article said, and that could change opinions a lot I suppose), but I wouldn't applaud it. My position is really, 'they were a bit daft and insensitive to show the cartoons, but the consequence of a free society is allowing people to be daft, and we're sorry for any offence by that, but we can't tell people what to do or think'. It's fine to protest (about anything) peacefully, wrong to burn and break stuff, and wrong to use it in any way to incite racism and a cultural divide. In fact, the protesting thing is good if it allows an interchange of ideas and societies; as I said, I'd never ban this type of thing unless it was incitement to violence (and even then that's a very tough call vis-a-vis freedom of speech), but if the purpose of satire is to express criticism or concern, and we can learn why there was an offense, it means we can learn to express said criticism and concern in a way that is not insulting but instead compelling and will be considered.
-
Yep. That's basically the point I was making. The author of the cartoons had every right to publish them and I would absolutely defend his right to do it. That doesn't make him any less of a wanker for doing it though.
-
Observation:
Could not the cartoon of his turban being a bomb, represent the bastardisation of Islam by people intent on achieving their own agenda?
They did have some fairly good points, points the Muslim community should be thinking about.
-
Observation:
Could not the cartoon of his turban being a bomb, represent the bastardisation of Islam by people intent on achieving their own agenda?
They did have some fairly good points, points the Muslim community should be thinking about.
Perhaps (I've only seen 3/4 of the cartoons of course), although the way of expressing those points often matters as much as the points themselves.
-
you haven't even seen all of them?
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
I think that's got all of them.
honestly, I don't see anything particularly racist or overly offencive about any of them, there all much more tame than the average political cartoon I see in my local paper. just stop for a moment, look at any political cartoon, just grab a random one, and put it next to the worst one of these, is this realy 'wanker' material? why is it such a horable thing to have a strong oppinion? we don't live in a pink foam padded world, don't judge these things as if we do.
-
It's worth noting the 3 'cartoons' which weren't in Jyllands-Posten, but were used by Imans to encourage these protests - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48718
(finally found them)
One of those images of mysterious origin, which never were published, is from the AP photo. Another depicts Muhammad as a pedophile demon and a third has a praying Muslim being raped by a dog, according to the weblog Gateway Pundit.
The third, not mentioned in the quote, was a picture of Mohammad as a man with a pigs snout and ears - or rather, a poorly copied picture of a pig impersonation contest in France said to be that.
Also, as an aside, to note a moderate muslim view; http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
We will note that we find the cartoons to be incendiary, insulting and very abrasive. We also take issue with the general stance of the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which has a reputation for publishing inflammatory material. Yet, it would be wrong to take away their freedom of expression, regardless of how horrid their material is. We affirm our belief in freedom of expression and people’s right to express whatever opinions they hold. However, at the same time there is a need to realize that freedom of expression is a responsibility that should not be used to gratuitously insult people’s beliefs.
When confronted with such a situation, we deplore the use of violence in all its forms, as well as threats of violence and derogatory and racist remarks being thrown in the opposite direction. We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.
-
So, as we already knew, in other words it's yet another group of nutters stirring up the masses.
-
Also, as an aside, to note a moderate muslim view; http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
Also from that site:
[q]There is a strong tradition of friendship and cooperation between the Norwegian and Danish people and Arab people. Of most note is the continued support that these governments give to the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and the brave stance that these governments have often taken to defend Palestinian rights. We sincerely hope these special bonds will not be broken. We hope that our Scandinavian friends would not be convinced by the actions of a few to believe that this is how Arabs and Muslims feel about them. There are racists, bigots and criminals in all countries, and it is the duty of the respectful and reasonable to reach out to each other.
Let us hope that instead of emboldening the bigots, this sorry affair will bring all open-minded, tolerant and reasonable people from the Arab, Muslim, Norwegian, Danish and European communities together to unite in a continued struggle of reason against prejudice, open-mindedness against bigotry and humanity against racism.[/q]
Funny how it always is tied in to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
-
Also, as an aside, to note a moderate muslim view; http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
Also from that site:
[q]There is a strong tradition of friendship and cooperation between the Norwegian and Danish people and Arab people. Of most note is the continued support that these governments give to the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and the brave stance that these governments have often taken to defend Palestinian rights. We sincerely hope these special bonds will not be broken. We hope that our Scandinavian friends would not be convinced by the actions of a few to believe that this is how Arabs and Muslims feel about them. There are racists, bigots and criminals in all countries, and it is the duty of the respectful and reasonable to reach out to each other.
Let us hope that instead of emboldening the bigots, this sorry affair will bring all open-minded, tolerant and reasonable people from the Arab, Muslim, Norwegian, Danish and European communities together to unite in a continued struggle of reason against prejudice, open-mindedness against bigotry and humanity against racism.[/q]
Funny how it always is tied in to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Why funny? It's become a microcosm (not to mention one cause) of the cultural divisions and conflicts between the Western world (who obviously placed Israel in it's position and provide a lot of support) and the Muslim world.
-
honestly, I don't see anything particularly racist or overly offencive about any of them, there all much more tame than the average political cartoon I see in my local paper. just stop for a moment, look at any political cartoon, just grab a random one, and put it next to the worst one of these, is this realy 'wanker' material?
The implication of the cartoon is that all muslims are terrorists. That's a much stronger and much more racist view than you'll see in most political cartoons except those published by the KKK or BNP. Hence the term wanker. I've called Ann Coulter a dumb ***** for expressing similar sentiments. Why should I tone that down just because someone puts the same xenophobic sentiment in a cartoon?
Let me ask you this. If this was a cartoon depicting Martin Luther King as a drug dealing gang member simply because he was black would you believe that it was equally mild?
-
honestly, I don't see anything particularly racist or overly offencive about any of them, there all much more tame than the average political cartoon I see in my local paper. just stop for a moment, look at any political cartoon, just grab a random one, and put it next to the worst one of these, is this realy 'wanker' material?
The implication of the cartoon is that all muslims are terrorists. That's a much stronger and much more racist view than you'll see in most political cartoons except those published by the KKK or BNP. Hence the term wanker. I've called Ann Coulter a dumb ***** for expressing similar sentiments. Why should I tone that down just because someone puts the same xenophobic sentiment in a cartoon?
Let me ask you this. If this was a cartoon depicting Martin Luther King as a drug dealing gang member simply because he was black would you believe that it was equally mild?
I'd laugh at the irony.
-
As a wise man once said to me, "If an asshole calls you an asshole, does it count?"
-
Takes one to know one?
-
:lol:
In my experience, the exact opposite is true ;)
-
The implication of the cartoon is that all muslims are terrorists. That's a much stronger and much more racist view than you'll see in most political cartoons except those published by the KKK or BNP. Hence the term wanker. I've called Ann Coulter a dumb ***** for expressing similar sentiments. Why should I tone that down just because someone puts the same xenophobic sentiment in a cartoon?
Let me ask you this. If this was a cartoon depicting Martin Luther King as a drug dealing gang member simply because he was black would you believe that it was equally mild?
Well it's not really "racist" because Muslims aren't any more of a race than Christians are; Islam encompasses several different races and ethnicities.
Anyway, I really don't think that one can assume these cartoons are implying that all Muslims are terrorists. I tend to agree with the interpretation that they're attacking the militant elements of the religion that are twisting it into something simple-minded. There's plenty of satire that attacks radical Christianity by satirizing its symbols, but no one takes that to mean that all Christians are hateful extremists.
-
(http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1991/91proud-Americans.gif)
how is that any less 'racist'? do I see you calling the people who made it and the _many_ others far worse wich are out there 'wankers'? no, I don't... why is that?
because it's a political cartoon, it isn't racist, just like these cartoons were political cartoons and they aren't racist.
-
Well it's not really "racist" because Muslims aren't any more of a race than Christians are; Islam encompasses several different races and ethnicities.
Anyway, I really don't think that one can assume these cartoons are implying that all Muslims are terrorists. I tend to agree with the interpretation that they're attacking the militant elements of the religion that are twisting it into something simple-minded. There's plenty of satire that attacks radical Christianity by satirizing its symbols, but no one takes that to mean that all Christians are hateful extremists.
Race can be generally used to refer to any group of similar individuals, rather than just ethnically similar, although the correct legal definition in most countries AFAIK generally refers to the series of (the obvious) distinguishing and generically derived physical differences. I think already the US census bureau (for example) uses 'hispanic' as a race despite it being an ethnicity (as well as using self-identification of personal race, which asks questions of actual genetic vs percieved race); but in any case IMO it's fairly common practice to use racism as a term to refer to any large group who have, in general or stereotypical terms, a shared physical profile. Plus I'm not sure what the most appropriate converse term is; sectarianism is probably the best that comes to mind, but it has a very specific context and meaning for a Scot that perhaps doesn't translate all that well.
-
Race can be generally used to refer to any group of similar individuals, rather than just ethnically similar, although the correct legal definition in most countries AFAIK generally refers to the series of (the obvious) distinguishing and generically derived physical differences. I think already the US census bureau (for example) uses 'hispanic' as a race despite it being an ethnicity (as well as using self-identification of personal race, which asks questions of actual genetic vs percieved race); but in any case IMO it's fairly common practice to use racism as a term to refer to any large group who have, in general or stereotypical terms, a shared physical profile. Plus I'm not sure what the most appropriate converse term is; sectarianism is probably the best that comes to mind, but it has a very specific context and meaning for a Scot that perhaps doesn't translate all that well.
Yes, race refers to physical characteristics, (which is why it's so artificial), but my point still stands: Muslims are not united by any distinctly racial or ethnic parameters. There are Muslim Arabs, Persians, Slavs, Africans, and East/Southeast Asians, and most of these break down even further along ethnic lines. At the risk of sounding obtuse, I'm assuming that karajorma was referring to people generalizing about Arab Muslims, but the fact remains that the cartoons are technically about Muslims, not Arabs specifically.
Also, just as an aside, the latest U.S. census forms actually do treat "Hispanic" as an ethnicity and not a race.
-
and y'all like totaly missed my post...
:)
-
how is that any less 'racist'? do I see you calling the people who made it and the _many_ others far worse wich are out there 'wankers'? no, I don't... why is that?
because it's a political cartoon, it isn't racist, just like these cartoons were political cartoons and they aren't racist.
And the Martin Luther King cartoon I mentioned presumably wouldn't be racist too then ?
The cartoon you've posted doesn't ever claim that what is being said is the majority view of all Americans but by depicting Muhammad as a terrorist you instantly imply that his followers are terrorists too.
@ Ford - Feel free to point me at a better word to use to decribe bigotry to a group soley on the grounds of religion I'm more than happy to use it. Till then it gets the point across adequately enough as long as people decide not to nitpick when perfectly aware of my intentions.
-
And the Martin Luther King cartoon I mentioned presumably wouldn't be racist too then ?
I don't think that is a comparison, the cartoons in question obviosly are directed at a specific cultural element, I can not beleive some of you are so quick to find something to lay on the cartoons to justify your 'everyones to blame', no the danish paper did nothing to warent this, it is entierly the 'fault' of the people rioting and killing over it.
there is nothing -racist- about those cartoons, there is however a -political- mesage, that is obviusly being proven corect.
-
ok, let me put it another way,if there was a cartoon that protrayed all Nazis as racist totalitarians, would that be racist? as in would that be saying that all germans were totalitarian racists? no, it would be directed at a particular element within german society of the 1930s.
in the same respect these cartoons are directed at a movement within muslim society.
-
And as I said earlier, there is plenty of material that attacks Christian extremists, but people don't try to claim that this satire is targeting all Christians.
Kara, you just supplied the appropriate term yourself. "Bigotry" is what I would use in this context.
-
and lets not forget the thing they are actualy protesting is _not_ the suposed bigetry in the cartoons but they are protesting the fact that the paper violated one of there religion's tennents, and they are demanding that there religion's punishment be applied.
-
Bob. You're making the mistake of assuming that the extreme position is the only opinion on this. Try asking some moderate muslims what they find so offensive about the images and you'll see that it's not the same thing.
-
In the end, it's all religion and thus deserves a good slap.
-
ok, let me put it another way,if there was a cartoon that protrayed all Nazis as racist totalitarians, would that be racist? as in would that be saying that all germans were totalitarian racists? no, it would be directed at a particular element within german society of the 1930s.
in the same respect these cartoons are directed at a movement within muslim society.
I think you're losing sight that these cartoons, reagardless of how offensive from our cultural perspective, have one rather powerful difference - they are applying their criticism not to a subgroup, but explicitly with an image that symbolises an entire religion and it's believers.
The cartoon you pictured, in contrast, depicts 2 individuals who are used to poke at a specific group, but which does not define the scope of that group; in other words, it's saying 'some people are like this', but not who those some people are. That's a key difference. Additionally, being accused of being wrong. niave, etc is a lot different from being accussed of being murderous fanatics, paedophiles and zoophiles (the latter 2 referring to the cartoons circulated but not originating with the other 12). A cartoon that said "We're americans, we murder children and have sex with dogs" (perhaps depicting the President or a historical figure like George Washington performing said act) would probably be a lot more offensive than a satirical swipe at an essentially undefined group.
-
@Aldo: Bullcrap. The Cartoon Bobb posted makes no mention of any subgroup. Applying your fuzzy logic to the Muslim toons, it should be quite obvious to all involved that the cartoons aren't making fun of Islam in general, but rather the extremists and murderers that claim to practice the teachings of Islam.
And who the hell cares what they're portrayed as in the cartoons? Like the toons aimed at america, those cartoons are made based on the actions of the loudest and most obnoxious group. In this case, thats terrorists, religious fanatics, and crusaders. In our case, it's idiots.
-
He has a point...But this really is a big problem - a balancing act of a sorts.
What did the artist try to say?
What do you THINK he said?
Did he find a right way to say it?
Do you have the right to say your oppinion, no matter what that is (liek for instance - "I think Islam sucks!".. Is that hate-mongering or jsut oppinion stating?)
See...you can debate this left and right for ages and still not come to a firm conclusion, since people percive the same thing in a different way and react differently...
-
realy now, I thought the charictichers in the cartoon were suposed to be generalisations about Americans, that were a bunch of whit bred idiots more concerned about not haveing our house of cards view of the world knocked down than dealing with reality. there is a bit of that steriotype going around the world these days, yes? well I can't see any qualitative or quantitative diference between showing the steriotypical American patridiot and makeing fun of it verses showing a steriotypical islamist and makeing fun of it.
what is the diference?
also this made me think of something, oftine you'll hear Americans useing words like Islamist, terrorist, islamo-facist, and you'll think 'oh, hes got some racist thing against muslims'. NO these words are used to diferentiate against the normal muslims, when in conversations if someone says 'the muslims' two or three people will stop them and corect them 'oh, no it's not all muslims, just the ones trying to kill us'
-
@Aldo: Bullcrap. The Cartoon Bobb posted makes no mention of any subgroup. Applying your fuzzy logic to the Muslim toons, it should be quite obvious to all involved that the cartoons aren't making fun of Islam in general, but rather the extremists and murderers that claim to practice the teachings of Islam.
And who the hell cares what they're portrayed as in the cartoons? Like the toons aimed at america, those cartoons are made based on the actions of the loudest and most obnoxious group. In this case, thats terrorists, religious fanatics, and crusaders. In our case, it's idiots.
Bobs cartoon depicts an anoynmous, somewhat 50s styled male and female, their nationality identified by a flag. Bobs has an explicit reference to the anonymous couple being 'born in Middle America', identifying them as a un-defined subgroup. Furthermore, a retro-styled couple is not generally regarded as a symbol representing of all of America.
The Danish cartoons depict Mohammad, a singular figure who represents the Islamic religion as much as Jesus Christ does Christianity. The cartoonists associated Islam - the religion and by extension worshippers - with the violence performed by fundamentalists. That's fine, it's a free expression - but surely it's easy to understand why Muslims would get offended by that association? Would Americans like being called murderers and crusaders (notwithstanding the justification of such labels) for the actions of their President when they disagree with them?
Bobs cartoon depicts said couple as naive and blindly patriotic - comedic idiots, but scarcely figures of hate. They're not, for example, celebrating bombing children in Iraq or somesuch (again, bringing back anti-semetic cartoons published in Arab papers as a more relevant analogy).
The more offensive Danish cartoon depicts Mohammed - and again, all followers of the Koran - as an evil murderer and terrorist; the accompanying cartoons added in order to raise even more trouble (i.e. not of the Danish paper) depict a Muslim having sex with a dog, and Mohammad (again, all Muslims being implied in connotation) as a paedophile and pig (akin to being called the devil). (noting these were added to incense and presented out of context in the 'pig' sense).
Saying 'bullcrap' doesn't really make your statement any more compelling, BTW, it just makes it a tad obnoxious and irritating - which is why I mention it. And I would think it's possible to see why there is offense, without also feeling such offence, condoning censorship, or violent protesting.
realy now, I thought the charictichers in the cartoon were suposed to be generalisations about Americans, that were a bunch of whit bred idiots more concerned about not haveing our house of cards view of the world knocked down than dealing with reality. there is a bit of that steriotype going around the world these days, yes? well I can't see any qualitative or quantitative diference between showing the steriotypical American patridiot and makeing fun of it verses showing a steriotypical islamist and makeing fun of it.
what is the diference?
also this made me think of something, oftine you'll hear Americans useing words like Islamist, terrorist, islamo-facist, and you'll think 'oh, hes got some racist thing against muslims'. NO these words are used to diferentiate against the normal muslims, when in conversations if someone says 'the muslims' two or three people will stop them and corect them 'oh, no it's not all muslims, just the ones trying to kill us'
I find it interesting you instantly connect 'terrorist' to 'having something against Muslims'.
And that it's ok to casually refer to 'the Muslims' as 'only the ones trying to kill us'; does that mean non-violent muslims are no longer to be referred to as Muslims?
Moreso, the annoyance towards terms like (less so) Islamist and islamo-facist is, I believe, because it connotes the religion with being a composite the act when most Muslims abhor that sort of act and don't accept it as justified by their religion. Effectively you're implying that all Muslims are violent fundamentalists by that connection; if I said "oh, all blacks are thieves... well, just the blacks in jail' or similar, do you really think people would disregard the first, casual statement? It's the correction that shows the thought 'I'd better say this not to cause offense, even though I don't necessarily believe it', to any casual observers.
-
Bobs cartoon depicts an anoynmous, somewhat 50s styled male and female, their nationality identified by a flag. Bobs has an explicit reference to the anonymous couple being 'born in Middle America', identifying them as a un-defined subgroup. Furthermore, a retro-styled couple is not generally regarded as a symbol representing of all of America.
You are drawing WAY too much meaning out of simple phrases. It's "having been born in the middle of the North American Landmass," not "Middle America." It has about as much meaning as 'living in the middle of nowhere' (I.E. Not much) so stop trying to portray it as such.
The characters in the cartoon Bob posted are the stereotypical view of the average American. Ignorant, naive, blindly patriotic. It's not a specific, unidentified subgroup (at least, not without MUCH more proof than you've managed to supply).
The Danish cartoons depict Mohammad, a singular figure who represents the Islamic religion as much as Jesus Christ does Christianity. The cartoonists associated Islam - the religion and by extension worshippers - with the violence performed by fundamentalists. That's fine, it's a free expression - but surely it's easy to understand why Muslims would get offended by that association? Would Americans like being called murderers and crusaders (notwithstanding the justification of such labels) for the actions of their President when they disagree with them?
Lightly offended, perhaps. Not "rioting in the streets, burning Danish flags and killing the odd person" hysterical. And claiming that the cartoons are offensive to all muslims due to association is kinda weak, not even considering that that's only a part of the reason they actually find the toons offensive.
Bobs cartoon depicts said couple as naive and blindly patriotic - comedic idiots, but scarcely figures of hate. They're not, for example, celebrating bombing children in Iraq or somesuch (again, bringing back anti-semetic cartoons published in Arab papers as a more relevant analogy).
Again, who cares? Loudest, most obnoxious group. Being made fun of. Simple.
The more offensive Danish cartoon depicts Mohammed - and again, all followers of the Koran - as an evil murderer and terrorist; the accompanying cartoons added in order to raise even more trouble (i.e. not of the Danish paper) depict a Muslim having sex with a dog, and Mohammad (again, all Muslims being implied in connotation) as a paedophile and pig (akin to being called the devil). (noting these were added to incense and presented out of context in the 'pig' sense).
Mohammed /= All followers of the Koran. Mohammed just happened to be extremely unlucky in that the Islamic extremists tend to tout him as their figurehead.
I find it interesting you instantly connect 'terrorist' to 'having something against Muslims'.
You shouldn't. It's not that hard a leap to make for most people, considering the terrorists that most people know of tend to be Muslim.
-
[I find it interesting you instantly connect 'terrorist' to 'having something against Muslims'.
You shouldn't. It's not that hard a leap to make for most people, considering the terrorists that most people know of tend to be Muslim.
And would you say that in the 1970s the word 'terrorist' meant 'having something against Irish'?
-
[I find it interesting you instantly connect 'terrorist' to 'having something against Muslims'.
You shouldn't. It's not that hard a leap to make for most people, considering the terrorists that most people know of tend to be Muslim.
And would you say that in the 1970s the word 'terrorist' meant 'having something against Irish'?
Pretty much. Back then, they were the prime example of it in the media. Now, it's Muslim extremists.
It's all relative. The point is you shouldn't be surprised nowadays if people associate Muslims with terrorists.
-
You are drawing WAY too much meaning out of simple phrases. It's "having been born in the middle of the North American Landmass," not "Middle America." It has about as much meaning as 'living in the middle of nowhere' (I.E. Not much) so stop trying to portray it as such.
The characters in the cartoon Bob posted are the stereotypical view of the average American. Ignorant, naive, blindly patriotic. It's not a specific, unidentified subgroup (at least, not without MUCH more proof than you've managed to supply).
Who are you to decide what is 'way too much meaning' to draw? I'm in the UK, why the hell am I not allowed to have a view of what is a stereotypical American (or american subgroup) or not? In fact, isn't a foreigner better equipped to recognise stereotypes of an entire place than the place itself? Or are we uneducated foreigners unable to comprehend that maybe there are a lot of disparate political, social, ethnic, cultural groups in the US despite the reams of media we get imported over?
Moreso, it's pretty damn obvious what 'born in the middle of the North American landmass means'; not only is the term 'Middle America' a widely known one derivative of the basic Middle #### term reflecting a reactionary middle class 'traditional' group within a country (i.e. Middle England), it's also equally of satirical value in that it ignores that North America is more than one country. Furthermore the waving US flags also have just a hint of what country is being referred to, not to mention the mention of a controversial President.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a continent is a little more specific than 'nowhere'. I'm in the north-west of the British Isles with a Scottish flag waving behind me - does that mean you have absolutely no inkling whatsoever where I might possibly be? Could I be, ooh, in Japan? In Spain? In Mexico? In 'nowhere'?
Lightly offended, perhaps. Not "rioting in the streets, burning Danish flags and killing the odd person" hysterical. And claiming that the cartoons are offensive to all muslims due to association is kinda weak, not even considering that that's only a part of the reason they actually find the toons offensive.
I never said it justified violence - in fact, I said that it didn't. All I wanted, was for you to understand the reasons for being offended, not to justify the expression of that from a vocal minority, nor to condone using it as a basis for censorship.
I think, in fact, I've said that 3 times very explicitly - what you need to realise is that you can defend the right of free speech whilst also being able to question whether something that was said was right to be said. There is a responsibility in free speech, of not to incite violence or hatred without a very,very good reason for it. I can defend the right to publish those cartoons, even whilst saying it was an insensitive action. I can say they were rather daft for publishing those cartoons, yet defend their right to publish them as part of our intrinsic freedoms. I can understand the offense they cause, without justifying either the violent expression of that offense or calling for legislation to prevent it.
Again, who cares? Loudest, most obnoxious group. Being made fun of. Simple.
The 'who cares' being evident of the fundmental inanity of your 'simple' conclusion. Presumably being called an 'evil bastard' always has the same meaning regardless of the tone of voice used? Being made fun of is different to being called paedophiles (or worshippers of), etc. Calling me a 'dumbass' is a lot less offensive than calling me 'evil', a 'child molester' or even 'racist'. Saying I'm an idiot who naively allowed something bad to happen is less insulting than saying I perpetrated that act.
Mohammed /= All followers of the Koran. Mohammed just happened to be extremely unlucky in that the Islamic extremists tend to tout him as their figurehead.
Muhammad is Gods final prophet in Islam; sent to guide humanity and to act as the voice of God (Allah) in establishing Islam and writing the verses that form the Koran. This means that Muhammad is a literal representative of God, and to insult him is commonly regarded as insulting Allah and hence the entire religion; many hard-line Islamic states regard criticism of Muhammad as blasphemy.
You shouldn't. It's not that hard a leap to make for most people, considering the terrorists that most people know of tend to be Muslim.
FARC, ETA, IRA/PIRA/Real IRA, UVF, Black Hand, Bader-Meinhof......
I believe most Muslims don't consider those terrorist to be Muslims; that suicide (i.e.bombing), for example, is totally unacceptable within the Koran. And I'd imagine that having that sort of moderate viewpoint ignored, and your belief system presented without questioning as a source and perpretator of violence is a rather insulting thing to happen. When we have a situation where people quite willingly accept, as here, the reference of an entire religion as criminals... well, that offends me, and I'm not even a muslim. Is it any more right for 'the Irish' to become synonymous with terrorist for the IRA? For 'the Columbians' to be synonymous with drug dealers and kidnappers?
Or do we just accept blind racial stereotyping and the eventual racism that results, because we can cling to a few straws of justification?
-
Who are you to decide what is 'way too much meaning' to draw? I'm in the UK, why the hell am I not allowed to have a view of what is a stereotypical American (or american subgroup) or not? In fact, isn't a foreigner better equipped to recognise stereotypes of an entire place than the place itself? Or are we uneducated foreigners unable to comprehend that maybe there are a lot of disparate political, social, ethnic, cultural groups in the US despite the reams of media we get imported over?
Oh, way to throw a hissy fit. Remember what I said about drawing to much out of a simple phrase? Well, you did it again. Of course when I say you're seeing too much in something, I mean your uneducated (because, after all, you're a foreigner :rolleyes:).
And no, being from another country does NOT make you instantly better suited to judge such things. You think because your part of one of the MANY groups that targets us, you have the authority? Hah.
Moreso, it's pretty damn obvious what 'born in the middle of the North American landmass means'; not only is the term 'Middle America' a widely known one derivative of the basic Middle #### term reflecting a reactionary middle class 'traditional' group within a country (i.e. Middle England), it's also equally of satirical value in that it ignores that North America is more than one country. Furthermore the waving US flags also have just a hint of what country is being referred to, not to mention the mention of a controversial President.
Of course it's obvious it's making fun of the U.S., but since when were people living in the U.S. an "unidentified Subgroup?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a continent is a little more specific than 'nowhere'. I'm in the north-west of the British Isles with a Scottish flag waving behind me - does that mean you have absolutely no inkling whatsoever where I might possibly be? Could I be, ooh, in Japan? In Spain? In Mexico? In 'nowhere'?
The Cartoon doesn't just specify a continent, it quite clearly targets the U.S.'s populace. It makes no further distinction.
I never said it justified violence - in fact, I said that it didn't. All I wanted, was for you to understand the reasons for being offended, not to justify the expression of that from a vocal minority, nor to condone using it as a basis for censorship.
I think, in fact, I've said that 3 times very explicitly - what you need to realise is that you can defend the right of free speech whilst also being able to question whether something that was said was right to be said. There is a responsibility in free speech, of not to incite violence or hatred without a very,very good reason for it. I can defend the right to publish those cartoons, even whilst saying it was an insensitive action. I can say they were rather daft for publishing those cartoons, yet defend their right to publish them as part of our intrinsic freedoms. I can understand the offense they cause, without justifying either the violent expression of that offense or calling for legislation to prevent it.
Fair enough. I never denied it. I merely called you out on your claim that Bobb's cartoon targetted a specific subgroup while the Muslim cartoons were meant to be representations of the entire Islamic religon.
The 'who cares' being evident of the fundmental inanity of your 'simple' conclusion. Presumably being called an 'evil bastard' always has the same meaning regardless of the tone of voice used? Being made fun of is different to being called paedophiles (or worshippers of), etc. Calling me a 'dumbass' is a lot less offensive than calling me 'evil', a 'child molester' or even 'racist'. Saying I'm an idiot who naively allowed something bad to happen is less insulting than saying I perpetrated that act.
No, "who cares" being meant to underline the fact that the Cartoons are not meant to represent ALL of the followers of Islam.
Muhammad is Gods final prophet in Islam; sent to guide humanity and to act as the voice of God (Allah) in establishing Islam and writing the verses that form the Koran. This means that Muhammad is a literal representative of God, and to insult him is commonly regarded as insulting Allah and hence the entire religion; many hard-line Islamic states regard criticism of Muhammad as blasphemy.
Thats their problem. No one elses.
Well, at least, not until they make it everyone else's problems.
FARC, ETA, IRA/PIRA/Real IRA, UVF, Black Hand, Bader-Meinhof......
I believe most Muslims don't consider those terrorist to be Muslims; that suicide (i.e.bombing), for example, is totally unacceptable within the Koran. And I'd imagine that having that sort of moderate viewpoint ignored, and your belief system presented without questioning as a source and perpretator of violence is a rather insulting thing to happen. When we have a situation where people quite willingly accept, as here, the reference of an entire religion as criminals... well, that offends me, and I'm not even a muslim. Is it any more right for 'the Irish' to become synonymous with terrorist for the IRA? For 'the Columbians' to be synonymous with drug dealers and kidnappers?
Or do we just accept blind racial stereotyping and the eventual racism that results, because we can cling to a few straws of justification?
It hardly matters. They call themselves Muslim, so that's what the world will call them. There's not much that can be done in that regard.
And I DID NOT SAY ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS. I said most people hear the term terrorists, and nowadays associate it with Muslims. Why? Because their extremists are the most current, obvious example. Did I say it's right to stereotype them that way? NO. I said don't be surprised by it.
-
On a more lighthearted note:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/295289
*Does not accurately demonstrate my views, but is funny non-the-less*
-
I still see gaping inconsistency here. People are calling these cartoons offensive because they ridicule the negative aspects of Islam, but people do the same thing all the time with Christianity, and I don't hear the same people calling that offensive. WHAT GIVES?
-
As I've said before, they tend to blow less things up.
-
Oh, way to throw a hissy fit. Remember what I said about drawing to much out of a simple phrase? Well, you did it again. Of course when I say you're seeing too much in something, I mean your uneducated (because, after all, you're a foreigner :rolleyes:).
And no, being from another country does NOT make you instantly better suited to judge such things. You think because your part of one of the MANY groups that targets us, you have the authority? Hah.
This is interesting. Because I contend with something you said, it becomes a) a 'hissy fit' and b) 'targeting' you? The issue of better, I would note - and I would hope it is implicit - is that a stereotype you feel is directed at you has a very different effect than a stereotype directed at someone else; that you can't pick an choose a national stereotype, and thus the way the rest of the world stereotypes you. So whether or not a stereotype applies to a certain group perhaps is not best judged by that group, but by an external factor; for example, I see Groundskeeper Willie in the Simpsons and it quite often seems pretty insulting, etc - but that's because I'm defensive of my own nationality and identity.
Of course it's obvious it's making fun of the U.S., but since when were people living in the U.S. an "unidentified Subgroup?"
Actually, it's making fun of a specific group of, for lack of a better term, insulated middle-America group who are blindly patriotic and unquestioning (rather than, say protestors, or hispanics, etc), but exactly who encompasses that group is very much in the eye of the beholder. For example, here you take it to refer to all of the United States populace and I, admittedly an outsider, clearly interpret it to be referring to very specific group of political views (albeit one whose members are not explicitly specified as whether being all Americans, middle-Americans, all white, what social class, etc). Of course, the lack of having the same perception is in itself illustrative of the difficulties of considering how different cultures can be offended; the US and UK are about as similar as 2 nations can be in cultural terms, yet clearly there's a vast difference of opinion in what that (Bobs) cartoon 'attacks' and how badly.
The Cartoon doesn't just specify a continent, it quite clearly targets the U.S.'s populace. It makes no further distinction.
So, it clearly says US, clearly says the middle of the North American continent, and yet doesn't actually refer to the oft used 'middle America'? Tres bizarre.
Fair enough. I never denied it. I merely called you out on your claim that Bobb's cartoon targetted a specific subgroup while the Muslim cartoons were meant to be representations of the entire Islamic religon.
No, "who cares" being meant to underline the fact that the Cartoons are not meant to represent ALL of the followers of Islam.
....
Thats their problem. No one elses.
Well, at least, not until they make it everyone else's problems.
Again, this is exactly what I mean by needing to consider other cultures. You see, just above you're saying it's not representative of their religion - and yet here you're saying it's their problem for actually holding it as representative of their religion.
Surely you see the contradiction - you're effectively stating you can define the boundaries of what represents a fairly large cultural group, and what they should identify with, despite being not of that religion. You say 'it's their problem' that their religion is setup such as Muhammad is representative of God / Allah; so presumably we don't have to take any interest into other cultures when communicating? So any time the Islamic world takes offence, we can easily blame it on them?
What is it, cartoonists asked to draw pictures of their view of Muhammad have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of that figure? That in itself is worrying when it comes to cross-cultural understanding.
And, of course, I don't believe I've ever said the Danish paper (gah, keep forgetting the name) intended to insult - that'd be a purely assumptive conclusion to make, and the least likely in reality. However, that doesn't mean they didn't insult either, that it wasn't a bad idea and is free from criticism.
It hardly matters. They call themselves Muslim, so that's what the world will call them. There's not much that can be done in that regard.
And I DID NOT SAY ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS. I said most people hear the term terrorists, and nowadays associate it with Muslims. Why? Because their extremists are the most current, obvious example. Did I say it's right to stereotype them that way? NO. I said don't be surprised by it.
And that association is clearly wrong and breeds descrimination, intolerance and secterianism. That's completely my point, and thats why people get offended. What surprises me, is that it's used in the term of discussing how said cartoons aren't labelling all Muslims as terrorists, and yet we have this clear and explicit connotation of exactly that just being accepted as ok because 'some' are; and that some (all, most likely) aren't even accepted as following Islam in these actions by moderate Muslims.
The IRA called themselves 'Irish patriots' - should we have called them that, rather than murderers they are? The likes of Hamas claim suicide bombing Israelis is justified in the interests of freedom for Palestine - do we accept that without question? Do we just take the labels terrorists use to justify themselves and accept them blindly now?
More importantly, what's wrong with 'extremist'? Why does it have to be Muslim terrorist, Islamic terror groups? Is it not simply because it's easier to label these things in that way, blame them on a religion, than realise every human creed has the capacity for great evil? Not to mention these labels just hurt in the long run - we insult the moderate Muslims by implying their religion is terrorist, and breed violence because our attempts to deal with said groups can be easily be characterised as crusading against Islam. So it hurts both ways.
But that's kind of beside the point. Do you understand why Muslims could be upset by the cartoons, both the published and faked? Because ultimately, that's all that matters - the understanding... because we're not all supposed to act the same way, are we?
I still see gaping inconsistency here. People are calling these cartoons offensive because they ridicule the negative aspects of Islam, but people do the same thing all the time with Christianity, and I don't hear the same people calling that offensive. WHAT GIVES?
Cultural differences, primarily. The Muslim world increasingly feels under attack by the Christian (western) world, lacks much of the same freedoms of expression and democracy (i.e. other outlets for anger), and that creates a situation that is more volatile. I think, though, the real difference is the scale; there have been similar reactions in the UK by (minority elements of) the Sikh and Christian community due to offensive plays in the UK, but it's not been a cross-national phenomenon. Of course, this may in part be reflected by the Middle East itself being artificially divided by the imperial powers of the 1900s, so there's perhaps more of a cross-national 'culture' than, say, across the UK and France would have. Also the 'Christian world' is increasingly secular and/or aetheistic, and Christianity in general is a less life and culture dominating religion than Islam (based on what I've been told by Muslims).
Albeit I'd note a large part of the whole offense is that what's being ridiculed, is something many Muslims reject as being an aspect of Islam - terrorism being one. There's, of course, an interesting hypocracy between this and the publication of anti-semitic cartoons in the Arab world, which I wish a politician would/had addressed.
I don't know of any cartoons, though, publlished in national newspapers depicting Jesus as killing children or somesuch in Iraq.
-
I?ll gove you an example of the depths this problem can go into...
A cartoon came out in a Croatain paper.
Jeses, in rags like a drunk or a bum, sitting behind a table and saying to Mohamned (who sits next ot him but we do not see him in the picture) "You know Mohamed, sometimes I envy you for how your people act."
This was clearly ment to be satiric - showing how the Christian world is too unsensitive and too far out of touch with it's religion. the artist himself tough that the cartoon isn't offensive.
However, there were protest letters sent to the newspaper saying that showing Christ as adunkard & weak (basicly a loser) is highly insulting - amd indeed, it somehow is.
*Note that any comparison between Mohamed nad Jeses is flawed - Mohammed was a man, with all the flaws and imperfections that come with it (like St. Peter), while Jeus is the son of God*
See the problem?It is impossible to write or draw ANYTHING regarding a sensiive subject without insulting someone. This is becosue different people wil lgive different meaning to what you write/draw, and see things that aren't tehre (or are they?).
This is one thing I mayself am unsure of.. Where does the freedom of speech and news end and the insult begin? Who can determine that?
It' is clear that no one organization or person can - it's largely individual.
While one can say that Christians are too quiet when it comes to insulting their religion, it is only partialyl true, as following Christs teachings, it would be wrong to forbid it... after all, Christ didn't stop the ones who spread lies and vicious accusations again him...he didn't stop his captors and torturers..he did not curse them and deman theri punishemt - in fact, quite the contrary - "bless those who curse you".
So this is (partially) becoause of it..alltough I personally think we went ot far and shoudl really start to speak out againts such things more often..
-
This is interesting. Because I contend with something you said, it becomes a) a 'hissy fit' and b) 'targeting' you? The issue of better, I would note - and I would hope it is implicit - is that a stereotype you feel is directed at you has a very different effect than a stereotype directed at someone else; that you can't pick an choose a national stereotype, and thus the way the rest of the world stereotypes you. So whether or not a stereotype applies to a certain group perhaps is not best judged by that group, but by an external factor; for example, I see Groundskeeper Willie in the Simpsons and it quite often seems pretty insulting, etc - but that's because I'm defensive of my own nationality and identity.
It's phrases like this:
" I'm in the UK, why the hell am I not allowed to have a view of what is a stereotypical American (or american subgroup) or not?"
And this:
"Or are we uneducated foreigners unable to comprehend that maybe there are a lot of disparate political, social, ethnic, cultural groups in the US despite the reams of media we get imported over?"
That make it come off as a hissy fit. Not because you're arguing a point, but because you seem to be TRYING to take offense to what I say, and are getting up in arms over it, despite the fact that I never intended that or said anything to imply it.
And while the people who are targeted by a stereotype may not be the best to judge, that doesn't mean the people making fun of the said stereotype are on better footing.
Actually, it's making fun of a specific group of, for lack of a better term, insulated middle-America group who are blindly patriotic and unquestioning (rather than, say protestors, or hispanics, etc), but exactly who encompasses that group is very much in the eye of the beholder. For example, here you take it to refer to all of the United States populace and I, admittedly an outsider, clearly interpret it to be referring to very specific group of political views (albeit one whose members are not explicitly specified as whether being all Americans, middle-Americans, all white, what social class, etc). Of course, the lack of having the same perception is in itself illustrative of the difficulties of considering how different cultures can be offended; the US and UK are about as similar as 2 nations can be in cultural terms, yet clearly there's a vast difference of opinion in what that (Bobs) cartoon 'attacks' and how badly.
I.E. the point is unarguable, as it's entirely subject to interpretation. Great.
Again, this is exactly what I mean by needing to consider other cultures. You see, just above you're saying it's not representative of their religion - and yet here you're saying it's their problem for actually holding it as representative of their religion.
Surely you see the contradiction - you're effectively stating you can define the boundaries of what represents a fairly large cultural group, and what they should identify with, despite being not of that religion. You say 'it's their problem' that their religion is setup such as Muhammad is representative of God / Allah; so presumably we don't have to take any interest into other cultures when communicating? So any time the Islamic world takes offence, we can easily blame it on them?
What? I'm only saying that they're causing their own problems by assuming that these cartoons automatically apply to them, merely because they contain images of someone they revere.
I don't know of any cartoons, though, publlished in national newspapers depicting Jesus as killing children or somesuch in Iraq
Uhm...I may have missed one, but I don't recall any of the danish cartoons featuring anything like THAT...
-
It's phrases like this:
" I'm in the UK, why the hell am I not allowed to have a view of what is a stereotypical American (or american subgroup) or not?"
And this:
"Or are we uneducated foreigners unable to comprehend that maybe there are a lot of disparate political, social, ethnic, cultural groups in the US despite the reams of media we get imported over?"
That make it come off as a hissy fit. Not because you're arguing a point, but because you seem to be TRYING to take offense to what I say, and are getting up in arms over it, despite the fact that I never intended that or said anything to imply it.
Well, did you expect me to react nice and politely to '@Aldo: Bullcrap' and 'applying your fuzzy logic to the Muslim toons' (begin strawman here)? Essentially I feel you're calling me an idiot for my opinion - without any real justification for it - and, well, I tend not to react politely to that. Dictating what should be obvious to me and soforth. Doesn't make aldo a happy bunny, oh no.
And while the people who are targeted by a stereotype may not be the best to judge, that doesn't mean the people making fun of the said stereotype are on better footing.
Making fun?
What? I'm only saying that they're causing their own problems by assuming that these cartoons automatically apply to them, merely because they contain images of someone they revere.
Didn't you just assume a cartoon referred to all Americans because it shown the US flag and mentioned the North American continent?
Are we supposed to ignore another culture in considering actions directed at them? It seems to me that if we're to debate the appropriateness of a cultural response, we have to understand that culture, not blame them for the key differences that cause their different response. 'Merely' would seem to be somewhat a misleading term, too - in fact it's the root of misunderstanding, by mischaracterising the depth of belief and emotion surrounding the religion based on our somewhat secular context.
Uhm...I may have missed one, but I don't recall any of the danish cartoons featuring anything like THAT...
(firstly, that was perhaps poorly phrased as an analogy; it wouldn't have to directly depict it, but present a comment that directly or indirectly does so)
By implication as depicting Muslims as violent terrorists; the most famous, the turban as bomb, essentially analogues Islam as a ticking timebomb. There's another one, IIRC, depicting Muhammad as a fairly evil looking, menacing and violent guy with a huge knife which can be said to have a similar effect.
Additionally, including the far more offensive 3 cartoons that were portrayed - falsely - as being published in the Danish papers; bear in mind this is relating to the reasons for offense, not the correctness of directing it; I don't believe that there's any sense whatsoever in attacking a country (be it by boycotts, flag burning or attacks on embassies), of course, but a lot of those protesting most violently would have been lead to believe said cartoons would Danish.
-
Well, did you expect me to react nice and politely to '@Aldo: Bullcrap' and 'applying your fuzzy logic to the Muslim toons' (begin strawman here)? Essentially I feel you're calling me an idiot for my opinion - without any real justification for it - and, well, I tend not to react politely to that. Dictating what should be obvious to me and soforth. Doesn't make aldo a happy bunny, oh no.
Point, and my apologies, though in my defense, I will point out that I did not misconstrue what you were saying there into an insult against myself.
Making fun?
Yes, that's generally what you do when you portray stereotypes in things like cartoons. Mock, poke fun at, etc.
Didn't you just assume a cartoon referred to all Americans because it shown the US flag and mentioned the North American continent?
Are we supposed to ignore another culture in considering actions directed at them? It seems to me that if we're to debate the appropriateness of a cultural response, we have to understand that culture, not blame them for the key differences that cause their different response. 'Merely' would seem to be somewhat a misleading term, too - in fact it's the root of misunderstanding, by mischaracterising the depth of belief and emotion surrounding the religion based on our somewhat secular context.
The Main difference as I saw it was that the U.S. toon depicted a pair of generic nobodies. whereas the danish toons depicted a specific person.
-
Yes, that's generally what you do when you portray stereotypes in things like cartoons. Mock, poke fun at, etc.
It is? You mean like this (http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm)? (NB: this is far, far more offensive than the Danish toons, of course, and I'm not claiming the two are anywhere near equivalent - in fact I'd like to mention the fundamental hypocracy here, in these states being willing to post this stuff - it's filth, really - and note that not a single western politician seems to have mentioned it when they bloody well should have).
The Main difference as I saw it was that the U.S. toon depicted a pair of generic nobodies. whereas the danish toons depicted a specific person.
Who was representative of a religion (or, specifically, a figure representative of God in said religion and revered as the orignator of Gods words in that religions holy book).
-
Those cartoons are intersting. I actually find the one with the Jewish character with a nazi sword in his back, stabbing the arab with a star of david sword, rather intriguing.
It seems like genuine political commentary that explores the effect the holocaust had on the future behaviour of Israel - perhaps the toon was designed to fly under the radar of the arab powers-that-be. Or perhaps I'm giving the author too much credit.
-
The IRA called themselves 'Irish patriots' - should we have called them that, rather than murderers they are? Do we just take the labels terrorists use to justify themselves and accept them blindly now?
Necessary qualifier: The IRA called themselves Catholic Irish patriots. And that they were/are Catholic was generally accepted. Hamas calls themselves Muslim Palestinian freedom fighters. And that are Muslim is generally accepted. Religious labels=other labels? No. Not going to fly. Why I don't know, but it doesn't.
-
The IRA called themselves 'Irish patriots' - should we have called them that, rather than murderers they are? Do we just take the labels terrorists use to justify themselves and accept them blindly now?
Necessary qualifier: The IRA called themselves Catholic Irish patriots. And that they were/are Catholic was generally accepted. Hamas calls themselves Muslim Palestinian freedom fighters. And that are Muslim is generally accepted. Religious labels=other labels? No. Not going to fly. Why I don't know, but it doesn't.
I don't ever recall the IRA calling themselves Catholic in any public statement on the British news. In fact, I'm 99.9% sure they never did, for the simple fact that only way they could preserve support would be not to do so; I doubt they'd receive much funding from donors in the US and Ireland if they were dedicated to eradicting protestants from either Eire or Northern Ireland. Whilst the IRA used sectarianism as justification, and committed sectarian acts of terror, their expressed ideology was always to style themselves as national patriots and freeom fighters, not religious extremists; I can't think of a single statement, ever, where the IRA attributed their crimes to being down to Gods' will, which is the identification we use in demarcating religious terrorist organisations.
-
Think of it this way: How many of them were Protestant?
-
Think of it this way: How many of them were Protestant?
EDIT; actually, that last reply was at a tangent (so I've removed it and added this).
The point is that the IRA have always presented themselves as justified by being 'Irish patriots', not as justified by Catholicism or God. Same way that the likes of Al-Queda justify themselves as being supported by Islam. If we accept that Al-Queda are justified by Islam - which we do by taking that as a label without questioning - then surely we have to also accept labelling the IRA by their justification of being freedom fighters. When really, the only label they need is 'murdering bastards'.
The problem with 'Islamic terrorist group' for Muslims is that it makes Islam synonymous with terrorism, without questioning or noting that terrorist ideology is a perverted form at best. We would make the same assumption if we labelled the IRA by their own justifications, and would be inherently applying a stereotype that Irish patriotism amounts to killing innocents.