"Everybody draw Mohammed" on May 20 to support South Park

[Valteron]

I cannot find any thread on this subject (I may be wrong) but by now, most people have heard about the recent disgraceful censoring of South Park because of threats by Islamofascist thugs.

Comedy Central, in a move that has been called "the lowest point in the history of American TV", has censored the popular cartoon satire show as explained here (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/comedy-central-censors-south-park-episode-muslim-threats/).

RevolutionMuslim.com posted the "warning" after the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park," included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. The posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Although the web site has reportedly been closed down, the perpetrators of this outrage have not been prosecuted because they are not threatening Parker and Stone in the legal sense of the term.

But they have accomplished what they wanted. South Park, which has mocked God, Jesus, Krishna, Joseph Smith and just about every other religion, has been censored by a frightened network.

If you are not OUTRAGED by what Islamofascists are doing our freedom of expression in the west, then I cannot explain it to you. If you think that the issue here is "not to make waves" and to "respect the sensitivities of Muslims", rather than defense of our western values, then you deserve to lose your rights a little at a time.

Luckily, there are people pushing back. One of these is listed at this site (http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2010/04/24/%e2%80%9ceverybody-draw-mohammed-day%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-20-may-2010-join-in-and-protect-freedom-of-expression/). On May 20, join in and protect freedom of expression.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Comedy Central is the entity that censored the episode (just like they knuckled under to the Scientologists), and I can't see how insulting all Muslims is going to accomplish anything. One fringe website made a non-threat, and Comedy Central turned pussy. Sorry, but I'm annoyed at the network, not at the scary "Islamofacists."

[Critical1]

if the threat carried no weight it would not have been made in the first place.

I agree its well past time to go all Dawkins on their ass.

[Valteron]

Comedy Central is the entity that censored the episode (just like they knuckled under to the Scientologists), and I can't see how insulting all Muslims is going to accomplish anything. One fringe website made a non-threat, and Comedy Central turned pussy. Sorry, but I'm annoyed at the network, not at the scary "Islamofacists."

I too am angry at Comedy Central for their refusal to grow a pair, but essentially, we have rewarded threats of violence fropm Islamofascist thugs with censorship.

The more we reward this behaviour, the more they will do it. There are already cases where college professors IN THE WEST have been told that they must say "peace be unto him" after saying the name of Mohammed. How long before this is demanded in the media? How long before media who refuse to do this are politely "warned" about the consequences?

Do you know why Hitler, who had only 38% support in Germany when he came to power, ended up enjoying massive support by the end of the 30s? Because he proved that threats of violence work like a charm. The Weimar Republic had asked the Allies to cut them some slack, to let them form a customs union with Austria, for example, to help trade. The answer was no. But when Hitler marched into Austria, or remilitarized the Rhineland, or demanded the Sudentenland, he threatened force if he did not get his way. And the rest of the world rewarded his threats of violence every time.

What will it accomplish to draw cartoons of Mohammed on May 20? It will accomplish this. Muslims in the west, and in all of the world, for that matter, can learn to get used to the fact that our freedom of expression includes the right to ridicule Jesus, Mohammed, God, or anyone. And that this freedom is NON-NEGOTIABLE!

Muslims are not being offended any worse than Mormons were offended when SP lampooned Joseph Smith. Mormons put up with it and accepted it as part of our western values on freedom of speech. Muslims have to learn to do the same.

The more we make Islam a specially protected exception to freedom of expression, the more we are sacrificing our values and freedoms.

[Valteron]

Since the idea of the May 20 initiative is to make Muslims understand that they can accept freedom of expression on ALL religious views or get the Hell out of the west, since we will not back down on our values, maybe it would be a good idea to draw cartoons of Jesus, Krishna, and others as well, just so they understand our point. Maybe even a cartoon of Richard Dawkins with a dunce-cap or something, saying "In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded!"

The protest is not anti-Muslim. It is pro-freedom.

[Oakminster]

Ya know....protests are not usually my thing. I think I'll make an exception this time. Problem is, I can't draw for shit. Reckon I could do a stick figure and name it Mohammed? Maybe something featuring him getting cornholed by and/or fellating pigs?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"We rewarded threats?" What is this "we" shit? I didn't reward anybody. Comedy Central did. The problem is network cowardice, not a meaningless semi-threat from some nobodies on the internet.


Fringe Christians send out death threats too, but nobody thinks the solution is to insult all Christians.

Not that I particularly object to this project -- I don't particularly care --- I just think it's pointless. What do you think is going to happen? Wht's the best case scenario? All Muslim fanatics will realize their mistake? What is the goal here?

[Ludovic]

You could look up a picture of a bear on wikipedia and sketch it through a monitor by placing a regular weight sheet of paper over it (i've never done that but just held a piece of paper to my monitor and was surprised that I can see basically everything.)

Update, I just tried it and unfortunately if the bear weren't climbing a tree it would look more like an Alf-Ork crossbreed. But just do your best bear and label it "Mohammed". (Symbol of the religion of peace.)

[Valteron]

Ya know....protests are not usually my thing. I think I'll make an exception this time. Problem is, I can't draw for shit. Reckon I could do a stick figure and name it Mohammed? Maybe something featuring him getting cornholed by and/or fellating pigs?

I don't know if you are being tongue-in-cheek or not, Oakminister. I admit you have a 100% right to show Mohammed fellating pigs. Our forbears in the west fought and died for freedom of expression. People were burned at the stake for "blasphemy" before the triumph of the secular state. I will die before I relinquish this value.

But I think highly offensive cartoons of Mohammed may confuse the message here. That is why I recommend that we include Jesus and other worthies in the cartoons, just to show that this is not anti-Muslim but pro-freedom.

If you can't draw, why not broaden the day of protest? Take a picture of your teddy bear with a sign saying "My name is Mohammed". You think I am joking? A woman was almost murdered in a Muslim country over that!

[Simplicio]

I dunno. A while back semi-famous athiest PZ Myers said he was going to crumble up a transubstantiated communion wafer and throw it in the trash. He got a bunch of death threats, as well as threats to his university, etc. Personally, I thought that 1) PZ Myers was being a dick 2) He had the right to be a dick and shouldn't have to face death threats because of it and 3) Even though I thought he had the right to be a dick, I sure as hell am not going to join him and throw communion wafers in the trash just to show "solidarity" or whatever. It might piss of the people that make death threats, but it also pisses off the much larger group of people who believe in Transubstantiation and who have nothing to do with the threats of violence.

I feel similarily about the pictures of Mohammad thing. In the US there's a small fraction of Muslims who will threaten violence if you go out of your way to draw Mohammad (especially if he's fellating pigs or whatever), and a very large fraction who won't threaten violence but will feel insulted and alienated. Pissing off the large block just to make a point to the smaller block not only pisses off a bunch of people that have nothing to do with what your angry about, but also probably makes the smaller block happy, since it plays into their narrative and makes it easier to recruit new members.

And I'll go on record as saying that I think a Saudi invasion of the Sudetenland is pretty unlikely. They don't even share a border.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Why wait? Have you seen this man? (http://www.youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=8LS6UvvLHoU)

[thirdname]

As I mentioned in another thread, the guy who writes the "revolution muslim" blog is a 20-year-old white guy who lives with his mother in Fairfax County, Virginia and converted fairly recently in order to marry a Muslim girl. Keep that in mind when you're complaining about what muslims are doing, that this is an upper-middle class American kid that did this, not some foreign invader.

I doubt that they were in any danger until the media started reporting on this. I don't know how many people were originally reading his blog, but now that it's in the news, a lot more people have seen it and the odds are greater that some crazy will act on it.

[Oakminster]

What is the goal here?

I think the goal is to flood the market with speech, so the fringe elements making death threats to suppress free expression have too many potential targets. Let's see them crank out 50 million fatawas.

[Valteron]

"We rewarded threats?" What is this "we" shit? I didn't reward anybody. Comedy Central did. The problem is network cowardice, not a meaningless semi-threat from some nobodies on the internet.


Fringe Christians send out death threats too, but nobody thinks the solution is to insult all Christians.

Not that I particularly object to this project -- I don't particularly care --- I just think it's pointless. What do you think is going to happen? Wht's the best case scenario? All Muslim fanatics will realize their mistake? What is the goal here?

The "we" I am referring to is our society. It is a fact that millions of people in the west are ready to say that we "should not provoke them" or that "you have to respect sensibilities of Muslims" or "don't make trouble" as if freedom of expression was a value so unimportant that it can be readily sacrificed on the altar of these expediencies.

The desired result? That Muslims in the west (and maybe even in Muslim countries) get used to the fact that we in the western democracies are NOT going to back down on freedom of expression.

The Muslim value is that freedom of expression is subject to the respect that must be shown to Islam and Mohammed.

The western value is that you may express any opinion about any religion or religious viewpoint, and that includes lampooning everyone from atheists to Orthodox Jews to Muslims, if you so wish.

So in a sentence, my point is this: The western value applies in the west

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"Muslims" didn't do anything. One loser white kid wrote an email. You're not under siege.

[Oakminster]

I don't know if you are being tongue-in-cheek or not, Oakminister.

I was...at least about the pig fellating. Am down with the project though.

[Simplicio]

But "Muslims" didn't make Comedy Central pull the bit, one recently converted twenty year-old sent a threat and Comedy Central chickened out. Your response is to insult a bunch of unrelated bystanders. If you want to actually do something to support western values, boycott Comedy Central (and I guess you can send a nasty letter to the specific Muslim that mailed the threat).

Its not like Western Religions never send death threats. The aforementioned PZ Myers used to post them on his blog, until the volume got too high. The difference is that PZ Myers didn't back down, while Comedy Central did.

[Indistinguishable]

Comedy Central, in a move that has been called "the lowest point in the history of American TV"...
What, really? (Well, yeah, I can really imagine that it has been called that, but surely, such a description is sorely lacking in historical perspective?...)

[Valteron]

And I'll go on record as saying that I think a Saudi invasion of the Sudetenland is pretty unlikely. They don't even share a border.

Look up the word "analogy" in a good dictionary.

[Valteron]

"Muslims" didn't do anything. One loser white kid wrote an email. You're not under siege.

First of all, Diogenes, what has the kid's colour got to do with it? Oh, I see! In same way that critics of Islam are accused of being "racist" as if Islam were a race, the kid being white makes him not a serious Muslim.

Secondly, if a threat of violence from one "loser white kid" can restrict freedom of expression that badly, what would a well-organized bunch of Islamofascists accomplish in destroying our western values?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

But "Muslims" didn't make Comedy Central pull the bit, one recently converted twenty year-old sent a threat and Comedy Central chickened out. Your response is to insult a bunch of unrelated bystanders. If you want to actually do something to support western values, boycott Comedy Central (and I guess you can send a nasty letter to the specific Muslim that mailed the threat).

Bah. I don't really care about CC censoring South Park - I imagine the writers are capable of dealing with that.

But I do not appreciate the "but it's insulting" excuse at all when what is actually happening is that people get silenced by threads of violence just for making a really obvious criticism - the whole affair is so meta it's not even funny anymore. I've got little problems with muslims in general, but "nobody has the right not to be insulted (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/04/philip_pullman.html)".

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

I cannot find any thread on this subject (I may be wrong) but by now, ... On May 20, join in and protect freedom of expression.

So some more moron makers of a moron cartoon decide to head the yearly "Doodle the Prophet Mohammed Campaign" and then moron fringe-group Muslims come out on the internet to express their rage and then moron freedom fighters come out on the internet to express their rage and then the Cartoon Network gets a lot of attention for their show. Pretty slick.

Valteron I just want to let you know that I sleep more soundly knowing you are manning the ramparts of freedom. Please keep us informed on random individuals threatening cartoonists.

[Simplicio]

Look up the word "analogy" in a good dictionary.

Weird, my dictionary only gives a one-word definition for "analogy".

Analogy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century
1). Woosh

[Simplicio]

I've got little problems with muslims in general, but "nobody has the right not to be insulted (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/04/philip_pullman.html)".

I agree that no one has the right not to be insulted. As I said, I have no problem with PZ Myers insulting Catholics or South Park insulting Muslims. But the question is: am I personally going to go out of my way to insult people purely to prove that I can. I don't really see the upside. It upsets a bunch of people who had nothing to do with what I'm supposedly "protesting" against.

There's a difference between saying people don't have the right to not be insulted and in going out of your way to personally insult them.

[Valteron]

This vast majority of peaceful, law-abiding Muslims in the west that we keep hearing about will perhaps be offended by the May 20 cartoons. And if they really are peaceful, law-abiding, and supportive of our western values, then they will do what Christians, atheists, Mormons or any other believers in western democracies do when their beliefs are mocked. Wheter it is Son-O-God comics or Apu on the Simpsons with his Hindu Shrine in the Quickie Mart, they suck it up, refrain from violence, and accept that this is part of living in a free country.

If they do not, then I find it hard to conceive of them as peaceful, law-abiding, or even worthy of living among us in our democratic country.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I'm on!

I don't even like South park, but put me on the list. I'll stand up for freedom.

[ivan astikov]

I agree that no one has the right not to be insulted. As I said, I have no problem with PZ Myers insulting Catholics or South Park insulting Muslims. But the question is: am I personally going to go out of my way to insult people purely to prove that I can. I don't really see the upside. It upsets a bunch of people who had nothing to do with what I'm supposedly "protesting" against.

There's a difference between saying people don't have the right to not be insulted and in going out of your way to personally insult them.

I actually feel sorry for anyone whose belief in their god is so feeble, it can be affected by the insults of "infidels".

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I agree that no one has the right not to be insulted. As I said, I have no problem with PZ Myers insulting Catholics or South Park insulting Muslims. But the question is: am I personally going to go out of my way to insult people purely to prove that I can. I don't really see the upside. It upsets a bunch of people who had nothing to do with what I'm supposedly "protesting" against.

There's a difference between saying people don't have the right to not be insulted and in going out of your way to personally insult them.

You're free not to do anything. But I do think there's an upside to this sort of thing, even if it's just giving the nutbags too many targets and showing the cowardly media they should care a little more.

[Simplicio]

I actually feel sorry for anyone whose belief in their god is so feeble, it can be affected by the insults of "infidels".

I'm not sure what your saying? No one said that Muslims belief in God would be affected by the insults of infidals, just that they would be...well, insulted.

Is this a really weird strawman, or did I miss a post with the context?

[ivan astikov]

I'm not sure what your saying? No one said that Muslims belief in God would be affected by the insults of infidals, just that they would be...well, insulted.

Is this a really weird strawman, or did I miss a post with the context?

The point of ridiculing their beliefs is to prod them into thinking for themselves, with the long-term aim of making their beliefs as important as someone's support for their football team. And I don't mean the type of football "fan" who wants to kill an opposing fan when their team is beat.

[Peremensoe]

I disagree with this protest, but I will defend to the death your right to make it.

(Diogenes and Simplicio have covered everything else I might say here.)

[Revenant Threshold]

Since the idea of the May 20 initiative is to make Muslims understand that they can accept freedom of expression on ALL religious views or get the Hell out of the west, since we will not back down on our values, maybe it would be a good idea to draw cartoons of Jesus, Krishna, and others as well, just so they understand our point. Maybe even a cartoon of Richard Dawkins with a dunce-cap or something, saying "In the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded!"

The protest is not anti-Muslim. It is pro-freedom. This doesn't really get to the problem, so far as I can tell. As I understand it, and I may be quite wrong, pictures of Islamic religious figures are inherently a problem, not just when lampooned or done mockingly. For a true comparison of values, it isn't enough to simply draw Jesus, Krishna, Dawkins (Dawkins? Really?) et al, because most extreme or orthodox Christians, Hindus, atheists and so on don't really have too much of a problem with that either. What would be needed for a fair comparison is to focus, not on the specific "crime", but on the issue at heart - so really a fair comparison would require us to actually insult or offend or otherwise actually take the piss out of Christianity and so on. It's difficult to show solidarity when only one of the examples actually has a problem there.
Anyway, it seems entirely moronic to support via insult. Freedom of expression is a worthwhile and important thing - and as such an important and worthwhile thing, I don't feel the need to use mine on a cheap and ineffective stunt. It's like trying to support a fight against consumerism by buying the Mona Lisa and burning it. It's a waste of a powerful tool that'll piss people off and won't work. The only benefit is that people who already agree with you will agree with you. Which isn't exactly a benefit.

[emacknight]

I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this, but I'm also having a hard time dealing with cultural relativism and for that matter a hard time dealing with reality.

I've been watching South Park from the beginning, and every episode since its inception has been heavily censored.

To take this once step further, I've been watching the Amazing Race this season and in two separate episodes scenes of cows/oxes taking a shit were censored.

One option here is deal outwardly with the issue of Muslims being offended, by offending them more. Another option might be to look inward and our own issues off censorship and offense.

[Ludovic]

It's a waste of a powerful tool that'll piss people off and won't work.
Because if we piss them off, they'll try to kill us or force their religion down our throats!

[ivan astikov]

Nobody likes having the piss taken out of them, but it isn't the end of the world when it happens and how you react will greatly affect your future well-being. It can be avoided by changing the behaviour that marks you for attention, by not responding to such insults, or as should be the case, giving back as much verbals as you get. It's not like us westerners are free of things to be mocked for.

What you do not do, is threaten to behead everyone who disses your specific magic sky pixie.

[emacknight]

Comedy Central, in a move that has been called "the lowest point in the history of American TV", has censored the popular cartoon satire show as explained here (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/20/comedy-central-censors-south-park-episode-muslim-threats/).

Am I the only one that finds it funny Fox News would report something as "the lowest point in the history of American TV?" At first I figured they were pissed at having been bested (worsted?).

Oddly enough I can't find that comment in the Fox News article, it seems to be from a Globe and Mail opinion piece (here (http://www.newsrunner.com/display-article/?eUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fopinions%2Fjihad-jitters-at-comedy-central%2Farticle1545262%2F%3Fcmpid%3Drss1%26utm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campa ign%3DFeed%253A%2BTheGlobeAndMail-International%2B%2528The%2BGlobe%2Band%2BMail%2B-%2BWorld%2BNews%2529&eSrc=The+Globe+and+Mail+-+Toronto+ON+-+Canada&eTitle=Jihad+jitters+at+Comedy+Central))

This also isn't the first time South Park has pushed this issue.

[Revenant Threshold]

Nobody likes having the piss taken out of them, but it isn't the end of the world when it happens and how you react will greatly affect your future well-being. It can be avoided by changing the behaviour that marks you for attention, by not responding to such insults, or as should be the case, giving back as much verbals as you get. It's not like us westerners are free of things to be mocked for.

What you do not do, is theaten to behead everyone who disses your specific magic sky pixie. The problem with this is that the focus seems to be more on the actual insulting part rather than the explaining or discussion part.

"Hey, you, fatty."
*punch*
"Look, you can't keep punching people, when they call you fat, you bucket of lard."
*punch*
"You just don't get it! You shouldn't be hitting people, you disgusting overweight beast!"
*punch*

People tend not to respond well to insults. Simple as that. Even when you form your insult as highlighting an issue you wish them to stop - you're still insulting them. Even worse if you're doing it knowingly and deliberately. If insulting people as a form of argument worked, then Pit threads would be a happy, funtime place where rational discourse rules and people with glad hearts agreed with their worst enemies. It's not. And it's not for a reason. Insulting someone may feel good, and it may be an attractive option when you're frustrated or annoyed or even justifiably angry. But it doesn't work.

[Marley23]

Luckily, there are people pushing back. One of these is listed at this site (http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2010/04/24/%e2%80%9ceverybody-draw-mohammed-day%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-20-may-2010-join-in-and-protect-freedom-of-expression/). On May 20, join in and protect freedom of expression.
Valteron, please don't use this board to try to get people to join a campaign. It's against the registration agreement. I'm not going to close the thread down because the episode and the campaign are both valid debate topics, but keep this in mind in the future.

[Walmarticus]

Yep, major overreaction/hissyfit. I've never felt the need to draw Mohamed. I'm not willing to fight for my right to draw Mohamed. The threat of a water balloon to the head is enough to dissuade me. If I had to animate him for a show, I guess it would take a little more, like a bag of dog doo perhaps.

I realize we are on a very slippery slope, lubed with the blood of democracy and KY. First, Comedy Central censors a show (and is mocked as spineless for doing it). Next, to go is the bacon. Then, they'll be stapling hijabs on our women. Before you know it, BAM- minaret to the face!

When they go after the bacon, that's the time to protest. The west still doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Comedy Central has already been chastised in the media. If any Muslims actually care, let them have their petty victory. No skin off my teeth.

[ivan astikov]

The point I'm making is that "civilised", non-extremist type people shouldn't get offended if someone pokes fun at their team, and it's extremely hypocritical for people to react to verbal and visual insults with threats of physical violence, so the people who have these attitudes need to be smoked out and beaten around the head with a clue-stick.

Muslims could help here by reporting the nutjobs amongst their community anonymously. I wonder how much help we've received from them so far?

[Revenant Threshold]

The point I'm making is that "civilised", non-extremist type people shouldn't get offended if someone pokes fun at their team, and it's extremely hypocritical for people to react to verbal and visual insults with threats of physical violence, Yes, it is. and the people who have these attitudes need to be smoked out and beaten around the head with a clue-stick. As long as it's actually helpful. And phrased a wee bit better than that, i'd wager.

[Simplicio]

I realize we are on a very slippery slope, lubed with the blood of democracy and KY. First, Comedy Central censors a show (and is mocked as spineless for doing it). Next, to go is the bacon. Then, they'll be stapling hijabs on our women. Before you know it, BAM- minaret to the face!

Please don't post "slippery slope" arguments, even farcical ones, without the word "Hitler" in them. On SDMB, all slippery slopes must end at Hitler's house.

Muslims could help here by reporting the nutjobs amongst their community anonymously. I wonder how much help we've received from them so far?

Err...we already know who sent the threat.

[gonzomax]

Comedy Central is pretty gutless anyway. You would think a network that wants to appeal to the young and hip would not censure so much. They bleep the language in"Idiocracy" for crying out loud. That is not a nasty movie at all.

[Valteron]

Oddly enough I can't find that comment in the Fox News article, it seems to be from a Globe and Mail opinion piece (here (http://www.newsrunner.com/display-article/?eUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fopinions%2Fjihad-jitters-at-comedy-central%2Farticle1545262%2F%3Fcmpid%3Drss1%26utm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campa ign%3DFeed%253A%2BTheGlobeAndMail-International%2B%2528The%2BGlobe%2Band%2BMail%2B-%2BWorld%2BNews%2529&eSrc=The+Globe+and+Mail+-+Toronto+ON+-+Canada&eTitle=Jihad+jitters+at+Comedy+Central))



Sorry, I did not mean to say that the expression "lowest point. . . . ." occurs in the Fox news story, even though my OP can possibly be read that way. But if you look at my sentence (below) it does not quite say that the expression occurs in the Fox story. What I said was:

Comedy Central, in a move that has been called "the lowest point in the history of American TV", has censored the popular cartoon satire show as explained here.

In other words, "as explained here" really refers only to "has censored". At least that is what I meant.

The expression is indeed from an article in the Saturday Globe and Mail. I have also heard it called "shameful" and "gutless" in other media.

BTW, if the superlative "lowest" seems inappropriate to you, add the words "one of the lowest". I am not going to argue about details.

Sorry I was not clearer. Consider the nit picked.

[ivan astikov]

Err...we already know who sent the threat.

When I said "here", I meant in general, not this particular case. I was just musing on how many calls the police might get claiming such and such a person is buying a lot of fertiliser, etc, from actual members of muslim communities, as opposed to people just making prank calls labelling x as a terrorist sympathiser.

[Valteron]

Valteron, please don't use this board to try to get people to join a campaign. It's against the registration agreement. I'm not going to close the thread down because the episode and the campaign are both valid debate topics, but keep this in mind in the future.

Not a problem. Please consider my comment changed to "What do you think of the May 20 campaign?" or something of the kind.

[emacknight]

Weird, my dictionary only gives a one-word definition for "analogy".

Analogy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century
1). Woosh

You win the thread.

[Valteron]

When I said "here", I meant in general, not this particular case. I was just musing on how many calls the police might get claiming such and such a person is buying a lot of fertiliser, etc, from actual members of muslim communities, as opposed to people just making prank calls labelling x as a terrorist sympathiser.

This comment reminds me of another fact. We are constantly being fed the simplistic idea that the Muslim world is made up of either 1) terrorists with a truck full of bombs or 2) law-abiding peaceful people you would love to meet.

How possible is it that there is a middle ground of Muslims who agree with or to some degree sympathize with terrorists and those who use force? When this 20-year-old "kid" who made the threat against South Park succeeds in intimidating Comedy Central into censorship, is there a certain sector of Islam that thinks he did good? How large would this opinion group be, do you suppose?

[emacknight]

The point of ridiculing their beliefs is to prod them into thinking for themselves...

Is there any reason to this this would work?

Do you know any group that was ridiculed into thinking for themselves?

[BrotherCadfael]

As I mentioned in another thread, the guy who writes the "revolution muslim" blog is a 20-year-old white guy who lives with his mother in Fairfax County, Virginia and converted fairly recently in order to marry a Muslim girl. Keep that in mind when you're complaining about what muslims are doing, that this is an upper-middle class American kid that did this, not some foreign invader.Is "Radical Muslim" the New Goth?
(http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-radical-muslim-new-goth.html)

[Rhythmdvl]

I haven’t read too much on it so I could be missing something, but I'm not sure Comedy Central was the censor—I took it as an intentional joke. I’m aware that the linked story has CC taking credit for the censorship, but that may be part of the joke. Two things stand out. First, Tom Cruise was censored when he stepped out of the machine. Was CC so paranoid that they covered him up too? That makes a couple later jokes (e.g., when the censor block disappears and everyone sees Tom with Seaman (snicker) on his back) seem out of place. Second, the “I learned something today” speeches were bleeped the entire way through. Unless they were saying Mohamed Mohamed Mohamed over and over again, that too falls apart if it was CC censoring the show after the fact. And if it was CC censoring (i.e., if it was just Mohamed Mohamed Mohamed... then the "learned something" speeches were anomalous to the rest of the episode. I suppose it’s possible, and it’s also possible that the version I DVRd was different from the general airing, but something just doesn’t fit with CC doing all the censoring. I suspect the episode may have been lampooning the quick-to-froth-at-the-mouth folks at the OP's link.

On an unrelated note, there are periodic hues and cries, particularly on Fox, regarding defaming or insulting Christianity. Does anyone remember Sensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_%28exhibition%29) at the Brooklyn Museum? Or Serrano’s Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)? Is anyone claiming that Comedy Central did the right thing by being respectful of religion, yet wrong by allowing Jesus et al to be depicted as they were?

[emacknight]

The point I'm making is that "civilised", non-extremist type people shouldn't get offended if someone pokes fun at their team, and it's extremely hypocritical for people to react to verbal and visual insults with threats of physical violence, so the people who have these attitudes need to be smoked out and beaten around the head with a clue-stick.

Muslims could help here by reporting the nutjobs amongst their community anonymously. I wonder how much help we've received from them so far?

They aren't offended that we are poking fun at their team.

They find it objectionable to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, period.

Remember how the 10 Commandments included:
3 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Islam has similar statements (coincidence?). Depicting the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, is seen as idol worship. Which is why they don't adorn their mosques with giant statues of him, or cover the ceilings with his likeness, or make big big stain glass windows of him.

Showing pictures of Jesus getting fucked by a pig isn't a way of buddying up to them, "ha ha, look we can have fun with our messiah too." It just shows that we have no respect for our religion or its alleged son of God.

The equivalent protest would be for every woman in the US to bare their breasts and write FUCK on their chests, and then every newspaper in the country to put a picture of that on their front page. Unless censorship isn't actually the issue.

South Park has been heavily censored by Comedy Central AND the US government since 1997. Now you're angry about something?

If me ridiculing you won't prod you to think for yourself, good luck getting a billion other people to change.

[Llama Llogophile]

Hmm, tough one. I'd be willing to sign on if it could be shown that a majority of the people participating would also do the following to demonstrate freedom of speech:

- Burn an American flag
- Support display of Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ"
- Wear a head scarf for a day in opposition to the French attempting to limit its use

[Marley23]

Islam has similar statements (coincidence?). Depicting the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, is seen as idol worship. Which is why they don't adorn their mosques with giant statues of him, or cover the ceilings with his likeness, or make big big stain glass windows of him.
I think this came up in one of the Cafe Society threads, but not all Islamic denominations interpret this rule as a ban on depictions of Muhammad. Some interpret it as a ban on drawing any living thing, which is why Islamic calligraphy came into existence. But there is Islamic art featuring Muhammad.

South Park has been heavily censored by Comedy Central AND the US government since 1997.
How does the government censor South Park? FCC restrictions (pointless though they are) do not apply to cable. Whatever censorship Comedy Central makes on its own show is done by choice to make sure they don't alienate advertisers or viewers.

[Walmarticus]

Is "Radical Muslim" the New Goth?
(http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-radical-muslim-new-goth.html)

What would we call the Muslim version of that store in the mall, where all the cool kids go to buy their burqas and hijabs, Zakāt Topic?

[emacknight]

You know what this reminds me up? First year university living in a dorm. During exams, our dorm had "23 hour quiet" meaning that 1 hour every evening people could relax and turn on their music.

Result: Every idiot with a stereo set the alarm for 7pm, and the sleep timer for 59min, and the volume to 11.

How about instead of expressing our freedom of speech by acting like assholes, we instead show are responsibility by respecting those of different beliefs.

We don't *need* to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH.

Similar to my statements regarding smoking, people don't *need* to smoke inside, but because they can't show responsibility and respect for others, we end up anti-smoking legislation.

All this protest is doing is showing that we, the collective we, are assholes not worthy of sympathy. If you want a Muslim to report a known terrorist cell, don't shit on his front lawn.

Based on the Starving Artist Straight Dope System of Debate Scoring (tm), I also need to say that I find this anger and its subsequent protest nonsense.

[Marley23]

There's little point to this protest, but it's hard to demonstrate the limits of free speech or do comedy without being an asshole to somebody.

[Captain Amazing]

I think this came up in one of the Cafe Society threads, but not all Islamic denominations interpret this rule as a ban on depictions of Muhammad. Some interpret it as a ban on drawing any living thing, which is why Islamic calligraphy came into existence. But there is Islamic art featuring Muhammad.


Here's a bunch of Muslim depictions of Muhammed:

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

And Muslim depictions of Muhammed with his face hidden (some of these possibly originally included his face and were later altered)

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/

[emacknight]

There's little point to this protest, but it's hard to demonstrate the limits of free speech or do comedy without being an asshole to somebody.

What if we made May 20th International Day of Not Being an Asshole.

Right now it's being advertised as exactly the opposite.

A little over 1/6th of the population would rather you (not you specifically) didn't depict images of the prophet Mohamed, PBUH.

What if on May 20th we collectively respected their wishes. Obviously we're not going to get US soldiers off Muslim land, or alter our support for Israel. But couldn't we just behave like decent human beings on ONE day a year?

[Valteron]

You know what this reminds me up? First year university living in a dorm. During exams, our dorm had "23 hour quiet" meaning that 1 hour every evening people could relax and turn on their music.

Result: Every idiot with a stereo set the alarm for 7pm, and the sleep timer for 59min, and the volume to 11.

How about instead of expressing our freedom of speech by acting like assholes, we instead show are responsibility by respecting those of different beliefs.

We don't *need* to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH.

Similar to my statements regarding smoking, people don't *need* to smoke inside, but because they can't show responsibility and respect for others, we end up anti-smoking legislation.

All this protest is doing is showing that we, the collective we, are assholes not worthy of sympathy. If you want a Muslim to report a known terrorist cell, don't shit on his front lawn.

Based on the Starving Artist Straight Dope System of Debate Scoring (tm), I also need to say that I find this anger and its subsequent protest nonsense.

You have confused and mixed up so many issues here that it would take a year to pull it aall apart and make sense of it, but let me try on a couple of your ideas.

"We don't *need* to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH." No, of course not. But what I need and what I will literally give up over my dead body is the freedom to depict him, mock him, or praise him, or any other religious leader or religious idea.

"How about instead of expressing our freedom of speech by acting like assholes, we instead show are responsibility by respecting those of different beliefs."

If all of us show respect to Mohammed and Islam by never mocking them, what message will we have sent to the people who threaten to (or do) murder cartoonists or film makers like Theo van Gogh? Obviously, that under the threat of violence, we will throw our freedom of expression out the window. Nice going, man!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

First of all, Diogenes, what has the kid's colour got to do with it?
In this case, it serves to defuse the xenophibic hysteria I see in your posts.

[billfish678]

What if on May 20th we collectively respected their wishes. Obviously we're not going to get US soldiers off Muslim land, or alter our support for Israel. But couldn't we just behave like decent human beings on ONE day a year?

The Christians already have dibs on that one :)

[Walmarticus]

What if we made May 20th International Day of Not Being an Asshole.

Right now it's being advertised as exactly the opposite.

A little over 1/6th of the population would rather you (not you specifically) didn't depict images of the prophet Mohamed, PBUH.

What if on May 20th we collectively respected their wishes. Obviously we're not going to get US soldiers off Muslim land, or alter our support for Israel. But couldn't we just behave like decent human beings on ONE day a year?

Because freedom to say things that are unimportant and totally insignificant is just as important and significant as the freedom to say things that are important and significant. This South Park episode was tantamount to the Alien and Sedition acts.

[sqweels]

As I understand it, and I may be quite wrong, pictures of Islamic religious figures are inherently a problem, not just when lampooned or done mockingly. For a true comparison of values, it isn't enough to simply draw Jesus, Krishna, et al, because most extreme or orthodox Christians, Hindus, atheists and so on don't really have too much of a problem with that either.
But nobody should have a problem with these kinds of depictions. The real issue here is that the hypersensitivity of Muslims has created a double-standard.

Anyway, it seems entirely moronic to support via insult.
But how is it an insult to simply depict Mohammed as a member of a group that also includes Jesus, et al? If anything, it's an insult to the rest of us to accuse us of a serious crime over something so completely harmless. Make that a meta-insult.

What I want to know is, have any Muslims seen the South Park episode(s) in question? It's sophisticated satire. A large crowd of famous people--including religious figures--are dealing with relentless insulting portrayals. Meanwhile great lengths are gone to to hide Mohammed--uniquely--from any portrayal whatsoever. And in the end*, it turns out the the person being hidden wasn't Mohammed but rather...
Santa Claus

So can Muslims address the real issue being brought up here, which is their unique level of hypersensitivity?

* I haven't seen part 2, but my predicta-joke app is telling me that...
Jesus will call Santa "fat-ass" and Santa will call Jesus a "fuckin' Jew"

[Valteron]

In this case, it serves to defuse the xenophibic hysteria I see in your posts.

What you see in my posts and what is there may be two different things. It makes no difference to me if the Islamofascist making the threat is white, black or polka-dot. Islam is not a race. I have met blonde, blue-eyed Muslims and others so black they are blue. In point of fact I think the GROWN MAN (20 years old and married) who did this is actually of Jewish origin, and is a convert to Islam. But that does not make any differnce to me. It is the threat to freedom that concerns me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"Muslims" aren't complaining about the epsidode. Comedy Central did the censoring, not Muslims. People are expressing outrage about a non-existent Muslim reaction.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What you see in my posts and what is there may be two different things. It makes no difference to me if the Islamofascist making the threat is white, black or polka-dot. Islam is not a race. I have met blonde, blue-eyed Muslims and others so black they are blue. In point of fact I think the GROWN MAN (20 years old and married) who did this is actually of Jewish origin, and is a convert to Islam. But that does not make any differnce to me. It is the threat to freedom that concerns me.
How is your freedom being threatened? Does Comedy Central not have its own First Amendment right to decide what it does or does not want to air?

Is the government telling you you aren't allowed to insult Muslims? What freedom do you believe Comedy Central has taken away from you?

[Magiver]

"Muslims" didn't do anything. One loser white kid wrote an email. You're not under siege. I imagine that Theo van Gogh would disagree if he were alive. One person causing fear on the back of past threats (that resulted in murder and death from riots) is all the more reason to respond with peaceful protest.

[emacknight]

You have confused and mixed up so many issues here that it would take a year to pull it aall apart and make sense of it, but let me try on a couple of your ideas.
Uh, sure. I've already expressed how much sense I think this protest makes. But allow me to respond:

"We don't *need* to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH." No, of course not. But what I need and what I will literally give up over my dead body is the freedom to depict him, mock him, or praise him, or any other religious leader or religious idea.
So express your freedom by being respectful. Show that you are free to NOT follow a herd of sheep.

"How about instead of expressing our freedom of speech by acting like assholes, we instead show are responsibility by respecting those of different beliefs."

If all of us show respect to Mohammed and Islam by never mocking them, what message will we have sent
It will send the message that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. That we are not thugs or bullies. That we can turn the other cheek, instead of an eye for an eye.

I ask that you think long and hard about what message you actually think you're going to send.

I consider us very lucky to have the freedom to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH. And we are equally lucky that we have the freedom to NOT depict him.

You are free to choose, and I'll do nothing to stop you. Except to ridicule your believes in the hopes that you'll think for yourself.

to the people who threaten to (or do) murder cartoonists or film makers like Theo van Gogh? Obviously, that under the threat of violence, we will throw our freedom of expression out the window. Nice going, man!

That's one way of looking at it. Another is to mock and ridicule the threat of violence. IMHO this protest is simply giving the finger to the peaceful Muslims.

You can choose to respect Muslim beliefs because of threat of violence, or you can choose to respect Muslim beliefs because it's the right thing to do.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I consider us very lucky to have the freedom to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH. And we are equally lucky that we have the freedom to NOT depict him.
Except that "we" don't, in practical terms. Anyway, fuck Mohammed. I'm not going out of my way not to offend some dead person.

Also, what's PBUH?

[Magiver]

How is your freedom being threatened? Does Comedy Central not have its own First Amendment right to decide what it does or does not want to air?

Is the government telling you you aren't allowed to insult Muslims? What freedom do you believe Comedy Central has taken away from you? the freedom of speech that censorship brings. They have altered the work of someone against their wishes. When they take that freedom away from the creators of South Park it diminishes us all.

[Magiver]

Except that "we" don't.

Also, what's PBUH? "Peace be upon him" which is often added after saying the name of a prophet (by Muslims).

[Superfluous Parentheses]

"Peace be upon him" which is often added after saying the name of a prophet (by Muslims).

Oh right. Thanks.

[emacknight]

But how is it an insult to simply depict Mohammed as a member of a group that also includes Jesus, et al? If anything, it's an insult to the rest of us to accuse us of a serious crime over something so completely harmless. Make that a meta-insult.
Because that depiction has been designated as an insult.

Why is it that sticking up the middle finger is an insult? If I do that on tv it will be censored. If I do it to another motorist I'll get shot at or run off the road.

Why are imagines of a woman's breasts, vagina, or a man's penis censored on tv?

South Park has been around since 1997, censored the entire time, and they already made fun of this issue over a year ago. Now people care?

* I haven't seen part 2, but my predicta-joke app is telling me that...
Jesus will call Santa "fat-ass" and Santa will call Jesus a "fuckin' Jew"

The ending is comedic gold.

[emacknight]

Except that "we" don't, in practical terms. Anyway, fuck Mohammed. I'm not going out of my way not to offend some dead person.

Also, what's PBUH?

How about not going out of your way to offend 1.4 billion living people? Is being respectful so hard?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I imagine that Theo van Gogh would disagree if he were alive. One person causing fear on the back of past threats (that resulted in murder and death from riots) is all the more reason to respond with peaceful protest.
What are you protesting?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

the freedom of speech that censorship brings. They have altered the work of someone against their wishes. When they take that freedom away from the creators of South Park it diminishes us all.
The right to free speech only refers to what the government can do. Comedy Central is not the government. There is no Constitutional right for Parker and Stone to have their material aired by a privately owned cable network.

[Valteron]

How about not going out of your way to offend 1.4 billion living people? Is being respectful so hard?

How about 1.4 billion people realizing that what is sacred to them does not have to be sacred to someone else? How about those people realizing that freedom of expression is a right that we do not surrender?

Being respectful is VERY easy. But you know full well that this is NOT about being respectful.

It is about defending our right to free expression against a religious ideology that believes that our western freedoms take second place to their ideology, even in our own western democracies.

Pretending that this is about being respectful is a cowardly response. From Salmon Rushdie to the Danish cartoons to Theo van Gogh to this incident with South Park, Islam is claiming its right to impose its viewpoint throughout the world.

This is about the Muslim claim that the "sacredness" of Mohammed and Islam trumps our western values of freedom. And I will NOT surrender on that point.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How about 1.4 billion people realizing that what is sacred to them does not have to be sacred to someone else? How about those people realizing that freedom of expression is a right that we do not surrender?

Being respectful is VERY easy. But you know full well that this is NOT about being respectful.

It is about defending our right to free expression against a religious ideology that believes that our western freedoms take second place to their ideology, even in our own western democracies.

Pretending that this is about being respectful is a cowardly response. From Salmon Rushdie to the Danish cartoons to Theo van Gogh to this incident with South Park, Islam is claiming its right to impose its viewpoint throughout the world.

This is about the Muslim claim that the "sacredness" of Mohammed and Islam trumps our western values of freedom. And I will NOT surrender on that point.
There is no "incident" with the South Park episode. Comedy Central censored it. 1.4 billion Muslims had nothing to do with it, nor are you being forced to "surrender" anthing. Your right to free expression is still completely intact. You are not being infringed because Comedy Central chose to censor a South park eposde.

[Magiver]

What if we made May 20th International Day of Not Being an Asshole. Right now it's being advertised as exactly the opposite. It's advertised as a protest against the tyranny of violence that has in recent years projected itself in fatal riots and murder. This is what people in a free society view as being an asshole.


What if on May 20th we collectively respected their wishes. Obviously we're not going to get US soldiers off Muslim land, or alter our support for Israel. But couldn't we just behave like decent human beings on ONE day a year? Muslim land?

[emacknight]

Well, I've already said I think this protest is nonsense, I'm sorry that my responses have given weight to your little pet project.

If you really want to protest what you think you're protesting you need to do three things:
1.) Protest against Comedy Central for denying Matt and Trey their right to free speech. Showing that you aren't just angry at Muslims, you are angry a corporation that that been censoring free speech since 1997.

2.) On May 20th, instead of drawing Mohamed, depict your mother/wife/sister/daughter in the most god-awful sexually compromised position. And I mean really, truly nasty, disgusting shit. This will show that you are able to poke fun at yourself, and there by encourage others to do the same. That nothing is so sacred that we can't all have a good laugh over.

3.) There is a 6 letter word that starts with an n. I think you should write this word in big letters on a t-shirt or the back of your car. As a way to really express your freedom of speech, to show that you are really truly angry and don't want anyone anywhere to use a threat of violence to tell you what not to say.

[Walmarticus]

This is about the Muslim claim that the "sacredness" of Mohammed and Islam trumps our western values of freedom. And I will NOT surrender on that point.

I didn't realize this South Park episode was so respective of the entirety of western values. Bob Dylan, maybe.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

How about not going out of your way to offend 1.4 billion living people? Is being respectful so hard?

Yes it is, actually. I'm pretty sure that every other interesting sentence coming out of my mouth will offend someone if they were there to hear it.

But that's not the point. I don't respect some ideas. I'm not ranting at people I'm having dinner or a pleasant conversation with, I would be pointing out some pretty stupid homocidal ideas in a popular belief system in a public forum. There is a difference. Especially when some of the "offended" go around threatening people with violence.

[Magiver]

There is no "incident" with the South Park episode. Comedy Central censored it. 1.4 billion Muslims had nothing to do with it, nor are you being forced to "surrender" anthing. Your right to free expression is still completely intact. You are not being infringed because Comedy Central chose to censor a South park eposde. Nobody is blaming 1.4 billion Muslims. However,a single person/group is given extraordinary power because of the reality of recent and extremely violent reactions to personal opinion, art or editorials.

Censorship by fear is absolutely an infringement of how we interact in society. This is a protest of the violence leveled at the few and the attempt is to make a statement of solidarity behind the freedom of expression.

[Revenant Threshold]

But nobody should have a problem with these kinds of depictions. The real issue here is that the hypersensitivity of Muslims has created a double-standard. But it isn't. That's the problem.

Certainly it is the main issue. It's the issue that, I imagine, most sides with an issue on this subject will say that is the one important to them. But how we go about trying to change people's minds, or take a stand for freedom of speech, or try to persuade people not to mock some things, are all pretty "real" issues. I agree with you; no-one should have a problem with these kinds of depictions. But they do. And endeavouring to change someone's mind via violence, or via insults, or via offensive behaviour, is a poor idea. When you consider the target of your annoyance to be hypersensitive, the answer is not "Hey, let's do something insulting to celebrate our freedom of speech!". It's a total disconnect of goal and means. But how is it an insult to simply depict Mohammed as a member of a group that also includes Jesus, et al? If anything, it's an insult to the rest of us to accuse us of a serious crime over something so completely harmless. Make that a meta-insult. Bad form on the part of one side doesn't mean bad form on the other is acceptable. If anything, it's a chance to learn from responses which often we don't understand or agree with. So can Muslims address the real issue being brought up here, which is their unique level of hypersensitivity? Unique? Really?

[Revenant Threshold]

Yes it is, actually. I'm pretty sure that every other interesting sentence coming out of my mouth will offend someone if they were there to hear it.

But that's not the point. I don't respect some ideas. I'm not ranting at people I'm having dinner or a pleasant conversation with, I would be pointing out some pretty stupid homocidal ideas in a popular belief system in a public forum. There is a difference. Especially when some of the "offended" go around threatening people with violence. There's a difference, but not enough to not make it a stupid idea. If you want to change minds, you don't insult people. It's as simple as that. If you want to change someone's mind from what you think is a poor opinion, you don't mock that opinion while doing so. It makes people defensive, not receptive.

The question for me seems to be "Is it possible to celebrate freedom of speech in a manner that does not further alienate a group i'm trying to get to accept my views more?". If this is, honestly and truly, the least offensive, the least unreasonable, the least argumentative or provoking method of convincing them they're wrong, hey, go right ahead.

Is it? Because, from what I can tell, the offense is not simply present, but intended.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Is it? Because, from what I can tell, the offense is not simply present, but intended.
Yes. As far as I can tell, that's the point. It's not about "changing people's minds". It's saying: this is offensive, deal with it.

ETA: not that it makes any difference, but as far as I understand it, only about half of Muslims hold that depictions of Muhammed are forbidden.

[toodlepip]

My right to be an arsehole is only of moderate importance to me. My right to not be bound by the restrictions of someone else's religion is extremely important.

[Revenant Threshold]

Yes. As far as I can tell, that's the point. It's not about "changing people's minds". It's saying: this is offensive, deal with it. Er, but the target of this idea surely are dealing with it, no? If the problem is that there are Muslims sending death threats when they encounter offensive material, then those death threats are already the manner of dealing with it. Is the end goal of this more death threats?

[emacknight]

since we're making South Park references:

The clue is: People that annoy you

N _ G G E R S (http://weblog.timoregan.com/uploaded_images/southpark-761041.jpg)

That joke aired on March 7th, 2007, titled, "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson."

The word I'm referring to was censored, and nobody cared. Free speech died a long time ago.

Do you know why I won't stand up in a crowded bar and yell that word?

Why do you suppose Michael Richards if having such a hard time finding work these days?

However,a single person/group is given extraordinary power because of the reality of recent and extremely violent reactions to personal opinion, art or editorials.

Censorship by fear is absolutely an infringement of how we interact in society. This is a protest of the violence leveled at the few and the attempt is to make a statement of solidarity behind the freedom of expression.

Are you guys 100% convinced that Michael Richards received ZERO threats of violence?

If you want to show me that you guys are really super duper extra mad about this onslaught to your freedom of speech, and not just xenophobic and looking to stick it to brown people, I put this challenge to you:

Spend THIS May 20th protesting your right to use that word. Have some fun with it, put sheets over your head to represent the goats of civil liberties. Hang some figures to represent the noose that is around all our throats. Maybe burn a cross to show, crap, I don't have something for that one. Wait, burn a giant letter t to represent the loss of our language to threats of violence. Because that's what you're mad about, free speech.

Do that and next year I'll be right along with you, holding my very own depiction of Mohamed, PBUH, giving it good to a little girl. I assume we're allowed to show sexual depictions of underage individuals right?

[sqweels]

Because that depiction has been designated as an insult.
What depiction? There has been no depiction. The SP episode is a sophisticated joke about a non-depiction. The issue here is that a theoretical depiction of Mohammed simply as a member of a group of depictions of other religious figures would somehow seen by Muslims as an insult despite, a) no good reason to, and b) the blatant double standard.

[Magiver]

Are you guys 100% convinced that Michael Richards received ZERO threats of violence?
Nope. But we didn't see deadly riots over it and that is the point of May 20th. Muslims are not immune from anything offensive in our society just as other religions/demographic groups are not.

[billfish678]

Why do you suppose Michael Richards if having such a hard time finding work these days?



Affirmative Action is a beeyootch when you are a tall funny smart successful white guy looking for a new job.

[tomndebb]

Rants belong in The BBQ Pit where you will next find this thread.

[emacknight]

What depiction? There has been no depiction. The SP episode is a sophisticated joke about a non-depiction. The issue here is that a theoretical depiction of Mohammed simply as a member of a group of depictions of other religious figures would somehow seen by Muslims as an insult despite, a) no good reason to, and b) the blatant double standard.

I already answered this above. Point is, ANY depiction of Mohamed is considered an insult, that's how it is defined. And it is not a double standard because they don't recognize those other symbols as any more significant than Thor, Zeus, or, giggle, Semen, giggle.

If you really want to see examples of double standards, read my posts, I've listed a few.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nobody is blaming 1.4 billion Muslims. However,a single person/group is given extraordinary power because of the reality of recent and extremely violent reactions to personal opinion, art or editorials.
What power do they have over you?

[sqweels]

But how we go about trying to change people's minds, or take a stand for freedom of speech, or try to persuade people not to mock some things, are all pretty "real" issues. I agree with you; no-one should have a problem with these kinds of depictions.

But they do. And endeavouring to change someone's mind via violence, or via insults, or via offensive behaviour, is a poor idea. When you consider the target of your annoyance to be hypersensitive, the answer is not "Hey, let's do something insulting to celebrate our freedom of speech!".
I'm not so much on board with the OP as I am quibbling about the insultiness of the depictions in question.

But what else is going to get their attention? This level of hypersensitivity is bad behavior on the part of Muslims and they need to learn that there are consequences.

The beauty part is that the punishment is only as harsh as your level of extremism makes it out to be.

Bad form on the part of one side doesn't mean bad form on the other is acceptable. If anything, it's a chance to learn from responses which often we don't understand or agree with.
It's Muslims' turn to learn that.

Unique? Really?
Totally and to the max.

[Captain Amazing]

I already answered this above. Point is, ANY depiction of Mohamed is considered an insult, that's how it is defined.

That isn't the point, though. The point is, you don't have the right to threaten to kill someone just because they are insulting. And people shouldn't refuse to do things, just because a few people threaten harm. So, while I'm sorry the Muslims are going to be insulted by this, there's a bigger issue at stake.

[Captain Amazing]

What power do they have over you?

They had enough power to get Comedy Central to bleep large portions of the South Park episode.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

since we're making South Park references:

The clue is: People that annoy you

N _ G G E R S (http://weblog.timoregan.com/uploaded_images/southpark-761041.jpg)That joke aired on March 7th, 2007, titled, "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson."

The word I'm referring to was censored, and nobody cared.
No it wasn't. The word was "naggers."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They had enough power to get Comedy Central to bleep large portions of the South Park episode.
It was a "he", not a "they, and that's not power over me, that's Comedy central exercising its own right to air whatever it wants.

[emacknight]

That isn't the point, though. The point is, you don't have the right to threaten to kill someone just because they are insulting. And people shouldn't refuse to do things, just because a few people threaten harm. So, while I'm sorry the Muslims are going to be insulted by this, there's a bigger issue at stake.

Exactly! Don't refuse because of threats by a very small but very vocal minority. Refuse because it's the right thing to do towards a very large and entirely harmless majority.

[Magiver]

It was a "he", not a "they, and that's not power over me, that's Comedy central exercising its own right to air whatever it wants. It was a "he" who had the historic background of "they" for carrying out deadly threats. The protest is a recognition of this. It was a simple innocuous cartoon that was privately censored based on past threats for the exact same thing.

I'm personally impressed that you are immune to threats but I would think you would be concerned for the safety of others.

[emacknight]

No it wasn't. The word was "naggers."

That's not what Randy said. And he was not treated well as a result. I believe he lost his job over it, and threatened with violence.

So maybe this is a slippery slope. Not standing up to censorship 3 years ago has led to this! What's next? Eventually they'll require women to cover their nipples!

There is a guy in BC challenging child porn laws on the grounds of free speech. I hope you guys take up his cause next. He's kind of alone.

[emacknight]

It was a "he" who had the historic background of "they" for carrying out deadly threats. The protest is a recognition of this. It was a simple innocuous cartoon that was privately censored based on past threats for the exact same thing.

It has been privately censored since it started in 1997.

Ha, all this time I thought the N*gger episode was older. But turns out the first time they censored Mohamed was Apr 5, 2006 (Cartoon Wars Parts 1 and 2).

You guys are really late to the party, the cartoon gazpacho already won.


I'm personally impressed that you are immune to threats but I would think you would be concerned for the safety of others.

Didn't you see the episode?! What do you think you're protest is going to do? My guess is cause a lot of violence. Aren't YOU concerned for the safety of others?

[Aelita Daystar]

They aren't offended that we are poking fun at their team.

They find it objectionable to depict the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, period.

Remember how the 10 Commandments included:
3 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Islam has similar statements (coincidence?). Depicting the prophet Mohamed, PBUH, is seen as idol worship. Which is why they don't adorn their mosques with giant statues of him, or cover the ceilings with his likeness, or make big big stain glass windows of him.

And doesn't that mean the issue is really that many Muslims feel offended that [B]other people[B] are idolaters and therefore disrespecting God? Why is it suddenly different when it's about Islam? While people obviously should not be xenophobic, I think defending the objectors so much is kind of overcompensating.

I think that this kind of thing should be opposed regardless of what religion it is we are talking about.This is not showing the bottom of your shoes or something, this is absolutely a religious issue. Muslims absolutely have been oversensitive on these issues. From my understanding Islamic cultures hasn't dealt with much pluralism at - treating people as dhimmi is not pluralism really pluralism.

Why complain about xenophobia whenever something like this comes up. The "problem" with Islam is that it's functioning like "old time religion" still. People seem to want pluralism, but then then whenever Muslims get offended, they get shown special consideration. And that's the problem. Instead of a pluralistic culture where everything flows, something cosmopolitan, instead you get a balkanized aggregate. I don't know about you, but that sounds like it might tend towards being dysfunctional.

Pluralism isn't just some default state that occurs when the government isn't oppressive, it's a type of culture which is a product of the Enlightenment. There are xenophobes who just want everyone to be exactly like them, and then there are people who want Islam to join everybody else at the table. Some Muslims do, but plenty aren't ready, while are so opposed to the prospect of joining the table that they turn to violence. That's what all the non-xenophobes of the West really want from what I can tell, but that's not going to happen if we fold every time there is any opposition.

Christian fundamentalists in the US are similar, but there is no reason to coddle them either. I knew someone once who got utterly pissed because there were pentagrams in things (and I don't mean for religious purposes). He considered them to be satanic and an insult to God. I thought it was ridiculous, so I didn't care if it offended him - it's his problem not mine.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Wow, this is retarded.

1. There was no death threat. There wasn't a threat at all. There was a (frankly, seemingly well-intentioned) reminder that the whole thing was probably a bad idea.

2. Comedy Central massively overreacted. Protest against them.

3. The outrage over this non-event is insulting to the memory of Theo Van Gogh and people like Salman Rushdie (remember him? Yeah, those were actual death threats).

4. South Park jumped the shark like three years ago.

[Magiver]

I
Didn't you see the episode?! What do you think you're protest is going to do? My guess is cause a lot of violence. Aren't YOU concerned for the safety of others? Nothing like the religion of peace to drive home a point.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It was a "he" who had the historic background of "they" for carrying out deadly threats. The protest is a recognition of this. It was a simple innocuous cartoon that was privately censored based on past threats for the exact same thing.

I'm personally impressed that you are immune to threats but I would think you would be concerned for the safety of others.
If you're concerned about the safety of others, and you think that this one tool truly represented a threat (even HE didn't actually threaten anyone, by the way), then you should support Comedy Central censoring the episode to protect the safety of theres.

Not that there was actually any threat -- at least not more so than all the death threats that Christians send to Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers all the time. If you're an abortion doctor, the threats aren't even empty.

[levdrakon]

1.4 billion Muslims should write letters to Comedy Central telling them to quit pissing off South Park viewers who are a pretty irreverent lot anyway.

[Valteron]

It was a "he", not a "they, and that's not power over me, that's Comedy central exercising its own right to air whatever it wants.

The moral relativists have clouded this issue so much that it is time to do a reality check.

Argument 1: Comedy central is exercising its own right to air whatever it wants; Parker and Stone have no constitutional right to have their material aired.
Rebuttal: Of course they don't. And of course Comedy central and other networks/stations exercise their choice to accept or reject material every day. But presumably people have a right to express religious opinions that others disagree with without having their lives threatened, even indirectly. What we have here is two episodes that were produced and ready to run. Between the first and second episode, a web site indirectly threatened violence and murder, at which point the network cravenly censored the second episode.

Argument 2: The threat was from a crazy "loser" kid who is a white convert to Islam and all this outrage is pointless.

Rebuttal: Hard to understand what his colour has to do with anything, but he is a responsible 20-year-old MAN (young yes, but still an adult) who is married (to a Muslim woman). This is not a teen prank by a 12-year-old. Furthermore, this has to be seen in the context of over 20 years (ever since the Satanic Verses in 1989) of Islam demanding that the west sacrifice its freedom of expression and freedom of speech by allowing our rights to to be overruled by Islamic laws on blasphemy.

These demands that Islamic laws be applied THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, even in our western democracies, have been backed by threats of violence and actual violence, including the murder to translators of Salman Rushdie's work, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the attempted murder of Danish cartoonists, the death threats against Geert Wilders and "Infidel" author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other atrocities too numerous to mention.

It is in this context that the present discussion is taking place.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nothing like the religion of peace to drive home a point.
Kind of like murdering doctors and firebombing clinics to protect the Christian sanctity of life.

[Magiver]

If you're concerned about the safety of others, and you think that this one tool truly represented a threat (even HE didn't actually threaten anyone, by the way), then you should support Comedy Central censoring the episode to protect the safety of theres.
. Ah, the Neville Chamberlain response.

[Walmarticus]

Nothing like the religion of peace to drive home a point.

I'm just wondering, who started this practice of sarcastically referring to Islam as the "religion of peace". I hear this said facetiously from Islam haters all the time. Do Muslims actually call it that?

Ah, the Neville Chamberlain response.

Hitler comparisons on page 3? I'm disappointed. We should have got these out of the way a couple pages ago.

[emacknight]

Why complain about xenophobia whenever something like this comes up. The "problem" with Islam is that it's functioning like "old time religion" still. People seem to want pluralism, but then then whenever Muslims get offended, they get shown special consideration. And that's the problem. Instead of a pluralistic culture where everything flows, something cosmopolitan, instead you get a balkanized aggregate. I don't know about you, but that sounds like it might tend towards being dysfunctional.

Muslims are asking that images of Mohamed not be shown. It's a matter of being polite. Like someone asking you to take your shoes off, or cover your mouth when you sneeze.

A select few are using this as an excuse to be violent for the sake of violence. And another select few are using this as an excuse to be assholes for the sake of being assholes.

There is a reason I keep making reference to the N word.
Chinese people don't like being called chinks.
Japanese people don't like being called Japs.
Korean people don't like being call gooks
People with mental disabilities don't like being called retard.

All of these things are related. Which is why I suggested on May 20th of this year you start with the N word. Reclaim that. Start with a group of 36.6 million, that are less likely to blow something up when angry. Then work your way towards the 1.4billion.

Unless this isn't about free speech at all? Personally I think this is about xenophobic douche bags looking for an excuse to be assholes towards people they don't understand.


Pluralism isn't just some default state that occurs when the government isn't oppressive, it's a type of culture which is a product of the Enlightenment. There are xenophobes who just want everyone to be exactly like them, and then there are people who want Islam to join everybody else at the table. Some Muslims do, but plenty aren't ready, while are so opposed to the prospect of joining the table that they turn to violence. That's what all the non-xenophobes of the West really want from what I can tell, but that's not going to happen if we fold every time there is any opposition.

You're not folding, that's the point. You are showing that you are not xenophobic douche bags by expressing your right to free speech, and at the same time showing that you are capable of respecting someone else's belief.

This isn't protesting against a government law. It was a private company censoring all 201 episodes of a cartoon show. As a society we started censoring it 13 years ago, and have been find with that ever since.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The moral relativists have clouded this issue so much that it is time to do a reality check.I'm not a moral relativist, I'm a moral absolutist, and I haven't made any moral arguments anyway. You're talking out of your ass.
Argument 1: Comedy central is exercising its own right to air whatever it wants; Parker and Stone have no constitutional right to have their material aired.
Rebuttal: Of course they don't. And of course Comedy central and other networks/stations exercise their choice to accept or reject material every day. But presumably people have a right to express religious opinions that others disagree with without having their lives threatened, even indirectly.
Nobody's lives were threatened.
What we have here is two episodes that were produced and ready to run. Between the first and second episode, a web site indirectly threatened violence and murder, at which point the network cravenly censored the second episode.
Your problem is with the network, not the non-sxistent threat. There was no threat.
Argument 2: The threat was from a crazy "loser" kid who is a white convert to Islam and all this outrage is pointless. There wasn't any threat. The point is that there also wasn't any group, notwithstanding, your shrill, xenophobic, sobbing hysteria.
These demands that Islamic laws be applied THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, even in our western democracies, have been backed by threats of violence and actual violence, including the murder to translators of Salman Rushdie's work, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the attempted murder of Danish cartoonists, the death threats against Geert Wilders and "Infidel" author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and other atrocities too numerous to mention.
This is pure horsehit. No such thing has happened in the US, nor is it ever going to happen. Turn on the AM radio any day 0f the week or watch Fox News and you'll hear all the Islamophobic hate speech you want. Comedy Central does not owe you hate speech.

[Magiver]

Kind of like murdering doctors and firebombing clinics to protect the Christian sanctity of life. Yes, that's a good comparison:rolleyes: It's a good thing Jesus isn't trashed on South Park or billions of Christians would be rioting in the street.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ah, the Neville Chamberlain response.
It's not my response it's your own, if we follow your own stated concerns.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm just wondering, who started this practice of sarcastically referring to Islam as the "religion of peace". I hear this said facetiously from Islam haters all the time. Do Muslims actually call it that?
Mathir bin Mohammed, then the President of Malaysia, and a moderate Muslim, used the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" (note the indefinite article) in 2001 when condemning the 9/11 attacks.

[Ike Witt]

1. There was no death threat. There wasn't a threat at all. There was a (frankly, seemingly well-intentioned) reminder that the whole thing was probably a bad idea.

Really? Saying that Parker and Stone could end up like Theo Van Gogh isn't a death threat?

From Wikipedia: Theo Van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29): Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat (52°21′32.22″N 4°55′34.74″E / 52.35895°N 4.9263167°E / 52.35895; 4.9263167), while he was cycling to work. [3] Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then attempted to decapitate him[4] and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body.

Yeah, I guess I can see how saying people will end up like someone who was shot eight times and then was almost decapitated isn't really a death threat....

[emacknight]

Wow, this is retarded.

This.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Just for the record, I fully agree in principle that we should strive to ignore conditional threats of violence (from Islam, anti-abortionists, Neo-Nazis, or whoever).

There just wasn't a threat in this case.

[Magiver]

Mathir bin Mohammed, then the President of Malaysia, and a moderate Muslim, used the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" (note the indefinite article) in 2001 when condemning the 9/11 attacks.And shows up on Islamic websites. (http://www.al-islami.com/islam/religion_of_peace.php)

[Magiver]

Just for the record, I fully agree in principle that we should strive to ignore conditional threats of violence (from Islam, anti-abortionists, Neo-Nazis, or whoever).

There just wasn't a threat in this case.It was a clearly implied threat and the network acted on it which substantiates the fear behind it.

[emacknight]

The moral relativists have clouded this issue so much that it is time to do a reality check.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The time for a reality check was "Today, 11:38 AM"

After that it was all aboard the crazy train, with non-stop travel to a giant protest full of racists. I hope the tea baggers join in, I picture a venn diagram where the two circles overlap substantially. Since we're talking about trying to mock and ridicule a group into not being a crazy bunch of violent fucks. I would make it easier if you were all in the same place holding the same retarded signs.

[Walmarticus]

Mathir bin Mohammed, then the President of Malaysia, and a moderate Muslim, used the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace" (note the indefinite article) in 2001 when condemning the 9/11 attacks.

Cool, thanks.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It was a clearly implied threat and the network acted on it which substantiates the fear behind it.
It was a threat because the network thinks it was a threat? A 40-foot kangaroo couldn't make that leap of logic.

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I need to find an attorney to help me sue the makers of my bathroom outlets. They've been threatening me with electrocution.

[Magiver]

It's not my response it's your own, if we follow your own stated concerns. My concerns are for the freedom to publish without fear. That you try to twist this around by denying a threat was made and acted on is just that, a denial.

[Magiver]

It was a threat because the network thinks it was a threat? A 40-foot kangaroo couldn't make that leap of logic. Someone makes a reference to a show's content and the consequences of people murdered in the past and that's a leap of logic. Best of luck with that letter to the President using the same framework.

[emacknight]

It was a clearly implied threat and the network acted on it which substantiates the fear behind it.

Was there a similar threat made 2006 when the station first censored the image?

So,
censoring an imagine without a threat--no body cares.
censoring an imagine after a vaguely implied threat--racists get really super duper angry

If you really want to protest for free speech, why wait until May 20th.

Put SPIC on a wet t-shirt and head out May* 5th (gentlemen, only the back has to be wet, ladies, you can be as wet as you want).

Wait, no, ladies, you have to cover up, lest you offend someone that isn't a Muslim.

For the clueless lot amongst us, the Spanish word for May is Mayo. And the Spanish word for 5 is Cinco. May 5th happens to also be Cinco de Mayo which has become a Mexican version of St Patrick's Day. And for the REALLY clueless, it's not Mexico's 4th of July. It was a Mexican victory over the French.

[Valteron]

The time for a reality check was "Today, 11:38 AM"

After that it was all aboard the crazy train, with non-stop travel to a giant protest full of racists.

How is this racism? Since when is Islam a race? I have seen Muslims who are blonde and blue-eyed (in Kosovo, for example) and some that are so black they are blue. There are Chinese Muslims. The guy who threatened South Park is a convert to Islam whose original name was "Cohen".

I myself am light brown (kind of Italian looking) because one of my ancestors was black. Yet I am accused of racism if I criticise Islam?

Am I a racist if I criticise Roman Catholicism or Protestantism? How about Hinduism?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Someone makes a reference to a show's content and the consequences of people murdered in the past and that's a leap of logic. Best of luck with that letter to the President using the same framework.
What letter to the President?

You appear, unsurprisingly, to have missed the point.

If we are in, say, a bar, and you propose to walk over to a table full of angry-looking people and tell them to go fuck themselves, and I mention that angry-looking people have been known to react with violence and that you ought to rethink your plan, am I threatening you?
censoring an imagine after a vaguely implied threat--racists get really super duper angry
Can we leave out the racism bit? There's no apparent racist element to this.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Really? Saying that Parker and Stone could end up like Theo Van Gogh isn't a death threat?
No, actually, it isn't. The guy never threatened to do anything himself and, as a matter of fact, explicitly said that he wasn't making a threat. If I say a going into South Central LA with a giant sign saying "kill the Niggers" might get himself killed, that's not a death threat, just an observation of possible danger.

There was no threat against Comedy Central. Never happened.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

My concerns are for the freedom to publish without fear. That you try to twist this around by denying a threat was made and acted on is just that, a denial.
No threat was made. It is a fiction that a threat was made. It did not happen.

[An Gadaí]

What does Mohammed look like anyway?

[Really Not All That Bright]

What does Mohammed look like anyway?
Oh, good, an easy one. (http://www.powerlineblog.com/media/archives/Mohammed.jpg)

What?

[levdrakon]

What does Mohammed look like anyway?Google "Mohammed" and click "view image results." The second result is funny.

And considering how many results Google turns up, you get bonus points for committing lots of grave insult.

[Magiver]

You appear, unsurprisingly, to have missed the point.

If we are in, say, a bar, and you propose to walk over to a table full of angry-looking people and tell them to go fuck themselves, and I mention that angry-looking people have been known to react with violence and that you ought to rethink your plan, am I threatening you?
. I have a better analogy. How about a newspaper that publishes a cartoon about how intolerant and violent a religion is and it triggers worldwide intolerance and violence.

The point has always been free speech. You don't see Hindu's, Buddists and Christians going ape over South Park do you? It's not that the followers don't object, they just use free speech to voice it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Google "Mohammed" and click "view image results." The second result is funny.
I beat you to it. Anyway, it's not nearly as funny as the fourth result (http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mohammed_thong.jpg)* (if you have SafeSearch turned off). Come to think of it, the first one is pretty good too.

*Probably NSFW. Depicts rather nice buttocks.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The point has always been free speech. You don't see Hindu's, Buddists and Christians going ape over South Park do you?
You don't see Muslims doing it either.

I bet they've gotten at least one death threat from Christians, though.

[Valteron]

So there was no threat? The web site was RevolutionMuslim.Com (it has since been pulled) and according to Fox News:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, told Foxnews.com he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.

What do you think would happen if someone were to start a website called NewRevolution.com., and to send a "friendly warning" to a head of state along with a grizly picture of some assasinated politician. What if you included a message like the one above, warning the head of state that what they are doing is "stupid"?

It would be very interesting to see you trying to explain to the law enforcement people that there was no threat involved.

[emacknight]

Can we leave out the racism bit? There's no apparent racist element to this.

yes, and with my apologies.

Do we have a word for an individual or group of ignorant assholes that hate a group they don't understand? Islamophobe?

Kind of like how a homophobe isn't actually scared of gays, they just hate them for no rational reason.

I myself am light brown (kind of Italian looking) because one of my ancestors was black. Yet I am accused of racism if I criticise Islam?

I have a black friend so I can say the N-word all I want.

I'm sorry for the racist remark. You are an asshole that is going out of his way to offend a very large group of people for no actual reason. Your stated goal does not line up with your actions. You are pretending to be angry about something in order to protest about something else.

If you had just started this in the pit I could have said that a long time ago.

[Walmarticus]

So there was no threat? The web site was RevolutionMuslim.Com (it has since been pulled) and according to Fox News:

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, told Foxnews.com he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.

What do you think would happen if someone were to start a website called NewRevolution.com., and to send a "friendly warning" to a head of state along with a grizly picture of some assasinated politician. What if you included a message like the one above, warning the head of state that what they are doing is "stupid"?

It would be very interesting to see you trying to explain to the law enforcement people that there was no threat involved.


My mom used to warn me not to cross the street by myself. Turns out she was threatening to run me over!

[Magiver]

You don't see Muslims doing it either.

I bet they've gotten at least one death threat from Christians, though. Probably dozens. with the history of Danish cartoon reaction, the fatwa of Salmon Rushdie and the death of Theo van Gogh there is a reason to take the threat seriously.

[emacknight]

I have a better analogy. How about a newspaper that publishes a cartoon about how intolerant and violent a religion is and it triggers worldwide intolerance and violence.

The point has always been free speech. You don't see Hindu's, Buddists and Christians going ape over South Park do you? It's not that the followers don't object, they just use free speech to voice it.

I haven't seen Muslims go ape shit over South Park either though. I'm now going to ask The Google about groups that did go ape shit over South Park during the past 13 years and see what turns up.

Isn't this all moot? I thought there was a fatwa made against infidels like a century ago.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Do we have a word for an individual or group of ignorant assholes that hate a group they don't understand? Islamophobe?
Idiot.

[Magiver]

I haven't seen Muslims go ape shit over South Park either though. I'm now going to ask The Google about groups that did go ape shit over South Park during the past 13 years and see what turns up.

Isn't this all moot? I thought there was a fatwa made against infidels like a century ago. As I've pointed out more than once, the threat made by one person has the history of other members of visual media threatened/killed behind it. It also has your opinion behind it because you suggested that violence may come of the May 20th protest.

[emacknight]

"This is not a threat...

Sounds like it wasn't a threat. Anyone else read that?

You know what this reminds me of? Ann Coulter's made up outrage when she went to Canada and was supposed to speak at the University of Ottawa.

The university provost wrote to her to warm her about Canada's hate speech laws, trying to make sure she didn't run afoul. She pretended it was a threat, even though it was simply a polite warning.

Without this kid writing to Comedy Central, I'm pretty sure they were aware of the realities of the world, and of Theo van Gogh. I'm sure Matt and Trey were also aware. Seems pretty benign.

On preview, Valteron you're an idiot. And worse I fear you are the pawn of a much larger idiot. You can make May 20th a day about free speech without also being an asshole.

[Valteron]

My mom used to warn me not to cross the street by myself. Turns out she was threatening to run me over!

Right. And when a gangster running a protection racket says: "Nice little place you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it", he is NOT threatening you. He is just giving you a friendly warning.

There is no difference in context between your Mom warning her kid not to cross the street alone and someone who has a site called RevolutionMuslim.com, who is a convert to a religion whose members have a proven record of threatening and murdering those deemed to have insulted Islam, who send you a mesasage with a picture of a murdered person's corpse.

Slimy bastard was smart enough to say it was not a threat so he cannot be prosecuted. Get real! We all know it was!

[emacknight]

As I've pointed out more than once, the threat made by one person has the history of other members of visual media threatened/killed behind it. It also has your opinion behind it because you suggested that violence may come of the May 20th protest.

Well, if you want my opinion: I think they'll be violence because this protest is putting a lot of angry assholes all in one place with the sole intention of pissing off other people. It's sort of the way it goes.

My prediction is that a very peaceful group of Muslims will kindly ask the group to respect their beliefs. In response the group will will go ape shit and murder their ass.

This is where Jimbo would yell, "He's coming right at us, fire!"

Picturing this thread as an episode of South Park makes it a lot more fun.

Hey, anybody else remember when White people used to lynch not-white people because they wanted to use the same schools? Ah the good ol'days.

[emacknight]

Right. And when a gangster running a protection racket says: "Nice little place you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it", he is NOT threatening you. He is just giving you a friendly warning.

There is no difference in context between your Mom warning her kid not to cross the street alone and someone who has a site called RevolutionMuslim.com, who is a convert to a religion whose members have a proven record of threatening and murdering those deemed to have insulted Islam, who send you a mesasage with a picture of a murdered person's corpse.

Slimy bastard was smart enough to say it was not a threat so he cannot be prosecuted. Get real! We all know it was!

We?

So is your presumption that this kid was speaking for an organized group?

You claim it was a threat, and YOU know it was a threat. What was the threat? Was this kid going to attack Matt and Trey himself? Or his he just the communications officer of a much larger syndicate?

[Walmarticus]

Right. And when a gangster running a protection racket says: "Nice little place you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it", he is NOT threatening you. He is just giving you a friendly warning.

There is no difference in context between your Mom warning her kid not to cross the street alone and someone who has a site called RevolutionMuslim.com, who is a convert to a religion whose members have a proven record of threatening and murdering those deemed to have insulted Islam, who send you a mesasage with a picture of a murdered person's corpse.

Slimy bastard was smart enough to say it was not a threat so he cannot be prosecuted. Get real! We all know it was!

I know this kid is a 20-something suburbanite, nothing else. I know this websites name, nothing else. You probably don't know anything else. These details are all totally, 100% innocuous. Yet, you call him the gangster of our scenario.

[emacknight]

I know this kid is a 20-something suburbanite, nothing else. I know this websites name, nothing else. You probably don't know anything else. These details are all totally, 100% innocuous. Yet, you call him the gangster of our scenario.

I called him a criminal mastermind in my scenario, which is way I'm laughing a lot more than most people.

[BigT]

While I agree that this whole thing is stupid, surely you guys aren't so stupid as to take the "This isn't a threat" thing seriously. It's the only way he could say what he said without being arrested on the spot in any interview. It's the only way to guarantee he wouldn't get his site shut down.

Remember, his freedom of speech is restricted. The second he makes an actual threat, he gets in trouble.

As for you people that want draw stuff: All you're going to accomplish is making them think we're more evil than they already think. It's likely to inspire more people to join the movement. It's not going to help, as the mainstream media is not going to have any part in it. Most of the drawings won't even be published.

All this is is a way to keep you guys from doing something that would actually help censorship matters. It's a feel-good protest at best.

[BigT]

If y'all really believe this, I'm gonna start having fun in the pit. We can't threaten bodily harm, but I could link an image of some poster whose been killed, and warn that the same thing could happen to you. I'm sure I won't get in trouble, since I'll say it's not really a threat.

Oh, and to get the whole thing where they know Matt and Trey's names and addresses, trust me: I could get your info, too.

[Magiver]

All this is is a way to keep you guys from doing something that would actually help censorship matters. It's a feel-good protest at best. It goes directly back to the Danish cartoons. If you think it won't matter then that's your opinion but it's time people stood up for free speech and not shrink away from it. At some point the religion of Islam is going to have to evolve beyond the Fatwa mentality. Other religions managed to do it.

[emacknight]

It goes directly back to the Danish cartoons. If you think it won't matter then that's your opinion but it's time people stood up for free speech and not shrink away from it. At some point the religion of Islam is going to have to evolve beyond the Fatwa mentality. Other religions managed to do it.

I said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to show me that you guys are really super duper extra mad about this onslaught to your freedom of speech, and not just xenophobic assholes looking to stick it to brown people, I put this challenge to you:

Spend THIS May 20th protesting your right to use the N-word. Have some fun with it, put sheets over your head to represent the goats of civil liberties. Hang some figures to represent the noose that is around all our throats. Maybe burn a cross to show, crap, I don't have something for that one. Wait, burn a giant letter t to represent the loss of our language to threats of violence. Because that's what you're mad about, free speech.

Do that and next year I'll be right along with you, holding my very own depiction of Mohamed, PBUH, giving it good to a little girl. I assume we're allowed to show sexual depictions of underage individuals right?

[Marley23]

What if we made May 20th International Day of Not Being an Asshole.
How about this: seeing as how we're in a pluralistic society, you do what you want with the day and I do what I want with it.

Right now it's being advertised as exactly the opposite.
That's somewhat true. But is being an asshole always undesirable or is it sometimes a valid way to make a point?

A little over 1/6th of the population would rather you (not you specifically) didn't depict images of the prophet Mohamed, PBUH.

What if on May 20th we collectively respected their wishes.
This is a stupid request. Very few of us draw pictures of Muhammad in our day to day lives. If you want, you could pretend I've been respecting their wishes my whole life by never drawing his picture. The reality is that I don't care one way or the other because I've never had any reason to draw him and probably never will.

But couldn't we just behave like decent human beings on ONE day a year?
I behave like a decent human being most of the time, thank you.

South Park aside - I've never been a fan - this is not about us respecting a religion. It's a reasonable demand that religious believers not attempt to hold nonbelievers to their own laws. If a Muslim wants to fast during the day in Ramada, or a Catholic wants to smudge his forehead on Ash Wednesday, or a Jew wants to avoid using electricity on Saturdays, that's fine. I think they're all superstitions, but I wouldn't stop anyone from practicing and I probably wouldn't express that view to a believer. [i]But if a Muslim takes my lunch during Ramadan, a Catholic puts ash on my forehead, or a Jew cuts of my electricity, that's a problem. And if any of those people tried to cajole me into following their religious traditions by the threat of violence, that's the same problem.

I don't know the intent of the Revolution Muslim poster, although his message does come off as threatening. (It's about as helpful as a mobster saying 'Gee, it'd be a shame if this place happened to burn down' and then asking for protection money.) But leaving that guy out of the debate, the issue still exists: we're expected to give Islam a wide berth because some Muslims are violent lunatics. Not pissing off lunatics is a pretty good survival strategy but it really isn't right, and after a certain point, "just don't make him mad!" becomes an infringement of my ability to live the way I choose. All of this is pretty general and South Park doesn't have much to do with it, but it's a real issue.

[Magiver]

I said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to show me that you guys are really super duper extra mad about this onslaught to your freedom of speech, and not just xenophobic assholes looking to stick it to brown people, I put this challenge to you:

Spend THIS May 20th protesting your right to use the N-word. Have some fun with it, put sheets over your head to represent the goats of civil liberties. Hang some figures to represent the noose that is around all our throats. Maybe burn a cross to show, crap, I don't have something for that one. Wait, burn a giant letter t to represent the loss of our language to threats of violence. Because that's what you're mad about, free speech.

Do that and next year I'll be right along with you, holding my very own depiction of Mohamed, PBUH, giving it good to a little girl. I assume we're allowed to show sexual depictions of underage individuals right? Nigger is used all the time on cable as is the depiction of other religions. When Jesus is depicted in a photo of a jar of urine or as an ineffectual talk show host on South Park there are certainly Christians who object. Happens every day. What makes Islam special that it can't be lampooned or editorialized?

[emacknight]

That's somewhat true. But is being an asshole always undesirable or is it sometimes a valid way to make a point?

Listen you pissy little fuckwad. Just because you're mother is a disease ridden crack whore doesn't change the fact that this isn't about free speech.

So you tell me? Does me being an asshole help or hurt my case?

After having someone insult you, are you more are less likely to respect what they have to say?

If I thought people at this protest were going to draw pictures of Mohamed doing nice things, and say, "Look, it's okay to draw him" I might be more sympathetic.

My bet is that there will be a lot more violent expressions of the prophet. Wait, is it violent if we do it, or only them?

South Park aside - I've never been a fan - this is not about us respecting a religion. It's a reasonable demand that religious believers not attempt to hold nonbelievers to their own laws. If a Muslim wants to fast during the day in Ramada, or a Catholic wants to smudge his forehead on Ash Wednesday, or a Jew wants to avoid using electricity on Saturdays, that's fine. I think they're all superstitions, but I wouldn't stop anyone from practicing and I probably wouldn't express that view to a believer. [i]But if a Muslim takes my lunch during Ramadan, a Catholic puts ash on my forehead, or a Jew cuts of my electricity, that's a problem. And if any of those people tried to cajole me into following their religious traditions by the threat of violence, that's the same problem.
I hear this made a lot, but that's not what's going on here. And I expected it would eventually devolve into religious tolerance.

And my wife's company, they sent around an email reminding everyone that Ramadan was coming up. Let people know what it is. And then asked that if possible please avoid having lunch meetings during this time.

Nothing was forbidden. It was just a way of showing respect for a different culture. All it asked was that if you didn't need to have a lunch meeting, don't.

I keep saying this, and it has yet to register, but we already live in a highly censored society, one picture of one old dude is the least of our worries. I don't get why a few people are polishing their pitchforks.

You want free speech, spend May 20th drawing pictures of kiddie porn, then post it on the internet. You'll see a lot more violence, but mostly because your cellmate has made you his bitch and prison isn't a kind place. That's not a threat, just a warning that you probably shouldn't post kiddie porn on the internet.

the issue still exists: we're expected to give Islam a wide berth because some Muslims are violent lunatics. Not pissing off lunatics is a pretty good survival strategy but it really isn't right, and after a certain point, "just don't make him mad!" becomes an infringement of my ability to live the way I choose.

I just see it differently. We can draw anything we want (except kiddie porn), and Muslims have asked that we simply avoid this one. That a few individuals got really violent simply shows just how sacred this image is.

We can either respect that and leave it alone. Or we can piss all over it and hope they see it was all a big joke.

[emacknight]

Nigger is used all the time on cable as is the depiction of other religions. When Jesus is depicted in a photo of a jar of urine or as an ineffectual talk show host on South Park there are certainly Christians who object. Happens every day. What makes Islam special that it can't be lampooned or editorialized?

You can lampoon Islam all you want, that's not what is bothering them. It's not about lampooning Mohamed. I'm sorry that you still don't understand what's going on here.

If you don't understand why you shouldn't walk up to an African American and say, "you're a fucking n****r" than nothing I say is going to change your opinion at this point.

BTW, this isn't a threat, but I don't think you should walk up to an African American and say that.

[Marley23]

Does me being an asshole help or hurt my case?
Beats me. I couldn't tell the difference between that and your usual posts. Maybe this was about 2% nastier. ;) Regardless, you didn't answer my question.

If I thought people at this protest were going to draw pictures of Mohamed doing nice things, and say, "Look, it's okay to draw him" I might be more sympathetic.
I doubt it.

I hear this made a lot, but that's not what's going on here.
For the big South Park fans, no, that is probably not what's going on here. But the show itself doesn't really interest me.

Nothing was forbidden. It was just a way of showing respect for a different culture. All it asked was that if you didn't need to have a lunch meeting, don't.
So in that case, avoiding lunch meetings was a smart and perfectly reasonable thing to do. Most people this side of Valteron would agree with you on that point.

I keep saying this, and it has yet to register, but we already live in a highly censored society, one picture of one old dude is the least of our worries. I don't get why a few people are polishing their pitchforks.
Because in this case it affects something they care about. And you're presenting a strawman by assuming these people don't complain or protest about any other censorship. Even if they don't, self-censoring out of politeness is not the same as censorship done out of the threat of violence.

I just see it differently. We can draw anything we want (except kiddie porn), and Muslims have asked that we simply avoid this one. That a few individuals got really violent simply shows just how sacred this image is.

We can either respect that and leave it alone. Or we can piss all over it and hope they see it was all a big joke.
And that encapsulates exactly my point: sometimes being an asshole is a valid way to make a point. If a group of people thinks it is reasonable and acceptable to kill people for drawing disrespectful pictures, it's sensible to refuse to do what they say.

[Carmady]

The issue isn't just "free speech", but in particular whether or not it is a good idea to let threats of violence be an accepted, successful tactic to quash free speech.

I think it probably isn't a good idea.

Also, I tend to think it isn't just a "friendly warning" when I post your home address along with a warning that you will be murdered if you don't shut up.

"This is just a friendly warning, but you should really shut up or you are going to be brutally murdered at your home at (address). You should be especially careful because of the following easily exploitable flaw in your security system at said address."

[billfish678]

I just see it differently. We can draw anything we want (except kiddie porn), and Muslims have asked that we simply avoid this one. That a few individuals got really violent simply shows just how sacred this image is.

.

Naw, it just shows how retarded their shit is.

[Magiver]

You can lampoon Islam all you want, that's not what is bothering them. It's not about lampooning Mohamed. I'm sorry that you still don't understand what's going on here.

If you don't understand why you shouldn't walk up to an African American and say, "you're a fucking n****r" than nothing I say is going to change your opinion at this point.

BTW, this isn't a threat, but I don't think you should walk up to an African American and say that. Who is walking up to Muslims and saying squat? The issue IS about the ability to lampoon/editorialize Muslims, Christians, $cientologists, or any other person/group on the planet.

Where in this thread has anyone suggested otherwise?

[emacknight]

And that encapsulates exactly my point: sometimes being an asshole is a valid way to make a point. If a group of people thinks it is reasonable and acceptable to kill people for drawing disrespectful pictures, it's sensible to refuse to do what they say.

Except that in this case, this group of assholes is being an asshole towards otherwise very nice people (the 1.4billion non-violent Muslims).

This shit ends up being used as propaganda to recruit more terrorists. It will have the exact opposite effect that is desired. All over the Middle East there will be pictures of angry white Americans holding up drawings of Mohamed getting fucked by a goat. The only message it sends is that American's can't be respectful of other people, so why be respectful of them? They bomb our cities, kill our children, and fly over us with their feet hanging out of the helicopters.

If essentially fucks every anti-terrorist activity, and sets them back a decade. Terrorists use this shit to their advantage, to show that American's can't be trusted. Which is exactly what happened the last time this was tried.

It doesn't say, "Americans value free speech above all else and won't be threatened."

If that is the message the protest is trying to make, it will fail.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

[Marley23]

Except that in this case, this group of assholes is being an asshole towards otherwise very nice people (the 1.4billion non-violent Muslims).
The very nice people are going to have to deal with it, the same way very nice people of every other religion deal with satire or jerkyness.

If essentially fucks every anti-terrorist activity, and sets them back a decade.
You're being hysterical. It does no such thing. It's an internet protest most people will never be aware of in the first place, and the ones most offended by it will be people who are already pissed off at the West. Remember those Danish cartoons of Muhammad? Those initially caused no offense. Months later, some fundamentalist imams bundled the cartoons together with a lot of unrelated material (like people wearing pig masks) and used that to create offense. It didn't set relations back 10 years or do anything like that.

[emacknight]

Okay, a mea culpa: There is so much manufactured outrage, produced on a daily basis, that I have simply come to assume all outrage is fake. As I said, with all the other assaults on free speech, with all the other shit South Park has pulled, it seems weird that SUDDENLY people are mad as hell and won't take it any more. You were pretty good at taking it for a really long time.

The Tea Party Protests epitomize this so much for me. Championed by Fox News. Whipped up into a frenzy by Hannity. It all becomes angry people being angry, and trying to ad hoc justify it.

But more on topic is the "Cartoon Wars" episode that has Cartman use this issue for his own personal agenda. Before protesting, I seriously suggest you watch those episodes, and make sure that you aren't Kyle along for the ride.

That bias caused me to assume Valteron simply hates Muslims, which probably isn't true.

The main reason I participated in this thread was to try and highlight just how sensitive this issue is for Muslims. As I said before, if we don't *need* to draw Mohamed, the polite thing would be to not.

My final opinion on this matter: I would like to point out that in 4 episodes now, South Park has done a perfect job ripping on Muslims and our fear of their retribution. And in none of them did they have to show Mohamed. True satire finds a work around, and by incorporating the censorship becomes all the more powerful.

Frankly, just drawing lame pictures of Mohamed is a childish solution, and will generate a childish response. If you want your protest to have teeth, be a bit more edgy. Make all your drawings censored. Mock and ridicule what's actually going on (which basically means you're copying South Park from a few years ago). Find a way to say what you mean without offending 90% of your target audience. You want them to embrace what you're doing, and at the same time be forced to think about your message.

A real way to accomplish this would be to have pictures of the Mohameds that you know.

(these are the Dave's I know I know, these are the Dave's I know)

Show that you have empathy and compassion. Show that you feel bad THEY can't draw the prophet. But show that you have respect, and that you deserve respect.

If South Park has taught us anything it's to be a dick, not a pussy or an asshole.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And Comedy Central are pussies. And Muslim extremists are asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

[Guinastasia]

Wait -- isn't Valteron the guy who threw a hissyfit when he found a Gideon Bible in his hotel room once, and demanded that the staff remove it?

[Marley23]

Wait -- isn't Valteron the guy who threw a hissyfit when he found a Gideon Bible in his hotel room once, and demanded that the staff remove it?
Yes. I wouldn't say he hates Muslims; he's extremely contemptuous of every religion.

[Shmendrik]

If essentially fucks every anti-terrorist activity, and sets them back a decade.

Thank you for illustrating the point made earlier in this thread that Muslims are ultra-sensitive.

[Bryan Ekers]

Yes. I wouldn't say he hates Muslims; he's extremely contemptuous of every religion.

And not even in a good, clever way. He's just set up shop at the corners of Drama and Queen.

[Shmendrik]

I said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to show me that you guys are really super duper extra mad about this onslaught to your freedom of speech, and not just xenophobic assholes looking to stick it to brown people, I put this challenge to you:

Spend THIS May 20th protesting your right to use the N-word. Have some fun with it, put sheets over your head to represent the goats of civil liberties. Hang some figures to represent the noose that is around all our throats. Maybe burn a cross to show, crap, I don't have something for that one. Wait, burn a giant letter t to represent the loss of our language to threats of violence. Because that's what you're mad about, free speech.

Do that and next year I'll be right along with you, holding my very own depiction of Mohamed, PBUH, giving it good to a little girl. I assume we're allowed to show sexual depictions of underage individuals right?

Are you incapable of differentiating between attacks on people and attacks on people's views?

[Magiver]

I just see it differently. We can draw anything we want (except kiddie porn), and Muslims have asked that we simply avoid this one. That a few individuals got really violent simply shows just how sacred this image is.
So all the non-Muslim world has to do is not draw Mohammed? We can now make movies criticizing the religion like Van Gogh's or write books like Salmon Rushdie and that's OK?

The answer is no. As long as the concept of Fatwa exists and is used to attack blasphemy then criticism of the religion will be met by the level of hypersensitivity and intolerance that exists today.

[BigT]

It goes directly back to the Danish cartoons. If you think it won't matter then that's your opinion but it's time people stood up for free speech and not shrink away from it. At some point the religion of Islam is going to have to evolve beyond the Fatwa mentality. Other religions managed to do it.

My point is that it won't matter AT BEST. I actually think the result will actually be less than the best. I think it will incite, if not violence, at least some people to join the more violent factions.

Other methods of fighting have been offered, but no one wants to take them, because they wouldn't feel as good as "sticking it to them Moslems." Your response is not utilitarian, it's one of anger. Responses that are made in anger are typically met with anger.

People seem to have lost track of the ultimate goal: which is peaceful coexistence. The only reason we care about their beliefs is because they can hurt us. But, instead, it seems like people want to try and force our values on them. Sure, if they accepted our free speech, we'd have a lot less violence, But I don't think hurting them is the way to get them to change their minds. What y'all are proposing is to poke a stick at a bear to keep it from attacking you.

[Magiver]

My point is that it won't matter AT BEST. I actually think the result will actually be less than the best. I think it will incite, if not violence, at least some people to join the more violent factions.

Other methods of fighting have been offered, but no one wants to take them, because they wouldn't feel as good as "sticking it to them Moslems." Your response is not utilitarian, it's one of anger. Responses that are made in anger are typically met with anger.

People seem to have lost track of the ultimate goal: which is peaceful coexistence. The only reason we care about their beliefs is because they can hurt us. But, instead, it seems like people want to try and force our values on them. Sure, if they accepted our free speech, we'd have a lot less violence, But I don't think hurting them is the way to get them to change their minds. What y'all are proposing is to poke a stick at a bear to keep it from attacking you. This is the United States, not Saudi Arabia. Freedom of speech and the free exercise of ideas is everything to our way of life. The "stick" you refer to is any negative mention of Islam. That is not an acceptable arrangement in this society. Anyone wishing to live under that level of religious doctrine should move to a country that restricts freedom in a way that satisfies that need.

[ivan astikov]

People seem to have lost track of the ultimate goal: which is peaceful coexistence.

"Peaceful coexistence" means being able to mock each other's beliefs, without going off the deep end and threatening to behead people who you have chosen to be offended by.

[Revenant Threshold]

I'm not so much on board with the OP as I am quibbling about the insultiness of the depictions in question.

But what else is going to get their attention? This level of hypersensitivity is bad behavior on the part of Muslims and they need to learn that there are consequences.

The beauty part is that the punishment is only as harsh as your level of extremism makes it out to be. Getting someone's attention via insulting or offending them is not a good idea. It's like the old canard for advertising, that there has been a thread on in GD recently; as long as people remember your product, that's fine, right? But it isn't. Negative opinions mean negative attention. Getting someone's attention via insulting them means that a) their opinion of whatever your intent is is likely going to be negative, and b) their opinion of you is likely going to be negative.

It's no use saying, essentially; "This is apparently an insulting thing to do; we shall continue to do it, because they need to learn it's not insulting". It's not a test run. People actually are being insulted, and just saying "Well, they shouldn't be" doesn't magically make them not care. If there are death threats - were there actual deaths because of this situation - you could not wish it away by simply pointing out that they were wrong to be insulted. If you want to actually change someone's mind, you have to take into account someone's opinion, not reject it as irrelevant or wrong entirely, because otherwise why are they going to listen? It's Muslims' turn to learn that. Now that we're in the Pit, I can happily tell you you're an asshole. Your sad ramblings, pathetic in their illogicality, foolish in their reasoning, beyond any semblance of sanity and reasonability in their concepts, are clearly the works of a diseased, moronic mind. You're an idiot. Your opinions are wrong, and any intelligent or even mildly stupid would know that.

You feel perfectly disposed to my arguments now, right? I've pointed out that you're wrong, i've insulted you to get your attention, and now you have an excellent opinion of me. Right?

(I should point out I don't actually think those nasty things of you. Just for the record!;))Totally and to the max. In what manner?

[Tristan]

If I go up to a Muslim and call him a "Sand Nigger", or a "camel Jockey", then it is well within his rights to be offended. He would understandably be upset that I directly insulted him. He may want to punch me in the nose, and while I can understand the desire, it would still land him in more trouble than I woudl be in. And rightly so.

If I draw a picture of Muhammed, and post it in public, I am not directly insulting any Muslim, at all. I may be violating a relgious proscription (as declared by certain hadith, but certainly not a universal). As I am not an adherent to that particular faith, I am not bound by it's rules.

When I get in a car and drive to work, do the Amish riot in the streets (I mean, they do have pitchforks..) and threaten to kill me? Even in a "plain but legally veiled way?

When I have bacon and eggs with cheese on my plate, to the orthodox jews, or even those who just keep kosher, rise up and demand that I be put to death?

If the Amish or the Jews did such things, would it be acceptable?

Put in that context, is it any more acceptable for Muslims to riot, demand my death, or to actually attempt to harm or kill me?

[Fuji]

I'm of two minds on this protest issue.

On the one hand, the form the protest itself is taking is, apparently, that of being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. I've no problem with that - I've been one myself on many occasions, and am a fan of many an asshole's creative efforts - but it shouldn't be overlooked that those people who go out of their way to depict Mohammed fucking pigs or what have you are, in fact, assholes.

On the other hand, my being an asshole, as long as I don't force you to experience my offensive behavior, doesn't give you ANY right at all to threaten me with physical violence. I'm so fucking tired of seeing this weak-ass analogy:


If you don't understand why you shouldn't walk up to an African American and say, "you're a fucking n****r" than nothing I say is going to change your opinion at this point.

In this particular case, it's a goddamned TV show we're talking about. Are Trey and Matt breaking into mosques or Muslims' homes and forcing them (à la Clockwork Orange (http://surefirediva.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/orange3.jpg)) to watch their show? You talk about xenophobic idiots seeking out offense - how does that not apply to those Muslims who would be ostensibly offended in this case?


And this is some more really weak sauce:


The main reason I participated in this thread was to try and highlight just how sensitive this issue is for Muslims. As I said before, if we don't *need* to draw Mohamed, the polite thing would be to not.

Show that you have empathy and compassion. Show that you feel bad THEY can't draw the prophet. But show that you have respect, and that you deserve respect.


No one needs to do anything in the cultural realm. I can't believe you're even trying to bring necessity into a discussion of arguments over culture.

And why is it that "they can't draw the prophet"? Are their fingers broken or something? They can sure as hell do it if they want to - they choose not to do so. Yet I'm supposed to feel "empathy and compassion" for them over their cultural choices? Brother, please.:rolleyes:

"Peaceful coexistence" means being able to mock each other's beliefs, without going off the deep end and threatening to behead people who you have chosen to be offended by.

Agreed.

[Valteron]

So in that case, avoiding lunch meetings was a smart and perfectly reasonable thing to do. Most people this side of Valteron would agree with you on that point.



I seem to have become some kind of boundary marker???!!!!:confused: I am amused but curious. What does "this side of Valteron" mean? Which side am I on, in your opinion?

BTW, I also think it is perfectly all right for an office to suggest we avoid unnecessary lunch meetings during Ramadan, and I would happily comply. As one of my Muslim friends (yes, I have Muslim friends) says: "In Canada (or any western democracy) all religions are equal. But law is above all religions." My friend thinks this is wonderful.

[olivesmarch4th]

Are you incapable of differentiating between attacks on people and attacks on people's views?
The OP clearly isn't.


People seem to have lost track of the ultimate goal: which is peaceful coexistence. The only reason we care about their beliefs is because they can hurt us. But, instead, it seems like people want to try and force our values on them. Sure, if they accepted our free speech, we'd have a lot less violence, But I don't think hurting them is the way to get them to change their minds. What y'all are proposing is to poke a stick at a bear to keep it from attacking you.

Yes and yes.

This is the United States, not Saudi Arabia. Freedom of speech and the free exercise of ideas is everything to our way of life. The "stick" you refer to is any negative mention of Islam. That is not an acceptable arrangement in this society. Anyone wishing to live under that level of religious doctrine should move to a country that restricts freedom in a way that satisfies that need.
In this instance, the ''stick'' is having a bunch of people draw Mohammed en masse to show a tiny minority of violence-inclined religious folk that they're wrong to try to curb free speech. That's far more than any negative mention of Islam. It's like if, instead of some weird modern artist doing Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ), a significant percentage of the entire U.S. population set up Piss Christ exhibits outside their homes. Not only is it juvenile and mean-spirited, it affects the image of this country as a whole.

Not that I believe a protest against censorship of some college kid's precious South Park is going to gain much traction, but the point still stands. This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with being a dick because you can be.


It's no use saying, essentially; "This is apparently an insulting thing to do; we shall continue to do it, because they need to learn it's not insulting". It's not a test run. People actually are being insulted, and just saying "Well, they shouldn't be" doesn't magically make them not care. If there are death threats - were there actual deaths because of this situation - you could not wish it away by simply pointing out that they were wrong to be insulted. If you want to actually change someone's mind, you have to take into account someone's opinion, not reject it as irrelevant or wrong entirely, because otherwise why are they going to listen?
Exactly. This pitting is so short-sighted it's painful.

[Shmendrik]

"Peaceful coexistence" means being able to mock each other's beliefs, without going off the deep end and threatening to behead people who you have chosen to be offended by.

Holy crap. I can't believe I actually fully agree with one of your posts.

[emacknight]

Are you incapable of differentiating between attacks on people and attacks on people's views?

I am yes, they aren't. South Park has made a career of attacking people's views, and getting shit on by the people who thought they were being attacked.

So all the non-Muslim world has to do is not draw Mohammed? We can now make movies criticizing the religion like Van Gogh's or write books like Salmon Rushdie and that's OK?
No, not okay. You win this point.

The answer is no. As long as the concept of Fatwa exists and is used to attack blasphemy then criticism of the religion will be met by the level of hypersensitivity and intolerance that exists today.

I've witnessed a lot of very bad parents try to use this sort of tactic on their children. Essentially, stupid people trying to use blunt jokes to humiliate someone else into changing.

But it only works if the target audience "gets it." South Park has been ripping on people for over a decade without much success. We've been ripping on Tea Baggers but their numbers grow along with their crazy.

From what I know of van Gogh's work it was blunt, way to direct.

If I may switch sides for a moment: we're dealing with a group not used to satire, humour, or being ripped on.

Think of them like a new cast member on Friends. Few people can handle that kind of good natured ribbing, most people would storm off in tears.

This is something you need to ease people in to. What if we didn't lead off with the "yo mamma's so fat" jokes, to a group who's mother essentially died of obesity. Before making fun of someone, at least recognize there is hypersensitivity and work with it.

If you've got a guy in your office that stinks (as we all do), but is also hypersensitive (and the boss' son) you don't fill his cubical with deodorant. You don't make up a rhyme that people sing as he walks by. "There goes Peter he's a Stinker"

Basically what I'm asking is that you put the kid gloves on and consider that you are essentially dealing with children, not used to being mocked and ridiculed in an open forum.

[Marley23]

I seem to have become some kind of boundary marker???!!!!:confused: I am amused but curious. What does "this side of Valteron" mean? Which side am I on, in your opinion?
Even compared to the many outspoken atheists on this board, you're very hostile to religion. I didn't think you would object to me pointing that out.

[ivan astikov]

Holy crap. I can't believe I actually fully agree with one of your posts.

You're the second one! :eek:

Either you are a pair of deviant outliers, or I've fluked a post and not said anything disagreeable!. :D

[emacknight]

This is the United States, not Saudi Arabia. Freedom of speech and the free exercise of ideas is everything to our way of life. The "stick" you refer to is any negative mention of Islam. That is not an acceptable arrangement in this society. Anyone wishing to live under that level of religious doctrine should move to a country that restricts freedom in a way that satisfies that need.

Right, so what you're going to do is act like the assholes that the world has branded you as. Yet despite being mocked relentlessly about being assholes, you have get to "get it." Instead, you're setting out to act like assholes.

The actions you're about to undertake have as yet failed on YOU. Yet here you are, expecting it to work on someone else.

stones, glass houses, don't do it.

Spend May 20th watching Team American World Police instead. Consider it a day of quiet introspection. Lead by example, and ask Muslims to join you, as you look inward at your own flaws, laugh, and then change.

[emacknight]

"Peaceful coexistence" means being able to mock each other's beliefs, without going off the deep end and threatening to behead people who you have chosen to be offended by.

No it doesn't. Which is why YOU have yet to peacefully coexist. Isn't there a country that needs invading? Or a world economy you need to destroy. Are you that bored? Hey look over there, it's a country you'd like to boss around through use of force!

[Marley23]

Spend May 20th watching Team American World Police instead.
I don't know- all that "durka durka Muhammad jihad" stuff might irritate Muslims.

No it doesn't. Which is why YOU have yet to peacefully coexist. Isn't there a country that needs invading? Or a world economy you need to destroy.
Like I said in that Cafe Society thread, I'm not a South Park fan and I never have been, but I'm realizing that the people they infuriate are usually a lot more loathsome than the South Park guys themselves are. Calm the fuck down already. You're deliberately vague on whether or not you consider yourself American or Canadian, but either way you have no business using that "you can't peacefully coexist" language with anyone. Canada is involved in Afghanistan, you know.

[Shmendrik]

No it doesn't. Which is why YOU have yet to peacefully coexist. Isn't there a country that needs invading? Or a world economy you need to destroy. Are you that bored? Hey look over there, it's a country you'd like to boss around through use of force!

Fortunately, those are all phenomena which are completely unknown in the Muslim world. Invading countries? Bossing people around through the use of force? Are you that oblivious?

[emacknight]

If I go up to a Muslim and call him a "Sand Nigger", or a "camel Jockey", then it is well within his rights to be offended.
That's how this protest looks, keep that in mind.

If I draw a picture of Muhammed, and post it in public, I am not directly insulting any Muslim, at all. I may be violating a relgious proscription (as declared by certain hadith, but certainly not a universal). As I am not an adherent to that particular faith, I am not bound by it's rules.

You live in a free and just society. You have the right to draw anything you want (except naked children). Now use your moral compass and decide if you need to go out of your way to offend someone. Even if what they believe in is totally retarded and you have zero respect for it. You are surrounded by 320million of dumbest people on the planet, are you lacking in subject matter? 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution, but you're choosing THIS to get worked up about?

Spend May 20th making fun of creationists, or people that don't understand the metric system. Have a little test run, see if your mock outrage changes even one mind. My guess is no. My guess is you will simple encourage already stupid people to dig in their heals and further reject intelligence.

When I get in a car and drive to work, do the Amish riot in the streets (I mean, they do have pitchforks..) and threaten to kill me? Even in a "plain but legally veiled way?

Yes, I implore you, put this into context, PLEASE. For the first time ever, put something into context. This entire thread is an example in not understanding context. Your description about Amish people is not putting things into context, you missed the point.

If you marched through an Amish community mocking and ridiculing them, it is very unlikely they are going to embrace your beliefs. You are going about this the wrong way.

[Marley23]

Fortunately, those are all phenomena which are completely unknown in the Muslim world. Invading countries? Bossing people around through the use of force? Are you that oblivious?
For that matter, the fact that he jumps straight from blunt satire on a cartoon show to counterterrorism and invasions show he's just zero perspective on any of this.

[ivan astikov]

No it doesn't. Which is why YOU have yet to peacefully coexist. Isn't there a country that needs invading? Or a world economy you need to destroy. Are you that bored? Hey look over there, it's a country you'd like to boss around through use of force!

This is more like the kind of response I'm used to.

Hey, I made my public protests against joining your stupid war/s, so what's with this YOU business?

[Tristan]

Using your logic, emacknight, I should now move to Saudi Arabia, and demand that they be ok with my wife chosing to drive to work in a bikini. Any attempt to make me live and abide by their moralistic codes are wrong, and offensive to me.

Would you be just as stridently asking the Wahabi muslim population there to be tolerant, and not be so "offensive" to me and my beliefs?

If you wouldn't be, do you see the disconnect there?

[ivan astikov]

If you marched through an Amish community mocking and ridiculing them, it is very unlikely they are going to embrace your beliefs.


If you are Amish and watching South Park, you are doing it wrong.

[emacknight]

Calm the fuck down already. You're deliberately vague on whether or not you consider yourself American or Canadian, but either way you have no business using that "you can't peacefully coexist" language with anyone. Canada is involved in Afghanistan, you know.

This.

Making May 20th International Day of the Asshole will accomplish nothing except having the rest of the world collectively say, "who the fuck are you to talk about censorship, religious tolerance, and peaceful coexistence."

I had a thread a few months ago mocking the American health care system, and Magiver took it as a personal insult. Instead of accepting the criticism and thanking me for pointing out obvious flaws, he choose to lash out at me, and point out failures in the Canadian system.

What makes you think this will work any better?

[emacknight]

This is more like the kind of response I'm used to.

Hey, I made my public protests against joining your stupid war/s, so what's with this YOU business?

Ah, so now you object to being painted with the large brush.

Perhaps the solution for us to all use a smaller brush, that we paint with more tactfully.

[ivan astikov]

Is anyone predicting it will?

Still, if nothing else, it'll show that when we get pissed off, we get all creative on yo butt and do stuff on teh intrawebs - we don't order some fertiliser and start planning to blow the shit out of civilians.

[ivan astikov]

Ah, so now you object to being painted with the large brush.

Perhaps the solution for us to all use a smaller brush, that we paint with more tactfully.

I don't care what brush you use, but try and get my left profile.

[ITR champion]

Hey Valteron, I have a couple of quick questions for you:

1) Of all the acts of protest that you've promoted on this board and presumably in other places, how many of them have ever produced any measurable, positive outcome?

2) Given your answer to the previous question, what do you suppose are the odds that this one will produce any measurable, positive outcome?

[Marley23]

Making May 20th International Day of the Asshole will accomplish nothing except having the rest of the world collectively say, "who the fuck are you to talk about censorship, religious tolerance, and peaceful coexistence."
It's kind of ironic that someone who is supposedly arguing about tolerance and tact keeps talking about the rest of the world as if it's a monolithic bloc. It isn't. The rest of the world could give a fuck if some South Park fans draw pictures of Muhammad. You know how many people watched the episode that prompted this discussion? About 3.5 million. That's barely one percent of "you people"'s, nevermind the whole world.

What makes you think this will work any better?
I don't think it's going to do anything. I never said it would, and I think I already said so at least once in this thread. I think the principle is a valid one even if most of the actual protesters don't give a crap about the principle and are just trying to stand behind a crude cartoon.

And again, you're showing a total lack of perspective on this issue. At the moment you're apparently pidgeonholing ivan astikov as some kind of imperialist. He's not. He thinks a secret conspiracy (run by the Jews, if the rest of his posting history is any guide) destroyed the World Trade Center. And I guess you think I'm some kind of jingoist, which I'm not. Ironically you seem to be less politically sophisticated than Parker and Stone.

[emacknight]

Using your logic, emacknight, I should now move to Saudi Arabia, and demand that they be ok with my wife chosing to drive to work in a bikini. Any attempt to make me live and abide by their moralistic codes are wrong, and offensive to me.

Would you be just as stridently asking the Wahabi muslim population there to be tolerant, and not be so "offensive" to me and my beliefs?

If you wouldn't be, do you see the disconnect there?

Yes, there is a disconnect there, but it doesn't apply to this situation. You are missing the larger point.

Instead of looking outwards, look inwards. Go past your gut and peer deep into the duodenum.

The US censors the image of a woman's breasts in television and print media, Europeans do not. Imagine a protest involving a bunch of half naked Europeans marching around schoolyards with pictures of naked women, telling you to "get over it."

What I'm trying to accomplish here, is to give you a perspective of what's going on. How this will look to people outside your monkey-sphere.

The last time we went through this (that's right, this isn't the first) the response from Iran was to have a giant Fuck Israel Festival. In which state media had people draw and depict the most offensive imagines of Judaism you could possibly imagine. I believe they tied it in with their Holocaust Denial Festival.

Having a day when you give the middle finger to Muslims simply results in them giving the finger back. They're driving is unlikely to improve as a result.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Hey Valteron, I have a couple of quick questions for you:

1) Of all the acts of protest that you've promoted on this board and presumably in other places, how many of them have ever produced any measurable, positive outcome?

2) Given your answer to the previous question, what do you suppose are the odds that this one will produce any measurable, positive outcome?
He's gone, Jim.

[emacknight]

Is anyone predicting it will?

Still, if nothing else, it'll show that when we get pissed off, we get all creative on yo butt and do stuff on teh intrawebs - we don't order some fertiliser and start planning to blow the shit out of civilians.

I'm not sure "creative" is the word you're looking for.

[Marley23]

The last time we went through this (that's right, this isn't the first) the response from Iran was to have a giant Fuck Israel Festival. In which state media had people draw and depict the most offensive imagines of Judaism you could possibly imagine. I believe they tied it in with their Holocaust Denial Festival.

Having a day when you give the middle finger to Muslims simply results in them giving the finger back. They're driving is unlikely to improve as a result.
Remember what happened in response to Iran's festival?

[ivan astikov]

At the moment you're apparently pidgeonholing ivan astikov as some kind of imperialist. He's not. He thinks a secret conspiracy (run by the Jews, if the rest of his posting history is any guide) destroyed the World Trade Center.

Hey, nice pigeonholing Marley!

ps. Learn how to spell "pigeon".

[Marley23]

Hey, nice pigeonholing Marley!

ps. Learn to spell.
I spelled it correctly. The Jews snuck into my computer and staged a fake typo using explosive thermite. If you learned to stop trusting the official internet spelling theory we've been spoonfed by the government, you'd know the truth.

[ivan astikov]

I'm not sure "creative" is the word you're looking for.

It's less destructive than bombing or beheading somebody.

[ivan astikov]

I spelled it correctly. The Jews snuck into my computer and staged a fake typo using explosive thermite. If you learned to stop trusting the official internet spelling theory we've been spoonfed by the government, you'd know the truth.

You could probably be funny if you gave up your mod career and dedicated yourself to it.

[emacknight]

It's kind of ironic that someone who is supposedly arguing about tolerance and tact keeps talking about the rest of the world as if it's a monolithic bloc. It isn't.
...
And again, you're showing a total lack of perspective on this issue. At the moment you're apparently pidgeonholing ivan astikov as some kind of imperialist. He's not. He thinks a secret conspiracy (run by the Jews, if the rest of his posting history is any guide) destroyed the World Trade Center. And I guess you think I'm some kind of jingoist, which I'm not. Ironically you seem to be less politically sophisticated than Parker and Stone.

Yes, it is ironic, but only to those that get irony.

Sadly, I have a perfect grasp of the perspective on this, and am trying to illustrate it. I am right, and all of you are wrong, which is why I am mocking your beliefs. That it goes unnoticed should show how difficult it is to show someone how stupid their beliefs are.

Has an example, consider re-reading Starving Artist's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440) thread. During which is is relentlessly mocked and humiliated. The result: dug in heals, further denial, a sense that everyone is out to get him because he is right.

And with that said, I don't have time to deal with this any more, I have to go listen to Elton John while mowing my lawn. If it helps, re-read my posts in this thread, and pretend how you feel reading them is how Muslims will feel after the protest. The arguments you are using towards me are pretty much the same arguments they may make.

[Horatius]

Ya know....protests are not usually my thing. I think I'll make an exception this time. Problem is, I can't draw for shit. Reckon I could do a stick figure and name it Mohammed? Maybe something featuring him getting cornholed by and/or fellating pigs?



There are online sites that let you make comics pretty easily. I use this one a lot:

http://stripgenerator.com/

[billfish678]

Sadly, I have a perfect grasp of the perspective on this, and am trying to illustrate it. I am right, and all of you are wrong, which is why I am mocking your beliefs. That it goes unnoticed should show how difficult it is to show someone how stupid their beliefs are.




You got that right. Unfortunately, you got yer pronouns mixed up.

[Marley23]

You could probably be funny if you gave up your mod career and dedicated yourself to it.
Well, that's better than "don't quit your day job..."

Has an example, consider re-reading Starving Artist's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440) thread.
I'll pass. But just for the record:

Remember what happened in response to Iran's festival?
The answer is "Some Jews held their own Holocaust cartoon festival and turned it into comedy. In other words, they responded like adults and made Iran look even stupider. Considering Iran is a theocratic society that embraces Holocaust denial I think that was a significant achievement. Relations between East and West or Muslims and Jews were not affected because, as the satirical contest proved, it was just a bunch of freaking cartoons.

[emacknight]

It's less destructive than bombing or beheading somebody.

Perhaps, we'll see. It's certainly less destructive that invading a country, so I'm happy we're making baby steps.

I don't have time for this! You are all wrong and I am right, why can't you see that?! What is wrong with you people?!

This protest is giving the finger to a group of very angry individuals who have demonstrated they don't get ironic, satire, or sarcasm. Nor do they react well to criticism. If you want to make a point, consider your target audience. If you don't understand your target audience, perhaps hold off on your protest until you do. This is where market research would kick in, and tell you what message works best on the people you are speaking to.

You should know that I think this is all a masterful joke, and look forward to sitting back and enjoying the results. As far as I can tell it's what Matt and Trey have been working towards since the beginning, now dance little puppets DANCE!

[ivan astikov]

Well, that's better than "don't quit your day job..."

I'm sure you are fully aware of the difficulties in coming up with original content on the internet. :p

[sqweels]

When Jesus is depicted in a photo of a jar of urine or as an ineffectual talk show host on South Park there are certainly Christians who object. Happens every day. What makes Islam special that it can't be lampooned or editorialized?
That reminds me... I questioned whether it really was piss in Piss Christ. What if the artist was fooling us? Conversely, what if he had kept quiet about the piss? It's not like Jesus was at risk of coming down with a urine-borne illness.

This is a lesson on the important distinction between that which is symbolic and that which is substantive. (http://www.squeakywheelsblog.com/symbols/)

[sqweels]

Now that we're in the Pit, I can happily tell you you're an asshole. Your sad ramblings, pathetic in their illogicality, foolish in their reasoning, beyond any semblance of sanity and reasonability in their concepts, are clearly the works of a diseased, moronic mind. You're an idiot. Your opinions are wrong, and any intelligent or even mildly stupid would know that.
Whoopie! I'm getting attention! :p

[StusBlues]

My new wallpaper. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg)

Now boogie chillen.

[Revenant Threshold]

If I go up to a Muslim and call him a "Sand Nigger", or a "camel Jockey", then it is well within his rights to be offended. He would understandably be upset that I directly insulted him. He may want to punch me in the nose, and while I can understand the desire, it would still land him in more trouble than I woudl be in. And rightly so.

If I draw a picture of Muhammed, and post it in public, I am not directly insulting any Muslim, at all. I may be violating a relgious proscription (as declared by certain hadith, but certainly not a universal). As I am not an adherent to that particular faith, I am not bound by it's rules.

When I get in a car and drive to work, do the Amish riot in the streets (I mean, they do have pitchforks..) and threaten to kill me? Even in a "plain but legally veiled way?

When I have bacon and eggs with cheese on my plate, to the orthodox jews, or even those who just keep kosher, rise up and demand that I be put to death?

If the Amish or the Jews did such things, would it be acceptable?

Put in that context, is it any more acceptable for Muslims to riot, demand my death, or to actually attempt to harm or kill me? Who is it that's claiming it's acceptable for any of these things to happen? You honestly think people are going, "Well, hey, I don't care if Muslims riot, attempt to harm or kill. Wait, you're suggesting a situation where the Amish or Jews did those things? By jove, i'd be against it! My hypocrisy has been punctured!"

Really, who's making that argument? So far as I can tell, there are certainly arguments about the best way to go about trying to persuade people otherwise. There are arguments about the extent to which persuasive or campaign techniques will be effective, and to what extent they are ethically a good idea. But I haven't seen anyone questioning whether it is acceptable that anyone, Muslims included, riot, demand your death, or attempt to harm or kill you.

That part of the argument seems to be pretty much concluded; no, it's not acceptable. Arguing about whether arguments or methods to persuade are bad does not imply a comparitive measure - they aren't doing anything bad, so we can't, either. All it is saying is that you cannot point to bad things done by one side, and declare that you get to do bad things, too; and that generally if you want people to stop doing unacceptable things, you have to restrain yourself, also, even from doing comparitively minor bad things.

[Valteron]

Hey Valteron, I have a couple of quick questions for you:

1) Of all the acts of protest that you've promoted on this board and presumably in other places, how many of them have ever produced any measurable, positive outcome?

2) Given your answer to the previous question, what do you suppose are the odds that this one will produce any measurable, positive outcome?

Maybe it is old age creeping up on me, but I don't recall many threads in which I have promoted an act of protest, frankly. I have started quite a few discussions about a wide range of subjects, but I am not sure how many of them could be categorized as "promoting an act of protest". Indeed, as the moderator quite correctl;y pointed out to me in an earlier posting, I am not allowed to promote an event on SDMB, for which I apologized and agreed that my OP should really have read "What do you think of the May 20 event"?

I DID take part in demos in Ontario a couple of years ago when the spineless government of Ontario had agreed to a deal that would allow Jewish, Roman Catholic and Muslim (Sharia) family law to be used in family courts. As I recall I went out to protest with a sign that said: "One law for all, no religion in our courts".

My sign did not say a word against Muslims, BTW. The demos were so well-attended and took the government so much by surprise that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a few days later that the entire idea was being dropped. So I would say that was a very positive outcome.

I think the May 20 event will have a "push-back" value. For over 20 years, since Salman Rushdie in 1989 (his book was published in the West, remember, so it was Iran telling us what we can or cannot publish in our own part of the world) there has been a rising tide of militant Islamic attacks and threats of violence against our freedom of expression in our own countries.

This is because Islam sees its rules as being something that applies to the entire world, and that overrule "corrupt" western concepts of freedom, individual rights, etc. To Muslims, the countries that are not Muslim are simply countries that have yet to become Muslim.

May 20, we are pushing back. Don't like it? Suck it up. Freedom of expression is NOT negotiable and will not be sacrificed on the altar of Islamic blasphemy laws.

[Valteron]

I think the May 20 business or what is happening right now (see here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LS6UvvLHoU) on Youtube is ultimately doing a favour to Muslims in the West.

BTW, YouTube is banned, like so many other internet sites that displease Allah, in Muslim countries, so the Muslims in Islamic countries will probably never see these videos. But I digress.

The basic message of May 20 to Muslims in the west is that they have to learn to suck it up and grin and bear it, just as every other religious opinion group (including atheists) has to do if we are to live in a country with free speech and freedom of religion. They must understand that Muslims are allowed to practise and preach their religion in the west NOT because it is God's truth revealed but because in the yes of the state it is no better and no worse, no more or less ridiculous than any other belief system.

Those that can learn to accept this (not like it, accept it) are on the way to understanding our western values in our western countries that they have chosen to live in, and will probably become good citizens.

Those who cannot accept this are well advised to move to a Muslim country, where human rights take a back seat to the demands of Allah and his Prophet. Otherwise, they could end up convicted of assault or murder, sitting in a jail cell and wondering what kind of Satanic state would imprison a good Muslim for killing someone who blasphemed against God's truth and God's Apostle, Mohammed.

[Starving Artist]

Has an example, consider re-reading Starving Artist's (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440) thread. During which is is relentlessly mocked and humiliated. The result: dug in heals, further denial, a sense that everyone is out to get him because he is right.Uh, that would be "heels".

I am right, and all of you are wrong...BWAHAHAHA!

which is why I am mocking your beliefs. Mockage carries more weight if the self-appointed mocker has at least minimal spelling ability. How many times is it now that I've either had to correct your spelling or tell you not to take it seriously when people say things like "rocket surgery"?

Fool.

And with that said, I don't have time to deal with this any more, I have to go listen to Elton John while mowing my lawn. You'd be a better man if you did. :)

Having a day when you give the middle finger to Muslims simply results in them giving the finger back. It isn't about giving the middle finger to Muslims. It's that the best solution to the "We will will kill you if you disobey us, infidel" problem is simply to create so many targets that not even an infinitismal percentage of them can be attacked. Think of a locust-beset farmer in the midst of a cloud of locusts, helplessly flailing away with a fly-swatter as millions of them descend upon his fields.

You know, it's all well and good to repect the beliefs and culture of other people, but when they start to move into your culture and then threaten you with violence if you don't live by their codes and standards, it's time to take a stand.

[Revenant Threshold]

May 20, we are pushing back. Don't like it? Suck it up. Cause: Percieved insults to Islam.
Result: Death threats.

Cause: Actual insults to Islam. Advice to "Suck it up".
Result: Happy realization of wrongs. All men become one brotherhood of friends.


Valteron, seriously; I put it to you that your efforts will not result in what you think they will. I put it to you that they will make the situation worse. Hell, look at the reverse situation; for a Muslim incredibly insensed with the situation, the response is to send a death threat. They're just pushing back, they just want you to suck it up. They're sure you'll learn your lesson. What was your response to argument via aggression? Did you come round to their way of thinking? Did the news of a death threat make you think, "Well, clearly this rational person has the right of it. I shall consider his views carefully"?

Or perhaps did it annoy you enough to want to push back yourself? Really, look at your own response. It won't work. I'm not comparing you in tone or level of agression - certainly insults are better than a death threat - but the idea is the same. People's responses to aggressive arguments are defensiveness. Your response to aggressive arguments has been defensiveness. What on Earth makes you think that people's reponse to aggressive arguments will be "Hey, you know what, you're right. Silly me".

[Magiver]

In this instance, the ''stick'' is having a bunch of people draw Mohammed en masse to show a tiny minority of violence-inclined religious folk that they're wrong to try to curb free speech. That's far more than any negative mention of Islam. It's like if, instead of some weird modern artist doing Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ), a significant percentage of the entire U.S. population set up Piss Christ exhibits outside their homes. Not only is it juvenile and mean-spirited, it affects the image of this country as a whole. If Piss Christ invoked fatwas like the Danish cartoons did then I would support everybody doing exactly what you suggest. This isn't just about South Park, this is about being able to say anything about the religion of Islam without fear.

[billfish678]

I guess those black people getting all uppity in the 60s and pissing off all the white people was a bad idea too.

[Valteron]

A number of posters have tried to convince us that Revolution Muslim is just the equivalent of a childish prank by one "kid". If you would like the truth about this group, see this report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZbtgjx9xE0&feature=related) by Anderson Cooper on CNN.

[Magiver]

Right, so what you're going to do is act like the assholes that the world has branded you as. Yet despite being mocked relentlessly about being assholes, you have get to "get it." Instead, you're setting out to act like assholes.

The actions you're about to undertake have as yet failed on YOU. Yet here you are, expecting it to work on someone else.

stones, glass houses, don't do it.

Spend May 20th watching Team American World Police instead. Consider it a day of quiet introspection. Lead by example, and ask Muslims to join you, as you look inward at your own flaws, laugh, and then change. We are not the assholes. People who make fatwas or follow them are the assholes. The religion of Islam is flawed in this respect and will never be a religion of peace as long as this Klu Klux Klan mentality exists. I don't expect them to change any more than I expected a Klan member to change. It's the youth of the world who will challenge this philosophy and they need to see someone taking a stand.

[Revenant Threshold]

I guess those black people getting all uppity in the 60s and pissing off all the white people was a bad idea too. There's a difference between making a stand for what is right and making a stand by what is right by insulting your opponent.

I am all for making a stand. It can be noble and just to take action to redress a wrong. I am entirely against making a counter-productive stand. That's not noble or just, it's just stupid.

[Revenant Threshold]

We are not the assholes. I would say, if you'll pardon the need to quote, you're both assholes. They are more assholish by far, most definetly. But this is not a case of "they are wrong - so we are the white-hatted good guys, all we do is correct". It is possible to both oppose a great wrong and yet be a bad person in doing so. And, perhaps more to the point, it is possible to oppose a great wrong and yet not be assholish at all.

[Shmendrik]

The US censors the image of a woman's breasts in television and print media, Europeans do not. Imagine a protest involving a bunch of half naked Europeans marching around schoolyards with pictures of naked women, telling you to "get over it."


I'm imagining it, and I'm imagining no one giving a crap.

[Magiver]

A number of posters have tried to convince us that Revolution Muslim is just the equivalent of a childish prank by one "kid". If you would like the truth about this group, see this report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZbtgjx9xE0&feature=related) by Anderson Cooper on CNN.The religion of peace as seen through the eyes of the group in question:

About 9/11 "I don't think it was wrong, I think it was justified"

"We are commanded to terrorize non-believers."

[Valteron]

I am entirely against making a counter-productive stand. That's not noble or just, it's just stupid.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali , the author of Infidel, is a brave woman who lives under guard because she has renounced Islam and criticised it.

See the CNN report with her interview in it, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZbtgjx9xE0&feature=related)

Ali is in the second half of the report. She basically says what we have been saying in this thread, about multiplying the targets until it becomes impossible for the Islamofascists to deal with them all. Also, don't miss the part in which the so-called "kid" speaking for Revolution Muslim.Com says it is the duty of Muslims to terrorize. Watch that report and tell me that the web site "warning" was just a crazy stunt by a crazy kid.

[Marley23]

I'm imagining it, and I'm imagining no one giving a crap.
I don't know if nobody would give a crap, but I think emacknight is wrong about the reaction. Coincidentally... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=560756)

[Magiver]

I would say, if you'll pardon the need to quote, you're both assholes. They are more assholish by far, most definetly. But this is not a case of "they are wrong - so we are the white-hatted good guys, all we do is correct". It is possible to both oppose a great wrong and yet be a bad person in doing so. And, perhaps more to the point, it is possible to oppose a great wrong and yet not be assholish at all. Mohammed wasn't even portrayed in the cartoon so there is no way it can be protested without causing insult. The reaction to the cartoon means that criticism of Islam is completely off the table. So yes, it needs to be done this way to make a point.

[Yeticus Rex]

Ya know....protests are not usually my thing. I think I'll make an exception this time. Problem is, I can't draw for shit. Reckon I could do a stick figure and name it Mohammed? Maybe something featuring him getting cornholed by and/or fellating pigs?

Make a copy of this (http://www.zigzag.com/) and trace it.

Then other objects could be used as props for the mouth.

[Merijeek]

There's a difference between making a stand for what is right and making a stand by what is right by insulting your opponent.

I am all for making a stand. It can be noble and just to take action to redress a wrong. I am entirely against making a counter-productive stand. That's not noble or just, it's just stupid.

Like getting all noisy in restaurants, blocking traffic with big marches, and by sitting in front of the bus.

You think lots of white folks (those who expected Them to Know Their Place) weren't offended? Weren't insulted?

-Joe

[Really Not All That Bright]

Mohammed wasn't even portrayed in the cartoon so there is no way it can be protested without causing insult. The reaction to the cartoon means that criticism of Islam is completely off the table. So yes, it needs to be done this way to make a point.
Quite apart from anything else, this is ridiculous. Since when does somebody have to be depicted to be criticized? Did Swift and Voltaire illustrate their works?

[emacknight]

It isn't about giving the middle finger to Muslims. It's that the best solution to the "We will will kill you if you disobey us, infidel" problem is simply to create so many targets that not even an infinitismal percentage of them can be attacked. Think of a locust-beset farmer in the midst of a cloud of locusts, helplessly flailing away with a fly-swatter as millions of them descend upon his fields.

HAHA You have an extra "will" in there, so you lose. "we will will will will will

And it's infinitesimal genius, unless you think we're talking about calculus. You spelled something wrong, so private health care sucks. GO UHC!!!111one.

It is also a failure in logic to assume that by creating more targets they'll be overwhelmed and give up. You've created so many targets that they don't have to go the Netherlands to make their point. An infinitismal percentage of infinity is still greater than zero.

There are now more targets, which means are now more examples of why America is the Great Satan.

Fuck you're stupid. You think finding a spelling mistake makes you smart? What happens when someone misspells Muhammad on one of their drawings? Is the whole cause lost?

ETA I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS!

[StusBlues]

HAHA You have an extra "will" in there, so you lose. "we will will will will will

And it's infinitesimal genius, unless you think we're talking about calculus. You spelled something wrong, so private health care sucks. GO UHC!!!111one.

It is also a failure in logic to assume that by creating more targets they'll be overwhelmed and give up. You've created so many targets that they don't have to go the Netherlands to make their point. An infinitismal percentage of infinity is still greater than zero.

There are now more targets, which means are now more examples of why America is the Great Satan.

Fuck you're stupid. You think finding a spelling mistake makes you smart? What happens when someone misspells Muhammad on one of their drawings? Is the whole cause lost?

ETA I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS!

Jesus, what is your goddamn problem?

[emacknight]

We are not the assholes. People who make fatwas or follow them are the assholes. The religion of Islam is flawed in this respect and will never be a religion of peace as long as this Klu Klux Klan mentality exists. I don't expect them to change any more than I expected a Klan member to change. It's the youth of the world who will challenge this philosophy and they need to see someone taking a stand.

It's interesting that you mention the KKK. In one of his books (maybe Tipping point) Malcolm Gladwell talks about the destruction of the Klan. To paraphrase: Some how a guy got a hold of the Klan's code book. This guy incorporated the code words into a radio broadcast of Superman, in which superman was battling the Klan.

One of the Klan leaders game home one day to find his kid playing "superman" yelling the codewords to his friends, and laughing at how stupid they were. Seeing his kid make fun of his organization was enough to cause it to fall apart.

I never meant to suggest that you shouldn't find for your right to free speech, or that violent threats against speech are acceptable. I'm trying to shed some light on a situation, in the hopes of producing a better result.

Satirists have been working at this for centuries. This is hardly the first time criticism of someone in power has been suppressed with violence. It wasn't that long ago that Christians were dealing with the same problem, hence the French expression sacrebleu.

The trick is to think a little (perhaps an infinitismal amount), and come up with a workaround system. South Park made their point perfectly and never had to show Mohammad.

[emacknight]

Jesus, what is your goddamn problem?

Inside joke. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440)

Sometimes the person mocked fails to respond in the way you hope.

[emacknight]

Mohammed wasn't even portrayed in the cartoon so there is no way it can be protested without causing insult. The reaction to the cartoon means that criticism of Islam is completely off the table. So yes, it needs to be done this way to make a point.

Has there actually been a reaction to the cartoon other than this kid? As far as I can tell he reacted BEFORE it was even aired, by issuing his warning not to show Mohammed.

[Starving Artist]

HAHA You have an extra "will" in there, so you lose. "we will will will will will

And it's infinitesimal genius, unless you think we're talking about calculus. You spelled something wrong, so private health care sucks. GO UHC!!!111one.

It is also a failure in logic to assume that by creating more targets they'll be overwhelmed and give up. You've created so many targets that they don't have to go the Netherlands to make their point. An infinitismal percentage of infinity is still greater than zero.

There are now more targets, which means are now more examples of why America is the Great Satan.

Fuck you're stupid. You think finding a spelling mistake makes you smart? What happens when someone misspells Muhammad on one of their drawings? Is the whole cause lost?

ETA I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS!Well, ya know, when you're right, you're right. I was posting in a hurry, about to leave the house, and fudged up the editing on "will" and the spelling on infinitesimal. So I have little choice but to own it.

Still, I know the difference between "breaks" and "brakes" and "heals" and "heels". Plus I never took anyone seriously when they used the term "rocket surgery" either.

And I know better than you do about what should be done to contain the Muslim threat to Western rights, freedoms and way of life. (And how come you guys go ballistic over every little thing Christian but defend to the death Muslim rights to mistreat women and kill people who write and draw things they don't like?)

So, all things considered it's better to be me. :)

[Revenant Threshold]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali , the author of Infidel, is a brave woman who lives under guard because she has renounced Islam and criticised it.

See the CNN report with her interview in it, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZbtgjx9xE0&feature=related)

Ali is in the second half of the report. She basically says what we have been saying in this thread, about multiplying the targets until it becomes impossible for the Islamofascists to deal with them all. Also, don't miss the part in which the so-called "kid" speaking for Revolution Muslim.Com says it is the duty of Muslims to terrorize. Watch that report and tell me that the web site "warning" was just a crazy stunt by a crazy kid. While I mean no offense to the woman in question, I disagree with her. I don't recall making the claim you're trying to refute in the second part; I think that must have been someone else. Mohammed wasn't even portrayed in the cartoon so there is no way it can be protested without causing insult. The reaction to the cartoon means that criticism of Islam is completely off the table. So yes, it needs to be done this way to make a point. For one, I think that's illogical. So far as I can tell, quite a few people believe that Mohammed was portrayed in the cartoon - reality may well be different from what people believe. Neither does it mean, even if that were so, that criticism of Islam is completely off the table, unless it is your contention that within that cartoon every method of possible criticism was contained. And beyond even that, the inability, if it is so, to criticise Islam without affront doesn't mean that there are degress of insult, or that you could not make the point without criticising Islam overtly. Like getting all noisy in restaurants, blocking traffic with big marches, and by sitting in front of the bus.

You think lots of white folks (those who expected Them to Know Their Place) weren't offended? Weren't insulted? Oh, I would imagine lots of white folks were offended, and insulted. But that was as a secondary matter, not as the outright goal. Rosa Parks didn't sit in front of the bus, start swearing profusely at all in sight and punch those who tried to remove her. Those marchers weren't all carrying signs with the most insulting phrases they could possible think of on them. There is a difference between incidental insult and deliberate insult; between accepting that insult will be taken, and actively setting out to be as unpleasant as possible; between making a point which happens to insult, and making a point by insulting.

[Revenant Threshold]

And I know better than you do about what should be done to contain the Muslim threat to Western rights, freedoms and way of life. (And how come you guys go ballistic over every little thing Christian but defend to the death Muslim rights to mistreat women and kill people who write and draw things they don't like?) Could you name "you guys"? I'm not sure whether i'm being stealthily included. :)

[Starving Artist]

Sorry, no list. It would run much too long. But I can say that I didn't necessarily have you in mind when I made the comment. :)

[Revenant Threshold]

Sorry, no list. It would run much too long. But I can say that I didn't necessarily have you in mind when I made the comment. :) Then you're not necessarily wrong.;)

[Merijeek]

Oh, I would imagine lots of white folks were offended, and insulted. But that was as a secondary matter, not as the outright goal. Rosa Parks didn't sit in front of the bus, start swearing profusely at all in sight and punch those who tried to remove her. Those marchers weren't all carrying signs with the most insulting phrases they could possible think of on them. There is a difference between incidental insult and deliberate insult; between accepting that insult will be taken, and actively setting out to be as unpleasant as possible; between making a point which happens to insult, and making a point by insulting.

Parse it how you like, doesn't make it true.

Go ask a white housewife back in the 1960's, and I doubt she'd see it that way. Why can't everyone be happy with their place? Why can't people just accept that death is a legitimate consequence of criticism of Islam?

-Joe

[Revenant Threshold]

Parse it how you like, doesn't make it true. Are you saying that Rosa Parks et al were deliberately setting out to offend? That the intent of their protests was to be extremely insulting? Consider me suprised. Go ask a white housewife back in the 1960's, and I doubt she'd see it that way. Quite possibly not. However, I would imagine that setting out to insult and offend would garner even more reactions of "not seeing it that way". Why can't everyone be happy with their place? Why can't people just accept that death is a legitimate consequence of criticism of Islam? Given that I have said several times that I support the notion of standing up in some non-counter-productive way, and that death most certainly is not a legitimate consequence of criticism of Islam, i'd like you to retract that, please. It's quite a powerful charge to say that I am a-ok with murder, and if you want to make it, I'd like to see your evidence.

[StusBlues]

Inside joke. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559440)

Sometimes the person mocked fails to respond in the way you hope.

Understood.

I still have Muhammad's portrait as my wallpaper.

ETA: And shit.