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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
