I will check it out, thanks! My question was meant in total seriousness. I couldn’t think of a depiction that I might find offensive, which I would guess is a byproduct of white privilege.
Look up World War propaganda. Plenty to see there. On all sides, both wars.
That seems an uphill battle to me.
The N-word was used historically to dehumanize a part of our citizenry, as part of organized and officially sanctioned campaigns of terrorism and violence.
The holocaust was… well the holocaust. Millions killed by the hatred and evil of fascism.
Pictures of Muhammed are just that. They have not been used as part of a campaign of hatred and oppression or genocide. The only offense that they have is if you take literally a particular interpretation of a specific religion. It is offensive only because they have chosen to take offense to it, not because it was used by those who were causing them real harm.
But would you copy the Charlie Hebdo cartoon onto a large lawn sign and display it prominently on your front lawn for a year or so ?
That really isn’t a question that I asked …
I asked how far out on a limb you would put yourself in the name of free speech, if it actually put your life in danger.
Your question is irrelevant. It’s like asking a woman what clothing she should be able to leave her house in.
I guess the newspaper cartoonists and the teacher aren’t letting fear govern their lives as much as you are. Why you think this reflects poorly on them is the real mystery.
“Slurs” are just words. That anyone takes “offense” is all on them.
So glad you’re back. Do you have the cite that I asked for with regards to people making rationalizations of Roof’s actions based on homophobic sermons alleged to have taken place in EAMEC?
Really believe that? Why not take a minute to reflect on some slurs that people have justifiably found offensive.
The nuance of this discussion is not whether people can feel offended. It’s what can they justifiably do about it.
It’s far more analogous to asking a woman what clothing she would feel safe or comfortable leaving the house in in a particular set of potentially dangerous circumstances, since we are talking about probably provoking a known threat (the cartoons vis-a-vis Islam).
Particularly in the middle of an academic discussion about what she "should* be able to wear.
Again: sometimes it’s different when the risk is real and inures to you.
And that’s the difference that the pro-censorship side usually refuses to admit.
There is nothing more “racist” or “offensive” or in any way about the cartoons as compared to any other cartoons.
There is nothing more wrong or less serving of legitimate ends of satire, political discussion, or exercising free speech for its own sake about cartoons of Mohammad as opposed to cartoons of Jesus, or cartoons of rabbis, or cartoons exaggerating Donald Trump’s obesity or Nancy Pelosi’s plastic surgery.
The notion that there is something about the cartoons themselves that requires abandoning freedom is unsupportable, because it’s not what the pro-censorship side believes.
The difference is that political Islam will kill you for drawing a cartoon and other ideologies won’t. Your whole argument is based on that crucial distinction. So the question is - should civilized humans let their rights and actions be governed by fear of violence from pre-modern ideologies, or not?
Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, women, etc. need to learn their place and stop being so uppity.
Okay. Bye, Felicia.
Right, and when discussing issues such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion we discuss it in the context of how society should behave. We don’t say to women that they need to wear a burka to prevent rape do we? Now, you realize in some areas of the world immodesty is punishable. Now what is and what should be or two very obviously different things.
Ideally, people should have freedom of expression without needing to fear knife or bike lock wielders. What I am comfortable risking and where or when to prove a point is completely irrelevant.
No argument here. I think getting offended by that imagery is ridiculous. But, IF they can convince the populace that it’s terrible, then there will be non-violent consequences for those who cross that line, such as loss of readership, etc.
Moderating
This is a warning for trolling. Do not post again in this thread.
Ahh, ‘immodesty’, do America’s laws about women going topless count here?
I think those laws are silly and sexist. And?
I can’t really remember the last time white Christians went out in broad daylight murdering people for their speech. Also, I can’t remember the last time a white Christian did something despicalbe in the name of Jesus/Mary and wasn’t widely condemned.
Leslie Stahl received death threats merely for asking fairly basic questions of the President. There is a sliding scale of “provocation” from non-existent to gross, but even at the lowest end some people will invent provocation to take umbrage at. Some people will get violently angry at even imagined provocations, particularly when raised on an ideological background of fear and hatred.
Yes, I agree - intimidation by the state or by violent mob - or by violent mobs stirred up by the state - is fundamentally destructive to a free society.
I don’t think that delineation is as clear as you assume.
Something they have literally debated in France, BTW.