One at a time perhaps. As it happens I’ve just been into town to have a tooth re-filled. The dentist would take a dim view of me tapping away while he does the deed.
But I did consider your point during my walk, it is worth an answer. You said.
None, apart this one on my forearm where I had a tattoo removed, USS Indianapolis. There’s a cool naval story behind it.
I didn’t realise there was an entry requirement in order to argue for and against principles. This will come as a huge shock to activists, protestors and advocates everyone. That their opinions are invalidated for want of an injury seems harsh.
None of the points are enhanced by my prefacing it with “as a…” and that’s on purpose. I think people should always give consideration to moral and ethical issues even before they are personally affected.
So I’m lucky and well aware of it. I’m also well aware of thousands of people, just like me, who were not so lucky and cannot now show you their scars because the relevant bits of their bodies have been blown to smithereens.
So I speak up in defence of the sort of society that I want to see. One that doesn’t pander to the terrorists and extremists and in doing so lays the groundwork for further acts. It is a society which doesn’t take account of my own personal tastes, likes and dislikes or areas of offence because if it did it’d be unmanageable.
Then your standard is unenforceable and doomed to unfairness. Either it is based on your personal judgement (which I do not trust) or based on the feelings of the target group which leaves you having to swallow whatever line they draw and does indeed lead you to a point of special protection.
Remember, the critical cartoons do not need to be in any way racist in order to provoke a murderous degree of offence.
Is a cartoon of Jesus stopping people at the border to point out Christian hypocrisy gonna change any minds? I doubt it; doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be drawn (and in fact has been)
So you consider the specific linked cartoon offensive?
What exactly is offensive about it?
Because its about as neutral a depiction of Muhammed as you can get. I thought you were only against racist cartoons, and stated that Muhammed in and of himself is not evidence of racism. Was I mistaken?
So if Muhammed wasn’t there you’d want that artist and the paper that published him stripped of their license because of the offensive portrayal of Jesus and Buddha, no Muhammed needed?
Did you not read the question?
Do you think grotesque cartoons are sufficient to critique the views and policies of political leaders with the claimed intention of changing the ‘hearts and minds’ of those that hold them?
The cartoon may be not targeting muslims directly. It would be perfectly valid for it to speak to the wider world. To draw attention to the many horrific human rights abuses committed in the name of the religion. To raise awareness. For myriad reasons that are not just “to piss off muslims”.
That pissing-off may be an unavoidable by-product of the cartoon and so be it. No group has a right to remain unoffended or request that their beliefs and practices remain uncriticised.
This unhappily leaves us in the difficult position of having to support the right of dickish people to say dickish things but support that right we must because if all we ever do is offer support to those we agree with then we don’t actually support that right at all.
I take it you are happy enough to piss off the political supporters of those leaders you don’t agree with?
Is it ever possible to draw a caricature of Mohammed that made it clear it was a 6th century middle-eastern trader and warlord and yet was not racist in your eyes?
No rational person would WANT to, unless they also wanted to wipe out every practitioner of Islam on the planet. I think MrDibble made his stance VERY clear. (/s obviously)
It seems like a large segment of the Muslim population feels satirical (or other) depictions of Muhammad are akin to how black people feel about blackface. So if Muslims are as valid in there grievance as black people, every white person should probably be against such depictions as much as they are against white people wearing darker full face makeup. People go ballistic when a white person even completely harmlessly has slightly darker facial makeup on as part of a costume. Of course, people don’t get killed for blackface (I hope), but it’s an interesting analogy.
