I agree wholeheartedly.
Well said. And I’m not typically a huge fan of free speech for its own sake. I might have to rethink that though.
Just like “Piss Christ” and *The Last Temptation of Christ *were “fuck yous” to a couple of billion Christians around the world. Strange how we’re supposed to be very, very careful about being respectful to Muslims, but it’s perfectly okay to piss on Christians. There’s a lot of hypocrisy and cowardice in that post.
You’re a hypocritical, chickenshit asshole, too.
I thought this articlewas particularly apropos to this topic, and I agree with it.
The only issue I have with the filmmaker is that he misrepresented what he was doing to his actors and other staff. Other than that, he has every right to make his stupid film (I watched part of it–I’ve seen better filmmaking from teenagers with Super 8 cameras). Maybe if we bombard radical Islam with so many insulting images that they don’t know where to turn, they’ll burn themselves out and settle down for a while.
Mind you, I’m not in favor of insulting anybody’s beliefs. In a perfect world, I’d prefer not to, and I personally don’t plan to start. But hey, the Mormons actually advertise in the Playbill for “Book of Mormon.” As LonesomePolecat pointed out, Christians don’t riot and behead people over “Piss Christ” or “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The radical Muslims need to get over themselves and realize that everybody in the world doesn’t care as much as they do about their religion. You can’t let a bully continue to be a bully.
[ul]
[li]I support the magazine’s right to publish offensive cartoons.[/li][li]I support the right of Muslims to be offended by offensive cartoons.[/li][li]What I don’t fucking support is violence.[/li][/ul]You can be as offended as you want, but once you bring violence and firebombs into the equation, you become A FUCKING MURDERER. Fuck fucking murderers. Why can’t we dispatch some military units to keep the protestors in line? Allow them to protest, don’t allow them to murder people. If their own governments can’t control them (or don’t care enough to try), then we should step the fuck in.
If someone makes a reasonable request, a decent person complies with that request, unless they have a good reason not too. If someone makes a request backed by threads of violence, implied or explicit than it behooves you not only to deny that request but to do the opposite.
If a bully tells you not to wear a red hat, it’s time to wear that red hat, even if you don’t wear hats and dislike red clothing. Complying with bullies is an easy habit to fall into and a difficult one to break. Once you give in on the small things, they start demanding larger things.
It’s like Matt and Trey said, either it’s all OK or none of it is. Once you shield people from the possibility of being offended because you are scared of them, what does that say to the people who get offended but don’t respond with violence. it says they should meet offense with violence, because hey, that totally works. Christians can protest elephant dung Mary and Muslims can protest these asinine cartoons. And I’d be sympathetic to either peaceful protest. But once violence starts my sympathies switch and yours should too.
Yes I realize this post has a bit of internet tough guy flavor in it. realistically I’m not going to do anything different today than I would have done. But I do applaud the magazine for having the guts not to be intimidated and to stand up for the most fundamental right of a free society.
You could be arrested for indecent exposure depending on how much skin you expose in the process of shitting and probably for creating a health hazard with the fecal material and the fire, but other than that our Consitution gives no special protection to the flag. As long as you legally own it, you can do whatever you want to with a flag except use it in commission of crime and plenty of your fellow Americans (myself included) fully support your right to do so.
If you can stand in the street and demand death for people whose opinions you disagree with, then your own opinion means nothing.
Wearing a red hat is a trivial matter with no ethical implications. But if, for example, a mean, hateful bully warned you not to call his sister a fat pimplefaced slut, would you then walk up to his sister and call her a fat pimplefaced slut, just in order to avoid complying with the bully?
I think that ultimately, the most ethical and most effective approach is just to follow your own principles with integrity, irrespective of what bullies are trying to get you to do or not do.
Uh, no. A fire is a dangerous thing. Not only can it kill people through its flames and smoke, but it can kill people in a crowd’s rush to escape from it.
A cartoon doesn’t fall into the same universe. It’s all manufactured outrage. Which is why we can classify those Muslims who feel the need to kill over a cartoon ass ignorant, murderous barbarians.
Sure, just be sure to inhale. I hear that’s the important part.
Yes, just like that, except that neither of those works of art you mentioned were intended as “fuck yous” to Christians. But other than that, you’re spot on.
Oh, also, I never said it was okay to piss on Christians, in that post, or (I’m fairly certain) any other post I’ve ever made on this message board.
But nice try at a tu quoque, you knuckle-dragging racist shit stain.
Actually I’d think Hey, I always thought Bob was an asshole, but good for him for sticking up for his obese sister with the bad skin, whose low self esteem causes her to have so much unhealthy dangerous unfulfilling sex. He’d move up a bit in my estimation.
If God exists at all, he can take a bit of mockery.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s it’s perfectly ok to produce art/satire that gives a big fat, juicy FUCK YOU to any and all religions, countries, creeds.
Anyone killing people as a result is a fucking neanderthal and is deserving of the contempt of all civilized peoples.
So in other words, you wouldn’t commit an act that you thought was wrong just to avoid seeming to “appease” the bully who was telling you not to do it?
Because he wouldn’t be bullying at all. he’d be sticking up for someone weaker than himself, the very opposite of bullying.
Look, neither of our analogies were exactly on point. The thing is, it is very important in a free society that large institutions, ideas, powerful people, etc be open for ridicule, even Juvenile crude ridicule. This includes the Catholic church, the president, Libertarianism, the police, the NFL etc. If some group decides that it’s going to respond to mockery with violence and successfully intimidates people into silence, that’s a really bad thing with implications that go beyond that group and the people it intimidates. It basically means the we don’t have freedom of speech anymore, we have freedom of speech except for group X.
Actually, I believe it was the civilization-bound homo sapiens what killed off the neanderthals. No need to drag them into it, mob violence is what humans do best.
No, I think what’s important is that all such entities be open for all forms of protected speech in general. We shouldn’t feel that we have to use speech that we don’t approve of, any more than we should feel that we should have to avoid speech just because somebody else disapproves of it.
If somebody doesn’t have any objection to, say, indulging in juvenile crude ridicule, then I fully support their right to do so without having their freedom of speech infringed by legal suppression, violence, or threats of violence.
But if somebody does object to juvenile crude ridicule, then I don’t think they should have to participate in it, or say they approve of it, just because some big mean bully also objects to the juvenile crude ridicule.
Automatically doing the opposite of whatever a bully tells you to do is not the most effective stance against bullying, IMO. Consistently following your own principles and standing up for what you believe in is better.
And by the way, this I don’t get. If a big mean bully threatens you with violence if you say something insulting to his sister, how is that not bullying?
I can see how it’s a good thing for anybody, even a bully, to protest against his sister or any other person being insulted. But would a verbal insult justify violence or threats of violence on the part of the bully?
If it’s important for a society to allow the free expression of even juvenile crude ridicule without attempting to suppress it by violence, then how is it “the very opposite of bullying” for a bully to beat someone up because they called his sister a fat pimplefaced slut?