afternoon delight
Member
Really needs to be on every page. Edit: Aaaaand in doing so it's at the top of a new one. :lol
May 20 - Draw Mohammed Day
- Thread starter Roi
- Start date
- Status
Really needs to be on every page. Edit: Aaaaand in doing so it's at the top of a new one. :lol
Count Dookkake
Member
Jexhius said:
"She was asking for it."
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
behead these infidels!?Kozak said:
It helps us get ideas though!
blame space
Banned
fuck yeahOrin GA said:
This is ridiculous. One is respecting someone's religious beliefs that harm no one in their demands. The reaction from some of them if extreme, but the request is not. It's about respect. The other is denying two people the ability to be together. It is racist and bigoted.
I'm all for drawing mohammed, but the analogy is not a good one.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
hokahey said:
I don't understand your argument. Our 1968 anti-Trekkie Mississippian is not denying Kirk and Uhura the ability to be together. They are fictional characters. He is saying that portraying the act of interracial love is deeply offensive to his culture for reasons you may not fully comprehend but should nevertheless respect or some shit may go down. I am not convinced there is a difference.
Count Dookkake
Member
Shanadeus said:
So? We can have that argument in that thread.
Jexhius said:
Yes, I was correct all along. Thank you for understanding your mistake.
Quote:
Chichikov, re: segregation. I think the more apt comparison would be the famous interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura on Star Trek circa 1967. No doubt this infuriated segregationists and almost certainly caused death threats to NBC. If NBC had decided not to air it out of fear and artists vowed to create images of interracial romance in protest, how would you react? Would you tell them not to do it because it will piss off all the racists in Mississippi and make things worse? I look forward to the argument that convinces me there is a substantial difference.
Further post by Guileless:
I don't understand your argument. Our 1968 anti-Trekkie Mississippian is not denying Kirk and Uhura the ability to be together. They are fictional characters. He is saying that portraying the act of interracial love is deeply offensive to his culture for reasons you may not fully comprehend but should nevertheless respect or some shit may go down. I am not convinced there is a difference.
Don't you think this is discriminating indiscriminantly though? This may be a stand against death threats but its going about it in a way that will offend what seems like the large part of the Muslim world who aren't sending death threats.
or are you saying it's spot on because it's the muslims we're offending. Likening all Muslims to Bigots/racists etc? Either way we'll have to agree to disagree.
Chichikov, re: segregation. I think the more apt comparison would be the famous interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura on Star Trek circa 1967. No doubt this infuriated segregationists and almost certainly caused death threats to NBC. If NBC had decided not to air it out of fear and artists vowed to create images of interracial romance in protest, how would you react? Would you tell them not to do it because it will piss off all the racists in Mississippi and make things worse? I look forward to the argument that convinces me there is a substantial difference.
Further post by Guileless:
I don't understand your argument. Our 1968 anti-Trekkie Mississippian is not denying Kirk and Uhura the ability to be together. They are fictional characters. He is saying that portraying the act of interracial love is deeply offensive to his culture for reasons you may not fully comprehend but should nevertheless respect or some shit may go down. I am not convinced there is a difference.
The logic is off here in my opinion.Cyan said:
Don't you think this is discriminating indiscriminantly though? This may be a stand against death threats but its going about it in a way that will offend what seems like the large part of the Muslim world who aren't sending death threats.
or are you saying it's spot on because it's the muslims we're offending. Likening all Muslims to Bigots/racists etc? Either way we'll have to agree to disagree.
PistolGrip
sex vacation in Guam
South Park thing was April 20... and some cartoonist came up with the idea to do it the next month as a joke but it caught fire.Scarecrow said:
I... don't know what this means.Ashes1396 said:
It's an analogy. If the two things being compared were identical, it would no longer be an analogy.
The gist of the analogy is not to say all Muslims are racists (that's kind of a non sequitur), but to point out that people are making similar blame-the-victim arguments. It's a reductio ad absurdum--nobody would blame the victim in the interracial kiss situation, because it's obviously a ridiculous thing to do. Nobody likes racism. Point is, there's no reason the Mohammed-drawing case should be different just because you agree with the sentiments of the death threat senders (even if not their methods).
Never!
Cyan said:
Wow. You went there huh.
In fairness, you probably mean't 'you' in the plural sense.
The point is certain things cause offense. The analogy was disproportionate to the argument in question. e.g. of a disproportionate analogy: Are you, cyan, saying you would support public support for a KKK advertising campaign for a banned 'lynch a n**ger' comdedy show. Going so far as to say lets have a day where everybody paints a picture of the action in question. We cannot have the government curtailing our freedom of expression.
Ashes1396 said:
It causes offense. So what?
The point is we have the right to draw these cartoons. We would have the right, if we wanted to, to draw that thing you made up. Black people aren't sending death threats over the MOUNTAINS of stuff that is genuinely racist or harmful.
Drawing a cartoon?
Not harmful.
Off topic but this is a video about new media in the muslim world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCVvmDw57k&playnext_from=TL&videos=mQUEPplYqtM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCVvmDw57k&playnext_from=TL&videos=mQUEPplYqtM
Just because that false analogy has being raised for like the 100 times in this thread I'd like to address it (I'll use Nazis instead of KKK because this is the more common analogy, but there is really no difference between the two vis-a-vis this discussion).Ashes1396 said:
The problem with a Nazi propaganda or someone bearing a swastika is not the symbols themselves, it's the perceived ideas behind them, it's that this theoretical person is a racist, and racism is not, and should not be tolerated.
Think about it for just a minute, it's not like Nazi symbols hadn't appeared in countless movies, TV shows or video games; no one complained about Band of Brothers, Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Marathon Man; that whole argument is just silly.
And to just tie it back to the KKK, go watch Blazing Saddles again, it has both the KKK and the phrase "lynch the nigger" in it, so there.
Ashes1396 said:
Everybody has a right to a right to feel offended by imagery, they do not have a fundamental right to make sure that offense doesn't exist.
If anything, if people weren't so spineless and stupid they could excercise their innate right not to view such images, and not to visit clearly demarked locations of such imagery. At the same time, they should learn how to tolerate actions contrary to or in direct opposition of their belief systems using reasonable and thought intensive measures.
It is the infantalism of the believers that has resulted in a day for Mohammad and not Ganesh or Thor.
Ashes1396 said:
The outrage in and of itself makes absolutely no sense, considering the rules of not drawing of Mohammed is something that pertains specifically to people of the muslism faith. It doesn't apply to someone who isn't muslim, but yet they still complain by imposing the rules that are within their religion on non-muslims.
It would be like a Hindu person being outraged that a non-hindu is consuming beef and pork. It doesn't make any sense.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
onemic said:
It's a strange about way of things. In the end, the censoring of people who aren't Muslim is offensive to people unto itself because it challenges liberties.
Sorry, I worded that poorly. Wasn't intending to refer to you, Ashes.Ashes1396 said:
Well, I wouldn't support a government ban on the KKK. And there isn't one; they still have occasional protests where maybe 5 people show up in white hoods to whine about how unfair this multicultural society is on dumb white people.
Deku said:
For the record, I'd agree with both posts for the most part. But it still stands to reason that it is a day earmarked it seems to take pot shots at Muslims. I'm not saying we should advocate a bill of rights to protect the feelings of Muslims; just suprised at the level of support and eagerness for such a day.onemic said:
I'd rather support a conference between the two parts to debate the matter.
edit:
SnakeXs said:
Okay...?
Ashes1396 said:
how is it taking pot shots when you somehow agree 'for the most part' what was said?
The standard for offense set by these muslims are too low for most in the west to tolerate, and the assumption of offending 'all' muslims seems a bit far fetched and is probably more of a gateway to your own bias than any number of posts you can make.
Monocle
Member
It doesn't stand to reason just because you say so. For me the situation boils down to this: people have been threatened with injury and death for drawing cartoons by a group determined to impose its archaic values on the rest of the world. As a free person who has some regard for humanistic principles, it is my right, duty and pleasure to defend free expression whenever I can, and Draw Muhammad Day is an opportunity to do just that without violating any of my own values.Ashes1396 said:
What's so hard to understand here? How many times will the same tiresome argument about "offense" be repeated by people like you before it penetrates that for many of us who plan to participate, the offense to Muslims is incidental in the same manner that teaching evolution in schools is incidentally offensive to Christian fundamentalists?
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Ashes1396 said:
it's not an 'offend muslims day', it's a 'defend freedom of speech day'. people arnt doing this because they know it offends muslims, theyre doing it because it's a muslim law (or so ive heard) that people who depict mohammed be punished with death. they're saying that a law like that shouldnt exist in global society.
i guess in my opinion though, we should just concede the right to depict mohammed. the big issue is that people feel that if we do that something else will be next, but my opinion has always been to not worry about it until it becomes a problem. i think 99.9% of us can get through our day fine without drawing mohammed. if a new muslim law comes up banning the depiction of... let's say... cows, then i'll join in with 'draw a cow day'
Deku said:
You obviously haven't read some of the stories I've written. Dear god help me!Let met put the word/record straight then. I'm sensitive to a number of people who are offended by this and if this is unacceptable to you, that's fine. I'm saying there are better ways to engage with this.
ps. You will probably see me in the MDM thread.
edit:I still don't get it. I've read your post several times now. I just reuploaded that jpg to another host and named it as such. It's the jpg that I use for my avatar on gaf... :/
Ashes1396 said:
Let met put the word record straight then. I'm sensitive to a number of people who are offended by this and if this is unacceptable to you, that's fine. I'm saying there are better ways to engage with this.
ps. You will probably see me in the MDM thread.
edit:I still don't get it. I've read your post several times now. I just reuploaded that jpg to another host and named it as such. It's the jpg that I use for my avatar on gaf... :/
No I'm not familiar with your stories and immediately regretted making my post. Care linking to some?
But why I'm flaming you is that I just find it objectionable that you keep saying 'all muslims' will be offended by this event. I'm sure a fair bunch of Muslims in the 3rd world would be fired up irregardless of what 'we' do, other than complete capitulation, which is what we DON'T want in this case. Just as a fiery protestant evangelical can twist the news of the day and send out his flock to vote for tea party candidates.
It's how organized religion works, but it is a bit much to say 'all' muslims will be offended -- I don't view it as a valid criticism against what is really a day set aside to defend the right to draw whatever we want and as a rejection of Islamic idiocracy.
- Status