Support NeoGAF

[Monocle]

Fair enough philosophy. I wouldn't say incidental though, I'd say an inherent part of it.

Incidental is the appropriate word because in the context of my post it indicates the absence of spite, which was an important part of my point. Whether or not Draw Muhammad Day is inherently offensive (and indeed whether or not "inherently offensive" is a meaningful concept in the first place) is a separate matter, and irrelevant to the subject at hand.

 

[Yagharek]

fuck empathy, right?

Pretty much anything someone says can be construed as offensive by someone else. If you have an opinion on a subject and talk about it then surely you are doing so in order to cause offense I assume?

Sorry, but freedom of speech is more important than not offending someone over a trivial expression.

 

[Ashes]

@Monocle: I got that part from the argument that was put foward. I was just putting it in my own words.
@Random vince: I see.

 

[RustyNails]

Sorry, but freedom of speech is more important than not offending someone over a trivial expression.

Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire

 

[SnakeXs]

Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire

Yeah that is the last court ruling on the issue, for sure, right?

*rolleyes*

 

[Verano]

so is GAF gonna draw mohammed this thursday?

 

[Yagharek]

WRT Ashes.

It is not one of my talents to be able to convince cultural relativists of the importance of free speech, so I will leave this debate with one last comment.

Religious traditions in islam offend many other people. Traditions such as arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, curfews preventing women travelling alone or unescorted by male relatives, belief in a deity that is yet to be proven to exist and yet laws are enacted in its name ...

All those things offend a good number of people and yet there is no action to try and stop these practices from happening where and however often they occur. What we can assume from that is that no concern is taken for the causing of offense to other people under the guise of cultural relativity.

At the end of the day, every religion has things about it that are extremely backwards and they are not immune from being criticised even if it causes someone to feel offended. So long as there are people manipulating sentiment amongst hardline radical muslims in order to attack, kill and threaten cartoonists (of all people!) then there is an inherent need to 'push back' and make this act of drawing mohammed a more common event and thus less of a big deal in the long run.

Unless of course you want people to take the parallel stance to the 'she asked for it' argument?

 

[dejay]

Meh - too much debate about the sensibilities of those who believe their fairy tails of choice are not to be discussed, drawn or debated by those outside of their faith.

To that end...

Yes I traced it - I can't draw to save my life.

 

[Atrus]

The general impression I'm getting is that people are okay with an entire day set out to offend Muslims.

The ineptitude of those who allow themselves to be offended isn't the problem of everyone else. Perhaps, in the middle of all that genuflecting and prostration to god they should spend some time learning about fortitude, strength of will or even casual indifference to affairs.

 

[Ashes]

...

Fair enough. Live by whatever principle you think fit.

 

[Dude Abides]

Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire

A drawing of Muhammad isn't fighting words.

 

[Burai]

People actually think the purpose of this event is to convince of small extremist factions they're being 'rationally' criticised through freedom of expression, and this will work?

2% of people do.

98% of people are just doing it because everyone else is.

See also: Anonymous vs. Scientology - 2% good cause, 98% holding up signs with lolcats on and playing Rick Astley on a boombox.

 

[jdogmoney]

2% of people do.

98% of people are just doing it because everyone else is.

See also: Anonymous vs. Scientology - 2% good cause, 98% holding up signs with lolcats on and playing Rick Astley on a boombox.

I think your figures are off.

Sure, some are just following along, and some merely wish to be dicks, but as far as I know, everyone who has said they were doing it has stressed that it's for free speech and not offending people.

Yeah, it may offend someone, but that's incidental*.

*Good word choice, I think.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I wonder if Matt and Trey are going to draw something freelance. I mean they are done with South Park till October so I bet they have some free time.

 

[Jex]

Yeah, it may offend someone, but that's incidental*.

*Good word choice, I think.

I mean, it will definitely offend people but you can certainly argue that it's just a consequence of an exercise in free speech.

But, you could equally argue that free speech includes the right to offend, and so say the whole event was aimed to offend people, which you can do because you have the right to free speech.

 

[RiskyChris]

Ashes I haven't read all your posts in this thread but from what I've seen I just wanted to let you know that I feel you. I expect to see a lot of completely ignorant people doing ignorant insensitive things come tomorrow. OTOH there are legitimate concerns about free speech, I just don't think this day does anything to further that goal and will amount to nothing more than FeelsGoods for westerners.

Don't wanna throw too much support your way or I'll torpedo your cred! :lol I'm outta here!

 

[Brashnir]

I mean, it will definitely offend people but you can certainly argue that it's just a consequence of an exercise in free speech.

But, you could equally argue that free speech includes the right to offend, and so say the whole event was aimed to offend people, which you can do because you have the right to free speech.

Free speech not only includes the right to offend, it exists to explicitly protect the right to offend.

It exists because a few men were bright enough to realize that a society where the onus is put on the offended to act in a civilized manner is better than one were it is OK to squelch speech that offends us via violence, threats or censorship.

 

[SmokyDave]

My only worry with regards to tomorrow is that there will be violent reprisals. If that is the case then I don't really see where we'd go from there. We'd be left with the choice of either fighting violence with violence or capitulating and making it clear that muslims can dictate the rules for none muslims.

If there are violent reprisals, it just adds fuel to the fire of those that feel Islam is incompatible with modern democracies. If those violent reprisals achieve their goal then I can see anti-Islamic extremism in our futures.

 

[Pepto]

Sorry, but freedom of speech is more important than not offending someone over a trivial expression.

I don't think not drawing something out of respect has anything to do with free speech...

 

[Brashnir]

I don't think not drawing something out of respect has anything to do with free speech...

You've missed the point completely. I't not about not doing something, it's about making a response to a threat to free speech.

These radical muslims have made death threats in an effort to squelch artist's rights of free speech. Given that the cartoon in question was censored, they were successful.

There are basically 3 possible responses.

1) Acquiesce, and allow yourself to be bullied
2) Respond with threats and/or violence of your own
3) Stand in defiance to the would-be bullies.

This falls into option 3, and if someone happens to get offended along the way, so fucking be it.

 

[Billen]

My only worry with regards to tomorrow is that there will be violent reprisals. If that is the case then I don't really see where we'd go from there. We'd be left with the choice of either fighting violence with violence or capitulating and making it clear that muslims can dictate the rules for none muslims.

If there are violent reprisals, it just adds fuel to the fire of those that feel Islam is incompatible with modern democracies. If those violent reprisals achieve their goal then I can see anti-Islamic extremism in our futures.

Yes, we should refrain from upsetting them. Next thing we could stop talking about islam, then we could have laws that forbid non-muslims looking at a muslim. And then maybe some camps to keep non-muslims in.

Or we treat them like we treat everyone else, that means being able to joke about, ironize over and criticise without fear of revenge.

 

[Pepto]

I't not about not doing something

Isn't it?

 

[Brashnir]

Isn't it?

what? I explained myself.

 

[SmokyDave]

Yes, we should refrain from upsetting them. Next thing we could stop talking about islam, then we could have laws that forbid non-muslims looking at a muslim. And then maybe some camps to keep non-muslims in.

Or we treat them like we treat everyone else, that means being able to joke about, ironize over and criticise without fear of revenge.

Did you actually read the post you quoted?

All of it?

 

[perfectchaos007]

I don't think not drawing something out of respect has anything to do with free speech...

Actually yeah, it does. Being prone to offensive material is all a part of free speech. If you live in a free society with free speech, you're probably going to get offended by someone with different beliefs than you. These certain muslim extremests are saying that no one has the right to offend them. And if you do offend them, then they will threaten or even kill you. They need to be shown that free speech will always win, and no they are not immune to criticism. We are all in the same boat here.

 

[Corky]

Really needs to be on every page. Edit: Aaaaand in doing so it's at the top of a new one. :lol

xD, I loooove how the dane is drawn like a quiet nice looking mellow dude, whereas the muslim has scrubby beard, unibrow and looks like a monster.

Nice, nothing wrong here at all

 

[Dead Man]

xD, I loooove how the dane is drawn like a quiet nice looking mellow dude, whereas the muslim has scrubby beard, unibrow and looks like a monster.

Nice, nothing wrong here at all

I always assumed the point was that he looked like a less stereotyped version of the Jew he was drawing.

 

[Ferga]

I always assumed the point was that he looked like a less stereotyped version of the Jew he was drawing.

Still it can be pretty offensive

 

[SmokyDave]

Still it can be pretty offensive

Sure, if you see it that way.

What is the correct way to deal with that offense?

I'm pretty certain you'll come up with a huge list before you arrive at 'kill the artist'.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire

Do you even understand that case or what the ruling meant?

All it means is that this one particular law in New Hampshire in the eyes of the court at that time did not violate an individual's first and fourteenth amendment rights to free speech. When the Supreme Court upholds a ruling by a lower court in a case such as this, it in no way means that New Hampshire's offensive speech statute is now the law of the land.

That particular law forbids offensive speech being directed at people in public places. Chaplinsky was not arrested and fined because he was denouncing religion, he was arrested and fined because he called the town marshall a fascist and a racketeer to his face in front of a crowd. Very specific insults aimed at a specific person in a public place.

 

[Dead Man]

Still it can be pretty offensive

Yeah. It might be seen that way. And it's okay to be offended, and state that. The artist in this case I believe was simply trying to draw attention to seeming double standard that exist in some arguments about freedom of speech issues in relation to drawing of Muhammed. I would say they were successful.

 

[Chuckie]

I always assumed the point was that he looked like a less stereotyped version of the Jew he was drawing.

No that's not the point. The point is that some muslim governments are rather hypocritical about the issue of cartoons. They are deeply offended by a simple cartoon of Muhammed yet have the most raunchy antisemetic cartoons in their own newspapers.

edit: On second thought, that might be an 'extra point'.

 

[Dead Man]

No that's not the point. The point is that some muslim governments are rather hypocritical about the issue of cartoons. They are deeply offended by a simple cartoon of Muhammed yet have the most raunchy antisemetic cartoons in their own newspapers.

edit: On second thought, that might be an 'extra point'.

Yeah, I get the first point, I just always thought there was a secondary point about all being 'semitic' people. But maybe I am just covering up some stereotyping. I don't even know any more!

 

[jdogmoney]

xD, I loooove how the dane is drawn like a quiet nice looking mellow dude, whereas the muslim has scrubby beard, unibrow and looks like a monster.

Nice, nothing wrong here at all

...joke post?

 

[Joel Was Right]

No one condones the violence least of all understands it. But if we are to define these people who are violent as immature and volatile, then why knowingly provoke them when the result is almost assured? Doesn't that in itself reek of immaturity? I don't see how a group like that can be forced to accept it by consistently drawing these images, especially when they are fuelled by the misconception that Westerners are drawing these images only to upset them

 

[Dead Man]

No one condones the violence least of all understands it. But if we are to define these people who are violent as immature and volatile, then why knowingly provoke them when the result is almost assured? Doesn't that in itself reek of immaturity? I don't see how a group like that can be forced to accept it by consistently drawing these images, especially when they are fuelled by the misconception that Westerners are drawing these images only to upset them

As has been said already many times in this thread, the point is not to provoke them, but to show defiance in the face of threats.

Spoiler

That might be a bit melodramatic, but it sums my thoughts pretty well.

 

[SmokyDave]

No one condones the violence least of all understands it. But if we are to define these people who are violent as immature and volatile, then why knowingly provoke them when the result is almost assured? Doesn't that in itself reek of immaturity? I don't see how a group like that can be forced to accept it by consistently drawing these images, especially when they are fuelled by the misconception that Westerners are drawing these images only to upset them

Great idea. I can't think of any negative long term ramifications of capitulating to the unreasonable demands of bullies. We should probably ask them if there is anything else we do that they'd like us to stop.

 

[selig]

So, is tomorrow Muhammed-picture-day? If so, will everyone here on gaf draw pictures and post them here?

 

[Joel Was Right]

As has been said already many times in this thread, the point is not to provoke them, but to show defiance in the face of threats.

Spoiler

That might be a bit melodramatic, but it sums my thoughts pretty well.

That isn't how it'll be played. The original drawings started as satire but then groups of Muslims quickly began to interpret the drawings as provocation. I understand the issue here are the violent threats, not the offence caused by the drawings, but seeing a large e-protest where people will be doing these drawings will not go down any different to the locals than what happened with the original drawings.

"Westerners drawing more images in a large scale is a message".

Viewing this protest as something that they could succeed implies that these groups can understand the context behind the drawings were not intended to incite. If that was so, then there wouldn't have been violence or the resentment in the first place. Even Muslims who understand the point of this e-protest know it will be interpreted in the most negative way possible. If anything, it is more likely to incite rather than to be seen as a protest and I feel a lot of people here know that, but do not care. So I shake my head at both these "protests", whether it be groups of Muslims burning things on streets or mass scale drawings

Great idea. I can't think of any negative long term ramifications of capitulating to the unreasonable demands of bullies. We should probably ask them if there is anything else we do that they'd like us to stop.

And this is the best way to teach them a lesson huh. I only wish we could bring e.g. Smokey and one of those protesters into a room and get them to tell each other why they are upset. I'm pretty sure it would be settled there and then. Like I said, they don't understand why we in the West are upset with their reaction. There is a complete lack of understanding.

 

[SmokyDave]

That isn't how it'll be played. The original drawings started as satire but then groups of Muslims quickly began to interpret the drawings as provocation.

That is not how it went down as you well know.

You skipped my point about the long term ramifications of capitulating to bullies. We cannot afford for the perception that violence to achieve goals is successful.

"Westerners drawing more images in a large scale is a message".

Damned straight it is.

And this is the best way to teach them a lesson huh. I only wish we could bring e.g. Smokey and one of those protesters into a room and get them to tell each other why they are upset. I'm pretty sure it would be settled there and then. Like I said, they don't understand why we in the West are upset with their reaction. There is a complete lack of understanding.

As if people haven't been trying this for years. It's not working.

 

[Dead Man]

That isn't how it'll be played. The original drawings started as satire but then groups of Muslims quickly began to interpret the drawings as provocation. I understand the issue here are the violent threats, not the offence caused by the drawings, but seeing a large e-protest where people will be doing these drawings will not go down any different to the locals than what happened with the original drawings.

"Westerners drawing more images in a large scale is a message".

Viewing this protest as something that they could succeed implies that these groups can understand the context behind the drawings were not intended to incite. If that was so, then there wouldn't have been violence or the resentment in the first place. Even Muslims who understand the point of this e-protest know it will be interpreted in the most negative way possible. If anything, it is more likely to incite rather than to be seen as a protest and I feel a lot of people here know that, but do not care. So I shake my head at both these "protests", whether it be groups of Muslims burning things on streets or mass scale drawings

It's not just for Muslims though, it is also for westerners to express themselves to their governments. And no matter what, there will be conflict of ideology. So why fear it? Bring it into the open, oppose violence, and maybe something will come of it.

And really, at it's root, the only message that needs to be received by those who espouse violence is 'Threats do not work'. I think they can understand that one.

 

[Joel Was Right]

That is not how it went down as you well know.

You skipped my point about the long term ramifications of capitulating to bullies. We cannot afford for the perception that violence to achieve goals is successful.

My fundamental point is how it went down in truth is completely different to how it was perceived. Go to any Muslim messageboard and read their reactions, it was completely out of proportion. I understand the point of these E-protests, but the message in them will not reach those protestors and hence they'll just treat it as another "provocation". Do you see my point?

 

[Brashnir]

My fundamental point is how it went down in truth is completely different to how it was perceived. Go to any Muslim messageboard and read their reactions, it was completely out of proportion. I understand the point of these E-protests, but the message in them will not reach those protestors and hence they'll just treat it as another "provocation". Do you see my point?

I see your point, but I see it as irrelevant.

It's not about how they perceive it. It's about how we deal with threats. If I care about anyone's reaction to this, it's people like Comedy Central, not the people making the threats. Those people are a lost cause. They'll hate us no matter what we do.

 

[Corky]

...joke post?

uh what? It wasnt a joke post, it was sarcastic, I dont "loooooove" that fact that muslims are portrayed like that.

Or are you saying its a joke post because thats how they all look?

 

[Joel Was Right]

As if people haven't been trying this for years. It's not working.

There is as much awareness and grasp of the concerns of the other side on those forums as there is on the Fox News' website comment section. I say that from experience.

I see your point, but I see it as irrelevant.

It's not about how they perceive it. It's about how we deal with threats. If I care about anyone's reaction to this, it's people like Comedy Central, not the people making the threats. Those people are a lost cause. They'll hate us no matter what we do.

This is exactly what I was saying. Unfortunately this theme of defiance to the bullying tactics will be skewered, flipped and twisted to the point when it reaches the locals it'll be 'incitement' and some people realise this even now knowing very well of the likely outcome.

 

[SmokyDave]

My fundamental point is how it went down in truth is completely different to how it was perceived. Go to any Muslim messageboard and read their reactions, it was completely out of proportion. I understand the point of these E-protests, but the message in them will not reach those protestors and hence they'll just treat it as another "provocation". Do you see my point?

I do. I get this will be seen as a braindead racist attack by many people. Sadly I also recognise that those are the people that need to understand the actual message.

I guess I just see no other choice. The attacks on the cartoonists will not stop until they are all dead or until the rest of the free world stands up for them.

 

[neorej]

My fundamental point is how it went down in truth is completely different to how it was perceived. Go to any Muslim messageboard and read their reactions, it was completely out of proportion. I understand the point of these E-protests, but the message in them will not reach those protestors and hence they'll just treat it as another "provocation". Do you see my point?

I see your point, but as far as I'm concerned, there's two options:
1) keep drawing, send out the message that we will not be bullied into quiet and obedient submission and quite possibly upset the muslim-community again in the process

2) stop drawing and send the message that given enough threats and acts of violence the Western world will give up it's freedom of speech to please the muslim-community, and quite possibly open the gates for increased violence for the next occasion muslims feel offended (for instance, a girl in a miniskirt or bikini).

If option 1 is not worth standing up for, I don't know what is.

 

[Brashnir]

This is exactly what I was saying. Unfortunately this theme of defiance to the bullying tactics will be skewered, flipped and twisted to the point when it reaches the locals it'll be 'incitement' and some people realise this even now knowing very well of the likely outcome.

So what? That's yet another reason to defy them, lest we fall prey to their tactics ourselves.

 

[Joel Was Right]

So what? That's yet another reason to defy them, lest we fall prey to their tactics ourselves.

If you could meet one of these violent protesters, would you

A) do a drawing

B) tell him why you're upset and explain that there was no intention to provoke or insult

A demonstrates that you do not care of what he thinks or how he reacts whereas B signals you want an end to the violence and misunderstandings. Because I don't believe most of them are upset that you drew the image but instead are upset by what you meant by it. It's similar to the story of what happened in Africa where a teacher named a Teddy Mohammed. To us, it's completely fine and even a token considering the toy was a Teddy. But to another culture, they probably interpreted that as equating an animal to their Prophet. There is a famous film where an allied bomber is about to drop its payload onto a German city in the second world war. One of the bombers expresses doubt as to whether its the right thing to do. Another dismisses him, saying "Who cares - they're all Nazi's anymway". People have a way of coming to the most extreme of rationale

 

[jdogmoney]

uh what? It wasnt a joke post, it was sarcastic, I dont "loooooove" that fact that muslims are portrayed like that.

Or are you saying its a joke post because thats how they all look?

I'm going to go with my default position on this and assume, for my own mental well-being, that you're joking.

You're offended by a cartoon.

One in which a dude is angry (hence the eyebrows) about some other dude because of a cartoon. Yes, the aggressive personality is portrayed aggressively. That's...that's what a cartoon does, man. I didn't associate anything about the dude's appearance with stereotypical Muslims. Were you mad because there was a star and crescent on his chest, too? In fact, I'm pretty sure that if it were a stereotype, he'd have a turban and long beard.

None of that, by the way, changes the intent of the cartoon, which was to show how silly the whole thing is, not to mention hypocritical. There are cartoons drawn by Muslims about other cultures that are meant to be offensive, which is okay, but cartoons of Mohammad, no matter what they're about, are NEVER okay.

There was a picture earlier about a point, and the missing thereof. You might look into that.