Support NeoGAF

[SimpleDesign]

Someone who resorts to violence over a religious drawing wouldn't be interested in rational debate. That's the reaction of someone who has no argument to make.

That's a funny analogy, because the silent majority were bombed by allies because they allowed the violent minority group of their people to invade their neighbors and commit mass genocide.

 

[goomba]

This is a really stupid idea.. as if Muslims dont have enough reasons to hate the west already.

 

[timetokill]

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

How do you propose you get across that we have the right to insult people if we want to?

 

[Brashnir]

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

If he wanted this to be a public debate of ideas, he wouldn't have begun the conversation with death threats.

(A) demonstrates that I don't care what he thinks, because I don't care what he thinks. He hasn't demonstrated enough rationality for me to assign any credibility to anything he has to say.

 

[SmokyDave]

This is a really stupid idea.. as if Muslims dont have enough reasons to hate the west already.

All muslims have reason to hate 'the west'?

Even those living in 'the west'?

That looks like a massive generalisation from where I'm sitting.

Besides, racists have reasons to hate other races, doesn't mean their reasoning should be given any credibility.

 

[Dead Man]

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

Do you not see the point so many people have tried to point out to you in this thread? That not acting a certain way due to threats of violence is not acceptable, and the way to show that, non violently, is to do the thing they have told you not to? Do you really not understand that point? Or do you cave to everyone who threatens you with violence in case you offend them further?

Edit: And if they were interested in a discourse and airing of grievances, they wouldn't be threatening violence.

 

[Dabookerman]

This is a really stupid idea.. as if Muslims dont have enough reasons to hate the west already.

Does this also include Muslims already living in "The West"?

 

[Atrophis]

Seems to not be related to draw muhammed day but Pakistan have blocked access to Facebook until 31 May.

 

[SmokyDave]

Seems to not be related to draw muhammed day but Pakistan have blocked access to Facebook until 31 May.

I'd say it was semi-related...

The order came when a petition was filed after the site held a competition featuring caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

They've got a lot more blocking to do.

 

[neorej]

Does this also include Muslims already living in "The West"?

Some of them, yes. You wouldn't believe the amount of RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE some muslims got during the Cartoon Wars. Please do note that these were also the muslims who praised Allah for the murder on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, were cheering in the streets on 9/11 and applauded the western corpses being hung from a bridge in Iraq.

 

[Dabookerman]

Some of them, yes. You wouldn't believe the amount of RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE some muslims got during the Cartoon Wars. Please do note that these were also the muslims who praised Allah for the murder on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, were cheering in the streets on 9/11 and applauded the western corpses being hung from a bridge in Iraq.

Oh most certainly. I was simply being ironic. The amount of "west" haters who live in the west is laughable. I could never understand. I could say how much I hate Saudi Arabia, and you'd never see me step foot in there for a million years.
Fuck off if you hate the west so much. /rant

 

[Monocle]

This is a really stupid idea.. as if Muslims dont have enough reasons to hate the west already.

Potato chips are a really stupid idea. As if the international community doesn't have enough reasons to stereotype Americans as fatasses already.

 

[neorej]

Oh most certainly. I was simply being ironic. The amount of "west" haters who live in the west is laughable. I could never understand. I could say how much I hate Saudi Arabia, and you'd never see me step foot in there for a million years.
Fuck off if you hate the west so much. /rant

The most laughable were the muslim-kids in Amsterdam who were that everything that had to to with the great evil West should die, while wearing Nike/Adidas-sneakers, Levi's jeans, Armani/Kappa/G-Star-shirts and a Nike-cap.

I still wonder if they would see the irony...

 

[Guileless]

The analogy was disproportionate to the argument in question.

That's a conclusion without reasoning. Explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old.

We know there's a difference at some level. People who I assume are liberals (this is GAF after all) keep popping in the thread and saying this is a bad idea because it will provoke Muslims. Less than 1% of them would also say that about an organized protest to defy death threats and create depictions of Kirk and Uhura's interracial romance not being worth it because it would provoke racists in the South.

Without some good explanation for indulging one group and not the other, I think we'll be somewhat cynical about this and ascribe it to critical thinking being overruled by a generalized sense of political correctness. You could hypothesize that they are relying on the soft bigotry of low expectations by infantilizing Muslims as not being able to handle the normal give-and-take of modern civil society in a way they would not do to white racists that watch NASCAR, attend church where snake handling is featured, and drink Natural Light. I think most of GAF would tell these people to go fuck themselves if they didn't like Kirk and Uhura making out on the bridge.

 

[edgefusion]

I was just looking at some of the comments on the Facebook page and it's pretty sad how many people think they can make threats and force people to bend to their wishes for absolutely no reason (other than "boohoo i r find drawings offensive" or "FUCK YOU DIE DIE DIE"). We don't at all live in any kind of progressive world and it's dumb shit like this that holds us back.

 

[345triangle]

if the drawings are really awesome and/or funny then i'll back this, but if they're as juvenile as the danish newspaper cartoons were then it'll just be pointlessly provocative dick-waving. sadly, i'm pretty sure i know how 99% of the drawings will end up. there's room for intelligent satire of muhammad, and that's worth defending, don't get me wrong - i'm saying that while freedom of speech is a principle, it's not worth fighting for specific things that aren't worth consideration in the first place.

we're all agreed that extremists don't make up the majority of muslim opinion, so think about how the rational, intelligent ones must feel when they see a bunch of internet dorks trying to wind them up. no wonder they think the world's against them.

 

[Jex]

People who I assume are liberals (this is GAF after all) keep popping in the thread and saying this is a bad idea because it will provoke Muslims.

Isn't free speech a key tenant of liberalism though?

 

[Dead Man]

That's a conclusion without reasoning. Explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old.

We know there's a difference at some level. People who I assume are liberals (this is GAF after all) keep popping in the thread and saying this is a bad idea because it will provoke Muslims. Less than 1% of them would also say that about an organized protest to defy death threats and create depictions of Kirk and Uhura's interracial romance not being worth it because it would provoke racists in the South.

Without some good explanation for indulging one group and not the other, I think we'll be somewhat cynical about this and ascribe it to critical thinking being overruled by a generalized sense of political correctness. You could hypothesize that they are relying on the soft bigotry of low expectations by infantilizing Muslims as not being able to handle the normal give-and-take of modern civil society in a way they would not do to white racists that watch NASCAR, attend church where snake handling is featured, and drink Natural Light. I think most of GAF would tell these people to go fuck themselves if they didn't like Kirk and Uhura making out on the bridge.

So much stupid in this post. You manage to take the right position for the wrong reasons. I see plenty of known liberal posters in favour of this.

 

[Guileless]

Yes, free speech is an essential component of liberalism and so the majority of liberals support Draw Mohammed Day. But 99.99% of liberals would be in favor of artistic protest in support of NBC's right to air the interracial Star Trek kiss. Whatever the percentage of liberals in support of this Mohammed protest is, (I would set the over/under around 75%), we can all agree it's not 99.99%.

 

[neorej]

The way I see it, we tried reasoning. Our minister of foreign affairs went to talk with the ambassadors of various Islamic countries, including Iran, about the cartoons. We had televised sit-downs with outraged leaders from within the Dutch muslim-community about the cartoons. We tried to explain to them what freedom of expression meant, means and always will mean.
These offerings of reason were met with purely emotional and outraged responses. The basic response was "Freedom of expression is great and everything, except when it comes to insulting Islam."
We tried reasoning. With people who's initial response to these cartoons was not "hey, let's talk about how you insult our most holy figure." or "Awh, c'mon, that's not cool.", but death and violence.


Well, I for one hold the freedom of speech high in regard. Anything and anyone may be mocked and ridiculed and most of all: criticized. If you can't deal with that: tough break, go cry at a therapist's office.

 

[Brashnir]

Has anyone else noticed that this thread is practically a perfect representation of Team America's Dick/Pussy/Asshole analogy?

 

[Jex]

Yes, free speech is an essential component of liberalism and so the majority of liberals support Draw Mohammed Day. But 99.99% of liberals would be in favor of artistic protest in support of NBC's right to air the interracial Star Trek kiss. Whatever the percentage of liberals in support of this Mohammed protest is, (I would set the over/under around 75%), we can all agree it's not 99.99%.

They aren't identical situations and so you could imagine people taking different stances.

For example, some a cultural conception of racial superiority vs. a religious conception of what is blasphemous.

Still, if you are an absolutist in terms of free speech you would support both.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, free speech is an essential component of liberalism and so the majority of liberals support Draw Mohammed Day. But 99.99% of liberals would be in favor of artistic protest in support of NBC's right to air the interracial Star Trek kiss. Whatever the percentage of liberals in support of this Mohammed protest is, (I would set the over/under around 75%), we can all agree it's not 99.99%.

So you are pissed off because some (unknown) percentage of people (which you label 'liberal' as an insult?) have double standards? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[selig]

if the drawings are really awesome and/or funny then i'll back this, but if they're as juvenile as the danish newspaper cartoons were then it'll just be pointlessly provocative dick-waving.

The point is that the people that take offense in these pictures find ANY pictures offensive and "provocative dick-waving". And know what? The more such people take offense, the better I find these pictures.
There´so much offensive stuff out there, but only when it´s about Muhammed, drama ensues. sigh

 

[Guileless]

I'm not pissed off per se, I would just like to see an explanation for their position.

For example, some a cultural conception of racial superiority vs. a religious conception of what is blasphemous.

I can see a point there, but we still have a double standard. Bob Jones University prohibits interracial dating and justifiably receives heaps of abuse and ridicule from liberals. Nobody cares if they characterize interracial romantic relationships as religious blasphemy, even if they sincerely believe the Bible outlaws it (which apparently they do.) So I don't think liberals against Draw Mohammed Day have an abstract respect for religious conceptions of blasphemy that is so strong it overrides their commitment to fundamental concepts of liberalism.

 

[Count Dookkake]

It would be neat if someone did a picture of Mohammed watching Kirk and Uhuru getting it on. I can't draw that well.

 

[mandiller]

It's been Draw Muhammad Day in Australia for 20 minutes.

 

[Dead Man]

It's been Draw Muhammad Day in Australia for 20 minutes.

Not in SA, but since it's the 20th here on the east coast, so here are 2 images. One incredibly clever, the other... not so much. Guess which one I drew.

'Je me dois pas dessiner Mahomet' = 'I must not draw Mohammed'.

 

[Calantus]

If someone is going to hate the west more for this, they weren't going to not hate it anyway. They don't like free speech.

 

[Count Dookkake]

It's been Draw Muhammad Day in Australia for 20 minutes.

That's not a 9 year old wife.

This is a 9 year old wife.

 

[Jex]

I can see a point there, but we still have a double standard. Bob Jones University prohibits interracial dating and justifiably receives heaps of abuse and ridicule from liberals. Nobody cares if they characterize interracial romantic relationships as religious blasphemy, even if they sincerely believe the Bible outlaws it (which apparently they do.) So I don't think liberals against Draw Mohammed Day have an abstract respect for religious conceptions of blasphemy that is so strong it overrides their commitment to fundamental concepts of liberalism.

What it seems to comes down to is : if you poke extreme racist groups, they get angry.

If you poke extreme muslim groups, they go crazy, have a riot, and people die.

Then I believe people are feeling are a conflict between Free Speech and the Value of Life.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

It's a bit like having a kid at school that can't pronounce his R's, and someone gets him to repeatedly say words with R's scattered around it.

Kids..that's the morale of this story. Stupid day, and only stupid provocative idiots will participate tomorrow.

 

[Dead Man]

That's not a 9 year old wife.

This is a 9 year old wife.

I expect great things from your contribution.

 

[Dead Man]

Edit: DP, oops

What it seems to comes down to is : if you poke extreme racist groups, they get angry.

If you poke extreme muslim groups, they go crazy, have a riot, and people die.

Then I believe people are feeling are a conflict between Free Speech and the Value of Life.

This is a valid concern of mine, I will admit. Would hope the moderate Muslims would recognise if there had not been death threats and threats of other violence, this would not have been necessary.

I also know a lot of people will draw hateful images. They may cause greater offence, but that is something I am a willing to deal with in the name of getting the point out. That you cannot restrict speech, and you will have to deal with things that are offensive if you live in a connected world, it cannot be avoided.

I hope there are no riots, I think there might be. But I will not let threats of violence impact an area of western ideals that has stood for hundreds of years, simple as that.

 

[Jex]

And it's also a question of what this is supposed to achieve. If it's

(a) To show that people value their right to free speech/expression

or

(b) To show that the broadcast media shouldn't bow down to external pressure

or

(c) To show extreme Muslim groups that the West won't bow down to pressure, so they should modify their beliefs or hold them in a less extreme manner.

If it's (c) that clearly won't happen. The extreme groups will clearly just get more angry.

Any 'moderate' Muslims won't be bothered.

And it's even possible that 'wavering' Muslims are disgusted by the West's lack of respect for their religion and they become extremists. [Obviously that's a 'worst case scenario' but not outside the realms of possibility, it obviously depends on how strongly held their beliefs are.]

 

[PolarDoc22]

There's too much bullshit going on here!

People calling us immature because we're standing up to this giant fucking bully who throws tantrums to get his way? No, I think people just aren't grasping the whole idea behind it. They take one glance at it and say "Look at all these people, they just want to troll Islam!"

Yeah? No, not quite. For the most part, this whole thing is really to make these oversensitive fools realize that idle death threats aren't going to work anymore. What are they going to do, kill us all? No, they'll have no choice but to listen. And they won't. So they'll keep on throwing tantrums until people see what's really going on, just a bunch of unenlightened bigots trying to keep their egos alive by sheltering themselves from criticism in the only way they've ever done things: on pain of death.

"Oh, but you're generalizing and that's not all the Muslims and that makes you a bigot!"

Eh, no. All Muslims share in the blame only because it's their own religion. Many of them make these claims that it's only the extremists, and that Islam is really a religion of peace. Really? Then why is it that they're not doing anything about it? All I'm seeing is moderate Muslims either defending extremists or not really going after them as much as they should simply because they're Muslim.
And when I say "they", I'm not referring to Muslims. I'm talking about "extremists", probably another euphemism for "people who follow their beliefs reeeeeallly closely"

And it's no wonder people have died over this.

 

[Jex]

Really? Then why is it that they're not doing anything about it? All I'm seeing is moderate Muslims either defending extremists or not really going after them as much as they should simply because they're Muslim.

I'm glad you're bringing some more stupid to this.

Moderate Muslims have actually spoken out about stuff like this, reasonably often. But they get played in the press coverage once or twice. Extreme Muslims obviously get far more coverage because that kind of story is far more interesting and inflammatory and so we see their images hundreds of times over.

 

[Dead Man]

And it's also a question of what this is supposed to achieve. If it's

(a) To show that people value their right to free speech/expression

or

(b) To show that the broadcast media shouldn't bow down to external pressure

or

(c) To show extreme Muslim groups that the West won't bow down to pressure, so they should modify (remove) their threats of violence

If it's (c) that clearly won't happen. But they might shut up about it since they see it dosn't work
Any 'moderate' Muslims won't be bothered.

And it's even possible that 'wavering' Muslims are disgusted by the West's lack of respect for their religion and they become extremists. [Obviously that's a 'worst case scenario' but not outside the realms of possibility, it obviously depends on how strongly held their beliefs are.]

I subscribe to hoping results A, B, and C with fixes in bold,

 

[Guileless]

What it seems to comes down to is : if you poke extreme racist groups, they get angry.

If you poke extreme muslim groups, they go crazy, have a riot, and people die.

Then I believe people are feeling are a conflict between Free Speech and the Value of Life.

I agree that's part of it. But if you take that position, you should acknowledge that you're giving the mob veto power over speech. Edit: and you are creating an incentive for others (anti-gay marriage people,anti immigrant people) to follow a model that works.

 

[crazy monkey]

And it's even possible that 'wavering' Muslims are disgusted by the West's lack of respect for their religion and they become extremists. [Obviously that's a 'worst case scenario' but not outside the realms of possibility, it obviously depends on how strongly held their beliefs are.]

This will be result for many of them.

 

[Jex]

I subscribe to hoping results A, B, and C with fixes in bold,

I would certainly like that to be the case. But when cornered it seems that extreme views just grow stronger. In a perfect world such voices would be overridden by a more reasonable majority.

Unfortunately, if you don't already subscribe to Freedom of Speech you probably won't enjoy having it shoved down your throat. You wont change your mind, but you might shut up for a bit.

I agree that's part of it. But if you take that position, you should acknowledge that you're giving the mob veto power over speech.

I guess it depends on the situation. If I had the choice between (a) Exercising my freedom of speech by drawing a picture, and then an extremist blowing up a city because of it or (b) Not exercising my freedom of speech and no-one dying - I would choose (b).

Luckily the current situation is nowhere near that extreme.

 

[SimpleDesign]

This will be result for many of them.

That says a lot now doesn't it?

 

[ghst]

remember the fun we all had in that "draw a cat with your eyes closed" thread?

yeah.

 

[Stridone]

This will be result for many of them.

Nice stealth edit. "buhbuhbuh I was liberal a few years ago but not anymore" You're not liberal if free speech bothers you, and you never have been.

 

[Dead Man]

I would certainly like that to be the case. But when cornered it seems that extreme views just grow stronger. In a perfect world such voices would be overridden by a more reasonable majority.

Unfortunately, if you don't already subscribe to Freedom of Speech you probably won't enjoy having it shoved down your throat. You wont change your mind, but you might shut up for a bit.



I guess it depends on the situation. If I had the choice between (a) Exercising my freedom of speech by drawing a picture, and then an extremist blowing up a city because of it or (b) Not exercising my freedom of speech and no-one dying - I would choose (b).

Luckily the current situation is nowhere near that extreme.

But choosing b just means there will be another situation just like that, and another, and another. I can't stand the thought of a group of people imposing their rules on another group by the threat of violence.

 

[SmokyDave]

And it's also a question of what this is supposed to achieve. If it's

(a) To show that people value their right to free speech/expression
or
(b) To show that the broadcast media shouldn't bow down to external pressure
or
(c) To show extreme Muslim groups that the West won't bow down to pressure, so they should modify their beliefs or hold them in a less extreme manner.

If it's (c) that clearly won't happen. The extreme groups will clearly just get more angry.

Any 'moderate' Muslims won't be bothered.

And it's even possible that 'wavering' Muslims are disgusted by the West's lack of respect for their religion and they become extremists. [Obviously that's a 'worst case scenario' but not outside the realms of possibility, it obviously depends on how strongly held their beliefs are.]

I believe the objective is A, B & C.

Imagine we were discussing the cancellation of DMD and I said...

And it's even possible that 'wavering' anti-Muslims are disgusted by the West bending over for that religion again and they become extremists. [Obviously that's a 'worst case scenario' but not outside the realms of possibility, it obviously depends on how strongly held their beliefs are.]

Is this a group of people you'd want to pander to?

Does it sound like a thinly veiled threat? (although I understand that wasn't your intention).

I was liberal a few years ago but not anymore.

Yeah, I have more than a little difficulty believing that.

 

[crazy monkey]

Nice stealth edit. "buhbuhbuh I was liberal a few years ago but not anymore" You're not liberal if free speech bothers you, and you never have been.

I was liberal a few years ago but not anymore. conservative it is.

 

[Stridone]

I was liberal a few years ago but not anymore. conservative it is.

If by "conservative" you mean "I hate free speech and freedom in general, Islam über alles", then you might be right, considering your behaviour on this forum.

 

[Jex]

Imagine we were discussing the cancellation of DMD and I said...

Is this a group of people you'd want to pander to?

Does it sound like a thinly veiled threat? (although I understand that wasn't your intention).

Not really a group I want to pander to at all, just a possible result of the whole affair which is a concern some people could have. I personally find it problematic that people turn to such beliefs, but I understand why it can (and does happen).

But choosing b just means there will be another situation just like that, and another, and another. I can't stand the thought of a group of people imposing their rules on another group by the threat of violence.

So you would sacrifice a city of people so you could maintain your right to draw a picture?

I don't think you would or should, because that is fetishising rights above human life. Obviously both are important, but actual people are the most important things. Temporarily laying down your right to free speech is a small cost to protect human life.

It does raise the problem of falling pray to terrorist groups, but in an ideal world that situation would never have come up anyway. I'm suggesting that if you had to choose one or another, and if it had no other consequences, you should chose (b).

 

[crazy monkey]

If by "conservative" you mean "I hate free speech and freedom in general, Islam über alles", then you might be right, considering your behaviour on this forum.

hate speech veiled as freedom of speech yes against it . show me all my behavior here please? since you know what I have said here all this time. People are getting wrong signals instead of what ever you are trying to convey.