Support NeoGAF

[Pctx]

You said, "I'm not religious so I can draw whatever I want whenever the fuck I want to, yay!".

Given the context of this thread, whatever you want means mocking the beliefs and religious figures that other people hold highly. It's not about drawing a person, it's about how you draw them.

You referred to the fact you're not religious as the justification. If that's why you feel you can do this, then I'm glad I'm religious.

If you were a true Muslim... The mere drawing of Mohammad would be an insult to Islam... But alas like most, taking a "well if they draw him respectfully, then it's okay is a shame to your religion and goes to show how people do literally pick and choose what parts of the religion they follow... Or... Take a syncronist view based on family held beliefs. So... Which are you?

 

[Blair]

STFU. You're not black. And you're not muslim.

Someone just gave their game away.

 

[jay]

This seems pointless at this point. No one defending those offended by drawings will tackle the idea of double standard or delve into arguments on how sometimes people offend each other and no one did anything immoral.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Exactly, and no one was equating it. They're not equal on the magical offensive scale. :lol

You have no right to tell anyone what they can and can't be offended by, especially when you have so little knowledge of their culture and history.

If someone was completely ignorant of the history and culture around the N word, but still used it around a black man, that black man still has every right to be offended by the use of the word.

Yes he does have the right to be offended. But, it doesn't mean said guy could never say the N word ever. He could be acting in a realistic dramatic film.

 

[Maleficence]

Well, as I said, I am not participating. But if I was, it would be in defence of a right I hold dear, which as jay said, is not a wrong.

The end justifies the means then?

 

[gerg]

:lol Yes, it's not the muslims that are arrogant here. Nooo, it's us...for drawing things! How arrogant.

I imagine that a large majority of Muslims would never actively impose their views on anyone else. I could engage in the strawman you constructed if you want, but I don't think that that would be worthwhile.

Indeed. But an insult also does not remove responsibility from the attacker.

The "but" is confusing me. Are you trying to disagree with me, because it sounds like you're agreeing with me instead.

Of course not, I never implied it did. You have every right to feel however you want at my speech.

My statement was stronger than that: in the UK, at least, certain extremist groups may have their free speech removed if it is felt that their actions actively encourage others to do harm. In the US, a man was recently arrested for encouraging suicidal people to kill themselves. These are active examples where free speech is limited, and, imo, for good reason.

Every other stupid little group gets insulted and made fun of on this rock, Muslims should be no different.

To clarify my position, what I dislike about this project is that its entire goal seems to be entirely to offend. Perhaps they might use the project to actively engage in the discussion, as with the original image, but instead its heart seems to be set only at offending.

What the fuck does this even mean? What does shouting fire in an auditorium have to do with this?

The hypothetical is this: a man lies and shouts "Fire!" in an open auditorium, causing people to panic and several other undesirable consequences.

That is an example of using words to cause immediate harm to others.

Replace "harm" with "offense", and arguably this is what the project intends to do as well.

You're trying to compare that to using free speech as an act of protest against something that is literally an assault on freedom of speech. How much fucking simpler can this be?

The hypothetical was used to show, that, in general, one shouldn't behind "free speech" to remove responsibility from their actions; I wouldn't use it as a clear interpretation on my views about this specific matter. I apologise for being vague.

As for it being offensive, well, I wouldn't say drawing a picture of a man is considered universally offensive. The muslim community chooses to see it that way. So in that sense is it offensive? Sure.

Well, some in the Muslim community do. But I'm not one to generalise.

But inoffensive speech does not need Freedom of Speech protection in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Could you clarify it?

Edit: I agree that I find it hard to call this action outright immoral. But this doesn't mean that it isn't stupid, puerile, and generally not worthwhile.

 

[jakonovski]

I don't think that was what he was saying. Just that there is a history of hate and violence associated with that imagery, whereas there is not (directed towards Muslims anyway) with depictions of prophets. So one is offensive because it has violent connotations, the other is offensive due to a religious observance.

Fundie Christians also have no reason to act like their symbols mean anything, but all the same I don't go out of my way holding days of "offend the Christian".

 

[Maleficence]

Yes he does have the right to be offended. But, it doesn't mean said guy could never say the N word ever. He could be acting in a realistic dramatic film.

:lol :lol

Please tell me you really are joking and this is not a serious response, cause it's fucking hilarious.

 

[lol51]

Have you no sense of decency? I told you I was offended by everyone's posts here! Why can't you respect my beliefs?

I am sorry that offended your beliefs. Your argument is amazing and also your very smart.

:lol :lol

 

[Dead Man]

Fundie Christians also have no reason to act like their symbols mean anything, but all the same I don't go out of my way holding days of "offend the Christian".

LOL, everyday is offend the Christian day! :lol They deal with it, or they protest, or they make threats and get arrested. Same as everyone else.

 

[cory]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103667 3:28-end

 

[Bboy AJ]

Someone just gave their game away.

No, it's ridiculous for demon to say what is and what isn't offensive. Especially considering he has no personal knowledge of how the word nigger or a drawing of Mohammed could be offensive. Absurd. You can't tell people what they can and can't be offended by.

 

[jakonovski]

LOL, everyday is offend the Christian day! :lol They deal with it, or they protest, or they make threats and get arrested. Same as everyone else.

Cultural chauvinism part two: the return of cultural chauvinism.

 

[Dead Man]

The "but" is confusing me. Are you trying to disagree with me, because it sounds like you're agreeing with me instead.

I do agree with the statement you made, I felt that it seems to remove responsibility for the actions of those offended. I just wanted to say that even if the speech was offensive, it does not justify threats of violence.

 

[Jex]

First, thanks. But do you not see the inherent contradiction when people are curtailing their speech due to threats of violence, and yet you say that is not curtailing speech? Self censure due to death threats is not acceptable. I do not blame the broadcaster, I blame those making the threats, a point you do not seem to agree with.

I'd say there's a big difference between voluntary self-censorship and actually having your rights infringed. No-one's free speech rights were infringed in this case, even though 'speech' was censured.

I don't think that the station should have done that, but it's well within their rights as a company. They had the option to broadcast un-edited, but they chose not too. In their situation, I may have done the same. I'm not labelling them to blame, however.

I think there's a big problem in this thread with people who can't put themselves in someone else's shoes.

Lots of people say, oh, it's just an image of their religious prophet, so what? It's nothing compared to drawing X, Y or Z.

Yet these people do get offended. Why? Because they really believe in something. Whether their belief is justified is another matter, but it is clearly very important to them.

Just because you can't imagine being offended by someone drawing a picture of Jesus (insert whoever), doesn't mean that lots of people aren't very offended when you draw a picture of Muhammad.

You can't tell people what they can and can't be offended by.

Exactly.

 

[miserabile visu]

This thread makes me so sad. When will we ever learn.

Freedom of speech is important. But we can never accept racialism and muslimophobia. Because that is a crime.

We must think of the children. What will they think when they see and hear all this muslimophobia and racialism?

I think if we want an open society, we cannot tolerate crime of the intolerant.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

The internet masturbates furiously to atheism and/or FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BRO, news at 10.

 

[Dead Man]

Cultural chauvinism part two: the return of cultural chauvinism.

Okay, now I'm confused. If wanting everyone to accept freedom of speech is cultural chauvinism, then I guess you can count me in.

 

[jay]

Cultural chauvinism part two: the return of cultural chauvinism.

Please explain in more detail. This sounds like a way to shrug off double standards by going on the attack.

This thread makes me so sad. When will we ever learn.

Freedom of speech is important. But we can never accept racialism and muslimophobia. Because that is a crime.

We must think of the children. What will they think when they see and hear all this muslimophobia and racialism?

I think if we want an open society, we cannot tolerate crime of the intolerant.

Is this satire?

 

[Maleficence]

I do agree with the statement you made, I felt that it seems to remove responsibility for the actions of those offended. I just wanted to say that even if the speech was offensive, it does not justify threats of violence.

NOTHING justifies threats of violence, and as I said before, no one is trying to justify that.

 

[Jtones]

This is kinda childish imo. "Let's annoy Muslims some more-day!"

 

[SimpleDesign]

This thread makes me so sad. When will we ever learn.

Freedom of speech is important. But we can never accept racialism and muslimophobia. Because that is a crime.

We must think of the children. What will they think when they see and hear all this muslimophobia and racialism?

I think if we want an open society, we cannot tolerate crime of the intolerant.

:lol

 

[Dead Man]

I'd say there's a big difference between voluntary self-censorship and actually having your rights infringed. No-one's free speech rights were infringed in this case, even though 'speech' was censured.

I don't think that the station should have done that, but it's well within their rights as a company. They had the option to broadcast un-edited, but they chose not too. In their situation, I may have done the same. I'm not labelling them to blame, however.

I think there's a big problem in this thread with people who can't put themselves in someone else's shoes.

Lots of people say, oh, it's just an image of their religious prophet, so what? It's nothing compared to drawing X, Y or Z.

Yet these people do get offended. Why? Because they really believe in something. Whether their belief is justified is another matter, but it is clearly very important to them.

Just because you can't imagine being offended by someone drawing a picture of Jesus (insert whoever), doesn't mean that lots of people aren't very offended when you draw a picture of Muhammad.

I definitely understand that Muslims can and do get offended at this. I am not trying to say that is not the case, or that it is unimportant. I know I get offended by all sorts of stuff other people don't. I am trying to make the point though, that being offended by something is not grounds to threaten people. And that no one should be subjected to those threats. One way to do that is to oppose any instruction that is accompanied by threats of violence, even if some people who were innocent of the threats were offended.

 

[Jex]

NOTHING justifies threats of violence, and as I said before, no one is trying to justify that.

I wonder if people would be willing to argue that to the logical extreme.

If you lived under a fascist dictatorship, that routinely removed Jews and other undesirables from society, and then killed them, you might feel that violent protest is justified.
Because the government that you would be threatening violence against would be morally corrupt and no other method would help to stop their evil crimes.

I understand this is nothing like the current situation, I'm just saying people can make good arguments for times when violent protest might be necessary.

 

[PoliceCop]

Nice textbook example of cultural chauvinism.

Exactly. Let's all be cultural relativists and respect some guy who fucked nine year-olds.

 

[jakonovski]

Okay, now I'm confused. If wanting everyone to accept freedom of speech is cultural chauvinism, then I guess you can count me in.

Being offended by someone outside your cultural sphere is vastly different compared to it happening within the culture. This is absolutely crucial to understanding these issues.

Oh and I'm not American, that might alleviate some of the confusion (my bad there).

 

[Dead Man]

NOTHING justifies threats of violence, and as I said before, no one is trying to justify that.

I wonder if people would be willing to argue that to the logical extreme.

If you lived under a fascist dictatorship, that routinely removed Jews and other undesirables from society, and then killed them, you might feel that violent protest is justified.
Because the government that you would be threatening violence against would be morally corrupt.

I would say there are things that justify threats of violence, but speech is not one of them.

 

[jay]

The idea that we shouldn't offend is so ridiculous and in fact patronizing to the people you are defending. Many books, movies and comedians offend people in order to make us face things we hold dear and re-examine them. The concept of satire is to give people new insights into something by mocking.

OMG Voltaire made fun of the Christian belief that everything works for the best because God is in control. Candide is immoral!

Progress in all countries and all eras is offense to many of the people.

 

[jakonovski]

Exactly. Let's all be cultural relativists and respect some guy who fucked nine year-olds.

There are three sides to this discussion. You're part of the third side I've been fortunate enough to avoid so far: bigots.

 

[Jex]

I definitely understand that Muslims can and do get offended at this. I am not trying to say that is not the case, or that it is unimportant. I know I get offended by all sorts of stuff other people don't. I am trying to make the point though, that being offended by something is not grounds to threaten people. And that no one should be subjected to those threats. One way to do that is to oppose any instruction that is accompanied by threats of violence, even if some people who were innocent of the threats were offended.

Not all that was aimed at you at all, it was mainly for others in the thread.

And no, I don't think offence is grounds for threatening violence either.

The concept of satire is to give people new insights into something by mocking.

B-b-but the Romans middle class invented satire partially as a means to mock and attack other members of the middle class they didn't agree with.

 

[Dead Man]

Being offended by someone outside your cultural sphere is vastly different compared to it happening within the culture. This is absolutely crucial to understanding these issues.

Oh and I'm not American, that might alleviate some of the confusion (my bad there).

So... do you mean to say that people are more offended by people outside their culture?

 

[gerg]

I do agree with the statement you made, I felt that it seems to remove responsibility for the actions of those offended. I just wanted to say that even if the speech was offensive, it does not justify threats of violence.

Sure.

But I imagine that a large majority of the Muslim community would never react to depictions of Muhammud with acts of violence.

That's what I find stupid about this whole idea: I'd be surprised if a large portion of the Muslim community would be offended by the idea of drawing Muhammud (although I imagine that a good number of these images will be derogatry and offensive anyway), and that a large portion of those offended would then go on to demand that the images are taken down. So all you're doing is encouraging offensive images that offend for the sake of offending people alone.

The idea that we shouldn't offend is so ridiculous and in fact patronizing to the people you are defending. Many books, movies and comedians offend people in order to make us face things we hold dear and re-examine them. The concept of satire is to give people new insights into something by mocking.

OMG Voltaire made fun of the Christian belief that everything works for the best because God is in control. Candide is immoral!

Progress in all countries and all eras is offense to many of the people.

My point, at least, is not that people should never offend others entirely, but that there's no worth in offending people for the sake of doing so. In that matter, I find it hard to believe that a lot of the images produced by this campaign won't just be examples of Islamaphobia; if the vast majority happen to offer some intelligent and clever insight into the debate, then I'm happy to retract my position and support the project.

 

[jay]

Sure.

But I imagine that a large majority of the Muslim community would never react to depictions of Muhammud with acts of violence.

That's what I find stupid about this whole idea: I'd be surprised if a large portion of the Muslim community would be offended by the idea of drawing Muhammud (although I imagine that a good number of these images will be derogatry and offensive anyway), and that a large portion of those offended would then go on to demand that the images are taken down. So all you're doing is encouraging offensive images that offend for the sake of offending people alone.

How do you know all they will do is purely offend? You saw them all already and can tell none will have any insightful commentary on the subject? I've seen cartoons that are clever, say something in a unique way, inspire real discussion all while offending some people.

 

[Bboy AJ]

Exactly. Let's all be cultural relativists and respect some guy who fucked nine year-olds.

Just some bigot who has no problem spewing hate when it's over the internet. Shouldn't you get back to posting comments on youtube?

I am trying to make the point though, that being offended by something is not grounds to threaten people.

Okay, so after eight pages of discussion, you've finally come to the point no one has disputed.

 

[CassSept]

This is kinda childish imo. "Let's annoy Muslims some more-day!"

Sigh. It's about freedom of speech, don't you get it?
You can bash ANYTHING today. Any virtue, any religious virtue. But Mohammed! NO WAY!

Whenever you try to even show Mohammed - death threats.
Death threats death threats death threats.
And what happens? The terrorists say that THEY are the ones protected by the First Amendment.
The point is, going by the freedom of speech, you should be able to freely talk about anything - that includes making fun of religions. Christianity is a target of it all the time, and Islam isn't. And if it is, whoever is brave enough to do so gets death threats.
There is something really wrong if situations like these happen in a powerful country like USA.

 

[jakonovski]

So... do you mean to say that people are more offended by people outside their culture?

It's a proven fact, and being tone-deaf on that leads to further conflict, be it just on the level of words or actual violence.

Take this example: Timothy McVeigh didn't make people hate hillbilly militia types, nor did abortion clinic bombers make people hate christians. However, even before 9/11, muslims weren't exactly popular thanks to attacks made by fundies from that group.

 

[lol51]

How do you know all they will do is purely offend? You saw them all already and can tell none will have any insightful commentary on the subject? I've seen cartoons that are clever, say something in a unique way, inspire real discussion all while offending some people.

There's one in this thread where hes standing infront of a swastika, he has a beard made of cockroaches, and there's what looks like a raped female child in the background.

Insightful and humorous commentary please?

 

[Dead Man]

It's a proven fact, and being tone-deaf on that leads to further conflict, be it just on the level of words or actual violence.

Take this example: Timothy McVeigh didn't make people hate hillbilly militia types, nor did abortion clinic bombers make people hate christians. However, even before 9/11, muslims weren't exactly popular thanks to attacks made by fundies from that group.

I think you are making some massive assumptions there, but I'll leave it at that. It's late here, I'm off to bed. Have fun!

Just some bigot who has no problem spewing hate when it's over the internet. Shouldn't you get back to posting comments on youtube?


Okay, so after eight pages of discussion, you've finally come to the point no one has disputed.

You however, need to actually read what people have written. I have at no point said anyone in this thread advocated violence. The only violence I have referred to is the threat made over South Park.

 

[Baby Milo]

This is kinda childish imo. "Let's annoy Muslims some more-day!"

yup

 

[Calcaneus]

It usually means "they haven't rung my doorbell to apologize personally".

Eh, I just hate that argument. Most muslim clubs, groups, or mosques I've been to are very against the extremists, and while yes they would get offended by someone drawing Mohammed, they wouldn't threat violence on anyone.

I'm also sure that most American Muslim groups on the internet are probably against threatening violence as well. I don't know what else they have to do really.

 

[SimpleDesign]

There's one in this thread where hes standing infront of a swastika, he has a beard made of cockroaches, and there's what looks like a raped female child in the background.

To be fair, there's no such thing as consensual sex with a 9 year old.

 

[Jex]

How do you know all they will do is purely offend? You saw them all already and can tell none will have any insightful commentary on the subject? I've seen cartoons that are clever, say something in a unique way, inspire real discussion all while offending some people.

Pardon me for saying so, but as this will be an "internet event" I'm not optimistic enough to expect a lot of good will come from this. Some might, but I'm more inclined to think that quite a bit of stupid will result instead.

 

[gerg]

How do you know all they will do is purely offend? You saw them all already and can tell none will have any insightful commentary on the subject? I've seen cartoons that are clever, say something in a unique way, inspire real discussion all while offending some people.

I'm happy to admit that I don't know that all the images produced by this campaign will be purely offensive: looking at this page doesn't give me hope, but I'm happy to be wrong.

Even then, however, I'd say that there are much more effective ways to offer commentary on the situation than to invite a random gathering of internet users to anonymously offer their own opinion.

Furthermore, I don't get what the whole debate is about. A group people happen to get offended by a certain image; a small percentage of those people then go on to protest or threaten acts of violence as a result of that offence. What is the big deal? This exercise won't change the minds of those who would be willing to protest or engage in violence, and all it will do is piss off those who wouldn't want to do those things. What is its virtue?

 

[Maleficence]

Sigh. It's about freedom of speech, don't you get it?
You can bash ANYTHING today. Any virtue, any religious virtue. But Mohammed! NO WAY!

Whenever you try to even show Mohammed - death threats.
Death threats death threats death threats.
And what happens? The terrorists say that THEY are the ones protected by the First Amendment.
The point is, going by the freedom of speech, you should be able to freely talk about anything - that includes making fun of religions. Christianity is a target of it all the time, and Islam isn't. And if it is, whoever is brave enough to do so gets death threats.
There is something really wrong if situations like these happen in a powerful country like USA.

Are you saying the only way to reinforce free speech in this instance is to dedicate a day to offending muslims?

There's literally not a single other thing you can think of to reinforce free speech?

 

[jay]

There's one in this thread where hes standing infront of a swastika, he has a beard made of cockroaches, and there's what looks like a raped female child in the background.

Insightful and humorous commentary please?

Most of everything ever made in all forms and mediums is bad.

 

[SimpleDesign]

It's a proven fact, and being tone-deaf on that leads to further conflict, be it just on the level of words or actual violence.

Take this example: Timothy McVeigh didn't make people hate hillbilly militia types, nor did abortion clinic bombers make people hate christians.

Plenty of people on the left, myself included, seriously dislike/hate hillbilly militia types and far right christians.

 

[Chichikov]

Are you saying the only way to reinforce free speech in this instance is to dedicate a day to offending muslims?

There's literally not a single other thing you can think of to reinforce free speech?

This is not about offending Muslims, this is about asserting that no subject should be off-limit because people find it offensive.
You may disagree with that assertion, and that's fine, but don't misrepresent the motivation beyond those actions.

 

[Maleficence]

Most of everything ever made in all forms and mediums is bad.

Bad is not the same thing as intentionally hateful and offensive.

 

[gerg]

This is not about offending Muslims, this is about asserting that no subject should be off-limit because people find it offensive.
You may disagree with that assertion, and that's fine, but don't misrepresent the motivation beyond those actions.

Hmm... that seems like a valid enterprise.

Even, then, however, I don't think that the current method is the best way to accomplish it.

 

[Maleficence]

This is not about offending Muslims, this is about asserting that no subject should be off-limit because people find it offensive.
You may disagree with that assertion, and that's fine, but don't misrepresent the motivation beyond those actions.

I understand the motivation behind the "day", what I also understand is that the motivation by people who actually create images will not be as just.