jakonovski
Member
My reaction to this is, "go ahead if you want to, but please be honest with yourself and realize you're not doing this to make any kind of point, you're doing this because you're douchebag."
May 20 - Draw Mohammed Day
- Thread starter Roi
- Start date
- Status
SimpleDesign
Member
Exactly.Jexhius said:
Jex
Member
Kinitari said:
Pseudo_Sam said:
Kinitari said:
True, I do find it silly to protest against.
But, for these people it may be a profound part of their religion. They don't feel that it's silly, they truly believe it.
But you can't just say that their feelings are offended if it is part of their beliefs.
Do I think this belief is reasonable? No.
Do I think they can go around issuing death threats? No.
idahoblue said:
I'm pretty sure there's a huge difference between legitimate and effective.
Big-ass Ramp
hella bullets that's true
Baki said:
should have closed the tread after this one.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
First, I agree with the importance of free expression. However, I disagree that something like this is the most effective way of doing it. I think this way is pretty childish and I doubt many of the people drawing the cartoons aren't out to offend.Guileless said:
Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?
This will be my last post for awhile. I need to get back to work. I appreciate the civil discussion by most, even when I fail to.
NullPointer
Member
It's a message of solidarity with artists who have been threatened or muzzled from doing the most innocent of things - drawing a historical figure. Having this day is an awesome idea to defuse the tension - of artists, or ANYONE who would be so bold and presumptuous as to draw a man.Maleficence said:
The only thing childish here is expecting others to hold themselves to a religious stricture.
And yes, a few bad actors here DO ruin it for everybody - when those bad actors resort to violence.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
That depends on your definition of 'grown-up.' You probably mean something like 'politically correct.' In the culture that produced South Park, it is not 'grown up' to accept that some things are off limits because someone says so. We're past the point of "talking things over in a grown-up manner" when death threats silence the country's premier satirists, who mercilessly skewer every other target.
FleckSplat
Member
Baki said:
Get the fuck over it and live your life.
Is this sarcasm that I'm missing or something?
It's pretty obvious that the death threats have backfired in the extreme. There would have been far, far fewer images of the prophet if they had never been made. Outside of a select few, nobody would care enough to draw it.
If everyone stopped drawing Mohammed it would make those death threats effective. Having a day dedicated to everyone drawing him makes those death threats far less effective.
Only reason i will draw this bloke on may 20th is because people think its the one bloke thats off limits to draw. Fuck off, i'll draw him if i want. Nothing to do with offending people, i just don't think anyone can band together in 2010 and say 'hey everyone else can be drawn but not our man!' Absurd. I'm not gonna draw him with a bomb or anything like that, i'm just going to draw a man. Suck it up.
ConfusedMan09
Neo Member
Kozak said:
Bboy AJ said:
You just don't get it. Have you seen the South Park episode where Randy is referred to as "Nigger-guy"? Because that's the correct parallel for the situation at hand. You've compared the depiction of the Islamic prophet to the physical rape of young children. Take a minute and think about how stupid that is.
Monocle
Member
The death threats of Islamic extremists have created a climate of fear potent enough to cow major media establishments and your response is to claim that the media's choices to self-censor were made in a vacuum? You might as well say women have a "choice" not to take walks at night if they don't want to risk being raped. I'm not having any of it. If media outlets are concerned about getting bombed for doing what they exist to do, there's a problem, and the blame lies with the parties threatening violence. However, it must be said that the media should be doing their part to condemn the hysterical bloodlust that leads to the death of people like Theo van Gogh. Capitulation is a bad strategy when life and freedom are on the line.Jexhius said:
jakonovski
Member
NullPointer said:
Soooo, did you think that back in Abu Ghraib days? Just a curious question.
if people will get scare just because a few thousand people threatened them, what's a few thousand people making fun of people? you say "what about the billions who didn't threatened you?" and I say "what about the billions of people who didn't make fun of you?"
my mantra: if it's worth taking seriously, it's worth making fun of. beside, I'm just thinking about drawing Muhammad saying what's up to Jesus and Moses.
my mantra: if it's worth taking seriously, it's worth making fun of. beside, I'm just thinking about drawing Muhammad saying what's up to Jesus and Moses.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
This post is just so ridiculous I couldn't help but reply.PoliceCop said:
What does South Park have to do with this day, other than being its impetus? If we had a day where we yell out nigger, what would happen? No one would do it. It is the perfect comparison yet no one wants to respond to it. It's waiting.
Here, try again: Look, you can't go around yelling "Niggers!" in the streets just because the black community has stigmatized the use of that word by other communities. Is it a fundamental right to do so? Yes. But I suspect you're not going to. May 23: "Run out in the streets of Harlem yelling 'NIGGERS!' day" would not fly. What are you going to say? It's just a word and any offense they take from that word is a by-product...?
I already recanted my physical rape comparison, which I never intended in the first place. If you're going to reply to my posts, read them all. Thanks.
Blair said:
NullPointer
Member
My fucking god...jakonovski said:
Do you not recognize the difference between a drawing and incarceration, torture and death? Are you that blind?
Pro top: farts are offensive. Farts are NOT equal to the holocaust, baby raping, or whatever moronic thing you'll say next.
We're talking about a drawing here, people.
Jex
Member
Monocle said:
Yeah, that's what I said. Especially the part about women getting raped.
Did I deny that the media were caving to pressure? Indeed not, neither did I say that they were right to do so.
I'm pretty sure there is already plenty of condemnation of media censorship.
But that's entirely separate from this draw Muhammad day. If everyone drawing Muhammad suddenly made networks change their minds about censoring themselves, I'd say it was a good idea. But it won't. None of this will have any affect on anything.
idahoblue said:
:lol :lol :lol
So, unless you actively deny that you're a rapist, Nazi, baby killer, then I'm to assume you are?
I can also say that shooting people is an effective way to stop them talking in the cinema, but that doesn't mean I endorse it.
Cereal KiIIer
Member
Blair said:
:lol
jakonovski
Member
NullPointer said:
Cartoon drawers are engaged in violence? What? Your post makes no sense now.
Edit: I mean, re-read your post. You were referring to those who resort to violence.
Bboy AJ said:
You can already say "ni**er". It isn't banned from ever being spoken. Objectively, you have racists who say it, some Africian Americans who say it casually, educational/historic videos, drama-realistic movies. Since we already have the ability, the free speech, to do these things, screaming it in the street only promotes racism and slavery.
Objectively, drawing Muhammad does nothing near offensive like what the word "ni**er" stirs up. You're not even supposed to draw tribute pictures like paintings of Jesus in Christian churches. But, alas, you get death threats when you draw him and people arguing about feelings, like they are protected from getting hurt, while tons of people get offended daily.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Bboy AJ said:
It may be easier in the short term to dismiss this as childish and beneath contempt, but in the long term you would be better served by a full understanding of the importance free expression, especially against threats of violence, plays in this society in 2010. I recommend Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis.
As for your example: direct incitements to violence, e.g. burning a cross in someone's yard, are not protected under the First Amendment. (The remaining members of the Klan have to apply for a permit and protest at the designated time and place just like everyone else.)
Monocle
Member
Clearly analogies are lost on you.Jexhius said:
The people who participate in Draw Muhammad Day will be doing what the media won't: taking a stand for basic human rights. Their shared purpose is to demonstrate that some people still care enough about free speech to exercise it when it really matters. The internet will carry that message all around the world. You wouldn't be able to stop it from having an effect on public opinion if you were a billionaire.
Jex
Member
Monocle said:
Yes, idealism is lost on me.
While some people will be doing this because they support free speech, others will be doing it just because it pisses off some other people. That doesn't detract from the rightness who do care about free speech, but it's hardly going to a group made up all of saints.
In four months, no one may remember. Unless someone gets killed for it.
It's not like anyone in the Western world is to suddenly say that they will suddenly support free speech again, because most people already do.
And from the Islamic corner, those who don't believe that free speech can include the depiction of Muhammad will carry on being angry.
Sometimes big-scale protests really do change the world. Other times, they don't. In this case, I'm imagining little will happen.
Bboy AJ said:
I can't work out from your posts whether you really are this obtuse or if you're just trolling.
The reason South Park is such a perfect example (apart from being the impetus for the whole OP) is that, as has already been mentioned, it did feature the use of the word nigger.
You don't need to go running around Harlem using it because there was no censorship to protest against.
Only when Islam was brought into the equation was freedom of speech stifled.
And that's ignoring the fact of how much it easier it is for muslims to avoid being offended by images on the Internet, compared to your example of protesters running around shouting in people's faces.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I find it surreal that so many people are playing the "have sensitivity towards religion" card on GAF, where it's usually by far the minority voice in any thread.
Also, I can point out that another factor is that some are not considering / drawing attention away from the fact that a tremendous number of people are just sick and tired of hearing about Mohammed and death threats, and Muslims freaking out over it. I hate to sound this way (really - I do hate to have to point it out), but saying that lunatic overreactions to cartoons of Mohammed are a tiny 00.00001% minority of people who merely call themselves Muslims is actually disingenuous. The Mohammed controversy has legitimately caused riots.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit. The issue of merely depicting a man called a prophet with a visual image - even if it was a non-offensive or respectful image - is something so inherently wacky to most non-Muslims, that I can't blame most of the world for going "Huh? You have to be kidding." What's more, there is a conspicuous lack of explanation from the the 1.7 billion "safe and normal" Muslims everybody keeps talking about. Nobody noteworthy who is a Muslim is coming forward and explaining why they deserve to get special protection when Christians have to put up with Raptor Jesus t-shirts. While Christianity doesn't have a byline saying that nobody can make a picture of Christ, I'm kinda under the impression that it wants people to take Jesus seriously and not mock him.
My own view is that I honestly don't care about your religious beliefs; think whatever you want to, as long as you don't inflict the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else unfairly and unjustly. Unfortunately, after a lot of thought on it, I just cannot defend the prickly-toetip sneeking around pictures of Islam's christ-figure. If Muslims want to ban pictures of their prophet hanging in the walls of their houses and places of worship, that's fine. They have no right however, to ban the rest of the human race from examining figures like Mohammed and that includes visually.
Also, I can point out that another factor is that some are not considering / drawing attention away from the fact that a tremendous number of people are just sick and tired of hearing about Mohammed and death threats, and Muslims freaking out over it. I hate to sound this way (really - I do hate to have to point it out), but saying that lunatic overreactions to cartoons of Mohammed are a tiny 00.00001% minority of people who merely call themselves Muslims is actually disingenuous. The Mohammed controversy has legitimately caused riots.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the image that Muslims have garnered in the public consciousness is that of religious people who are from another age of human civilization and expect the entire world to turn and change its attitudes, mores, and opinions for their benefit. The issue of merely depicting a man called a prophet with a visual image - even if it was a non-offensive or respectful image - is something so inherently wacky to most non-Muslims, that I can't blame most of the world for going "Huh? You have to be kidding." What's more, there is a conspicuous lack of explanation from the the 1.7 billion "safe and normal" Muslims everybody keeps talking about. Nobody noteworthy who is a Muslim is coming forward and explaining why they deserve to get special protection when Christians have to put up with Raptor Jesus t-shirts. While Christianity doesn't have a byline saying that nobody can make a picture of Christ, I'm kinda under the impression that it wants people to take Jesus seriously and not mock him.
My own view is that I honestly don't care about your religious beliefs; think whatever you want to, as long as you don't inflict the consequences of those beliefs on anyone else unfairly and unjustly. Unfortunately, after a lot of thought on it, I just cannot defend the prickly-toetip sneeking around pictures of Islam's christ-figure. If Muslims want to ban pictures of their prophet hanging in the walls of their houses and places of worship, that's fine. They have no right however, to ban the rest of the human race from examining figures like Mohammed and that includes visually.
Jex
Member
idahoblue said:
Once again, you fail to read the words I write, and instead read what you think I'm writing.
Way back at the end of page three I said that pressure-groups, if they wanted to be successful, could threaten to use violence to get their way. After all, it's a tactic that has worked for them.
That statement above, is completely neutral. It relays only facts. We call such statements empirical.
If I were to say that : Pressure groups should threaten violence, because it works.
Then I'd have made a normative, and prescriptive statement.
Normative in that that, violence is a legitimate method for getting things done.
Prescriptive in that, you ought to use violence to accomplish your goal.
But, once again, I never made that claim.
Kaijima said:
This is very, very true.
However, this is partly the fault of the news media. It's quite often that calm, reasonable and fluent Muslims get interviewed on news networks.
Often they say that, no they don't want to kill anyone over pictures.
However, the news will run that story once, because it is boring.
They will run, however, hundreds of times, stories about angry Muslim extremists because that really gets people's attention.
This certainly gives the Muslim world a bit of a PR problem.
- Status