DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: El JoNNo on April 26, 2010, 10:08:58 AM
-
https://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313601
Lolz
-
I was just thinking that it'd be great if all TV stations and magazines had a day where they all just showed a picture of Muhammad.
-
Too bad the extremists in question also don't give a fuck about "expressing yourself" so her withdrawing support for the cartoon is doing nothing. She should just pursue it.
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
-
Because people who get offended by anything need to grow the hell up. Anything.
-
Because people who get offended by anything need to grow the hell up. Anything.
So being offended by something = immaturity
but
offending someone solely for the reason of offending them =/= immaturity
really?
-
I'm pretty sure offending people isn't the sole point.
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
It's about fighting censorship and not letting pathetic people get there way through intimidation.
Because people who get offended by anything need to grow the hell up. Anything.
This, if Muslims get offended too bad. Maybe they should be the ones to speak out against the extremists. It's just like there isn't a bunch of catholics standing up to child rape that has been going on for so long.
-
I'm pretty sure offending people isn't the sole point.
OK, but if you know it will offend them, then why would you do it?
Wouldn't you want to be the bigger person and just let it go? Is drawing a picture of Muhammad really something that you can't live without doing?
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
It's about fighting censorship and not letting pathetic people get there way through intimidation.
Because people who get offended by anything need to grow the hell up. Anything.
This, if Muslims get offended too bad. Maybe they should be the ones to speak out against the extremists. It's just like there isn't a bunch of catholics standing up to child rape that has been going on for so long.
So a person is pathetic because of their religious belief? Why would you infer that from one small aspect of their faith?
-
I'm pretty sure offending people isn't the sole point.
OK, but if you know it will offend them, then why would you do it?
Wouldn't you want to be the bigger person and just let it go? Is drawing a picture of Muhammad really something that you can't live without doing?
There's a difference between not doing something because you decided you didn't want to offend someone and not doing it because someone threatened to murder you if you did. It's not being done just for the sake of being jerks to religious people, it's to make a point that should be painfully obvious to anyone that's payed any attention to what's been going on.
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
It's about fighting censorship and not letting pathetic people get there way through intimidation.
Because people who get offended by anything need to grow the hell up. Anything.
This, if Muslims get offended too bad. Maybe they should be the ones to speak out against the extremists. It's just like there isn't a bunch of catholics standing up to child rape that has been going on for so long.
So a person is pathetic because of their religious belief? Why would you infer that from one small aspect of their faith?
Ugh.. Pathetic because they try to enforce there beliefs on other through fear. Am I saying all Muslims do this? No. Am I saying those that enforce their beliefs on others through fear and intimidation tactics are pathetic? YES!
-
I'm pretty sure offending people isn't the sole point.
OK, but if you know it will offend them, then why would you do it?
Wouldn't you want to be the bigger person and just let it go? Is drawing a picture of Muhammad really something that you can't live without doing?
There's a difference between not doing something because you decided you didn't want to offend someone and not doing it because someone threatened to murder you if you did. It's not being done just for the sake of being jerks to religious people, it's to make a point that should be painfully obvious to anyone that's payed any attention to what's been going on.
A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad. Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?
I don't get it. This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the Muslim refusal of portraying Mohammed was based off the OT.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the Muslim refusal of portraying Mohammed was based off the OT.
You're wrong.
-
I'm pretty sure offending people isn't the sole point.
OK, but if you know it will offend them, then why would you do it?
Wouldn't you want to be the bigger person and just let it go? Is drawing a picture of Muhammad really something that you can't live without doing?
There's a difference between not doing something because you decided you didn't want to offend someone and not doing it because someone threatened to murder you if you did. It's not being done just for the sake of being jerks to religious people, it's to make a point that should be painfully obvious to anyone that's payed any attention to what's been going on.
A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad. Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?
I don't get it. This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
I would say it's a minority, given the countries under sharia law.
-
I'm pretty sure offending people isn't the sole point.
OK, but if you know it will offend them, then why would you do it?
Wouldn't you want to be the bigger person and just let it go? Is drawing a picture of Muhammad really something that you can't live without doing?
There's a difference between not doing something because you decided you didn't want to offend someone and not doing it because someone threatened to murder you if you did. It's not being done just for the sake of being jerks to religious people, it's to make a point that should be painfully obvious to anyone that's payed any attention to what's been going on.
A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad. Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?
I don't get it. This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
I would say it's a minority, given the countries under sharia law.
What does that have anything to do with it?
-
This is a dumb move. It's like if a small group of jews got pissed about a swastika being on a book or something, so we all paint swastikas everywhere.
If you have a reason to draw muhammad, sure. But just doing it for the sake of doing it? So you can show those people that you piss on their beliefs? Lame.
-
Isn't that what freedom is all about?
-
Isn't that what freedom is all about?
I didn't mention freedom. I implied etiquette.
-
People are going to go along with this for a lot of stupid reasons, first among those to simply irritate others for no good reasons, but there are many great reasons to show support for this.
If you support this do it for freedom of expression, do it to show that you will not be threatened by religious extremism, and do it to show that simple religious beliefs are not worth fighting and dying for in this country.
Although the Catholic church may have a lot of blood on their hands in the past I did not see the church or any organization threaten violence when Matt and Trey showed a statue of the virgin Mary spew vaginal blood all over the pope.
And that's what is important here, to say you have the right to be offended, you have the right to boycott the show if you wish or to persuade others with non-violence to not watch the show, but the moment you use threats, violence and terrorism to try and get your way you've crossed a line.
-
But that's not how you show defiance of religious extremism.
There are christian extremists too, but no one is advocating pissing on jesus statues, or a national abortion day or something.
-
Yes, because an abortion = a drawing.
There are non-religious reasons not to have abortions, hell, in most cases there are non-religious reasons not to piss on Jesus stations (public nudity, and sanity concerns given where most Jesus statues are located), but there is no good reason that in this country I should not be able to draw and display a picture of Mohammad.
-
We're not talking about whether or not we should be allowed to do it. It's a matter of why piss people off for the sole reason of showing that you can? It's not like they are an authority you are rebelling against, they're just a group of people with a small minority that gets more pissed than usual.
I can run up to gay people and yell "DIRTY FAG" at them all day every day. But I won't, why? Cause it's rude as hell.
-
If this has anything to do with the South Park episode depicting Mohammed (I haven't read any of this thread :p), here's my two cents:
Muslims, whether extremist or more Westernized, have every right to get offended by Westerners depicted or parodying their prophet. That being said, any Muslim who may feel offended is fully capable of turning the TV off when they see something that offends them, just like we all do with anything that offends us. After all, the whole point of programs like South Park is to laugh at yourself once in a while; there are Jew jokes and depictions of Nazism up the wazoo in South Park, Family Guy, and all its cohorts and you don't see me complaining. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't watch it, simple as that. Finally, I don't know much about Islamic law, but I'm pretty sure it forbids Muslims creating any sort of depiction of Mohammed; there's no prohibition against "infidels."
-
I agree with Adami in this thread.
-
There are non-religious reasons not to have abortions, hell, in most cases there are non-religious reasons not to piss on Jesus stations (public nudity, and sanity concerns given where most Jesus statues are located), but there is no good reason that in this country I should not be able to draw and display a picture of Mohammad.
There is also no good reason for you to draw and display a picture of Mohammad.
-
If this has anything to do with the South Park episode depicting Mohammed (I haven't read any of this thread :p), here's my two cents:
Muslims, whether extremist or more Westernized, have every right to get offended by Westerners depicted or parodying their prophet. That being said, any Muslim who may feel offended is fully capable of turning the TV off when they see something that offends them, just like we all do with anything that offends us. After all, the whole point of programs like South Park is to laugh at yourself once in a while; there are Jew jokes and depictions of Nazism up the wazoo in South Park, Family Guy, and all its cohorts and you don't see me complaining. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't watch it, simple as that. Finally, I don't know much about Islamic law, but I'm pretty sure it forbids Muslims creating any sort of depiction of Mohammed; there's no prohibition against "infidels."
Again, none of us are saying you should be restricted from doing it. Neither me, (and I hope) hef or adami want the act of drawing Muhammad to be banned or anything. We're not saying that.
We're simply saying that you should just respect your fellow human beings, and their beliefs. Muslims become offended when people draw or show pictures of their prophet, for them it is blasphemous to do so. So the simple answer is to respect that and just not draw it.
-
A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad. Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?
I don't get it. This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
How are Muslims going to suffer from the fact that some pictures of Mohammad happen to exist somewhere in the world.
This isn't the same as pissing on a statue of Jesus in public. It's announcing to people "hey, let's all make Rapture Jesus pictures!" and then maybe putting them on a website somewhere or something. I don't see anything saying they should be put out in public or hung at subway stations.
Again, none of us are saying you should be restricted from doing it. Neither me, (and I hope) hef or adami want the act of drawing Muhammad to be banned or anything. We're not saying that.
You may not be saying it, but the implication is being set that if you don't want people to do things you don't like then all you have to do is kill a bunch of people and everyone else will stop when you tell them to.
That's what this is all about. It's not targeted at "the majority of Muslims," it even says that in the article in the OP that I would assume people would read before saying they're for or against this.
-
A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad. Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?
I don't get it. This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
How are Muslims going to suffer from the fact that some pictures of Mohammad happen to exist somewhere in the world.
This isn't the same as pissing on a statue of Jesus in public. It's announcing to people "hey, let's all make Rapture Jesus pictures!" and then maybe putting them on a website somewhere or something. I don't see anything saying they should be put out in public or hung at subway stations.
Again, none of us are saying you should be restricted from doing it. Neither me, (and I hope) hef or adami want the act of drawing Muhammad to be banned or anything. We're not saying that.
You may not be saying it, but the implication is being set that if you don't want people to do things you don't like then all you have to do is kill a bunch of people and everyone else will stop when you tell them to.
That's what this is all about. It's not targeted at "the majority of Muslims," it even says that in the article in the OP that I would assume people would read before saying they're for or against this.
Everything you just said.
-
I may be alone here...
You aren't. As you, hef, and others have put it, even if you disagree completely with the extremists or with the religion as a whole, there is no good reason to do something for no other purpose than to offend somebody. However, I've been on these forums and others like it long enough to know that, sadly, there are plenty of people who simply don't care enough about others to not understand why such a thing as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is and should be offensive to everybody.
-
You aren't. As you, hef, and others have put it, even if you disagree completely with the extremists or with the religion as a whole, there is no good reason to do something for no other purpose than to offend somebody.
Nice strawman there.
However, I've been on these forums and others like it long enough to know that, sadly, there are plenty of people who simply don't care enough about others to not understand why such a thing as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is and should be offensive to everybody.
Because that's obviously what this is about. Just a bunch of people that "don't care enough about others."
Why should it be offensive to everyone? Because it's a religious tenant? Should I be offended any time someone breaks one of the 10 Commandments?
-
Ehra, I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. :lol
-
You're saying that there's no good reason for doing something like this for the sole purpose of offending people, which is completely right. Unfortunately, you've glossed over the fact that this ISN'T being done for that purpose at all.
Sounds like a srawman to me, if it isn't then my apologies. Mind answering my question?
-
Whether it should be offensive is irrelevant to the fact that it is offensive. I agree that it shouldn't be. But knowing that it is, I'm not going to go around doing it, at least not publicly because knowing it is offensive to people, it would be just rude.
-
As far as I know, the pictures being drawn for this aren't meant to go public. The original picture supposedly wasn't even meant to go public.
It is and was meant to be a form of protest.
-
I'm not sure how that's much different given that the protest is public. "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are" doesn't appear significantly different to me than "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are, but don't worry, I'm not going to show you the pictures."
-
I'm not sure how that's much different given that the protest is public. "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are" doesn't appear significantly different to me than "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are, but don't worry, I'm not going to show you the pictures."
No, it's "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet to show you that I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because you threaten me and others with violence. For the non extremists out there, I'm sorry. Hopefully you won't go out of your way looking for something you know will offend you."
Defending everyone's freedom of speech, even if it's for something you consider rude or offensive and wouldn't normally do, is far more important to me than protecting the sensibilities of any one group. Letting this go sets a dangerous president for the future.
-
I'm not sure how that's much different given that the protest is public. "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are" doesn't appear significantly different to me than "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet for not other reason than to point out how stupid I think your beliefs are, but don't worry, I'm not going to show you the pictures."
No, it's "F-you! I'm doing what you consider blasphemy by drawing your so-called prophet to show you that I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because you threaten me and others with violence. For the non extremists out there, I'm sorry. Hopefully you won't go out of your way looking for something you know will offend you."
Defending everyone's freedom of speech, even if it's for something you consider rude or offensive and wouldn't normally do, is far more important to me than protecting the sensibilities of any one group. Letting this go sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
This. I think you may be missing the point, Bosk. The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess. It's the same as with, say, a Neo-Nazi or a white supremacist rally, or maybe propaganda from either. I may disagree with what they say and hell, I might even ask for their heads on a pike, but the fact remains that in this country they have a right to express their views, even though they offend someone.
-
This is a totally legitimate way to respond to ridiculous, violent extremist threats and I totally support it, but probably won't go through the hassle of actually drawing Mohamed.
-
Ah, there, perfect example. Ack is very, very critical of Israel, to a point that's infuriating to me. But do I ask Bosk or any of the mods to ban him or to censor discussion that's critical of Israel? Not at all. I may try to convince him that he's wrong, but he does have a right to his own opinion.
-
The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.
The difference is that your beliefs do not require you do engage in behavior they consider blasphemous. You choose to do so merely to publicly assert your rights, which, incidentally, are not in any way infringed on by their religion. Believe me, I would be on the complete opposite side of the issue if you were engaging in behavior that your beliefs require you of you.
-
The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.
The difference is that your beliefs do not require you do engage in behavior they consider blasphemous. You choose to do so merely to publicly assert your rights, which, incidentally, are not in any way infringed on by their religion. Believe me, I would be on the complete opposite side of the issue if you were engaging in behavior that your beliefs require you of you.
How do you show a group that you won't be kept quiet through intimidation without doing whatever it is they're telling you not to do?
-
The purpose behind the drawings is not to point out that someone's beliefs are stupid, it's to express that you acknowledge that they are offended but that you still have the right to express whatever beliefs you profess.
The difference is that your beliefs do not require you do engage in behavior they consider blasphemous. You choose to do so merely to publicly assert your rights, which, incidentally, are not in any way infringed on by their religion. Believe me, I would be on the complete opposite side of the issue if you were engaging in behavior that your beliefs require you of you.
I would agree with your argument, but I believe this premise is false. I don't believe that it has anything to do with performing actions that your beliefs require you to do; it's about having the freedom to express your opinions or views. And you're right, my rights are not infringed upon by their religion (unless of course we consider the indirect actions taken by fundamentalists across the globe, and my obvious special case revolving around Israel); my rights are infringed upon when you say I must forgo them for someone else's benefit.
...Wait. Actually, fuck it. It makes sense in my head, but for some reason today I'm not able to articulate my arguments well enough. Ehra if you're getting the gist of what I'm trying to say here, please try to elaborate.
-
I hear what you are saying, but nothing you or ehra have said so far persuades me to think any differently than:
A basic tenet of Islam is not to make an image of Mohammad. Because a minority of Muslims are dicks about someone being a dick about it, all of them have to suffer what to them is basically blasphemy?
I don't get it. This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
So while there are a good many things I agree with you on, I still happen to think this is a jerk move and that your endorsing of it and/or approval of it is a jerk move on your part. I guess we'll just have to find our common ground on other issues then. :biggrin:
-
I'm not saying that one should produce pictures of Mohammed for the sake of offending Muslims, or for its own sake. What I'm saying is that if the situation calls for it (be it serious or satirical), one ought to be able to do so without his or her freedom of expression being infringed upon. Just because I don't like people drawing swastikas or images of stereotypical Jews doesn't mean I would infringe upon their right to do so, even if I think they're wrong.
-
I'm still not seeing how your typical Muslim has to "suffer" any sort of blasphemy just because they happen to know someone somewhere is drawing a picture of Muhammad. Assuming the reason posted on this forum for why they're against it is right (can't remember who posted it, but basically it was because any worldly/physical image of him would taint their view of something/someone that is beyond the physical), then it should not matter in any way unless they actually see it. In which case this doesn't affect them at all, and it's merely a form of protest against the extremists.
Why is a "basic tenet of Islam" more important to defend than everyone's freedom of speech? You say that no one's "beliefs require" this of them, yet the reason this is being done is because their belief in freedom of speech does require it.
edit: But this is just going in circles now. Not much point in going on.
-
Whether it should be offensive is irrelevant to the fact that it is offensive. I agree that it shouldn't be. But knowing that it is, I'm not going to go around doing it, at least not publicly because knowing it is offensive to people, it would be just rude.
Can you really use that argument though? Pretty much anything you do in your daily life is going to be offensive to someone.
If I woke up this morning and found a non-threatening spider crawling down my arm and I'd swat it, then I'd be offending Hindus. Does that mean I shouldn't do it? Basically what I'm saying is I should *not* have to live my life based completely around what others find offensive.
-
I'm not saying that one should produce pictures of Mohammed for the sake of offending Muslims, or for its own sake. What I'm saying is that if the situation calls for it (be it serious or satirical), one ought to be able to do so without his or her freedom of expression being infringed upon. Just because I don't like people drawing swastikas or images of stereotypical Jews doesn't mean I would infringe upon their right to do so, even if I think they're wrong.
It's not about rights. It's about respect.
If we live in a society where there is a freedom of religion, then the religious practices of others should be respected, insofar as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights. A tenet of Islam is not to depict the Prophet. It offends them. OK, fine, I won't depict the Prophet, no skin off my nose. Do I understand it? No. But I don't have to understand it, or agree with it. I also don't understand why Jews won't speak or even write the name of God, especially when there isn't even a Biblical command to do that. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But I respect their wishes and don't do it (at least not where they will see or hear it). This is exactly the same.
-
If I woke up this morning and found a non-threatening spider crawling down my arm and I'd swat it, then I'd be offending Hindus. Does that mean I shouldn't do it? Basically what I'm saying is I should *not* have to live my life based completely around what others find offensive.
In the abstract, I agree with you. But in this particular case, you are dealing with something that is considered very highly offensive (even though most other people realize that it is B.S.), and there is nothing whatsoever to be gained from "excercising one's right to free speech" other than a smug feeling of "I sure showed them." To me, this is not merely an excercise of free speech; it is an abuse of free speech.
EDIT: and what hef said.
-
EDIT: and what hef said.
If we live in a society where there is a freedom of religion, then the religious practices of others should be respected, insofar as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights
So we should respect a group's beliefs up until the point where they begin to infringe on other people's rights, in which case respect towards that particular group's beliefs goes out the window? Awesome glad we agree, cake anyone?
-
I'm with ehra and Super Dude on this one. Offending people for the sake of offending people (while fun) is not always right, but in this case freedom of expression is at stake. Islamic extremists need to understand that they can't censor people with threats of violence.
-
People, freedom of expression is not at stake. Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
-
This is one of the best discussions I've seen on this side for a while. Great posts on both parts of this argument. :tup
-
Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did
What, you mean NOT depicting Muhammad? Because we've yet to actually see him in any SP episode.
How can you say freedom of expression is not at stake when it's clear that certain topics are off limits?
edit:
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
How do you show a group that you won't be kept quiet through intimidation without doing whatever it is they're telling you not to do?
Seems like a good reason to me.
-
People, freedom of expression is not at stake. Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.
South Park trolls the fuck out of Christianity and Judaism and it should by all means do the exact same to Islam.
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
Welcome to the internet. (Yes, this in an internet phenomenon)
-
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
Welcome to the internet. (Yes, this in an internet phenomenon)
No it isn't. People were jerks long before the internet. It's just that now we have a tool for jerks all over the world to find one another and unite.
-
People, freedom of expression is not at stake. Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
And it's not mean-spirited of extremists to threaten violence against anyone that offends their sensibilities?
What if I threatened to kill anyone that depicts Jesus in an unflattering light? Would they be jerks for doing exactly that in protest, or would I be a jerk for my initial threat?
-
And it's not mean-spirited of extremists to threaten violence against anyone that offends their sensibilities?
Of course it is. But that doesn't make anyone else's mean spirited retaliation any less mean spirited.
-
How then would one retaliate in a non mean spirited fashion? Ask them nicely to not kill anyone that happens to offend them? I don't want to live in a world where I can't express myself certain ways out of fear for my life.
-
The thing I'm seeing here is that those in support of this are acting like the Muslims' offense to it has somehow inconvenienced them. As if all along, they've WANTED to draw a picture of Mohammed and now that the extremists are up in arms about it, they're damn sure going to draw that picture now, just to prove a point ("my first amendment rights, waaaah"). I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single one of you that has ever entertained the idea of drawing a picture of Mohammed before now, but all of the sudden it's a great idea. To me, that's as big an indicator of spiteful self-importance as anything I've seen.
-
First of all, your avatar is amazing. Second of all, I don't have a burning desire to draw Mohammed. I just don't think it's right that someone else can threaten me with violence if I decide to do something that offends them.
-
People, freedom of expression is not at stake. Those fuckheads at South Park didn't have any good reason to do what they did, and they stirred up a bunch of shit because of it.
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
And it's not mean-spirited of extremists to threaten violence against anyone that offends their sensibilities?
Of course it is. In fact, it is evil.
What if I threatened to kill anyone that depicts Jesus in an unflattering light? Would they be jerks for doing exactly that in protest, or would I be a jerk for my initial threat?
Depicting Jesus isn't a tenet of Christianity. You would be evil, and the person so depicting him would still be a jerk.
Also, great point, Cozmo.
-
The thing I'm seeing here is that those in support of this are acting like the Muslims' offense to it has somehow inconvenienced them. As if all along, they've WANTED to draw a picture of Mohammed[ and now that the extremists are up in arms about it, they're damn sure going to draw that picture now, just to prove a point ("my first amendment rights, waaaah"). I'm pretty sure that there isn't a single one of you that has ever entertained the idea of drawing a picture of Mohammed before now, but all of the sudden it's a great idea. To me, that's as big an indicator of spiteful self-importance as anything I've seen.
This is completely ignoring the fact that they are people who DO and HAVE wanted to and they are and have been "inconvenienced" by a specific group of Muslims' "offense." What I'm hearing is that, because this didn't affect me specifically, I have no place to want to defend someone else's rights that are in fact being taken away (through violence).
-
You shouldn't avoid depicting Mohammad because of a threat of violence. You should avoid depicting Mohammad because of respect of religion.
Again, this isn't about a "right." No one is disputing anyone's "rights."
-
I think the whole bandwagon thing that this has come to is a little ridiculous, but that's my opinion. I'm the kinda person who generally tries to mind their own business and let other people fight their own battles. the first amendment, while it DOES grant the right to free speech, doesn't imply that it's okay to go around disrespecting whoever you like, simply because you can. There is a gray area of personal responsibility and social civility that should go along with it, but is nowadays, fairly nonexistent.
-
As ehra stated, I don't have any good reason to depict Mohammed, but I'm positive that there are instances where someone would have a reason to. For example, what if someone wanted to do a documentary on Muslim history? They shouldn't have to gingerly skirt around any depiction of the central figure of Muslim history just because if they do, they'll be killed by extremists, especially since the documentary would be aimed at a general audience and not specifically toward Muslims.
Many Christians were horribly offended by Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. That movie has elements in it that clearly offend fundamentalist Christian sensibilities, and yet the movie is considered a classic (It's one of my personal favorite movies, in fact). In a world like the one these extremists would like to live in, that movie would never have been made, and we would be deprived of a work of art.
-
You shouldn't avoid depicting Mohammad because of a threat of violence. You should avoid depicting Mohammad because of respect of religion.
Whether they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to if they actually can or can't. Since we're talking about South Park, they have been allowed to make fun of every group under the sun up until now. Why are Muslims allowed protection from being "offended" that no other group got? Does this mean we're not allowed to make fun of anyone else who might get offended?
Again, this isn't about a "right." No one is disputing anyone's "rights."
You can keep saying that, but that is what this whole event is about.
Again, if we're supposedly allowed to protest against this group that's using violence to get their way then how is anyone to do so without showing that violence will in fact not get their way? Saying "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" doesn't exactly hold much weight if you continue to do exactly what they told you anyway.
-
When the radical fuckers blow the whole east coast into the ocean over this, I don't want to hear anyone complaining.
-
When the radical fuckers blow the whole east coast into the ocean over this, I don't want to hear anyone complaining.
You wouldn't, we were blown into the ocean :P
-
That is true, I guess.
-
Unless someone can show me a good reason to depict the Prophet, then this is just mean-spirited bullshit.
Welcome to the internet. (Yes, this in an internet phenomenon)
No it isn't.
Yes it is. The threats to the South Park creators wouldn't be a big deal if it weren't for the internet. The drawing Mohammed day wouldn't be such a fuss if it weren't for the internet. Call it douchebaggery all you want, but it's just people reacting to violent threats in a peaceful way.... on the internet. Disrespectful? Offensive? Welcome to the internet.
-
Let's remember that the creators of South Park aren't just innocent guys who were all "What? Really? Should I not have done that?" These are people who purposely stir up shit for the sole purpose of offending people. It turns out to be funny, but they did it all on purpose. No that doesn't excuse threats of violence against them, but let's stop pretending like these guys are so innocent.
-
OK. I give up. Be douches if you must.
Hey, guys. I have an idea. Let's offend millions of people whom we have never met, because a few dicks are out there. That'll show 'em.
Oh and hey, it's about our right to be a douche. We have a right to be a douche if we want to be. My right to do something that I would never have even dreamt of doing 2 weeks ago is much more important than your religion. Fuck that. It's all about me.
-
You know that, unfortunately, that's how it goes with most things nowadays, hef. I am more important than the world.
-
South Park is pretty bad, but it's not as bad as Google image search...
(https://www.the-better-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/LEGO-Mohammed.jpg)
:P
-
Let's remember that the creators of South Park aren't just innocent guys who were all "What? Really? Should I not have done that?" These are people who purposely stir up shit for the sole purpose of offending people. It turns out to be funny, but they did it all on purpose. No that doesn't excuse threats of violence against them, but let's stop pretending like these guys are so innocent.
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm not. I'm saying that there's a double standard going on that up until now,they've been allowed to do whatever they want but now Muslims are off limits. It's either all or nothing, if it's ok to make fun of anyone else then it should be ok to make fun of Muslims as well. If it's not ok to make fun of Muslims then it also shouldn't be ok to make fun of anyone else, ever.
OK. I give up. Be douches if you must.
Hey, guys. I have an idea. Let's offend millions of people whom we have never met, because a few dicks are out there. That'll show 'em.
Oh and hey, it's about our right to be a douche. We have a right to be a douche if we want to be. My right to do something that I would never have even dreamt of doing 2 weeks ago is much more important than your religion. Fuck that. It's all about me.
So are you going to answer my question or keep repeating the same argument that ignores the core of the issue? Unless you have never made fun of anyone ever, or never said anything that might offend anyone, then you have no room to talk.
If this is an inappropriate form of protest then what would be a proper (and effective) way to do things?
-
OK. I give up. Be douches if you must.
Hey, guys. I have an idea. Let's offend millions of people whom we have never met, because a few dicks are out there. That'll show 'em.
Oh and hey, it's about our right to be a douche. We have a right to be a douche if we want to be. My right to do something that I would never have even dreamt of doing 2 weeks ago is much more important than your religion. Fuck that. It's all about me.
People find offensive humor funny. The creators of South Park make their living offending people, and as long as there are people who want to watch it, they will do it. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to watch it.
-
You've just said the single most important thing anybody can say on the topic. If something on TV offends you, it is your responsibility to CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL. Especially if something offends you on a show you'd never watch in the first place. It isn't everybody else's place to ensure that you are shielded from it (without going the other way and purposely trying to expose you to it at avery opportunity).
-
Also, does anyone else think that "douche" is the sound that a toy laser gun should make?
-
I actually said that on the first page, thanks. That was my first post in the topic.
-
I skimmed across the first page, probably. Whoever said it, it's correct.
-
Holy crap.
There is a major glossing over of arguments here, I know my post will be completely ignored, but let me try to clear things up.
1. You know my side is right simply because Hef, Bosk, myself and Emin actually agree on something, that's like impossible.
2. None of us are saying not to depict muhammad. We're saying that if the situation calls for it, feel free. But wait for that moment. Don't do it just to show that you can. Christians have no rules about depicting anyone, sure it may offend them but it's not against their religion. It's actually blasphemy to muslims, its' just not offensive.
So to sum up, depicting muhammad for a good reason is FINE. Depicting muhammad just to show that you can is a douche bag move.
Sorry.
-
Holy crap.
There is a major glossing over of arguments here, I know my post will be completely ignored, but let me try to clear things up.
1. You know my side is right simply because Hef, Bosk, myself and Emin actually agree on something, that's like impossible.
2. None of us are saying not to depict muhammad. We're saying that if the situation calls for it, feel free. But wait for that moment. Don't do it just to show that you can. Christians have no rules about depicting anyone, sure it may offend them but it's not against their religion. It's actually blasphemy to muslims, its' just not offensive.
So to sum up, depicting muhammad for a good reason is FINE. Depicting muhammad just to show that you can is a douche bag move.
Sorry.
I'm bosk1 and I approve of this message.
-
Alright, I can agree with that argument. Of course it also depends on your definition of a "good reason." Can satire not be considered an acceptable reason? As has probably been said a million times in this thread, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are famous for their offensive shock humor; that's the essence of South Park. They've made fun of every group in existence that can be exploited in some way (even fans of other offensive shows), so to say that making fun of Muslims is crossing the line is to, once again, draw a double standard. If they can make fun of gay people and make fun of Jews, Christians, etc., why is it then wrong to also make fun of Muslims?
-
So to sum up, depicting muhammad for a good reason is FINE.
Why is showing that you won't give in to threats of violence not a good reason?
Speaking of glossing over arguments, I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
-
So to sum up, depicting muhammad for a good reason is FINE.
Why is showing that you won't give in to threats of violence not a good reason?
Speaking of glossing over arguments, I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
Because the billion muslims of this world aren't threatening you. A few are. Do you really have to piss off an entire religion just because a few get pissy? Just don't give into it. If a situation arises where you should show muhammad, do so. But this isn't one of them.
-
Alright, I can agree with that argument. Of course it also depends on your definition of a "good reason." Can satire not be considered an acceptable reason? As has probably been said a million times in this thread, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are famous for their offensive shock humor; that's the essence of South Park. They've made fun of every group in existence that can be exploited in some way (even fans of other offensive shows), so to say that making fun of Muslims is crossing the line is to, once again, draw a double standard. If they can make fun of gay people and make fun of Jews, Christians, etc., why is it then wrong to also make fun of Muslims?
It's not. South Park should not have been censored. That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against a mass "let's show those dirty muslim people!" display.
-
Why is showing that you won't give in to threats of violence not a good reason?
It's not. South Park should not have been censored. That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against a mass "let's show those dirty muslim people!" display.
The article in the OP even specifically says that it's not direct at "those dirty Muslim people." It's directed at the extremists.
-
So offending a billion people is fine as long as it also offends a few dozen?
-
None of us are saying not to depict muhammad. We're saying that if the situation calls for it, feel free. But wait for that moment. Don't do it just to show that you can. Christians have no rules about depicting anyone, sure it may offend them but it's not against their religion. It's actually blasphemy to muslims, its' just not offensive.
It shouldn't stand out when a certain somebody does something to offend Muslims. That's why Theo van Gogh was assassinated; extremists were able to point the finger at him specifically and make him a target. If everybody is doing it, the extremists wouldn't be able to make a case for violence. So I say spread the risk.
-
:corn
-
target=extremists="dirty Muslim people."
Offend one = offend all.
-
(https://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj144/guitarcozmo/Jackson_popcorn.gif)
-
So offending a billion people is fine as long as it also offends a few dozen?
The point isn't to offend them.
Speaking of glossing over arguments, I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
I guess we're simply not allowed to protest against Muslim extremists. But no one's rights are at stake!
-
That'll work. Funny thing is, the only real reason I posted that is because I am, in fact, literally eating popcorn while reading thsi thread.
-
I guess we're simply not allowed to protest against Muslim extremists.
Dude, that would be offensive.
-
What's the point in protesting extremists? Just don't let them bother you. Do you think pissing them off is going to make them go away?
-
Do you think acquiescing to them will?
-
So exactly how remote and pointless does the offending action have to be to you before there's no point in defending it. If the extremsists threatened violence against anyone who wanted to inject bananas with green food coloring while they're still on the tree, draw smiley faces on them, then harvest them and send them out to the stores with a sticker on them that says "Have a Nice Day!", would we feel the need to go and do all of that?
If extremists threatened violence against anyone who would dare stand on one foot on the 11th step of their own state capitol building and stare crosseyed in an eastward direction, while wearing a fedora, would we all rush to do that? How inconsequential does the offending act have to be in the average person's day-to-day life before it isn't worth wasting time over? Because this seems pretty low-priority on my list of things to worry about having the right to do.
-
What's the point in protesting extremists? Just don't let them bother you. Do you think pissing them off is going to make them go away?
The message it sends to the people you're targeting is just as important to the message it sends to anyone else that'll hopefully join the cause. And "don't take any of their shit, but also do exactly what they say." isn't the type of cause many people can stand proudly behind.
And, really, that's a pretty horrible argument. "Who cares that they're threatening people with violence? Just don't let them other you, what's the point?"
So exactly how remote and pointless does the offending action have to be to you before there's no point in defending it. If the extremsists threatened violence against anyone who wanted to inject bananas with green food coloring while they're still on the tree, draw smiley faces on them, then harvest them and send them out to the stores with a sticker on them that says "Have a Nice Day!", would we feel the need to go and do all of that?
If extremists threatened violence against anyone who would dare stand on one foot on the 11th step of their own state capitol building and stare crosseyed in an eastward direction, while wearing a fedora, would we all rush to do that? How inconsequential does the offending act have to be in the average person's day-to-day life before it isn't worth wasting time over? Because this seems pretty low-priority on my list of things to worry about having the right to do.
Many Christians were horribly offended by Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. That movie has elements in it that clearly offend fundamentalist Christian sensibilities, and yet the movie is considered a classic (It's one of my personal favorite movies, in fact). In a world like the one these extremists would like to live in, that movie would never have been made, and we would be deprived of a work of art.
They don't care why anyone wants to do it, whether it's a valid reason or not. All they care about is if they get their way or not.
-
So exactly how remote and pointless does the offending action have to be to you before there's no point in defending it. If the extremsists threatened violence against anyone who wanted to inject bananas with green food coloring while they're still on the tree, draw smiley faces on them, then harvest them and send them out to the stores with a sticker on them that says "Have a Nice Day!", would we feel the need to go and do all of that?
No, but that would be AWESOME.
-
They don't care why anyone wants to do it, whether it's a valid reason or not. All they care about is if they get their way or not.
I assume you're referring to extremists getting their way here?
If so, in the exact same fashion, anybody who protests this doesn't care why they DON'T want you to draw Mohammed, whether it's a valid reason or not. All the protestors care about is if they get their way or not.
-
Sorry, ehra, but I'm still firmly of the thinking that the only message you are sending is, "I can be a jerk, so I will."
-
So exactly how remote and pointless does the offending action have to be to you before there's no point in defending it. If the extremsists threatened violence against anyone who wanted to inject bananas with green food coloring while they're still on the tree, draw smiley faces on them, then harvest them and send them out to the stores with a sticker on them that says "Have a Nice Day!", would we feel the need to go and do all of that?
No, but that would be AWESOME.
Damn straight it would be. Even more so, if the girl in my avatar was wearing a headdress of them, like the Chiquita Girl.
-
They don't care why anyone wants to do it, whether it's a valid reason or not. All they care about is if they get their way or not.
I assume you're referring to extremists getting their way here?
If so, in the exact same fashion, anybody who protests this doesn't care why they DON'T want you to do it, whether it's a valid reason or not. All the protestors care about is if they get their way or not.
Actually the protest is because of a group that's trying to suppress other's freedom of speech. Like you even said, most of them wouldn't even be doing it if the extremists weren't using force to keep others that DID want to do it quiet. Again, the article in the OP said this isn't directed at the rest of the Muslim community. Which means that they realize what they're doing is offensive and that they WOULDN'T be doing it if it weren't for the extremists. Chances are that they also won't do it again after this.
I've also even said already that I hold anyone's freedom of speech to be far more important than keeping any group from being offended.
Sorry, ehra, but I'm still firmly of the thinking that the only message you are sending is, "I can be a jerk, so I will."
That's ok, I'm still firmly convinced that you simply refuse to look at your own hypocrisy in calling others jerks while at the same time calling them out for doing something that might offend someone else (someone who has no logical reason for being offended, since they would have to go looking for it to see it). It's all good, we're all going to forget this thread a month from now anyway and probably do or get in arguments that directly contradict what we've been arguing here anyway. ;)
-
I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
You're right. You should go picket outside a mosque, with a picture of Mohammed.
-
I've also even said already that I hold anyone's freedom of speech to be far more important than keeping any group from being offended.
I do too. When I have a legitimate reason to say or do something offensive. The consensus is "We want to do this it, because they're threatening violence if we do say it, that's our legitimate reason." The government threatens you with all kinds of loss of rights and liberty when you choose to do something that, in your heart, you know isn't necessary to do. Granted yes, it IS a little different, but it's also a little the same. Do we stand up to the government for threatening us for doing things that are inconsenquential to most peoples' daily lives, yet a few people feel they should be able to do? I'm really not trying to just be contrary, but I'm trying to understand how this is justifiable as anything more than what bosk said.
-
I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
You're right. You should go picket outside a mosque, with a picture of Mohammed.
You should go picket outside of wherever South Park Studios is, since making jokes that will offend a group of people is so bad.
I'm really not trying to just be contrary, but I'm trying to understand how this is justifiable as anything more than what bosk said.
For me personally, it's because people like South Park supposedly has the right to make fun of anyone they want except Muslims. If it's ok to make fun of anyone but Muslims then that's extremely unfair to the entire rest of the world.
Am I allowed to get offended any time someone breaks one of the Ten Commandments? If people continue to do so even through they know they're offending me does that mean they're petty jerks? If they continue to do so and I threaten to murder them, then another group decides to do what offends me in protest does that make THEM petty jerks?
-
The problem, Ehra, is that NO ONE is actually trying to censor you. South park had their issues, let them deal with it. You pissing everyone off just to show that you have the right to do so won't actually solve anything.
How about being practical rather than dogmatic?
-
The problem, Ehra, is that NO ONE is actually trying to censor you. South park had their issues, let them deal with it. You pissing everyone off just to show that you have the right to do so won't actually solve anything.
What I'm hearing is that, because this didn't affect me specifically, I have no place to want to defend someone else's rights that are in fact being taken away (through violence).
How about being practical rather than dogmatic?
What exactly is impractical about this? Speaking of practicality, how many Muslims that don't go looking for it will actually see the results of this protest? Surely it won't be the billions you and others have claimed.
-
You know what? You're right.
Sit in your room and draw muhammad. That will sure put those peskey extremists in their place. Damn, why didn't we think of that in Iraq? All we had to do was send in soldiers who could sit in tents and draw pictures. The war would have been won!
-
I get that South Park lampoons everyone, so why is this group protected? Like it or not, when you're dealing with mentally unstable people, sometimes the least desirable way to go is the one that is the safest for all involved. It sucks, but that's how it is. Fanning the flames only makes unstable people even more unstable.
It's like in elementary school. Whenever someone gets called a name and they protest it vehemently, then everybody latches on and relentlessly calls them this new undesirable name. Is it okay defend their asshattery, when the victim is obviously clearly and rightfully offended?
I agree that on the other side, there should be SOME sort of concession, but if it were your religion that were being lampooned, you wouldn't expect to have to make concessions about what you think on it. But I bet you probably would be willing to let it slide. Why? You're a rational huuman being, who can be reasoned with. These people aren't, in my opinion. Doesn't mean we have to cater to them, but it also doesn't mean we have to go pushing their buttons on purpose either.
I have no idea what the appropriate protest would be, but in my mind, this certainly isn't it.
-
This isn't about "offense." Everybody gets offended over different things. But this is a central part of their religion.
No one is saying that you can't make fun of Muslims. Making fun of Muslims isn't against their faith. But this thing is.
Besides, I still don't understand the point of this. You keep saying that it isn't to offend the majority of Muslims, but only the extremists. It won't offend the extremists, they are happy you are doing this. It will be fuel for their fire and will probaby cause some who aren't currently extremists to become extremists. Why not, since people don't respect your religion, even when you're not acting like a dick about it? "Look, the infidels trample on our faith!" What will you be able to say? Nothing, that's what.
And fuck South Park. This isn't about South Park. I couldn't care less about South Park.
-
You know what? You're right.
Sit in your room and draw muhammad. That will sure put those peskey extremists in their place. Damn, why didn't we think of that in Iraq? All we had to do was send in soldiers who could sit in tents and draw pictures. The war would have been won!
If it's not going to have any affect then why the 4 page debate? If it's not an issue then why would they send these threats to people who were going to do it in the first place?
I think it's hilarious that you and Hef are trying to somehow make me feel foolish or whatever for protesting something over the internet when the two of you guys are doing the exact same thing I am, debating the topic over the internet. Yeah, you sure showed me.
-
I'd also like to point out that NO ONE'S RIGHT ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!
South Park were censored by THEIR BOSSES. Who have every right to do that, for whatever reason. There was no law censoring them, it was a personal decision of some board somewhere.
South Park also can't say several other things, why not graffiti those words everywhere, cause appearently your right to free speech is based on what South Park is or isn't allowed to do.
-
And I've been debating ethics, courtesy, not laws. I'm not trying make you feel foolish, argue all you want. All of us are just saying it's a douche move to do.
-
Like it or not, when you're dealing with mentally unstable people, sometimes the least desirable way to go is the one that is the safest for all involved.
It wouldn't be an issue if everyone would just ignore them in the first place. We don't see scantily clad women being targeted, which Hef implied was also against their religion in another thread.
No one is saying that you can't make fun of Muslims. Making fun of Muslims isn't against their faith. But this thing is.
Breaking the Ten Commandments and not believing in God is against my faith, isn't it?
Besides, I still don't understand the point of this. You keep saying that it isn't to offend the majority of Muslims, but only the extremists. It won't offend the extremists
Then it would help if you would read, because I've specifically said that offending ANYONE is not the point.
And fuck South Park. This isn't about South Park. I couldn't care less about South Park.
So why are you in a thread about a protest that was started partially in response to what happened to South Park?
I'd also like to point out that NO ONE'S RIGHT ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!
South Park were censored by THEIR BOSSES. Who have every right to do that, for whatever reason. There was no law censoring them, it was a personal decision of some board somewhere.
South Park also can't say several other things, why not graffiti those words everywhere, cause appearently your right to free speech is based on what South Park is or isn't allowed to do.
I'm not going to keep quoting posts I've made that you apparently haven't read. I've already said that I'm fine with not doing something because you don't want to offend someone, which means I would also be ok if SP was censored just because their boss didn't want to offend Muslims. But this was obviously done because of a threat of violence against them.
And I've been debating ethics, courtesy, not laws. I'm not trying make you feel foolish, argue all you want. All of us are just saying it's a douche move to do.
And I'm saying it's hilarious that you, Hef, and Bosk can call a whole group of people douches and jerks while at the same time calling them out for offending another group and not bat an eye.
-
Ehra, are you american? Or where are you from?
-
Like it or not, when you're dealing with mentally unstable people, sometimes the least desirable way to go is the one that is the safest for all involved.
It wouldn't be an issue if everyone would just ignore them in the first place. We don't see scantily clad women being targeted, which Hef implied was also against their religion in another thread.
Because scantily clad women are awesome.
-
Ehra, are you american? Or where are you from?
Yes.
-
South Park trolls the fuck out of Christianity and Judaism and it should by all means do the exact same to Islam.
I'm a Christian and I was not offended by the vigin mary getting her vagina blood all over the pope (as it made me laugh). People need to realize South Park is a cartoon, meant to generate laughs.
Apparently South Park also had to take down the "Super Best Friends" episode. I'd like to ponder on the message of this episode for a little bit. The Super Best Friends episode consisted of several religious figures from all over the world, from all different relgions . The message of this episode was one of peaceful coexistence between the world religions . Its about time people reflect on the good messages of SP rather than the questionable content.
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm not. I'm saying that there's a double standard going on that up until now,they've been allowed to do whatever they want but now Muslims are off limits. It's either all or nothing, if it's ok to make fun of anyone else then it should be ok to make fun of Muslims as well. If it's not ok to make fun of Muslims then it also shouldn't be ok to make fun of anyone else, ever.
Since showing Muhammad's picture is blashphemous to Muslims maybe SP should have been more careful about making jokes of world religions. But as I said earlier, I was not offended by the virgin mary being used as she was used.
Muslims should just take a moment to realize the Jews and Christians are being 'picked on' as well as them. it wasnt an intetional threat to the Muslims, it was just comedy.
I can understand them getting upset at the situation but instead of focusing on their one religion they need to realize that they're not the only ones being pseudo-attacked
-
Then it would help if you would read, because I've specifically said that offending ANYONE is not the point.
Right. It's not the point. It's just the only possible outcome. But that doesn't matter.
-
(https://cherrycanoe.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/muhammad_ali_versus_sonny_liston.jpg)
Muhammad Ali frowns upon your shenanigans.
-
Then it would help if you would read, because I've specifically said that offending ANYONE is not the point.
Right. It's not the point. It's just the only possible outcome. But that doesn't matter.
So you're saying it's impossible that people will eventually decide to ignore these threats? Because, yes, I do agree that it doesn't matter if that becomes the ultimate outcome at the cost of people being offended over something they shouldn't have gone looking for in the first place.
I see offensive shit all the time. I get over it.
-
I asked if you were american, because untill there is a law or the government or state government of yours starts censoring you or anyone else about this, then you're just picking on muslims. Lots of groups everywhere get pissed off about things and many of them have threatened violence. Yet muslims are the only ones you're looking to piss off just to show that you have the right.
WE ALL KNOW YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. Not a single person in america has denied that to you.
-
Then it would help if you would read, because I've specifically said that offending ANYONE is not the point.
Right. It's not the point. It's just the only possible outcome. But that doesn't matter.
So you're saying it's impossible that people will eventually decide to ignore these threats? Because, yes, I do agree that it doesn't matter if that becomes the ultimate outcome at the cost of people being offended over something they shouldn't have gone looking for in the first place.
I see offensive shit all the time. I get over it.
So your viewpoint is the be-all and end-all of viewpoints?
-
You know, I am willing to accept the idea that we shouldn't do this just because we can, but there comes a point where people want to express that if the want or need to they should be able to do this, and many find this as an outlet to express that.
And whoever said South Park does things simply to be offensive obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. Their aim has always been humor and satire, and I have never known them to do anything simply to offend someone or some group just for the hell of it.
-
The people that are pro-protest here are arguing rights.
The people that are anti-protest here are arguing respect.
The people that are arguing respect are not questioning rights, in fact most of us agree with your rights issues.
Pro-Protesters, stop arguing rights. We get that. This isn't about rights. We know that if you want to be a huge dick and offend billions of people merely to spite a couple hundred you have every right to do so. We're simply saying that out of respect and human dignity it would be nice to simply treat their religion with respect and not go out of your way to purposely offend almost 1/5 of the Earth.
-
Who is the girl in your avatar?
-
I asked if you were american, because untill there is a law or the government or state government of yours starts censoring you or anyone else about this, then you're just picking on muslims. Lots of groups everywhere get pissed off about things and many of them have threatened violence. Yet muslims are the only ones you're looking to piss off just to show that you have the right.
WE ALL KNOW YOU HAVE THE RIGHT. Not a single person in america has denied that to you.
I don't have an issue with anyone in America, do I? And just because there isn't a law saying we're not allowed to doesn't change that it's becoming a policy that we aren't, and people that want to are being forced not to, not because their superiors don't want to offend anyone, but because of a threat.
Then it would help if you would read, because I've specifically said that offending ANYONE is not the point.
Right. It's not the point. It's just the only possible outcome. But that doesn't matter.
So you're saying it's impossible that people will eventually decide to ignore these threats? Because, yes, I do agree that it doesn't matter if that becomes the ultimate outcome at the cost of people being offended over something they shouldn't have gone looking for in the first place.
I see offensive shit all the time. I get over it.
So your viewpoint is the be-all and end-all of viewpoints?
Where the hell have I said anything like that? I've posted my views, you're posting your views.
Pro-Protesters, stop arguing rights. We get that. This isn't about rights. We know that if you want to be a huge dick and offend billions of people merely to spite a couple hundred you have every right to do so. We're simply saying that out of respect and human dignity it would be nice to simply treat their religion with respect and not go out of your way to purposely offend almost 1/5 of the Earth.
No matter how much you guys say this isn't about rights, it doesn't change that it is. I repeat, that IS what the protest is about. And since this is an argument about that protest, that means this is about rights.
You think retaliating against a group that's threatening violence against people who don't do what they want them to do is a dick move. Dully noted. I've also posted my own views about that particular argument.
-
Pro-Protesters, stop arguing rights. We get that. This isn't about rights. We know that if you want to be a huge dick and offend billions of people merely to spite a couple hundred you have every right to do so. We're simply saying that out of respect and human dignity it would be nice to simply treat their religion with respect and not go out of your way to purposely offend almost 1/5 of the Earth.
No matter how much you guys say this isn't about rights, it doesn't change that it is. I repeat, that IS what the protest is about. And since this is an argument about that protest, that means this is about rights.
You think retaliating against a group that's threatening violence against people who don't do what they want them to do is a dick move. Dully noted. I've also posted my own views about that particular argument.
If whoever created this entirely nonsensical charade of bullshit honestly thinks that this "protest" is about rights, then they're wrong. No one, including the extremists themselves ever said "you have no right to draw Muhammad."
-
You think retaliating against a group that's threatening violence against people who don't do what they want them to do is a dick move.
Yes. Retaliating is almost always wrong.
Dully noted.
Yes, an apt description. :lol
-
I think the extremists need a good dose of
(https://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj144/guitarcozmo/Humor/gtfov.gif)
-
Cozmo those boobs are amazing. Entrancing, even.
-
My evil plan is working...
-
It just seems an ineffective form of protest. What are you trying to accomplish?
-
Pro-Protesters, stop arguing rights. We get that. This isn't about rights. We know that if you want to be a huge dick and offend billions of people merely to spite a couple hundred you have every right to do so. We're simply saying that out of respect and human dignity it would be nice to simply treat their religion with respect and not go out of your way to purposely offend almost 1/5 of the Earth.
No matter how much you guys say this isn't about rights, it doesn't change that it is. I repeat, that IS what the protest is about. And since this is an argument about that protest, that means this is about rights.
You think retaliating against a group that's threatening violence against people who don't do what they want them to do is a dick move. Dully noted. I've also posted my own views about that particular argument.
If whoever created this entirely nonsensical charade of bullshit honestly thinks that this "protest" is about rights, then they're wrong. No one, including the extremists themselves ever said "you have no right to draw Muhammad."
You're right, they said "if you draw Muhammad we'll blow you the fuck up." It amounts to close to the same thing if no one does it because they're afraid of not only them but anyone near them at the time being killed.
So, again, this is entirely about other people's right to do something I may not even agree with.
It just seems an ineffective form of protest. What are you trying to accomplish?
I already said what I hope it accomplishes in the last post you quoted.
-
South Park were censored by THEIR BOSSES. Who have every right to do that, for whatever reason. There was no law censoring them, it was a personal decision of some board somewhere.
This.
-
Radical Muslims threaten to kill people who draw Muhammad. The purpose of everybody draw Muhammad day is to try showing that nobody should have the power to silence speech through violence. If it was just a matter of Muslims being offended, the debate would be different.
-
Radical Muslims threaten to kill people who draw Muhammad. The purpose of everybody draw Muhammad day is to try showing that nobody should have the power to silence speech through violence. If it was just a matter of Muslims being offended, the debate would be different.
But this is another good point as well.
-
Radical Muslims don't care though, if you think you shouldn't be silenced via the threat of violence. They're going to do what they think is right, despite Americans protesting. They lean towards violent anyway, so I know I'M having no intention of rocking the boat and potentially pissing them off to the point that they take more American lives over something that in the grand scheme of things is really pretty unimportant.
-
Radical Muslims threaten to kill people who draw Muhammad. The purpose of everybody draw Muhammad day is to try showing that nobody should have the power to silence speech through violence. If it was just a matter of Muslims being offended, the debate would be different.
OK, but surely we can come up with a more creative way of protesting this, right? Do we really need to basically stoop down to their level in order to get a quick shot back at them?
Why offend an entire group of people when you don't have to?
-
I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
If you've got one, I'd love to hear it.
-
I'm still waiting for what an appropriate from of protest would be that also makes a point. Like I said, saying you won't be intimidated but still doing exactly what they say holds absolutely no weight
If you've got one, I'd love to hear it.
I'm afraid that coming up with something like that falls in your hands (or the people that want to actually protest this). I mean, I can offer things (and I will should I think of any) but it ultimately is not my decision seeing as I cannot control anyone but myself.
-
It wasn't meant to be a challenge, I'm genuinely curious if anyone has any ideas. I certainly can't think of anything else. How do you tell someone they can't keep you silent while at the same time remaining silent?
-
I'm definitely the wrong person to ask since I pretty much categorically believe protests are silly and are a waste of time.
-
It wasn't meant to be a challenge, I'm genuinely curious if anyone has any ideas. I certainly can't think of anything else. How do you tell someone they can't keep you silent while at the same time remaining silent?
I guess I just don't see a need to protest anything in this case.
-
Radical Muslims threaten to kill people who draw Muhammad. The purpose of everybody draw Muhammad day is to try showing that nobody should have the power to silence speech through violence. If it was just a matter of Muslims being offended, the debate would be different.
OK, but surely we can come up with a more creative way of protesting this, right? Do we really need to basically stoop down to their level in order to get a quick shot back at them?
Why offend an entire group of people when you don't have to?
How is it stooping down to their level? You aren't drawing Muhammad then sawing a Muslim's head off. You're just drawing Muhammad.
As for why? Because free speech is probably the most important right human beings have. Threatening violence for speech is therefore among the lowest of crimes you can commit.
I'm definitely the wrong person to ask since I pretty much categorically believe protests are silly and are a waste of time.
I'm not saying everyone draw Muhammad day isn't a little silly, but it's not as bad as most protests. Most protests come down to "I think there should be no war, so instead of actually doing something to end the war, I'm gonna make a public display out of how much I dislike it." In this case, the issue at hand is radical Muslims saying don't draw Muhammad, and you're responding by actually drawing Muhammad instead of talking about how lame it is not to.
-
so let me get this straight...we have people calling for respectful treatment for a group of individuals who threaten violence towards someone who draws a single picture of a man of which no one even knows what he looks like? really? REALLY?
and fuck religion. i respect peoples right to religion, thats fine and dandy. but i do not respect their religion. i mean, if we offer up respect to someone's religion of which their scripture/beliefs forbid anyone to draw their prophet, then shouldnt, in the case of consistent ethics, respect their right to kill infidels (such as happened on 9/11) as it says in their scripture?
if they dont wanna draw something, thats fine. thats their belief, ill respect their decision not to. but i would expect their respect to me for me to act in accordance to my beliefs, of which drawing a little picture is fine.
the whole bloody mary episode of south park...isnt that disrespecting a religious figure that means a lot to some people? and isnt not drawing mohammed a sign of respect towards a certain religious figure?
this whole thing is to show that no one can claim superiority in cases such as these just by threatening violence. saying that you are off limits does not mean you are off limits. sorry, it doesn't.
if you do wanna draw mohammed, thats fine. if you dont, thats fine too. but if you do, you shouldnt have to be threatened with your life because of the shape and image a hunk of ink makes on a piece of paper. its time for people to grow up, both those who threaten over an image, and those who think the image shouldnt be drawn because they are arguing for some warped sense of respect to be shown to those who offer none themselves.
EDIT-https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=12678.0
i guess we sholdnt play certain things on the radio now? and what about tv? documentaries? where does it stop?
-
so let me get this straight...we have people calling for respectful treatment for a group of individuals who threaten violence towards someone who draws a single picture of a man of which no one even knows what he looks like? really? REALLY?
...not really. We have people calling for respectful treatment for the majority of the muslim world since it's a tenet of their religion not to draw Mohamed. People are saying it's a dick move to piss off a large group of people (who have nothing to do with extremists) with a protest that's going to accomplish basically nothing.
-
In this case, the issue at hand is radical Muslims saying don't draw Muhammad, and you're responding by actually drawing Muhammad instead of talking about how lame it is not to.
No. In this case, ALL Muslims are saying "Don't draw Muhammad," and the minority are really being dicks about it. And you're responding by pissing off ALL of them, even though most of them didn't do anything. So the ones who didn't do anything see their religion mocked, and the ones who are being dicks about it are laughing it up.
Real effective protest there.
-
so let me get this straight...we have people calling for respectful treatment for a group of individuals who threaten violence towards someone who draws a single picture of a man of which no one even knows what he looks like? really? REALLY?
...not really. We have people calling for respectful treatment for the majority of the muslim world since it's a tenet of their religion not to draw Mohamed. People are saying it's a dick move to piss off a large group of people (who have nothing to do with extremists) with a protest that's going to accomplish basically nothing.
Well, its a tenant of the bible to kill a man who cheats...so....you got the knife? what would we do if someone was calling for that respect?
And since this whole world seems too chicken shit to do it, here....this emoticon is my portrayal of muhammed...
:-\
allah be with you.
-
That kind of thing adds nothing to the discussion, prog.fusion. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, by all means have at it. But don't post just to stir the pot.
-
Even violence aside, why must we worry about offending any religion? Isn't that the point of religious satire?
-
Don't ignore me you bastard! Those chesticles are hypnotizing. I must know.
-
Who is that in your avatar anyway? :lol
Honestly, I'm really not sure. I think it's a pop star chick, but I can't remember who. I think I snagged it from a Fark thread.
-
That kind of thing adds nothing to the discussion, prog.fusion. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, by all means have at it. But don't post just to stir the pot.
i did not post to stir the pot, i posted my last post to ask/show what would happen if someone wanted to faithfully implement their religion on society, like muslims do with bans on little pictures, but this time it was something different, yet the same. my point also had a question that should have made one think, "am i saying be respectful because its a tenant of their religion, or because im just scared." i then inferred that it was the latter, and showed it is nothing to be scared of with my internet forum version of muhammed.
now, my little picture, how is that offensive, because like i said, we dont even know what he looked like. theres no reference picture or anything....people are just chicken shit about this whole thing because muslims are using the threat of violence. many religions in this country claim aspects of their tenants but no one implements them into society, why? because they dont threaten to end lives because of it. it all coms down to this.....do you have the balls to stand up against opression, or not?
its not stirring the pot, that sounds like a nice fucking point to me.
-
Who is that in your avatar anyway? :lol
Honestly, I'm really not sure. I think it's a pop star chick, but I can't remember who. I think I snagged it from a Fark thread.
Oh, thanks.
-
:lol no problem. The only reason I found that post was because I was wondering the same thing.
-
In this case, the issue at hand is radical Muslims saying don't draw Muhammad, and you're responding by actually drawing Muhammad instead of talking about how lame it is not to.
No. In this case, ALL Muslims are saying "Don't draw Muhammad," and the minority are really being dicks about it. And you're responding by pissing off ALL of them, even though most of them didn't do anything. So the ones who didn't do anything see their religion mocked, and the ones who are being dicks about it are laughing it up.
Real effective protest there.
I really doubt all Muslims are saying not to draw Muhammad.
Even if they are, what's the solution? People have been killed or threatened with death for depicting Muhammad and/or Islam by radical Muslims. Since I'm not sure we can just kill every violent Muslim, the only practical solution I see is for depicting Muhammad in art to become so common it's fruitless to try killing people who do it.
What doesn't seem like the solution is giving into the demands of radical Muslims who make death threats.
-
In this case, the issue at hand is radical Muslims saying don't draw Muhammad, and you're responding by actually drawing Muhammad instead of talking about how lame it is not to.
No. In this case, ALL Muslims are saying "Don't draw Muhammad," and the minority are really being dicks about it. And you're responding by pissing off ALL of them, even though most of them didn't do anything. So the ones who didn't do anything see their religion mocked, and the ones who are being dicks about it are laughing it up.
Real effective protest there.
I really doubt all Muslims are saying not to draw Muhammad.
Even if they are, what's the solution? People have been killed or threatened with death for depicting Muhammad and/or Islam by radical Muslims. Since I'm not sure we can just kill every violent Muslim, the only practical solution I see is for depicting Muhammad in art to become so common it's fruitless to try killing people who do it.
What doesn't seem like the solution is giving into the demands of radical Muslims who make death threats.
We're not giving into their demands, we're respecting the religion, and both parties happen to be pushing the same thing. If they were pushing for us to draw pictures of Muhammad at the expense of the other 99% of the Muslim populace than we'd still be arguing for people to not draw Muhammad.
-
:lol no problem. The only reason I found that post was because I was wondering the same thing.
We determined in another thread that it's Charlotte Church.
-
It just seems an ineffective form of protest. What are you trying to accomplish?
One of the reasons, like I said earlier, is to show that offending a religion isn't a big deal. One single incident shouldn't cause such a buzz. Muslim extremists need to stop having excuses for violence. No other major religion that I know of has members threatening assassinations because of blasphemous or offensive content. It's absurd that extremists would have any kind of rationale at all to single out a cartoonist and kill him.
Another point is to show that applying Islamic law to non-Muslims is dumb and actually makes no sense. In a multi-religious world, you have to be able to tolerate this kind of joke (Everybody Draw Mohammed Day because yes, it is a joke lol). If I thought this was some kind of sick Islamophobic reaction towards Muslims trying to spread hatred I'd be disgusted but all I'm seeing is a joke that serves the purpose of diverting the risk of violence.
-
Offending, for the sake of offending, is really stupid.
-
Offending, for the sake of offending, is really stupid.
Is there such a thing?
-
In this case, the issue at hand is radical Muslims saying don't draw Muhammad, and you're responding by actually drawing Muhammad instead of talking about how lame it is not to.
No. In this case, ALL Muslims are saying "Don't draw Muhammad," and the minority are really being dicks about it. And you're responding by pissing off ALL of them, even though most of them didn't do anything. So the ones who didn't do anything see their religion mocked, and the ones who are being dicks about it are laughing it up.
Real effective protest there.
I really doubt all Muslims are saying not to draw Muhammad.
Even if they are, what's the solution? People have been killed or threatened with death for depicting Muhammad and/or Islam by radical Muslims. Since I'm not sure we can just kill every violent Muslim, the only practical solution I see is for depicting Muhammad in art to become so common it's fruitless to try killing people who do it.
What doesn't seem like the solution is giving into the demands of radical Muslims who make death threats.
We're not giving into their demands, we're respecting the religion, and both parties happen to be pushing the same thing. If they were pushing for us to draw pictures of Muhammad at the expense of the other 99% of the Muslim populace than we'd still be arguing for people to not draw Muhammad.
like ive said, we arent respecting their religion. people are bowing down to violent threats. their religious scripture does indeed call for the death of infidels. so if we truly respected their religion, we wouldnt have done shit after 9/11. im sorry, but your point is shit, youre simpl scared.
and shouldnt we then respect all religions? if so, how many of you condem south park for showing buddha sniffing coke? or jesus shitting on the american president? or Mary blasting the pope's face with vaginal blood? arent these all acts of dissrespect? shouldnt you be equally upset and outspoken against these? yes. but you arent. why? because muslims threaten violence. its ok if youre the type to bow down to this type of bullshit, but just dont try to hide it in a cloak of respect.
-
like ive said, we arent respecting their religion. people are bowing down to violent threats. their religious scripture does indeed call for the death of infidels. so if we truly respected their religion, we wouldnt have done shit after 9/11. im sorry, but your point is shit, youre simpl scared.
and shouldnt we then respect all religions? if so, how many of you condem south park for showing buddha sniffing coke? or jesus shitting on the american president? or Mary blasting the pope's face with vaginal blood? arent these all acts of dissrespect? shouldnt you be equally upset and outspoken against these? yes. but you arent. why? because muslims threaten violence. its ok if youre the type to bow down to this type of bullshit, but just dont try to hide it in a cloak of respect.
Alright, I'm not going to argue a troll. This is just too silly.
-
:lol no problem. The only reason I found that post was because I was wondering the same thing.
We determined in another thread that it's Charlotte Church.
Yummy... (https://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/07/08-15/charlotte_church-tatters-drunk.jpg)
I'm gonna go for that run, bbl.
-
https://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat/index.html
The New York Times' Muslim problem
By Glenn Greenwald
(https://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/26/douthat/md_horiz.jpg)
"South Park" depicted the prophet Muhammad in a bear costume earlier this month,
which drew a veiled threat from the website revolutionmuslim.com.
In a way, the muzzling of "South Park" is no more disquieting than any other example of Western institutions' cowering before the threat of Islamist violence. . . . But there's still a sense in which the "South Park" case is particularly illuminating. . . . t's a reminder that Islam is just about the only place where we draw any lines at all. . . .Our culture has few taboos that cant be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place. Except where Islam is concerned.
The New York Times, March 28 2010 (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/theater/29arts-CORPUSCHRIST_BRF.html)
A Texas university class production of "Corpus Christi," by Terrence McNally, below, has been canceled by college officials citing "safety and security concerns for the students" as well as the need to maintain an orderly academic environment, The Austin Chronicle reported. "Corpus Christi," Mr. McNallys 1998 play depicting a gay Jesus figure, was scheduled to be performed on Saturday as part of a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Tex. But early on Friday, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst condemned the performance, saying in a press release that "no one should have the right to use government funds or institutions to portray acts that are morally reprehensible to the vast majority of Americans." Although Tarleton's president, F. Dominic Dottavio, first defended the students' right to perform a play he considered "offensive, crude and irreverent," university officials changed course late Friday night, canceling the performance after receiving threatening calls and e-mail messages, according to The Star-Telegram.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 8, 2010 (h/t Queerty): (https://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/08/2100738/theater-withdraws-offer-to-stage.html#ixzz0ku1waSgs)
A Fort Worth theater that had agreed to show a student-directed play with a gay Jesus character has withdrawn its offer. The board of directors of Artes de la Rosa, which runs The Rose Marine Theater on North Main Street, decided Thursday against offering the venue for the production of Corpus Christi, just one day after saying it would. A March performance set for a directing class at Tarleton State University in Stephenville was abruptly canceled after the school received threatening emails.
It looks like Ross Douthat picked the wrong month to try to pretend that threat-induced censorship is a uniquely Islamic practice. Corpus Christi is the same play that was scheduled and then canceled (and then re-scheduled) by the Manhattan Theater Club back in 1998 as a result of "anonymous telephone threats to burn down the theater, kill the staff, and 'exterminate' McNally." Both back then and now, leading the protests (though not the threats) was the Catholic League, denouncing the play as "blasphemous hate speech."
I abhor the threats of violence coming from fanatical Muslims over the expression of ideas they find offensive, as well as the cowardly institutions which acquiesce to the accompanying demands for censorship. I've vigorously condemned efforts to haul anti-Muslim polemicists before Canadian and European "human rights" (i.e., censorship) tribunals. But the very idea that such conduct is remotely unique to Muslims is delusional, the by-product of Douthat's ongoing use of his New York Times column for his anti-Muslim crusade and sectarian religious promotion.
The various forms of religious-based, intimidation-driven censorship and taboo ideas in the U.S. -- what Douthat claims are non-existent except when it involves Muslims -- are too numerous to chronicle. One has to be deeply ignorant, deeply dishonest or consumed with petulant self-victimization and anti-Muslim bigotry to pretend they don't exist. I opt (primarily) for the latter explanation in Douthat's case.
As Balloon-Juice's DougJ notes, everyone from Phil Donahue and Ashliegh Banfield to Bill Maher and Sinead O'Connor can tell you about that first-hand. As can the cable television news reporters who were banned by their corporate executives from running stories that reflected negatively on Bush and the war. When he was Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani was fixated on using the power of his office to censor art that offended his Catholic sensibilities. The Bush administration banned mainstream Muslim scholars even from entering the U.S. to teach. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats for daring to criticize the Leader, forcing them to apologize out of fear for their lives. Campaigns to deny tenure to academicians, or appointments to politicial officials, who deviate from Israel orthodoxy are common and effective. Responding to religious outrage, a Congressional investigation was formally launched and huge fines issued all because Janet Jackson's breast was displayed for a couple of seconds on television.
All that's to say nothing of the endless examples of religious-motivated violence by Christian and Jewish extremists designed to intimidate and suppress ideas offensive to their religious dogma (I'm also pretty sure the people doing this and this are not Muslim). And, contrary to Douthat's misleading suggestion, hate speech laws have been used for censorious purposes far beyond punishing speech offensive to Muslims -- including, for instance, by Christian groups invoking such laws to demand the banning of plays they dislike.
It's nice that The New York Times hired a columnist devoted to defending his Church and promoting his religious sectarian conflicts without any response from the target of his bitter tribalistic encyclicals. Can one even conceive of having a Muslim NYT columnist who routinely disparages and rails against Christians and Jews this way? To ask the question is to answer it, and by itself gives the lie to Douthat's typically right-wing need to portray his own majoritarian group as the profoundly oppressed victim at the hands of the small, marginalized, persecuted group which actually has no power (it's so unfair how Muslims always get their way in the U.S.). But whatever else is true, there ought to be a minimum standard of factual accuracy required for these columns. The notion that censorship is exercised only on behalf of Muslims falls far short of that standard.
UPDATE: A few points based on the discussion in the comment section:
(1) Several people are insisting that the problem of violence and threats by Muslims is far greater than, and thus not comparable to, those posed by Christians and Jews. This is just the same form of triabalistic, my-side-is-always-better blindness afflicting Douthat. Who could possibly look at the U.S. and conclude that brutal, inhumane, politically-motivated, designed-to-intimidate violence is a particular problem among Muslims, or that Muslims receive special, unfairly favorable treatment as a result of their intimidation? Do you mean except for the tens of thousands of Muslims whom the U.S. has imprisoned without charges for years, and the hundreds of thousands our wars and invasions and bombings have killed this decade alone, and the ones from around the world subjected to racial and ethnic profiling, and the ones we've tortured and shot up at checkpoints and are targeting for state-sponsored assassination?
(2) There's no question that violence or threatened violence by Islamic radicals against authors, cartoonists and the like is a serious problem. But (a) simply click on the links above -- or talk to workers in abortion clinics about the climate in which they work -- and try to justify how you can, with a straight face, claim it's not very pervasive among extremists and fanatics generally, and (b) avoid exaggerating the problem. The group that threatened the South Park creators is a tiny, fringe group founded by a former right-wing Jewish-American settler in the West Bank who converted to Islam and spends most of his time harrassing American Muslims (the former "James Cohen"; h/t Archtype); they're about as representative of Muslims generally as Fred Phelps and these people are representative of Christians. Moreover, numerous blogs displayed the Mohammed cartoons and plan to do so again; the notion that the Western World is cowering in abject fear from Muslim intimidation is absurdly overblown.
(3) Sarah Palin recently defended the Rev. Franklin Graham's statement that Islam is "a very evil and wicked religion." That barely caused a ripple of controversy. Imagine if a leading political figure had said anything remotely similar about Christianity or Judaism. The claim that Muslims receive some sort of special protection or sensitivity is the opposite of reality.
(4) Ross Douthat previously cited with approval Jonah Goldberg's explicit advocacy of right-wing censorship (h/t sysprog). When Douthat starts speaking out against censorship of ideas he hates, rather than when it comes from the religions he dislikes, he'll have credibility as what he pretends today to be: a crusader for free expression. Until then, it's clear that he's interested in little else other than wrapping himself in the banner of free expression as a means of advancing his sectarian conflicts.
-
like ive said, we arent respecting their religion. people are bowing down to violent threats. their religious scripture does indeed call for the death of infidels. so if we truly respected their religion, we wouldnt have done shit after 9/11. im sorry, but your point is shit, youre simpl scared.
and shouldnt we then respect all religions? if so, how many of you condem south park for showing buddha sniffing coke? or jesus shitting on the american president? or Mary blasting the pope's face with vaginal blood? arent these all acts of dissrespect? shouldnt you be equally upset and outspoken against these? yes. but you arent. why? because muslims threaten violence. its ok if youre the type to bow down to this type of bullshit, but just dont try to hide it in a cloak of respect.
Alright, I'm not going to argue a troll. This is just too silly.
great argument. absolutely fantastic points were made and you have single-handedly changed my mind. well done. i never thought the "i dont like what you said and instead of debating it, ill just insult you and run away," argument was this compelling.
-
Prog, being confrontational and saying the sum of your opponents arguments is the result of being scared makes people not want to respond to you. Just be a little more respectful in what you say and destroy the air of hostility you are currently propagating.
This is scary:
https://revolutionmuslim.com/ (the site that threatened comedy central and south park).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XslZM0xnUWM&feature=player_embedded#!
-
No other major religion that I know of has members threatening assassinations because of blasphemous or offensive content.
My point still stands but yes, there is Islamophobia in the US, and much of it.
-
Prog, being confrontational and saying the sum of your opponents arguments is the result of being scared makes people not want to respond to you. Just be a little more respectful in what you say and destroy the air of hostility you are currently propagating.
if i am creating an 'air of hostility,' its not meant. i just happen to say things a lot of people sweep under the rug. and not respecting other aspects of someones religion, but respecting one because its backed up with violence seems cowardly to me. if someone has a problem with that i would suggest they act mature enough to either offer a proper reason as to why they arent scared, or admit they are.
im not being confrontational. im calling inconsistent philosophies bullshit. i see nothing confrontational about that. its honest, harsh, but honest.
-
I know it sounds cool to say "I'm so honest I'm harsh," but your posts don't really support that that's who you are. They only show that you haven't really read (or understood) more than a few posts in the thread and don't really understand the arguments whatsoever.
-
Another point is to show that applying Islamic law to non-Muslims is dumb and actually makes no sense.
I don't want to sound like I'm getting on the religion is lame bandwagon, but this is completely true. It's be like me expecting non-Christians to respect biblical traditions if they think it's nothing more than a collection of stories.
-
Another point is to show that applying Islamic law to non-Muslims is dumb and actually makes no sense.
I don't want to sound like I'm getting on the religion is lame bandwagon, but this is completely true. It's be like me expecting non-Christians to respect biblical traditions if they think it's nothing more than a collection of stories.
I agree, but no one is suggesting that we all go around breaking the 10 commandments just to show that we can.
-
Another point is to show that applying Islamic law to non-Muslims is dumb and actually makes no sense.
I don't want to sound like I'm getting on the religion is lame bandwagon, but this is completely true. It's be like me expecting non-Christians to respect biblical traditions if they think it's nothing more than a collection of stories.
I agree, but no one is suggesting that we all go around breaking the 10 commandments just to show that we can.
Because no one is threatening to murder anyone for doing so.
-
Another point is to show that applying Islamic law to non-Muslims is dumb and actually makes no sense.
I don't want to sound like I'm getting on the religion is lame bandwagon, but this is completely true. It's be like me expecting non-Christians to respect biblical traditions if they think it's nothing more than a collection of stories.
I agree, but no one is suggesting that we all go around breaking the 10 commandments just to show that we can.
Because no one is threatening to murder anyone for doing so.
I am threatening you with violence to have sex with women.
You better stop having sex to show me my place.
-
I am threatening you with violence to have sex with women.
You better stop having sex to show me my place.
A bunch of Buddhist monks are cowering in fear right now.
-
I am threatening you with violence to have sex with women.
You better stop having sex to show me my place.
A bunch of Buddhist monks are cowering in fear right now.
At least andy is safe.
-
Another point is to show that applying Islamic law to non-Muslims is dumb and actually makes no sense.
I don't want to sound like I'm getting on the religion is lame bandwagon, but this is completely true. It's be like me expecting non-Christians to respect biblical traditions if they think it's nothing more than a collection of stories.
I agree, but no one is suggesting that we all go around breaking the 10 commandments just to show that we can.
Because no one is threatening to murder anyone for doing so.
How many people would have to threaten violence before you would start breaking commandments in protest?
The problem isn't their rule about drawing Mohammed. The problem is the the group of them that haven't joined the 21st century and deal with satire. This kind of protest is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Do what you want. You have the right. But again, the people who you should be targeting, the radicals, won't care - they will just get riled up about it, which they've been looking for anyway.
-
Tell you what, I kinda understand the point. In fact, I completely agree with the core point. We all get offended, but extremists are being complete cocks to wander in and go "no, sorry, that breaks my personal code so we can't allow anyone to do that."
Fundmentally wrong, that is. Give and take. Extremist muslims have been known to burn effigies and all that - can't know if they're the same ones, but it's definitely that kind of vein - but we all just kind of go, "okay."
There are worse things than being offended. What's the worst possible consequence of being offended? You'll be a bit disgruntled for a while, then go back to living your life as though nothing had happened. You don't contract an illness when you're offended - you're a bit peeved for a bit and then you resume your life. I'm offended that Piers Morgan is on the telly. Gravely offended. But oh well. I get over it.
And, on that note, it's not fair to expect people to change the way they live their lives to incorporate a moral code that they have absolutely no stake in. "Hey, everybody do things this way and no exceptions or I will deck you oh my god."
Buuuut... the thing is, the South Park guys are, themselves, essentially bullies. Funny bullies, I really like 'em, but this is the equivalent of bopping someone on the back of the head, then suddenly playing innocent when they turn round to reveal that actually they have a sixpack and stanley knives for teeth.
If that's how they choose to make their money, they are kind of obliged to tough out some threats. So, no. I can't give them the moral high ground here. Fair play muslim extremism - a sentence I've never before used and probably won't again.
That said, I may break out a cheeky little doodle of the M-ster if I remember. Flattering one, but it's just nice to occasionally go "look, I'm my own person."
-
South Park does cause little incidents here and their with their offensive humor, but you could argue that in the long run it helps people recognize the stereotypes they have and to learn to get over their differences with a laugh.
-
And also that there is a fine line between offensive humor and slitting some guys throat.
-
And also that there is a fine line between offensive humor and slitting some guys throat.
:lol That's almost sig-worthy.
-
I know it sounds cool to say "I'm so honest I'm harsh," but your posts don't really support that that's who you are. They only show that you haven't really read (or understood) more than a few posts in the thread and don't really understand the arguments whatsoever.
No, i honestly know that it sounds harsh when someone says what you're saying is bullshit. Im not trying to be cool, just stating that people have inconsistent views. And me not understanding the arguments? Dude, i dont think you even understand the actual issue.
Why do people(including you) show respect to this ONE SPECIFIC tenant of Islam, but no other of their religion or of any other religions? You dont eat Kosher because you are not Jewish. You dont pray to Mary because you're not Catholic. You dont believe in the Holy Trinity because you're of another religion. You dont live and structure your life according to other's beliefs and religious tenants. So why this one? Why JUST this one?
What would you say/do if some Muslims in America wanted to stone their daughters for whatever deed they did? Would you respect it, like you do the picture drawing, or have a problem with it and try to stop these horrible acts? Why should we live our lives according to someone elses religion, of which has no proof or evidence of even being true....dude, c'mon.
-
Two issues:
1. I agree that you can't live your life by tring to abide by every religious tenet of every set of religious beliefs simply so as not to offend. But that misses the point here. The point is not about that. It's about not being disrespectful by going out of your way to do something that you wouldn't normally do that is calculated to offend. It's a subtle difference, but at the same time, a very big one.
2. It's not about trying not to offend the radicals that have made the threats. It's about doing something that is calculated to offend Muslims as a whole, including the vast majority who, at least for purposes of this particular discussion, we have no beef with and have no beef with us.
In short, to put it another way (as has been said by others in the thread already), the problem is not that anyone in this thread necessarily feels it is important to show respect for a particular tenet of Islam while hypocritically ignoring others. The problem is that this particular protest is designed to publicly denegrate the religion as a whole by thumbing one's nose at the fact that a large number of people will be offended, and the vast majority of those people are not even the ones who are trying to "bully" the world with their threats.
You are right that I do not, for example, pray to Mary because I am not Catholic. In fact, since you probably have not read enough P/R threads to know, I grew up in the Catholic Church and left it once I was old enough to realize that it is a complete perversion of Christianity. I take every opportunity to discuss and oppose the practices of the Catholic Church that are anti-Christian. But by the same token, I do not go into cathedrals and tear down or vandalize their Mary idols because that would be rude, offensive, and counterproductive to any sort of good I could possibly hope to accomplish. To me, what we are talking about in this thread is not very different.
(And by the way, thank you for toning down the rhetoric and posting in a more constructive manner so that people can actually discuss your points)
-
I never used any rhetoric, at least not intentionally. i think people just got tired of being called bullshit. my points have remained the same.
the point of many people saying that they are going to draw muhammed has nothing to do with just blatantly pissing muslims off, it has to do with freedom of expression and not being ied by the bonds of another's religious beliefs.
and you're right, a lot of people are now just going to draw it. but its only because its now seen as something they should be able to do if they want. its a limit on what one can do according to anothers beliefs and its total bullshit. i have no reason to draw muhammed, but if for some reason i end up having one, i should be able to. thats what a lot of people are angry about.
-
And even more people are angry about the fact that a shit-ton of people who have no reason to draw it, now have this ridiculously false outrage over the assumption that their rights have somehow been infringed upon and there's this knee-jerk "You can't keep me down!" attitude over something that (in the grand scheme of things) is extremely miniscule and worthless to worry over.
Someone doesn't want us to do something we would never truly have a reason or desire to do, in most cases. Because of that, we want to. Classic "I only want it because someone else doesn't want me to have it" bit. It all seems pretty pointless to me.
-
And even more people are angry about the fact that a shit-ton of people who have no reason to draw it, now have this ridiculously false outrage over the assumption that their rights have somehow been infringed upon and there's this knee-jerk "You can't keep me down!" attitude over something that (in the grand scheme of things) is extremely miniscule and worthless to worry over.
But then even when those people try to explain that they're not even necessarily doing it for themselves you keep throwing out these types of arguments.
Really, it's the same arguments being thrown out. There are STILL people in this thread saying it's being done "just to offend" or because we think that we personally are losing any "rights." After I've explained that those claims are flat out wrong multiple times.
But who needs to actually counter anyone's arguments when you just can go "you make great points, but I still think you're a jerk." Or claim they're doing things for reasons that aren't true.
-
Ehra, what more are you expecting? You've said you think it is about rights. Others who are on the other side believe that approaching this from the standpoint that it is about rights misses the point and makes those who are in favor of the protest appear to be selfish jerks in their views on this issue. As has been said, no one is infringing on your right to free speech and the closely-related right to protest. Nobody. But more than a few of us recognize that just because you have the right to do something, asserting that right may have the consequence of others thinking you are a douche, which is, speaking of rights, their right to think that. Your right to free speech doesn't take away someone else's right to think the way you are handling yourself makes you look bad. So, again, what is it exactly that you are looking for?
-
Ehra, what more are you expecting? You've said you think it is about rights. Others who are on the other side believe that approaching this from the standpoint that it is about rights misses the point and makes those who are in favor of the protest appear to be selfish jerks in their views on this issue. As has been said, no one is infringing on your right to free speech and the closely-related right to protest. Nobody.
And how many times have I said that it's not about my own rights but the rights of other people who have attempted and are not allowed because of fear? Quite a few times.
But more than a few of us recognize that just because you have the right to do something, asserting that right may have the consequence of others thinking you are a douche, which is, speaking of rights, their right to think that. Your right to free speech doesn't take away someone else's right to think the way you are handling yourself makes you look bad. So, again, what is it exactly that you are looking for?
To give actual reasons for how attempting to stand up for someone else's right to be a douche makes me a douche. Not just keep repeating "doing things just to offend people is wrong." Especially since apparently no one can actually come up with any other way for people to do so that's relevant to this situation.
-
So, again, what is it exactly that you are looking for?
To give actual reasons for how attempting to stand up for someone else's right to be a douche makes me a douche. Not just keep repeating "doing things just to offend people is wrong."
But that is an actual reason. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a valid reason.
-
So you're filled with moral outrage and want to find an outlet for that, and since you can't find anything better to do you're going to disrespect 1/5th of the world?
Again, the problem isn't that these extremists are threatening people over drawing Mohammed - the problem is that they are threatening people AT ALL.
You're looking solely on your motivation for doing something, and not on how that something will affect people. That's why you are coming across...well, how bosky said.
-
So, again, what is it exactly that you are looking for?
To give actual reasons for how attempting to stand up for someone else's right to be a douche makes me a douche. Not just keep repeating "doing things just to offend people is wrong."
But that is an actual reason. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a valid reason.
The reason I don't like it is because THAT IS NOT WHY IT'S BEING DONE. It's not a valid reason because it's outright false.
You're looking solely on your motivation for doing something, and not on how that something will affect people. That's why you are coming across...well, how bosky said.
If I'm coming across as doing this for the sole purpose of offending anyone then maybe you should take a few seconds to read some of my posts for a change. Particularly the posts where I say offending people is not the intention.
-
It doesn't matter that offending people isn't your motivation. It is a substantial certainty that offending people will occur whether it is your motivation for protesting or not. Knowing that and disregarding it in favor of doing what you want to do is the issue.
-
Bottom Line- If one wants to draw muhammed, they should be allowed to do so and not be sentenced to death. But one should be aware that a lot of people would think you are a douche.
/o'story
-
Bottom Line- If one wants to draw muhammed, they should be allowed to do so and not be sentenced to death. But one should be aware that a lot of people would think you are a douche.
/o'story
:lol I guess that about sums it up.
-
Bottom Line- If one wants to draw muhammed, they should be allowed to do so and not be sentenced to death. But one should be aware that a lot of people would think you are a douche.
/o'story
Brilliant.
-
It doesn't matter that offending people isn't your motivation. It is a substantial certainty that offending people will occur whether it is your motivation for protesting or not. Knowing that and disregarding it in favor of doing what you want to do is the issue.
So what you're saying is that even if people have no logical reason for being offended over something, if they are then you're at fault for offending them. Even if it doesn't actually harm them in any way, and even if that act is the only valid form of protest that actually makes sense.
I said it earlier in the thread and, unsurprisingly, it was ignored. If the reason mentioned on these forums for why Muslims consider it blasphemy to draw Mohamad is true (because it's giving a worldly/physical form to something that is beyond the physical and it taints their vision of him), then they have NO good reason to be offended over the fact that pictures they won't see are being drawn.
-
im not as internet-forum savvy as most, so i take it that those comments are meant with sarcasm? if so, oh well. If not, glad you can see reason.
-
So what you're saying is that even if people have no logical reason for being offended over something, if they are then you're at fault for offending them.
That's part of it, yes. If you know they will be offended, and there is no good reason for you going out of your way to offend them, then yes.
Obviously, there are times when we will unintentionally offend. That doesn't make the offender a jerk. Obviously, there are times when we will likely offend, but that is an unfortunate consequence of an action that is reasonably necessary. That probably doesn't make the offender a jerk, but possibly still could in some circumstances. In my (and some others') opinion, as has already been said, I do not see this protest as reasonably necessary. Ergo...well, you already know what the ergo is.
I said it earlier in the thread and, unsurprisingly, it was ignored. If the reason mentioned on these forums for why Muslims consider it blasphemy to draw Mohamad is true (because it's giving a worldly/physical form to something that is beyond the physical and it taints their vision of him), then they have NO good reason to be offended over the fact that pictures they won't see are being drawn.
I don't think it was ignored. I just think it is irrelevant. Nobody said they have a good reason to be offended. I agree with you that they do not (although my reasoning is probably different than yours in some respects). But that isn't the point.
-
So what you're saying is that even if people have no logical reason for being offended over something, if they are then you're at fault for offending them. Even if it doesn't actually harm them in any way, and even if that act is the only valid form of protest that actually makes sense.
We aren't talking about logic, we are talking about religion. And no matter what you think of their reasons for being offended, if you know it will offend them and you do it anyway, especially if there is no reason that you need to do the offending action, yes, you are at fault. How could you not be?
Also, "actual harm" is in the eye of the beholder. And why is any protest needed in the first place?
I said it earlier in the thread and, unsurprisingly, it was ignored. If the reason mentioned on these forums for why Muslims consider it blasphemy to draw Mohamad is true (because it's giving a worldly/physical form to something that is beyond the physical and it taints their vision of him), then they have NO good reason to be offended over the fact that pictures they won't see are being drawn.
If they won't see them, why would you do it? That's an even more meaningless protest than I thought.
-
That's part of it, yes. If you know they will be offended, and there is no good reason for you going out of your way to offend them, then yes.
So then why do we allow scantily clad women in our society? There's no good reason to allow it when the cost is upsetting so many people right?
We aren't talking about logic
Yes, that's become painfully obvious.
If they won't see them, why would you do it? That's an even more meaningless protest than I thought.
So you're saying it's impossible that people will eventually decide to ignore these threats? Because, yes, I do agree that it doesn't matter if that becomes the ultimate outcome at the cost of people being offended over something they shouldn't have gone looking for in the first place.
-
...
-
Anything to actually contribute?
-
I guess I'm in the absolute minority in this thread in that I actually find offensive-for-the-sake-of-offensive humor tremendously funny, especially when people's huffy religious sensibilities get upset to the point of violence by a stupid little cartoon show.
If that makes me immature, then I'll ask millahhh to revoke my title of "maturest forum member".
-
That's part of it, yes. If you know they will be offended, and there is no good reason for you going out of your way to offend them, then yes.
So then why do we allow scantily clad women in our society? There's no good reason to allow it when the cost is upsetting so many people right?
Nobody has said anything about banning anything from society, so your intended point again misses the mark. You are allowed in our society to draw Mohammed to your heart's content. The issue is whether there is a good reason to do so and whether doing so, especially in the form of an "organized" protest that is reasonably certain to offend, is in poor taste or not.
-
Nobody has said anything about banning anything from society, so your intended point again misses the mark.
If everyone's afraid to do it for fear of being blown up then it effectively IS banned. If no one ever does it then it makes the people who actually do it stand out, even if they do have a good reason for it. And they will be targeted.
It doesn't matter right now if anyone has a good or bad reason because once they try they'll either be killed or shut up by someone else who doesn't want to risk being killed.
-
That's part of it, yes. If you know they will be offended, and there is no good reason for you going out of your way to offend them, then yes.
So then why do we allow scantily clad women in our society? There's no good reason to allow it when the cost is upsetting so many people right?
Nobody has said anything about banning anything from society, so your intended point again misses the mark. You are allowed in our society to draw Mohammed to your heart's content. The issue is whether there is a good reason to do so and whether doing so, especially in the form of an "organized" protest that is reasonably certain to offend, is in poor taste or not.
i would argue that as long as there is someone who has the power to censor it, i would say you arent. Parker and Stone are obvious examples.
and i actually thought we were moving away from the actual protest mentioned in OP, and were talking about the simple act of doing it. for the protest, yes, some people will do it just to piss people off. that is quite douchey. but some will do it to make a point that says, "i will not be limited by means of violence as to what i can and can not do." the latter is perfectly fine.
-
So then why do we allow scantily clad women in our society? There's no good reason to allow it when the cost is upsetting so many people right?
Because scantily clad women are awesome.
I think the reason I don't really get this is because it will never have an effect on me. It's like having a stance on abortion. I'm never going to have one, and I'm never going to give my woman a reason to consider the option. So it does not affect me. Hence, I don't care. Gimme another beer.
I DO understand the "I have to stand up for others' rights" argument. I would understand it a LOT more if it were an impassioned plea to defend others' rights, regarding something that was actually important.
-
I think the reason I don't really get this is because it will never have an effect on me. It's like having a stance on abortion. I'm never going to have one, and I'm never going to give my woman a reason to consider the option. So it does not affect me. Hence, I don't care. Gimme another beer.
This I can understand and respect.
-
I think the reason I don't really get this is because it will never have an effect on me. It's like having a stance on abortion. I'm never going to have one, and I'm never going to give my woman a reason to consider the option. So it does not affect me. Hence, I don't care. Gimme another beer.
This I can understand and respect.
This i can respect and understand.
-
I think the reason I don't really get this is because it will never have an effect on me. It's like having a stance on abortion. I'm never going to have one, and I'm never going to give my woman a reason to consider the option. So it does not affect me. Hence, I don't care. Gimme another beer.
This I can understand and respect.
This i can respect and understand.
Respectfully, this I can understand.
-
I think the reason I don't really get this is because it will never have an effect on me. It's like having a stance on abortion. I'm never going to have one, and I'm never going to give my woman a reason to consider the option. So it does not affect me. Hence, I don't care. Gimme another beer.
This I can understand and respect.
This i can respect and understand.
Respectfully, this I can understand.
I can understand this, respectfully.
-
With all due respect, I don't understand this thread anymore.
-
(https://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj144/guitarcozmo/skisrcsn.jpg)
-
BUT MEN
-
That's part of it, yes. If you know they will be offended, and there is no good reason for you going out of your way to offend them, then yes.
So then why do we allow scantily clad women in our society? There's no good reason to allow it when the cost is upsetting so many people right?
Nobody has said anything about banning anything from society, so your intended point again misses the mark. You are allowed in our society to draw Mohammed to your heart's content. The issue is whether there is a good reason to do so and whether doing so, especially in the form of an "organized" protest that is reasonably certain to offend, is in poor taste or not.
i would argue that as long as there is someone who has the power to censor it, i would say you arent. Parker and Stone are obvious examples.
Your boss can censor you as much as he or she wants. This is by far one of the most random and of no use censorships there are. South Park isn't allowed to say a lot of things, why does this one piss you off so much? Just because a few people thratened (in vain) violence?
-
I just saw this thread, Quadrochosis posts from the first page express how I feel about this.
I hate to say I'm offended, cause I find it such a wussy thing to say and I never really used it before, but seeing the thread title and the objective of drawing day thing makes me feel a little shortness of breath, pressure on my chest and a brief difficulty in swallowing, unfortunately all of this define the feelings that come with the word "offended" :-\, it's a sharp loud slap to my face, even though I understand what most of you are coming from and I can't really blame anyone or actually be mad, so depressed and sad for a while but will have to do.
I'm not posting all this for a purpose, I've noticed posts about how normal Muslims would react to something that it meant to piss off radical ones, so here's my side of it.
-
But, christians aren't offended by such things. Thus muslims have no logical reason to be offended either.
What the hell is sarcasm green?
-
I'd say the same thing to the Catholics who were horribly offended by the South Park episode involving the Virgin Mary menstruating all over the Pope's face. That was just as offensive and blasphemous to Catholics as this whole mess is to Muslims. It's a fact of life that people make fun of other people's religious beliefs, and no group should feel like they're immune to being ridiculed.
-
I'd say the same thing to the Catholics who were horribly offended by the Virgin Mary menstruating all over the Pope's face. That was just as offensive and blasphemous to Catholics as this whole mess is to Muslims. It's a fact of life that people make fun of other people's religious beliefs, and no group should feel like they're immune to being ridiculed.
I agree. But that doesn't mean that just cause one group IS offended, we should do it more.
-
Good Lord! I can't believe I am completely agreeing with Adami at every turn in this thread. Quick, say something liberal!
Oh, and: sarcasm green, how does it work?
Sorry, had to be said.
-
As many times as it's been stated in this thread, it doesn't seem to be sinking in. The "Draw Mohammed Day!" thing, while it WAS immature and stupid, was in response to the RevolutionIslam issuing an official warning of violent action toward the South Park creators for doing something they found offensive. Pissing off Muslims for the sake of pissing off Muslims was not the aim. People are just pissed off that Muslims feel that they are above the same level of ridicule as any other religious group and are threatening violence as a result.
-
Of course it is sinking in. I have repeatedly acknowledged that fact. And I continue to think it is an inadequate justification for "Draw Mohammed Day" for the reasons I, hef, Quad, Adami, and others have stated.
-
As many times as it's been stated in this thread, it doesn't seem to be sinking in. The "Draw Mohammed Day!" thing, while it WAS immature and stupid, was in response to the RevolutionIslam issuing an official warning of violent action toward the South Park creators for doing something they found offensive. Pissing off Muslims for the sake of pissing off Muslims was not the aim. People are just pissed off that Muslims feel that they are above the same level of ridicule as any other religious group and are threatening violence as a result.
I understand, believe me I do. And none of us are asking you to be silenced. We're just saying....do what you normally do. Unless you would normally draw muhammad, why start now? If you really want to, feel free, but as an act of defiance? Seems weird.
-
For the record, I have no desire to draw mohammed, nor did I have any desire to participate in this ridiculous "Draw Mohammed Day!" thing. I do, however, defend South Park for their right to satirize religious beliefs, Muslim or otherwise.
-
For the record, I have no desire to draw mohammed, nor did I have any desire to participate in this ridiculous "Draw Mohammed Day!" thing. I do, however, defend South Park for their right to satirize religious beliefs, Muslim or otherwise.
So do I. I however don't defend a day to draw muhammad just for the sake of doing it.
-
:lol But it's NOT just for the sake of doing it. It's a response to RevolutionIslam's violent warnings.
-
The wheels on the bus go round and round.
-
:lol
-
I do defend Draw Mohammed Day because it's a joke that demonstrates how dumb it is to apply a Muslim law (not all Muslims even agree on this) to everybody else. It's not an actual occasion where people draw Mohammed and piss off people in the middle east like some people here are making it out to be. When it actually becomes offending for the sake of offending, get back to me.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/nb3e3.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/nb3e3.png)
:lol
Especially at the mormon bit
-
(https://i.imgur.com/nb3e3.png)
Brilliant. And accurate.
-
:lol That's great. A very clever way of summing them up.
-
Huh.. I'm away from the forums for a week and this thread is 7 pages.
I admit I will probably not draw a picture of Muhammed (Muhammad? Muhamed? Mohammad? Mohamad? Mohammed? Mohamed?) just because I am lazy or I will most likely forget about it. Now I can see the reasoning of both sides, personally I don't like nor do I respect Islam. On my list of religions harmful to the world, Islam puts a good fight for number one. If I were too do it I would do it just to piss them off and I understand that would be the sole reason for many others.
Yes this is douchie way of getting ones point across, that could be the masked point; although as discussed it is not to some. This taboo that society has of tip-toeing around the religous is garbage. This may be a way for people to (even if they don't participate this time around) to stand up to the religous non-sense that goes on all around everyday in almost everywere. This may not be the best or tactful avenue but it may lead by example, by standing up to the most forbidden and unmentionable religion in modern times. Islam gets away with too much as it is, as does all religion.
Regardless if the moderates are offended, the extremist need to be stopped; they need to know that people will not put up with their shit.
I would like to add that when I say I have no respect for Islam (or insert religion here) it means just that. That does not mean I do not have respect for people, I merely treat someones belief in the after life, dogmatic rituals/incantations as I would treat their favourite movie/music/game or belief in astrology, lucky charms, karma or ghosts. Disrespect for one belief is not equal to disrespect for said person. For example I work with a Muslem, she is a kind woman. Do I think she is kind because of her religion? No I do not. I do think it is a burden to her daily life and I do not respect that. I do respect her for what she is, as I do with many people I have had lengthy discussions with on this forum.
Far to often people perturbed when someone questions their belief, but that is what must happen in order for our species to grow. Unfortunately Islam is stuck in the 11th century.
-
Nice post. However there is one major flaw. Pissing off the extremists doesn't actually stop them, in fact it makes them grow stronger as more pissed off people are likely to join them.
Also, South Park (with one episode exception) isn't really allowed to say nigger. They did, some people were offended, luckily they didn't threaten violence. However, if they had, would there be a national day where you write nigger everywhere?
-
Nice post. However there is one major flaw. Pissing off the extremists doesn't actually stop them, in fact it makes them grow stronger as more pissed off people are likely to join them.
Also, South Park (with one episode exception) isn't really allowed to say nigger. They did, some people were offended, luckily they didn't threaten violence. However, if they had, would there be a national day where you write nigger everywhere?
No pissing them off doesn't stop them. Showing people youre not afraid to piss them off and how ridiculous they are does. The more it is done the more this type of behavior will not be tolerated under the taboo protection of religion.
There is a fundimental deference between racism and prejuduce toward someone beliefs. Especially when those beliefs are being thrust upon others. Race and religion are not the same at all.
-
It's not being tolerated by anyone who doesn't have the right to tolerate it.
Also, no, defying them DOES piss them off and makes them grow stronger. Carrying on with your life despite them might help though. But showing them attention won't help at all.
-
It's not being tolerated by anyone who doesn't have the right to tolerate it.
I think what you are saying here is; it isn't being tolerated by people whom have the choice?
I'm afraid it is, Viacom had the choice not to censor there programming but they did. Do you think they would have if not for fear?
Also, no, defying them DOES piss them off and makes them grow stronger.
No pissing them off doesn't stop them.
Carrying on with your life despite them might help though. But showing them attention won't help at all.
Ahh yes do nothing, sure that will help. Have you forgotten these extremist HATE western society, they are willing to blow themselves up because of this hate. Leaving them alone will make it worse and make people ignorant to what they are doing. Doing nothing is the last thing anyone should do with these nuts, people like these have no right in civilized society. They thrive on hate and want nothing more then to make all Islam or dead, that is what they do.
I hate to pull the 9/11 card, but that is an example. Then there are the copious amounts of suicide bombings going on all over the world. Nothing is not an option.
-
Nice post. However there is one major flaw. Pissing off the extremists doesn't actually stop them, in fact it makes them grow stronger as more pissed off people are likely to join them.
The major flaw with this is that, like I said, the message is meant to be directed at everyone else here just as much as it's meant to be directed at any extremists. Even if no extremist even sees it (or they do and it only pisses them off), if it gets others to not censor themselves out of fear then it'll result in enough people doing it that it won't give them any easy targets.
-
On very rare occasions have I seen more twisted upside down logic than the one you're talking with El JoNNo.
Yeah the drawings are gonna make it easier for the extremists to recruit more people who used to be moderate but had enough insults to actually cross the lines from "bothered" to "offended" to "annoyed" to "pissed off" to "fuckin pissed off", nobody is getting taught a lesson here.
-
The people who censored south park had every right to do so. We live in a (close to) free market. We have to respect their choices. If you want to make a demonstration, how about one against those who did the censoring?
-
The people who censored south park had every right to do so. We live in a (close to) free market. We have to respect their choices. If you want to make a demonstration, how about one against those who did the censoring?
In a way it is targeted at them. Like I just said, demonstrations like these are meant just as much for getting people to take a stand (including whoever made the decision to censor SP) as it is for whoever you're demonstrating against. It wouldn't have been censored if there hadn't been any threats, it was done entirely out of fear. If it had been done just because whoever made the decision decided "hey, this is a little mean. Let's not do it" then I'd be fine with that, but that's obviously not the case.
But I've already said these things multiple times. If you were going to ever attempt to tackle arguments I've actually made instead of the ones you guys keep pretending I'm making then it would have happened quite a few pages ago.
-
On very rare occasions have I seen more twisted upside down logic than the one you're talking with El JoNNo.
Yeah the drawings are gonna make it easier for the extremists to recruit more people who used to be moderate but had enough insults to actually cross the lines from "bothered" to "offended" to "annoyed" to "pissed off" to "fuckin pissed off", nobody is getting taught a lesson here.
If there are people that are willing to kill for there religion it was just a matter of time anyway. Do you expect people to dance around Muslims forever?
-
There are no laws supporting muslim beliefs in america.
There ARE laws however supporting christian beliefs. Why not attack those? Sodomy is illegal in many states, hell even public displays of affection are still illegal in some places. Why not start with things that are laws and not just what a few people decided was enough to scare them?
-
There are no laws supporting muslim beliefs in america.
There ARE laws however supporting christian beliefs. Why not attack those? Sodomy is illegal in many states, hell even public displays of affection are still illegal in some places. Why not start with things that are laws and not just what a few people decided was enough to scare them?
So are you going to comment on what I'm saying or keep going "why aren't you more upset about these other things that I think you should be upset about instead?"
You would have a point if I were actually starting a movement about this. But I'm not, I'm saying I support one that's already been started. Show me a movement for legalizing either of those two things you mentioned and I'd be in just as much support of them as I am this.
-
Adon Adami is very hakham.
-
Since I don't feel like re-reading 7 pages, could you quickly sum up whatever point it is that everyone is overlooking in one post? That way I can read it and respond.
-
Adon Adami is very hakham.
lol thanks.
-
There are no laws supporting muslim beliefs in america.
There ARE laws however supporting christian beliefs. Why not attack those? Sodomy is illegal in many states, hell even public displays of affection are still illegal in some places. Why not start with things that are laws and not just what a few people decided was enough to scare them?
No laws (other than the ones that both religions have in common) but there are unwritten rules that people seem to like to follow. As for those laws, there are people fighting against them. Gay Rights Activists and many groups for seperation of church and state, I'm sure if you googled any one of those you would get a lot of results. The point with fighting something that is not a law is so as prevent it from being law. So I don't really see your point.
-
Since I don't feel like re-reading 7 pages, could you quickly sum up whatever point it is that everyone is overlooking in one post? That way I can read it and respond.
Well we could start with this page, since you keep on asking me questions then when I answer you move on to a completely different topic.
Are you trying to make a point or what?
-
Because it's not going to become a law. It's business. Many businesses are too scared to do lots of things. The only reason you're making a big deal out of this are because muslims are "the enemy" and it's South Park. That's it. If this was another group that wasn't so overly reported and it wasn't a beloved show like South Park, no one would care.
-
Since I don't feel like re-reading 7 pages, could you quickly sum up whatever point it is that everyone is overlooking in one post? That way I can read it and respond.
Well we could start with this page, since you keep on asking me questions then when I answer you move on to a completely different topic.
Are you trying to make a point or what?
If you don't want to sum up your point, then I'm not going to respond, because I don't feel like reading 7 pages, many of which are you just saying that no one is responding to your point. Perhaps you didn't illustrate it well enough.
-
Because it's not going to become a law. It's business. Many businesses are too scared to do lots of things. The only reason you're making a big deal out of this are because muslims are "the enemy" and it's South Park. That's it. If this was another group that wasn't so overly reported and it wasn't a beloved show like South Park, no one would care.
Because the South Park guys are the only people who have been threatened over something like this.
Being scared of losing customers and being scared of getting killed are two completely different things, and being ok with the first does NOT mean you have to be ok with the second. The first has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. How you can even think they're in any way equatable is beyond me.
If you don't want to sum up your point, then I'm not going to respond, because I don't feel like reading 7 pages, many of which are you just saying that no one is responding to your point. Perhaps you didn't illustrate it well enough.
Why should I bother gathering up all of the other points I've made multiple times when you can't even respond to the post you just quoted?
Where are you going with these questions? Because right now it seems like half of them don't even have anything to do with each other.
-
If your point is "We should show that these extremist groups do not have the power to control our lives through fear, and thus a day where everybody draws their holy prophet is a legitimate form of protest againt groups who try to gain power through fear" then it has been dealt with. If that's not your point, then I have no idea what it is.
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
Because I have a freedom of speech (for now) and will not be bullied to shut up.
-
Yea the argument here is basically saying that because said protest will have random secondary effect of standing up for some invisible rights that it's therefore OK.
Basically an "ends justify the means" approach, which is hardly ever worthwhile.
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
Because I have a freedom of speech (for now) and will not be bullied to shut up.
You've never been threatened.
-
I may be alone here, but why do we need to piss them off? Unless there is a clear reason for drawing Muhammad than why should you? It's not just the extremists that get offended by pictures of their prophet, it's most Muslims, they just don't get vocal about it. Anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea should actually read up on Islam and why they don't like images of Muhammad.
Seriously, I don't understand why people have to go out of their way to offend others when it isn't necessary.
Because I have a freedom of speech (for now) and will not be bullied to shut up.
You've never been threatened.
I know, I'm not speaking personally. I just used the word I to give my personal standpoint.
-
Somewhere, in some southern state in the past 5 years I'm sure....a black guy was threatened with violence for being with a white girl.
Go protest it.
-
This idea seems really stupid. Even thinking about it makes me sick. I guess some of you think you're cool for drawing Mohammed just to piss radicals off, but I can't imagine what my peace-loving Islamic friend would think about me if she knew I was participating in something so ridiculous-- and offensive to her.
-
As corny as it may sound to some of you, it comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would hope that others would respect my religious beliefs, but that remains an empty and vain hope if I don't respect theirs.
-
This idea seems really stupid. Even thinking about it makes me sick. I guess some of you think you're cool for drawing Mohammed just to piss radicals off, but I can't imagine what my peace-loving Islamic friend would think about me if she knew I was participating in something so ridiculous-- and offensive to her.
Nobody is going to draw Mohammed. But there will be people who make topics on internet forums titled "Happy Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" and end up pissing people off (mostly non-Muslims). Seriously people, this is just a joke gone viral; get over it. The person who started this it didn't say to herself "Wouldn't it be great to have a day where we all draw Mohammed to piss off Muslims and get hammered by PC liberals?"
This is her response after it became a hit...
I make cartoons about current, cultural events. I made a cartoon of a 'poster' entitled "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" with a nonexistent group's name -- Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor -- drawn on the cartoon also. I did not intend for my cartoon to go viral. I did not intend to be the focus of any 'group'. I practice the first amendment by drawing what I wish. This particular cartoon of a 'poster' seems to have struck a gigantic nerve, something I was totally unprepared for. I am going back to the drawing table now!
This isn't an idea for an occasion where people do something offensive and radicals get stirred up, so there's no reason to feel sick.
-
As corny as it may sound to some of you, it comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I would hope that others would respect my religious beliefs, but that remains an empty and vain hope if I don't respect theirs.
I would be ok if someone did something similar over a group of militant Christians.
-
Somewhere, in some southern state in the past 5 years I'm sure....a black guy was threatened with violence for being with a white girl.
Go protest it.
Golden.
I think I'm going to go around pushing everybody's buttons, because I have the 1st amendment giving me that right and see how long it takes before everyone thinks I'm a complete asshole and I have no more friends.
You know, because I can, and all.
-
Somewhere, in some southern state in the past 5 years I'm sure....a black guy was threatened with violence for being with a white girl.
Go protest it.
Golden.
I think I'm going to go around pushing everybody's buttons, because I have the 1st amendment giving me that right and see how long it takes before everyone thinks I'm a complete asshole and I have no more friends.
You know, because I can, and all.
I don't think it'll get to the point where you have no more friends. I mean, not because you're such a cool guy or anything, but just because you'll likely get beaten to a bloody pulp long before you get to that point. :lol
-
Oh yeah, there is that.
Guess that proves my point. Well, either way, it likely wouldn't take very long for everyone to disown me or kick my ass. Just because you CAN, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
-
Somewhere, in some southern state in the past 5 years I'm sure....a black guy was threatened with violence for being with a white girl.
Go protest it.
Golden.
I think I'm going to go around pushing everybody's buttons, because I have the 1st amendment giving me that right and see how long it takes before everyone thinks I'm a complete asshole and I have no more friends.
You know, because I can, and all.
So now we're coming into threads only to mock a group without contributing anything to the thread?
So much for the whole "wow, intentionally trying to offend or piss people off is a dick move" thing.
-
Oh yeah, there is that.
Guess that proves my point. Well, either way, it likely wouldn't take very long for everyone to disown me or kick my ass. Just because you CAN, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
But watching kids getting electrocuted by pinching their fingers into the socket is so much fun (a more fun example is sticking the fingers into the blender).
-
So now we're coming into threads only to mock a group without contributing anything to the thread?
So much for the whole "wow, intentionally trying to offend or piss people off is a dick move" thing.
I've contributed plenty of constructive posts to this thread, thank you very much.
I'm not trying to piss anybody off. If you were offended, then there's really nothing I can do about that.
(https://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj144/guitarcozmo/WelcometoDTF.jpg)
-
:weknowdrama:
-
So now we're coming into threads only to mock a group without contributing anything to the thread?
So much for the whole "wow, intentionally trying to offend or piss people off is a dick move" thing.
I've contributed plenty of constructive posts to this thread, thank you very much.
I'm not trying to piss anybody off. If you were offended, then there's really nothing I can do about that.
I didn't say you haven't, I'm talking about now. And in that case then what's with all of the comments about how even if you don't intend to offend anyone but you know what you're doing is inherently offensive and you still do it then it's a dick move?
The best part of this thread is watching you guys hold other people up to standards you don't even hold yourselves.
-
Or to put it in a little more accurate context - watching us mimic the lack of respect that "you guys" would have no problem with showing eleventy brazilion other people. That "dick move" is a little irritating, isn't it?
I didn't think that what I said was off topic or dickish in any manner. Sarcastic, maybe, but accurate. I made an appropriate point, whether or not anybody really wants to admit it. I can =/= I should.
-
Ehra, nobody in this thread has once done that. You are accusing people of being hypocrits merely because you don't like what they have to say.
-
Or to put it in a little more accurate context - watching us mimic the lack of respect that "you guys" would have no problem with showing eleventy brazilion other people. That "dick move" is a little irritating, isn't it?
I'm not the one saying that it's wrong in the first place, am I? Wasn't Bosk the one who said "retaliating is always wrong"?
I didn't think that what I said was off topic or dickish in any manner. Sarcastic, maybe, but accurate. I made an appropriate point, whether or not anybody really wants to admit it. I can =/= I should.
Of course you don't think what you said is dickish. I don't think doing what this thread is about is a dickish move either, but that's not stopping anyone from arguing with me over it.
Ehra, nobody in this thread has once done that. You are accusing people of being hypocrits merely because you don't like what they have to say.
Done what? Mock another group while claiming that offending people for "no good reason" is wrong? Or calling people douches while saying offending people, even as a retaliation, is wrong? Because both of those HAVE happened, claiming that it hasn't happened when I just quoted a post on this page that was doing exactly that isn't going to accomplish much.
edit: Especially since in the post before yours he said he was even doing just that, "mimicking the lack of respect that "us guys" would have no problem with showing others."
-
No, it hasn't happened and you are now derailing the thread with your baseless accusations. If you have something to add that is actually about the 5/20 issue, post it. If you have something to add about the way someone in the thread has posted, that is considered off topic.
-
I'm sorry that you got offended at what was said.
No point in continuing the charade that meaningful discussion will ensue in this thread. It's 8 pages of wall talking to wall, contributing to an even greater waste of bandwidth. Enjoy.
-
I'm sorry that you got offended at what was said.
I never said I was offended, I was pointing out what you were doing.
-
I'm a big boy, I know exactly what I'm doing. Thanks for your assistance. I'm outta here.
-
It's a shame, considering how great the first 2-3 or so pages were going.
-
Honestly, I just don't think there is anything constructive that can be added to the discussion at this point. I think everyone has pretty much said what they have to say. Until it happens and there is reaction to it, I don't really see anything of value being added. In fact, I was tempted to just lock it. But since there likely will be much more to say after 5/20, I'm leaving it (unless it continues to deteriorate into just namecalling and baseless accusations between both sides of the argument).
-
Lars Vilks (the one who drew Mohammed) attacked by Muslims in Sweden 2010 (maybe NSFW, although I dunno why YouTube flagged this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdyKmzEdHws
-
Lars Vilks (the one who drew Mohammed) attacked by Muslims in Sweden 2010 (maybe NSFW, although I dunno why YouTube flagged this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdyKmzEdHws
Damnit...if only we had all drawn mohammed before this! That would have shown those brownies and they would have cowered away!
DAMN US ALL!
-
I think El Jonno drew Mohammed. Wasn't that enough?
-
I think El Jonno drew Mohammed. Wasn't that enough?
We didn't do our part bosk, we let the whole world down.
-
:( But I...I...I was going to draw Mohammed, and I just didn't get around to it.
-
:emo: it's too late, guys. Too late. Had we have drawn Mohamed sooner we could have been the guy in the video instead of Lars. DAMMIT NICK!
-
So are you guys actually making some kind of point, or just using the death of another person as a launching off point to go back to mocking another group?
-
Who the hell died?
-
Who the hell died?
Justice.
-
Oh, and liberty and freedom of speech too.
-
Ok, I misread.
Fine, are you guys actually making some kind of point or just using an attack on another person as a launching off point to go back to mocking another group?
-
Ok, I misread.
Fine, are you guys actually making some kind of point or just using an attack on another person as a launching off point to go back to mocking another group?
They're making a point.
-
I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of other things we do simply out of respect, even though it would be met with violence.
For instance, I........COULD......go into a very crime ridden black area of the US and scream out that Malcolm X was an uncle tom nigga. However, I'd be shot and it's just rude. Now, just because I know I'd be shot, doesn't mean I should do it just to show them they can't hurt me.
-
Yyyyyeah, I'd edit my post, Adami. Just by writing that it will grant you a ban... though you just proved a point, too.
-
Yyyyyeah, I'd edit my post, Adami. Just by writing that it will grant you a ban... though you just proved a point, too.
I think I proved both sides point at the same time. Hopefully bosk will see that.
-
COME HITHER!!
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122225784457787
-
Ok, I misread.
Fine, are you guys actually making some kind of point or just using an attack on another person as a launching off point to go back to mocking another group?
They're making a point.
Yes, now. If they were earlier then you could feel free point out what that point could have possibly been instead of just going "nuh uh!"
I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of other things we do simply out of respect, even though it would be met with violence.
Sure, if you obviously went out of your way to find and insult people then they're going to get deservedly pissed. But in this case anyone who even mentions the name "Malcolm X" gets shot, no matter the reason.
-
Not sure what the exact story is but here are two videos of Muslims getting all pissed over Mohammed being shown by Lars Vilks at a free speech lecture. How pathetic..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyExaO4jzD0&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fg8KRTXDRU&feature=related
edit: lol i just realized someone already posted this
-
Not sure what the exact story is but here are two videos of Muslims getting all pissed over Mohammed being shown by Lars Vilks at a free speech lecture. How pathetic..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyExaO4jzD0&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fg8KRTXDRU&feature=related
When I see this I can't help but think that we will never evolve beyond these things. To have that kind of emotion scares me what people will do beyond charging a teacher.
-
Geez, that was almost as offensive as avatar quoting on DTF.
-
I didn't know this but Mohammad was already portrayed in Southpark back in season 5 (before Danish cartoon incident)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp9bYLa5gaA
(from 3:08)
This didn't cause a huge commotion. Maybe the notion that there is this battle between offensive Southpark and easily offended Muslims seems to be a big misunderstanding. Maybe 99% of Muslims actually don't give a fuck about how some comedy show poked fun at Islam in one episode.
Another thought: maybe portraying Mohammad doesn't actually offend Muslims (especially when done by non-Muslims). That's not what the Southpark incident was about anyways. It was how Southpark was making jokes about Mohammad that pissed off the radicals. There are plenty of portrayals of Mohammad if you take the time to look for them.
-
I didn't know this but Mohammad was already portrayed in Southpark back in season 5 (before Danish cartoon incident)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp9bYLa5gaA
(from 3:08)
This didn't cause a huge commotion. Maybe the notion that there is this battle between offensive Southpark and easily offended Muslims seems to be a big misunderstanding. Maybe 99% of Muslims actually don't give a fuck about how some comedy show poked fun at Islam in one episode.
Another thought: maybe portraying Mohammad doesn't actually offend Muslims (especially when done by non-Muslims). That's not what the Southpark incident was about anyways. It was how Southpark was making jokes about Mohammad that pissed off the radicals. There are plenty of portrayals of Mohammad if you take the time to look for them.
The whole offended thing is quite new. That episode came out before they cared so much.
-
I didn't know this but Mohammad was already portrayed in Southpark back in season 5 (before Danish cartoon incident)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp9bYLa5gaA
(from 3:08)
This didn't cause a huge commotion. Maybe the notion that there is this battle between offensive Southpark and easily offended Muslims seems to be a big misunderstanding. Maybe 99% of Muslims actually don't give a fuck about how some comedy show poked fun at Islam in one episode.
Another thought: maybe portraying Mohammad doesn't actually offend Muslims (especially when done by non-Muslims). That's not what the Southpark incident was about anyways. It was how Southpark was making jokes about Mohammad that pissed off the radicals. There are plenty of portrayals of Mohammad if you take the time to look for them.
From what I remember, South Park isn't aired in Middle Eastern countries, no non-American Muslims had no way of knowing. Over 5 years later, I guess they have ways of finding these things out now. And since that one episode 5 years ago, maybe the Muslim community is keeping a better eye out on the show? Who knows? Who cares? It still doesn't really change any arguments.
-
From what I remember, South Park isn't aired in Middle Eastern countries, no non-American Muslims had no way of knowing. Over 5 years later, I guess they have ways of finding these things out now. And since that one episode 5 years ago, maybe the Muslim community is keeping a better eye out on the show? Who knows? Who cares? It still doesn't really change any arguments.
Revolution Muslim (the group that posted the threat) is a New York based group. This issue doesn't have much to do with the Middle East.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Uma211DVU
Facepalmz everywhere.
-
Boom. There goes the world. Nice knowing y'all.
-
Nuke facebook.
-
Christ.
I'm looking at the group... some of those are definitely meant to be as offensive as physically possible. Fucking hell. If you have to draw him - and you don't - at LEAST don't make it a hotbed of religious hatred! Just a picture of Mohammed waving would've done. Many people have depicted him as a pig, or having a dump. That's mad. That's horribly offensive in a much more direct way, and far more ways than the original. That's not just depicting him or having a harmless joke, that's downright evil.
This isn't a silly little game, this is a bunch of naive, idiotic pimple-faced teens doing something that may be coming very close to instigating an international incident.
And then Pakistan decided to publicise it, so there's no way that's going to stay quiet.
-
I see absolutely no point to a day whose purpose is to exercise the limits of free speech by deliberately offending people.
-
See, I kind of understand the spirit. "Right, we're not going to be bullied into submission. Sorry, but while the South Park guys goofed, you have to respect our right to adhere to our own, personal morals and respect that we make our own moral choices. Sorry that you're a bit peeved, but I'm living my own life. Here's a nice little picture."
I think that's fair enough. That's not hatred, that's just saying that a bit of tolerance is a mutual thing. I'm not going to follow every Muslim law to a tee any more than I'm going to follow every Buddhist law or every Zoroastrian law or every Christian law, and I don't expect Muslims to adopt all of the laws of my own culture in their day-to-day lives. I don't like their attitudes to women (speaking broadly), they don't like how we draw prophets - but they're doing nothing wrong by their own belief system, and nor am I by mine, so hey - let's live and let live.
But inciting racial hatred is a completely different thing, and depicting Mohammed as a pig is a horrible way to live your life. That's just reprehensible. I'm sure some of these people just think it's a funny picture, but it's spiteful, and selfish, and completely offensive, and I can't respect that.
-
See, I kind of understand the spirit. "Right, we're not going to be bullied into submission. Sorry, but while the South Park guys goofed, you have to respect our right to adhere to our own, personal morals and respect that we make our own moral choices. Sorry that you're a bit peeved, but I'm living my own life. Here's a nice little picture."
I think that's fair enough. That's not hatred, that's just saying that a bit of tolerance is a mutual thing. I'm not going to follow every Muslim law to a tee any more than I'm going to follow every Buddhist law or every Zoroastrian law or every Christian law, and I don't expect Muslims to adopt all of the laws of my own culture in their day-to-day lives. I don't like their attitudes to women (speaking broadly), they don't like how we draw prophets - but they're doing nothing wrong by their own belief system, and nor am I by mine, so hey - let's live and let live.
But inciting racial hatred is a completely different thing, and depicting Mohammed as a pig is a horrible way to live your life. That's just reprehensible. I'm sure some of these people just think it's a funny picture, but it's spiteful, and selfish, and completely offensive, and I can't respect that.
I agree with all of this
-
https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_on_hi_te/as_pakistan_internet_crackdown
-
*SNIP*
-
I'm not (at this time) going to go so far as to snip that picture, but I will thank you kindly not to post any more.
Anybody.
-
but...but...but...1ST AMENDMENT!!!!!
-
I'm not (at this time) going to go so far as to snip that picture, but I will thank you kindly not to post any more.
Anybody.
I'll go ahead and do it. No offense, Chino, but it's just not a good idea, and I don't want to get in the middle of having to parse out which ones (if any) are fine and which ones are not. Let's just leave it off the forum, please.
-
This isn't a democracy, it's a Bosk-ocracy :D
-
This isn't a democracy, it's a Bosk-ocracy :D
New California bill seeks to transfer control of web forums from administrators and moderators to a newly created government agency (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
-
Sounds good to me. Less crap I'll have to put up with.
-
Futile-ism?
-
*SNIP*
-
*SNIP*
-
*SNIP*
-
*SNIP*
Better? :tick2:
-
Yes sir, thank you. And on behalf of muslims everywhere, "ahlalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!"
-
Kids are using the Southpark incident as an excuse to be politically incorrect and bash Islam.
Pakistani conservatives are using this facebook page as an excuse to rile people up and ban as much internet as possible, which is what they no doubt wanted from the very beginning.
Humans really do hate each other and will take any opportunity to express it :-\
-
Yes sir, thank you. And on behalf of muslims everywhere, "ahlalalalalalalalalalalalalalala!"
:lol :lol :lol
-
You wanna push the envelope with me just to see how close you can get to the line without crossing it? To me, that's the same as breaking the rule. Bye, Tick.
-
*SNIP*
-
This isn't a democracy, it's a Bosk-ocracy :D
New California bill seeks to transfer control of web forums from administrators and moderators to a newly created government agency (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Well played, well played.
-
*SNIP*
And goodbye to you too, sir. Anyone else wanna play?
-
c'mon guys, if you really wanna be edgy, take it to facebook. We don't need unnecessary controversy here, just good healthy debate.
-
This isn't a democracy, it's a Bosk-ocracy :D
New California bill seeks to transfer control of web forums from administrators and moderators to a newly created government agency (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Well played, well played.
I knew what it was and I STILL had to click it :lol
I found a pretty funny Xzibit-meme for this subject, but I guess I'm not going to post it here.
Anyway, did Pakistan really crack down on facebook and youtube?
-
Hey Ehra, I am curious to see how you're going to react to this thread now.
-
NOT Mohammad -> :sadpanda:
-
You wanna push the envelope with me just to see how close you can get to the line without crossing it? To me, that's the same as breaking the rule. Bye, Tick.
*SNIP*
And goodbye to you too, sir. Anyone else wanna play?
May Allah have mercy on their souls.
-
Huh i completely forgot about today meh lol
Are all those "*snip*"'s pictures of Mohamed? Geez I'm not dumb enough to do that :lol
-
Huh i completely forgot about today meh lol
Are all those "*snip*"'s pictures of Mohamed? Geez I'm not dumb enough to do that :lol
2 of them were actually of Mohammad Ali.
-
Huh i completely forgot about today meh lol
Are all those "*snip*"'s pictures of Mohamed? Geez I'm not dumb enough to do that :lol
2 of them were actually of Mohammad Ali.
Peace be upon him.
-
Huh i completely forgot about today meh lol
Are all those "*snip*"'s pictures of Mohamed? Geez I'm not dumb enough to do that :lol
2 of them were actually of Mohammad Ali.
Yes, but posted by the same person who had already posted what got him banned.
-
Yes, but I don't think they needed to be snipped. But that's your call.
Also, if I may ask, how long are they banned for?
-
A week.
-
apologizes for train wreck
-
This isn't a democracy, it's a Bosk-ocracy :D
New California bill seeks to transfer control of web forums from administrators and moderators to a newly created government agency (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
I lol'd.
-
Yeah, that was pretty clever on NR's part :lol
-
Huh i completely forgot about today meh lol
Are all those "*snip*"'s pictures of Mohamed? Geez I'm not dumb enough to do that :lol
2 of them were actually of Mohammad Ali.
Peace be upon him.
.... that made me laugh, hard.
-
This thread is still going? :facepalm:
-
Just got an email from my gf and she did remember Draw Muhamed Day. She posted her pic and recieved 4 death threats... :lol
-
Just got an email from my gf and she did remember Draw Muhamed Day. She posted her pic and recieved 4 death threats... :lol
Was she surprised?
-
This is douchebaggery of the highest proportions.
Hef summed this up nicely.
-
Just got an email from my gf and she did remember Draw Muhamed Day. She posted her pic and recieved 4 death threats... :lol
Was she surprised?
No.
-
Just got an email from my gf and she did remember Draw Muhamed Day. She posted her pic and recieved 4 death threats... :lol
Was she surprised?
No.
That's good.
-
Just got an email from my gf and she did remember Draw Muhamed Day. She posted her pic and recieved 4 death threats... :lol
Was she surprised?
No.
That's good.
I found it quite funny how they could anonymously threaten someone over a picture. Every last one of these "extremist" are cowards. Would they ever confront you on the street without a group or weapons? No. It's too bad there are not enough Muslims condemning this type of behavior publicly.
-
Some of those extremists are cowards. Some blow themselves and others up.
Luckily it's just not in america.
-
Some of those extremists are cowards. Some blow themselves and others up.
Luckily it's just not in america.
That's not lucky. I wish it would only be in America, at least this crap going on in the rest of the world would not exist.
-
Some of those extremists are cowards. Some blow themselves and others up.
Luckily it's just not in america.
That's not lucky. I wish it would only be in America, at least this crap going on in the rest of the world would not exist.
Huh? Arab extresim isn't caused by america, maybe it we helped give it a boost, but it would exist with or without america.
Unless you're saying that you wish there wasn't extremism in the middle east and that it was confined to america for the sake of the rest of the world or something.
-
Some of those extremists are cowards. Some blow themselves and others up.
Luckily it's just not in america.
That's not lucky. I wish it would only be in America, at least this crap going on in the rest of the world would not exist.
Huh? Arab extresim isn't caused by america, maybe it we helped give it a boost, but it would exist with or without america.
Arab and Islam are not equal; Arabs are a people found in the Arabian peninsula and Islam is a religion. No one said it was cause by America.
Unless you're saying that you wish there wasn't extremism in the middle east and that it was confined to america for the sake of the rest of the world or something.
You said "Luckily it's just not in america.", that's not lucky, I wish it was confined to one country. it would be better if it didn't exit though.
-
Oh I gotcha. I meant more "lucky for us". But I see your point.
-
In response to the last page or so:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DD9PVQpESSU/Sp_ae1IAOZI/AAAAAAAAAjg/GA9bgqPMCmo/s400/stupid_burns.jpg)
-
Oh I gotcha. I meant more "lucky for us". But I see your point.
Ah IC.
-
Oh I gotcha. I meant more "lucky for us". But I see your point.
OIC.
Better.
-
In response to the last page or so:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DD9PVQpESSU/Sp_ae1IAOZI/AAAAAAAAAjg/GA9bgqPMCmo/s400/stupid_burns.jpg)
This. I gotta pay more attention to the PR forum, entertaining as hell.
:corn
-
You wanna push the envelope with me just to see how close you can get to the line without crossing it? To me, that's the same as breaking the rule. Bye, Tick.
You wanna push the envelope with us just to see how close you can get to the line without crossing it? To us, that's the same as breaking the rule. Bye, Southpark.
...
And the moral of this is, Muslim extremists weren't pissed that somebody broke their law, they were pissed that their religion was being made fun of.
Fuzz got banned for posting a smiley face with an arrow saying "Mohammed". What if it said "Not Mohammed"? Would that have made a difference? I don't think it would have. Would an extremist be any less offended? Nope.
Therefore, May 20th should not be Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. It should be Everybody Diss Islam day. And DTF posters shouldn't be banned for posting pics of Mohammed. They should be banned for posting something that would offend an extremist if they saw it.
/bitches
-
Therefore, May 20th should not be Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. It should be Everybody Diss Islam day. And DTF posters shouldn't be banned for posting pics of Mohammed. They should be banned for posting something that would offend an extremist if they saw it.
How about we settle on "banned for blatantly disregarding the admin's decision on the matter"...
-
As I said earlier:
This isn't a democracy, it's a Bosk-ocracy :D
As an admin, Bosk has every right to decide what should and shouldn't be posted on this forum.
-
A question:
Why is it OK to name muslim children Mohammed?
-
A question:
Why is it OK to name muslim children Mohammed?
Beyond that, why the hell would you name a child Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed?...
-
His name is just a name. But showing his image is different cause it's him directly.
Or something.
-
A question:
Why is it OK to name muslim children Mohammed?
For the same reason that it's OK to name Hispanic kids Jesus.
-
Yeah, that kind of thing has always struck me as a bit odd, but not a big deal. But along similar lines, I've never understood why Buddhists can wear leather shoes, belts, etc. (and, no, I'm not trying to be funny)
-
A question:
Why is it OK to name muslim children Mohammed?
For the same reason that it's OK to name Hispanic kids Jesus.
He didn't call me 'Jesus'. He said, "Hey, Zeus."
-
So you can have a person named Mohammed but you can't draw a face with an arrow pointing to it saying Mohammed? I'd understand that if under Muslim culture Mohammed was a sacred name that only the prophet should have, but since it's not, how does one even determine what constitutes a picture of the prophet Mohammed vs. some guy with that name?
-
So you can have a person named Mohammed but you can't draw a face with an arrow pointing to it saying Mohammed? I'd understand that if under Muslim culture Mohammed was a sacred name that only the prophet should have, but since it's not, how does one even determine what constitutes a picture of the prophet Mohammed vs. some guy with that name?
The pic you mentioned probably wouldn't offend muslims, bosk just didn't want it.
-
A question:
Why is it OK to name muslim children Mohammed?
For the same reason that it's OK to name Hispanic kids Jesus.
Plus 'Joshua' and 'Jesus' are the same Hebrew name 'Yeshua', just filtered through different languages.
-
A question:
Why is it OK to name muslim children Mohammed?
For the same reason that it's OK to name Hispanic kids Jesus.
Plus 'Joshua' and 'Jesus' are the same Hebrew name 'Yeshua', just filtered through different languages.
Yea, but the difference is that Joshua makes more sense.
-
(https://www.cafalawblog.com/uploads/image/Moe.jpg)
(https://milocat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ham.jpg)
(https://www.zmemusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/eddie-van-halen.jpg)
I still don't get what the big deal was, but maybe I'm just not seeing the bigger picture?
-
Yeah, that kind of thing has always struck me as a bit odd, but not a big deal. But along similar lines, I've never understood why Buddhists can wear leather shoes, belts, etc. (and, no, I'm not trying to be funny)
maybe it's necessity of good clothing material versus the lack thereof for nutrition.
-
So you can have a person named Mohammed but you can't draw a face with an arrow pointing to it saying Mohammed? I'd understand that if under Muslim culture Mohammed was a sacred name that only the prophet should have, but since it's not, how does one even determine what constitutes a picture of the prophet Mohammed vs. some guy with that name?
I suppose intent counts for something. If you intend the face you draw to be interpreted as a picture of the prophet and not just some guy named Mohammad, that would be offensive.
-
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-draw-Holocaust-day-30-June-2010/125126400846347
Yes you read the link correctly, Everybody Draw Holocaust Day. Now this, this is retarded. It's not about drawing the Holocaust as much as it is about denying it.
-
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-draw-Holocaust-day-30-June-2010/125126400846347
Yes you read the link correctly, Everybody Draw Holocaust Day. Now this, this is retarded. It's not about drawing the Holocaust as much as it is about denying it.
I read a little about it, but couldn't figure out the point.
-
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-draw-Holocaust-day-30-June-2010/125126400846347
Yes you read the link correctly, Everybody Draw Holocaust Day. Now this, this is retarded. It's not about drawing the Holocaust as much as it is about denying it.
I read a little about it, but couldn't figure out the point.
At least it's not a bomb or a plane. What I find interesting is that the majority (I'm going out on a limb here) of people who took part in that group were probably atheists. So why the holocaust? The people you here of that were victimized the most are the Jews, although other religous were as well. Seems like they are attempting a broad spectrum but in reality the world will see it as a front to the Jews. I think I will just...
:corn
-
The Description of that groups reads the following:
EVERYBODY RESEARCH HOLOCAUST DAY
We encourage everyone to gear up for a critical study of this historical event on the 30th of June
We are here to reflect about the foundational myth of the secular cult. A cult which has delivered human kind the biggest genocides recorded in history:
From the tens of millions massacred by the Atheist Soviet regime, to the other several millions wiped off the face of the earth by the hand of Western militant Secularism in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, and an endless list of nations who have suffered the arrogance of Man over God.
Much of the injustice that takes place in our world stems from ignorance. We reject being emotionally blackmailed by Hollywood tales and holocaust museums which legitimize the war crimes and crimes against humanity of the extremist Atheist regime of Tel-Aviv.
I knew it! Holocaust is just an excuse to kill Arabs!!!!
-
Wait....Tel Aviv?
What the hell is wrong with that group? I'll just assume it's a joke. Probably created by Emindead.
-
That must explain why some fanatical Jews wrote some hate speech on my wall.
-
Wait....Tel Aviv?
What the hell is wrong with that group? I'll just assume it's a joke. Probably created by Emindead.
Joke or not, it already has 1,000 followers.
I hope all you people that supported the Draw Muhammad thing are happy, look at the shitstorm this is creating.
-
I created a shitstorm this morning. Wasn't pleasant, let me tell you.
-
Wait....Tel Aviv?
What the hell is wrong with that group? I'll just assume it's a joke. Probably created by Emindead.
Joke or not, it already has 1,000 followers.
I hope all you people that supported the Draw Muhammad thing are happy, look at the shitstorm this is creating.
Better the internet than a bomb. I find all this kinda funny, as this group has far more retardation in it.
-
Is millahh dead?
-
Is millahh dead?
He posted a picture of mohammad. Yes he's dead.
-
Hi everyone, I'm back.
I would like to clear something up that I couldn't explain because I was banned.
First off, internet hell sucks, you don't want to go there. Its a dark fiery place infested with rodents who chew on your legs.
Ok, now what I really want to say.
I have this really bad habit of posting in a thread without having read any of the posts before the one I'm making. So while it appeared I was posting a picture of Mohamed or Mohamed Ali to be a wise ass or disrespectful of Bosk and his request not to, I was just simply being my typical jackass self, posting what I did to be funny.
I am sorry I didn't pay attention to the thread, but as I said, I did not do it to push to envelope or to get a rise. I was being me and trying to add humor.
My bad.
-
Welcome back tick.
-
Good to have you back tick! I do the same thing myself sometimes. No sweat.
-
I'm not overly ticked off anymore.
-
I'm not overly ticked off anymore.
:neverusethis:
-
Wait....Tel Aviv?
What the hell is wrong with that group? I'll just assume it's a joke. Probably created by Emindead.
Joke or not, it already has 1,000 followers.
I hope all you people that supported the Draw Muhammad thing are happy, look at the shitstorm this is creating.
1000 Arabs joining a Holocaust denial group on facebook = shitstorm
-
1000 non arabs pissing off arabs is bad though?
-
1000 non arabs pissing off arabs is bad though?
Not sure what you're pointing out. People in the Middle East will gradually start to care less about how Southpark loving kids do on the internet. They're still just getting used to the tmi of the web.
-
Wait....Tel Aviv?
What the hell is wrong with that group? I'll just assume it's a joke. Probably created by Emindead.
Joke or not, it already has 1,000 followers.
I hope all you people that supported the Draw Muhammad thing are happy, look at the shitstorm this is creating.
1000 Arabs joining a Holocaust denial group on facebook = shitstorm
Yes, but it's nothing new. Arabs (and other Muslims) have been denying the Holocaust since 1945.
-
I was being sarcastic lol.
-
lol
-
lolacaust.
-
I always miss all the bannings.....
-
Not directly related, but this is further support for the notion that every time the entire Muslim world gets offended over a Western cartoon or whatnot, there's always some authority or influential force directing the mobs.
https://www.haaretz.com/news/international/syria-helped-orchestrate-2006-mohammed-cartoon-riots-wikileaks-cables-reveal-1.333386
And when there's no authority getting people riled up, the world just floats on with little debate (Southpark's earlier Mohammed jokes, for example).