Brian, Guzzo and Pay chaeck need to follow some art interpretation class (can be very basic! Just start at the beginning).
I now need to take a class to properly determine whether I find something offensive or not. Got it.
In-fucking-credible.
So if the paper's cartoon editor had said, "Hey you know what? This is probably gonna be a real situation. I don't think this is a good idea." Is that censorship? No, that is an (IMO wise) editorial decision. The artist doesn't have a right to be published in a newspaper. The artist has a right to express themselves. The newspaper has a right to publish it (or not). I find the cartoons offensive and I disagree with the decisions of the newspaper. That's all.
I think generique needs to take a class in reading comprehension and perhaps brush up on the concept behind free speech.
Mr Paycheck, sorry for that last remark. It was not cool and I should have hit my bed before typing it. Other than that I would repeat everything else I have said.
Difference between saying something is stupid and calling for censorship is clear in all your posts btw.
Guzzo's jpeg is still in this context imo.
I'm going to rent Life Of Brian in a minute to laugh all this away.
Do you think it's also wrong now for some other papers across Europe to now be printing some of these cartoons in some editions?
No, I think it's stupid. Clearly most folks in this thread conflate the two words, but they are not the same.
Noted. But I don't think anyone in the thread is disagreeing with you that printing the cartoons wasn't the smartest of things to do.
I think most are really saying:
1. Yes, it was not the smartest of choices to print these in the first place. And it was wrong.
2. A free press has the right to print whatever it wants. But also should realize that they should also take any criticism/boycotting thrown their[/b] way because of it.
3. Nothing a free press prints should ever draw violence.
4. That the paper in question, does not represent the country of Denmark or it's people. It's not a state paper. So, any violence or boycotting against that country or it's people is wrong.
Do you think it's also wrong now for some other papers across Europe to now be printing some of these cartoons in some editions?
No, I think it's stupid. Clearly most folks in this thread conflate the two words, but they are not the same.
Noted. But I don't think anyone in the thread is disagreeing with you that printing the cartoons wasn't the smartest of things to do.
I think most are really saying:
1. Yes, it was not the smartest of choices to print these in the first place. And it was wrong.
2. A free press has the right to print whatever it wants. But also should realize that they should also take any criticism/boycotting thrown their[/b] way because of it.
3. Nothing a free press prints should ever draw violence.
4. That the paper in question, does not represent the country of Denmark or it's people. It's not a state paper. So, any violence or boycotting against that country or it's people is wrong.
I disagree with your last two points...
3. It shouldn't, but it does and that's not really a surprise in most cases... anyone with half a brain could've predicted this. People are emotional beings when whipped into a state of fury things can get violent. I mean, if operas can cause riots....
4. Whether the paper is state-sponsored or not it is still a representative of its people. If the New York Times prints something it's representative of the USA, as is the conservative tabloid NY Post or the pussy leaking SF Chronicle.
Many of the replies in this thread, except those made by Paycheck, Ness and a few others, bear the signs of gut reaction and lack of first-hand knowledge about what is really going on here. Again, the comfy pillow called the freedom of speech speech is pulled out from the convenient closet. I understand this because there are a lot of subtleties going on here that y'all might not know about.
The general consensus seems to be
1. The cartoons = bad taste.
2. Bad taste not enough to kidnap people and raise hell.
Good. I can get with this for starters, except there has been no kidnappings yet, 'just' a few assaults and a lot of angry demonstrations. And the boycott of course. The problem is that the image in people's heads seems to be:
Innocent, objective newspaper in bubblefuck Denmark prints a few harmless drawings of Muhammad one day
---->>>>
Outrage and violence all over the world the next day
This has not been the course of actions. First, let me break it down to just the bare facts.
---
STEP 1:[/b]
SEPTEMBER 30TH (4 MONTHS AGO!!): Jyllands-Posten prints the 12 drawings of the holy prophet of Islam, Muhammad. The reactions from danish muslims can roughly be split into 3 categories: A: I don't care (very few) B: I find the drawings offensive and/or stupid, but hey - we've got freedom of speech here so I won't do anything about it (many). C: I find the drawings offensive, and I'm going to do something about it (NON-VIOLENT) (many).
STEP 2:[/b]
October 19th: 11 ambassadors from muslim countries ask for a meeting with our prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, asking him to denounce the drawings. The prime minister refuses. ??? November-December: A delegation - representing reaction C - from the Danish Islamic Community consisting of imams and other leading figures from Copenhagen, Odense and Aarhus travel all over the Middle East to talk with politicians, leaders of organizations and religious leaders to rally a protest against Denmark. ??? December 7th: Demonstrations in Pakistan against the prophet drawings and Denmark. ??? December 19th: 22 former danish ambassadors criticize Anders Fogh for not wanting to meet with the muslim ambassadors. ??? December 29th: The foreign secretaries from the League Of Arab States criticize the danish government for their handling of the matter of the prophet drawings. ??? January 1st: Anders Fogh calls for a sober debate in his New Years Speech and the speech is translated to arabic.
STEP 3:[/b]
January 10th: The norwegian christian newspaper Magazinet prints the 12 drawings with permission from Jyllands-Posten. ??? January 26th: The Saudi-arabians begin a boycott of danish products in the supermarkets. The Saudi-Arabian government calls their ambassador in Denmark back home to discuss the drawings. ??? January 26th: Norway apologizes for the prophet drawings. ??? January 27th: The danish dairy product giant Arla reports that their sales in Saudi-Arabia are close to zero. Losses are 1.7 million dollars a day. Medicinal company Novo start to feel the effects of the boycott as well. ??? January 28th: The danish ambassador in Saudi-Arabia, Hans Klingenberg, is interviewed on the american TV-channel AP-TV, criticizing Jyllands-Posten for showing poor judgement and lack of knowledge of Islam. ??? January 28th: The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing 57 states, declare that Denmark should have denounced the drawings. ??? January 29th: Libya closes their embassy in Denmark. The danish ambassador in Kuwait is called for a meeting with the government of Kuwait. The Syrian government states that is is "shocked" by the drawings.The danish ambassador in Jordan is called to answer to the foreign secretary of Jordan. ??? January 29th: The discontent with the drawings and demonstrations are increasing on the streets of most of the Middle East, where danish flags and banners with pictures of the danish prime minister are burned in protest of the insult to the holy prophet of Islam. ??? January 30th: Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen personally denounces the drawings, but does not make an official apology on behalf of the danish government. ??? January 30th: Jyllands-Posten apologizes for having offended muslims with the drawings, but not for printing them.
---
As you can see it took 3 months from the drawings were printed until we reached step 3, which is where it really started to get silly. Why did we even reach step 2? To understand this, you have to read between the lines. First of all, the shit should have been deaded even before the delegation started their round trip in november.
I believe this could have happened if the danish politicians and the newspaper in question would have just communicated in a calm and rational manner with the DK Islamic community from the get-go, instead of being so damn dismissive. Apologies or not, a lot of frustrations could have been defused by just speaking with these people instead of exhibiting that usual smug and condescending attitude that is so prevalent in danish society.
You've got to understand that foreigners, people of foreign descent or just people who look a little different are subject to a sort of passive-aggressive form of racism/discrimination on a daily basis. I'm sorry to say that it's an integrated part of society here. The last 30-40 years Denmark has seen a vast influx of immigrants, refugees, their children and their children's children. My mother and myself are a part of this segment. In this time we've eaten all kinds of shit from the 'real' danes: social, economic and cultural discrimination.
Being called a monkey, a black bastard and all sorts of local words I can't translate to english. Having your religion ridiculed as being 'medieval'. Being ridiculed for even being religious and practicing your religion in everyday life. Having your job application rejected without further consideration if your name was Hassan. Making a simple mistake at work and being told to "go back to the savannah" by your colleague. Being automatically viewed as a potential rapist. Being constantly viewed as when dealing with any kind of authority. Being viewed as part of one big grey mass of 'immigrants' (which in people's minds equals muslims these days), no matter if you are sudanese, pakistani, indonesian or albanian. Being viewed as a cancer in society with nothing to contribute.
I haven't had it that bad because my father is from Denmark and my mother is the kind of person who quickly adapts to new situations - hardworking, never bitter, taking the bad with the good. Plus she comes from a catholic background and not an islamic, which 'helps' a little as well. But I have seen and felt enough for myself to know what feelings are bubbling in the hearts of people, what's bubbling in my own heart. With the emergence of The Danish People's Party 15 years ago (the equivalent of the British National Party or Front National), it's become even more legitimate to speak about 'foreigners' in the most unpleasant and uncivilised manner in danish society, adding fuel to the fire, condoning stupidity and polarization. I'm sick and tired of the "us vs. them" mentality that is so prevalent here today.
People are not talking with each other, they are talking at each other. We can all agree on the readymade freedom of speech yadyada. But there is also such a thing as using your brain before saying or writing something. Isn't that o
ne of the traits of being civilized? Jyllands-Posten were fanning the fire delibarately. The political climate here does not need this kind of shit.
Negative seeds have been planted in people on all sides for too many years. We need constructive dialogue and positive action, not more mudslinging. The media and politicians have responsibilities. Words and images mean A LOT. We need to stop perpetrating stereotypes. We need to stop hiding behind dandy words about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an excuse for stupidity.
Now it's become a semi-farce involving the international community, based on part facts, part feelings, part hearsay, part personal interests. A lot of what these people in the arab countries have been told about the issue is not true or overblown, but the man on the street does not know this. That's what happens when things get out of hand. All he knows is that Denmark is now a symbol of westerners taking a big fat dump on his religion/culture.
A lot of people in these countries are governed by one-party systems where the media = the government. They see Jyllands-Posten as the voice of Denmark, the voice of our government. Many of these countries are also repressing their populations, and this issue is being used as a vent for frustrations stemming from this as well. It has given generally frustrated people here and abroad an excuse for overreaction, and my question is "why?". What exactly did Jyllands-Posten accomplish by this? This was not a healthy contribution to a rotten debate. This was not a piece of clever satire, meant to make all sides laugh hearty-har-har, then kiss and make up. They knew damn well what they were just gonna start some shit.
People are now saying things based on hate, anger, spite, ignorance or just plain misinformation. I saw a man from Islamic Jihad on the Gaza Strip saying he wanted an official apology from the Danish Queen. - she has absolutey no political power here! And there has been talk amongst Danes to go burn copies of the Qur'an on the Copenhagen Town Square as an answer to the burning of danish flags in the Middle East.
*SIGH*
When will people ever learn? This is a downward spiral, and I'm sick of it. We could have stopped this a long time ago. And I'm not just talking about 3 months ago, I'm talking about 30 years ago.
---
Sorry for the looong-ass rant. I know y'all don't really get much news from our corner of the world, and I just wanted to get this thread away from the inadequate birds-eye view, back on-topic and let people know the facts and the bigger context of what's going on here.
And I'm kinda sad there hasn't been more europeans adding their 2 cents to this thread. The discussion seems a little amputated with mostly americans/canadians present.
THANK YOU for this post. I learned a lot from reading it.
Do you think it's also wrong now for some other papers across Europe to now be printing some of these cartoons in some editions?
No, I think it's stupid. Clearly most folks in this thread conflate the two words, but they are not the same.
Noted. But I don't think anyone in the thread is disagreeing with you that printing the cartoons wasn't the smartest of things to do.
I think most are really saying:
1. Yes, it was not the smartest of choices to print these in the first place. And it was wrong.
2. A free press has the right to print whatever it wants. But also should realize that they should also take any criticism/boycotting thrown their[/b] way because of it.
3. Nothing a free press prints should ever draw violence.
4. That the paper in question, does not represent the country of Denmark or it's people. It's not a state paper. So, any violence or boycotting against that country or it's people is wrong.
I disagree with your last two points...
3. It shouldn't, but it does and that's not really a surprise in most cases... anyone with half a brain could've predicted this. People are emotional beings when whipped into a state of fury things can get violent. I mean, if operas can cause riots....
4. Whether the paper is state-sponsored or not it is still a representative of its people. If the New York Times prints something it's representative of the USA, as is the conservative tabloid NY Post or the pussy leaking SF Chronicle.
Well of course it does... Fucking throwing a piece of litter on the ground can escalate things into people trying to kill eachother. It's just two wrongs don't make a right. And I'm a realist. Of course they should have known that it would cause the shit to hit the fan. And anyone I've seen posted in this thread I don't think disagrees with you on that.
It's just that I would hate to live in a society when religion dicates what a free press can and can't print. Be it any religon.
It was in bad taste. And someone made some poor choices. But I really don't believe that a country or it's people should become punished for it.
If it had been the NYP that had printed it, I wouldn't be looking at anyone else to blame, besides the NYP. If the NYP was a state paper, the government should also be protested.
Anyways.. I'm done posting in this thread. Shit is messed up... cause now more countries are getting involved and it's only going to get worse, before it gets any better.
Do you think it's also wrong now for some other papers across Europe to now be printing some of these cartoons in some editions?
No, I think it's stupid. Clearly most folks in this thread conflate the two words, but they are not the same.
Noted. But I don't think anyone in the thread is disagreeing with you that printing the cartoons wasn't the smartest of things to do.
I think most are really saying:
1. Yes, it was not the smartest of choices to print these in the first place. And it was wrong.
2. A free press has the right to print whatever it wants. But also should realize that they should also take any criticism/boycotting thrown their[/b] way because of it.
3. Nothing a free press prints should ever draw violence.
4. That the paper in question, does not represent the country of Denmark or it's people. It's not a state paper. So, any violence or boycotting against that country or it's people is wrong.
I disagree with your last two points...
3. It shouldn't, but it does and that's not really a surprise in most cases... anyone with half a brain could've predicted this. People are emotional beings when whipped into a state of fury things can get violent. I mean, if operas can cause riots....
4. Whether the paper is state-sponsored or not it is still a representative of its people. If the New York Times prints something it's representative of the USA, as is the conservative tabloid NY Post or the pussy leaking SF Chronicle.
hmmm
jp you point at 3 is kinda fucked, your saying muslims are not violent and then saying everyone should have expected this, they can't help themselves to some violence, and someone may know what the reaction is to something does not give an excuse to a ridiculous reaction
and on 4 i really dont think you can have a paper represent a country, which is what bothered me about the long post from the dude from there with the timeline, he thought their leadership needs to answere for the cartoons, thats bullshit, the only people that need to answer for soemthing published is the people involved in publishing it
embassies are being torched in Syria today over this. Dudes need to fucking relax. Oh and by the way comparing this to racism is not fair IMO because a set of beliefs and someone's race are two different things.
Oh and by the way comparing this to racism is not fair IMO because a set of beliefs and someone's race are two different things.
Oh really? What if the xenophobe equates ones beliefs with their race, or fails to realize belief systems cross over many ethnic groups.
then that xenophobe is ignorant
still means they are two different things
I was gonna say that. The xenophobe may be THINKING he's acting on racist hate. Just because he's wrong, does that make it OK? If racist intention is there, does that not make it racist?
I guess I don't get how that cartoon is "racist" in any way.
I also don't get how torching embassies and calling for people to be executed over a cartoon is going to do anything except make these fanatics look even more insane.
look, if there was a huge rash of abortion clinic bombings in America, and some cartoonist drew a white Christian with a bomb strapped to their bible or something, would that be racist? Would it be okay for Christians to set fire to buildings because of it? Would you be making up excuses for them?
I never said they were racist as objects themselves, but when people are acting on racism, it becomes racist. Was a fire hose racist when turned on civil rights protesters? Not inherently, but the person behind the hose may have been.
I defend anybodies right to express what they want, but if it's stupid, or socially irresponsible, than they should be ready for the backlash, no matter how WRONG the backlash is. That's just reality. That was the original point of the post I believe. You have to be an idiot to defend extremists burning embassies, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that poor judgement was used in printing the cartoons
Was a fire hose racist when turned on civil rights protesters? Not inherently, but the person behind the hose may have been.
this is so dumb iam just gonna quote it and leave it alone
I defend anybodies right to express what they want, but if it's stupid, or socially irresponsible, than they should be ready for the backlash, no matter how WRONG the backlash is. That's just reality. That was the original point of the post I believe. You have to be an idiot to defend extremists burning embassies, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that poor judgement was used in printing the cartoons
if some one makes some thing you don't like you dont buy it, watch it, read it, eat it, or smell it
if we want to live in a civilized society you can...
I never said they were racist as objects themselves, but when people are acting on racism, it becomes racist. Was a fire hose racist when turned on civil rights protesters? Not inherently, but the person behind the hose may have been.
I defend anybodies right to express what they want, but if it's stupid, or socially irresponsible, than they should be ready for the backlash, [/b]no matter how WRONG the backlash is. That's just reality. That was the original point of the post I believe. You have to be an idiot to defend extremists burning embassies, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that poor judgement was used in printing the cartoons
Sometimes it's like people are talking about a branch of the Hell's Angels instead of about a religion.
To be fair: I do understand the argument partly. At the time Theo van Gogh was on a rampage I was thinking: please dude, you are headed for disaster and you're taking people down with you. The stuff he said was far beyond what's in these cartoons. Still, especially afterwards, I would not say he had it comming. Everybody felt this was a very probable scenario but most muslims united and tried to sue him in court. The one that killed him took the bait and showed his ugly face, criminalizing in effect the ones he pretends to speak for. I want to stress that a lot of stuff that get's printed or that's being uttered in hip hop or being drawn in cartoons or depicted in movies is offensive to one or another, no? So who's going to decide whats crossing the line? I suspect people who underline the original post in this thread also see that the twelve cartoons are in different shades, from very offensive to not offensive at all (the boy in front of the chalk board is hard to interpret as hateful, no?) It will be very difficult to see upfront what's gonna be inflamatory and what's not. In this case: 4 months ago the cartoons were apparently not this inflamatory. Something might become inflamatory when it serves someones goals to say it's inflamatory, like in this case Fatah in Palestine (Hamas is actually promising to protect westerners against violence whereas Hamas is supposed to be the extremist party of the two).
I feel very sad for the cartoonists in question, especially the ones who used the platform to comment on and criticize the event itself (several do) but for the others as well.
I haven't read the whole post, but let me just add a few thoughts from a Norwegian point of view. I think the whole situation has becomed foolish, but it's not surprising. Not at all. We have all seen what happened in Holland and France, and it's going to happen again some place else. Today the Norwegian embassy was burned down in Syria, as you see on the pictures posted earlier in this thread. That's the reality of the situation, and of course that is something we can not accept.
But lets take a look at what started it all - a stupid, mindless provocation. It was nothing else. The last week we've been debating "freedom of speech" in Norway, but what they doesn't speak about is responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility. We can't walk around and act like monkeys, just because we have the freedom to do so.
I'm a great admire of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the woman behind the movie Van Gogh got killed because of. She's one of the most important freedom fighters in our time, and her procedure is also to provoke. But what is there different between her and the cartoons? She's trying to make a difference, and in the long run make things better. The people behind the cartoons said it was a test of our freedom of speech, but fuck that, they only made things worse because they knew they could. We all know their, the newspapers as published the cartoons, political views on immigration, and really I think some people are happy about what's happened - the Norwegian and Danish people now have an even worse view on muslims. FRP, the conservative right-wing party in Norway, has the last 5 years growed from small and uninteresting party to the second largest party, and it seems like their support is growing and growing. The same thing is happening in Denmark and other European countries, and in the same time the muslim immigrants feels more and more alienated. What will happen in 5 or 10 years if this development continues?
I don't like it. The situation is a lot bigger than these incidents in Holland, France and now Denmark and Norway, and it smolders all over Europe. People have to start talking to each others in stead of throwing rocks.
Your simple mind can't comprehend the knowledge I drop.
I was the one who made the comment about comparing Christians to the Crips. My point was and still is that there seems to be a double standard in American society where it's acceptable to ridicule certain groups but not others.
If your comment that people should expect backlash for saying offensive things is accurate, then I assume that if a Christian took your remark as an insult, didn't see it as a "joke" and burned down your house because of it, you should just accept it as "backlash".
If SS is a microcosm of our society then the only conclusion you could come to after reading months of posts is that groups like White Women and Christians are fair game for ridicule while other groups like Muslims and African Americans are taboo.
I'm no longer going to try to point out this double standard....it exists and is apparently just acceptable to the majority of folks here.
I haven't read the whole post, but let me just add a few thoughts from a Norwegian point of view. I think the whole situation has becomed foolish, but it's not surprising. Not at all. We have all seen what happened in Holland and France, and it's going to happen again some place else. Today the Norwegian embassy was burned down in Syria, as you see on the pictures posted earlier in this thread. That's the reality of the situation, and of course that is something we can not accept.
But lets take a look at what started it all - a stupid, mindless provocation. It was nothing else. The last week we've been debating "freedom of speech" in Norway, but what they doesn't speak about is responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility. We can't walk around and act like monkeys, just because we have the freedom to do so.
I'm a great admire of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the woman behind the movie Van Gogh got killed because of. She's one of the most important freedom fighters in our time, and her procedure is also to provoke. But what is there different between her and the cartoons? She's trying to make a difference, and in the long run make things better. The people behind the cartoons said it was a test of our freedom of speech, but fuck that, they only made things worse because they knew they could. We all know their, the newspapers as published the cartoons, political views on immigration, and really I think some people are happy about what's happened - the Norwegian and Danish people now have an even worse view on muslims. FRP, the conservative right-wing party in Norway, has the last 5 years growed from small and uninteresting party to the second largest party, and it seems like their support is growing and growing. The same thing is happening in Denmark and other European countries, and in the same time the muslim immigrants feels more and more alienated. What will happen in 5 or 10 years if this development continues?
I don't like it. The situation is a lot bigger than these incidents in Holland, France and now Denmark and Norway, and it smolders all over Europe. People have to start talking to each others in stead of throwing rocks.
There are too many people in power in the Christian world and the Muslim world who want to see a world war between the 2 religions.
Sometimes I worry that people on this board who talk about how Muslim's "are this or that", are among those who want to see this war.
It is too bad our "Christian" president does not follow Jesus' teachings. If we took a just approach to world affairs, loved our neighbors and turned the cheek this would be a very different world.
It is too bad our "Christian" president does not follow Jesus' teachings. If we took a just approach to world affairs, loved our neighbors and turned the cheek this would be a very different world.
It's too bad that almost every religious person on earth doesn't follow the teachings they claim to live by.
3. It shouldn't, but it does and that's not really a surprise in most cases... anyone with half a brain could've predicted this. People are emotional beings when whipped into a state of fury things can get violent. I mean, if operas can cause riots....
jp you point at 3 is kinda fucked, your saying muslims are not violent and then saying everyone should have expected this, they can't help themselves to some violence, and someone may know what the reaction is to something does not give an excuse to a ridiculous reaction
yeah there is a disturbing sentiment in some of these posts that - while the paper may have had the freedom to print these cartoons - they "should've known" it would lead to violence, etc.
maybe that's true. maybe I'm just not prepared to accept that cartoons - even racist ones - will inevitably lead to violence.
there is a racist undercurrent inherent in the idea that these Muslims were bound to break fool at the sight of these cartoons.
we need to hold these people to sane adult standards, not excitable animal standards.
3. It shouldn't, but it does and that's not really a surprise in most cases... anyone with half a brain could've predicted this. People[/b] are emotional beings when whipped into a state of fury things can get violent. I mean, if operas can cause riots....
jp you point at 3 is kinda fucked, your saying muslims are not violent and then saying everyone should have expected this, they can't help themselves to some violence, and someone may know what the reaction is to something does not give an excuse to a ridiculous reaction
yeah there is a disturbing sentiment in some of these posts that - while the paper may have had the freedom to print these cartoons - they "should've known" it would lead to violence, etc.
maybe that's true. maybe I'm just not prepared to accept that cartoons - even racist ones - will inevitably lead to violence.
there is a racist undercurrent inherent in the idea that these Muslims were bound to break fool at the sight of these cartoons.
we need to hold these people to sane adult standards, not excitable animal standards.
I never stated in my comments that "Muslims" specifically are "bound to break fool". I believe the post said "people". In fact, since you dolts can't seem to read my post clearly, I've gone ahead and bolded the word in question.
I am so lost here as to why people can't understand that just because you have the freedom to so you should do it. I can insult a person who's been persecuted all day but am I going to? no, and this paper was taking a group that has been used as a scapegoat for issues and insulting them further by printing something sacreligious (sp?).
it was a poor decision by the paper plain and simple, given the climate of hate in the country and the refusal for apology over printing the cartoons it does not seem so innocent as just a "freedom of expression"
Does this perspective seem so weird?
Generique:[/b] I find it humorous that you are so offended by my cartoon comparrison earlier in this thread but you still claim not to understand why these Muhammad drawings are upsetting to others.
Comments
No, I think it's stupid. Clearly most folks in this thread conflate the two words, but they are not the same.
Mr Paycheck, sorry for that last remark. It was not cool and I should have hit my bed before typing it. Other than that I would repeat everything else I have said.
Difference between saying something is stupid and calling for censorship is clear in all your posts btw.
Guzzo's jpeg is still
I'm going to rent Life Of Brian in a minute to laugh all this away.
Noted. But I don't think anyone in the thread is disagreeing with you that printing the cartoons wasn't the smartest of things to do.
I think most are really saying:
1. Yes, it was not the smartest of choices to print these in the first place. And it was wrong.
2. A free press has the right to print whatever it wants. But also should realize that they should also take any criticism/boycotting thrown their[/b] way because of it.
3. Nothing a free press prints should ever draw violence.
4. That the paper in question, does not represent the country of Denmark or it's people. It's not a state paper. So, any violence or boycotting against that country or it's people is wrong.
I disagree with your last two points...
3. It shouldn't, but it does and that's not really a surprise in most cases... anyone with half a brain could've predicted this. People are emotional beings when whipped into a state of fury things can get violent. I mean, if operas can cause riots....
4. Whether the paper is state-sponsored or not it is still a representative of its people. If the New York Times prints something it's representative of the USA, as is the conservative tabloid NY Post or the pussy leaking SF Chronicle.
THANK YOU for this post. I learned a lot from reading it.
Well of course it does... Fucking throwing a piece of litter on the ground can escalate things into people trying to kill eachother. It's just two wrongs don't make a right. And I'm a realist. Of course they should have known that it would cause the shit to hit the fan. And anyone I've seen posted in this thread I don't think disagrees with you on that.
It's just that I would hate to live in a society when religion dicates what a free press can and can't print. Be it any religon.
It was in bad taste. And someone made some poor choices. But I really don't believe that a country or it's people should become punished for it.
If it had been the NYP that had printed it, I wouldn't be looking at anyone else to blame, besides the NYP. If the NYP was a state paper, the government should also be protested.
Anyways.. I'm done posting in this thread. Shit is messed up... cause now more countries are getting involved and it's only going to get worse, before it gets any better.
hmmm
jp you point at 3 is kinda fucked, your saying muslims are not violent and then saying everyone should have expected this, they can't help themselves to some violence, and someone may know what the reaction is to something does not give an excuse to a ridiculous reaction
and on 4 i really dont think you can have a paper represent a country, which is what bothered me about the long post from the dude from there with the timeline, he thought their leadership needs to answere for the cartoons, thats bullshit, the only people that need to answer for soemthing published is the people involved in publishing it
Saying a paper can represent a country is like saying muslims are violent because I saw it on TV.
Oh really? What if the xenophobe equates ones beliefs with their race, or fails to realize belief systems cross over many ethnic groups.
then that xenophobe is ignorant
still means they are two different things
I was gonna say that. The xenophobe may be THINKING he's acting on racist hate. Just because he's wrong, does that make it OK? If racist intention is there, does that not make it racist?
I also don't get how torching embassies and calling for people to be executed over a cartoon is going to do anything except make these fanatics look even more insane.
I defend anybodies right to express what they want, but if it's stupid, or socially irresponsible, than they should be ready for the backlash, no matter how WRONG the backlash is. That's just reality. That was the original point of the post I believe. You have to be an idiot to defend extremists burning embassies, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that poor judgement was used in printing the cartoons
this is so dumb iam just gonna quote it and leave it alone
if some one makes some thing you don't like you dont buy it, watch it, read it, eat it, or smell it
if we want to live in a civilized society you can...
but you don't...
Keep posting JPGs to divert attention away from that fact.
Sometimes it's like people are talking about a branch of the Hell's Angels instead of about a religion.
To be fair: I do understand the argument partly. At the time Theo van Gogh was on a rampage I was thinking: please dude, you are headed for disaster and you're taking people down with you. The stuff he said was far beyond what's in these cartoons. Still, especially afterwards, I would not say he had it comming. Everybody felt this was a very probable scenario but most muslims united and tried to sue him in court. The one that killed him took the bait and showed his ugly face, criminalizing in effect the ones he pretends to speak for. I want to stress that a lot of stuff that get's printed or that's being uttered in hip hop or being drawn in cartoons or depicted in movies is offensive to one or another, no? So who's going to decide whats crossing the line? I suspect people who underline the original post in this thread also see that the twelve cartoons are in different shades, from very offensive to not offensive at all (the boy in front of the chalk board is hard to interpret as hateful, no?) It will be very difficult to see upfront what's gonna be inflamatory and what's not. In this case: 4 months ago the cartoons were apparently not this inflamatory. Something might become inflamatory when it serves someones goals to say it's inflamatory, like in this case Fatah in Palestine (Hamas is actually promising to protect westerners against violence whereas Hamas is supposed to be the extremist party of the two).
I feel very sad for the cartoonists in question, especially the ones who used the platform to comment on and criticize the event itself (several do) but for the others as well.
But lets take a look at what started it all - a stupid, mindless provocation. It was nothing else. The last week we've been debating "freedom of speech" in Norway, but what they doesn't speak about is responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility. We can't walk around and act like monkeys, just because we have the freedom to do so.
I'm a great admire of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the woman behind the movie Van Gogh got killed because of. She's one of the most important freedom fighters in our time, and her procedure is also to provoke. But what is there different between her and the cartoons? She's trying to make a difference, and in the long run make things better. The people behind the cartoons said it was a test of our freedom of speech, but fuck that, they only made things worse because they knew they could. We all know their, the newspapers as published the cartoons, political views on immigration, and really I think some people are happy about what's happened - the Norwegian and Danish people now have an even worse view on muslims. FRP, the conservative right-wing party in Norway, has the last 5 years growed from small and uninteresting party to the second largest party, and it seems like their support is growing and growing. The same thing is happening in Denmark and other European countries, and in the same time the muslim immigrants feels more and more alienated. What will happen in 5 or 10 years if this development continues?
I don't like it. The situation is a lot bigger than these incidents in Holland, France and now Denmark and Norway, and it smolders all over Europe. People have to start talking to each others in stead of throwing rocks.
sure thing...
I was the one who made the comment about comparing Christians to the Crips. My point was and still is that there seems to be a double standard in American society where it's acceptable to ridicule certain groups but not others.
If your comment that people should expect backlash for saying offensive things is accurate, then I assume that if a Christian took your remark as an insult, didn't see it as a "joke" and burned down your house because of it, you should just accept it as "backlash".
If SS is a microcosm of our society then the only conclusion you could come to after reading months of posts is that groups like White Women and Christians are fair game for ridicule while other groups like Muslims and African Americans are taboo.
I'm no longer going to try to point out this double standard....it exists and is apparently just acceptable to the majority of folks here.
There are too many people in power in the Christian world and the Muslim world who want to see a world war between the 2 religions.
Sometimes I worry that people on this board who talk about how Muslim's "are this or that", are among those who want to see this war.
It is too bad our "Christian" president does not follow Jesus' teachings. If we took a just approach to world affairs, loved our neighbors and turned the cheek this would be a very different world.
Dan
It's too bad that almost every religious person on earth doesn't follow the teachings they claim to live by.
yeah there is a disturbing sentiment in some of these posts that - while the paper may have had the freedom to print these cartoons - they "should've known" it would lead to violence, etc.
maybe that's true. maybe I'm just not prepared to accept that cartoons - even racist ones - will inevitably lead to violence.
there is a racist undercurrent inherent in the idea that these Muslims were bound to break fool at the sight of these cartoons.
we need to hold these people to sane adult standards, not excitable animal standards.
I never stated in my comments that "Muslims" specifically are "bound to break fool". I believe the post said "people". In fact, since you dolts can't seem to read my post clearly, I've gone ahead and bolded the word in question.
Good lord, some of you are thick.
true.
it was a poor decision by the paper plain and simple, given the climate of hate in the country and the refusal for apology over printing the cartoons it does not seem so innocent as just a "freedom of expression"
Does this perspective seem so weird?
Generique:[/b] I find it humorous that you are so offended by my cartoon comparrison earlier in this thread but you still claim not to understand why these Muhammad drawings are upsetting to others.