remember when danish was like a raer delicacy? like, that was some fancy houseguest sunday only shit. now look at it. shit's barely a notch above donuts. fucken svenhards 30 pack from costco and it tastes all preservativey with like cheap jams stuck in the middle. danish suck. give me a apple fritter any day of the week.
Its no different than the Jesus pics that people throw around here.
I agree. Someone should run up and take Danno3000 hostage
Fuck you. I'll go down fighting and I'll take you with me.
More seriously, there is a significant difference between my mockery of the Jesus images and the cartoons in question. The artist created those Jesus sincerely as a testament to his faith. I took these drawings and posted them in a different context to reveal their inherent and unintended comedy. In contrast, the Danish cartoonist drew his images to mock someone else's faith. Only if I had made those Jesus drawings myself could would your analogy stand.
Those cartoons were unnecessary and inflammatory, granted, but that doesn't give those they offended permission to get violent. If archaic gets drunk after a project blowed open-mic and paints some swastikas in a bathroom stall, I don't have the right to beat him up and take some white supremacists hostage. I can say 'hey, archaic, not cool and this is why' or I can report him to the authorities for hate crimes or I can write an angry letter to the local media explaining the wrongness of his actions. This is what decent, reasonable people do. I'm strongly support diversity of faith, ideology, culture, and so on, but I also believe in the pre-eminence of certain basic, core values, tolerance being one of them. Tolerance precludes taking hostages to protest a cartoon.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group.
I'm sorry, but they're two very different things.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
I'm gonna have to go with Lynn on this one...
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
Feel free to "go with" him, but know that you're departing from anything resembling logic.
The fact that two things both result in hurt feelings doesn't mean that they are, in fact, the same thing.
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group.
I'm sorry, but they're two very different things.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
I'm gonna have to go with Lynn on this one...
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
Feel free to "go with" him, but know that you're departing from anything resembling logic.
The fact that two things both result in hurt feelings doesn't mean that they are, in fact, the same thing.
Unless I am completely confused, you said:
"One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign."
which means you can take the religion out of the equation and still wind up with
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
If you take the religion out of it then:
"One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature." sill applies.
Its no different than the Jesus pics that people throw around here.
I agree. Someone should run up and take Danno3000 hostage
Fuck you. I'll go down fighting and I'll take you with me.
More seriously, there is a significant difference between my mockery of the Jesus images and the cartoons in question. The artist created those Jesus sincerely as a testament to his faith. I took these drawings and posted them in a different context to reveal their inherent and unintended comedy.
I agree with Danno. His posts of the jesus image are prime examples of Verfremdungseffekt
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
Faux, I already said that I'm not addressing what Islam does or does not prohibit. I'm taking the Danish cartoon purely at face value. So explain to me how it does not have "to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature." How is depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist not racist in manner?
But that's a different issue and is, in fact, the reason that I find the cartoons disturbing.
One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign.
No, it's not. It's the same exact thing -- both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group.
I'm sorry, but they're two very different things.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
I'm gonna have to go with Lynn on this one...
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
Feel free to "go with" him, but know that you're departing from anything resembling logic.
The fact that two things both result in hurt feelings doesn't mean that they are, in fact, the same thing.
Unless I am completely confused, you said:
"One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign."
which means you can take the religion out of the equation and still wind up with
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
If you take the religion out of it then:
"One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature." sill applies.
Show me where I'm going wrong here.....
you need to think like Faux Rills here. One involves religious/ ethnic hate and the other one is really offensive cause it deals with african americans.
One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature.
The other has more to do with the "right" of a group of people to impose the tenets of their religion on others.
Faux, I already said that I'm not addressing what Islam does or does not prohibit. I'm taking the Danish cartoon purely at face value. So explain to me how it does not have "to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature." How is depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist not racist in manner?
Well, Islam isn't a race. But since it is the preferred religion of a certain group of people, you could maybe argue that by targeting the religion you are targeting the people.
All I know is, the situation is pretty tense in a lot of, if not all, european countries between muslims and locals. I'm all for free speech, and I'm not defending violence. But if you really wanted to make things better, and bridge the gap between people, these cartoons are NOT the way to go about it. Especially with the goverment in Denmark basically making it impossible for foreigners to live in their country (some married couples, were one of them was born in another country, can't live in Denmark and have to commute to their jobs from Sweden. Just an example).
Especially with the goverment in Denmark basically making it impossible for foreigners to live in their country (some married couples, were one of them was born in another country, can't live in Denmark and have to commute to their jobs from Sweden. Just an example).
Is that a widespread thing or is it only in a few circumstances? Regardless, that's fucked up.
The people giving these fanatics a pass are the real racists.
For real: Why are you guys holding these Islamists to a standard of behavior more appropriate for a three-year old kid?
If a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. started taking hostages and threatening to merk people in response to a cartoon, you would call them out - and rightfully so.
You guys don't do any favors to Muslims by giving them a pass to wild out whenever someone offends their religion.
If you had the same respect for them that you have for the other religions of the world you would hold them to the same standards.
These folls are not animals - they are HUMAN BEINGS. So why not expect them to act like it?
They can boycott the paper, boycott the corporate sponsors, start a media campaign, you know, like normal people do.
1. The cartoons = bad taste.
2. Bad taste not enough to kidnap people and raise hell.
Well, Islam isn't a race. But since it is the preferred religion of a certain group of people, you could maybe argue that by targeting the religion you are targeting the people.
Yes, that's exactly what I would argue. From my experience as an Arab in America, Europeans and Americans know damn well that when they make fun of a guy with a turban (religious figure or not) it goes well beyond affecting just the believers of one specific faith.
I don't agree at all with the acts of thsoe that do things like take hostages over a drawing. I do agree however that it is hateful and disrespectful for such images to be printed in a newspaper.
Pretty much a story of 2 wrongs here. I'm not a side taker in the actions that happened. I'm just adding my .02 on what started this mess.
Well I'm still confused because I agree with Faux, and I agree with you, but for some reason you aren't agreeing with each other, and thats the part that is confusing me. haha.
How is that not a good look? Especially when you have an Arab American talking about his perspective??
When jonny first posted this I imagined the cartoon to be something like American Political cartoons. The ones that are buried somewhere in the paper that nobody looks at anyways and half the time I don't get.
I didn't realize that it was the result of an open invitation by the paper to start some shit. So on that point, I concede that it was a foul move and that muslims have a right to be pissed. Score Jonny one, Dizzy zero.
On the other hand, the radicalist reaction (hostages, bomb threats, etc) only serves to further the stereotypes portrayed in those cartoons. In other words, right or not, the cartoonists and the paper itself can sit back and say "I told you so".
Well I'm still confused because I agree with Faux, and I agree with you, but for some reason you aren't agreeing with each other, and thats the part that is confusing me. haha.
You cant expect to see two miracles happen in one day Paycheck & Guzzo agreeing is mind blowing enough.
dizzy, it wasn't directed at you. it's just a cyclical arguement that has no end, and getting riled up about it isn't going to do anything positive. it cracks me up that people on here would disregard (on a message board) an entire culture's fundamental beliefs into something like, "i'm not muslim, so who fucking cares!?" i don't agree with the extremists on either side, but it's equally embarrassing to be american on a global scale these days. much props to all the veterans in this place too.
Well I said something to that effect earlier, but in regard to what any religion would consider blasphemous. In terms of a paper inviting cartoonists to portray a series of racist drawings, well, obviously that statement would not apply.
I hope that makes sense. Becaue as harsh as it is, no, I really don't care what you beleive in. I don't care what mormons beleive in. I don't care about what Cherokees beleive in. I just don't care. You can practice your religion all you want, but don't expect me to care, because I don't.
I just don't think that racially/religiously motivated cartoons which may be hurtful to a large group of people -- by reinforcing a certain stereotype -- belong in a credible newspaper.
You wanna joke about Muhammad being a terrorist or Jesus being a drunk, do it at home with likeminded folks. I mean, if I had a great joke about this Rabbi who walks into a bar I was going to tell my homies, I certainly wouldn't invite the entire congregation from my local Synagogue over to share a laugh. It's at that point that a joke ceases to be a joke and becomes something much more hurtful.
Draw a cartoon of Allah in a negative light and you're a racist.
Put a crucifix with Jesus on it in a glass of piss and we'll give you a monetary grant, put it in a museum and defend your right to be an artist.
Damn I wish Christians would grow some balls....they need to stop molesting little boys and concentrate more on some suicide bombings so that people will take them more seriously!!!
But mostly because someone forgot the climate of bat-shit crazy religious zealots that now inhabit most of the known world. Im a christian. Personally, i believe Jesus Christ to be our lord and savior. However, I also think if he came back tomorrow he wouldnt be all that pissed about a friggin political cartoon! Lets get some perspective here.
Anyone who uses faith in god as a justification for violent conflict and murder is severely fucked in the head, and that goes for everybody.
And you can call me culturally insensitive all you want, but I consider all these assholes that spread violence and hatred in the name of god to be the ultimate religious perversion. ALl of the great world religions at their root pretty much teach tolerance and understanding, and you cant sit around and condemn any one of them because people have lost sight of their true message.
whoa... for the record, i don't believe in "god" at all. i just think doing something blatantly/offensively provocative is stupid from any angle. unless you think this guy is right on...
Comments
YOU JUST CROSSED THE LINE WITH ME[/b]
Fuck you. I'll go down fighting and I'll take you with me.
More seriously, there is a significant difference between my mockery of the Jesus images and the cartoons in question. The artist created those Jesus sincerely as a testament to his faith. I took these drawings and posted them in a different context to reveal their inherent and unintended comedy. In contrast, the Danish cartoonist drew his images to mock someone else's faith. Only if I had made those Jesus drawings myself could would your analogy stand.
Those cartoons were unnecessary and inflammatory, granted, but that doesn't give those they offended permission to get violent. If archaic gets drunk after a project blowed open-mic and paints some swastikas in a bathroom stall, I don't have the right to beat him up and take some white supremacists hostage. I can say 'hey, archaic, not cool and this is why' or I can report him to the authorities for hate crimes or I can write an angry letter to the local media explaining the wrongness of his actions. This is what decent, reasonable people do. I'm strongly support diversity of faith, ideology, culture, and so on, but I also believe in the pre-eminence of certain basic, core values, tolerance being one of them. Tolerance precludes taking hostages to protest a cartoon.
Feel free to "go with" him, but know that you're departing from anything resembling logic.
The fact that two things both result in hurt feelings doesn't mean that they are, in fact, the same thing.
Cm'on guys...we're more than half way there.
Unless I am completely confused, you said:
"One can care very little about Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed and still be offended by what is clearly a racist and xenophobic cartoon campaign."
which means you can take the religion out of the equation and still wind up with
"both alienate and reinforce a strong stereotype of a certain ethnicity/religious group"
If you take the religion out of it then:
"One has to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature." sill applies.
Show me where I'm going wrong here.....
I agree with Danno. His posts of the jesus image are prime examples of Verfremdungseffekt
peace
h
Faux, I already said that I'm not addressing what Islam does or does not prohibit. I'm taking the Danish cartoon purely at face value. So explain to me how it does not have "to do with the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature." How is depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist not racist in manner?
you need to think like Faux Rills here. One involves religious/ ethnic hate and the other one is really offensive cause it deals with african americans.
Well, Islam isn't a race. But since it is the preferred religion of a certain group of people, you could maybe argue that by targeting the religion you are targeting the people.
For real: Why are you guys holding these Islamists to a standard of behavior more appropriate for a three-year old kid?
If a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. started taking hostages and threatening to merk people in response to a cartoon, you would call them out - and rightfully so.
You guys don't do any favors to Muslims by giving them a pass to wild out whenever someone offends their religion.
If you had the same respect for them that you have for the other religions of the world you would hold them to the same standards.
These folls are not animals - they are HUMAN BEINGS. So why not expect them to act like it?
They can boycott the paper, boycott the corporate sponsors, start a media campaign, you know, like normal people do.
Yes, that's exactly what I would argue. From my experience as an Arab in America, Europeans and Americans know damn well that when they make fun of a guy with a turban (religious figure or not) it goes well beyond affecting just the believers of one specific faith.
Pretty much a story of 2 wrongs here. I'm not a side taker in the actions that happened. I'm just adding my .02 on what started this mess.
How is that not a good look? Especially when you have an Arab American talking about his perspective??
When jonny first posted this I imagined the cartoon to be something like American Political cartoons. The ones that are buried somewhere in the paper that nobody looks at anyways and half the time I don't get.
I didn't realize that it was the result of an open invitation by the paper to start some shit. So on that point, I concede that it was a foul move and that muslims have a right to be pissed. Score Jonny one, Dizzy zero.
On the other hand, the radicalist reaction (hostages, bomb threats, etc) only serves to further the stereotypes portrayed in those cartoons. In other words, right or not, the cartoonists and the paper itself can sit back and say "I told you so".
You cant expect to see two miracles happen in one day Paycheck & Guzzo agreeing is mind blowing enough.
Well I said something to that effect earlier, but in regard to what any religion would consider blasphemous. In terms of a paper inviting cartoonists to portray a series of racist drawings, well, obviously that statement would not apply.
I hope that makes sense. Becaue as harsh as it is, no, I really don't care what you beleive in. I don't care what mormons beleive in. I don't care about what Cherokees beleive in. I just don't care. You can practice your religion all you want, but don't expect me to care, because I don't.
You wanna joke about Muhammad being a terrorist or Jesus being a drunk, do it at home with likeminded folks. I mean, if I had a great joke about this Rabbi who walks into a bar I was going to tell my homies, I certainly wouldn't invite the entire congregation from my local Synagogue over to share a laugh. It's at that point that a joke ceases to be a joke and becomes something much more hurtful.
Put a crucifix with Jesus on it in a glass of piss and we'll give you a monetary grant, put it in a museum and defend your right to be an artist.
Damn I wish Christians would grow some balls....they need to stop molesting little boys and concentrate more on some suicide bombings so that people will take them more seriously!!!
We can call them "freedom pastries" from now on.
But mostly because someone forgot the climate of bat-shit crazy religious zealots that now inhabit most of the known world. Im a christian. Personally, i believe Jesus Christ to be our lord and savior. However, I also think if he came back tomorrow he wouldnt be all that pissed about a friggin political cartoon! Lets get some perspective here.
Anyone who uses faith in god as a justification for violent conflict and murder is severely fucked in the head, and that goes for everybody.
And you can call me culturally insensitive all you want, but I consider all these assholes that spread violence and hatred in the name of god to be the ultimate religious perversion. ALl of the great world religions at their root pretty much teach tolerance and understanding, and you cant sit around and condemn any one of them because people have lost sight of their true message.
And my post probably sounded a lot more "intense" than it was supposed to.
read it as more of a "hey, what do want for dinner"... "yawn, i don't really care"....
jesus, that was borderline poetry.
Now, there's a guy who's got his shit together. Are those lollipop boxers?