no joke, for a board that seems to be obsessed with racial/cultural understanding and equality y'all are acting pretty damn ignorant about this...
for those of you who participate in race threads preaching about understanding and the ignorance of others please look back at this thread before you speak up.
Gary, eating pork is not the same as drawing the holiest man in the world's largest religion as a bomb toting terrorist.
Shoulda never posted this. The intellectual discourse on this site is really not worth it.
That's the nice thing about most industrialized nations. With the exception of raping small children and chopping off housewives' heads, people can do whatever they want. If they want to draw a picture of Jesus tossing Moses's salad, then so be it. I could give a fuck, and even if I did, I'm more than happy for them to have the ability to express their opinions in a non-violent manner. And by "them" I mean... well, all people.
What I don't advocate is butchering journalists. I'd much rather have people drawing Muhammed or Jesus or Buddha or whoever however they please.
I don't see anyone getting disrespectful or non-constructive at your post. You're just mad because Soulstrut doesn't agree with you. Stop crying.
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.
I dunno, I thought it was pretty funny mocking Jesus. That's what I thought the intent was.
I see the point about being sensitive, but still, isn't that the great thing about industrialized nations? The ability to poke fun at people? Many characatures are in poor taste, that's why it's funny. Of course, perhaps I'm a little skewed, I think all religion is nothing more than a mental crutch. But that's just me.
But I do understand the point of reinforcing a stereotype. People would have a fit if a newspaper portrayed MLK as a thug with a grill.
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.
Wow! This thread is really interesting to read. The American soul being revealed.
I guess, compared to Denmark, Germany is very lucky. Lots of satires on TV. Even some Muslims being satiric about their religion. Lots of politicians being insulted badly. But it's still considered art. Most politicians take it easy. I don't know about the faithful, but making jokes about religion is usually like skating on thin ice.
Religion is a bad thing. Causing trouble and generating hate. Most wars these days are based on different faith.
no joke, for a board that seems to be obsessed with racial/cultural understanding and equality y'all are acting pretty damn ignorant about this...
for those of you who participate in race threads preaching about understanding and the ignorance of others please look back at this thread before you speak up.
dude adam no one is even saying anything about the muslim faith or arabs for that matter, we are all pretty much on the same page, those cartoons are lame and probably anti-muslim, no one is arguing that these are good cartoons, the only thing some folks on here are arguing about is that fact the dude that drew them has the right to do so, and the paper that published them has the right to do so, and they should be able to do so without death threats, kidnappings, etc.
if people want to see cartoons like this then they will buy the newspaper, if they dont' the wont buy it
its a freemarket of ideas, let individuals decide what they want to read and see, don't let religions and political parties decide
I don't think violence makes for a valid argument. Responding to art with violence is nuts. At the same time I do see the power of symbols and art and there's no way to deny that it's much more than ink on paper.
But anyway, I agree this Danish special was provocative but still, I think you should be able to draw Mohammed. In fact, many cartoons feature Mohammed and no hell was raised abut them. Okay, this seems to be sort of a campaign by this paper, but the reaction in the middle east seems to be pretty random.
About the cartoons: if I would see each one individually I wouldn't say they are racist, with the exeption of the one with the knive wielding Mohammed with his brides in niqaabs. The drawing is drenched in hatred and the way Mohammed is depicted reminds of old anti semitic cartoons. The rest, on their own, are within my boundaries of what's acceptable. They might be stupid or even offensive, but many cartoons on many subjects are. Also, I think, to some extend, most cartoonists employ racist stereotypes. It's hard not to.
I live in denmark. I think this situation is crazy. I cant understant that this has been taken soo far out. Hope thay won??t take revenge on the danish people?
I live in denmark. I think this situation is crazy. I cant understant that this has been taken soo far out. Hope thay won??t take revenge on the danish people?
I don't think the Danes have anything to worry about, the zealots will start fighting over something else in no time.
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?
You're confusing race and religion.
I agree that the cartoons[/b], taken as a whole, implicate "the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature" (a phrase which I introduced to the exchange) but I think the depiction of Muhammed is incidental to that.
no joke, for a board that seems to be obsessed with racial/cultural understanding and equality y'all are acting pretty damn ignorant about this...
for those of you who participate in race threads preaching about understanding and the ignorance of others please look back at this thread before you speak up.
dude adam no one is even saying anything about the muslim faith or arabs for that matter, we are all pretty much on the same page, those cartoons are lame and probably anti-muslim, no one is arguing that these are good cartoons, the only thing some folks on here are arguing about is that fact the dude that drew them has the right to do so, and the paper that published them has the right to do so, and they should be able to do so without death threats, kidnappings, etc.
if people want to see cartoons like this then they will buy the newspaper, if they dont' the wont buy it
its a freemarket of ideas, let individuals decide what they want to read and see, don't let religions and political parties decide
It pains me only slightly to wholeheartedly agree with SoulStrut's 2nd-most-highly-rated librarian. San Fran sends hugs.
That guy may work in a library, but a real "librarian" would never abuse their employer's time by reading the David Lee Roth autobiography on the clock...
I believe you. I'm trying mentally to put this in a context where I would actually care and I can see your angle.
Look, I never said "yes, let's take some hostages and threaten the paper!"
I said that someone royally fucked up. I think it's clear that it was poor enough judgment and taste, and has far-enough reaching consequences (that could've been predicted) to say it's a fuck up.
I was personally offended by the cartoons, but that's just me. I'm not killing anyone over it.
If a big US paper, say the Times or the Post, published a bunch of really racist cartoons, and African American groups went wild and the paper was getting death threats and a couple white folks got beat up over it, I don't think anyone would sanction the violence but pretty much everyone would say, "well this is what can happen when you publish really offensive and provocative material in a national paper."
That guy may work in a library, but a real "librarian" would never abuse their employer's time by reading the David Lee Roth autobiography on the clock...
That guy may work in a library, but a real "librarian" would never abuse their employer's time by reading the David Lee Roth autobiography on the clock..
That guy may work in a library, but a real "librarian" would never abuse their employer's time by reading the David Lee Roth autobiography on the clock..
I believe you. I'm trying mentally to put this in a context where I would actually care and I can see your angle.
Look, I never said "yes, let's take some hostages and threaten the paper!"
I said that someone royally fucked up. I think it's clear that it was poor enough judgment and taste, and has far-enough reaching consequences (that could've been predicted) to say it's a fuck up.
I was personally offended by the cartoons, but that's just me. I'm not killing anyone over it.
If a big US paper, say the Times or the Post, published a bunch of really racist cartoons, and African American groups went wild and the paper was getting death threats and a couple white folks got beat up over it, I don't think anyone would sanction the violence but pretty much everyone would say, "well this is what can happen when you publish really offensive and provocative material in a national paper about a group of people who would resort to violence as their "revenge" against literature, art or someone's opinion.[/b] ."
That's all.
Seriously, what is the difference between this cartoon and a Crucifix submerged in Piss??
They both degrade a religious belief
They both degrade the figure head of said religions
Yet us intolerant Americans displayed Pisschrist in a Museum and paid the artist grant money to help him create his art!!
And yet those intolerant Christians didn't use any violence as their "revenge"
I believe you. I'm trying mentally to put this in a context where I would actually care and I can see your angle.
Look, I never said "yes, let's take some hostages and threaten the paper!"
I said that someone royally fucked up. I think it's clear that it was poor enough judgment and taste, and has far-enough reaching consequences (that could've been predicted) to say it's a fuck up.
I was personally offended by the cartoons, but that's just me. I'm not killing anyone over it.
If a big US paper, say the Times or the Post, published a bunch of really racist cartoons, and African American groups went wild and the paper was getting death threats and a couple white folks got beat up over it, I don't think anyone would sanction the violence but pretty much everyone would say, "well this is what can happen when you publish really offensive and provocative material in a national paper about a group of people who would resort to violence as their "revenge" against literature, art or someone's opinion.[/b] ."
That's all.
Seriously, what is the difference between this cartoon and a Crucifix submerged in Piss??
They both degrade a religious belief
They both degrade the figure head of said religions
Yet us intolerant Americans displayed Pisschrist in a Museum and paid the artist grant money to help him create his art!!
And yet those intolerant Christians didn't use any violence as their "revenge"
Some Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors. Others wage crusades...
Trying to paint the Muslim faith or Muslims in general as inherently violent is not really going to get you anywhere. There is a direct causal connection between oppression and violence.
Comments
Well, he's definitely got a niche market. One of the few men who gets paid to go on stage with a bra on his head and one stapled to his chest.
And the look on that girl's face in back is priceless...
pssshhh....
Some of you are looking real bad right about now.
SO CLOSE.
What???? That picture's funny!
no joke, for a board that seems to be obsessed with racial/cultural understanding and equality y'all are acting pretty damn ignorant about this...
for those of you who participate in race threads preaching about understanding and the ignorance of others please look back at this thread before you speak up.
That's the nice thing about most industrialized nations. With the exception of raping small children and chopping off housewives' heads, people can do whatever they want. If they want to draw a picture of Jesus tossing Moses's salad, then so be it. I could give a fuck, and even if I did, I'm more than happy for them to have the ability to express their opinions in a non-violent manner. And by "them" I mean... well, all people.
What I don't advocate is butchering journalists. I'd much rather have people drawing Muhammed or Jesus or Buddha or whoever however they please.
I don't see anyone getting disrespectful or non-constructive at your post. You're just mad because Soulstrut doesn't agree with you. Stop crying.
I dunno, I thought it was pretty funny mocking Jesus. That's what I thought the intent was.
I see the point about being sensitive, but still, isn't that the great thing about industrialized nations? The ability to poke fun at people? Many characatures are in poor taste, that's why it's funny. Of course, perhaps I'm a little skewed, I think all religion is nothing more than a mental crutch. But that's just me.
But I do understand the point of reinforcing a stereotype. People would have a fit if a newspaper portrayed MLK as a thug with a grill.
Bingo.
I believe you. I'm trying mentally to put this in a context where I would actually care and I can see your angle.
I guess, compared to Denmark, Germany is very lucky. Lots of satires on TV. Even some Muslims being satiric about their religion. Lots of politicians being insulted badly. But it's still considered art. Most politicians take it easy. I don't know about the faithful, but making jokes about religion is usually like skating on thin ice.
Religion is a bad thing. Causing trouble and generating hate. Most wars these days are based on different faith.
dude adam no one is even saying anything about the muslim faith or arabs for that matter, we are all pretty much on the same page, those cartoons are lame and probably anti-muslim, no one is arguing that these are good cartoons, the only thing some folks on here are arguing about is that fact the dude that drew them has the right to do so, and the paper that published them has the right to do so, and they should be able to do so without death threats, kidnappings, etc.
if people want to see cartoons like this then they will buy the newspaper, if they dont' the wont buy it
its a freemarket of ideas, let individuals decide what they want to read and see, don't let religions and political parties decide
But anyway, I agree this Danish special was provocative but still, I think you should be able to draw Mohammed. In fact, many cartoons feature Mohammed and no hell was raised abut them. Okay, this seems to be sort of a campaign by this paper, but the reaction in the middle east seems to be pretty random.
About the cartoons: if I would see each one individually I wouldn't say they are racist, with the exeption of the one with the knive wielding Mohammed with his brides in niqaabs. The drawing is drenched in hatred and the way Mohammed is depicted reminds of old anti semitic cartoons. The rest, on their own, are within my boundaries of what's acceptable. They might be stupid or even offensive, but many cartoons on many subjects are. Also, I think, to some extend, most cartoonists employ racist stereotypes. It's hard not to.
On a similar note:
sikhs riot over a play
filmmaker murdered by jihadist
Israeli ambassador wrecks a work of art
did anyone see the south park episode super best friends with all the religions main guys in a justice league thing...
muhammad is standing next to jesus, he had the power of flame
I don't think the Danes have anything to worry about, the zealots will start fighting over something else in no time.
freedom of expression should never be surpressed.
You're confusing race and religion.
I agree that the cartoons[/b], taken as a whole, implicate "the basic right that all people have to be free from racist caricature" (a phrase which I introduced to the exchange) but I think the depiction of Muhammed is incidental to that.
It pains me only slightly to wholeheartedly agree with SoulStrut's 2nd-most-highly-rated librarian. San Fran sends hugs.
whos the other librarian? iam number one bitches!!!
Here's a hint
That guy may work in a library, but a real "librarian" would never abuse their employer's time by reading the David Lee Roth autobiography on the clock...
Look, I never said "yes, let's take some hostages and threaten the paper!"
I said that someone royally fucked up. I think it's clear that it was poor enough judgment and taste, and has far-enough reaching consequences (that could've been predicted) to say it's a fuck up.
I was personally offended by the cartoons, but that's just me. I'm not killing anyone over it.
If a big US paper, say the Times or the Post, published a bunch of really racist cartoons, and African American groups went wild and the paper was getting death threats and a couple white folks got beat up over it, I don't think anyone would sanction the violence but pretty much everyone would say, "well this is what can happen when you publish really offensive and provocative material in a national paper."
That's all.
"real librarians" waste taxpayer money reading soulstrut
That is an incredible book.
So he assured me; "DLR is so dynamic!"
Seriously, what is the difference between this cartoon and a Crucifix submerged in Piss??
They both degrade a religious belief
They both degrade the figure head of said religions
Yet us intolerant Americans displayed Pisschrist in a Museum and paid the artist grant money to help him create his art!!
And yet those intolerant Christians didn't use any violence as their "revenge"
Some Christians bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors. Others wage crusades...
Trying to paint the Muslim faith or Muslims in general as inherently violent is not really going to get you anywhere. There is a direct causal connection between oppression and violence.