French magazine publishes Muhammed lulz.

[Animavore]

I was listening to Muslims talking about that South Park episode on the radio and they were talking about it being disrespectful etc... etc... and they said, These people would probably make fun of their own mother... etc and Muhammed is like a brother we have a special relationship with him, Yadda, Yadda... And I just thought... So? If someone made fun of my mother I wouldn't go around causing riots and killing people. So where is their fucking argument?

[Coito ergo sum]

I was listening to Muslims talking about that South Park episode on the radio and they were talking about it being disrespectful etc... etc... and they said, These people would probably make fun of their own mother... etc and Muhammed is like a brother we have a special relationship with him, Yadda, Yadda... And I just thought... So? If someone made fun of my mother I wouldn't go around causing riots and killing people. So where is their fucking argument?

South Park has an episode where the Virgin Mary statue magically bleeds..... out of its ass.....

....the Muslims need to go fuck themselves. Period.

[Animavore]

I just found out the meaning of the cover so it makes more sense.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intouchables

The movie relates the development of the unlikely friendship between Philippe, a wealthy quadraplegic, and Driss, a young and poor man from the ghettos, who is hired as his live-in carer.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just because you can do or say something does not mean that you should or that it is wise to. Doing so is the childish thing.

Certainly, that is a truism.

However, if the propriety of what you say is being determined by the irrational, violent reactions of a small minority of people, then it may well be a moral necessity to oppose the small minority of people.

For example, as I just mentioned, the show South Park has an episode that was considered very offensive by Christians, where the Virgin Mary statue bleeds out of its ass. Was that, or was that not "wise" to do? It was a funny episode, for sure. It made some good points by use of its "offensive" imagery. Yet it was very much objected to by Christians.

Are to adopt a test that says that such expressions are o.k. as long as the people being lampooned are not violent? They have to put up with the offense, because they are restrained enough to not riot, murder and burn? But, if some other people riot and murder and burn, it becomes "unwise" to publish the lampooning imagery?

And, would we give one minute's credence to threats by Christian groups that South Park's episode should have been pulled from the shelves at the point of guns and torches? Would we say -- well, you know it is provocative, so we'd best choose our timing? And, this is our right, but it is not wise, and it is childish to publish the cartoon?

Of course we would not be saying that. We'd be avidly and strongly denouncing the Christians for being violent in the face of nonviolent expression, and rightly so.

It's not the cartoonist lampooning Islam that is childish. It is the Muslim mob that riots, burns and murders that is behaving childishly.

Yours is not some nuanced, mature position here Rum. It is a craven "path of least resistance" position that places the burden on cartoonists and movie makers and writers to hold their tongues, lest they inflame a mob by expressions of controversial views or humor. Your position would chill the speech those who want to make satires. It already is chilling that speech. If a person wanted to produce a movie about the life of Mohammed, even if it was milquetoast, accurate and praising of the prophet, they would be subject to violence. If they decided to make a "Last Temptation of Mohammed" in the vein of Last Temptation of Christ, the makers of the movie would be marked for death.

And, we're to adopt a position that the makers of the Last Temptation of Mohammed would be "unwise" and "provoking" violence by making the movie? And, what? The Last Temptation of Christ makers were not unwise? That's fair game?

Doesn't that give a special place of superiority for Islam, because some of its followers are violent murderers bent on silencing the rights of others at the point of a gun and scimitar? It seems surely to do so. Unless, of course, you're willing to grant to the most violent elements of Christendom and Judaism the same rights to silence their critics. They'll learn that lesson quick, won't they? Incite a mob to riot over the next Last Temptation of Christ and then everyone will know it is "unwise" to publish such things.

That is why your view on this is weapons grade bullshit. It makes matters worse, ultimately, because it cedes the power to silence criticism, parody and lampooning, to the most brazenly violent among us.

[Gerald McGrew]

You know what I hate the most about this is that I don't actually like being deliberately offensive to people including those are religious. Sure I might say their religion is fact free, no heaven or hell god etc and they might get offended by that , but I'm not deliberately trying to upset them.

I agree. I think Christianity is rather stupid and nonsensical, but I don't go around to every Christian I can find and yell it at them. OTOH when Christians ask me why I'm not a Christian, I'll generally tell them that I find it to be stupid an nonsensical.

I don't see the point in being offensive for the sake of it and I wouldn't normally want to put Muhammed cartoons up, as I know plenty of decent muslims who would be upset by this but when you see people being murdered over it part of me wants to say fuck it even it means offending decent non-violent muslims I have to upset all of them with the cartoons.

I agree with this as well. It's one thing to be offended and engage in protests, even to the point of burning another country's flag. That's all perfectly within free speech rights. But when they cross the line into criminal violence, including killing people? Then they've lost all sense of perspective and proportionality, as well as any right at all to complain about "being offended". Simply put, they're criminals.

The problem I often see is a hasty generalization onto all Muslims. Whenever I talk to Muslims about these events, they (understandably) get really defensive and feel the need to keep pointing out that it's a very, very small minority of Muslims that kill people over movies and cartoons. Yes, many everyday Muslims are offended by the movies and cartoons, but the vast majority of them don't commit crimes in response.

[Gerald McGrew]

It's not the cartoonist lampooning Islam that is childish.

Yeah, given the circumstances, it kinda is. When my grandmother says she's offended by swearing, am I being a childish ass when I scream at her, "Fuck you you stupid ass cunt! I'm free to say whatever the fuck I want, whenever the fuck I fucking want!"?

Yeah...I think so.

South Park's parodies of religious figures are very childish (I happen to like them, but that's another story). The fact that one group riots over them and another doesn't do much of anything doesn't change that.

[Rum]

I don't do arguments here any more. Arguments on the Internet seem particularly pointless to me. I was trying to think of how to respond to Coito's typically personal and aggressive post but I think Gerald has said all I would want to. Thanks GM!

[HomerJay]

It's not the cartoonist lampooning Islam that is childish.

Yeah, given the circumstances, it kinda is. When my grandmother says she's offended by swearing, am I being a childish ass when I scream at her, "Fuck you you stupid ass cunt! I'm free to say whatever the fuck I want, whenever the fuck I fucking want!"?

Yeah...I think so.

South Park's parodies of religious figures are very childish (I happen to like them, but that's another story). The fact that one group riots over them and another doesn't do much of anything doesn't change that.

But this is different.

It's very, very different.

There are no parallels with interpersonal interactions.

Islam is a very controlling religion.

Demonstrating it doesn't have control over us is very important.

Demonstrating to people who live under the thumb of Islam benefit from seeing it mocked, vilified, hated. It is shown to be powerless.

[Animavore]

It's not the cartoonist lampooning Islam that is childish.

Yeah, given the circumstances, it kinda is. When my grandmother says she's offended by swearing, am I being a childish ass when I scream at her, "Fuck you you stupid ass cunt! I'm free to say whatever the fuck I want, whenever the fuck I fucking want!"?

Yeah...I think so.

South Park's parodies of religious figures are very childish (I happen to like them, but that's another story). The fact that one group riots over them and another doesn't do much of anything doesn't change that.

Your analogy is wrong here.

My granny doesn't like swearing either but if I did curse as I generally do all I'd get is the wag of a finger.

Now if my granny leapt up and started laying into me violently demanding that I never use that type of language ever or expect more consequences then fucking right I will. I'm hardly going to curl up in a cowardly ball and give into her hysterical demands. I'll make it my business to swear so everyone can see what an irrational nut-job she is when she runs riot over a stupid word.

[Rum]

And this tactic ends up with another 30 pr 40 people being killed. You willing to be one of them? All I would offer is that there are more intelligent and long term strategies for dealing with this issue.

The Muslim fundamentalists will not win in the end and it is the end that matters.

[JimC]

Provocation? Bullshit. It's no more "provocation" than the Broadway play "Book of Mormon" or the publication of a book like The End Of Faith or The God Delusion.

That's like saying that publishing cartoons about the Ku Klux Klan would be provocative, because the Klan might burn a cross on the cartoonist's lawn, or that publication of The Satanic Verses was provocative because the Ayatollah suborned Rushdie's murder.

Weapons grade bullshit.

I think you've missed Rum's point. He stated that the publication was provocative, which it clearly is: it may provoke Muslims to violence. That's just an objective fact.

Rum also said they had a right to do so.

Something can be provocative, but also a perfectly allowable action.

[Animavore]

And this tactic ends up with another 30 pr 40 people being killed. You willing to be one of them? All I would offer is that there are more intelligent and long term strategies for dealing with this issue.

The Muslim fundamentalists will not win in the end and it is the end that matters.

You're trying to shift blame of the killing on people doing the cartoons. Only the people doing the killing are to blame for their own actions.

[JimC]

And this tactic ends up with another 30 pr 40 people being killed. You willing to be one of them? All I would offer is that there are more intelligent and long term strategies for dealing with this issue.

The Muslim fundamentalists will not win in the end and it is the end that matters.

You're trying to shift blame of the killing on people doing the cartoons. Only the people doing the killing are to blame for their own actions.

I read Rum's statement to be about the consequences of actions, not assigning moral blame...

However, I still think we cannot let ignorant barbarians control the media in Western countries by threats of violence.

[Cormac]

Charlie Hebdo was firebombed last year* for publishing a picture of Mohammed.

In my view, if we in the West back down, or even entertain these demands, we will have compromised our fundamental priniciples a step too far.

Charlie Hebdo is right.

[Rum]

And this tactic ends up with another 30 pr 40 people being killed. You willing to be one of them? All I would offer is that there are more intelligent and long term strategies for dealing with this issue.

The Muslim fundamentalists will not win in the end and it is the end that matters.

You're trying to shift blame of the killing on people doing the cartoons. Only the people doing the killing are to blame for their own actions.

Jim is correct. However you guys who are so fucking hung ho should stop and think a little less stridently when lives are at stake. Especially when there are other ways to skin this particular cat.