French magazine publishes Muhammed lulz.

[Svartalf]

The speech bubble says: Must Not Laugh.

Satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo confirmed that its latest edition contains several cartoons featuring Mohammed that the publication's editor said would "shock those who will want to be shocked."

The magazine is due to hit the streets today against a background of protests across the Islamic world over a crude US-made film that mocks Mohammed and portrays Muslims as gratuitously violent.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/ ... 6476950221

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail ... id=1971393

Actually, it says "you must not mock/laughing at is forbidden)

[JimC]

Svarty, is Paris burning yet?

[Svartalf]

Not that I know, I hear that Friday is petrol and matches day.

[JimC]

Not that I know, I hear that Friday is petrol and matches day.

Take care!

Carry a fire extinguisher if you have to go out...

[That Alien Guy.]

We're a bit disappointed with the result of "Innocence of the Muslim" but it was a rush job, I'm beginning to think Broxeeeeld's suggestion that we wrap hundreds of thousands of pigs dressed like Mohammed in robes made of american flags and then drop them on mosques might have created a more heated reaction.

[JimC]

We're a bit disappointed with the result of "Innocence of the Muslim" but it was a rush job, I'm beginning to think Broxeeeeld's suggestion that we wrap hundreds of thousands of pigs dressed like Mohammed in robes made of american flags and then drop them on mosques might have created a more heated reaction.

[Coito ergo sum]

So how 'bout we do this...

Take a pallet of Korans, slather them in pig blood, wrap them in bacon, and set them on fire. Then we take video of the event and send the video to every news outlet in the Middle East.

Would that be a good thing? If so, why?

It's neither good nor bad. It's just a bunch of paper and some pig.

It's as good or bad as this, I suppose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Christians' objections were met with derision and scorn, as the artist was within his rights to do it. Both sides had their say. Nobody killed anyone over it. The artist received funding from the National Endowment for the Arts to make it.
Ar

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Whether your initial action is childish is not dependent on her reaction to it.

Granny: "I don't like swearing. It offends me."

FUCK OFF YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT!! I'LL FUCKING RIP YOUR GODDAMN NECK OFF AND SHIT DOWN YOUR FUCKING NECK!!!

Scenario 1: Granny wags her finger at me.

Scenario 2: Granny smacks me upside the head with a bat.

Scenario 3: Granny pulls out a gun and shoots me.


Whichever of the three scenarios ensue, it doesn't change the fact that my initial action was very childish and stupid. Doesn't mean I didn't have the right to do it, or does it give Granny the right to do #2 or 3, either.

There are distinguishing features here. The expression you've cited contains no political, religious or critical substance. It's just a profanity laden tirade, and it is only directed at one person.

What we're talking about with the Islam issue is the right of writers to write novels, cartoonists to draw parodies, and people to make videos critical of Islam.

In both instances, the "right" of the speaker still exists. In the instance you cite, where the guy swears at his grandmother, though, a better case of childishness can be made because there is no substance to the message. In the case of cartoonists, writers and even video makers there is in each of those cases some level of substantive criticism, critique, parody, or artistic value. It is not childish to insist that one's political or religious views be expressable without fear of violence. The violence is childish.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Yes, but an abortion clinic may provoke a fundamentalist Christian to violence, and the art work Piss Christ may do the same. The Book of Mormon might provoke a Mormon to violence.

Rum also said they had a right to do so.

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

Sure, but calling it a provocation is to suggest that the response to the provocation is justified. I may be provoked to punch someone in the face because someone says that my god is imaginary (if I believed in a god), and it may even be something is more or less likely to happen depending on my religion. However, it would be silly to suggest that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris need to think twice about publishing their excoriations of religion and gods because some of the listeners may react stupidly. And, if we say that the cartoons here are childish or "provocations" because the publisher should know that some small minority of Muslims may be moved to violence, we are left with the necessary conclusion that the next book on atheism is likewise childish and a provocation because we all know that there is a likelihood that some small minority of persons somewhere will react violently.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

O.k. - I'll bite. What are the more intelligent and long term strategies you are referring to?

And, how is a cartoonist to know which religious figures are too much of a risk to publish? Is it just Islam that gets the preferred position here? Or, do caricatures of Joseph Smith, Moses, and Jesus also get protection? How is a cartoonist to know?

Are you willing to cede to any angry mob the right to determine what caricatures are published?

[Coito ergo sum]

On the issue of cartoon parodies being "childish," "unwise" provocations that ought not be published if folks are being wise adults about all this....

Please read this article: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... 44712.html

I submit that it is unwise to cater to those that demand silence at the point of a gun. Theirs is the tantrum of a child. Standing up for freedom of thought and freedom of expression is the farthest thing from childishness.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hundreds chant Death to France and Down with the USA in Iran... http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/ ... 0-10-21-14

So, no worries that we might be offended and insulted over here in the USA and France?

Not "childish" or "unwise" to speak those words?

Ought we storm the nearest Islamic country's embassy and murder their ambassadors, because they have insulted us?

Of course not! We are called upon to respond peacefully, because peaceful protests chanting about the demise of France and the USA and cheering such potential demise are perfectly lawful and the right of each individual taking part in them! Would 'twere they extended us the same rights....

[Gerald McGrew]

There are distinguishing features here. The expression you've cited contains no political, religious or critical substance. It's just a profanity laden tirade, and it is only directed at one person.

Whether it's directed at one person or 1,000 is irrelevant to the question of whether my actions are childish and stupid.

What we're talking about with the Islam issue is the right of writers to write novels, cartoonists to draw parodies, and people to make videos critical of Islam.

Of course they have that right; no one is disputing that at all.

In both instances, the "right" of the speaker still exists. In the instance you cite, where the guy swears at his grandmother, though, a better case of childishness can be made because there is no substance to the message. In the case of cartoonists, writers and even video makers there is in each of those cases some level of substantive criticism, critique, parody, or artistic value. It is not childish to insist that one's political or religious views be expressable without fear of violence. The violence is childish.

First, whether the videos or cartoons are "substantive" is subjective. You may think they are, others may not. Second, again no one is saying Granny has a right to shoot me or Muslims have a right to kill people. Finally, we can easily change my tirade to Granny into something of more substance.

The question is, when you know a person or group of people are highly and deeply offended by something, is it productive and smart to go out of your way to do those things in very inflammatory and in-your-face manner?

I don't think it is. Others seem to disagree and think whatever one has the right to do, is the right thing to do, and if they don't see something as offensive, then it can't be to anyone else.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are distinguishing features here. The expression you've cited contains no political, religious or critical substance. It's just a profanity laden tirade, and it is only directed at one person.

Whether it's directed at one person or 1,000 is irrelevant to the question of whether my actions are childish and stupid.

A profane tirade directed at one person for no reason with no substance is quite different than writing the Satanic Verses and publishing it, publishing cartoons in a Danish or French newspaper, or making a movie critical of Christianity or Islam. That's the point I was making. The differences are relevant. Firing off a profane tirade at one's grandmother serves no purpose. Parody cartoons published in a newspaper do serve a purpose.

What we're talking about with the Islam issue is the right of writers to write novels, cartoonists to draw parodies, and people to make videos critical of Islam.

Of course they have that right; no one is disputing that at all.

No one? Certainly the protesting and rioting Muslims are disputing that. Certainly there are some, mainly in Europe, who are suggesting that such speech, like holocaust denial and other "insulting" or "hateful" speech is not a right.

In both instances, the "right" of the speaker still exists. In the instance you cite, where the guy swears at his grandmother, though, a better case of childishness can be made because there is no substance to the message. In the case of cartoonists, writers and even video makers there is in each of those cases some level of substantive criticism, critique, parody, or artistic value. It is not childish to insist that one's political or religious views be expressable without fear of violence. The violence is childish.

First, whether the videos or cartoons are "substantive" is subjective. You may think they are, others may not. Second, again no one is saying Granny has a right to shoot me or Muslims have a right to kill people. Finally, we can easily change my tirade to Granny into something of more substance.

The question is, when you know a person or group of people are highly and deeply offended by something, is it productive and smart to go out of your way to do those things in very inflammatory and in-your-face manner?

The answer to that question is subjective, just like whether the videos or cartoons are "substantive."

In my view it is productive and smart to publish the cartoons, because without standing ground on freedom of expression for unpopular cartoons and videos in this instance, we cede the authority to veto expressions to the most violent among us. It becomes o.k. to insult Mormons with the play "Book of Mormon" because they will bear their insult and offense and they will not riot and murder. A small group of Muslims riots and murders over that they think is an insult or offense, and now writers can't get books published or are too scared to publish books, artists won't make works of art, and moviemakers won't make moves. The overall chilling effect on freedom of expression is dramatic. So, it would be smart to defend the matter here, and defend the position that peaceful expressions of opinions, no matter how offensive or unpopular, are the right of every individual.

I don't think it is. Others seem to disagree and think whatever one has the right to do, is the right thing to do, and if they don't see something as offensive, then it can't be to anyone else.

No no.

Most everyone knows that just because something is a right, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

However, there is a fundamental difference between voluntarily adhering to etiquette rules, like don't go on profanity laced tirades around granny or little children, and being compelled at the point of a gun or general threats of violence to refrain from publishing parody cartoons, books like the Satanic Verses, or videos about religious views.

With Islam, this seems to be the only area where we tolerate this kind of extortion. Christian terrorists have bombed abortion clinics and killed doctors for performing abortions, and if someone had suggested that we ought not perform abortions or that it would be "unwise" or "childish" to offend the sensibilities of pro-Life Christians in this way, that person would have been told exactly where to go.

When the movie "Dogma" was released, Catholics were deeply offended, and protested. Nobody said that we better respect that and that it is childish to offend them.

What sort of society would we be if it would only be considered childish to offend Catholics if they firebombed movie theaters or embassies in protest of the movie "Dogma?" That is, at bottom, what you are saying -- it's fine to offend the people who don't get all violent about it. But, if someone does start firebombing stuff, then we need to give in to the extortion.

Yes, it is productive to produce the movie "Dogma." Yes, it is smart to release the movie "Last Temptation of Christ." Yes, it is productive and smart to publish books like the God Delusion and God is Not Great. Yes, it remains so even if some group or another thinks that it is blasphemous and acts on that thought to attack people physically.

What is not productive or smart is a craven capitulation to the worst monsters among us. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-t ... ginary-god

The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance.

That is why it is productive and smart to publish the cartoons. Already the freedom to think and speak out loud on certain topics without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed has been lost. It now must be regained.

[Mysturji]

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.

This kind of shit is going to keep on happening, and happening over and over and over again, until these childish fucktards GROW UP and learn that we will not be cowed into submission by threats of violence. Cowing will only make matters worse, so we need to accellerate the learning process by showing them that no-one gives a shit about their imaginary friend and we will not suck up to him, or them.

They are trying to bully us by playing the victim. How fucked up is that?
Lives will be lost either way ( all more "provocation" will do is change the timing of some of them) until these arsebiscuits grow up and shut the fuck up and keep their batshit crazy religion to themselves, - at which point everyone will let them and we can all just get on with things - in peace.
Until then, fuck 'em.