French magazine publishes Muhammed lulz.

[mistermack]

I think the answer IS to saturate the media with films and cartoons insulting Islam.
Why the hell, should they get special treatment that no other religion gets? People point to the violence, as if the film or cartoons are the cause. This is totally wrong.
The cause is the existence of millions of religious fanatics, desperate to be offended, so that they can go and bomb and burn, because they've got nothin else in their boring mundane lives.

All the women are covered up and kept out of sight, so they've got fuck-all to do.

We need THOUSANDS of films and cartoons, hundreds every day. Tire the fuckers out. You can't keep protesting for ever.

And if they can, so what? I was watching pakistanis smashing up Pakistan just now on the tv.
I don't mind that.

[Rum]

What could possibly go wrong?

I think we should feel a degree of pity for these guys too (the ones who are burning their own buildings and killing their fellow citizens - not the ones trying to hurt you and me perhaps..). They are brainwashed as kids into believing without question and even have to learn huge tracts of the Koran my heart. They live in ignorance and are whipped up by their Mullahs often for political purposes and they have no alternate vision available to them. On top of that they re so sexually repressed that it is no wonder they blow a fuse on a regular basis.

Perhaps we should flood a their countries with copies of the God Delusion and God is not Great!

[Svartalf]

Maybe I feel pity, but the mercy they deserve comes mose mamously in .22, .45, .50, 5.56mm, 7.62mm 9mm calibers...

[Gerald McGrew]

Where does this

"working with"

you speak of come from?

Sorry, I thought when you were talking about "what works" in a previous post, you actually meant workable solutions.

[Gerald McGrew]

You are defeating your own point. Your throwaway statement above equates to "If it were not for a tiny minority of crazy fanatics it would be allowable to make deliberately offensive gestures against islam (or anything)"

Nope. It is allowable now, and it should always be allowable. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll do it again: I'm not arguing in any way, shape, or form that things like the recent movie or cartoons depicting Mohammed shouldn't be allowed or should otherwise be prohibited.

I'm simply making the point that just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

So can we all drop the straw man of "Gerald McGrew wants to curtail free speech"?

[Coito ergo sum]

You are defeating your own point. Your throwaway statement above equates to "If it were not for a tiny minority of crazy fanatics it would be allowable to make deliberately offensive gestures against islam (or anything)"

Nope. It is allowable now, and it should always be allowable. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll do it again: I'm not arguing in any way, shape, or form that things like the recent movie or cartoons depicting Mohammed shouldn't be allowed or should otherwise be prohibited.

I'm simply making the point that just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

So can we all drop the straw man of "Gerald McGrew wants to curtail free speech"?

Nobody has said that because you have the right to do something that it means doing it is right.

However, a statement that might be a breach of etiquette, rude or obnoxious in one circumstance can, in my view, be rendered "right" to say by the mere fact that someone else is ordering you not to say it. As a symbol of the vindication of the overall right to free speech, a set of cartoons insulting the false prophet Mohamet is, in fact, "the right thing to do."

Also, parodies and such are very often offensive in order to be funny. People caricature politicians to mock their distinguishing physical features, for example. People caricature Jesus to mock the religion of Christians. The parody and mockery of such icons and symbols is a form of iconoclasm and sends important messages that are part of the public debate.

If all you're suggesting is that your opinion is that the cartoons or the video are wrong, or breaches of etiquette, rude, obnoxious and that people should not behave that way, then certainly you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. To make the case the other way, though, I believe parody and iconoclasm, caricatures of leading figures (religious, political, popular culture, whatever), and vigorous criticism, critique and even mockery of said leading figures, has a place in the marketplace of ideas. Individual pieces may be unfunny, overly insulting, weak metaphors, or inadequately illustrative of a given point, but in general, cartoons and caricatures, and critical videos, in general, are very valid and "right" forms of expression.

Some forms of expression, like book burnings and that particular video that is the focus of much of the recent ruckus, are, in normal circumstances, to me, stupid and unproductive. However, if someone suggests that burning a particular holy symbol is "wrong" and will be met with killings and riots, at the same time as that group burns a revered flag and an effigy of a revered man, then the idea of burning the holy symbol obtains a certain legitimacy. They want to burn the revered symbols of others while claiming a special privilege not to have their revered symbols burned: there is a certain justice in standing up and saying "I will not take orders from you. I will not be censored by you." And, as a symbol of that defiance, burning a Koran may well be the perfect means of expression, or perhaps the purposeful rendition of the false prophet Mohamet. It may be childish to draw him eating bacon while engaged in coitus with his 10 year old bride, but if someone has attempted to order us on pain of death that we may not draw such an image, then it seems quite fitting to say "Because Fuck You, that's why."

[colubridae]

I'm simply making the point that just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

This looks deep, but is shallow. Unless you know what’s right or wrong how can you tell?
What’s right for me is to publish scurrilous cartoons of Mo.
So it’s the ‘right’ thing. For muslim’s it’s the wrong thing to do. And it’s their right not to publish such material.

So can we all drop the straw man of "Gerald McGrew wants to curtail free speech"?

Fine. Gerald doesn’t want to curtail free speech. Well done. Except you are trying to imply that in this case it is not the ‘right’ thing to do (and thereby sneak such censorship under the radar). Otherwise why the aphorism?

Ordinarily I would not try to give offense, but in my view there are times when it is often justified, even required. This is, most certainly, one of them.

[DaveD]

If these cartoons hadn't been published, or if they hadn't been sufficiently offensive, the shit-stirring Imams would have had to invent something to rile the mobs. The shitstorm would have still occurred. Remember the 12 Danish cartoons, that magically became 15 with the addition of these:

[Gerald McGrew]

Nobody has said that because you have the right to do something that it means doing it is right.

However, a statement that might be a breach of etiquette, rude or obnoxious in one circumstance can, in my view, be rendered "right" to say by the mere fact that someone else is ordering you not to say it. As a symbol of the vindication of the overall right to free speech, a set of cartoons insulting the false prophet Mohamet is, in fact, "the right thing to do."

Also, parodies and such are very often offensive in order to be funny. People caricature politicians to mock their distinguishing physical features, for example. People caricature Jesus to mock the religion of Christians. The parody and mockery of such icons and symbols is a form of iconoclasm and sends important messages that are part of the public debate.

If all you're suggesting is that your opinion is that the cartoons or the video are wrong, or breaches of etiquette, rude, obnoxious and that people should not behave that way, then certainly you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. To make the case the other way, though, I believe parody and iconoclasm, caricatures of leading figures (religious, political, popular culture, whatever), and vigorous criticism, critique and even mockery of said leading figures, has a place in the marketplace of ideas. Individual pieces may be unfunny, overly insulting, weak metaphors, or inadequately illustrative of a given point, but in general, cartoons and caricatures, and critical videos, in general, are very valid and "right" forms of expression.

Some forms of expression, like book burnings and that particular video that is the focus of much of the recent ruckus, are, in normal circumstances, to me, stupid and unproductive. However, if someone suggests that burning a particular holy symbol is "wrong" and will be met with killings and riots, at the same time as that group burns a revered flag and an effigy of a revered man, then the idea of burning the holy symbol obtains a certain legitimacy. They want to burn the revered symbols of others while claiming a special privilege not to have their revered symbols burned: there is a certain justice in standing up and saying "I will not take orders from you. I will not be censored by you." And, as a symbol of that defiance, burning a Koran may well be the perfect means of expression, or perhaps the purposeful rendition of the false prophet Mohamet. It may be childish to draw him eating bacon while engaged in coitus with his 10 year old bride, but if someone has attempted to order us on pain of death that we may not draw such an image, then it seems quite fitting to say "Because Fuck You, that's why."

Well said. I think as you said, it's simply a matter of personal opinion, as I stated previously.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1273318

[Gerald McGrew]

This looks deep, but is shallow. Unless you know what’s right or wrong how can you tell?
What’s right for me is to publish scurrilous cartoons of Mo.
So it’s the ‘right’ thing. For muslim’s it’s the wrong thing to do. And it’s their right not to publish such material.

Exactly. It's a matter of personal opinion.

Fine. Gerald doesn’t want to curtail free speech. Well done. Except you are trying to imply that in this case it is not the ‘right’ thing to do (and thereby sneak such censorship under the radar). Otherwise why the aphorism?

Not at all. I fully support the right of people to say stupid things, even if I believe them to be strategically counter-productive.

Ordinarily I would not try to give offense, but in my view there are times when it is often justified, even required. This is, most certainly, one of them.

And I guess we disagree on that point.

[Robert_S]

MUSLIM RAGE!!!!!

http://gawker.com/5943828/13-powerful-i ... uslim-rage

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/19/opini ... index.html

[Mysturji]

Where does this

"working with"

you speak of come from?

Sorry, I thought when you were talking about "what works" in a previous post, you actually meant workable solutions.

As I said: It's been tried. It doesn't work.
Therefore, we need to try something else.
When reason fails, where do you go?

Personally, I believe that when confronted by the ridiculous, the most appropriate response is ridicule.

[Mysturji]

[Gerald McGrew]

As I said: It's been tried. It doesn't work.
Therefore, we need to try something else.
When reason fails, where do you go?

Personally, I believe that when confronted by the ridiculous, the most appropriate response is ridicule.

Yeah...I can see how the "Let's really insult them" tactic is working wonderfully.

[mistermack]

I think the answer IS to saturate the media with films and cartoons insulting Islam.

What could possibly go wrong?.

What does it matter? If there are hundreds and thousands of loonies keyed up to go on an orgy of violence, just waiting for the next "attack on islam", then THAT'S why things go wrong. It's not the "insult", it's the reaction that's the problem.

Before WW2, everybody was worried about upsetting Hitler. What good did it do them? Those people don't get more reasonable if you try to avoid upsetting them. They just get worse. We really do need films and cartoons released on a daily basis, all "insulting" islam, to knock some reality into their tiny minds.
Humouring them is completely the wrong thing to do.

After a few years of constant derision, they might eventually work out that words make no difference one way or another to their long-dead "prophet". They appear to be too fucking stupid to be able to work it out for themselves.