Dutch Cartoons in the News, Yet Again

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

trunkage:
During the early days of the Nazis, Goebbels (I think, could be a different Nazi) described the attack plan particularly against commies. They would push, hit and shove their enemy til they fought back. They would then point out how violent their enemy is. And the were able to prove that Communists were bad in 1920s BERLIN- one if the reddest city ever.

If I recall the thing you're talking about, it was that in the early days of the NSDAP, the Sturmabteilung would go out in full force to march and wait for the Reds to throw the first punch, therefore allowing the SA to claim self-defense and denying that same ability to the Red Front. And it was an effective tactic. If you force your opponent to throw the first strike, you deny them moral high ground in the eyes of many people, regardless of how "fair" that is. I would think the lesson of this would be "don't go toe-to-toe with people like this if they didn't start the violence, because it's bad optics."

Saelune:

CM156:

Saelune:
Why is it ok when Christians do it?

When have I ever said it's okay when Christians do it?

If I were to say to you "My church doesn't recognize the ability for people to declare a gender identity other than what they biologically are, and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to undergo surgery for that or change your government documents to that effect" then you would have every right to strongly criticize me for that. But I've never said that, nor have I ever said that it's okay when Christians do it (and if fact, it's not okay)

Glad we cleared this up. Any further questions?

When you as a Christian criticized Muslims and defended a right-winger who calls Christians his allies.

You say you would condemn Christians for doing this too...I dont believe you. And no, just saying it to me here to dismiss me wont cut it.

Your faith has said that. Your church and you support that faith.

Don't act like a Nazi to defeat Nazis Saelune

trunkage:

Saelune:

CM156:

When have I ever said it's okay when Christians do it?

If I were to say to you "My church doesn't recognize the ability for people to declare a gender identity other than what they biologically are, and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to undergo surgery for that or change your government documents to that effect" then you would have every right to strongly criticize me for that. But I've never said that, nor have I ever said that it's okay when Christians do it (and if fact, it's not okay)

Glad we cleared this up. Any further questions?

When you as a Christian criticized Muslims and defended a right-winger who calls Christians his allies.

You say you would condemn Christians for doing this too...I dont believe you. And no, just saying it to me here to dismiss me wont cut it.

Your faith has said that. Your church and you support that faith.

Don't act like a Nazi to defeat Nazis Saelune

I don't know, I think she's perfectly within her rights to paint with as broad a brush as she likes, regarding me and other people.

Again, it might be a bad idea, but let's not go around telling her what she can and cannot do (not that you were trying to impose your view on her, mind)

trunkage:

Saelune:

CM156:

When have I ever said it's okay when Christians do it?

If I were to say to you "My church doesn't recognize the ability for people to declare a gender identity other than what they biologically are, and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to undergo surgery for that or change your government documents to that effect" then you would have every right to strongly criticize me for that. But I've never said that, nor have I ever said that it's okay when Christians do it (and if fact, it's not okay)

Glad we cleared this up. Any further questions?

When you as a Christian criticized Muslims and defended a right-winger who calls Christians his allies.

You say you would condemn Christians for doing this too...I dont believe you. And no, just saying it to me here to dismiss me wont cut it.

Your faith has said that. Your church and you support that faith.

Don't act like a Nazi to defeat Nazis Saelune

Might want to pick a better situation than me defending religious nutjobs from religious nutjobs, both of which would have me killed if they could, or 'at best' psychologically tortured until I repress everything about who I am to 'be normal'.

Nazis are terrorists.

Saelune:

Might want to pick a better situation than me defending religious nutjobs from religious nutjobs, both of which would have me killed if they could, or 'at best' psychologically tortured until I repress everything about who I am to 'be normal'.

I can assure you that I personally have no desire to impose any force upon you whatsoever, to even make you so much as agree with me on something as benign as which ice cream flavor is best, let alone on matters of gender and personal identity.

CM156:

Saelune:

Might want to pick a better situation than me defending religious nutjobs from religious nutjobs, both of which would have me killed if they could, or 'at best' psychologically tortured until I repress everything about who I am to 'be normal'.

I can assure you that I personally have no desire to impose any force upon you whatsoever, to even make you so much as agree with me on something as benign as which ice cream flavor is best, let alone on matters of gender and personal identity.

It is up to the religious who disagree with the negative aspects of their faith to work to change their faith from within, it is not for those outside it critical of it to change it, cause they most likely would just be gone with it entirely.

I hate Islam for much of the same reasons I hate Christianity, and in different circumstances I have and would defend such a thing, but this case, no, it is wrong of them to do the contest, as its motivation and intentions are as important as the actions taken. I DO hope people oppressed by Islam stand up and fight back, even at risk of violence, but they should not ever actually seek violence explicitly.

Even I, as hostile as I am, and as condoning of violence at times, would rather everyone just get along. I hate Nazis, and while violence has historically been the most effective tool against them, I would rather every Nazi just...stop being one. I would rather every Christian work to make the world better through love and compassion, same with Islam. I even would prefer Trump suddenly realize how awful he is, apologize, and use his remaining time in office to fix everything he has broken.

But idealism must be tempered with realism. Some Nazis DO realize their mistake, there is a whole TEDtalk by an ex-Neo Nazi, but he is the exception.

I find it difficult to believe you a lot of the time, (I mean, you DO have a smug Trump as your avatar) but whether or not I believe you, if you are sincere about what you say, then good. I would rather disbelieve someone who genuinely is doing the right thing than believe someone who is lying, for sure.

CM156:

trunkage:
During the early days of the Nazis, Goebbels (I think, could be a different Nazi) described the attack plan particularly against commies. They would push, hit and shove their enemy til they fought back. They would then point out how violent their enemy is. And the were able to prove that Communists were bad in 1920s BERLIN- one if the reddest city ever.

If I recall the thing you're talking about, it was that in the early days of the NSDAP, the Sturmabteilung would go out in full force to march and wait for the Reds to throw the first punch, therefore allowing the SA to claim self-defense and denying that same ability to the Red Front. And it was an effective tactic. If you force your opponent to throw the first strike, you deny them moral high ground in the eyes of many people, regardless of how "fair" that is. I would think the lesson of this would be "don't go toe-to-toe with people like this if they didn't start the violence, because it's bad optics."

They didn't wait. They could throw the first punch without worries of reprisal. Back then, police gave Nazis many free passes. Same thing happened during the civil rights era. Same thing is happening now. Huckabee Sanders was using joke Antifa Facebook site (with Pepe logos which should give someone a clue) as justification for sending in army units to protest and come hard down on Antifa. Look at Charlotteville last year, all that violence has been blamed on Antifa and it's generally working.

Now, taking the other side of the arguement, if you don't protest. Hearing from old Antifa people, what was common in America in the 80s was a Nazi coming up to a store, restaurant or pub. They may have a discussion about appopriate behaviour. If the owner didn't throw them out, the next night there would be more until the place was overtaken, scaring everyone else away.

Does that remind you of anything? Ah, yes. It's what these Nazis think will happen to them if they let Muslims/Jews/Asians in. They are literally telling you their game plan, not just what they are worried about

trunkage:
Look at Charlotteville last year, all that violence has been blamed on Antifa and it's generally working.

Maybe that should be taken as a sign their tactics aren't really working out. And that this attempt for masked protesters accountable to no one to be the arbiters of speech isn't a good idea.

All those on the right have to do is show up and there will be several times as many left-wing protesters, who will inevitably get in scuffles with law enforcement. Another tactic that the right has utilized that the left doesn't seem to think about all that much.

Meeting ridicule of violence with threats of violence is a clear act of madness.

Draw their prophet in as disgusting manners as possible.

Every religion should be opened to scrutiny and insult. A belief should never be protected from question.

Backing down from threats of violence or demanding people curtail to it is just cowardly.

CM156:

trunkage:
Look at Charlotteville last year, all that violence has been blamed on Antifa and it's generally working.

Maybe that should be taken as a sign their tactics aren't really working out. And that this attempt for masked protesters accountable to no one to be the arbiters of speech isn't a good idea.

All those on the right have to do is show up and there will be several times as many left-wing protesters, who will inevitably get in scuffles with law enforcement. Another tactic that the right has utilized that the left doesn't seem to think about all that much.

Thats just wishful alt right thinking and a grass roots attempt to control their narrative. The reality is much more fun

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/politics/charlottesville-va-protest-unite-the-right.html

Alt right rallies can barely muster double digits anymore. As it turns out, pushing back works. They can claim that antifa makes their side stronger all they want, but the proof isn't in the pudding

undeadsuitor:

CM156:

trunkage:
Look at Charlotteville last year, all that violence has been blamed on Antifa and it's generally working.

Maybe that should be taken as a sign their tactics aren't really working out. And that this attempt for masked protesters accountable to no one to be the arbiters of speech isn't a good idea.

All those on the right have to do is show up and there will be several times as many left-wing protesters, who will inevitably get in scuffles with law enforcement. Another tactic that the right has utilized that the left doesn't seem to think about all that much.

Thats just wishful alt right thinking and a grass roots attempt to control their narrative. The reality is much more fun

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/politics/charlottesville-va-protest-unite-the-right.html

Alt right rallies can barely muster double digits anymore. As it turns out, pushing back works. They can claim that antifa makes their side stronger all they want, but the proof isn't in the pudding

Sure, if you monitor the alt-right's victory in terms of turnout and not in terms of policy changes or media victories. Oh, and doxxing, which I guess everyone has accepted is OK to do to the other side, and therefore OK in general.

I'm interested to see how H.R.6054 turns out.

CM156:
They don't share collective responsibility. But as long as there are violent responses to speech acts, it shows that this community is less than fully integrated.

Just to be clear. In my experience, the response to this in the Netherlands has so far been overshadowed by nude-pictures of Thierry Baudet and unpopular changes to taxes. It is true that some theocrats living in Pakistan would appear to be less than fully integrated into Dutch society but that was to be expected. Muslims here seem to respond with being annoyed but are so far staying within the bounds of the law.

BUT...RELIGION OF PEACE!

ANY religion that toss out threats of violence because someone drew a cartoon of one of their figures isn't a 'peaceful religion'.

Seriously, it's the 21st Century, evolve already.

CM156:
Very different situation, because this isn't going around and personally insulting people. It's holding an event that they find objectionable, to draw attention to the fact that many of them do find it objectionable and resort to violence

Again, the idea that it's not "personally offensive" is akin the argument that Jewish people don't have a right to be personally offended by holocaust jokes because they aren't personally holocaust survivors. All communities have things which are sacred or off-limits, and those things may appear inherently stupid to outsiders. To me, the idea that a biscuit becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ when the right words are spoken over it or that talking to a statue of the virgin Mary is any different to talking to a wall is stupid, and if I wanted to attack or hurt Catholics or demonstrate that they were unreasonable people with no right to live in a modern society, that's where I'd go.

Islamic iconoclasm is no more inherently "stupid" than any form of belief in the sacredness and transcendental nature of various objects. I could argue that the reaction I would get to publicly burning a bible, defacing an icon or desecrating a host (as well as the likely threats or violence such an act would garner) would be a demonstration of the "need" for such actions. I could take isolated or single acts of bad behaviour in response to this provocation as indicative of "many" which didn't actually happen, much as you're doing now.

And let's cap this off with another example. If I wanted to hold a "draw Mickey Mouse" day in a national newspaper, you bet I'd be receiving an "objectionable" letter from Disney's lawyers. I don't hear you speaking out over the free speech implications of this. So why is it that a company can own an image or likeness as its intellectual property and curtail the speech rights of others to protect itself from depictions of that property in ways which are harmful to its brand, and yet a religious community must simply endure any harm stemming from the intentional desecration of its iconic elements as an open expression of dislike or antagonism towards that community? Is that reasonable, fair and sensible?

CM156:
They don't share collective responsibility. But as long as there are violent responses to speech acts, it shows that this community is less than fully integrated.

Compared to whom?

Are you suggesting that there was no violence in response to speech acts prior to Muslims showing up? Are you saying that if I went around telling random people their mothers were whores (see, not a "personal attack" because it's not aimed directly at them, I like this logic) they'd sit around smiling placidly.

The idea that being "fully integrated" requires absolute non-violence or complete tolerance of deliberate insult is an absurd misrepresentation of what it means to be part of our societies. We do not live in not-violent societies. Heck, acts of hate-based violence against Muslims occur pretty much constantly.

CM156:
I said I wouldn't like it but that I wouldn't issue legal sanction against it.

So.. you would act like basically all diasporic Muslim communities (and most other religious communities, for that matter) act in response to intentional blasphemy or attacks on their religious identity. The only exception is a small handful of trained and radicalized terrorist groups, which exist in all religions. Remember the Saint-Michel cinema bombing?

If that's not good enough for you, if that's not being "integrated", why do you think it would be good enough for me?

CM156:
It would be. Don't teach us not to blaspheme: teach them not to kill people.

Sure, but at the same time hold yourself responsible for your own blasphemy, including the innocent people who may be hurt. You can't blame that on someone else either.

CM156:
Or people who realize that the government has a long and storied tradition of outright lying to the American public. Remember how Vietnam was winnable? Or how Iraq had WMDs? Or any number of other examples I can find of governments lying to their citizens?

And if that frightens you, if that genuinely is the most terrifying thing you can come up with, then I repeat my point once again that you have nothing actually frightening in your life.

It's an abstract fear. Worrying that someone might take offence your existence and throw you off a railway bridge is an immediate fear. Worrying that someone might call the cops on you for no reason and you might be shot for equally no reason is an immediate fear. Worrying that your parents might kick you out and leave you homeless is an immediate fear. Worrying that you might be deported to a country you barely know and where you have no rights is an immediate fear.

To fear the abstract possibility of government misconduct over the very real consequences of interpersonal and state violence is evidence of a kind of security many people never know or experience.

CM156:
I do respect the rights of Muslims and minorities.
The right not to have their religious sensibilities offended is not a right I recognize.

The right to have everyone else sit placidly, applauding your every move while you deliberately offend and insult them to demonstrate your very public right to "play" is not a right I recognise.

The right to expect civility while placing no burden of civility on yourself is not a right I recognise.

Using the influence of national media to attack those whom you know full well do not have the influence, the physical or social security or the public sympathy to attack you in the same way doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a coward and a bully. It is the sincerest expression that your conception of "rights" is merely the right of the strong to victimize the weak. I don't deny that you "respect" the rights of minorities, but you do so from the comfortable position of knowing that those minorities will never run national hate-campaigns against you, and it's very easy to respect "rights" you know people will never be able to access.

evilthecat:
Again, the idea that it's not "personally offensive" is akin the argument that Jewish people don't have a right to be personally offended by holocaust jokes because they aren't personally holocaust survivors. All communities have things which are sacred or off-limits, and those things may appear inherently stupid to outsiders. To me, the idea that a biscuit becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ when the right words are spoken over it or that talking to a statue of the virgin Mary is any different to talking to a wall is stupid, and if I wanted to attack or hurt Catholics or demonstrate that they were unreasonable people with no right to live in a modern society, that's where I'd go.

Islamic iconoclasm is no more inherently "stupid" than any form of belief in the sacredness and transcendental nature of various objects. I could argue that the reaction I would get to publicly burning a bible, defacing an icon or desecrating a host (as well as the likely threats or violence such an act would garner) would be a demonstration of the "need" for such actions. I could take isolated or single acts of bad behaviour in response to this provocation as indicative of "many" which didn't actually happen, much as you're doing now.

Like I said before, go nuts. I get what you're trying to do. But the things I hold sacred are because I hold them as such, and I'm not willing to use force to make others recognize them as such. Again, if you violate the laws of my God, I will leave it up to my God to punish you in due course.

And let's cap this off with another example. If I wanted to hold a "draw Mickey Mouse" day in a national newspaper, you bet I'd be receiving an "objectionable" letter from Disney's lawyers. I don't hear you speaking out over the free speech implications of this. So why is it that a company can own an image or likeness as its intellectual property and curtail the speech rights of others to protect itself from depictions of that property in ways which are harmful to its brand, and yet a religious community must simply endure any harm stemming from the intentional desecration of its iconic elements as an open expression of dislike or antagonism towards that community? Is that reasonable, fair and sensible?

Couple things to unpack there:
1. Mickey mouse is now, and has always been, a fictional character.
2. I know of no people who regard him to be sacred
3. I don't believe in copyright lasting more than 40 years at the absolute maximum for anything, and think how Disney has lobbied to essentially destroy the public domain is wrong
4. You should be able to draw Mickey Mouse however you want. And if radical Mickey-Mouse-ites wanted to kill you for that, they would be wrong. And those attempting to do so should be stopped with force.

Also, religious communities are not a business and nearly every one of them I can think of is so old that copyright law wouldn't apply here.

Compared to whom?

Are you suggesting that there was no violence in response to speech acts prior to Muslims showing up? Are you saying that if I went around telling random people their mothers were whores (see, not a "personal attack" because it's not aimed directly at them, I like this logic) they'd sit around smiling placidly.

The idea that being "fully integrated" requires absolute non-violence or complete tolerance of deliberate insult is an absurd misrepresentation of what it means to be part of our societies. We do not live in not-violent societies. Heck, acts of hate-based violence against Muslims occur pretty much constantly.

Other religions successful endure skewering of their sacredly held beliefs. Muslims are a big boy community, they can handle it.

Sure, but at the same time hold yourself responsible for your own blasphemy, including the innocent people who may be hurt. You can't blame that on someone else either.

The innocent people hurt, hurt by radical terrorists wielding guns and knives, and oh, cars. They get 100% of the blame. Claiming that provocation reduces their culpability is on par with giving them no agency.

And if that frightens you, if that genuinely is the most terrifying thing you can come up with, then I repeat my point once again that you have nothing actually frightening in your life.

It's an abstract fear. Worrying that someone might take offence your existence and throw you off a railway bridge is an immediate fear. Worrying that someone might call the cops on you for no reason and you might be shot for equally no reason is an immediate fear. Worrying that your parents might kick you out and leave you homeless is an immediate fear. Worrying that you might be deported to a country you barely know and where you have no rights is an immediate fear.

To fear the abstract possibility of government misconduct over the very real consequences of interpersonal and state violence is evidence of a kind of security many people never know or experience.

Not so much a matter of fear as it is distrust and not wishing to vest the government with any more powers, since it's shown itself incapable of using many of its powers correctly.

If we wanna go by death tolls, the US government has killed far more Muslims than American citizens have in their own private capacity.

The right to have everyone else sit placidly, applauding your every move while you deliberately offend and insult them to demonstrate your very public right to "play" is not a right I recognise.

The right to expect civility while placing no burden of civility on yourself is not a right I recognise.

Cool, because neither of those are rights I request, or even recognize myself.

All I'm demanding is that I not be murdered for speaking or offending people. Radical notion, I know! Hate me all you want, but I have a right to speak. You and others have a right to treat me with contempt for doing so. But nobody has any right to do me or anyone else physical harm because of it. Those who attempt to do so must be stopped, with deadly force if necessary.

CM156:
Couple things to unpack there:
1. Mickey mouse is now, and has always been, a fictional character.
2. I know of no people who regard him to be sacred

Relevance?

CM156:
Other religions successful endure skewering of their sacredly held beliefs.

Most (but by no means all) members of other religions do not react violently to blasphemy, but since that's true of Muslims too I'm not sure what the point is.

Most religions are also not aniconistic. But again, I'm not really going to accept the claim that aniconism is stupid when coming from people who believe in transubstantiation.

CM156:
The innocent people hurt, hurt by radical terrorists wielding guns and knives, and oh, cars. They get 100% of the blame. Claiming that provocation reduces their culpability is on par with giving them no agency.

I didn't claim that.

But you are claiming that the decision to blaspheme is somehow made inevitable or necessary because of a tiny, insignificant handful of terrorist incidents. That is also a denial of agency. If you won't take responsibility, why should anyone?

CM156:
Not so much a matter of fear as it is distrust and not wishing to vest the government with any more powers, since it's shown itself incapable of using many of its powers correctly.

As opposed to what? "The American public?"

How many people has "the American public" murdered this year?

CM156:
Cool, because neither of those are rights I request, or even recognize myself.

Then stop demanding civility you aren't entitled to.

CM156:
All I'm demanding is that I not be murdered for speaking or offending people.

I'd love to demand that right too. I don't have it. It's been taken from me, like it's taken from every queer person, every person of colour, everyone who can be killed out of hand because someone takes offence to the way they walk, or the fact they're in the wrong neighbourhood.

I don't get to organise hate campaigns against the murderous tyranny of the cisgender heterosexual mob. I don't get to publicly hold all Christians responsible for those who torture and kill my "kind". Who are you, and why are you so fucking important, that the infinitesimally small risk that someone might kill you out of offence is more important, more deserving of the world's attention, than the considerably greater risk that someone like you will beat me to death or throw acid in my face?

Grow up, and get over it. If I can stop myself from hating you and every person like you, you can do the same. Now let's put our facades of civility back on and pretend we're all living in a functioning society.

CM156:

trunkage:
Look at Charlotteville last year, all that violence has been blamed on Antifa and it's generally working.

Maybe that should be taken as a sign their tactics aren't really working out. And that this attempt for masked protesters accountable to no one to be the arbiters of speech isn't a good idea.

All those on the right have to do is show up and there will be several times as many left-wing protesters, who will inevitably get in scuffles with law enforcement. Another tactic that the right has utilized that the left doesn't seem to think about all that much.

I actually think the Left thinks about this a lot. You here it when they talk about equal treatment and unfairness. The problem is that the Right doesn't care about equality. They care about civility. An arguement against what is the Status Quo is a treated as an argument against society. This cartoon competition being a prime example. Drawing Mohammed is a threat against Muslim conservatives. Any action is then available to protect society

The Left are more often seen as bad by the police. So you're right. Trying to get equality of treatment from the police is a foolish notion. It's not going to happen becuase it's not the priority

evilthecat:
Relevance?

It's an apples to oranges comparison
A better example would be other religious figures.

Most (but by no means all) members of other religions do not react violently to blasphemy, but since that's true of Muslims too I'm not sure what the point is.

Most religions are also not aniconistic. But again, I'm not really going to accept the claim that aniconism is stupid when coming from people who believe in transubstantiation.

The point is that religious beliefs deserve no special protection from ridicule.

I didn't claim that.

But you are claiming that the decision to blaspheme is somehow made inevitable or necessary because of a tiny, insignificant handful of terrorist incidents. That is also a denial of agency. If you won't take responsibility, why should anyone?

I consider it necessary for myself to draw attention to an issue of people attempting to apply the rules of a religion to those not in their faith community. I take 100% responsibility for what I personally say/do. How other people react? Well, that's on them.

As opposed to what? "The American public?"

How many people has "the American public" murdered this year?

According to google? 17,500 or so.

Then stop demanding civility you aren't entitled to.

Again, I haven't been demanding that. So it's strange that you think I have been.

I'd love to demand that right too. I don't have it. It's been taken from me, like it's taken from every queer person, every person of colour, everyone who can be killed out of hand because someone takes offence to the way they walk, or the fact they're in the wrong neighbourhood.

You should demand that right, and demand it loudly. And if you wish to skewer those who would deny it to you, you'd have my support.

I don't get to organise hate campaigns against the murderous tyranny of the cisgender heterosexual mob. I don't get to publicly hold all Christians responsible for those who torture and kill my "kind".

You could. I would chalk the fact that you don't up more to the fact that it's counterproductive to getting what you want.

Who are you, and why are you so fucking important, that the infinitesimally small risk that someone might kill you out of offence is more important, more deserving of the world's attention, than the considerably greater risk that someone like you will beat me to death or throw acid in my face?

I never said it was more important. Man, if you keep shoving these words in my mouth, I might have to go on a diet. I suppose I could always take up physical activity, like jumping to conclusions. Can you show me how? I'm already an expert at running my mouth off.

Grow up, and get over it. If I can stop myself from hating you and every person like you, you can do the same.

I am over it. And I don't hate anyone except those who would use force to deny me my rights. And since you aren't one of those people, I sure don't hate you.

Now let's put our facades of civility back on and pretend we're all living in a functioning society.

CM156:
I know it can be hard to have your playbook co-opted by people who use it to promote things you may not be a fan of.

Well, not quite. When we consider a lot of the debates between competing groups in society, we're generally discussing competing freedoms. For instance, the freedom of the religious to not bake cakes for gays against the freedom of gays to have cakes baked for them. Or whether the freedom to say racial pejoratives damages the ability of races to operately freely and equally in a society.

This is a different situation from cooking up a spurious debate about "freedom" to deliberately aggravate or encourage animosity against various demographic groups.

* * *

Or because some members of the community hold the view that violence is an acceptable response to speech acts and this needs to be addressed, and we aren't willing to give up speech rights to address it. If you can think of a better way to draw attention to the rather illiberality when it comes to speech rights of some members of the Muslim community, you can protest that way

Short of pacifist communities, any community has members that believe violence is an acceptable response to hurtful speech. The USA enshrines that concept in law: "fighting words".

Because provocation is a weak excuse. I can say derisive things about other religious minority communities in America and not provoke the same response. The fact that the majority of Muslims don't respond with violence is proof positive that it's possible for all of them not to respond with violence.

Yes, but provocation works. If it didn't, the word wouldn't even exist.

It might be right on some idealised moral level to say no-one should respond... but we live in the real world. There's a numbers game at work here: irritate enough people, eventually one will take a swing at you. That that person does is ultimately a characteristic of the individual, not some group you've lumped them into. We've all got emotions and limits, and not even static for the individual: maybe you just happened to catch someone on a really bad day.

To therefore hold a large demographic group to such an idealised standard is therefore to all but force them to fail that standard. In which case, you have nothing but a tool of damnation: provoke and guarantee failure, berate for failure, and use failure to justify further provocation. How messed up is that?

What I would say is that communities and individuals do have a reciprocal relationship. Clearly communities may have values that influence individuals within and predispose them towards violence, or violence in certain situations. However, if you want to deal with that, I think you need some very careful and complex analysis, and sensitive and well targetted interventions. Do you think gratuitous antagonism is such a useful tactic?

CM156:
I'm interested in what the posters here at R&P have to say about this event, and draw Muhammad events in general.

I think iconoclasm in Islam is nonsense that borders on dangerous nonsense, and the people kicking a fuss up over it ought to just grow up and accept that they can't force non-believers to act the same way believers do any more than the non-believers can force them to act contrary to their beliefs.

I mean, if your religion forbids an artistic depiction of Muhammad, then don't make any artistic depictions of Muhammad. Don't hang any up in your house. Don't go to art galleries that have Muhammad portraits. Tell your friends, family, and fellow religious adherents to do the same. But you can't go to Charlie Hebdo or the guys who make South Park and tell them that they can't draw pictures of Muhammad. They're not Muslims; they don't believe in any of that shit. There's no goddamn reason why they oughta be required to follow a Muslim cultural norm that isn't even actually in the Koran.

Like, Jews can't eat pork. I understand and respect that. I wouldn't knowingly serve pork to a Jew. But I'm going to keep eating pork, because I am not a Jew and it is delicious. It's the same deal when a Muslim complains about people making cartoons of Muhammad. There's a line there, between asking that someone respect your personal beliefs and coercing someone into following your religious beliefs.

And then you get to the far end of the scale with guys like ISIS and the Saudis bulldozing three-thousand-year-old ruins because their existence doesn't line up with their own reactionary reinterpretation of the views of a guy who was centuries away from even being born at the time the ruins were originally built, and that's just goddamn enraging is what that is. Nothing pisses me off more than asshats destroying priceless historical artifacts because it's politically inconvenient.

bastardofmelbourne:

Like, Jews can't eat pork. I understand and respect that. I wouldn't knowingly serve pork to a Jew. But I'm going to keep eating pork, because I am not a Jew and it is delicious. It's the same deal when a Muslim complains about people making cartoons of Muhammad. There's a line there, between asking that someone respect your personal beliefs and coercing someone into following your religious beliefs.

Well not quite, because whilst it's easy to not eat pork, it is not easy to turn off your eyeballs when magazines puts up cartoons of Muhammad on the front cover in your local shop. A more accurate comparison would be if some dickwad deliberately slip pork into a Jew's restaurant order just to try and piss them off; generally speaking people don't have a reason to draw Muhammad in the first place, you'd have to go out of your way to do it with the intent to piss off a muslim.

The way I see it is that you don't even need to be religious to have a basic sympathy for a muslim's perspective. If someone vandalised my grandparent's grave, I would be angry and upset, and that won't change just because some onlooker might trivialise it and say, "it's just a rock, what's the big deal?"

maninahat:

bastardofmelbourne:

Like, Jews can't eat pork. I understand and respect that. I wouldn't knowingly serve pork to a Jew. But I'm going to keep eating pork, because I am not a Jew and it is delicious. It's the same deal when a Muslim complains about people making cartoons of Muhammad. There's a line there, between asking that someone respect your personal beliefs and coercing someone into following your religious beliefs.

Well not quite, because whilst it's easy to not eat pork, it is not easy to turn off your eyeballs when magazines puts up cartoons of Muhammad on the front cover in your local shop. A more accurate comparison would be if some dickwad deliberately slip pork into a Jew's restaurant order just to try and piss them off; generally speaking people don't have a reason to draw Muhammad in the first place, you'd have to go out of your way to do it with the intent to piss off a muslim.

The way I see it is that you don't even need to be religious to have a basic sympathy for a muslim's perspective. If someone vandalised my grandparent's grave, I would be angry and upset, and that won't change just because some onlooker might trivialise it and say, "it's just a rock, what's the big deal?"

No, it's about like having non-kosher restaurants. The sin, as I understand it, is in drawing Mohammad. So it's the artists who are doing "wrong", but they're not Muslim so they don't care. But Muslims are so offended that someone else isn't following their rules that they will kill over it. It's like if Jews went around bombing non-kosher delis.

maninahat:
Snip

The issue is that members of a relation are attempting to apply to force non-members of their religion to obey their rules.

You ever wonder why nobody makes fun of Kosher rules except Jewish comedians? It's because Jews only apply the rules to themselves and in no way demand other groups follow the practice.

Agema:
Well, not quite. When we consider a lot of the debates between competing groups in society, we're generally discussing competing freedoms. For instance, the freedom of the religious to not bake cakes for gays against the freedom of gays to have cakes baked for them. Or whether the freedom to say racial pejoratives damages the ability of races to operately freely and equally in a society.

This is a different situation from cooking up a spurious debate about "freedom" to deliberately aggravate or encourage animosity against various demographic groups.

Personally I consider the gay wedding cake debate to be rather absurd, but that's neither here nor there.

Short of pacifist communities, any community has members that believe violence is an acceptable response to hurtful speech. The USA enshrines that concept in law: "fighting words".

"Fighting words" are a very narrow exception that the court has been trimming ever since its inception.

Snyder v. Phelps is a good example of how far the right to free speech goes in the USA, and that Muhammad drawings are likely protected (there's been no SCOTUS case as of yet, but no group has been wiling to bring suit)

CM156:

undeadsuitor:

CM156:

Maybe that should be taken as a sign their tactics aren't really working out. And that this attempt for masked protesters accountable to no one to be the arbiters of speech isn't a good idea.

All those on the right have to do is show up and there will be several times as many left-wing protesters, who will inevitably get in scuffles with law enforcement. Another tactic that the right has utilized that the left doesn't seem to think about all that much.

Thats just wishful alt right thinking and a grass roots attempt to control their narrative. The reality is much more fun

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/politics/charlottesville-va-protest-unite-the-right.html

Alt right rallies can barely muster double digits anymore. As it turns out, pushing back works. They can claim that antifa makes their side stronger all they want, but the proof isn't in the pudding

Sure, if you monitor the alt-right's victory in terms of turnout and not in terms of policy changes or media victories. Oh, and doxxing, which I guess everyone has accepted is OK to do to the other side, and therefore OK in general.

I'm interested to see how H.R.6054 turns out.

What policy changes? What media victories?

Fox News continues to be a joke, Milo is gone, Alex Jones is circling the drain.

This seems to just be another Gamergate situation, where their 'goals' are so vague and overreaching that they can claim anything they want as a victory without achieving anything.

undeadsuitor:
This seems to just be another Gamergate situation, where their 'goals' are so vague and overreaching that they can claim anything they want as a victory without achieving anything.

I would consider it more comparable to the "Occupy" movement due to its relative decentralization and lack of clear "win" conditions.

Also, all the actual Alt-Right people I've spoken to hate Milo and are glad he's gone from the spotlight.

CM156:

undeadsuitor:
This seems to just be another Gamergate situation, where their 'goals' are so vague and overreaching that they can claim anything they want as a victory without achieving anything.

I would consider it more comparable to the "Occupy" movement due to its relative decentralization and lack of clear "win" conditions.

Also, all the actual Alt-Right people I've spoken to hate Milo and are glad he's gone from the spotlight.

Yeah, I've heard they don't like him insulting everyone and he ended up making a mockery of his side. Is that what you've been hearing?

Edit: they were worried about insulting as it might seem they were provoking

trunkage:

CM156:

undeadsuitor:
This seems to just be another Gamergate situation, where their 'goals' are so vague and overreaching that they can claim anything they want as a victory without achieving anything.

I would consider it more comparable to the "Occupy" movement due to its relative decentralization and lack of clear "win" conditions.

Also, all the actual Alt-Right people I've spoken to hate Milo and are glad he's gone from the spotlight.

Yeah, I've heard they don't like him insulting everyone and he ended up making a mockery of his side. Is that what you've been hearing?

What I heard is that they didn't want a gay man in an interracial relationship who claims Jewish ancestry to be their spokesperson.

CM156:

undeadsuitor:
This seems to just be another Gamergate situation, where their 'goals' are so vague and overreaching that they can claim anything they want as a victory without achieving anything.

I would consider it more comparable to the "Occupy" movement due to its relative decentralization and lack of clear "win" conditions.

Also, all the actual Alt-Right people I've spoken to hate Milo and are glad he's gone from the spotlight.

Except that I can point to "Occupy" and say what it was actually going for

what exactly does the alt right want outside of "the progressives losing"?

its kind of telling how quickly the alt right buried milo the instant he fell out of favor. It will be interesting if Jones or Peterson get the same treatment after their inevitable fall

CM156:

trunkage:

CM156:

I would consider it more comparable to the "Occupy" movement due to its relative decentralization and lack of clear "win" conditions.

Also, all the actual Alt-Right people I've spoken to hate Milo and are glad he's gone from the spotlight.

Yeah, I've heard they don't like him insulting everyone and he ended up making a mockery of his side. Is that what you've been hearing?

What I heard is that they didn't want a gay man in an interracial relationship who claims Jewish ancestry to be their spokesperson.

I thought I was getting a sales pitch. Thanks for being truthful

undeadsuitor:

CM156:

undeadsuitor:
This seems to just be another Gamergate situation, where their 'goals' are so vague and overreaching that they can claim anything they want as a victory without achieving anything.

I would consider it more comparable to the "Occupy" movement due to its relative decentralization and lack of clear "win" conditions.

Also, all the actual Alt-Right people I've spoken to hate Milo and are glad he's gone from the spotlight.

Except that I can point to "Occupy" and say what it was actually going for

what exactly does the alt right want outside of "the progressives losing"?

its kind of telling how quickly the alt right buried milo the instant he fell out of favor. It will be interesting if Jones or Peterson get the same treatment after their inevitable fall

The love affair with Peterson ended when they found out he doesn't keep his own room clean
image

CM156:
The point is that religious beliefs deserve no special protection from ridicule.

That may be true. However, people do deserve protection from discrimination, and that includes discrimination dressed up as criticism of religious belief.

Using access to national media as a means to single out vulnerable groups for attack, humiliation or harassment is discrimination.

CM156:
Again, I haven't been demanding that. So it's strange that you think I have been.

I don't think it's strange at all, I think it's perverse and grotesque, but not strange.

On one hand, you claim to respect the speech rights of minorities, on the other hand, you expect a minority to respond with absolute good humour and acceptance to a deliberate attempt to insult and publicly humiliate them in order to prove to you their right to exist in "your" society. You've made it absolutely clear that free speech can only take place on your terms, while you reserve the right to play the role of both judge and provocateur, demanding respects while wielding insults.

And the most perverse thing is that you seem genuinely surprised that the people you want to attack (and the same people you expect to grovel for your approval) are not indifferent, that they don't understand it's all a good natured game in which you get to play at the language of hatred without meaning it. The answer should already be obvious, shouldn't it? It's not a game for them. It's not a game when the difference between being perceived as "integrated" and "non-integrated" can be a brick through your window, or your children coming home from school with bruises, or being forcibly undressed in the street. Unlike your targets, you can play at hatred without having to fear it, and yet you expect them to only play on your terms, to only speak in your language, to value your approval over their own self-respect and the integrity of their own voices. That is not a conversation, that is a one-sided demand for civility from someone who has implicitly placed themselves in the position of authority to judge when someone else is being civil.

I would say more, but when I last tried it got extremely personal and I don't have the emotional energy for that right now.

evilthecat:

That may be true. However, people do deserve protection from discrimination, and that includes discrimination dressed up as criticism of religious belief.

Using access to national media as a means to single out vulnerable groups for attack, humiliation or harassment is discrimination.

A popular piece of content for these cartoons is Aisha. "Here's a picture of Muhammad with his 9-year-old wife, the age at which their marriage was consummated" is less an act of hatred and more pointing out a bit of history that most Islamic scholars accept as valid. And you know, it's really hard to justify restraining speech that is true.

I don't think it's strange at all, I think it's perverse and grotesque, but not strange.

Meh. I've been called worse by worse.

On one hand, you claim to respect the speech rights of minorities, on the other hand, you expect a minority to respond with absolute good humour and acceptance to a deliberate attempt to insult and publicly humiliate them in order to prove to you their right to exist in "your" society. You've made it absolutely clear that free speech can only take place on your terms, while you reserve the right to play the role of both judge and provocateur, demanding respects while wielding insults.

"We don't like what you're doing" is an acceptable response.
"I hate what you're doing" is an acceptable response
"I wish you wouldn't" is an acceptable response
"Shut the fuck up, cuck" is an acceptable (if bewildering) response.
Hell, "I wish you were dead" is a response I'll take as well.

"Our religion doesn't permit this, and therefore nobody is allowed to do it" is a response I do not accept if they try to put this into action. And that's what I and many others are trying to draw attention to.

And the most perverse thing is that you seem genuinely surprised that the people you want to attack (and the same people you expect to grovel for your approval) are not indifferent, that they don't understand it's all a good natured game in which you get to play at the language of hatred without meaning it. The answer should already be obvious, shouldn't it? It's not a game for them. It's not a game when the difference between being perceived as "integrated" and "non-integrated" can be a brick through your window, or your children coming home from school with bruises, or being forcibly undressed in the street. Unlike your targets, you can play at hatred without having to fear it, and yet you expect them to only play on your terms, to only speak in your language, to value your approval over their own self-respect and the integrity of their own voices. That is not a conversation, that is a one-sided demand for civility from someone who has implicitly placed themselves in the position of authority to judge when someone else is being civil.

I don't demand civility. I demand that speech rights not be curtailed because some groups think that their religion prohibiting something is grounds for it to be made illegal.

EDIT: Hell, it's not even all Muslims who agree to this doctrine that all depictions (not just negative ones) of Muhammad are impermissible under Islamic law. Shia Muslims have a history of depicting all their Prophets.

I would say more, but when I last tried it got extremely personal and I don't have the emotional energy for that right now.

If you want to leave it here, It's fine with me.

CM156:
A popular piece of content for these cartoons is Aisha. "Here's a picture of Muhammad with his 9-year-old wife, the age at which their marriage was consummated" is less an act of hatred and more pointing out a bit of history that most Islamic scholars accept as valid. And you know, it's really hard to justify restraining speech that is true.

This post originally had language which wasn't really warranted. Editing it out because it's not really the impression I want to leave on anyone. But needless to say, I think this is a little naive.

Der Sturmer used to publish semi-pornographic accounts of lascivious Jews and their perverse sexual behaviour alongside references to Jewish religious texts. You know exactly why they did that, and you know exactly what it does and why it works.

CM156:
"Our religion doesn't permit this, and therefore nobody is allowed to do it" is a response I do not accept if they try to put this into action. And that's what I and many others are trying to draw attention to.

Where is the thing you are drawing attention to?

You are not drawing attention to anything. You are not actually saying or defending anything of value or substance, and even if you were there is nothing to draw attention to. You are attacking people who very specifically do not have access to national media, or mainstream political authority to fight their battles for them. They do not get to speak back to you as equals, which is why you can presume their response on their behalf. You are having an argument with yourself, and then demanding you be allowed to win because anything less is a victory for terrorism.

The legal license to speak does not make you justified, or absolve you of the responsibility for what you wish to say. You can dress power up as freedom all you want, but if you require power over others to feel free then you are a bully, not a hero.

maninahat:

bastardofmelbourne:

Like, Jews can't eat pork. I understand and respect that. I wouldn't knowingly serve pork to a Jew. But I'm going to keep eating pork, because I am not a Jew and it is delicious. It's the same deal when a Muslim complains about people making cartoons of Muhammad. There's a line there, between asking that someone respect your personal beliefs and coercing someone into following your religious beliefs.

Well not quite, because whilst it's easy to not eat pork, it is not easy to turn off your eyeballs when magazines puts up cartoons of Muhammad on the front cover in your local shop. A more accurate comparison would be if some dickwad deliberately slip pork into a Jew's restaurant order just to try and piss them off; generally speaking people don't have a reason to draw Muhammad in the first place, you'd have to go out of your way to do it with the intent to piss off a muslim.

The way I see it is that you don't even need to be religious to have a basic sympathy for a muslim's perspective. If someone vandalised my grandparent's grave, I would be angry and upset, and that won't change just because some onlooker might trivialise it and say, "it's just a rock, what's the big deal?"

In Australia, where some Aboriginal and islander cultures have taboos against seeing pictures of the deceased, there's a little disclaimer - a trigger warning, basically - that plays before every documentary or news show which includes pictures or footage of a dead person. I feel like that's a sufficient fence mechanism to protect hardcore fundamentalist Muslims from accidentally committing idolatry.

Just something like "Warning: The following presentation contains a visual depiction of the Islamic prophet Muhammad," or whatever. That's all. The same as what they do with halal meat.

My benchmark for how stupid this all is has always been the South Park kerfuffle. Trey Parker and Matt Stone put a cheesy superhero version of Muhammad in an early episode of South Park, and no-one complained. A few years later they do an episode deliberately spoofing the "no pictures of Muhammad" controversy, and Comedy Central got bomb threats. (Mostly from white guys who converted to Islam, weirdly enough.) My point being: they did it once uncensored, and no-one had a problem with it. But as soon as some asshat wannabe jihadists turn iconoclasm into a "sacred Muslim tradition" (it isn't), suddenly there's a controversy. That, to me, reeks of stupid.

It's a manufactured problem. There isn't even anything in the Koran prohibiting images of Muhammad; there's just the same Old Testament commandment about idolatry that the other Abrahamic faiths ignore on a daily basis. The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims don't care about people making Muhammad cartoons. And the ones that do care - just throw a warning up, then tell them not to look at stuff they don't want to see.

what some seem to fail to grasp is that Muslims don't want people to stop making cartoons of Muhammed because it's against their religion but because it really fucking insulting to them. it's not a "hey stop that the koran says you shouldn't" as much as a "hey stop that it's really insulting"
and the only thing these "free speech" contests etc are doing is kick-starting the cycle of
Muslim doesn't feel part of society-> gets recruited to radical organisation -> becomes terrorist -> commits atrocity ->
all muslims get blamed for it -> Muslim doesn't feel part of society etc etc

this in turn fuels the Islamophobic narrative that muslims can't be part of western society and should be sent back/exterminated
and anyone with half a brain can tell that this is the point of all those "free speech" rallies and contests.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked