posted
I don't think you can call this a double standard since Comedy Central never claimed they acted out of respect for Islam. They acted out of a fear of violence. It is unfortunate that Comedy Central doesn't show a bit more respect for everyone, but one can hardly confuse fear with respect.
Personally, I would rather have South Park making tasteless jokes about my religion than have TV execs changing program because they are afraid of my violent retribution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Daily Show on Comedy Central has made probably a dozen jokes about not showing the Mohammad cartoons because they are trying to show respect.....to the fact that they don't want to get the s$%# kicked out of them if they do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fear has long been a part of American media choices. The House Unamerican Activites Commitee and then Joe McCarthy had at least as wide an influence and they and he weren't even killing people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the lines we're supposed to swallow is that terrorism is stupid and ineffective and that terrorists are mindless animals. That just doesn't seem to be true. Given what they have to work with, terrorism seems to often net people employing it much higher results than if they used most other methods.
Exactly who is feeding you this line? That terrorism is stupid and ineffective? The mindless animals part I hear, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe MrSquicky is referring to the, "we won't let terrorism be effective," propaganda line?
I have the same vague impression I think he was talking about, but can't seem to nail it down.
-EDIT-
quote:Well, fear has long been a part of American media choices. The House Unamerican Activites Commitee and then Joe McCarthy had at least as wide an influence and they and he weren't even killing people.
I just saw Good Night and Good Luck last night. I was struck by how good of a job was done of drawing parallels to today's socio-political climate without making me feel hit over the head by it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing about SP is that while it is crude and sometimes goes places that I am uncomfortable with, it always makes me think, is brilliant in its skewering (usually not the ostensible target) and oftentimes ends up speaking relatively reasonably about topics.
For example, a recent episode (one of the first that was actually pulled) was about an image of Mary bleeding. In all honesty, it was no doubt quite offensive to Catholics, at least that depiction. But the point of the episode was not to poke fun at Mary, but rather at our attitudes toward miracles and relics and our perceived powerlessness. Specifically, Stan's dad, who just received a DUI, has to go to AA meetings as part of his punishment. There, he is convinced that the drinking (which in fact is normal (if unwise in WHEN it is practiced) not an out of control thing) is a disease that he cannot control. So he goes from saying, "alright, I need to be balanced in my drinking and not drink when I drive" to (in classical SP fashion) sitting a wheel chair drinking endlessly, believing that he cannot beat it. He is powerless. When the miracle with the statue occurs, he hurriedly goes to the site and has to wait in line with numerous people with REAL problems (elephantitis, terminal illnesses) and is constantly saying he is the same as them (and cutting in line). Finally, he gets to the image and receives the blood.
Now he is cured. He drinks no more. He rejects his old drinking buddies. Until he finds out that the bleeding is not miraculous (per se). Suddenly he needs "4 drinks, stat!" because the disease was not cured.
His son helps him to see that HE had been able to beat it. His self control and "disciprine" (in Engrish) had helped him, but he had gone too far. Being balanced requires more but is more reasonable.
The point was not to make fun of Mary (though I know that the elements about her were offensive) but our attitudes about how we view and conquer things.
There are numerous other episodes like that. The offensive element is put in for humor and shock value (like Paris Hilton's "Stupid Spoiled Whore" episode or the "Beaver Dam"- Hurricane Katrina- or "Butt out" -anti-anti-smoking- episode) but nonetheless, the point it often makes is an arguably valid one that has a right to be made.
People have a right to be angry. They have a right to boycott. They have a right to write in and complain. They do not have to be sanguine about it. They do not have to be happy about it. They do not have to cheer the power of the first amendment.
But they don't have a right to kill those whoe disagree or are offended. Otherwise, no one is safe. No one.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if we would feel differently if the killing and rioting were going on in the West. I suppose I should be relieved that this isn't the case. Just finding it interesting that the West is acting, at least with this situation, as if it is happening in the West. On the other hand, I can't think of any reports of actual deaths from this issue - just riots and property destruction.
quote:The whole thing is laughably ridiculous. Or would be, if all of us didn't know that there are people who would kill/die if CC did air the clip. Clearly, for Christians (or anyone else) who want CC to stop airing things they consider blasphemous, they need to start rioting and killing people before they'll be taken seriously.
I said something like that a while back and was, mostly, yelled at:
quote:This has been going on to Christians for years. Why is it that when it happens to Muslims, people who wouldn't give a flip about what Christians think suddenly care so much not to offend? I think its time for secularists to go full boar against the Muslim religion like they do Christianity. Mohammad in a bottle of . . . you get the picture. Equal opportunity disrespect sounds nice, since there difinantly isn't equal opportunity respect.
"In (the West) it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," Mohammed al-Shaibani, a columnist, wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily Monday. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."
Perhaps that is the argument Christians should start using. You insult Christianity than it is racism and a breach of human rights and not freedom of speach. I like that.
Another reason Christians need to create their own unabashidly theocratic Kingdom. Perhaps create a bit of respect out of fear that the Muslims use very effectively.
Its admittedly a little more crude and alarmist, but the thought is the same.
posted
Occ, I think the difference between what was said in this thread and what you said is that you actually want to form a Christian theocracy and have said so on multiple occasions, whereas what you quoted was said sarcastically.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the fear that I was misunderstood, I want to say that Squicky is right. My statement was sarcastic. Obviously, I do not think that anyone who is offended must escalate their reactions until their desires are met.
I think people need to grow up and recognize that the world is a big place and there are many other views and if you get mad or kill at everyone who disagrees with you or unintentionally, or even intentionally, insults you, you are going to be mad all the time and end up killing a lot of people.
Come to think of it, that might be problem here.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't all that long ago that the Christian/European world would have reacted in much the same way. And there was a time when the Islamic world was the shining example of culture, intellect, and civilization.
To me, one of the big differences now is that Wesern countries have tamed Christianity (and Islam) with many extra-religious ideas and structures that has allowed for the growth of true multi-cultural and religious societies. The Islamic countries have never experienced a secular Enlightenment and so lack many of the fundamental ingrained ideas that pervade our society.
To me, a primarily offensive/reactive strategy isn't going to resolve our differences and could quite possibly lead to some form cultural genocide.
Unfortunately, I see this a distinct possibility, but it is such in part because of the tack we are taking. I think (or rather hope) that there is a better path.
I believe that the violent response to the Muhammed cartoons is childish and ultimately destructive to the Islamic societies they occured in, in much the same way that, in the case where Ian pointed out, being angry all the time seriously hurts you as a person. I think that societies that condone and encourage terrorism as a matter of course are fundamentally flawed. But here's the thing, in the eyes of many in the Islamic world, these are the most and often the only effective tactics for them to get what they want, especially in the short term.
I think that, if we want to avoid the real possibility of the costly and morally repugnant option of basically killing off many of the Muslim societies, root and branch, we need to find a way to encourage the development of Enlightenment principles and more peaceful ways of Muslims effecting changes that they want.
To be honest though, especially when looking at the half-tamed nature of our society, I don't know how possible these goals are.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are right, Squicky. I would add to the enlightenment that the reformation together made western society 'grow up'.
Not sure how such a thing could be brought about quickly in Islamic countries, though. After all, it took ~500 years in western society.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ian, I guess I could see the Reformation, albiet more as a negative example. Although, come to think of it, it did introduce some important developmental factors.
That's acutally something I've been wondering about, but have nowhere near adequate historical basis to really say anything at all definitive about. That is, most of the true advancement towards civilization in Western thinking came about in large part because people got pissed or horrified at what the people in charge (most often the religious people in charge) where doing. Is it possible that the difference in Islamic society is cause in part because they've had less internal stuff to get pissed about or possibly that they've lacked a central figure or institution that was clearly in the wrong?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It used to be, back when it included the Papal states, but I don't think that claim is really accurate now. Vatican City isn't really a country so much as it's an politically independent administration center for the Catholic Church.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, I meant it as a negative example. After a few hundred years of killing each other over 'minor' points, when both sides are relatively evenly matched, you kind of step back and have to agree to disagree peacefully.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to argue with you, MS, but then I asked myself the question "Does the Vatican have any citizens?"
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it possible that the difference in Islamic society is cause in part because they've had less internal stuff to get pissed about or possibly that they've lacked a central figure or institution that was clearly in the wrong?
The Islamic response to the Mongol invasions, the closing of the doors of ijtihad, is what I see as the root of the difference you're talking about.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But here's the thing, in the eyes of many in the Islamic world, these are the most and often the only effective tactics for them to get what they want, especially in the short term.
In terms of effective tactics, I think the American Civil Rights movement or Ghandi's Indian indepedence movement showed the power of peaceful resistance. If they did that, I think that they would gain a huge amount of sympathy and NO ONE could fault them for anything. The west would be shamed into to doing more.
Of course such things are predicated on societies that value freedom of thought and action and peace, which is arguable in Sharia-based governments (as this situation illustrates).
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I know little bits here and there, but really have mostly just thumbnail sketches of Islamic history, so again, not a great platform to argue from. However, while I could see that from a non-inclusive/tolerant thing, I was talking about the much wider ideas like "you just can't trust those bastards in charge" which led many people to accept the ideas of individual rights set against government or religious controls.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of effective tactics, I think the American Civil Rights movement or Ghandi's Indian indepedence movement showed the power of peaceful resistance. If they did that, I think that they would gain a huge amount of sympathy and NO ONE could fault them for anything. The west would be shamed into to doing more.
See, I disagree with this often made assertion. Consider, for example, the abject failure of the non-violent civil rights movement to achieve things in Chicago. Richard Daley was too smooth a politician and he shut them down at every turn. Non-violence worked because they were going up against Bull Connors's, but when you try it against people who won't supply you with violent spectacles, it tends to fizzle.
You know one of the big reasons why the U.S. is the Great Satan? Because we've been screwing around in the Middle East for years. There was plenty of non-violent protest over this, but it's not like we care or even acknowledge it. Same thing with South and Central America.
Non-violence movements require a certain type of opponent to be effective against. They also require clear and dramatic injustices being done. I don't think either of these conditions are fulfilled in these cases.
Many of the goals of the Islamic societies aren't things I even think they deserve. Consider, for example, non-violent protest of the Mohammed cartoons. Well, okay, you don't like it, but honestly I don't care. Of course, considering the situation, I think it would be better to capitulate to non-violent protest than to the threat and execution of violence. But I don't think, in final analysis, that their complaints are worthy of going along with, even if it's practical that we do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking more along the lines of non-violence in regard to the Palestine issue. Sit-ins and other peaceful protests against perceived injustices would be more effective than blowing up a restuarant full of innocent patrons.
And, as you pointed out (and I tried to say) you have to have the right kind of 'enemy', the right kind of reactions and the right kind of 'audience' before it is truly effective. But I was thinking of it more as a matter or principle. Like the Bhuddist who set himself on fire (which was kind of dumb, but did make a point and only cost him his own life, as opposed to some kids sitting down to some pizza.)
But, yeah, there's also an element of 'grow up'. Not everyone agrees with you. And to use perceived, or even intended offense as an excuse for violence is ridiculous.
All you end up doing is killing off those who disagree with you (or frightening them into silence). Which doesn't say much about how noble, right, and true your cause is. I think OSC once said, "All you do is change the meaning of the word until they all mean the same thing. Bully."
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are groups that protest non-violently about things like Palestine, etc. They're routinely ignored. When you come down to weighing a principle that a lot of the society doesn't fully believe in against tangible results and attention, I don't think it's generally much of a contest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Non-violence movements require a certain type of opponent to be effective against. They also require clear and dramatic injustices being done. I don't think either of these conditions are fulfilled in these cases
1. Non-violence has worked quite effectively against a wide range of opponents including Hitler. (The Danes stopped Hitler from deporting and killing Danish Jews through non-violent resistance).
2. If you don't think clear and dramatic injustices are being done in Israel/Palestine you don't know thing one about the conflict.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Danish example is just a little misleading; the Danes spirited the Jews away over the water. It's not as though they sat in front of the stormtroopers that were coming to get the Jews, and made them go away by singing pacifist songs at them. And if Hitler had been willing to add Sweden to the list of his enemies - I don't see where this would have hurt him any, he already had 400 thousand troops in Norway that he could have used without damage to the Eastern Front, and then he wouldn't have to pay for the Kiruna ores - the evacutaion would have been useless.
The moral issue is one thing; people have said enough about that. Another thing about violence is that it ups the stakes; that's usually a bad idea. Today, perchance, you have an advantage, either in ruthlessness and willingness to kill, or in sheer force. That may not be true tomorrow. Indeed, if Europe ever gets sufficiently annoyed to forget about being civilised, the Arabs are in for an extremely bad time of it. It's worth recalling that the British invented the concentration camp as a means for dealing with a guerrilla army; I see no reason it wouldn't work just as well against terrorists. Internal passports; strictly enforced curfews; barbed wire and blockhouses; we've been here before, and we can do it again. It is fortunate for the Muslims that the terrorists are few in number.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
