quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I find it unfortunate that the Iranian newspaper is choosing to have its contest focus on the Holocaust when none of the countries that ran the cartoons are predominently Jewish.
quote:The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists.
Wow. Way to miss the point.
I was talking about boycotts, anger, and demonstrations. Not violence or threats of violence.
You can talk all you want about the demonstrations being mostly about violence. Even if true, it's irrelvant to the accusation you levied against me. Because you've acknowledged that some demonstrations were not violent or inciteful of violence, you have also acknowledged that the things I was talking about (i.e., non-violent demonstrations) actually exist.
And to anologize what I said about nonviolent demonstrations (plus boycotts and anger) - which you have admitted exist - to accusing the rape victim of being provactive is just flat out wrong.
I was talking about the nonviolent aspects of the reaction. My major concern about your reaction to this is your inability to separate the violent from the non-violent.
All your passsion could be a powerful force for good if you would just learn how to apply it precisely. Instead, you wield it like a shotgun to attack everything near your target and, what's worse, accuse the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
quote:Because the reaction, protests, aren't about further dialogue, it seems to me. The reaction (protests) is about shutting down a particular point of view.
OK. I think they are about communicating a very important message: that this matters to a great many people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing the difference you see when you read Arabic news and European news versus getting everything from CNN.
I was reading Al-Jazeera last night. They seemed to mostly abhor the violence, but did point out several instances of peaceful protest amongst the violence. Some European Muslims peacefully protested, and there was a sit-in in Kuwait.
Many of the Danish and other European website news outlets I read made a big deal of "Europe speaking with one voice." I'm not sure how much this sentiment is shared by the people, but as far as the governments of Europe are concerned, a boycott on Denmark is the same thing as a boycott on the entire EU to them. Denmark is already starting to see a results from the boycotts in the ME, as they closed down a dairy factory of some kind in Riyadh, and laid off 4,000 workers, who I'm guessing were probably Saudi, not from Denmark.
Further, it appears the protesting Muslims are starting to see Europe as one too. Austrian embassies are being attacked as well as Norweigan and Danish. Austria being the current president of the EU.
It should be noted that Al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite Imam in Iraq has called for an end to the violence. That's rather the opposite of what I'm hearing out of public officials in Afghanistan, where the violent protests are rampant, and Pakistan. In Afghanistan, protesters are throwing rocks at allied bases there with peacekeeping forces. And it appeared to be rather indiscrimmantely aimed at Westerners, not specifically Danish, or even European forces.
I think some of the analogies I've read on Al-Jazeera struck home with me the most. You wouldn't see the N word, or other racial slurs that go along with other races, or religions in European newspapers, out of respect for those people. Because those words serve no other purpose but to be insulting and demeaning, and their use is more or less off limits by the media, and the media doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Depictions of the Prophet fall under that same umbrella, and publishing them can thus serve no other purpose but to inflame anger and be insulting.
That's probably already been said here, but I don't remember it specifically. Either way, that struck home with me. I recommend anyone following the story tries to read it from either a Danish or Euro news source, or from Al-Jazeera. It's a slightly different rendering than the neutral-leaning US press is giving it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or they have too much respect.
I think the pictures belong in an article about them. If I were reading an article about anti-Semitic cartoons, I would like to see what I am reading about. Just because a newspaper prints a picture, does not mean they are condoning it. It all comes down to the context in which it is printed.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or they have too much respect.
I think the pictures belong in an article about them. If I were reading an article about anti-Semitic cartoons, I would like to see what I am reading about. Just because a newspaper prints a picture, does not mean they are condoning it. It all comes down to the context in which it is printed.
I'm not sure if the people being offended by this see the difference Stephen. Printing it is as good as condoning it as far as they are concerned. It might be that they have respect enough to not print them, which I prefer to think. Or it might be as Stephen Colbert says, in that they are 'bound by ethics and the fact that we're scared to death to show it.' Either way, if anyone knows anything about offensive language and the boundaries of where free speech starts to intrude on morality and ethics when it comes to race and religion, it should be America, we've had enough practice at it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, if I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize. I read from them that you took the cartoons to be collectively making a statement about the perceived nature of Islam. Based on your last post it looks like I misread you. Sorry.
ElJay, my view is that the cartoons are, as a collective, solely and deliberately intended to offend Muslims. I don't think it's about commentary at all, and I think calling them "satire" does a disservice to the term. As I said earlier, I think it's emblematic of the current European backlash against increasing Muslim immigration.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh... and now the Muslims in Norway are getting threats and grafitti on their walls. (I'd link, but the newspaper is only in Norwegian.) No actual beatings or killings yet, fortunately. And it's difficult to get a howling mob together in a country which is about 90% middle class. Let's hope it goes no further than nasty emails.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The headliner terrorists who operate against the two countries she has an interest in are Muslim, but there are substantial Catholic (luckily they've died down of recent years), Maoist, and nationalist (of various stripes) terrorist movements. In fact, by far most terrorism is nationally or ethnically motivated rather than religiously motivated, though sometimes with a religious component. There isn't so much a meaningful correlation between terrorists and muslims as there is between terrorists and marginalized peoples with guns, and marginalized peoples with guns and muslims.
I think this bears repeating. Especially since the "Catholic terrorists" didn't just "die down". I'm assuming that we're talking about N. Ireland - and if not it is still a good example. The Republican leaders were able to move their constituents away from violence precisely because they became less marginalized.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bunglawala said: 'The purpose (of the rally) is to put across the mainstream Islamic viewpoint. We think the extremists, with their disgraceful placards, have turned attention away from the original issue.'
'We want to refocus attention to what this is about: the senseless publication of images of the Prophet Mohammed.'
Twinky's post has caused me to realize that the origins and context of the cartoons are a little murky to me, so here are a few links I dug up to clarify matters.
quote: Danish Union of Journalists can not oppose editorial use of Mohammed cortoons
The Danish Union of Journalists and the twelve cartoonists have decided not to take legal action against the many media which have reproduced the cartoons without permission, and to state clearly that the cartoons in dispute may also be reproduced in the future for editorial purposes in news and current affairs media in Denmark and abroad. But the Danish Union emphasize that the Union do not recommend further editorial use.
“In a discussion with the cartoonists, we have decided to allow all serious media which apply for relevant editorial use of the disputed Mohammed cartoons to do so,” says Mogens Blicher Bjerregård, chairman of the Danish Union of Journalists.
“After various international news media have published the twelve cartoons, it is important for us to clearly state the context in which the cartoons can be used. And this must be in a respectful and serious editorial context,” says Mogens Bjerregård. “The cartoonists’ attitude is that if other media publish the cartoons, it is important that the original concept and context of the cartoons is communicated correctly.”
quote: The cartoonists will not oppose reproduction of the Mohammed cartoons that were originally published in Jyllands-Posten if this is done in connection with editorial coverage in newsmedia or similar media in a manner which complies with the rules of internationally accepted press ethics - www.ifj.org.
The remuneration has been set at €250 per cartoon per reproduction. The fee has been set at an average to make it applicable for the various types of media and countries.
The cartoonists do not, however, wish to receive the fees themselves. They have instead decided that the fees shall finance an international prize for cartoonists, to be awarded to a recognised and committed cartoonist who in the form of satirical cartoons has focused on important societal matters – such as for example freedom of speech
The problem with a lot of the people taking the hardline pro-cartoon position is the inability to properly acknowledge or appreciate the larger cultural context within which this event is playing out. And also the exact history of the specific Danish cartoon controversy more specifically.
quote: I think a similar dynamic is playing out in some of the commentary I have seen on this website (and of course, elsewhere). Firstly, let us take note of the original context of the cartoon's publication. A populist right wing Danish tabloid Jyllands-Posten commissioned a series of cartoonists to draw depictions of Mohammed after a Danish children's book about Mohammed could not find an illustrator because prospective illustrators did not want to depict Mohammed, fearing a personal backlash, as any depiction of Mohammed is regarded as sacreligious by many Muslims. That is the immediate background.
quote: Following the discussion in Denmark, Jyllands-Posten published a series of interviews with Muslims and articles about Islam to show the other side of the story. This did not calm tensions though.
quote: The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, accompanied an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Cartoonists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, some contend that regardless of faith, the depiction of Muhammad as a terrorist is culturally offensive and blasphemous. However, many others view the cartoons as a form of non-violent protest in response to the violent threats and intimidation experienced by those who publicly criticise Islam.
I hope these links further our understanding of the issues under discussion.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least they're going to spend the money on something worthwhile, but I still think you're not looking at it broadly enough. Here is another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. The company in question argued, among other things, that their customers might be put off by employees in headscarves.
Things like this, as well as the French headscarf ban, are related to the deeper question of how European countries are going to deal with their growing Muslim immigrant populations.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists.
Wow. Way to miss the point.
I was talking about boycotts, anger, and demonstrations. Not violence or threats of violence.
You can talk all you want about the demonstrations being mostly about violence. Even if true, it's irrelvant to the accusation you levied against me. Because you've acknowledged that some demonstrations were not violent or inciteful of violence, you have also acknowledged that the things I was talking about (i.e., non-violent demonstrations) actually exist.
And to anologize what I said about nonviolent demonstrations (plus boycotts and anger) - which you have admitted exist - to accusing the rape victim of being provactive is just flat out wrong.
I was talking about the nonviolent aspects of the reaction. My major concern about your reaction to this is your inability to separate the violent from the non-violent.
All your passsion could be a powerful force for good if you would just learn how to apply it precisely. Instead, you wield it like a shotgun to attack everything near your target and, what's worse, accuse the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
quote:Because the reaction, protests, aren't about further dialogue, it seems to me. The reaction (protests) is about shutting down a particular point of view.
OK. I think they are about communicating a very important message: that this matters to a great many people.
Uh. Dag, I don't think she's associating the peaceful protests with the fundamentalist faction of Islam. I think she's associating the violent, arsoning, armed protests with the fundamentalist faction of Islam.
Peaceful protests aren't the issue here. I don't care if Egypt boycotts Danish goods, though I think their blame is misplaced -- I care if Syrian gunmen set fire to the Danish embassy.
And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him. Rape is a strong issue with me, and I'm damn sensitive about callous analogies -- and this wasn't, simply a potrayal of what these accusations would look like in another light.
I'm getting really tired of this. I don't know what happened before I returned here, but since I've started seeing her posts, starLisa's been an intelligent, well-informed member of the community. I know we disagree on several issues, but I'm not nearly insecure enough to take that personally. Why is this board so outrageously antagonistic towards her?
Props to Lisa for having the sheer spine and patience to not only withstand it all, but counter it. I'm really impressed.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Assuming you're attempting to chastise me here, what do you mean by "again"?
In keeping with that assumption, from what I've seen of starLisa's responses to others, as well as myself, she has little respect for hypotheticals that don't serve her own purposes. Thus it's not stupidity, it's observation.
By "again," I mean just in this same thread you've also referred to Tom as an idiot for not agreeing with you. What's with you, guy?
Look, I agree with you on this subject, for the most part. I've read your posts, and I've nodded my support, and I've enjoyed reading what you've brought to the table. You're smart enough that you don't have to resort to name-calling and trolling. So why are you?
Lisa and Tom are very smart people. Tom can disagree with you without being an idiot, and I'm guessing Lisa understands the concept of a hypothetical. And I know you're smart enough to know that. So cut it out, because I'd enjoy liking you when I agree with you.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ElJay, my view is that the cartoons are, as a collective, solely and deliberately intended to offend Muslims.
Do you believe that this was the intent of all 12 of the cartoonists, of the editorial staff of the paper, or both?
Added: Or, of course, of some of the 12 cartoonists and/or the editorial staff.
The editorial staff. I'm not going to go so far as to guess at artistic intent on the part of the cartoonists.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Yes, I think your link illustrates an employer boycott. Sad they can't tolerate, isn't it?
Anyways, several of the links that I just posted go into the whole culture war issue.
Yes, you just quoted somewhat selectively.
In any case, I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just telling you what I think, and I'm sorry to have tugged you back into the thread. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him.
Lalo, maybe you want to bother gathering the facts before jumping on me like that. She absolutely did make that accusation, as a modicum of investigation by you would have discovered. Here's the original post that started this subthread:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
Read what I wrote again: She "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim."
I was the person defending the bystanders - specifically, the nonviolent protestors - caught up in her broadside. She accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim. If you need to, look at what I said one more time: she accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
She was replying to a sentence about boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger, and she made the rape accusation in direct response. The fact that she utterly revised what I said doesn't change that - it makes it worse. She lied about what I said in order to make that accusation. But the accusation was directly leveled at me.
quote:Rape is a strong issue with me, and I'm damn sensitive about callous analogies -- and this wasn't, simply a potrayal of what these accusations would look like in another light.
And she was wrong, because my post was not an accusation and is NOTHING like blaming a rape victim.
quote:I'm getting really tired of this. I don't know what happened before I returned here, but since I've started seeing her posts, starLisa's been an intelligent, well-informed member of the community. I know we disagree on several issues, but I'm not nearly insecure enough to take that personally. Why is this board so outrageously antagonistic towards her?
I'm more than a little tired of you jumping on my case when you don't know the facts - especially when the facts are right there in the thread for you to see. Either get it right or butt out.
quote:Why is this board so outrageously antagonistic towards her?
Perhaps this is your problem understanding the situation. Rather than projecting your perceived baggage onto this conversation, try looking at just this thread. Maybe that will help you deal with what's actually said rather than your own little version of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Also, my quotes weren't trying to hide anything in the links, for goodness sakes. My natural tendency is to quote everything because I know no one on this !@#$$#%! forum ever reads links, so I was trying to quote things that I thought touched on some of the things that had been discussed in this thread. I wasn't trying to disguise the issues at hand.
Certainly, I agree with you that the speech issue is wrapped up in the whole culture war in Europe specifically regarding how, and whether, Muslims can fit into a liberal Western democracy, and generaly the place of religion as a whole in society.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: In any case, I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just telling you what I think, and I'm sorry to have tugged you back into the thread
I know I shouldn't post anything now when I'm tired and I won't want to respond to any long posts, so I"m trying to keep them short. I enjoy this thread too much to not say anything, it seems. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm! The " " was intended to denote a friendly jab, an attempt at humour! In no way was I accusing you of misrepresenting anything!
Also, I should be clear (since it's been a few pages since I mentioned it) that I find the reactions of the Syrian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian governments incredibly hypocritical given that it isn't all that hard to come by depictions of Muhammad in at least one of those countries, if not all of them. I'm also horrified by the violent reactions I've seen. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him.
Lalo, maybe you want to bother gathering the facts before jumping on me like that. She absolutely did make that accusation, as a modicum of investigation by you would have discovered. Here's the original post that started this subthread:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
Read what I wrote again: She "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim."
I was the person defending the bystanders - specifically, the nonviolent protestors - caught up in her broadside. She accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim. If you need to, look at what I said one more time: she accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
She was replying to a sentence about boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger, and she made the rape accusation in direct response. The fact that she utterly revised what I said doesn't change that - it makes it worse. She lied about what I said in order to make that accusation. But the accusation was directly leveled at me.
If you want me off your case, quit giving me a reason to be annoyed with you. In this case, Lisa read your defense of Muslim "anger," and not unreasonably (especially given the focus of the entire thread is on the violent Muslim protests), disagreed that the responsibility for Muslim violence lies with the Danish.
Now, Dag, this is what Lisa wrote:
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
And this is what I wrote:
And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him.
So what facts do you think I'm missing, but that you're upset Lisa doesn't hold the Danish newspaper responsible for the strong Muslim backlash (for not understanding or caring "how serious this issue is to Muslims") and misread your post in a thread about Muslim arson, Muslim threats, and Muslim rioting as defensive of Muslim "anger"?
Get a grip, guy. Lisa's done nothing wrong, and if you believe she's misunderstood your purpose in defending Muslim anger and not particularly vehemently condemning Muslim violence, it's easier just to point that out than to complain she "wield[s her passion] like a shotgun to attack everything near your target." It's not unreasonable to understand your post in a broader scope, particularly since Lisa was condemning what she terms the "death cultist" faction of Islam as using the cartoons as an excuse for violence -- rather than these particular Muslims, as you suggested, simply taking criticism of Islam very seriously. She's in no way condemned peaceful Muslim protests, only fundamentalist violence.
Nobody's a bad guy in this thread. Lisa's angry, as am I, about the violent backlash to a cartoon critical of Islam. I'm sure it's a very blasphemous cartoon, but that gives Muslims the right to be offended, and even draw another cartoon in response -- not to arson, murder, and riot. I know you agree with this, and I believe everyone in this thread does. But I do have to wonder at the incessant focus on the cartoonists, and I don't particularly hold Lisa responsible for the same apparent illusion I succumbed to, that some people in this thread are more concerned with the newspaper's blame than the Muslim community's responsibility.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, the "This" in "This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion" referred to my post - a post where, one sentence above, I made it clear the context was peaceful proteset.
She accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim. Read that again and let it soak in: she accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
She responded to my reiteration that I was speaking only of boycotts, demonstration, and anger with "The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence."
In this very quote, she acknowledges that there are non-violent, non-inciteful demonstrations. These were the demonstrations I was speaking of. And her response is "The hell you say."
quote:So what facts do you think I'm missing, but that you're upset Lisa doesn't hold the Danish newspaper responsible for the strong Muslim backlash
I'm not upset that she doesn't hold them responsible for the backlash. I don't hold them responsible for the backlash. What I'm annoyed about is that Lisa is attempting to say that no one has a right to be upset about the cartoons because some Muslims reacted violently to them. And in the course of making this argument, she accused me of something akin to balming a rape victim.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You misunderstand her point. She's holding these fundamentalist Muslims (and those who defend them) responsible for their actions, and believes those who excuse them by virtue of being provoked as akin to blaming the rape victim.
As you're obviously neither fundamentalist Muslim nor excusing their actions, her words obviously don't apply to you. However, since you did excuse Muslim "anger," I can see why she might've misunderstood you. When you explained yourself to say you were referring to "mass demonstrations," Lisa again reasonably understood you to mean the violent demonstrations. Finish her quote:
quote:The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists."
She was referring to apologists for fundamentalist violence as akin to blaming the rape victim, not you. I'm pretty sure she wasn't telling you that you're blaming the rape victim -- though if I'm wrong, I leave it to her to correct me. If I'm not wrong, though, can we leave this issue be? I hate getting caught up in semantics and offensive bullshit when something this interesting's going on in the world.
To that end, I ask -- is the offense even that great? One of the funniest skits in Family Guy history was Stewie going back in time and discovering Jesus wasn't all he's cracked up to be (I'll leave the skit unspoiled for those who haven't seen it). I didn't see mass violence or hysteria at that. I know there was some Catholic furor over the release of Kevin Smith's Dogma (though I'm not sure why), and I didn't see any heretics burned at the stake. I don't believe Muslims deserve a greater right to offense than anyone else -- so why the anger? Why are there even peaceful protests -- I recognize their right to exist, and I'm fine with them so long as they don't harm anyone, but why the outrage in the first place? Or is this simply an excuse to vent pent-up rage -- similar to the black riots over Rodney King?
quote:To that end, I ask -- is the offense even that great?
Yes. This is a profoundly ignorant question, Eddie. An insulting cartoon of Mohammed is just about as offensive as it's possible to get in Islam; the only way I could imagine it being worse would be if they put words in his mouth -- any words -- and depicted him eating pork.
Now, you can argue that more Muslims should learn to overlook some of these offenses, and I'll wholeheartedly agree; by storming into the traps laid by cynical newspaper editors, they don't do themselves -- or rational discussion -- any favors. (I've made similar arguments about how important I believe it is for members of the LDS church to develop a sense of humor about things they consider "sacred," for much the same reason.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came across this article on beliefnet which gives a really interesting alternative perspective on the whole raucous/tragedy/absurdity. I didn't agree with all of it, neither will you, but it did make me stop and think for a while.
quote:You misunderstand her point. She's holding these fundamentalist Muslims (and those who defend them) responsible for their actions, and believes those who excuse them by virtue of being provoked as akin to blaming the rape victim.
As you're obviously neither fundamentalist Muslim nor excusing their actions, her words obviously don't apply to you
Lalo, what you're ignoring is that many people have made the distinction between Muslims who protest violently and those who protest in acceptable manners and that Lisa has insisted there is no difference between those two groups.
quote:I hate getting caught up in semantics and offensive bullshit when something this interesting's going on in the world.
Then don't get caught up in it next time. If you let it go, I will.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Assuming you're attempting to chastise me here, what do you mean by "again"?
In keeping with that assumption, from what I've seen of starLisa's responses to others, as well as myself, she has little respect for hypotheticals that don't serve her own purposes. Thus it's not stupidity, it's observation.
By "again," I mean just in this same thread you've also referred to Tom as an idiot for not agreeing with you. What's with you, guy?
Look, I agree with you on this subject, for the most part. I've read your posts, and I've nodded my support, and I've enjoyed reading what you've brought to the table. You're smart enough that you don't have to resort to name-calling and trolling. So why are you?
Lisa and Tom are very smart people. Tom can disagree with you without being an idiot, and I'm guessing Lisa understands the concept of a hypothetical. And I know you're smart enough to know that. So cut it out, because I'd enjoy liking you when I agree with you.
My argument with Tom was not a matter of a simple disagreement. He flat out called me a racist, and I'm sorry, but I find that offensive, and to be honest, stupid. If he isn't stupid, which I believe, then he's just being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory, which makes him ten times the troll I've ever been, or probably ever will be.
As for starLisa, I wouldn't even know where to start, but she's shown the uncanny ability to throw invective and sarcasm in the fact of reason more times than I can count. And on several occasions when I and others have lobbed hypotheticals in her direction to try and prove a point, she has responded disrespectfully, sarcastically, and in a manner that could be likened to the word "idiot."
It's very much NOT trolling, and not idle name calling. And I'd hope that most people here would agree that I usually don't resort to something so petty. But I'm also sick of direct provocation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the thing that bothers me most about the violence that's happening in Middle Eastern countries on account of this is that it was deliberately stirred up by the group of Danish Muslim clerics who put together that embellished 43-page "dossier" and then took it on tour in the Middle East. If that wasn't an obvious attempt to stir the pot, I don't know what is. It has worked very well. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
In THT's link, it says that the original Danish paper is trying to contact the Iranian paper, because they want to publish the winners of it's Holocaust cartoon contest on the same day. :/
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay--a violent Muslim conquest of Denmark.
Ok, maybe support for their feelings of betrayal and degradation by the Danish press.
But probably the chance to be big fish in the Organized Violent Islamic Fringe that is making so much trouble around the world.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would a group of Danish Islamic clerics want to stir the pot? Lots of reasons. Some of them even stem from honest outrage over the cartoons originally printed. But unless they're pretty stupid and unaware of how the Muslim world reacts to this sort of thing, most of the possible reasons stem from callous manipulation of their brethren to further desires for religious war and conflict sort of thing, I think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To that end, I ask -- is the offense even that great?
Yes. This is a profoundly ignorant question, Eddie. An insulting cartoon of Mohammed is just about as offensive as it's possible to get in Islam; the only way I could imagine it being worse would be if they put words in his mouth -- any words -- and depicted him eating pork.
I doubt it's half as offensive to them as their Nazi-like cartoons of Jews are to us. But sane people don't kill because they're offended.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
Like I said about the Holocaust cartoons, ElJay. It's just what they do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
I think the intent of the clerics was to teach Danes -- and Europeans in general -- a "lesson." Something along the lines of "mess with us and there will be boycotts and violence." Also, I think they wanted other Muslims to be as mad about the cartoons as they were, and were willing to make false insinuations in order to acheive that.
Danish (and really, European) Muslims won't benefit at all -- if anything, I think this is going to make things worse for them.
quote:In THT's link, it says that the original Danish paper is trying to contact the Iranian paper, because they want to publish the winners of it's Holocaust cartoon contest on the same day. :/
That would certainly be in keeping with the paper's comparatively juvenile modus operandi. "What? People don't want to draw Muhammad? We'll pay people to draw Muhammad! Neener-neener, you Muslims, we can print whatever we like!" What's also amusing, in a sad way, is that a few years back the same paper declined to print irreverent cartoon depictions of Jesus, citing the potential public outcry. It's okay for them to pick on the Muslims and Jews, apparently, provided they leave the Christians alone.
Having said that, I think the apology that they issued a while ago was entirely appropriate and should have been the end of the matter. They said "we're allowed to print this stuff, but we're sorry it offended you." I'm not sure what I'd do now, if I were in the paper's position.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
Like I said about the Holocaust cartoons, ElJay. It's just what they do.
I'm not willing to accept that as an answer, Lisa. Everyone has motivation beyond "it's just what they do," and trying to reduce it to that is not only ignorant and demeaning, it's also not useful.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, ElJay. The thing is, there are people who want to create chaos and violence. There are Muslims who really believe that they have a God given obligation to conquer the rest of the world. And they're pissed that there isn't a universal jihad happening right now. These people will do whatever they can to encourage such a thing, because they believe that (a) it's what God wants, and (b) it will lead to a paradise where they're on top and everyone else is on the bottom.
They hate. You're not willing to accept that as an answer, so fine. Understand that by refusing to accept it, you're intentionally blinding yourself to the possibility that it's actually the case.
Why does Fred Phelps run his "God Hates Fags" thing? Why does Pat Robertson say the idiotic things he says? Why do the parents of Prussian Blue thing it's a good thing to turn two little girls into Nazi scum? Maybe it's because they're little people who need to make themselves feel big. Maybe it's because they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t. Maybe it's because there is such a thing as evil, and some people embrace it.
Wouldn't it be lovely if there was a nice little reason for such things? Something you could just fix with a little tweak here or there? If it's because of poverty, we could give them money. If it's because they're offended, we could stop offending them. But that's not the case. They want to be offended, because it gives them an excuse to rampage. I simply do not get how people don't see that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm perfectly willing to accept that people hate. You'll notice that's not what you said. I do, however, believe that there's usually a reason for hate. Just saying "because they hate" is also not useful. While we can't fix every problem, that doesn't mean we should just write them all off and not try. Not. Useful.
---------
There's an interesting op-ed in The International Herald Tribune today. It doesn't address the motives of the Danish clerics, but it does talk about the response of Muslims in general. quid or Amira, if you get a chance, I'd love to know what you think of it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or they have too much respect.
Nope. The NY Times won't run the cartoons, but in an article about the cartoons, they will run a 7-year-old AP photo of a 'Virgin Mary' image smeared with elephant dung:
posted
Oddly enough, that piece was not intended as disrespectful, just edgy and avant-garde. This is in opposition to the depictions of Muhammed, which nobody even vaguely familiar with Islam would consider inoffensive. Also, she isn't smeared with dung, dung is the medium used to create one of her breasts, as a symbol of fertility and life.
There's nothing inherently offensive to christians about that piece, though there are arguable offensive things about it upon consideration. Publishing depictions of Muhammed is an inherently offensive thing to do. Its perfectly possible for a paper to be acting out of respect or sensitivity and publish the mary piece without publishing the Muhammed cartoons.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm perfectly willing to accept that people hate. You'll notice that's not what you said. I do, however, believe that there's usually a reason for hate. Just saying "because they hate" is also not useful. While we can't fix every problem, that doesn't mean we should just write them all off and not try. Not. Useful.
I hear what you're saying, really. But I disagree. What do you think the "God Hates Fags" folks have as their reason for hating? Or the parents of the Prussian Blue girls? Do you really think there's no point at which you have to just say, "I don't care why you're behaving like a pig; you're behaving like a pig, so go to hell"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed. You've seen links in this very thread to many, many examples. That is not what this is about.
Fugu, the difference isn't what you think it is. The difference is the knowledge that Christians aren't going to start rioting in the streets and killing people just because someone runs an offensive picture. Neither are Jews. Just Muslims.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oddly enough, that piece was not intended as disrespectful, just edgy and avant-garde. This is in opposition to the depictions of Muhammed, which nobody even vaguely familiar with Islam would consider inoffensive. Also, she isn't smeared with dung, dung is the medium used to create one of her breasts, as a symbol of fertility and life.
There's nothing inherently offensive to christians about that piece, though there are arguable offensive things about it upon consideration. Publishing depictions of Muhammed is an inherently offensive thing to do. Its perfectly possible for a paper to be acting out of respect or sensitivity and publish the mary piece without publishing the Muhammed cartoons.
I wish your empathy of Islam extended to Christianity fugu, I really do. Instead of disrespect it's just edgy and avant-garde. I seriously thought you were being a bit ironic the first time I read your post. Sadly, I was mistaken.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cartoons were run in September of last year; the rioting didn't start until the Danish clerics stirred the pot with their embellished report, meeting directly with political officials and influential religious figures in the Middle East.
Added: Just in case anyone thinks that the cartoons first ran a week or two ago and then there was a spontaneous uproar.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do.
Nothing is inherently offensive. Things only become offensive in the mind of an observer, and the context in which they view those things.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
