Muhammad (S.A.W.) cartoons and the boundaries of satire

[Kaizer]

I think that MacGuff & Herring need to protest the lack of appreciation they get over here.

Guff & red.... whatever it is you guys are planning on doing... please do forewarn us.

 

[Jessica]

I don't know what they mean, nor do I know much about Muhammad, but I know I would not like skewed depictions of Jesus published like that.

Here's one of Jesus being killed in South Park by a Jew instead!

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1A82GDR0Zs"]Yep.[/YOUTUBE]

I'd also recommend you google both "Jesus is coming, get a towel!" and "Jesus fucking Christ".

Since those can't be posted here, here's my personal favorite:

 

[MacGuffin]

I think that MacGuff & Herring need to protest the lack of appreciation they get over here.

Guff & red.... whatever it is you guys are planning on doing... please do forewarn us.

What?

 

[Red Herring]

What?

seconded

 

[Kaizer]

tks again guys
and the point was that the two of you have already explained what this was & surprisingly continues to be about.

 

[A window to the soul]

tks again guys
and the point was that the two of you have already explained what this was & surprisingly continues to be about.

You're not making any sense.

 

[Kaizer]

You're not making any sense.

from what i understood from their replies was that the two relevant points came together as the power-money nexus and the manipulation of people to achieve those aims in the short term at least and, if anyone is concerned about it, in the long run the possible perpetuation of it. what they seemed to at least have essentially pointed out that this was about is that it feeds off of the insecurities of people as they relate to this and the exploitation of these insecurities to have that nexus endure and possibly gain strength.

guff & herring can correct me if I got the wrong impression from their posts

EDIT: i thought I had made this point here : http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49300&p=1621576&viewfull=1#post1621576

 

[A window to the soul]

from what i understood from their replies was that the two relevant points came together as the power-money nexus and the manipulation of people to achieve those aims in the short term at least and, if anyone is concerned about it, in the long run the possible perpetuation of it. what they seemed to at least have essentially pointed out that this was about is that it feeds off of the insecurities of people as they relate to this and the exploitation of these insecurities to have that nexus endure and possibly gain strength.

guff & herring can correct me if I got the wrong impression from their posts

EDIT: i thought I had made this point here : http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49300&p=1621576&viewfull=1#post1621576

I'm still confused. Are you talking about Muslims feeding off of the insecurities of people afraid of losing their civil liberties?

 

[Kaizer]

I'm still confused.

From what I had gathered from their replies, it seemed to be about the politicians and the elites on all sides.

 

[A window to the soul]

From what I had gathered from their replies, it seemed to be about the politicians and the elites on all sides.

I don't think the politicians or the elites had much to do with the cartoon satire or the resulting Islamic protests; at least, that's not what I'm reading at wiki. It escalated into violence because a Danish Muslim organization protested the first release of the cartoons in the Danish newspaper (Jyllands-Posten), which raised awareness. The awareness spread like wild fire because 50-other countries reprinted the cartoons. It sounds like a media feeding frenzy fueled the debate. Naturally, the media is going to side with free speech. To drive that point home, the Jyllands-Posten, and many other Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoons as a commitment to free speech.

The Danish Prime Minister didn't want to get involved with the dispute between the media and the Muslims. The Danish Muslims and 11-ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries requested to meet with the Danish Prime Minister, but the Danish Prime Minister refused to meet about it and suggested that they take it to court like everyone else.

 

[Not_Me]

As I said in a previous post, when pissed off people unite in mass numbers, be prepared for brutal retaliation; it's predictable human behavior that's documented in social science.

Does that all make sense?

The point isn't whether or not people get upset when they don't get their way. That's a given. It has more to do with whether the level headed ones are obligated to give up rights they cherish just because hot-heads throw a tantrum and get violent.

The radical Muslims has murdered Western journalists for criticizing their beliefs. They effectively silenced the press. It took courage to for the cartoonists to defy them. There is no way to defend one of our core values without causing bad feelings. We either lose one of our freedoms, or we stand up for it even if it offends. I think the former is the lessor of two evils.