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

[lowtech redneck]

I'm not complaining about a bunch if cartoons that offend my religion. I couldn't care less about the cartoons themselves. This is merely an example of a right people exploite with malicious intent. Get your accusations right.

If a right doesn't have the potential to be 'exploited' by 'undesirable' people, then it isn't a right; freedom of speech is intended to protect subjectively unpopular speech, otherwise it would be useless.

 

[Not_Me]

I think it's beyond that, yes. Though it may have started out as a simple request.

It's only a request if the right of refusal was respected. Otherwise, it is a demand.

This discussion is really about what is worse, offending people or failing to defend fundamental principles of fairness and tolerance.

 

[Gish]

Religion is retarded, if the concept of religion didn't exist, anyone with the same beliefs would be put in an insane asylum and drugged heavily for the safety of those around them.

 

[21%]

People who are not religious often have difficulty comprehending why religious people are so sensitive about their faith. For religious people, or people who believe in anything, really, they identify with the belief, and it becomes part of themselves.

If you believe that everyone has the right to say everything, then you have no right to stop someone from publicizing unflattering (but true) things about someone you care about and laughing at them. What is right and wrong is usually relative and very personal.

I think the key is empathy.

 

[Not_Me]

If you believe that everyone has the right to say everything, then you have no right to stop someone from publicizing unflattering (but true) things about someone you care about and laughing at them.

It might not be nice, but the alternative is far worse. Imagine a world where we are not allowed to say anything that causes distress to another person.

 

[21%]

It might not be nice, but the alternative is far worse. Imagine a world where we are not allowed to say anything that causes distress to another person.

I agree. I don't think it should be illegal to say things -- but there should be some sort of social condemnation for people who abuse it, and it should be powerful enough to actually stop the act. Did the muslims overreact over a piece of cartoon? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. If someone is talking trash on your mother wouldn't you want to punch them in the face? Like I said, I think empathy is what you need to put an end to this debate. Once everyone is on 'your side', everything is solvable.

 

[Spamtar]

i personally find making a religion or a religious figure as a butt of a joke mostly distasteful

That being said, free speech and particularly free from limitations from government regulation as an important value. Restriction on speech especially in regard to politics/religion has too many negative implications which greatly outweigh the implications of free speech. I do think Europe is more hypocritical which content of speech is open and which is off limits however.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Did the muslims overreact over a piece of cartoon? Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

You know some things I would not do if someone badmouthed my mother? Advocate for an end to free speech, lynch people, vandalize buildings, and attempt to blackmail a small country into giving up free speech rights. There is no 'perhaps' or moral equivalence about it.

 

[Not_Me]

I agree. I don't think it should be illegal to say things -- but there should be some sort of social condemnation for people who abuse it, and it should be powerful enough to actually stop the act.

Do you believe the cartoonists were abusing their rights? They were defending one of our fundamental values. They cannot do it without creating offense. A choice had to be made.

If someone is talking trash on your mother wouldn't you want to punch them in the face?

But I refrain from doing so because I recognize the value of compromise.

Like I said, I think empathy is what you need to put an end to this debate. Once everyone is on 'your side', everything is solvable.

Yes, as long as it goes both ways. Otherwise, we're talking about submission.

 

[Ginkgo]

So like I jut don;t understand why we don't just make an undergound railroad for those guys cuz they seriously need some playboy in there or some shit. I mean really, why else would you go and burn people alive?

 

[21%]

You know some things I would not do if someone badmouthed my mother? Advocate for an end to free speech, lynch people, vandalize buildings, and attempt to blackmail a small country into giving up free speech rights. There is no 'perhaps' or moral equivalence about it.

I don't agree with what they did either, but one thing a lot of people might miss is how their reaction, to them, must have felt like they were sticking it up to The Man. In the past several decades, their countries had been taken advantage of by the 'West', and the attitude the West had towards them had been nothing but condescending. And correct me if I'm wrong -- it's the western powers that put the fundamentalist leaders there in the first place, so in a way they are silently condoning all the indoctrination.

Don't forget the attitude the West holds towards muslims. It's the same attitude that a lot of upper class people regard crime with. They tend to think there is something innately corrupted about 'criminals' and fail to recognize that there are important socio-economic factors to consider. A lot of the world regard muslims with the same attitude: that they are uptight, backwards, violent fundamentalists and therefore do not deserve respectful treatment. I don't think the muslims did the right thing, but I don't think the underlying attitude that provoked it in the first place was in the right either.

 

[21%]

Do you believe the cartoonists were abusing their rights? They were defending one of our fundamental values. They cannot do it without creating offense. A choice had to be made.

I think this issue is way bigger than the cartoon incident and the resulting reaction. I understand both points of views. It's definitely okay to defend your values, but it should be done with consideration and sensitivity. If you made fun of someone and they punched you, did you bring it on yourself? There are inoffensive ways to say things. If someone is pointing out your flaw, would you prefer them to poke fun at it or try to explain it to you gently without putting you down?

But I refrain from doing so because I recognize the value of compromise.
...
Yes, as long as it goes both ways. Otherwise, we're talking about submission.

Yeah. The sad thing is no one really values 'the right way'. The press definitely doesn't help. They need to stir things up and create controversies to sell. If you don't say something controversial, you don't get published. Look at award-winning films: most of them portray conflicts and tragedies. It's saying, yes, we are aware of what is wrong. Solution? No one has ever pointed out one. Perhaps no one knows how to solve it. And it doesn't make the headlines. Deep down, people are just not that interested in finding the solution because it takes work.

 

[Valiant]

It was a pretty good thing to publicize the cartoon. It's just a cartoon, and look what it did.
What does it accomplish, though? Well, i'll let you all figure that out. I'd probably get at least an infraction if I said what I mean. >.<

 

[Jessica]

Do you think it's okay to offend hundreds of millions of people in the name of satire, just for the sake of doing so?
I personally don't think so, and I was pretty mad during the abovementioned controversy. I believe it in inexcusable to mock something so many people find precious and sacred. It was also a pretty stupid move by the newspaper. They must have known that the cartoons would create a big reaction in the Middle East.

Nothing is sacred.

If we stop doing things or saying things just because they offend people, we will have no freedom in the end.

You find it offensive that someone would draw a bomb on that evil fucking piece of shit Muhammad's head, and equally offensive that I would call that worthless shitfuck both an evil fucking piece of shit and a worthless shitfuck, so what happens to the cartoonist and I?

Kill us both or throw us in jail for a couple of years. That's justified, isn't it? We offended people, we deserve to lose our lives or lose days/weeks/months/years of our lives. Because, after all, offending people is evil.

Fuck being PC and fuck relativism. Political correctness is fucking the world and relativism has fucked us. Political correctness is killing creativity and the human spirit, and the view that any way can be the right one has made a world in which people live in alternative realities. (I will cite, as an example: holocaust denial.)

I tell you what makes me CRAZY MAD about the entire thing: the protesters were the ones people sided with.

That is the bullshit.

BECAUSE OF A FUCKING DRAWING, THESE PEOPLE RIOTED, BURNED SHIT, STOLE SHIT, AND KILLED OTHER PEOPLE.

If you're offended at the cartoon instead of that, you're retarded.

Oh, and...

 

[Not_Me]

I think this issue is way bigger than the cartoon incident and the resulting reaction. I understand both points of views. It's definitely okay to defend your values, but it should be done with consideration and sensitivity. If you made fun of someone and they punched you, did you bring it on yourself? There are inoffensive ways to say things. If someone is pointing out your flaw, would you prefer them to poke fun at it or try to explain it to you gently without putting you down?

The bigger issue is tolerance. When we interact with others, we will invariably reach impasses where agreement is impossible regardless of how empathetic we are. Unless we are willing to accept the "give an inch and they take a mile" relationship, we need to draw a line somewhere. Conflicts can be resolved in 3 ways, by submission, by compromise or ultimately by force. Compromise is ideal, but force is better than submission.

 

[Ginkgo]

The Koran has some pretty specific things to say about killing, but it's a little fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

 

[21%]

The bigger issue is tolerance. When we interact with others, we will invariably reach impasses where agreement is impossible regardless of how empathetic we are. Unless we are willing to accept the "give an inch and they take a mile" relationship, we need to draw a line somewhere. Conflicts can be resolved in 3 ways, by submission, by compromise or ultimately by force. Compromise is ideal, but force is better than submission.

I'm a hopeless idealist so I don't think I completely agree with the last part of what you said. But, yes, tolerance is the answer. I remember reading somewhere about an experiment that involves getting the participants to watch a film that depicts a character from a different race in the main role. Afterwards, all the participants had a higher opinion of people of the race in question than before. I mean, come on, even a simple film can make a difference. Tolerance shouldn't be too hard to achieve in real life. /dream

 

[A window to the soul]

It's only a request if the right of refusal was respected. Otherwise, it is a demand.

This discussion is really about what is worse, offending people or failing to defend fundamental principles of fairness and tolerance.

Here's a link to the controversial cartoons,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...f-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png

A couple of the images are disturbing. 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.

Do I think the brutal backlash was reasonable? No. Keep in mind, I have very limited knowledge about what happened. I do know that goal blockage leads to frustration and frustration leads to anger. I shared the mob phenomenon with you to help you understand how nice people can turn violent. To err is human, to forgive is divine. If only both sides would see it that way. The reality is much different though. I'll explain what I mean by that...

Civil liberties are not a blank check, to which you are entitled to do whatever you want. One must use their civil liberties responsibly by practicing discretion. That means putting yourself in others' shoes. So go ahead and say what you want, disrespect people with cartoon satire about their God, but don't come crying to me when your little glass house shatters into a million pieces.

What have we learned from this? Know your audience. Think before you speak. Weigh the pros and cons before saying something uncouth. Don't publish cartoon satire about something that you wouldn't want posted about your mama. It's okay to show your lovely drawings at a Christmas party with your close friends and family that have the same attitudes as you; hilarious good fun. However, it's not cool to mass publish that BS to the public because you *will* wake up Uncle Murphy. What did dear Murphy teach us? Let's apply his law to cartoon satire: for every 1-laugh you get, there will be 1-RAWR. 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?

 

[lowtech redneck]

I do know that goal blockage leads to frustration and frustration leads to anger.

Everyone has blocked goals and negative emotions; this in no way mitigates responsibilty for anything.

 

[A window to the soul]

Everyone has blocked goals and negative emotions; this in no way mitigates responsibilty for anything.

Agreed. That applies to both sides.