|
R. Mute posted:Depicting the prophet alone is attacking a very fundamental part of a lot of Muslims' faith, though. I guess I should ask about that next time it comes up with my Muslim students.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:Depicting the prophet alone is attacking a very fundamental part of a lot of Muslims' faith, though. But not actually in the Koran
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Is it really? I mean, I've heard why that is and it seems like a pretty good reason to me, to avoid idolatry of him (among Muslims I mean), but I guess I don't have a sense of how offended non-crazy people are of it. Not all Muslims care about it, obviously, but not all Muslims care about eating pork either when that very much is in the Quran. In many Muslim majority countries, it's certainly a thing that matters and isn't limited to fundamentalists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Simply depicting Mohammed can be considered an attack on Islam only in the same way as not fasting during Ramadan. Not following one religion's tenets is not in itself an attack on this religion, otherwise professing a different religion should be considered an attack, too. For instance, the core belief of Islam is that there is no God except God (i.e. monotheism). But saying that Shinto or Hindu followers should avoid worshipping their multiple deities openly, because it goes utterly against basic beliefs of Muslims is not right. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
I never looked into the history of why Muslims decided that depicting Mohammed is blasphemous, but I always figured that it was a part of Orthodox Christianity's Iconoclast leanings that the Turks absorbed into their DNA after they conquered Byzantium. The veil was certainly popularized by the Ottoman court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Simply depicting Mohammed can be considered an attack on Islam only in the same way as not fasting during Ramadan. Not following one religion's tenets is not in itself an attack on this religion, otherwise professing a different religion should be considered an attack, too. For instance, the core belief of Islam is that there is no God except God (i.e. monotheism). But saying that Shinto or Hindu followers should avoid worshipping their multiple deities openly, because it goes utterly against basic beliefs of Muslims is not right. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Oh wow, I was loving confused there because I was just looking at avatars and thought you were arguing with yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
You're not the only one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Oh wow, I was loving confused there because I was just looking at avatars and thought you were arguing with yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:You're comparing apples and oranges, mate. I don't think I do, actually. E: Same re avatars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
I'm going to repost something I wrote in the CH thread, because I think it's pertinent and I'd like to hear some responses that don't get drowned out by people furiously trying to own Tezzor.paranoid randroid posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
That is one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever read. People are saying you should consider how necessary depicting Mohammad is to your message before doing it. You can even apply that rule similarly to polytheists worshiping multiple gods. Doing it as part of your normal worship ceremonies? Totally cool. Walking into a mosque in the middle of Friday prayers and doing it? Not so cool. You can do things that piss people off, just have a good reason to first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
My eyes are drawn to that screaming monkey statue on the shelf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:People do not have a right to not be offended, this is true. But they do have the right to take offense, and if and how this offense is acknowledged will color a satirist's work. People have a right to take offense, write a stern letter to the editor, draw a counter argument cartoon, write a screed in a publication that supports their view; Not murder people for their beliefs or their words. At worst, if the speech in question is not protected by the free speech laws, the offended can call for a lawsuit. That is it. I have no responsibility to not re-offend you until it is proven I've broken a law. Free speech being what it is, that is a very specific set of criteria based on the legal jurisdiction. "Pick up the stick again and poke harder" is always a valid response regardless of whether the speech being criticized is socially constructive or destructive. I'm not sure if that's the response you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Attacking extremists by depicting Mohammad (especially in Christian-majority nations) is like attacking "thug culture" by printing "Niggers!" as your headline. It attacks the entire community by punching down and doesn't even address any of the issues at hand. Even if you're the type of idiot to say "Islam" is inherently violent, it's not violent because of depictions of Mohammad, and attacking a core tenet to get at less than 1% of the community is specious at best. And even if your point is to show other Muslims that this ban is dumb and attacking people over it is dumb, you're not going to make any headway with peaceful moderates by attacking them and holding their community responsible for the actions of a few
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That is one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever read. People are saying you should consider how necessary depicting Mohammad is to your message before doing it. You can even apply that rule similarly to polytheists worshiping multiple gods. Doing it as part of your normal worship ceremonies? Totally cool. Walking into a mosque in the middle of Friday prayers and doing it? Not so cool. You can do things that piss people off, just have a good reason to first. Is it alright to show a film about different gods on TV? I mean, it's not strictly necessary, right? Is it okay to have a Christmas-themed adult show at a night club and advertise it? Again, not necessary at all and probably tasteless, but hardly something that should be considered twice if someone wants to do it. If you want to draw a Mohammed (mind you, we're not talking about specific cartoons, just the mere act of drawing the prophet), you do it. Provided it's not on a mosque's wall, of course. I absolutely agree, though, that it's not wrong to discuss offensiveness of particular depictions of Mohammed and that there's a possibility of crossing the line. This, however, doesn't mean for me that simply drawing Mohammed should be something to go into internal debate before doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Acropolis posted:People have a right to take offense, write a stern letter to the editor, draw a counter argument cartoon, write a screed in a publication that supports their view; Not murder people for their beliefs or their words. At worst, if the speech in question is not protected by the free speech laws, the offended can call for a lawsuit. edited for insanely bitchy post But you do have a responsibility, as a satirist conducting his business as what is supposedly a societal necessity, to evaluate whether or not my complaints merit a response. And, if they do merit a response, the manner in which you respond will color your work by revealing the intentions behind it. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Thank you for assuming I was defending the murder of cartoonists and not, say, people vocalizing their discomfort within the parameters of acceptable society. This is exactly the caliber of posting I have come to expect from Politoons. You are totally welcome! I was going for a more generalized response, though. I think it goes both ways here as well, the people attacking CH for their content have the right to say whatever they want too whenever they want to. People can express their discomfort and feel offended but that's on them. Edit: I could be misunderstanding the question too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Disregard that post, I replaced it with something actually productive. Sorry for snapping, I'm in a really foul mood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Is it alright to show a film about different gods on TV? I mean, it's not strictly necessary, right? Is it okay to have a Christmas-themed adult show at a night club and advertise it? Again, not necessary at all and probably tasteless, but hardly something that should be considered twice if someone wants to do it. You really don't get that a part of the Muslim belief is that you do not depict Mohammed in any way, do you? You cannot compare it to any other religion because no other major religion has anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:56
|
|
Acropolis posted:People have a right to take offense, write a stern letter to the editor, draw a counter argument cartoon, write a screed in a publication that supports their view; Not murder people for their beliefs or their words. At worst, if the speech in question is not protected by the free speech laws, the offended can call for a lawsuit. This is fairly ridiculous as a response not just because it misses the point but because it also moves on to suggest that laws are the only things that should concern how we behave and concludes by insisting that you should always dig in your heels instead of engaging with other human beings out of simple decency and desire to communicate. paranoid randroid posted:edited for insanely bitchy post I'd say that somewhat more important for the satirist would be ensuring that their message is understood. Consider, say, Truffaut's maxim on war movies. Of course, that gets into the problem of acknowledging satire can be evil in intent, which many people are loathe to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Can someone put that effortpost on what a Charlie Hebdo number contains somewhere were it can be also seen by other people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Is it alright to show a film about different gods on TV? I mean, it's not strictly necessary, right? Is it okay to have a Christmas-themed adult show at a night club and advertise it? Again, not necessary at all and probably tasteless, but hardly something that should be considered twice if someone wants to do it. Unlike having a film about other gods or a Christmas themed thing, there is not a religion that requires or even suggests that you depict Mohammed. Almost everyone who depicts Mohammed does it to offend Muslims, and if you are doing it for what you feel is an innocent reason you should totally think deeply on it to make sure you don't get misinterpreted as a racist rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I suppose what I'm saying is, if you claim to merely be doing satirical work that is not against the beliefs of ordinary muslims, but your response to criticism from ordinary muslims reveals that you hold their concerns in contempt, that colors your work. I should clarify that I do not believe CH is guilty of this, as I explained in the next post I made in the CH thread paranoid randroid posted:A good example of the kind of engagement I'm talking about in my previous post is the CH cover depicting one of their staff making out with a Muslim man under the heading "Love Conquers All". That alone puts them at a considerable distance from the kind of hateful for hate's own sake depictions of Muslims you see in a lot of American political cartoons - Glenn McCoy would never in a million years draw himself snogging a Muslim. If anyone has access to the contents of that issue, I would be interested in reading whatever article accompanied that cover. Incidentally if anyone is able to get ahold of the contents of that issue and provide a quick once over, I'm still very interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:But you do have a responsibility, as a satirist conducting his business as what is supposedly a societal necessity, to evaluate whether or not my complaints merit a response. And, if they do merit a response, the manner in which you respond will color your work by revealing the intentions behind it. The key thing a lot of folks here are missing is that there is a difference between me saying "you shouldn't do that" and me saying "you should be forbidden from doing that." Using racist caricatures to "poke" at groups that are oppressed minorities in your country is certainly legally allowable, it's just stupid at best and immoral at worst. Refusing to even consider that your joke may have been in poor taste, and joking in even worse taste for the sole purpose of hurting people, is what turns a comedian into a shock jock: is your cartoon meant to help, or to hurt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Stefu posted:Can someone put that effortpost on what a Charlie Hebdo number contains somewhere were it can be also seen by other people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is fairly ridiculous as a response not just because it misses the point but because it also moves on to suggest that laws are the only things that should concern how we behave and concludes by insisting that you should always dig in your heels instead of engaging with other human beings out of simple decency and desire to communicate. You have a good point. In an ideal world we'd all be decent to each other and talk poo poo out. Also for the record: Me = clearly missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
One day people are going to look at the way cartoonists depict Arabs in the same way we look at the way black people and Chinese used to be drawn. At that time our political cartoons will probably be awash with hi-larious racist caricatures of whoever we're bombing (probably Russians), and also Gypsies and transgender people because it's always ok to insult them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:03
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:I suppose what I'm saying is, if you claim to merely be doing satirical work that is not against the beliefs of ordinary muslims, but your response to criticism from ordinary muslims reveals that you hold their concerns in contempt, that colors your work. Which is why I think there should be more willingness to explain art on the behalf of the artist, especially for things like political cartoons and essays. After all, if the goal is clear communication of an idea, and that idea is misinterpreted by audiences, then you have failed as an artist. Of course, this would lead to issues because many people wouldn't want to own up to "we did this because we think Muslims are a danger to Europe and European culture" openly and blatantly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Which is why I think there should be more willingness to explain art on the behalf of the artist, especially for things like political cartoons and essays. After all, if the goal is clear communication of an idea, and that idea is misinterpreted by audiences, then you have failed as an artist. Of course, this would lead to issues because many people wouldn't want to own up to "we did this because we think Muslims are a danger to Europe and European culture" openly and blatantly. I agree.The biggest hitch with the CH cartoons is that a lot of people from environments different from that of France are suddenly being exposed to some very provocative imagery. Unless you're familiar both with the language and the political context, it can be somewhat alarming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Axe-man posted:Hey guys, we should talk about some of those Ramirez comics. They seem pretty racist. Someone get on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That is one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever read. People are saying you should consider how necessary depicting Mohammad is to your message before doing it. You can even apply that rule similarly to polytheists worshiping multiple gods. Doing it as part of your normal worship ceremonies? Totally cool. Walking into a mosque in the middle of Friday prayers and doing it? Not so cool. You can do things that piss people off, just have a good reason to first. ... I live in a country which actually has to deal with a bunch of religious fanatics trying to turn it into their cozy little theocracy. Specifically, I live in the holy city of three religions which a bunch of Jewish orthodox assholes have been trying to take over. Let me spoil the point of the list of examples I'm about to post (because I don't trust your intelligence enough to believe you'll get the point otherwise): Those fuckers will keep on pushing until everything is their "mosque", or their synagogue, or their monastery that you shouldn't enter with your own code of conduct. People (particularly people of the female persuasion) walking around in the wrong clothes (too short, too tight, too revealing, too not-a-full-body-hijab) in Orthodox neighborhoods or next to orthodox neighborhoods or on a streets that a Haredi might consider walking on were likely to be harassed. Politely at first. When it turned out no one cared, said harassment escalated to verbal abuse, throwing garbage, physical harassment. Advertisement posters or general information posters near orthodox neighborhoods depicting women in revealing clothes were defaced. Next, it's any poster showing a female anywhere in Jerusalem. Next, lovely little "the voice of a woman is a oval office" rabbinical quote to hang over anything showing or quoting a woman. Next - people learn their goddamn lesson and you don't see women in advertisements, because all of Jerusalem is apparently a goddamn mosque that you shouldn't offend people for no good reason in. The Pride parade... well, you can imagine how that works. (Actually, that one goes against the grain, insofar at the handful of violent attacks took place before 2010, and the parade has been ongoing for the past decade or so). Edit - Missionaries. Not fond of those jackasses, but I'm in favor of them having the right to (as a fair interpretation) deny the validity of Judaism as a religion, praise Jesus on the streets of Jerusalem and get into bizarre arguments with me in which they refer to Nietzsche as my prophet. Guess how quickly an obscure law forbidding proselytizing was enforced? Guess how many organizations sprang up to defend the And hey - thanks in part to our extraordinary tolerance for the religious feelings of a group of fanatics, Israel is going exactly where its going. Or, as an example of something specific, a bunch of Kahanists feel free to burst onto a train, try to provoke a confrontation with the passengers, and declare that this train / city / country is there for true believers only, and Arabs / Russians / left-wing traitor scum should bugger off into the sea. I'm in favor of staying out of peoples literal mosques, and not getting into their personal space to insult them. But people who want to turn the world into their mosques and extend their personal space to encompass the entire public sphere... yeah. And I can't imagine how you'd think otherwise, except out of sheer contrariness / willful density. There are a lot of things you can do to show solidarity with an oppressed minority. There's a smaller list of things that can actually help that minority step towards equality (Full disclosure - actually helping impoverished Haredi population is probably the last thing on my mind. But still, in theory.) Giving respect and support to the religious fanatics trying to control them and set them at war against the majority population is not on either of those lists. R. Mute posted:
Editx2 - "I'm not saying you had it coming, but you should have considered how you're provoking others". Hmm. Hmm. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
I see Mike Peters has learned about this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Cabinet posted:You really don't get that a part of the Muslim belief is that you do not depict Mohammed in any way, do you? You cannot compare it to any other religion because no other major religion has anything like that. Not you, a Muslim is not supposed to depict Mohammed. And yes, there are things like that. In Orthodox Christianity (and some other strands, too) depicting God the Father outside of very strict iconic rules. It doesn't mean that whenever a cartoonist or an artist wants to draw God as a bearded old man they should carefully consider if there's a way for a cartoon to work without God in it. Elliotw2 posted:Unlike having a film about other gods or a Christmas themed thing, there is not a religion that requires or even suggests that you depict Mohammed. Almost everyone who depicts Mohammed does it to offend Muslims, and if you are doing it for what you feel is an innocent reason you should totally think deeply on it to make sure you don't get misinterpreted as a racist rear end in a top hat. What religion suggests showing films about gods or having Christmas-themed adult parties? I think you've either misread or mistyped something here. I agree that intent is important when judging a particular piece of what is perceived as offensive, but it doesn't mean the author should be more careful about drawing Mohammed than about drawing anything else that has to do with religion and similar topics. Simply drawing Mohammed in and on itself is not offensive. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
 Mississippi Update   (1)Chris McDaniel's back in the headlines again. He's still a State Senator and his agenda this year comprises of two things: term limits for the State Legislature (a good thing) and barring people who voted in one party's primary from voting in another party's run-off (which would mean that people would have to register for their parties, which MS currently doesn't do). Also, his campaign manager is now running for an office (I forget which).  (2)Our state capitol underwent renovations last year/beginning of this year.  (3)When our legislature started up Tuesday, a bunch protesters gathered outside the capital to rally against Common Core and how it allows the FED'RUL GUV'MINT and YE MOORISH KYNGE to dictate what MS students should learn. ('Cause why should our kids have to learn the same things other states' kids do?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Editx2 - "I'm not saying you had it coming, but you should have considered how you're provoking others". Hmm. Hmm. This is what a lot of the anti CH comments are veering towards and It is concerning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
The discussions on this haven't been constructive because everyone is coming from different directions: you've got anti-religious people who feel strongly that religion needs to be critiqued (it should!). You have people who are concerned that Muslims will face more discrimination in the coming weeks (they will). You have people who treasure the concept of "freedom of speech", and believe that nobody should be silenced for their work (they shouldn't!). Finally you have people who hate or fear Islam, who feel their views have been confirmed by the attack (this is not supported by evidence http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/). It's a fractured, messy situation which is exacerbated by emotions. Personally, I'm most concerned about discrimination against Muslims, because I think it's the most potentially dangerous side-effect of the tragedy. Religious criticism—in the west—isn't really in credible danger of being stifled. The same goes for freedom of speech, at least in terms of Charlie-Hebdo style speech. To be honest, the freedom of speech most put in danger by the attack is actually Muslim speech. For example, it's already illegal to wear a headscarf or Burqa in France. No sane politician would put forward a ban on depictions of Muhammad, It would be political suicide. And like it or not, being offended is also speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:16
|
|
