|
baka kaba posted:I'm not going to be particularly surprised if a non-zero fraction of a marginalised and demonised minority is reluctant to 100% rule out the possibility that a violent response could ever, ever be pragmatically necessary.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:To combat images of Mohammed being published? Because the question was specifically about that. Is this an 'it's just a cartoon' argument, ignoring the entirety of the social issues surrounding the majority and minority groups, the power and political imbalance, and the fact that anti-minority propaganda has the potential to endanger people from that minority, possibly requiring desperate people to take some kind of action?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Is this an 'it's just a cartoon' argument, ignoring the entirety of the social issues surrounding the majority and minority groups, the power and political imbalance, and the fact that anti-minority propaganda has the potential to endanger people from that minority, possibly requiring desperate people to take some kind of action? Yes. baka kaba posted:One of the other statements is 'acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified' and 24% disagreed with that
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Ok? That's a bad argument
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Ok? That's a bad argument I'm on your side, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Guardian: "Martin Rowson on Labour's tuition fees pledge – Labour’s high stakes election pledge to lower the annual cap on tuition fees in England from £9,000 to £6,000 has been described as fraudulent by the coalition government" Telegraph:  Why everyone is asking: What colour is this dress?' Times:  Mail: Mac on... the disturbing prospect of head transplants  Stephen Collins: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Is this an 'it's just a cartoon' argument, ignoring the entirety of the social issues surrounding the majority and minority groups, the power and political imbalance, and the fact that anti-minority propaganda has the potential to endanger people from that minority, possibly requiring desperate people to take some kind of action? I'm with you here - there's a danger of reading into this poll exactly the rhetoric people like Farage want - that there is a hidden fifth column of Muslims, a boiling pot of violent potential threat. Has anyone ever answered a poll like this before? I have - you say things you wouldn't have thought you would because of the wording of the question. All the poll shows is how they would answer the poll, you can't comfortably ascribe motivation to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Is this an 'it's just a cartoon' argument, ignoring the entirety of the social issues surrounding the majority and minority groups, the power and political imbalance, and the fact that anti-minority propaganda has the potential to endanger people from that minority, possibly requiring desperate people to take some kind of action? Just to clarify, is your argument here that saying no to the idea that "violence is never justified" doesn't imply that violence is sometimes justified, or that you actively believe that violence is sometimes justified against people who say, write or draw things you don't like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
I can't puzzle out what Rowson's Rube Goldberg Machine is trying to say about UK colleges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I can't puzzle out what Rowson's Rube Goldberg Machine is trying to say about UK colleges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:Just to clarify, is your argument here that saying no to the idea that "violence is never justified" doesn't imply that violence is sometimes justified, or that you actively believe that violence is sometimes justified against people who say, write or draw things you don't like? Neither? People refusing to rule it out are obviously saying it could possibly be justified or necessary in some situation or circumstances, maybe. We know nothing more than that because the poll didn't ask for any detail at all, just gave an eternal absolute and asked people if they accepted it. And it's not surprising that people didn't jump to say 'no it could never possibly be necessary' given, like, history and the current popular anti-Muslim bent. If you think words and writing and images can never amount to anything more powerful and dangerous than making someone say 'wow I don't like this very much' then I don't know what to tell you. Saying 'it's just words/it's just a cartoon' etc. is a lot easier when you're insulated from any of their consequences And to be absolutely clear here, I'm not saying these attacks are justified, or that freedom of speech isn't important - but it's naive and simplistic to think speech can't and doesn't have power, and isn't ever used to attack vulnerable people and turn societies against them. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to rely on the system to protect them and their loved ones, and sometimes people have to take matters into their own hands to try and stop what their society is politely allowing to happen. You understand that, right? That's why never can't be never, not in the world we live in anyway J_RBG posted:I'm with you here - there's a danger of reading into this poll exactly the rhetoric people like Farage want - that there is a hidden fifth column of Muslims, a boiling pot of violent potential threat. Has anyone ever answered a poll like this before? I have - you say things you wouldn't have thought you would because of the wording of the question. All the poll shows is how they would answer the poll, you can't comfortably ascribe motivation to it. Yeah exactly - I mean I completely expected the right-wing rags to jump on whatever gotchas they could, but everyone had seized on the same narrative. Of course they'll be 'just reporting one of the results, just saying' but that's a choice and it's adding to the background of constant demonisation and distrust. Just words though of course, free speech!! McDowell posted:I can't puzzle out what Rowson's Rube Goldberg Machine is trying to say about UK colleges. I'm still looking at it, it's really good. It's packed full of metaphors, I think a labelled version would look like a word cloud e- I just noticed the soft soap scaffolding is Cleggnocchio 
baka kaba fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Or just be one big label that says "THING BAD"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Neither? People refusing to rule it out are obviously saying it could possibly be justified or necessary in some situation or circumstances, maybe. We know nothing more than that because the poll didn't ask for any detail at all, just gave an eternal absolute and asked people if they accepted it. This is a lot of words to obfuscate the fact that your position is that "violence against cartoonists isn't justified, unless actually it is". I wouldn't want to imply here that we should draw sweeping conclusions about how we organise our society from one opinion poll, but the semantic and hypothetical lengths that people will go to excuse completely illiberal and unacceptable beliefs from Muslim communities is ridiculous and hypocritical. I'm sure if a similar poll came out that said that 25% of Israeli settlers thought it was acceptable to kill Palestinian children sometimes, there'd be a line of people chomping at the bit to argue the semantics of the question rather than to actually condemn and challenge those beliefs. I mean, you can certainly pose hypotheticals, but I can't in all honesty envision a situation in which Muslims' physical or social well-being is actually threatened by the publishing of pictures of Muhammed. There are plenty of things that could be or have been written that would fall into that category, but literally the only consequence of doing a drawing of a man is exactly, "wow I don't like this very much". This is to say nothing of the fact that the question is asked in the context of recent murders of cartoonists, not of Muslims being run out onto the street by screaming mobs whipped up by the sight of a turban drawn in black felt-tip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
violence against cartoonists is justified if they're really bad at drawing imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
^^^ Is that why the Express cartoons page doesn't update anymore!?  FullLeatherJacket posted:I mean, you can certainly pose hypotheticals, but I can't in all honesty envision a situation in which Muslims' physical or social well-being is actually threatened by the publishing of pictures of Muhammed. There are plenty of things that could be or have been written that would fall into that category, but literally the only consequence of doing a drawing of a man is exactly, "wow I don't like this very much". Well, why do you accept that written material can fall into that category? It's 'just words', after all, like how cartoons are 'just pictures'. What dangerous influence can published writing have that cartoons absolutely cannot? I mean, surely you understand that drawing pictures of Mohammed is very often a direct attack on the beliefs and culture of a minority, and that's the entire point of drawing him? And it's often aimed just as much at the rest of society as a way of stirring up tension and division and resentment? And that can spill over into real-life consequences for people, just like with writing? There isn't a neat dividing line like you seem to believe, and 'never' is about the strongest line you can draw. I mean this is my point - 25% of people won't give an unqualified 'never justified' to an incredibly broad question about a complex social and cultural issue, with real political ramifications, in a climate of mistrust and hostility. No poo poo? FullLeatherJacket posted:This is to say nothing of the fact that the question is asked in the context of recent murders of cartoonists, not of Muslims being run out onto the street by screaming mobs whipped up by the sight of a turban drawn in black felt-tip. Well for a little context, when given the statement 'Britain is becoming less tolerant of Muslims' 46% agreed and 49% disagreed. That's a lot of people who feel their own country is becoming more hostile toward them (48% of women and 45% of men, if you're interested). And that's here, never mind in other countries where far worse is happening to people, events that may well have been in the minds of people asked to rule out the possibility that violence could ever be justified. And on the stats note
Anyway this is all UK and cartoons and UK Cartoons related but I feel like I'm derailing things, but I hope y'all arguing with me at least understand that cartoons aren't always just harmless inconsequential funnies (or in BoB's case just harmless and inconsequential) 
baka kaba fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
I think the possible answer no one wants to mention is that there probably is a non-zero percentage of people who are fervent enough in their beliefs to think straight up that it's okay to perpetrate violence against people attacking their religion's commandments; the problem is that's not uniquely Muslim. No one is going around comparing this to polling UK Christians with 'acts of violence against those who are homosexual can never be justified' or anything. Conveniently, religions other than Islam aren't being called to account for their crazies and no one is trying to imply they're as all as bad as their absolute worst elements, or that they're all a threat because X% of them might be dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
otoh http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
Somebody fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Yeah I'd be interested to see what percentage of the population thinks that violence could be justified against, say, people desecrating ARE FLAG or poppies. Apparently 3% of MPs called for legislation making burning the Union Jack a criminal offence 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
That's a disingenuous comparison and you know it. Christianity does not have a highly valued religious law against depicting Jesus, even in a negative way. On the other hand, modern Christianity DOES espouse that homosexuality is banned. Surely no one openly called for the death of all homosexuals. But hey, that's just words, right? I'm sure no one acted on those beliefs, right? Or is freedom of speech okay but loving who you want is such an aggressive act that you forfeit your right to live? Islam isn't the only religion that has people doing violent things in its name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Well, why do you accept that written material can fall into that category? It's 'just words', after all, like how cartoons are 'just pictures'. What dangerous influence can published writing have that cartoons absolutely cannot? I mean, surely you understand that drawing pictures of Mohammed is very often a direct attack on the beliefs and culture of a minority, and that's the entire point of drawing him? And it's often aimed just as much at the rest of society as a way of stirring up tension and division and resentment? And that can spill over into real-life consequences for people, just like with writing? There are certain arguments and statements that are made with the very deliberate intention of promoting racial hatred and violence. The idea of Jews running around poisoning wells being a classic historical one. I can absolutely see and support the idea that those sorts of things shouldn't be simply filed away under "free speech" and could completely understand if Muslim communities felt action should be taken against people making those accusations. However, simply being able to do and say things that might be taken as offensive to a particular interest group is ostensibly the entire purpose of freedom of expression. Saying that there's a legitimate case to resort to violence simply because something might cause community discord (if the group offended by it respond with hostility, since there's no reason for anyone else to care) is basically abrogating centuries of human rights in order to pander to the worst elements of those interest groups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Its telling that you went out looking for that stuff and couldn't find any from the UK. I suspect you would find the percentage of people who think that physical violence against homosexuals for being homosexual to be well below 24% of the population of British Christians, probably American ones too (which is where both of your examples came from.) I wonder how low it would be for British Muslims though? A lot of these arguments are missing the point anyways. If you want to complain about speech being used to cause violence it IS the text that is at fault, it is almost never the images. Its hard to imagine an image of Muhammad -no matter what it is- driving people to kill Muslims, its not that hard to imagine the written word being used in that way. Cliff Racer fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Its telling that you went out looking for that stuff and couldn't find any from the UK. I suspect you would find the percentage of people who think that physical violence against homosexuals for being homosexual to be well below 24% of the population of British Christians, probably American ones too (which is where both of your examples came from.) I wonder how low it would be for British Muslims though? I "went looking" for them in that I checked google in like two seconds and didn't bother filtering to the UK. Images have served as powerful propaganda throughout the ages, I don't think it's fair to say that just because it's not text it can't incite action. And regardless of whether or not it would be below 24%, the fact remains that no one bothered checking, and yet considered it worth checking for Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:There are certain arguments and statements that are made with the very deliberate intention of promoting racial hatred and violence. The idea of Jews running around poisoning wells being a classic historical one. I can absolutely see and support the idea that those sorts of things shouldn't be simply filed away under "free speech" and could completely understand if Muslim communities felt action should be taken against people making those accusations. Great! So we're agreed on the fairly mundane observation that dangerous racial tension can be stirred up by propaganda, and there's a hypothetical possibility, no matter how small, that a situation could occur somewhere that necessitates some amount of violent action to stop it before it goes too far. A sad fact of life, but the world is still full of violence and bigotry, and sometimes high-minded principles aren't enough to protect people. So you're understanding about potential reactions to your example of propaganda against a maligned and distrusted religious and cultural minority. Why are you so surprised that a large chunk of another religious minority also understands that violence might be necessary, in the context of a common vector of attack against them? I mean, it's not like everyone actually believed that Jews went around murdering babies, but there was power in otherising the group, painting them as suspicious and different and seditious, plotting to take power and impose their own sinister control - continually pushing an idea and building on existing prejudice. You must at least see the parallels between that and the way Muslims are treated and depicted in this country, the constant talk of Islamification and how they want to impose Sharia Law, and what are the women hiding under there [Times Cartoon], and we'll print whatever cartoons we want even if you want to control us. That's just a basic example of how it's not always just 'funny man cartoon religion is dumb', it can be a tool to push buttons and stir up distrust and hatred in a society FullLeatherJacket posted:However, simply being able to do and say things that might be taken as offensive to a particular interest group is ostensibly the entire purpose of freedom of expression. Saying that there's a legitimate case to resort to violence simply because something might cause community discord (if the group offended by it respond with hostility, since there's no reason for anyone else to care) is basically abrogating centuries of human rights in order to pander to the worst elements of those interest groups. Good thing nobody in here or in the poll said that then!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:And to be absolutely clear here, I'm not saying these attacks are justified, or that freedom of speech isn't important - but
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah I'd be interested to see what percentage of the population thinks that violence could be justified against, say, people desecrating ARE FLAG or poppies. Apparently 3% of MPs called for legislation making burning the Union Jack a criminal offence Based on Facebook / article comments the last time this happened it's quite a lot! Concerning attitudes towards homosexuality, it's not just the Muslim community that's composed of around 25% shitheads: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/09/10/survey-a-quarter-of-people-in-the-uk-disagree-with-homosexuality-but-acceptance-continues-to-rise/
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-10037734.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:That's a disingenuous comparison and you know it. Christianity does not have a highly valued religious law against depicting Jesus, even in a negative way. On the other hand, modern Christianity DOES espouse that homosexuality is banned. Surely no one openly called for the death of all homosexuals. But hey, that's just words, right? I'm sure no one acted on those beliefs, right? Or is freedom of speech okay but loving who you want is such an aggressive act that you forfeit your right to live? Islam isn't the only religion that has people doing violent things in its name. I don't know what "highly valued (whatever that means) law" you're talking about. But that's hardly the issue here. People are being murdered because they insulted Islam. It's not that the perceived need to zealously enforce some obscure hadith compels the terrorists to act. As the picture illustrates, the other major world religions can be insulted without any violent reaction. There is no single, monolithic "modern Christianity". And while I assume that a majority of denominations still prohibit homosexuality, there are exceptions. The stories you linked do little to support a claim that there exists widespread approval for violence against homosexuals among Christians. That's the reason no one's polling Christians. Things would probably be different if we actually had Christian terrorist groups, comparable to ISIS and al-Qaeda, carrying out terrorist attacks against homosexuals across Europe. The dichotomy you suggest doesn't exist. In reality, the organisations responsible for attacks against blasphemers are also the ones most likely to persecute and murder homosexuals in the territories they control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Observer: "Britain's widening generation gap – Chris Riddell on pre-election politics dividing young and the old" Independent on Sunday: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah I'd be interested to see what percentage of the population thinks that violence could be justified against, say, people desecrating ARE FLAG or poppies. Apparently 3% of MPs called for legislation making burning the Union Jack a criminal offence I don't believe that any level of state violence is justified in response to drawing pictures of Mohammed or burning flags/poppies, but I also don't think someone saying "they should all be thrown in prison" is on the same level as supporting vigilante groups shooting up an office. They would both count as a person disagreeing with the statement "Acts of violence against those who [Mohammed flag poppies etc.] can never be justified" though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
A tragic, condemnable event, and I expect all the Je Swee Charlieie crowd to condemn it on a personal and collective level. As an aside, I wonder what % of the general public considers the Chapel Hill Shooting as being "justifiable"; more or less than 11%, you think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is a good point, because the poll didn't ask who should be committing the violence. All criminal proceedings, from fines up to public beheading, are inherently violent acts of the state, but society (except for idealist anarchists and Freeman on the Land bullshit) generally accepts some level of state violence in response to some activities. Jesus Christ, this semantics chat has gone completely off the rails now. What real person ever thinks fines are a form of violence? Yes, sure, people who disagreed with the statement have all majored in social studies and decided to go with a completely irrelevant pseudo-academic definition of the word for their answer in a telephone poll. That makes all the sense now. There is no problem that should be addressed at all. See also: a bloody dictionary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:A tragic, condemnable event, and I expect all the Je Swee Charlieie crowd to condemn it on a personal and collective level. Are you trying to imply the 11% of Muslims who agreed with 'organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammad deserve to be attacked' were all actually saying 'murdering people in cold blood is justifiable'? This is exactly the kind of poo poo I'm talking about. Nobody has a clue what those people meant when they answered these vague questions, but we sure have some prejudices to fall back on and fill in the blanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Jesus Christ, this semantics chat has gone completely off the rails now. What real person ever thinks fines are a form of violence? Yes, sure, people who disagreed with the statement have all majored in social studies and decided to go with a completely irrelevant pseudo-academic definition of the word for their answer in a telephone poll. That makes all the sense now. There is no problem that should be addressed at all. There's a problem if British Muslims believe that the courts should enact violence against people who publish pictures of Mohammed, but it's not the same problem as if they believe that vigilante groups should go around shooting them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
taxation is violence, ergo taxing muslims is a hate crime ron farage 2020
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
I think this is where someone normally quotes the Holy Grail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Are you trying to imply the 11% of Muslims who agreed with 'organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammad deserve to be attacked' were all actually saying 'murdering people in cold blood is justifiable'? I guess since we don't know we should just shrug and assume the best. Btw do we know if the people answering were coerced into answering? Because if we assume that they were not, then that % saw a vague question and still responded in the absolute and in a way that is easy to misconstrue. Maybe they meant nothing with it, maybe not. But not knowing does not imply somehow that the way you see it is the correct one either, we just don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
No we should definitely assume the worst about minorities, good plan. The 'way I see it' is that there are multiple possible interpretations for questions like these, and nobody has a goddamn clue what anyone actually meant, but because they're Muslims people think it's ok to jump to the worst possible interpretation because them Muslims, they're all shifty and violent about their religion aren't they? If you asked Christians if organisations mocking Christian beliefs deserve to be attacked, practically nobody would assume that meant deadly violence, because we know that most people don't think that way. Even though Christians around the world threaten and commit violent acts based on their religious beliefs and identification, most of us are at least familiar enough with the religion to know that the average Christian isn't a rabid fundamentalist. But when it comes to the average Muslim it's suddenly ok to automatically assume everyone's an extremist, because the actions of those violent groups and individuals are suddenly representative of all 1 billion Muslims Sorry, I'm just not a fan of the right-wing turn this country's publicly taking. I'm not surprised half the Muslims here feel the place is getting less tolerant of them and that prejudice is making it difficult to even live here as a Muslim. That's a really poo poo situation for all of us, and it's something people should be ashamed of, not gleefully participating in with sensationalised headlines about them
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:If you asked Christians if organisations mocking Christian beliefs deserve to be attacked, practically nobody would assume that meant deadly violence, because we know that most people don't think that way. Even though Christians around the world threaten and commit violent acts based on their religious beliefs and identification, most of us are at least familiar enough with the religion to know that the average Christian isn't a rabid fundamentalist. But when it comes to the average Muslim it's suddenly ok to automatically assume everyone's an extremist, because the actions of those violent groups and individuals are suddenly representative of all 1 billion Muslims Actually, every christian who supported the Iraq war did so in order to wank over all the dead Muslim women and children that the conflict caused. The only question is what it is about their culture that makes them so prone to violence? Strawman fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Guardian: "Martin Rowson on ancient Rome and the coalition" Churches call government welfare sanctions 'inhumane and un-Christian' Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph:  Ed Miliband to cut student fees with raid on middle class pensions Telegraph:  Boris Nemtsov murder: Tens of thousands march in Moscow Independent:  Times: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
 Ok who's going to translate the latin?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:43
|
|