Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
ronya
Nov 8, 2010

I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Nilbop posted:

A man who's led his country for 25 years is probably at least a little bit representative of that country. That's my horrible opinion.

re: Malaysia

Malaysia has essentially no Jewish population, which makes them a free punching bag. Both the Malay reformists and Malay ultranationalists will engage in it (most notoriously demonstrated during the 1Malaysia APCO scandal, where both sides took turns accusing each other of being more infiltrated by Zionists). There's a saying about how Arab support for fighting Israel "to the last Egyptian" is directly proportional to their distance from Israel* - that's true in the opposite direction on the Islamic crescent nations too. It's a cheap way to score points.

A sample from the APCO tussle in 2010 (note that Bersih was the progressive dissident organisation in this exchange, supporting Anwar Ibrahim at the time. This was whilst Mahathir was notionally retired):

quote:

HULU SELANGOR, April 18 — The first day of the official Hulu Selangor campaign saw the main contenders, Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, exchange allegations of Jewish links against each other in the race for the majority Malay vote.

Malays form more than half of the 64,500 voters who will have to pick between BN, PR and two independents contesting the April 25 by-election, the 10th since Election 2008.

A BN campaigner from Johor, Rosdi Amir slammed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, claiming it was ironic that the opposition leader himself was linking the ruling BN government with Israel for hiring communication consultant, APCO Worldwide.

“His media adviser is an Pakistani-American, who is funded by the Jews,” Rosdi bluntly told his audience in Kampung Pasir Kerling without giving any names, while campaigning for P. Kamalanathan.

Kamalanathan is facing PKR’s Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and independents Johan Md Diah and V.S. Chandran for the seat left vacant by the death of PKR MP Datuk Dr Zainal Abidin Ahmad, who won by a narrow 198 votes in Election 2008.

Speaking in the constituency located more that 7,000 kilometres from Tel Aviv, Rosdi alleged that Anwar’s tenure as visiting professor at an American university was funded by Jewish groups.

“[More] proof that he is funded by the Jews was when he was appointed as lecturer John Hopkins University with the financial assistance from the Jews,” he added.

He claimed that Anwar would end up as a ‘Jewish puppet’, should he takes over the government.

“They like to manipulate weak leaders from various countries,” Rosdi said.

Citing more Jewish links for PR, he accused DAP of being under Jewish control as it is a member of the Socialist International.

Rosdi described the International Jewish Labour Bund, World Labour Zionist Movement, Israeli Labour Party and New Movement-Meretz, all members of the Socialist International as the backbone of the organisation.

“Do we want them or their friends to become our leaders,” said Rosdi, a practicing lawyer.

“I’m only presenting facts here,” he told the all-Malay crowd while showing his prepared notes.

Some 300 metres away at a PKR-organised rally, Anwar used Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s criticism of APCO to support his argument against what he called a company with strong links to the Israeli military.

“Strangely today, Dr Mahathir too disagrees with APCO but Umno Youth leaders are trying very hard to defend it,” Anwar told the Malay-majority crowd.

Dr Mahathir has been waging a campaign against Israel for its occupation of Palestinian territories and has disapproved the use of APCO by the Najib administration for public relations work.

PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin also repeated accusations that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s government is close to the Israelis.

“For the first time in the history of our country the government hires Jews, Zionists as consultants,” said Shamsul before hundreds of party loyalists.

“They accused Anwar of being a Jewish agent but they hired a Jewish company, when we showed the contract in Parliament, they chose to be silent,” he told the crowd.

The government’s alleged link with the Israelis was first raised by Anwar in Parliament last month when he said Najib’s 1 Malaysia was a carbon copy of Ehud Barak’s One Israel, claiming APCO was behind both campaigns.

But APCO has denied the allegations and Anwar has been referred to the powerful rights and privileges committee in parliament for making the accusations.

“Let us save our country from leaders who are conspiring with Zionists,” said Shamsul.

BN is already facing the risk of losing Malay votes after Najib announced that Petronas has stopped supplying gasoline to Iran ahead of further global sanctions.

The prime minister, however, denied the reports saying that the transaction was a one-off sale and there has been no more request.

Niibop is not wrong to suggest that this is normalised rhetoric.

Note that Malaysia's proud non-recognition of Israel has not stopped it from building a healthy trade relationship (particularly in electronics - discreetly proxied through Thailand, the most well-known of which being Intel finishing chips fabbed in Kiryat Gat in the final assembly plant in Penang), nor has Malaysia positioning itself as an anti-Western, anti-IMF leader stopped it from playing host to the US Seventh Fleet in the Pacific.

* Boutros-Ghali: "Algeria wants to fight Israel to the last Egyptian soldier... The zeal of the Algerian brothers toward the Palestinian question is in proportion to the distance that separates Algeria from Israel. The farther away... the greater the zeal."

ronya fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Oct 29, 2020

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Cat Mattress posted:

I think we can all agree the idea that worshiping a caricature of Muhammad is a ludicrous idea, so these toons are not idolatry.

So they call it blasphemy instead. But blasphemy is to insult God. If insulting the prophet is insulting God, then it means that the prophet is God. And that's worshiping the prophet, which is heresy.

I know you're on probation, but I think one thing you're missing is that these types of cartoons often come off as another example of the French non-Muslim majority punching downward towards a marginalized minority. Ridiculing something that brings comfort to a group that already gets way too much poo poo is still a dick move, even if it's not technically either blasphemous or idolatrous.

Antifa Poltergeist
Jun 3, 2004

"We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you"



Its racist kabuki theather, theres a lot of people being played.no one cares as long as the money flows.
Then a true believer gets into power and welp.

V. Illych L.
Apr 11, 2008

ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

honestly leery about affording religious minorities the sort of protection we afford ethnic minorities

it's not always easily disentangled, but in general an organised religion, when attacked clearly in terms of being a religion, needs to suck it up.

V. Illych L.
Apr 11, 2008

ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

obviously official state groups shouldn't be doing this stufd, but vulgar mags like charlie hebdo will do what they do, and it's legitimately important that they be allowed to

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

V. Illych L. posted:

honestly leery about affording religious minorities the sort of protection we afford ethnic minorities

it's not always easily disentangled, but in general an organised religion, when attacked clearly in terms of being a religion, needs to suck it up.

We're talking about a religion that is often racialized in the West, though. There's a reason why white supremacists often mistake Sikhs for Muslims and beat them up or kill them, for example.

Herstory Begins Now
Aug 5, 2003
SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Cat Mattress posted:

The ban on depictions of the prophet in Islam is a ban against idolatry. Basically: the prophet was just a man and should not be worshiped as a god, because there is no God but God. Muhammad insisted that he should be seen as a normal man, that being a prophet was not the same as having a divine nature (contrarily to Christianity's view of Jesus).

I think we can all agree the idea that worshiping a caricature of Muhammad is a ludicrous idea, so these toons are not idolatry.

So they call it blasphemy instead. But blasphemy is to insult God. If insulting the prophet is insulting God, then it means that the prophet is God. And that's worshiping the prophet, which is heresy.

This whole caricature of the prophet saga started with a Danish newspaper. This led to a complete fabrication where Danish imams started using cartoons not published by the JP while pretending that they were, so as to create international outrage. Because the actual cartoons were seen as not outrageous enough to work. The same thing happened with the assassination of Samuel Paty. He was accused by someone who was not even in his class, and killed by someone else who was not even in his class.


This is a cartoon of Erdogan. Are people worshiping Erdogan now? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. But basically it's calling him a hypocrite, which makes sense.

Right at the time when Erdogan and his buddies (Imran Khan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and similar) are organizing a vast campaign of francophobia with :godwin: claims about how Muslims are treated in France, they're also surprisingly silent about how Muslims are treated in, say, China. Or we could talk about how the Shia and Ahmadi are treated in Pakistan. I guess they're not real Muslims.

Oh, and stuff like that is happening, too:
https://twitter.com/YigitKarahan69/status/1321529896829620226

Let's be clear: it's not about religion, it's about politics. Let's go back to the Akkari-Laban dossier. The relevant part:

In other words: Europeans are infidels (guess what the Quran says about what Muslims should do to infidels? Yep, exactly what has happened to Samuel Paty and the three people assassinated in the Nice church), their values of democracy and human rights are actually dictatorial, the real democracy is when you have a theocratic autocracy. This is the message that the Erdogans of the world want Muslims to believe.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

What the absolute gently caress is this poo poo

V. Illych L.
Apr 11, 2008

ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

Majorian posted:

We're talking about a religion that is often racialized in the West, though. There's a reason why white supremacists often mistake Sikhs for Muslims and beat them up or kill them, for example.

sure, but, like, i'm going to stay skeptical of the whole all-male clergy thing and strict gender segregation that goes on

e.g. the 'tout est pardonné' cover is an outright masterpiece

Doctor Malaver
May 23, 2007

Ce qui s'est passé t'a rendu plus fort

Majorian posted:

We're talking about a religion that is often racialized in the West, though. There's a reason why white supremacists often mistake Sikhs for Muslims and beat them up or kill them, for example.

Where do these killings by white supremacists occur? I'm googling "Sikh killed" and it's pages upon pages of Sikhs killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

V. Illych L. posted:

sure, but, like, i'm going to stay skeptical of the whole all-male clergy thing and strict gender segregation that goes on

That's fine, imo. It's the difference between criticizing the Catholic Church for its all-male hierarchy on the one hand, and using Catholicism as a proxy to punch down at Italian and Irish people, which happened a lot in the U.S. in the past.

Doctor Malaver posted:

Where do these killings by white supremacists occur? I'm googling "Sikh killed" and it's pages upon pages of Sikhs killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We had a big one here in the U.S. in 2012.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Oct 29, 2020

generic metric
Jul 1, 2008

V. Illych L. posted:

honestly leery about affording religious minorities the sort of protection we afford ethnic minorities

it's not always easily disentangled, but in general an organised religion, when attacked clearly in terms of being a religion, needs to suck it up.

It's always been entangled.
We literally had to flee because we weren't practicing muslims, but Europeans are still consistently islamophobic against me. Gee i wonder why :thunk:
Europe has a lot of racist cryptofash hiding behind arguments that they're just critical of religions. my loving rear end they are

In any case even if it was disentangled it is really loving stupid to get reactionary about islam due to terrorist/extremists attacks. It is what they want and you're actually doing them a favour if you do smdh.

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

I know you're on probation, but I think one thing you're missing is that these types of cartoons often come off as another example of the French non-Muslim majority punching downward towards a marginalized minority. Ridiculing something that brings comfort to a group that already gets way too much poo poo is still a dick move, even if it's not technically either blasphemous or idolatrous.

Charlie Hebdo go after everybody though. If somebody wants to draw an image of Mohammed to prove a point, they're free to do it.

It's the same issue with South Park; they're not anti-Islamic, they go after every religion and everything they perceive as worthy of mockery or ridicule. Yet when word got out that they were planning an episode with Mohammed as a character in it the studio got so many death threats that they had to pull the episode from the air, and block out the character in syndication.

ronya
Nov 8, 2010

I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Majorian posted:

That's fine, imo. It's the difference between criticizing the Catholic Church for its all-male hierarchy on the one hand, and using Catholicism as a proxy to punch down at Italian and Irish people, which happened a lot in the U.S. in the past.

isn't French laïcité far more aggressive than US notions of a secular society

100YrsofAttitude
Apr 29, 2013




ronya posted:

isn't French laïcité far more aggressive than US notions of a secular society

The United States isn't a secular society. Period.

The issue between ethnicity and religion is dumb because it shouldn't be the case but it is and it's super thorny.

As far as I'm concerned any sort of organized religion is trying for a theocracy. It's kind of the point, isn't it? I suppose they play by the rules since nation-states are the go-to political entities these days, but I'm pretty sure most Organized Religions would be just as happy to be only game in town as was the case not too long ago.

Cicero
Dec 17, 2003

Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

100YrsofAttitude posted:

The United States isn't a secular society. Period.
Nah, the US definitely has its own version of secularism. Moving from the states to Germany, that people were less personally religious was anticipated, but I didn't anticipate the extent to which religion was mingled with institutions here. I don't think you'd ever get Americans to accept the tax agency collecting tithes on behalf of religions, especially when it's mandatory if you're officially a member.

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Nilbop posted:

Charlie Hebdo go after everybody though. If somebody wants to draw an image of Mohammed to prove a point, they're free to do it.

The fact that they're "free" to doesn't mean it's a helpful thing to do, though. Fox News is "allowed" to put out racist dogwhistles nightly; that doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem. "They go after everybody" is not really a convincing argument, imo; you're still punching down if part of that "everybody" is a marginalized minority.

ronya
Nov 8, 2010

I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.
specifically in that still-fighting-culture-wars-over-expropriating-the-churches-a-century-ago way

Doctor Malaver
May 23, 2007

Ce qui s'est passé t'a rendu plus fort

Majorian posted:

The fact that they're "free" to doesn't mean it's a helpful thing to do, though. Fox News is "allowed" to put out racist dogwhistles nightly; that doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem. "They go after everybody" is not really a convincing argument, imo; you're still punching down if part of that "everybody" is a marginalized minority.

"I'm not saying they had it coming, but..."

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

The fact that they're "free" to doesn't mean it's a helpful thing to do, though. "They go after everybody" is not really a convincing argument, imo; you're still punching down if part of that "everybody" is a marginalized minority.

Wait, helpful to who or what? They're treating Islam equally as every other religion. They're mocking or critiquing it as they mock or critique everybody. Charlie Hebdo are not the problem here; enforcing one's religious views upon others is. Exacting that enforcement through murder is.

quote:

Fox News is "allowed" to put out racist dogwhistles nightly; that doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem.

FOX News are a reprehensible organization, but if they put out something racist (or untrue, or X, Y, Z) they can be, have been and are prosecuted before the law.

Cicero
Dec 17, 2003

Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Nilbop posted:

FOX News are a reprehensible organization, but if they put out something racist (or untrue, or X, Y, Z) they can be, have been and are prosecuted before the law.
A news organization saying something racist isn't against the law. Lying isn't necessarily against the law either (which is part of why they can still exist).

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...
In the UK making racist comments on air would be flagged under hate-speech, I'm making the assumption that broadcast racism is similarly prosecuted in the US.

Cicero
Dec 17, 2003

Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Nilbop posted:

In the UK making racist comments on air would be flagged under hate-speech, I'm making the assumption that broadcast racism is similarly prosecuted in the US.
Then you're not properly informed; hate speech is by default legal in the US. It's included as a part of free speech, in the first amendment to the constitution.

There are instances where it can be effectively illegal, but saying something racist on-air isn't one of them, I don't think. At least, not by itself.

edit: actually, if it's on public airwaves that might be different compared to cable/satellite/streaming TV

Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Oct 29, 2020

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Doctor Malaver posted:

"I'm not saying they had it coming, but..."

I don't believe I ever suggested that violence was an appropriate response.

Nilbop posted:

Wait, helpful to who or what? They're treating Islam equally as every other religion.

Yeah, but that's kind of the problem - not every religion, or religious-ethnic group, has the same power dynamic with the white French majority. Catholicism's relationship with French society is very different from Islam's, especially over the past couple centuries.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Oct 29, 2020

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

Yeah, but that's kind of the problem - not every religion, or religious-ethnic group, has the same power dynamic with the French majority. Catholicism's relationship with French society is very different from Islam's, especially over the past couple centuries.

Islam being doctrinally and historically different to Catholicism is not an arguement to treat it different before the law.

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Nilbop posted:

Islam being doctrinally and historically different to Catholicism is not an arguement to treat it different before the law.

Who said anything about treating it differently before the law? What I'm saying is, Charlie Hebdo should probably punch down less.

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

Who said anything about treating it differently before the law? What I'm saying is, Charlie Hebdo should probably punch down less.

Charlie Hebdo has been published since 1970. How often to your knowledge has it printed images of Mohammed?

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Nilbop posted:

Charlie Hebdo has been published since 1970. How often to your knowledge has it printed images of Mohammed?

No idea! It kind of seems to me like one time is too many, though.

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

No idea! It kind of seems to me like one time is too many, though.

If you want to forbid people from talking about something at all then I'm much more wary of you than Charlie Hebdo.

Cicero
Dec 17, 2003

Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.
Targeting poor immigrants is bad, but targeting religion is okay.

Glah
Jun 21, 2005

Majorian posted:

The fact that they're "free" to doesn't mean it's a helpful thing to do, though. Fox News is "allowed" to put out racist dogwhistles nightly; that doesn't mean they aren't part of the problem. "They go after everybody" is not really a convincing argument, imo; you're still punching down if part of that "everybody" is a marginalized minority.
Never quite got this "punching down" argument. A 21 year old radicalized Tunisian immigrant feels punched in French society so he decides to...punch up by beheading a 70 year old churchgoer? Does it change the moral calculus in any way? How useful are these kinds of analyses on power dynamics really? Like in Charlie Hebdo attacks, who was wielding the greater power, terrorists or the victims? What useful information can we gain from this discourse? Simplifying everything to the narrative of oppression takes away the agency of extremists and imo does disservice to the millions of muslims who don't get radicalized in Europe. There is more to radicalization process than just oppression. Material conditions matter ofc but we should look especially to the ideology of extremists. Belief is a powerful tool and it is in the content of it that we can truly understand the process. Deport and censure imams preaching extremism, stop supporting House of Saudi and their Wahhabism etc..

mortons stork
Oct 13, 2012

Glah posted:

stop supporting House of Saudi and their Wahhabism etc..

Well, have I got some bad news on this front for you now

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Nilbop posted:

If you want to forbid people from talking about something at all then I'm much more wary of you than Charlie Hebdo.

Again, who said anything about "forbidding" people? I'm saying they should make the editorial choice on their own volition, because it's the right thing to do.

Glah posted:

Never quite got this "punching down" argument. A 21 year old radicalized Tunisian immigrant feels punched in French society so he decides to...punch up by beheading a 70 year old churchgoer? Does it change the moral calculus in any way?

No, because violence is bad.

quote:

How useful are these kinds of analyses on power dynamics really? Like in Charlie Hebdo attacks, who was wielding the greater power, terrorists or the victims?

Right, but I'm talking about the broader power dynamics that exist day-to-day in France, in Europe, and in the West in general. The fact that the power dynamic was reversed for a very brief span of time doesn't change the fact that Muslims in France are still very much a marginalized, underprivileged minority that's regularly subjected to violence. This is particularly the case when one recognizes that Islamist extremists don't represent most Muslims in France or anywhere else.

quote:

What useful information can we gain from this discourse? Simplifying everything to the narrative of oppression takes away the agency of extremists and imo does disservice to the millions of muslims who don't get radicalized in Europe.

But I'm not simplifying the narrative of oppression; I'm introducing it into a discussion that has so far largely neglected that factor. The fact that extremists have agency and do evil things doesn't change the fact that hey, Muslims face a lot of discrimination in France. Acknowledging that fact doesn't magically mean that one is playing the apologist for the extremists, or denying that they have agency.

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

Again, who said anything about "forbidding" people? I'm saying they should make the editorial choice on their own volition, because it's the right thing to do.

You just said one time was too many. And you've done nothing to support your claim that not printing an image of Mohammed is "the right thing to do."

Doctor Malaver
May 23, 2007

Ce qui s'est passé t'a rendu plus fort

Majorian posted:

I don't believe I ever suggested that violence was an appropriate response.

As luck would have it, I posted this in the EE thread only 9 days ago.

Doctor Malaver posted:

There was recently a comics exhibition in Serbia with "provocative" art (dead babies). Organizers received death threats to which police didn't react. The exhibition got raided by masked nationalists who destroyed it and threw tear gas. The Serbian Ministry of culture reacted by saying that they condemn violence (short part of the statement) but that the exhibition never should have taken place because it's degenerate art by people with sick minds (much longer part).

This reminded me of the treatment of art in Nazi Germany and early Soviet union. I'd like to mix a nazi quote, a Soviet one, and the 2020 Serbian quote as a quiz - can you tell which is which.

Does anyone have actual Soviet or nazi quotes from that period? I'm reading "Degenerate art : the fate of the avant-garde in Nazi Germany" so I hope to find fitting nazi quotes there, but I don't have a similar source for Soviets. I don't speak German or Russian, sadly.

So congratulations on following the spirit of one of the most autocratic, nationalist, and corrupt governments in Europe.

In the Charlie Hebdo attack 12 people were killed and 11 wounded. People sharing the same ideals go around these days literally beheading people. These attacks deserve nothing short of absolute condemnation (yes, you can do it without turning Islamophobic), not tut-tutting about the provocative art.

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Doctor Malaver posted:

As luck would have it, I posted this in the EE thread only 9 days ago.


So congratulations on following the spirit of one of the most autocratic, nationalist, and corrupt governments in Europe.

:laffo: That's a bit of a stretch there. I'm not the French government; I don't have any control over extending or not extending police protection to an art exhibition or a satirical publication's offices. If I did have that control, I probably would have; these were oversights on the part of their respective governments. It doesn't change the fact that Charlie Hebdo punches downward on Muslims.

quote:

In the Charlie Hebdo attack 12 people were killed and 11 wounded. People sharing the same ideals go around these days literally beheading people. These attacks deserve nothing short of absolute condemnation (yes, you can do it without turning Islamophobic), not tut-tutting about the provocative art.

And one can call out bigotry without endorsing violence that is supposedly a reaction to that bigotry - which is what I'm doing in this discussion.

Nilbop posted:

You just said one time was too many. And you've done nothing to support your claim that not printing an image of Mohammed is "the right thing to do."

Choosing not to punch down and ridicule something important and comforting to a marginalized minority population is absolutely the right thing to do.

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

Choosing not to punch down and ridicule something important and comforting to a marginalized minority population is absolutely the right thing to do.

I'm going to challenge you to make this arguement without the phrase "punching down" in it, because it's really not helping you.

Depicting Mohammed is forbidden in Islam. This does not apply to non-believers. If cartoonists want to depict Mohammed as a representation of Islam, whether it be for ridicule or not, they should be free to do so.

As others have stated in this thread, you seem to be conflating immigrants and religion, and trying to protect one under the auspices of the other being disenfranchised or at-risk.

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Nilbop posted:

I'm going to challenge you to make this arguement without the phrase "punching down" in it, because it's really not helping you.

All right, try, "Making the French Muslim population feel increasingly unwelcome in France." Saying, "They are welcome, they just have to let us ridicule something that they hold extremely dear" is not really a fair precondition for letting an economically and socially disadvantaged group try to assimilate.

quote:

Depicting Mohammed is forbidden in Islam. This does not apply to non-believers. If cartoonists want to depict Mohammed as a representation of Islam, whether it be for ridicule or not, they should be free to do so.

And, as I said, I agree they should be free to do so. Their freedom to publish stuff like that is not what's at question here. The question is, is it right for them to do so?

quote:

As others have stated in this thread, you seem to be conflating immigrants and religion, and trying to protect one under the auspices of the other being disenfranchised or at-risk.

As I and others have pointed out in this thread, Islam has become a racialized religion in Western perceptions. As generic metric pointed out, to white supremacists, a non-practicing Muslim is still a Muslim.

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

All right, try, "Making the French Muslim population feel increasingly unwelcome in France."


French Muslims are protected under the law just the same as French Christians, French Hindus, French Satanists and French Mormons. It is not the obligation of the French state to change their laws to make the followers of one religion more welcome or protected than any other. That is the wrong thing to do.

quote:

Saying, "They are welcome, they just have to let us ridicule something that they hold extremely dear"

Correct. Islam and all it's flaws are fair game for ridicule and satire. It doesn't matter if you come from Manhattan or the Mines of Moria, your faith is free game. This is the price of entering a secular society.

quote:

is not really a fair precondition for letting an economically and socially disadvantaged group try to assimilate.

And here once again you are trying to provide special protection for a religion based upon immigration policy. Please stop conflating the two, it's extremely dishonest.

quote:

And, as I said, I agree they should be free to do so. Their freedom to publish stuff like that is not what's at question here.

The rest of your post is at odds with this.

quote:

The question is, is it right for them to do so?

No, that's not the question. What is "right" is subjective, and you've repeatedly bent this meaning to mean "to offer special protection to one religion over others." This is the opposite of "right."

Majorian
Jul 1, 2009

Nilbop posted:

French Muslims are protected under the law just the same as French Christians, French Hindus, French Satanists and French Mormons. It is not the obligation of the French state to change their laws to make the followers of one religion more welcome or protected than any other. That is the wrong thing to do.

You keep attacking this strawman argument where I'm insisting that the French government change its laws/offer special protections to French Muslims. That's not what I've been arguing, though. I've been arguing that Charlie Hebdo should voluntarily decide not to publish things aimed to ridicule an oppressed minority group's faith. Would you please address the argument I'm actually making?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nilbop
Jun 5, 2004

Looks like someone forgot his hardhat...

Majorian posted:

You keep attacking this strawman argument where I'm insisting that the French government change its laws/offer special protections to French Muslims. That's not what I've been arguing, though. I've been arguing that Charlie Hebdo should voluntarily decide not to publish things aimed to ridicule an oppressed minority group's faith.

I assumed you were arguing for a change in legislation because that's something that can be achieved. Charlie Hebdo voluntarily decided to publish things aimed to ridicule a faith though, so your point is moot.

I and others have also pointed out numerous times now you are conflating religion, race and immigration. Are you willfully ignoring that or do you not see the reason to differentiate between the three?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply