TWCL

[Yvain]

I think so too

But we can get some mild amusement out of it

[Casual Notice]

This is an unbelievably stupid idea. It's not free expression to follow a crowd and annoy an entire faith. Unless you have a valid reason to depict Muhammed in your comic (or wherever), it's just an act of passive aggression.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[vulpeslibertas]

wendyw wrote:

Who was trolling?

I was, you scumy moderator...er, scum. Oh, were we looking for volunteers, or making accusations?

Jardel wrote:

If you believe in actual freedom of speech then you believe that Jihadists have the right to state that people should not create depictions of Mohammed. They have the right it should be a crime and they have the right to call for boycotts on countries that don't agree with them.

I'm pretty sure freedom of speech means it's not illegal to draw cartoons. Personally, I have no problem with Muslims getting mad about the whole thing. I do have problem with people threatening to kill other people, burning down their houses, etc. over it. I'm pretty sure nobody has the right to tell other people what to do with themselves. Sure, they can talk all they want, just like cartoonists can.

The whole idea of imposing Sharia law is also a questionable right. Certainly, they have the right to talk. I, also, have the right to talk about imposing my religious beliefs on other people. I have the right to talk about burning witches, beating homosexuals, and stoning wayward women, molesting parishoners, you know, all the classics. But it's a hard sell to tell me that anyone has the right to take someone else's rights away. I mean, what the heck does a "right" mean, anyway? I'm pretty sure that's supposed to mean "can not be taken away". If they want to cut their own hands off for stealing, or whatever, that's all fine with me, and they can do that right now without imposing a law on someone else. But leave others alone. You can't call it leaving others alone if your secular or religious police can drag people in front of a religious tribunal and execute them for failing to be religious enough. Pretty sure that's not freedom. But talking about it is. (That's serious, even hate groups have a right to talk. Doesn't mean they have a right to do anything).

I also think accusing free-speachers, however stupid, of being a hate group is a bit strong. Do you know any of them? Are they all witless racists? Are they always making comments about "inferior people's" religions? If they're just talking about free speech, maybe they actually believe the words they're saying.

Those who are being threatened are not just a bunch of internet punks hiding behind the internet. While, no doubt, there certainly must be some of these, some cartoonists, like that Swedish guy, have already faced multiple attempts on his life. I don't recall for certain, but the last few years I believe someone was actually killed.

Jardel wrote:

Say what you will about Jihaddists and hardliners in Islamic countries (who don't necessarily support Jihad, just Sharia Law being the state law) but at least these people have the balls to put themselves up in the front lines. They live or die by their own beliefs

Bravo zulu. I respect them for that. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop shooting them should they try to impose their beliefs on me. It turns out, for all that "noble warrior" crap, that there's some "noble warriors" on the other side of the line too. Hopefully some Jihadist will return the respect I bear him when he blows my airplane out of the sky. Then we can all be respectable together, plummeting from 30,000 feet in a fiery coffin filled with business executives and little vacationing families of 2.5 children, and we can all enjoy a little bit of heaven. That doesn't mean I'm just going to let him light the fuse or push the button.

Jardel wrote:

but they're still choosing to live in a society where they can receive brutal punishments for what we consider non-crimes).

Choice is an interesting thing. Maybe that's all they know. Maybe that's all they've been taught all of their lives. Maybe if they didn't threaten cartoonists with death, they'd have a free forum of ideas and they'd be able to discuss the issue amongst themselves. If my neighbors were always talking about killing people for drawing cartoons, maybe I'd have second thoughts about standing up for my own beliefs.

Jardel wrote:

The end result will be that Jihadists and hardliners will have one more example of how The West hates them to use next time they talk about why they should not conform to modern standards

I don't think Jihadists need one more example. I don't think they're going to conform to "modern standards" either way. That's the point of strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up people you disagree with, or handing a molotov cocktail to a ten year old and tell him to go be a brave little warrior.

Jardel wrote:

I bring to them the question of "And what are you doing with your freedom?"

None of your, or anybody else's, damn business.

Jardel wrote:

stirring up their extremists and letting other people try to deal with them (people who actually are in the front lines like soldiers, diplomats, missionaries, etc)

Agreed. This is probably the most important thing to consider for anyone doing this protest thing. Feel free to stir up the hornet's nest, but man-up and be the one to take the sting yourself.

However, at the end of the day, if a group of people is willing to rise up and kill other people for drawing cartoons, we have worse problems than people drawing bad cartoons. Personally, I think the worst possible conclusion is that someone could make is that free speech entitles someone to pass a law to shut someone else up. This statement, I think, is profoundly disturbing, and is probably the most important statement made in this thread. It is actually quite amazing to me that anyone here could think this, and I'm not entirely sure that the author of it really understands what they just said in the flurry of heated internet debate.
_________________

[Kail]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Personally, I think the worst possible conclusion is that someone could make is that free speech entitles someone to pass a law to shut someone else up. This statement, I think, is profoundly disturbing, and is probably the most important statement made in this thread.

I was kind of taken aback by "Brave Jihadi are just standing up for their beliefs, not like those evil cowards on the internet who are downright OFFENSIVE," myself.

[Wolfus]

Casual Notice wrote:

This is an unbelievably stupid idea. It's not free expression to follow a crowd and annoy an entire faith. Unless you have a valid reason to depict Muhammed in your comic (or wherever), it's just an act of passive aggression.

"Annoy" is an understatement, sadly. It's offending, upsetting and being deliberately hurtful towards people who have done absolutely nothing, bar a group of extremists.
What tiny percentage of Muslims, one of the world's largest religions, do you think is actually represented by extremists who protest or hurt others?
It's like tarring all Christians with the same brush as Rev. Phelps.

I don't think half the people supporting it have a full grasp of the situation, nor do I think they want one.
All you're doing by supporting this horse shit is making yourself look as ignorant as the people you are trying to hurt.
_________________

[vulpeslibertas]

Kail wrote:

I was kind of taken aback by "Brave Jihadi are just standing up for their beliefs, not like those evil cowards on the internet who are downright OFFENSIVE," myself.

Well, to some extent, if you are going to be a philosopher, you have to accept the premise that you may be wrong. You must be willing to accept the possibility that someone else may be correct. (I feel that it is actually essential to believe that something you believe is probably wrong, and that whatever that thing is, it is probably major).

The truth of the world is that people will disagree. Someone is wrong, and since we are people, just like everyone else, we must assume that those wrong people might be us. To some level, you have to be willing to accept (not agree with), but accept the beliefs of others no matter how abhorrent they may be - because they are the beliefs of others.

Consistent with this rationale, I do bear a level of respect for those who risk their lives fighting for something I absolutely disagree with.

Wolfus wrote:

It's offending, upsetting and being deliberately hurtful towards people who have done absolutely nothing, bar a group of extremists.

While this is true, there is something else to consider. As per my original comment on drawing the American flag: As an American, perhaps I get insanely offended by someone drawing the American flag (Perhaps I take the hard-line extremist viewpoint that the American flag should always be hung or flown with respect, and that casually drawing it on a piece of paper is a form of neither of these). Despite the fact that it is my flag, and my opinion that is offended, what you draw in your own time in your own country on your own paper is none of my business. There is a limit to freedom: it ends at someone else's freedom. These people are offended by something that is someone else's business: their prophet belongs to them, our opinion of him belongs to us.

And if I may avoid Godwining all over the place, the Spanish Inquisitors were offended that people weren't Catholic enough, the Klu Klux Klan was offended that people weren't white enough, Europeans have always been offended that the rest of the world hasn't been European enough (Britain, in particular, seems to be offended by the way we Americans choose to pronounce the English language, as though it was named after them or something), and any more of a dozen examples of people who were offended by other people's beliefs. To back down from your beliefs because it might offend someone is cowardly. While it may be said that discretion is the better part of valor (and occasionally it is), if we let a bunch of overly-sensitive ninnys tell us how to think, we deserve to have their extremists come over and kill us.
_________________

[Kail]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Consistent with this rationale, I do bear a level of respect for those who risk their lives fighting for something I absolutely disagree with.

Hrmm, sorry, but you need to do more than risk your life for me to respect you. If we're arguing over which topping to get, and you strap some dynamite to yourself and threaten to blow up the restaurant unless we order Pineapple, I'm still going to think you're an idiot, even if you're willing to fight for your beliefs. Idiocy is not something I find praiseworthy. Fanaticism is not something I find praiseworthy. Violence and irrationality and bullshit macho warrior posturing is not something I find praiseworthy.

Being willing to die is not a good thing by itself. I've known people who were willing to die. They were not noble people. They were scared people, depressed people, people who couldn't deal with the world. Those are not admirable qualities.

I can handle the fact that I may be wrong, and people might be right to oppose me. Crazier things have happened. If someone proves me wrong, I might change my mind. But until then, I'm going to assume that someone blowing up a school bus as some kind of political protest is not someone worthy of my respect, no matter how "passionate" they may be.

[Wolfus]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Wolfus wrote: It's offending, upsetting and being deliberately hurtful towards people who have done absolutely nothing, bar a group of extremists. While this is true, there is something else to consider. As per my original comment on drawing the American flag: As an American, perhaps I get insanely offended by someone drawing the American flag (Perhaps I take the hard-line extremist viewpoint that the American flag should always be hung or flown with respect, and that casually drawing it on a piece of paper is a form of neither of these). Despite the fact that it is my flag, and my opinion that is offended, what you draw in your own time in your own country on your own paper is none of my business. There is a limit to freedom: it ends at someone else's freedom. These people are offended by something that is someone else's business: their prophet belongs to them, our opinion of him belongs to us. And if I may avoid Godwining all over the place, the Spanish Inquisitors were offended that people weren't Catholic enough, the Klu Klux Klan was offended that people weren't white enough, Europeans have always been offended that the rest of the world hasn't been European enough (Britain, in particular, seems to be offended by the way we Americans choose to pronounce the English language, as though it was named after them or something), and any more of a dozen examples of people who were offended by other people's beliefs. To back down from your beliefs because it might offend someone is cowardly. While it may be said that discretion is the better part of valor (and occasionally it is), if we let a bunch of overly-sensitive ninnys tell us how to think, we deserve to have their extremists come over and kill us.

You're honestly comparing people pronouncing words differently to people performing a sacrilegious act?
I'm scraping as hard as I can to see your point amongst your heap of examples, and failing.

Writing a large amount of text does not make your argument more valid, it just gives you more rope to hang yourself (or trip yourself up with).
_________________

[Jardel]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

I'm pretty sure freedom of speech means it's not illegal to draw cartoons. Personally, I have no problem with Muslims getting mad about the whole thing. I do have problem with people threatening to kill other people, burning down their houses, etc. over it.

So freedom of speech extends to blasphemy and insulting nations full of people, but not to expressing your desire to cause someone else's death? What about if you express that you'd like to see someone else die in a horrible accident?

You want to draw the line one spot, they want to draw it in another.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure nobody has the right to tell other people what to do with themselves. Sure, they can talk all they want, just like cartoonists can.

The concept of a society relies upon people telling other people what to do, without it there is no cooperation, no mutually amicable interactions and no order. Anarchy is it's most chaotic form.

Quote:

The whole idea of imposing Sharia law is also a questionable right. Certainly, they have the right to talk. I, also, have the right to talk about imposing my religious beliefs on other people. I have the right to talk about burning witches, beating homosexuals, and stoning wayward women, molesting parishoners, you know, all the classics. But it's a hard sell to tell me that anyone has the right to take someone else's rights away. I mean, what the heck does a "right" mean, anyway? I'm pretty sure that's supposed to mean "can not be taken away". If they want to cut their own hands off for stealing, or whatever, that's all fine with me, and they can do that right now without imposing a law on someone else. But leave others alone. You can't call it leaving others alone if your secular or religious police can drag people in front of a religious tribunal and execute them for failing to be religious enough. Pretty sure that's not freedom. But talking about it is. (That's serious, even hate groups have a right to talk. Doesn't mean they have a right to do anything).

The right to impose pretty much any law is questionable. Laws are after all the presumed desire of the majority imposed upon each individual. At one time it was assumed self evident the law should not allow blacks to marry whites, homosexuals should not be tolerated and everyone should attend church. Doubtlessly in the future many laws we consider self evident will be considered primitive and barbaric.

Everyone's trying to make their own way, and there are people in all these Shariah nations who are pushing to make their laws more secular, more fair and allow their people more freedoms. They're doing this by trying to convince the masses to support change.

Quote:

I also think accusing free-speachers, however stupid, of being a hate group is a bit strong. Do you know any of them? Are they all witless racists? Are they always making comments about "inferior people's" religions? If they're just talking about free speech, maybe they actually believe the words they're saying. Those who are being threatened are not just a bunch of internet punks hiding behind the internet. While, no doubt, there certainly must be some of these, some cartoonists, like that Swedish guy, have already faced multiple attempts on his life. I don't recall for certain, but the last few years I believe someone was actually killed.

The guy from Denmark has had one attempt on his life by someone who doubtlessly had a history of mental illness given that his entire plan was to charge at the door with an axe in one hand and a knife in the other. The real tragedy of the matter is his act of personal stupidity and irresponsibility is costing his country a fortune because of all the heightened security they have around him.

As for not being a hate group... why not? Why else do you choose to attack a group's values and antagonise them? Why would you link them to every negative stereotype or image you can think of? Love? It's pretty obvious and claiming "it's just the Internet" or "It's just a freedom of speech thing" doesn't protect them any more than it does the guys at Stormfront.

Quote:

Choice is an interesting thing. Maybe that's all they know. Maybe that's all they've been taught all of their lives. Maybe if they didn't threaten cartoonists with death, they'd have a free forum of ideas and they'd be able to discuss the issue amongst themselves. If my neighbors were always talking about killing people for drawing cartoons, maybe I'd have second thoughts about standing up for my own beliefs.

I guess we'll never know so long as they're convinced we hate them and have no desire to understand them or agree the deserve a place in the world to call home. Shame, 'cause from what I've seen most of them are pretty quick to adopt the culture of more "progressive" society once they get over the culture shock.

Quote:

I don't think Jihadists need one more example. I don't think they're going to conform to "modern standards" either way. That's the point of strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up people you disagree with, or handing a molotov cocktail to a ten year old and tell him to go be a brave little warrior.

It's always comforting to take the view point that it's all the other guy's fault, that nothing we do matters and their view of us is entirely their own creation. Then we can pretend we're not accountable for anything we do to them, anything we say about them is their fault and we're indisputably the good guys and they're indisputably the bad guys.

Of course, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right and that no matter what other people are doing that you're responsible for your own choices. I also have this crazy theory that, if you keep insulting people, telling them that they're savages, their ideas are stupid and because you think this you're going to piss on everything that they value then you probably have nobody to blame but yourself if they don't like you.

So, if you want peace and not to be attacked by terrorists, you shouldn't do it. If you don't want peace, then you have no room to point fingers.

Quote:

None of your, or anybody else's, damn business.

Not a very compelling argument for why you should get to keep it or anyone else should want it is it?

Quote:

Agreed. This is probably the most important thing to consider for anyone doing this protest thing. Feel free to stir up the hornet's nest, but man-up and be the one to take the sting yourself. However, at the end of the day, if a group of people is willing to rise up and kill other people for drawing cartoons, we have worse problems than people drawing bad cartoons. Quote: Personally, I think the worst possible conclusion is that someone could make is that free speech entitles someone to pass a law to shut someone else up. This statement, I think, is profoundly disturbing, and is probably the most important statement made in this thread. It is actually quite amazing to me that anyone here could think this, and I'm not entirely sure that the author of it really understands what they just said in the flurry of heated internet debate. But democracy and all other forms of government (aside from pure Anarchy) dictate that you do use your rights to take away the rights of others. Pure Anarchy already dictates you have the right to do anything you can. You don't support people threatening harm upon one another but that's limiting their freedom of speech. Other people think they should be allowed to make those threats so long as they don't act on them otherwise they don't have real freedom of speech. So, if they made a "Everyone send a death threat to Vulpeslibertas Day" would that be a hate crime or freedom of expression against someone who thinks they should get to inflict their values on others? [quote="Kail"]I was kind of taken aback by "Brave Jihadi are just standing up for their beliefs, not like those evil cowards on the internet who are downright OFFENSIVE," myself.

What you think courage only applies if your cause is measured against some arbitrary rules and confirmed as "good" by a committee? Or you think that someone who is joins a mob insulting others in a situation where they have pretty much zero personal risk is deserving of praise?

There's plenty of evidence around to suggest that becoming a Jihaddist has less to do with your religion and more to do with having a very jaded view of the west due to coming from a country that has suffered greatly due to bickering nations trying to ensure their interest in the oil supplies there.

Jihaddists are, after all, only human and as likely to be shaped by their environment as the rest of us. I don't think it's fair to consider them beyond having any virtues at all just because they hate us.

[Tskingdom]

Quote:

Stormfront

Islamic extremists and White Supremacists may share certain similar opinions. , to put it less morbid.
_________________
Because some things are for nice people and some things are for nice people with a taste for occasional sightseeing in a Land of Disgust and Sick. http://tskingdom.com/

[Casual Notice]

@VL: No one has yet said that the people taking part in this largely pointless exercise shouldn't have the right to do so, simply that they shouldn't do it.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[mooncity]

I don't see the point really.

First, why would I go out of my way to offend people if I don't have to? Kind of a dick move. As already mentioned, it's not like we'd just be teasing terrrorist types.

Second, none of us are South Park. Most webcomickers are far too insignificant to matter, meaning that as a protest or comment, this has no chance of making any kind of lasting or significant impact. Except perhaps to cost you a few readers, if not Muslims who are angry you're pissing on their beliefs, then non-Muslims who are not amused at an anti-semetic dick move on the cartoonist's part.

Not a good idea.

Anyway, I have few enough readers as it is, and my comic isn't geared for "outrage," or "shock jock" crap, so I'm not playing.
_________________
Mooncity
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow since 1976!


The comic strip that never was.

[Wolfus]

Casual Notice wrote:

@VL: No one has yet said that the people taking part in this largely pointless exercise shouldn't have the right to do so, simply that they shouldn't do it.

Exactly.
I'm not holding back out of fear, or feeling my "freedom of speech" has been revoked.
I'm holding back out of a sense of decency as a human being. I wouldn't feel comfortable deliberately hurting the feelings of other people, even if it is my "right" to do so.
_________________

[James Sawatsky]

while I'm all for poking fun at religion, I won't be taking part either. I think it's one thing to laugh and joke at jesus since I was raised and am a (kind of) part of that society. anything else is just mean spirited. I'll poke fun at governments all over the world (cuz they deserve it), but I won't single out a nationality. i guess, for me it's like you can beat up or tease your little brother, but if someone else does it you get mad because they're attacking your family.

[Kail]

Jardel wrote:

What you think courage only applies if your cause is measured against some arbitrary rules and confirmed as "good" by a committee? Or you think that someone who is joins a mob insulting others in a situation where they have pretty much zero personal risk is deserving of praise? There's plenty of evidence around to suggest that becoming a Jihaddist has less to do with your religion and more to do with having a very jaded view of the west due to coming from a country that has suffered greatly due to bickering nations trying to ensure their interest in the oil supplies there. Jihaddists are, after all, only human and as likely to be shaped by their environment as the rest of us. I don't think it's fair to consider them beyond having any virtues at all just because they hate us.

You realize that by invoking moral relativism, I can instantly counter any moral argument you make, right? You can't simultaneously hold a position that good is "arbitrary rules and confirmed as "good" by a committee" and that people being dicks on the internet are "bad". They're incompatible positions. In one case, you're saying "there's no such thing as being bad" and in the other case, you're saying "these people are bad". Your own arguments contradict each other.

For example: You're saying that Jihadists are brave for standing up for their beliefs while internet jackasses are not. But Internet Jackasses are, after all, only human and as likely to be shaped by their environment as the rest of us. I don't think it's fair to consider them beyond having any virtues at all just because they hate Jihadists.

And I don't particularly care if Jihadists are shaped by their environment. Everyone is shaped by their environment. If a hammer doesn't pound nails, it's a lousy hammer, even if it's not the hammer's fault that it was built poorly.