4 ms·

I think you raise a pretty decent point, but if some comedian who makes use of "the n-word" were to suddenly start getting death threats, or actual attempts on

by Kadin 17y ago

I think you raise a pretty decent point, but if some comedian who makes use of "the n-word" were to suddenly start getting death threats, or actual attempts on their life, from some militant group that felt offended by the word's use, then I probably would support an "everybody use the n-word day", purely as a stance against acting out of fear. But most people avoid that word not out of fear that they'll be murdered, but because they legitimately don't want to cause offense. But if some fringe group started trying to enforce our little social prohibition on the n-word by force and fear, I would expect that lots of people would start to push back -- and anyone who happened to be offended would just have to live with it. A very similar thing happened with flag-burning. I've seen a lot more flag-burnings (in the U.S., of the U.S. flag) done in protest of laws against flag-burning than I've ever seen them as standalone political statements. The people doing these burnings probably never would have done them except that they're offended by the heavyhanded prohibition. With the possible exception of the very first one, the people drawing pictures of Muhammad generally aren't doing it to make fun of Islam, they're doing it to take a strong stance against (and mock) those who would use fear to push their morality. The underlying idea, I think, is to make it very clear to militant groups that they can't get their way via force and fear. The more they try to intimidate, the louder and more offensive the opposition is going to get.

zaidf 17y ago
I probably would support an "everybody use the n-word day", purely as a stance against acting out of fear. That's cool, we just have a simple disagreement there. I wouldn't want to offend millions in the process of getting back at a fringe group. Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act. I don't think you would start a LETS USE N-WORD DAY if you knew the guy getting the threats was purposely using the n-word to provoke a reaction. Would you?
- EliAndrewC 17y ago
  > Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act. If you're referring to the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon which was published in the Danish newspaper, then that probably isn't true. I'll quote the newspaper editor who ran the cartoons: "One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet." I recommend reading the full NYT editorial from which I drew that quote, called "Why I Published Those Cartoons", which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02...
- Kadin 17y ago
  The analogy is a tough one to work with because the word "nigger" has a lot of historical baggage, and is connected to and used by a lot of groups with very violent histories. So it's tough to say what I'd do if someone who was honestly racist, and was perpetuating a violence-laden dialogue of racism, started getting death threats. That might seem like par for the course. But if they were a comedian who used it as part of a routine, in a venue that most people understand to be one of satire, then I might very well think that the cost of offending a lot of people in order to express solidarity with them, and rub it in the face of violent extremists, was worth it. It depends a lot on the context and how much worse the person making the offensive statement is than the violent extremists. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, I think the original cartoonist may have definitely had some race issues, but you'd have to use a logarithmic scale of crazy in order to plot where he falls versus the people who decided it was worth killing over. So in that particular situation I'm solidly on the side of cartoonists, even if the first one was in poor taste. The response was so disproportionate to the original offense that I'm willing to set aside good taste temporarily in order to make it clear that using the threat of death to push your religious morality is totally not OK.
  - zaidf 17y ago
    Absolutely - I don't think any of this justifies a killing.

by Kadin 17y ago

zaidf 17y ago

I probably would support an "everybody use the n-word day", purely as a stance against acting out of fear. That's cool, we just have a simple disagreement there. I wouldn't want to offend millions in the process of getting back at a fringe group. Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act. I don't think you would start a LETS USE N-WORD DAY if you knew the guy getting the threats was purposely using the n-word to provoke a reaction. Would you?

EliAndrewC 17y ago
> Also, don't quote me on this but I think the very first cartoon that triggered all of this was done by a guy specifically to rub it in and cause hurt--and not as an innocent comedic act. If you're referring to the bomb-in-the-turban cartoon which was published in the Danish newspaper, then that probably isn't true. I'll quote the newspaper editor who ran the cartoons: "One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet." I recommend reading the full NYT editorial from which I drew that quote, called "Why I Published Those Cartoons", which can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02...
Kadin 17y ago
The analogy is a tough one to work with because the word "nigger" has a lot of historical baggage, and is connected to and used by a lot of groups with very violent histories. So it's tough to say what I'd do if someone who was honestly racist, and was perpetuating a violence-laden dialogue of racism, started getting death threats. That might seem like par for the course. But if they were a comedian who used it as part of a routine, in a venue that most people understand to be one of satire, then I might very well think that the cost of offending a lot of people in order to express solidarity with them, and rub it in the face of violent extremists, was worth it. It depends a lot on the context and how much worse the person making the offensive statement is than the violent extremists. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, I think the original cartoonist may have definitely had some race issues, but you'd have to use a logarithmic scale of crazy in order to plot where he falls versus the people who decided it was worth killing over. So in that particular situation I'm solidly on the side of cartoonists, even if the first one was in poor taste. The response was so disproportionate to the original offense that I'm willing to set aside good taste temporarily in order to make it clear that using the threat of death to push your religious morality is totally not OK.
- zaidf 17y ago
  Absolutely - I don't think any of this justifies a killing.