3 ms·

So what if they stuck to, say, "respectable" images of Mohammad? Something that says, "I'm sorry if this offends you, but I fear for my freedom of speech". Doin

So what if they stuck to, say, "respectable" images of Mohammad? Something that says, "I'm sorry if this offends you, but I fear for my freedom of speech". Doing the same thing but making it clear that it's in self-defense, and that any offense taken is a side-effect?

kareemm 16y ago
~1.6B people consider drawing Mohammed to be a blasphemous action. That's not self-defense; that's antagonistic.
- sp332 16y ago
  All the people drawing Mohammed have had their lives threatened. I'm not in favor of escalation, but I don't think backing down in response to a threat of this kind sets a good precedent. Edit: I mean, if they had been asked nicely I would totally agree with you. But it must be made clear that threats are not an appropriate way to deal with religious issues.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tome 16y ago
    Absolutely. If they'd asked nicely, and had some sort of non-violent, respectful protest I wouldn't feel the need to respond in any way.
  - saikat 16y ago
    The problem here is that the "escalation" is not against the people threatening lives. It's a blind escalation in the dumbest sense - just making the antagonistic act affect more people instead of the few guilty people more acutely.
  - fgf 16y ago
    Collective action protects those who do use their free speech. If all western newspapers printed the original cartoons threatening all of them would be impossible. If one guy gets killed for making a movie and a hundred directors makes similar films it is now safe to make those movies again. There is no single person to focus the anger on.
- natch 16y ago
  Sometimes antagonism is called for. Witness the "War of Northern Aggression" (also known as the US Civil War) for an example of antagonism that achieved a good result. Or, if you prefer a peaceful example, Ghandi was very antagonistic, and with good results.
  - kareemm 16y ago
    Sure. But what result are you (or Mohammed Doodlers - "MoDoods"?) hoping to achieve? And will antagonizing militant muslims help achieve that goal? Edit: the point is you're antagonizing waaaay more (likely on the order of 1 billion or more) than the people you're trying to, which is counter-productive.
potatolicious 16y ago
That sounds more like "I'm sorry this offends you, but I'm going to do this anyways to further my agenda" - which some more liberal Muslims may understand, but IMHO not a good solution. The way I see it, if the West, or primarily non-Muslims, are the ones battling these extremists, we're already screwed. Now, instead of a fight between violent extremists and peaceful moderates, you have introduced elements of race and politics (it is easy, for example, for EDMD to be perceived as Western insensitivity and arrogance). Fundamentalists will find ways to exploit this marvelously. I wouldn't draw Mohammed at all - the best thing you can do IMHO is something that targets the extremists exclusively - something moderate and liberal Muslims won't find offensive. This way you can get them behind it also - it is far easier to remove a group's credibility and relevance when a large group of "their people" are also united against it. Involving Muslims in the solution to this problem is the key - otherwise it just ends up looking like a modern day Crusade.

kareemm 16y ago

~1.6B people consider drawing Mohammed to be a blasphemous action. That's not self-defense; that's antagonistic.

sp332 16y ago
All the people drawing Mohammed have had their lives threatened. I'm not in favor of escalation, but I don't think backing down in response to a threat of this kind sets a good precedent. Edit: I mean, if they had been asked nicely I would totally agree with you. But it must be made clear that threats are not an appropriate way to deal with religious issues.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tome 16y ago
  Absolutely. If they'd asked nicely, and had some sort of non-violent, respectful protest I wouldn't feel the need to respond in any way.
- saikat 16y ago
  The problem here is that the "escalation" is not against the people threatening lives. It's a blind escalation in the dumbest sense - just making the antagonistic act affect more people instead of the few guilty people more acutely.
- fgf 16y ago
  Collective action protects those who do use their free speech. If all western newspapers printed the original cartoons threatening all of them would be impossible. If one guy gets killed for making a movie and a hundred directors makes similar films it is now safe to make those movies again. There is no single person to focus the anger on.
natch 16y ago
Sometimes antagonism is called for. Witness the "War of Northern Aggression" (also known as the US Civil War) for an example of antagonism that achieved a good result. Or, if you prefer a peaceful example, Ghandi was very antagonistic, and with good results.
- kareemm 16y ago
  Sure. But what result are you (or Mohammed Doodlers - "MoDoods"?) hoping to achieve? And will antagonizing militant muslims help achieve that goal? Edit: the point is you're antagonizing waaaay more (likely on the order of 1 billion or more) than the people you're trying to, which is counter-productive.

potatolicious 16y ago

That sounds more like "I'm sorry this offends you, but I'm going to do this anyways to further my agenda" - which some more liberal Muslims may understand, but IMHO not a good solution. The way I see it, if the West, or primarily non-Muslims, are the ones battling these extremists, we're already screwed. Now, instead of a fight between violent extremists and peaceful moderates, you have introduced elements of race and politics (it is easy, for example, for EDMD to be perceived as Western insensitivity and arrogance). Fundamentalists will find ways to exploit this marvelously. I wouldn't draw Mohammed at all - the best thing you can do IMHO is something that targets the extremists exclusively - something moderate and liberal Muslims won't find offensive. This way you can get them behind it also - it is far easier to remove a group's credibility and relevance when a large group of "their people" are also united against it. Involving Muslims in the solution to this problem is the key - otherwise it just ends up looking like a modern day Crusade.