3 ms·

> It's like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your credibility. Actually, it depends on what you do when they show up. > Imagine if

by anamax 16y ago

> It's like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your credibility. Actually, it depends on what you do when they show up. > Imagine if a group of atheists firebombed a church for making fun of atheism, and the Christians' response is instituting a "mock atheism day". Does this solve any problems? Does it create more understanding? Does this help improve the view, from either side, that most people are actually reasonable, sane people? I'll bite - what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"? We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent". At some point, other groups are going to see if that generalizes. > Speaking to my Muslim friends, they are as appalled by the violence of extremists as we are Good for them. I note that Japanese-Americans turned in the few saboteurs during WWII. Italian-Americans turn on the Mafia. And so on. I hope that Muslims are doing the same.

potatolicious 16y ago
> "what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?" Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to. > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"." No, that's not what we're saying at all. What we're saying is "there's no need to troll and antagonize everyone of a particular belief just because a small minority of them are violent assholes". There's nothing in here that capitulates our freedoms to religious belief - drawing Mohammed is still legal, but for the sake of everyone getting along on this big lonely rock, maybe we shouldn't. Leveraging your freedoms to its maximum extent, even to the grave offense of others, is not protecting it, despite what some people seem to think. Your freedoms do not absolve from good taste and judgment. Let me put this in another way. Your neighbor is deeply offended, by, say lawnmowers. You still have the right to mow your lawn - and it would be unreasonable for him to ask you to ask you to stop mowing your lawn. But instead, you ridicule him for it and invite all the neighbors over to have a big lawn-mowing party. That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass. EDMD, IMHO, falls on the wrong side of this line.
- r0s 16y ago
  Leveraging your freedoms to its maximum extent, even to the grave offense of others, is not protecting it I disagree, this is the only way to test the limits of our rights. Our freedoms are defined everyday by circumstances beyond what the law states. EDMD is a reaction to the self-censorship of the mainstream media. It's a reaction to a debate, one which has terms of discourse dictated by one side via fear. When a cartoon is so controversial someone gets killed, the public needs to understand the reason, context, and history. This cannot happen without free debate. Censoring the offending image is the anti-thesis of informative journalism. I don't think this issue has much to do with Islam proper, it's more a chastisement of the American media. Burning an American flag would be a good parallel, another sacred cow gets slaughtered. If you can't recognize the underlying symbology of course it seems pointless and provocative.
- chbarts 16y ago
  > drawing Mohammed is still legal, but for the sake of everyone getting along on this big lonely rock, maybe we shouldn't. OK, here's what offends me about this: The radical Muslims got this concession solely though violence and threats of violence. They aren't promising to stop trying to impose Sharia law, they aren't promising to consider re-evaluating their stance on Israel, and they aren't promising that they won't find someone or something else that mortally offends them tomorrow. From the Liberal Democracy perspective, it's all give and no take. Also, can we really say a freedom even exists if we've pledged to never, ever exercise it? In theory, Queen Elizabeth II has the freedom to refuse to grant royal assent to a law and stall the whole political process. In practice, she's pledged to never, ever do that (implicitly on pains of death, which Parliament has done in the past). The upshot is that she has, at most, a very weak advisory role in the political process. A freedom ignored, or a freedom consistently unused, is a freedom lost.
- anamax 16y ago
  >>> "what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?" > Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to. "Piss Christ" was an intentional provocation. Would you have told Christians to get over it? > > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"." > No, that's not what we're saying at all. Actually, it is. It may not be what you intend to say, but it's what you're saying. They threaten violence "unless" and you're doing as they demand. Your excuse for doing so doesn't matter. I'd argue that the lack of blasphemy laws in the US has been an good thing. Arguing for defacto equivalents seems unwise. However, if you're going to do so, it's unclear why Muslims should be a special case. So, what are you going to do when another group starts saying "don't say things that we don't like or we'll get violent"? > That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass. You seem to think that they're distinct - they're not. Being a jackass is a subset. However, even if they were, you're saying that given the choice between siding with jackasses and thugs, you'll take thugs. No - there isn't another option, even if you need one so you can feel good about yourself.

by anamax 16y ago

potatolicious 16y ago

> "what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?" Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to. > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"." No, that's not what we're saying at all. What we're saying is "there's no need to troll and antagonize everyone of a particular belief just because a small minority of them are violent assholes". There's nothing in here that capitulates our freedoms to religious belief - drawing Mohammed is still legal, but for the sake of everyone getting along on this big lonely rock, maybe we shouldn't. Leveraging your freedoms to its maximum extent, even to the grave offense of others, is not protecting it, despite what some people seem to think. Your freedoms do not absolve from good taste and judgment. Let me put this in another way. Your neighbor is deeply offended, by, say lawnmowers. You still have the right to mow your lawn - and it would be unreasonable for him to ask you to ask you to stop mowing your lawn. But instead, you ridicule him for it and invite all the neighbors over to have a big lawn-mowing party. That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass. EDMD, IMHO, falls on the wrong side of this line.

r0s 16y ago
Leveraging your freedoms to its maximum extent, even to the grave offense of others, is not protecting it I disagree, this is the only way to test the limits of our rights. Our freedoms are defined everyday by circumstances beyond what the law states. EDMD is a reaction to the self-censorship of the mainstream media. It's a reaction to a debate, one which has terms of discourse dictated by one side via fear. When a cartoon is so controversial someone gets killed, the public needs to understand the reason, context, and history. This cannot happen without free debate. Censoring the offending image is the anti-thesis of informative journalism. I don't think this issue has much to do with Islam proper, it's more a chastisement of the American media. Burning an American flag would be a good parallel, another sacred cow gets slaughtered. If you can't recognize the underlying symbology of course it seems pointless and provocative.
chbarts 16y ago
> drawing Mohammed is still legal, but for the sake of everyone getting along on this big lonely rock, maybe we shouldn't. OK, here's what offends me about this: The radical Muslims got this concession solely though violence and threats of violence. They aren't promising to stop trying to impose Sharia law, they aren't promising to consider re-evaluating their stance on Israel, and they aren't promising that they won't find someone or something else that mortally offends them tomorrow. From the Liberal Democracy perspective, it's all give and no take. Also, can we really say a freedom even exists if we've pledged to never, ever exercise it? In theory, Queen Elizabeth II has the freedom to refuse to grant royal assent to a law and stall the whole political process. In practice, she's pledged to never, ever do that (implicitly on pains of death, which Parliament has done in the past). The upshot is that she has, at most, a very weak advisory role in the political process. A freedom ignored, or a freedom consistently unused, is a freedom lost.
anamax 16y ago
>>> "what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?" > Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to. "Piss Christ" was an intentional provocation. Would you have told Christians to get over it? > > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"." > No, that's not what we're saying at all. Actually, it is. It may not be what you intend to say, but it's what you're saying. They threaten violence "unless" and you're doing as they demand. Your excuse for doing so doesn't matter. I'd argue that the lack of blasphemy laws in the US has been an good thing. Arguing for defacto equivalents seems unwise. However, if you're going to do so, it's unclear why Muslims should be a special case. So, what are you going to do when another group starts saying "don't say things that we don't like or we'll get violent"? > That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass. You seem to think that they're distinct - they're not. Being a jackass is a subset. However, even if they were, you're saying that given the choice between siding with jackasses and thugs, you'll take thugs. No - there isn't another option, even if you need one so you can feel good about yourself.