Gehrman
Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 11,220
So would you like them banned by law?If you are happy with the protests/attacks generated by useless caricatures, then I can understand your post.
So would you like them banned by law?If you are happy with the protests/attacks generated by useless caricatures, then I can understand your post.
No, I expect professional writers and drawers to be cautious and careful when it comes to some divisive topics.So would you like them banned by law?
Anti terrorism centre reports would suggest that during the height of Al qaida there were the least antisemetic attacks in Europe and america by islamists/jihadis. Up until 2011 I believe.(Picking this up from earlier today.)
This is true for the last couple of years, although before that Jews were indeed a prime target of Jihadist terror. I don't think the lack of larger attacks after the mid-2010s means that Islamist antisemitism channeling into practical terror is called off for good, but rather that it's pushed back into a state of latency by several internal and external factors. (Like the defeat of al-Qaeda, the general focus on sectarian wars, improved surveillance and security...)
Professional writers as well? Don't you think it's fair that professional writers write excatly what they think about Islam and Muhammed? I wouldn't want professional writers to engage in self-censorship of any kind just to give special protection to Islam.No, I expect professional writers and drawers to be cautious and careful when it comes to some divisive topics.
This is sad but do we have the choice? Unfortunately, no.
I don't believe it was. The occupation issue is quite specific and has only been applied to Israel in the main, including by Qardawi.That's very interesting. I appreciate the clarification. But I'm sure people could twist 9/11 to being acceptable as the US was effectively occupying Islamic states with it's influence. Most nations try to convince people that the war they are entering into is a 'just' war.
Yes, I would include the material if it is pertinent to the curriculum and have in fact offended students before with things I have shown / said / taught. When you teach things like history and current events topics it is bound to happen. Ditto that for biology teachers. You don’t think Bio teachers know they’re gonna offend someone by showing evidence of evolution? You don’t think history teachers know we’re gonna offend someone by showing images of slavery / the Holocaust / police brutality / religion? That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taught.But you're ignoring my question (or answering and I'm not realizing)
Maybe in yes or no terms: content that is offensive towards a certain segment of the population is something you would simply not worry about as long as it's educational ?
I'm one of the people who has done that. I did that to make the general points about being offensive and that something being "just cartoons" is a silly thing to say as a blanket defense, not in any attempt to claim that charicaturing Muhammad and nazi propaganda is the same thing. Do you object to that or did you have something else in mind?So are people proposing a ban to "overtly offensive" cartoons and caricatures? I wonder how and who can actually say what is too offensive and what isn't.
I kind of know what to expect when seeing people comparing cartoons about the Holocaust and Muhammad. It's as if one is an actual genocide, whilst the other is about a divisive figure with many questions about his authenticity, supposedly having some special powers or status by Allah.
It's perfectly reasonable to suggest all types of religions have been used as some sort of propaganda and indoctrination in the history of the human species, so why do we suddenly decide we should tread carefully and not call out for what they are?
I'm perfectly happy with people protesting about whatever, it's a basic human right. I absolutely have a problem with physical attacks and murders on people based on "offensive cartoons". I also definitely have a problem with your post, because it seems you are slightly excusing and justifying said attacks due to "useless caricatures".If you are happy with the protests/attacks generated by useless caricatures, then I can understand your post.
Bin Laden addressed his qualms for attacking in a letter.That was precisely bin Laden’s argument.
Well a bit of the discussion about this, not by you though unless I am mistaken, has involved the argument that Muhammad shouldn’t be shown at all. Hence me bring it it up. I realized “oh shit, I have taught about depictions of Muhammad...”Touched on this earlier as well. Not all muslims have stuck with the no drawings issue through the years. In fact I was asked to draw certain pictures in school during the Islam topic in RE. This would have been early to mid eighties.
I don’t. The image is from a well publicized newspaper front page from about 15 years ago. It is part of the public discourse on the topic. A good way to teach them to deal with these things when they enter the real world is to provide a structured discussion about them in the classroom.could have been taught in a better way that didn’t necessitate the use of cartoons depicting Muslims wearing bomb turbans.”
If that's true, it changes the dynamics a bit, I think.
No, I expect professional writers and drawers to be cautious and careful when it comes to some divisive topics.
This is sad but do we have the choice? Unfortunately, no.
I am a big defender of all the civil liberties even in Covid times by the way, including the freedom of speech.Professional writers as well? Don't you think it's fair that professional writers write excatly what they think about Islam and Muhammed?
Where was it said?the same was said about the nazis and fascism in the 1930's
they were wrong then and you are wrong now
He specifically cited presence of non-Muslim troops in the Arabian Peninsula, it was presented as the number 1 justification for al Qaeda’s declaration of war on America:Bin Laden addressed his qualms for attacking in a letter.
His main beef was the support America gave to others who he felt were killing muslims around the globe.
Even with his bit about supporting Israel he didn't go into occupation territory. More about destruction of places like Iraq to strengthen Israel.
Why?I am a big defender of all the civil liberties even in Covid times by the way, including the freedom of speech.
I am just saying any professional should be careful.
No, I didn't suggest that.I'm perfectly happy with people protesting about whatever, it's a basic human right. I absolutely have a problem with physical attacks and murders on people based on "offensive cartoons". I also definitely have a problem with your post, because it seems you are slightly excusing and justifying said attacks due to "useless caricatures".
I just totally disagree with even trying to compare the 2 cases. I don't know if using the "just cartoons" as a blanket defense is the right thing, but being able to produce political, religious, cultural or any other kind of satire is supposed to be at the core of every true democratic society.I'm one of the people who has done that. I did that to make the general points about being offensive and that something being "just cartoons" is a silly thing to say as a blanket defense, not in any attempt to claim that charicaturing Muhammad and nazi propaganda is the same thing. Do you object to that or did you have something else in mind?
As far as I am aware or understand the issue of drawing is actually wider than just Prophets and religious figures.Well a bit of the discussion about this, not by you though unless I am mistaken, has involved the argument that Muhammad shouldn’t be shown at all. Hence me bring it it up. I realized “oh shit, I have taught about depictions of Muhammad...”
I don’t. The image is from a well publicized newspaper front page from about 15 years ago. It is part of the public discourse on the topic. A good way to teach them to deal with these things when they enter the real world is to provide a structured discussion about them in the classroom.
He specifically cited presence of non-Muslim troops in the Arabian Peninsula, it was presented as the number 1 justification for al Qaeda’s declaration of war on America:
“The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations...
...for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.”
https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
I'm confused, if you totally disagree with the comparison how can you be unsure about the "just cartoons" defense? They're both cartoons, if that defense is enough for one single cartoon then it's enough for any cartoon.I just totally disagree with even trying to compare the 2 cases. I don't know if using the "just cartoons" as a blanket defense is the right thing, but being able to produce political, religious, cultural or any other kind of satire is supposed to be at the core of every true democratic society.
Yeah, I know. A separate point though is that the rules changed and didn’t used to be what they are now.As far as I am aware or understand the issue of drawing is actually wider than just Prophets and religious figures.
As I said I myself drew pictures as part of RE in my youth. My children wouldn't have and didn't simply due to an increased understanding on the issue. Drawing of religious deities is prohibited.
Islamic art tends not to have pictures of any living thing, although as you have said there are exceptions and they can be found under the label of "islamic art". What I'm talking about is the "rules" as I've come to understand them and not what some people may do.
The general principles is muslims don't have faces and depictions of animals etc on walls, this is from hadith. And it is discouraged to draw any person albeit a photograph would be allowed as it's an exact replication of the person, although some do differ even on that.
This was his 1996 fatwa.He specifically cited presence of non-Muslim troops in the Arabian Peninsula, it was presented as the number 1 justification for al Qaeda’s declaration of war on America:
“The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations...
...for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.”
https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
Totally disagree with that and I'll leave it here, because it's obvious we will keep going in circles.A caricature is useless in the sense it can hurt some people without this being necessitated.
Did you not read my second sentence fully? I'm just saying that the wording of it leaves me uncertain, but by no means did I not make myself clear.I'm confused, if you totally disagree with the comparison how can you be unsure about the "just cartoons" defense? They're both cartoons, if that defense is enough for one single cartoon then it's enough for any cartoon.
I am sure you get my point but as you know:Why?
Sure, let's agree to disagreeTotally disagree with that and I'll leave it here, because it's obvious we will keep going in circles.
I was talking about professional writers. They should write excatly what they think.I am sure you get my point but as you know:
- There are some taboos subjects in any society.
- We live in violent societies
- Social media are omnipresent.
- People tend to overreact and feel easily attacked and mocked.
For example, if I were a teacher, I would think twice about the way to speak about some topics such as religion.
So you really propose self-censorship, justifying it by saying we live in violent societies. That's textbook totalitarian policy, if I ever saw one. But yeah, like you said, let's agree to disagree.I am sure you get my point but as you know:
- There are some taboos subjects in any society.
- We live in violent societies
- Social media are omnipresent.
- People tend to overreact and feel easily attacked and mocked.
For example, if I were a teacher, I would think twice about the way to speak about some topics such as religion.
political commentators and politicians at the time argued that we shouldn`t provoke the facists/ nazis by ridicule and satire.Where was it said?
You'd think we live in Pakistan.So you really propose self-censorship, justifying it by saying we live in violent societies. That's textbook totalitarian policy, if I ever saw one. But yeah, like you said, let's agree to disagree.
Yes, the fatwa is what I had in mind in my response to @Grinner.This was his 1996 fatwa.
The letter he wrote for 9/11 was in 2002
I am sure you get my point but as you know:
- There are some taboos subjects in any society.
- We live in violent societies
- Social media are omnipresent.
- People tend to overreact and feel easily attacked and mocked.
For example, if I were a teacher, I would think twice about the best way to speak about sensitive topics such as religion and racism
I honestly think this is a very dangerous slope to be on. You see people forming feminist groups to protect women when they get attacked at night and if anyone suggested that it's their fault for wearing inappropriate clothing or being outside when they shouldn't be, there would rightly be an outrage.You'd think we live in Pakistan.
I did read it, that's what confused me. You're making a case for why some cartoons are important, not for why cartoons are fine qua cartoons.Did you not read my second sentence fully? I'm just saying that the wording of it leaves me uncertain, but by no means did I not make myself clear.
Maybe I was unclear. I was asking for where it was said that writers and drawers should generally be cautious to defend nazis.political commentators and politicians at the time argued that we shouldn`t provoke the facists/ nazis by ridicule and satire.
Most notably Lord Beaverbrook through The Daily Express which he owned.
There's not a second in the day where this doesn't happen. Outrage happens in response, sure, in a sense, but outrage happens in response to everything and we don't have a 29 page here about it.I honestly think this is a very dangerous slope to be on. You see people forming feminist groups to protect women when they get attacked at night and if anyone suggested that it's their fault for wearing inappropriate clothing or being outside when they shouldn't be, there would rightly be an outrage.
Then you get opinions on other topics like these and it just makes me worried about the direction of public discourse in the future.
What's your views on the freedom of humanity mural by Mears One?I was talking about professional writers. They should write excatly what they think.
Okay, how else can I say it? The term "just cartoons" leaves me in two minds - on one side, like I said, being able to use caricatures and satire should be a cornerstone for any true democratic society; on the other, we have the means of propaganda and things like that can definitely be used with serious malice, especially when used by the government to justify their genocidal ideas. So as I said, I'm uncertain about how appropriate is it to call them "just cartoons" as a defense to it.I did read it, that's what confused me. You're making a case for why some cartoons are important, not for why cartoons are fine qua cartoons.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you believe women should be more careful and do you believe people should also be more careful when it comes to Muhhamad, because we live in "violent societies"?There's not a second in the day where this doesn't happen. Outrage happens in response, sure, in a sense, but outrage happens in response to everything and we don't have a 29 page here about it.
First paragraph: You seem to me to be arguing for why some kinds of cartoons are important because of their message, not just because they're cartoons. Presumably you're differentiating between political satire at one end, pure entertainment in the middle and to once again bring it up drawn child porn at the other end. The fact that they're cartoons doesn't, to me, seem central to what you're arguing.Okay, how else can I say it? The term "just cartoons" leaves me in two minds - on one side, like I said, being able to use caricatures and satire should be a cornerstone for any true democratic society; on the other, we have the means of propaganda and things like that can definitely be used with serious malice, especially when used by the government to justify their genocidal ideas. So as I said, I'm uncertain about how appropriate is it to call them "just cartoons" as a defense to it.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you believe women should be more careful and do you believe people should also be more careful when it comes to Muhhamad, because we live in "violent societies"?
I understand now what you mean and you make a compelling point. It still leaves me uncertain, because there is a huge difference between satire made by an individual and a government enforced propaganda, so in the first case you can say "it's just a cartoon", whereas the second one can lead to seriously horrible implications and is in fact dangerous.First paragraph: You seem to me to be arguing for why some kinds of cartoons are important because of their message, not just because they're cartoons. Presumably you're differentiating between political satire at one end, pure entertainment in the middle and to once again bring it up drawn child porn at the other end. The fact that they're cartoons doesn't, to me, seem central to what you're arguing.
Second paragraph: Simply commenting on your dangerous slope. We're already at the point where people argue that women shouldn't dress a certain way, we've always been at that point and if anything have been moving up, so that would be at the current level and not at a metaphorical slope. Not saying that it's right, not saying that women are at any fault, not meant as any endorsement.
No, I simply meant that if you were saying that the attitude to charicatures of Muhammad might lead to a world where we people blamed what women were wearing for being abused or raped then that wouldn't be anything to worry about only in the meaning of we're already in that horrible reality. A slippery slope means that we're heading somewhere undesireable, but we're already there so it's a level field and no slope.I understand now what you mean and you make a compelling point. It still leaves me uncertain, because there is a huge difference between satire made by an individual and a government enforced propaganda, so in the first case you can say "it's just a cartoon", whereas the second one can lead to seriously horrible implications and is in fact dangerous.
On the rest, I still don't understand the point of making your statement and how it fits in the discussion. Are you implying I am one of those people, who tell women to dress more appropriately, in order to protect themselves at night from sexual predators?
Oh, okay, I fully get it now. Sorry for being a dumbass. I wasn't exactly saying that, but I get your point anyway, so maybe I should have worded my post better.No, I simply meant that if you were saying that the attitude to charicatures of Muhammad might lead to a world where we people blamed what women were wearing for being abused or raped then that wouldn't be anything to worry about only in the meaning of we're already in that horrible reality. A slippery slope means that we're heading somewhere undesireable, but we're already there so it's a level field and no slope.