It should definitely be mixed up. Offense is often very subjective and sometimes a necessity.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Not that many Republicans were off of Trump, the solid vote of Christian evangelicals was Trump’s base. There’s very new ‘non-Christian’ right wing nuts. You really don’t know the demographics within this country.
No, I am clearly not. Those words do not mean that a statement is incorrect because it isn't shared by a majority of people. That's as populum.
I was pointing out that a lot of people find it offensive and those people find the statements you made offensive because they believe in a deity.
Everyone knows it's offensive in this case.
Life would be much better if people didn't go out to offend others. Most of us can manage not to.
Many were off of Trump. And many right wing nuts were not Christian. That doesn't mean a majority. You're making a bunch of inference mistakes today.
I think I know the demographics enough to know that your claim that Trump tapped into Christian nationalism is inaccurate, in my opinion. Telling me that the majority of Trump supporters were evangelicals isn't a rebuttle and doesn't prove your point.
And what the arbiter of useful debate should be determined through a religious lens to the potential detriment of the debate? The debate isn’t just had by Muslims, the debate is a teaching point for all believers & non-believers of all ethnicities. Everyone could learn from it, hopefully for the betterment of oneself.
I'm sure the same could have been said about the teaching of evolution over creationism once upon a time.
I think time will be the determining factor. Who knows in a few generations we (or our descendants) may be looking back at the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo or this teacher as an important turning point in pushing progressive thought over the use of violence to protect antiquated and authoritarian ideals.
We've certainly benefited as a society from offending creationists.
How would the world work if anything that someone somewhere deems offensive shouldn’t be said?
It used to be offensive to say the earth is round. I’m glad someone said it anyway. It used to be offensive to say being gay is ok. It’s still in many places (some of them highly influenced by Islam) I’m glad people spoke up for that too. I hope someday people will say remember when people got all riled up about a fecking cartoon? Glad that’s in the past.
It used to be offensive to say the earth is round. I’m glad someone said it anyway. It used to be offensive to say being gay is ok. It’s still in many places (some of them highly influenced by Islam) I’m glad people spoke up for that too. I hope someday people will say remember when people got all riled up about a fecking cartoon? Glad that’s in the past.
The judge is yourself, you decide what offends you and you have no business telling others that it's not offensive. The use of religious texts is highly limited in secular countries especially when it comes to public/collective settings.
I'm honestly not sure how a Hebdo comic has any place in modern history from an educational perspective. Again, please enlighten me how showing a whole religions prophet being a terrorist or being feck in the ass (I keep repeating these as these are probably the 2 most common ones from Hebdo I'm pretty sure) is in any way, educational. Every little event that happens doesn't need to be taught as history. It's not any sort of positive event. It was a satirical piece of work that was made to offend people, people got offended, extremists turned that offense into a shooting. That's not educational material, at least not showing the actual cartoon.
And because a lot of people get offended, I shouldn’t make those statements?
The contention I have is that the showing of the cartoons in the knowledge that they would be offensive to likely several pupils present, without being necessary in the context of having a legitimate debate around blasphemy or scrutiny of religion (as many are currently doing in this thread etc). He could have just told any interested parties to Google it if he really wanted to.
I'm sure many of the people arguing themselves in favour of the teacher would deem themselves progressive. Even if you don't care for the perceived blasphemy, I'm fairly sure propagating negative tropes of groups of people (ie depicting Muhammad as as terrorist) is also frowned upon in a progressive society (in the same way as portraying Jews as controlling the media or greedy bankers etc).
Did it not happen though, the cartoon publication & the resultant saga? Why would this not be important to discuss?
Or would it be better if it were like Japanese porn, shown but pixelated out? Would that suffice? Could they be discussed then?
We've had a useful debate in this very thread, and we haven't needed to use offensive cartoons to do so.
You shouldn't make them because they're not conducive to a proper debate. They're solely there to offend people.
Ironic that I have to point this out after your last post in which you essentially said the same thing.
The Martyrs of Córdoba: Debates around a curious case of medieval martyrdom
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12603
Debate ongoing since at least 9th century.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hic3.12603
Debate ongoing since at least 9th century.
This is hardly as sweeping a reality as you are suggesting. In many parts of my country, this isn’t true.
Hopefully. I'm always fascinated by this TV debate. It's absurd that barely 40 years ago such an innocent movie caused such an uproar here in the so-called West.
In a literature class about satire. That's about it, there is no other hidden value.
I'm not sure, but I think this is something that should be attached to the political correctness thread, because amidst all the bombardment of political correctness, this is heading in the opposite direction.
It seems almost "fashionable" to ridicule those of a religious background, and actually quite commonplace.
This cartoon wasn't that, but it's merely an example of not respecting what a religion entails. It involves not having any recreated visual depictions of Mohammed or Allah in any way. Doing so would be culturally insensitive and would be slightly demeaning to people of Islamic beliefs.
I mean, this is not difficult to abide by. It doesn't take a second thought not to do it.
And yet, among the most "progressive", the social media outburst to this has been incredibly disgusting to read.
It seems almost "fashionable" to ridicule those of a religious background, and actually quite commonplace.
This cartoon wasn't that, but it's merely an example of not respecting what a religion entails. It involves not having any recreated visual depictions of Mohammed or Allah in any way. Doing so would be culturally insensitive and would be slightly demeaning to people of Islamic beliefs.
I mean, this is not difficult to abide by. It doesn't take a second thought not to do it.
And yet, among the most "progressive", the social media outburst to this has been incredibly disgusting to read.
I think there's a difference between thought-provoking criticism or anything of substance that catalyzes examination of topics like religion, and simply drawing a cartoon because you know it offends followers of that faith.
You don't understand the meaning of caricatures and satire do you? I don't actually find the cartoons funny, but in general I'm not into cartoons. Point being if mass killings and terrorism occur because a cartoonist associates Muhammed with terrorism they only strenghen that perception. Which is why the problem is not the cartoon, but the complete mass violent reaction to such a cartoon. I'd also like to add that life story of Muhammed is massivly different than Jesus and Buddha Shakyamuni. I'd place him more together than Moses than anyone else.
Sorry, but my belief isn’t there to offend, it’s my belief, one that I have held for many decades, a similar length in time in my life vs. those who are religious, almost all my life. I think it is fiction. But I shouldn’t say this because someone else might take offense to this. They’re beliefs, they’re the same.
You still can’t see the issue here.
Don't your presidents say things like god bless america? The secularism is kind of botched.
That’s my main point. This kind of shit throws us back in time. Though I must say that Monty Python is a much more sophisticated and better form of satire then Charlie Hebdo of which I’m not a fan.
Can't it be discussed without the disrespectful image? It's one thing discussing situations like that (IMO - depends greatly on the audience), and another showing the actual image that caused it. So to an extent, yeah Japanese porno but don't even show the image because it doesn't make a difference. You don't show the live stream of the NZ mosque shooter when talking about how bad a tragedy it was. Stuff like this should generally be left for post-highschool level history anyway IMO, as your crowd is a lot more mature and less impressionable than kids and teenagers who most of the time would make jokes out of everything. But whatever the age if you're discussing tragic issues, you don't need to show the actual disrespectful content that someone made just to offend people, as in all likelihood, it'll disrespect people in your class, or lead to people in the class using the image against others just to piss them off. You can talk about the incident from a neutral POV, without being disrespectful. That's a teachers job.
It's true!
I think the question is whether publically "offending" can be a great tool in perpetuating a progressive cause in the face of an "offended" group with antiquated views. In my view it absolutely can.
Whether that be the film you quote, the gay/LGBT community and pride parades or a cartoonist illustrating the ridiculousness of religious censorship.
I don't think gay pride parades were a thought provoking critique on the ridiculousness of homophobia, despite being offensive (to homophobic people).
Challenging ridiculous ideals doesn't always have to be an intellectual lecture of the pros and cons. Sometimes making fun of ridiculousness can be just as powerful in effecting change.
The fact that this teacher has caused infinitely more debate on the issue by offending than he would have by not showing the cartoons illustrates that perfectly.
Last edited:
Based on the little I've seen of the latter: I agree.
Freedom of speech is important, but that doesn't make you immune to being called a dick.
Great post.
I agree.
it’s not my problem if you are offended.
simply move on.
we have moved into this strange time where it’s suddenly wrong to offended.
That’s been in vogue since the mid 50s when a de-secularization of this country started to become far more visible (pledge, motto on money), such platitudes weren’t as typical as they became after the 50s. Get into actual public educational curriculum in this country & it’s far from secular, the Georgia science book sticker affair showcased last decade.
No it doesn’t because that’s also perfectly fine to call someone a dick. It’s also offensive but hey it’s a free society. Chin up and move on.
It depends on what they are being offended by. If people are going to out to offend people on the basis of race, sexual orientation or religious discrimination then yes, I 100% agree with you.
But if they are ridiculing people over something ridiculous then no, life is demonstrably not better for people keeping quiet and allowing the status quo. I've already written a massive post about religious taboos and the danger of not confronting them so I don't want to go over all the same stuff again, but it our world is not a better place for polite society to bury their head in the sand and act like people who create and share satirical cartoons are the bad guys.
This contributes to a society where individuals believe they are justified in beheading someone for drawing, publishing or sharing a cartoon. Well meaning people insisting that to ridicule Islam is to discriminate Islam and helping to create a monster out of something so simple and meaningless.
Publishing, sharing and showing the cartoons removes the power from them. Everyone has the right to be offended by them, even angered by them, but that doesn't mean they should be hidden away, because that only makes them a bigger deal when they do emerge.
These are not images of child porn, gore, violence or any of the other things people have tried to equate them to in this thread. They are harmless cartoons which offend members of a religion who follow a particular interpretation of a religious text. They should be displayed widely and loudly and as much as possible. A lot of people would be horribly offended for a while and then they would get over it and the world would be a safer and more reasonable place than the one we create by hiding them away and hoping nobody ever shares one again.
So you agree with me, stop fighting it.
I've never seen it as a virtue to be offended. For me it has to proportional. When I debate on other forums, the mods often apologize to me for the offense caused to me and I tell them that i'm not offended at all and I in fact welcome all offense in order to have a free discussion.
It will be interesting to see how the same path will be followed 40-50 years later with a different religion.
I am frankly far better off without Christianity being rammed down my throat, which is what happened in the 80s. It’s only a matter of time until we see a similar change.
It certainly could be discussed, but not fully unless you can see about what you are talking actually is. That thing will obviously affect everyone differently, that’s why it is useful in stoking debate.
As I said earlier, certainly that age group of Muslims & non-Muslims would be able to discuss this topic far more openly & with less vitriol than their parents. There’s a tolerance & an acceptance of wider views that exists in that generation v. their parents. Why not let the all the kids discuss it openly? It’s not like they haven’t seen shocking images before in their lives.
Harmless in your opinion. Maybe the other examples are seen as harmless to others?
Maybe those should be displayed "widely and loudly" too, and then what you say in the last sentence?
It's a bit like the whole racism debate at the moment. You don't get to decide what other people are offended by. But when something is very clearly an attempt to offend a large group, that shouldn't be on.
"Button pushers" tend to be dickheads, but I think society as a whole need them. We need someone to step over the line from time to time and be called out on it, while hopefully getting a healthy debate.
You should be able to say whatever you want without being physically harmed or thrown in jail/fined. But no one is above getting "cancelled". Talk shit and expect to be an outcast and potentially have a hard time finding job and making friends.
You should be able to say whatever you want without being physically harmed or thrown in jail/fined. But no one is above getting "cancelled". Talk shit and expect to be an outcast and potentially have a hard time finding job and making friends.
Let’s hope it follows the same path but the reactions in this thread don’t fill me with confidence unfortunately.
there’s a good bit in Ricky Gervais’ last stand up. A saw a preview about 4/5 years ago, so only remember the jist.
but it was that a rape joke would be offensive to someone in the audience who had been raped, but how would you know unless you asked everyone as they entered the room?
I’m sure a lot of this started with the Russell Brand/ Jonathan Ross joke. So many people were offended, that hadn’t even listened to the show.
potential offence should not be an obstacle to open and frank discussion.