So you don't think that certain topics are better served by different mediums. Which isn't to be confounded with excluding a medium but just acknowledging that one may be ideal while the other isn't?
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Better is in the eye of the beholder. But I don’t think any medium should be rejected.
As @Grinner said, political cartoons have always been an effective and popular form of satire / protest / propaganda. That’s why we always teach about them.
A bad cartoon is just a bad cartoon. I don't think we need a world governing body on what makes for an acceptable cartoon.
I don't think either which is why I didn't make that point once.
I didn't suggest that we need a governing body, I simply judged a cartoon.
And cartoons don't kill people and terrorists kill cartoonists. Anyway if people are so dumb, they forge their attitudes on cartoons, they are going to fall into the trap of whatever hatred they have a group anyway. Took a lot more than this to make the holocaust happen.As is this. It's also nazi propaganda spreading the still popular antisemitic conspiracy theory about Jews running the world.
This constant reference to what medium it is (in general, not from you specifically) is weird.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_antisemitic_cartoons_contest
BTW. Antisemitic cartoons get taken down here on the Caf.
Am I misreading you in that I think you say there are certain things a cartoon shouldn't comment on?
No, I said that cartoons aren't ideal for all topics and all audiences. I also said that cartoons aren't equal, some vehiculate messages that have no place in our societies.
Why would antisemitic cartoons get taken down? They're just cartoons. Drawn or animated child porn are also cartoons.
Well that's a bit meaningless because you can say that about every other medium.
It's not my rule. I posted Charlie Hebdo's anti-semitic cartoons on here because someone shared a clip with Noah Chomsky saying that France are hypocritical about freedom of expression because if they made anti-semitic cartoons they would go to jail.
So they're taken down because they're antisemitic, not because they're cartoons. Because cartoons carry a message just like any other medium, and cartoons should be criticised or defended based on what they say and not based on the fact that they're drawn.
Plenty of people draw child porn and defend themselves by "it's just drawings". That makes them pedophiles, cartoon or not.
@NotThatSoph
Anti-Semitic cartoons like that are shown and discussed as part of any decent Holocaust class. Including ones taught to middle and high schoolers.
Anti-Semitic cartoons like that are shown and discussed as part of any decent Holocaust class. Including ones taught to middle and high schoolers.
You can and you should. Which I believe is the answer to this problem acknowledging that context matter, using cartoons may be a good idea in one case and not so good in an other. I think that this point is particularly important when people in this thread have decided to vilify or support a teacher while having little idea about the context of the lesson. But now I realize that I shouldn't have commented meaninglessly.
Maybe I'm an absolute fecking idiot, which I probably am, but please enlighten me as to what relevance the bolded aspect has to do with anything involving the rest of that post?
Is a cartoon of child porn different from a photo? Obviously society has pretty much deemed it illegal, but it's an interesting discussion all the same.
Perhaps it doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the post.
That statement is as true as it is misleading, since no one has claimed that it took only cartoons. But contrary to your very naive separation of propaganda and violence, it's common knowledge that the antisemitic propaganda of the Nazis played an indispensable part in making the Holocaust possible. Influencing public discourses is massively important for the success of any political movement, including the worst ones.
Btw, I'm in no way making comparisons between this current cartoon 'scandal' and der Stürmer or anything, I'm just picking this up at the point I've found it.
In this case it shouldn't, as it was posted with critical intention.
We give children special protection. Not religion.
I'm aware, as they should if done the right way. I'm just pointing out that cartoons can be everything from silly and meaningless to powerful and evil, and that "just cartoons" is a silly phrase. It's what they depict and mean that matters, not what they are.
I think they are treated differently, even to the extent that they're not illegal some places, but still bad and obviously something only a pedophile would enjoy even if it is just cartoons. One obvious difference being that no real child is directly abused in the making of that particular type of child porn.
And the point of making the Muhammed cartoons was to treat Islam the same way as we treat other religions instead of giving in to self-censorship out of security reasons.
13-14 year old children in a school in Yorkshire?
From incitement to pedophilia.
Big Mouth on Netflix certainly pushes this idea to the permissible limit.
That's not true though is it.
JP had an editor who fought to publish the Muhammad cartoons but refused to do the same with Jesus cartoons as they wouldnbe offensive.
Similarly the publication has come under criticism for spreading anti immigrant hysteria etc. By it's own institutions.
Let's not pretend it was a casual commentary with the cartoons.
What does this have to do with my post?
But not in other spheres like their beliefs etc
It's a fair critism of Jyllands Posten, but it was a general observation of the state of affairs in the western world.
Not by law no.
That I don't believe it was part of propaganda, but for cartoonists to apply the same standard to Islam as they to any other religion in countries that have a secular laws.
Which then does beg the question that if JP have ulterior motives, and has faced criticism from its own institutions for being anti immigrant (especially towards those associated with a particular belief) and causing offence (again to a particular set of beliefs), why would (some) institutions in the rest of Europe publish the same material as a sort of "solidarity" experiment?
Would they have the same beliefs or motives?
Didn't the law, when abolishing blasphemy law, basically put certain elements associated with blasphemy into other legal frameworks?
Example: incitement to hatred
It's basically the Same Shamoun arguments of old
I don't know if Fleming Rose had ulterior motives. I can either take his word for it or not. I'm not a regular reader of Jyllands posten and I don't know their particular stance on immigration, or what stance they had back then, Fleming Rose himself is married to an immigrant.
I think the issue is more that clerics have interpreted the texts to allow that sort of thing. Didn't a cleric give a new interpretation that allowed for suicide bombing when Islam is pretty clear that suicide is forbidden? The problem with most of the old religions is that they have to be interpreted for modern life and usually it's done poorly by people with an agenda.
A good example is this doctrine of prosperity being preached in the US that God says it's ok to make money and be wealthy if you do some good stuff.
You can generally tell worst ones though by their desire for deference and their aversion to ridicule. The same organizations which use propaganda to gain political power are also the ones who want to pass laws like blasphemy laws under the pretense of offense to stifle what is in effect counter propaganda.
I do smile to my self when people criticize a cartoon about any religion or its texts as propaganda in defense of ancient books filled with exactly that and the banning of which would cause uproar.
You have made that connection yourself, by bizarrely extending your claim that "cartoons don't kill people" to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. One of the worst historic examples possible for that claim. And I have explicitly ruled out making that connection myself in this debate.
Excatly that was my point of sharing Christopher Hitchens talk on free speech.
That is my error then.
A Russian I believe. He himself studied Russian and worked there I believe.
A quick wikki will confirm what I said about JP.
Denmark is traditionally far more restrictive on mass immigration compared to our neighbour Sweden for instance.