View Full Version : Danish Newspaper Publishes Cariacatures of Prophet
02-02-06, 08:32 PM
Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, commissioned back in September 12 political cartoons/cariacatures depecting Mohammad. (It might be helpful to point out that physical depictions of Mohammad are banned in Islam as encouraging idolatry and that much of the criticism has been for violating this rule rather than simply for the content of the cartoons.) The cartoons run the gamut from simple depictions to one that shows him wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb, and the half with discernable messages address terrorism, women's status in Muslim society, criticism of the newspaper for being overly sensationalistic, and one is a self-portrait of the cartoonist drawing Mohammad while anxiously looking over his back. It seems this last instinct was, well, a good call. Recently, a delegation from the Netherlands took the cartoons to Saudi Arabia and they've spread like wildfire, resulting in public condemnation, protests, and a few boycott efforts. And death threats. Lots of death threats. Against all EU citizens in Palestine, against Danes wherever they may be, etc etc ad nauseum.
The Danish government refused to apologize for the cartoons, stating that Denmark had a free press and that the government was not responsible for what the press published. This resulted in several nations recalling their ambassadors. Apparently, it has been widely circulated that the Danish prime minister owns the newspaper which published the cartoons.
The newspaper which published the cartoons has since caved. Several other newspapers across Europe have since republished them, sometimes with editorial commentary about the sanctity of freedom of the press or a defense of a secular society depending on the outlet, costing at least one editor his job.
After the newspaper had apologized the Danish government praised the apology and said that, while it valued freedom of the press and etcetera, it was very nice to see the paper have some sensibility for the concerns of others.
You can see the cartoons on this page. Search for "Jyllands-Posten", they're pretty far down and the page is image-laden so it might take a while to load. http://info2us.dk/muhammed/
For my part, I have two major reactions. The bomb cartoon is uncouth. All of them are political commentary of the sort that it goes without saying is improper to ban from a paper and furthermore, with the possible exception of the bomb cartoon, none of them display anything approaching a lack of editorial judgement. The second reaction is that "We're so sorry your upset" (as opposed to, say, "We're so sorry we let this be published") is an almost defensible reaction from the Danish government but guys, get a clue, if threats draw apologies then when people want apologies they will threaten. I think the contrast with any instance of an artistic work designed specifically to criticize Christianity and/or antagonize Christians (Piss Christ, dung-speckled Virgin Mary, etc) is instructive -- the protest generally takes the form of some angry letters, a boycott, and sometimes a call for the government to not support the artist, and the response generally has the art/media communities rally around free expression and refuse to issue anything like an apology. And, yeah, gunmen don't surround the embassies of the country the "art" was published in and threaten to demolish them if their demands are not met.
02-02-06, 08:49 PM
Muslims consider it sacrilegious to produce a likeness of the Prophet Mohammad. CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.
02-02-06, 09:00 PM
Its a bit over where they reported Guiliani's critique: "Giuliani maintained the painting desecrated religious beliefs of a substantial portion of the community." CNN, of course, did not take an editorial position on the appropriateness of offending the religious beliefs of a substantial portion of the community.
02-02-06, 09:13 PM
Just to clarify: I'm not that familiar with the Christian Bible. Where exactly does it note that Christ, Madonna, etc. can't be illustrated? I know that it is a strong contention of Islam that the Prophet can never be pictured, hence CNN's reaction. I don't recall a tenant of anything even close-- even if shown in nasty depictions-- in the Christian Bible and thus, drawing on the same response from CNN.
PS Edit: I am certain that, upon seeing depictions of Christianity in negative views the mass hold that the historical presence in which the religion has held sway will suddenly cease and everyone will think that all Christians are inherently bombers, etc.. Comparing the two is simply impossible: One intensifies a stereotype against a group that is already being attacked. The other: A picture of the Virgin. Even when it was published, oddly, I didn't see the whole "Christianity is literally shit! See, I told you so!" public response.
Mocking the powerful may be painful. It doesn't have the same impact as mocking those without power.
02-02-06, 10:21 PM
I don't recall a tenant of anything even close-- even if shown in nasty depictions-- in the Christian Bible and thus, drawing on the same response from CNN.
I think you are being willfully obtuse here, Scooter. Competent ecclasiastical authority, such as Bishop Thomas V Daily, came out immediately and loudly against that "work of art" on the basis of their interpretation of longstanding Catholic doctrine regarding iconography. Perhaps CNN was indeed confused as to whether "Don't illustrate Mary with elephant dung" was more of a "strong contention" or just a suggestion from Catholicism, but the institutional response of the Church would presumably be pretty bloody instructive on that point. And yet, and here we've got CNN dead to rights, you will not find in that article or any other CNN publication a reference to its corporate "respect for Catholicism". Indeed, if you had said that phrase to me prior to this morning I would have laughed at the absurdity of an American news organization making a point of a public declaration of respect for any religion.
(Incidentally, restrictions on the depiction of Mohammed aren't in the Koran either to my understanding. Restrictions against idolatry are in the Koran, this gets transformed into "don't depict Mohammed, ever" in some Islamic traditions and "don't depict the human form, ever" in others on the basis of tradition and commentary which receives semi-canonical status in some Islamic traditions. The Arabic name for this sort of commentary escapes me at the moment but its roughly analagous to the way rabbinical interpretations of Hebrew scriptures are held in esteem in some branches of Judaism.)
It doesn't have the same impact as mocking those without power.
Piss Christ sold for $105,000 and won the author critical acclaim. An EU building which is not connected to the newspaper in the slightest save for holding people who kinda-sorta look like the countrymen of the newspaper editor is currently under siege by masked gunmen. You've got a pretty funny definition of "power". Ah well, maybe the aid workers will get lucky and won't feel the "impact" of "mocking those without power".
02-02-06, 11:07 PM
My point, Patrick, is that even if one were to assume that a negative portrayal of Christians was indeed an accurate representation, it would be pretty hard to clearly affect that population to the same extent that a negative artifact can affect the perception of a smaller population. That is, more people, more chance to show contrary messages, less impact-- especially when the group has historically been targeted any way and with the same tired motifs.
Also, you can't remove history and even current practice here. I know you're not suggesting that Christians don't still hold a ton of power in this country so that a depiction of a Christian god (which, incidentally, the article notes were also lambasted) would have the power to further justify, limit, or enforce stereotypes of Christians. And even if it did, the power of Christianity in so many ways in this country is readily apparent; I doubt it would have much impact on the 77% of the population and the priveleges given thereunto.
Piss Christ is a damned fine work of art. The lighting was beautiful, the color contrast was phenomenal, the use of angles to show the streams of urine as streams of light was fantastic, as was the rich symbolism of the color choices. The use of down-up at side angle shot is reminiscent of Bernnini's angle in the Ectasy of Saint Theresa (as are the rays in the background). Even if it wasn't: Some find that idea of what some would consider commiting symbolic cannabalism disturbing but I doubt that they would want to ban portrayals of communion. Further, second take: the art medium was making a political statement: We have, in this country, effectively pissed on religion, making it a mockery of what it once was. I've heard that take from more than a few people--all of them from an altar. Third and finally, the artifact offends people. Good. Welcome to art; it's not just about what is beautiful or makes us "feel good." It provokes-- and that provoked.
I'm not even comparing this with the cartoon- which is childish and insulting in its crude rendering. It's not even in the sam ballpark as Piss Christ.
I'm shocked, frankly, that it didn't sell for more. I wouldn't mind having a print of the same.
Scooter, you seem primarily worried about inciting negative opinion, and that's your sole justification for why banning pictures of Mohammed is a good idea, while Christians should continue taking their lumps. I tend to agree we shouldn't be worried about hurt feelings. So let's move on to the grist of your contention.
No one was persuaded that muslims are all terrorists because of that cartoon. It's far more likely that someone might develop such a bias because a group of muslim terrorists besieged a bunch of innocent people because of a damned cartoon. So your concern is misplaced.
You just state that this cartoon is detrimental to public perception of muslims, but provide no reasonable scenario of how anyone who lives today might really be impacted by that. Who out there is thinking "well, I was suspicious of all muslims after all those terrorist attacks committed by muslims, but it's this cartoon that did it. I'm a bigot now." Thankfully, most people don't hold the whole responsible for the actions of a small part, and those that do aren't doing it because they saw a cartoon once. So, considering that, why should we be sensitive to one group but not the other? Aren't unjustified double standards unfair? And isn't it bad to be unfair? Why do you hate puppies?
02-03-06, 02:39 PM
"Scooter would object to the possibility that it would lead people to believe that all Christians were drug addicts."
Actually, let's just say that Scooter was producing a show in which priests were regularly shown to have a thing for little boys. The freak out factor would be huge, and why: Considering the latest scandals it's not exactly removed from describing some very small portion of the population.
Having noted, are there plenty (and I mean plenty) of other examples concerning the awesome wonder of Christianity to illustrate that the priest scandal is an exceptionally minute part of Catholic history or at least Catholic population? Sure, and bully bully for them-- read as, the film would only be countered by other positive examples which illustrate its lack of generalizability.
Outside of Dearborn Michigan (can you tell me why offhand?) please explain the sheer amount of positive Islam as peaceful examples replete throughout our media, culture, and society? I'm just not seeing many. This cartoon intensifies such status.
02-03-06, 11:40 PM
See any Bush or Clinton speech in the last decade which involves Islam. Its socially mandatory that you say "Of course, true Islam is a religion of peace and the overwhelming majority of Muslims want nothing to do with terrorism and every religion has been distorted to evil ends in its history and..." every time you point out that, say, there is a segment of the British Muslim community which you wouldn't want to invite to your next World of Difference meeting (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm )
Violence inspired by religion is certainly not unique to muslims and I think the comparison of christian responses to media and to events historically is just as harmful. In Ireland people rioted and died over the staging of a parade. Riots happened once outside the vatican because the pope was going to meet with an Austrian politician. The history of religious violence around churches in the USA since the Civil rights movement is scary. White christians burning down black churches. This thread seems to be degenerating to a christians good/love free speech --- muslims evil/kidnap and bomb --- That simple dichotomy is obviously deeply flawed and probably ought to trouble us a bit. It would not be hard to find a dozen cases of riots and violence from the last 40 years inspired by christians pissed at the free speech of others. The need to disarticulate christianity from violence while casting judgment at islam seems to have a partisan western bias to me. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to examine our own history before we condemn others.
Christianity and Islam both offer ideals that most of their practitioners fail to live up to.
the publisher -
But knowing what he knows now, would he still commission and print those cartoons?
"That is a hypothetical question," he says. "I would say that I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque."
02-07-06, 10:14 AM
I believe that a publisher in Iran has now countered with his decision to publish some pretty saucey cartoons about the Holocaust (oh, funny, funny, ha ha!) in response to the viva free speech line.
I was in New York City (yes, New York City) when the protests were happening over the blasphemy of having a play showing Jesus mack on another guy-- with protests, bomb threats, and justification for arson in the wings.
I believe the course of action was absolutely correct. Writing letters or complaining will never force Denmark and other western countries to think twice about what impact their cartoons or comments could have. Their should be some DECENCY standards. There is absolutely no justification in humoring the sacred texts or individuals in a religion. What if there was a cartoon depicting Buddha sitting on a chair, and the chair breaks because Buddha is really overweight. Sure, the point is to get obesity or something into the limelight, but there are BETTER ways than to humor the honored individuals in a religion.
I think all the Christian examples above are void at the point when it was not highly circulated as was the case with the cartoons.
I'm waiting for the day when Muslims do something disrespect Jesus or Christianity. Bush/Cheney will condemn it, and the religious will harass their Muslim neighbors.
Same thing the Muslims are doing now.
"When rioting is taking place, members of this parish can't leave the area, because access to the main roads is blocked. We're supposed to be having a novena here this week, but speakers can't get in to us because of the violence," he told Catholic News Service.
Northern Ireland Chief Constable Hugh Orde said the rioting was organised by Protestant paramilitaries - the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force - with disturbances breaking out in seven different locations in Belfast and five different locations outside the city in an effort to stretch police and army resources to the maximum. Protestant leaders deny the charge.
Rioting started last Saturday after the Independent Parades Commission ruled that a parade by the Orange Order, a Protestant fraternity, could not pass through a Catholic district.
02-07-06, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by nomad
In Ireland people rioted and died over the staging of a parade.
WHOA. WHOA. WHOA. You think that Marching Season and the Orange parades are just 'parades?' "Man, those crazy Irish, getting so riled up over the staging of a parade! But parades are so happy! With clowns and marching bands and stuff!"
Try something more along the lines of a KKK rally circa 1935 or Kristallnacht; that's what marching season is. People with guns, torches, clubs, molotovs and other weapons terrorizing neighborhoods because of the cultural associations of the people that live there, threatening to burn churches and houses down, smashing windows and cars and anything they can get their hands on and beating people until they can't get back up. I never knew that the 'staging of a parade' required annual monitoring by Human Rights Watch, as the Orangeman parades have since about '96. I still have nightmares about it, I count my blessings every day that I was only in Belfast for one of them. It was one of the few times I have ever genuinely feared for my life.
Nicole - Thats not my point. My point was that christians have engaged in violence in response to what we would describe as free speech. If the argument is that the christian west values free speech while muslims respond with violence I think that skips vasts swaths of history where christians have denied others speech and assembly rights. Additionally, I am not commenting on whether divesting others of the right to assemble or to speak may not be necessary in some cases. I am focused on addressing the anti-muslim tone of this thread where caricatured representations of muslims as violent free speech haters is contrasted with the laughable argument that christians do not use violence to squash free speech.
Catbert - Here are some case areas in the US worth contemplating:
1. When anti-abortion christians bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors and nurses.
2. The bombing and arson of black churches by white christian hate groups.
3. The use of hate crime violence against gay and lesbian individuals by christian hate groups and individuals (I am thinking of the kkk but I am sure a search of the Southern Poverty Law Center web page would uncover dozens of other examples)
One of the largest examples of terrorism in the USA was the Oklahoma City Bombing and Timothy McVeigh's christian identity views and support of David Koresh (Waco) as a leader of the Brittish Israelites is widely documented.
To even imply that christians in the USA categorically do not use violence to hinder the free speech of others is simply not true. We could rehash the death threats and near riots in many locations from movies such as the last temptation of christ but the actual cases of violence erupting are far more provocative. There are dozens more examples.
We can condemn the violence without making the argument that we are culturally superior. Making that argument is both factually incorrect and seems to me to suggest a prejudice.
02-07-06, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Catbert
Last I checked, no U.S. Christian groups (the primary targets of anti-Christian fear-mongering about an impending "theocracy" and alleged threat to religious liberties) are involved in "The Troubles".
I seriously hope that you're not advancing the claim that there has never been a terrorist attack in the United States carried out by a Christian group or justified by Christian theology.
Rather, I think that our lefty friends grossly exaggerate Christian reactions when faced with similar acts of denigration and these incidents call anti-Christian fear-mongering into sharp relief.
It's absurd to argue that concerns over the attempts of fundamentalist Christian groups to ensconce their ideals in legislation and public policy are unfounded just because said groups haven't burned down buildings or kidnapped people. The debate in America is essentially one of the role of religion in the public sphere. It's a good debate and an important one to have. It's not served by dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a "lefty fear-mongerer."
02-07-06, 06:42 PM
A few things:
"Yet, if I go into mosques around the world, such calls would not be hard to find at all."
Please specify. I've been to mosques. Dearborn is chuck full of mosques. I've heard call after call of condemnation for such actions not just in mosques but in the popular press. I thus differ with your conclusions but even if I didn't, there are some pretty damned frightening things said in Churches. Personally, they creep me out more than mosques, but hey! that's just my thing. If I'm guilty for lumping all Christians into that same mindset than you have just done the same with Muslims.
But on to my intent:
If you look back at the original post, it was in response to your contention that there has not been calls for violence in consideration of "anti-Christian" art. There has been. Acted on it? Different matter than NYC, granted. I wouldn't need NYC to prove that there have been more than a few examples of Christian response that isn't exactly turn the cheeck (see Nomad's post above.)
Oh, and no US involvement in the Troubles? (Sorry to bring it up, Nicole but...) The Boston-Belfast connection mean much? Ask Thatcher-- she talked about it at length.
02-07-06, 06:45 PM
"Must be an impending atheist plot to take over the country and impose their agenda by force, right?"
Actually, there are a lot of us-- secularists and atheists alike-- trying desperately to stop the advances made by organized religion into the workings of government.
I have yet to hear of an organization dedicated to such a cause asking for church burnings.
Seriously, are you prepared to place Iranian civil society on the same moral and ethical plane as western liberalism? Would you be equally happy living in REAL theocracy like that as you are fantasizing about one for instrumental use in political debates?
I find it interesting that you are quite comfortable generalizing from protests in Damscus and Beirut to the entire Islamic culture. Its also interesting that you can suspend and bracket out the rest of the world events that are at the heart of this dispute. In case you missed it, there are lots of other factors that are contributing to an anti-west sentiment in many parts of the muslim world. To present this as if it is solely about a cartoonis to miss the entire big picture.
There are 1.5 billion muslims. They have staged peaceful protests in Egypt, Turkey, Kenya, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Yemen, Qatar, Morocco, and Bahrain . In addition, the violence in one football match in Britain caused more loss of life and property than the entirety of all of the global protests about this cartoon combined. Doesn't speak well to your discussion of what constitutes being civilized.
I think I can be critical of the west without wanting to live in a theocracy and I think I can point out that christians are not without fault when it comes to divesting others of their speech rights. To judge an entire culture by the events in two cities, especially when the events have other contributing factors and when riots from sporting events in the west have been far worse, seems to me to suggest that you are observing this controversy with ideological blinders. Yes, the riots are wrong. Violence is not an acceptable response to satire. However, your global condemnations of muslim culture deliberately ignore the vast majority of muslims in the world. In addition, your willingness to ignore when christians have used violence to stifle the speech rights of others suggests a rather ethnocentric perspective. We can and should judge and condemn the violent protests. However, to even hint at the suggestion that the christian west is civilized while muslims are brutal theocratic savages goes a bit too far.
02-08-06, 10:04 AM
I will agree that there is indeed a portion of Muslims that are indeed violent and that violence should not be tolerated. I would also contend that, historically, a portion of Christians are also violent and that at various time periods the violence enacted by these Christians was susbtantial. Has Christianity moved away from an era of such violent discord? I would suggest yes, but I would also suggest that tactics have merely shifted. Outright violence? Perhaps not and do we see elements of a portion of Islam that, in strong disassociation with the principles of the religion, act violently? Yes. Do we see Christian organizations also acting in a "violent" way toward groups but not through the use of physical violence but instead acts of legislation, funding, social condemnation, etc? Yes.
I think that both actions are bad, and have never suggested that the violence is excusable-- either kind--- nor shall, of course, this small portion be assumed to represent anything other than itself and certainly, Muslim leaders suggest the same. In the same way, certainly various Christian groups separate themselves from their violent counterparts, lest we forget: We, the Ku Klux Klan, reverently acknowledge the majesty and supremacy of Jesus Christ..."
02-08-06, 10:33 AM
"The forces of radical/political Islam are very influential and their power appears to be growing."
I suppose this is where we differ. I don't personally believe that the extremist factions, although growing in numbers, represent a global movement and poewr grab. I see more Muslim nations than ever before denouncing such actions as violent abominations of Islam. I am not doubting the negative impact of these actions but I don't see the threat as consuming the religion or the governmental systems based therein.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we should just write off such actions as "a bunch of whackos" and do nothing about it. But I see several Islamic leaders demanding an end to such violence as well as a number of very peaceful protests against the cartoon-- all from Muslims.
Personally, as you know, I would contend that the removal of books dealing with GLBT issues is a heavy, strong reversal of a free, academic marketplace and, in the case of adolescent GLBT individuals, damning. The amount of information that can be proctured from trained counselors is slight (if you're lucky), teachers have been noted at length as being even more homophobic than students, the amount of anti-GLBT communication in high schools and even middle schools is vast and the schools that allow such discrimination often, of course not always, in the name of religion is high. The library may be one of the last places left for solace. Yes, I do consider that a big deal.
Edit to note: I would say that I have seen a LOT of such actions from the Right (hell, they had hearings on My Daddy's Roomate"-- little kids realizing that people aren't all hetero! The horror! The horror!) and have seen little of such actions from the Left comparitively.
02-08-06, 10:45 AM
Actually, the leader of the Muslim American Association in Chicago just wrote something very similar to just that in yesterday's NYT. He noted, in particular, that Mohammed was attacked, insulted, even had "sharp things" thrown at him-- and he still responded peacefully.
02-08-06, 11:11 AM
You can add London to that list.
[Edit: See, for example, the theological analysis of one Londan iman. It might be interesting to see him and the Chicago iman debate, if you could convince him to do so without attempting to kill the heretic.
At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. Kafab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu Raafif was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adif al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad (saw).
Shortly after these incidents the people began to realise that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten today.
"saw" is incidentally the abbreviation of a translation of an Arabic honorific phrase. I believe in English its something like "peace be upon him" but I could be mistaken.
dude - these are your args:
Guess it depends on which community is offended.
Muslims: Don't. They might get violent.
Christians: Yeah, its ok. They'll only write letters which we will portray as violent for Round Two.
I notice here that you have not qualified your comments to some muslims.
I would have no problem asserting cultural superiority here.
then why are you upset that I would characterize your argument as such?
I think it is you who are ignoring the rather straightforward arguments I have presented in a reasonable way. If you want to deal with this issue reasonably without making ad homs then perhaps you should answer the arguments. None are new. You have just ignored them to focus on anything else. Maybe because the deeper arguments are things you might prefer to ignore:
1. There is a total absence of sense of perspective here. More people have died in riots following european football games than in all of the muslim riots combined. Same for property damage.
2. The root cause of the violence goes far beyond the cartoons.
3. Christians have restricted the free speech rights of others just as egregiously (abortion clinics have been bombed, arson used against black churches, death threats to moviemakers)
4. Your claims of the influence of violent extremists in provoking violent responses to the cartoons seem rather far fetched when there are over a billion muslims and the vast majority of protests have occurred peacefully.
02-08-06, 05:53 PM
I do have to agree with Jason and Patrick's point on US Muslims. I have to be honest: I have had very little contact with Muslims outside of the US. Most of my readings and references to Muslims (and Islam for that matter) deals with my experiences in the US. My Muslim friends and neighbors: All contacts from the US.
Perhaps there is a civil difference between factions of Islam, even geopolitical factions. I would hate to assume that *anyone* would think my neighbor Ali, with his family from Saudi Arabia, was of the same ilk as Al Qaeda simply because they worshiped the same god or had familial connections in the same country. I also, however, must logically question my belief that every Muslim is like Ali, who is very kind, courteous, and whose mother makes some kick ass tibouli.
As such, I cannot exprapolate the views of extreme Muslim factions any more on to them than I can their actions unto other Muslims (any more than I can the actions of Phelps to all Christians or from the Maryknoll sisters to Phelps.)
02-08-06, 05:56 PM
"Christian extremist violence"
Of course, violent actions can take a variety of forms, not just physical. In terms of physical actions, yes, agreed.
I find it quite amusing that you manage every time you get into an argument on a thread to accuse someone of mischaracterizing you. It can sometimes be deliciously ironic. In an effort to meet the raised ethical bar you have set I'd like to point out some places where you seem to mischaracterize and engage in ad homs :
Look, don't you think that I know that the argument I am making isn't exactly popular in the rhetorically repressive Kritikland of the post-modern debate community? You don't need to further undermine the potential for serious discussion by constantly making inflammatory and insulting misrepresentations like this. Please focus on my ACTUAL argument instead of taking cheap shots.
Calling the kritik community repressive is a cheap shot. Its seems inflammatory and insulting to me and to those who might self identify as k debaters. Why must you demean and insult the kritik community? Why the cheap shot? You manage to sneak in an ad hom while discussing why we need to elevate the tone of the debate. Its really pretty spectacular irony.
When we consider that the VAST majority of speech codes, destruction of publications, shouting down of speakers, and other efforts at censorship arise from the political left in this country, it is worth considering whether it might be time to problematize the traditional liberal narrative that only recognizes threats from the right.
slipping past the rather blatant ad homs and into the substance supporting this claim - oh wait - there is no evidence - this really is just another ad hom against the left. In a world where those who oppose the war are routinely denied entry to open public square events because of tshirts and are labeled pro-osama traitors you would actually circulate the claim that the left is the side squashing dissent? If you are really serious about wanting to further democratic debate and dialogue perhaps you should examine your own mischaracterizations of your opponents. You seem to believe it is wrong to demonize political opposition and yet you seem to engage in those very practices rather regularly when it comes to how you smuggle in args against the left, pomo, the k, and the vast anti-christian conspiracy. I am going to hold back on the claim that every time you discuss the left, pomo, the k, and the anti-christian movement that you have lied and mischaracterized about my peeps. But I can't help but notice the delightful irony in your call to not demonize your opponents while smuggling in a wide variety of ad homs.
Seriously, you think the left is rhetorically repressive you should try living in a real theocracy where people have no rights at all. I can't believe you would whine about k debaters and the left when there is so much real repression out there. God bless america.
02-09-06, 03:09 PM
Wow, everyone just takes themselves so seriously. My personal take is that people, regardless of culture, religion, ethnicity, whatever, need to lighten the hell up.
what on earth gave you the idea anyone takes this seriously? You mean you actually thought some people were invested in this? Cmon, its just a game - like debate. Nothing you say or do here really counts. Its just for fun. heh heh.
02-10-06, 11:19 AM
I'd beg to differ, many take this shit seriously. If I were to make a bomb/turban joke, someone would throw a fit. I mean hell, you make a few genocide jokes and everyone here is up in arms. Trust me on this one...
people would give you trouble for a joke about genocide? can't even begin to imagine why.
here is a joke:
so three kids sally, billy, and mohammed are all out at recess. billy comes in and his teacher asks what he did outside and Billy says he played in the sand box. The teacher tells him if he can spell sand on the board he can have some icecream and he does. Then sally comes in and says she also played in the sand box. The teacher tells her if she can spell box on the board she can have ice cream. So sally does. Then mohammed comes in and he has obviously been crying. The teacher asks him what he did at recess and he tells her he tried to play in the sand box but sally and billy threw rocks at him. The teacher tells him that is blatant racial discrimination and then says if mohammed can spell blatant racial discrimination on the board he can have some ice cream.
do you get the moral of the joke? Does it make you laugh, offend you, or teach you? Do you get the subtext? Is it sufficient to over come the poor taste of the joke?
02-14-06, 11:54 AM
I think its a damn funny practice in irony, even if I've heard it before.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.