Secularism, Muhammed Cartoons and The Sikh Temple Shooting

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Er, no, you didn't get the joke. It's simply showing how silly it is for one person to post offensive imagery and then complain when somebody else does it.

That's not anti-semitism or irrationality. On the contrary, as King Mob points out, that's hypocrisy.

Either way it obviously doesn't qualify.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

Now pipe down and deal with it BB. It's not racism, it's a wonderful form of equality and showing we are -not- afraid of psychopathic fundamentalists.

OK, prove it then. Or admit your double standards.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Either way it obviously doesn't qualify.

But you claimed that it depicted all Pakistanis being anti-Semites, despite it being painfully obvious it was not.
Given that you were unable to correctly interpret a simple political cartoon, and inferred something that is clearly not actually there, I think we can see your problem with DMD.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, prove it then. Or admit your double standards.

I find it rather nauseating that somebody who hasn't the decency or honesty to admit defending muslims/Islam etc has the sheer gall to question anyone here about "double standards" or ask them to prove anything.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, prove it then. Or admit your double standards.

By the way, "Black" is not a religion.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, prove it then. Or admit your double standards.

I like you ignored the images.

You asked for something offensive of each one, I gave you one very quick search image.

What this basically comes down to is you find DMD offensive, therefore think it's bigotry. When shown images other people may find offensive, you ignore and dismiss them.

You're a waste of space on this forum.

King Mob

Penn wrote: »

By the way, "Black" is not a religion.

Nor do any black people demand that no one ever depict MLK, even in a normal, inoffensive way.
There is not a tiny majority of them who threaten and commit violence when some one does.

Further MLK is not a prophet of a religion, and he is a modern historical figure, not a mostly mythological one from a millennium and a half ago.

And most importantly, I would be surprised if BB can find a single example of a picture of Mohammed from the thread here that would meet his conditions.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Of course, if it were the case that by posting pictures of MLK Jnr that I could be threatened with my life, then I'm all for a post pictures of MLK day....

Here, I'll start....



OMG I'm such a bigot posting a picture of MLK OMG

That's a photo, not a caricature highlighting negative stereotypes. Find one, print it out and show black men you meet in the street, tell them it's for freedom of speech and I'm sure you'll have life threatened in no time at all.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

By the way, "Black" is not a religion.

No, but Martin Luther King is black.

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

I like you ignored the images.

You didn't post any images, you posted LINKS. YOU DID NOT ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH ANY OF THEM.

I understand and respect that you don't want to. I'd be disgusted to do it myself. I don't want you to feel goaded into doing something that you don't feel comfortable with, do what you feel is right but at least admit your double standards. If you don't want to endorse anti-semitism or anti-black racism in the name of freedom of speech say so.

Rev Hellfire

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Find one, print it out and show black men you meet in the street, tell them it's for freedom of speech and I'm sure you'll have life threatened in no time at all.

Nicely done there with the casual racism, we'll be chopping at the bit in no time.
Genius pure genius.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, but Martin Luther King is black.

I know, but the whole point of this was "Make fun of all religions and not treat any one religion differently"

"Black" is not a religion. And while I never thought this would be a sentence I'd ever have to say, "Martin Luther King" is also not a religion.

I mean, I'll concede on the Judaism one. Judaism is most definitely a religion. Neither "Black" nor "Martin Luther King" are.

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You didn't post any images, you posted LINKS. YOU DID NOT ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH ANY OF THEM.

I understand and respect that you don't want to. I'd be disgusted to do it myself. I don't want you to feel goaded into doing something that you don't feel comfortable with, do what you feel is right but at least admit your double standards. If you don't want to endorse anti-semitism or anti-black racism in the name of freedom of speech say so.

You're probably referring to this one.
http://i.qkme.me/35ubyu.jpg
I didn't post the actual image because it does contain the word ******. Which does go against the boards.ie charter.

But if you want the others.




Take your false outrage and aim it at something actually used to demean people.
By all means, protest Israel's treatment of Palestine, I may even see you there.
Protest KKK and Neo-Nazi parties, the BNP and so on.

Your sad anger at DMD is now boring and frankly, a bit sad.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

I know, but the whole point of this was "Make fun of all religions and not treat any one religion differently"

"Black" is not a religion. And while I never thought this would be a sentence I'd ever have to say, "Martin Luther King" is also not a religion.

I mean, I'll concede on the Judaism one. Judaism is most definitely a religion. Neither "Black" nor "Martin Luther King" are.

Actually, I'll expand on this as I've just remembered something.

"Make fun of what they do, not what they are" - Chris Rock.

People are black. They're born black, and unless they're Michael Jackson, they'll die black. That's what they are.

Religion is chosen. It's what they do. People might say "I am a Muslim", but that just means they follow the religion of Islam. It's not something they're born with (unlike your comments about physical features and ethnicity which would be more in line with racism than making fun of religion or religious idols).

Brown Bomber

Sonics2k wrote: »

You're probably referring to this one.
http://i.qkme.me/35ubyu.jpg
I didn't post the actual image because it does contain the word ******. Which does go against the boards.ie charter.

I'm out after this post, but you are only half way there. You have to say you are happy to post such an offensive image and then email it to the JDL to show them you aren't afraid of them.

PS I strongly advise that you don't do this, for your own sake. Bye...

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm out after this post, but you are only half way there. You have to say you are happy to post such an offensive image and then email it to the JDL to show them you aren't afraid of them.

But again BB, we're not sending pictures of Muhammad to anyone. That's not the point. The idea of DMD is to draw Muhammad because we can. Not because we want to insult people by intentionally sending them pictures of their religious idol, but simply exercising a right and freedom. We don't go around posting it on Islamic websites or putting posters up in predominantly Muslim areas.

In the original Draw Muhammad Day, the only mention of a Muslim person seeing any of the pictures that I can remember, was your Muslim friend who YOU SHOWED the picture to. YOU'RE the one making this a bigger issue. And I notice you haven't mentioned your current thread on the Islam forum where the only response from a Muslim so far said that it's people who try to stir sh*t between Muslims and non-Muslims who cause the only problems. Right now, dragging this thread up long after the fact and trying to connect it to an issue it was IN NO TANGIBLE WAY connected to, is sh*t-stirring.

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm out after this post, but you are only half way there. You have to say you are happy to post such an offensive image and then email it to the JDL to show them you aren't afraid of them.

PS I strongly advise that you don't do this, for your own sake. Bye...

Why must be email it to JDL and tell them he is happy with it? Did he do that on DMD?

The fact that you got quite severely blanked on the Islam forum might be a useful indication as to the weakness of your current line of faux outrage.

And the way, you still have not responded as to whether you regret defending Islam when it has been used to justify attrocities.

MrP

Channel Zero

King Mob wrote: »

But what you and BB are forgetting, or trying to forget is that DMD was also about the silliness of certain people and companies in the west who were stifling free speech because of an irrational fear of muslim attacks.

I'm not forgetting that what DMD was about at all. Or trying to forget either.

For instance at the time of the first one youtube was banning videos that were critical of Islam. Not offensive ones, just ones that where criticising the religion and some of it's adherents.
And for a more famous example, An episode of south park being edited and threaten with being pulled off the air, just for having an image of Mohammed.

I'm aware of all this, so again it's not that anyone is forgetting anything. The whole it's only a cartoon man and freedom of speech line of reasoning is quite spectactularly missing the point of what these cartoons actually achieve.
So if anyone is forgetting something it's some members of the atheist community, who for all their self-appointed rationality and appeals for reason and evidence, seem to either forget, try to forget or not even care when evidence is shown to them of what DMD (whatever about its roots) has come to represent which is deliberately offensive, peurile negative stereotyping. That's why its creators have distanced themselves from it i presume.

I have no doubts that plenty will be falling over themselves next year aswell to be as offensive as possible. Some just doing it for ****s and giggles. Or clinging desperately to the notion of what they see as a freedom of speech issue. Some because they positively revel in the idea that religious people no matter what kind they are might take offence. Some apparently because of completely separate issues like concerns for womens rights, conveniently ignoring the fact that half of those they offend will be female.
All to the delight of bigots like Gellar, Wilders, Spencer and their ilk.
Terrible way to make a point.

But if I had a mind to, I could conflate jews and zionists to make it seem like BB is attacking jews as a whole. (of course whether he is or not is a different matter)

If you had a mind to you say. So you've never insinuated that ever before i suppose? You've never yourself tried to conflate jews and zionists to attack Brown Bomber. Right..

(of course whether he is or not is a different matter)

...
Your personal quest is getting a bit tiring at this stage. If you've always been doing this, i'm not surprised he has you on ignore..

This is exactly what he is doing with DMD.

No. This is exactly what the people who draw as a pig or a terrorist are doing.

So if drawing pictures of Mohammed is somehow making negative stereotyping all muslims, accusing zionists of controlling the media certainly does the same for jews.

Maybe you're talking about the plain stick drawings instead of the other more offensive ones. Whatever about anyone else, i'm talking the other ones.
In saying that, anyone drawing even stick figures every year is a tad peurile imo. Muslims don't really care all that much i gather if a bunch of internet atheists want to knock themselves out; they haven't asked to ban it or
anything. Neither have i.
They probably just think it's a bit sad that people would bother with it.

Anyway, again you're attempting to draw comparisons where none exist. The one's i had the displeasure to see myself could be seen as trying to be offensive to all Muslims and demeaning them.
Speculating on the amount of influence zionists have in the media or politics is not offensive to all Jews. The differences are quite obvious i would have thought. Conflating them doesn't even qualify as whataboutery, so repeating or re-phrasing it doesn't convince me that it is any more relevant i'm afraid.
It just looks like axe-grinding.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

......

PS I strongly advise that you don't do this, for your own sake. Bye...

Why? Will the big bad Jews come to get him?

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm out after this post, but you are only half way there. You have to say you are happy to post such an offensive image and then email it to the JDL to show them you aren't afraid of them.

PS I strongly advise that you don't do this, for your own sake. Bye...

Why would I send it to them? Did I say I personally drew them, or even said I liked them?

Will I make jokes about Islam? Why yes, I absolutely will. I'll make jokes about anything and everything else too.

King Mob

Channel Zero wrote: »

I'm not forgetting that what DMD was about at all. Or trying to forget either.

But both of your points hinge on the idea that it's solely about offending Muslims.
Again it's making fun of the silliness of executives of companies as much as it is about making fun of a minority of extremist muslims who deserve to be mocked.

Channel Zero wrote: »

I'm aware of all this, so again it's not that anyone is forgetting anything. The whole it's only a cartoon man and freedom of speech line of reasoning is quite spectactularly missing the point of what these cartoons actually achieve.
So if anyone is forgetting something it's some members of the atheist community, who for all their self-appointed rationality and appeals for reason and evidence, seem to either forget, try to forget or not even care when evidence is shown to them of what DMD (whatever about its roots) has come to represent which is deliberately offensive, peurile negative stereotyping. That's why its creators have distanced themselves from it i presume.

I have no doubts that plenty will be falling over themselves next year aswell to be as offensive as possible. Some just doing it for ****s and giggles. Or clinging desperately to the notion of what they see as a freedom of speech issue. Some because they positively revel in the idea that religious people no matter what kind they are might take offence. Some apparently because of completely separate issues like concerns for womens rights, conveniently ignoring the fact that half of those they offend will be female.
All to the delight of bigots like Gellar, Wilders, Spencer and their ilk.
Terrible way to make a point.

But again, you are lumping everyone who participated in DMD with those who are racist.
A bit like BB likes to moan about when people point out the anti-semetic trend in his posts.

And of course, since most Muslims are rational reasonable people, they realise what DMD is and aren't offended.

The only people who are are the tiny minority of extremists it is directed against, and those who have an agenda to push.

Channel Zero wrote: »

If you had a mind to you say. So you've never insinuated that ever before i suppose? You've never yourself tried to conflate jews and zionists to attack Brown Bomber. Right..
...
Your personal quest is getting a bit tiring at this stage. If you've always been doing this, i'm not surprised he has you on ignore..

Again, that's all beside the point.
I could on the face of it just conflate any negative opinion BB had about a subset of Jews to be an opinion of all Jews. And without any further evidence, doing such a thing would be dishonest.
BB is conflating opinions about a subsection of muslims with an opinion of Muslims as a whole and crying racism.

The difference is however there's plenty of evidence that BB's posts have a distinct line of anti-Semitism. I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Speculating on the amount of influence zionists have in the media or politics is not offensive to all Jews. The differences are quite obvious i would have thought. Conflating them doesn't even qualify as whataboutery, so repeating or re-phrasing it doesn't convince me that it is any more relevant i'm afraid.
It just looks like axe-grinding.

But he's not "speculating". He's decided that there is a Zionist conspiracy controlling the media and that one of the effects of this is a campaign against Muslims.

So accusing Jews of controlling the media is at least as bad at creating stereo-types as drawing pictures with Mohammed and bombs.
So then (even if we pretend that BB is just against Zionism) his logic still demands he does not post what he posts for fear of people of developing negative stereotypes, and possibly going out and committing violence.
Hence it is hypocritical for him to complain about DMD.

Further, he claimed that since far right groups agree with some one's points, it de-legitimatises that point or it implies that the person is in agreement with the far right groups.
So I pointed out that most racists and neo-nazis would agree with his conspiracy theory, that the media was controlled by the Jews.

Every single point and objection he's made he would argue against if they where just turned slightly to the very behaviour he complains about yet partakes in.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's a photo, not a caricature highlighting negative stereotypes. Find one, print it out and show black men you meet in the street, tell them it's for freedom of speech and I'm sure you'll have life threatened in no time at all.

Is this better?



Yep, look how evil I am!!!! Shocking stuff altogether. Clearly I'm promoting the resurgence of slavery.

Channel Zero

King Mob wrote: »

But both of your points hinge on the idea that it's solely about offending Muslims.

I don't think they do. They hinge on the quite reasonable observation that that is a product of all this, whatever the original good intentions.

But again, you are lumping everyone who participated in DMD with those who are racist.

I'm not lumping them in at all. I clearly distinguished those whose intentions are more innocent shall we say.

The only people who are are the tiny minority of extremists it is directed against, and those who have an agenda to push.

That's where we disagree. You say it's directed at this subgroup. Others point out that Muslims at large seem to be the target.

Again, that's all beside the point.
I could on the face of it just conflate any negative opinion BB had about a subset of Jews to be an opinion of all Jews. And without any further evidence, doing such a thing would be dishonest.
BB is conflating opinions about a subsection of muslims with an opinion of Muslims as a whole and crying racism.

The difference is however there's plenty of evidence that BB's posts have a distinct line of anti-Semitism. I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

Well, that's fallacious reasoning anyway, but you're entitled to your opinion on this and you seem to not tire of making it at every opportunity. That's your business.
I'm only really interested in hearing about DMD tbh, not how BB has the temerity to broach a subject on an atheist forum which should be of interest to the atheist community because he is in your view also apparently guilty of negative stereotyping of an entire ethnic or religious group.

King Mob

Channel Zero wrote: »

I don't think they do. They hinge on the quite reasonable observation that that is a product of all this, whatever the original good intentions.

I'm not lumping them in at all. I clearly distinguished those whose intentions are more innocent shall we say.

Ok, so we have two separate groups, the people who took part in DMD and those who are just racist.
If you would like to complain about the racists then this is separate issue.

Channel Zero wrote: »

That where we disagree. You say it's directed at this subgroup. Others point out that Muslims at large seem to be the target.

No one is targeting Muslims at large, just the small subset who wish to impose their religious restrictions on others and the even smaller subset who threaten violence.
As I said the majority of rational, reasonable muslims either got what it was about, or didn't care.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Well, that's fallatious reasoning anyway, but you're entitled to your opinion on this and you seem to not tire of making it at every opportunity. That's your business.
I'm only really interested in hearing about DMD tbh, not how BB has the temerity to brooch a subject on an atheist forum which should be of interest to the atheist community because he is in your view also apparently guilty of negative stereotyping of an entire ethnic or religious group.

Again, we're only bringing up BB's posting history because it shows his points to be silly and hypocritical.
And the only reason this thread exists is because he brought up an even sillier and more hypocritical point.

Do you actually think there is a valid connection between the shootings and DMD?
If so, don't you think that then BB should also stop what he posts before someone shoots up a synagogue?

Channel Zero

King Mob wrote: »

Do you actually think there is a valid connection between the shootings and DMD?

No i don't, but i think the whole exercise does have the potential to be counterproductive and polarising. To breed more extremism.
Listen, it was predictable enough that this all this would get a bit heated, and i'm not here to take sides for the sake of it or piss off the regulars.

King Mob

Channel Zero wrote: »

No i don't,

So then BB's point is both silly and hypocritical?

Channel Zero wrote: »

but i think the whole exercise does have the potential to be counterproductive and polarising. To breed more extremism.

How?
If someone either came to the conclusion to hate all muslims from a few silly drawings, and vice versa that muslims are universally mocked and looked down upon, or thought that those same silly drawings are enough to start any kind of violence, there's something wrong with the person in the first place.
And if DMD wasn't there to set them off (which it really wouldn't) something else would have.

Clockwork Owl

After scanning this thread, one thing does seem to be woefully played down: that the Jyllands-Posten caricatures of Mohammed, considered by some to be an early version of Draw Mohammed Day, were not produced in a vacuum. The accompanying article actually deals with the hot topic of self-censorship after an author, Kåre Bluitgen, struggled to find an illustrator willing to work on a purely educational book called 'The Quran and the Life of the Prophet Mohammed'. These refusals weren't on religious grounds but because the illustrators were terrified of the Muslim backlash. One declined with reference to the assassination of Theo van Gogh, the director behind a short film about the abuse of women under Islamic fundamentalism. The other cited the attack on a lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute, beaten by five Muslims for reading the Quran to a non-Muslim class. Unfortunately, those were just the most relevant examples at the time of perceived criticism or insult being met with violence by Islamic extremists.

In that context, Jyllands-Posten weren't just drawing Mohammed for banter; they were making a statement against self-censorship in a democratic society, a statement against silence through fear and a statement for the inclusion of Muslims by treating them just as any other religion is treated, as opposed to wrapping them in cotton wool and presuming them to be ticking time bombs just waiting for the opportunity to be offended. Equality, basically.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm out after this post

Thanks.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have to say you are happy to post such an offensive image and then email it to the JDL to show them you aren't afraid of them. PS I strongly advise that you don't do this, for your own sake.

You're relying on somebody else's implicit threat to threaten what you're too frightened to threaten yourself?

Unbelievable.

/thread