angelo
Deleted
This question has probably already been answered in this thread, but had that cartoon been a caricature of Jesus, would the xtians make such a fuss about it, or worst still, shoot people for it?
-
Features
Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
Underseer
Contributor
No.
But if we are going to turn this into a Christians vs Muslims debate, Christianity played a critical role in selling the invasion of Iraq to the American people, a decision that thus far has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. As far as I'm concerned, Christian radicals are sporting a bigger body count than the Muslim radicals, and that's even before we get to the discussion about the role Christians played in the policy debate on mass torture.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
And let's not forget the Christian radicals who go into other Christians' churches and murder people for disagreeing with them.
Make no mistake, if our society allowed Christians to use force to get their way, right wing fundamentalist preachers and their congregations would be just as brutal as any mullahs you might name.
Last edited:
You aren't very good at this whole logic thing, are you?
It doesn't matter if Islam is a religion and not a race; as I said, only a complete fucking ignoramus could even conceivably argue that it's OK in this or any other scenario to portray Muslims generally, who vary immensely in their values and worldviews, and most of whom have never killed nor want to kill anyone, as violent, ape-like Nazis.
If you're unable to see this, it's really not my problem. But it does say quite a lot about you.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,768
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That depends which Christians you show it to.
There are plenty of places in Africa where an insulting caricature of Jesus will get an artist seriously hacked to death with machetes.
Cite?
The Charlie Hebdo guys --which not so long ago we were all-- mocked Christians too didn't they? How did that turn out?
It is a portait of muhammed, not a generic muslim. That is portrait of any muslim is YOUR interpretation. Do not forget that what pissrs you of is YOUR interpolation. Not the picture per se.
And it is rather disturbing that you dont recognice the difference between attacking a person and attacking an opinion.
Shame on you!
The cartoon refers only to Muhammad. You're allowed to draw other Muslims, this isn't a generalization to all Muslims.
I see you've shifted the goalposts away from the line you and Nexus were originally taking, which is that these broad-brush portrayals are somehow OK because they're targeting a religion, as if that suddenly makes smearing 1.5 billion people justified. And yes, that's obviously what's happening here. If it's an "interpretation," then it is the interpretation of any sane, rational person who spends even 10 seconds reviewing the "artwork" and hateful rhetoric from the artist, which I posted in detail.
Just like any sane, rational person would assume that when a known racist draws a picture of Obama as an ape, it isn't some purely political swipe aimed at Obama alone. It doesn't matter if one target group is an ethnicity and the other isn't; the artist perceives Muslims generally as ape-like, violent Nazis, which means what he's doing isn't any different.
This really isn't that hard to grasp, and there's no reason why I should need to keep spelling this out for you like we're in elementary school. So if you can't comprehend this by now I'm afraid I have no more fucks to give.
- - - Updated - - -
See above. The last sentence in particular.
I have not shifted any goal posts.
Religion is ok to attack since it is an opinion only, a totally unbased opionion.
Racist attacks is another matter altogether.
It is really not my problem if you cannot grasp that there can be more than obe aspect to this.
I grasp that just fine. In fact, the nonsensical argument you're advancing was already dealt with, as you well know:
It doesn't matter if Islam is a religion and not a race; as I said, only a complete fucking ignoramus could even conceivably argue that it's OK in this or any other scenario to portray Muslims generally, who vary immensely in their values and worldviews, and most of whom have never killed nor want to kill anyone, as violent, ape-like Nazis.
*yawn*
Are you implying it's okay to generally portray Nazis unfavorably because of their beliefs? tsk tsk
When you have something meaningful to contribute, let us know.
Heh. A set of beliefs is a set of beliefs, call them political, religious, whatever. Others here have pointed that out but nothing seems to shake you from your adamantine hypocrisy.
As I've said repeatedly, only a fucking ignoramus would even attempt to argue that it's under any circumstances OK to portray Muslims in general as violent and ape-like Nazis. Poorly reasoned attempts at Godwinning aren't going to change this; I guess we could just as well argue that since Judaism is a set of beliefs, one must accept that it's OK to portray all Jews as greedy, hook-nosed charlatans, else the Nazis suddenly are above reproach, because that totally makes sense.
Again, no one with even the most basic capacity for reason should have trouble figuring this out. So if you can't get it through your skull, then I refer you to the same empty reservoir of fucks that I pointed Juma to.
I think I have it:
Rule #1: If you criticize all muslims you are racist/bigoted because not all muslims do bad things
Rule #2: If you criticize specific muslims who do bad things you are criticizing all muslims
Rule #1: If you criticize all muslims you are racist/bigoted because not all muslims do bad things
Rule #2: If you criticize specific muslims who do bad things you are criticizing all muslims
I still say this is a good cartoon. I don't care who drew it or why. Attacking who drew it doesn't undo the valid social commentary that it itself is.
I also don't accept your claim that this is a depiction of Muslims generally. In the context of the cartoon, it is a depiction of Mohammed, drawn in a way to fit in with those who go on a murderous rage in his name. The whole point is that it mirrors them and their behaviour. If it was drawn as a depiction of Mohammed that was peaceful and serene, the cartoon wouldn't make sense.
We've isolated the problem already.
Jolly_Penguin said:
What social commentary is that? That Muhammad was a violent ape, a Nazi, and his followers are the same way? That's what the artist believes, and yes, it's completely reasonable to assume that factors into why this was drawn the way that it was. Nobody here would be arguing that a picture of Obama as an ape was just about Obama, or that a picture of Netanyahu with a gigantic hook nose rubbing his hands together was just about Netanyahu, especially not when it's obvious from the artist's background that it isn't. These are a bunch of bullshit excuses being made up because the target is Muslims. Even worse than that, we've got people who don't seem to care too much whether it's a representation of Muslims in general; even if it is, it's still justified, because fuck Muslims. But no, it's clearly me that's the problem here.
It says he draws Mohammed because violent bloodthirsty Muslims, befitting the way he draws Mohammed here, tell him not to. It is about not bowing to violent threats, and not encouraging more of them by letting them change our behaviour. It is about defiance in the face of bullies. If he drew Mohammed in a less hostile way, it would lose the point.
A different cartoon may have a peaceful serene Mohammed preaching tolerance, drawn in a way to depict rational peaceful muslims, saying something like "this is not our way". In fact, I believe there were a few like that following Charlie Hebdo. A violent raging Mohammed would be just as out of place there as a serene peaceful one would be out of place here.
No, it isn't. Just like Pamela Geller's farce of a "contest" had jack shit to do with free speech. That was a ruse and a cover for her own poisonous bigotry, and that of her followers. Which is why it doesn't deserve praise or promotion, and certainly not from people who have the balls to label themselves "progressive."
And the same goes for this drawing, and the piece of shit who drew it. Please, go look at his other artwork, which portrays Muslims generally in the exact same manner, and the blog quotes I lifted, which clearly equates them with Nazis, and tell me with a straight face that the drawing is just about Muhammad.
And then tell me with a straight face that this is something that liberals ought to be not just praising, but promoting, raising the artist's public profile. And then tell me with the straight face that we'd even be having this discussion if it were a drawing of a black man or a Jew, and the artist were a known anti-Semite or racist.