If some crazy Jewish guy had try to shoot him for it, I would.
-
Features
Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
If some crazy Jewish guy had try to shoot him for it, I would.
Oh, I see. So so long as someone, somewhere, fits the stereotypical construct you've built, you're immune to any accusation of bigotry, even when you yourself espouse bigotry all the time, often by using the exact same stereotypes to smear everyone in your target group and not even pretending that you're doing otherwise.
Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
Careful, now. You're smudging your halo.
I guess you'd be the expert on that problem, since you've had your head up your ass since your first post in this thread.
No, it doesn't make sense because, like most of your posts in this thread, it's unrelated to anything anyone has said and only argues against some weird strawman you're erected in your mind.
Mine was referencing the notion that if someone is willing to engage in violence to silence an opponent's position, I will stand with that opponent's position against him. This in no way indicates any modicum of support, encouragement, approval or any other kind of positive sentiment towards the opponent's position, but rather that engaging in violence to stifle conflicting views is such an egregious transgression that it is far worse than anything the opponent is saying or doing.
Actually, it's a perfectly logical interpretation of your one-line response to what I posted, which was dealing with exactly the issue I just got done talking about. So any miscommunication that might have happened here was on your end, not mine.
You probably should have just gone along with my "strawman," since this position is actually far more intellectually bankrupt.
I guess, by this logic, if a white supremacist is threatened with violence because he draws a picture of a black man swinging from a tree and the words DEATH TO ALL NIGGERS written in gigantic bloody letters, we should all stand with him and spread his artwork across the Internet, because that's a defense of free speech.
At least, by your insane logic.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe, but at least I can actually defend a position for more than a few posts before rushing off to the sidelines to make petty one-line comments about others in lieu of any actual substance. Unlike some people.
I don't see anything remotely comparable in this cartoon. If you do, I suggest you set your anger aside, and take another look. This cartoon is a reaction to violence, and a refusal to submit to it, not an encouragement of it. The apt analogy would be that of a cartoon of a white supremecist armed and violent and demanding you not draw his leader or holy figure, i dunno david duke or somebody, and threatening to kill you if you do, and the cartoonist saying he draws him for that reason.
It doesn't have to be comparable. Tom is saying that so long as someone is being threatened with violence because of their speech, people should "stand" with them and support them. And that's horseshit, as the extreme example I just gave makes clear.
Except David Duke doesn't have a billion and a half followers, and so it's highly unlikely the artist is using David Duke as a representation of a billion and a half people. But that's exactly what's happening with this Muhammad drawing. It isn't about free speech any more than Geller's "contest" was. That's a cover for overt bigotry that is plainly evident in the text and pictures I posted earlier. I'll just repeat my challenge from earlier:
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.
There are a billion and a half violent reactionary Muslims who demand you don't draw Mohammed with the threat of death? I thought the number was much much smaller than that.
I already told you I don't care who drew it or what his other views are or what motivated him to draw this one. The cartoon itself makes an important point that I encourage.
Yeah, nice try. There are a billion and a half Muslims who (mostly) unanimously respect Muhammad to some degree, and they're the ones the artist really has a problem with.
Yeah, you told me, but you didn't address my point. I'm sure there are cartoons of Obama as an ape, or Netanyahu as a dirty jew, that make "important points" about social and political matters. But that's obviously not all they're saying, and you certainly won't see people coming here and passing those around like they're worthy of praise.
But not the ones the cartoon is directly addressing.
That's three times you've dodged the point. A cartoon of Obama as an ape or Netanyahu with a hook nose greedily rubbing his hands together isn't directly saying anything about blacks or Jews, but any intelligent person can reason that it is.
And in this case, we have clear admissions, and demonstrations from the artist, that this is how he views Muslims in general.
And yet, "progressives" on this forum think this shit and the guy who drew it ought to be praised.
If we faced a jewish bankster mafia that robbed anybody who criticized their banks, and somebody drew a similar cartoon of them, and the jewish bankers depicted had giant hook noses and rubbed their hands together greedily.... .I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. And any concern I did have with it would be outweighed by the message of drawing the cartoon anyway in the face of these men who are making themselves the living embodiment of a negative stereotype of jewish people. I would not leap to the conclusion that those in the cartoon repersent all jews.
PyramidHead
Contributor
If they were, why would that be a problem?
If Muhammad was a horrible monstrosity of a man, isn't it worth highlighting that billions of people (mostly) unanimously respect him to some degree?
TSwizzle
Let's Go Brandon!
Not necessarily praised but certainly protected from murderous muslims that think nothing of killing people for ridiculing their religion or "prophet".
That's nice. I imagine that anyone trying to post such pictures here, even in the absurd scenario you outline, would probably be banned. And with good reason.
We don't need to leap to conclusions. We know that the artist views Muslims exactly the way he portrays Muhammad: violent, ape-like Nazis. We know because he's said so, and because his other artwork demonstrates this. So it's no greater a "leap" to conclude that he's saying something about Muslims than it's a "leap" to conclude that a known white supremacist is saying something about blacks by drawing Obama as an ape, or a known anti-Semite drawing Netanyahu in the manner described, Jews.
PyramidHead
Contributor
Exactly. So if all these billions of people respect and follow this guy*, why can't an artist challenge that trend by pointing out that he was a violent, warmongering pedophile?
*insert "semi-somewhat-unanimously-mostly-kinda" qualifier as needed
Because what the artist is really saying throughout the entirety of his work is that Muslims in general are just like Muhammad: violent, ape-like Nazis. Which makes him a bigoted piece of shit.
Seriously, how many fucking times does this need to be explained? Do people seriously have this much trouble comprehending why this isn't OK, and why liberals shouldn't be supporting it?