Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[PyramidHead]

If they were, why would that be a problem?

Because the artist is saying 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?

If Muslims didn't want to be associated with the awful person they "(mostly) unanimously respect to some degree", isn't the onus on them to stop (mostly) unanimously respecting him to some degree? Or modify their opinion of him to the point where the cartoons no longer apply to them?

 

[Warpoet]

If Muslims didn't want to be associated with the awful person they "(mostly) unanimously respect to some degree", isn't the onus on them to stop (mostly) unanimously respecting him to some degree? Or modify their opinion of him to the point where the cartoons no longer apply to them?

For fuck's sake.

Muhammad did plenty of horrendous shit, Muslims tend to overlook this in their veneration of him, but that does NOT mean they approve of all of his misdeeds, it does NOT make them his moral equivalent, and it certainly does NOT justify portraying all the world's 1.5 billion Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis.

Honestly. Does this really need to be fucking explained to grown men and women, on a supposedly liberal forum dedicated to rational thought?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

No, that's a call to violence which I'd be against. It's only the fake people in your head who are arguing in favour of violence and I'm not going to speak for them.

However, when white supremicists have rallies, I'm in favour of the taxpayer dollars used to send in police to protect the marchers from counter-protesters who threaten them. That doesn't mean that I see some kind of value in the white supremecist message. I'm on the side of the counter-protesters who are yelling at them. If there was a group of Muslims protesting this cartoon contest calling it a bigotted and hateful event which demeans their culture, I'd be on their side.

That's very different from siding against people who want to use violence or threats of violence to shut up the opposition.

 

[PyramidHead]

If Muslims didn't want to be associated with the awful person they "(mostly) unanimously respect to some degree", isn't the onus on them to stop (mostly) unanimously respecting him to some degree? Or modify their opinion of him to the point where the cartoons no longer apply to them?

For fuck's sake.

Muhammad did plenty of horrendous shit, Muslims tend to overlook this in their veneration of him, but that does NOT mean they approve of all of his misdeeds, it does NOT make them his moral equivalent, and it certainly does NOT justify portraying all the world's 1.5 billion Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis.

Honestly. Does this really need to be fucking explained to grown men and women, on a supposedly liberal forum dedicated to rational thought?

Whenever someone of any stripe invokes the name of this forum (which has changed, btw) as if to imply their position is obviously the only rational one, I usually bow out of the discussion, as I will do now.

 

[dismal]

This thread shows that sometimes you can insult and ridicule people whose speech you don't like and they still just won't shut up. No wonder (not all) muslims resort to violence.

 

[Warpoet]

No, that's a call to violence which I'd be against. It's only the fake people in your head who are arguing in favour of violence and I'm not going to speak for them.

And apparently, you're not going to defend your original position either. You didn't add any qualifiers about what kind of speech should be protected; you said simply that whenever someone is threatened with violence for their speech, they should be given unwavering support.

And that's fucking bullshit built on terrible logic, as I'm sure you're aware now that you've had more time to think it through. So let's take violence on the part of the victim out of the equation and say someone is threatened with violence for drawing a picture of Obama as an ape with the words "I HATE NIGGERS" written on it.

By the logic you outlined, they deserve support from people like you and me, and we should all disseminate said picture, because free speech. That's the inevitable conclusion. Are you going to acknowledge this, or just fall back on your usual routine of acting like the problem here is me, and not your failure to think about the things you say, before backpedaling some more? Maybe this time adding yet another stipulation about how statements like "I HATE NIGGERS" are hate speech, and hate speech should never be praised by liberals? You know, the exact motherfucking point I was making before you decided to chime in?

However, when white supremicists have rallies, I'm in favour of the taxpayer dollars used to send in police to protect the marchers from counter-protesters who threaten them. That doesn't mean that I see some kind of value in the white supremecist message. I'm on the side of the counter-protesters who are yelling at them. If there was a group of Muslims protesting this cartoon contest calling it a bigotted and hateful event which demeans their culture, I'd be on their side.

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with what I'm actually talking about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

that does NOT mean they approve of all of his misdeeds, it does NOT make them his moral equivalent, and it certainly does NOT justify portraying all the world's 1.5 billion Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis.

Which this cartoon doesn't do on the face of it. That you have to point to other works of the author to try to make it so, only shows that it isn't.

 

[Warpoet]

Whenever someone of any stripe invokes the name of this forum (which has changed, btw) as if to imply their position is obviously the only rational one, I usually bow out of the discussion, as I will do now.

That doesn't surprise me, given that I had to just spell out for you, in front of the entire forum, why it's wrong to smear a billion and a half people as violent and ape-like Nazis. But yeah, clearly, I'm the one not being reasonable.

 

[Warpoet]

Which this cartoon doesn't do on the face of it. That you have to point to other works of the author to try to make it so, only shows that it isn't.

No, it really doesn't. The fact that he describes Muslims in general as precisely what he portrays Muhammad to be - a Nazi - and all of his other depictions of them are identical in terms of their hairy, ape-like appearance, pretty much proves that my interpretation of the drawing is the correct one.

The best you can do is argue that it's not readily apparent, which is false, as the hairy and ape-like bits are quite self-evident, and a common stereotype of Arabs and Muslims. But it's also irrelevant, since people are passing this shit around like it's deserving of praise, when about 10 seconds of Googling remove any and all doubt about what it's actually trying to say.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with what I'm actually talking about.

I nominate this as the most unintentionally ironic post of the year.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

View attachment 2908

He sure does look evil. The question is, when you look at this do you see him as being all muslims, or being the ones saying "YOU CAN'T DRAW ME" and raising a sword over it? I suppose you see the former. I see the latter.

 

[Warpoet]

I nominate this as the most unintentionally ironic post of the year.

And I nominate this as the most predictable one. I actually considered omitting that line - I thought to myself "hey, Tom really fucked up and backed himself into a corner on this one, so he might latch onto this last sentence and make a smartass remark to get himself the fuck out of dodge." But I figured you wouldn't be quite that transparent.

Shame on me.

 

[Warpoet]

View attachment 2908

He sure does look evil. The question is, when you look at this do you see him as being all muslims, or being the ones saying "YOU CAN'T DRAW ME" and raising a sword over it? I suppose you see the former. I see the latter.

The excess hair and ape-like features are a fairly common stereotype of Arabs and Muslims (or at least the idea that they're subhuman), similar to Jews and big noses. That should set off alarms for most people. The Hitler mustache isn't hard to spot either.

I immediately assumed these things were aimed at Muslims in general, because they usually are in my experience, and because the people who ran this contest are bigots and cunts. And guess what? I googled the artist's name, and in about 10 seconds or so it was obvious that I was right.

 

[dismal]

I thought I read the artist was a muslim.

Well, technically I read he was an ex-muslim but I assume if "muslim" is a race you can't just opt out.

That was a two-liner.

 

[Nexus]

But yeah, clearly, I'm the one not being reasonable.

Considering all the posters in this thread disagreeing with you despite their vast differences politically its obvious you're not reasonable. Not to mention your inflammatory tone towards anyone that dares to disagree with you about how to criticism Islam or Muslims.

 

[TSwizzle]

I immediately assumed these things were aimed at Muslims in general, because they usually are in my experience, and because the people who ran this contest are bigots and cunts. And guess what? I googled the artist's name, and in about 10 seconds or so it was obvious that I was right.

So what ? "Bigots and :censored2:" still have freedom of speech.

 

[Warpoet]

Considering all the posters in this thread disagreeing with you despite their vast differences politically its obvious you're not reasonable.

Shitty logic is shitty. There are others here who have agreed with me, they probably just don't want to have to deal with the rest of you, who are obviously amped up on some self-righteous bullshit about protecting free speech that makes it impossible for you to own up to what the drawing actually means, and why it's disgusting that people are here praising it, and praising the shitbag who drew it.

Maybe the fact that neither you nor anyone else has actually pointed out where I'm wrong despite all this hubbub should tell you something.

- - - Updated - - -

So what ? "Bigots and :censored2:" still have freedom of speech.

There really needs to be some basic reading comprehension test that has to be passed before people are allowed to post here.

 

[TSwizzle]

There really needs to be some basic reading comprehension test that has to be passed before people are allowed to post here.

So what ? Even people that lack "basic reading comprehension" have a right to free speech.

 

[Juma]

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*

Wether you want to identify with muhammed or not is YOUR choice. Wether you are afro american or not is not up to you.

Now bugger off in some insignificant corner of the internet and spill you fanatical beans there.

 

[Warpoet]

Wether you want to identify with muhammed or not is YOUR choice. Wether you are afro american or not is not up to you.

Now bugger off in some insignificant corner of the internet and spill you fanatical beans there.

I'm more than happy to let people read the italicized bit of my post, and then read what you just posted. Pretty much illustrates my point perfectly.

Thanks, chief.