Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Warpoet]

There you go. It is ultimately irrelevant indeed. It doesnt matter what the artist intends. It matters what the drawing actually is.

Indeed. And what it actually is is an illustration of the artist's views of Muslims generally: violent, subhuman Nazis. The evidence leaves no room to conclude otherwise. And yes, it matters. A lot. It can't be spelled out for you any more clearly; whether or not you can accept it speaks to your ability to think rationally, not mine.

 

[Axulus]

Would you say that someone who drew anti-Nazi cartoons in the 1930's is a bigot who suffers from Naziophobia and/or is racist against Germans?

The Nazi party is an exceedingly poor analogy for the Muslim religion, and Godwinning in general is just awful.

I reject the comparison wholesale.

And I don't give a rat's ass about people who attack extremist Islam or extremist Muslims. I have a problem with people who engage in wholesale smear against ordinary Muslims from all walks of life, which is what this artist does.

I agree with your last sentence. But how do you distinguish someone criticizing the ideology of Islamism and perhaps engaging in satire, cartoons, or just general mocking of the ideology (which I assume you believe is not morally reprehensible, even if those who adhere to that ideology are offended?) vs. someone smearing all Muslims in general? Can you give an example of the former that you believe is not reprehensible? What do you think is acceptable and where do you think the line is crossed?

 

[Warpoet]

I think people can generally detect, from a person's rhetoric and tone, whether their ire is directed at a select few within a certain group, or broadly and on the basis of unfair assumptions and generalizations about how said people think. And when it's unclear, you can usually just look at how people speak on the topic when they're not worried about repercussions (like on a blog).

I don't have all the answers about where any lines are drawn. I follow basic intuition to make a judgment on who falls into what category, and not just when it comes to Islam and Muslims. And while I'm not always right, I'd say I'm right about people a lot more often than I'm wrong. As with this particular artist/douchebag.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think the cartoon could be much more clear at whom it is addressing. It depicts the target saying something very particular and speaks directly to what is said.

If you can not separate terrorists from muslims in general, that puts you in the same light as you keep pushing the artist into.

 

[Warpoet]

I don't think the cartoon could be much more clear at whom it is addressing. It depicts the target saying something very particular and speaks directly to what is said.

The author's own words, and track record, remove any and all doubt that it's not just about Muhammad. I'm not going to keep explaining this. If you can't comprehend it, it's your problem and not mine.

If you can not separate terrorists from muslims in general, that puts you in the same light as you keep pushing the artist into.

And that's the single worst bit of poor logic in a thread littered with examples of it. Congrats.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, yes, you can't follow any logic that you disagree with. I see that. You will keep on insisting that the drawing says what it doesn't, that the other works of the artist matter and that his intention matters, instead of what the cartoon actually shows, and that it doesn't have the important social message that I and others here see it it. So there is no point in continuing conversing with you.

The last thing I will say to you is a thank you. Thank you for bringing this cartoon to my attention. I like what it says to me and others; the important social commentary of us drawing these cartoons because we are told not to. It is a way to stand against bullies, and show that violence doesn't work, and we won't bow to terrorist threats.

You may call me names until you are blue in the face and say it says what it doesn't, but still, at the end of the day I have you to thank for bringing this cartoon to my attention, and now I have posted it on a few other forums. Good job.

 

[Warpoet]

I didn't post the cartoon, others did, so that just verifies that you haven't been paying attention. But if you wish to further promote the work of an avowed bigot and ignore the actual meaning behind it because you prefer it that way, and then gloat about it, you can, and it says a lot about you.

 

[Axulus]

Couldn't it be said that the cartoons are a reaction to Islamist violence against cartoonists? That the violent actions are what provoke the cartoon drawings and the various contests?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Couldn't it be said that the cartoons are a reaction to Islamist violence against cartoonists? That the violent actions are what provoke the cartoon drawings and the various contests?

Axulus, how dare you say that about all cartoonists!! How dare you say they are all so easily provoked and reactionary??!

@snicker@

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Did you know that Hitler was actually a pretty talented artist of still life?

If I am bad for seeing a good message in this cartoon despite anything else the artist may have drawn or written, I must be a monster for appreciating some beauty in one of Hitler's landscapes, and not immediately saying " yes, but did you see what he wrote??"

 

[angelo]

Not forgetting that their founder Mo was a terrorist. The islamic extremists are following the purest form of the death cult of islam.

 

[Sarpedon]

A terrorist? Oh please. Is every warrior called a terrorist these days?

Only the Arab ones, I suppose.

 

[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?

Moses was a murderous, ruthless invader who instructed his followers to kill babies and enslave the little virgin girls. Does that mean it okay to depict Jews as murderous baby-killers who rape little girls, seeing as how they respect Moses so much?

If not, why not? And why does that not apply to Muslims who respect Mohammed?

I'm not on board with the repeated assertion that the depiction of Mohammed is a depiction of all Muslims, despite the other artwork by the same person. I see him as demonizing Mohammed and expressing his frustration at what he perceives to be the silence of moderate Muslims (who he calls non-Muslims, in any event).

If someone were to draw a picture of Moses doing all of the things that were said about him, to highlight the despicable moral character of someone revered by some unquestioning people of the Jewish faith, I think the example would be similar. And if they were to write blog posts asking why more Jews don't own up to the horrible things Moses was said to do, it would be pretty consistent with that.

But it's a moot point; either way, yes, it is okay to depict Jews, or any other group, in any manner you wish, for any reason you wish, period. I don't have to condone it or even look at it if I don't want to, and neither does anybody else.

 

[Warpoet]

If I am bad for seeing a good message in this cartoon despite anything else the artist may have drawn or written, I must be a monster for appreciating some beauty in one of Hitler's landscapes, and not immediately saying " yes, but did you see what he wrote??"

Just stop already. Your logic gets shittier with each progressive reply. It's embarrassing to read and a waste of time. Hitler's landscapes had nothing to do with his political and social beliefs. The available evidence makes it clear that that's not the case here.

 

[dismal]

I'm not on board with the repeated assertion that the depiction of Mohammed is a depiction of all Muslims

I'm not on board with the assertion it even matters.

It seems to me people have wasted a lot of time arguing about something that means nothing with respect to any of the principles involved.

If people want to make cartoons implying that all Muslims are violent and evil...wait for it...they can.

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm not on board with the repeated assertion that the depiction of Mohammed is a depiction of all Muslims

I'm not on board with the assertion it even matters.

It seems to me people have wasted a lot of time arguing about something that means nothing with respect to any of the principles involved.

If people want to make cartoons implying that all Muslims are violent and evil...wait for it...they can.

Right, which is why I say it's a moot point. Once we've established that there is nothing legally impermissible about it, and nothing that warrants the kind of violent response it got, all that can be said is that it's in bad taste.

 

[dismal]

I'm not on board with the assertion it even matters.

It seems to me people have wasted a lot of time arguing about something that means nothing with respect to any of the principles involved.

If people want to make cartoons implying that all Muslims are violent and evil...wait for it...they can.

Right, which is why I say it's a moot point. Once we've established that there is nothing legally impermissible about it, and nothing that warrants the kind of violent response it got, all that can be said is that it's in bad taste.

Yes. And of course some of the greatest cartoons ever are what many would consider to be "in bad taste". Who wants a world where cartoons must offend no one?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes. And of course some of the greatest cartoons ever are what many would consider to be "in bad taste". Who wants a world where cartoons must offend no one?

You are right, of course. And the derail this thread has become really is moot at the end of the day. But it has been an interesting look into what sets some people off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If an artist is a racist then how do we separate his ignorance from his political expression in the form of art?

You're still focusing on the artist.

Take the cartoon, remove his name from it. Focus just on the cartoon. It's not racist, it is brilliant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not forgetting that their founder Mo was a terrorist. The islamic extremists are following the purest form of the death cult of islam.

A terrorist? Oh please. Is every warrior called a terrorist these days?

Only the Arab ones, I suppose.

You're both wrong. Where is his terrorism? I'm not aware of any.

However, warrior isn't the right term, either. Bandit is more like it.