The anti-liberty p.c. left

[ronburgundy]

A Pew study done about the Charlie Hebdo killings shows disturbing numbers of Americans who favor p.c. censorship and "respect for religion" over support for free speech and free press.

76% of Americans had heard about the incident. Of those people, only 60% agreed that is was even "okay" (not "good" or "great") for those cartoons to have been published, while 28% said is was "not okay".

The "not okay" folks were not primarilyconcerned that the cartoons provoked violence (only 7% gave this as their reason). Instead, almost 76% of them said it is because the newspapers should have to "respect religion" and not be "offensive" or "inappropriate".

So, were these anti-liberty folks the right wing evangelicals who generally support suppressing views critical of religion?

No, those most likely to say it was "not okay" to publish the cartoons were Democrats, females, non-whites, and younger adults. Even just among whites, 25% of Dems said "not okay".

Of course white male conservatives have proven they are more than willing to suppress free thought and speech when it is something they are offended by. Thus, their higher support for these cartoons is mostly rooted in anti Muslim and racist motives.
So, I am not concerned with the relative comparison to republicans.

I more concerned that 1/3 of Dems, and even college grads fail to support free speech when it disrespects or offends religion. Maybe most frightening is that 18-29 year olds showed less support for free speech than any other age group. I suspect the numbers would be better if it was white Christians being offended. IOW, for many liberals, offending religions is one thing, but you cannot be allowed to offend the religion of ethnic minorities.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes, this is obviously caused by the Legion of Political Correctness. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

 

[Axulus]

As Maajid Nawaz has noted, there is a disturbing trend among liberals to be unable to discern and criticize brown fascism (Islamism) for fear of being perceived as either racist or for fear of offending a deeply held religious belief (but have no such qualms and are sharply critical of white fascism).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Political correctness says to respect religion?
All my fundy relatives forward emails that INSIST that PC is directly aimed at, hell, was invented just FOR attacking the religious...

 

[dismal]

If they ask "is it OK" and someone says "no" I wouldn't say they are an anti-liberty facist.

If they ask "should it be illegal" and they say "yes" then you have a case.

Although it's not common, it's possible to think something is wrong and also not wish to have a law banning it.

 

[Nexus]

Political correctness says to respect religion?
All my fundy relatives forward emails that INSIST that PC is directly aimed at, hell, was invented just FOR attacking the religious...

The political correct have no problem disrespecting Christianity. Its the religions of brown people they feel should be respected and not criticized.

 

[Derec]

Political correctness says to respect religion?
All my fundy relatives forward emails that INSIST that PC is directly aimed at, hell, was invented just FOR attacking the religious...

Some religions are more equal than others when it comes to political correctness ...

 

[Rhea]

If they ask "is it OK" and someone says "no" I wouldn't say they are an anti-liberty facist.

If they ask "should it be illegal" and they say "yes" then you have a case.

Although it's not common, it's possible to think something is wrong and also not wish to have a law banning it.

Yup. It's not clear that there is an anti-liberty point made by these data.

(although one could further ask, in which category is one most likely to find the Muslims?)

 

[ronburgundy]

Political correctness says to respect religion?
All my fundy relatives forward emails that INSIST that PC is directly aimed at, hell, was invented just FOR attacking the religious...

P.C. is about suppressing thought and speech for the sake of not offending people.

Fundies (aka racists) like to say and do things that don't merely offend but harm people. What they are complaining about and calling "p.c." are just reasonable critiques of their religiously fueled racism.

But actual "P.C." is not at all anti-religion in general. In fact, actual p.c. activists are among those who attack atheists and call them "militant" when they are critical of religion beyond politically "acceptable" targets like fundamentalism.

In addition, this is not about criticizing "religion", but a religion held by ethnic minorities, which makes it especially off limits.

 

[Axulus]

If they ask "is it OK" and someone says "no" I wouldn't say they are an anti-liberty facist.

If they ask "should it be illegal" and they say "yes" then you have a case.

Although it's not common, it's possible to think something is wrong and also not wish to have a law banning it.

Agreed - I'm not sure it's a sign of anti-liberty. However, it is a sign of their inability to discern the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as criticism of the Islamist ideology. Islamists love to use their religion as a shield from criticism of their fascist ideology and, unfortunately, many on the left play right into it.

 

[fromderinside]

Political correctness says to respect religion?
All my fundy relatives forward emails that INSIST that PC is directly aimed at, hell, was invented just FOR attacking the religious...

Some religions are more equal than others when it comes to political correctness ...

Why should it only be don't? For instance: Why not include must. Then we would include those in the mix who say things like "you white racist Jesus loving pig", or, "quit disrespecting Je-sus-ah you God hating communist troll".

 

[Rhea]

glad you changed it to "many", cause we certainly don't all. And I would argue that "many" is not supported by the evidence, as already pointed out.

 

[ronburgundy]

If they ask "is it OK" and someone says "no" I wouldn't say they are an anti-liberty facist.

If they ask "should it be illegal" and they say "yes" then you have a case.

Although it's not common, it's possible to think something is wrong and also not wish to have a law banning it.

Yup. It's not clear that there is an anti-liberty point made by these data.

(although one could further ask, in which category is one most likely to find the Muslims?)

"Okay" does not imply agreement with the content of the cartoon or finding it to be inoffensive. Most of the justifications for saying "okay" acknowledged it was offensive but thought that publishing them should still be allowed. In fact, the question explicitly mentions that some people find them offensive.

"As you may know, over the past several years this magazine has published cartoons depicting the
Prophet Muhammad, which some people found offensive to their religious beliefs. Do you think
publishing these cartoons was okay or not okay?"

So, to say it is "not okay" means to say that it is not okay to say things about religion that some people find offensive. Whether they think jack-booted thugs should kick in the door of the newspaper is not the only problem. Any and all honest discussion of religion will offend some people. Thus, saying that it isn't okay to offend religious views is saying it isn't okay to make honest criticisms of religion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Okay" was the wrong thing to ask. That could mean all sorts of things. They should have asked should it be legal, is it immoral, or even is it wrong. Some people will think "is it ok" means "is it permissible" and others will think it means "is it bad".

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't realize that "the left" meant "Democrats or people who lean democrat".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I didn't realize that "the left" meant "Democrats or people who lean democrat".

Well, PC is still alive (not just a 90s thing), and it will kill all the Whiteys.

 

[ronburgundy]

"Okay" was the wrong thing to ask. That could mean all sorts of things. They should have asked should it be legal, is it immoral, or even is it wrong. Some people will think "is it ok" means "is it permissible" and others will think it means "is it bad".

See my post directly above. Even "it is bad" in the context means that its bad to pretty much say anything about religion that isn't of it. Legality aside, using moral/social pressures to squash honest thought about religion is an anti-liberty and anti-reason viewpoint.

 

[Warpoet]

See my post directly above. Even "it is bad" in the context means that its bad to pretty much say anything about religion that isn't of it.

No, it means the respondents found those particular cartoons inappropriate. It does not mean that they oppose any and all badmouthing of religion, and it certainly does not mean that they support "censorship," which is what your OP said.

I don't see anything anywhere in the report about censorship, or the legality of the cartoons. Many Americans would say it's "not okay" for the New York Times to run an op-ed by David Duke, but that doesn't mean they think it should be illegal.

Your evidence does not support the conclusions you're jumping to in the OP.

 

[arkirk]

As Maajid Nawaz has noted, there is a disturbing trend among liberals to be unable to discern and criticize brown fascism (Islamism held by those with darker skin) for fear of being perceived as either racist or for fear of offending a deeply held religious belief (but have no such qualms and are sharply critical of white fascism).

You can count me firmly in your corner on this issue but the real problem actually is not whether or not cartoons like Charlie Hebdo's are published. The magazine is clearly within its rights to put out its cartoons. The problem as I see it is that there is nowhere any effort made by media overall to increase empathy, cooperation and hope in that "brown fascist" world you speak of. Charlie addresses the problem with clearly humorous approach aimed to amuse non-believers. The radical Muslim ideas need to be utterly devastated with true intercultural messages designed not to amuse non believers, but to influence the psyches of believers. There is enough room in this world for both Charlie and the kind of intercultural medicine required.

Surely you understand that ridicule does not foster cooperation and understanding across cultural divides. We actually need to talk to each other in Charlie's language and in doing so, we do not offend each other. Atheists worldwide are faced with the same problem however...deconstructing fundamental arguments for action without becoming targets of that action.

So BOTH humor and serious dialogue is required. Charlie did his part, but I ask, just like Henrietta Hen...."Who will help me grow the grain?" That's where we are if we were to parallel bread making with intercultural relations. We are in a very primitive place indeed in the world of "Muslim fascism" Surely there are some posters here who once were devoted Christians. Something in their lives convinced them that fundamentalist Christian ideas were wrong for them. It is almost certain to me that it was not the heartless ridicule of atheists. We need to be that something. To each other we can be Charlie. To faithful Muslims, we have to be engaged differently. In my estimation, they are sorely troubled by false ideas.

It is clear to me that Charlie is going to reach Muslims. In some fundamentalist circles, seeing a Charlie cartoon is a call to Jihad. There is no question of that. We saw these Jihadis murder a dozen people over it. Obviously the Jihadis had no right to murder for their belief system. They have paid or will be paid for their violence with more violence or prison. To my way of thinking they are already imprisoned in an ideology of violence and I want to remind Axulus that I fully understand this. Charlie and other publishers of similar satire need to be better protected and also owe it to themselves to be aware there is a threat to their lives in the form of these fundamentalists. At the same time I defend Charlie, I also have to say that Charlie is not doing any of the HEAVY LIFTING necessary for conflict resolution with the Muslim world, and some of those people who are doing that work will definitely have some reservations about the magazine.

The poll was interesting but it was about what I would expect.

 

[fromderinside]

As Maajid Nawaz has noted, there is a disturbing trend among liberals to be unable to discern and criticize brown fascism (Islamism held by those with darker skin) for fear of being perceived as either racist or for fear of offending a deeply held religious belief (but have no such qualms and are sharply critical of white fascism).

You can count me firmly in your corner on this issue but the real problem actually is not whether or not cartoons like Charlie Hebdo's are published. The magazine is clearly within its rights to put out its cartoons. The problem as I see it is that there is nowhere any effort made by media overall to increase empathy, cooperation and hope in that "brown fascist" world you speak of. Charlie addresses the problem with clearly humorous approach aimed to amuse non-believers. The radical Muslim ideas need to be utterly devastated with true intercultural messages designed not to amuse non believers, but to influence the psyches of believers. There is enough room in this world for both Charlie and the kind of intercultural medicine required.

Surely you understand that ridicule does not foster cooperation and understanding across cultural divides. We actually need to talk to each other in Charlie's language and in doing so, we do not offend each other. Atheists worldwide are faced with the same problem however...deconstructing fundamental arguments for action without becoming targets of that action.

So BOTH humor and serious dialogue is required. Charlie did his part, but I ask, just like Henrietta Hen...."Who will help me grow the grain?" That's where we are if we were to parallel bread making with intercultural relations. We are in a very primitive place indeed in the world of "Muslim fascism" Surely there are some posters here who once were devoted Christians. Something in their lives convinced them that fundamentalist Christian ideas were wrong for them. It is almost certain to me that it was not the heartless ridicule of atheists. We need to be that something. To each other we can be Charlie. To faithful Muslims, we have to be engaged differently. In my estimation, they are sorely troubled by false ideas.

It is clear to me that Charlie is going to reach Muslims. In some fundamentalist circles, seeing a Charlie cartoon is a call to Jihad. There is no question of that. We saw these Jihadis murder a dozen people over it. Obviously the Jihadis had no right to murder for their belief system. They have paid or will be paid for their violence with more violence or prison. To my way of thinking they are already imprisoned in an ideology of violence and I want to remind Axulus that I fully understand this. Charlie and other publishers of similar satire need to be better protected and also owe it to themselves to be aware there is a threat to their lives in the form of these fundamentalists. At the same time I defend Charlie, I also have to say that Charlie is not doing any of the HEAVY LIFTING necessary for conflict resolution with the Muslim world, and some of those people who are doing that work will definitely have some reservations about the magazine.

The poll was interesting but it was about what I would expect.

Wow. All tis responsibility and all I have is a blogspot pulpit. Surely we needn't concern ourselves with the prejudices of others when we speak for humorous purposes to our group. Racist nigger is something leftist black comedians spout to get a black audience laugh.

My only hope is we are sentient enough to understand each of us is different, reacts differently to whatever, and has one's own group. If the scale is that if you say something I don't like I'm going to declare war then you, IMHO, are the one who ultimately needs to adjust. I see no reason for Charley Hebdo to attune itself with a culture that fosters hatred for disrespectful speech as a norm. It is upon those who get so inflamed to get with the program of being civilized enough to endure the foibles of others. If you don't want to be a punchline don't act like you are one. Its not, as they say, to soon to do so.