I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

Which surely prompts the question where in blue blazes would you find a portrait of the Danish prime minister in the Gaza Strip? And in sufficient quantities to satisfy a baying mob into the bargain?

Er, using copying machines?

xpost

What's Danish for "Get tae fuck oot o' it, ya bampots!"

Henry K is OTM wrt if you cannot take it, do not dish out...

Vive La France (Soir)!

Fuck off! How dare you threaten free speech!?

it R gay.

It would actually be a nice show of solidarity if newspapers in all the secular/liberal countries of the West reprinted those Danish cartoons. Then the fundamentalists would have the choice of boycotting all or none.

-- o. nate (syne_wav...), Today 4:36 PM.

Oh my.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.

http://image.com.com/tv/images/video/south_super_medvid.jpg

Some people *really* need to get over themselves.

The argument being made here is ever-so-slightly slippery, you know; it's not as if there aren't types of images that would provoke similar ire in pockets of the western world. The trick here is that the cartoons are being used to point up how many Muslims don't fit in to systems of thought in the west, but they're doing it underhandedly: they're provoking frothy-mouth outrage over what will look to westerners like the most innocuous thing in the world. But the difference isn't just between mouth-frothing and western calm; it's a massive cultural difference in terms of what makes an image offensive, and our comfortable blindness to that difference.

And the equivalent wouldn't even have to be, say, a New York Times illustration of Jesus fucking a baby -- remember back around 2002, when handmade rugs showed up in Afghanistan depicting the WTC falling and American planes bombing the mountains? Innucuous, historical stuff, that, a perfectly truthful depiction of events that actually happened -- but some people seemed rather offended. And that's a couple rug-weavers and a transient event -- not a major newspaper and a major religion.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6337/2188/1600/kw.2.jpg

Oh, the irony.

If the point of the boycott is to force the Danish government and people to rescind freedom of the press, then that end must be resisted vigorously. Generally speaking, the antidote to misguided, harmful or ignorant free speech is a strong dose of more thoughtful and informed free speech. It is far better to convince the Danes that the cartoonist was a crass bigot peddling ignorance and hate than to convert him and his employers into champions of freedom by appeaqring to attack those freedoms.

Kinds of gives a whole new meaning to "Let the little ones come unto me".

News Flash: Someone's universals aren't.

" Bill Magill is the one who assaults prostitutes, right?

Assaults???

all penetration is assault, innit?

If you say so.

murder is the 'fact', agreed. innocent and victim are merely emotive tabloid descriptors. if we agree that murder is simply a killing that is judged to be illegal, then it a question of what is acceptable in society at that time (and of course this is nothing to do with who is being killed, but who is killing!).

lol at tuomas over here.

"if we agree that murder is simply a killing that is judged to be illegal" um no, we don't.

'victim' is a lot more factual than 'murder', look the two words up.

it is simply to suggest that what seems perfectly abnormal/normal/universal DOES rely on assumptions

wau thanks 4 the heads-up! i feel educated now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7242258.stm

These fucking guys

"But I have turned fear into anger and resentment."

This guy needs to heed the words of Yoda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7241296.stm

^lolled at this

If they'd only depicted Mohammed as a sort of celestial Fonz flanked by adoring women there'd have been no beef.

I kinda admire those crazy Danes at the same time as I put my hands over my eyes.

a+++ trolling denmark.

"if you're gonna hit meh then fookin' hit meh"

Denmark to Al Qaeda: "YAHHH TRICK YAHHH"

Next week they should run a cartoon of Martin Laursen heading clear a football that represents the scourge of Islam

shaped like a bomb with Bin Laden's face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aksrK5SaTAU&feature=related

"if we agree that murder is simply a killing that is judged to be illegal" um no, we don't.

neither do i, actually

you are right though that neither murder nor victim is particularly factual

wau thanks 4 the heads-up! i feel educated now.

i'm not sure why you are reacting this way. what i was saying there may or may not seem self-evident to you, but the person i was responding to at the time seemed to think otherwise, unless i misread him of course

there's no such thing as a universally applicable, neutral, etc. etc., statement; i don't think anyone pretends otherwise.

so "murdered an innocent victim" isn't resting on any more assumptions than any equivalent statement of "what happened" -- which is already a statement, in itself, of "what matters".

and even then any statement can be read "wrong." i wouldn't get too het up about it.

but what would be *more* "factual" than "victim"? it's a neutral enough word -- in *this* context, which is the one that the writer and reader are operating in. for sure there's no perfect communication, but nor could there ever be.

I think plenty people presume otherwise, but probably not on ilx, agreed

'murdered an innocent victim' technically doesn't rest on any more assumptions than 'what happened' or what matters but, ok, you know, "Obama went to Muslim School" vs "Laursen scored a goal"

I still think victim is a hugely presumptive word

ie "victim of a crime", but, then, if there is found to be no crime (rightly or wrongly)?

i think there's a discourse out there about empowerment and not people not being subject to 'victimization', but... ech, it seems pretty serviceable, and the alternative (we're all masters of our own destiny) is a bit flimsy.

if the alternative is being masters of own destiny then yes, that is a flimsy alternative, i agree.

i'm not arguing 'victim' is a bad word by any means, or for it not to be used! just that it is just as subject to presumptiveness as other words and shouldn't be used as an absolute.

i'm not really sure we're saying anything particularly different here (i'm not actually sure what you are disagreeing with me over!), as you say, none of these words are absolutes..

i'm saying they never will be -- so that "murdered an innocent victim" is an acceptable statement!!

obviously some victims are more innocent than others, but in the case where it's a cartoonist whose "crime" is pissing off a religious nut -- such is the lack of proportion in the response that "innocent" is okay by me.

obviously some victims are more innocent than others

but more innocent of what?

in newspaper reporting, i guess if someone is killed in a crime-world beef, they do not get the 'innocent' tag. it's when a bystander gets hurt that they get called 'innocent'.

"such is the lack of proportion in the response that "innocent" is okay by me."

That's well put. It's a cartoon for fuck's sake.

how about if it was a cartoon of your 6 year old daughter being raped?

honestly, im not trying to be a dick here. im just saying things are never necessarily 'just...something'

admittedly, im using a clumsy example here (in these kinds of discussion its probably too easy to do this to try make a point), the thing is, you might think its innocent, so might 'that one guy that quit', and fwiw, so do i, the problem comes if groups of people don't think its innocent.

then you have to have questions about whether to ignore those groups of people (not the people who do xyz, but the people who think its justified), or whether to at least try have some dialogue with them about it

in other words, are there large numbers of people who think these cartoons aren't innocent? and, if so, what effect is a collective response of 'its just a fucking cartoon' going to have? a) a positive one of, yea ok maybe, or b) a negative one of, these people don't listen to us at all

" im not trying to be a dick here"

Well, you are. But even though I'm offended, I fully appreciate your right to say something that might offend me. So I will not take a "fatwa" out on you or plot to kill you, and would take your side if someone in fact did.

I don't read cartoons.

i love how ned brings up monty python in post #2!

Actually Bill, i'm not, i think my points in this thread are fair (perhaps with a touch of hyperbole)- even if you disagree with them (the gist of it really is, cartoons are trivial, sure, so i picked a case where the rules change, but...it would still be 'just a cartoon'

Libcrypt, the funny thing is, I don't read cartoons either

69, Ned may have been right to bring up monty python, but really i think he should be looking at a little vacation to Salton Sea

I don't laugh.

in other words, are there large numbers of people who think these cartoons aren't innocent? and, if so, what effect is a collective response of 'its just a fucking cartoon' going to have? a) a positive one of, yea ok maybe, or b) a negative one of, these people don't listen to us at all

-- Filey Camp, Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:14 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Link

the first question is the main one, really; i don't think the insane flag-burners represent a large number of people, and i have about as much respect for their views as, say, the christians protesting the bbc over 'jerry springer: the opera'. i don't think they should be taken more seriously than that -- and at least the christians weren't advocating violence.

it's pretty obvious that the cartoons were offensive; but i don't see who's interests are served by taking the protestors seriously, because, really, there have been bigger things to protest about in the last few years, for muslims and non-muslims, than these cartoons. it'd be hypocritical to say otherwise.

yes, agreed. to be honest i don't really know how many people they represent (or even, really, what represent actually means in this context). there have been some pretty high percentages of muslims reported as thinking certain violent responses have been 'justified' - but this by itself doesn't really mean anything. my gut feeling is that the flag-burners are to majority opinion, as are the BNP to 'there's too many'. do the former represent the latter? no. but....?

of course there are bigger things to protest! they're never protested though!

well, yeah, there have been kind of disturbing uk polls of muslim opinion on the level of 'justification' for 7/7 and similar themes, on channel 4 iirc. i try not to think about it too much tbh because it's very depressing, and it's nicer to think the crazies are widely reviled.

but that's just the point, the difference between taking great offence, and advotating violence, which is the same difference between the bnp and a lot of mail readers -- although i would guess in the current climate the bnp's views on immigration would be a lot more mainstream even than the mail.

but again the issue of printing a cartoon is both more trivial and more simple than the unplanned, unfunded migration into the uk of 100s of 1,000s of people in a few years.

here have been some pretty high percentages of muslims reported as thinking certain violent responses have been 'justified'

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

Favor 34
Oppose 64
Unsure 2

2/1-3/08

Please to see your reports good sir

of course there are bigger things to protest! they're never protested though!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6333251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4394915.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/iraq.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980102.stm

What the fuck dude

oh, no, you get me wrong, though i can see why as i was vague. i didnt mean that muslims don't protest against other things!

my non-protesting thing was really just talking about the apathy in the uk, and wasn't really anything to do with religion but more to do with capitalism, but thats a bugbear of mine not necessarily related

yea im sure you can find many polls to back up stuff like that (tho im amazed anyone is still backing wars in the middle east in this day and age!), in my post you'll see i was pretty ambivalent about polls and wasn't trying to make a point that 'muslims think a certain way', more that i dont really know to what extent, because of the way reporting goes on in the UK

"there have been some pretty high percentages of muslims reported as thinking certain violent responses have been 'justified'"

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

Favor 34
Oppose 64
Unsure 2

2/1-3/08

-- Gavin, Thursday, 14 February 2008 00:19 (8 hours ago) Link

um gavin what the fuck? are you saying opposition to the war justifies violence on -- yep -- innocent people in the uk?

i think the protests we were talking about, and the flag-burners, were the ones in the UK. those were the ones i had in mind anyway.

me also

.

There's a dedicated thread for this now and given we don't actually know anything yet about the gunmen or their motivations then I think that might be more appropriate.

Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 11

lol

cool tht u can find the humour in this bro