The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Question to Ty- put aside the original publication of the cartoons, for purpose of this question I give you that was intended solely to piss people off-

but the reprints- they are newsworthy aren't they? I hear the muslim world is on fire over the cartoons, I wonder what the fuss is about- I want to see for myself. the reprints are to inform the public.

Do you agree the reprints were okay? if you were the editor would you reprint?

I think that's a hard one. For this whole debate, I've taken at face value a sort of simplistic view that the depiction of Mohammed is offensive per se, but if I were an editor, I'd want to know more.

Western media won't show people being beheaded, partly out of a feeling that it's offensive to a lot of people, including the family of the victim. A lot of people would watch the videos, and I suppose you could say that they would want to see for themselves. I don't recall a lot of people suggesting that free speech was somehow threatened by this self-censorship in the face of violence. (Although a few people here said something like this, as I recall.) Back then, not being intimidating apparently meant that we had to restrict what you all are calling free speech. Similarly, American media does not show graphic footage of what happens to people during war, for reasons of taste. That self-censorship is seen as necessary during wartime, not as a threat to the expressive values our society holds most dear. All of this makes me think that what's motivating people about this cartoon flap is the desire to do the opposite of whatever the Islamists want, rather than some abstract commitment to ideals of free speech.

I think a better way to respond would be to not react to them so much.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wonder if Ty and SAM take the same position in regard to people like Robertson and Falwell, who continually call for boycotts of companies which publish anti-Christian material? I notice the left is selective in whom it says we should take pains to avoid offending. The Radical Islamists' complaints aren't much different that the complaints raised by radical Christians here for years? Why is it that I've never heard the Left decrying our press for provoking crazy Christians here?

I don't see any reason for you to call Christians "crazy," and I think you should cut it out. As a Christian, I think this borders on the offensive.

My suspicion is that, at its core, the Left always, subconsciously, has to take the side of the underdog, or the group railing against the established order.

As I've said elsewhere, just because you think that a Danish newpaper made a bad editorial decision doesn't mean you take the side of the people who were killing and torching embassies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The world is pretty much run by a small group of greedy white men.

ummm no. The Jew controls the world, and the Jew is the devil- and not a white man.

Jewish woman got the nice boobies though.

[Diane_Keaton]

ETA oh, whatever, I'm done with this. Praise be Allah.

[the Vicar of Piss Christ]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm no. The Jew controls the world, and the Jew is the devil- and not a white man.

That appears to be the view of the moderate masses in the Middle East, whom people like Tyrone coddle. This cartoon sums it up.......

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Does this mean we can have the make up sex?

I'd best not, there comes a time in a man's life when he just _has_ to start keeping his promises.

S_A_M

P.S. Spanky, you don't even know the name of my political party, why should I trust your Merriam-Webster definition of blasphemy?

[Spanky]

Does anyone know if this is how it happened? This is from Ann Coulter so I am very sckeptical to its accuracy.
_________________________________________________
"The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. "
_________________________________________________
Was there a contest? Were these three selected? Anyone have a clue?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. Spanky, you don't even know the name of my political party, why should I trust your Merriam-Webster definition of blasphemy?

I have to give you that one.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Sorry, freedom of speech trumping the sensitivities of the audience in a free society is absolute.

Constitutional Law is not a specialty of yours, is it?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
ETA oh, whatever, I'm done with this. Praise be Allah.

You edited out the "2" to my post. Does that mean the make-up sex is off?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Good article in the NYT about how Arab governments got people worked up. Not sure how the timing of this relates to the other thing I linked about the Haj.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wonder if Ty and SAM take the same position in regard to people like Robertson and Falwell, who continually call for boycotts of companies which publish anti-Christian material? I notice the left is selective in whom it says we should take pains to avoid offending. The Radical Islamists' complaints aren't much different that the complaints raised by radical Christians here for years? Why is it that I've never heard the Left decrying our press for provoking crazy Christians here?

(a) As to the issue of the wisdom of offending the religious sensibilities of the Christian right -- give me a specific example and I'll let you know if I think it was a good idea to publish it.

(b) In my view, the comparison don't quite work -- because provoking the Christian right in this country does not endanger our national security or interfere with the stated aims of our foreign policy (i.e. the WOT) -- except arguably by causing them to band together to elect Republican candidates.

[Remember, I am one of the cowardly appeasers who (in my last 6-7 posts on the subject) framed the issue of re-prints in terms of whether it was smart/helpful to our foreign policy.]

(c) You talk about how much your shoes cost, don't you?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(b) In my view, the comparison don't quite work -- because provoking the Christian right in this country does not endanger our national security or interfere with the stated aims of our foreign policy (i.e. the WOT) -- except arguably by causing them to band together to elect Republican candidates.

S_A_M

abortions provoke born agains to kill doctors- why not chill the abortions? freedom of speech is a much clearer right than privacy, isn't it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(b) In my view, the comparison don't quite work -- because provoking the Christian right in this country does not endanger our national security or interfere with the stated aims of our foreign policy (i.e. the WOT) -- except arguably by causing them to band together to elect Republican candidates.
S_A_M

and btw, this part of your post shows that your real position isn't anything to do with whether the publication was mean-spirited, you are afraid of enflaming the Islamic masses- better just appease them is your view.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You edited out the "2" to my post. Does that mean the make-up sex is off?

Edited out bc I realized I was telling you what was behind your intuition. But...if you can dig your way through the white stuff to get to me, I'm waiting here for you here in my thongs with a bottle of spiced wine.