“If you protest, you’re just inciting the police to shoot you, so what do you expect?”
Pretty stupid, huh?
How about, “if you don’t want people to protest, then don’t treat them in a way that they feel like they need to protest.”
Same shit with drawing Mohammed.
If you don’t like people drawing Mohammed, perhaps you shouldn’t incite them to do so by reacting so negatively about it.
Drawing Mohammed is now not only permissible but (I think) absolutely goddamned necessary. It is necessary to defy those who would stifle debate with violence.
Do I like offending Muslims? No. Not at all.
I thought, for example, that “Piss Christ” was fucking stupid. I still think it is fucking stupid. The only thing that gives “Piss Christ” any value, to me, is the fact that it inspired calls for censorship.
But, nobody ever got killed over it. Christians moved on.
If anyone ever killed someone over “Piss Christ”, I’d be peeing on crucifixes like it was an Olympic sport.
Draw Mohammed. Spread pictures of Mohammed. They’ve now made it an imperative.
“If you don’t like people drawing Mohammed, perhaps you shouldn’t incite them to do so by reacting so negatively about it.”
“If you don’t like men staring at your tits, perhaps you shouldn’t incite them to do so by slapping them (the men, that is).”
Yeah, it’s not a great analogy, but WTF are you trying to say here?
You say that you don’t like offending Muslims. Not at all. Well in that case, maybe don’t incite people to offend Muslims. There are millions of Muslims who are offended by pictures of Mohammed, but who aren’t going to kill you. They’re just going to be upset, and maybe think less of you and Americans in general. And they’d be right.
It seems like you’re conflating Muslim extremists (“They’ve now made it an imperative.”) with all Muslims. And that’s WAY beneath you.
When the explicit purpose of the free speech is to incite (and that’s exactly what this stupid cartoon contest was), I gotta say it’s a douchey thing to do. That’s not the same thing as standing up for crazy gunmen who shoot people, but it’s calling out those people (and others who would deliberately incite trouble) as fucking idiots who should know better.
Your analogy fails. It would be more accurate to say “If you don’t like men staring at your tits, perhaps you shouldn’t incite them to do so by obviously displaying them.”
Why is it the responsibility of the ‘good’ Muslims to fix the problem of the ‘bad’ Muslims? They might (somewhat fairly) point out that they bear no more responsibility for them than you or I do. Indeed, it’s a pretty safe bet that we (America) have done more to radicalize some of the bad Muslims than anyone else…
Um… Nope. THAT’S like saying “If you don’t like people drawing Mohammed, perhaps you shouldn’t worship him.”
“There are millions of Muslims who are offended by pictures of Mohammed, but who aren’t going to kill you.”
Good. maybe they should do something about the fairly large set of Muslims that want to kill for such pictures.
I actually feel bad that drawing Mohammed offends millions of Muslims who would do nothing about it than stop inviting me to their dinner parties.
But supporting free speech is more important than hurt feelings.
It is not the responsibility of the ‘good’ Muslims to fix the problem of the ‘bad’ Muslims. It is everyone’s responsibility. We do that by supporting the free speech of others. We do that by supporting those who were killed for their speech. We do that by drawing Mohammed.
I had been trying to find a way to say exactly what you say in your last paragraph–thank you.
I agree – supporting free speech IS more important than hurt feelings. But why do something deliberately designed to upset and incite simply because we can?
If someone started talking trash about my mother and I punched them, would you say that it’s everyone’s responsibility to talk trash about my mother?
Should the journalists at Charlie Hebdo have been killed, or the people in Garland have been attacked? Absolutely not. That doesn’t mean that what they were doing (deliberately trying to upset and incite Muslims) was not a stupid douchey thing to do.
So people who do stupid and douchey things deserve to be killed?
And please do realize that for those who kill cartoonists, it doesn’t matter a damn whether Mohammed is drawn sympathetically, admiringly, adoringly or otherwise–it’s the simple act of drawing him that they find offensive.
Would you be punching people in the face simply for mentioning that your mother is a good looking woman?
Um. Did you READ my last paragraph, where I said “Should the journalists at Charlie Hebdo have been killed, or the people in Garland have been attacked? Absolutely not.”.
Islamic law bars the depiction of the prophet, and the vast majority of Muslims avoid it. As I said before, there are millions of people who find depictions of the prophet disrespectful and offensive. A tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, TINY minority may be upset enough to try to do something about it.
So the analogy I gave about my mother still holds. If I find a comment you make about my mother offensive and react violently, would you say that it’s everyone’s responsibility to talk trash about my mother?
When cartoonists do this out of hate, and to incite and upset, then they’re jackasses. Should they be killed? No. No. NO. (I’m saying that 3 times, so you’re totally clear where I stand :)).
But that doesn’t stop them being jackasses, who are trying to offend people for no good reason.