All About Not Having Game

[solarbird]

Okay, so this Islamic group in Europe, The "Arab-European League," is running these cartoons on their website trying to provoke reactions, presumably on a scale similar to those seen in the Arabic world over the Denmark cartoons.

The problem is twofold: one, they're clearly really, really trying, but two, they clearly have a lot to learn. I mean seriously, this is about a step and a half above the "OOOH! OOH! OOOH! YOU... YOU... YOU... POOPYHEADS!!!" school.

Here's the first cartoon: Hitler and Anne Frank

Second cartoon: gay marriage tolerance leads to letcherous women marrying donkeys

Now, I dunno about you, but it's very clear to me that Hitler should have had two swastikas on his chest, like little nipples. I mean, for funnier. And kathrynt suggests that Hitler should have been doing Anne from behind, while making a kosher sausage joke. So I wrote in with the nipples comment, then added:

Seriously, you guys have a lot to learn about being offensive. I mean, aside from the nipple thing, if you'd really wanted to be crude, you should have had him doing her from behind and making a joke about his kosher sausage. Or maybe her doing him up the ass with a strap-on and making the same joke. That would have yanked some hairs.

Of course, it goes without saying that if Anne's pegging Hitler, she should have the electric-tape swastika nipples.

As for the second effort, I can't tell whether she's actually letcherous or whether that's just part of being badly drawn, because, well, it is. kathrynt suggests:

First, that's the wrong road to take, because it's just so tired and done. Second, if you even WANT to head down that road, do it better. Have a baby with hooves and the woman saying she needs to go to the stable to visit her baby daddy.

I liked that, so I wrote in with that part on her behalf, also taking her idea about dole money and extrapolating it out to a fermented oats habit.

So clearly, these guys need help in the worst way, which is, of course, exactly how we've been giving it. Me, I'd submit the links to fark.com, but, well, I don't have a fark.com account and it's not worth the extra effort to sign up. So, anybody want to do that for us? Because clearly, these need Daily Fark.

Comments

[laputain.livejournal.com]

As I keep saying, the closest equivalent to ¨some Muslims are terrorists => Muhammad as a bomb" would be "some Christians are child molesters => Jesus enticing little boys back to the carpentry shop with sweeties". If you really wanted to start a religious war - which it appears that a lot of people in both the West and elsewhere do - then that would raise temperatures nicely.

[britzkrieg.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of a comment someone posted to a BBC discussion thread on the topic: "Isn't it scary that the whole world seems ready to go to war over who has the best imaginary friend?"

[solarbird]

Ooo, it's evil! I like it!

[foibos.livejournal.com]

One problem with this is that Moslems regard Jesus as one of God's prophets (though obviously not the Prophet).

[laputain.livejournal.com]

Maybe we could bring it closer to home and have Dubya Bush enticing little boys into the White House with sweeties. Screw dairy boycotts - that would doubtless provoke an outright invasion.

Seriously, isn't that what the whole context is here? The more images which make it into the media which "prove" that Muslims-in-general are backwards, hand-chopping, woman-veiling, intolerant fanatics, the harder the argument that "we" shouldn't send all the troops in and take their oil (which they'd only be misusing, anyway). And after the Arabs are dealt with, wait for the abusive cartoons about Venezuelans.

[solarbird]

Oh. Right. Dammit!

[britzkrieg.livejournal.com]

The whole Arab-Dane situation has me very upset. Like you, I strongly support free speech and freedom of the press, and I don't think people should have to feel they're risking their lives when exercising these basic freedoms. Even if an opinion is offensive or expressed in poor taste, that opinion should be protected. We don't want Islamists coercively "censoring" our media any more than we want Christocrats doing it.

So... thanks for posting this. I'm actually glad someone is publishing (stupid) cartoons like these. It allows those of us who treasure the basic tenets of Western civilization to seize the moral high ground and practice what we preach.

May I link to this post?

[solarbird]

Sure, go ahead. It's not locked.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The problem here is that you have two cultures with two entirely different ways of getting offended, and that's what's fueling the stupidity both ways.

I personally think the publishing of Mohammed cartoons in European papers is stupid, juvenile, and needlessly inflammatory. It's hard to set up a culturally appropriate parallel, but I can think of some examples. If a mainstream Danish paper published anti-Semitic cartoons, for example, they'd be rightfully criticized around the world, despite their undeniable right to publish them.

On the other hand, the most vocal Muslim protesters are saying insane things. BBC World news showed a group of Muslims in London protesting with signs supporting bin Laden and calling for bombing attacks. While 99% of Muslims express their offense in ways that are consistent with free speech--such as calling for boycotts and quietly explaining to people why this is offensive--everyone will focus on the core of idiots who reacted predictably to a pointless provocation that was equally idiotic.

So I can't jump on the bandwagon that pretends this is about free speech, anymore than I celebrate Holocaust revisionism or people who tag graffiti in urban neighborhoods. I see this more as a case of two sets of idiots, more alike than either would care to admit, who deserve the fate of having to live together on some island far away from the rest of us.

[kensaro.livejournal.com]

Like someone said, and I'm paraphrasing:

The first thing the muslims did when getting offended by some cartoons portraying clichees is go out onto the street and be those exact clichees.

They need to learn how to take a joke, until then I'm considering them emotionally underdevelloped and not fit to sit at the adult table of international politics.

It's not like christians are going around burning down embasies over http://www.jesussuckscock.com/

My word to the islamic world: Grow up.

[solarbird]

This was provoked by Islamacist groups - and, reportedly, by the Saudi government. (Watch for the next CWU for details.) It wasn't spontaneous. It was fundamentalist. What we're seeing are the wages of fundamentalism in power.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the late reply; my e-mail's been down for several days...

Who are these "the Muslims" that you're talking about? I agree that *a small minority of Muslims* are perpetuating cliches. Those people do not represent all of Islam any more than Jerry Falwell represents all Christians, or the most idiotic practicioners of any religion represent the entire religion.

[foibos.livejournal.com]

So I can't jump on the bandwagon that pretends this is about free speech

I don't think it was about free speech to begin with, but of course it's very much about it at this point (sort of like how a few companies of Confederate troops taking a detour to scrounge up shoes turned into the battle of Gettysburg).

We need to have freedom of expression, but we also need to be able to defend ourselves against hate speech in all its forms. Tolerating hate speech and suppressing free speech are IMHO just as bad, because if hate speech is allowed, freedom of expression becomes just another weapon to hurt and control minorities.

In this case, when the protests started they probably had more to do with the Fatah losing the election than with a wish to attack free speech or even to curb hate speech. The Fatah desperately needed to regain prestige in the eyes of the moslem world, and attacking Denmark probably seemed both feasible and prudent.

In the second stage of this reaction (the events in Syria and Lebanon) the "free speech problem" probably has more relevance, only indirectly. Syria is a dictatorship whose leaders have no intention to explain the concept of a free press to their subjects, and a situation like this can't really be handled in a sensible way without doing just that. It is in their interest to uphold the belief that this kind of blasphemy is illegal and unforgivable everywhere in the world, and to reinforce it by arranging attacks on embassies.

As for the various political and religious figures around the world who must know that the publication of the cartoons were justified both by western legislation and by the Quran (yes, actually: non-moslems in non-moslem countries are exempt from commandments like the one prohibiting depiction of the Prophet) but still choose to condemn it; well, I suppose they sense that liberalism is a threat to their power base too.

[solarbird]

So I can't jump on the bandwagon that pretends this is about free speech
Except it is.

Look, I get much worse shit turned out at me in particular on a daily basis in this country, and I don't think it's not free speech. I think it's wrong, but should still be free. There's a difference.

I don't object to the criticism. But I don't accept that "criticism" and "government action and calls for the same, assaults, rioting, and death threats" are morally equivalent. Holocaust revisionism is specifically despicable for many reasons, but I don't support riots and burnings over it.

And the tagging is a completely different issue. If they owned the things they were tagging, I'd have no legal objection; that's a property-rights and property-damage issue, not speech.

[foibos.livejournal.com]

Except it is [about free speech]

I disagree, and I also think you're wrong here.*

I can see that free speech is dragged onto the stage to be shot down or held proudly high depending on who's doing it, but I don't think it's ever been the primary issue in this matter.

Islam and Muhammad are caricatured frequently in the free press, with little or no reaction from the moslem community. If one of those instances suddenly gets a violent reaction four months after publication, then what is more plausible, that the moslem world has suddenly begun to hate free speech, or that someone is using that instance as a pretext?

* as opposed to those instances where I disagree, and have a nagging suspicion that you're right :)

[brombear.livejournal.com]

On a different note, I LOVE the Icon!

[solarbird]

You've never seen it before? It's not new... tho' I guess I don't post with it often. Maybe this was the first time!

[kissare.livejournal.com]

It's faaaabulous!

[solarbird]

I ♥ Shego. ^_^

[foibos.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this item is in the international news yet: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/05/456857.html (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/05/456857.html). (This is one of the major Norvegian newspapers.)

Briefly, it tells how cartoonist Christoffer Zieler in 2003 submitted some Jesus cartoons to the Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten (the magazine that in 2005 commissioned the Muhammad cartoons we are discussing right now). Zieler's cartoons were rejected. The editor, Jens Kaiser, commented that he didn't want them because he thought they would be offensive to the readers. In light of the recent events, Zieler remarks that Jyllands-Posten obviously values the sensibilities of its Christian readers higher than those of its Moslem readers (Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's editor of literature and arts, denies this).

Zieler also says that since the editorial policy of Jyllands-Posten is relatively hostile to immigrants, he doubts that it had noble intentions for publishing the Muhammad cartoons.

Still, Zieler condemns the violent reactions to the cartoons.

[solarbird]

In light of the recent events, Zieler remarks that Jyllands-Posten obviously values the sensibilities of its Christian readers higher than those of its Moslem readers (Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's editor of literature and arts, denies this).
I suspect that he does value his Christian readers' sensibilities more. However, there was a specific context for the 12 cartoons they ran which was, as far as I know, absent in the Christian cartoon case.

[ravyngyngvar.livejournal.com]

I can't say much beyond what you already know about the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten (http://www.jp.dk/). But here's the latest news (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1218975.ece) about the aftermath of the reprinting of the cartoons in the Norwegian magazine Magazinet (http://www.magazinet.no/). The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation has reported editor Vebjørn Selbekk to the police for "endangering the lives of Norwegians", and suggests that he goes into hiding. He also suggests charging him for blasphemy. The Norwegian blasphemy paragraph hasn't been used since 1933, when writer Arnulf Øverland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_Øverland) was aquitted for a speech called "Kristendommen, den tiende landeplage," or "Christianity, the tenth plague."

Far from me to suggest that any of the reactions that we see were in any way warranted. However, I have started to realize that the paper, which I didn't even know before, has a strongly religious, conservative orientation of the type that you know very well. While the cartoon controversy naturally dominates their front page now, I quickly found a poll calling for outlawing adoption for gay couples.

The name Magazinet itself (with a "z" rather than "s") is a deliberate misspelling which appears to try to be "cool" for young people, in line with the "z for s" substitutions in a number of youth-oriented clubs and stores and the like. Most humour programs ridicule them for it.

[ravyngyngvar.livejournal.com]

Bad language. The "he" for the Al-Jinnah Foundation referred to their leader Khalid Mohammad.