An unjustified attack? Probably, but not an unprovoked one. Publishing an image of Mohammad is metaphorically similar to poking a rabid dog with a stick. The only reason anyone would be dumb enough to do it is to elicit a reaction. It makes me wonder if the magazine's publishers might have just been looking to cash in on their insurance policy...
Using your freedom of expression to print an image someone might find offensive is not stupid. Firebombing a magazine because someone who doesn't even believe in your religion violated its rules is stupid.
If Catholics were firebombing magazines in the US for printing articles mocking their pro-life stance would you say the magazines were the ones being stupid?
Bill_the_Cat said:
An unjustified attack? Probably, but not an unprovoked one. Publishing an image of Mohammad is metaphorically similar to poking a rabid dog with a stick. The only reason anyone would be dumb enough to do it is to elicit a reaction. It makes me wonder if the magazine's publishers might have just been looking to cash in on their insurance policy...
Wow. Really? Are you sure you don't want to take this one back?
Medieval Muslim artists often created paintings and illuminated manuscripts depicting Mohammed in full. Several examples are presented here. Other artists of the era drew Mohammed, but left his face blank so as to technically comply with a sporadically enforced Islamic ban on depicting the Prophet; these faceless images are shown in the second section of the Archive.
Thistle said:
Using your freedom of expression to print an image someone might find offensive is not stupid. Firebombing a magazine because someone who doesn't even believe in your religion violated its rules is stupid.
If Catholics were firebombing magazines in the US for printing articles mocking their pro-life stance would you say the magazines were the ones being stupid?
I wouldn't say it's dumb. But it is an act that is likely to have very negative repercussions, and the likelihood of those negative repercussions is well-known. If someone decides to commit such an act without considering the repercussions... well, again, I'm not going to call it dumb, but I would advise anyone considering it to really consider it.
That said? I think it's one of the best, bravest acts someone can commit in these times.
Allowing terrorists to dictate what we publish because we're afraid of what they'll do when offended is exactly what they want. Honestly, it's a bit of a no-win situation, and they know that.
MissyMalice said:
Allowing terrorists to dictate what we publish because we're afraid of what they'll do when offended is exactly what they want. Honestly, it's a bit of a no-win situation, and they know that.
motorfirebox said:
I wouldn't say it's dumb. But it is an act that is likely to have very negative repercussions, and the likelihood of those negative repercussions is well-known.
It's verging on victim-blaming.
If we said that the attacks by police on OWS protesters were "maybe unjustified, but definitely not unprovoked" (assuming that all the protesters were doing was occupying space), I don't think we'd be focussing our attention on what the protesters did.
Thistle said:
Using your freedom of expression to print an image someone might find offensive is not stupid. Firebombing a magazine because someone who doesn't even believe in your religion violated its rules is stupid.
If Catholics were firebombing magazines in the US for printing articles mocking their pro-life stance would you say the magazines were the ones being stupid?
There's no "might" about it. Any image of Mohammad is offensive to every muslim and I have no doubt the magazine was fully aware of that fact when it published the image. They knew they would get a reaction and I honestly can't think of any other reason why they would choose to publish the image if not as a provocation.
That being said- firebombing their offices was certainly the worst of the two actions, but I don't think that somehow puts the magazine on the right side of this by default. I'm not sure I see a right side. If Charlie Hebdo was trying to take a contrary moral stance similar to the magazines in your comparison, I'm confused as to what that stance might be. Are they simply claiming their right to openly and publicly mock an entire faith for no other reason but that it'll piss them off? That certainly falls within the bounds of free expression, but is it a moral use of free expression? I'm not convinced that it is.
Bill_the_Cat said:
An unjustified attack? Probably, but not an unprovoked one. Publishing an image of Mohammad is metaphorically similar to poking a rabid dog with a stick. The only reason anyone would be dumb enough to do it is to elicit a reaction. It makes me wonder if the magazine's publishers might have just been looking to cash in on their insurance policy...
Wow. Really? Are you sure you don't want to take this one back?
I don't take anything back, but I'm always open to being convinced of a different viewpoint.
Medieval Muslim artists often created paintings and illuminated manuscripts depicting Mohammed in full. Several examples are presented here. Other artists of the era drew Mohammed, but left his face blank so as to technically comply with a sporadically enforced Islamic ban on depicting the Prophet; these faceless images are shown in the second section of the Archive.
Interesting how religious tenets change over time, often not for the better. I expect, for example, that the Christians who went humbly to their deaths in the jaws of Roman lions might not have gone so willingly if they'd known how their sacrifices would come to be usurped and used to oppress the poor centuries later.
Thistle said:
Using your freedom of expression to print an image someone might find offensive is not stupid. Firebombing a magazine because someone who doesn't even believe in your religion violated its rules is stupid.
If Catholics were firebombing magazines in the US for printing articles mocking their pro-life stance would you say the magazines were the ones being stupid?
There's no "might" about it. Any image of Mohammad is offensive to every muslim
I'm guessing you don't know a lot of Muslims. This is a silly, backward statement.
motorfirebox said:
I wouldn't say it's dumb. But it is an act that is likely to have very negative repercussions, and the likelihood of those negative repercussions is well-known.
It's verging on victim-blaming.
If we said that the attacks by police on OWS protesters were "maybe unjustified, but definitely not unprovoked" (assuming that all the protesters were doing was occupying space), I don't think we'd be focussing our attention on what the protesters did.
The difference I see is that the OWS protests are not designed for the specific purpose of provoking police to anger. In fact I'm pretty sure a great deal of effort has been put into ensuring the protests remain peaceful and non-provocative.
Just to be clear- I don't blame the magazine for the firebombing. That was an act undertaken by irrational religious zealots and they, and any who supported them in their attack, should be afforded the entirety of blame. But I don't think the magazine is holding any moral high-ground, either.
Thistle said:
Using your freedom of expression to print an image someone might find offensive is not stupid. Firebombing a magazine because someone who doesn't even believe in your religion violated its rules is stupid.
If Catholics were firebombing magazines in the US for printing articles mocking their pro-life stance would you say the magazines were the ones being stupid?
There's no "might" about it. Any image of Mohammad is offensive to every muslim
I'm guessing you don't know a lot of Muslims. This is a silly, backward statement.
You're right. It's a gross generalization and I apologize. What I should have said was that the most modern Islamic doctrine holds images of Mohammad as anathema.
MissyMalice said:
Allowing terrorists to dictate what we publish because we're afraid of what they'll do when offended is exactly what they want. Honestly, it's a bit of a no-win situation, and they know that.
I agree, but I also think choosing to publish something for the sole purpose of offending them is also exactly what they want. It gives them fodder for their anti-West propaganda machine.
Eh, I don't see this as "provoking" as Terry Jones burning the Koran, which is the only situation in which I've felt the "you're causing shit to go down and shouldn't do that" argument works.
motorfirebox said:
I wouldn't say it's dumb. But it is an act that is likely to have very negative repercussions, and the likelihood of those negative repercussions is well-known.
It's verging on victim-blaming.
If we said that the attacks by police on OWS protesters were "maybe unjustified, but definitely not unprovoked" (assuming that all the protesters were doing was occupying space), I don't think we'd be focussing our attention on what the protesters did.
I think there has to be a distinction between victim blaming and recognition that a given action can have a known, likely result. I mean, it's not victim blaming to, for instance, state that a person who signs up for a combat MOS in the military stands a higher likelihood of getting shot than someone who doesn't. It's not victim blaming to tell someone that if they want to reduce their chances of getting shot, they shouldn't sign up for a combat MOS. Only if reducing one's chances of getting shot factors lower in one's outlook than certain other determinants--patriotism, etcetera--should one sign up for a combat MOS. If not getting shot factors higher in your outlook than other relevant determinants, and you sign up for a combat MOS anyway... well, you've still done a good thing. But you have not acted with wisdom.
TLDR version, the risk/reward check is separate from the moral/ethical/if-this-has-a-bad-outcome-does-that-mean-i-did-something-wrong check.
And to be clear:
Bill_the_Cat said:
But I don't think the magazine is holding any moral high-ground, either.
I absolutely believe the magazine holds the moral high ground. Defiance in the face of tyranny is a good thing, even if it's only accidental defiance.
motorfirebox said:
I wouldn't say it's dumb. But it is an act that is likely to have very negative repercussions, and the likelihood of those negative repercussions is well-known.
It's verging on victim-blaming.
If we said that the attacks by police on OWS protesters were "maybe unjustified, but definitely not unprovoked" (assuming that all the protesters were doing was occupying space), I don't think we'd be focussing our attention on what the protesters did.
I think there has to be a distinction between victim blaming and recognition that a given action can have a known, likely result. I mean, it's not victim blaming to, for instance, state that a person who signs up for a combat MOS in the military stands a higher likelihood of getting shot than someone who doesn't. It's not victim blaming to tell someone that if they want to reduce their chances of getting shot, they shouldn't sign up for a combat MOS. Only if reducing one's chances of getting shot factors lower in one's outlook than certain other determinants--patriotism, etcetera--should one sign up for a combat MOS. If not getting shot factors higher in your outlook than other relevant determinants, and you sign up for a combat MOS anyway... well, you've still done a good thing. But you have not acted with wisdom.
Well, duh. But what is the point of bringing it up? If. You don't say "If they weren't a soldier, they wouldn't have died in a war," would you? I mean, it's true, but what is the point of mentioning it?
Yes, they wouldn't have been firebombed if they hadn't published what they did: why is that important to even mention? It's both obvious and beside the point.
EDIT: Another thread derailed by semantical bickering. Sorry for my part in it.
I think there's a contextual aspect to this argument.
If you go to remote villages in Afghanistan running around waving Muhammad cartoons in everyone's face, then yeah I guess you reap what you sow.
This happened in Paris. So whoever was so "insulted" by this likely lives there, is literate, has a cell phone, and enjoys hot showers. So fuck that guy.
I'm glad they printed it, and I think society as a whole should start calling bullshit on this nonsense. Why tip toe around one aspect of one religion that some people find insulting?
They don't have to like it, fine. However, they can't expect society as a whole to cringe with fear every-time an insult is perceived there's going to be violent attacks.
Waldo_Jeffers
United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL
NOV 02, 2011 05:06 PM