|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
I'm sure I am pulling some of my personal philosophy into my interpretation of what a right is, but that's a personality difference and has little bearing on the discussion. Part of the difficulty I think we're having is that we're referring to different things. I'm talking about not only Comedy Central's part in this, but also that of news organizations that preferred not to print the cartoons in question, as well as some of the cartoonists that refused to draw them in the first place. This is a multitiered issue, and obviously there's not an easy solution. Because, see, I don't think "deal with it" is a beneficial solution for anyone concerned.
Messages, like the political cartoons, like the complicity of some of the news organizations that printed the cartoons, do not always have their intended effect, nor does the person on the receiving end always understand implicitly what was meant in the first place. We are all witnesses to that fact. I am advocating patience, not submission.
Let's be honest here. Your solution is to continue bullying Islam as a whole until they see the light or you send them to it. Does this strike you as somewhat odd and egomaniacal, or are you so committed to the prospect that actions do not have moral significance that you think anyone should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't break section 38-C of statute 411 of California penal code? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
It seems to me that Islamists are the ones doing the bullying here. Images of Christ are ok to portray in any vile or negative form because Christians generally won't threaten to kill the cartoonist or burn down the embassy of his home nation. Muslims on the other hand seem to be more inclined to such violence and therefore they bully various media outlets to conform to their demands. You advocate patience, but patience is dangerously close to appeasement. The radical arm of Islam hasn't changed in many centuries, how long are we to wait before we dare satirize any aspect of Islam? Most amazing jew boots |
Can anyone say that they're really surprised it came to this? Parker and Stone were going to push South Park to the limits of what most people would deem decent acceptable entertainment. Comedy Central was bound to stop them at some point.
Personally, if I were Parker/Stone I would try to use this incident to get out of my contract and walk off with the money. I wouldn't be surpised if that was the overall intent. But uhh that's just me. How ya doing, buddy? |
Well, if anything, this controversy made for a great group of episodes, while ones that don't raise important issues (the crappy ass Towlie episode that was just on last night) sometimes suck major balls.
Were the main characters even in last night's episode? Geez, it was just one long gag about Oprah's vagina/asshole talking in a rough British accent. FELIPE NO |
Yes, that was a bit of a disappointment.
They held that out a bit. At first I didn't expect the whole episode to be centered around it. Oh well, maybe they just get inspired once in a while. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's plenty of reasons why censorship happens. Not getting slapped with huge fines by the FCC is another one. Stone/Parker can't act like they're the only people being persecuted here. That's all I'm saying. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Why is it that all of the sudden Mohammed is a hot topic? This is insanely stupid. South Park blasts other religions, and its funny, but all of the sudden Mohammed is over the top? This is stupid.
I define censorship as the following: Some people are too simple or closeminded to be able to see things from other people's perspectives, so they simply say BAN IT for their own moral conscious. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Sure South Park has crossed the line for some folks. I love the show, yet there are several episodes I'd rather not watch because I think they're sort of offensive, so, no big deal, I just don't watch them. It just seems very hypocritical to allow any and all other abuses take place but keep Islam off limits. If this intimidation is taken to its logical conclusion we could be facing Sharia like laws making the denegration of Islam a crime...all because we don't want to piss certain people off.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Doing things your way, I would grab you by the collar, push you against the wall, and say "Leave me alone or I'm gonna bash your head in with a brick!", and you stop out of fear of retribution. Is that acceptable behavior? Hell no!
Oh, and as for actions having moral significance, I've never said they don't. I'm saying words don't have moral significance. I know a lot of women will turn red if you call them cunts, but me, I would just return the favor and call you a jackass. Eye for an eye. You call me a name, I call you a name, I don't decapitate you and feed you to rabid monkeys. Making cartoons with a message, that's words, not actions.
So no, I'm not about going by the book, I'm about doing what's right and caring about what should be cared about. People making cartoons thousands of miles away, that's not important, that's a blip on my radar. The people who threaten to blow people up in response, though, that'll get my attention. Giving in because of that possible retribution is, of course, the dictionary definition of submission, and their actions follow the dictionary ddefinition of terrorism. To me, it's that simple.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
Censorship is the fear of speaking out. When has politics ever not been based upon fear? Most wars were started by fearful men. Not because people were afraid of a war, but the fear of what would happen if they didn't start one. FELIPE NO |
Your example seems to be quite similar to what has happened. That being, in order to keep two parties from acting poorly, a third party (teacher, or TV network) stepped in to difuse the situation. Also, by your example you imply that there isn't, nor should there be, a ruling body (or common ground regarding issues) to stand between the Muslims and those that wish to insult them. You also go on to explain that without that ruling body shit turns ugly that didn't have to turn ugly. So it really seems like you want to push things until violence does ensue and then see who wins in a fight. Now sure, this will 'solve' things for a while, but is this really what you are trying to advocate in Muslim/non-Muslim relations? What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
Anyway, yes, I would rather let South Park "insult" them and let them start a fight and then have to fight than just cave in to the possibility of being attacked, yes, because otherwise, what the heck good does the Constitution do for us? To censor South Park because of the possibility of backlash is un-American; don't get me wrong, I'm no hard-headed patriot, but in this case, the word fits. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
So, what's the solution then? I mean, you could try wipping out Muslims, is that really the only, or best alternative to not running the cartoons?
I honestly want to know how you'd like this situation to play out. How ya doing, buddy?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
Carob Nut |
Also this is a bit complex since that aspect which you cited as an example is more of an universal human right while the so-called utility of press freedom has ended up as a planned insulting lashing to the Muslim community (also it's an entirely different issue). Democracy allows that we have basic freedoms that do not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case the freedom from persecution and whatever.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
The resulting riots were deplorable, and I imagine, unfortunately, that they were praised by as many Imams as the ones who called them deplorable. But I see no reason to believe that there is any kind of organized threat against the American government over what has transpired, and therefore no terrorist threat. A riot is fleeting, and shapes over incindiary issues. To say that this will encourage some kind of active war against Denmark or the states is to place the whole of the population once again into the role of terrorist. Something all of us, but in particular the people who refer to Islam as a problem in and of itself, need to stop doing.
I don't think there is an easy answer. And I'm tired of everyone saying that the solution is clear as day.
Do I think it's right to censor a show on the ground that "Well, we just should"? Of course not. Do I think it's right to encourage inflammatory media when the point is made already? Doing it twice, three times, or more, "Just because it's right" is equally irresponsible, and shows a considerable amount of naivety in my eyes. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
The more we buckle to intimidation from those who threaten violence the more power over our society they will gain. I was speaking idiomatically. |
So if you find something that pisses off another, the only responsible course of action is to press their button.
I mean, if there was something that pissed you off, it'd only be natural to expect that people would do their damndest to do it. And hell, you'd deserve it too, because your beliefs would be laughable and dumb. But seriously, I still want to know what antagonising and taunting them is supposed to accomplish. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
|
Either way, giving in to them is not an option. Too many people have fought for and died for this country for us to give way to a bunch of raving lunatics now. Most amazing jew boots |
Why does choosing not to publish images of Muhammad amount to high treason? A photographer can choose not to post pictures of gory death in Yugoslavia, because his values and his respect for the victims dictates as much. A Newspaper that chooses not to post pictures of the prophet Muhammad because they understand the religious basis and respect it should not be any of your fucking business to dictate to them. There is the possibility that someone, somewhere out there is doing it because they fear a reprisal. To them, I'd suggest that they never should have gotten involved in the first place, because it illustrates their capacity (or lack thereof) to stand up for what they believe in. However, THIS IS NOT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS. Moreover, what they do with their papers is their business. You want a free press, you got one. So, you have to acknowledge that there is a line that needs to be drawn if you don't want to see inflammatory media. All or nothing, as Patty said, and which I happen to think is bullshit. (By the way, your stance here could easily be seen as hypocritical. But please continue.) What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
When I said Muslims I was only referring to the protestors, but its easier than always saying "the insane fanatical Muslim protestors"
I agree with you on the fact that the media often chooses what to print and what not to print. The point here is that the media is being cowed by the nut case Muslim fanatics. Comedy Central isn't suddenly getting a conscience and saying that a cartoon Mohammad is over the line. They are being intimidated by threats of violence. I'm sure there are many Christians who would be horrified at the end of the episode where Cartman forms a Christian rock band, where he curses Jesus in some of the most flagrant ways at the end. Or his romantic Jesus songs, one implying oral sex, would offend millions. But since there were no Christians threatening to kill Parker and Stone and no one was burning any embassies, Comedy Central though the material was just fine. Had Cartman said these things about Mohammad I think they would have been censored in fear of reprisal. Your contention that inflammatory media is wrong is flawed because it isn't based on what is newsworthy or current, it is based on who screams the loudest on outrage. "If you give a mouse a cookie"....next the Muslims, oh, I'm sorry, radical fanatic nutcase Muslims, may insist that a telivised Christian preacher, who happens to give a sermon on what he considers the error of Islam be censored because he is being hateful towards Mohammad. Just protest and threaten to kill him, the network executives etc. and the network will fold. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Even though Comedy Central isn't known to censor ANY of their shows in ANY fashion. Which is why I can always hear Stephen Colbert or Jon Stuart say the word "fuck". Oops, guess that example is out the window. Because if I did hear that the FCC would fine the hell out of Comedy Central. Furthermore, Comedy Central is owned by Viacom. Which also owns MTV. Which has to be the single most censored channel on television. Most amazing jew boots |