Hacker News Reader

Comment by pw0ncakes | Hacker News Reader

Doing things that are offensive to Muslims to make the point that we should have the right to do things they find offensive is... something I'm not sure about.

It's utterly ridiculous that people would riot over a cartoon, and the South Park debacle is upsetting (especially given that the show has always used kid gloves with Mohammed and Islam). I don't think it's possible to feel anything other than contempt for the conduct of Revolution Islam. That said, making fun of Islam for the point of making fun of Islam just seems like something that (although it's not intended this way) would be interpreted by many as very mean-spirited.

Of course, there are legitimate and severe problems with "the Muslim world" with respect to human rights, and nothing should stand in the way of criticizing this, just as we aren't afraid to criticize the governments of China or the US for their human rights violations.

View on HN

>Of course, there are legitimate and severe problems with "the Muslim world" with respect to human rights, and nothing should stand in the way of criticizing this, just as we aren't afraid to criticize the governments of China or the US for their human rights violations.

Doing a drawing sounds like something a human shouldn't be afraid, wouldn't you say ?

>I don't think it's possible to feel anything other than contempt[...] >Doing things that are offensive to Muslims to make the point that we should have the right to do things they find offensives is... something I'm not sure about.

I think that would be a sign of fear, not contempt.

There is also the absurd death threat/possible murder-as-retribution aspect. I will gladly mock people who think killing is a viable response to an image, even if it is offensive.

Except this is offensive to even the Muslims who are perfectly reasonable.

I don't see how that's possible. It's not reasonable to get offended because of a harmless cartoon; anyone who does is by definition unreasonable.

Suppose we're talking in person. In the middle of the conversation, I fart. Then I pick my nose and eat it. Finally I reach into my pants and scratch my crotch.

All of these things are harmless to you, but I would not be surprised if you were offended by some of them.

Disgust is cultural.

It's important to recognize that large numbers of people can as a result of their culture be disgusted by things we consider normal. It's unreasonable to say "you shouldn't be disgusted".

The best we can say is that the value of free speech outweighs the value of pandering to various groups' definitions of good taste.

Disgust and offense are very different things. There are many things that I find disgusting, yet I am not offended by them since they don't affect me.

I can think of a lot of sexual practices that strike me as really disgusting. Eating shit, for instance. Yet the fact that people out there do it doesn't offend me; being forced (or tricked) into watching it would be, but the act itself is merely disgusting. It becomes offensive when it's forced. To be offended, particularly to the point of violent action, over something that doesn't affect you (or any other person, or even an animal) strikes me as unreasonable.

Of course, since you've opened up the rabbit hole of cultural constructs I'll admit that "reasonableness" is cultural as well -- but I think the Western, Enlightenment-inspired idea of "reason" and "reasonableness" is worth fighting for. If that makes me a cultural imperialist, so be it.

I am 100% sure that I would not threaten to kill you for any of those things.

No and neither would the vast majority of Muslims.

(bearing in mind that this was a discussion about why Muslims take offence at the cartoons and their response. I may have misread but the above poster seems to suggest that Muslims generally give death threats over this offence - which is untrue. The extremist is giving the threats not the Muslim :-))

Too bad for them? Being offended is not the end of the world. I'm offended every time some tea-party person claims that * is tantamount to nazi-ism, but I don't threaten death as a response, and I would probably mock anyone who did.

As Philip Pullman so beautifully said (about Christianity, in his case) nobody has the right to never be offended.

Video here: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/04/philip_pullman...

I agree. Obviously, people have the right to depict Mohammed however they wish. Whether they necessarily should is another matter. Offensiveness for its own sake is the province of the Manhattan "high art" world, but (being outside of that world) I don't buy into it as a good thing.

I thought South Park was harmless and funny in its 200th and 201st episodes, because the poignancy-to-offensiveness ratio was high (they were pretty inoffensive in their treatment of Islam).

What's odd and somewhat inconsistent here is that Islam doesn't forbid only the depiction of Mohammed, but of any of God's creations (defined as the animals including humans). This aversion to depiction isn't rare in human cultures; Renaissance-era Christians considered theatre morally impure and actors were refused Catholic burials at one time.

Yet, as far as I know, few Muslims are offended when non-Muslims create cartoons in general, even though strict Muslims aren't allowed to do so. Yet when Mohammed is involved, it's considered to be on a different level.

Interesting trivia from the good micro-history book "The Immortal Game" is that the classic stylized chess piece shapes that are still used today were adapted from more representative figures specifically to be less offensive to Muslim leaders who didn't approve of the realistic depictions.

Nobody's suggesting that Muslims have a right not to be offended. The point is just that deliberately offending a large group of people is usually a dick move.

Sure, it's a dick move, but it shouldn't be a crime, let alone a capital crime. Having dicks around is just a price you have to pay to have a free society.

To mangle a quote from Voltaire, "I may not like that dick move, but I'll fight to the death for your right to be a dick like that"

Update: I don't mean to paint everyone who doesn't like this as wanting to make it against the law. I personally don't like this, just as I don't like flag burning, but I do like and appreciate the fact that it can be done.

Nobody's saying that it should be a crime, either. They're just saying that it's not a good idea to do it.

It's kind of silly that you can't argue against this without people assuming that you're in favor of criminalizing the cartoons. You can disapprove of something without wanting there to be a law against it.

Which "people", exactly? "Muslims"?

It's not making fun of Islam just to make fun of Islam. Making fun of Islam is not the main purpose. That's just a means to an end. The purpose is to stand in solidarity with those who offended, and rebuke those who use violence and threats of violence to impose their views on others. The fact that Islam is being made fun of is incidental, coming about only because that was the action that incited the threat in the first place.

The main message that is trying to be conveyed is not "Islam is silly," but rather "We will not be cowed by death threats." I wish there were ways of communicating the latter without conflating it with the former so we didn't have to wade into that mire of offending innocent Muslims. Unfortuantely, the death threats being rejected in the latter are issued for making the former statement, so the two statements are inherently entangled. If there were a better and less contentious way of making the point, I would support it, but I haven't seen one and can't come up with one myself.

The one thing I don't like about the whole thing is that taking action is taking sides in a conflict, and that implicitly accepts the conflict as valid. I don't like dichotomous reasoning in general, and I disagree with the whole Islam vs Western Secularism conflict in specific because I think they're less incompatible than partisans of either side want to realize. In this particular incident though, I think I disagree with radical Islam more than I disagree with the conflict as a whole, so I'm tempted to take a side for once.

I think you're missing the point. The contempt and criticism is not aimed at the Muslim world (though I will admit, intentionally offending Muslims tastes bad to me too), but at Comedy Central and any other media outlet that caves to these threats. She's mocking Mohammed, but only doing so in order to mock the taboo against mocking Mohammed.

"(though I will admit, intentionally offending Muslims tastes bad to me too)"

Such delicate and tender social sensibilities we all suddenly have. As a Christian, people deliberately trying to offend me is merely part of the background noise of my life. Can't say I see it every day, but every week is probably fair.

Does "intentionally offending Christians" taste just as bad to you? I address this to everyone who would agree with that statement, not you personally, because I'm sure the answer is "yes" for some people. I mean it more an a question for introspection, because it's been a long time since I've actually been offended by anything.

And if the answer is no, my followup question would be "What's the difference?" and "Are you sure that's a social incentive structure you want to set up?" Allowing people to cow you with threats like this goes beyond even religion; "give me my handouts or I'll commit violence" is a threat that has been used in the real world, after all, it's not even theoretical. It's better not to encourage that.

Does "intentionally offending Christians" taste just as bad to you?

Yes.

I mean it more an a question for introspection, because it's been a long time since I've actually been offended by anything.

Thanks for framing the question this way. I hadn't really considered it until you did.

Intentionally offending anyone tastes bad to me, but a free society deliberately makes room for bad taste.

Freedom of speech isn't for tasteful, inoffensive, popular speech as that doesn't need any protection. Freedom of speech is there for the unpopular, offensive, tasteless, vile, and controversial because sometimes what needs to be said may be interpreted or portrayed as any of those things.

"Such delicate and tender social sensibilities we all suddenly have. As a Christian, people deliberately trying to offend me is merely part of the background noise of my life."

Seconded. South Park's portrayals of Jesus are extremely offensive. Does Comedy Central censor that? Nope. Do I make death threats? Nope. I just don't watch.

So Comedy Central's lesson for extremist "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim" groups is this: to silence those who offend you, make death threats. It works!

This cartoonist's campaign is an attempt to make the opposite statement: threats will not control us. And if IT works, we'll all be better off.

I accept that a picture of Mohammed such as :-) would offend people. I can accept someone refraining from such to avoiding offending people. However, the idea that people need to avoid drawing a smiley face or risk death is unacceptable to me.

PS: My smiley face was some other Mohammed and not anyone’s prophet.

:-) My smiley face is a depiction of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Whom I, as a non-Muslim, do not consider a true prophet. Whose writings I consider to be partly plagarized from Jewish scripture.

Disagree? Write your own comment.

The problem is that the issue is Comedy Central censored this material, not necessairily that there were death threats. I don't think it's either smart or intelligent to deliberately provoke the people who are trying to promote fear through death threats - it just gives them more media coverage.

The South Park episode was clearly a fine piece of "offensive comedy" - not deliberately targeting Muslims (because of the context of the episode). However this is saying "hey you want to send us death threats, fine. Here's some more content designed to be offensive to you". It's a problem because then it begins to escalate (perhaps someone gets beaten up - so everyone prints T-Shirts with the cartoons, then a bomb goes off.... etc etc.)

Does this show us as not being scared? I think it actually shows fear - and crucially is the kind of reaction the extremists are looking for! It increases the media coverage; I'm sure there will be more threats appearing if this makes it "mainstream" and they will all be reported. And it is the response they want in a "war" where making us do offensive things wins them support in the Islamic world.

Not being scared would be to continue as usual, make our comedy as normal, including Muhammed when required - and ignore the death threats and extremism. Don't give them the platform. That seems the least fearful thing to do! :)

Not showing the scene was bad on the part of Comedy Central - and I feel it is censors like that whom we should be taking to task over this. Not the extremists - because if you do that they will delight in fighting back :)

Historically ostentatious shows of "no fear" never end well.

No, I can't support this. :(

EDIT: rereading there seems a slight emphasis on the idea of using all kinds of religious iconography. That's something I could get more behind - simply because it's no longer about the extremists, but about Comedy Central being censors. That is a good cause.

So long as this doesn't promote targetting religion or the idea of entering into a fight against extremists (rather than the censors) then perhaps it has merit.

In your first paragraph you claim that this is about "the right to do things they find offensive". (I agree.) But then you change it to "making fun of Islam for the point of making fun of Islam." But I think this is a very different from your original characterization--and I don't think you are accurate here.

If you take into consideration that the British and the US have been involved in the middle east for decades, you'll see that being offensive will compound on quite a bit of resentment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com