Libertarians Pointlessly Annoying World’s Muslims

  ((8^{>

If you look at the BusinessWeek headline and the 'Email this story' parts just right, it totally looks like Mohammed.
Because nothing serious is going on in the world, and because the new Libertarian Patron Saint is busy in his Time Machine being a 2-year-old Freedom Walker with Dr. King while simultaneously celebrating the First Amendment of not letting coloreds buy lunch because they are coloreds, America’s Libertarians on the Internet are today pointlessly harassing religious Muslim people who for whatever theological dead-end reason cannot abide a South Park cartoon of the Prophet Mahomet dressed as a dildo or whatever.

On the one hand, people who actually attack and/or kill other people for drawing a picture of some cave-desert religious figure, well these people are nutters. People who have a riot over cartoons — and why do you think we call the Comics Curmudgeon’s column “Cartoon Violence” anyway? — are lamers.

But to equate the bizarre/violent behavior of a handful of fanatics with the cultural-religious traditions and harmless taboos of a billion of the world’s people, well that’s about as dumb as T.P.ing your neighborhood Sunday School because you don’t like Fred Phelps.

QUESTION TIME: If your political philosophy is honestly something along the lines of “Free Minds, Free Markets,” what’s a better way to lift billions of people out of poverty and literal adherence to old faiths: Investing your Ron Paul gold doubloons in emerging markets and technology and open governments, or childishly prodding angry, impoverished people into rage and violence so you can snicker from the safety of your computer?

The answer, if you’re the kind of intellectually vapid internet-tough-guy who can’t stop giggling over the antics of Penn & Teller or whatever, is to spend this day posting cartoons of Mohammed and gleefully twittering about the resulting riots.

Share This
 
Related video

About the author

A writer and editor of this website from 2006 to early 2012, Ken Layne is occassionally seen on Twitter and writes small books and is already haunting you from beyond (your) grave.

View all articles by Ken Layne

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

171 comments

  1. Citizen Kang

    …snicker from the safety of your computer…

    Where I come from that’s being cowardly.

  2. Tommmcatt

    To be fair, Penn and Teller were quite funny, that one time on June 12th, 1992, and then again on November 13th, 1997. Quite.

    The whole Mohamed thing just makes me sigh, for the humans, and for their infinite capacity to be dicks on both sides of any issue. Massive, aubergine knobs. Doesn’t anybody know how to be cool and back down for the sake of goodwill anymore?

  3. Snarkalicious

    [re=581998]Citizen Kang[/re]: Hey, fucker. These cheetohs aint gonna spread themselves on my cock.

  4. Terry

    Yeah, I don’t get this. Why do something like this just to provoke people? You could argue that a political cartoon is a part of discourse, makes a point, etc, but drawing the stick figures and the other representations is just silly.

  5. Moonbatting_Average

    Pakistan blocks Facebook? Too late, Pakistan, all your personal info is already compromised

  6. JMP

    There’s a problem with your question to the Randroids; they do not want to “lift billions of people out of poverty and literal adherence to old faiths”, but want to insure that billions stay in poverty, and hopefully the rest of the masses will go and join them, while the superior (which of course they’ll be a part of) bask in luxury while served by their lessors.

    Similarly, while many of them reject formal religion, the Libertarians think it’s a perfectly fine distraction for the little people; they agree with Marx, but think giving the masses their opiate so they stay in their place is a positive.

  7. Heq

    I’m willing to make the claim that de-sacredizing anything which is held as a taboo for religious purposes is a worthwhile endevour. While there are some legitimet taboos, much of the reason for taboos in religions is to prevent discussion of the (almost assuredly) crazy sets of beliefs those religions hold.

    Most of the people doing it are probably not iconoclasts, but the iconoclast movement has some good logic to it.

  8. JMP

    [re=582004]Tommmcatt[/re]: It’s my own biases showing, but I do like Penn and Teller when they go after supernatural-type Bullshit, like ghost, creationism, religion, and alternative medicine, also with conspiracy theories and prudery; but not when they go full Libtard and fling shit at the government. They did eventually apologize for their earlier global warming denialism and admit they were wrong, at least.

  9. Tommmcatt

    [re=582007]Terry[/re]:

    I get the point they are making. The generic stick-figure image, for example, only has the identity and power granted to it by the viewer, and and as such cannot in and of itself be disrespectful of that viewers beliefs. If you don’t like representations of Mohamed, don’t look at them, basically.

    What bothers me is that these people seem to feel that the highest good is served by being assholes to humorless, possibly dangerous, jerks. It just isn’t. Yeah, you have a right. Yeah, you even have a point. But if somebody gets blown up over it, was it worth it? Was the picture of Mohammed as a pig really such a brilliant and witty quip that it is worth inflaming these crazed yobs?

    Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and the people intentionally inflaming this kind of passion are simply being irresponsible.
    /rant off

  10. SayItWithWookies

    Is this Bait the Paultards for Baiting the Muslims Day? Can’t we do both? As someone who’s already told three devout Muslims that I’m an atheist (and they were concerned, let me tell you), I fully endorse criticizing their religion from a distance. Then again, I’ve had no compunction about criticizing people I share views with, either — Chris Hitchens, Ayn Rand and Lance Armstrong are all atheists, and they’ve all had their share of idiocy.

  11. Tommmcatt

    [re=582023]JMP[/re]:

    Meh. I just find that they tend to substitute “obnoxious” for “funny”. Mostly.

  12. ph7

    Foxnews’ website range this lead all yesterday – presumably mocking how thin skinned Muslims are – while at the same time continuing to run the latest update on the disrespectful vandals to defaced and destroyed the sacred Sandoz Jesus Memorial (The Park Service said you can’t erect a new one, but some Jesus freak re-erected a new last night, anyway.)

  13. qaf

    [re=582013]JMP[/re]: I doubt they’ll be served by their lessors, since their lessors will own the property. Unless it’s a subpeona (sic).

  14. vkladchik

    The point is to get the rational ones to denounce the crazy ones, the way we sane (“irreal”) Americans regularly denounce stupid (“real”) Americans for their douchedildoness.

  15. Sharkey

    ((8^{> ?
    And what is this, Ken? Looks like a guy with a moustache, beard and turban, turned on it side? Is it an emoticon, or a CARTOON?

    Oh wait, it’s not actually Mohammed, is it. My bad.

  16. vkladchik

    [re=582026]Tommmcatt[/re]: You ask if freedom of speech worth dying for and answer “no.” I don’t know what kind of craven ideology leads to that kind of cowardice, but it’s not liberalism, that’s for sure.

  17. jagorev

    [re=582018]Heq[/re]: The people protesting against the imagery of Muhammad in Pakistan and elsewhere are the iconoclasts in this story. Go do some research on what the word means.

  18. jagorev

    [re=582035]vkladchik[/re]: Islam bans religious images. By your measure, every believing Muslim is a “crazy” person because they believe in a central tenet of their faith.

  19. Cape Clod

    Good work, Libertards. Now you’ve not only angered Muslims world wide, but you’ve also denied millions of Pakistanis access to Farmville. Who is going to look after all those lonely red cows now? Oh, no!

  20. Tommmcatt

    [re=582040]vkladchik[/re]:

    When did I ask or answer that? What I asked for was common sense and collegiality in public discourse.

    Look! A straw man! And before I forget, fuck off.


  21. Post author
    Ken Layne

    [re=582041]jagorev[/re]: Ha ha who could’ve guessed that word’s literal meaning would make such a comeback in the 21st Century?

  22. jagorev

    [re=582040]vkladchik[/re]: the douchebags making Muhammed stick figures aren’t risking their lives. I’d have more respect for them if they were. Instead, they’re sitting safely behind their computer and taking no real risks at all. If they went to Pakistan and fought for freedom of speech there, maybe that would be somewhat impressive. This isn’t.

  23. Sharkey

    [re=582040]vkladchik[/re]: I’d call it “kharma”. As in, don’t give people a reason to kill other people. But nobody forcibly insists that you have to believe in it.

  24. I Heart Accuracy

    Dear Youth: swallow the chemicals and throw a leg over and have a bonk, like you’re supposed to.

  25. edgydrifter

    Paultards are fundamentalists, and fundies of any stripe are mock-worthy. How I wish I could draw a cartoon that would simultaneously piss off fundamentalist Muslims, Paultards, and oh… how about militant vegans? Yeah, there we go. It couldn’t get much sweeter than that.

  26. WELCOME THRILLHO

    Here is my drawing of the prophet Muhammed. He is made primarily of punctuation and is wearing a top hat, as was the style back in the in the 1980s when he was popular. He is lying down because he is sleeping.

    Behold: =|O->-<

  27. mumblyjoe

    [re=582061]edgydrifter[/re]: Ayn Rand fucking Mohammed while they both eat bacon paid for with your tax dollars?

  28. Crank Tango

    [re=582061]edgydrifter[/re]: maybe a drawing of muhammed sodomizing jesus with some tofu sausage?

  29. DC Hates Me

    I wish Farfour (the Hamas Mickey Mouse) wasn’t martyred by Israel. He’d have something to say to these awful cartoonists.

  30. Heq

    jagorev- I dislike having to correct someone who in etymologically correct, but the core structure of the iconoclastic movement was the desruction of the concept of sacred things, or ever representations of the concept of sacredness, as they would, by definition, be profane (ie: in theological terms something composed of vulgar matter is inferior in quality to a thing composed solely of divine). I don’t know if this is the place to have a discussion of the concept of the sacred space and the objection to physical manifestations of the divine, but rest assured Iconoclastic principles are not merely a simple objection to pictures.

    That, and of course words evolve. Iconography is present in the Islamic faith, simply not iconographical depictions of Moe.

    Next time you’re going to take a haughty tone, please do more then look up a word on wikipedia and assume no-one else knows what it means.

  31. WELCOME THRILLHO

    Shit, I should have put him on a jet-powered skateboard. There’s always next year. This is an annual thing, right?

  32. SayItWithWookies

    [re=582068]Crank Tango[/re]: Now that’s excessive — a crime against tofu, in fact.

  33. jagorev

    [re=582072]Heq[/re]: the core structure of the iconoclastic movement was the desruction of the concept of sacred things, or ever representations of the concept of sacredness, as they would, by definition, be profane (ie: in theological terms something composed of vulgar matter is inferior in quality to a thing composed solely of divine)s.

    Theologically, this is pretty much exactly why Muslims object to imagery of Muhammad. By creating an image of something sacred, you connect it something profane. They’re not simply “objecting to pictures”, they’re objecting to pictures of the sacred.

    The Byzantine iconoclasts were religious fundamentalists, not atheists. They were trying to restore Christianity to a doctrinal purity and consistency which it has generally lacked. Islam has had less need for internal iconoclasm, because it has always been more doctrinally consistent on the issue of religious imagery than Christianity. But they protest against Western depictions of Muhammed for exactly the same reasons why the Byzantine iconoclasts smashed religious idols and pictures. Because they see it as sacrilege.

    “Iconoclast” isn’t some vague word that means “anti religion”, it means exactly the opposite of the sense in which you used it. Iconoclasts smashed idols, not because they were religious, but because they were sacrilegious.

  34. Crank Tango

    [re=582079]SayItWithWookies[/re]: one might make a case that all uses of tofu to imitate meat are crimes against tofu…as well as defamation of meat. or something.

  35. V572625694

    [re=582061]edgydrifter[/re]: It’s a bit of a reach to call Paultards fundies. Like Congress Doctorman Senator-Presumptive Rand, they want a smorgasbord approach to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“I like all of it except Title X”) and the Constitution (“Repeal the 17th Amendment!”). A constitutional fundamentalist would either say no amendments at all (A diós, right to bear arms and free press!) or accept it with all amendments, since the Founders included an amendment process in the constitution from the beginning.

    A better (but still mock-worthy!) description of Paultards would be that they are childishly immature, and think laws and the Constitution should be fine-tuned according to their whims. They can’t really point to a coherent doctrine except by chanting, “Taxes bad! Gummint small!”

  36. stew

    Ayn Rand is one of the heroes of the Church Of Satan–she too dug that whole “selfishness is the ultimate value” stuff. Something to share with your fundamentalist/libertarian friends.

  37. edgydrifter

    [re=582091]V572625694[/re]: You are of course correct, but “Paultard” is a much better derisive label than “Randian Objectivist” to describe those particular fundies who are very ardent in their defense of socioeconomic concepts that justify their greed and general bastardliness.

  38. Crank Tango

    I care not to question it and just have faith in its goodness. have you ever had spam musubi? Mmmm, exotic!

  39. Can O Whoopass

    Bush created a whole Army Dept. of Annoyance overseen by Karl Rove and Rabbi Ginkfinger.

    I do the same thing to Arizona Diamondbacks fans.

  40. Lazy Media

    [re=582028]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Dude, Ayn Rand has had WAY more than her share of idiocy. She’s, like, totally hogging the idiocy bowl and keeping the rest of us from getting any, even after being all dead and shit.

  41. SayItWithWookies

    [re=582090]Crank Tango[/re]: I thought fake meat was an abomination too (albeit a minor one) until I discovered that Morningstar Farms Steak Meal Starters make a kick-ass Philly Cheesefake sandwich. My ethical dilemma was quickly solved though when they discontinued the product. Now I use their damn fake chicken — still good, but not the same.

  42. mumblyjoe

    [re=582106]edgydrifter[/re]: But is Paultard a better derive label than Randroid? It’s a pretty close call, I’d say.

  43. vkladchik

    [re=582047]Tommmcatt[/re]: You: “But if somebody gets blown up over it, was it worth it? Was the picture of Mohammed as a pig really such a brilliant and witty quip that it is worth inflaming these crazed yobs?”

    Unless your rhetorical answer was “yes” (in which case, learn to write rhetorical questions), then you asked, “Is freedom of speech worth dying for?” and answered, “No.”

  44. Cmoney

    “…harmless taboos of a billion of the world’s people…”

    Not harmless. Mind-fucking and deadly.

  45. Crank Tango

    [re=582112]SayItWithWookies[/re]: hey, whatever melts your butter! not being a veggie of any sort I tend to be anti fakery– Although I do love fake krab. But i guess that is just substituting a cheap meat for an expensive one. now I am hungry.

  46. SayItWithWookies

    [re=582111]Lazy Media[/re]: Yeah, she’s way ahead of most other atheists. Hitchens at least is amusing, despite his lunatic neocon views about Iraq. I tossed Armstrong in there because he might’ve been blood doping and lying about it for the last decade — at least according to his former racing colleague Floyd Landis.

  47. jagorev

    [re=582115]vkladchik[/re]: no, Tommmcatt didn’t ask “is freedom of speech worth dying for”, jackass. Read the actual question you just quoted. Freedom of speech is not equal to making pictures of Muhammad as a pig.

  48. Lazy Media

    [re=582115]vkladchik[/re]: You gots some reading comprehension probs there, pardner. The implied rhetorical question is, “Is this particular statement worth causing the death of other people?” Just because speech is free doesn’t mean that it has no consequences, nor that you ought not be responsible in what you say with your free speech.

    Muslim fanatics have no power to exert prior restraint, therefore no one is impinging on your right of free speech. That doesn’t make it a good idea to say any stupid fucking thing that pops into your head, and is likely to incite a riot. Walking onto 125th Street in Manhattan and yelling, “Fuck you, niggers!” is something you have the free-speech right to do. Go ahead, give it a shot.

  49. Lazy Media

    [re=582122]SayItWithWookies[/re]: Heh. I saw some web ad or book or something about Success: The Lance Armstrong Way. Yeah, you cheat your ass off, and tada! If you don’t get caught, it’s AWESOME.

  50. Tommmcatt

    [re=582115]vkladchik[/re]:

    What Lazy Media and Jagorev said.

    Oh, and did you catch my final point? It, at least, is at your intellectual level, and as such bears repeating: Fuck off. Did I call you an idiot last time? Guess not, so let me add it here: Fuck off, idiot.

  51. Sharkey

    [re=582116]Cmoney[/re]: The only people I let fuck with my mind are the ones allowing me to make a living. And it usually doesn’t work. Secondly, everyone is potentially deadly, probably even the most devoted pacifist.

  52. Trinkett

    Next let’s do “Burn a Bible Day” and see how amusing it is to poke at THAT particular pointless taboo.

  53. Snarkalicious

    [re=582115]vkladchik[/re]: I believe you’re missing the point of Tommmcatt’s comment, which was to imply that perhaps this activity is not the best use of free speech. Rights do not relieve one of the burden of judgement and consequence, even when said consequence is felt only by people on the other side of the globe. That sort of ‘I got mine, so fuck you all’ sort of myopic dunderfuckery is another sort of crazy we like to target within these particular tubez.

  54. Trinkett

    [re=582142]Trinkett[/re]: I should clarify that. First, I think both taboos are equally pointless and silly. Second, I don’t think all the idiots gleefully snickering at the touchy Muslims would think a worldwide Bible-burning was funny or innocuous.

  55. Maus

    It saddens me that Pharyngula is participating. I know he’s an avowed atheist and all (and am as well), but anything that encourages that Libertarian circlejerk is disappointing.

  56. Maus

    [re=582146]Trinkett[/re]: “Second, I don’t think all the idiots gleefully snickering at the touchy Muslims would think a worldwide Bible-burning was funny or innocuous.”

    I think there are plenty of “south park conservative” shitheads that don’t care about religion. Now if South Park burned flags and made fun of the US Military and Republican party, they’d probably cause damage to Comedy Central HQ themselves.

    Either way, most of the libertopians making a big deal about this are just jacking each other off about how “enlightened” they are but it all ends up coming off as snarky and right-wing as anything Glenn Beck produces.

  57. ThisIsNotAnAvatar

    Both jews and bisexuals hang from rafters of the mosque
    And these cartoons of Mohammad are now all that remain.

  58. BlueStateLiberal

    Sort of like making fun of Mets fans. Fun at first, but you feel bad afterwards.

  59. Cmoney

    @Jagorev and Sharkey

    I meant the taboos are mind-fucking and deadly to those who have them, especially if the taboos are not challenged.

  60. zhubajie

    [re=582023]JMP[/re]: If they wanted to change muslim minds, then stop the murder campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., first. Know-it-all Americans have gained a bad reputation already and this shit-stirring campaign won’t improve it.

  61. doloras

    [re=582167]Cmoney[/re]: First question: how is consistent iconoclasm “mind-fucking and deadly”? (I personally think the Muslim prohibition on icons of the sacred makes total and perfect sense, when you see how poor Jeebus is depicted in repulsive velvet-based fan-art.)

    Second question: is deliberately baiting people who have a belief that you don’t approve of (a) a noble thrust for freedom of speech; (b) absolutely retarded; (c) somehow both at once?

  62. Lascauxcaveman

    [re=582115]vkladchik[/re]: Of course Freedom of Speech isn’t worth dying for. If you’re dead it doesn’t do you any good to have Freedom of Speech. It may be worth killing for, however, and it’s definitely worth living for.

  63. Maus

    [re=582167]Cmoney[/re]: “I meant the taboos are mind-fucking and deadly to those who have them, especially if the taboos are not challenged.”

    Blasphemy to challenge a law, (as in Ireland) is useful.

    Onanistic blasphemy is to please one’s self. You’re challenging the existence of these beliefs, you’re not shaking these beliefs.

    It’s just being a one-sided asshole rather than making anyone enlightened. The next time you’re in an academic discussion, try slapping the person in the face repeatedly and see how much better they listen.

  64. Maus

    [re=582170]zhubajie[/re]: “If they wanted to change muslim minds, then stop the murder campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., first. Know-it-all Americans have gained a bad reputation already and this shit-stirring campaign won’t improve it.”

    Can you rewrite that in language that better appeals to an anime and flying spaghetti monster-obsessed manchild?

  65. Jim89048

    I’m glad I thought better of my plan to post links to all my high-resolution digital stills of the Prophet.

  66. vkladchik

    [re=582127]Lazy Media[/re]: [re=582144]Snarkalicious[/re]: [re=582140]Tommmcatt[/re]: [re=582126]jagorev[/re]: Your argument is this: a couple of drawings of Muhammad aren’t worth dying for, so nobody should draw them. You *agree* with Comedy Central’s censorship of the Southpark episodes. (I didn’t think there was anyone in the country who agreed with that.) If you draw those things and you get killed for it, then you deserved to die, because you should’ve *expected* to die. Also, you guys/gals are in positions to judge what is worthwhile expression and what is not worthwhile because … what?

  67. zhubajie

    The real reason for the original cartoon protests was the torture gulag at Abu Ghraib. Don’t expect routine people in Pakistan, etc., even the irreligious ones, to react well to Western pretensions to super-morality. Frankly, one reason I live in China is so I don’t have to listen/see US boasting all the time.

  68. vkladchik

    And another thing – if the Muslim crazies didn’t want us to draw pictures of Muhammad, why did they threaten us with death for doing it? Don’t they know that’s just going to piss us off and make us do it more? Do they think they have a monopoly on infantile idiocy?

    So it’s their fucking fault.

    Anyway, I’m still in shock after finding out that there are people out there willing to say, “Hey they might hurt us, so let’s just shut up.” What if someone threatened to kill such cowards for *not* drawing pictures of Muhammad?

    The life of a coward must be a scary, scary thing.

    [re=582174]doloras[/re]: Both, and that’s what makes it so beautiful.

  69. Maus

    [re=582035]vkladchik[/re]: “The point is to get the rational ones to denounce the crazy ones, the way we sane (”irreal”) Americans regularly denounce stupid (”real”) Americans for their douchedildoness.”

    We don’t make fun of conservatives and libertopians because we feel it will change their beliefs, and we’re certainly not going to draw pictures of their moms being fucked by chainsaws because it’s a funny “freedom exercise”.

    “Also, you guys/gals are in positions to judge what is worthwhile expression and what is not worthwhile because … what?”

    It’s subjectively “worthless” but objectively not going to change a single mind, which is to me the definition of masturbatory.

  70. Maus

    [re=582199]vkladchik[/re]: “The life of a coward must be a scary, scary thing.”

    All this braggadocio is silly.

    Did you “save Iran” by changing your Twitter location? Your solidarity with people on the blogosphere is not placing anyone in risk. I expect this nutgrabbing from the usual Neocons, not from people I’d otherwise agree with elsewhere.

  71. Tommmcatt

    [re=582197]vkladchik[/re]:

    Wow.

    First off, I get to judge, moron, because of the very right to free speech you are currently masturbating yourself over. And for the record, if Comedy Central thought that it was in their best interest, or in the interest of the public good to censor a property that they hold the rights to, then yes, I support that decision. The right to free speech is, after all, a right not to speak if one so chooses, a right I devoutly wish you and your fellow knee-jerk libtards would exercise once in a while. The fact that you have to put words into people’s mouths to make your argument shows how intellectually impoverished your opinion is. I never said or implied that anyone deserved to die because of what they drew or said. You had to add that to distract from the fact that your point of view is little more than a pose, and I’m not going to back down because you ramp up the rhetoric and throw some incendiary phrases around.

    You seem to have missed the one point that I continue to repeat in this discussion: fuck off. Fuck the hell off, and come back when you can support your ideas with something other than implied insults and straw men. Or don’t come back, i could care less.

  72. Maus

    I’d take them at more sincerity (if the intention was blowback from blasphemy alone) if the plan was that every single one of them drew Mohamed making the nasty with Jesus in graphic detail.

    Sure, it’d still be silly, but you’d see a TON of support drop out, some actual blowback from the media, and actual harrassment from within the country.

    Instead, you’ve got some children of all ages that wouldn’t survive in /b/ backpatting how brave they are.

  73. Maus

    I’d take them at more sincerity (if the intention was blow back from blasphemy alone) if the plan was that every single one of them drew Mohamed making the nasty with Jesus in graphic detail.

    Sure, it’d still be silly, but you’d see a TON of support drop out, some actual blow back from the media, and actual harrassment from within the country.

    Instead, you’ve got some children of all ages that wouldn’t survive in b backpatting how brave they are.

    [re=582214]Snarkalicious[/re]: I don’t know, but they should probably just head on back to Protestwarriors where they can tell those darn hippies to get back in the kitchen and YEE-HAW

  74. doloras

    Cowardice? The cowards are the libertarian keyboard warriors trolling people in far-away Pakistan. Roger Waters called it “the bravery of being out of range”.

    Let them draw fan-art of Sarah Palin getting buttfucked by a huge Mandingo warrior with a bone through his nose labelled “Obama”, put it on fliers and hand it out in East Tennessee.

  75. I Heart Accuracy

    [re=582197]vkladchik[/re]: Are you going to run out there and die for it?

  76. Lazy Media

    [re=582197]vkladchik[/re]: We decide what’s worthwhile expression, because we’re grownups with some fucking sense. Comedy Central didn’t censor shit; they OWN South Park’s time slot. They edited it. I don’t know that it was a particularly correct call on their part, but that’s not censorship. Governments censor. Free speech doesn’t mean punk kids can spraypaint anarchist symbols on my fence without me getting their little asses sent to juvie.

  77. Heq

    jagorev- I disagree with your argument about why depictions are banned, as this does not seem to have orginally stemmed from a doctrainal condition as much as from the neccessities of state. Similar to the destruction of “imperfect” copies of the Qu’a’ran, these all seem to stem from the desire for state control, and entities which might present something other then the core state can lead to extra schisms. I’ll give you that such a statement presumes that religions are manufactured and requires certain base assumptions about how people interact, but I don’t think it’s unfair to state that the customs and laws of a theocracy are mostly manufactured for state utility.

    I’m willing to give you that the origonal iconoclasts, which I would date in christian terms to just post founding (let’s be honest, it’s not very different from the cult of the Word sort of stuff). As I said, the word has evolved. Currently it is usually used to mean the wonton destruction of religious taboos, at least within my cultural circles.

    Though I did myself probably take an excessively aggressive tone, and I apologise for that, political season makes people meaner then they should be.


  78. Post author
    Ken Layne

    Well, this is 95% a meaningful/interesting discussion, but let’s not call each other idiots & fucktards on the Wonkette pages. A “you’re completely wrong” will usually do the job.

  79. ghams

    If anything, posting these pictures is a display of over-entitlement.

    If you are personally offended by the fact that another culture, one which you are not a part of, has a certain belief that pertains not to you at all, you have become an overly-entitled person.

    You believe you are entitled to do ANYTHING and that is a core part of your identity. In fact, you are so entitled that you will go out of your way to prove your your entitlement by doing something you would never even think to do, if you didn’t know you “weren’t supposed to” do it. You’d never “think” to draw this until you heard you shouldn’t. And because you are so privileged and entitled, this is a rare thing for you, being told you can’t do something, and it makes you really mad. There is something you can’t or shouldn’t do, out of basic human respect? You’ll show the world you are so entitled that you can do anything, even something totally irrelevant to you! You’re a ‘Merkin!

    It’s a power play.

    The reason I believe that it is mostly overly-entitled people doing it is because to do it, you have to be pretty thin-skinned about “not being allowed” to do something. This may be because you haven’t experienced this early on, perhaps because you are stupidly privileged in the first place (just a guess). So you make a big, fat stink anytime something VAGUELY, and even INDIRECTLY, challenges your entitlement to do every single stupid thing you want or do not even want to do, all the time.

    And that is why it is a dick move. You are offending just to offend. This particular taboo harms no one. Some taboos do harm – go act (act!) against those. But going after this one is a cheap shot, and nothing more than a reason to flex your entitlement muscles to the world.

    It’s mean-spirited and an exercise in privilege.

  80. SayItWithWookies

    You know, this whole thing is really a controversy over nothing. When the original Danish cartoons came out and the ensuing riots happened there was an interesting piece in Slate (I know, but bear with me) that dealt pretty well with the inheent contradictions. I searched for it, but couldn’t find it, but I’ll post a link if I do later.

    Anyway, the gist of it was that a) it’s only a crime for Muslims to depict Mohammad, not for non-Muslims to do so, and the people who rioted were misunderstanding their own scripture; and b) there are subgroups (I think mostly Shi’ite and Sufi) that have no ban on depicting Mohammad, so it’s not universal in Islam by any means.

    I’d also point out that someone’s religion (whether they’re interpreting their scripture correctly or not) that produces rules about what I can think, say or do merits a big “fuck off.” The damn religious fanatics have a hard enough time keeping themselves in line, so they can damn well forget about keeping people who don’t share their particular slice of the crazy pie in line. Same goes for a Jew or Christian who doesn’t want me to say Yahweh or goddamn.

    Also, I find most Libertarian nonsense as distasteful as most Muslim or other religious nonsense — so really I don’t care who gets the better of who, and really they’re both acting like children.

    That said, mocking tofu should be a felony.

  81. abberant

    Weird how everyone hates on Reason. Has anyone here ever read it?
    Plus, wasn’t Layne was bff with one of those people?

  82. Tommmcatt

    [re=582239]Ken Layne[/re]:

    Sorry, you’re right. I should take a page from my own book and try a little civility myself.

    Don’t appreciate having my words twisted around tho.

  83. Ye Olde Fap-Smith

    Jesus H. Mohammed on a jazzy power chair! If one billion people choose not to draw pictures of their favorite con-artist who spoke to some desert genie back in the day, that is fine. It is also fine to draw nasty pictures of ol’ Moe regardless of whom gets offended by them. No one has the right not to be offended, our Muslin friends are no exception. To all the folks on here getting bent out of shape over CARTOONS ought to “Lighten up, Francis!”

  84. ladymacbeth

    off topic: my boy just went to meet some fabulous libtard animal / bird person to save the PIGEON hit on lincoln and peterson that’s been living in our garage.

    on topic: this is one of the best discussions i’ve read in a long time – on like anything anywhere. thanks all for reminding me that america isn’t really a snowbilly grifter

  85. What Fresh Hell is This?

    Bloody Hell, Libertarians are “pointlessly annoying” everybody. Randy Paul is the Bobby Jindal of Kentucky. Give him his 15 minutes of flame.

    And don’t get me started on Librarians….

    So, can me make the Muslins stop drawing cartoons of Cheney, our dark Lord? Quid pro quo?

  86. Johnny Zhivago

    This thread has me thinking about a way to open a meaningful cultural link between Americans and Muslims. My idea is along the lines of “TruckNutz for Taliban”.


  87. Post author
    Ken Layne

    [re=582242]ghams[/re]: Well said.

    [re=582247]abberant[/re]: No hate for Reason, and yes my good friend Matt Welch is the current editor. But I find this stunt childish and cheap, an easy way for people whose “rebellion” is limited to smoking an occasional joint and watching a popular cable-channel cartoon to feel tough about pointlessly spraying a beehive from a very safe distance and then laughing about it.

    It’s stupid, and because America’s main involvement with the Muslim World is to bomb it all the time or pay others to hassle and oppress Muslims in the Middle East, it’s extremely counter-productive. It’s callous, hurtful bullshit disguised as “caring about free speech” or “ending religious oppression.” And it’s going to help create a new generation of “people who hate us.”

    And, as many of you have already noted, this is *exactly* the kind of crap the racist wingnuts glom onto, because it lets them be racist and wingnutty for “a good cause.” It’s not a good cause. It is — again, as many of you have already noted — an annoyingly bitchy little display of entitlement and online-only bravado that has real-world consequences.

    As for whether or not poor people who get shit on every day are misreading their own religious traditions, well that is hardly a rarity in the world of religious adherents. See: America.

  88. What Fresh Hell is This?

    [re=582290]Ken Layne[/re]: Misreading their own religious traditions? That is certainly an overly optimistic view of religions. The Muslims and Christians turned bloody swords on perceived heretics almost from the get-go. Even the Mormons combined manslaughter and nooky from their earliest stages. There ain’t no subtleties of power even among those called of God.

  89. mumblyjoe

    [re=582284]What Fresh Hell is This?[/re]: wait, you mean Dick Cheney isn’t already a cartoon villain?

  90. gurukalehuru

    [re=582144]Snarkalicious[/re]: I thought that that sort of myopic dunderfuckery was exactly what we did here. I really like the phrase “myopic dunderfuckery” by the way. I’m using that.

    Also, Ken, I never didTP the local Sunday school, but now that you mention it, it would have been a hoot.

  91. rambone

    When the muslins start telling me what I can see on T.V., I get pissed. T.V. is all I have!

    P.S. To all the muslins out there, the Westerners are secretly mocking you and your prophet by using the capital “P” which is actually a depiction of Mohammed (Peace be unto him, so please don’t hurt me).

  92. Maus

    [re=582247]abberant[/re]: “Weird how everyone hates on Reason. Has anyone here ever read it?”

    Yes. Weird how you seem to have read it, and know that they had to close down their comments system over this topic because the racism got too shamefully intense, and somehow you still don’t understand how we could be “haters” over this pointless stir-up.

    I have some sympathies for the small-l libertarians, but I have absolutely no patience for south park conservatives and crowd who try to find any possible outlet for their hatred of Islam. Sure, you’re “just having fun” and trying to “stick it to the imam”, but you’re an embarrassment.

  93. Maus

    [re=582279]ladymacbeth[/re]: “on topic: this is one of the best discussions i’ve read in a long time – on like anything anywhere. thanks all for reminding me that america isn’t really a snowbilly grifter”

    <3 it is weird, however how some people can drift by sites that are otherwise fairly progressive laugh along at the gallows humor, and later think to themselves “I shall draw Mohamed being skull-fucked. Won’t the fellows have themselves a laugh!” only to be surprised when they get stared at like they just farted into someone’s birthday cake.

  94. Tequilatarian

    So anyways…I was not aware the whole “Draw Muhammad Day” was a libertarian thing.

    I am not now nor have ever been a Libertarian, and when people ask me about Ayn Rand, I refer to her as “that dead whore”.

    This is not a libertarian thing. Some people are reacting to the forced censorship of SouthPark merely because depictions of Muhammad are not allowed, which makes no sense. Why should Muhammad get a pass being the joke on funny cartoons? While other participants just have fun trolling people who are so easily butthurt.

    Hell, we got Pakistan to block Facebook and Youtube and people to actually protest Draw Muhammad Day! How cool is that??!!

    As long as the internets exist, there will be humorous depictions of Muhammad, so Muslims better get used to it.

  95. Maus

    [re=582327]Tequilatarian[/re]: You have every right to do so! And people will have every right to find your impotent protest a sign that you’re not fond of that whole “thinking” thing that others do from time to time.

  96. Tequilatarian

    [re=582328]Maus[/re]:
    You know nothing about me, yet you make such strong claims.

    Lighten up, Francis.

  97. Maus

    [re=582329]Tequilatarian[/re]: If you don’t want to be mistaken for libertarians and neocons stop aping their act.

  98. Tequilatarian

    Supporting free speech and scoffing at calls against blasphemy are not the sole domain of libertartians.
    I bet teabaggers hate being called teabaggers, but oh well. Why is religion allowed to be free from scorn? It is not.

    Until reading this post, I saw no connection between libertarians and this one day. The person that first proposed the date is not a libertarian (and she backed down after threats). But the die was cast. People don’t like to be told some things are off limits. I think you are projecting my friend.

  99. gurukalehuru

    a. Marshall Mcluhan. Technology changes the way we perceive the world.
    b. The Internet has consequences. In the future there will be no privacy. In the future, all of your secrets will be exposed. In the future, everybody will be mocked.
    c. c what I did there?
    d. Come on, guys, Islam is funny. They wear funny clothes, they have funny accents and a belief system which is totally ridiculous. They are practically begging to be mocked.
    e. Yeah, I’m a keyboard coward. I would never say (d) in real life in front of any of my muslim friends. That’s why I like the internet. (see b)
    f. What’s up with the new, serious Ken Layne? I’m not sure if it’s a bad thing but, dude, what happened? Did nobody answer your ad for a roommate?

  100. DC Hates Me

    I just don’t see getting in a tizzy because some vulgarian poop clown at South Park got censored. I have to ask the Mohammad drawers, is it really worth pissing off 1.5 billion people, many of whom are dress as peaceful fairies in Indonesia, just to prove some point? Because I live here too and I don’t really want to be represented to the world by angry South Park viewers. Thank you and I know where you live.

  101. Maus

    [re=582335]Tequilatarian[/re]: “Why is religion allowed to be free from scorn? It is not.”

    Of course religion is not. It’s your methods that are hamfisted and your end-goal nonsensical.

  102. vkladchik

    [re=582335]Tequilatarian[/re]: You’re not going to convince many people here. Many assume that only certain types of expression are worth fighting for, namely the types of expression that don’t piss other people off. The commenters who hold this position don’t seem to understand that they are thereby giving the right to judge what you can say and what you can’t say (“say” meaning any kind of expression, not just speech) to whoever is willing to get pissed off enough and threaten violence. That’s what’s so surprising. (See DC Hates Me’s “I have to ask the Mohammad drawers, is it really worth pissing off 1.5 billion people, many of whom are dress as peaceful fairies in Indonesia, just to prove some point?”) ghams’s analysis of “over-entitlement” is essentially the same thing, except a bit more insidious because it concludes that in the US we’re *too* free.

    All of this doubly surprising coming from commenters on this site, whose sole purpose is mocking people in positions of power, which makes these commenters’ views so hypocritical.

    This has been eye-opening, to say the least. And if you point this out, you’re told to fuck off, because that’s the best argument they can come up with.

    [re=582209]Tommmcatt[/re]: Okay, we can split hairs about whether “censorship” is the applicable term when it’s self-inflicted, but let’s do that after we’ve finished talking about the actual topic. I know you’d prefer to discuss something else, because you have no arguments. The rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question of (paraphrasing) “Is it worth it to draw these drawings?” was “No,” right? I mean, if it’s “Yes,” then just say so.

    Also, you’re confusing the issue of judgment with the issue of freedom of expression. I’m not saying you don’t have a right to express your opinion about the drawings. (That should be obvious.) You can say how horrible and puerile it is all day long, but to tell people not to do it is not just freedom of expression. I don’t know if you can actually see the difference there, but I’m patient and willing to explain it to you. Ask any questions you might have. Beyond that, though, the really frightening thing is the logic by which you arrive at your opinion that these people shouldn’t be making these drawings. As I said above to Tequilatarian, you’re giving the right to judge what you can say and what you can’t say to the person willing to deploy the greatest amount of violence.

    Since I don’t see you getting irate about every post on Wonkette that mocks some group or other (=Wonkette’s lifeblood), I have to assume you think it’s okay because, say, Arizonans aren’t sending Ken Layne and Jim Newell death threats. If they did, then you would be for putting Arizonans off limits as targets of mockery. Ditto Teabaggers, ditto anyone, really.

    Yes, I was a bit exaggerated in my use of “cowardice” above, but you can see how your position looks kind of cowardly. At what point do you say, “Enough. I’m going to decide what I can say or not, irrespective of your threats of violence”? I mean, what would it take?

  103. vkladchik

    Also, re: censorship – Comedy Central used the word “Censored” in the episodes, and Matt and Trey *definitely* disagree with you.

  104. mumblyjoe

    [re=582320]Maus[/re]: Honestly, I also wonder how many people were in my shoes, at the same time, and sort of had mixed feelings about this, because on one hand, it was offending to offend, but on the other, people who threaten people over stuff like this really do deserve to be confronted and challenged, but who were, over the course of this discussion, actually persuaded that the dickishness and over-entitlement of the idea kinda wins out over any confrontational value, especially given the comfort of distance. Because, I know I have.

    Thank you wonkete, for making me into less of an asshole, just this once.

  105. Herman the German

    As far as I have understood Ayn Rand’s theories they are something like Nietsche for the (intellectually) poor. That makes fully undestandable why the Paulistas don’t want to help or support other people, because what is the point in being superhuman when there aren’t any subhumans any more?

  106. Boojum

    [re=582185]Maus[/re]: It works for the Zen Buddhists. The traditional response to the question “What is the sound of one hand clapping” is to slap the questioner. Just saying.

    Of course, since both the hand and face are illusion, I suppose it is a special case of no harm, no foul.

  107. Boojum

    [re=582199]vkladchik[/re]: The life an an infantile reactive coward is just as bad. If you truly are not afraid of the threat, then it will have no impact on you in any respect. You will neither be deterred by threats of violence nor prompted to acts of defiance of the threat. Instead, you will do that which you would have done had the threat not occurred.

    The problem here is that the libtard crowd is fully capable of assholery without prompting. Thus, while we can admire their authenticity when they yank of their diapers and fill their hands with goo, we can still want them to die for being authentically fucked up.

  108. Boojum

    “libertard” is the correct pejorative. And “off” their diapers, I mean. And “off” the libertards.

  109. gurukalehuru

    [re=582356]Herman the German[/re]: That reminds me of the bit in “A Fish Called Wanda” when Jamie Leigh Curtis tells Kevin Kline “The central premise of Nietzche is NOT every man for himself,” which was supposed to be funny because KK’s character was a fucktard with intellectual pretensions, but I heard that and said (to myself, although I have been known to speak out loud in the cinema) it fucking bloody well is too.

  110. TGY

    Geez, Wonkette is critical of people posting taunting things on Teh Intarwebs? What happened to all that ‘warblog’ posturing? Is it only OK if it targets Republicans? Should we refrain from making fun of Trig because Sarah might shoot some journalists from a helicopter? Hey, it could happen.

    And, yes, the whole ‘image of the prophet’ thing is crazy, as is 99% of religious stuff.

  111. Prommie

    [re=582360]Boojum[/re]: Yes, if you feel you must react, even if with scorn or rebellion,then you are just as much being controlled as if you submit.

  112. vkladchik

    [re=582391]Prommie[/re]: That’s just lunacy. I don’t *have* to react. I will if I want to. I won’t if I don’t want to. Under your view, however, I don’t have that choice. Incidentally, I didn’t draw a picture of Muhammad and I didn’t upload it. So much for your theory.

  113. mercure

    I tried to read through this whole thread, I really did, but you know, *long* and *wordy* and full of blah blah blah. Too tiring.

    But from a few posts I skimmed, possibly full of entertaining bitchiness and inflated expression of self-importance. Maybe I’ll come back and give it another try after lunch…

  114. vkladchik

    [re=582478]mercure[/re]: Did you see the part about smegma sushi, or “smushi”? That was my favorite part. Those crazy Canadians.

  115. imissopus

    [re=582348]vkladchik[/re]: No one is saying don’t do this. They are saying it is a juvenile and pointless waste of energy that has the unfortunate side effect of pissing off a billion people who otherwise were going about their lives just fine without giving a second thought to a bunch of sniggering idiots sitting in front of computers on the other side of the planet. Will this little protest change any minds? Not a one.

    So think of a constructive activity instead. You’re so interested in freedom of speech? Become a First Amendment lawyer. You want to spread the idea of freedom of speech to other cultures? Go work for some journalism advocacy organization, or some governmental agency that promotes your ideals to other countries, or the Foreign Service, or Voice of America. But for Christ’s sake don’t pat yourself on the back for how fucking awesome you are for standing up for freedom of expression and against the nutty religious tyranny of Islam or whatever because you drew a picture of Mohammad and posted it on the internet. That’s just a pointless and impotent gesture.

  116. GOPCrusher

    [re=582218]doloras[/re]: If you can put that on a velvet oil painting, I bet you could make a few bucks at the local flea market.

  117. Ye Olde Fap-Smith

    Goddamn, I thought we made fun of everything here. Religious assholes of all faiths are just asking for it, especially the three desert genie worshippin’ faiths. Muslins deserve to be mocked for their retarded beliefs just as much as the stupid Jesus goblins. I don’t see the same concern trolls getting their panties in a bunch when we poke fun at other religions, double standard much?? The Muslins who get pissed off deserve a double-helping of scorn, and frankly so do the hypocrites on here defending their getting pissed off about CARTOONS, as if have the moral high ground.

  118. I Heart Accuracy

    [re=582395]vkladchik[/re]: If no pics, then, you’re not going to run out there and die for it?

  119. Maus

    [re=582677]Ye Olde Fap-Smith[/re]: You’re entirely missing the point. If the people here were drawing Mohammed analboffing Jesus while setting fire to the American flag it would be a better “point”.

    Instead, inseparable from any “make fun of the ragheads” political statement cooked up in 2002.

    “Religious assholes of all faiths are just asking for it”

    And yet, only Mohammed was wearing that slutty dress. The context and scope of the blasphemy is what robs it of any intellectual power this might have had.

  120. Maus

    My point is, you are giggling while shoving your finger up the ass of billions of people who AREN’T THREATENING TO KILL US (as pathetic and powerless as the “threats” to SP were), to make yourself feel like you’ve “done something”.

    This, this is how America wins hearts and minds. By being the low-iq bully self-appointed to “enlighten” the rest of the world about how stupid they are.

    Every time people chuckle about how some people are so “PC”, I seriously do wonder if I’ve somehow ended up on Freep or RedState or some place where these nativist attitudes congregate.

  121. jagorev

    [re=582247]abberant[/re]: I used to subscribe to Reason Magazine. Then I grew up.

    [re=582237]Heq[/re]: Apology not necessary. Cheers.

  122. Tommmcatt

    [re=582348]vkladchik[/re]:

    Again: What I said was that I felt that it was an irresponsible and ultimately harmful exercise of one’s right to free speech. I actually said that people do have the right,and that they might even have a point. But ultimately, they hurt their stated cause- the free expression of ideas about religion- by exercising their right in a useless and childish way. And what was the only really tangible result of “Let’s All Fap to Our Stick Figures” day? They inspired the Pakistani government to shut down You Tube, effectively removing an avenue for free speech for millions.

    Look, I know it’s super-cool to assume the latest pose and make yourself the champion of a right that nobody is actually trying to take away from you, but don’t make me a bit player in your little drama because I thought of some things you didn’t. What makes me irate is that you continually put words in my mouth, and paint me as holding opinions which I don’t so that you can feel all super-lib and peachy-awesome. Feel free to masturbate all you want, but I’m not the lube, ‘kay?

  123. Ye Olde Fap-Smith

    [re=582808]Maus[/re]: Yes, because people that get offended by a cartoon representation of some dead psycho that claimed to speak to a desert genie are very high-i.q. Nothing is sacred and I will certainly not stop poking fun at Muslin Jeebus bc a bunch of Internet Hall Monitors get worked into a tizzy over it. You certainly do love to paint with a broad brush though, nativist, lol wut? Invoking Freepers/Redstate trolls when no one on here made any racist comments is akin to Glenn Beck calling everyone a Nazi all the time; it’s a non sequitur and weakens your argument, though it was a specious one to begin with.

  124. Maus

    [re=582843]jagorev[/re]: I wonder if people in their defenses of Reason are somehow always conflating it with the Economist. That, or somehow some of the Paultards joined up when they thought we were laughing *with* them and not *at* them.

  125. Maus

    [re=582850]Ye Olde Fap-Smith[/re]: Your narrow focus on Islam indicates a specific bias.

    I invoke Libertopians/South Park Conservatives/Nativists/Freepers/Redstaters because you’re all united in this shared endeavor.

    The kinship towards this “statement” ought to make you feel a bit uncomfortable, at least.

  126. Ye Olde Fap-Smith

    [re=582868]Maus[/re]: I bet you’re a load of fun at parties! Perhaps you ought to re-read my comments before you make things up about my narrow focus on Islam. I didn’t participate in drawing pics of Moe yesterday, nor am I a huge fan of South Park; I just find your shrill denfense of people who froth at the mouth over a cartoon to be weird. Just bc you see some giant conspiracy among Paultards/Freepers/Lizard People/Smurfs does not make me uncomfortable. Also and Too!

  127. Tommmcatt

    [re=582348]vkladchik[/re]:

    And when did I threaten violence? I just told you to fuck off… and incidentally, there is a grand tradition here of telling people to fuck off. Just Google the two terms and you’ll see.

  128. mercure

    Back from lunch.

    And nope, the nonsnark is still too densely-packed to sift through, even given the possible semi-precious gems of un/intentional entertainment that lie within.

  129. Maus

    [re=582893]Ye Olde Fap-Smith[/re]: Why is it weird to be concerned that an effort, while meant well by many involved (PZ Myers and the like) is more harmful on the world stage than good?

    “I just find your shrill denfense of people who froth at the mouth over a cartoon to be weird”

    I’m not defending “people who froth at the mouth”, I’m questioning why 1.5 billion people should be targeted so sloppily.

    You know what was brave and a good effort? When Jewish/Israeli cartoonists responded by making Holocaust and blood libel jokes. Because that showed that they could zing themselves better than their intellectual “enemies” could regurgitate their myths.

    Making fun of the Muslim faith is socially acceptable to a surprisingly large percentage of the US population. This changes the risk and very nature of the “statement”, it robs it of its power, of its righteousness.

    I suggested the addition of anally reaming Jesus and burning the American flag, because as an organized movement it would be anathema to the RedState crowd and get some actual threats to life and livelihood. Some actual blowback and create a “discussion” on sacred cows outside versus inside the USA.

    Instead, it remains devoid of any intellectual thought, and just another example of big dumb jock-America who blunders around back-patting itself on how it’s “helping” everyone become as enlightened as them.

  130. jagorev

    [re=582859]Maus[/re]: The Economist is a great magazine, but my tastes these days runs more towards Harper’s. The second Bush term moved me from right-of-center libertarian leaner to cranky liberal.

  131. vkladchik

    [re=582922]Maus[/re]: So your objection is the people who are doing it?

    [re=582903]Tommmcatt[/re]: When did I say you threatened violence? And when are you going to answer my question? Was the rhetorical answer to your “Is it worth dying for” rhetorical question “Yes” or “No”?

    And is it me or have all the objections suddenly become a lot tamer? “Is it worth dying for?” gets downgraded to “It’s not the wittiest riposte possible, and therefore not something I’d recommend.” If that’s the level of the haters’ objection, then what was all that posturing earlier? Oh right, posturing.

    Anyway, eye-opener. I always loved Wonkette for its snark. I’m still in mid-double-take seeing Ken Layne of all people join the “Mocking Muhammad is inappropriate” crowd.

    And as for becoming a lawyer and whatever, the point is I don’t have to. I don’t have to do any of those things. I can burn an American flag, wipe my ass with the Gospels, yell la ilah illa Allah, Muhammad rasulu Allah three times every time I ejaculate, and use a tallit as a fap-rag, if I want. I don’t, though, but I support people’s right to do so. And if I ever have to, I’ll fight for that right. It is that important.

  132. Maus

    [re=582988]vkladchik[/re]: “So your objection is the people who are doing it?”

    Not so directly, more contextually.

    The people who do it do skew the usefullness, the reasons and motivations for why it is done, the intended target, the unintended recipients, and the implied risk to reward.

    If you’re making a cultural statement, one with sociopolitical and religious implications, you’re not just “drawing a stick figure”. There may be a way in which I could be more okay with this, but the lack of planning, self-reflection and inability to realize how it could be construed/misconstrued by the intended targets is what is so disappointing.

    This is less calling your mom your friend’s mom a filthy whore in a drunken joke among people who have some affection for each other than making a racist joke at a party you’ve just crashed. Sure, it’s possible that you had the best of intentions with your snark, but the “victory” being claimed here is getting yourself bounced from the party you were never invited to. And not really thinking the crowd and the delivery through, even if meant well, it’ll only serve to incite without making any decent impression.

    If there was any specific planning, guidelines for best effect, or discussion of the methodology, I haven’t seen any. Just a lot of kneejerking and especially the claims that I’m supporting fundamentalist Islam when I say that the purpose to blasphemy should be just as intellectual as visceral.

  133. Maus

    [re=582988]vkladchik[/re]: “I’m still in mid-double-take seeing Ken Layne of all people join the “Mocking Muhammad is inappropriate” crowd.”

    Context, baby. Context.

    “And if I ever have to, I’ll fight for that right. It is that important.”

    Send a few bucks the EFF’s way. I’ll do so today and feel better about this whole mess :)

  134. Snarkalicious

    [re=582988]vkladchik[/re]: Uh…that question has yet to be addressed because it’s a fucking non-sequitur. Despite your best efforts to the contrary, we’re not talking about cowering under the sheets and letting our freedom get taken, but the need to know when to leave it the fuck alone because there’s nothing to gain from being a cock-swinging jagass. Right now, for instance, I’m getting nowhere.

  135. Tommmcatt

    [re=582988]vkladchik[/re]:

    And if I ever have to, I’ll fight for that right. It is that important.

    Need a kleenex yet? Or do you just use an old sweat sock?

  136. imissopus

    [re=582988]vkladchik[/re]: And as for becoming a lawyer and whatever, the point is I don’t have to. I don’t have to do any of those things.

    Right, because those things might take some effort. Those things might require you to develop an intellectual framework for relating to the world. It’s so much easier and faster to answer the call of some douchebag on Facebook to draw a picture of Mohammad and then congratulate yourself on standing up for the FREEDUMB. Oh, but it’s worth fighting for! Because some nutjob might what, trace your IP address and drive a truck bomb into your house? Talk about posturing.

    Please, you’re not fighting for anything, you’re making a silly gesture about freedom of speech to a culture that doesn’t live under the First Amendment. I don’t see how showing them that you have the freedom to insult anyone anywhere at anytime is in any way constructive in this pursuit. Obviously a few of the commenters here feel the same. The fact that you still don’t get that after we’ve taken up all this time and space to explain it is remarkable.

  137. Maus

    [re=583077]imissopus[/re]:

    what would you do
    if you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?

    what would you do
    if asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?

    freedom isn’t free, it costs wonks like you and me
    and if you don’t throw in
    who will?

  138. vkladchik

    Well, I’m glad all the haters have retreated from their earlier position that censoring free speech is good if it saves lives to the more anodyne position that this particular instance of free speech was pointless provocation.

  139. Maus

    [re=583121]vkladchik[/re]: “retreated from their earlier position that censoring free speech is good if it saves lives”

    Our callousness to other cultures does repeatedly affect and give aid to the groups we are currently at war with. There isn’t as direct a causative link that one could trace to foreign recruitment, troop deaths and the many ways Americans mock Islam, but I’d still say that there are better ways to go about improving the lot of people trapped under the foot of fundamentalism. Or, at least ways that involve a hope of a chance, whereas this objectively will not improve their situation or make our troops any safer.

    But yeah, bloggers themselves have the benefit of not being Rushdie-like high-profile targets.

  140. imissopus

    [re=583121]vkladchik[/re]: I’m glad all the haters have retreated from their earlier position that censoring free speech is good if it saves lives to the more anodyne position that this particular instance of free speech was pointless provocation.

    I’m not going back through this entire thread but I’m pretty sure that was always most everyone’s position, including Ken. You just seem to have the reading comprehension skills of a doorknob. No offense to any doorknobs that might be reading this.

  141. Snarkalicious

    [re=583121]vkladchik[/re]: I quote the Tommmcatt, from the comment you originally flamed out on:

    “What bothers me is that these people seem to feel that the highest good is served by being assholes to humorless, possibly dangerous, jerks. It just isn’t. Yeah, you have a right. Yeah, you even have a point. But if somebody gets blown up over it, was it worth it? Was the picture of Mohammed as a pig really such a brilliant and witty quip that it is worth inflaming these crazed yobs?

    Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and the people intentionally inflaming this kind of passion are simply being irresponsible.”

    If being bothered by fuckwads, and wishing they would be slightly smaller fuckwads is censorship, then, well…wut?

  142. Snarkalicious

    [re=583150]imissopus[/re]: Why all knobs gotta be on doors all of a sudden? I CENSOR YOUR FREEDUMBZ!!!!1!

  143. vkladchik

    “But if somebody gets blown up over it, was it worth it?”

    This is what everyone is running from. And that’s fine. I’m happy to see them running.

    Also, I’ve been reasonable throughout this, except for a bit of snarkiness. I haven’t told people to fuck off, I haven’t said anyone’s stupid, I haven’t done any kind of ad hominem thing, because I can argue my position on its merits without resorting to that other bullshit.

    Anyway, this story is now on page two. I’ve said my piece. ilaa liqaa’ muthafuckas.

  144. Snarkalicious

    [re=583161]vkladchik[/re]: You called Tommmcatt, and by extension those in agreeance with Tommmcatt, cowards. On what level is this not an ad hominem attack?

  145. Maus

    [re=583191]Eric_T_Duckman[/re]: “aubergine-knob” would be slang for an eggplant-sized dick. Any other meaning would be inappropriate, if you’re slyly referring to the lesser-used epithet.

  146. imissopus

    [re=583161]vkladchik[/re]: Reasonable? Maybe? Stubborn and blinkered in your vision? Most definitely. But don’t break an arm patting yourself on the back.

  147. Tommmcatt

    [re=583195]Maus[/re]:

    It’s also a word for the color of an egplant…like an aubergine shirt, for example. This was more my meaning, A giant, purple knob. Right vkladchik?

  148. MsQuasimodo

    [re=582174]doloras[/re]: But Muslims are the only ones actually murdering other people for depicting their holy man. Christians aren’t – most of them, even the Protestants, have representations of Jeebus of questionable taste, but nobody threatens to, or actually, murders them for drawing pictures of Jesus. There were nasty reactions to the 1990s artist Serrano (?)’s “Jesus in a bottle of piss” artwork, and the elephant dung smeared painting of Mary, that stretched even MY limits of tolerance, and I’m an ex-catholic. Besides, Mohammed (PBUH) wasn’t/isn’t the deity – only Allah is. Mohammed is a prophet, not divine at all. They really need to get a grip on themselves. Yet were I a cartoonist, I wouldn’t risk death by portraying him, or anything Muslim, in a cartoon or any other form of art.

    Even Republicans don’t call fatwas on wonketeers for telling them to eat bags of rat dicks. Also. (insert repressed Republican rentboy joke here)

  149. Maus

    [re=583268]MsQuasimodo[/re]: No one actually claimed a serious death threat on South Park, either. It was some internet toughguy who danced around the language but lacked any driving will and capacity to execute.

    Christians still call in death threats, just not for drawing the Jesus.

Comments are closed.