Stupid people

[mundens]

Well, there were two things that annoyed me over the weekend, so I'm going to vent on one of them here, maybe the other later, but I'll cut it so you don't have to read unless you feel like it.

Comments

[laputain]

Today an Australian neo-Nazi was found guilty of racial harrassment for publishing anti-semitic cartoons. Exactly what is the difference? Except that Islamophobia is respectable whereas anti-semitism isn't?

[mundens]

Personaly I think there is no difference and the Neo-Nazi should have been free to publish his cartoons as well.

[laputain]

Ah, right. Well, I believe in "no platform" for anyone trying to rake up inter-communal conflict, so we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

[threemonkeys]

My reaction is pretty much the same as yours - especially when it comes to the notion of respect being earnt, not a matter of right.

The only niggle in the back of my mind is the question over where satire ends and hate literature begins. Where that line exist is not always that easy to define and is quite subjective. In particular, one or two of these cartoons taken in isolation do push it a bit, but in my estimation do not cross over in to hate literature. But is is not cut and dried.

[seraphs_folly]

But what crosses boundaries is a cultural issue too. So a Muslim person may well consider that these cartoons do cross the line into hate literature :)

[threemonkeys]

Thats why the niggle. But while the cartoons were certainly offensive to the target group, to me, what distinguishes hate literature is that there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against the target of the literature. I can't really see that the cartoonists were inciting hatred or violence towards Islam. Inciting ridicule or laughter is satire, not hate literature.

[mundens]

Well as I replied to laputain, I don't believe that "hate literature" should be illegal either.

You don't deal with something by driving it underground, that only makes it stronger and harder to deal with. You deal with it by exposing it to the light of public ridicule.

I think people need to realize that nothing is offensive in and of itself.

Someone has to take offense at something. And that is an act of volition by the person taking offense, it is their choice whether they take offense, laugh, make a witty rejoinder, or just sigh and move on. There is nothing that forces them to "be offended", it is always their own choice.

I sometimes feel that in order to drive that point home, if anyone is ever convicted of "offending" someone, such as in the neo-nazi case, then the person who complained of being offended should also be convicted, as they are equally culplable of the offense, if not more so.

[asgard]

If you actually understood why they are upset about these images, maybe you'd be a little bit more understanding. It is not just pictures of an old guy with a beard. It's a picture of the most revered of their prophets. Islam is also a religion where no pictoral reference can be made about the prophet, and as such it is an afront when people don't understand and respect this fact.

As for the Close Up gig, have you noticed how most of the muslims they get on television (worldwide) aren't very linguistically capable? Unable to properly express themselves and the true meanings behind their words? Thats not a coincidence for obvious reasons. Quite a few people at work were completely uninpressed by how Close Up handled the issue, including some of the reporters

[mundens]

OK firstly I never said that all muslims like violence, so no, I don't believe that.

I'm saying that faith has nothing, (well, that may be a bit strong, let me modfiy that to) little to do with the violence that is occuring in this case. Faith in this case is merely an excuse for a bunch of yobos to go on a rampage, primarily to influence public opinion over other matters.

To address your first point, for the purposes of my argument it doesn't really matter why they are upset. I understand why they are offended, though as mentioned elsewhere on this thread, it is their choice to be offended, nothing is forcing them to make that choice.

But no matter how offended they are, it doesn't give any justification to tell other people who do not share their faith what they may or nay not do. Nor does it give them a valid excuse to indulge in violence against people who really have nothing to do with the act they are annoyed about.

It is these yobos, who possibly may not even be muslim and are just jumping on the band-wagon, who I am

Hypocrisy

[eloieli]

The thing that really annoys me about this is the abject hypocrisy that has been made evident. As Mudens said, other minority groups are publically satarised all the time. In particular a cartoon was shown on friday nights closeup that I know many Christians found offensive (I didn't see the cartoon, but from what I heard I would have found it offensive

Re: Hypocrisy

[mundens]

Yes, we will continue to disagree about some of these things.

I'd reiterate that no one has to be offended by even child pornography. I'm not offended by it, for instance.

I don't like it, I don't find it arousing, I don't think it should be produced using real children*, but I'm not offended by it.

*(AFAIK, The jury is still out on whether producing it using virtual children is a good or a bad thing, there is some evidence that it can be used to allow paedophiles to function in society without molesting real children, in which case it would be a good thing, and some evidence it just makes them worse, which would make it a bad thing.)

The reason we control child pornography is not because people may be offended by it, but because it's production is usually associated with damage, whether mental or physical, to actual children