Just look at the pictures...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
2minkey
bootlicker
i'm sorry would you explain this please?
don't get me wrong - i think the folks getting upset about the cartoons are fuckheads.
but...
a few far out wackos threaten a cartoonist.
papers republish cartoons that were previously interpreted as offensive by dumbshit literalist religious peoples, who are largely unconnected with the few wackos that made the threat.
so there is a picture of violent something? did you miss a UBB tag?
don't get me wrong - i think the folks getting upset about the cartoons are fuckheads.
but...
a few far out wackos threaten a cartoonist.
papers republish cartoons that were previously interpreted as offensive by dumbshit literalist religious peoples, who are largely unconnected with the few wackos that made the threat.
so there is a picture of violent something? did you miss a UBB tag?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Yep. I surely did. How embarasskin...
If you look to the right, you'll see a group of said fanatics burning a flag...which is interpreted to be 'Freedom of Speech'. Now...how can you say, on one hand, that Freedom of Speech is 'like a plague' while simultaneously using that same Freedom of Speech to make your own point? I mean, there are some folks who think the burning of a flag is highly offensive...
2minkey
bootlicker
by you. they almost certainly don't share the same cultural reference or expectation. they're just protesting because they can where they happen to be at the moment, not because they understand free speech as a fundamental right. because it isn't, anywhere, in the middle east from which they spring... where silencing opposing political voices is pretty much accepted as "just the way it happens here."
yep. but they aren't really invoking freedom of speech as such. now, why would they even bother with that figment of the enlightenment when they got all that much older, fundamentalist god babble on their side?
would the catholic church need to consult eighteenth century secular ideals to issue a bull? nope. for that matter, when you think you're the on the side of the absolute - in any form - why bother with other modes of discourse? no point. did stalin ever ask for permission or try to justify anything according to, say, the by-laws of the bellevue bridge club?
shit these guys are "calling for the creation of a caliphate." right back into the fucking middle ages, heh?
while there's not really hypocrisy happening here in a real sense, your construction is certainly an interesting one - it is ironic that they are able to protest against the prevailing social current in their host country... that "current" itself allowing the protest (and just keep circling from there).
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
So you think they don't realize that their protest is the very same 'free speech' they are protesting against? I think they do...to a certain extent. Now if the state of Denmark sent out police in riot gear with the express purpose of bashing in a few skulls, you can bet your last nickle that they would be angry over the suppression of their 'free speech'.
2minkey said:
Actually...they are exercising their right to free speech. If they didn't have that right, they'd be sitting in a dungeon somewhere waiting to be tortured and then deported.
2minkey said:
Everybody who protests anything thinks that they are on the side of the absolute. You can see that on this forum on any day of the week.
2minkey said:
Somewhat ironic, yes, but also hypocritical. They are using their idea of free speech to suppress someone elses free speech. They are denying someone else the very freedom they are using.
2minkey
bootlicker
they're not exercising free speech in the way you and i understand it. i'm sure they understand the legal permissions to protest but it's not tied to anything culturally salient for them. if anything, they probably think it's funny. you're confusing "exercising a right" with that right having meaning. while they are technically speaking (or yelling) freely there is no moral weight behind the technical exercise; there is no meaning for the actor. there is irony and apparent contradiction but not hypocrisy proper.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Good point...although understanding the legal ramifications must allude to some understanding of the concept. Most of the folks I happen to run into in the Middle East have quite a firm grasp as to what rights are...including freedom of speech. They just don't practice it the way we do...which would be your cultural saliency. Hmm...The closest example I can think of for their 'free speech' would be this...the caricature of Mohammed would be akin to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. Best I can come up with, but I think you get the point. The problem lies in getting someone from outside their culture to understand it...just as we would have trouble assimilating into their culture. Now here's the rub, and another point in your favor...Denmark was never a Muslim country AFAIK, so who should be changing in order to 'fit in'? With that, we come back to the idea of hypocrisy. The idea of "We do not have to change to fit into your society. Your society has to change to accomodate us"...or is that too much of a stretch?
2minkey
bootlicker
i think, by saying that, they'd simply be dicks and/or lazy fuckheads that think everyone else should bend backwards for their sorry asses.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
By George, I think he's got it!
If you step back and look at it, this is exactly what they want to happen. They don't want to join the European culture, they want the European culture to join them. Think back to what you said about a 'caliphate', and the pieces start falling together. Same thing happens when Californians move into nearby states in large numbers...
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
So the fact that they wish to deny the general population the same right that they seem to be enjoying doesn't make it hypocritical?
2minkey said:i don't tell people here that i was born in california.
Don't worry. Nobody's perfect...
...I'm sure I'll hear from inky on that, too. 
2minkey
bootlicker
it's just not a strong connection to me. or them. in fact to them there's no contradiction. because they're on the god's side. there's no nagging voice in the back of the head saying "achmed, you're steamrolling everybody else here." rather it's "achmed, steamroll them infidels!" there's nothing like the internal dialogue that prolly went on in jimmy swaggart's head as he tossed off in the company of ladies of ill repute. it's a one-way shitstream. they're raising objections of orthodoxy; preventing free speech is a near-essential element of orthodoxies e.g. the whole PC thing. now there's hypocrisy. those folks would be the first ones to both claim a right to free speech (with fairly deep and meaningful cultural baggage attached) and put the shutta uppa on everybody else.
in fact achmed may be more of a hypocrit if he didn't try to put the quash on everybody else. because he needs to represent, ummkay, fer allah, in every way. allowing infidels to insult... peace be upon his
name... the prophet moohammet would seem to be a huge deal given the extent of his convictions.
2minkey
bootlicker
hatched a stanford U hospital. much of my family goes back four or so generations in CA and nevada. not so much "fruits and nuts" californians but rugged western mofos.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
it's just not a strong connection to me. or them. in fact to them there's no contradiction. because they're on the god's side. there's no nagging voice in the back of the head saying "achmed, you're steamrolling everybody else here." rather it's "achmed, steamroll them infidels!" there's nothing like the internal dialogue that prolly went on in jimmy swaggart's head as he tossed off in the company of ladies of ill repute. it's a one-way shitstream. they're raising objections of orthodoxy; preventing free speech is a near-essential element of orthodoxies e.g. the whole PC thing. now there's hypocrisy. those folks would be the first ones to both claim a right to free speech (with fairly deep and meaningful cultural baggage attached) and put the shutta uppa on everybody else.
in fact achmed may be more of a hypocrit if he didn't try to put the quash on everybody else. because he needs to represent, ummkay, fer allah, in every way. allowing infidels to insult... peace be upon his
While your idea may have some merit, it only applies to fanatics, and not the majority, moderate Muslims, who supposedly believe that ever monotheistic religion has merit. The term 'infidel' is only supposed to apply to atheists and pagans.
2minkey
bootlicker
While your idea may have some merit, it only applies to fanatics, and not the majority, moderate Muslims, who supposedly believe that ever monotheistic religion has merit. The term 'infidel' is only supposed to apply to atheists and pagans.
right, right.
and christians are s'pose to be tolerant, too. so maybe we should turn the other cheek to osama bin buttbasket.
infidel is anyone they make it to be. the west is essentially one big infidel. "only supposed to be applied" according to whom? according to formal doctine it's okay dokey to kill or enslave any non-muslim. now there may some tidbits about tolerance somewhere. but as we know the koran is even more self-contradictory than the christian bible. way more. and guess which one gets more airtime these days? look up the doctrrine of kufr and get back to me. golly, and you thought it was a religion of peace.
BTW the folks we're discussing here ARE extremists!
and, again, the concept of "invoking my RIGHT to free speech" is not the huge deal it is to those folk - extremist or the guy selling street food in damascus - as it is to us. You can file that one under "cultural differences." strangely enough they aren't profoundly impacted by the bodhisattva ideal or the temptations of mistress ezili either.
