Handling of Offensive Art & Videos - A Primer

[Shady]

Because western societies don't have gun obsessions, start wars, drop nukes, torture, and play 'Call of Duty' in their spare time.

I don't follow. Call of Duty?

[jbg]

It's the tired, intellectually dishonest, "all cultures and religions are equally to blame." When factually that's complete nonsense. I'm guessing his white/western guilt won't allow him to look objectively at the situation. So he has to feign the equivalence argument.

Add the "best friend" argument:

Aha - the "some of my best friends" defense ?

[Shady]

Add the "best friend" argument:

I forgot about that one!

You didn't even mention anything about having Muslim friends. I guess it's just part of his natural defense mechanism.

[Wayward Son]

They could have, but they chose to protest it, to denounce it, and to try to convince people not to show it and/or see it. In other words, they were exercising their freedom of expression. I have no criticism for the Muslims in question for not liking the video. I would have no criticism if it were banned in their countries. In fact, I think that's how it should have been dealt with.

And this is why I see people like you as being as much my enemy as I see the fundamentalists who you denounce. You think that the solution is to ban things that some people find offensive. I don't. I feel that people do not have the right to not be offended, and that protecting people from being offended only increases the number of things that they find offensive and the intensity of the response when they feel offended.

You think that a bunch of Christians stopping other people from seeing a film that they (a) want to see and b: have every right to see is an example of them exercising their freedom of expression. The reality is the opposite. They denied freedoms to others. And it was not a case that either one group or the other would lose freedom. Protestors did not have to go see the film, but they still felt that it was their right to deny others the right to go. They were and are pig headed.

As Philip Pullman wisely said: “It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or sold, or bought, or read.”

I'll throw your hypothetical back at you. Imagine instead of a video on the internet, this video was a major movie production, set to be shown at movie theaters throughout the Middle East. Imagine that instead of the film maker being raked over the coals by so many, he was nominated for the highest film honor - an Academy Award.

Do you think that would have dialed up the response - even more?

Sure.

Which was more offensive is a matter of opinion

I guess you could say that it is a matter of opinion, but in all honesty if anyone has seen both The Last Temptation of the Christ, and the trailer for this islamic film and manages to think that the Last Temptation was more offensive or even in the same ballpark then they are probably completely insane.

and is really irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is, both were offensive to Muslims and Christians respectively. It's not the degree that fundamentalist/extremist Muslims take issue with as there have been similar reactions to what could be considered much less offensive cartoons (if you're going to go that route).

I disagree completely. Many books, magazine articles, documentaries and films that have been considered anti-muslim have been produced with reaction ranging from none to severe. That seems to indicate that reaction must be related to perceived offensiveness.

How many fundamentalist Muslims do you know who live in the Middle East, where these violent reactions, killings, riots are taking place/have taken place? There's a huge difference between how they reacted there and how they reacted here, in our countries.

I know two fundamentalists who have lived most of their lives in the Middle East, but came to Canada for a couple years. One has returned, and one still resides in Canada. Their reactions to things were the same as the fundamentalist muslims I know who have lived in the West their entire lives. I don't find this surprising, seems to correspond with psychological research into group dynamics, deindividuation etc. This corresponds to my response to your next point. I don't think that the fundamentalist christians I know are any different from the muslims I know. If they found themselves in a group dynamic similar to what was found in the Middle East, I expect that they would react the same way to insults towards Jesus.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Wayward Son

[WestViking]

The whole concept that a perceived slight to Islam or its prophet Muhammad is justification for violence directed at whoever produced the alleged slight including the nation where the alleged slight took place is ridiculous.

The notion that independent uprisings in several Muslim nations occurred spontaneously in response to an obscure American movie on the anniversary date of the 9/11 attacks in America defies logic and reason. Our governments and the media are presenting an incredible lie as fact.

Terrorist groups are testing their ability to produce large crowds of people to cover the activities of a few trained and equipped operatives while they simultaneously test the resolve of local governments to stop their operations. The weak points found will soon be exploited.

Basically, the demand of Muslims is that free nations self-censor to avoid any criticism of Islam and Muhammad. This is a direct attack on our liberty and freedoms. You may rest assured that if we accede to this demand, it will immediately be followed by a new demand to avoid a different offence to Muslims. That is the way blackmailers and bullies work. If we do not accede, we are discriminatory racists and religious bigots.

Our response needs to be simple and straight forward. Where our embassies are not protected or where anti-American and/or anti-Western riots are allowed, we withdraw our embassies and kick out their counterparts. Where Muslim demonstrations or riots break out in North America, we round up the suspects and check them for citizenship. Those who are not here as citizens or landed immigrants are deported forthwith as undesirable aliens.

[bleeding heart]

I'll throw your hypothetical back at you. Imagine instead of a video on the internet, this video was a major movie production, set to be shown at movie theaters throughout the Middle East. Imagine that instead of the film maker being raked over the coals by so many, he was nominated for the highest film honor - an Academy Award.

Do you think that would have dialed up the response - even more?

I do.

But just as a point of order (and I'm not actually disagreeing with you in principle): the film causing the current ruckus is, by every and any standard, a provocative offense, and is designed to be. (I take no major issue with that, personally, beyond thinking that it's a dick move...a dick move which I support, on principle).

The Scorsese movie is entirely a different kettle of fish. It is designed to provoke in an artistic sense...not offense for the sake of causing offense. We know this because of a central and crucial difference: Scorsese's movie takes it as a given that Jesus' Divinity is real. It turns out, in the film, that He is indeed the Son of God.

So while it takes a heretical view of specific facts, it respectfully assumes the central truth of Christianity.

That's not only a major difference; it's completely a different type of provocation.

So I don't know that the comparison is entirely apt...but then, you're not the one who brought it up, I realize that.

There's a huge difference between how they reacted there and how they reacted here, in our countries.

That's an interesting point, and definitely warrants thinking about.

Edited September 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Ok, now I see; they were published after the whole controversy had settled. I thought they published the cartoons after the controversy started but while it was still going on - "Smack in the middle of the Danish cartoon controversy, the right-wing Canadian Western Standard and the left-wing American Harper's both published the cartoons" -

Yes, I see you're right. I should have known better than to take Ezra Levant's word for...well, anything, pretty much. Especially while he's promoting his own Courageous Stances on this and that.

[Michael Hardner]

It's the tired, intellectually dishonest, "all cultures and religions are equally to blame." When factually that's complete nonsense. I'm guessing his white/western guilt won't allow him to look objectively at the situation. So he has to feign the equivalence argument.

Nonsense - it's a variant of that argument: "I have nothing against them... but they are all evil murderers."

[Shady]

Nonsense - it's a variant of that argument: "I have nothing against them... but they are all evil murderers."

Ah, the classic Hardner false choice. It's either what you say, or that they're all evil murderers.

I'm done with your intellectual dishonesty.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, the classic Hardner false choice. It's either what you say, or that they're all evil murderers.

I'm done with your intellectual dishonesty.

What choice ? I'm paraphrasing the old argument where you say you like people on one hand, then condemn them with the other. Nothing intellectually dishonest about that...

[kraychik]

There were zero violent incidents that have been in any way attributed to the republishing of the cartoons by the two magazines that I noted.

Where? Anywhere.

It's meaningful, because they were, to my knowledge, literally the only publications to print them once the controversy erupted.

That is, most (ie every single other, I believe) publication refused to publish the cartoons--out of political correctness, or out of genuine fear of a violent backlash, I can't say.

These two magazines published them...to no violent effect.

Which is interesting, and in my view, heartening.

[edit: obviously, i don't wish to too promiscuously overstate how nobody published the cartoons...perhaps a few others did, as well. but in terms of relatively broad readerships, I think the WS--and moreso, Harper's--stand alone.)

The more appropriate way to look at it is that the Islamists enjoyed a small victory, by intimidating so many news outlets from actually reporting news that was central to the controversy. CBC, to use an obviously leftist example, refused to publish the cartoons. Most other outlets in the American and Canadian media landscapes also refused to reproduce the cartoons. There are many examples of this, but the Islamists have been very effective in bullying our societies (specifically our resident leftists) in not only fearing open and critical discussion of Islam and Muslims, but actually supporting the Islamist narratives that such dialogue constitutes "hate speech" or "Islamophobia".

Two semi-recent developments that I can recall are the OiC's push to pass a UN resolution obligating member nations to take steps towards combating "defamation of religion" (literally, criticisms of Muslims or Islam), and the Comedy Network's refusal to allow the South Park guys to depict Muhamad in one of their episodes. The bottom line is that the Islamists, aided by the left, have effectively instilled a great degree of hesitancy and fear in our society about discussions pertaining to Muslims and Islam via mass murder terror campaigns.

[kraychik]

Is anyone else willing to admit to holding Prejudices such as this?

It's not prejudicial, by definition, if it's a judgment made after examination of facts. He didn't just throw a dart onto a dartboard with various ethnicities and cultures and choose to label Islamic cultures as more uncivilised and infantile. It doesn't require much research or experience to realise that without exception, Muslim majority countries have much less freedom of speech and expression than is enjoyed by America and the West. Of course there are many other countries that fall on the list: Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. The difference is that ex-patriates from these countries don't bring those values with them into our countries, and don't storm embassies and consulates to murder diplomats when their cultures are criticised.

[kraychik]

Smack in the middle of the Danish cartoon controversy, the right-wing Canadian Western Standard and the left-wing American Harper's both published the cartoons.

There was zero violent incident as a result of these publications.

So how do we account for this?

I should add that the publication of these cartoons was connected to violence. There was a bombing of a Dutch embassy in Pakistan, and other attacks on American embassies in other Muslim majority countries. So your statement is inaccurate. You're trying to separate the republication of these cartoons in two Canadian media outlets from the broader context of violent response we saw in other parts of the world.

[bud]

I'm done with your intellectual dishonesty.

lols! greatest line ever by shady!

[jbg]

What choice ? I'm paraphrasing the old argument where you say you like people on one hand, then condemn them with the other. Nothing intellectually dishonest about that...

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about saying that you take individuals on a person by person basis but that the group or cult they belong to is problematic.

By the way, I have often mentioned my admiration for Arabs and Islam.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not prejudicial, by definition, if it's a judgment made after examination of facts.

It's still called 'prejudice', though. No prejudiced person that I've met made up their mind in a vacuum. They interpreted the facts in their own way, and used it to pre-judge anyone they would ever meet from that group.

Don't argue this with me - the word 'prejudiced' is used in this context, so you're arguing with the world not me.

[kraychik]

It's still called 'prejudice', though. No prejudiced person that I've met made up their mind in a vacuum. They interpreted the facts in their own way, and used it to pre-judge anyone they would ever meet from that group.

Don't argue this with me - the word 'prejudiced' is used in this context, so you're arguing with the world not me.

You're using a word incorrectly. I'll use the dictionary definition, rather than go by your request for trust.

Prejudice is (emphasis mine):

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

[kraychik]

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about saying that you take individuals on a person by person basis but that the group or cult they belong to is problematic.

By the way, I have often mentioned my admiration for Arabs and Islam.

People like Michael Hardner regularly confuse the micro and macro. Apparently you can't dislike cultural trends without being sickeningly hate-filled towards all members of that culture.

[bleeding heart]

I should add that the publication of these cartoons was connected to violence. There was a bombing of a Dutch embassy in Pakistan, and other attacks on American embassies in other Muslim majority countries.

No one, certainly not myself, has even faintly suggested otherwise.

So your statement is inaccurate. You're trying to separate the republication of these cartoons in two Canadian media outlets from the broader context of violent response we saw in other parts of the world.

Just to clarify--and this should be helpful to you, since you didn't read my post, or you'd already know this--they're not two Canadian media outlets; it's a Canadian magazine and an American one.

And there's nothing inaccurate about it. I wondered aloud at the fact that the republication by these two magazines received no violent response.

That has nothing to do with the uncontested fact that violence did erupt over the cartoons previously.

I don't think you're following along very well, frankly.

[kraychik]

No one, certainly not myself, has even faintly suggested otherwise.

Just to clarify--and this should be helpful to you, since you didn't read my post, or you'd already know this--they're not two Canadian media outlets; it's a Canadian magazine and an American one.

And there's nothing inaccurate about it. I wondered aloud at the fact that the republication by these two magazines received no violent response.

That has nothing to do with the uncontested fact that violence did erupt over the cartoons previously.

I don't think you're following along very well, frankly.

I'm not sure what your point when you assert that violence didn't reoccur after the republication of the cartoons. It's a slice of time and an specific event which is part of a broader context of interconnected events. As I've already said, the more important fact is how many media outlet chose NOT to republish the cartoons, which were entirely newsworthy. That indicates a victory of sorts for the Islamists, while you're trying to spin it as something else entirely.

[bleeding heart]

CBC, to use an obviously leftist example, refused to publish the cartoons.

So did virtually everyone else.

So did the National Post!

Most other outlets in the American and Canadian media landscapes also refused to reproduce the cartoons. There are many examples of this, but the Islamists have been very effective in bullying our societies (specifically our resident leftists)

How could it be "specifically....leftists" when it was also all the centrists and all the conservatives?

The Left is not at fault for the Right's weaknesses and failings, Kraychik, as comforting as that might be to those who abhor notions of responsibility for their own behaviour.

Again--aside from the possibility of some lesser-known outlets publishing the cartoons--the only relatively major sources that published them were the left-wing American Harper's (a fine publicaiton, by the way, and I strongly recommend it), and the right-wing Canadian Western Standard.

That few if any other media organs would publish them speaks well for these two magazines, in my view.

The bottom line is that the Islamists, aided by the left, have effectively instilled a great degree of hesitancy and fear in our society about discussions pertaining to Muslims and Islam via mass murder terror campaigns.

Again, it's not "the left," and your frantic obssession over this trope is making you blind. The right-wing and centrist publicatiosn all avoided the cartoons like the plague.

This is not the fault of the left; only leftist outlets refusing to publish the cartoons are responsible for their own refusal to publish the cartoons.

The National Post, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal...hell, the Fredericton, NB Gleaner (our local, crappy little conservative newspaper)...they are all responsible for what they do, and what they omit to do.

"The Left." You only wish it were that simple, and that easy.

[Guest American Woman]

And this is why I see people like you as being as much my enemy as I see the fundamentalists who you denounce. You think that the solution is to ban things that some people find offensive. I don't.

People like me, eh? What I said, and what I think, is that the solution for the Middle Eastern countries whose laws the video broke was to ban them; ie: the countries where the violence, killing, rioting was/is taking place. I'm not advocating freedom of speech, the freedom to insult Mohammad, in their countries.

I feel that people do not have the right to not be offended, and that protecting people from being offended only increases the number of things that they find offensive and the intensity of the response when they feel offended.

So you're all for insulting Mohammad in the Middle East countries on a regular basis, so as to desensitize them?

You think that a bunch of Christians stopping other people from seeing a film that they (a) want to see and b: have every right to see is an example of them exercising their freedom of expression.

What I correctly think is that a bunch of Christians calling for the movie not to be shown is exercising their freedom of speech - and it is. The other people, those who want to see it, can also exercise their freedom of speech to let it be known that they want to see it. Then those in charge can either stop it from being shown - or decide to show it.

The reality is the opposite. They denied freedoms to others.

No they didn't. Those who chose not to show it denied others the opportunity to see it. Those who were denied could have spoken up, protested, had their voices heard if they cared to. Both sides - those who wanted the film to not be shown and those who wanted it shown - had the right to express their opinions/desires. That's how freedom of speech works.

And it was not a case that either one group or the other would lose freedom. Protestors did not have to go see the film, but they still felt that it was their right to deny others the right to go. They were and are pig headed.

FYI, being pig headed isn't against the law; and the reality is, they did have the right to speak their mind, to voice their opinion and desires, just as those wanting to see it did. Again. It was then up to 'the powers that be' whether the movie was shown.

As Philip Pullman wisely said: “It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or sold, or bought, or read.”

And he's right. The fundamental Christians DID, in effect, "write to me the powers that be, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher studio, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can They did do all those things, but and there your their rights stop[ped]."

This is where you take issue: "No one has the right to stop me writing this book." That's true, and the protesters didn't have the right to stop the movie from being shown, but the powers that be had the right to show it or not show it, just as Philip Pullman had the choice of whether to write the book or not write it.

You obviously have not been reading my posts, as I have very, very clearly been advocating the right to freedom of speech in my country. I have very, very clearly been defending the filmmakers' right to make the film. And as I said, in the ME countries I've referred to - "Nobody has to pick watch it up. Nobody has to open go to YouTube and click on it. And if you open it and read it they click on it and watch it, you they don't have to like it." But they sure as h*ll can't tell us what we can or can't say and/or do within our own country - and if it breaks their laws, they should ban it instead of going after us, expecting us to abide by their laws/wishes.

Edited September 24, 2012 by American Woman

[kraychik]

So did virtually everyone else.

So did the National Post!

The National Post isn't a conservative publication, any longer. Moreover, it's irrelevant, and it reinforced my point that you're ignoring the real story: that the vast majority of media outlets in Canada and America refused to republish the cartoons despite them being entirely newsworthy. That's the real story, here, not the "success" of two publications publishing it, presumably without a violent response. The choice not to republish the cartoons and acquiesce to Islamist terrorism is a leftist phenomenon, whether or not it comes from publications that lie on differing sides of the ideological spectrum.

[bleeding heart]

The National Post isn't a conservative publication, any longer.

So where are all the conservative publications that did publish them, kraychik?

The magazines, the newspapers...do tell.

Again: just like everybody else, the conservative outlets and publications refused to print the cartoons.

Moreover, it's irrelevant, and it reinforced my point that you're ignoring the real story: that the vast majority of media outlets in Canada and America refused to republish the cartoons despite them being entirely newsworthy.

OK: read this carefully: I explicitly, unequivocally said that, to my knowledge, virtually nobody published the cartoons--and that it was newsworthy; and that's why I applauded the left and right wing magazines for publising them.

There is no other sane way to read what I wrote, since it formed the crux of my argument.

The choice not to republish the cartoons and acquiesce to Islamist terrorism is a leftist phenomenon, whether or not it comes from publications that lie on differing sides of the ideological spectrum.

Oh, that's rich.

When conservatives behave in a manner with which you don't approve...it's...wait for it!....the left's fault!

So much for people being responsible for their own behaviour. The Left is responsible for all bad behaviour...including that of conservatives!

The tautology is pitch-perfect.

Listen closely, so you can learn something about taking responsibility: like anything and anyone else...conservative is what conservative does.

Period.

Edited September 24, 2012 by bleeding heart