'savage' NY subway ads get a make-over

[DogOnPorch]

I agree. It shows young people, too; I point that out because I'm afraid too many people picture a bunch of older, serious, ultra-religious men when they think "Israel" - rather than "people just like us." And of course it is a beautiful country with beautiful beaches; it would be advantageous to get that message out there more often, as you said. Most Israelis, I imagine, are just living their day-to-day lives same as we are, not living and breathing the politics of the region. Yes, there are serious issues in that area, and I don't mean to downplay them either, but there is also this other side - and I think people too often forget that.

Yup...leave the talk of bombs and doom to the other side. It's their message...not Israel's.

[bud]

ooh beach fun! great pr!

the gazans could also use some beach pr! maybe they should use this:

[Mr.Canada]

the threat from ultra violent jihadists bent on destroying the west is very real. We must be vigilant or we'll all die and the violent jihadists will win.

[bud]

or this:

[Mr.Canada]

3 year old Muslim girl brainwashed to hate Jews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo&feature=related

Edited September 29, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[bud]

3 year old Muslim girl brainwashed to hate Jews.

what happened to you man? we were having a discussionand suddenly you disappeared. american woman does this all the time, but i didn't expect it from you. i mean, she responds but only to one sentence so that it looks like she's responding when she really isn't. kind of like how she responded to this post.

[Bonam]

ooh beach fun! great pr!

the gazans could also use some beach pr! maybe they should use this:

Israel one was better ~

[bud]

Israel one was better ~

i'd agree. who said money can't buy a great image?

which of these PR videos would you say is better:

#1

#2

Edited September 29, 2012 by bud

[Bonam]

Neither is really a PR video, and neither is particularly good. Video #2 is right in its criticism of the Rabbi who tries to portray Israel as some kind of worthless moocher state in order to get donations. Israel is not that (far from it) and making people think of it that way will only weaken its position, not strengthen it.

[bud]

Neither is really a PR video, and neither is particularly good. Video #2 is right in its criticism of the Rabbi who tries to portray Israel as some kind of worthless moocher state in order to get donations. Israel is not that (far from it) and making people think of it that way will only weaken its position, not strengthen it.

they really have those crazy christians by their balls. they have their support both politically and economically with the promise that the jews will burn and die some time in the future.

by the way bonam, since you're here and all of a sudden feeling chatty, i am also wondering about you and how you kind of disappeared during our discussion in this thread. do you want to just forget about it and pretend it didn't happen or are you going to respond to this?

Edited September 29, 2012 by bud

[Bonam]

I didn't particularly think it was worth responding to. Rare is the case where a Nazi comparison is meaningful. Godwin's Law and all. Everyone knows who the Nazis were. As for Pam Geller, I had no clue until I googled her after reading this thread, and I'm sure many others didn't either. The thread OP was about the ads, and that was what I responded too. If you want to discuss Pam Geller, that's fine. Like I said, my perception of the ads was that they are probably counterproductive if anything, and it sounds like the ADL doesn't much like them either.

My view here is that you are committing a logical fallacy. You can't judge an individual message by your overall opinion of the source. For example, since you've already invoked the Nazis, Hitler believed in having the trains run on time. Does it mean having the trains run on time is a bad idea? Evil? Antisemitic? No. I judged the one ad on its own merits, independent of its source: ineffective and counterproductive, but not racist. In fact, I don't think there is anything inherently racist in the message "stop Islamization of America" either. I believe accusations of "racism" are direly overused, especially by people reflexively jumping to defend any perceived slight to Islam. Criticizing a religion or the tendencies of its followers is not racism.

[Mr.Canada]

Bonam, that was an excellent post. I wish I could post so poetically like that but I'm too concerned about throwing out red meat.

[bud]

In fact, I don't think there is anything inherently racist in the message "stop Islamization of America" either.

you're telling me that you and the whole zion crew in this this forum would not be crying anti-semitism if someone came here demanding to "stop jewing up america" ?

right.

I believe accusations of "racism" are direly overused, especially by people reflexively jumping to defend any perceived slight to Islam. Criticizing a religion or the tendencies of its followers is not racism.

i believe accusations of "anti-semitism" are direly overused, especially by people relfexively jumping to defend any perceived slight to israel. criticizing a country or ideology or the tendencies of its follower is not racism.

Edited September 30, 2012 by bud

[Bonam]

you're telling me that you and the whole zion crew in this this forum would not be crying anti-semitism if someone came here demanding to "stop jewing up america" ?

right.

You mean when people like yourself make references to how America is really run by the Jewish Cabal at AIPAC? People complain about what they perceive as excessive Jewish influence in America all the time. Nothing new there.

i believe accusations of "anti-semitism" are direly overused, especially by people relfexively jumping to defend any perceived slight to israel. criticizing a country or ideology or the tendencies of its follower is not racism.

And you would be right, such accusations are indeed overused. They are true now and then, just like accusations of racism, but more often, both accusations are carelessly thrown about without understanding.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Bonam

[bud]

You mean when people like yourself make references to how America is really run by the Jewish Cabal at AIPAC? People complain about what they perceive as excessive Jewish influence in America all the time. Nothing new there.

that's where you're wrong. my comments have never been about 'jews'. some of the leading activists against the zionist ideology and aipac's power over us' foreign policy are jewish. there are many jews who are against zionism.

so no, that's not what i mean.

And you would be right, such accusations are indeed overused. They are true now and then, just like accusations of racism, but more often, both accusations are carelessly thrown about without understanding.

despite not seeing eye to eye on different issues, i'm glad to see that you've not only spoken out against the anti-holocaust laws, which you also believe is censorship and against freedom of speech but you also agree that anti-semitism is overly used.

that said, pam geller is a racist and the name "stop islamization of america" is racist. a racist person such as geller should never be given the benefit of the doubt and all of her work should be looked at based on who she is as a person.

Edited September 30, 2012 by bud

[Bonam]

Bonam, that was an excellent post. I wish I could post so poetically like that but I'm too concerned about throwing out red meat.

Thanks, glad you liked it.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Bonam

[bud]

Thanks, glad you liked it.

Iran agency picks up Onion article as fact

[Mr.Canada]

Iran agency picks up Onion article as fact

Lol. I like the onion but I don't know how anyone could take it as a real news story...hahaha.

[kraychik]

So the MTA has responded to these events after being forced to post them by a federal court with new rules and guidelines which are clearly going to be used unconstitutionally, given their earlier decision to reject the ad.

The new language in the policy states that future submissions for ads will be rejected if they "incite or provoke violence". Clearly, there is no incitement to violence from these anti-Jihad ads. Of course, that won't stop haters of freedom of speech and expression (such as bud and jacee) from trying to redefine this language either through stupidity of ignorance. This will of course occur either through anti-Muslim bigotry ("Muslims can't help but be driven to violence to violence when they feel offended, because, well, Muslims can't control themselves! They're savages!"), or anti-American bigotry ("Americans are too stupid to know the difference between Jihad and Islam, and will assume that this ad is commanding them to hate and attack all Muslims! And since Americans follow all instructions, they will do so!").

One of Obama's primary SuperPACs is parroting the dishonest narrative that these ads are labelling all Muslims as savages. It's unsurprising that Obama reelection campaign is on the exact same page as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In other hypocritical news, the ACLU has been completely silent on these events. They did address Obama's recent remarks at the UN where he did defend the the first amendment, although this was two weeks after the terrorist attack on the consulate and Benghazi and after a painfully weak and apologetic response from both him and the State Department - where they spent more time and used more severe language criticising the video "Innocence of Muslims" than the actual terrorist attack that murdered Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The ACLU article, unsurprisingly, gives Obama way too much credit for his latest address at the UN. On the other hand, better late than never.

[bud]

some wonderful points made on islamophobia and free speech by christian christensen:

#1: Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam, but radical Islam is, for example, anti-feminism and anti-gay. So, to fear the spread is not irrational, and, thus, not Islamophobic.

I’ve heard this one a lot. The problem is that this statement takes as a point of departure that Islamophobia is all about an opposition to radical, fundamentalist Islam. It isn’t. If fear of radical Islam were the same as “Islamophobia” then a lot of secular Muslims in Turkey could (ironically) be classified as Islamophobic. They are not, however, because Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims in general, not just extremists, and rooted in crude stereotypes by which all Muslims are lumped together as some kind of uniform mass. There are plenty of anti-feminist, anti-gay elements within Christianity, for example, but those elements are rarely portrayed as representative of Christians as a whole. The problem is that it is the radical fundamentalist image of the Muslim which is usually used as the “default” image for all Muslims. This is what I have called the “hegemony of Islam” perspective whereby, in terms of identity, being a Muslim is seen as trumping all other factors: be they economics, education, gender, family history, and so on. In other words, in this stereotypical view, if you are a Muslim, your identity is subservient to your religious identification, with all other influencing factors a distant second. This faulty logic is applied to all Muslims, whether fundamentalist or not. That’s Islamophobia.

#2: Criticizing the very making of “Innocence of Muslims” and/or the Muhammad cartoons has a chilling effect on free speech, and is a form of soft censorship.

According to this line of thinking, “Innocence of Muslims” and the Muhammad cartoons are protected by free speech, but to criticize their making and/or content is somehow borderline censorship. No. To critique the manner in which free speech is exercised is in no way the same thing as saying that the right should be revoked or the speech banned. To use another example: I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also opposed to any bans on protesting against these occupations. If, however, anti-war protesters decided to stage a protest at the funeral of a soldier killed in the war, and did so with placards saying that the solder deserved to die, then I would question both the mode and content of their free speech. That does not mean I would want to ban either their right to gather or their right to speech. It just means that I am exercising my right to free speech to question how others have exercised that same right. That’s how, not if. The interplay is actually the crystallization of free speech in action. The same goes for the anti-Islam film and cartoons. If you want to make an inflammatory film/carton during a time of crisis: fine. But don’t then be surprised if others exercise their rights in response.

#3: Muslim fundamentalists do not respect the values of free speech: look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. Why should we worry about their being offended?

This goes back to the point I made earlier: no-one who opposes Islamophobia is worried about the feelings of small numbers of unrepresentative, violent extremists. To bring up Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie is to suggest that most Muslims were/are somehow in favor of Van Gogh’s murder, or the fatwah against Rushdie. If anyone has any solid evidence to support those extremely broad suggestions, I have yet to see it. It is also a very convenient strategy: to bring up Van Gogh when discussing Islamophobia as it is so emotive. Is the suggestion that the vast majority Muslims are simply unable of being offended without an accompanying desire to kill the person(s) who offended them? Yes, his murder was a terrible crime, but who has ever said that murder is an acceptable by-product of opposing Islamophobic words and pictures? Few, if any.

#4: Free speech is part of democratic society, and so these riots proved that many predominantly Muslim countries are not ready for democracy.

This would be a great argument were not so utterly de-contextualized. The basis of this line of reasoning is that free speech is a beloved component of European and North American socio-political reality. People in these regions can speak their minds without fear of reprisal, unlike countries in, for example, the “Middle East” where religious dissent is met with violence or death. Let’s not be naïve here: many regimes in predominantly Muslim nations are incredibly violent and repressive, and their commitment to freedom of speech (as well as freedom of assembly and fundamental human rights) is close to zero. But if you think that this type of repression is relegated to the “Muslim world” then I would suggest brushing up on post-war South American dictatorships (start with Chile); or the recent history of the Balkans. And, closer to home (for me, at least), it would be worth having a chat about actual tolerance for freedom of speech in the United States with Americans who dared to utter some uncomfortable truths about US geo-politics on September 12, 2001. Saudi Arabia is often held up as the poster-child for free speech repression in the name of Islam. Is that the same Sharia-loving, free-speech hating Saudi Arabia, staunch US and UK ally, who in 2010 purchased $60 billion in US arms and whose leader was warmly welcomed by the Queen at Buckingham palace in 2007? The one and same.

#5: Why should progressives spend time defending a religious group when there are far more pressing issues (such as poverty, gender inequality, etc.)?

I don’t think of opposing Islamophobia as defending Islam any more that I consider opposing anti-Semitism as some kind of de facto support for Judaism. Opposing Islamophobia is about opposing knee-jerk discrimination and xenophobia, dressed up as concern for “rights” (rights I rarely see addressed in other contexts) using vulgar stereotypes and crude generalizations. Finally, it is worth considering more precisely the role that poverty and inequality have played in the current unrest. While films, cartoons and religious fervor are held up as the main causes of the riots, I would suspect that a number of other factors have played into these events. If, however, we ignore these other factors in favor of the simple answer — “Muslim Rage” — then we contribute to an environment in which Islamophiobia, and thus discrimination, will thrive.

[bleeding heart]

According to this line of thinking, “Innocence of Muslims” and the Muhammad cartoons are protected by free speech, but to criticize their making and/or content is somehow borderline censorship. No. To critique the manner in which free speech is exercised is in no way the same thing as saying that the right should be revoked or the speech banned.

.....

That’s how, not if. The interplay is actually the crystallization of free speech in action.

Just so.

[jacee]

kraychik said ...

Clearly, there is no incitement to violence from these anti-Jihad ads. Of course, that won't stop haters of freedom of speech and expression (such as bud and jacee) from trying to redefine this language either through stupidity of ignorance.

I'd like to remind you that personal insults and attacks are violations of board rules.

I expect in the '60's one could find posters that said something like ...

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man: Defeat civil rights

You want to defend that kraychik? Fill yer boots!

I never said the law or the transit authority should intervene. I said people exercising their own freedom of expression might slap a "racist" sticker on it.

And as said above ... It is this interplay of people exercising free expression of opposing views that is the essence of that freedom.

It appears to me that you seek to silence opposing views ... mine for example ... by resorting to personal attacks rather than sticking to discussing the topic.

Think your personal attacks will discourage me from expressing my opinion in response to your posts?

No ... but they will encourage me to hit the 'report' button if you continue to 'debate' in this uncivilized manner.

It appears to me that the only 'free speech' you approve of is your own.

All opposing 'free speakers' are attacked personally and rather savagely.

Edited October 4, 2012 by jacee