Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders are awful, terrible, no good people.
Gamergaters are harassers and scum bags, no doubt about it.
But there is no justification for committing, or threatening to commit, violence against them.
A couple of armed men attempted to shoot up an event featuring Geller and Wilders; they injured a police officer and got killed instead. I repudiate them without reservation. That we all despise the radical anti-Islamists does not make them my allies.
Similarly, Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers are contemptible, but when they and a group of other gamergaters meet peaceably in a bar, there is no excuse for making a bomb threat. Whoever did it might share my distaste for the vile tactics of the gamergate creeps, but indulging in them yourself makes you my enemy as well.
It’s a double whammy, too. Not only am I repulsed by the violence and the disruption, but I have to watch a group of notorious haters claim martyrdom and persecution.
Well said, PZ. I agree.
This is pretty much exactly the outcome Geller and Wilders appear to have been going for. They intentionally provoked a fight, and now they get all the attention and sympathy.
Also, it was actually a security guard who was injured, not a police officer.
This is just the sort of thing Geller wants, and she’s done everything she can to make sure it happens. Frankly, anyone falls for it is an idiot.
If Geller weren’t such a nasty bit of humanity, I’d be praising and defending this event. There is something important and profound about being able to mercilessly mock religious beliefs and iconography–of all religions–non-violently of course. But I want nothing to do with Geller and the brood of flies she attracts.
The problem is that Geller & Wilders don’t want to mock religion: they want to disenfranchise people who don’t belong to their ethnic & social subgroup, and are coating their discourse in pseudo-secularist jargon because they know they can’t afford (yet) to candidly say “We want Non-Whites to be treated like cattle and rape-toys whose existence is solely dedicated to maintaining the material comforts and satisfying the whims of the patrician class“
Yes, this is exactly playing in the hands of Geller and Wilders, but that doesn’t mean that 100% of the guilt should be attributde to the shooters.
Ugh, I so hate this. Of course, Wilders is already crowing about free speech. The head of the only political party in the Netherlands that’s advocating for restricting free speech even further.
but that doesn’t mean that 100% of the guilt shouldn’t be attributed to the shooters.
In other words: the shooters are in the wrong and are 100% culpably for their horrendous act.
Was Sam Harris there too?
Sigh. Looks like Harris’s love of ‘hey, I can do that too, and it’s good if I do it!’ morals are more than a bit contagious. Some days, I just despair.
Yes, if this were brought into a court, it would be a travesty to try Geller or the gamergaters; in this situation, the people who made the bomb threat or charged in with guns are 100% responsible for their actions.
I didn’t realize repudiating people one is not actually associated with was a thing – unless PZ hasn’t been forthcoming on his backroom dealings ;)
Yes, I understand minorities need to keep doing it all the time to appease the bloodthirsty majority, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Well said, PZ.
Hey, shitheads, if you resort to terrorism you are not my ally. You are another party against which I stand.
hunt
Stop the victim blaming bullshit. Poor people have been tricked into trying to murder folks.
[blockquote]The head of the only political party in the Netherlands that’s advocating for restricting free speech even further[/blockquote]
Lying won’t help. I’m pretty sure you can find blaspemy law supporters in parliament.
Wilders is obviously helped greatly by this, probably on purpose, among “fighters” in IS it’s quite popular to suggest that these kind of operations are meant to increase polarization one way or another, and thereby drive recruitment. I wonder what the guy responsible for his security in NL is going to do now.
Generally, one shouldn’t fight people who are horrible because of words, beliefs, and ideas with horrible violent actions. You don’t get to decide what people need to be shut up by force. You don’t get to decide who is irredeemable enough to deserve the death penalty for the horrible things they say. You are not justified in your vigilante crusade, you are not a hero just because you are up against villains. You are clearly the enemy of my enemy, but when I look at you and see that you somehow managed to make that enemy look good in comparison, you are certainly not my friend.
hunter #3:
Yep, Geller will lap up the publicity, and the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment, but I doubt she wants to have her head blown off. That this turned into an ideal situation for her and Wilders is pure luck.
————————————————————
A lot of suspicion has fallen on Arthur Chu over the GG thing, as he made some cryptic comments on Twitter just beforehand. But then again, a GGer could have made the threat themselves, knowing the heat would fall on Chu, cos you know, GamerGate.
I’m sure they would have apreciated your condescending opinion about their actions.
How did you get to know that anyway?
dutchdelight
Hey, if you’re too stupid to understand my snark at hunt’s victim blaming bullshit, maybe just shut up. Oh, I remember you’re the person who has a funny way with words.
Dutchdelight @ 16:
Giliell was trying to make a point about victim blaming. You seem to be very certain of exactly what happened and who did what. Perhaps you can extend a bit of leeway towards those of us who aren’t so certain.
Yea, just scroll up and see my timeline post of the event for that.
What are you talking about?
That’s probably it. Smart of you to notice that.
So… no source for the “poor people have been tricked” statement, and none implied then? Is that it?
dutchdelight, #20
For the third time, it was a sarcastic reply to hunter.
@nonsecksualnym #15
In fewer words… a false flag operation? Please note that I’m not accusing you of wild conspiracy claims, because I agree that such things are not above #gamergaters. They also have readily accused their opponents of false flag operations (Zoe Quinn doxxing in particular; Internet right-wingers seem to love making things into false flag conspiracies), so who can really say what is what?
Regarding the Draw Mohammed shooting: I don’t even have words for that which haven’t already been said. It all seems so senseless.
@Saad
… Thanks.
Has there been any confirmation yet of exactly who called in the bomb threat in DC? Thus far, the only thing I’ve read or seen confirmed is that there was a bomb threat. There’s been speculation, but a complete lack of details and facts.
Given the sort of individuals (to avoid saying people) that gamergate are, they are capable of calling in a false threat so that they could blame it on their critics. Time will tell.
A contest for cartoon depictions of Muhammad? Seriously? That’s almost as stupid and pointless as the idea of shooting up the contest. These people are nothing but stone-cold-stupid bigoted wankers who hate Muslims but don’t have anything sensible to say about them. I am really REALLY glad the cops were able to prevent any of that lot from becoming sainted martyrs.
What’s the fucking point of more Mohammed cartoons? While we’re at it, why not have a contest for insulting depictions of black people?
dutchdelight
My apologies, there is indeed the theocratic SGP, which I forgot. So not the only party which advocates restricting free speech.
gog #22:
Think up something crazy. Double it. Square it. Double it again.
= GamerGate
American Freedom Defense Initiative has just announced that their next event will feature a contest for the best Crucifix Dildo design. That should shut up those haters who say they are only bashing one specific religion! /s
Why can’t we set up a free-fire no-rules zone somewhere (Utah?), so all these lunatics can go fight it out without bothering the rest of us? I would happily make a donation to cover their presumably one-way tickets to the venue. Sort of like an all-volunteer Hunger Games.
@Raging Bee
Because… Why wouldn’t a private citizen have the right to organize a contest lampooning religion?
Like they are found in religious texts? Ok, if that’s what you want to put your effort into… Maybe not focus on black people so much though, there are plenty of marginalized groups being insulted all around.
Why wouldn’t a private citizen have the right to organize a contest lampooning religion?
Who the fuck said anything about their rights? I said the event was pointless and moronic; and you pretty much admit I’m right when you change the subject to their rights, which NOBODY is questioning.
…there are plenty of marginalized groups being insulted all around.
Including Muslims. So tell us, what’s the point of needlessly insulting either marginalized group? Don’t we all have more constructive things to do with our time?
left0ver1under:
dutchdelight:
I honestly can’t tell if you legitimately missed the point or are just being deliberately obtuse.
Raging Bee, #25
Oh, my point for that first blockquote was to say: Don’t do that.
Damn it.
Only the first sentence is Raging Bee’s quote.
Raging Bee #25
Sigh. Yet another person on the left who has trouble distinguishing mocking ideas from disparaging people.
Look, it’s like flag burning, OK? Burning an American flag to protest one of our many wars, or anything else, does indeed piss off some people, but it doesn’t hurt them and it doesn’t infringe any of their rights or privileges. And what’s true for patriotic symbols is also true for religious symbols. For another example, putting a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine and calling it Piss Christ certainly annoyed a lot of Catholics. But guess what? It didn’t infringe on any of their rights. Nobody has a right to not be offended, and nobody has a right to have their cherished beliefs kowtowed to by the rest of us.
gog #22
Won’t be the first time. There already was a similar operation where nude pictures of a feminist (Emma Watson? I don’t remember, but PZ covered it, so maybe someone else remembers) were supposed to have been leaked at a certain date as punishment for feminism. It turned out to be a hoax which Gaters exploited to show that they are accused for the actions or even non-actions of every extremist. Except that after some digging reporters found that the “hoax” was connected to a series of false media websites, all connected to 4chan and used by its owners to push various false stories into mainstream media.
Again, sorry for not linking, I’ll try to find the link when I have the time.
moarscienceplease
Only that by now Mohamed has become the stand in for muslims. Look at the people who held it Geller and Wilders aren’t pro religious freedom and pro free speech. They’re also not anti-islam, they’re just anti muslim.
+++
When your best moral defense is “it’s not illegal”…
@AlexanderZ #36
Indeed. Your example is one where they say it’s a false flag and it’s really a double bluff. A poor attempt, but definitely style over substance.
The RationalWiki article has more than enough information and references for interested parties. I’m sure it’s in there somwheres.
Giliell #37
Wrong.
Yes, Geller and Wilders have said and done some awful things, and this little contest was not done with love in their hearts. So what? If they turn out to really love lasagna then I am not allowed to eat lasagna anymore lest I be seen as a bigot?
Yet another person on the left who has trouble distinguishing mocking ideas from disparaging people.
What ideas do Mohammed cartoons mock? None — they don’t refer to ideas at all, they only insult people without actually saying anything worth saying.
Look, it’s like flag burning, OK?
Yes, and burning your country’s flag is a really stupid gesture of protest, since it doesn’t really say anything or indicate exactly what you’re protesting against. Just because you have a right to do it, and it doesn’t really harm anyone, doesn’t make it a right or appropriate thing to do. Nor dies it make the person who does it any more clever or relevant than they would otherwise be.
Burning an American flag to protest one of our many wars, or anything else, does indeed piss off some people, but it doesn’t hurt them and it doesn’t infringe any of their rights or privileges.
If it pisses off people who might otherwise be sympathetic to our cause, then yes, it does indeed harm someone — it harms the protesters, by making us look stupid, or by giving people the wrong idea about our cause. This is the problem with Mohammed cartoons — it makes large numbers of Muslims less likely to listen to us when we want to say intelligent things about their religion and why they should maybe dump some of its rules.
Nobody has a right to not be offended…
Even if that were true (which it most certainly isn’t), that doesn’t mean offending people is at all useful or beneficial. You need to grow the fuck and stop using “I gotta right!” as your standard excuse for being ignorant and irresponsible.
Are you trying to be funny or do you not get how fucking asinine that statement is?
Giliell, #37
Drawing insulting caricatures of Muhammad is not a criticism of Islam. It’s solely meant as provocation. And when mostly white never-Muslims are doing it, that comes across even worse. Of course it doesn’t warrant a physical response of any kind, but these assholes shouldn’t act surprised when sensible people speak out against the drawings. Why is it that ex-Muslims all over the world aren’t holding these drawing contests? You’d think if there are people who have legitimate concerns about the harm a culture of blind reverence for Muhammad does, it’d be us.
Westboro Baptist Church members don’t deserve to be harmed, but that doesn’t mean their picketing is anything more than hate and provocation.
(That’s in agreement with you, btw, Giliell. I left out the word “Yeah.” in the beginning.)
@moarscienceplz
And let me expand: I don’t think anybody anywhere here is saying that we shouldn’t be critical of Islam and hold varying horrible things that adherents endorse. So, no, nobody’s saying that you can’t eat your fucking lasagna or whatever. But you don’t get to tell non-lasagna-eaters that they’re just being too sensitive about your love for lasagna. Or whatever analogy you were trying to construct.
Also, I’m getting really tired of this childish “Nobody has a right to not be offended” crap. It’s basically nothing more than the mantra of a spoiled child insisting that no one has any right not to have to deal with whatever stupid insulting shit he feels like saying that day.
And it’s not even true — we DO have a right to go about and interact with others without being needlessly harassed or insulted at every turn, and minorities have a right to show their faces in public without having insulting epithets and N-words screamed at them at every turn. It’s not an unlimited right, of course — but neither is freedom of speech.
moarscienceplz
Do you have an argument to go with that or do you expect me to say “yes, you’re right because you said so”?
Saad
I kinda managed to figure that one out ;)
moarscienceplz, #35
Caricatures of Muhammad are only meant to try to piss Muslims off. What ideas do they contain?
Jesus and Mo is an example of drawings containing Muhammad where the point is the actual ideas. And it works fairly well. And that’s why you won’t see too many of us on the left calling it hatemongering.
@Saad #47
So what you’re saying is that effective and informed satire is more than welcome? Who woulda thought?!
(/s)
moarscienceplz:
You object to an analogy comparing Muslims to black people, on the basis that It Is Just Ideas, largely by ignoring the minority status of Muslims, the bigoted nature of anti-Muslim ideology and rhetoric, and the perceived connection between Muslim religions and a non-white ethnicity (with this perception being shared by the general public, not just the explicitly Islamophobic). And then, after objecting to such a comparison, you compare people playing The Let’s Bash Muslims Drawing Game to eating a fucking pasta dish. You are not engaging honestly. Step away from your computer and gather your thoughts. If you double down, go fuck yourself in advance.
Jesus and Mo is an example of drawings containing Muhammad where the point is the actual ideas.
Were they included in Pam Gellar’s contest? IF so, that would be the only decent thing her contest accomplished. And if not, that would only prove my point about how fucking lame and pointlessly bigoted her contest is.
Saad
Exactly.
Most “draw Mohamed” carricatures (for a certain value of carricature) are white westerners drawing a racialized, stereotyped Mohamed with no meaning beyond the graven image of Mo. They’re basically the artistic equivalent of shouting “your mama is fat!”
Jesus and Mo
@ Saad
It’s a criticism of a stupid religious rule that certain religionists insist I obey under threat of violence. The drawings are a response meant to say “You’re not the boss of me”.
In this particular case, I fully agree, but as a rule? No. Standing up to bullies in white turbans who are demanding submission to their (stupid made-up bullshit) rules is an appropriate response.
Saad:
Exactly. And it’s provocation to a very nasty end, to incite and encourage bigotry.
Raging Bee 50: That was Saad’s point. It is possible to Draw Mohammed and actually criticize Islam in the process. Simply just Drawing Mohammed is just intentionally violating what you know to be one of their sacred cows, just because you can. It is trolling, with the shallowest illusion of having a legitimate point.
*Though I really imagine that aside from just wanting to piss off Muslims, most of these people are pissed off at the very idea of there being something that they Ought Not Do. They are the kind of contrarians that whine about political correctness, who balk at the very idea of being told “no”, and who will shriek about Freeze Peach endlessly if you dare to point out that something they said was bigoted. Trolling Muslims, an evil enemy that just happens to be a minority that they can bully, is surely one aspect. The other is also surely that they feel entitled to do whatever they want and laugh in the face of those who think they should try to not be assholes.
@Kamaka #53
Yes, the Sikh caste system is a bit inhumane when you think about it.
Oh, you’re referring to other people that wear white turbans.
Mo’ Jesus and Mo.
It’s a criticism of a stupid religious rule that certain religionists insist I obey under threat of violence.
Actually, that’s one of the LEAST stupid and LEAST harmful rules we can justly criticize. (In fact, it makes perfect sense not to try to draw pictures of Mohammed, because it’s his words and deeds we should be discussing, not his looks. Christians should do the same for Jesus.) Hell, it’s not even one-tenth as oppressive as their dress codes and their rules about sexual behavior and apostacy. It’s not even worth mentioning, let alone breaking; and making a big deal out of it is just plain small-minded.
Standing up to bullies in white turbans who are demanding submission to their (stupid made-up bullshit) rules is an appropriate response.
When we’re going out of our way to offend people in a marginalized minority population, just for the sake of offending them, that’s not “standing up to bullies,” that’s BEING the bullies.
@5
Especially Wilders, always going on about our supposedly “Judeo-Christian” heritage. As you said, for him it’s about disenfranchising the others.
My point, exactly.
Kamaka
1. Racist shit is racist. Stereotyping is bad in and on itself, but once you get completely unrelated groups of people mixed up in it, it gets ugly. Turbans are worn by Sikhs. Sikhs have been murdered in hate crimes because they were mistaken for muslims. I’m pretty sure they’ll appreciate your valiant efforts to further propagate harmful stereotypes that actually endanger their lives. Do you mean a Keffiyeh?
2. Racist stereotyping is bad. You’re branding all people wearing a Keffiyeh as “bullies” who must be stopped, even though the majority of them doesn’t give a fuck about you.
3. Quite obviously, since you love the broad brush, you don’T give a fuck about whom you actually hit. Probably the logic is that if they object, they are the horrible bullies who must be stopped. Buletproof logic!
My point, exactly.
What a fucking hypocrite.
Way to troll moarscienceplz. Bravo.
@Kamaka #53
This was not standing up to bullies, this was baiting a minority so that the instigators could pretend it was self-defense.
@moarscienceplz
Are you not going to engage the point about racial and cultural stereotypes? You know, the basis of objection to the Draw Mohammed contest?
It’s not about bigotry! It’s about criticism, right?
microraptor: exactly. When cops do it, it’s called “escalation.” And we’re trying to get cops to stop doing it, for rather obvious reasons.
It’s not about bigotry! It’s about criticism, right?
It’s about ethics in gratuitous insult journalism!
I’m glad no one was killed and those who committed the crime was arrested. I’ll agree that “Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders are awful, terrible, no good people”. I’ll also agree they have the right to have that contest and even deliberately offend people. That being said, I wonder how the public and press and law enforcement would react if a bunch of right wing christians tried to shoot up a meeting of Atheists holding a “Funniest Christ Joke Contest”. I also wonder if Geller and Wilders wanted a violent reaction (just as long as someone else got hurt) so they can brag about their cause and how they’d be right in what they do.
I recall Mel Brook’s Producer’s movie where a completely different G. Wilder was part of a scheme to offend a whole lot of people to make money. There’s also an episode of Batman TAS where a failing hotel owner tried to get the Joker to destroy his hotel to collect on the insurance. Yes, both are totally fictional but maybe we should consider any deeper motivations of Wilders and Geller.
I often find that the best way to stand up against a group of select few violent bullies is to loudly mock, in a way they find incredibly offensive, the broader, underprivileged class of people which those bullies identify as. It is a brilliant strategy that never backfires and also does not reflect negatively on me at all, in my decision to disparage a relatively powerless group in the name of opposing the small number of people in that group who behave abysmally in response to having the whole group insulted. Because otherwise, I would never have the opportunity or freedom to do the relatively minor and obscure insulting action. It is truly a righteous cause that I fight for.
Kamaka:
Yes, which is so overwhelmingly mature, ennit? You’ll pardon me, but I truly loathe the kneejerk “you’re not the boss of me!” response. It is almost always assholism, and more suited to 14 year olds than adults.
So, you draw a picture, demonstrating that no one is the boss of you. Then what? You keep doing it, to demonstrate what a jackass you are? There is no fucking point to it, other than to inflame bigotry.
gog #65
I already said this:
But why did Geller and Wilders choose to make their statement in that particular way? Because so many Muslims have tried to claim that any drawing of Mohhammed is inherently an insult to all Muslims. They want to claim that it is impossible to depict him visually to make any point except to disparage all Muslims, everywhere. And it seems that some of you agree with that idea.
I don’t.
@moarscienceplz #71
So why, then, didn’t Geller and Wilders also choose to filter submissions that were racist in some way?
The reason the depiction of Mohammed in Jesus and Mo isn’t bigoted and offensive is because he’s actually a character. He’s a guy that hangs out with his buddy Jesus, plays video games, goes on walks, gets drunk at the pub, and he also happens to say and believe some stupid stuff. Not only does it focus on the content of the beliefs AND be a prohibited depiction, it subverts the stereotype of indiscriminate violence. There’s depth and nuance and it makes you think.
Gellar and Wilders just want to point and laugh at the violent savages and their death god.
I’d also like to note that I’m not saying that Gellar and Wilders shouldn’t be allowed to do what they did. I’m not sure anybody is saying that. What I am saying is that their way is shitty and does nothing to show Muslims that their religion is a bunch of hooey and that they would probably be better off without it; it just focuses on the graven images alone. It’s an unthinking reactionary’s version of satire–which is to say that it’s not satire at all.
I’m not applauding what G & W did. I wish they hadn’t done it, because it is very obvious that they did want to insult and disparage all Muslims, at least those in the USA if not the whole world. So, they have provided more ammo to the “no pics of Mohammad, ever” crowd.
moarscienceplz
That doesn’t even make sense-
But to recap:
1 “Draw Mohamed” events usually serve no other function than producing racialised depictions of Mohamed in order to piss off muslims (not to discuss ideas)
2 Drawing Mohamed to discuss ideas is actually possible as evidenced by the Jesus and Mo series. The fact that you keep posting them to make points is evidence that they are not just about denigrating muslims.
3 There are quite a lot of muslim depictions of Mohamed, did you know?
But why did Geller and Wilders choose to make their statement in that particular way? Because so many Muslims have tried to claim that any drawing of Mohhammed is inherently an insult to all Muslims.
So now it’s the Muslims’ fault that Gellar and Wilders are such stupid useless assholes? Their decisions on how to express themselves are dictated by their enemies’ actions?
What if a Muslim shot a Republican for wearing a urine-soaked hat? Would we all “have to” take a stand for free speech by wearing urine-soaked hats from then on?
Giliell #75
Draw Mohammed Day.
Thanks, moar, I keep on forgetting whether Draw Mohammed Day is before or after Draw Insulting Caricatures of Black People Day.
When are we going to have a Criticize Islam Like a Responsible Adult Day?
Giliell #75
Sorry, I meant to respond to all 3 point.
2.Yes. That is what I have been trying to say all along.
3. Yes I do know. However, a lot of them are from a long time ago, and in fact have been defaced by more modern Muslims.
Also, I never said ALL Muslims forbid such pictures. But those that do, I vehemently disagree with.
Also, don’t forget that the J & M artist is forced to be anonymous, to protect his very life.
I have taken part in Everybody Draw Muhammed Day, and will do so again in the future. Rest assured, that is not the only Islamic rule that I break: I had sex repeatedly before I was married; I drink alcohol; my wife works outside the home, drives her own car, and goes out in public without male supervision on a regular basis.
Basically, my life is a repudiation of Islamic totalitarianism, and I am proud of this. The Pope doesn’t issue fatwas, the Dalai Lama does not oppress women, and the one Hindu nation on earth is a functioning democracy. Islam needs to be publicly mocked more often, more fiercely, and more provocatively than any other religion, because it is worse for humanity than any other religion – and that’s saying a lot. I draw Muhammed because I am a liberal, because I care about women and gays, because people need to be free. G&W are awful people, but not because they drew Muhammed. The shooting proves that Islam needs to be mocked more, not less. Everybody Draw Muhammed!
joel,
Of course the pope issues the equivalent of fatwas. You do know what fatwa means, right?
@joel#82
Yeah, I’m sure that Draw Mohammed Day is totally going to be the catalyst for positive change in the Islamic world.
Any century now…
Joel @ 82:
My, my. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so utterly certain of things.
@ #68
“I’m glad no one was killed and those who committed the crime was arrested”
The two gunmen were killed. No one was arrested.
Good point. I should have said, “The Pope does not claim it is the duty of every faithful Catholic to kill [insert group of people].”
@Raging Bee
What if the people doing it judge their “need” to do this to be sufficient? How does your particular opinion come into play here? Islam is a top three religion last time i checked btw, subjegating well over a billion people on this planet, and firmly entrenched in the governments of many countries. Sounds very marginalized indeed.
@Giliell
After careful consideration, you’ve determined that is the best moral defense being offered?
Zenlike @ 83:
It’s quite dismaying, seeing people taking pride in the utter surety of their ignorance, and happily saying stupid shit with confidence.
Joel:
:Snort:
I condemn any kind of attack on other people’s rights and life. No exceptions. As such, I support the fact that people are free enough to be able to hold this kind of rallies. But I don’t think it is profound or support them directly. The same way I condemned the Charlie Hebdo shootings but I never found CH’s lazy oppportunistic punching-down humour worthy of any praise…
Other muslims (not even ex-muslims) are by far the main victims of islamists. When islamists blow up mosques it’s not done to target non-muslims, ditto when they subjugate entire cities full of muslims. Muslims know this. It is quite uhm… insulting to have usually privileged non-muslims pretending to be totally rad while drawing Muhammad’s caricatures. It would make some sense if apostates did it, but in Wilders’ company?
If you are a non-muslim in Europe or the US, you can draw Muhammad by yourself and show it to all your acquantainces, nothing will happen. Try doing that in Saudi Arabia. Context is kind of vital.
What do they wish to accomplish with this kind of rally? This only plays in the hands of both islamophobes and islamists. The muslim minority is the main victim again, as it truly is a lose-lose game for them. As islamophobia grows in the general public, more muslims may become disenfranchised and follow the islamists’ siren calls.
Again, who loses no matter what happens?
Caine @90
If you a referring to the bloody history of the Catholic Church, you may rest assured that 600 years ago I would have written in this forum “Everybody Step on a Communion Wafer!” That was then. Today, we should all draw Muhammed.
joel
Can you define “islamic rule” for us? Because most muslims don’t seem to follow those rules either
1. As shown already, you know nothing
2. Have you actually everlooked into Lamaism? The main reason the Dala Lama is seen as a friendly old man who smiles a lot is because the Chinese kicked his absolute holiness out of the country. He simply doesn’t have a chance to do so.
3. Yep, no violent Hindu extremism ever, especially not against muslims.
nonsecksualnym (late:polishsalami) @ #16, left0ver1under @ #24, and others saying similar things: Can we not with this victim-blaming “false flag” thing, unless there’s some actual evidence supporting it? And no, “I wouldn’t put it past GamerGate, this is just the kind of thing they would do” does not count as evidence.
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve told people about the Slymepit and other hateful harassers in organized atheism, and had people respond, “But how do you know they’re really atheists? Maybe they’re just plants, religious believers trying to make atheists look bad!” It’s a way of not acknowledging the difficult reality — that people we see as being on Our Side might do terrible, unethical things.
And yes, gamergaters are people. Can we also not with the dehumanization? Doing terrible things to other people is, unfortunately, one of the things that human people do. It’s inaccurate to say that they’re not people because they do terrible things. And this sort of dehumanization is exactly what leads people — all people, not just Them Over There but all of us — to do terrible things to each other.
Greta Christina @ 94:
Thank you. Used to be, I jumped at every case of othering with ferocity, but recently, I’ve near given up. Even people who have been long time regulars here, and should know better, consistently resort to othering, because they don’t think certain groups deserve any better. I’m sick to death of pointing out that thinking of people as things is always the start of very bad things.
#86 tomh
Fuck! You’re correct. My apologies. Let me restate.
I’m sorry anyone died, even though they were the criminals. I wish they were arrested and put on trial, if only to find out if they received any help from any group. I’m also sorry someone else was hurt and wish the guard a speedy recovery.
moarscienceplz [52]
Who, here, supports such a restriction on freedom of speech? The origin of this discussion seems to be Raging Bee [25], who said the contest for cartoon depictions of Mohamed was stupid and pointless. Most of what follows criticizes the actual accomplishments of ‘Draw Mohamed Day’ and similar. As far as I can tell, you’re conflating criticism with censorship. Given the matter you’ve chosen to defend, that’s hilarious (not to mention stupid; really, really stupid).
Joel @ 92
Hahaha. The pope does not need to say anything. His followers do the dirty work. This may come as a surprise to you as it has been completely drowned out under all the vatican PR.
Let’s see.. Liberia last year:
Uganda two years ago:
We are talking about catholic bishops and archbishops, mind you. Have you heard anything from the hypocrite at the church’s helm?
@ #48 gog wrote:
“So what you’re saying is that effective and informed satire is more than welcome? Who woulda thought?!”
More than welcome with whom? With you? With leftist elites? Big deal. How do you think the people who shoot cartoonists feel about Jesus and Mo. They’re the ones who matter. At least they matter to the author who feels it necessary to stay anonymous to avoid the fate of Charlie Hebdo.
@tomh #99
So you defend bigoted depictions of Mohammed on the basis that they’re equally hated by violent and intolerant adherents of Islam? We’ve established that that particular group of people is going to react violently, and there’s not much that can be done about that other than not drawing Mohammed. I’m not talking about not drawing Mohammed, though. I’m okay with it, in case you hadn’t noticed. What I’m talking about is anti-Muslim bigotry, racism, cultural stereotypes and how people engaging in them rationalize it as criticism of the religion.
As far as I can tell, it just ends up being reactionary bigots battling other reactionary bigots. I already justified my statements in #72.
So, a little background reading teaches me Gellar and her American Freedom Defense Initiative chose this venue because in late January an event called “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect” held a fundraiser there to start up a communication center to provide media responses to things like Draw Muhammad Day. She was there to protest that January event, of course, and to remind the crowd not to yell anything nastier than “You’re not American” at the attendees or hold more ignorant signs than “Go home and take Obama with you.”
Her little shindig cost some 200 attendees fifty bucks each. The winning cartoon of Muhammad netted its artist ten grand. (I think – I can’t find the artist’s name or work in any story and would hope they’re not going to make that info public.) The organization had also laid out an additional ten grand so that SWAT and bomb squad were on the scene. I guess the attendees hadn’t quite expected to be hustled off to wait a few hours in a nearby high school nor to have access to their vehicles denied until after 2:00 p.m. today (latest I heard, maybe still longer) with the investigation ongoing.
And afterwards, Gellar’s able to tweet “This is a war.”
The AFDI also billed this as a “first annual.” I’ve got some ideas for competing artwork for a protest. Surely the American Freedom Defense Initiative couldn’t object to that?
Can you tell me where these “leftist elites” are actually in charge? I might like to go and live there.
Your comment, of course, completely misses the point. No-one here has implied anything but loathing for the violent extremists who tried to attack the event organised by bigots Geller and Wilders, and who would undoubtedly kill the Jesus and Mo cartoonists if they could. Why should that make us unable to distinguish between trolling bigotry aimed purely at insulting and provoking Muslims, and satire aimed at ideas?
#102: Because you’re making a subjective distinction. The violence in this case was depicted at *any* depiction… the fact some are subjectively more artful or insightful than others to us is irrelevant. A Jesus and Mo art show could easily have drawn the same violent response.
More importantly, the reduction of the permissible thoughts about Islam due to the threat of violence currently permits any reconsideration or modernizing of the faith as a whole, effectively. Cartoons are just the edge case. There are plenty of academics who secretly believe Mohammed is, factually, as mythical a character as Jesus or Moses, and the entire Muslim origin story is a complete myth (see Tom Holland for a popular-historian synthesis, but he readily admits he really hedges his writings to avoid undue offense and threats of violence against him and his colleagues). They do not publish on this, because to do so is to have your life ruined. There will be no Muslim equivalent of Richard Carrier, etc., in our lifetimes as a result.
In the end, you have to fight these things on the edge. Accepting that this is a reasonable prohibition on people’s speech opens up the Jesus and Mo case as the next thing, and beyond that the depiction of human figures in statuary, which is also idolatrous, as we have seen at Bamiyan and Nineveh.
Geller, et al are as much pond scum, making an easy buck off the haters if not haters themselves, as the guy with the movie that sparked the Benghazi protests. But PZ took the right stance on this one, and commenters seeking to mitigate that stance here with undue concerns about what are essentially the hurt feewings of a minority of religious zealots are enabling the suppression of a lot more than a stupid Texas cartoon show.
Me, I’d have favoured the event if it had been “attack all idols,” with a Carrier debate of a creationist and a flag-burning on either side but they didn’t ask me. But some satirical depictions of Mohammed have been powerful art, and I’m not going to assess the intentions of an art piece’s creator at least until I see it. The point is we should all be free to view and judge. Right now, there’s not a paper in the country that would print the winning entry so that we all could. Many of them are still pushing hard against the increasing demands of some Muslims (the fringe to be sure, but in some cases threatening violence) to amend their styleguides to always put “(pbuh)” after every reference to Mohammed’s name, as those zealots feel their religion demands.
In the end, any and all restrictions on speech freedom based on satisfying the honour of a specific religious sect need be opposed, because if you don’t, you close off possibilities for reflection on all the other rules and closed-minded world views that sect is trying to impose as well. It doesn’t matter if that religion is still a minority in your country: it should be the same rules for Islam as we would expect for Mormonism or Scientology, equally small sects at the moment. And if it was one of those sects this weekend, I would hope my views would be entirely consistent: that as much as I may loathe them personally, the organizers had every right to do what they did and I should not assign blame to them for the violent response they received. Like PZ, I can taste the ashes in my mouth when I say that.
@Fukuda
Speaking of lazy, you really ought to actually learn something about Charlie Hebdo and their humor–in context–before you make claims about it. (Hint: they didn’t make fun of Muslims. They made fun of Islamists. And, judging by their covers, not nearly as often as they made fun of Christianity.)
Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels posted a link to this piece by Padraig Reidy. I think Reidy says it all, succinctly.
http://www.littleatoms.com/society-world/garland-shootings-pre-empting-arguments
I believe in free speech, it should be an a inalienable right for everyone.
I believe that there can be reasonable limits to free speech, calls for violence are unacceptable.
I believe that this event was bigoted, deliberately so.
I believe that the gunmen’s choice to use violence in response to this particular act of bigotry was unacceptable. Lines on paper should never be a reason to kill.
The only acceptable use of lethal force is to defend against an immediate and legitimate threat to people’s lives. I have no problem with the deaths of these gunmen, but had they been captured alive I would not support the death penalty for their actions even if they’d managed to slaughter everyone there.
So here’s the thing: no one should be placed in jeopardy of death because of my beliefs. No one, not myself, not my family, not my fellow citizens, not even the religious fanatics who choose to take up arms over scratchings on paper.
Everyone deserves the chance to reconsider, to learn, to grow, to become better than the dogma that tells them to hate. Everyone.
I will take no action that risks *anyone’s* death, however remotely, unless I’m defending against an immediate, credible threat to life.
I will not draw Mohammed, even though I have the right to do so. And to claim that free speech is in any way jeopardised by choosing not to exercise it in this particular case is a slippery slope lubricated with the slickest of bigoted lies.
That arbitrary restrictions on depicting figures from one’s mythology, and especially attempting to apply it to people who don’t subscribe to one’s mythology or its accompanying restrictions, is unreasonable and, indeed, contemptible.
Agreed, terrorism is terrorism and terrorism is scummy.
It annoys me that Gamergate is blaming the attack on people who the evidence shows had nothing to do with it like Arthur Chu and the Gamer Ghazi subreddit, but then everything Gamergaters do annoys me. “Being annoying” does not justify death threats.
Azkyroth, #107
Maybe if you did a cartoon that’d be your idea behind it. We all know that’s not the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s idea or Wilders’ idea. I didn’t mean to make it sound like I’m speaking about any potential drawings of Muhammad, just those done in this sort of context.
bruce 1
Did you mean “inhibits”? Because this doesn’t make any sense.
In case you meant that:
You have it backwards. If you actually looked at the radicalisation of muslims, you’d notice that it is a very recent trend (can we just bury that “medieval” crap? Neither Saudi Arabia nor Daesh have their roots in medieval Islam, nor are they equivalaent of the European middle ages, especially not to the middle ages in Europe under muslim rule). The radicalisation of muslims in the west goes along with continued disenfranchisement and discrimination and constantly kicking them in the face with these crappy “you can’t tell me what to do nah-nana-naaaaa-na” as if those groups actually held any power only furthers their resentment against the west and drives them deeper into radical Islam.
1. The lurkers agree with me in email. Seriously, claiming that people secretly believe but don’t say anything is ALWAYS a bad argument.
2. Goodness, it’S just more ignorance.
From the Pfft of all knowledge:
bruce 1:
Therefore we should just ignore the 99.99% that are just racist crap?
Oh, btw, did you know that the artist of the “original” Mohamed cartoons originally offered the newspaper cartoons depicting christian symbols? They were rejected on grounds that they were too provocative and would hurt too many feelings. When the subject was cartoons that would hurt the feelings of muslims, they were far game because everybody believes that muslims sure need a good kicking.
The good old “but I’d nail a cracker to a tree, too” defense. Listen, I know you think that being an equal opportunity offender is somehow a noble moral goal. You step on all toes equally. Those in steel-capped boots and those that are naked and already broken.
FFS, nobody said anything about restricting free speech. It’s about using that shit responsibly. Do you shout racist slurs just to show all those uppity PoC who are asking you not to do so?
Lady MOndegreen
Or maybe we did, and read a lot of stuff like articles written by former CH writers, articles written by French (ex) muslims, articles written by people of muslim origin and came to a different conclusion? But it’s very easy to simply conclude that everybody who doesn’T share your view is simply ignorant and lazy…
Azkyroth
Well, it seems to me that you were perfectly well able to express that thought in a few choice words without the added bonus of being a jerk to a minority. Now, if it’s completely possible to do so, don’t you think that somebody who chooses the route that includes being a jerk towards a minority actually does so because they WANT to be a jerk towards a minority?
You know, I kinda hope that centuries-long lifespan will become a reality during my lifetime: that way, I’ll be able to laugh my by-then-fossilized ass off when 800 years from now, some poseur comes and say “There are plenty of academics who secretly believe Joseph Smith, Ron Hubbard, Tenzin Gyatso, Martin Luther King, and Richard Dawkin were, factually, complete mythical fabrications“
bruce1@103,
Well clearly you choose to adopt the moral and esthetic standards of violent Islamist extremists, considering satire on ideas and racist insults to be equivalent, but I don’t. You are being completely dishonest in implying that anyone here has called for events such as those organised by bigots Geller and Wilders to be suppressed.
I’ve read Holland, but since he does not put forward the hypothesis that Mohammed did not exist, either you haven’t, or you are accusing him of dishonesty. Which is it?
@ microraptor #2
I can’t believe no one’s picked you up on this, but the guy who was shot was
. I dunno if you were genuinely mistaken or, as I suspect, mocking school police, but if it’s the latter that’s kind of not cool, considering he just got shot trying to stop a terrorist attack.
Cthulhu this is stupid. Neither do the vast majority of Moslem authorities.
I missed it where the two dead shooters in Texas were Moslem Pope equivalents. They were radicalized lone wolves who weren’t even part of or going to any mosque any more.
BTW, The Pope in the past did exactly that for a thousand years.
Most of the Crusades were thought up and ordered by the Popes. They killed millions. The Albigensian genocide killed maybe a million people. They spent a lot of time and killed every single one of them. Two of the Crusades were against other xians, the Orthodox, including the sack of Constaninople.
Reformation wars, witch burnings, heretic hunts.
A million people dead here, a million people dead there. They ad up fast.
The Pope doesn’t call up the Catholic militaries and start wars these days. The RCC isn’t still trying to stamp out the Protestant heresy. Not because he wouldn’t, but because he we no longer let him and the Catholics run around loose.
False equivalence. The shooters in Texas were not the Moslem versions of Popes. They were more like the Moslem equivalent of you, Joel. Not very bright haters.
I’m not worried about the Pope murdering me.
I am however, worried about xians murdering me. They’ve said they will do this so many times, I’ve lost track. Like many scientists, I’ve been getting death threats from them for well over a decade. And xian terrorism has been a problem in the USA for decades and they can and do kill people.
What in Cthulhu does this have to do with anything? It’s just more stupid from an idiot.
So, you drink alcohol. So what? Many xian sects prohibit alcohol as well, Mormons, Seventh day, Southern Baptists. Try getting a drink in Utah. You can do it but they make it as hard as they can. The US South and a few other places still have dry counties because they still have Southern Baptist majorities.
And BTW, many Moslem women work outside the home and drive their own cars. I see them often around where I live. You are generalizing from a few Arab tribal regimes to 1.6 billion Moslems.
It’s like judging xianity on the basis of Southern Baptists or the polygamist FLDS’s. Or judging atheism by idiots like Joel.
What a wimp. Weakling.
My life is a repudiation of xian totalitarianism and the total idiocy of people like…Joel. It’s not hard though and hardly worth being proud of it.
All you need is a vaguely normal personality, an IQ around 100, and a high school diploma. Who knows, maybe someday even Joel will get that GED and learn to think instead of hate.
Charlie Hebdo cartoonists distance selves from Texas event: We mock *all* religions, they target Muslims http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/charlie-hebdo-cartoonists-distance-selves-from-texas-event-we-mock-all-religions-they-target-muslims/
BTW, my life is a celebration of Ctulhu, and the chance of being eaten first.
Here is my take:
Geller and Wilders won, as did the terrorists.
They want a situation in which the cartoons are “offensive to Muslims” to the point that people think “Muslims” will kill over them.
This serves Geller and Wilders, because it paints Muslims as a group as being a dangerous population they can use to hide the fact that Geller and Wilders suck in general.
It serves the terrorists because it forces an us versus them dynamic in which Muslims have to constantly be in the position of the ever-dangerous “them”, despite most having no interest in committing acts of violence because some dude somewhere wrote or drew something they didn’t approve of.
And there is no real getting away from it. Reminders that Geller and Wilders suck will be seen as victim blaming,, reminders that it really isn’t all Muslims will be seen as #notallMuslims, and nobody will end up any better for it. It all ends up serving the same damn narrative.
The cartoons aren’t a reason, they’re an excuse. The actual reason is that conservatives want power, and the best way to get it is to keep us liberals arguing with each other as “Uses and themses”.
Currently they’re serving us up to each other, and I wish I knew how to change things away from that because I am tired of feeling played.
Threadrupt, so if this information has already been reported, sorry.
ISIS is claiming responsibility for the shooting. CNN Link
What else can I say but that I wholeheartedly agree. Violence is never the answer.
The Pope doesn’t issue fatwas…
Um…did you miss the bit where the Pope explicitly took the side of the Charlie Hebdo murderers, and blamed the victims for “provoking” their own deaths? Did you miss the bit where the Pope explicitly joined with the Islamists in saying one should never insult anyone else’s religion, otherwise you’d get a “punch in the nose” from offended religious people?
Basically, my life is a repudiation of Islamic totalitarianism, and I am proud of this. … Islam needs to be publicly mocked more often…
What a self-important childish load of horseshit. This is a grownup conversation about complex things that affect the lives of real people; if you think mere mockery is a “life-work” you can be proud of, you’re sadly uninformed, and you have about two decades or more of growing-up to do.
If you really want to think you’re “repudiating Islamic totalitarianism,” then you need, at the VERY LEAST, to get your priorities straight. The ban on drawing pictures of Mohammed is not at all important, and is, in fact, far more sensible than many of the other rules the Islamists want to impose on the rest of us.
I’ve been contemplating what makes drawing Mohammed different from, say, defiling a communion wafer, and I think it comes down to two big differences:
1. The close connection between opposition to Islam and racism against Arabs (or more generally, brown people–but usually Arabs, since many Westerners don’t distinguish between Arabs, Persians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, etc.) Much like anti-Semitism complicates valid criticisms of Jews and/or Israel. In contrast, Christianity (in the West) is the “default”, and is not viewed as being tied to any one race/ethnic group (though specific versions of Christianity can be.)
2. The “punching up” vs “punching down” difference. An atheist making fun of Christians is very much punching up; a Westerner making fun of Muslims is not–Christians in the West may have to worry about the occasional terrorist attack, but they aren’t under constant drone bombardment from the U.S. and its allies the way the Muslim world is.
If (or, hopefully, when) the Islamic world is no longer under siege from the West, then perhaps there will be more latitude for mockery. But under the circumstances, it just seems petty–not only do Muslims have to worry about death from the skies, they have self-righteous pricks making stupid drawings of their founder.
raven:
Deviating from the typical ableism to mock people who don’t graduate high school and/or decide to get GEDs instead, eh?
Somehow, the language of protesting against an oppressive power, defying the odious restrictions of a cruel and all-encompassing authority, speaking out loudly about integral rights and freedoms, have mistakenly been incorporated into a movement where a local minority and/or foreigners we are bombing are told to fuck off via racially insensitive caricatures that are created exclusively to violate one of their religious beliefs. Trolling, because Freedom. I expect that from South Park and Reason Magazine, the gibbertarian vectors that Draw Mohammed Day originated from. I expect it from bigoted, right-wing Islamophobic hacks. I am surprised to see actual liberals going along with it all, not seeing anything problematic at all.
The atheist animus against religion, and our antipathy towards privileged religious authorities suppressing behavior in the name of Offense, seems to sometimes override the liberal sensitivity to how these minority religions, supposedly oppressing us, are themselves oppressed. Especially in the case of Muslims, because of how they are treated and judged along perceived racial lines, and because they are portrayed as an Enemy of the West, the ones that we are at War with. So, tread cautiously when poking fun at them, that is really all that is being fucking asked.
Years ago Atheist Alliance International held a contest at one of their conventions for blasphemous art. It was shortly after the controversy re the Mohammed cartoons. Many of the entries were crude and rude; most of them depicted Mohammed.
Would you say this was:
1.) Wrong for the same reasons already cited against the AFDI’s contest in Garland, Texas.
2.) Not wrong because it was atheists making a better point.
3.) Not wrong because the event was only publicized in atheist communities aimed at atheists.
4.) Wrong — but not AS wrong because of #2 and/or #3.
5.) Not wrong for the same reasons the AFDI contest wasn’t wrong either.
?
Sastra @ 125:
I’d say the emphasized part speaks volumes, about unexamined bias, and the ease of othering in which we humans indulge.
Caine #126 wrote:
To the best of my recollection a fair number of Mohammed drawings included Jesus as well (ie religions grouped together), but I could be mistaken. It was a while ago. It was also shortly after the huge controversy in Europe and deliberately framed as a response to that.
The usual emphasis among US atheists is for problems with Christianity. My guess is had the blasphemy art contest been held the year before, the bias would be anti-christian.
Depends: a wealthy Atheist sneering at working-class Christians trapped in GOPistan is very often very much a down-punching douche: never forget that in the end, class trumps everything.
A close analogy I can come up with is that western never-Muslims drawing Muhammad cartoons just to prove a point (and not as a part of any real criticism of Islam) is like Muslims in Pakistan publishing stuff mocking the Christian minority’s belief in the Trinity.
Just as Pakistani Christians’ beliefs are in no way an encroachment on Muslim society there (it’s the other way around actually), Muslim reverence for Muhammad (as problematic it is in Muslim societies) is not a source of oppression to never-Muslims in the west. Their daily routine, their livelihood and their status in society are under no threat because of how Muslims feel about Muhammad.
That’s pretty much my only issue with it. These cartoons are not the acts of bravery and championing of free speech that bigots like Wilders would claim them to be. Living in a society where Muslims are a regularly maligned minority and mocking their religious beliefs is very much missing the point of freedom of speech.
laurentweppe@128, I respectfully disagree. In America, at least, even a cursory study of the nation’s history shows that race frequently trumps class–for instance, the bulk of the armies of the Confederacy were poor white men fighting to defend the interests of the white upper class. And many of the most vociferant opponents of civil rights are poor white workers who would be expected to ally with poor black workers, if class trumped all. And this is not unique to the United States–most European hate groups draw heavily from the poor, to oppress other poor ethnic groups.
Likewise, sexism generally trumps class–this is so obvious as to barely need mentioning. Look at the Victorians, as an extreme example.
The assumption that class somehow trumps everything is the main reason I am not a member of the U.S. Socialist party–it shows an ignorance of reality (and intersectionality) that I find irritating.
laurentweppe:
Dangerously close to playing Oppression Olympics. The key is to always consider intersectionality, always consider that privilege isn’t All or None, and to not forgot the variety of bigotries, privileges, injustices, and inequalities that are out there. Class is damn important and often overlooked, but it isn’t the factor to beat all other factors.
(continued) Oh, and to address your specific point, I very much doubt the poor Christian would see themselves as inferior to the wealthy atheist, quite the opposite.
Money is only one measure of status, and not necessarily the most important. A wealthy atheist can still punch down against Christians, when the Christians can restrict the atheist’s ability to hold office, or to speak before town council, or whatever. (More likely, force the atheist to sue to get the town council to stop saying prayers.)
Years ago Atheist Alliance International held a contest at one of their conventions for blasphemous art. It was shortly after the controversy re the Mohammed cartoons.
Shortly after the Arab Toon Tantrum, such a contest may have been considered new and timely. But that was YEARS AGO, and what was new and timely then is just old, tired, lazy, juvenile, unoriginal and just plain gratingly stupid now.
…a wealthy Atheist sneering at working-class Christians trapped in GOPistan is very often very much a down-punching douche…
…who probably won’t be convincing any Christians to re-examine or change any of their beliefs — and who therefore won’t be helping ANYONE in ANY way.
@Thumper 113
At the time of my post, the news reports said that it was a security guard, not a police officer, who’d been shot by the attackers.
Raging Bee #133 wrote:
Maybe it’s surprising then that IS took note, and went through the bother.
So to clarify the above- no mockery was intended, I was attempting to point out what I thought was an error at the time.
Being shot isn’t funny unless it’s a self-inflicted injury a gun fondler got by being stupid.
I am not a fan of the punching up, punching down metric. It smells of double standards, and tends to distract away from the real issues at the heart of whatever is being talked about.
We tend to call down whoever we want to defend, and up whoever we wish to offend. Creationists can be considered “up” – but in real terms are a laughing stock in academia and can thus paint themselves as “down”.
Arguing which is which in any given circumstance kind of distracts from the real question – is what is being said true?
The main reason “punching down” tends not to work isn’t because of power dynamics but because the person doing it is clueless about the realities on the ground, and thus ends up producing something that is unfunny because it is untrue.
Having privilege can mean not having to know how the boss likes their coffee.
Yes: the cannon folder were plebeians while the officer class was a bastion of the planter aristocracy.
In other words, class defined the Confederate military’s organigram.
***
Poor Whites who grew up expecting Blacks to remain at the bottom of the social food chain, who now make the cynical calculus that they have the greatest chances of maintaining their material comforts and security if economic competition becomes remains rigged along ethnic lines. Contrary to what a certain smug faction among liberals claim, racism doesn’t stem from the lumpen-proletariat being too dumb to develop class-consciousness: it stems from the petit-bourgeois dreading the possibility that the children of peasants and household servants may one day become wealthier than their own.
Ref Holland: I urge anyone who owns it to read the preface and footnotes of “In the Shadow of the Sword” carefully where he discusses with finely chosen words what he and other “Mecca-skeptic” (for lack of a better word) scholars are currently comfortable stating as fact openly on this question. I don’t have it at hand to quote now, sadly. As far as his public position, it was stated well here (http://www.webcitation.org/6CRdtBWP6), on the occasion of a public screening of the inevitable BBC documentary based on his book being cancelled due to threats of violence.
Re Anteprepro: again, I would argue you are assuming facts not in evidence as to the intentionalities of artists unnamed. if you are right (and I agree you may be right in assessing the mind of the chief event organizer here, specifically) then I would agree their act of attempted artistry would be needlessly provocative and unhelpful and would not benefit the public sphere. But I’m also old enough to remember all the people who refused to see “Life of Brian” or “Last Temptation of Christ” and felt they could condemn that art as needlessly provocative sight unseen, too.
Re Doug Hudson: as said, if I could reliably ban all “stupid drawings” without any other impacts I would. But this is an edge case, in a realm where entire lines of scholarship are being chilled out of existence, right now, all because Muhammad reportedly said, “the most grievously tormented people on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures.” South Park’s “201” episode is no longer shown in a lot of places. MOMA has removed all historic art displaying Muhammad from public view. Artists are in hiding. Honest attempts to have a discussion are being self-censored and suppressed along with the vile ones.
Raging Bee, I accept other impositions on human liberty the fundamentalists desire are greater, but the defence against imposition has always first involved being able to criticize it. If the words used or drawings on the walls at this event had been needlessly cruel and the response had been a peaceful protest, I would absolutely support those protesters’ speech rights, and I would hope everyone here would.
BruceGorton, totally agree. BirgerJohanssen, I think the Hebdo response here is spot on.
Gilliell, I don’t believe your story about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons is factually accurate. Cite, please? And yes, I meant “inhibits,” thank you for the correction. Prof. Wells was an old-school historian critiquing a new thesis in an area somewhat related to his own expertise at the end of his career, and many would say he chose his words poorly on that occasion. Holland’s book on this is quite readable if a little elliptical, recommend you check him out. And I don’t believe I’ve personally offended anybody, outside of this forum thread perhaps, or broken toes. I do take the Samuel Johnson/Wilde/Orwell/Chomsky position that feeling offended at another’s actions is always a matter of personal choice, however, and try to apply that consistently. As far as no on here wanting the event to have accepted stronger limits on their free speech, about a hundred posts ago you were saying “stop the victim blaming bullshit” to some posters who were. I agree with that sentiment.
138 brucegorton:
You do realize that the “punching” in question is meant in reference to humor, right? The real question of jokes is not whether or not they are true. That is really quite besides the point. It isn’t the accuracy or veracity of the joke that makes it good comedy. And it isn’t just the accuracy or veracity of the joke that makes joking about oppressed minority groups into a different class of joke, morally, from those that joke at the expense of those with power. Sure, one could quibble about cases where it isn’t clear which is which, but that doesn’t make it less of a valuable rule of thumb.
140 bruce1:
Not sure what the fuck you are referring to.
anteprepro
I do, and that is why I say it is “unfunny because it is untrue”. A joke is a way of saying something, and if that is something basically untrue to the point that it breaks suspension of disbelief, the joke falls flat.
I disagree with you on it being more than the veracity of the joke that makes the moral difference, because a joke which reinforces stereotypes is essentially reinforcing false ideas about a given group. The idea it puts forward would be just as disgusting, if framed as a serious statement.
brucegorton:
1. Reinforcing stereotypes about a powerful group is not morally the same as reinforcing stereotypes about a powerless group. It is not disgusting to “stereotype” white people, or rich people, or men. I seriously cannot fathom why you think it is.
2. A joke does not need to be true to be funny. Absurdity is itself humorous. Things that are understood to be false can be humorous on the merits of their falsity. And there is also word play humor, which has nothing to do with facts. Or insult humor, which can be humorous for reasons of vulgarity or sheer audacity and less because of it actually making an accurate point.
The joke will usually fall flat if it seems to rely on something being true that is in fact false. But not always. And that is only a limited array of jokes and humor anyway.
anteprepro
Over the past week or so, the (now former) president of the University of Witwatersrand SRC Mcebo Dlamini proclaimed that he loved Hitler, and that he believed every white person had a bit of Hitler in them. I personally can’t imagine why you would think that is okay.
brucegorton:
No, it’s not a double standard at all, and it certainly does not distract from real issues. It tends to be crucial to discussion of real issues. As a mixed race, bisexual woman who happens to be a geek (among other things), I can immediately spot punching down as opposed to punching up. When you’re part of a group[s] that is consistently punched down upon, these things matter, a lot. When you’re part of a group[s] that isn’t subjected to much punching down, it can be difficult to see through the haze of privilege just what those peoples are so effin’ upset about.
This is really a simple matter of us all having Bayesian priors, and our subsequent willingness (or lack thereof) to examine said priors.
laurentweppe@139, Have you actually talked to any black activists, or read their writings? They’ll set you straight right-quick about your “racism is a manifestation of classism” theory.
And it’s obvious (or it should be) that they are different things. Classism is a system for maintaining the status quo, for keeping the powerful in their position of power. Racism is a manifestation of the human tendency to group people into “human vs. other” (one that we see in this very thread!) The two can reinforce each other, of course, but they are not directly related.
Consider hunter-gatherer societies, such as the indigenous people of Australia–they don’t have class systems (too few people in the group), but they certainly have racism and sexism.
brucegorton, please explain in detail the relevance of your post at 144 and why you think it serves as response to me. If your point was that the three specific examples I gave assume white privilege and majority status, which is not necessarily the case unless you are assuming a Western country, then point taken. Otherwise, I have no idea what point you think you are making.
anteprepro
Whites, though a minority, are pretty privileged in South Africa enjoying far greater economic power than the black majority, and are not really suffering as some would have you believe when it comes to political power.
In practice for the most part white stereotypes are not as severe as black stereotypes, but in the rare cases where somebody does actually stereotype whites in the same level that black people are stereotyped it is not treated as okay.
So you can’t really sum it up to who has more power in any given situation, except to say that stereotyping is more likely to happen more often to those who have less power.
That said, the basic tendency to stereotype is itself a problem.
And I will add, for the most part the white stereotypes that do come into play most often in the first world, reinforce social norms which disadvantage non-whites. The idea that whites are somehow more competent for example, serves to undermine non-whites applying for the the same jobs.
The same goes for rich people – the idea that money=brains hasn’t exactly been great for people investing with Donald Trump. Meanwhile people with actual business plans that could actually work, struggle to get loans from the bank because they didn’t arrive in their private jet.
So now we are talking about why “punching up” is bad, because of applying “stereotypes” to privileged classes….when those “stereotypes” are in fact positive characteristics? What the fuck?
Yes, positive stereotypes can be problematic when applied to oppressed people, and yes, stereotyping is problematic insofar as it is inaccurate and leads people to othering. All of which is less of an issue for powerful groups of people in cases where it is clear where the power lies.
anteprepro
It is essentially the same thing whether it is positive or negative.
Now here is the interesting thing, and why punching up is generally – as a rule of thumb – a good thing IMO:
Jokes which we consider “punching up” more often than not are about dispelling the stereotypes. They puncture that bubble.
Punching down reinforces stereotypes. And this is part of why I don’t think it is a useful metric, because it isn’t just the target that changes, the basic joke itself does.
A person who is “punching up” is doing something completely different to somebody who is “punching down”, and I think because of that we mis-identify what makes it work.
brucegorton@150, um, that’s why we have the terms “punching up” and “punching down”–because they are two different things.
Though “punching up” isn’t generally about dispelling stereotypes–on the contrary, it’s about pointing out awful things done by people in power.
Also, don’t forget about the third type of punching–which doesn’t have a catchy name, maybe “punching sideways”?–where a person mocks a group to which he or she belongs. Most groups have a ton of these jokes–Jeff Foxworthy, for example, or the entire genre of Jewish jokes (as opposed to anti-semitic jokes).
Doug Hudson
As I said, I am not a fan of the metric because it isn’t really describing the differences. We both end up in the same place at the end of the day I suppose, it is just a different way of looking at it.
Jeff Foxworthy is Jewish????
brucegorton @152,
Fair enough. And “punching” might not be the best metaphor anyway. Probably easier just to say “humor that targets people in power” vs. “humor that targets a disadvantaged group.” The first is a noble endeavor–“remember that thou art mortal”–the second is petty and distasteful.
chigau @153, uh, no, he’s a self-proclaimed redneck specializing in redneck jokes. I don’t believe he tells anti-semitic jokes.
Mel Brooks tells Jewish jokes (and every other kind of joke known to humans.)
@moarscienceplz @ # 35, and anyone else interested in the topic:
This is a bit of a derail, but I happened to see this comment by (artist) Ursula Vernon, which is certainly an interesting perspective on the abovementioned work. Heck, it’s worth citing the whole thing as a relevant comment on art and religion.
(Ursula V says:)
Ursula Vernon also wrote an interesting coda to The Last Battle, from Puddleglum’s typically dour perspective, and a coda to her own work, Digger (link to Digger itself, for those who might be interested).
Punching up more frequently dispels stereotypes, while punching down reinforces them. Yeah, that actually resonates with me. I think you are onto something there, brucegorton.
brucegorton
Let me guess, you’re not very good at telling the difference, right? What issues does it oscure when it actually precisely focusses the issue of power differentials.
Tell me, what effect does it have on white people? You can feel disgusted, call him an idiot, and so on. And?
bruce 1
Here you are
Oh, I’m sure they’d set me straight fast, if I actually subscribed to the notion that racism was merely a manifestation of classism.
Which I don’t.
What I subscribe to is that when both racism and classism are expressed in our modern societies, classism is always the dominant force, with corrupt oligarchs subsidizing racist demagogic movements in order to divide the plebs while racist activists fancy themselves as future aristocrats and those who vote for racist politicians expect a return on investment in the form of preferential access to the scraps of wealth that the upper-class didn’t monopolize.
@ Doug Hudson 151
The term you’re looking for is “self-deprecation.”
microraptor @160, yeah but that’s not catchy.
laurentweppe@159, so the “plebs” are just stupid and easily manipulated, eh? (hint: talking about “plebs” is condescending as hell. Poor white people aren’t stupid, as much as you might want to believe that.)
Look at human history and pre-history–tribalism (of which racism is only one manifestation) is far older than class stratification (which requires a fair bit of material wealth and stability to develop). Time after time humans choose to side with their in-group against “enemy” groups, even when it would make more sense to ally with the group.
Either humans are inherently stupid–or we have a deep-seated tendency to form “us vs. them” groupings based on external markers such as skin color, language, social habits, etc.
Here’s what I wrote on this very thread:
“Poor Whites […] now make the cynical calculus that they have the greatest chances of maintaining their material comforts and security if economic competition remains rigged along ethnic lines. Contrary to what a certain smug faction among liberals claim, racism doesn’t stem from the lumpen-proletariat being too dumb to develop class-consciousness”
I may bother addressing you again when you’re done triumphantly masturbating your ego for being a better person than the fictional strawman who shares my name.
Perhaps you will then read other comments about why your boiling everything down to matters of class is problematic then, laurentweppe?
anteprepro
They don’t do that. Laurent sees class as the dominant factor, but that’s not reducing maters to class.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-
The statement came after the following:
http://citizen.co.za/354042/petrol-station-attack-victim-speaks-out/
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2015/03/11/east-rand-mob-brutally-beats-couple-hurl-racist-slurs
So you tell me.
Doug Hudson
Those two options are not mutually exclusive. I would argue the reality is like this:
Humans are inherently stupid – that is, we have a deep-seated tendency to form “us vs. them” groupings based on external markers such as skin color, language, social habits, etc.