serious discussion about casual racism in europe

[Harkat]

that's true

I don't advocate those cartoons btw. From where I`m standing the whole situation is complicated. I'm not comfortable with letting people who do violent shit in response to something like that off the hook though.

[rickyarbino]

Nobody is 'letting' them, that's the point of violence; to overwhelm.

[Harkat]

i dunno what that has to do with anything

I guess I jumped into this conversation late and all I really remember was from news and shit when they first got printed, which was when I was about 11, so maybe Im chatting shit. But people did/threatened violence cus they thought the cartoons were blasphemic and that's not acceptable.

[scspkr99]

This is from Wiki, some of the links are shit but there was a massive reaction to those cartoons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ontroversy

Some of the responses were overstated and I don't think all of the article linked is entirely credible but it was international news which says a lot about a series of cartoons, however the publisher knew as did the cartoonists. Generally I think it's a bad idea to intentionally piss people off over stuff that is important to them but some perspective is necessary.

[rickyarbino]

People did act violently in response to the cartoons, I'm not saying it's cool, but it's a hard thing to stop from happening. Especially without beating the shit out of them, which I presume to be equally unacceptable.

[Harkat]

How about trying to create a culture where you don't solve problems with violence and don't hold the sanctity of your religion (talk about freedom of speech being an abstract concept, how about Muhammad and the rules about how he should/shouldn't be portrayed) above that of your fellow human

[scspkr99]

I think the right to protest an important right and I wouldn't be sacrificing it because I don't always agree with what people protest over. I also think Islamophobia is a thing we need to be concerned with, I think the Sam Harris Bill Maher presentation of Islam seriously flawed but that shouldn't prevent us from pointing out when acts are wrong, the Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, the protest over these cartoons and the arrest of the teacher in Sudan who allowed her schoolkids to call a doll Mohammed can be called out for the nonsense it is.

[hubb]

No it really could.

It was designated racism covered up with free speech nonsence, getting the minister of state (prime basicaly) to go out and give an official position (that however you spin it, would agree with or mirror the american neo con version of what muslims are about).

It could only go one way, and there was no reason to go that length for something as abstract as freedom of speech in this context.

Straight up Netanyahu bizz

Im not denying there was something racist about those, cus there was (even if it wasn't on the surface against a certain race but against a religion). But IMO theres cartoon racism and then theres bricks through windows and shit...granted theres a pretty good chance the media tried to spin the fallout to maximize vilification of muslims and people who look like they could be muslims.

It's the other way around. The rightwing newspaper knew that it could get away with a sleeper mine ting, mocking muslim faith and muslims (in the worst way possible to arabic society) inside danish media, because the paper had the same political leaning and because the prime would have to argue the freedom of press in our context and that it would serve as a nice little flick of the pea to the Bush administration in a larger scope -post iraq/afganistan. It was also rightafter a very popular kurdish radiostation had begun broadcasting with a bit of national danish funding (freedom of press stuff etc)...
That stateminister/prime is now the leader of the un - wink fucking wink

When you say "it could only go one way" do you mean that the violence and shit that followed was inevitable and thus the people who provoked it are responsible, even tho the violence was on bullshit premises (imo)?

yes

IIRC There was a good amount of muslims who were completely fair on TV debates and shit saying the cartoons were racist, but that they don't condone some of the reactions they caused. I'm leaning towards that.

ofcourse not condone it, but that is one of the dumb bits about church and state not being seperated, because fuck my neighbours faith - denmark has to realize they are the 'adult' or most advanced part in a discussion of how much weight faith should get to push about in society in this case.. and it's by all standards of law that he can't be drawn, over there. So it's antagonistic on a few different levels deliberately.


I think it's important to have a notion of personal responsibility that draws a certain line, and I don't think even something like those cartoons absolve you of responsibility like that.

That is tbf very abstract and it's not really an answer to anything more like a feeling. I know what you mean though, but you have to remember that on an official level.. like let's call it from head of denmark to heads of the arab world
-the prime actually went out and gave his ok internationally.
He could've excused it happening or just said he was sorry about it causing offence, but the offical line remained, ie freedom of press -which meant they where reprinted - which will then have to happen even in opposing newspapers because of the internal commotion and discussion selling issues and becomming a thing -so it became a thing that you could then defend. Like he drew mohammed on a shield. And that does excuse their behaviour a bit because in a way, they didn't have an authority left in their society that wasn't mocked automatically-

I wanna live in a society where racist shit can be printed and it leads to a discussion that elevates people`s understanding rather than pointless destruction.

sure, I've always been of the opinion that censorship is only wrong atleast in 99/100 - kids and old kids should watch horror movies and even porn the moment they can find a use for it.

But people did/threatened violence cus they thought the cartoons were blasphemic and that's not acceptable.

Yeah hmmm.. we don't have to worry about being blasphemous but they do in quite a different way . It's one of their worst offences, I don't know how it is specifically but what if the way their law reacts internally towards the blasphemic is even more violent than just burning some flags and sending some texts and beating up an embassy or two and a dude or two... etc...

[rickyarbino]

i dunno what that has to do with anything...

The problem exists when people get away with it. Which is to say that they, and we, ought to actively seek not to, but that they have sought to, succeeded to and experienced no repercussions for having done so.

[hubb]

How about trying to create a culture where you don't solve problems with violence and don't hold the sanctity of your religion (talk about freedom of speech being an abstract concept, how about Muhammad and the rules about how he should/shouldn't be portrayed) above that of your fellow human

era of enlightenment

feudal society etc

vs

secular, global, more international levity etc

it's basicly a grown up making a kid say something and then beating them down with the help of other grown ups

[CreamLord]

Is it too late for the jaydot jokes?

[hubb]

jaydot has gone through reformation imo

[DrGatineau]

oi?