171–180 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! Overall, this seems fairly tame to me. What am I missing? I'm honestly at a loss here.
it reminds people of this https://mobile.twitter.com/kishkushkay/status/11222905077141...
It seems that any cartoon on Israel will simply be marked 'anti-Semitic' by opponents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how different humanity would be if anger and the fight-or-flight response could be disconnected, or the dopamine response from self-righteousness could be severed.
Psilocybin may provide somewhat of a reasonable approximation of this at appropriate dosages.
The decision to no longer have political cartoons reminds me of something from earlier days. Someone at the multinational I worked at did a prod a deployment and it went pretty badly. There was downtime of about 15-20 minutes. So immediately an edict comes from up high - we shall never have deployment during hours of x to y. Just massive CYA. The guy isn't wrong about twitter mobs mowing down everything in their path…
> The guy isn't wrong about twitter mobs mowing down everything in their path and that's stupid. But he is speaking about it now, when it affected him. He had a great podium - should have said something when it was directed at someone he didn't like. Seems like he did. From the post: > Over the last years, with the Cartooning for Peace Foundation we established with French cartoonist Plantu and the late Kofi Annan -…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't see the cartoon, but the link above describes it as "Netanyahu as a guide dog leading a blind President Trump in a skullcap." If you want to make a statement that the US blindly supports Israel, that is not in itself anti-Semitic. But why put Trump in a skullcap?
Perhaps. To me though, if you go with that interpretation, the cartoon isn't anti Jewish (/Israel), its anti Trump, and a skull cap isn't inherently insulting, unless it's insulting to Jews that Trump is Jewish?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of Charlie Hebdo the intention was clearly to mock Islam indeed. But I am mystified that we are questioning in 2019 the right to blasphemy in a modern, western, free, secular society.
If publishing a cartoon causes your death I think the mockery may well have been legitimate.
"Legitimate" mockery would have exposed the absurdity of terrorist groups recruiting petty criminals and elevating them to a noble "jihadi" status because, well, nobody else had as little to lose.
But that wouldn't get any media coverage, nor would it get props for "upholding free speech", in a country that outlaws Holocaust denial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have that. October 2018: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... >On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld her 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold t…
> Europe does not have freedom of speech What an absurd statement.
This reminds me of the famous Muhammad drawings in 2005 in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP). Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East. Had it happened again today, the Puritan twittersphere would have been all over it and JP would likely have had to follow same route as NYT. Very sad.
> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East Was this an universal viewpoint in the West? As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies).
This reminds me of the famous Muhammad drawings in 2005 in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP). Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East. Had it happened again today, the Puritan twittersphere would have been all over it and JP would likely have had to follow same route as NYT. Very sad.
What would happen to a couple of Muslims burning a US flag in some parts of the US? I won't jump straight to murder, but I'll say physical violence would be highly likely. This is not whataboutism. I'm not saying it's ok because it happens elsewhere. I'm just arguing against the portrayal of it as a uniquely Muslim problem. I think we would be able to find some icon or symbol in every culture which some subset of peo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rule is forbidding idolatry which is one of the defining differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
I'm not sure what you mean here; do you mean Catholicism and Protestantism don't also forbid idolatry?
It also includes forbidding idolatry. Images and sculptures and works of art should not be prayed to or venerated.
So the rule that you cannot depict Mohammed, God, or any other prophets is not to prevent disrespect. It's to prevent worship of images.