Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Laughter is a language we can all understand"
Haven't we all been waiting to hear what For Better Or For Worse creator Lynn Johnston has to say about the intoonfada?
People who wear the apparel of their faith live their faith 24 hours a day as a statement of their constant and unwavering devotion. Comedy and sarcasm of our concept of God may not be liked by many, but we have a history of tolerating it.
They do not. Can we not respect this deeply religious way of life?
I believe these cartoons have a right to exist. The media does not have the right to use them callously in the name of freedom. Freedom for whom? If one innocent person dies because of this capricious incident, publishers must accept the blame.
On behalf of conscientious humorists and illustrators worldwide, I want to say to the nation of people who have been understandably offended—an apology is due. This is not comedy. If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the category of hate literature and should be treated as such.
Laughter is a language we can all understand. For the sake of decency and good taste—stop reprinting this inflammatory image and allow a people already in crisis to heal.
In today's FBOFW: A wacky generation gap reversal involving Canadians with bulging eyes.
The Comics Curmudgeon's foob page.
Addendum: Johnston dealt with a controversy of her own in 1993 and 1997 by outing a teenage foob character as gay—still a hot thing at the time. More than 20 papers canceled the strip, and Johnston had tart words for them. "For all the people who say this shouldn't be in the comics, please write all of the television stations who put garbage on," she said in a 1993 interview. "This is a banana peel compared to the hordes of pollution that's on television." By the time she revisited what was still called the "gay issue" in 1997, things had calmed down. "People should fear their own misconceptions," she said.
|2.14.06 @ 11:36AM|#
If one innocent person dies because of this capricious
incident, publishers must accept the blame.
Bullshit. The one who killed that innocent person bears the
blame.
I've always kind of liked Lynn Johnston. What a disappointment this
is.
|2.14.06 @ 11:36AM|#
Can someone help me out? If it's true that the same cartoons ran in Egypt 5 months ago to little or no effect, why are certain people being so ignorantly sensitive today to this "Gulf of Tonkin"-esque religious outrage?
|2.14.06 @ 11:38AM|#
Lynn Johnson offends me.
She offends me so much, that I might just kill somebody. The blood
will be on her hands.
Apologize now to all you have offended! I am sure there are many
more like me.
|2.14.06 @ 11:39AM|#
I think I also caught Cavanaugh's exposure of Johnston's Stevie Wonder lyrics ripoff.
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 11:41AM|#
The media does not have the right to use them callously in
the name of freedom.
This seems to reflect the confusion I think has been created by
focusing on the "right to free expression" as a justification per
se. Of course we have that right, but that's only because we have
the right to do whatever the hell we want unless it violates
someone else's rights. And Jennifer is right that no one has the
right to not be offended. But unless we make clear (and yeah, I
know it's not going to happen, at least not in the MSM, but hell,
gotta start somewhere) that violating someone else's rights to
person and property is what you cannot do unless such a violation
(or viable threat to such) has already taken place, I think we're
doomed to fuzzy and vague descriptions of what exactly is wrong
with this picture.
As for:
If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the
category of hate literature and should be treated as
such.
I don't know what to say about this offhand but OY. Hmm, guess what
I have to say about it is just what I said right above.
|2.14.06 @ 11:42AM|#
Imagine how Family Circus might handle the
controversy:
Who drew these offensive cartoons that made all those people go on
a killing rampage?
Not me!
|2.14.06 @ 11:42AM|#
I believe these cartoons have a right to exist. The media
does not have the right to use them callously in the name of
freedom.
What exactly is she saying here--you can write or draw whatever you
want, but if anybody might find it offensive you then have to lock
your work in a box rather than show anybody? It's not "freedom of
speech" if you only have the right to talk to yourself, and it's
not "freedom of the press" if you don't have the right to show
others what you print.
Captain Holly|2.14.06 @ 11:44AM|#
If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the
category of hate literature and should be treated as
such.
Spoken like a true Canadian.
Canada: A nation of hall monitors.
|2.14.06 @ 11:46AM|#
If one innocent person dies because of this capricious
incident, publishers must accept the blame.
Does this mean we also have to blame Jodie Foster for the shooting?
Or was it more Scorsese's fault?
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 11:48AM|#
Canada: A nation of hall monitors.
What's worse is that implies it's a nation of halls!
LET ME OUT OF HERE!!!
|2.14.06 @ 11:50AM|#
If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the
category of hate literature and should be treated as
such.
Of course. Hate literature. Like Huckleberry Finn, A Catcher in the
Rye, The Satanic Verses, Letters From Earth, Catch-22, anything
written by Vonnegut ever, Mencken's entire library of work, Ambrose
Bierce, Kipling, Hugo (obsessive French inspectors have feelings
too), and, well, just about any literature worth a damn.
Perhaps Brokeback Mountain should be banned. After all, it upsets
fundies.
|2.14.06 @ 11:58AM|#
Jennifer: Bullshit. The one who killed that
innocent person bears the blame.
As far as I know, most of the deaths came in this case because the
police shot rioters. Are you blaming the police for the deaths or
the rioters themselves?
Example:
Muslim anger over the controversial caricatures turned ugly in
Afghanistan on Wednesday as four people were killed when
police opened fire to control stone-throwing rioters in
Afghanistan during a fifth day of protests against cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed, the army said.
Earlier, police said security forces had opened fire in an
effort to prevent protesters from marching on a US military
base in the city.
|2.14.06 @ 12:00PM|#
Number 6--
Another problem with that statement is that it means anything can
be classified as hate speech after the fact, depending on how
someone else views it. I disagree with the whole notion of a legal
category called "hate speech," but even then there's a difference
between saying beforehand "This will be considered hate speech if
you do thus-and-so," versus "publish it and we'll call it hate
speech if enough people get offended."
On another thread on this topic I mentioned a very dark humor book
I read called "Only Begotten Daughter," by James Morrow; at one
point in the book Julie, the half-sister of Jesus, visits Hell and
discovers that every human being with the exception of Elijah is in
hell, because to go there all that's necessary is for ONE person,
anywhere, to think you belong in hell.
Would Johnston and those who disagree with her apply the same
standard to hate speech? If not, then how many people WOULD have to
be offended by something in order for it to qualify? Have they even
thought things through that far? "If nine people are offended
you're okay, but if ten people are offended you're in trouble."
|2.14.06 @ 12:07PM|#
Jennifer: Bullshit. The one who killed that innocent person
bears the blame.
As far as I know, most of the deaths came in this case because
the police shot rioters. Are you blaming the police for the deaths
or the rioters themselves?
Well, anonymous, would you say that somebody violently
rioting over a cartoon falls into the category of "innocent"
person?
|2.14.06 @ 12:25PM|#
I liked Lynn Johnson better when she drew utterly forgettable cartoons...why'd she have to go open her mouth? Oh right, freedom of speech.
|2.14.06 @ 12:30PM|#
I believe these cartoons have a right to exist.
Cartoons have rights now? Oh, crap, I just threw the Sunday paper
in the woodstove!
If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters the
category of hate literature and should be treated as
such.
This is silly. Obviously you have to figure in whether a person's
feeling pain would be a reasonable reaction. There are
many out there who might feel pain at yesterday's Mark Trail, in
which Mark rigs a large branch to strike some dognappers who are
chasing him in a swamp ("hey, my Dad was a fat guy who died that
way!"). Applied to this particular situation, the rule should be
rewritten "If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain [in a group
of people whose moral intuition is still in the Jurassic Era], it
enters the category of hate literature." Doesn't exactly have the
same ring of truth, now, does it?
If a person's response to being offended is violence, then that
person has no right to be taken seriously. Unless that person is
Space Ghost, of course.
|2.14.06 @ 12:37PM|#
"Laughter is a language we can all understand. For the sake of
decency and good taste�stop reprinting this inflammatory image and
allow a people already in crisis to heal."
What the hell is she talking about here? These two sentences don't
even go together. I don't think humor was ever the real intention
of the cartoons anyway. And I don't care how deeply religious a
person is, there's no way seeing a cartoon - or more likely simply
HEARING a cartoon exists - could possibly be so traumatic as to
cause a need for a healing period.
|2.14.06 @ 12:38PM|#
That's Not Funny; My Brother Died that Way
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33660
Hey, listen, guys. Listen up. This is a great party and everything,
and it's cool you invited me and all, but I have to speak up about
that scene in Police Academy you were just talking about.
You know that part where the guy flies off the motorcycle
handlebars, and he flies right at the horse's ass and gets his head
stuck in it? Remember how funny you said that was? Well, I just
want to say I didn't appreciate that too much, because my brother
died that way.
I've never really talked about what happened to Brad, because it's
just so painful to discuss. But on Oct. 11, 1995, he slammed his
motorcycle into a fruit cart and flew over the handlebars, sending
his head straight up the ass of a police horse. By the time the
paramedics got there to pull him out, he'd suffocated to death.
Frankly, I don't see how you guys could think that kind of thing is
funny. Or how a director could consider it appropriate for a
comedy.
|2.14.06 @ 12:40PM|#
So what's to keep someone from saying that Lynn Johnson's
boring-ass cartoon about a typical nuclear family is not
reinforcing some patriarchal hierarchy that people of
non-heterosexual lifestyles find deeply offensive and hateful? And
that we should thus ban it? Virtually everything in our culture is
offensive to someone, and would have to be banned.
I can only breath a deep sigh of relief that Lynn Johnson wrote
this. If given a choice between reading her cartoon or the list of
ingredients on my cereal box each morning, I'd choose trisodium
phosphate and the even more unpronouncible things on the cereal
box. On the other hand, if "Calvin and Hobbes" creator Bill
Watterson had written such idiocy, my life would be in crisis.
|2.14.06 @ 12:43PM|#
Could someone tell me what would make a successful western woman
stand up for people (Muslim fundys) who, if they had their way,
would gladly strip away her career, freedom and life as she knows
it?
One other thing about the whole intoonfada - on many blogs, Muslims
(or perhaps Christian fundy trolls) posted that if THOSE cartoons
were free speech, then if they drew cartoons depicting Jesus, Mary,
and Mary Madgelene in a threesome (or some such - the posts always
involved 1) Jesus and 2) sex), would THAT be free speech? I wish I
wasn't as lazy as I am, or I would have replied that "yes, that's
right" to all of them.
Stephen Macklin|2.14.06 @ 12:46PM|#
If any of this were actually about a dozen cartoons some of this
might actually make sense to debate.
This is about power. This is about the power of the Islamic world
to enforce its will, its theology, and its laws on the rest of the
world.
The question we need to be debating is not about printing cartoons
but about are we willing to stand up for our values and our beliefs
or will we submit to theirs.
|2.14.06 @ 12:53PM|#
Could someone tell me what would make a successful western
woman stand up for people (Muslim fundys) who, if they had their
way, would gladly strip away her career, freedom and life as she
knows it?
Maybe a bizarre sort of arrogance--"They don't like Western women,
but they'll make an exception in my case once they see
what a great person I am."
Tim Cavanaugh|2.14.06 @ 1:01PM|#
"They don't like Western women, but they'll make an
exception in my case once they see what a great person I
am."
Johnston is no doubt familiar with the variant: "They don't like
Americans, but they'll make an exception in our case once they see
what great people Canadians are."
|2.14.06 @ 1:04PM|#
Maybe a bizarre sort of arrogance--"They don't like Western
women, but they'll make an exception in my case once they see what
a great person I am."
That and the notion of every aging, pompous ass' who thinks that
their time on the planet lends credibility to a what is nothing
more than an opinion...
"As a cartoonist with over 30 years' experience, I am outraged by
the way cartoons are being used to inflame a world religion."
|2.14.06 @ 1:09PM|#
>
Jennifer - perhaps another possibility is her certainty that
"laughter is a language we all understand." Those wacky Muslim
fundys are always up for a chuckle. I can see the sitcom now:
LIFE WITH LYNN & ABDUL
Lynn: Gosh, Abdul, do I have to wear this burqa just to go to the
supermarket?
Abdul: Of course! You don't want to look like a prostitute, do
you?
Lynn: Well, according to your imam, I already AM a
prostitute!
**Canned Laughter**
Even Albert Brooks failed on the topic:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433116/
|2.14.06 @ 1:12PM|#
Isn't she Canadian? They don't really believe in the First Amendment the way we do. Indeed, aren't Canadians almost by definition the straw men of H&R?
|2.14.06 @ 1:16PM|#
I love our western freedoms and ideals. But sometimes I
wonder...What's the bigger sin? Drawings in poor taste by some
ignorant, victorian educated buffoons anxious to display their
stupidity and insipid narrow mindedness to the world? Or violence,
outright murder and hate which are all supposedly and expressly
forbidden by Buddhism, Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam? Committed
by followers who know they are forbidden from this. The riots show
an alarming lack of faith.And a large amount of pent up
frustration. The vast majority of riot leaders are no more
followers of any religion than my dog.Just crass opportunists. In
the big picture, it is the leaders of these riots who are offending
God.He (?) can rise above those cartoons. Rather than do the work
that they have been extolled to do, they take the easy way
out.Riots and intimidation.Murder and brutallity. They should be
ashamed at their insult of (in this case)the Prophet
Muhammed.
As for the rest of you, get off of your superior than them western
high horse and start to deal realisticaly with these people.
They're poor, dis-enfranchised, hungry, cold and taught by;
preached to,and subjected to governments and leaders who regard
them as just numbers.Religious leaders who don't give a damn....We
and ours don't need to add to that.
Actually the people who drew the cartoons, and the people who are
fanning the riots have a lot in common. Neither cares who they hurt
to further their own goals, and they are willing to foist the blame
on someone else when things get a bit too hot.You really can't
plead innocence when your objective was to insult, humiliate or
harm someone from the get go.The drawings were a way of showing off
the artists superiority.Better than people who worship a divine
being, rather than themselves.Smarmy and snotty.A little like going
into a Baptist Church or a Mosque and loudly announcing a series of
insults and racial epithets.
Now that it's time to accept responsibility, no one wants to stand
up...Let's put this fire out and try to prevent it from happening
again. (Yeah,...like that's gonna happen!!)
|2.14.06 @ 1:23PM|#
As for the rest of you, get off of your superior than them
western high horse and start to deal realisticaly with these
people.
What would you have me do?
Captain Holly|2.14.06 @ 1:25PM|#
Johnston is no doubt familiar with the variant: "They don't
like Americans, but they'll make an exception in our case once they
see what great people Canadians are."
Tim is obviously familiar with the First Canadian Article of Faith:
No matter how bad things are up North, it's always worse in the
States.
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 1:25PM|#
Isn't she Canadian? They don't really believe in the First
Amendment the way we do.
You're right, we should try to understand them and their different
system. All this talk about "free expression" is probably offensive
to them and thus hate speech!!
|2.14.06 @ 1:27PM|#
Could someone tell me what would make a successful western
woman stand up for people (Muslim fundys) who, if they had their
way, would gladly strip away her career, freedom and life as she
knows it?
I used to hear people talking admirably about the swift justice
that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran would bring to
criminals - you know, cutting fingers and hands off thieves - and
wish we could get some of that here in America. I'd suggest that to
have that, you'd also have to bring their style of authoritarian
rule and all the other justice that comes with it. They'd usually
shrug and say something like, "well, I bet we wouldn't have as much
crime". Since 9/11, I don't hear people wishing that for our
criminal courts anymore.
But Lynn Johnston thinks their system would be just great for our
civil courts.
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 1:31PM|#
You really can't plead innocence when your objective was to
insult, humiliate or harm someone from the get go.The drawings were
a way of showing off the artists superiority.
You know these were the objectives of the artists...how?
|2.14.06 @ 1:42PM|#
"Could someone tell me what would make a successful western
woman stand up for people (Muslim fundys) who, if they had their
way, would gladly strip away her career, freedom and life as she
knows it?"
Because the threat of that happening is about the same as that of
FBofW winning a Pulitzer Prize?
|2.14.06 @ 1:43PM|#
Xerpent, this was about fear. The fear that intolerant, mindless
religious nuts want to impose on Western Civilization as a whole.
If you dare to criticize the prophet, and by extension, Islam, you
will die.
Conflating 'insulting' someone with 'harming' them is a way to get
around the fact that the Danish cartoonists did not commit
violence; the protestors (often) did. You can state your beliefs
about why those actions deserve mitigation, but more likely than
"cold and hungry" they are just thugs.
Hardly equivalent to "going to a Baptist Church or mosque and
insulting them" these cartoons were printed in a newspaper - where
one should expect ideas - even if juvenile, or "smarmy and snotty".
Reigning orthodoxies of either religious or political correctness
shouldn't apply unless the owners of the newspaper want them
to.
Where do you draw the line? What speech do we "voluntarily" forgo
to ensure no one is ever offended again? ANY non-positive
references to religion?
You want someone to stand up and be responsible? How about the
rioters? How about the Danish Imams who faked cartoons that were
MUCH more offensive than the ones originally printed? How do you
suggest we "deal realistically" with people who view the world
through fourteenth century eyes?
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 2:02PM|#
"This is a banana peel compared to the hordes of pollution
that's on television."
Hmmm, was she saying that her strip was bad but just not AS bad as
the "pollution" on TV?
Kinda seems like she didn't get it even back when she was on the
right side of the issue.
|2.14.06 @ 2:19PM|#
"You really can't plead innocence when your objective was to
insult, humiliate or harm someone from the get go.The drawings were
a way of showing off the artists superiority."
What? This was not the objective at all. The underlying message was
about suicide bombers acting in Mohammed's name. Right?
Alright, i'm just gonna say it. I think every newspaper in the free
world should print the cartoons imediately. Not to harm insult or
humiliate, but to show that we will not be intimidated by a bunch
of violent protests. I am constanstly baffled by people like Lynn
Johnston acting like the TINY insult of depicting their prophet is
worse than all the violence. This isn't even close to the first
time Mohammed has been depicted/insulted in western media, art,
literature, etc. The fact is that they (muslims) are mad that
someone who isn't muslim broke their laws. Doesn't anybody realize
that almost everything about our way of life breaks their laws in
one way or another. If the western world backs down on this, what's
next?
|2.14.06 @ 2:20PM|#
"As for the rest of you, get off of your superior than them
western high horse and start to deal realisticaly with these
people. They're poor, dis-enfranchised, hungry, cold and taught by;
preached to,and subjected to governments and leaders who regard
them as just numbers."
When they stop killing people over fucking doodles, and learn to
respect other people's rights, even if they disagree, I'll get off
of my high horse.
Until then, I cordially invite you to feast upon my scrotum.
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 2:21PM|#
On one hand we are fond of defending the dogma of free speech as
being something so important that it cannot be allowed to be
repressed.
On the other hand, we are fond of arguing that there�s no way
anybody should be held responsible for the results of their speech
because, well, it�s just speech.
Which leads one to wonder why it�s so important to defend, if
speech has no actual effect on anything?
Tim Cavanaugh|2.14.06 @ 2:23PM|#
Because the threat of that happening is about the same as
that of FBofW winning a Pulitzer Prize?
FBofW was nominated for a Pulitzer in 1993, so it's not impossible
that it might win someday. Although Johnston says she's ending the
strip in 2007, so it'd better happen soon.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.14.06 @ 2:27PM|#
Which leads one to wonder why it?s so important to defend,
if speech has no actual effect on anything?
As one of the most colossally magnificent geniuses in human history
said not
too long ago, "If freedom of expression isn't dangerous, it
isn't worth defending."
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 2:31PM|#
Indeed, Tim.
Of course, the same could be said for violence, which is the real
way things get done.
|2.14.06 @ 2:41PM|#
Also, if it's not dangerous, it probably doesn't need defending. "We should all live in peace and harmony" is not a statement that will get censored often.
|2.14.06 @ 2:44PM|#
Which leads one to wonder why it�s so important to defend,
if speech has no actual effect on anything?
Who said speech has NO effect? We're just saying that publishing a
cartoon did not cause these riots; the rioters themselves did, by
choosing to take offense.
And I'm appalled by people who would actually say that feeling
insulted justifies any violent behavior you commit afterwards.
|2.14.06 @ 2:46PM|#
"We should all live in peace and harmony" is not a statement
that will get censored often.
That statement is very offensive to religious fundamentalists who
do not wish to live in peace with infidels and heretics.
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 2:50PM|#
Who said speech has NO effect? We're just saying that
publishing a cartoon did not cause these riots; the rioters
themselves did, by choosing to take offense.
And I'm appalled by people who would actually say that feeling
insulted justifies any violent behavior you commit
afterwards.
I'm not necessarily justifying anything, but it's a little silly to
say that a person "chooses" to take offense to something.
Otherwise, just choose not to be appalled at the violent behavior
that resulted from the cartoons.
|2.14.06 @ 2:52PM|#
Mohammed is a false prophet and any mention of him offends my
religion. Many hundreds of thousands agree with me in the United
States.
Xerpent, how can I not be offended? Can you stop the mentioning of
Mohammed?
|2.14.06 @ 2:54PM|#
I'm not necessarily justifying anything, but it's a little
silly to say that a person "chooses" to take offense to
something.
You may not "choose" to take offense, but you damn sure choose to
act violently because of it. I don't blame anybody for being
offended by these or any other cartoons; I blame them for acting
violently.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.14.06 @ 2:59PM|#
I'm not necessarily justifying anything, but it's a little
silly to say that a person "chooses" to take offense to
something.
So you're saying it's biologically determined: There's an "offended
gene," and being offended is not a "lifestyle choice." Lynn
Johnston, who came down on the nature side of the debate in her
gay-teen series of FBofW, would probably agree with you. As gay
teenage character Lawrence said back in Old '93: "It's not like I
want to be gay! Do you think I haven't tried to be like everyone
else?"
|2.14.06 @ 3:21PM|#
I'm not necessarily justifying anything, but it's a little
silly to say that a person "chooses" to take offense to
something.
Not silly at all. There are many schools of thought that, in
various ways, will assert that our emotional reactions are
themselves choices that we control. Learning to control these
reactions is a building block toward attaining any state that might
be considered "higher consciousness". This is a fundamental element
of meditation, for example.
A concrete example of people learning to "choose" to take offense
is the 1980s PC movement
|2.14.06 @ 3:48PM|#
Self-flagellation is always good for cheap entertainment, isn't it? It's like the boilerplate columns that invariably follow some awful event and inform us that "we're all to blame" for (insert calamity here). It's especially fun to see this kind of calptrap for someone in the humor business. Reminds me of when SCTV funnyman Bobby Bittman would earnestly look into the camera and say, "folks, as a comic, in all seriousness..."
|2.14.06 @ 3:53PM|#
Hakkha takka dirka dirka!!
mekka lekka fatwa khahakka!!!
The Family Circus always makes we want to destroy something.
"Today is a gift...that's why it's called the 'present' !"
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Whether someone literally "chooses" to take offense, or at least
allows it, is something that can probably never be proven one way
or another and maybe is best left for the philosophers.
But Dan T, what IF someone cannot help but be offended? What's the
upshot?
If your point is that the cartoonists are not above criticism, well
fine. Criticize away. As always, the best response for speech (in
any form) of which one does not approve is more of the same. What
is not an okay response is violence. The only thing that
justifies violence (defined here as any violation against person or
property) is the initiation of the same. Voila, the foundation of
libertarian thought.
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 4:25PM|#
The only thing that justifies violence (defined here as any
violation against person or property) is the initiation of the
same.
Actually, what justifies violence is the means to successfully
carry it out. All human politics are based on the abilty to use
violence, and those who are best equipped to perform it are the
ones who make all the other rules.
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 4:43PM|#
Dan T,
I believe what you have described was once called sophistry.
Anyway, you're using a different meaning of the word "justifies"
than I was. I meant in an ethical or moral sense.
As to what practically or literally constrains the men with the
guns from doing whatever the hell they choose to do, that's a whole
'nother matter. Other men (and women) with guns are one thing.
Belief in the legitimacy of the authority of those who give them
orders is another. Remember that a general is powerless unless
those he commands heed his authority. There's probably a whole lot
more to the issue than I'm qualified to describe adequately.
Suffice to say, as I have already, that it's an entirely different
issue. So, in other words, way to change the subject.
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 4:56PM|#
fydor, you're probably right that I unintentionally changed the
subject.
My view is that obviously the cartoons did piss off a lot of people
to the point of violence - to me figuring out why and how is more
important than simply saying "that shouldn't happen", especially
when the nature of morality is so subjective that the Muslim
response would be "the cartoons shouldn't have happened".
Wikinger Elch|2.14.06 @ 5:06PM|#
my guess is that you didn't get several of 'em, since you don't know what "Valby" is, for example... nor did the people who reacted as barbarians - probably they didn't even see the cartoons...
|2.14.06 @ 5:08PM|#
>>If a cartoon or a statement causes such pain, it enters
the category of hate literature and should be treated as
such.
This empty-headed pious PC notion, spouted every day, all day long,
on television and in op-ed pages, by breast-beating, hand-wringing
ignorant simpletons that no matter what we do, we shouldn't ever
offend anyone, is the crux of the problem.
We should be more careful of people's feelings, we're told by the
sanctimonious pundits of all those cowardly newspapers that refused
to publish the cartoons.
Yeah, right. The press is careful of everyone's feelings all the
time--got that? And when it accidentally steps on someone's toes,
it apologizes and makes it all better. Right?
As far as I can tell, the fucking media's entire raison d'etre is
to provoke and offend. And there's a lot to be said for that:
speaking truth to power and all that.
Whether or not people choose to be offended, there is no
constitutional right not to be offended.
Talk about offensive: The neo-Nazis won the right to march in
Skokie, Illinois, home of many Holocaust survivirs, some years
back. And the ACLU defended the neo-Nazis.
Disgusting as it found the neo-Nazis, the ACLU had the right
idea--it defended their absolute right of free speech and
assembly.
We started on this slippery slope as soon as someone had the bright
idea to create that hideous encroachment on our right to free
expression called "hate speech."
There's a very thin line between political correctness and
censorship/thought control. We ought to observe it more
carefully.
fyodor|2.14.06 @ 5:36PM|#
fydor, you're probably right that I unintentionally changed
the subject
Well I'm glad you didn't know what you were doing rather than doing
it intentionally! :-)
the nature of morality is so subjective
Sez who? Well, I agree that people differ on it, and in that
limited sense it's subjective. But that does not preclude you or I
from taking a definitive stand. And that's what some of us here
have done. You seem to be taking a definitive stand that...there is
no definitive stand?
My view is that obviously the cartoons did piss off a lot of
people to the point of violence - to me figuring out why and how is
more important than simply saying "that shouldn't
happen"
I don't think the two considerations in the latter half of your
passage are mutually exclusive. One can easily do both.
But look, evidently you think there's something to learn from the
violent reactions of the Muslim rioters. Instead of lecturing us on
not being interested, why don't you lead the way on describing what
that may be. I can't vouch for everyone else, but I promise I'll
pay attention to what you say.
My own view is that it's bad manners to gratuitously insult
someone. Now, whether it's gratuitous or not is, unlike
prohibitions from violating others' rights to their person and
property, rather subjective. All other things being equal, good
manners are...good. But there are other considerations. Sometimes
people need to say things that others aren't going to be happy to
hear. The free flow of ideas can be very valuable. But I haven't
examined the cartoons in detail and I can neither speak for the
artists nor their publishers regarding their value to them nor do I
have a firm opinion myself regarding their value. It basically
comes down to there's pros and cons to saying something potentially
offensive but potentially valuable versus keeping your mouth shut.
I tend to prefer the former. At least you know where people
stand.
As for the rioters, it's not rocket science. They seem to have a
religion wide victim complex. I don't know what to do about that. I
believe they deserve all the deference good manners affords, but at
the same time, as I've already said, some things are more important
than good manners.
Okay, your turn.
Stephen Macklin|2.14.06 @ 5:59PM|#
And once we have agreed not to print a cartoon because it offends Muslims, what about our culture will offend them to the point of riot next?
|2.14.06 @ 8:15PM|#
Lynn Johnston is the creator of the best comic strip of our
day.
Al Capp was the creator of the best comic strip of yesterday.
H&R would be having such a field day with Al if he were still
alive.
|2.14.06 @ 11:29PM|#
My view is that obviously the cartoons did piss off a lot of
people to the point of violence
My view is that the cartoons gave a few imams the idea that they
could stir up some useful violence in the middle east.
|2.15.06 @ 1:57AM|#
Johnston ascribes to a particular mindset among Western
liberals:
That non-Western people who aren't like her aren't capable,
somehow, of determining right from wrong, violence from protest,
anarchy from social righteousness.
What a terrible, deterministic attitude. What bullshit.
|2.15.06 @ 1:57AM|#
Johnston subscribes to a particular mindset among Western
liberals:
That non-Western people who aren't like her aren't capable,
somehow, of determining right from wrong, violence from protest,
anarchy from social righteousness.
What a terrible, deterministic attitude. What bullshit.
|2.15.06 @ 12:37PM|#
"Lynn Johnston is the creator of the best comic strip of our
day."
Uh. No. That distinction belongs to Calvin and Hobbes. Bill
Watterson brought high art and philosophical insight to a medium
considered disposable, even by the people who publish it.
Plus there were dinosaurs.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245