Draw Mohammad Day

[Glmclain]

Proposed solution:

make it into: draw nice cuddly depictions of Mohammed day.

?

[Moo]

You can't help but go "aaaaaah" no matter your stance on the topic!

[Lazar]

I do see a lot of the points being made but I fear a lot of participants will still see this as "lol religion is for idiots now let's try and offend them because it's funny", missing the intent of the creators.

Further, I guarantee you a whole fuck lot of people who drew Muhammad yesterday did it for no reason other than to be a cunt to Muslims. Which doesn't really help this situation out all that much.

On that point I'm in agreement - I'm sure that a regrettably large number of the participants did it for no principled reason, just to be dicks.

And to be clear, I'm not totally convinced of the utility of the campaign; I just felt obliged to give them a pro argument for fairness sake. What is the best way to deal with large-scale culture clashes like this?

[Gelsamel]

The answer in the face of violent oppression isn't to sit still and shut up... Any violence should be loudly opposed and what better opposition is there than to demonstrate how absolutely powerless violence is to restrict freedom.

"Fuck you! [...] We're gunna keep being free and doing what ever the fuck we want."

I honestly don't give a shit if some people are trying to be dicks or not, I really don't care what the reasoning behind someone using their free speech is. As I'm mentioned before in other threads, there is no wrong reason to utilize your free speech.

That being said, I'm convinced that that is really the case anyway. If Draw Mohammad Day is being a dick to Muslims then Gay Pride Parades is being a dick to anyone in a religion that generally disapproves of homosexuality. The groups in this are analogous because not all Muslims disapprove of others depicting Mohammad whereas some do, some people in religions that disapprove of homosexuality don't disapprove of it whereas some do. The events are analogous because each is a celebration and a reaffirmation of our ability to do (or be) something that someone else disapproves of without facing repercussions for it. So would you say that Gay Pride Parades are purposely dickish and just try to "other" those religions that believe homosexuality is immoral (or at least that some people who attend parades are doing it for that purpose and thus the cause is less worthy?).

[Dark Avorian]

People don't choose to be gay. People choose to be arseholes that draw Mohammed. One is reaffirming who you are, the other is reaffirming everyone's belief that america hate Muslims. It's people like this that contribute to the culture clash. It's people like this that drive young, marginalized, shamed, Muslim men into extremism. You think they just got up and decided extremism was better? No. they are marginalized by our society and sometimes they hate us for it.

[Lazar]

People don't choose to be gay. People choose to be arseholes that draw Mohammed. One is reaffirming who you are, the other is reaffirming everyone's belief that america hate Muslims.

But the subtexts are all fucked up - if I choose not to draw Mohammed, am I making that choice because I'm a nice person and don't want to be a dick by offending people, or am I making that choice because I'm afraid of being killed if I do so? It's impossible to tell when intimidation is involved. What we need to arrive at is a world in which I choose not to draw him because I don't, in fact, want to be a dick, but nonetheless I wouldn't fear for my life if I actually did so.

[Gelsamel]

People don't choose to be gay. People choose to be arseholes that draw Mohammed. One is reaffirming who you are, the other is reaffirming everyone's belief that america hate Muslims. It's people like this that contribute to the culture clash. It's people like this that drive young, marginalized, shamed, Muslim men into extremism. You think they just got up and decided extremism was better? No. they are marginalized by our society and sometimes they hate us for it.

No, one is reaffirming that others cannot restrict you based on who you are. The other is reaffirming that others cannot restrict you based on your freedom to speak. People have exactly as much choice to participate in parades as they do to participate in drawing something (also consider that many non-homosexual people participate in parades, so it's clearly a matter of choice) and it's as reasonable to claim that Draw Mohammed Day contains members who hate Muslims as it is to claim that Gay Pride Parades contain members that hate Christianity.

Either the intent of those utilizing their freedom to speak affects the legitimacy of the speech or it doesn't. If it does, then those pride paraders who parade to "give it to those religious idiots" serve to illigitimise pride parades as much as those who draw to "give it to those stupid Muslims" do to illigitimise drawings of Mohammed.

Personally I have exactly as much respect for rules, religious or otherwise, that attempt restrict the freedom of speech as I do for rules, religious or otherwise, that attempt to restrict sexual orientation. So, here is my contribution: d(^_^)b

[Moo]

If Draw Mohammad Day is being a dick to Muslims then Gay Pride Parades is being a dick to anyone in a religion that generally disapproves of homosexuality.

This is the biggest load of bs I've read in a while. Being restricted and condemned for an integral part of who you are and what you need to be happy in life is NOT the same as drawing a little cartoon. And I can't believe that someone who seems intelligent elsewhere on the forum can actually believe that, leaving me to conclude you're trolling and you know it.

[Gelsamel]

If Draw Mohammad Day is being a dick to Muslims then Gay Pride Parades is being a dick to anyone in a religion that generally disapproves of homosexuality.

This is the biggest load of bs I've read in a while. Being restricted and condemned for an integral part of who you are and what you need to be happy in life is NOT the same as drawing a little cartoon. And I can't believe that someone who seems intelligent elsewhere on the forum can actually believe that, leaving me to conclude you're trolling and you know it.

I agree it's not the same as drawing a little cartoon, but that is a mischaracterisation of what I am saying. What it is the same as the RIGHT to be able to draw any little cartoon you want whether it's offensive to someone or not. Just like the right to have any sexual orientation you want regardless of whether it's offensive to someone or not.

I am disappointed that you can't consider that someone might genuinely think this way, as if someone cannot possibly take a position you disagree with without being unintelligent or purposely trolling. I assure you though, I am not trolling.

[Moo]

I agree it's not the same as drawing a little cartoon, but that is a mischaracterisation of what I am saying. What it is the same as the RIGHT to be able to draw any little cartoon you want whether it's offensive to someone or not. Just like the right to have any sexual orientation you want regardless of whether it's offensive to someone or not.

In that case you're arguing a different point to everyone else as I've interpreted them in this thread. I'm not advocating no-one have the right to draw the cartoon, nor have I seen anyone else in this thread. I'm advocating that just because you have the right to, doesn't mean you should if it's offensive to someone else. I believe arguing a point no-one has made is the textbook definition of a strawman, no?

I am disappointed that you can't consider that someone might genuinely think this way, as if someone cannot possibly take a position you disagree with without being unintelligent or purposely trolling. I assure you though, I am not trolling.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you. I do not accept your interpretation that calling out a very, very poor argument for what it is as some sort of intellectual elitism, though; nor your assertion of what I possibly could or could not consider. I am not incapable of considering anyone opposing my viewpoint; I simply don't consider your argument a very good opposition to it. This is in conflict with my impressions of you elsewhere.

[ianf]

These analogies between the draw Mohammed day and and Gay Pride march are interesting, but I've been thinking of it from a different side. Suppose that the analogy we use for "drawing Mohammed" is "playing Buju Banton records". It shares some of the same characteristics - claims of artistic freedom, saying that the point is not to offend but to express thoughts artistically, etc.

The equivalent of a "draw Mohammed day" would therefore be a "play Buju Banton songs" day, where every radio station (for example) only plays Buju Banton records.

Would this be a fair analogy? What would your thoughts be if such an event were to actually happen? Do you feel that there is some difference between this and a draw Mohammed day?

[Gelsamel]

@Moo: That would be a non-sequitur, a strawman is arguing against a single point of the argument or perhaps arguing against a different but similar argument or an argument purposely presented poorly and then pretending that you've defeated the argument when you defeat the strawman.

Anyway, I don't believe that is the case. It has been argued that in some way Draw Mohammed Day, a way to celebrate and reaffirm the right to freedom of speech, is illegitimate, wrong, or a bad idea. It is, however, none of these, regardless of the intent behind it. The analogy was a method of presenting this, there is absolutely nothing wrong or a bad idea in Gay Pride Parades even if some people in there might be doing it solely to 'other' or insult the religious. It was also meant to follow on from my initial line about the method with which to protest opression.

The answer to the WBC isn't violence, or sitting down and shutting up, or legislation against their free speech. The answer is to parade and stick their faces in it as much as you can to show their bigotry will never ever affect how your feel or the way you act or legislate. This process of free speech to fight things you don't like (whether it's other free speech or violence) can never be a wrong or incorrect process. And if there is any 'collateral' then it falls on those who feel unnecessarily targeted to show that they're not bigoted (or in this case, violent) and that they don't approve of bigotry (or violence). And of course, many do.

Anyway, you may not be arguing that people shouldn't have the right but you have argued that there is something wrong with free speech or the right to free speech if people are using it purely to offend.

eg;

The point of freedom of speech is to ensure that people of a democratic nation can be critical of their leaders without fear of retaliation. It's a big-picture sort of concept, not just a whiney "I should be able to say whatever I please BWAAAH". When the only possible outcome of your expression is offense, harping on about about your freedom to do it rather misses the point of that freedom, in my opinion.

Not only do I disagree that Draw Mohammed Day is only about causing offense (or was that a non-sequitur, unrelated to Draw Mohammed Day?) or that free speech is only to be critical of their leaders, but, more to the point, it absolutely does not miss the point of that freedom. Freedom of speech is absolutely and (almost) exclusively the right to say things that offend people (even if the only thing you're trying to do is cause offense). "I should be able to say what ever I please" is the biggest of big-picture sort of concepts, in fact "I should be able to criticise government" is really among the smallest of the pictures within this concept.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you. I do not accept your interpretation that calling out a very, very poor argument for what it is as some sort of intellectual elitism, though; nor your assertion of what I possibly could or could not consider.

Calling an argument out for being poor is one thing. Calling an argument out for being poor and providing examples of why it doesn't work is another. And saying that you "can't believe" that someone "who seems intelligent elsewhere on the forum can actually believe that" and therefore that one must be "trolling, and you know it" is another. Whether I'd call that intellectual elitism or not I don't know. At the least it seems like a very poor way to say that my argument doesn't work.

As for what you can possibly consider, forgive me if you didn't mean it this way, but "I can't believe that [you] [...] can actually believe that" seemed a fairly obvious attempt at communicating what you could possibly consider (in this case, it seemed like you were saying you couldn't possibly consider I believed that). Perhaps I am wrong in that regard, though.

I am not incapable of considering anyone opposing my viewpoint; I simply don't consider your argument a very good opposition to it. This is in conflict with my impressions of you elsewhere.

Have you considered that maybe your judgement of my argument was wrong before considered there was something wrong with your impression of me? Perhaps you have, I wouldn't know. In any case, if my argument isn't very good I would appreciate you knocking it down.



Ninjaed: I don't think there is ANY difference what so ever about any day or event solely for the expression of an idea regardless of what that idea is. Though I believe that the government should not legislate official days that are intended to express ideas as it preferences some ideas over others and oppresses those ideas which are not legislated as official days so if the government were to announce a Draw Mohammad Day I would be absolutely against that.

[Moo]

As to your question of whether the part of my post you quoted was a non-sequitor: no, and I attempted to give as much context as I hoped necessary through the sentiment I quoted and the clarification that I was talking about said sentiment in general. It relates to the general emotional pleas of "I don't agree with you but I would die to defend your right to say it".

Regarding straw man definition, I take mine from wikipedia (as just about everything else is blocked at work) but it comes with citations on that page: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. So in this case, the position was "just because you have the right to say something, don't do it if it's just to be a dick". While you refuted the superficially similar position of "you shouldn't have the right to say something because it's just being a dick".

Back to the discussion itself, though: our fundamental differences come out when you take this part of your post:

Draw Mohammed Day, a way to celebrate and reaffirm the right to freedom of speech

and realise that you state it as if it's an inalienable definition; while I do not take it as read that that is its definition.

[Glmclain]

The whole thing that set this off was the 200th South Park episode, so I always saw the whole idea as "Buddha doing Coke and Jesus killing people is just as, if not more offensive than showing a passive image of Mohammad (who isn't even completely visible!), and the only reason Mohammad was censored was because the response was violence, and we're showing that you're not except from freedom of speech more than anyone else"

But that's just me.

[Gelsamel]

As to your question of whether the part of my post you quoted was a non-sequitor: no, and I attempted to give as much context as I hoped necessary through the sentiment I quoted and the clarification that I was talking about said sentiment in general. It relates to the general emotional pleas of "I don't agree with you but I would die to defend your right to say it". So not the cartoon. Context is important and mine was right there.

Right, but drawing cartoons solely to offend Muslims is part of the "I just want to be able to say what ever I please" which you claim misses the point of free speech. That being said, I don't see how that is a plea, let alone an emotional one... It's just an expression of how passionate one is with respect to the freedom of speech (see my signature).

Regarding straw man definition, I take mine from wikipedia (as just about everything else is blocked at work) but it comes with citations on that page: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. So in this case, the position was "just because you have the right to say something, don't do it if it's just to be a dick". While you refuted the superficially similar position of "you shouldn't have the right to say something because it's just being a dick".

Not at all, the position was as listed above while I refuted the intrinsically linked position that "There is something wrong with utilising the right to say something if it's solely to be a dick". This position is a necessary position to take otherwise you cannot logically say "don't do it if it's just to be a dick" (ie. there has to be something wrong or deficient with doing it 'just to be a dick' otherwise you could not logically advise that). This is arguably a stronger proposition to refute as one can disagree with the first while agreeing with the second (ie. it's not necessary to argue that there is nothing wrong with being a dick to refute your position) so if anything I'd call it an Ironman argument since I was refuting something more fundamental to the position you quote above than the position itself.

My analogy was an attempt to try and compare this example with something that most people here would agree with. I feel essentially the same about "Just because you have the right to say something, don't do it if it's just to be a dick to Muslims" (wrt drawing Mohammed) as "Just because you have the right to do something, don't do it if it's just to stick it to religious people" (wrt parades celebrating homosexuality) which is to say I think both are absolutely and entirely wrong.

Back to the discussion itself, though: our fundamental differences come out when you take this part of your post:

Draw Mohammed Day, a way to celebrate and reaffirm the right to freedom of speech

and realise that you state it as if it's an inalienable definition; while I do not take it as read that that is its definition.

Okay, how would you define it? If one defines Draw Mohammed Day as 'a day to express anti-Islamic sentiment using the freedom of speech' then that is completely fine, if dickish... So I could doubt you could reasonably define the day such that I think the use of speech is a bad or deficient one. Does that eccentuate our fundamental differences a bit?

[smw543]

So, my thinking is that, while a "right to not be offended" is obviously untenable, it's probably a good unofficial rule to give people the choice to not be offended, when possible/practical. For example, at my university anti-abortion folks (or any activist types, for that matter) are allowed to speak, give out pamphlets, etc. in the "free speech zone" by the fountain, but are not allowed to do so at, say, the clinic. Don't want pictures of dead fetuses? Just avoid that spot (or just decline a pamphlet).

With that in mind, I warn all Muslim forumites that they may be offended by the contents of this spoiler, and should not open it if they can't appreciate the merit of offensive art.

Spoiler:

*-@:~(>

'Tis an adaptation of the infamous "Mohammad with a turban-bomb" image.

And I think it's relevant to the topic in that the Facebook group and the website (which I think has fallen to DOS attacks) followed this method. They weren't forced on anyone; they did just what it said on the tin. Your religion doesn't compel you to click every Google hit for "Mohammad" (or if it does, it might be time to find a new religion ).

[Gelsamel]

So, my thinking is that, while a "right to not be offended" is obviously untenable, it's probably a good unofficial rule to give people the choice to not be offended, when possible/practical. For example, at my university anti-abortion folks (or any activist types, for that matter) are allowed to speak, give out pamphlets, etc. in the "free speech zone" by the fountain, but are not allowed to do so at, say, the clinic. Don't want pictures of dead fetuses? Just avoid that spot (or just decline a pamphlet).

Untenable... and yet you've just defended that right as an official rule (even if restricted to certain areas). Your University purposely restricts speech in certain areas solely because it might be unfair or offensive or cause harm. I disagree with the idea of "free speech zones" completely. If one's personal goal is to reduce the offense you cause others then it's entirely reasonable for one to apply such an unofficial rule to oneself. However the idea that one should be subject to someone else's judgement on what speech one should be able to hear is an idea that I find absolutely abhorrent.

[Moo]

@Gelsamel: I'm not purposefully avoiding answering you, but my working day is done and I've got a mad weekend of getting ready to go on holiday; I doubt I'll be spending vast amounts of time at home at all let alone on the fora. Sorry about that. If I get a chance though I will answer some of your points.

The one that's the easiest to formulate a response to, I'll do quickly now before I go:

I feel essentially the same about "Just because you have the right to say something, don't do it if it's just to be a dick to Muslims" (wrt drawing Mohammed) as "Just because you have the right to do something, don't do it if it's just to stick it to religious people" (wrt parades celebrating homosexuality)

I still disagree that they're analogoes because being gay and your right to not only express it but bring it in the public eye to counter discrimination is vastly different to wanting to draw a cartoon. One hugely impacts your quality of life, one does not. And I doubt most homosexuals live out their sexual preference publicly purely to "stick it to religious people"; another fundamental difference between the two situations.

Look for the record I am not black-and-white opposed to this. Some good points have been made about the value of using this method to counter the violent part of the opposition to drawing Mohammed. However my main objection stems from the vast amounts of people who are not doing this in that spirit but simply because ridiculing the religious has become the one last allowable bigotry in many social spheres. To THOSE people I say, you have the right to express yourself but I believe you also have the responsibility to ask yourself what you are expressing, and why. And if it's only to be a dick - well, that's not cool.

[Weeks]

Untenable... and yet you've just defended that right as an official rule (even if restricted to certain areas). Your University purposely restricts speech in certain areas solely because it might be unfair or offensive or cause harm. I disagree with the idea of "free speech zones" completely. If one's personal goal is to reduce the offense you cause others then it's entirely reasonable for one to apply such an unofficial rule to oneself. However the idea that one should be subject to someone else's judgement on what speech one should be able to hear is an idea that I find absolutely abhorrent.

Well obviously Gelsamel I can't make you not draw Mohammed. You're free to do that. I don't think people shouldn't do it, just that it's a bad idea and I'd recommend against it. No freedom restriction, just an ideological/moral recommendation.

[Gelsamel]

@Gelsamel: I'm not purposefully avoiding answering you, but my working day is done and I've got a mad weekend of getting ready to go on holiday; I doubt I'll be spending vast amounts of time at home at all let alone on the fora. Sorry about that. If I get a chance though I will answer some of your points.

It's fine, I don't exactly live for forum discussions either... I'm trying to play Pokemon at the moment actually...

I still disagree that they're analogoes because being gay and your right to not only express it but bring it in the public eye to counter discrimination is vastly different to wanting to draw a cartoon. One hugely impacts your quality of life, one does not.

I disagree absolutely. The freedom to express anything is the biggest point of both those analogies and, offensive or not, that freedom to express things is intrinsically linked to equality, quality of life and all other freedoms. This is the "much bigger picture" that I was talking about previously and is why no use of Freedom of Speech for any reason could be deficient or wrong (in addition to the more philosophical idea that Freedoms ensure access to tools and tools are incapable of having moral value).

Look for the record I am not black-and-white opposed to this. Some good points have been made about the value of using this method to counter the violent part of the opposition to drawing Mohammed. However my main objection stems from the vast amounts of people who are not doing this in that spirit but simply because ridiculing the religious has become the one last allowable bigotry in many social spheres.

Sorry, I understand your point of view on and position on this (well, what I mean is that I remember some of your posts with regards to this). But ridiculing anything is absolutely not comparible to bigotry. Ridiculing politics, philosophy, religion, theory, what flavours you like, etc. are entirely different to not hiring someone because they're black (or Christian, non-theist, or Republican), commiting crimes against certain groups etc.


@Weeks: I did draw him (see above). Anyway this idea that somehow an expression of speech is a "Bad idea" is one I'm arguing against. As I mentioned in a previous post you must think there is something bad or deficient about speech that offends people in order to logically recommend against certain speech. What, then, is the bad or deficient quality of drawing Mohammed that causes you to recommend against it?

[smw543]

Spoiler:

So, my thinking is that, while a "right to not be offended" is obviously untenable, it's probably a good unofficial rule to give people the choice to not be offended, when possible/practical. For example, at my university anti-abortion folks (or any activist types, for that matter) are allowed to speak, give out pamphlets, etc. in the "free speech zone" by the fountain, but are not allowed to do so at, say, the clinic. Don't want pictures of dead fetuses? Just avoid that spot (or just decline a pamphlet).

Untenable... and yet you've just defended that right as an official rule (even if restricted to certain areas). Your University purposely restricts speech in certain areas solely because it might be unfair or offensive or cause harm. I disagree with the idea of "free speech zones" completely. If one's personal goal is to reduce the offense you cause others then it's entirely reasonable for one to apply such an unofficial rule to oneself. However the idea that one should be subject to someone else's judgement on what speech one should be able to hear is an idea that I find absolutely abhorrent.

Well, it was mostly a setup for the joke (that is, setting up a textual smiley as if it were a clever satire or a beautiful work of art). And a bad example—it wasn't that way before (pretty sure the only rule was that you couldn't disrupt a class), but then there were problems with preachers verbally assaulting students (mostly shouting at anyone in a skirt that they were going to hell because they were "devil worshiping sluts").

If I actually felt like posting in this thread was a legitimate way to participate in Draw Mohammad Day, I wouldn't have used the spoiler (though it wouldn't have been as funny, IMO).

OT-ish: I have mixed feelings about free speech zones, honestly. Ultimately, I think they'd be OK if they weren't such risks of becoming slippery slopes; I don't think they're inherently bad. (In my school's case, the main zone comprises a large open area between the admissions building and the library, and coincides with a lawn where many people sit to talk or study. There's also a space in front of the student union. In other words, their speech is still heard by practically everyone, but if you really want to avoid it, you have the option.) I suppose the issue is where you draw the line for harassment, which is why meatspace speech is a stickier subject.

[Weeks]

Anyway this idea that somehow an expression of speech is a "Bad idea" is one I'm arguing against. As I mentioned in a previous post you must think there is something bad or deficient about speech that offends people in order to logically recommend against certain speech. What, then, is the bad or deficient quality of drawing Mohammed that causes you to recommend against it?

Drawing Mohammed in an ungainly fashion is blasphemy according to Islam, right? I wouldn't be around blaspheming around religious people who have done nothing against me. Especially if I have a muslim friend (which is not the case yet, but you get the point).

[Xeio]

Anyway this idea that somehow an expression of speech is a "Bad idea" is one I'm arguing against. As I mentioned in a previous post you must think there is something bad or deficient about speech that offends people in order to logically recommend against certain speech. What, then, is the bad or deficient quality of drawing Mohammed that causes you to recommend against it?

Drawing Mohammed in an ungainly any, even a respectful fashion is blasphemy according to Islam, right? I wouldn't be around blaspheming around religious people who have done nothing against me. Especially if I have a muslim friend (which is not the case yet, but you get the point).

Also, pretty much any time you say goddamn, or jesus christ! or really anything like that you're also blaspheming. In fact, just by saying "god doesn't exist" I'm pretty sure you're blaspheming in some religions. You can't make everyone happy. And no one has a right to say that their religious beliefs are more important than yours.

[Gelsamel]

Anyway this idea that somehow an expression of speech is a "Bad idea" is one I'm arguing against. As I mentioned in a previous post you must think there is something bad or deficient about speech that offends people in order to logically recommend against certain speech. What, then, is the bad or deficient quality of drawing Mohammed that causes you to recommend against it?

Drawing Mohammed in an ungainly fashion is blasphemy according to Islam, right? I wouldn't be around blaspheming around religious people who have done nothing against me. Especially if I have a muslim friend (which is not the case yet, but you get the point).

No, drawing depicting Mohammed at all in any fashion regardless of context, content, or intent, is blasphemous.

Since "Islamic people [...] have done nothing against me" is seemingly good enough justification to never blaspheme then I suggest you take a look at this list and make adjustmends appropriately. I should also mention that I don't think I've ever done anything against you and I find it offensive that people would silence themselves on such a basis.

[Weeks]

Also, pretty much any time you say goddamn, or jesus christ! or really anything like that you're also blaspheming. In fact, just by saying "god doesn't exist" I'm pretty sure you're blaspheming in some religions. You can't make everyone happy. And no one has a right to say that their religious beliefs are more important than yours.

...You're completely right about that. I realize I blaspheme against Christianity very often, and that's not morally right.

I guess I just didn't feel like adding another blasphemous activity to my list. I don't think I'm perfect or even good, and there's a chance I would've done one of these drawings...but it didn't seem like a good idea.

(Also I realize I've been playing devil's advocate. Sorry.)

[Greyarcher]

Drawing Mohammad causes threats of death/violence...and the response is to draw him plenty? Excellent, excellent.

Even if some folks draw him just to be offensive, I'm not too bothered. Regardless of intent, it's still an act in defiance to extremist threats of violence, so I approve.

[Nordic Einar]

On the topic of Gay Pride Parades - The point of a Gay Pride Parade has nothing to do with offending or "defying" Christians and everything to do with reaffirming, in a public sphere, that we exist. Fuck, I've heard rather compelling arguments that Pride Parades have nothing the fuck all to do with anyone else, and exist SOLELY to let Mr. or Ms. Closet with Bigot Parents that there is a place where you will be loved, respected, and cared for. Further, Pride Parades don't "Other" Christians. You can't "Other" the moral fucking majority, at least on any scale that would matter in the slightest. This also ignores the fact that, at least where I live, a ton of Pride Parades are at least partially organized by GLBT Friendly Churches - which kind of contradicts the "Pride Parades Exist To Piss Off Christians!" bullshit.

This is a rather insulting comparison. I know several people personally who, due to living close to Parade routes, were able to work through their sexualities in otherwise incredibly hostile environments because just over yonder they had a bunch of queers letting them know "It's Okay To Be Gay!". Pride Parades are for us. Visibility is a nice side effect, but that's what it is; a side effect.

Drawing Muhammad isn't going to help out any repressed or oppressed groups. It doesn't reaffirm beaten and broken individuals that they aren't sick, disgusting, or otherwise worthless. I also probably won't make the slightest difference in how extremists treat depictions of Muhammad. Maybe it'll change the way we react to them? Perhaps. And free speech is very important - but that doesn't make you any less of an asshole for using your free speech this way. Again, most of us who think this is a dick move haven't suggested you shouldn't be able to do it. We just think that most of you are dicks for it. This isn't a message of unity - this is pretty clearly a message of division.

Finally, I know I stressed this in the last paragraph, and I'll stress it again here - I don't believe you "shouldn't" draw Muhammad, or that you should be prohibited from doing so, or that I think anyone should violate your right to. I just think you're a dick for doing it. That's a pretty important distinction, and I'd appreciate us moving away from the false dichotomy of "We can be offensive dickheads or we can lose our rights!".

**EDIT**

As an aside - when Christians are as universally despised and discriminated against as Muslims in Western Countries we can talk about the effects of blaspheming against Jesus. Until then? There's a pretty significant difference between the two. Social context matters.

[Syntax]

A friend and I painted The Rock on MSU's campus. Check it out!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJZ4mv1MBiM

[Zamfir]

. You can't "Other" the moral fucking majority, at least on any scale that would matter in the slightest.

I'd say this is the core difference. For people who live in a muslim-led country, something like Draw Mohammed Day could have been a brave and important statement. But it's mostly a phenomenon of countries where muslims are a marginal, mostly powerless minority. And of countries that actually have soldiers on the ground in muslim countries.

Sure, people still have right to insult. But insulting from a position of strength is hardly something to be proud of.

[Outchanter]

That reminds me of the Lolcat Koran. And yes, there is also a Lolcat Bible. Anyone finding these offensive should probably get themselves tested for Congenitally Vanishing Funny Bone.

As an aside - when Christians are as universally despised and discriminated against as Muslims in Western Countries we can talk about the effects of blaspheming against Jesus. Until then? There's a pretty significant difference between the two. Social context matters.

I'm not sure whether you can use universal in a relative sense, but if you're actually saying that Muslims are universally despised and discriminated against in the West, that's nowhere near true. In the USA there are more religiously motivated hate crimes against Jews than against Muslims, and I doubt anyone would say that Jews are universally despised or discriminated against in the West.

[Crius]

The point of gay pride parades has already been covered, but even if you assume the point was to "offend bigots", the only people you'd be offending are bigots.

Draw Mohammed Day is offensive to most muslims, even though the target are the violent extremists (a tiny minority of the group being offended). The other issue is even if depictions of Mohammed weren't offensive to muslims, a lot of these depictions still would be. If people were only making tasteful depictions, it might be a bit different, but basically saying "Mohammed = suicide bomber"? It makes the point of the day seem to be more in line with "insult muslims" rather than "stand up to violent extremists"

The other issue being context, but that's already been covered.

[Aetius]

Have you ever been in an altercation at a bar or somewhere similar, where it looks like some belligerent asshole is about to beat the piss out of you until a few of your friends walk up behind you and he reconsiders? That's what draw muhammed day is. Up until this point a handful of individuals have been shouldering the load of defending free speech, living under the threat of violence focused on them as individuals. The goal of draw muhammed day is to put so many "targets" out there for extremists that no single source can be targeted and silenced. It's effectively the same as saying "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us." It's all well and good to play the identity politics game and say that Muslims are the oppressed group and the West is the oppressor, and I'm sure it's a great comfort to people like Salman Rushdie to know that he has in fact outnumbered the faceless masses that want him dead this entire time and that as the oppressor he has had nothing to fear all these years, but back in reality the defense of free speech has been patchwork and weak and to this point thoroughly unacceptable. To this point we have let fellow citizens live in fear of violent retaliation that is in no way hypothetical, and if the price of actually backing them up and pushing back against those that would respond to words with violence is a few hurt religious sensibilities, then I have absolutely zero problem with "being a dick."

[Crius]

Have you ever been in an altercation at a bar or somewhere similar, where it looks like some belligerent asshole is about to beat the piss out of you until a few of your friends walk up behind you and he reconsiders? That's what draw muhammed day is.

This is the stated goal, yes, but a lot of what the day boils down to is "insult muslims". I think it would be a slightly different story if the depictions were all tasteful (as much as is possible).

[Outchanter]

I think it would be a slightly different story if the depictions were all tasteful (as much as is possible).

Actually quite a few people in this thread seem to be arguing that depicting Muhammad in any way makes you a dick because it might offend some Muslims.

Since Islam is equally against depicting God/Allah, that would incidentally make the Sistine Chapel a giant troll and Michelangelo one of the biggest dicks of all time.

[Thadlerian]

I don't get it. Attacking a vast, heterogeneous group to get at a small extremist minority just doesn't make sense in my head, no matter how I phrase it.

[Xeio]

I don't get it. Attacking a vast, heterogeneous group to get at a small extremist minority just doesn't make sense in my head, no matter how I phrase it.

Exactly how is drawing a picture equivalent to physical violence against a group?

[Outchanter]

If a vanilla stick figure labeled "Muhammad" seriously threatens anyone's faith, they're probably already an extremist. The drawing of such stick figures can therefore be considered an "attack" on extremists only.

A handful of people may produce truly offensive drawings (e.g. Muhammad raping a pig), but using them as an excuse to call the stick figure artists "dicks" is ... attacking a vast, heterogeneous group to get at a small extremist minority.

[Thadlerian]

I don't get it. Attacking a vast, heterogeneous group to get at a small extremist minority just doesn't make sense in my head, no matter how I phrase it.

Exactly how is drawing a picture equivalent to physical violence against a group?

I meant "attack" in a broader sense. Deliberately hurting (in the emotional sense), causing distress.

[Xeio]

I meant "attack" in a broader sense. Deliberately hurting (in the emotional sense), causing distress.

Except that there is a really simple solution. Nobody HAS to look at the pictures. If there mere existence of such pictures causes such distress, that's a problem with their religious beliefs, not the depictions.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Nobody has to visit /b/, and yet I still find much of the content tasteless.