Update: It’s not nice to mess with friends of South Park… Or not. Checking again this morning, the url of the site claiming credit for the South Park threat video differs from the one supposedly “hacked”. Friday update: more on the hack details at Gawker.
Others approve! “By selectively censoring the blasphemers of South Park, these Comedy Central executives have displayed the steadfast conviction to stand up, courageously raise their voices, and beg not to have their heads chopped off. I am delighted to announce that in recognition of their courage, we will kill them last. Unless they are Jews.”
h/t James M.
More – South Park Revenged (with language/content advisory)
Trapped in the spam filter – until just now.
This is serious do not see it as joke
if you make joke of prophet Mohamad and draw his picture there is 60% percent some one kill you
since this is against law of Isalm to anybody to do so
Be Carfull
Do not risk your life when you deal with islam issues
why should you risk your life for say it?
YOu do not know how danger some of these Muslim are and can hurt you badly
do not mess with few issues with Muslim and educate yourself before do so
When they said Salmon Rushi must die nobody change this law yet and there is always chance to assinate him therfore
please Don’t this is serious issue this is not joke be carefull of what you see and limit you can go
Do not mess with some issue has not worth or any value bring you at all do not risk even
I freindly warn you because if not those people did not stop show that joke in tv and they force to change it Please don’t
Thanks for your concern, Mitra. You see – there’s the difference between an “extremist” and a “moderate”.
The “extremist” is the one with the death threat.
The “moderate” is the one who explains what you’ve done to deserve it.
I’ll respect Islam when it’s followers stop their global murdering rampage until that time they can take their over emotive sense of self importance and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
“Take the statement about nuking them, for instance. The person who posted it sounds very similar to something one might hear a cleric in Iran say about Israel.”
Firstly, I did not suggest that the poster is Israeli or that the poster is Israel. I was merely pointing out the – very similar – utter disdain for human life that both parties possess.
Secondly, I do not doubt, for a second that the poster who advocated nuking them would also advocate everything else you post in there. That says a lot about the person and bears no relation to Israel.
“this Jackal merely sneers from some imagined height — that ugly self-satisfied sneer which gives progressism that familiar stink. He’s linguistically skilled but all we got was facile and empty loquacity.”
There’s the standard SDA retort that I have come to know so well. When in doubt, insult insult insult.
No-one
“It is too bad the mild Muslims, I suspect, out of intimate fear, do not speak out – they are in a dangerous catch 22.”
Its not necessarily a catch 22. More a case of being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. For the umpteenth time, I will refer to the post on the carpets. The none-too-subtle references to some kind of Islamic invasion would put anyone the back foot, particularly a muslim. The long diatribes about the problems inherent in Islam only go to concretise their belief that they have no alternative but to stick with their own, since the other side has already made up its mind about them and has made its views of them known to them.
In other words, they can criticize Islam, and get locked out of the Islamic community. Or they can shut up and keep quiet. Criticizng Islam would be the brave thing to do, but they genuinely believe, perhaps rightly that the moment their name or skin color reveals them as Muslim, they will be seen through that lens, regardless of their actual beliefs. Why in the world would you alienate the people who are likely to stand by you, regardless of the despicability of their beliefs, in favor of those who, ultimately, view you as an outsider, an embodiment of everything that is wrong with Islam.
It may very well be a simple of case of “better being with the devil you know than the devil you don’t”. Of course statements like “pig shit be upon him” go a long way to confirming their worst fears. No matter what they do, they will fear, and quite rightly I think, that we think they are not doing enough. And what do they get for trying – locked out of their own community. This ‘us’ vs ‘them’ mentality has to stop. Multiculturalism and all that nonsense has to go. But that will require change not just from the multi cultists but from the denizens on the far right too, who are reluctant to see outsiders as citizens.
“When you really think about it, how many death threats by muslims have actually been carried out?”Posted by: jackal at April 23, 2010 3:26 PM
All of them?
One of my favourite movies is “Stripes”. One of the characters ,Francis, had a list of things that he would kill you for doing.He was a psycho,and treated as such.If he was a religious leader,there would be no reason to allow him into Canada,or anyone who believed his rantings. I say the same about islam. For your enjoyment,and a possible 60% chance of becoming a martyr for SDA, ~(((:-(>>> ,Mohammed,the keystroke version.
Jamie,
Name them. The only one that I recall is Theo. The only others I can think about are those targetting Ayaan Hirsi Ali and this latest plot. Thats not very many. Even Ann hasn’t been targetted yet, which is very surprising, given her high profile.
“Theo is one that comes to mind. I can’t think of too many others.”
-Jackal
The victims of over 15,000 Islamic terrorist actions since 9/11 would likely take issue with that statement.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Just because you don’t personally know these people doesn’t devalue their loss.
Aww,isn’t that cute,not all death threats by muslims have been carried out,such a misunderstood group.The one about criticizing Islam and then merely getting locked out of the Islamic community as punishment is a real gut buster,comedy central should be taking a long look at jackal,it’s meanderings are hilarious.
From the Jackal:
“When you really think about it, how many death threats by muslims have actually been carried out?”
How about all the ones videotaped by suicide bombers prior to their missions? I dare say those qualify as death threats.
Back to square one on your arguement.
I think that death threats by Islamic fascists are numerous and have been carried out; these include the general statements of various jihadist leaders that exhort followers to ‘kill the infidels’ and Americans and…, the videotaped statements made before suicide missions and so on. That is, the Islamic fascist public, frequent and open declaration of an agenda of killing Others is clear.
As EBD points out, jackal doesn’t address this point. He only focuses on the comments made on this blog. I agree with jackal, for instance, about the ‘Islamic motif’ carpet commentary, which was a morass of irrational antipathy and ignorance.
But back to the issue of those death threats. They are real not only in the voicing of the threats but in the actual carrying out of murder of ‘Others’ – whether it be in suicide bombs in restaurants, trains, markets; whether it be individual murders; whether it be against Christians, Jews, atheists or other Muslims who reject jihadism and fundamentalism…It’s real.
This death cult is what has to be addressed. Death cult? Yes, because it focuses on death and it insists on its perpetrators acting without reflection, analysis, questions, thoughts. That’s a cult.
It focuses on death. Of the perpetrator and the victim(s). Not on life, not on collaboration, not on allowing others and oneself to live. It also focuses, not on reality as it exists within its pragmatic interaction of diversity, but on a virtual utopian reality of enforced homogeneity where All Are Identical. And Muslim.
I prefer life to death and I prefer the real world to a virtual world – especially one which is imagined by someone else rather than me.
jackal – at 9:55PM, you said of us SDA-types “They are, ultimately, harmless. If they had any influence, they would not be here” (I admit cried a little.)
@4:01, you have us locking innocent Muslims out of the wider society with our meanness and together-lumpings and willful misunderstanding and inflammatory notions about carpets.
Marginal deluded losers or a potent force for evil in the world: I don’t know that you can have us both ways, Mr. jackal.
How to animate characters for Comedy Central:
http://blatherhollow.blogspot.com/2010/04/south-park-islamofascists-and-comedy.html
I think I may have posted this link b4, but do not recall how long ago, but it is worth posting again, given what has transpired on this thread. I don’t agree with many of this author’s Taoist views, but he does make some very astute observations on various topics nonetheless
“I have found that there is a common answer to most questions of the type: “Why doesn’t XXX work”? That answer is this: “Things don’t work because there are people in the world who don’t want things to work”. These people are both diligent and clever in their efforts to insure that things fail.
Such people never talk about their real aims – if they did, they would stand no chance of succeeding. Instead they use plausible lies to cover up what they are really doing. They count on the good nature of most people – that tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt – to act as camouflage for them.
Let us dissect some games played in academic settings to see what is really going on. The first game we will look at is the quibble game. The following dialog will give an example of the quibble game in action.
Quibbler: “Rather than your folksy ‘The first game we will look at is the quibble game’ would not a superior, and more precise, phrasing have been: ‘The first academic stratagem to examine is the discussion gambit'”?
Author: (Confused and ‘Put In His Place’) “Oh, perhaps you are correct.”
Quibbler: “Besides, you can’t even prove that I exist, let alone that there is such a thing as quibbling”.
Author: (Cowed and beaten) “I flee in terror from your display of superior intellect. Never again shall my unworthy presence be a blight upon humanity. I will immediately kill myself in shame and repentance for having bothered your august personage”.
At least, that is how quibblers want it to work. Let us shed a little light on the subject; here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
QUIBBLE intr. v. 1. To avoid acknowledging the truth or importance of something by raising trivial distinctions and objections. …
A few points: from the definition of the word it is obvious that quibblers know that something is true and/or important – they are simply seeking to avoid admitting its truth. How quibbling ever became an accepted part of the academic environment is a bit of a mystery – but accepted it has become.
So ingrained in academia is quibbling that it has a major effect on the writing done by academicians; academic writing is terse, dry, and boring in an attempt to deflect quibbler’s attacks. People in the academic community think that they are writing in a ‘professional’ manner, but their style originates from a reaction to quibbling attacks.”
http://users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/academicgames.html
Well, it would (at first glance) that our two fearless social critics have turned out to be a couple of panty-waists. Of course that doesn’t lessen the cowardice of this group of Muslims and the other majority of them who are afraid to distance themselves from them. I understand that they just did a show that depicted Jesus viewing pornography. good thing it takes a while to get us Christians riled up, but once we do get there we can be pretty Hellish in our reactions too, though we’re more likely to just turn the dial, which, in the end will kill them more completely.
I can’t really comment further as I don’t watch this crud.
How have Stone and Parker turned out to be “panty-waists”, larben; what happened? Did they convert to Islam this afternoon or something?
jackal said: “It’s certainly a brilliant way of putting Brent Bozell and others of his ilk on the back foot.”
Whether they did it out of some too-clever political/propaganda calculation or sheer cowardice would seem beside the point, yes?
Is this something we should be encouraging? Shooting war, casualties, not funny, know what I mean?
For my money plain vanilla cowardice would actually be more acceptable than what you suggest. I mean, does that seem like reasonable behavior to you?
“I simply refuse to treat muslims as one big angry bloc waiting to come and kill/convert us.”
What, I have to add a disclaimer? “Not ALL Muslims are homicidal maniacs?” Yes, I know.
However, we -are- at war with a bunch who are homicidal maniacs. Remember? And again, is it wise to have our TV companies bending over for these enemies?
Call me a racist if you must, but I think not.
Now, about the carpet thing. Do you not understand that the objection to the carpet is not about Muslims? Its an objection to City of Toronto favoring one group over another. Which is, oddly, the objection to Comedy Network.
It isn’t about Islam. Its about lying sack of sh1t liberals who would sooner stick a shiv in Conservatives one more time than protect their own beloved values against barbarians.
And yes, we know not ALL Muslims are barbarians. Just the ones liberals like to cuddle.
As EBD points out, jackal doesn’t address this point. He only focuses on the comments made on this blog. I agree with jackal, for instance, about the ‘Islamic motif’ carpet commentary, which was a morass of irrational antipathy and ignorance.
– ET.
I don’t think you quite understood Jackal’s objective here today. Perhaps your head was turned by the flattery. And ET, no need to insult everyone here who disagreed with you (I didn’t) calling all dissenting opinion “a morass of irrational antipathy and ignorance.”
Some tactical advice: when a insincere mischief-maker, a sanctimonious progressive/liberal sneerer makes an appearance on a thread and passively-aggressively insults everyone here (except yourself) without even dealing with the meat of the issue, even if you agree with his reference to the carpet issue, it’s probably best not to acknowledge this. For this reason: he merely used this as leverage to discredit ALL criticism of the gradual islamization of western countries. Be clear: that was his objective, nothing more, and you helped him out here.
Jackal said
“I simply refuse to treat muslims as one big angry bloc waiting to come and kill/convert us. This whole Comedy Central thing is a classic case. An individual or a small group made a threat against the TV show and Comedy Central made its decision. I am not convinced that this individual or group is representative of the adherents of an entire religion.”
Your inconsistency is showing…
“Don’t waste your time. This is a right-wing blog and like all right-wing blogs, it has its share of ideologues who switch off their brain the moment they turn on their computer.”
Sounds to me like you view right-wing blogs and their supporters as “one big angry bloc”
I’ve always wondered how someone can pretend to be so compassionate and tolerant lecturing me on how to be more understanding of another’s point of view while simultaneously failing to understand my point of view.
Either it’s a failure of personal insight or it’s an agenda.
May 10,2010: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/22/everybody-draw-mohammed-day
sorry, May 20.
Black Mamba – I said at first glance, will they continue under censorship or will they begin legal
proceedings against whomever censored their work, unless it was their idea? At this moment, though admittedly I haven’t been following it very closely, I am unaware of why the insults against Christianity go uncensored. Personally I consider their work to be pretty sad, anybody can be critical of other’s beliefs, without pointing out their good points or coming up with something positive. The more they’re censored, the less I care. Christian thought has been not censored but censured in the popular media, these people can go piss up a rope as far as I’m concerned.
“The “moderate” is the one who explains what you’ve done to deserve it.”
Yes, and the nice moderates even feel kind of bad about it. I wonder if that tiny bit of sympathy is regarded as a blasphemy?
My favorite comment in this thread had to be the jackal post about how they make a lot of threats, but, you know, they hardly ever carry them out. How do people become this craven and ridiculous?
Failure of self-awareness h2o273kk9.
A standard failing of lib/progs. They really never GET their hypocrisy. You can point it out with copious examples and they just don’t get it. They’re not being difficult or anything. They really don’t get it. It’s a kind of mental illness: cognitive dissonance, I believe it’s called.
I’m remembering a long e-mail correspondence with an old lib-prog friend who, while praising public education and viciously attacking my advocacy of vouchers, put his own sons in private school; who spit on private enterprise while profiting from a successful business; who drank the green kool-aid while driving a $80,000 gas guzzler, and etc.
Me No Dhimmi,
Absolutely.
When a lefty I know was complaining about Republican extremism due to alleged Republican supporters sending death threats to Slaughter and some House Democrats after the Health Care bill passed, I told this one guy that while I can’t verify the specifics of this allegation being true, I can believe that some Republican supporters would do this. It’s a big world and there are lots of nuts in every group.
I also said that I found it ironic that at that very same time, Ann Coulter’s BODYGUARD was advising her not to go forward at the UofO speech for fear of her safety…and it wasn’t because of Republican extremism.
It was at this point, he got aggressive.
Sometimes, challenging their cognitive dissonance can expose their narcissistic rage.
Right you are Me No Dhimmi – Kitsilano capitalists who worry about the Amazon River and expect the locals to live the remainder of their lives in mildewed loincloths.
Most public companies and outfits like Yale publishing aren’t going to stand up to islamist threats because it costs money to beef up security and their cowardly insurance companies will either cancel them or quote extortionate rates for additional coverage. Not to mention their morally bankrupt competition which will happily burrow away at stealing their customers.
I stand by my carpet comments no matter who disagrees with me. I know what I know. Especially when it comes to the ideology behind multiculturalism – a counselors or social service worker or child and youth care workers creed is to approach each person and group from a Feminist (now called strengths), Multicultural, and Developmental Perspective. I can not count the number of hours I have spent writing papers on culturally competency (there are 5 stages btw – use to be only 4) and the number of hours I spent under professors who were skilled in the deconstruction of pre-conceived (meaning before you entered their hallowed halls) values or beliefs (from your thick unenlightened parents of course) regarding culture, race, discrimination and multiculturalism. One needs to display at least a level 4 cultural competency – level 5 is preferred, to ensure the cultural competency construct sticks. Me No Dhimmi said, as have others along these same lines “They really don’t get it. It’s a kind of mental illness: cognitive dissonance, I believe it’s called.”
“It” is called successful Cultural Competency Level 5 – unconscious construct.
For those of you interested in these levels they are as follows:
1. Cultural destructiveness (e.g., giving the SAT test to Appalachian and Sea Island children).
2. Cultural incapacity (e.g., Not providing bilingual personnel when needed).
3. Cultural blindness – the system and its agencies provide services with the expressed intent of being unbiased. They function with the belief that color or culture makes no difference and that all people are the same (e.g., the melting pot theory that ignores cultural strengths).
4. Cultural precompetence (Agencies and individuals move toward the positive end of the continuum by recognizing cultural differences and making efforts to improve. (e.g., Making the waiting room more welcoming with pictures, magazines, and music that reflect the culture(s) of the community served).
5. Cultural competence [Unconscious competence – use to be level 4 – clearly demonstrates the ability to automatically provide culturally congruent services] continually expand their cultural knowledge and resources, and adopt culturally relevant service models in order to better meet the needs of minority populations.(e.g., Developing a cultural resources library.
Diversifying the professional staff.)
Breakthrough – Although moving along the cultural competence continuum is a complex and potentially painful lifelong journey, the journey does offer tremendous personal and professional rewards. …The alternative to working toward cultural competence is to exist in a vacuum, to live with the absence of comparative information on the cultural lives of others. If we choose to live in a cultural vacuum, we will not only continue to perpetrate stereotypes we have of other people, but we will also be perpetuating the stereotypes others have of us
Ironically, on the very day that Toronto Library was patting themselves on the back for their level 5 cultural competency, 3 of the Toronto 18 were in a Toronto Courthouse discussing these revelations: “Working at the behest of Al Qaeda, these men had planned to target civilian, military and nuclear targets, storm parliament, behead the prime minister and others and then announce their mission by capturing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) headquarters here.
‘Fahim’s idea is: We’re going to attack parliament, take over and use the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Service) to broadcast our victory,’ the mole told the court.” The answer you see, is to let them know there is no need for any threats or terrorists acts just move in and we will do everything to show how culturally competent we are – we are willing to give up our western culture – human rights and all – to make you feel at home – you don’t have to give up a darn thing -we will give up everything to make you feel at home.
http://www.cyc-net.org/reference/refs-culturalcompetence.html
http://www.son.jhmi.edu/research/chdr/news/Competency%20March2007.pdf
Jackal, it’s clear that you value comfort and safety over fundamental freedoms, and that you are not only willing to compromise western freedoms in the face of threatening demands but also to advise others to take your putatively elevated view on the matter. The problem is that if everyone thought as you do, every peaceful, mind-their-own-business segment of society would end up ceding ground, in every instance, in response to the violent demands of intolerant thugs.
I’d like to address some of your points:
“Don’t pick a fight if you don’t think you can hold your own.”
Treating Islam the same way we treat everything else on earth – i.e. criticizing it when we feel it’s merited or appropriate to do so – isn’t “picking a fight”; those who insist, under penalty of death, that our expressions shall fall under the purview of their homicidal rage are the ones picking a fight. But getting to the more essential point of your statement, that one shouldn’t fight if one can’t hold his own: if someone bigger than me threatened to kill one of my family members, or even to silence their right to speak, I would fight to the death without giving a moment’s thought as to whether or not I can “hold my own.” Sometimes you have to fight back. Whatever decision you would choose to make in a given situation is your business – albeit, I would probably step in on your behalf in a situation if your kids were being threatened in such a manner. Maybe you don’t value the right to freely criticize the unreasonable, thuggish demands made by theocratic thugs, but some of us do. You might personally benefit, years down the road, from the backbone displayed by the very same people who you criticize for their ineloquence.
“I am curious to know if you have ever told your mother-in-law exactly what you think of her. Self-censorship or rational risk assessment?”
If I had a mother in law who told me she would kill me if I ever, at any time, in a public setting, stated my true beliefs to anyone, or made any reference whatsoever to her stated list of proscribed topics, not only would I tell her exactly what I think of her, I would feel duty-bound to do so.
“When you really think about it, how many death threats by Muslims have actually been carried out?”
Um, thousands upon thousands? From Thailand to Israel to Bali to Russia to New York to Algeria, Islamists have made good on their voluble, numerous, publicly stated threats. Your suggestion that that specific people – Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard, etc etc – are alive because the threats weren’t credible, and not because they were moved from from location to location under 24-hour guard, is a willful, disingenuous and too-too convenient – to your argument – evasion of the truth.
“Has anyone at Comedy Central actually done a risk assessment?”
Did the Allied forces storming the beach at Normandy do a risk assessment? Why, yes they did – and then they charged ahead, with their hearts in their throats, because of what was at stake.
You’re certainly not the only person who is willing to trade away our enlightenment tradition of criticism and speech simply because intolerant thugs demand that we cease and desist, but for you to pontificate in a didactic manner about the advisability of ceding our culture’s right to our (comedic, in this case) expressions is both unappetizing and unconvincing. It’s redolent of a familiar-to-our-age, cowardice-driven willingness to compromise on fundamental principles – always dressed up, it seems, as winking wisdom.
Ultimately, there’s a fundamental inconsistency inherent in your position: your talk of “risk assessment”, with its implicit suggestion that one should back off whenever such an assessment indicates a potential risk, pretty much puts the lie to your minimization of the seriousness of the threats as merely coming from just a few “psychopaths.” Alternately, perhaps you believe that a network that airs a beloved piece of lighthearted satire that is regularly watched by millions of people should decide whether to air a program or not based on a risk assessment undertaken to determine whether or not a few “psychopaths” don’t like the show.
By stating that the threat is coming from just a few “psychopaths” and that Comedy Central should have done a “risk assessment” before airing the show, you are in effect saying that millions of people should not be allowed to watch a particular cartoon because of the demands of a few psychopaths. A curious position, to say the least.
Some of us will fight for fundamental principles, and stand up to threats. Others won’t. You’ve made abundantly clear which side you’re on, but you haven’t changed one person’s mind here – I guarantee it. It’s not because everyone else is dumb and you’re smart; there are other more important and essential human qualities operating in this ongoing debate. You can’t talk – or type – these qualities into your own hagiographic narrative, because they have to do with spine, and not words. I’ll just leave it at that.
“Name them. The only one that I recall is Theo…”
Posted by: jackal at April 23, 2010 4:12 PM
All of them? (note ?) As in: give it time.
Even Bin Laden took a little while to live up to his word.
me no dhimmi – I’m too old and ancient to be head-turned by flattery. Most of the carpet talk was, I felt, a morass. Only a few were, in my view, reasonable. As for jackal’s views on confronting Islamic fascists – I criticized his refusal to do so and his naive rejection of its reality.
no-one, you describe very well the talk-garbage of the leftist postmodern academic. It’s nonsense and can be ‘deconstructed’ (a favourite postmodern term) very quickly and shown to be pure rhetoric; nothing but words, words..and nothing to do with reality. However, reality is in the long run, stronger than the virtual realm of words – and this rhetoric will fade.
ET: Confessing that I was unable to read all the comments. Very busy time for me.
I didn’t have much to say about the carpet thingee, but I was kicking myself after for not reading that link Kate provided. I thought the writer was a total jerk, right from the first 2-3 sentences. I would probably have been less neutral and non-committal on the issue had I read it. Note to self: click through all links or don’t comment.
Very interesting posts, No-One and EBD. And of course you too ET.
In case anyone wants to send a new message to those gay boys over at Revolution Muslin, here is their latest weblink.
http://revolutionmuslim.blogspot.com/
EBD – you sum it up nicely.
I’ll just add the “psychopaths” are acting exactly the way I would expect them to act … in a strange way I can accept that. It is the responses from the weak-knee’d that pose a problem for me. It’s the imminent barrage of “Unintended Consequences” statements from these fools that can’t see the obvious.
I am well aware of the very real and present danger posed by Islamic extremists. I am just not convinced that the odd extremists found in the US have the sophistication or capability to come through on their threats in North America. This whole death threat issue was much ado about nothing. It has since been revealed that the person making the threat was a recent convert who friends from school remember as a loner and a antagonistic soul always trying to start a fight. He does not pose an uncontainable threat. To compare him to suicide bombers in Palestine is a bit of stretch.
The Phantom,
While I acknowledge the good points you make, I am not entirely convinced that the censorship was carried out due to cowardice. I doubt that either of those two South Park guys is really scared of the individual who made the threat – Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, who was previously known as Zachary Adam Chesser. He is simply a nutjob who doesn’t really pose any more of a threat than any other insane person on the street.
” he merely used this as leverage to discredit ALL criticism of the gradual islamization of western countries”
Ah yes, the classical case where the majority begins to portray itself as a besieged minority. Islam is invading us – all (single digit) percentage of them.
“Sounds to me like you view right-wing blogs and their supporters as “one big angry bloc” ”
Nope. I said SDA has its “share of ideologues”, not that it is eclusively full of ideologues. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.
EBD,
You have provided a rather extensive analysis of my statement “Don’t pick a fight where you can’t hold your own”. The theory is certainly sound, but how does it jive with the reality of life. If you set out to make a statement aimed at getting a reaction, then you should prepare for the reaction instead of claiming that you did not anticipate it coming. While this is admittedly more acute in certain scenarios, particularly those involving Islam, you will find yourself avoiding making certain statements, no matter how factually correct they are, because you know you won’t be able to hold your own once you face the reaction. It is present in virtually every aspect of everyday life. I am not saying that the thug should always win, but if you are going to take on the thug, you had better make sure you have the ability to do so.
“If I had a mother in law who told me she would kill me if I ever, at any time, in a public setting, stated my true beliefs to anyone, or made any reference whatsoever to her stated list of proscribed topics, not only would I tell her exactly what I think of her, I would feel duty-bound to do so.”
Too many qualifications. Let me put it this way. How many times have you bitten your tongue instead of telling your wife about the flaws in her approach, in order to make sure you don’t end up on the sofa. Yes, that is a joke, but I think you understand what I mean. Its akin to a parent never telling their ugly daughter that she is ugly. Free speech or truth do not factor in – an assessment is made of the potential impact the statement can have and the reaction it may prompt (in this case, lower self esteem) As human beings we have the freedom to express our beliefs, but we do not necessarily have the freedom to be immune from the reactions they prompt. There is always a rational risk assessment. In every setting.
“Did the Allied forces storming the beach at Normandy do a risk assessment? Why, yes they did – and then they charged ahead, with their hearts in their throats, because of what was at stake.”
The Allies wouldn’t have carried out the invasion if they felt that the risk of losing was too high, regardless of the stake. They would have focused on an alternative. The goal is all well and good but being reckless in its pursuit is, well, questionable.
“You’re certainly not the only person who is willing to trade away our enlightenment tradition of criticism and speech simply because intolerant thugs demand that we cease and desist”
I am not saying “cease and desist”. By all means, continue to say and do what you have to. However, be aware that there are risks associated with it, no matter what the intent. I am NOT saying that South Park or anyone should stop criticizing Islam. At the same time, I think the persons making these statements should factor in the risks involved and, crucially, accept them. If a guy makes a death threat – throw him in jail. End of story. Instead we have this long drawn out saga where some random convert, whose identity is known, manages to scare the most heavily criticized duo in the world.
“By stating that the threat is coming from just a few “psychopaths” and that Comedy Central should have done a “risk assessment” before airing the show, you are in effect saying that millions of people should not be allowed to watch a particular cartoon because of the demands of a few psychopaths.”
No, I am saying that if Comedy Central had done a proper risk assessment, they wouldn’t have had to censor the show since they would have factored in the ability, or lack thereof, of the critics to act and, in all likelihood, we would never see a thread supporting freedom of speech on South Park on a decidedly conservative blog. But here we are. Publicity stunt. Thats what I am saying. The risk assessment would have shown that vocal reactions are likely but the actual threat of death – not so much. Especially not in North America.
“Some of us will fight for fundamental principles, and stand up to threats. ”
Well, you can take a hollow threat and turn it into a strawman and fight with it all day long, but you aren’t fooling anybody but yourselves. There was no real threat to fundamental freedom in this case. Some psychopath made some statement and lo and behold, a TV network censored itself. Reeks of publicity stunt.
My prayer is that this whole issue does not escalate any further.
As a Christian I am to love God with all my heart, mind, body and soul and to treat others as I would like to be treated. I don’t think He would want me to provoke others just because I can or to make a point.
SouthPark is being an aggresive provocateur. I admit my buttons were pushed too, but I am choosing not to join in and take revenge, as some sites are suggesting, by committing acts that are shameful and disrespectful and do not deserve repeating here IMO.
I think that acting out – retaliating in such a childish disrespectful manner would only serve to destroy the gains that have been made towards repealing section 13 which, as far as I can tell, is the main loophole in our Human Rights Code that can be used to incrementally introduce aspects of Sharia Law into Canadian Law. Many positive gains have been made in the last year by those who have personally sacrificed a great deal of time. money and sweat to fight the good fight.
Actively attacking the Islamic faith would only serve to strengthen claims that there are goups that are inciting hatred towards others, and argue for further protections as an identifiable visible minority groups under the Human Rights Code. All that has been gained to date, IMO, would be lost.
Call me a coward if you want. I will continue to speak out about tribunal abuses and suppression of free speech, appeasing those who seek to oppress me, and support those who are working hard to see the laws changed, but I can not, in good conscience, participate or support the suggestions of crude retaliation when other ethical options are available and are finally beginning to pay off.
There’s a million smaller issues here, so I’ll just respond to your comment point by point.
You say that the individual who made the threat was “simply a nutjob who doesn’t really pose any more of a threat than any other insane person on the street.” As far as I know, jackal – and please correct me if I’m wrong – there is not one single nutjob on the street whose utterances, suggestions and intentions are backed up by thousands of identical nutjobs who are reading from the exact same playbook, and who are willing to die to enforce the prescriptions therein. The fellow who you write off as a mere nutjob is in reality plying a theocratic edict emanating from a common religion with a billion or more adherents. Have you taken a look at polling done in the UK showing that a substantial minority – yes, a minority – of Muslims believe in such punishments as your putative nutjob advocates? Well, if even five percent – and the numbers worldwide are much higher – of more than a billion people believe death is a suitable punishment for those who criticize Islam, that’s certainly more than enough people to be efficacious in creating terror and self-censorship among non-believers. Are these people nutjobs? Yeah, I think they are. Are they mere nutjobs? No; they are highly motivated, committed spiritualists who are united in their belief that disbelievers must be, erm, smote. Just by their sheer numbers I consider these obsessives a real threat.
“The Allies wouldn’t have carried out the invasion if they felt that the risk of losing was too high, regardless of the stake.”
I’m sorry jackal, but in the context of the issue under discussion here I am unable to even begin to parse either the moral underpinnings or the intended lesson of your statement. Are you suggesting that the broadcasting of a cartoon carries too high a risk of “losing” relative to the risks assumed by the men at Normandy? Or…?
Best to move on: I responded to your question “I am curious to know if you have ever told your mother-in-law exactly what you think of her. Self-censorship or rational risk assessment?” by telling you in no uncertain terms that if she told me that she would kill me if I ever stated my true beliefs or made any reference to her list of proscribed topic, I would certainly tell her what I think. You responded by saying that there were too many qualifications in my answer, whereas in fact I simply brought your question in line with the precise qualifications of the issue at hand. You falsely asserted that two massively non-equivalent situations were completely analogous. This gambit of yours, which entailed an attempt to portray differing reactions to two entirely different circumstances as prima facie evidence of inconsistency, simply doesn’t fly, inasmuch as precisely re-focusing on the matter at hand and removing out-of-bounds attempts at re-qualification is entirely the opposite of excessive qualification.
Regarding your assessment of the risk to Comedy Central employees, you state that there was in fact no risk, and that Comedy Central’s reaction – i.e. their censorship of the cartoon – was merely a publicity stunt. I would submit that there are, at the very minimum, tens of thousands of Muslims – outliers, yes, in a population of a billion – who would be quite pleased to die in order to take out a very famous entity who publicly insults Islam. I respectfully suggest that you are in denial about this.
“I am NOT saying that South Park or anyone should stop criticizing Islam. At the same time, I think the persons making these statements should factor in the risks involved and, crucially, accept them.”
Parker and Stone obviously do accept the threat. What I’m unclear about is whether you’re saying that there is a threat, or that there isn’t a threat. I mean, if there’s no threat, there’s no risk to factor in, right?
You are being excessively blithe about very real threats to those people who are not you. I understand that you believe that there is in fact no real threat to Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and the employees of Comedy Central, and that it’s all a publicity stunt, but if that’s the case there’s an awful lot of publicity stunts being undertaken in Europe, by writers, cartoonists, filmmakers, etc.
I can’t specifically put my finger on the differences between us, but I can say with utter certainty that I will go to my grave with an entirely different worldview than yours. C’est la vie.
Anybody that believes Jackal’s assertions that these are toothless maunderings of a very few is either a fool or…well, no, that pretty much covers it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64r-iWoTsX8&feature=related
Jackal
“Nope. I said SDA has its “share of ideologues”, not that it is eclusively full of ideologues. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.”
Nope. You said…”This is a right-wing blog and like all right-wing blogs…”
Stereotyping ALL right-wing blogs.
Would you say “All mosques…have their share of extremists”?
Instead you go out of your way to downplay such a suggestion. “I am not convinced that this individual or group is representative of the adherents of an entire religion.”
Why wouldn’t you give right-wing blogs the same courtesy?
How about “All left-wing blogs have their share of ideolgues.”
Your inconsistency is showing.
Jackal, I’ll just deal with one of your comments: “When you really think about it, how many death threats by muslims have actually been carried out?”
Your question is irrelevant because it begs the central issue. What you should have asked was “how many death threats by muslims (sic) have been foiled?”
Death threats are death threats.
I suspect there are a whole lot of death threats that Muslims intended to carry out but were nipped in the bud by security intelligence. We’re not going to hear about them.
I’m sickened that death threats by Muslims are excused on the grounds of “how many [of them] have actually been carried out?”
But, I will answer your despicable question: Too many.
“The fellow who you write off as a mere nutjob is in reality plying a theocratic edict emanating from a common religion with a billion or more adherents.”
Or he is a nutjob who has found an extremist doctrine somewhere and is sticking by it? I don’t think theres any real question that he is a nutjob. Here we have a white American who was born in America, raised in America and, judging by his original name, Zachary Chesser, probably born into a Christian family. Fox News has also published a detailed profile on him as an antagonistic loner. For him to turn to an extremist version of Islam that would, in all likelihood, require him to be hostile to his parents, family and friends, requires more than a few loose screws in the brain.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of extremist ideologies peddled in the name of religion. I am not defending them, but at the same time, I am fairly certain that this individual could have run with any of them – whichever suited his bizzare approach to human life.
“Have you taken a look at polling done in the UK showing that a substantial minority – yes, a minority – of Muslims believe in such punishments as your putative nutjob advocates”
I am going to assume that the poll was carried out correctly. That said, group opinions are NOT static. They are cyclical. Right now we are witnessing a rise in the chest-thumping variety of Islam that is, to some degree, brought out by their defensiveness being a minority in a country that also hosts less than friendly figures in the form of the BNP. When the BNP announces its plan to end Muslim immigration, I am fairly certain Muslims feel persecuted and defensive. This chest-thumping is nothing new – we have seen it in other communities before. And then it dies. The most revealing case study here would be the Sikh uprising in Punjab – a bout of such intense radicalsim and chest thumping that ended up disappearing in less than a decade. Islams recent resurgence will die out. Just as it did during the colonial era, or indeed, right after the crusades.
If we are to believe that they are out to – indeed – that they are REQUIRED to convert everything along the way, how do you explain the survival of Northern India’s hindus, who were under the rule of several different muslim dynasties for a millenia. Surely a millenia is long enough to convert everyone. But for some reason, none of them even bothered.
I expect, therefore, that you can understand my refusal to agree with the following statement:
” No; they are highly motivated, committed spiritualists who are united in their belief that disbelievers must be, erm, smote.”
There is a major difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it. If you are correct then, given the sheer number of angry muslims involved in the US, and the sheer number of out and out critics of Islam, we should have seen quite a few attempts, at the very least. Some baptist preacher called Mohammed a pedo. I don’t recall him being murdered. Ann Coulter etc have hardly been mute in their criticism. Again, the only censorship or intimidation she faced was when the National Review decided she was not up to their standard.
So while I appreciate the statistics involved, there is nothing to suggest it means all that much. I mean, comparing the Netherlands to Palestine is a bit of a stretch and comparing some loner nutjob to AQ is also a bit of a stretch. The situation in the US is not the same as Palestine and muslims in the US are unlikely to act like muslims in Palestine.
“I’m sorry jackal, but in the context of the issue under discussion here I am unable to even begin to parse either the moral underpinnings or the intended lesson of your statement.”
You tell me. You are the one who brought Normandy into this discussion and then proceeded to draw a rather absurd conclusion about it. Any book written about WWII would have told you your conclusion was wrong.
As for the mother-in-law statement, all I said – all I am saying – is that human beings tend to think before they talk. Sometimes they express themselves. And sometimes they don’t. This is done on the basis of their appreciation of the consequences of the statement. You are free to call it self-censorship, if you want.
“Parker and Stone obviously do accept the threat.”
Thats where we differ. I say that it is a rather astute attempt at publicity. And I daresay there are a few right-wing media critics who agree with me. They have aired episodes about Islam in the past without being even slightly fearful. Has everything really changed that dramatically since then? Feel free to explain this dramatic change.
h2o273kk9
“Nope. You said…”This is a right-wing blog and like all right-wing blogs…”
Stereotyping ALL right-wing blogs.”
No. I said:
“This is a right-wing blog and like all right-wing blogs, it has its share of ideologues”
which is somewhat similar to saying
“This is a left-wing blog and like all left-wing blogs, it has its share of ideologues”
That does NOT mean that I am saying that all right-wing blogs cater exclusively to ideologues. However, you are free to interpret it as you want.
“Would you say “All mosques…have their share of extremists”?”
Why yes, I would. Assuming of course, that the Mosque is frequented by as large a population as this website, I most certainly would.
Oh I see, you have that left-wing blog thing there. I would go so far as to say the globe and mail and the star both have their share of left-wing ideologues. Does that make you happy?
batb
“I’m sickened that death threats by Muslims are excused on the grounds of “how many [of them] have actually been carried out?”‘
You will note that I have said that death treaths are thoroughly condemnable. However, that statement is meant to highlight the fact that those statements are made by individuals who lack the intelligence or capacity to carry out their threats. I am not saying that death threats are ok if you can’t carry them out. I am, however saying that there are legitimate death threats, and then there are empty utterances.
Jackal
“Assuming of course, that the Mosque is frequented by as large a population as this website, I most certainly would. ”
So then 1 billion adherents must have its share of ideologues. Dangerous ideologues. Even a small percentage is a large number of dangerous fanatics.
Great. So please stop writing non-sequiturs.
“I am not convinced that this individual or group is representative of the adherents of an entire religion.”
No individual (passive or fanatical) can represent an entire religion. So why bring it up at all? Especially while simultaneously pointing out that right-wing blogs have ideologues.
Your emphasis is still inconsistent and you now appear to be rationalizing.
Agenda or failure in insight?
Jackal: “I am, however saying that there are legitimate death threats, and then there are empty utterances.”
And, how would you know the difference? How would any of us know the difference?
I repeat: A death threat is a death threat. Anyone uttering a death threat should be charged.
In the novel “The Day of the Jackal”, at the conclusion the Jackal dies of lead poisoning, Swiss cheesed like the arguments of his namesake on this blog.
(Not that I’m saying our Jackal will end up in the same literal state…… Said in my best Jersey wiseguy voice.)
That’s the innuendo game the people you so radically defend play Jackal.
@Jackal
Much effort has gone into perpetuating the stereotype that the majority, identified as being Caucasians, Catholics, and Christians (3C’s) as the sole group of persons responsible for the denial of housing, employment, membership, services or the spreading of hate propaganda, not to mention violence, towards all the other groups.
The efforts and strategies used to accomplish, perpetuate, and hard sell this idea have been very successful, despite much evidence to the contrary. So successful, that it is no longer being debated and has been accepted as truth and laws have been introduced in an effort to “level the playing field”.
It is wrongly assumed, under the law, that visible minorities and the other protected groups are somehow morally, ethically, and behaviorally superior just because they belong to a protected group. It appears to be widely accepted that no member of a protected group would ever consider denying housing, employment, membership, and services or spread hate propaganda, or act violently towards another member of a protected group, and certainly not a Caucasian, Christian or Catholic who they have been imprinted into believing are their betters.
If an individual who is a member of the protected group happens to act out of their stereotyped pure character and vulnerability, it is reasoned that it is a result of the influence of the western culture’s majority, our role modeling so to speak, the imprinting we have been so successful at is to blame.
The obvious solution then becomes educate the western culture’s majority as to the negative emotional and social impact they are having on the protected groups. They ( as individuals and as a group)must be “encouraged” to take responsibility for their abuses, admit their guilt, feel duly ashamed, and do everything in their power to make the protected groups feel safe and comfortable.
For the most part liberals, readily accept the blame. Some do not want to become targets of complaints, or be identified with a group that hatred and blatant discrimination towards is sanctioned under the law, so they distance themselves by agreeing with the unproven verdict of guilt, and support efforts to cleanse the western culture of its westernlyness. Others, usually those who fit into one of the 3C’s themselves, are just simply gullible and truly believe that they are bad and must repent and not let the sins of the father be passed down to the next generation, so they think they are doing society a favour by hating themselves and readily join in with the self flagellation.
Teaching Cultural Competence (different post) is seen as an effective strategy to make Caucasians feel guilty by assuming they would never on their own accept another culture and treat them with respect and dignity. It just isn’t in their DNA you know, so they need to be trained on how to be nice. It is believed that this training must reach the dpths of the 3 C’s unconcious mind to be truly effective in preventing the DNA and deeply ingrained beliefs from reasserting themselve. Contrary to evidence, and despite the fact that Christians and Catholics give to and have founded more charities than any other group, despite the fact that they were the ones who first established hospitals and schools, despite the fact that they are the ones who protect immigrants who are fleeing torture and certain death from deportation, I could go on, but that should suffice for now.
Another strategy (there are many) to ensure the three C’s behave themselves are the human rights tribunals purportedly needed to “level the playing field” by providing free legal services to complaints from protected group members. It is important to point out, that the record of tribunal complaints clearly shows that nearly 100%, if not 100%, of the complaints from protected groups are filed against members of at least one the 3 C’s. Whats worse is that if a member of a 3 C group speaks out about the injustice of being labeled and stereotyped, it is simply considered further proof that they are indeed what they have been deemed to be: racist, homophobic, white supremacists, religious fanatics who are extreme right wing nuts who refuse to mend their ways and give up the power they have so cruelly held over others for centuries.
The problem as I see it is that individuals are not being treated as individuals who are responsible for their own actions and behaviours. Groups, the collective, are being held responsible for the actions of individuals within the group, or groups they belong to. A group, protected or not, can not be made accountable or responsible for its actions. Dividing Canadians into groups does nothing of course, but perpetuate stereotyping, the very thing Cultural Competence taring and Human Rights tribunals assert they are working to prevent. The inevitable result will be a culture war, which will, undoubtedly, be blamed on the 3 C’s. Divide and Conquer.
“In his advice, Mr. Graves [dontated $11,000 to the liberal party] could hardly have been more blunt. “I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moral ism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”
@Jackal:
“I am not advocating self-censorship, but I think you would be well-advised to avoid insulting a drunk gunman.”
Far as I can tell, we can definitely hang: Muslim = drunk gunman. Yer ok with me pal.
Most people don’t get it, with South Park.
Their into mockery of the stupidities people place on themselves, & others in the name of fad or doctrine.
When their making fun of RELIGION. What they really are doing is using comedy on others beliefs as they are portrayed by ignorant individuals. They seem to reserve contempt for pseudo-religions Like Scientology or Blainism with brain dead psychics as the butt of the fiercest disgust with other charlatans as company.
Santa Claus gets it worse as a secular religious figure.
@Revnant Dream: I admit, I have only wathched a handful of South Park episodes, so I trust you know what your talking about. A lot of people really like the show. The episodes I have seen,I could see the message or at least I thought I did – they were funny – a little crude for my taste though. I am wondering if they ever featured Obama as a target, and if so, what do you think the message was?
No-One
Watch this. Than make up what you think they where saying.(O:}
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip150578