The Pitters' Place

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:58 pm**

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one ... age,29553/

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:09 pm**

"Other people aren't offended by this. Why are you? Geez."

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:15 pm**

If I hear one more time that Islam somehow manages to be against the liberalism of the West I swear to you I'm going to kill a puppy.

This is the point all of the idiotic liberals are making and it's ignorant and sickening!

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:18 pm**

You're going to be killing a lot of puppies, then, Liszt. It's the cool thing right now to think Islam is inherently anti-West/anti-progress.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:23 pm**

I'll start with this one:

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:28 pm**

I'm not going to lie, I laughed like hell the first time I read the article.

Humor aside, I do agree it misses the point and fails to address historical and contemporary issues on why the Charlie Hedbo pictures are seen as bigoted.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:39 pm**

Liz, if you kill that puppy I'll have to spank you.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:43 pm**

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:01 pm**

sikax wrote:"Other people aren't offended by this. Why are you? Geez."

This clip from 'The Aviator' might seem out of place, but I've always found it powerful. Power is always irrelevant to the powerful...they can never see the relevance of power...and always want to inappropriately take it out of the picture. How many times do we hear white people say(or express in some other way) that they don't care about race...or that race is irrelevant in a situation where race needs to be talked about? Rich people don't care about money...cis gender people don't care about gender identity..etc. They won't consider the fact that a vulgar/blasphemous drawing of Christian prophets has a completely different meaning because Christianity is a pretty fundamental pillar of the Western empire...Christians have the power. There's a completely different story/history/power dynamic with Muslims.

Or maybe I just like this clip because I want to tell off some delusional rich people.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:01 pm**

And I can't believe they actually depicted that elephant's butthole.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:10 pm**

sikax wrote:"Other people aren't offended by this. Why are you? Geez."

Although I agree with what your main point, I disagree with your characterization of what the article is saying. It's not saying "Other people aren't offended by this, why are you?" It's saying "Other people aren't murdering people over this, why are you?"

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:10 pm**

Cassius Clay wrote:They won't consider the fact that a vulgar/blasphemous drawing of Christian prophets has a completely different meaning because Christianity is a pretty fundamental pillar of the Western empire...Christians have the power.

And what about Hindus? Are they more powerful than Muslims?

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:12 pm**

Cassius Clay wrote:They won't consider the fact that a vulgar/blasphemous drawing of Christian prophets has a completely different meaning because Christianity is a pretty fundamental pillar of the Western empire...Christians have the power. There's a completely different story/history/power dynamic with Muslims.

Hear, hear.

Yeah. What the hell is up with white people who complain about things like that movie Dear White People and when black comics make fun of white people and etc. and then say like, "Well you know, if it was a WHITE person saying those things about a BLACK guy it wouldn't be cool. Or if there was a movie called Dear Black People, that wouldn't be cool. But, OH, they can get away with it! Dear me."

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:13 pm**

phe_de wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:They won't consider the fact that a vulgar/blasphemous drawing of Christian prophets has a completely different meaning because Christianity is a pretty fundamental pillar of the Western empire...Christians have the power.
And what about Hindus? Are they more powerful than Muslims?

Muslims have been the primary targets of Empire for the last hundred years at least, Hindus have not.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:15 pm**

sikax wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:They won't consider the fact that a vulgar/blasphemous drawing of Christian prophets has a completely different meaning because Christianity is a pretty fundamental pillar of the Western empire...Christians have the power. There's a completely different story/history/power dynamic with Muslims.
Hear, hear.

Yeah. What the hell is up with white people who complain about things like that movie Dear White People and when black comics make fun of white people and etc. and then say like, "Well you know, if it was a WHITE person saying those things about a BLACK guy it wouldn't be cool. Or if there was a movie called Dear Black People, that wouldn't be cool. But, OH, they can get away with it! Dear me."

It's really not obvious or intuitive. I mean, it just seems to make sense to say "all races should be treated equal, therefore if it's wrong for a white person to do something, it's also wrong for a black person to do it." I mean that's sure what I thought until somewhat recently, and I only changed thanks to engaging in extensive conversations with you people.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:19 pm**

Derived Absurdity wrote:Muslims have been the primary targets of Empire for the last hundred years at least, Hindus have not.

Wow. Guess I must have lived in a parallel universe. In my universe, India was a British colony for centuries.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:20 pm**

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:Liz, if you kill that puppy I'll have to spank you.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:22 pm**

phe_de wrote:
Derived Absurdity wrote:Muslims have been the primary targets of Empire for the last hundred years at least, Hindus have not.
Wow. Guess I must have lived in a parallel universe. In my universe, India was a British colony for centuries.

Yes India IS a victim of imperialism. But it has a different history to other Arabic countries where they've been ridden by war again and again and again. It's different contexts that you can't really compare.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:24 pm**

phe_de wrote:
Derived Absurdity wrote:Muslims have been the primary targets of Empire for the last hundred years at least, Hindus have not.
Wow. Guess I must have lived in a parallel universe. In my universe, India was a British colony for centuries.

Yes, I know about that. Keyword is primary.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:24 pm**

Gendo wrote:
sikax wrote:"Other people aren't offended by this. Why are you? Geez."
Although I agree with what your main point, I disagree with your characterization of what the article is saying. It's not saying "Other people aren't offended by this, why are you?" It's saying "Other people aren't murdering people over this, why are you?"

There's just something inherently fucked up about a cartoonist who would deliberately depict Muhammed when a large chunk of Muslims have historically and explicitly told the world that depictions of their prophet are considered extremely blasphemous and forbidden. Christians don't say that. Hindus don't say that. Jews don't say that. Those people might get offended when it happens, but they can't get too mad because there isn't a "rule" against it. Muslims informally have that rule*. So my comment was a reflection on non-Muslims' utter disinterest in the common ideologies of Muslims. And, as Troy pointed out, it's because there is a large gap in power between Muslims and Christians in the West which makes Christians pretty much safe from ridicule.

*Actually, there is no such rule in the Qur'an and only vague guidelines on depictions of Muhammed in the Hadith (but not an outright ban). Depictions have historically been accepted, but never commonplace and, obviously, not recently. Let's call the ban on depictions a "cultural tenet" of Islam. Why is it difficult to respect? Make fun of Islam, if you must, but I mean just don't draw Muhammed. If you're a satirist and can't make fun of Islam without drawing Muhammed, then you severely lack talent.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:28 pm**

Gendo wrote:It's really not obvious or intuitive. I mean, it just seems to make sense to say "all races should be treated equal, therefore if it's wrong for a white person to do something, it's also wrong for a black person to do it." I mean that's sure what I thought until somewhat recently, and I only changed thanks to engaging in extensive conversations with you people.

I can appreciate ignorance on the matter. I can't knock someone if they just don't know. But, if you're ignorant on a subject then you shouldn't be saying anything about it. And honestly any right-minded adult should at least know that conceptually there are differences among the experiences of every race in this country and have the tact not to say stupid shit. I mean, c'mon. We can only plead ignorance for so long.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:40 pm**

I had thought the people that's declared any depiction of the Prophet blasphemy are the same small splinter group who also encourages the terrorism and other various acts of violence while the majority of Muslims ignore the drawings and denounce the violence?

I know I read that somewhere but I can't for the life of me remember where.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:54 pm**

Sunni Muslims explicitly prohibit depictions of Muhammed. Shia Muslims do not. Terrorists you hear about are almost always Sunni. Yes, there is a fringe of Muslims who are terrorists. Not every Sunni Muslim is a terrorist, but every Sunni Muslim is against depictions of Muhammed. Most of them do indeed denounce violence.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:00 pm**

Hm, I wonder if it was an article about Shia Muslims then? It was a long time ago and I think it was in an old history book of some sort. I betcha it was just concerning the one group.

Thanks for the clarification.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:04 pm**

sikax wrote:There's just something inherently fucked up about a cartoonist who would deliberately depict Muhammed when a large chunk of Muslims have historically and explicitly told the world that depictions of their prophet are considered extremely blasphemous and forbidden.

In my opinion there's something inherently wrong with a religion that has such rules, and enforces them by killing people.

sikax wrote:*Actually, there is no such rule in the Qur'an and only vague guidelines on depictions of Muhammed in the Hadith (but not an outright ban). Depictions have historically been accepted, but never commonplace and, obviously, not recently. Let's call the ban on depictions a "cultural tenet" of Islam. Why is it difficult to respect? Make fun of Islam, if you must, but I mean just don't draw Muhammed.

Drawing a character is part of freedom of expression. If a religion demands special rights, then I have the following to say to adherents of this religion who demand these special rights:
Prove that your religion is true. Prove that your deity exists, and that your prophet is a true spokesperson of that religion.
If you can't prove it, STFU.

sikax wrote:If you're a satirist and can't make fun of Islam without drawing Muhammed, then you severely lack talent.

If you're a cartoonist, drawing is your medium of expression.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:08 pm**

It really doesn't matter how many people in the world consider depictions of Muhammed blasphemous. But some are willing to bring violence to people for it. Is it worth it? Is someone's defense of their so-called freedom of speech worth losing lives? Is freedom of speech worth anything if it's exercised "because I can"? I mean, how fucking hard is it just to leave Muhammed out of your cartoon? If there's a hostile person with a gun to someone's head and this man says to a cop, "I swear I'll shoot him if you...uh...put a top hat on your head!" should the cop put a top hat on his head just because it's his right to wear top hats? No, that would be very stupid. That guy is going to die. Not doing something because of threat is not the same as "letting the terrorists win". It's just keeping the fucking peace and probably saving lives.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:10 pm**

sikax wrote:Not doing something because of threat is not the same as "letting the terrorists win". It's just keeping the fucking peace and probably saving lives.

In my opinion if you let terrorists dictate your behavior, then the terrorists have won.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:12 pm**

phe_de wrote:Drawing a character is part of freedom of expression. If a religion demands special rights, then I have the following to say to adherents of this religion who demand these special rights:
Prove that your religion is true. Prove that your deity exists, and that your prophet is a true spokesperson of that religion.
If you can't prove it, STFU.

Puffing up your chest and saying "Fuck you" to people who are asking a very very simple thing just because you can is so fucking stupid I cannot even tell you how stupid it is.

phe_de wrote:If you're a cartoonist, drawing is your medium of expression.

So the only day this guy decided to show up to cartoonist school was the day they taught how to draw Muhammed? He can draw someone else. Simple as that. Fuck, draw a super racist depiction of an Arab if that's your schtick. Just don't label him Muhammed. Difficult?

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:23 pm**

phe_de wrote:
sikax wrote:Not doing something because of threat is not the same as "letting the terrorists win". It's just keeping the fucking peace and probably saving lives.
In my opinion if you let terrorists dictate your behavior, then the terrorists have won.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Nah, man. The truth is that the other millions of people offended by satirical representations of Muhammad don't go around murdering people. It isn't the threat of violence that should compel someone not to depict Muhammad for no other reason than "artistic expression", it should be simple compassion. The threat of violence is an easy added bonus reason. It's not "Cartoonists' Freedom of Expression vs. Terrorists". It's giving the cartoonists the chance not to offend the millions of peaceful people who are also offended by it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:31 pm**

sikax wrote:It isn't the threat of violence that should compel someone not to depict Muhammad for no other reason than "artistic expression", it should be simple compassion. The threat of violence is an easy added bonus reason. It's not "Cartoonists' Freedom of Expression vs. Terrorists". It's giving the cartoonists the chance not to offend the millions of peaceful people who are also offended by it.

Muslims who are offended by depicions of Muhammed have a peaceful option to achieve this: Petition that depicions of Muhammad are considered hate speech. As long as it's not, cartoonists have every right to make fun of Islamists in whatever way they deem appropriate.
And if I remember correctly, the cartoons were mostly drawn AFTER September 11th 2001. Or March 18th 2004. Or July 7th 2005.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:37 pm**

phe_de wrote:Petition that depicions of Muhammad are considered hate speech

It's been done. To no avail. Because Muslims are an oppressed minority in Europe.

phe_de wrote:cartoonists have every right to make fun of Islamists in whatever way they deem appropriate

Yes, they do have that right. Unfortunately the ones that choose to depict Muhammad apparently lack common decency. I'm not talking about legality, just simple kindness. No one needs to draw Muhammad to make fun of terrorists.

phe_de wrote:And if I remember correctly, the cartoons were mostly drawn AFTER September 11th 2001. Or March 18th 2004. Or July 7th 2005.

So? If you think satirizing images of Muhammad is a reasonable means of responding to terrorism, I have nothing more to say to you.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:46 pm**

Look.

There are much broader things to address. Like how Western imperialism and racism has effectively created the environment that would push one to violent terrorism. How Western powers continue to oppress and shake their dicks at Arabs and the rest of the world. When cartoonists focus on the fight of "to draw or not to draw", the other things lose focus and the vision of the real issues get skewed. Yes, there are insane terrorists out there who do unspeakable things to innocent people. They do this even without provocation sometimes. Is it really smart to push their buttons juuuuuust a little bit more? To prove a point? "Ha, fuck this guy. He hates my cartoons. I'm gonna draw more! Ha!" I mean, fuck. The terrorist has other more terrible things to scheme and resources on stopping it really shouldn't be spent on whether a cartoonist got to express himself this week.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:50 pm**

sikax wrote:
phe_de wrote:Petition that depicions of Muhammad are considered hate speech
It's been done. To no avail.

Then Muslims have to live with drawings of Muhammad. No one is above the law.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:54 pm**

phe_de wrote:
sikax wrote:
phe_de wrote:Petition that depicions of Muhammad are considered hate speech
It's been done. To no avail.
Then Muslims have to live with drawings of Muhammad. No one is above the law.

You're right. Oppressive laws should never change. Big mistake getting rid of those segregated bathrooms and letting gay people get married. No one is above the law!

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:56 pm**

sikax wrote: Oppressive laws should never change. Big mistake getting rid of those segregated bathrooms and letting gay people get married. No one is above the law!

If there have been black people who shot Hollywood producers because of racism; or gay activists who shot religious leaders because of anti-gay hate speech, let me know.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:00 pm**

phe_de wrote:
sikax wrote: Oppressive laws should never change. Big mistake getting rid of those segregated bathrooms and letting gay people get married. No one is above the law!
If there have been black people who shot Hollywood producers because of racism; or gay activists who shot religious leaders because of anti-gay hate speech, let me know.

+1 dead puppy.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:02 pm**

To clarify:

Oppressive laws should change, if they are oppressive.
And in my opinion, the right of free expression trumps the right of not having Muhammad depicted.

And saying "Cartoonists don't have to draw Muhammad" makes as much sense as saying "Muslims don't have to look at the pictures".

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:09 pm**

phe_de wrote:
sikax wrote: Oppressive laws should never change. Big mistake getting rid of those segregated bathrooms and letting gay people get married. No one is above the law!
If there have been black people who shot Hollywood producers because of racism; or gay activists who shot religious leaders because of anti-gay hate speech, let me know.

Uh, we weren't talking about violence. We were talking about petitions and appeals. Oppressed minorities have in the past had their petitions denied at first. Should they have given up? No. Just...what is your point? That terrorists shouldn't have murdered the cartoonists. We agree on that. What else are you saying, exactly?

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:19 pm**

Umm...not to butt in here but that's awesomely steep slippery slope you're talking about there. So, we ban depictions of Muhammad because Muslims don't like it. Pretty soon you'll have thousands of petitions to the government to ban all sorts of things other religious groups don't like and will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for a court to determine if the petition is acceptable and then to create and add to our laws and then for law enforcement to start enforcing the bans etc...

This whole speculation on freedom of expression and banning certain types etc...it's asking for Pandora's box to be opened and for it's contents to shit all over everyone. Just the costs alone are ridiculous. Check out Russia in the last 5 years. The amount of money Vladbutt is forking out to clamp down on free speech is incredible!

Having freedom of expression is a lot less expensive and results in a lot less violence and death. Compare any two Western countries with differing freedom of expression laws, like Russia and Canada for instance.

Honestly though, I really don't care much for the cost argument for freedom of expression. I'd prefer we took an ethical approach to it instead. This dude's thoughts pretty much sum up my thoughts on it all.

http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principl ... -violence/

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:21 pm**

I've actually not suggested banning it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:26 pm**

phe_de said "no one is above the law" when I mentioned that appeals have been made in the past. That led to more of a conceptual discussion about how far minorities should go to get laws passed. I never suggested stalling freedom of speech because realistically that would never happen. I'm calling on cartoonists just to choose not to draw Muhammad of their own free will. No law. phe_de changed the subject.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:28 pm**

sikax wrote:
phe_de wrote:Uh, we weren't talking about violence. We were talking about petitions and appeals. Oppressed minorities have in the past had their petitions denied at first.

Exactly. But they did not resort to terrorism. They kept on lobbying, and eventually achieved changes.
This is the option still open to Muslims. But having violent people in their ranks is not helping their cause.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:35 pm**

Then what are you suggesting? I remain unclear as to your motives here because you have said a lot but there has never really been any clear suggestions from you. I suggested education but you came back with several fatalistic responses: "violence doesn't help, reasoning with people so ingrained with racism doesn't work. This shits been exposed for a while now. No end in sight."

I just don't quite get what you are after here? You seem to want to focus only on the racism of the cartoonists which might be treading on thin ice in regards to victim blaming. I haven't really seen anything about how to go about fixing it other than the cartoonists were "stupid" for posting stuff that was racist towards another group of people.

This entire conversation has gone nowhere. Nobody is discussing the root of the issue...which is what EVERYONE actually agrees has to be discussed. It's frustrating.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:37 pm**

sikax wrote:There are much broader things to address. Like how Western imperialism and racism has effectively created the environment that would push one to violent terrorism. How Western powers continue to oppress and shake their dicks at Arabs and the rest of the world. When cartoonists focus on the fight of "to draw or not to draw", the other things lose focus and the vision of the real issues get skewed. Yes, there are insane terrorists out there who do unspeakable things to innocent people. They do this even without provocation sometimes. Is it really smart to push their buttons juuuuuust a little bit more? To prove a point? "Ha, fuck this guy. He hates my cartoons. I'm gonna draw more! Ha!" I mean, fuck. The terrorist has other more terrible things to scheme and resources on stopping it really shouldn't be spent on whether a cartoonist got to express himself this week.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:38 pm**

sikax wrote:
phe_de wrote:cartoonists have every right to make fun of Islamists in whatever way they deem appropriate
Yes, they do have that right. Unfortunately the ones that choose to depict Muhammad apparently lack common decency. I'm not talking about legality, just simple kindness. No one needs to draw Muhammad to make fun of terrorists..

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:38 pm**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown ... pers_Ferry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:39 pm**

phe_de wrote: Exactly. But they did not resort to terrorism. They kept on lobbying, and eventually achieved changes.
This is the option still open to Muslims. But having violent people in their ranks is not helping their cause.

They realize that, because 90% of the time the targets of Muslim extremists are other Muslims.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:45 pm**

Ok you're right, but where is the discussion on it? You say we should discuss it but...uh...we still ain't discussing it. You are going back and forth with someone else about the stupidity of the cartoonists. I have posted till I'm blue in the fingers about education as a good option to a peaceful resolution to this issue but that resulted in what exactly? Nothing!

I mean shit, we all agree that there's deeper issues to discuss and to resolve so let's talk about them! Let's hash it out and come up with a solution. Let's make some flyers or something and throw them out of a helicopter over all the big cities. Anything but focusing on the cartoonists and each persons "opinion" about the intelligence of their methods. They are dead. They knew the risks of what they were doing. So move on. Stop worrying about them as individuals and worry about society as a whole.

And with that...I'm out. Yes, I see the irony in me leaving. But I have to get home to take care of my puppy who is sick!

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:49 pm**

Your puppy is not the issue here!!

Yes, I will also bow out and brainstorm on how to fix the world's problems.

Posted: **Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:54 pm**

Wait wait wait.... are you implying that we're NOT solving major world issues by sitting here and bitching about it on the internet??

I'VE WASTED MY LIFE!!!

The Pitters' Place

The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo

Re: The Onion on Charlie Hebdo