Unless it’s satirical, in which case that is incorrect.
These are simply gross, sterotypical depictions of muslims and Mohammed, with no real satire attached to them:
The Daily Show this is not.
If you’re definition of satire is “people who get offended at things deserve to get offended,” that’s just being childish, it’s not “satire” in any sense of the word.
Here, by the way, is there depiction of France’s Minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira, who is black:
?? Satire is not bound such. It can be created to appeal to the less refined tastes or support any ideology. It can or cannot be both or either racist and sophomoric according to the creator or the audience or both.
Like @SamSam has the opinion that these are not real satire, probably because @SamSam prefers (far) more nuance & depth in his political cartoons. So to him it isn’t satirical.
Maybe there is something lost without accompanying texts, but stood alone these are pretty pathetic as satirical cartoons go.*
*still not apologist or victim-blaming.
2 Likes
actually, that’s pretty under-educated of you. I was not talking about the laws (or beliefs of the ruling elites) of the countries I was referring to, but to the opinions of their citizens, as recorded in opinion polls (for example: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/).
Not that I particularly disagree with the rest of what you’ve said, and even in situations where there might be majority (or at least significant minority) support for extremist positions, greater reform of the governments in question would do a great deal of good in preventing such beliefs from being perpetuated (just look at how quickly the tide has changed on gay marriage in the US).
The Pew report you cited quotes a figure of 86% of Malaysian muslims wanting Sharia law.
I can factually tell you that figure is a gross distortion of reality. My wife’s family are Malaysian, and I spend a couple of weeks a year there. The muslim population is extremely concerned at the penetration of Sharia law into their multicultural and theoretically tolerant country. Deeply concerned. In the way you would expect.
As for “greater reform of the governments”. I’m sorry - isn’t that a CIA circa 1968 view?
And how can you possibly compare the situation on the ground in the USA to, say, Egypt? The cultural distinctions are massive. Do you think any amount of in influence would shift Saudi Arabia’s majority view on gay marriage? Good luck.
2 Likes
you’re just highliting your own ignorance here, the monkey image is actually attacking Front National racists. what you’re doing is analagous to calling Mat Stone and Trey Parker anti-semites for creating Cartman.
7 Likes
subjective vs objective.
That particular report is amazing, and thank you for posting it, but it doesn’t really strengthen your original point. It’s clearly stated early on in that report that there was a huge variance in what Sharia Law even means to people, and very small minorities of their respondents held what anyone would consider “extreme” views. Sharia Law is raised as a spectre, but isn’t that much weirder than people wanting the 10 commandments on the lawn of city halls in American cities. Controlling of education levels, you might find very similar attitudes about the line between religion and law in any other place.
2 Likes
I dispute your view, and believe that in the context of French culture - as inarguably divided and unfair as it is - the satire is not lost to the majority of the population.
But the overriding message is - freedom of expression is paramount. Without it, their are no other freedoms - they never develop. They cannot arise in silence.
Wait…if that’s what this conversation is about, maybe you want to wait until the bodies cool off.
you should probably look into the detail of that report a bit more, 86% support for Sharia is not a gross distortion when you look into what they mean by that (it means different things to different people).
Please provide the example of objective satire.
1 Like
By that time the enemy has already passed legislation.
No discussions need not be had for the sake of the victims.
no, I’m well aware of all that. my original post accepted that what we in the west deem as extremist views are not held by the majority of all Muslims worldwide. but conversly, the view that it’s just a handfull of rotten apples is completely wide of the mark. there is a significant minority worldwide (and in some countires a majority, Pakistan and Afghanistan mostly, but the likes of Saudi, Jordan and Egypt can be pretty bad as well) of muslims who hold extremist views, we’re talking about around 100 million people here.
I’m not convinced they are. I’d like some data. Assuming we go with your theory, though:
Part of it has to be what we’re allowed to call terrorism. Brevik? Sandy Hook? the NAACP bombing? Abortion clinic attacks?
Another part of it probably has to do with geopolitical strife more than religion. Al Qaeda gained prominence because we armed them to fight of Soviet incursions. Empires have been playing toy soldiers with that region for so long I’m kind of amazed more of the population isn’t virulently anti-west. The fact that the region is largely bound up in one religion could be secondary to the reasons for dissent.
11 Likes
As for “greater reform of the governments”. I’m sorry - isn’t that a CIA circa 1968 view?
you’ve misunderstood me there, I’m talking about internal reform. the arab spring hasn’t exactly been all plain sailing, but it shows there’s at least a will there to achieve reform.
And how can you possibly compare the situation on the ground in the USA to, say, Egypt? The cultural distinctions are massive. Do you think any amount of in influence would shift Saudi Arabia’s majority view on gay marriage? Good luck.
no I don’t, the analogy was meant to be a general one, not specific to gay marriage. if the Saudi government decided to change their laws on apostacy for example it wouldn’t change opinions overnight, but would future generations be as likely to support the reintroduction of the death penalty? of course this is just a hypothetical, the Saudi’s aren’t changing their opinion on this any time soon.
[quote=“Boundegar, post:19, topic:49614, full:true”]When we’re done yelling about The Muslims, the author provokes an interesting set of questions. Why is Islam producing more terrorists these days than most other religions? Why now, and not 1930?[/quote]Because now is the time when the countries with the best conditions for raising (non-domestic) terrorists are primarily Islamic. It has little to do with the religion, and everything to do with the conditions of day-to-day life. If those countries had a primary population of Christians, we’d be having these same discussions about what makes Christianity so conducive to terrorism.
5 Likes
It certainly doesn’t have little to do with religion, it has a lot to do with it. If Islam wasn’t a religion that promised the reward of heaven for martyrs we wouldn’t see anywhere near as many people willing to discard their lives so easily to achieve it. That doesn’t mean that it’s the sole cause, of course political and ecconomic factors play a major role as well (and lets not forget that a lot of those political and ecconomic factors have at their root tribal and sectarian conflict, it’s not all about western colonialism - which was itself largely a consequence of islamic colonialism).
1 Like
I understand - but my point is that in a transparent, democratic society, the will of the people can be communicated and expressed. The people have influence.
In a closed, controlled society, the people have no influence.
So the idea of changing the nature of the governing authority in each of these societies is a very bifurcated idea. You can appeal for change in one, and in the other, simply be eliminated.
There’s a difference between satire and ridicule. What would be the response in the West to a picture of a naked Pope with his ass up in the air??
Ridicule is what the right reverts to anytime it has no other option.
I heard someone on the radio talking about a controversy a few years back which involved “a crucifix immersed in urine” and the someone said “I can’t say the actual name of it on the air”. Exactly … and why is that, since we value “free speech” so much?
Any person with a heart will condemn such violence. But who among us will not snap if ridiculed long enough? How many school shootings has ridicule triggered?
3 Likes
