Iâm fascinated by whatever logic would lead to the censorship of pig faces rather than the entire animals.
Because these are still very much recognizable as images of pigs. And I fail to grasp any value in preventing people from being able to identify specific pigs by their faces, were that even possible/likely.
Does somebody not quite understand how implementing a dietary taboo works?
This seems overzealous and frankly kind of dumb, but the people who might be offended at this are by definition overzealous and occasionally murderous. The editor probably figures heâs better safe than sorry.
Why? Because theyâre muslims?
Malaysia is interesting when it comes to dietary strictures. They are one of the only Muslim country that does DNA testing on all imported food to ensure it does not contain porcine DNA. They take it very seriously. Censorship is always stupid, and this is exactly the kind of self-censorship that people engage in when censorship laws are in place. I doubt that all pictures of pigs are forbidden in Malaysia, but I wonât say Iâm certain. But hey some people think pigs are gross, all kosherisms aside. If the NYT wouldnât go out of its way to depict particularly gory war photos, it amounts to editorial decision. I consider this to be similar. Iâm more concerned about the other things that get actively censored. Iâm not too worried about Porky being robbed of his worldwide fifteen minutes.
Mmm, bacon.
Who else would be offended by this other than overzealous, extremist Jews and Muslims, and I havenât read about any Jews beheading anyone lately.
Because they are extremists.
Newspaper offices are ripe targets for these kinds of attacks.
Somebody should tell them about Influenza⌠viral porcine particles just flying through the air, ready to splice forbidden DNA into your very genome at any momentâŚ
Malaysia isnât yet extremist. It still purports to be multi-cultural, but the indigenous Malay population have been steadily reducing the influence of all other sectors of society.
Being a newspaperman in Malaysia is regarded as either a sapâs paycheck, or a very dangerous profession, depending on how you go about it.
Youâre more likely to get done in by the local car thief ring than the political / cultural / religious police. Itâs one of those places you pay attention to what the guidebooks politely tell you not to do. Itâs not really worth stirring up trouble, or talking politics.
But you can happily get cold beer just about anywhere. Pork is available everywhere non-muslim. But there is concomitant push by the muslims for a more âproperâ muslim society - I think it has more to do with trade opportunities than religion per se. Theyâre rich on oil.
Edit: by the way, the foodâs gorgeous. Great way to get chatting to Malaysians is to talk about their favourite food.
âNever attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.â
Hanlonâs razor
Stupid like confusing dietary strictures with displaying pictures of forbidden food.
and that what peregrinus_bis said: Malaysia isnât Iran or Afghanistan.
The whole country doesnât have to be extremist to have extremists living in it. It only takes one asshole with a bomb to destroy your newspaper offices and possibly kill your staff. Normally this is very unlikely, but these guys have shown a willingness to do it in the past, so I canât blame a newspaper for not taking any chances.
You can bet there are lots of stories the paper wonât run because of just a few people willing to kill for perceived slights to their worldview.
Thatâs EVIL. . . spread rumors that the most extreme extremists are infected with SWINE FLU. . . . let the usual turn of events follow. . .
Friend of mine is married to a Malaysian. His experiences mirror your account. Iâll get more data this summer, theyâre coming over to visit. . .
Malaysiaâs government occasionally imposes laws that are allegedly defending Muslim religion. A year or two ago there were some riots because Christians were using the term âAllahâ to refer to God, the Muslims were upset, the government banned anybody from using that term except Muslims. But Allah isnât a proper name; itâs just the Arabic word for God (or maybe The God; Iâm not sure the grammar), cognate to the Hebrew word El, and Islam teaches that it worships the same god that Abraham worshipped, and that theyâve just got some new information about him from Muhammad and the Christians are wrong about some details. So it would have been more correct Islamic theology to require Christians to use the term âAllahâ than to forbid it.
But hey, extremists gotta extreme.
[quote=âSalgak, post:14, topic:20300, full:trueâ]
Thatâs EVIL. . . spread rumors that the most extreme extremists are infected with SWINE FLU. . . . let the usual turn of events follow. . .
That seems a bit harsh (though quite possibly true, even flu we donât get worked up about probably has some piggy elements, just because the virus has been largely cross-compatible between humans and pigs since who-knows-how-long-ago); but I admit that Iâd laugh.
My comment was more aimed at the absurdity of applying modern genomic techniques to ancient dietary taboos. I respect peopleâs right to eat or not eat as they prefer (and, myself, certainly have a distaste for assorted organ meats that plenty of other people eat with enthusiasm, so Iâm not getting all high-and-mighty-look-at-those-primitives here); but if you start down the science path, prepare to learn some fascinating things about the porosity of the barriers between genomes⌠If you want your ritual, have your ritual; but horizontal gene transfer by microbes we can barely keep out of high end operating rooms and chip fabs, or get rid of with flamethrowers, are probably making a mockery of your categories as we speakâŚ
What good is being a member of the in-group if those filthy abhumans from the out-group might get mistaken for in-group members? Itâs appalling!
Iâm merely amused by the whole situation. I checked with three separate Muslim buddies and a Muslim cow-orker, and all agree that the Quâran commands not to EAT pigs, they are unclean. But the bit about images comes from a prohibition on GRAVEN images, and since they are merely depicting pigs, and not venerating or worshiping them, that isnât in effect either. Someone is obviously getting carried away QUITE a bit. . . .
Pigs? Is that what those things are??
Without BBâs investigative journalism I would have never realised!
