Slashdot Mirror
Where To Find Opus On Sunday
Berkeley Breathed has a note up on his site: "Note to Opus readers: The Opus strips for August 26 and September 2 have been withheld from publication by a large number of client newspapers across the country, including Opus' host paper The Washington Post. The strips may be viewed in a large format on their respective dates at Salon.com.."
Oh my. Well, I guess I can see why the newspapers are nervous after the Danish cartoon thing with Muhammad a while back. Still, the Danes seem to have more backbone than the American newspapers, especially since Muhammad isn't depicted or even mentioned in the strip.
you COULD have followed the link which would EVENTUALLY have led you to the comic. i really do hope you're doin' your job a little bit mor effective. i mean, it's weekend and such, so you really can waste your time doing searches.
;) )
on the other hand this is not really about a comic strip, but about religion and freedom of speech. it's about the climate of fear that's been constructed ever since 9/11. it's about the same as here. (first link i found, didn't want to waste MY time doing searches
Except that Calvin and Hobbes and the Far Side are both funny.
Opus is political and social issues satire comic. In other words, it appeals to people older than you.
So basically the first strip has been banned on context? That because the ideas are presented as satire they're offensive? I mean I understand the sensitivity. That having a corner stone of your religion trotted out and warped into an amusing caricature would be infuriating... But maybe you should review your dogma for things you weren't comfortable with in the first place before buying in.
It ain't like he's drawing pictures of Mohammed with bombs in his turban.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
you COULD have followed the link which would EVENTUALLY have led you to the comic.
Or they could have just linked to the comic. Because most of us are not going to bother to go looking in September for the other one.
comic
Here's facts for you.
The editors of the papers that will not be printing these cartoons are the same ones who regularly criticize the Bush administation, publish disgusting cartoons by Pat Oliphant, don't think twice about publishing information that might be damaging to national security and they do it all because they know they'll end up without a hair on their heads being harmed.
The editors of these papers regularly run articles informing us how Homeland Security is overreacting, how Islam is misunderstood and really a religon of peace.
The editors of these papers will claim that they are not printing these cartoons because the cartoons are insensitive and might offend muslims.
But here's the deep down, bottom line fact:
The editors of these papers are not running the cartoons because they're afraid someone will blow up their offices or shoot them or simply cut their fucking heads off and post a video of it on YouTube.
As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take a joke. Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.
Some people deserve special treatment not because they are special in a privileged way, but because they are special in the 'Special Olympics' way.
Yeah yeah, commercial sitcom, we are above that. Sure but in that show plenty of jokes are made about jews. No problem. Other entertainment makes fun of religion as well, and apart from a few protests and boycots it just goes by. Life of Brain made fun of jesus, how many people were killed in the following riots?
In "the west" in modern times we have more or less come to an understanding that it is NOT okay to inflict your believes upon everyone else. It is also acceptable to be made fun off, even if you do not like it because freedom of speech is more important then your hurt feelings. Because sooner or later everything is going to hurt someone.
And suddenly the west finds itself with a group that seeks to go back to the dark ages. I am NOT talking about islam here, I am talking about religous fundementalists who once again seek to enforce their worldview upon everyone else, through force if need be. These fundies exist among ALL religions right now, jews in Israel voicing opions that would make hitler blush, christian fundies seeking to censor all media, india got its share of religious extremist and offcourse there is a sub-group of muslims seeking to make sharia the law worldwide.
Yet something really dangerous is occuring. The jews are far too small a group to be noticed, the christians are too corrupt, the hindoes barely matter in the western world but the muslims, now they seem to have gained a lot of control.
For instance, holland does not like the pope (catholic), not even the dutch catholic do. Any attempt by the pope to say that holland should do this or that is just laughed off. Yet if muslims speak, well, then the dutch quake in their boots. How come the catholic religous leader is safe to ignore but muslim religous leaders are not?
Offcourse there are differences, the pope doesn't even control his own country Italy much (see gay marriage and abortion laws), while entire countries are controlled by Islam. It is safe to make fun of a old guy in a silly dress, not so safe of the leaders who control your oil supply.
Your question is wether it would have been the same if this comic made fun of jews (why this religion and not say christianity, the majority religon in the US), then tell me this. When was the last time such a comic was banned? A movie? A play? A book? A song?
Judge the banned material on its own merits, then ask yourselve if the same reaction would have occured has another religion een involved.
You can either have freedom of speech or you can try to appease one group with long toes. But be aware, the first time you do that, another group will take notice, and will want to be protected as well. If you had your way, pretty soon you would no longer be able to publish anything anyone disapproved off.
That might suit you, afterall you call Opus, about as harmless a comic as you can get, tasteless. What next, censor garfield for walking around without pants?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Trying to pretend Christians are somehow better than Muslims when it comes to violence just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
That's no excuse for those Muslims who do pick violence, but they are still tiny minority of Muslims just as it's a tiny minority of Christians that's been responsible for all the murders committed in the name of Christianity.
Really? Do you have a list of the papers refusing to run it and documentation to back of those claims? Or is it just hot air?
Anyone who thinks that the U.S. media back down from anything offensive to Moslems has clearly never listened to talk radio or read conservative political commentators. These folks would have a great deal of dead air and missing prose if they couldn't offend Moslems in ever more creative ways (suggesting nuking Mecca is a popular one, for example...)
But meanwhile, I completely agree with much of the previous commentary: this strip is making fun on two individuals, and is not remotely comparable to the Danish cartoons. Most Moslems would find it funny and the rest, well, some people don't find anything funny. And the stereotyping is mild compared to what the strip has done, for example, with New Age hippies, Leisure Suit Larry lounge lizards, penguins, and so forth.
[Usually not relevant but despite the Slashdot moniker, I'm neither Arab nor Moslem, though I've lived for a while in the Middle East. I just happen to like the theories of the dude I've stolen the name from and he's like, sort of dead...]
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
Trying to pretend religion is the cause of humankind's problems and that people would all get along merrily if it were not for religion is just as absurd. It's as absurd as those who decry the "intolerance" of the religious while themselves being intolerant of the religious.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
... but in most of the rest of the world, that kid you just described gets it the worst.
Yes he does, and he's also the one that eventually loads up on high-caliber firearms or high explosive. Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If they can't take the soft stuff when they're kids (and when you're a kid, that's all it is), how are you supposed to handle being an ADULT?
All this toned-down crap for kids is preparing them to fail when they become adults. In baseball for kids now they don't keep score and nobody wins or loses, everyone gets the same sized trophy. Well, in the real world it doesn't work that way.
I can understand a parent wanting to protect their child, but that goes too far. Everyone experiences failure, why not prepare your child for the first time a girl turns him down (or the 94th time), the first time he's fired from a job, the first time he gets robbed, and so on. Your child may be your beautiful perfect child, but they will experience loss and failure in the real world just like everyone else. By not preparing them for that you're only making it harder for them when they experience it for the first time.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
There are people who have invisible friends. Why is there a line in making fun of their belief? There really isn't. You don't get to draw lines in the sand when it comes to free speech. Once you put one restriction on it it is no longer free.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
> Just because you have the freedom to offend, does not obligate
> you to exercise that freedom frivolously.
I find headscarves offensive; just because Muslims are free to wear the hijab does not obligate them to exercise that freedom. Right?
Well, the comic creator's freedom of speech isn't really an issue here since the Federal Government didn't do anything to stop the comic. The individual newspapers said "We won't publish it because we're afraid of being murdered by the self-proclaimed Religion of Peace."
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I don't buy that. I would say that many Muslims welcome violence when it comes to those that are a threat to Islam. I'm not sure how many but I doubt it's a tiny fraction. Also, considering that there are around 1.5 billion Muslims, even a tiny fraction is too much.
As far as responsibility goes, just because you didn't push a button or pull a trigger, doesn't mean you're innocent if your religion encourages intolerance. Calling for the death of non-believers is still heavily tied to Islam, even if many self-claimed practitioners ignore it.
Stop apologizing for religion.
I disagree. It's not like Special Olympics special, it's like a neurotic, insecure adult who hasn't stopped being a child/teenager yet. In that case, a fair amount of ribbing and poking to help them grow up may be just what the doctor ordered.
Sure, you may get yelled at or hurt a bit in the process, but it'll be worth it in the long run. Time for Islam to grow up.
Same goes for the fundamentalist Christians who also behave like unruly teenagers. I've met quite enough of them to know whereof I speak. Time to grow up, kids.
"Yes he does, and he's also the one that eventually loads up on high-caliber firearms or high explosive. Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
In the case of Islam, the believers are not mentally unstable, and their goal is to use Political Correctness to stop any criticism of their beliefs.
It is working.
Slashdotters rage against government or business threats to freedom, but for some reason the most oppressive and backward (which given the competitiion is saying a lot!) religion in the world often escapes attack. Careful distinction is made between supposed religious theory and practice so that one avoids attacking the ideology. Odd since religion = political belief = superstition.
The freedom we enjoy today is not the result of religion. It is the result of freethinkers and the weakening of religions stranglehold on society. Islam in practice seeks to impose such a stranglehold. I therefore advocate attacking it, relentlessly and without apology. To defend religion is to endorse it. Ridicule is the best weapon against superstition.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There seems to be a view in America that something is only censorship if the government does it. This is nonsense. It's just that in America the constitution *prevents* the government from doing it. It's still censorship even if it's legal.
I'd say education is the best weapon against superstition, but failing that (or when dealing with people that refuse to be educated) ridicule is a good choice. It's more difficult to gain followers for your particular brand of religious mindgrabbing when most of the potential candidates are laughing at you.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
As for the censorism: I am sure Slashdot will be full of "we wouldn't censor stuff like this if it was about Christianity/etc., so why should we pander to Islam?". Now, technically that is correct - far worse material appears about Christianity than Islam; there is far more sensitivity towards Islam. However, I don't think that makes it wrong to do so. As I see it, there is a solid basis for attempting to not offend Muslims (whereas what I am about to say now is extremely offensive to them): They can't take a joke. Just like if you have a sensitive neurotic kid in your neighborhood, you wouldn't call him names in jest that you would call everyone else.
I call bullshit! As a Christian, seeing a Cross dipped in a jar of urine is just as offensive as a Mohamed giving Peter a salmon helmet is to a Muslim. The difference is that I won't go blow shit up over it. Christians are taught to forgive. Muslims are taught to die in defense of Islaam. THAT is the difference. That sensitive neurotic kid will carry a can a gasoline over to your house and burn it down while you sleep. Of course, he'd make it a point to pour most of the gasoline in the doorways to prevent escape and start the fire in the baby's room, just to make sure his point gets out on the 5 O'clock news.
So this isn't about sensitivities toward Muslims. It is about a fear of reprisal. Which is what really pisses me off. When the gov't does something to fight terrorism, people say it's all about fear and that they would rather die than have the government listen to their phone calls, if they should ever make one to Pakistan. But when a liberal newspaper bows in submission to Islam, people make excuses about some politically correct bullshit.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Right--this comic is making fun of America way moreso than Islam (Lola's list of things she's not going to be is the caricature of the silly self-absorbed American girl). It seems that simply mentioning Islam is too frightening these days. Not encouraging.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
There are lots of different kinds of nut jobs, these are just some examples which will be familiar.
The punch line includes an element of irony. Steve's girlfriend will be submissive, and he likes that idea, until he realizes that he's also probably not going to get laid. It's a slapstick punch line to cap off what is really a more sophisticated sarcasm.
Of course, if you don't realize that this happens all the time, perhaps it's not so amusing. Stories of completely insipid "spiritual quests" like that of Lola Granola appear from time to time in the infotainment media. They always seem to be stories of weak minded people who must have a life philosophy handed to them on a platter, but somehow manage to reject one or two or three in a row before finding "the right one". The infotainment media inevitably dishes out these stories deadpan, like we're supposed to learn something from these people who clearly have demonstrated one overarching trait, which is a militant refusal to think critically.
Every time I see a story like this, I'm amazed that nobody ever points this out. Rational analysis, basic logic, and skepticism are not taught, and most people don't manage to acquire it on their own.
Here's the most recent example of a Lola Granola-style spiritual quest trumpeted as heroic in the media: Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey (Daveed Gartenstein-Ross ). Note the headline, then read the story. This dude didn't reject radical islam, he wandered aimlessly through major religions and dangerous philosophies, trying each on like a new shirt. Now he's apparently working for the FBI. I hope that this guy is closely and carefully supervised by somebody with stronger pro-democracy, free-thinking, free-living convictions. And for freedom's sake, don't give him a gun or access to any important secrets.
So, if you're aware that this stuff can happen in real life, the strip is really very amusing, subtle, and funny.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Ummmmm...you just pretty much summed up everything that is *wrong* with the world today. If more people told others to fuck off, the world would be a much better place.
This isn't about Islam, it's about the timidity of American newspapers. American newspapers exist mostly now to deliver advertisements to the people who still subscribe. And to provide a warm, old-fashioned 'newspaper reading experience' to their subscribers. They no longer are the primary news source or political support medium that they were 100-50 years ago. Most newspapers are owned by a handful of corporate chains who what the ad revenue flowing in from the local supermarkets and the columns filled with 'kittens stuck in trees' type of stories. The last thing that they want is biting social commentary in their comics sections.
... I don't understand this).
As you can imagine, newspaper readership is falling. Decades of boring trivia has decimated the numbers of intelligent readers. Plus the endlessly dumbed down writing style which makes every article read as if it were written for middle-school audiences (USA education level for 12-14 year olds). Bland, stupid, boring, and late with the breaking news, newspapers tend to focus on serving the needs of 'the upside of the bell curve' where few Slashdaughters are to be found.
It's interesting to see that the local heavy advertisers are also developing web sites to showcase their newspaper ads so people with broadband can simply bookmark and download whatever ads that they used to watch in the newspapers. Plus Craig's List and eBay are removing the need for classified ads (along with the tendency of newspapers to put these ads up on their own websites
So basically newspapers are becoming the prime information source for those people who can't handle going on-line. And those people are fewer every year.
Again, banning these comics has nothing to do with concern over offending Islam. It has everything to do with ensuring that the newspaper product will be as boring, sanitized, and removed from controversy as humanly possible.
Yes, it's funny that they have no problems bad-mouthing other groups like Catholics or Jews (i.e., Israel) or Christian Fundamentalists because they know that those folks won't get violent.
I'm getting a little sick of people who, to quote Dennis Miller, "start strapping bombs on themselves when the pizza toppings are wrong". I'm getting a little sick of hearing about the Religion of Perpetual Outrage. And I'm really getting sick of slack-jawed, know-nothing, but ego-inflated press abandoning all their principles at the drop of a turban.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
- Get US troops out of Saudi.
- Discredit the US in the international community.
- Raise the price of oil.
- Increase sensitivity of the Western media to Muslim culture.
Oh wait, I always get this mixed up. Which one involved underpants and which one involved profit? Darn.I'm not a smorgasbord.
There have been "secular" (or at least non-theist) martyrs in the past. Ancient Rome didn't really have a doctrine of the after-life, and honor-suicides were a part of the culture. The kamikaze pilots of Japan weren't particularly motivated by promises of virgins in the next life, but rather by a sense of duty and obligation in this one.
This is America. They didn't publish it because they were afraid it would result in loss of revenue. If you thing a corporation's actions are based by anything other than money, you are wrong.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Without arguing your point, I would simply like to know how you can reconcile that statement with the fact that an atheistic ideology (communism) was responsible for the death of 60M-100M in the last century and the enslavement of nearly half the world's population.
I would like to blame drug prohibition and such on my fellow Christians in this country, but it's an untenable position given that the same drugs are outlawed in China and Russia. Similarly, China has some of the strictest anti-porn laws in the world.
It's a simplistic attitude to think that religion in and of itself is the culprit. But it's just human nature, with religion being the excuse. To believe otherwise is to ignore history.
Do you have ESP?
This has nothing to do with restricting free speech. This is about how far people who don't want to offend others (like major newspaper editors) will go. You personally are welcome to say whatever offensive material you can come up with as always, just don't expect it to land on the front page of the Washington Post.
That's nowhere close to being an accurate comparison. As others have pointed out, the conflict with the IRA was more about nationality than religion. That's why it was called the Irish Republican Army, and not something like "The Avenging Sword of Christian Supremacy".
Moreover, their bombings were much more rare, and they tried to focus on political targets because they were attempting to achieve a political goal. I'm not excusing their actions, nor am I saying that they didn't kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, but they generally didn't go out of their way to blow up coffee shops, discos, and bus stations. Nor did they fly airliners into buildings.
And finally, their goal was to achieve freedom for Ireland. Whereas Muslim extremist groups continue to target western civilians despite the fact that there are dozens of Muslim nations which hold full authority over their own borders. And many of these lunatics make it quite clear that their ultimate goal is the Islamification (yes, I know it's not a real word) of the whole world. Off hand, I really can't think of any Christian groups which preach that religious warfare should be used to convert the world to Christianity. Can you?
The culprit is not religion in and of itself, but the undertone that marks both religion and collectivism: the philosophy of altruism. By altruism, I do not mean simple generosity, but rather the belief that a man's standard of value should not be his own life and happiness, but rather his duty to others: God, the state, his brother-men. It is the ultimate dismissal of human life and values.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Communist societies forced atheism to get rid of competition for "the party". Their killing lots of people had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with their leaders being power hungry asshats.
Maybe not
Probably impossible to verify, but it definitely seems plausible. Thank you for illuminating that for me... :)
Well, given that the American free press is afraid to publish a goddamn comic strip I'd say it's working rather well. And that's just disturbing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Contrary to your point, things like Columbine and VA Tech didn't happen 50 years ago when middle class school yards were a lot tougher than they are today. If everyone "plays nice" until high school and then suddenly you face being ostracized for the first time when you are 15 or 16 you will not have the skills to handle it well, but you will have the size and knowledge to let you rage do far more damage. I was picked on a lot in elementary school, and I used to get in a lot of fights (that were as vicious as I could make them at the time) If I reacted with the same level of anger when I got to high school I would have literally killed someone. That didn't happen because I learned to control my temper while I was still young. I learned self control and how to "get over it" when I was still small enough to be dragged away by the smallest of teachers, and before I understood that there are more effective ways of hurting people than punching them. Social rejection and mockery are a part of life. Just because there are rude people in the world does not excuse others from acting like ticking time-bombs.
We are all just people.
The Crusades.
WW2 (remember, the Germans were christians and they didn't forgive the Jews/athiests for being different).
Spanish Inquisition.
No one race/religion/group is perfect, so pull your head outta your ignorant ass.
You know, religion is one of the key institutions outside of jail and "public education" that encourage people to reduce alcohol, drug addiction, HIV, spousal abuse, and illegitimacy. It seems to me you need all the help you can get in the "War on Error." So does it really make sense to undermine any ally in a situation like this? Is the school/jail solution really performing so well, that we can do without our single most important tradition for encouraging of hope, self-reliance, and mutual respect?
The real question is, are you, I or anyone else actually benefiting from making this particular criticism?
Absolutely. By making fun of Christians, the reality-based community makes it harder for you to impose your superstitions on the rest of us.
The difference between me and you is that once I convince you to keep your fractured, pathological myths out of the voting booth and out of my child's classroom, I'll go away and leave you alone.
i'd say more "actually performing needlessly violent or stupid acts", "acting like a ticking time bomb" seems to be a label that gets attached to acting in any way deviates from the norm these days.
yes yes, tis ramblely, but i think you know what i mean heh.
Ice Cream has no bones.
To be fair, the comics that one was a response to -- the ones published in Denmark which were supposedly an affront to Islam -- weren't actually funny, either. Like this one, they were at best provocative for the sake of it, and at worst racist.
I think the Muslims in this case have a good point -- all cultures have their sacred cows. Islam feels very strongly about producing images of their prophet, which is why (unlike with the religious figures in most religions) you never see paintings of him in mosques or elsewhere.
Likewise, Europe feels very strongly about the Holocaust, and as a result has banned most discourse on the subject which is not in line with mainstream thought.
I understand and empathize with the perspectives of both groups -- just as I empathize with Americans who want to see the constitution amended to make flag burning an illegal act -- but in all of these cases, I see the freedom to say what you want, no matter how vile, as being much more important to the functioning of a free society than ensuring that no one is offended.
After all, everyone is offended by something: if we made it all illegal, we'd never be able to say anything. But if we pick and choose what we're sensitive about, we're necessarily discriminating. The best option, in my opinion? Let people say what they want, no matter how much it pains us to hear it.
Actually, I HAVE been in a situation where I couldn't afford to quit. I could, however, begin looking for another job while still working. It's utterly exhausting and miserable to look for a job while still going to an unhealthy job at the same time-- but the option is there to at least TRY to get into a healthier situation. And in the long run, it is well worth it.
Oh, come now. Unplug for a minute.
I did a quick (like five minute) scope around and found a ton of stuff. Here's a sampling. .