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.."
Opus is the descendant of what was once Bloom County. If you don't know what Bloom County was then I feel sorry for you. Missing that cartoon is like never having read Calvin & Hobbes or The Far Side. Great comics are few and far between. Usually we get left with crap like Cathy and Garfield that recycle jokes day after day.
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.
Opus is an orphaned penguin who ends up living in a house with a lot of other misfits and weird people. He was one of the stars of "Bloom County", Berkeley Breathed's amazing cartoon strip which ran from 1980 to 1989.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/i ndex.html
The second "censored" strip is dated next Sunday, so I guess it isn't available yet.
The shareholder is always right.
People love him when he's dishing out progressive/lib barbs, but if he takes on a more controversial subject than "George Bush is a dummy," suddenly a) no one can be bothered to stand up for him and b) people start bagging on the script.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Hot Air suggests this is the offending comic strip. Read the full story at Hot Air.
Unselfish actions pay back better
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.
He's the beloved author of "Programming with Ack!" and "Configuring and using thpbbt on Unix systems". Learn your roots man.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Western publishers are self-censoring anything remotely offensive to Muslims. This is just evidence that threats, intimidation and terrorism work. Americans will go to any lengths to "fight terrorism" by invading countries basically uninvolved in terror, but given the chance to simply stand up and say: "we won't be intimidated by threats" the press folds like a three legged card table. Grow a pair!
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
... 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.
Watterson was right, you know. As great as the moments were that Calvin and Hobbes gave us, it did get to the point where I would say things like "OK, another week of violently killed snowmen" when I read the Monday strip. Some of the new versions of old jokes could get a chuckle or even possibly even a snort out of me, but it was typically one in a week or so of strips.
Of the three strips cited in the parent, only The Far Side didn't appear to lose anything over the years. When Larson quit in the mid-1990s, the strip was still as funny and as bizarre as it had been when I first saw it in the early 1980s. It also holds a special place in my heart as one of the greatest mainstream outlets of nerd humor. Futurama has taken that to much higher levels of sophistication (I have a Ph.D. in physics and completed requirements for a B.S. in math, and some of the science and math jokes on Futurama have blown right over my head), but The Far Side did it first and probably better. The Far Side's influence in academic circles was so great that a joke term from a Far Side panel in 1982 has been adapted for informal use by scientists in the field. There's something to be said for nerd "in jokes" so "in" that a trained theoretical physicist, one who happens to be known for how observant he is, can totally miss them, but there's also something to be said for a single panel on the comics page that brought nerd sensibilities to the larger public more effectively, which The Far Side did. I was a kid/adolescent for most of the 1980s, and I remember lots of non-nerd adults liking The Far Side. Larson brought "our" (nerd) culture to a wider audience in a more positive way than just about all portrayals of nerds in popular culture did before or have since.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
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.
Anyone remember the South Park episode "Cartoon Wars", where the show was making fun of the western reaction, and itself was censored? The irony for me was that they had an episode maybe a year or two before that where Mohammed was clearly shown as one of the super heroes in the "Super Best Friends" episode. There hadn't been a blip back then. What's even funnier is that if you watch South Park reruns, the "Cartoon Wars" episode still has the controversial scene censored, but the "Super Best Friends" has been shown since with no alterations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park
The Cartoon Wars episode was played uncensored in the UK, and the world failed to end - go figure.
The Digital Sorceress
Here ya go. It looks like, depending on your neck of the woods, editors won't run it because it either has a tasteless sex joke, or because it might offend Muslims.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
The strip is not blasphemous in any serious way.
Says you. Keep in mind, after the Danish cartoons, people are likely to tread a little bit lightly rather than get some expert opinion on what might qualify as blasphemous. Throw in CAIR getting lawsuit happy (whether the lawsuits have merit or not) and you've got a recipe for less backbone enhanced editors to exclude the comics. The flip side to the comic is that some papers won't run it because of a tastless sex joke. No clear breakdown on why different papers are excluding it.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
"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."
Conversely, part of being civilized is to acknowledge that not everyone thinks the way you do, and that the world is full of offensive people. It just is, it always has been and it always will be, unless you manage to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with you. Going postal over every offense, imagined or real, will do nothing but making you even more enemies than you've already acquired. Of course, if that's your intent, fine ... but just remember that some people will cheerfully kill you without a second's thought, and for even less reason. That's particularly true if they are threatened by your behavior. Civilization only works when people develop the ability to tolerate each other, at least to the degree that they don't kill each other on sight.
... grow up and get a goddamn life. Just DEAL with it! To my way of thinking, everyone has the right to go to Hell in their own way. They'd best give me the same respect, though, because otherwise I will do my damnedest to see they get there first!
I'm not picking on Muslims per se, either. I feel the precisely same way about the crowd of hypersensitive Christian assholes who go thermonuclear when somebody says something negative about Jesus. My answer to all of them is the same
From my perspective, many of these people (and I don't care how educated or erudite they may be) come across as either powerhungry or just childish. Some people never get past the terrible twos, I swear.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
I used to be the editor in chief of an alt-weekly in Wichita, Kansas. I ran all the Danish cartoons with a long editorial about how I got into the business as an editorial cartoonist and could never stand the cowardice of the establishment. There was little public outcry ... just a couple of people telling me I wasn't being sensitive to muslims, which I explained I was aware of doing in the column anyway.
A while later, I was reading a column in the major daily's newspaper about how they were not going to ever print "Opus" because when they ran "Bloom County" in the '80s and '90s it "didn't poll well with readers." Well, it just so happens that "Bloom County" is what inspired me to become an editorial cartoonist and therefore what got me into the newspaper business. It was incredibly popular with me and all my friends, so I guess it was just the newspaper wanting to hold on to the geriatric (dead and dying) readers. So I wrote the Washington Post Writers Group (the "Opus" syndicator) this story and asked them if I could get an affordable deal on running "Opus" in my alt weekly. They sold it to me for about $10 a week.
If I was still editor of that paper, I'd be running that cartoon this week. But they killed it as soon as I left. Of course, it's circulation and popularity has dropped like a rock because the new owner refuses to be controversial in any way. How can you run a weekly and not be an alt-weekly?
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.
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?
The problem with the invisible friends routine is it's simply stupid (Note I didn't say YOU are stupid, I said the routine's stupid).
What do you believe in?
Capitalists worship a giant invisible hand (and sacrifice people to it).
Socialists believe everyone will be honest and decent if they get elected.
Democrats believe in a 300% tax rate.
The NRA wants everyone to have their own Rocket Launchers.
The ACLU never defends anybody but Scum.
The French believe everybody is male (liberty, equality and fraternity - nothing about sorority there) (Yes, some English wags actually used this line in print discussing the revolution).
Quantum Physicists all keep cats locked up in boxes, how cruel.
People who believe in George Washington all think he was stronger than the Incredible Hulk (to throw a silver dollar across a broad river)...
There's no real belief or opinion that can't be oversimplified to the point of looking absurd. Name a few beliefs of your own, and somebody will be glad to reduce everything you stand up for to a sound-bite and try to make you look like a fool too.
Most Christians, Muslims, etc. believe that God is a spirit - what's so strange about believing that a spirit is invisible, it would be even stranger if they thought that it wasn't. Now you want something really silly, try the trinity. That three in one business is weird enough to be part of Scientology's schtick.
Now as a Christian, I'll gladly defend your right to make fun of us. Yes, you should be able to make either jokes or serious and realistic criticisms of my beliefs. The real question is, are you, I or anyone else actually benefiting from making this particular criticism?
Who is John Cabal?
You rebel you. What with Wichita being that seething hotbed of radical Muslim immigrants. I cannot imagine how awkward it was walking past the mosque after mosque in town with what must be virtually the entire Muslim diaspora of the U.S. glaring at you.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
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.
Maybe the editors were concerned about offending nudists or the Amish?
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.
Except, it doesn't take being a Muslim to beat your wife. In fact, American men, whom demographically are not overwhelmingly Muslim, seem to be okay beating their wives to the tune of 22% of all women have been physically assaulted at some point in their lives.
This is not to suggest that Islamic countries, or the misogyny of Muslim men, should get a pass, but frankly I'm tired of this double standard passing around people in the West that we are a font of perfection. The Christopher Hitchen's of the world who hold up all that is liberal, open, and free when they're facing down the so called Islamic hordes, but then sponsor their own forms of back-water conservatism when they argue on their home turf. You can't have it both ways.
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is claiming that Western society is free of injustice and evil. We have our problems and we know it. However, unlike the societies that Islam is in total control of, Western Society generally abhors and works to eliminate those problems. Wife beating (or any form of domestic abuse) is one of these problems.
We here in the west find spousal abuse of be vile and disgusting, and work to eliminate it. Islam, on the other hand, actually ESPOUSES wife beating when one's wife is "Disobedient". IE: she doesn't act like the slave she is. See The Quran, Sura 4, verses 17-34, specifically verse 34:
Contrast this to Christianity, where men are instructed to treat their wives with respect and kindness:
There are more, but the point is, that the contrast between Islam and the other great religions of the world could not be more stark. Western society, which is generally based around the Judeo-Christian ethos also stands in contrast to Islam.
Are we in the West perfect? Hell no! Does this mean that we should not then condemn the abject barbarism of a backwards and genocidal religion like Islam? Hell no.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory